Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

This is typical mental... not an answer, just "because" he read it. He got "fresh eyes". Can anyone be more vague? Hi-larious.

Again, Dr. Shades, I am asking whether or not Terrestrial Forum a place where we can carry on a civil conversation...or not? I guess I could move over to the Celestial Forum but I've gotten used to posting here because there seems to be more traffic and also a bit more free thought. And I get that...but where are we going to draw the line? A person makes an observation and/or statement and by default gets kicked in the butt?

I hoping others can see what is going on around here and might be willing to step in and call this crap for what it is? If not, oh well. Life goes on. by the way, I'm not whining. It's just that it's hard to carry on a civil conversation with so much static/noise.

I've sent you a private message.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

I'm glad, mentalgymnast, that you have decided some posts go too far, because you have made several posts in anger in the last couple of months about my in real life professional capability and integrity that were extremely inappropriate.

I didn't at the time privately whine to Dr. Shades like you are announcing here that you have done, but if you are specifically asking for a decision on comments in threads in which you participate, then I would like to request that your nasty vindictive in real life comments about my professional life (of which you know nothing) also be considered and censured.

[_Sethbag]

I wonder if or when Mentalgymnast will accept that human beings are probably not really in the middle of it all. We're probably just a localized phenomenon that occurred here because the respective elements and conditions were here, and the development of life is something that follows the laws of the universe. There is probably life on other planets of the billions of billions of other stars out there, and they may well think the universe revolves around them, too.

Mentalgymnast, you can take all of the human creativity, human frailty, etc. that you currently allow for, simply remove God from the picture, and things will look pretty much the same. Probably the only major change will be to take whatever questions you're inclined to answer beginning with "because God said so," and translate that to "because I/we said so."

[_Maksutov]

That was great. I wish you would post like that all the time. There is much there that I can agree with.

I'm the same person here in this post as I am anywhere else making other posts, Mak. The fact that you happen to agree 'much' with me here doesn't mean that just because you may not agree with me 'much' elsewhere you have to treat me uncivilly at those times.

But thanks for these limited/specific kind words. They are appreciated.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

I have several character flaws that I know about. I'm abrasive, impatient and crude. That may be what you term "uncivil". I'm more likely to display these traits when I feel that another person is being less than honest. The way you conducted exchanges was not honest. I'm totally sincere here. It is not persecution of you, or a "herd mentality", or the agitation of a bunch of "alphas", so much as the perception by several people that you were playing rather disingenuous games. I would state that such perception still exists. You can frame it as you like, you can deny any fault on your part, but you will not dispel the memories of readers of these threads. I encourage you to change your approach if you want a change in responses.

[_Lemmie]

That was great. I wish you would post like that all the time. There is much there that I can agree with.

I'm the same person here in this post as I am anywhere else making other posts, Mak. The fact that you happen to agree 'much' with me here doesn't mean that just because you may not agree with me 'much' elsewhere you have to treat me uncivilly at those times.

But thanks for these limited/specific kind words. They are appreciated.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

I have several character flaws that I know about. I'm abrasive, impatient and crude. That may be what you term "uncivil". I'm more likely to display these traits when I feel that another person is being less than honest. The way you conducted exchanges was not honest. I'm totally sincere here. It is not persecution of you, or a "herd mentality", or the agitation of a bunch of "alphas", so much as the perception by several people that you were playing rather disingenuous games. I would state that such perception still exists. You can frame it as you like, you can deny any fault on your part, but you will not dispel the memories of readers of these threads. I encourage you to change your approach if you want a change in responses.

So perfectly said. Is it possible to emphasize that further? Thank you, Maks.
So perfectly said.

[Guest]

I don't know how much longer this thread will run...if people stop posting, I'm cool with it ending pretty soon...but I wanted to throw one more thing in.

Earlier in the thread IHAQ asserted that the Book of Mormon was in the same class as Hubbard's writings. Later on I asked whether or not their were other critical commentaries/exegesis written...books...that would act as support for the foundational underpinnings of other 'scriptural works'. Goya referred me to an apologetic book having to do with The Urantia Book...and then was kind enough to refer me to a couple of others when I rejected the first one because of comments I read on Amazon.

Here's the thing. How many of these modern 'invented' and/or channeled scriptures testify and teach of Jesus Christ? Jesus is mentioned in the Course of Miracles...but like I mentioned earlier, it is a very 'fuzzy' Jesus that really doesn't seem to make any sense. At least it didn't to me as I read sections of the 'Course'. Hubbard's writings? Others? The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. It has connections with the Jesus of the Bible. It's narrative deals with 'the gospel' of Christ. It follows a linear history of people either following Christ's teachings or not. It shows the results of sin. The atonement is there. It's not fuzzy. Anyone can pick it up and understand it as long as they can read.

So, I guess I am a bit biased. I have a bit of a prejudice. If I'm looking at modern scriptures produced in the last couple of centuries or so that claim to be 'true', I think I am going to go with the book that on its very cover says, "Another Testament of Christ". Now the reason for picking the scripture that testifies of Christ rather than these others that don't goes on and into more than "hey, but that's the tradition that you are familiar with so of course you're going to side with Jesus Christ". There's a bit more to it than that. But suffice to say, I'm really not disposed to spend time with the Book of Urantia or Hubbard's works. Number one reason is that they don't testify of Christ and His mission and what we find in the Bible.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

I don't know how much longer this thread will run...if people stop posting, I'm cool with it ending pretty soon...but I wanted to throw one more thing in.

Earlier in the thread IHAQ asserted that the Book of Mormon was in the same class as Hubbard's writings. Later on I asked whether or not their were other critical commentaries/exegesis written...books...that would act as support for the foundational underpinnings of other 'scriptural works'. Goya referred me to an apologetic book having to do with The Urantia Book...and then was kind enough to refer me to a couple of others when I rejected the first one because of comments I read on Amazon.

Here's the thing. How many of these modern 'invented' and/or channeled scriptures testify and teach of Jesus Christ. Jesus is mentioned in the Course of Miracles...but like I mentioned earlier, it is a very 'fuzzy' Jesus that really doesn't seem to make any sense. At least it didn't to me as I read sections of the 'Course'. Hubbard's writings? Others? The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. It has connections with the Jesus of the Bible. It's narrative deals with 'the gospel' of Christ. It follows a linear history of people either following Christ's teachings or not. It shows the results of sin. The atonement is there. It's not fuzzy. Anyone can pick it up and understand it as long as they can read.

So, I guess I am a bit biased. I have a bit of a prejudice. If I'm looking at modern scriptures produced in the last couple of centuries or so that claim to be 'true', I think I am going to go with the book that on its very cover says, "Another Testament of Christ". Now the reason for picking the scripture that testifies of Christ rather than these others that don't goes on and into more than "hey, but that's the tradition that you are familiar with so of course you're going to side with Jesus Christ". There's a bit more to it than that. But suffice to say, I'm really not disposed to spend time with the Book of Urantia or Hubbard's works. Number one reason is that they don't testify of Christ and His mission and what we find in the Bible.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

If you are going to limit yourself to books that testify of a Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ, then you should never stray farther than Deseret Book. You might wish to limit your internet activities, too. It will take a great deal of effort to block out 99% of humanity, their ideas, accomplishments, histories, texts, but you can do it. Enjoy.

[Guest]

I don't know how much longer this thread will run...if people stop posting, I'm cool with it ending pretty soon...but I wanted to throw one more thing in.

Earlier in the thread IHAQ asserted that the Book of Mormon was in the same class as Hubbard's writings. Later on I asked whether or not their were other critical commentaries/exegesis written...books...that would act as support for the foundational underpinnings of other 'scriptural works'. Goya referred me to an apologetic book having to do with The Urantia Book...and then was kind enough to refer me to a couple of others when I rejected the first one because of comments I read on Amazon.

Here's the thing. How many of these modern 'invented' and/or channeled scriptures testify and teach of Jesus Christ. Jesus is mentioned in the Course of Miracles...but like I mentioned earlier, it is a very 'fuzzy' Jesus that really doesn't seem to make any sense. At least it didn't to me as I read sections of the 'Course'. Hubbard's writings? Others? The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. It has connections with the Jesus of the Bible. It's narrative deals with 'the gospel' of Christ. It follows a linear history of people either following Christ's teachings or not. It shows the results of sin. The atonement is there. It's not fuzzy. Anyone can pick it up and understand it as long as they can read.

So, I guess I am a bit biased. I have a bit of a prejudice. If I'm looking at modern scriptures produced in the last couple of centuries or so that claim to be 'true', I think I am going to go with the book that on its very cover says, "Another Testament of Christ". Now the reason for picking the scripture that testifies of Christ rather than these others that don't goes on and into more than "hey, but that's the tradition that you are familiar with so of course you're going to side with Jesus Christ". There's a bit more to it than that. But suffice to say, I'm really not disposed to spend time with the Book of Urantia or Hubbard's works. Number one reason is that they don't testify of Christ and His mission and what we find in the Bible.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

And yet you spent pages and pages of this thread pretending that when you wrote this it wasn't a lie:

I have a question. Could you point me towards any books written by academics that would cause me to consider the writings of these men to be in any way comparable to the Book of Mormon? Say, someone along the line of a Terryl Givens or a Grant Hardy? I would be interested in reading any books that you could recommend that would show that the complexity/narrative of those 'holy writings' are in the same class as the Book of Mormon.

What a disingenuous approach-are you ok with that because lying for the lord is acceptable?

It's bizarre the incredible level of intellectual dishonesty that you are willing to force on an entire thread, just so you can pronounce at the end that you only set up the fake questions in order to post your predetermined fake answer. But be sure to report back that your missionary work is done for the month-- you have trumpeted the LDS word, albeit in a persistently disingenuous, intellectually dishonest manner. Your reputation as a liar is sealed.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm glad, mentalgymnast, that you have decided some posts go too far, because you have made several posts in anger in the last couple of months about my in real life professional capability and integrity that were extremely inappropriate.

If I did so, and it offended you...I apologize.

I didn't at the time privately whine to Dr. Shades like you are announcing here that you have done, but if you are specifically asking for a decision on comments in threads in which you participate, then I would like to request that your nasty vindictive in real life comments about my professional life (of which you know nothing) also be considered and censured.

If Shades sees that I've done anything inappropriate I am totally open to that.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I have several character flaws that I know about.

As do I. In addition to that I, believe it or not, say it like it is. I try to be honest. I try not to violate my sense of integrity. But as malkie said, I'm human. I make mistakes. I speak as I'm thinking. Off the cuff, as it were. If I step on someone's toes, or inadvertently say something that can be shown to not dovetail with something I said previously, etc., it is more often than not an innocent mistake. I don't intentionally try to rile people up. There is no concerted conspiracy or evil intent on my part. As I've said, I AM just a regular guy.I'll goof now and then. That probably won't change much.

But when someone comes back over and over again with a hammer, it gets tiresome. When someone comes in and tells you that you should go kill yourself...that's going too far. That's what triggered my PM to Shades.

There is obviously going to be a divide, however, when we don't view the world in the same way. In my opinion that doesn't have to result in extended flame wars. It gets in the way of a continued dialogue.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If you are going to limit yourself to books that testify of a Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ, then you should never stray farther than Deseret Book.

But I have and will continue to do so. Two nights ago I watched this:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-scientists/

I enjoyed it. Should I not watch it? I watch lots of stuff like this. I've read Sagan's books. I could go on...

You might wish to limit your internet activities, too.

As you can see, and as I can testify ...I don't. I've listened to most of Dehlin's podcasts. Almost all of John and Zilpha Larsen's podcasts. Infants on Thrones. Etc. You are really suggesting that I limit and/or restrict everything to Deseret Book? Boring.

C'mon.

It will take a great deal of effort to block out 99% of humanity, their ideas, accomplishments, histories, texts, but you can do it. Enjoy.

You've got it wrong. But so it goes...

Regards,
MG