Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_grindael]

I don't see any reason to expect that the Book of Mormon is a character for character translation of the plates. The mind of Joseph is in there. The contributions of other folks 'on the other side' may be in there. ...A fluid process rather than some cut and dried 'words were handed to him' process.

This is simply rank speculation that no one could ever answer. And it contradicts what others who were actually there and saw the process stated. This whole post by Mental was one vague, rambling, assemblage of nonsense. There is nothing scholarly here. Nothing but a Mormon apologists wishful thinking. This is the best he can do folks. He can't even quote the damn authors he cites, he just generalizes everything. Why? Because if he did, those arguments would be destroyed by actual logic and evidence. Once again, Mental touts his belief in "chiasmus" which has been debunked over and over again, but that is all he can come back with. He claims he is sincere, but then says "It is difficult for me without going back and spending a lot of time reading it again to just 'spout off' stuff from the book to prove this or that here on this thread or in this forum." This is simply a diversion. Who can take such a person seriously? Mental is an apologist troll who has no intention of actually presenting evidence and discussing it. The BS King strikes again.

[_Lemmie]

He claims he is sincere, but then says "It is difficult for me without going back and spending a lot of time reading it again to just 'spout off' stuff from the book to prove this or that here on this thread or in this forum." This is simply a diversion. Who can take such a person seriously?

He's probably in the wrong place, then. One thing I learned extremely quickly when I started reading here was that accuracy is vital, and arguments with vague generalizations go nowhere. I think one of the first threads I read was one where Symmachus, Kishkumen and Gadianton, among others, were posting on the role of academic rigor in historical linguistic analysis. Wow. What an eye-opener, but I knew also, what a fantastic environment in which to debate ideas. I've been hooked ever since.

The memory of that first thread is mainly why I still get so irritated at mentalgymnast's dishonest and disingenuous approach, and the vagueness from which he attempts to argue. Each time he starts a thread there is a moment or two where I decide to give it another chance, but he never, ever fails to go to his intellectually dishonest habits, even though he delights in summarizing otherwise.

I'm sticking with ward missionary leader as his presumed calling, with a quota of testimony posts required each week. There's no other way to explain it.

[_Lemmie]

...you didn't respond to the question I asked...

OK.

Regards,
M.G.

Quintessential mentalgymnast.

[_Chap]

Do you realize that if Mormonism is true and most of us end up in Telestial with no genitals, we may be assigned mentalgymnast as our home teacher?

And the lessons will go on for eternity, and - worst of all - we won't be able to kill ourselves, because we will be dead already.

A 'Pascal's wager' baptism is beginning to sound a wise option to choose ...

[_Lemmie]

Unless you've read Hardy's book and done your own 'distillation' on what you've read there it is difficult for me to try and transfer to you that 'distillation' that occurred for me while I was reading it.

Why? why do you expect your 'distillation' to show up in other people's minds? If you can't express it then all one can conclude is that your 'distillation' was too vague to have any meaning.

It is difficult for me without going back and spending a lot of time reading it again to just 'spout off' stuff from the book to prove this or that here on this thread or in this forum.

Why? That's what people do here on a regular basis-it's obvious from the threads that are posted. Why start a thread on this kind of a discussion board when you acknowledge you can't discuss what you have concluded from a reading? It involves work, yes, the work you regularly demand from others; why can't you do the work you ask of others?

That's why I've suggested others read the book for themselves...do their own literal and/or figurative underlining and see what 'distills' in their own mind as a result.

And many, many have. And they have expressed their opinions, their 'distillations', if you will, over and over and over. Why do you now insist that when you bring the book up again, others need to re-read and re-tell you their distillations, even while you expressly refuse to provide your own 'distillations'? Is it possible you cannot state your 'distillations' because you don't actually have any? If you have an opinion based on your reading, why can you not state it? Occam's razor suggests as an explanation that you really did not read the book as carefully as you are repeatedly exhorting others to do; is that possible?

[_mentalgymnast]

He's probably in the wrong place, then.

Some of the Rules of the Board that I see as being taken to the edge...or over the cliff :

Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome. Therefore, do not "de-invite" anyone or suggest that they go elsewhere.

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post. (although I am a repeat offender...)

Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed or fearful for his or her safety "in real life." (I'm worried grindael could commandeer a train and take me out) Thanks Shades for taking out the offending post.

No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed. (I suppose this is in the eye of the beholder...that's me It doesn't say anything about whether or not YOU believe these attacks to be warranted or not. )

For my own good I need to put some folks on ignore. To be honest, I do not like the repeated exposure to profanity (mild or not) and invective. To safe guard others that may feel the same way I do I will put these two on ignore and not read ANYTHING they have to say. That way, it will be less likely they will use the language that I believe to be unacceptable in civil discourse. Yes, there have been a few instances where I fell and did the same thing. That's what worries me. I don't want to be pulled into that sort of behavior and lower my standards. I don't use any form of profanity/invective in real life. I don't like to hear it when watching entertainment (we use Vid Angel to filter our movies) or talking with a real life gathering/group. I'm having to ask myself why I might put up with or find it acceptable here. I don't. If I'm not reading posts from grindael...a major offender...at all, he may find that it's not worth his time to continually talk trash. Others, therefore, won't have to be exposed to it either because he has lost his target.

Anyway, I thought I should explain where I'm coming from so that when there are obvious 'gaps' in conversations where it appears I'm not responding and/or have read certain posts, it's because I haven't. Gonna have to be that way. I want to keep my mind free from filth. There are other poster(s) that I will not regularly interact with either because of the fact that the gutter talk and/or continual harassment is there and I'd rather not continue to read it. I've read it once, twice, three times and more and figure I don't have to read it everytime I login here to simply have a conversation.

And so it goes. Some will call me naïve or a whiner. Some will call me prudish. Some will have one thing or another to say in a negative light. So be it. But I'm really not here to subject myself or others to continual bad mouthing and repeating the same invective and/or criticisms over and over again.

So for those few...if I don't respond or seem to know what you're saying, etc., don't take it personally. Say what you will, but know that I'm not really interested in lowering my standards to the point where I'm thinking about "how can I butt kick this person", etc.

If you will read conversations that I have with some folks...canpakes for an example...you will see what I'm all about and what interests me. Conversation. Opinion.

I've said many times that I'm not an academic. I'm just a regular guy who likes to learn. Writing is also good for my mind/brain. It makes me think. I'm not here to be an apologist even thought I take that route by default because I'm not a dogmatic died in the wool disbeliever.

That seems to be what bugs some folks.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Do you realize that if Mormonism is true and most of us end up in Telestial with no genitals, we may be assigned mentalgymnast as our home teacher?

And the lessons will go on for eternity, and - worst of all - we won't be able to kill ourselves, because we will be dead already.

A 'Pascal's wager' baptism is beginning to sound a wise option to choose ...

Every once in a while, I entertain my Irish-Catholic-from-the-Bronx husband with a few Mormon stories. In spite of his being educated by nuns and having crazy altar-server / NYC catholic school stories that will curl your toes in disbelief, however, he simply cannot wrap his mind around a religion where a section of heaven has been specifically defined as the location for those who are good (-ish) but who have had their private parts removed for eternity. I'm showing him your post--

[_canpakes]

Do you realize that if Mormonism is true and most of us end up in Telestial with no genitals, we may be assigned mentalgymnast as our home teacher?

Dare I ask what whomever is gathering them will be doing with all of those unused genitals?

[_Quasimodo]

Do you realize that if Mormonism is true and most of us end up in Telestial with no genitals, we may be assigned mentalgymnast as our home teacher?

Dare I ask what whomever is gathering them will be doing with all of those unused genitals?

Do they eat stew in heaven?

[_Maksutov]

Dare I ask what whomever is gathering them will be doing with all of those unused genitals?

Do they eat stew in heaven?

Looks like it.