Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_The Erotic Apologist
_Emeritus
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _The Erotic Apologist »

canpakes wrote:Dare I ask what whomever is gathering them will be doing with all of those unused genitals? Do they eat stew in heaven?

There's this joke about a Jewish rabbi who performs circumcisions and then uses the left over bits to make wallets. So why would anybody want a wallet made of foreskins? "Well," the rabbi explains, "when you rub it, it magically expands into a full-sized suitcase."

Maybe Elohim's got something similar planned for all that repossessed junk.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _spotlight »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:
canpakes wrote:Dare I ask what whomever is gathering them will be doing with all of those unused genitals? Do they eat stew in heaven?

There's this joke about a Jewish rabbi who performs circumcisions and then uses the left over bits to make wallets. So why would anybody want a wallet made of foreskins? "Well," the rabbi explains, "when you rub it, it magically expands into a full-sized suitcase."

Maybe Elohim's got something similar planned for all that repossessed junk.

Ohhh, you are so on MG's ignore list fo shor! :lol:
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _grindael »

Mentalcase wrote: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...)


What some were suggesting is since you are so freaking offended at PG language, you should go to the celestial forum, which is still Mormon DISCUSSIONS, so no one ever did try to "de-invite you".

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) :smile: Thanks Shades for taking out the offending post.


How so, when you are posting anonymously? :rolleyes: And I didn't claim I wanted to run you over with a train. I told you how to end your self inflicted misery, and then said if you did so, (GOD FORBID!) He would send you back because of your incessant whining. But because you are so ignorant and a whiny child, you had to blow it up into something it never was.

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


It is not attacking someone to call them on their BS and hypocrisy. But it is if you are a Mormon Apologist with a built in persecution complex. Like the personal attacks you made on me? On everyone who is a critic of Mormonism? That we were all hypocritical mockers? That kind of attack? We responded, you whined.

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.


You have an option to go to the higher forum. You won't do that so complaining is only another masturbation exercise.

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.


I'm not changing for you and I doubt anyone else will either.


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.


Yeah, like you are so much better than everyone else. You've already shown yourself to be a liar.


I don't use any form of profanity/invective in real life.


Really?

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.


Guess again. And really, YOU are the one who keeps coming to this forum. If you don't like it, you have other options. So all of this is just you trying to dictate the terms of what this board is, and guess what? You don't get to do that.

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.


I doubt anyone will notice or care. If you really wanted to keep yourself free from the "filth" of the Mormon Discussions Terrestrial Forum you would. So obviously you don't want to so this is just another lie.

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.


But you ARE a whiner! This whole rant is one big whine.

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.


Yes you are since you have said that this board is full of mockers who have nothing better to do than point the finger of scorn at you, and you keep coming back for more. Why? If this is so important to you, why?

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.


Selling your apologist BS.

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.


It's obvious you are not an academic. You are schizophrenic. You just said you weren't an apologist then said you were a default apologist.

That seems to be what bugs some folks.

What bugs some folks is your disingenuousness, lying, blatant apologetics and phony pretenses for being here.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

sock puppet wrote: I want you to suppose three propositions as being true about yourself that probably are not. Just hypothetically. Suppose your favorite color is red. You are a betting man. And you walk into a casino that has an unusual roulette wheel: 1/5 of the numbers on the wheel are red, and 4 out of 5 are black. So you place your bet, $500. Is it on red or on black?

(Hat tip to Philo Sofee.)


I'll play. I'm probably going to fail here...I don't gamble as you can well suppose.

I don't know that it would really matter. I'm guessing it would still be a fifty-fifty chance of either getting red or black? So I would choose red since that's my favorite color (not really). I know probability says otherwise, but I'm going to go with my gut thinking there's some kind of trick going on here.

So what's the catch? Simple probability...choose black?

I'm assuming there are more than five 'pie pieces' that the roulette wheel is divided into?

And apparently there is come cosmic connection with whether God exists or not? :smile:

Anxiously awaiting,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Oh, and are all the segments of the wheel no matter the color the same and/or equal portion of the wheel?

Regards,
MG
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

mental the magician wrote: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, mg, because if you, in the privacy of your own home, put people on ignore, an act which is known by no one but yourself, then those people will magically change their manner of talking and stop using the words that you have defined to be unacceptable, even though you didn't send them a list or notify them in any way, and you will definitely safeguard others, who won't even know you are safeguarding them!

Wow, that is some magic act.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _canpakes »

MG -

Why did you ever feel that you needed to put the Book of Mormon 'on the shelf'? What was it about the Book that made you consider that it might not be 100% factually true and historical?
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _I have a question »

canpakes wrote:MG -

Why did you ever feel that you needed to put the Book of Mormon 'on the shelf'? What was it about the Book that made you consider that it might not be 100% factually true and historical?


As I understand it, mg accepts there are parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon and that they got in there other than because they were translated from plates. That in and of itself is an admission that the Book of Mormon is not what the Church purports it to be. Recognising that, mg has to put it on the shelf or invalidate his life as a Mormon.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _Themis »

I have a question wrote:
canpakes wrote:MG -

Why did you ever feel that you needed to put the Book of Mormon 'on the shelf'? What was it about the Book that made you consider that it might not be 100% factually true and historical?


As I understand it, mg accepts there are parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon and that they got in there other than because they were translated from plates. That in and of itself is an admission that the Book of Mormon is not what the Church purports it to be. Recognising that, mg has to put it on the shelf or invalidate his life as a Mormon.


Members who know anything about the issues have to put it on the shelf to maintain belief. If you know the facts you would know that you could go out drinking and sleeping with many women openly and be a better man then Joseph Smith. He openly promoted certain rules and broke them consistently. It's funny to see people get worked up about the WOW and sex at the same time worshiping the SS image of Joseph Smith not knowing he had no trouble drinking or having sex with other women. The benefits of being the religious leader. :smile:
42
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

I have a question wrote:
As I understand it, mg accepts there are parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon and that they got in there other than because they were translated from plates.


So far, so good.

I have a question wrote:That in and of itself is an admission that the Book of Mormon is not what the Church purports it to be.


The Church purports the Book of Mormon as being Another Testament of Christ. I am admitting, however, that some of the traditional ways/means that folks may entertain as being 'the way it was' in regards to what was going on during the translation process might...and have...undergone some readjustment and/or reevaluation.

I have a question wrote:Recognising that, mg has to put it on the shelf or invalidate his life as a Mormon.


Not quite sure why/how you came to this conclusion.

Be concerned, IHAQ, be awfully concerned. You may end up being "embarrassed" by having a conversation with me. :smile:

Let me know if I took that word out of context with what you said previously and I'll fix it. As it is I'm just joshing/bantering with you...don't take me too seriously?

Regards,
MG
Post Reply