Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Maksutov]

Special pleading doesn't work, MG. Once again you expect everyone else to do all the work and you can duck and dodge their answers.
Quit being so lazy. Do some homework or just admit that you aren't serious.

Hey Mak,

This kind of stuff doesn't really help the conversation.

You were doing pretty well there for a while. Reminds me of a presidential candidate...

Regards,
MG

Now the whining. You're so predictable. You get busted for your sneaky crap and then act all butt hurt. Go ahead, let's see the act again.

[_mentalgymnast]

How will you do that? Show me.

You read the article I linked to, right?

Do biases and/or prejudices stand out right on someone's chest like a scarlet letter? Are they always going to be readily accessible to an 'outsider' to the internal world of the one who is biased and/or prejudiced?

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that Jenkins is biased and/or prejudiced. He will probably not be willing...or even able...to tell/explain those biases/prejudices to you. They're built up over a lifetime. We/he may not even be fully aware of what those biases/prejudices might be...or at least fully be able to articulate what they are, or are not.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

How will you do that? Show me.

You read the article I linked to, right?

Do biases and/or prejudices stand out right on someone's chest like a scarlet letter? Are they always going to be readily accessible to an 'outsider' to the internal world of the one who is biased and/or prejudiced?

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that Jenkins is biased and/or prejudiced. He will probably not be willing...or even able...to tell/explain those biases/prejudices to you. They're built up over a lifetime. We/he may not even be fully aware of what those biases/prejudices might be...or at least fully be able to articulate what they are, or are not.

Regards,
MG

Good. Now answer my question about the channeled texts.

And stop changing my words. How can you deny your dishonesty when you do that?

[_mentalgymnast]

Just assuming [Jenkins is prejudiced and/or biased]...doesn't get us anywhere.

MG: No?

I think it would be important to factor that in.

Mak: Why did you put a fake phrase in the parentheses?

MG: Is that not what you're saying, in essence?

Does it not matter if Jenkins was/is either biased and/or prejudiced?

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

[Hubbard's] writings from what I know are very subjective and not testable ...

If that is indeed the case, then the Book of Mormon has a 'leg up', right?

If it's objective claims held any water maybe.

Are you saying then, that we find ourselves in a position where we place Dianetics in one category/class and the Book of Mormon in another?

Only in the sens ones claims are more testable. The problem is you don't want to talk about those testable claims since they don't hold water.

Maybe it isn't any great surprise if no one is willing/able to really 'proof text' Dianetics because it lacks cohesiveness in any kind of a narrative that can be connected with a' before and after'? More or less random ideas strung together?

Academics ignores both for the same reasons. Joseph screws up with the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham by making claims we are able to show are not true. Subjective ones can last forever. The Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are on there way out, but most like you haven't realized it yet.

[_Maksutov]

Just assuming [Jenkins is prejudiced and/or biased]...doesn't get us anywhere.

MG: No?

I think it would be important to factor that in.

Mak: Why did you put a fake phrase in the parentheses?

MG: Is that not what you're saying, in essence?

Does it not matter if Jenkins was/is either biased and/or prejudiced?

Regards,
MG

You changed my words. How is that okay?

You're dodging again. Tell me about the channeled texts.

Have you read anything yet? Or are you still thinking that you understand things that you don't know anything about?

[_mentalgymnast]

And stop changing my words. How can you deny your dishonesty when you do that?

It's pretty easy and doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what I did. And the proximity to your post made it even more obvious. I'm not going to play your little 'label' games. I told you earlier, Mak, this doesn't help conversation. But I'm willing to bypass the 'accusation and/or label game' every time you do it without making comment if that floats your boat and gives you an 'edge'.

I may just have to accept it and grin and bear it.

That's pretty much what I've done so far. As I said earlier, when you have a board like this and a sense of herd mentality and Alpha's wanting to rule the day...the loner is going to be in a situation where they find very little support. So I suppose you can toss around these whiny little accusations/labels or you can engage in the conversation. Which, truth be told, you've been doing quite well recently except for sporadic little outbursts.

I think I'm done for today.

Blacklist time.

This conversation is slowly going nowhere at this point anyway...

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

And stop changing my words. How can you deny your dishonesty when you do that?

It's pretty easy and doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what I did. And the proximity to your post made it even more obvious. I'm not going to play your little 'label' games. I told you earlier, Mak, this doesn't help conversation. But I'm willing to bypass the 'accusation and/or label game' every time you do it without making comment if that floats your boat and gives you an 'edge'.

I may just have to accept it and grin and bear it.

That's pretty much what I've done so far. As I said earlier, when you have a board like this and a sense of herd mentality and Alpha's wanting to rule the day...the loner is going to be in a situation where they find very little support. So I suppose you can toss around these whiny little accusations/labels or you can engage in the conversation. Which, truth be told, you've been doing quite well recently except for sporadic little outbursts.

I think I'm done for today.

Blacklist time.

This conversation is slowly going nowhere at this point anyway...

Regards,
MG

And so here comes the whining, as predicted. First the lies, then the dodging, then the whining. Everyone here can see what you did and what you're doing. This is a persistent pattern with you. It's your signature. I think it's probably some personal campaign of yours against this board. It's certainly not a sincere effort at dialogue.

Your dishonesty grows with every thread. Quite remarkable, really. But cog-dis is a terrible thing.

[_Lemmie]

The author isn't writing from an apologetic POV to convince folks that The Urantia Book has merit in regards to its foundational beginnings/narrative. Isn't he out to discredit it? What I was interested in is folks, hopefully scholars, that are writing to support the foundational underpinnings of the scripture. Again, that's what Hardy and Givens...and other people...have done for the Book of Mormon. I'm well aware of the books...in the same vein as Gardner's...that have been written to debunk the Book of Mormon. In this thread, that's not what I was looking for. I've already seen/read a number of them over the years.

Really? Why the change, mentalgymnast? Because on page 3 you said you were simply asking for examples of works, either in support of or against, 'foundational underpinnings,' but now that people have given you that, you pretend your question was really something else.

That's important because over and over again the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism is held up next to some of the other modern religious movements and/or their 'scriptures' as being cut from the same cloth. The Book of Mormon has been dissected and looked at from many angles. We are left with reasons for belief vs. non-belief. But those reasons are able to be reached one way or the other because of the work folks have done in support of or against the Book of Mormon.

This is a perfect example of where your reputation for intellectual dishonesty comes from, mentalgymnast. You pretend you were asking a different question to weasel out of a tough spot. Your disingenuous strategies are so predictable.

[_Lemmie]

Don't you think that academics are going to have their own prejudices as they approach ANY work that purports to have come about through some channeled means?

Yes, those Carl Sagan-like prejudices (common sense, scientific method, realistic assumptions, analytical skills based on the real world, etc.) are a bitch for the seer-stone-gazing, water-dowsing crowd to have to deal with.