Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

mentalgymnast, you remind us often of the things you say about yourself.

I do point out when I've said something repeatedly, yes. There may be newcomers. It's important to allow for them...and also folks like me that have rememberers that don't always remember.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

And for folks like you who remember what no one else remembers.

Your dishonesty is stunning in this thread alone. You apparently forget that newcomers (and everyone else) can read the thread and compare it to your dishonest mid- and pre-final- summing up posts. Nobody has to 'remember' for you, you do all your damage all by yourself.

[_Chap]

...I am going to take it that what 'didn't stick to the wall' in this case was your attempt to suggest that Jenkin's demolition of Hamblin on the question of Book of Mormon historicity was somehow rendered moot by the possibility that Jenkins might have been harboring hidden 'biases or prejudices'.

Please let me know if I am wrong. Otherwise, silence will signify assent.

I don't think that I ever said that Jenkins' either did or didn't have the upper hand in the interchange between him and Hamblin. Did I say that? Or did I say that the conversation between them was rendered moot because Jenkins and Hamblin have their biases/prejudices?

What I did say is that baises/prejudices will inform where one is coming from and the operations of their mind either consciously or unconsciously. I think I'm on fairly good footing with that.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

Well, yes you are. Here's someone who agrees with you.

Because of this thread I am in the process of rereading the entire exchange between Jenkins and Hamblin. And I do see Jenkins having a bias. It's the bias of actual real warranted evidence to support a claim. And that's the only valid bias that is possible to have as a real scholar.

[Guest]

I don't really see how other issues and controversies fall by the wayside. How, for example, does Joseph Smith's polygamy become less problematic if the Book of Mormon were true?

It doesn't.

Personally, I try to keep believing that you aren't trolling. I think you are sincere.

I can confirm that. The second, not the first.

But it is so frustrating to tell someone that same thing over and over again, only to have them ignore it and claim you didn't answer them. The book suggestions are a clear example. Grindael linked you to apologetic works on Urantia, but you continued to insist no one answered your questions.

Do you know whether any of those books are actually critical commentary and exegesis on Urantia? Do any of those books actually dig deep enough into the literary structure and cohesiveness of narrative to support the thesis/possibility that The Urantia Book has a supernatural origin? (In other words's, by comparison, as I've read Hardy and Givens it's given me pause to simply brush off the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph Smith.) If so, you could save me some time by pointing THAT book out. Reason being, there were scads of books pictured. Which one is the one (or two) you are referring to that meets the qualifications that I'm asking for? Earlier I was asking for something along the line of what Givens and Hardy have written about the Book of Mormon. There were a whole bunch of books that grindael pulled up on some web page. Which one should I read?

So, I give up. *shrug*

I haven't...and I have just as valid reasons as anyone.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Your dishonesty is stunning in this thread alone. You apparently forget that newcomers (and everyone else) can read the thread and compare it to your dishonest mid- and pre-final- summing up posts. Nobody has to 'remember' for you, you do all your damage all by yourself.

Hi Lemmie, thanks for dropping in again and making a substantive contribution to this thread. You along with Mak are sounding like broken records. But I suppose from your point of view, I am too.

Have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Or did I say that the conversation between them was rendered moot because Jenkins and Hamblin have their biases/prejudices?

Your bizarre method of not saying what you do or don't say leaves me with not a great deal of confidence that you said the above. Are you saying you did?

If so, you really, really need to re-read the last several pages of this thread, as you have a stunningly inaccurate, uneducated, and frankly, ridiculous concept of debate.

There's no point in even repeating, just go back, mg, and read! I really hope you are just trolling because surely you cannot honestly think that all debates are rendered moot because all you think all participants have biases.

[_Maksutov]

Do you know whether any of those books are actually critical commentary and exegesis on Urantia? Do any of those books actually dig deep enough into the literary structure and cohesiveness of narrative to support the thesis/possibility that The Urantia Book has a supernatural origin? (In other words's, by comparison, as I've read Hardy and Givens it's given me pause to simply brush off the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph Smith.) If so, you could save me some time by pointing THAT book out. Reason being, there were scads of books pictured. Which one is the one (or two) you are referring to that meets the qualifications that I'm asking for? Earlier I was asking for something along the line of what Givens and Hardy have written about the Book of Mormon. There were a whole bunch of books that grindael pulled up on some web page. Which one should I read?

Why should we spoon feed you? Are you an adult? If you weren't such a lazy, dishonest person, you'd go do some reading yourself. But you have the time and energy to rewrite fictitious summaries of your blown up threads and insert innumerable smilies. So I have to disagree with Fionn. You're Tobin's replacement. Your threads reach high numbers of posts but most of them are people trying to cut through your lies and evasions and get at something like a real discussion. I suspect that's your intention. That you persist in this transparent stratagem confirms it.

[_mentalgymnast]

Or did I say that the conversation between them was rendered moot because Jenkins and Hamblin have their biases/prejudices?

Your bizarre method of not saying what you do or don't say leaves me with not a great deal of confidence that you said the above. Are you saying you did?

If so, you really, really need to re-read the last several pages of this thread, as you have a stunningly inaccurate, uneducated, and frankly, ridiculous concept of debate.

There's no point in even repeating, just go back, mentalgymnast, and read! I really hope you are just trolling because surely you cannot honestly think that all debates are rendered moot because all you think all participants have biases.

Hello again, Lemmie. Thanks for another substantive contribution to this thread. I would try to respond to you in like manner. But in order to do so I would have to focus solely on you as a person and the things I don't like about the way you post, etc. But that might become rather repetitive and boring. So I will just say again...

Have a beautiful day!

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Do you know whether any of those books are actually critical commentary and exegesis on Urantia? Do any of those books actually dig deep enough into the literary structure and cohesiveness of narrative to support the thesis/possibility that The Urantia Book has a supernatural origin? (In other words's, by comparison, as I've read Hardy and Givens it's given me pause to simply brush off the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph Smith.) If so, you could save me some time by pointing THAT book out. Reason being, there were scads of books pictured. Which one is the one (or two) you are referring to that meets the qualifications that I'm asking for? Earlier I was asking for something along the line of what Givens and Hardy have written about the Book of Mormon. There were a whole bunch of books that grindael pulled up on some web page. Which one should I read?

Why should ...blah, blah, blah. Really not much to respond to.

Mak, I hope you're having a wonderful day also.

Out for a run.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Your dishonesty is stunning in this thread alone. You apparently forget that newcomers (and everyone else) can read the thread and compare it to your dishonest mid- and pre-final- summing up posts. Nobody has to 'remember' for you, you do all your damage all by yourself.

Hi Lemmie, thanks for dropping in again and making a substantive contribution to this thread. You along with Mak are sounding like broken records. But I suppose from your point of view, I am too.

Have a nice day.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

Your latest strategy, nice try. But I do appreciate that you quote me because my point gets made once again while you simply add to your total of dishonest denials.

The broken record thing cracks me up. Well stated. Responses to a broken record do indeed sound like a broken record! But like Maks said:

most of them are people trying to cut through your lies and evasions and get at something like a real discussion.

[_Maksutov]

Why should ...blah, blah, blah. Really not much to respond to.

Mak, I hope you're having a wonderful day also.

Out for a run.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

Yes, you always run, don't you? Keep running. You can't stand and face the music.