As I read through a number of the comments/reviews starting from the newest first and looking through a few pages I'm not sure that I'd go with your recommendation and spend the money.
I won't cut and paste them here because some of them are kind of long...but you and others can go over to amazon and read them if you want.
Any other book you would recommend that would be more factual/trustworthy?
Regards, mentalgymnast
I thought you wanted a positive reviewer aND a scholar/ historian. And he's Urantist of 30 years. Why does this not fit your criteria?
PM me an address and I'll have the book shipped to you.
Fionn wrote:I thought you wanted a positive reviewer aND a scholar/ historian. And he's Urantist of 30 years. Why does this not fit your criteria?
PM me an address and I'll have the book shipped to you.
Not quite sure what you're saying in your first sentence.
Click on "newest first" at your URL and go to the reviews by:
Dr. S. Oliva and 'Mickey'...for starters. I just don't see this book being on the same plane/caliber as those coming out of Oxford Press by Givens and Hardy.
Lemmie wrote:Are you referring to that time when ONE PERSON in a thread asked you this?
Hi Lemmie, nice to see you come in with something that you think is provocative again.
I'm thinking that there was more than just one person on what I remember to be multiple threads (that had some connection or another to Hardy's book) that didn't want to take the time to read Hardy's book and wanted me to regurgitate parts/sections...stuff...so that they wouldn't have to. But I'm sure not going to go back and do a count!
Thanks for your extremely useful contribution. I really don't have much else to say to you though. As you may notice, I have more to say when it comes to other posters. I'm actually able to have what you might call a conversation and/or an interchange of ideas.
You might try it. It's kind of fun.
Regards, mentalgymnast
Temper, temper, mg. You're starting to lose it.
And you 'remember' something that's not accurate, but you're 'sure not going to go back' and confirm your inaccuracy? Another typical act of intellectual dishonesty on your part. It's interesting you bring things up and when others respond in a way you don't like, suddenly they are not exchanging ideas or having a conversation. That's called pouting, mg, not discussion.
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 03, 2016 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Fionn wrote:I thought you wanted a positive reviewer aND a scholar/ historian. And he's Urantist of 30 years. Why does this not fit your criteria?
PM me an address and I'll have the book shipped to you.
Not quite sure what you're saying in your first sentence.
Click on "newest first" at your URL and go to the reviews by:
Dr. S. Oliva and 'Mickey'...for starters. I just don't see this book being on the same plane/caliber as those coming out of Oxford Press by Givens and Hardy.
Convince me.
Regards, mentalgymnast
MG, this link will take you to a page with three books. One, the pro/apologetic book, you have rejected. The other two represent a more middle of the road, the other more critical. Pick one, a d I'll ship it to you.
mentalgymnast wrote:I'm thinking that there was more than just one person on what I remember to be multiple threads (that had some connection or another to Hardy's book) that didn't want to take the time to read Hardy's book and wanted me to regurgitate parts/sections...stuff...so that they wouldn't have to. But I'm sure not going to go back and do a count!
MG, I know that this sort of thing is difficult for you because of the LDS mindset that you've had for so long but do you not understand the difference in the situation that you described with the Grant Hardy book and what has happened so far in this thread? The comparison is completely invalid. First of all, most of us are well versed in LDS apologetic material and have a firm grasp of the subject matter, so peddling yet another apologetic book written from a slightly different angle is bound to be met with skepticism regarding it's value. Whereas, you were ASKING for references to a specific type of apologetic regarding other religions that might fit a predefined scope as a rhetorical ploy to.........peddle Grant Hardy's tired apologetic yet again. So the only way that these two discussions are even related is that you were simply attempting to peddle an apologetic with no intentions of having any discussion of anything outside of that scope.
You seem to find Hardy's arguments compelling. That's fine. Just put forth his best argument(s) and let's discuss it. There's no need for all the other BS like feigning interest in a religion you have no intention of investigating.
mentalGSB wrote: Mak, Lemmie, and grindael. The Terrific Trio- Defenders of all that is Good and True.
MG
Only in your F-d up world, Mental. Funny how you absolutely NEED to go to this kind of extreme. These kind of pathetic pity poor me moments are touching. Yet you keep saying you're leaving, you're done, but you keep coming back for more and pedaling your apologist mumbo jumbo. You don't keep your word, you are simply a lying apologist. No one here needs to defend "all that is Good and True", that speaks for itself. What goes on here is just simple analysis of your obvious BS. But to you, its the freaking end of the world. But for all the woe is me rhetoric, you can't seem to get enough of it. So please, stop the whining.
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.
mentalGSB wrote: 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.
WHINING.
Shall I continue...? Yes... Next...
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 03, 2016 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
mentalGSB wrote: To emphasize the fact that the Book of Mormon finds itself in a very select group of scriptural texts. The Book of Mormon is no small thing in the world of religious texts/scriptures.
MENTAL MASTURBATION
Again, ONLY to Mormons. Example, the number of scholars from DIFFERENT FAITHS/beliefs/backgrounds that have worked on the Qumran writings, written about them and actually think they are no small thing in the world of religious texts.
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 03, 2016 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
