The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_mentalgymnast]

Not one out of the three men that I mentioned would spend time creating a spectacle as we are witnessing on this thread.

I'm not the one who created a false narrative and lied in order to attack someone else's integrity. THAT is the person that created the spectacle.

I have simply pointed out the fact that she did it. And people keep jumping in to say something else in regards to that. I then jump in to protect my good name.

See how that works?

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

Not one out of the three men that I mentioned would spend time creating a spectacle as we are witnessing on this thread.

I'm not the one who created a false narrative and lied in order to attack someone else's integrity. THAT is the person that created the spectacle.

I have simply pointed out the fact that she did it. And people keep jumping in to say something else in regards to that. I then jump in to protect my good name.

See how that works?

Regards,
MG

What I see is that you have not answered the question that I posed to you. That's part of your spectacle.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG can't exchange one direct response to one question posed.

And you are making stuff up. It was a few pages back now, but I was able to temporarily steer the discussion back on topic. Before I had done so you were active in the thread doing your psychobabble stuff. As soon as I moved away from that and got back to some discussion, you disappeared.

Until, of course, you jumped back in with your psychobabble routine once things 'heated up' again.

You've had VERY little substance to add to the topics that have spun off of the OP.

Again, you are making stuff up and putting it out there as some kind of 'gospel truth'.

Not going to fly.

by the way, I'm not going to waste my time with you. If you want to go to the trouble of creating/posting another psychobabble post with hopes that I'm going to play your game, don't count on it. But fire away if you think it's worth your time and energy. But I can tell you, it's not.

Your 'flak' routine earlier was sort of fun to watch.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

The question that I posed to you appeared at the top of page 26 of this thread. You are now on page 31 of your well documented spectacle.

I'll be happy to update the documentation and bring it forward as I have time to do so. Just keep an eye out for it.

[_mentalgymnast]

honor, there's a post or two of yours that I would like to respond to a bit when I get the time. My time is still being spent with the 'silliness'. If things simmer down a bit, I may come back to make a comment or two on some things you've said in recent posts. Well, they were recent until other folks felt it necessary to 'do what they do'.

Aarghh.

It's bit difficult to respond to substantive posts if you're dodging 'flak'.

I've got some other things to do outside, etc., and I just returned from work. My guess is that when I check back there will be some more useless banter crap and it may again delay my returning to your posts and rereading them. We'll see how it goes. Maybe things will simmer down. I don't have my hopes up though.

Thanks,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I occurs to me that if I were interested in proving a claim that a person was intellectually dishonest a good way to do so would be to present a case where they appear to be doing just that, ask that they explain themselves, and then continue to encourage them to address the issue while they exhibit an unwillingness to actually explain their position.

MG, are you sure you aren't being manipulated into tying your own noose?

I mentioned earlier that you would be much better served, as would the discussion overall, if you simply explained how you reconcile the Ostler theories with your previous statements. For example, there is an inherent conflict between believing -

I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it rather than taking an automatic default position of "It can't be the work of God, because there isn't a God". If you don't believe in God in the first place you HAVE to come up with other alternatives besides the "gift and power of God".

It's really that simple...isn't it?

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book. I have seen some valiant efforts. But nothing that would pull me away from looking at the possibility that God was behind it. And it is at this point that the believers and non-believers go their own separate ways.

...putting everything inside of a nutshell and telling it like it is. It's so simple, really. Either the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or it is not.

while then arguing that Ostler's attempts to explain evidence in the Book of Mormon show Joseph Smith influenced what became the Book of Mormon, and that there is more to it than a simple belief in the basic narrative behind the Book of Mormon coming about through the story taught in the old missionary discussions.

Rather than sticking your head in and balancing on the stool, how about just explaining your beliefs in this regard? It's not a big deal to suggest you oversimplified earlier. Sure, some people will give you hard time but that's life. Some people are like that.

Excellent post, honorentheos. Rational and reasonable. Mentalgymnast would do well to take your advice.

It's interesting how nothing more than my policy of not re-explaining my position after I have already explained my position has left mentalgymnast tying his own noose. Over and over and over.

[Guest]

The question that I posed to you appeared at the top of page 26 of this thread. You are now on page 31 of your well documented spectacle.

I'll be happy to update the documentation and bring it forward as I have time to do so. Just keep an eye out for it.

I have no interest in your question as you dodged the question I was actually interested in. My question/interest, again, is why Lemmie created a false narrative and placed it in this thread as some kind of 'hard data' proving/showing my purported intellectual dishonesty...then gave her opinion based upon false data...and took off and ran. Never to return and actually engage my words in her post and show where I had, indeed, been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

You seem to have no interest in that and I'm not interested in going the route/direction that you seem to desire to go.

The spectacle, as I see it, is watching/seeing your efforts at shooting up flak with what purpose one can only guess/suspect.

You wouldn't mind moving on, would you?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Excellent post, honorentheos. Rational and reasonable. Mentalgymnast would do well to take your advice.

There is nothing printed in blue that I would say any differently. I do not see any contradiction and/or example of being dishonest. I said what I said, and I stick to it. If you want to engage something I said, have at it.

It's interesting how nothing more than my policy of not re-explaining my position after I have already explained my position has left mentalgymnast tying his own noose. Over and over and over.

I don't think that is true at all. If you are caught in the act of creating a false narrative and then give your opinion...and then have a "policy" of not relooking at your position/opinion when it was based upon the false narrative...that's, well, intellectually dishonest.

It is your noose that is being tightened. And you've done it quite a few times now. You refuse to go back and answer my inquiries concerning the 'offending post' and now you're saying that it's because it's against your policy of having to re-explain your position.

Classic.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

honor, there's a post or two of yours that I would like to respond to a bit when I get the time. My time is still being spent with the 'silliness'. If things simmer down a bit, I may come back to make a comment or two on some things you've said in recent posts. Well, they were recent until other folks felt it necessary to 'do what they do'.

Aarghh.

It's bit difficult to respond to substantive posts if you're dodging 'flak'.

I've got some other things to do outside, etc., and I just returned from work. My guess is that when I check back there will be some more useless banter crap and it may again delay my returning to your posts and rereading them. We'll see how it goes. Maybe things will simmer down. I don't have my hopes up though.

Thanks,
MG

WOW Really? Can't respond to substantive posts because of non-substantive posts you see as attacks? The most substantive and knowledgeable posters I've seen around here on both sides tend to avoid what they consider non-substance and just deal with the substance. By doing so it dulls the blade of attacks. Spending all day with perceived attacks is never ending job. I'm not applying for it and nether should you. honorentheos has been the most substantive poster in this thread, yet you have ignored a lot of his requests. Not the way to good discussions. Just a thought.

[_mentalgymnast]

honorentheos has been the most substantive poster in this thread...

I agree. I've responded to him. I appreciate his patience.

OK. That's it for now. Yardwork work is waiting.

Until later,
MG