MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

Well, then, I anxiously await for you to correct Scott.

The thread is here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 999&st=200

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Well, then, I anxiously await for you to correct Scott.

The thread is here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 999&st=200

Oh yeah, that DCP wannabe suck up, Scott Lloyd.

[_cksalmon]

and probably also Michael Heiser's.

Probably? His exegesis of the relevant passages leads him to some mind-numbing conclusions (and in light of his useful explication, particularly in his dissertation, I'm inclined to agree), but I don't sense that he's a fence sitter with regard to fundamental LDS truth claims.

-------------------

Have you read The Façade? I haven't, but hope to soon.

From what I've seen, he seems to be the least nutty guy on the ufology panel discussions he's participated in.

cks

[_Ray A]

From what I've seen, he seems to be the least nutty guy on the ufology panel discussions he's participated in.

cks

Just an off-topic aside. I see nothing "nutty" about the UFO phenomenon.

[_cksalmon]

From what I've seen, he seems to be the least nutty guy on the ufology panel discussions he's participated in.

cks

We must be perusing different media.

Annunaki? Old Testament: but Heiser is a very outspoken critic of all things Sitchinian.

[_Ray A]

We must be perusing different media.

Annunaki? Old Testament: but Heiser is a very outspoken critic of all things Sitchinian.

There are indeed some weird UFO ideas "out there", but weird hypotheses don't make a whole phenomenon "false". If you have seen UFOs, from a distance of about 1,000 feet, as I did (in the presence of other witnesses), you might understand where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I know, it was all my "imagination", or maybe the US base at Pine Gap is "really" experimenting with craft that can approach the speed of light.

[_Daniel Peterson]

and probably also Michael Heiser's.

Probably? His exegesis of the relevant passages leads him to some mind-numbing conclusions (and in light of his useful explication, particularly in his dissertation, I'm inclined to agree), but I don't sense that he's a fence sitter with regard to fundamental LDS truth claims.

I'm sure he's not. (Though he's civil, even friendly, and intelligent, which is refreshing.)

But that wasn't my point.

My point was that, although his essay took issue with me and with some other Latter-day Saint writers, it doesn't read altogether as an attack on Mormonism as such, and it doesn't simply come to the conclusion that Mormonism is false.

[_cksalmon]

My point was that, although his essay took issue with me and with some other Latter-day Saint writers, it doesn't read altogether as an attack on Mormonism as such, and it doesn't simply come to the conclusion that Mormonism is false.

Well, he's certainly not a propagandist, from what I can tell, which is, indeed, refreshing.

It may not come simply, nor perhaps should it, but he's no Mormon; and, thus, Mormonism is false for him. I think probably that the nature of the discussion, especially in his FARMS article, didn't lead to an evaluation of the truth claims of Mormonism. He was mainly explicating his understanding of certain portions of sacred writ, in that instance.

And, there is certainly a difference between that and apologia, of whatever stripe. Or, at least, there should be. His is a good way forward, I think.

cks

[_Daniel Peterson]

he's no Mormon

I'm well aware of that, of course. I've never denied it, and wouldn't think of doing so.

I've had lunch with Michael Heiser, corresponded with him, attended a lecture by him, invited him to write for the Review, edited him, and etc. I understand perfectly well that he's a Protestant.

and, thus, Mormonism is false for him.

I've always presumed that to be the case.

I think probably that the nature of the discussion, especially in his FARMS article, didn't lead to an evaluation of the truth claims of Mormonism. He was mainly explicating his understanding of certain portions of sacred writ, in that instance.

That's precisely why I used the word probably.

[_cksalmon]

he's no Mormon

I'm well aware of that, of course. I've never denied it, and wouldn't think of doing so.

I've had lunch with Michael Heiser, corresponded with him, attended a lecture by him, invited him to write for the Review, edited him, and etc. I understand perfectly well that he's a Protestant.

and, thus, Mormonism is false for him.

I've always presumed that to be the case.

I think probably that the nature of the discussion, especially in his FARMS article, didn't lead to an evaluation of the truth claims of Mormonism. He was mainly explicating his understanding of certain portions of sacred writ, in that instance.

That's precisely why I used the word probably.

I'm still not sure that the "probably" is warranted, but I get what you're saying. He's certainly an interesting and intelligent commentator. I have benefited much from reading him. Heck, he might even have made my own inherent "anti-Mormonism" to be more refined.

Can't fault him for that, Doc.