Book of Mormon questions for brave Mormons to answer

[_Daniel Peterson]

Heh. I decided to go for this reaction on a lark. This is why it is so easy for certain people to troll you.

So what?

I never claimed that having a degree in mathematics made me somehow "troll-proof." Pointless trolling is easy . . . and pointless.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who cares if she asks for guidance? You apparently do:

Nope. I care if she chooses to finally work her way through an Easy Reading version rather than the real thing.

But she's looking for a Cliffs Notes edition or an illustrated version for children.
That's simply not serious

.
She was OFFERED both of those, Daniel. She simply asked for another version the text that was easier to read.

And what, exactly, does that mean?

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey,

I think E's criticism is apt. If the critic is making certain criticisms, their knowledge of the text is more appropriate than other critics. Marg is an agressive S/R theorist, way beyond even your adoration. The theory nearly depends on the relationship of the text and an knowledge thereto. For one to preach so agressively and yet have such a juvenile understanding is to me, in agreement with E, simply nuts.

my regards, mikwut

mik,

You knew me in more strident days. Two things going on with me and I'll be perfectly honest. (1) marg has more spare time to devote to referencing and composing post than I have. If my time and attention weren't so deeply immersed in other pursuits, I would be right there with her. I tend to use this board as "intellectual pause". No offense intended to the community. (2) Since I began on ZLMB, I developed a good rapport and relationships with LDS on these boards and I've lost the passion I once had in opposition to Mormonism. Either that or I simply burned out on it. The more likely scenario is that other passions have taken over. Passions that have no place on this board.

All true.

Having said that, in spite of marg's agressiveness (no one calls the male posters "aggressive", you base mongrels) on this topic, she is making an effort to read the book. In response, instead of helping her out, she's getting ridicule.

Do you guys not want to see critics read the literature in question?

Maybe not.

Enjoy the hail,
Jersey

[_Jersey Girl]

Was I talking to you?

This is a message board. That's how things work. Welcome to the internet circa 1995.

As a bonus, I'll point out that you look like you are defending marg out of tribal loyalty or bias deriving from it. At least that's the charitable way to read your less than stellar replies here.

Tribal loyalty? How is that?

I get paid to deliver "stellar", EA. Why on earth would I bother with "stellar" on a message board?

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel,

You've been reading the Book of Mormon throughout your life time. You were raised up on it. How old were you when you first began reading the Book of Mormon?

[_Daniel Peterson]

she is making an effort to read the book. In response, instead of helping her out, she's getting ridicule.

Do you guys not want to see critics read the literature in question?

Maybe not.

Nobody's mocking her for reading the book.

[_EAllusion]

So what?

Well, I don't regard being on a string to trolling as a desirable state of affairs, but regardless of that point, I was just amused that my comment got the reply from you I thought it would.

---

I see that this post has another line. I don't think the trolling is without a point, but that's beside the point. And I'd think you'd like to only engage trolling on your own terms and aware of the nature of the conversation. Maybe not, but there is a certain predictability here.

[_EAllusion]

Do you guys not want to see critics read the literature in question?

Maybe not.

She's being ridiculed for her previous behavior and her desire to read an easier to read version of the Book of Mormon rather than the text as is. That's why Nevo linked a children's illustrated Book of Mormon. A bit cutting for his usual tone, but he wasn't going after her just saying she's reading it now.

[_EAllusion]

I get paid to deliver "stellar", EA. Why on earth would I bother with "stellar" on a message board?

I'd think you'd want to offer sound arguments and sensical replies all the time rather than when you are just getting paid for it, but that's me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

there is a certain predictability here.

The preferred alternative being what?

Arbitrary randomness? Inconsistency? Quantum indeterminacy on a macro level?

The charge of "predictability," leveled at me from time to time here, is itself rather predictable, and, or so it seems to me, pretty silly.

Do you really think that you're not predictable? I know your views, and can easily forecast them on most issues. Is beastie here unpredictable? Or Some Schmo? Joey, perhaps? JAK? Or, LOL, Scratch?

Come on.

A person who was, on the whole, unpredictable would have to be insane.