DiscussMormonism.com

Daniel Peterson wrote:You might want to pause for thought, though. Sometime.

hmmm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . naah!

Daniel Peterson wrote:Analyze away. Devote as much energy to it as you wish. Post about it to your heart's content. I'll be listening to either Palestrina or Richard Strauss (I haven't yet decided) while working on notes for the lecture that I have to deliver on Sunday on behalf of the Islamic Center of Orlando. (There. That should feed the appetites here for a while longer.)

I'm picturing Charles Emerson Winchester III from the old MASH series.

Jersey Some Girl(s),

Hang in there and don't get stoned lest us regular people get confused.

Oh Harmony, I have Joplin's greatest hits too, but none of the others on your list. I love the Ball and Chain song. I'll think of you next time I play it.

Paul O

Dr. Daniel C. Peterson,

Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic

Brigham Young University

Author of: Muhammad, Prophet of God

How can Muhammad be class as a prophet by a Mormon scholar? He didn't hold priesthood and wasn't even a member of Christ's church? I don't think Bruce R. McConkie would approve at all.

Forget the Russian threat, the Muslims are coming!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html

Paul O

Analytics wrote:I had a discussion about this with Gardner about six months ago....<snip>

Analytics,

Using the link here, I wandered over to the MADhouse and read your back-and-forth with the mopologists. I have to say that your posts were reasonable, all-around well thought out, and sound.

What I find so interesting about MAD (and also one reason I don't bother posting there anymore) is that, regardless of how logical, rational, or reasonable an argument is, the mopoligists will not budge an inch. You even openly admitted that you would change your position if the evidence pointed you there. (I really liked your "cancer cure" analogy, by the way).

It reminds me of a line I heard in the movie "Platoon" years ago - I don't know the original source: "Hell is the impossibility of reason." It fits mopologists perfectly.

selek wrote:
What I find so interesting about MAD (and also one reason I don't bother posting there anymore) is that, regardless of how logical, rational, or reasonable an argument is, the mopoligists will not budge an inch.

They can't. If they budge an inch, all sorts of reasonable things become possible, and before they know it, they've lost their culture, their world, and possibly their job. And they end up being Kevin Graham. They'd rather live as they are now (depending on your point of view, that's either blinded by the dirt in their eyes from burying their heads ostrich style or content with the words of the prophets. Some people think they know without ever realizing that claiming to know about spiritual things is an insult to God.)

Daniel Peterson wrote:So far as I'm aware, neither Brant Gardner nor Bill Hamblin pays any attention to this place, so challenging them here is pretty silly.

No one, and I mean NO ONE of a fraction of a reasonble mind would buy that one. Perhaps with the exception of some poor naïve member of your ward in Provo!!

As for me, Joey, my interest in you and your issue is at a very low ebb, at least for the moment. It was never very strong in the first place.

Right. After what, 15-20 posts on this thread?!!

Got the Millet on all of them. But you are a funny and predictable cuss.

And, dare I not forget, a very important cuss!