Ex-Mormon Missionaries

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And she just made clear that her entire selection is contained within the Richard Packham tract. Case closed. So, what's the answer to my question?

And what, exactly, is in that selection?

??? What on earth is that about? I merely asked you if there is/was anything factually inaccurate in a certain website.

Asked and answered.

No, it wasn't. You dodged by saying that the site could have been "fleshed out" via the use of some (presumably) pro-LDS sources. You did not state whether or not anything on the site was factually inaccurate.

Have you seen the size of that site?

You also seem to accept the notion that there are some "undisputed historical facts" which do not require any more fleshing out than they have received on that site. Are you going to stand by that belief? And again, this whole discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with KA's packet and material selection, which is my main interest in this thread.

[_Mister Scratch]

Have you seen the size of that site?

You also seem to accept the notion that there are some "undisputed historical facts" which do not require any more fleshing out than they have received on that site. Are you going to stand by that belief?

Nowhere have I ever stated that I believe in "undisputed historical facts." I simply asked you, as did Dr. Shades: what on that site was factually inaccurate? Do you have an answer? Y/N?

And again, this whole discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with KA's packet and material selection, which is my main interest in this thread.

Your interest, as far as I can tell, has to do with your assumption that the "packet and material selection" is biased, right? Or, to rephrase a bit, that some of the material is "historically disputable"? Well, given that we know that this packet is virtually the same as the Packham stuff, then why not point us to the points which you believe are "disputable"?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Nowhere have I ever stated that I believe in "undisputed historical facts."

There is an interesting thread on the topic right now in this forum. Perhaps you would like to sound off.

I simply asked you, as did Dr. Shades: what on that site was factually inaccurate? Do you have an answer? Y/N?

For you right now? Nope. Nor is it my intention to find that answer right now. My interest (throughout this entire discussion) has been in KA's selection of sources, as you can see.

Your interest, as far as I can tell, has to do with your assumption that the "packet and material selection" is biased, right? Or, to rephrase a bit, that some of the material is "historically disputable"? Well, given that we know that this packet is virtually the same as the Packham stuff, then why not point us to the points which you believe are "disputable"?

For one thing, I have no interest in digging through Packham's site right now. Again, for anyone who is paying attention, my interest (throughout this entire discussion) has been in KA's selection of sources. (If it even exists.)

(As a side issue, what strikes me as odd is that if KA merely has a couple of things culled from Packham's site, why the reticence in sharing?)

[_Dr. Shades]

For one thing, I have no interest in digging through Packham's site right now. Again, for anyone who is paying attention, my interest (throughout this entire discussion) has been in KA's selection of sources. (If it even exists.)

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. Dig through Packham's site and you'll automatically cover KA's material.

If you're really so interested in what KA is offering people, then all you have to do is read the tract at Packham's site.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[_Jason Bourne]

. . . but I am getting ready to go out of town to greet my son who is returning from his second tour in Iraq this Sunday . . .

I'm glad your son is coming home safely, Bourne. You must be so proud of your boy. Enjoy your visit!

Thanks and yes I am proud of him. He has been a Marine for three years now. He is a corporal and section chief of his artillery battery. He is up for Sargeent in the next few months. He has excelled at this and like what he does. In fact he re-enlisted recently for another four years. He thinks he will do one more tour then try to get into Quantico to teach Artillery and then may try for officers school though he is not sure he want to be an officer at this point.

[_Jason Bourne]

I will have to try to look at it later and then opine. I will try to later to today but I am getting ready to go out of town to greet my son who is returning from his second tour in Iraq this Sunday.

My husband was a Marine, my father was a Marine and my grandfather was a Marine. I have great respect for what they do. I'm thrilled that your son is returning safely home to his loved ones!

It's evident from prior posts that you are proud of him, as well you should be. Tell him "Thank You" from me. And enjoy your visit.

KA

Thank you Kimberly and I will tell him. By the way I want you to know that I like you and that my posts here on this thread were not meant to harass. If they came across that way I apologize.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yeah, and the Missionaries are certainly giving a "fair and balanced" assessment of Mormonism, right???

No not really and I think I noted that here.

KA is simply trying to balance out the 1/2 truths that the missionaries are feeding the investigators.

Read the rest of my comments then let's talk about it.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. Dig through Packham's site and you'll automatically cover KA's material.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. My interest is in KA's selection of sources. I already realize there is a source, apparently (Packham's site) from which she collected her information. There is (at the very least) a quantitative difference in the things KA has put together compared to the things on Packham's site.

[_Mister Scratch]

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. Dig through Packham's site and you'll automatically cover KA's material.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. My interest is in KA's selection of sources. I already realize there is a source, apparently (Packham's site) from which she collected her information. There is (at the very least) a quantitative difference in the things KA has put together compared to the things on Packham's site.

I'll make you a deal. I will talk things over with KA and get her to post the material, and in exchange, you will get Hamblin and DCP to produce a scanned copy of the 2nd Michael Watson letter. Or, they can tell us how much moolah they've made from Mopologetics. Or, they can tell us which frankly Mopologetic historical articles have appeared in mainstream academic journals. Or, LoaP, you can provide some real evidence as to why Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics is "unimpressive," etc. I would assume, after all, that someone who so vehemently asks for sources/"materials" would be willing to provide sources himself. Right?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'll make you a deal. I will talk things over with KA and get her to post the material, and in exchange, you will get Hamblin and DCP to produce a scanned copy of the 2nd Michael Watson letter.

For starters, I don't even know what that is.

Or, they can tell us how much moolah they've made from Mopologetics.

I can give you a hint: Not a lot. Look at DCP's apparent "plaid" shirts.

Or, they can tell us which frankly Mopologetic historical articles have appeared in mainstream academic journals.

Dan Peterson wrote an entire essay on the subject and published it in a mainstream academic journal called the FARMS Review.

Or, LoaP, you can provide some real evidence as to why Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics is "unimpressive," etc.

Had I already prepared a substantive blog post or review of some sort I would have no qualms about doing so. As it stands, I currently have no plans to create one. That is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, however.

I would assume, after all, that someone who so vehemently asks for sources/"materials" would be willing to provide sources himself. Right?

Sure. If I had them.