Dr. Shades wrote: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.
KA's selection of sources???
Seriously, I could present materials exclusivley from any or all of your mo'pologetic idols that you love to suck up to, and the investigator would still be turned off.
You just don't get it do you? Mo'pologetics is only for members who have a distinct need to believe.
Can you imagine the laughter in a first discussion when the mishies showed the investigator a image of Joe with his face jammed into a hat?
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.
Link? Furthermore, it is a huge stretch to refer to FARMS Review as "mainstream." Prof. P. himself has referred to it as an "opinion journal." By "mainstream academic" I am referring to a peer-reviewed historical journal---not something for which DCP himself would have been wielding editorial control.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Oh, that.... Lol. That doesn't even begin to cut it, LoaP. Please provide me with one---just one!---example of an article which deals frankly and openly with Book of Mormon historicity, which was published in a mainstream, peer reviewed, academic journal. I will be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.
Oh, that.... Lol. That doesn't even begin to cut it, LoaP. Please provide me with one---just one!---example of an article which deals frankly and openly with Book of Mormon historicity, which was published in a mainstream, peer reviewed, academic journal. I will be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.
Do books published by Oxford University Press count?
I'm out for the weekend. Take care, everyone.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Oh, that.... Lol. That doesn't even begin to cut it, LoaP. Please provide me with one---just one!---example of an article which deals frankly and openly with Book of Mormon historicity, which was published in a mainstream, peer reviewed, academic journal. I will be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.
Do books published by Oxford University Press count?
I'm out for the weekend. Take care, everyone.
Checkmated, eh? Well, you've got to figure that if even DCP cannot cough up a relevant example, then you probably won't be able to either. (And I assume you are referring to some book by, perhaps, Terryl Givens?) You see: I'm interested primarily in publications on Book of Mormon historicity. It's not really any big deal for John Gee to publish an Egyptology article in and Egyptology journal. Nor would it be that big of a deal for a Mormon-related article to appear in a peer-reviewed journal on religion or theology. But, an article openly on Book of Mormon historicity in a mainstream, well-regarded, peer-reviewed journal would be utterly earth-shattering. The best examples any Mopologist has ever been able to provide have been badly discredited pieces by Sorenson & et. al.---works in which the fact that they pertain to Mormonism would not be obvious to a non-LDS reader.
I believe you are referring to the list of publications of various FARMS contributors? If so, then it is not actually a list of "frankly Mopologetic historical articles." Rather, they are publications dealing with broader issues that may have some tenuous link to Mormons subjects (i.e., the list of chiasmus articles aren't about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and the articles on Egyptian topics likely don't trace their roots to the Book of Abraham). Peterson does not even claim that they are apologetic articles, but rather "other pieces with clear Mormon interest."
But nice try.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
I believe you are referring to the list of publications of various FARMS contributors? If so, then it is not actually a list of "frankly Mopologetic historical articles." Rather, they are publications dealing with broader issues that may have some tenuous link to Mormons subjects (I.e., the list of chiasmus articles aren't about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and the articles on Egyptian topics likely don't trace their roots to the Book of Abraham).
But nice try.
That's precisely it. LoaP and DCP have had a gay ol' time over on MAD attacking Yme and others, spinning things and basically trying to sidestep this fundamental issue. LDS scholars *do* publish in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. But, do they frankly and openly announce the way that Mormonism figures into their work? No. Not a chance. They are far too embarrassed/afraid.
I hope no one imagines that I will allow Plate to read anything I give to investigators. No matter what he produces at the request of Scratch, he's getting nothin'.
Just sayin'.
I'm sure Mr. Scratch is a nice enough fella, but he can't talk me into doing anything I don't want to do.
Jason Bourne wrote:I could care less how you feel about it really. I could care less if you do it.
If you could, why don't you? Please.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”