I didn't ask you to prove it, Jersey Girl. I accepted that I simply missed it. I just want to see what his essays are about, that's all. Apparently they're too special for him to share.
Not really. I am just trying to figure out when I want it to be known who I am around here. Trust me, once you get to my website you'll know who I am. And then, of course, we shall see the ad-hominims arive! lol.......
Kerry,
I think you're website is the perfect media for you in presenting your ideas. I like that you read directly from the sources you use, cite them and contrary to what some have said on this board, I think your intent is better perceived on video.
And don't worry about the ad hom's. This girl returns fire like all hell!
:-)
That you do Vicki, that you do........... Heh.... I wonder what it'd be like to return water instead of fire? Nah, couldn't possibly work.....LOL!
You see, you need to stop apologising for a book that is clearly pseudepigrapha and claiming that it's "history
I think both he and I will disagree with your subjectivity here. We shall see. I know I disagree with you.
I'll happily debate this with you, Kerry. And, of course, it goes without saying that I'm subjective. I readily confess that. One day, perhaps, I'll be converted to your objectivity. In the meantime, I grope in the dark, even if every non-Mormon scholar agrees with me. We are all lost to the perdition of thinking that Christians didn't exist 2,200 years before Christianity was first declared at Antioch. How such a radical thought could have occurred is still a mystery to us. Of course Adam understood Christianity! And of course Christians in 600BC practised Christianity and the Law of Moses - at the same time. Who, having read the history of Christianity, could possibly ignore this?
Previously, you mentioned creating a thread on his videos. When you get time (in your 56 hour work week, like I don't work or something!) could you just start at the beginning of one series and go from there?
Maybe put it up in the Celestial to keep the dregs of humanity away from it?
You know who I speak of!
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
The Pal Joey Principle -- that "experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore," so that their failure to pay attention to something is a reliable indicator of its lack of merit -- is nicely illustrated in the history of the Nobel Prize for Literature after 1903, as well.
In 1904, the Nobel Prize for Literature was shared by Frédéric Mistral and the illustrious José Eschegaray. The hack writer Leo Tolstoy was passed over yet again, as were the pulp fiction writers Thomas Hardy and Joseph Conrad. Tolstoy would continue to be ignored by the Nobel Prize committee in every vote until his death in 1910. Conrad would continue to be ignored by the Nobel Prize committee in every vote until his death in 1924. Hardy would continue to be ignored by the Nobel Prize committee in every vote until his death in 1928.
In the meantime, though, the Nobel Prize for Literature would go to such giants as Giosuè Carducci (in 1906, by unanimous vote, wisely passing over George Meredith, Henry James, Mark Twain, and Rainer Maria Rilke), the immortal Rudolf C. Eucken (in 1908), Selma Lagerlöf (in 1909, when, for the ninth straight time, the pathetically bad Swedish dramatist August Strindberg went altogether unnominated), the never to be forgotten Paul J. L. Heyse (in 1910, of whom one of the Nobel committee declared "Germany has not had a greater literary genius since Goethe"), Verner von Heidenstam (in 1916), Karl A Gjellerup (in 1917, chosen over Sean O'Casey, Paul Valéry, Maxim Gorki, and Bertolt Brecht), Carl F. G. Spitteler (in 1919, chosen over Marcel Proust), and Jacinto Benavente y Martínez (in 1922, chosen over James Joyce).
We can be confident that the Nobel Prize was properly bestowed in each and every one of these cases because, as the critic and literary historian Pal Joey has explained, "experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore. The mere fact that such work continue[d] to be ignored is about as obvious as it can get! . . . [A]ttempts to defer the judgement of such work to an infinite future chasm of time is [sic] idiotic!"