Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Pokatator
_Emeritus
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

Post by _Pokatator »

Joey wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I've reached the maximum of clarity that is possible on the subject without devoting more time to it than I have or care to devote.


As you are averaging about 400 posts per months (just on this board), seems like time is a commodity you have plenty of in your life!


Joey, it takes a lot of time and effort to defend the indefensible. Dan cherry picks his topics never touches Adam/God, MMM, and especially Book of Abraham even though it would seem to be the closest subject in the realm of his expertise of Arabic studies.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Dan feels no obligation to post on every topic, nor even to post on the topics that some here would choose for him. Dan is free.

And Dan addresses quite a number of things when and where Dan feels like it. The fact that Dan hasn't written a post on this or that topic for this message board doesn't mean that Dan has never addressed the topic. Dan has a life well beyond this board, Dan has written a lot elsewhere, and Dan is actively writing several things right now.

As for the Book of Abraham, Dan has, in fact, published on it. More than once.

Dan has also (several times) published the work of others on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and will do so yet again in a few months.

Joey, of course, posts only one comment, over and over and over again, That would be easier.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

Post by _Chap »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Chap wrote:I am happy to acknowledge that DCP has reached the maximum of clarity that he feels is advisable on this topic.

I've reached the maximum of clarity that is possible on the subject without devoting more time to it than I have or care to devote.


Can someone else help me out, then? I hope that my posts do not give the impression that I usually find difficulty in following an argument, but in this case I have a real problem in seeing what DCP could have been arguing, if his point is not essentially the one I have criticised above. And I do not want to be unfair.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply