Similarly, before you object to someone insulting him, please list all these books you've read and research papers you've written. Otherwise, you are not an authority on Joseph Smith, and the only things you know about him are what the Correlation Committee says.
Similarly, before you object to someone insulting him, please list all these books you've read and research papers you've written. Otherwise, you are not an authority on Joseph Smith, and the only things you know about him are what the Correlation Committee says.
Sure, right after Joseph Inc. provides his list.
Why?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
blemont wrote: "Please list for us every book you've read about Joseph Smith. I guarantee I've read more."
----------------------
Put up $50,000 for me to collect if my list is longer than yours and I will do it. So, put up the cash with a third party and publish your list. Then I will publish mine on here. If mine is not longer, you keep your money. If mine is longer I will be paid the money.
Very simple, simon.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson
Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?
infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
Similarly, before you object to someone insulting him, please list all these books you've read and research papers you've written. Otherwise, you are not an authority on Joseph Smith, and the only things you know about him are what the Correlation Committee says.
Sure, right after Joseph Inc. provides his list.
Why? You made a claim that Joseph doesn't know anything about Joseph Smith except demagoguery, and that you guarantee that you have written more research papers about Joseph Smith than him. If he has written zero, then you have written at least one. There is no reason for calling your bluff to be contingent on Joseph saying whatever he has to say.
Simon Belmont wrote:Doctor Scratch Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between published articles, and written articles?
That's rather beside the point, isn't it? You were, in effect, leveling a challenge to Joseph. And now you're scrambling desperately to extricate yourself from your self-made predicament. As best I can tell, you've got only two possible dignified moves: to apologize to Joseph and retract the challenge, or to post your articles.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Darth J wrote:Why? You made a claim that Joseph doesn't know anything about Joseph Smith except demagoguery, and that you guarantee that you have written more research papers about Joseph Smith than him. If he has written zero, then you have written at least one. There is no reason for calling your bluff to be contingent on Joseph saying whatever he has to say.
You didn't call my bluff. I wasn't bluffing. I've written several. I'd be happy to send one to you, but they are all on paper. I would scan them, but I run a Linux machine, and we all know how much the Church hates Linux.
I just wanted to know if he had written any, that's all. I didn't ask him to actually produce any.
Darth J wrote:Why? You made a claim that Joseph doesn't know anything about Joseph Smith except demagoguery, and that you guarantee that you have written more research papers about Joseph Smith than him. If he has written zero, then you have written at least one. There is no reason for calling your bluff to be contingent on Joseph saying whatever he has to say.
You didn't call my bluff. I wasn't bluffing. I've written several. I'd be happy to send one to you, but they are all on paper. I would scan them, but I run a Linux machine, and we all know how much the Church hates Linux.
I just wanted to know if he had written any, that's all. I didn't ask him to actually produce any.
They are asking you to produce.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb