Typical MG. You didn't "read through" crap, and that's why you had nothing to say about a well-sourced 24-page document. God, I hate it when Mormons lie about reading.
- Doc
I read it, and one of his concluding statements:
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's veracity or the actual authenticity of his work.
There are certainly some very interesting parallels with the Book of Mormon - though I do not think Smith ever issued a threat of the kind Johnson received!
Again, I think we’re dealing with types and shadows and coincidental parallels. The law of averages and chance would seem to dictate this to be so.
And critics accuse Mormons of over doing it with parallelism.
Typical MG. You didn't "read through" crap, and that's why you had nothing to say about a well-sourced 24-page document. God, I hate it when Mormons lie about reading.
- Doc
I read it, and one of his concluding statements:
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's veracity or the actual authenticity of his work.
Regards,
MG
and here is the context of that single sentence you cherrypicked, emphasizing an entirely different meaning:
It is not necessary to show or even suggest a fledgling prophet contemplating
Macpherson before we can say that once again, we have concrete evidence from
the immediate world of young Joseph Smith displaying additional aspects of the
Restoration - and its subsequent apologetic devices for defense - which were not
so unusual or dependent upon divine inspiration as we once may have believed.
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point
of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's
veracity or the actual authenticity of his work. The point, instead, is to
demonstrate that many traditional Mormon techniques of defense (whichever
ones may be suggested by the parallels seen here) may not be so relevant or
applicable as some writers have presumed.
MG just scrolled down, scanned a bit he thought he could use, posted, and immediately demonstrated that he didn't read the file. And he continues to lie about it!
Unbelievable. Mormons.
- Doc
Trump is a fraud and is leading the white working class to disaster. - JD Vance
Typical MG. You didn't "read through" crap, and that's why you had nothing to say about a well-sourced 24-page document. God, I hate it when Mormons lie about reading.
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's veracity or the actual authenticity of his work.
MG, that you could paste one of the concluding statements here is all the proof that anyone should need to know that you read the article.
MG just scrolled down, scanned a bit he thought he could use, posted, and immediately demonstrated that he didn't read the file. And he continues to lie about it!
Unbelievable. Mormons.
- Doc
I think you’re avoiding the fact that the sentence I posted from Grunder’s closing paragraph stands independently from what came before and after. I did read the whole paragraph. I read the whole paper also.
and here is the context of that single sentence you cherrypicked, emphasizing an entirely different meaning:
It is not necessary to show or even suggest a fledgling prophet contemplating
Macpherson before we can say that once again, we have concrete evidence from
the immediate world of young Joseph Smith displaying additional aspects of the
Restoration - and its subsequent apologetic devices for defense - which were not
so unusual or dependent upon divine inspiration as we once may have believed.
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point
of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's
veracity or the actual authenticity of his work. The point, instead, is to
demonstrate that many traditional Mormon techniques of defense (whichever
ones may be suggested by the parallels seen here) may not be so relevant or
applicable as some writers have presumed.
MG just scrolled down, scanned a bit he thought he could use, posted, and immediately demonstrated that he didn't read the file. And he continues to lie about it!
Unbelievable. Mormons.
- Doc
I think you’re avoiding the fact that the sentence I posted from Grunder’s closing paragraph stands independently from what came before and after....
Typical MG. You didn't "read through" crap, and that's why you had nothing to say about a well-sourced 24-page document. God, I hate it when Mormons lie about reading.