Jump to content

Steve J

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve J

  1. This is the least important thing, but I am going to really miss him posting on here and his blog posts.
  2. He was my favorite poster on this site. I am sad to find out this news
  3. Not surprising based on the politics and anti-religious bigotry that I have seen in those letters. That an egyptologist would actually write a nobody like you(as in a random person who contacts them) and state those things shows a lack of professionalism And I don’t agree with all or the majority of the Gee’s conclusions on the BOA or the surrounding documents, but he has published fine Egyptology work that has been published by academic journals
  4. Thanks. It's not actually that expensive 40.... I just have a hard time spending that amount on a book after all the money I spent on them in school...(Not to mention what my wife would think :/
  5. "A part of Barker's case since The Older Testament is that the apocalyptic genre goes back to the First Temple. I've previously cited her Beyond the Veil of the Temple: The High Priestly Origin of the Apocalyspses." Hopefully, the old Maxwell articles will be easier to link to and find in the future, what work of hers discusses the above hypothesis. I am currently reading the preview sections of "King of the Jews" on ibooks. (The book is kind of expensive) Thanks
  6. John Smith was born to the cousins(Unsure if 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th..?) of Asael Smith and Mary Duty, the paternal grandparents of the Joseph Smith Jr. John Smith was the son of Joseph's grandparent's cousins.
  7. We don't know what would have happened. A responsible thing to do would be to contact the church and state that you have this document, can you comment on it, and we are planning to release it at such and such time unless you give us a reason why not to.
  8. It was idiotic if his goal was to prevent suicide among the LDS LGBT community or to fully understand the policy, but not if his goal was not make a media spectacle that did the most damage to the church's image and control the narrative.
  9. There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. - Donald Rumsfield ........... I was pretty young when I heard this quote and I was like I never thought about that before... So I saw a chance to quote it here
  10. He did not post as me. I copied and pasted what he posted somewhere else, and he then verified that the 7th part of the podcast was coming out the next day. (which was today or yesterday... my days are jumbled) DB is not Steve J. Apologies to DB and whoever thought that was DB for the confusion.
  11. True... I thought it was obvious since he has his own account. Next time I quote somebody I will make sure it is in quotations
  12. Tomorrow Morning we release Pt 7 of my ongoing conversation with Jim Bennett. This conversation was my favorite. I personally feel like Mormonism when exposed in a long form real time conversation forces the defender to show that the faithful position requires a ton of allowances and qualifiers. When these allowances and qualifiers show up over and over again, one is confronted with having to decide if such a position is rational or logical. For instance if I want to argue in favor of a flat earth and I enter a 15 hour conversation over whether a flat earth is defensible or not, my position is going to require numerous extra allowances and qualifiers. Each person willing to have an open mind must then decide what level of rationality or irrationality they will allow in their brain to maintain a position or change positions. This part 7 is for me the most beautiful example of this throughout our 7 part series. Every person after listening to these 7 parts is confronted with how many allowances and qualifiers Mormonism requires in order for the faithful position to be believed. Each person must decide or at least their brain must (our minds are exceptional at maintaining beliefs in the face of contradictions) decide if Mormonism requires too much or if the faithful view is truly tenable. Then one must confront or their brain again must confront the difference in allowances and qualifiers needed for the critics conclusion to be held. Our minds do best at moving towards rational and logical thought when sacred beliefs are concerned when we are overwhelmed with the irrationality of our argument and weakness of the evidence or the preponderance of the critics evidence and best when these two are juxtaposed against each other... ...In the end the purpose of the project for me was to expose Mormonism to such a long form conversation, allow the data to be laid out and discussed openly by both sides, and then allow the listener to make their own conclusions. My goal was for people to confront a Mormonism they want to be what it claims and the data that compels it isn't what it claims. That for me took a tightrope act. And I am extremely happy with the end result. ... Jim did great. Mormonism laid out objectively..... doesn't BIll Reel
  13. Yea, there was nothing irrational about my response and I did not come in guns blazing.... CFR
  14. I’m not sure specifically what subject to talk about that hasn’t been discussed in depth on this board. Others can add stuff too
  15. What did I say about him today at all????? Gosh, you are paranoid
  16. My last comments were not anything about Bill Reel. So so I have no idea what you are talking about ??? You can calm down about defending him from these alleged vicious personal attacks. Plus, my general comments are only matching the overall general discussion from others about the podcasts, so I would appreciate if you go 🚔 (police) others as well Well, I’m out again unless someone posts something specific that I feel a post from me can contribute to the discussion.
  17. I did not mean to share anything private. Sorry if that offended you. Since you posted something later similar to the message you sent, I did not think I was violating confidentiality. I also thought that bias wasn’t something unique or relevatory. I also admit that my bias also plays a role in why I don’t find this something “historic” or a “bloodbath.” Please accept my apologies While not saying I agree with everything ever produced by Fairmormon(and that itself would be impossible bc it itself takes varying, and sometime opposite views, on issues, I don’t view that their arguments in general make God “extremely illogical or inconsistent to me” And I have no problem with you shaping a narrative and theology that fits your belief of divinity
  18. “ends up making us think really illogical and silly things about God” ... I have to disagree with you about this statement and as you admit your bias is why you view it as a “blood bath”
  19. I did and I got confused in writing with 6 parts and 12 hours. But thanks for being consistent with your expectations
  20. I’m done posting. 1. Bc it’s hard to get specific about a 6 hour poscast. Maybe I will comment later if the discussion gets more focused on a certain part.. My main feeling throughout listening was frustration in Reel’s theological framing of the different discussions and certain conclusions. And I wasn’t trolling. I was commenting against what Is disingenous and self-promoting framing of this conversation by having his fellow podcaster frame it in the way he did and then have Reel simply label him as “a listener” in this forum. While Bill Reel podcasting is not generally for me, I have no issue with people listening to the podcast and found the general interaction between the two men on this podcast congenial and mostly productive
  21. I listened to the majority of it. I can't claim I listened to every single bit of a 6 hour podcast
  22. A specific example is that I at no point picked my jaw up from off the ground
  23. Well, saying someone is unimpressed with how someone represents and acts, their knowledge and interpretation of the material, and theology is not personal attacks
  24. And saying someone is unimpressed with someone is not calling people names...
  • Create New...