Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

486 Excellent

About Exiled

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Of course, he said as he tried to make an exit stage left ....
  2. My point, dudester, is that the analogy fails .... but please illustrate.
  3. Right. If in a weak negotiating position, focus on the size of the negotiating table or the worthiness of the questioner.
  4. There is no faithful answer to Dr. Jenkins question because there isn't any evidence. I thought you were going to say that perhaps in the future, the Lord will provide. I think that is the only rational answer to the question, other than admit that the book of mormon is perhaps just inspired fiction.
  5. Of course you won't. You brought up the issue and won't see it to it's conclusion. Ok.
  6. Can you answer Mr. Jenkins' query or not? If not, perhaps a fictional view of the book of mormon is in order?
  7. Do you think these would be sustained? It looks as though you just listed all possible objections, or a great majority of them. Perhaps you could go through and specifically list all the questions Mr. Runnells has and then give your objection and explain why it would or should be sustained. This would be a great exercise if you could actually give some convincing arguments as to why Mr. Runnells' questions are improper from a legal perspective. However, counsel, you can object to anything, but whether the judge would sustain such objections is an entirely different matter. So, I would like to see the legal reasoning behind your objections hereinabove. Also, you were the one who alluded to a legal proceeding that you now say would never happen, obviously. In the end, we have a long list of problems with the church that won't go away despite Mr. Runnells' attitude.
  8. While you are reviewing Hamblin/Jenkins, please let me know what your legal objections would be to Mr. Runnells' questions. Assuming he provided a foundation for his various questions, what would be the objection?
  9. Here is the Jenkins/Hamblin debate http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm Please answer Professor Jenkins request, if you can, and you might get some people to return. Showing a real live example of archaeological evidence linking old world jerusalem circa 600 BC to the new world would be something indeed.
  10. God set up the scenario so that Adam would be mistaken with whatever choice he made. Eat the apple and be against the prohibition of partaking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Don't eat and be against the reproductive injunction. God then blames Adam and Eve for acting. Then Adam blames Eve for his decision. Eve blames the devil. Neither take responsibility. However, the devil told the truth but was cast out because that was the plan all along.
  11. Answer the question that Professor Hamblin had such a hard time answering from Professor Jenkins a few years ago. Professor Jenkins waded into the Nahom question and asked if there was something in the new world, e.g. pottery, an inscription, etc. that ties the old world to the new. Sadly, Professor Hamblin's "responses" devolved into asking what is "evidence" anyway and what does one even expect to find and how would one know it when one sees it, etc. In other words, he never could answer Professor Jenkins in a good way because there isn't anything that ties the old world circa 600 B.C. to the new world. Maybe you could step into the fray?
  12. Can you explain for me how the "bad faith" Mr. Runnells supposedly exhibits in your mind changes anything regarding the actual questions he has? I can't see it. His motivation doesn't change the problem with the overly credulous 3 witnesses that believed Jesus walked and talked in the form of a deer or that an Angel was under a shed or belief in dousing rods. His motivation doesn't change polygamy and polyandry problems. His motivation doesn't change the fact that Joseph Smith thought he was actually translating the kinderhook plates or the egyptian papyri. Is it the fact that he asked questions in the first place? That seems to be the real objection.
  13. Sadly for them, diversion is the point of the worthy question nonsense or Runnells just wants the church to fail attacks. For all I care, he could be the devil himself and that wouldn't matter. I seem to remember that the devil was the only one who told the truth in the garden of eden story.
  • Create New...