Jump to content

Bob Crockett

Members
  • Content Count

    3,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,649 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bob Crockett

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,927 profile views
  1. I didn't really understand his post, actually. My post about Moloch had nothing to do with kings, so I wondered why he was bringing it up. I think Robert thinks I am just an idiot, which describes me some of the time. But he posts in his own name so I try and pay attention.
  2. I don't insult posters, and I don't particularly insult them anonymously. I think that someday God is going to call people on the carpet who post with other than their real names, when discussing the faith. However, I take exceptions to posters' views.
  3. I think the descriptions of Moloch are fairly certain, both from the Bible and scholarly sources. Heat up the arms to red hot and drop an infant into them. Watch the infant explode into flames. Fun. Sounds like you think that is legit. You're just way off base with your love of Margaret Barker, but I've made my points in other posts. No need yet to repeat my criticisms of her here. I think I'm pretty well educated in the material enough not be sticking my head in the sand. I, for one, don't know whether LDS teachings on the Josian reforms are right or wrong, or whether Barker's is right, at least as to the merits. I'm ambivalent about all that. But her methodology is way screwed up. And she lacks the credentials where she ought to have them. And people like Kevin who defend her credentials blissfully seem unaware of what you went through to get your doctorate and what I went through to get my pseudo doctorate. Another example of the exception being the rule (grocery clerks are, on occasion, brighter than a Berkeley researcher in fluid dynamics; hence, do not discount grocery clerk opinion on fluid dynamics). And LDS teachings are what they are.
  4. That's kind of insulting. I've read her papers and at least one book. I read some of Kevin's formal stuff published on-line but in particular his FARMS occasional paper. Paradiyms Revisited or something like that. (Have you read his paper? It is interminable.) I'm surprised you'd accuse me of that.
  5. Her research does not comport with LDS theology. I tire of Kevin using the word "paradigm" so often that it has no meaning. Does she really say that Molech/Moloch sacrifice is authentic Israelite religion?
  6. It is a profound embarrassment that LDS scholars find appeal to her particular theology about post-exilic worship. In my view, if she's correct, then there is really no God at all. Her views conflict with LDS instructional manuals, but BYU scholars just think she's the greatest.
  7. God is not a numerologist, although man attempts to make Him one. There is numerology in LDS celestial rooms (threes, sevens and twelves) for reasons that escape me.
  8. He doesn't know. Nobody knows how Joseph Smith did except what he said.
  9. In my profession we are entitled to discredit anonymous sources. Anybody who is anonymous and insults another who is not anonymous, particular on such sensitive matters as religion, has some psychological issues at stake. Otherwise they'd use their own name. And I am rather surprised that a scholar like Dr. Carmack would stoop to anonymity, particular on matters concerning the Book of Mormon. Don't get me wrong. I defend the right to be anonymous on the internet. Free speech is paramount of all virtues in my mind, and anonymous speech is part of that. Anonymous speech may be important to criticize the government without fear of retribution. But there are laws to protect against particular insult and libel and extortion, but they are ineffective against anonymous speakers. So, whereas I think it important to permit anonymity, I also believe that free speech should permit pornography and erotic speech. But I would not, personally, want to be associated with erotic speech, pornography or anonymous libelous insults of another person. I believe that some day God will call me to account for anything like that, traducing someone's good name (#bobcrockettexposed) while anonymous. I've heard many times that anonymity protects the poster. I get that. I had posters threaten me over the board, privately in messages, contact my prior employer (actually, as a partner, I employed myself), file a complaint against me with the State Bar for a post I made, threaten my children and show up at my house. Perhaps I am too foolish to post provocative statements in my own name in the name of religion. I know that Dr. Peterson suffers similar abuses. That's my rant. I've had this position for years. Unchanged.
  10. I'm sorry I've offended you. Please ignore my posts. But what I'm reading about Ye Olde English and the Book of Mormon passes for nonsense. I've asked to be pointed to precedential studies of other works, or peer acceptance of Dr. Carmack's works. Plus Jarman's recounting of the Severus auto da fe as further proof is just plain foolishness. That story has been cited against the Book of Mormon for decades. What passes for a defense of the faith today? Your temperament or science-less speculation?
  11. Jarman's post shows that what was once evidence that the Book of Mormon was a rip-off of prior sources is now bassackwards proof that Joseph Smith didn't author it. Such absurdity.
  12. I actually enjoy being called a lousy lawyer on this board because it helps me understand that I'm not the big shot I think I really am.
  13. I think to engage in an ad hominem there must be a real person to attack. I suppose that avatars eventually assume a life of their own and attacking an avatar becomes a form of an ad hominem. But I don't think being a critic of anonymity is necessary an ad hom. My opinions remain. 1 I don't think the conclusions about Ye Olde English and the Book of Mormon are adequately founded on science and statistics. I wonder if it is even possible to do so. The methodology I've seen seems to employ statistics adequately but does not do an adequate literature review, nor do I think that is possible. Certainly, I'd like to know if such an effort has been performed elsewhere. But without precedence and peer acceptance, I'm more than suspicious. I think the defense of the Book of Mormon should not be based upon witchcraft and incantations. 2. The Book of Mormon has all the characteristics of responding to the defects of Christianity of its day. The Book of Mormon was written for "our day," meaning 1830. Just because Alma suffered auto-da-fe and just because St. Thomas More had protestant priests burned at the stake does not mean that the Book of Mormon was based upon text derived in More's day. Burning people at the stake remains a powerful motif in literature today, the 20th and the 19th centuries. I've studied Brant Gardner closely and his conclusions seem to make a lot of sense. I really question why good men throw their lives away with such inconsequential and meaningless study. 3. You and others make a personal attack on me for being a lawyer and a lousy one at that. I'm rather used to that. I think my record speaks for itself and I won't really respond. I am not anonymous. bobcrockettlaw.com.
  14. Ouch! Way ouch! I am not here to defend my credibility nor engage in ad hominens. I dislike anonymous posters and especially insults from them, and make my views known. As they are not real persons I don't think a direct attack upon them is an ad hominen. I didn't realize Chumpatch was Dr. Carmack and I will adjust my posts accordingly. I gotta tell the California courts to stop citing the Kelly/Frey rule as good law (they also reject Daubert as good law) based upon your inciteful post.
×
×
  • Create New...