helaman38 Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 It seems Dr. Sorenson's own daughter did not know his admission of bias: "My own book cites BoM verses over 960 times. But even so many citations does not mean that the text is 'speaking for itself.' For who can doubt that I chose those verses and the interpretations I provided for them while omitting others." (Source Book, p. 210)
cursor Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Dr. Sorenson's daughter doesn't post here, but I do.
Glenn101 Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 It seems Dr. Sorenson's own daughter did not know his admission of bias: "My own book cites BoM verses over 960 times. But even so many citations does not mean that the text is 'speaking for itself.' For who can doubt that I chose those verses and the interpretations I provided for them while omitting others." (Source Book, p. 210) What is the point? Glenn
volgadon Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 What is the point? Glenn He has finally decided to honour an outstanding CFR.
Popular Post volgadon Posted September 1, 2013 Popular Post Posted September 1, 2013 It seems Dr. Sorenson's own daughter did not know his admission of bias: "My own book cites BoM verses over 960 times. But even so many citations does not mean that the text is 'speaking for itself.' For who can doubt that I chose those verses and the interpretations I provided for them while omitting others." (Source Book, p. 210) Here is a fuller version of the quote. My own book cites Book of Mormon verses over 960 times. But even so many citations does not mean the text is “speaking for itself.” For who can doubt that I chose those verses and the interpretations I provided for them while omitting others. Other people too have chosen their verses and their interpretations. We cannot get far if mere opinion determines which set of verses we rely on, whether it is 1000 or 10.We need instead to use the entire scripture, without exception. Selectivity should be avoided like the plague. We must understand, interpret and deal successfully with every statement in the text, not just what is convenient or interesting to us. That can only be done, I believe, by doing our level best to approach the words of the book of Mormon having to do with geography without preconceptions. I admit that my own (1955) model was tainted by preconceptions. So has everybody else’s been. 6
helaman38 Posted September 1, 2013 Author Posted September 1, 2013 What is the point? Glenn That's not a bad retort - apathy. He has finally decided to honour an outstanding CFR. I was banned. For good.
cursor Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) While not entirely sure ...It appears that helaman38 was some days ago temporarily banned while participating in another thread. Hence was unable to respond to the CFR that was issued. I suspect that conditions were made for what would be acceptable attitude/behavior adjustment for readmission. It seems that those conditions have been violated here and later, in this thread.. Edited September 1, 2013 by cursor
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Sorry guys, but to any lurking critics I have to say what I always say "There are no facts, only interpretations". - Nietzsche. We would all do well to learn that, but somehow literalists still exists. Sigh. 2
canard78 Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 That's not a bad retort - apathy.I was banned.For good.So helaman38 is gone for good? No tears shed here. I really think he was a sock puppet and a wind-up-merchant.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 So helaman38 is gone for good? No tears shed here. I really think he was a sock puppet and a wind-up-merchant.Don't know what a wind-up merchant is, but I too suspect he has been here before.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 "There are no facts, only interpretations". - Nietzsche. Is that not the truth?
Calm Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Is that not the truth?One interpretation of it, at least. 1
canard78 Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Don't know what a wind-up merchant is, but I too suspect he has been here before.Maybe it's a UK expression, sometimes also shortened to WUM. Someone whose sole participation in a conversation is to elicit a reaction and wind people up. 'Troll' is sometimes used on message boards.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) Maybe it's a UK expression, sometimes also shortened to WUM. Someone whose sole participation in a conversation is to elicit a reaction and wind people up. 'Troll' is sometimes used on message boards.Sounds like a perfect synonym for troll. helaman38 strikes me as more of a hobbyist than a troll, however. Edited September 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 One interpretation of it, at least.Oh man good one.
Calm Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Oh man good one.Thank you, I was rather proud of it.
mfbukowski Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 Thank you, I was rather proud of it. Works for me
Recommended Posts