Jump to content

PacMan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

1 Follower

About PacMan

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,991 profile views
  1. Robert, this insight is quite interesting. I think the rebuttal would be, whether JS knew the history or not of the bedstead, he was still referring to the facsimile. How would you respond to that? Could you also flesh out the significance of Olishem?
  2. PacMan

    Evidence for the Book of Abraham

    I have it on good authority that Dan Vogel is a nice guy. I don’t know him personally, but I have no reason to believe otherwise. That said, my difficulty with Vogel’s scholarship is multi-faceted and perfectly evidenced by this little snipet. First, Vogel has no problem holding Joseph Smith to what Joseph likely said. But he does not analyze what Joseph meant. For example, JS repeatedly referred to “translation.” Read the heading to the Book of Moses. “An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed...” What does that even mean? It makes no sense unless we understand that JS repeatedly conflated translation and revelation. For all the talk of seer stones and the U&T, what was the actual process for “translating” ancient texts? It’s D&C 8:2 - the translation was revelation to reveal “those parts of my scripture of which has been spoke by the manifestation of my Spirit.” Note: it does not say “a literal word for word translation from the text to modern English.” Thus, Vogel makes a terribly (false) assumption that JS’s translation somehow follows our modern understanding of translation. Second, Vogel then errs that because it’s not verified (whatever that means), it’s “pretend.” This does not logically flow. A good many things that are not “verified” are not pretend. Third, “pretend” is a conclusive statement of opinion - not fact. Others, like Abraham Gilieadi, fall into this trap. Gileadi has some good stuff out there, but his factual insights are conflated with his opinions. It is one thing to say “Isaiah said ABC” and another to say “so XYZ will soon happen.” At most, Vogel can (attempt) to conclude that JS was incorrect but Vogel doesn’t do that because he’s not interested in debating or proving his pious fraud theory of JS. Instead, he stays quiet, throws out some statements that look somewhat related, and assume that people will simply accept his nonsense logic because he said so. Sorry, not happening. As a final note, people need to stop talking about the long scroll theory in context of the Mansion House. It was the Nauvoo House - a completely separate building that had not been completed at the time of the martyrdom and a perfect place to engage in work away from the household bustle. There is absolutely no basis to conclude that the length of the scrolls did not line up due to the location of the doors in the Mansion House when the original quote is that it all happened in an entirely different building.
  3. PacMan

    When all that you have to give, is no longer wanted.

    The hardest sacrifice is the one willingly given but not yet required. Luckily, the Lord doesn't evaluate on the basis of usefulness but a broken heart and contrite spirit. Just keep it all in proper perspective.
  4. PacMan

    Mormon Women for Ethical Government

    What are you talking about? It's not that I disagree with your statement. It's that it makes no sense.
  5. PacMan

    Mormon Women for Ethical Government

    Well, so much for having an adult conversation.
  6. PacMan

    Mormon Women for Ethical Government

    If that was all they took stances on, then I'd be more inclined to agree. But given that you're just making it up, I respectfully don't.
  7. PacMan

    Mormon Women for Ethical Government

    What do you mean "based on nothing at all?" Here you have a group premised on good ethics. Except ethics can mean anything. Even their adopted definition of ethics is wishy-washy: “Ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.” What does "fairness" mean? What does "compassion" and "loyalty" mean? These terms mean whatever people want them to believe. For example, think of illegal immigration. What predominates--what is fair (follow the law) or what is compassionate (forgiveness)? And worse, because this group promotes an "ethical" course, that means that if you disagree with them that you are unethical? Sorry. That is quintessentially "holier-than-thou." Thank goodness my wife is not a member. Although, they could certainly benefit from her (superlative) intellectual horsepower.
  8. PacMan

    Mormon Women for Ethical Government

    When an organization proclaims that it is nonpartisan but pursues an almost entirely partisan agenda, yes. There is no bipartisan negotiation. You are either on board and agree with them or you can hit the highway: "If we are to be successful, we must be united. And we cannot be united unless we share the same vision."
  9. PacMan

    Mormon Women for Ethical Government

    Out of curiosity, who's standard of ethics do they use? I guess that's a snarky way of suggesting that it seems like yet another group cloaking the political agenda of its members behind a holier-than-thou facade of altruism.
  10. Diane Feinstein had the allegations in her possession months ago but sat on them until the vote was ready to take place. That is the political gamesmanship that we should not tolerate.
  11. If the call for "go slowly" comes months after the allegations should have been investigated and is calculated to prejudice the constitutional process to appoint a SCOTUS justice right before the terms starts, then yes--it is contrary to a sensible and sustainable process. That is absolutely what I am saying.
  12. No. LDS senators have a responsibility for the institutional integrity of the system and upholding the constitution. The allegations are serious. But just as in criminal law, there needs to be a type of 'statutes of limitations' for these types of allegations during the nominating process. There needs to be a cutoff point for these 11th hour allegations. It is too easy to turn these nominations into a circus. And to the extent that these self-proclaimed Mormon women (or anyone else) want something contrary to a sensible and sustainable process, they should be ignored.
  13. I don't understand the purpose, necessity, or doctrinal justification for these fringe/sub-culture/special interest groups. 1 Nephi 4:17 "There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God." If people want their voices to be heard, I wish they would do it without prostituting their association with the church. Smells a bit like priest-craft, if you ask me.
  14. PacMan

    Red Heifer: Coming of the Messiah?

    Do you know the scriptural basis for this? I don't intend to argue the point -- I'll clearly disagree. But I am curious.
×