Jump to content

ttribe

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,996
  • Joined

Posts posted by ttribe

  1. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    Cursing is still done. It is just not something we speak of much. It is also not our primary mission.

    But, in an easy to use online format, complete with automatic upload for use in the Temple?!  That's just genius.

  2. 23 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

    Wait . . . was there a curse prayer roll?

     

    According to the book Mysteries of Godliness, the Church had a curse book included in the True Order or Prayer for a brief time during the conflict with the U.S. government over polygamy:

    ""In 1880 Mormon leaders responded to efforts by the U.S. government to suppress plural marriage by convening a special temple prayer circle of general authorities to curse the church's enemies. Among the nearly 400 names listed on the prayer roll were those of Martin Van Buren, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B Hayes, and James Buchannan."

    • Like 2
  3. 5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

    Daniel Person points out that Kerry Muhlestein has just commented on the recent podcasts.

    https://interpreterfoundation.org/raising-the-abrahamic-discourse-an-essay-on-the-nature-of-dialogues-about-the-book-of-abraham/

    And he observes that there are resources like this for those who prefer not to jump to conclusions, but rather, seek wisdom out of the best books.

    https://interpreterfoundation.org/scholarly-support-for-the-book-of-abraham/

    FWIW,

    Kevin Christensen

    Canonsburg, PA

    Good grief.  Talk about a false dichotomy.

    • Like 2
  4. 16 hours ago, PacMan said:

    Bob,
     

    When you own the board you can make the rules. You don’t. So move on from your discontent with anonymous posters. Know your place. 
     

    In any event, your judgmental self-righteousness is neither invited, warranted, helpful, or appreciated. 
     

    You, like most of us, are a nobody. And you certainly don’t speak on behalf of anyone—particularly the Lord. 

    aRmufaHOpXULoWV1yvVjY5ZIaripubStAp6Oa9_M

  5. 39 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

    I’ve tried to think of a clever rejoinder that won’t result in my being banned. I couldn’t think of one. That said, Your comment is interesting in light of the fact that I have no idea who you are nor can I recall ever interacting with you on this board. I’ve decided to assume that you’re just having a bad day and needed someone to take it out on. Glad I could help. 

    That's Ahab's attempt at humor. It generally falls quite flat. 

  6. 10 minutes ago, PacMan said:

    You’re “not interested” in the BoA manuscript dilemma? Really? Since when?

    When did this intellectual dishonesty kick in—when you were left speechless without any rebuttal along with all the other critics?

    You were obviously interested enough to try to mock me rather than engage in a substantive discussion. 
     

    Not interested, indeed.

    Pretty sure he responded because you're hilarious.

    ETA: I see he responded already. I like my summary, though.

  7. 2 minutes ago, PacMan said:

    No.  You impugn your own intellect.  And I did give a well-reasoned, substantive response.  You just ignored it because you didn't like it.

    Beyond that, you utterly fail to understand the issue.  The question is why the characters in the BoA manuscript are adjacent to the BoA text.  The critical approach is that JS believed that the characters produced a paragraph of information.  That is inconsistent of the research of the day, which I have now proven that Martin Harris knew by mere mention of Champollion.  Consequently, the critics needs to revisit their arguments.  As I mentioned above, there is no causal relationship between the Egyptian characters and the BoA.  It is comparative.  That is the only way to juxtapose what we actually know--including why sometimes it looks like the character comes first to the text, and then other times when the text comes before the characters.

    The BoA manuscript holds no controversy AT ALL.  The document with characters and text was meant to be comparative in nature--not casual.  That is the only way to make sense of the information.  Prove me wrong.  FYI, you can't.

    In case you're still not getting it, I have singlehandedly dismantled one of the greatest pits of doubts in all of Church History.  All them apostates that left the church over the BoA manuscript should be feeling awfully silly/repentant right now.

    Wait, wait, wait...you just sat there, presumably with a straight face, and claimed that you "singlehandedly dismantled one of the greatest pits of doubts in all of Church History?"  That is one of the most entertaining things I've ever seen on here.  Thank you for that.

    I guess you better tell Dr. Gee and Dr. Muhlstein to hang up their apologist hats; you've rendered them obsolete..."singlehandedly."

    I guess someone like Dr. Ritner holds no candle to your knowledge and understanding of the topic, because you "singlehandedly" showed that an expert reading of the published Facsimiles is unnecessary; you know those pesky Facsimiles where Joseph Smith attempted to explain the images...as if they were the causal link to the Book of Abraham.

    Have you let SLC know about your "singlehanded" accomplishment?  They will surely wish to revise their Gospel Topic Essay on the matter (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng)

    Never mind that whole "written by his own hand on papyrus" thing that clearly indicates Joseph Smith, at least, believed he was doing a literal translation from the papyrus...you know...causally, and all that (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng).

    This is a landmark day!  Shout it from the hills!  Someone get the Church Newsroom on the line!  Someone call the Deseret News!  PAC MAN HAS "SINGLEHANDEDLY DISMANTLED ONE OF THE GREATEST PITS OF DOUBTS IN ALL OF CHURCH HISTORY!"

  8. 9 minutes ago, PacMan said:

    Another pet-peeve: the misuse of the word "ad hominem."

    For the record, knowing what evidence is a professional duty of mine.  I litigate in both state and federal court.  And we both know that expert witnesses know nothing about evidence.  It's the attorney's role to make sure that the expert meets Daubert.  Talk about pure arrogance....

    Go ahead and ignore Bennett's report in 1831 that Martin Harris explicitly referred to Champollion.  Go right ahead.  As even Bob notes, this is not reasonably debatable.

    I'm not ignoring that, at all.  There is still no evidence Joseph Smith utilized or even considered that information when it came time to "translate" the Book of Abraham.  There is no evidence he had an understanding of Champollion's work such that it informed or influenced his work on the Book of Abraham.  Is there something in the various Kirtland Papers mentioning Champollion or Young about which I am unaware?

    Oh, and for the record, the day I abdicate my responsibility to meet Daubert standards to an attorney, is the day I stop performing expert witness services.

    As to your ad hominem comment - did you, or did you not, immediately impugn my intellect on a personal level rather than providing a well-reasoned substantive response?

  9. 4 hours ago, PacMan said:

    Please, do not misuse the word "evidence."  It's a pet-peeve.  Further, don't try to summarily refute a claim you know nothing about. 

    Thomas Young's work was published in both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia Americana.  I'd actually point you to it, but given your intellectual constipation it's literally not worth my effort to turn around in my chair and pull out my file that is 3 feet away from me.

    Wow.  You went straight to the ad hominem and didn't even try.  That's just...pure arrogance.  For the record, evaluating evidence is a professional duty of mine...I'm an expert witness, counselor.  Moreover, the existence of publication in the two referenced encyclopedias is NOT evidence Joseph Smith ever saw or considered such published work.  Had he mentioned it in his writings?  Had any of his scribes mentioned it in their writings?  Did any witnesses mention Joseph talking about such published work by Young?  Absent such evidence, I continue to assert your statement is nothing but speculation...something I would be excluded from presenting in court...you know, as an expert.

    • Like 1
  10. 8 hours ago, PacMan said:

    Bob, be careful to believe something just because Ritner said it must be true.
     

    Champollion translated Egyptian in 1822 - some 20 or so years before the quoted text. And that says nothing of Young having cracked the nature of Egyptian script before Joseph Smith was born. 

    Young’s work was published in the Americas. I find it shocking to believe that JS wasn’t aware of it. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Champollion#:~:text=Here he presented the first correct translation of,having deciphered the script when he wrote that%3A

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist)

    That's pure speculation on your part.  There is exactly zero evidence to support such a claim.

  11. 6 hours ago, smac97 said:

    I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

    I don't see "kindness" in Ritner's treatment of the BOA, or of Gee.

    Both sides have written extensively on the subject.  I think a public debate moderated by the execrable Consig is not intended to facilitate reasoned, evidence-based discourse about the substantive issues with the Book of Abraham.  Dehlin is an intellectual lightweight and would have nothing meaningful to contribute to such a discussion/debate, Consig absolutely hates the Church, and Ritner has already published his views.  So I just can't grant an assumption of good will or good faith in the invitation.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    "Execrable?" Really? That's a bit of a cheap shot, don't you think?

    • Like 1
  12. 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

    At least I have some. If you find it too esoteric, that goes back to your original comment.

    It is a widely accepted way of thinking among proponents  of secular religions.

    Perhaps you should google that topic, so it becomes less "esoteric" to you

    You're doing it again, Mark. 

  13. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

    Yeah, that's about the same as you said before. It's your belief vs others' beliefs, who do believe a middle ground exists.

    Duly noted. You have no arguments, just a statement of your opinion. Thank you.

    Yes.  I've stated my opinion that the middle ground is nonviable.  I did engage in some reasoning on the matter with pogi.  I find your reasoning far too esoteric to even warrant an argument, as you say.

  14. 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

    The fact that you cannot get your head around it doesn't mean others can't.

    Perhaps I should have been more direct for the colloquialism impaired - In my opinion, having looked at the evidence and the context of the relevant doctrinal statements of Church leadership, I do not believe a viable middle ground exists on this issue.

  15. 56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    The adverse ramifications of the "Inspired Fiction" theory on the truth claims of the Church are huge

    This is the point I was also trying to make to @pogi. The truth claims to many, many foundational elements of the Church are thoroughly undermined by the "Inspired Fiction" theory on the BoM.  On average, I'm hesitant to look at issues at their polar opposites with no middle ground, but I just can't get my head around a viable middle ground on this one.

  16. 7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    No.  I asked about the "metrics."

    If it would take too long, or if you haven't formulated an exposition of it, that's fine.  I was just curious.  I will not read anything into you declining to respond.

    I did not intend to ask you to re-visit pain.  You brought the subject up.  I asked if you could elaborate.  You are declining.  Sounds good.

    Okay.  I have considered quite a bit of evidence as well, and have found ample grounds to justify continuing my belief in The Book of Mormon.  I hope you re-visit the basics of this issue some day.  If not, I still wish you well.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    I appreciate that.  I only brought it up as a disclosure of my position so the reader could evaluate for herself or himself what my bias may or may not be.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...