Kevin Christensen

It is important that that the word "language" in the Book of Mormon does not always refer to dialect, but also can refer to the topics and ideas. (I noticed that the index of one of my editions of the Book of Mormon only contains references to dialect passages Hebrew or Egyptian or Reformed Egyptian, not any of the topicality passages). The roots of the word literally refers to what is "on the tongue." Sorenson's proposal that Sherem was an outsider because he as described as "having a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4) was partly based on assuming the phrase meant that Sherem had to have been instructed in the language as dialect, rather than mastery of what people in the community were saying to each other, and how he could push their emotional buttons with flattery. Just when and by whom the records were assembled on the Brass plates is another issue. Were they a continuous accruing record on plates, or passed along scrolls transferred to plates as some point? Noel Reynolds recently produced "A Backstory for the Brass Plates" at Interpreter. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/a-backstory-for-the-brass-plates Personally, I think the Brass Plates were a project commissioned by a Pharaoh, just as the later Septuagint was commissioned by a Pharaoh, for the same reasons, prestige for a library and a tool for preparing diplomats and civil servants, during Jehoiakim's reign, when he was an Egyptian puppet. In my mind, that accounts for them being in a treasury, for it containing prophecies of Jeremiah up to their present, and for Lehi being aware of them. With the defeat of the Egyptians, and Zedekiah being installed by Babylonians, the plates were be without a home. Notice how frequently prophets and priests use metallurgical metaphors (comparing the wicked to dross, and trials as "refining fire" etc.), and the importance of metal items in the temple, such as the seven-branched lamp (the menorah), and the 600 BCE silver scrolls with a blessing from Numbers 6. John Tvedtnes wrote a persuasive essay that Lehi was a metal worker. And Reynolds has also written about Lehi and Nephi as trained scribes. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lehi-and-nephi-as-trained-manassite-scribes FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

I heard about this kind of thing in Lake Atitlan before, something notably relevant to the Book of Mormon. "According to the study published in the Journal of Maritime Archaeology, the settlement likely flooded quickly and stayed submerged for centuries, protecting its fragile wooden elements from decay." https://indiandefencereview.com/maya-settlement-lake-atitlan-guatemala/ FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

This sort of thing is exactly why I have found the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth so useful. I used it most extensively in my Interpreter Response to Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism over a decade ago. Everyone spends some time in Position 2 of 9. Interestingly, one response to discovering things are far more complicated (Position 5 is Relativism Discovered) us to regress back to Position 2. I made the case that by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism And on the topic of Theodicy, I've long been fond of the correlation between LDS teaching and Process Theology. Riskas claimed that “the existence of evil is a real, vexing, and I think, irresolvable problem—philosophically, empirically, and experimentally.” Part of my response was to quote this, from Ian Barbour's Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, on Process Thought. An eternal perspective can make a huge difference. I recall a NDE account of a woman who had an experience on an operating table while she was pregnant. During her experience, she was told by a Godlike, loving being, that he would be coming to get her baby in a few days. In that situation, her joyous response was, "You mean, I GET to let my baby go with you!" And of course, LDS teaching is that she will also be able to raise the child after the resurrection. I can also recall listening to another NDE account by a Russian scientist, who finding himself on the other side, and meeting his parents, and hearing from them that they had not abandoned him as a child, but had been assassinated by the KGB. In that setting, he felt joy and relief in that new understanding. Since he was talking to them, they clearly were not permanently gone, but present and eager to show their love. Nibley's paper on The Book of Enoch as a Theodicy explores that kind of thing. Our whole story is not told in this life. And that makes a difference. Consider people slaughtered by Genghis Chan or Hitler, or the 1918 pandemic, or small pox, or the plague. Where are they now? Are they stuck eternally in the worst moment, defined by pointless pain, endlessly defining an accusation against God, or, have they moved on? And on what life would be like if an omnipresent and all powerful being was bent on making sure no harm came to any human, try Jack Williamson's Humanoid stories, starting with the SF Hall of Fame novelette, "With Folded Hands", and then the novel, "The Humanoids" followed by "The Humanoid Touch." The I Robot movie with Will Smith adopted the Humanoid's logic, rather than Asimov's three laws, but doesn't go deep enough into what life would be like if you were prevented from doing anything at all that might lead to any risk or possible emotional distress. I emerged from those stories with a deep sense of revulsion, and have been haunted by a nightmare sense of the horror of it. The stories were rooted in Williamson's childhood in Arizona, when his mother was so fearful that snakes or scorpions or coyotes might get him, he was for a very long time, kept in a baby pen, where there was literally nothing to do but sit with folded hands. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

On the Lucy Mack Smith passage about Joseph being a story teller sufficient to the task of explaining the production of the Book of Mormon, there are some crucial issues to address before anyone can responsibly claim that she provides evidence that Joseph could just imagine the Book of Mormon, based on story telling talent, rather than translating an actual record. First, remember this when considering whether the Book of Mormon screams a 19th century origin. Consider Bacon, the Father of the Scientific Method, and what strikes him as blindingly and unquestionably obvious: "Don't theorize" he says, and by so doing he unconsciously explains exactly where and why he goes wrong. "All data is theory-laden." Hence Jesus says, judgement, criticism, discernment begins by being self-aware, examining one's own eye for beams first. "Then shall ye see clearly." Galileo, unlike Bacon, makes the effort to imagine what the heavens would look like to an observer on a rotating, tilted earth, that obits a sun. And that in turn, provides a better explanation of planetary motion that did Ptolemaic astronomy. And now, issues with the source of the famous Lucy Mack Smith quote: So this is not a contemporary diary, a direct window into the past, but a later reminiscence that has been worked on by editors. Here is how Ann Taves uses it: She does not address the issue of the Book of Mormon and the reports of Joseph Smith's recorded discourses failing to back up the insinuations she makes. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events And there is also the related issue of the original draft of the Wentworth letter being an adaptation by Joseph Smith of an 1840 pamphlet by Orson Pratt. See https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol15/iss2/8/, page 98. Calm has mentioned Spackman's important essay on the Nephite Jewish Lunar Calendar. There is also Jerry Grover's recent approach. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/calendars-and-chronology-book-mormon Regarding the claim that the Book of Mormon prophesy after 1830 becomes much less detailed, I am presenting on the topic of the restoration of plain and precious things at the Interpreter Small Plates conference at the end of May. The paper came about when it occurred to me to collect all of the passages that describe particular teachings and ideas as "plain and/or precious" and not just stopping at the obvious passage in 1 Nephi 13:40: A key passage describing the restoration of the specific plain and precious things appears in the introduction to Margaret Barker's first book, The Older Testament: FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

I found the gptchat theory long on speculation, short on details, and the few details mentioned, but not cited or quoted, such as the Lucy Mack Smith passage, or the Bible quotations and claims about italics, misleading on exactly the most telling aspects. I wrote about key issues for the Lucy Mack Smith passage in my Interpreter response to Taves, who treated it as foundational. Tvedtnes points out several crucial aspects of the italics that undermine the insinuative claim. For a recent example of the importance of considering details, look at Matt Roper's Interpreter articles on claims of anachronism and the clear trend toward reconciliation. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

D&C 1 formally spells out "mine authority, and the authority of my servants," (verse 6), and bluntly states: That does not require us to assume that everything his servants say is equally inspired, nor that what we have constitutes a Big Book of What to Think. I think it is also important to consider the definition of the word sustain: Collectively it means, "put up with the crap." In an interview, Hugh Nibley was once asked if he would sustain Judas. His response was essentially. "Certainly. He was an apostle wasn't he? The Lord has his purposes in these things." In the New Testament, Romans has this: Who are thou to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or faileth. Yea,…God is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4 I have a testimony of the Christ and the Restoration. And at 71 years old, by now, I have seen much of various leaders that confirms a declaration in Acts: We also are men of like passions with you. Acts 14:15 But to me, at this late date, that is no big deal, not important, not something to agonize about. It is not a trial of my faith, but just life as I expect it to be. The work of the Restoration moves along very nicely. I can remember when most of the church still lived in Utah, when there were only a dozen temples, when the priesthood ban became very uncomfortable, but I still had a testimony and served a mission, when Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson spoke at the same conferences and the world did not end and I lived for many years before understood that they had different political views, and when the really good apologetics volumes could be gathered on a half a shelf or less. Much has changed, but my testimony has not only remained intact, but has gotten much stronger. That is because I have learned to pay attention to the things that matter most, rather than the things that might annoy me personally. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

A section of my forth coming presentation at the Interpreter Small Plates conference in May in may deals with "the blindness caused by the efforts of various iterations of the Great and Abominable church" includes “hardening of hearts” (1 Nephi 13:27). What does that mean? Recall the Deuteronomy passage I quoted: If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. (Deuteronomy 15:7) A survey of the complaints about the behavior of the Jerusalem elites characteristically demonstrates hardened hearts and the language and imagery regularly points to collectively abominable behavior by groups, not just scattered, exceptional individuals. Jer. 5:28 They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. Jer. 7:4-11 4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these. 5 For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; 6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: 7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever. 8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. 9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; 10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? 11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord. Isaiah 1 16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Ezekiel 22 begins by listing specific characteristics that defined Jerusalem’s “abominations.” 6 Behold, the princes of Israel, every one were in thee to their power to shed blood. 7 In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. 12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God. 13 Behold, therefore I have smitten mine hand at thy dishonest gain which thou hast made, and at thy blood which hath been in the midst of thee. The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. Jesus states in the New Testament that the one sure way to identify his followers, regardless of national or religious or racial affiliation is that “they love one another” (John 13:35). In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul gives a famous description of charity as the pure love of Christ. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. What is the opposite? The opposite of the love of Christ does not suffer long, and is unkind, envieth whoever has what it wants, vaunteth itself constantly, and is notably puffed up, Behaves unseemly, always seeking its own gain, is easily provoked, and thinks evil of anyone who opposes their ambitions and desires, or is just different Rejoices in getting away with whatever it wants to do, and bitterly opposes any attempts to call it to account, Will not put up with anything negative, believes only what it wants to hear, hopes only for personal gain and power and fame and pleasure, so that it will never have to endure anything difficult or unpleasant. Jesus directly addressed the tendency to create legality that circumvents charity when he was asked, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?” (Matthew 15:2) 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. A similar pattern of legality replacing charity appears in the question about easy divorce initiated by men in Matthew 19, when Jesus specifically notes “hardness of heart.” ... If we don’t want to settle for having hardened hearts, and the accompanying blindness and loss of understanding such hearts demonstrate, the thing to do is to offer up the sacrifice of a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, to be willing to offer up as potential sacrifices even our favorite sins and what may seem our most reasonable preconceptions and secure traditions. We ought to study things out, make inquiries, experiment upon the word, living them from the inside to see how that experience changes our understanding, praying sincerely, and giving things time and effort. In following that process, making such sacrifices, we can then find “pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile” (D&C 121:42). And the hope and promise for such a society committed to understanding and charity collectively behaves as Alma reports, in notable contrast to the complaints Jeremiah and Isaiah and others offered against the Jerusalem of their day: "they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need." (Alma 1:30) FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

And there is this observation by Methodist Biblical scholar, Margaret Barker in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: "there were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord." She also observes that "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between EI Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered." That particular observation is very helpful in dealing with references to Christ, who has a father, also being a father to those humans who covenant with him. Brant Gardner wrote in his Second Witness commentaries that this distinction between Fathers works for all of the Book of Mormon references. See https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book A summary of Barker's approach is here: https://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf But her book, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God has far more detail. And in considering Latter-day Saint readings, I've read several supposedly objective and definitive commentaries on the evolution of understanding that do not mention some telling lines in some of the most popular hymns. "Jesus once of humble birth, now in glory comes to earth, Once a meek and lowly lamb, now the LORD the Great I AM." and "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah, Jesus annointed that prophet and seer." Since these were composed by Parley P. Pratt at least 60 years before Jesus the Christ and the First Presidency Statement, it seems to me that some Latter-day Saint thinkers understood long before that. As to Psalm 110, it was a ritual Temple text, something to be performed, with layers of representation, of the LORD (who represents his Father, El Elyon, God Most High) speaking to the Melchizedek (where Melch Zedek means Righteous King) High Priest (often also the King), who represents the LORD in the Temple rituals). Also, Barker points out that in the New Testament, Jesus is always designated as the Son of El Elyon, and never the Son of Jehovah. He is recognized as LORD, not the son of the Lord. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

For the right questions and the best answer about the Bible, read this by Margaret Barker, "Text and Context", which tells the story of how we get the current canon. http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf Then read 1 Nephi 13. And also consider John Gee's chapter, "The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity" in Early Christians in Disarray. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/early-christians-disarray-contemporary-lds-perspectives-christian-apostasy And for afters, see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Do you understand the difference between normal science operating within the assumptions of a paradigm, and concious paradigm testing? Have read and understood The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I find specificity in which examples a person uses to generalize from is an essential starting point. I have actually read all of Nibley's Book of Abraham apologetics. He does not pretend that he does not have a point of view. He is explicit that he has a perspective, and that no one is required to uncritically accept his arguments, nor does he presume to offer the last word. Indeed, Will Schryver and Tim Barker have offered important observations that Nibley did not make. Nibley read Kuhn and understands paradigm debate. All Nibley was trying to do was to make an argument that belief in the Book of Abraham is reasonable. Not on the basis of objective proof that coerces belief or unbelief, but on the basis of broad explorations that in his view invite belief, and that have not in fact been fully accounted for by skeptics. I recently pointed to Jeff Lindsay's observations that Vogel's survey of Book of Abraham apologetics failed to mention or address One Eternal Round, Will Schryver's FAIR presentation, or Tim Barker's Under the Head presentation. Indeed, I have noticed and called out in print several critics of LDS claims for premature ideological dismissal of Latter-day Saint scholarship. All scholars begin with a perspective. Some have the self consciousness and wit to be self aware and self critical, and are willing to openly state that they have one. Some are so pleased to be able to state that other people have an ideology that they don't stop to reflect on the implications of their own I can think of some Latter-day Saint writers who do not consciously in engage in paradigm testing, but who just present their puzzle solutions as though final and indisputable. Not just believers in Historicity. McMurrin famously told Blake Ostler that "I learned when I was younger than I remember that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." In terms of conscious paradigm testing of Joseph Smith's claims, McMurrin produced nothing. He died before he could have read Brant Gardner's work, or that of Brian Stubbs, or Jerry Grover, or anything in the Interpreter, or the LiDar surveys, or my work on Barker. So "better" does not enter into it. The point is that I know many top Latter-day Saint scholars who are consciously participating in paradigm testing. Alan Goff, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Jeff Lindsay, and literally dozens of others, if not hundreds. The generalization you offer does not account for my personal experience and observation. Again, I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Notice that this generalizes about apologetics at such a high level of abstraction that no specifics are involved. It tells a story, a paradigm, a myth, as though it applies to every situation. And it also ignores what Kuhn explains is the difference between puzzle solving within a paradigm (without actually bothering to solve any specific puzzles, such as Hebrew festival patterns in Mosiah, Lehi's qasida, the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, Jerry Grover on New World geology, etc.), and paradigm testing using criteria that are not completely paradigm dependent. It is indeed a very clear example of ideological dismissal. I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. As Kuhn says, it makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two competing paradigms is better. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Antifa equals brown shirts? Really? This does not remind me of the thuggish 30s Brownshirts I know about. The media I watched reported on the 2020 BLM protests as mostly peaceful, not totally peaceful. There is a difference. A person can discuss Mountain Meadows as exceptional behavior or typical behavior. But to claim typical, we need to show that sort of thing happening everywhere all the time. It clearly doesn't. Something terrible happened in 1857, but it was exceptional, not typical. Not matter how many cameras are focused on a burning police car, and no matter how many channels show it burning how often, one car is still one car. Exceptions ought to be discussed as exceptional, addressing what went wrong in a particular instance. But establishing paradigms and controlling narratives via exceptions distorts vision and impedes understanding. You want a reference to the recent Presidential claim about the January 6 2021 assault on the Capitol. Okay. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-appears-forget-jan-6-144119251.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/president-2020-trump-gop-want-200551587.html ICE is deporting people without due process. Masked men grabbing people, including US citizens, without due process. ICE is grabbing people's friends and neighbors, fathers and mothers, people who contribute economically and socially to communities. (Think about the economic and social and diplomatic impacts of the ICE raid on a Georgia Hyundai factory.) ICE acts on Stephen Miller's Replacement Theory paranoia, not the ideals of the Statue of Liberty, nor the demands of Christianity, nor the founding story of this country as a nation of immigrants. "He doth execute the judgment (mishpat) for the orphan and the widow, and he loves the stranger and wants him to be provided with food and clothing. Therefore, you must do the same: love the stranger — remember that you too were strangers [and were oppressed] in the land of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 10:18–19). That is not a favorite scripture among Christian Nationalists. Nor is this one: "Whatsoever ye have done unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I see no scriptural or Constitutional charge to deport the stranger on principle without delay or weighing whether anything bad might happen to them or whether they actually do have legal grounds for being here or whether any legal issues could be resolved without disrupting lives and communities. No riots after the Charlie Kirk murder. True. Think about why not. His murder was not typical, but exceptional. The BLM protests happened because yet another killing of a black man happened on camera, accompanied by an initial false report of what happened. Not because something totally unprecedented happened. But because something terrible happened yet again in a public, recorded way that millions of people witnessed and deeply felt. Are you aware that from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to the 1950s, there was at least one extra-judicial, usually very public, lynching of a black man every week somewhere in the U.S.? And guess how often the perps were brought to account? The BLM protests did not happen in response to a one-off, or even relatively unusual exception. They happened because of how much had happened before and kept on happening again and again and again. One-off exceptions or occasional incidents, don't by their nature, set off long standing frustrations and long building anger. Reasonable shock and dismay, yes. "Trump fully supports the separation of powers between the three branches of government?" Trump throws public tantrums when the other branches don't give him what he wants. He belittles, bullies, and where he can eventually fires and replaces people who resist on constitutional and legal grounds till he gets done what he wants done, even when that requires placing in a high position someone whose only notable qualification for a job is unquestioning fealty and public subservience to Trump. We all just saw his Truth Social post demanding that the Attorney General prosecute and jail Comey and others. That evidence does not demonstrate his support for and respect of separation of powers. He talks like he would happily replace the Department of Justice and all law with himself at the head of a lynch mob. But he has helped negotiate in Israel. That counts. Not the only thing to consider, not by a long stretch, but it counts. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

No discussion of the point of Antifa. A definition of Fascism and a discussion of why Antifa might seem relevant in America today. Scapegoating, and presumed guilt by association, along with an assumed, not demonstrated, narrative regarding the protests after yet another black man was killed by police on camera. By far, most of the black lives matter protests and protesters in 2020 were non-violent. Paradigms are established and political narratives are controlled by means of which examples are taken as representative. Exceptions are, by definition, not representative. Lies are by definition not representative of reality. (Consider the recent presidential claim that Biden, though not yet president, sent FBI agents to instigate the Jan. 6th 2021 assault on the Capitol, and therefore Biden is to blame). Lies do not represent reality. Establishing paradigms by use of non-representative examples, is, by definition, a distortion. Statistically and factually, right-wing violence occurs far more often in the US than left-wing violence. Sure, one can find instances, but which are most representative versus, which can be exploited by powers that be to control a narrative? Fascism defined. Key characteristics of fascism include: Dictatorial leadership: Power is concentrated in a single leader who is presented as infallible. (Only I can save you.) Militarism and nationalism: It glorifies the military and prioritizes extreme, often exclusionary, nationalism. Suppression of opposition: Any form of dissent is violently suppressed, and basic human rights are disregarded. Belief in hierarchy: Fascism promotes a rigid social structure and the rule of elites, in opposition to democracy and liberalism. Scapegoating and victimization: It identifies internal and external "enemies" to unify the populace and focuses on a narrative of national decline or humiliation. Control of media: The government seeks to control mass media and promote myths and lies to control the narrative. Intertwined religion and government: In fascist states, government and religion are often merged, and business interests are protected. Glorification of violence: Violence is often glorified as a means of achieving national goals. Why does Glen Beck not bother to define and discuss fascism before setting out to discredit and demonize Antifa? What would happen to his message if he dared to do so? (Remember when Beck temporarily experimented with being critical of Trumpism? Was it good for his business? How did he respond to market pressure? I grew up with a copy of the book Profiles in Courage in my house. Now days, it is much easier to find Profiles in Spinelessness and Accommodation.) Is it possible to discuss the definition of fascism and then to explain current US politics as though none of this has any relevance? Is is possible to define fascism and then declare, there is no need for Antifa because fascism poses no real threat to US democracy? Are the No Kings protests this Saturday a manifestation of terrorism or patriotism? FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Yes, but Hubner's story happened in far off Nazi Germany in the 1940s. What possible relevance could it have in an America that is, by the convenient doctrine of ideological exceptionalism, exceptional in all ways and therefore should never be criticized, and has Democratically elected leaders who are necessarily exceptional and moral and above reproach, never ever behave or speak or act like those terrible fascists in 30s and 40s Germany and Italy, except according to the dictionary and history, which, as George Orwell reminded us, does not matter in the least, because, "Who reads Orwell?" Clearly not the President! I am only glad my father died before I, as a loyal American would have to report him as being in a formal Antifa organization, in the 813th Tank Destroyer Battalion, attached to the 34th Infantry Division in North Africa, engaged in unquestioned Antifa activities, and then, attached to the 79th Infantry Division engaged in more Antifa activities through Normandy, the Breakout and drive towards Paris, up through Belgium, down to the 7th Army and the Voges campaign, and then the terrible Nordwind battles at Hatten and Ritterschoffen, and finally, attached to the 101st Airborne for more Antifa activities into Austria and Berchtesgaden. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Besides Steve Smoot, Jeff Lindsay also provided an important response to Vogel's take on Book of Abraham apologetics. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-abraham-polemics-dan-vogels-broad-critique-of-the-defense-of-the-book-of-abraham/ The abstract has this: For a specific example of neglect: Besides ignoring One Eternal Round, Vogel also does not mention Tim Barker's revolutionary FAIR Presentation “Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads.” Barker shows that Joseph Smith directed Reuben Hedlock to fill in gaps in Facsimile 2 with characters from the Hor Book of Breathings and in the published facsimiles declares that he has not translated those characters, a significant obstacle for the long standing claim that Joseph Smith mistakenly thought or fraudulently claimed that he had translated the Book of Abraham from the Hor Book of Breathings. Vogel also fails to mention or engage Will Schryver's FAIR Presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian papers as an attempt to create a cypher, rather than a dubious approach to translation. At the end of his long response, Lindsay reports that: FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT