Jump to content

PacMan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

408 Excellent

About PacMan

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,649 profile views
  1. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Maybe. Maybe not. My point is, that Champollion was widely known and still had no bearing on the "translation" process, because the "translation" was revelatory.
  2. Not quite. What you actually say is: "What do you think? Is there any evidence that knowledge or the lack of knowledge of Champollion’s work impacted the production of the Book of Abraham & the KEP?" And the answer is, Champollion was so well-known by the time the Book of Abraham was published that he had minimal to no impact--at all. This is important. Joseph and his scribes knew that Egyptian read right to left. Where'd they get (guess) that from? Likely Champollion. And, they also knew that the hieroglyphics did not produce large swaths of text, which explains why W.W. Phelps'
  3. CA Steve, I'm really hoping that you'll respond to my post. Or better yet, get Vogel or Ritner to do it. I'll also accept John Dehlin or Bill Reel. Come to think of it, I'd be charmed to have Sandra Tanner show up.... Truth be told, I've got fingers crossed for James Huntsman's arrival. Just say'n.
  4. Then the Church wins. If the Church can make whatever budgets and policies it wants, then Huntsman merely relied on the fact that the Church can do whatever the Church wants with its tithing funds. Case closed.
  5. No, no, no. He's the one claiming devoutness. If he's devout, he paid as an act of faith--not reliance on a misrepresentation. Said another way, if he truly paid in reliance of statements made as to the funds' uses, then he wasn't really devout. Huntsman can't have it both ways. By calling himself devout, he already painted himself into a corner.
  6. ABSOLUTELY! Once Huntsman claims devoutness, then the court has to inquire into the nature of tithing for fraud. But they can't do that, because tithing is a matter of faith. In other words, by claiming devoutness, Huntsman admits that he did not reasonably rely on any statement of anyone about the funds' particular uses. Rather, he did it as a principle of faith. And because that's the case, there can be no fraud (which requires an element of reasonable (or justifiable) reliance). He's absolutely killed his own case.
  7. I'll also say, that for 20+ years, the BoA has been the one troublesome part of the Church that I never felt that I could adequately explain. The BoA has tested many testimonies. Unfortunately, many of them have faltered. That changed the past few years. I find Tim Barker's work absolutely devastating to the antagonists, and in conjunction with Lindsay and many others, puts the critical view on its heals--much more so than the apologists. There is still a lot we don't know. But, we do know that the critics are wrong. And their (Vogel's) new strategy of simply ignoring arguments shows
  8. Vogel is about a decade behind the scholarship. I don't say that rudely. But it's the truth. He relies on the old-worn (and completely incorrect) argument of antagonist Egyptologist, Robert Ritner: “In the 1840’s in the United States the ancient Egyptian language was virtually unknown. It had only been deciphered beginning in 1822 and that knowledge had simply had not crossed the Atlantic. So that almost any interpretation given to an Egyptian document in 1842 or 45, or 50, or even 1860 would have been believable to a general audience who’d have no way of comparing it with the actual
  9. He alleged that he was devout. His words. Not mine. He’s stuck.
  10. The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974. You can’t argue fraud when it comes to tithing because it’s an act of faith—not reliance. Huntsman’s complaint should be dead in the water. The fact that the church has asked for tithes many decades before any of these representations were reportedly made renders t
  11. I have it on good authority that the IRS laughed at the complaint. The IRS has gotten burned when challenging churches. There’s no way they want to take on the Church based on the publicized facts. It’s not even close.
  12. And it’s time the church starts countersuing and/or moving for fees and costs. The American legal system encourages frivolous actions. If there’s a legitimate case against the church, so be it. The church has and will makes mistakes. And it should be libel for those costs. But in the face of frivolous filings, sanctions against a plaintiff and his attorneys are appropriate. I’m still waiting (hoping) for the church to sue the so-called whistleblower and his brother.
  13. Sadly, I was being civil.... After all, calling him “creatine” isn’t a personal attack. He probably works out. It’s not like I called him a “cretin” or something particularly rude.
  14. Sorry, but that bridged was crossed when Jimmy Huntsman filed a frivolous lawsuit based on personal (and demonstrably dishonest) grounds. There’s very little to attack but him, because his allegations are all about....him. He’s a loser because his case is a loser. He’s disingenuous because, as I’ve noted, his self-characterization as devote is dishonest. John Sr. would be rolling in his grave to think he’s financed this apostate son’s hit job.
  15. Huntsman is a disingenuous loser. On one hand, he says he was among the most devout members. Then he says he wouldn’t have contributed tithes if he had known the “true purpose.” Well, if he was truly devout then he would have paid his tithing either way. There can be no reliance on the stated purpose of the funds if the giving was as a demonstration of faith. This case should be dismissed. There is a complete lack of particularity. For example, what did statements in 2012 have to do with contributions given in 1993? Sorry - no causation, no case. The only fraud here is the creatine,
×
×
  • Create New...