PacMan

If the attorneys did not undertake a reasonable inquiry of the facts asserted, then the Court could sanction both Huntsman and their attorneys for fees and costs. If the Church's denials are true (e.g. regarding the frequency and amount of Huntsman's tithing, as well as the use of funds for the mall, etc.), then that means Huntsman flat lied. The Court should absolutely sanction Huntsman.

I think it's pretty obvious what the Church is doing. The Church is calling out James Huntsman and exposing him--not only as being petulant but also, dishonest. This isn't a door the Church would open, but it's very clear they are doubling down on their version of the facts. They're about to slam the door in Huntsman's face. This could go very badly for both Huntsman and his attorneys.

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.

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' attempted translation in the KEP equate the same number of characters to English words (contrary to the three manuscripts with hieratic). But that's about it. That's the extent of Champollion's impact on the BoA and KEP. And that's important because the BoA was a purely revelatory work. Champollion had nothing to do with it. Nor did he have any place to have anything to do with it. Well, other than to give every motive not to fake a "translation," as we use the term today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 just how wrong they are.

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 truth.” The problem with this statement, is that is based on lazy supposition. In fact, it is demonstrably wrong. And little effort is all that is needed to prove it. America broadly knew of Champollion in the 1820s -- AND the phonetic nature of Egyptian. Let me say this again. Not only was Champollion widely known, but the nature of Egyptian was also widely known prior to 1830. You're going to have to wait for me to finish writing my own presentation. But I'll offer a few details. Champollion was known from Virginia to Delaware, from Alabama, to even Palmyra, New York and Honolulu, Hawaii. Yes, Hawaii. All these sources are prior to the publication of the Book of Abraham. It's important to understand, that without his decipherment, Champollion means very little. But even if that were not the case, I have a host of examples that show that Champollion was not only widely known, but so was the concept that he could actually read Egyptian. I will offer two: And all this is 1829! I should note, that The North American Review ran many, many stories on Champollion. The idea that Bradish, Mitchell, or Anthon hadn't heard about Champollion by 1828 (and his decipherment) is flat silly. In fact, I have a New York publication from 1826 that states, that Champollion "soon found that these phonetic characters were much more extensively employed than had been at first apprehended . . . The hieroglyphic alphabet discovered by the author . . . The discovery of this phonetic alphabet is . . . The Egyptian employed it in every epoch to represent the articulate sounds of their spoken language." The case is closed. Vogel's argument simply lacks credibility. Ritner, Vogel, and their ilk do a great disservice to those of the early 19th Century. Our predecessors were much more sophisticated in their dissemination of knowledge than either Ritner or Vogel would like to admit. In fact, I have another article that evidences information regarding Champollion made it from London to the American presses within 1 months time. Information was shared, and it was shared very quickly. Vogel and Ritner are simply wrong. Now, the real question is: If Joseph Smith (and his associates) knew of Champollion and his decipherment of Egyptian, what were they (whoever "they" are) doing with the hieratic in the column adjacent to the BoA manuscript? There's an answer to that as well, but it'll have to wait....

He alleged that he was devout. His words. Not mine. He’s stuck.

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 this case completely frivolous. The church should move for summary judgment on (a), (d), and (e) and make Huntsman pony up his evidence. Just for fun.

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.

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.

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.