Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. Are you precisely sure that's how they'd frame it? Also known as scholastic humility.
  2. Except that he's like the only person I know of that has a problem with Rhodes' translation. Rhodes' translation of the papyri is otherwise highly regarded. It looks like he's seeing shadows whenever he even vaguely glances in the direction of a Mormon, which doesn't bode well for his commentary.
  3. Wishes are for horses and "thought of" ultimately equates to "didn't." This doesn't do anything to lessen the impression that Ritner is an excellent Egyptologist with an anti-Mormon chip in his shoulder so big that Khufu modeled his Pyramid on it.
  4. I'm watching Mark Ashhurst-McGee's speech at FairMormon right now and it demonstrates pretty aptly why Dehlin's reservoir of credibility has been pretty exhausted. I highly recommend it.
  5. It appears to already have numbers on it, and also the priest is standing on the other side of the lion couch as opposed to in-between the kion couch and the legs of Abraham. We're probably looking at a print of the Hedlock reconstruction.
  6. I'd give you rep points if I could, but I can't, so this will have to do.
  7. May I offer a friendly critique about the parallels from the second conspiracy? 1. "The second conspiracy was carried out by people associated with the first." This is true. I would say the central character of Helaman 1-2 is neither Gadianton nor Helaman III, who only appear in the second chapter. Nor is it any of the sons of Pahoran or the Lamanites. Rather, I'd say it's Kishkumen the assassin, the bridge between the events. Gadianton only comes on the scene in time for the second conspiracy, as is made clear by Helaman 2:4. It's a bit of a complication to the parallel but not too big.
  8. The charity floweth from your judgement as milk and honey in Eden.
  9. I can't speak about Ritner's case. All I can say is, tough. Clearly it hasn't imperiled his work. As for Baer's observation, I don't think it's particularly incriminating. Correct me if I"m wrong, but that just means that the lacunae were already missing when the papyri were glued to the backing. That's not really incriminating. They could have flaked off in the intervening period between their transfer from Chandler to Smith and their backing on paper. In fact, it makes sense, as the deterioration of the papyri would provide an excellent motivation for putting them on backing paper.
  10. Is that a reconstruction of JSP Facsimile 1 or a separate instance put forward by Ritner?
  11. This is essentially untrue. It is Dehlin who asks the questions and curates the discussion. He decides the table rules and what makes it on air. That's like saying that a debate has zilch to do with the moderator. I also love the appeal to authority inherent in your "actual expert in the room" shtick. Nibley didn't have a degree in Egyptology but to say he was uninformed is laughable. If an accredited degree is the only thing that can confer upon one the dignity of "expert", then you've just turned it into a pay-to-play scheme undeserving of particular respect. Dan Vogel only has a B.A.
  12. Depends on the jury. Isn't the point of having a jury that people look at things in different ways, can see the same things and come to different conclusions? That's why there's 12 of them, not just 1. There's a whole phase of a trial process called jury selection, where the lawyers filter the jurors prior to empanelation to ensure that the jury will be more likely to hear their case fairly/favorably. You, as a juror, might side with the prosecution. Others, like Kevin Christensen, might see things differently. Now, as to what Bro. Christensen said: the fact that you think there's nothin
  13. If so, these are going to be some crazy years coming up. Then again, we're pretty sure they will be anyway.
  14. If you don't care about your credibility, how do you presume to get your views across?
  15. Perhaps so. I don't think EModE proves divine provenance but I think it substantially weakens the case for Smithian authorship. That's the long and the short of it.
  16. Where's the conflict? Linguistic analysis can speak to whether or not EModE is in the BoM but the reasons why have to be left to the theorists. Is there something wrong with this?
  17. Conclusions derived from mathematics are still observations, the knowledge is just derived via inferential means and is therefore a degree removed.
  18. Testing and observation can only demonstrate which potentialities are realized and available for observation, not the whole extent of the field of possibilities. Science does not have the tools to perform the maneuver you request.
  19. This is not substantiated by the data. One of the major elements of Carmack's research is comparison of the Book of Mormon with other works that seek to emulate KJV language. These authors were certainly exposed to the KJV and Shakespeare but the Book of Mormon is far more archaic in nature. Rudimentary understanding is not sufficient to account for the Book's higher archaism. Sophisticated stylometry has been done on the Book of Mormon. Cumulative results are inconclusive, though the most rigorous and recent study, to my knowledge, indicates the Book was written by multiple authors and
  20. This conviction is not shared. This seems to be the whole extent of the disagreement.
  21. That horse has been whipped raw, man.
  22. A number of reasons. A) Joseph Smith never wrote to us 21st-century Mormons who've come out of Primary and youth programs thinking that everything contained in Joseph's revelations must have come sui generis from the hand of God. He wrote and spoke to his contemporaries. On the contrary, the God that Joseph and his contemporaries worship is the same God who says: Bear in mind that these same people who Joseph was talking to were entirely unfazed by the relationship between Masonry and the temple. They just had different ideas about what prophetic authority meant and where truth co
  • Create New...