Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[William Schryver]

MM:

Are you saying he was speechless when Lloyd's article came out?

You know, John and I had lunch together today, and I mentioned to him how you've been on this kick lately to misrepresent, every opportunity you get, his 2009 FAIR conference remarks. Of course, knowing his views regarding the Book of Abraham as well as I do, I understood what he had to say in an entirely different light than the one you (and many of your "brothers-in-arms") are wont to shine upon the question. And, as Scott Lloyd and many others have demonstrated in the chorus of replies to your incessant misrepresentations, they also failed to take from John's remarks the meaning that you now insist on attaching to them.

Has it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, it is you who have failed to comprehend what was really meant, or is the real purpose of this crusade of yours actually a cynical effort to persuade the unsuspecting that, in fact, LDS apologia is seeking to "downgrade" or entirely "de-canonize" the Book of Abraham?

Frankly, I suspect it is the latter; that you hope, by your propaganda campaign, to persuade a few people to regard LDS apologia as the enemy of their faith, rather than a defender thereof. It is an instinctive understanding of every apostate evangelist that it is much easier to dislodge the faith of those who regard LDS folk beliefs as "the gospel," and therefore they do all they can to exalt those folk beliefs and stamp them with the imprimatur of "true Mormonism."

[Mortal Man]

What he's trying to say, as best I can interpret, is that you are attempting, with the wave a magisterial hand, to dismiss the genuine concerns and sincerely held beliefs of an imaginary group of people he identifies in a fashion equivalent to Dr. Shades's "chapel mormons," or in other words "truthseekers" who, confronted by doubt-inducing information, have consulted FARMS and/or FAIR for solace, only to have their doubts and fears confirmed and their prior beliefs ridiculed by the evil kingdom of LDS apologetics.

Will, you are a great communicator; Ronald Reagan would be proud.

Incidentally, did I mention how much I enjoyed your piece on spiritual cynicism the other day at the GSTP?

If religion is the opiate of the masses, then spiritual cynicism is the opiate of the faithless--especially the LDS apostate who has chosen to willingly yield himself to the vicious dictates of the natural man. And yet, notwithstanding its having long-since lost its capacity to produce in its victims any sense of satisfaction whatsoever, they continue to shoot it in their veins with famished abandon.

I really like the "shoot it in their veins" imagery, man that's some gripping stuff. Perhaps you should consider turning your talents to poetry, rather than wasting your gift of rhetoric on faithless critics.

[William Schryver]

MM:

Perhaps you should consider turning your talents to poetry, rather than wasting your gift of rhetoric on faithless critics.

You mean like this:

Killing Crows

He

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, I fixed the typo, are you happy now?

I've always been happy.

But I continue to wonder what in the world you think you're claiming, and why you're claiming it. I understand that you're attempting to blacken my character, but, beyond that, your position is largely opaque.

After re-reviewing the article I can see your point.

Which, being interpreted, is a confession that, intending to portray me negatively, you severely misrepresented the article.

Very bad form.

Are you saying he was speechless when Lloyd's article came out?

I'm unaware of his having commented on Scott Lloyd's article.

Your attempt to portray FARMS director Andrew Skinner as the polar opposite of . . . FARMS [!] is, to put it gently, ludicrous and in utter conflict with reality, however consistent it may be with your overall agenda.

Thanks for making me smile after a long hard day.

It's surely a blessing to you that you're able to face being completely and slanderously wrong with such equanimity.

Judging from your performance on this thread, I would guess that you need to draw on that blessing pretty frequently.

[Mortal Man]

MM:

You know, John and I had lunch together today, and I mentioned to him how you've been on this kick lately to misrepresent, every opportunity you get, his 2009 FAIR conference remarks. Of course, knowing his views regarding the Book of Abraham as well as I do, I understood what he had to say in an entirely different light than the one you (and many of your "brothers-in-arms") are wont to shine upon the question. And, as Scott Lloyd and many others have demonstrated in the chorus of replies to your incessant misrepresentations, they also failed to take from John's remarks the meaning that you now insist on attaching to them.

I would have preferred that you had given my best regards to Prof. Gee.

Has it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, it is you who have failed to comprehend what was really meant, or is the real purpose of this crusade of yours actually a cynical effort to persuade the unsuspecting that, in fact, LDS apologia is seeking to "downgrade" or entirely "de-canonize" the Book of Abraham?

I

[Mortal Man]

MM:

You mean like this:

(The song can be heard at the link provided in my sig line.)

I like it; it's dark and disturbing and offers me another glimpse into your soul. And I've always wanted to be a crow.

[Mortal Man]

I continue to wonder what in the world you think you're claiming, and why you're claiming it.

I thought Will explained it pretty well.

I understand that you're attempting to blacken my character, but, beyond that, your position is largely opaque.

To slightly misquote the late great Prof. Harold Hill, "Son, this is your character. Cherish it. No one can blacken it except yourself."

Which, being interpreted, is a confession that, intending to portray me negatively, you severely misrepresented the article.

Very bad form.

If, by providing a convenient link such that anyone can easily read the entire article for himself, I have "misrepresented" your article, I apologize.

I'm unaware of his having commented on Scott Lloyd's article.

So, in addition to being speechless, he was entirely at a loss for words? Interesting.

Your attempt to portray FARMS director Andrew Skinner as the polar opposite of . . . FARMS [!] is, to put it gently, ludicrous and in utter conflict with reality, however consistent it may be with your overall agenda.

Except that we're talking about a FAIR presentation. As you have so frequently and abundantly made clear, FAIR and FARMS (more accurately, the Maxwell Institute) are not the same thing.

[justdreamin]

I am admittedly out of my league here, but refering back to the OP, I have wondered on more than an occasion about the usual barrage of questions from critics, having to do with the BoA, and what the simple answer is to each question. if there is one. I know that there are seemingly works without end on the subject, but I wonder if there are simple answers to these questions. These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

If the BoA was not really written by Abraham's own hand, and is not 4000 years old, why is it not more clear? Many quotes can be found where Joseph is said to tell people that the symbols are written by Abraham, his signature, by his hand, etc. I'm sure everyone has seem them. What is the explanation to this?

What is the explanation of the anachronisms Chaldeans, Potiphar, Pharaoh, Egyptus, etc?

If Joseph did not actually use the papyri, but received the book by revelation, why did he bother to fill in the missing parts of facsimile 1 and 2 and/or include them in the final published work?

a. The parts he filled in did not belong where he put it and was copied from other parts of the scroll. Is this correct?

b. Why bother working out an alphabet and grammar for the translation?

c. If he didn't use the alphabet and grammar and didn't actually translate the characters, why make diary entries about working on

the translation from the alphabet and grammar?

There is a quote from H. Nibley saying that the alphabet and grammar contain all the symbols for the book of Abraham and were present on something called the "sensen" scroll. If you don't know it, I can find it. This theory IIRC has been discredited. Are both parts of this statement correct?

Starting with President McKay, why have the seers of the Church remained mostly silent about the papyri while scholars and apologists seem to have written volumes?

Do you think the majority of members of the Church think that Abraham actually wrote on the scrolls Joseph obtained? Does it matter?

Thank you in advance to anyone who replies.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would have preferred that you had given my best regards to Prof. Gee.

It seems, Will, that MM is rather less complacent about having his falsehoods exposed than he lets on.

I thought Will explained it pretty well.

Ah. Then it's simply another one of your anonymous, public, slanderous false accusations.

I see.

To slightly misquote the late great Prof. Harold Hill, "Son, this is your character. Cherish it. No one can blacken it except yourself."

And, I gather, you've taken that on as a goal for yourself? (I must say that you're succeeding rather well, at least in my judgment.)

Your casual pretense that there is no such thing as character assassination probably salves your conscience a bit, I suppose.

If, by providing a convenient link such that anyone can easily read the entire article for himself, I have "misrepresented" your article, I apologize.

Oh yes. The rhetorical faux apology.

LOL. No, poor fellow, by providing a convenient link such that anyone can easily read the entire article for himself, you demonstrated the sloppy and unethical way in which you misrepresented the article.

So, in addition to being speechless, he was entirely at a loss for words? Interesting.

No, bizarre. Your penchant for brazenly distorting what people write -- and for doing so in a manner that is transparently easy to detect -- is extremely odd.

Except that we're talking about a FAIR presentation. As you have so frequently and abundantly made clear, FAIR and FARMS (more accurately, the Maxwell Institute) are not the same thing.

And yet Professor Gee is, as he was introduced at the FAIR symposium as being, an employee of the Maxwell Institute and a very easily recognized representative of FARMS.

Your ridiculous attempt to illustrate your pretended dichotomy between the Maxwell Institute and FARMS, on the one hand, and, on the other, the mainstream membership of the Church by summoning up my friend Andy Skinner -- until his recent year of teaching in Jerusalem a member of the FARMS board of directors and then the executive director of both FARMS and the Maxwell Institute -- as the archetypal opposition to FARMS and the Maxwell Institute is manifestly absurd.

[Deborah]

Pres. Uchtdorf said the following in the November 2009 Ensign:

For members of the Church, education is not merely a good idea

[William Schryver]

justdreamin:

Many quotes can be found where Joseph is said to tell people that the symbols are written by Abraham, his signature, by his hand, etc. I'm sure everyone has seem them. What is the explanation to this?

I am well aware of the

[wenglund]

Wade, because I like you so much and want you to succeed with your amusing manipulation tactics...

Less defensive people wouldn't consider as "manipulative" my reasonable investigative question or my genuine acceptance of your apparrent need to side-step my question.

I'll go ahead and answer your questions, even though (A) I'd rather hear more from mathilde and (B) you really ought to avail yourself of the wholesome family entertainment I provided.

The only real shocks for me were the over-the-top ad hominem attacks in FARMS review articles. These pieces in particular nearly gave me a heart attack.

That is interesting, but not relevant to the specific question that I asked (which, in case it may have slipped your mind while you were busy evading my question, is: "In terms of your OP [particularly members supposedly being shocked to read that Abraham obviously didn't pen the Papyri], why do you suppose you personally were "shocked" while many of us LDS here...weren't disturbed by the FAIR and FARMS and Ensign articles in the least?"--emphasis added for you benefit.).

To use your own words, "you ought to avail yourself of" some elementary reading comprehension courses so as to learn the difference between a specific question and an irrelevant answer.

Care to try again answering the specific question I actually asked?

I

[William Schryver]

To the extent that FARMS/FAIR are advocating thoughts and beliefs that are inconsistent with those held by a considerable number of Latter-day Saints, then it is most definitely a good thing that the beliefs of those Saints be shaken and shattered, and then rebuilt, if possible, upon a firmer foundation than the vagaries of uncertain traditions and baseless folklore.

While it is absolutely true that FARMS and FAIR do not speak for the church, nor is the entirety of their published content 100% accurate, the overwhelming majority of the perspectives and findings appearing in the publications of those two organizations is entirely consistent with orthodox Mormonism in every appreciable respect. As well they should be, FARMS and FAIR are closely monitored and, to date, I trust there has been very little cause for concern in the eyes of those entrusted with the leadership of the church. Indeed, it is a unique and impressive aspect of Mormonism that an organization like FAIR can even exist, not to mention prosper! It is run by volunteers drawn from the

[justdreamin]

I am well aware of the

[Mortal Man]

If the BoA was not really written by Abraham's own hand, and is not 4000 years old, why is it not more clear?

The Brethren are reluctant to change the BoA introduction or provide any hint of this in the manuals for fear of startling the members. It would be counterproductive of them to call attention to troubling issues that most people are content to ignore. I am not being critical here because this is precisely the approach I

[Mortal Man]

It seems, Will, that MM is rather less complacent about having his falsehoods exposed than he lets on.

I just don't see the need for Will to continually trash me behind my back to someone whom I'd hoped to work with on the length issue.

Ah. Then it's simply another one of your anonymous, public, slanderous false accusations.

And, I gather, you've taken that on as a goal for yourself? (I must say that you're succeeding rather well, at least in my judgment.)

Your casual pretense that there is no such thing as character assassination probably salves your conscience a bit, I suppose.

Oh yes. The rhetorical faux apology.

LOL. No, poor fellow, by providing a convenient link such that anyone can easily read the entire article for himself, you demonstrated the sloppy and unethical way in which you misrepresented the article.

No, bizarre. Your penchant for brazenly distorting what people write -- and for doing so in a manner that is transparently easy to detect -- is extremely odd.

Did you get enough sleep last night? Are you still suffering jet lag or camel lag or whatever it is they contract over in Turkey? I think it's unfair of you to criticize me in such a harsh manner, seeing that while you were sipping goat milk on the shores of the Black Sea, I was defending your crocodile article against the likes of Brent Metcalfe.

Your ridiculous attempt to illustrate your pretended dichotomy between the Maxwell Institute and FARMS, on the one hand, and, on the other, the mainstream membership of the Church by summoning up my friend Andy Skinner -- until his recent year of teaching in Jerusalem a member of the FARMS board of directors and then the executive director of both FARMS and the Maxwell Institute -- as the archetypal opposition to FARMS and the Maxwell Institute is manifestly absurd.

It would have been better to say,

[justdreamin]

The Brethren are reluctant to change the BoA introduction or provide any hint of this in the manuals for fear of startling the members. It would be counterproductive of them to call attention to troubling issues that most people are content to ignore. I am not being critical here because this is precisely the approach I

[Daniel Peterson]

I just don't see the need for Will to continually trash me behind my back to someone whom I'd hoped to work with on the length issue.

I have no idea who or what you're talking about.

But you're an odd one to lament somebody's "trashing" you. That's what you've been doing to me pretty consistently in this thread.

Did you get enough sleep last night?

As a matter of fact, no. I didn't.

Are you still suffering jet lag or camel lag or whatever it is they contract over in Turkey?

Yes.

I think it's unfair of you to criticize me in such a harsh manner

You deserve criticism, both for your eagerness to traffick in falsehoods and misrepresentations and for your unwarranted personal hostility.

seeing that while you were sipping goat milk on the shores of the Black Sea, I was defending your crocodile article against the likes of Brent Metcalfe.

I don't monitor your activities, and certainly wasn't doing so from the Black Sea.

Anyway -- I've taken a look at your link -- baselessly accusing me (yet again) of disingenuousness doesn't merit any gratitude on my part.

It would have been better to say,

[Greg Smith]

I

[Greg Smith]

I thought Wiki Wonka was Greg Smith. Now I'm confused.

Greg Smith and Wiki Wonka are both recognized sock puppets of Scott Gordon, who is (remember) a front for the Oaks Faction.

You can't tell the players without a scorecard, it seems.

GLS/WW/SG/OF

[Mortal Man]

To use your own words, "you ought to avail yourself of" some elementary reading comprehension courses so as to learn the difference between a specific question and an irrelevant answer.

This sort of invective is hardly necessary. Your question is a non sequitur and I answered it as best I could.

"In terms of your OP [particularly members supposedly being shocked to read that Abraham obviously didn't pen the Papyri], why do you suppose you personally were "shocked" while many of us LDS here...weren't disturbed by the FAIR and FARMS and Ensign articles in the least?"--emphasis added for you benefit.).

As far as my limited reading comprehension enables me to ascertain, your question assumes that: (1) I was shocked in the same manner as the hypothetical people in my OP and (2) my shockedness stands in contradistinction to the reactions of normal LDS people such as yourself. Since (2) depends on (1) and (1) constitutes a false premise (as I previously explained but which you judged "irrelevant"), it's hard to see how to proceed from here. Perhaps you could break your question down into short easily-digestible pieces to accomodate my limited comprehension.

[wenglund]

Based on my recent informal survey, I would say that very few of the Saints have ever even pondered the question. Nor do I think it matters to the overwhelming majority of them. Their beliefs are not related to such considerations. In fact, neither are mine.

For those who "get" what the restored gospel is really about, this is as it should be. The value of the BoA within the restored gospel rest in the part it plays in advancing the four-fold mission of the church and enabling people to become more like Christ. If only the critics could understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

But you're an odd one to lament somebody's "trashing" you. That's what you've been doing to me pretty consistently in this thread.

True, but I've been doing it in front of your back.

As a matter of fact, no. I didn't.

In that case then please accept my sincere wish for a good night's sleep and a return to full health.

I can see that many of my comments in this thread have not come off in the manner in which I intended and for that I apologize.

I hope that sometime in the near future you'll inform us concerning your recent adventures. I for one would like to hear about the places you visited and the things you taught your travel group.

[justdreamin]

For those who "get" what the restored gospel is really about, this is as it should be. The value of the BoA within the restored gospel rest in the part it plays in advancing the four-fold mission of the church and enabling people to become more like Christ. If only the critics could understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How can you expect critics to understand this if even "regular" LDS, such as myself, don't? If the value of the BoA is limited to advancing the mission of the church, as you state, then why all the hubbub and hoop-la about the papyrus and how or if it was translated? Why the voluminous explanations and conferences and measuring and discourse by apologists and such? Why not just leave it alone and be like the majority of members who don

[Mortal Man]

I have repeatedly offered to correct anything in the FAIR wiki that is ad hominem or inaccurate. I have made this offer to many a critic and "anti-apologist" who has assured me that FAIR does little than traffic in ad hominem and abuse.

And yet, strangely, despite this offer, no such examples have been brought to my attention.

So, please find the most eggregious examples of ad hominem in the FAIR wiki, and bring them to our attention. They will be fixed.

Since this is the "primary purpose," you shouldn't have any difficulty finding examples.

Thanks,

Greg Smith

FAIR wiki managing editor

http://en.fairmormon.org

If you'll review my original answer to Wade's question, you'll see that I deliberately left FAIR out of my response, even though he asked me about both FAIR and FARMS. I do not view the FAIR wiki as gratuitously polemical.

On the other hand, I stand by my assertion that the primary purpose of both FAIR and FARMS is to discredit the critics (this is not the same as "ad hominem and abuse").

For example, take the FAIR article I previously linked to. The whole narrative is constructed around the following central points (which are patently false):

"Some internet critics have recently claimed, based on measurements made of the papyri from photographs, that this calculated size is too large. That they would want to deny that there is a large amount of text unaccounted for his understandable, since they cannot then claim that we have the papyrus from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, which does not match the Egyptological translation of it."

"Critics have thus far not challenged the formula itself, either because if they understand math they can verify its correctness, or if they do not they are incapable of correcting it."

"Critics who have challenged the conclusions I have drawn have done so only on the basis of the photographs found in Chuck Larson's book."

"If the critics were honest they would simply say that the length of the scroll does not prove that the Book of Abraham was on it."