Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, since you refuse to watch the Brady Bunch episode, I will tell you that those weren't my exact words.

They're a direct quotation from you.

I hardly think that your sample is either "representative" or "random" unless you can tell me what random number generator you used and how you chose your initial seed. Nevertheless, I'll grant that, after combing through decades of FARMS publications, you've managed to come up with 21 publications that don't appear to attack anyone in particular.

MM: "Most water on Earth is salty."

DCP: "Can you point to substantial evidence for salt in my swimming pool?"

I can easily find twenty-one more, and twenty-one beyond those, and yet another twenty-one beyond those.

The effort seems a bit pointless, I admit, since (a) the falsehood of your claim is transparently obvious and (b) you're apparently determined to persist in it, but I can easily locate a substantial number of additional illustrations. It will simply make the emptiness of your accusation all the more painfully obvious.

Actually, I recall in your video about Lehi's journey through Arabia several statements that began with something like, "What critics don't get is..." I don't consider these statements gratuitously polemical or even mildly polemical but they belie an underlying agenda.

They most definitely do belie the underlying agenda that you attribute to us. (You use that word belie. I do not think it means what you think.)

Your vaguely remembered examples (perhaps accurately recalled, perhaps not; I couldn't say) come nowhere near demonstrating that discrediting critics or gratuitous polemics is a primary characteristic of the two Journey of Faith films.

Do you even try to get things right? Or does accuracy simply not matter to you when your quarry is in your cross hairs?

Well, okay, sure, I do seem to recall a few statements of yours in the past wherein you acknowledged that apologists don't have all the answers. I'll grant you this one minor point, since you're so far behind.

Lame jokes aren't going to save you. And your multiple distortions and falsehoods haven't done you much good, either.

There's a lesson in that. You could see it quite easily, if you would just open your eyes.

[William Schryver]

MM:

You continue to conflate me with your longstanding adversaries in the GSTP. I have never ever disparaged Prof. Gee. Never. Not once.

More likely I

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh, what the heck. Here, without his having even asked, because I'm feeling generous, are twenty-one more specimens of FARMS publishing. I invite MM to demonstrate that any of these, let alone a significant proportion of them, are disgraced with "gratuitous polemics" or dedicated primarily to discrediting critics:

Daniel C. Peterson.

[Mortal Man]

They most definitely do belie the underlying agenda that you attribute to us. (You use that word belie. I do not think it means what you think.)

Now I'm getting tired.

"...but they belie an underlying agenda your ostensible purpose."

There, is that better?

I'll give you another point here, so congratulations, you now have, hang on a sec.... ah yes, a grand total of 2 points!

[Daniel Peterson]

Now I'm getting tired.

"...but they belie an underlying agenda your ostensible purpose."

There, is that better?

No. It's just a more clear expression of the brazen falsehood you intended to assert.

I'll give you another point here, so congratulations, you now have, hang on a sec.... ah yes, a grand total of 2 points!

I've provided you with forty-two examples of FARMS publications that cannot plausibly be characterized as primarily focused on discrediting critics and cannot plausibly be described as "gratuitously [nor even non-gratuitously] polemical."

I could supply the same number many times over again.

But there's really little point. Your casual slanderousness and shameless mendacity render you not worth the effort. You're not serious. You resort to lame attempts at humor, but persist in your falsehoods and your (stunningly incompetent) attempts at character assassination.

[Pahoran]

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.

Thank you, JD, for this convenient catalogue of standard anti-Mormon talking points.

Here we are treated to the fascinating spectacle of a "regular member" who has all sorts of obscure quotes at her fingertips but who is blissfully unaware of the fact that none of our ancient Scriptures -- not Genesis, not Exodus, not Jude, not Revelation, not 1 Nephi, not Moroni, nor any other -- derives from now-extant autographic sources.

(And in this case, I am doing something I almost never do: I am using terms like "none" in a mathematically precise way, and not in the ordinary conversational way. Let Mike "Broken" Reed, Alf "the Alien" O'Mega, or anyone else who wants to take me to task for "speaking in absolutes" have at it.)

You see, I really am a regular member. Like most "regular members," I do not have a handful of convenient anti-Mormon 3x5 cards ready to throw in anyone's face; instead, I do know that (1) none of our ancient Scriptures have extant autographic sources, and (2) the Church has never pointed out the unique status of the Book of Abraham in being an exception to that rule.

Something it must have done if at any time the J.S. Papyri were thought to be the autographs of Abraham.

The fact that nobody thinks they are is entirely ordinary and unremarkable.

(I use "nobody" here in the ordinary, conversational way. There are no doubt a few oddballs who, in the absence of actual information, assume that they are. But the Church does not; and neither do the critics. They just want to saddle us with that assumption to make the Book of Abraham easier to attack. Despite their affectation of confidence that the Book of Abraham is a "slam dunk," they still labour mightily to demolish a whole battalion of straw men. Which does not really show that they have much confidence in the strength of their position. At all.)

So, JD, I suggest that you look into what the Church has to say about the BofA. Our critics, who never read it, and make no effort whatsoever to understand it, cannot help you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Alf O'Mega]

. . . none of our ancient Scriptures -- not Genesis, not Exodus, not Jude, not Revelation, not 1 Nephi, not Moroni, nor any other -- derives from now-extant autographic sources.

(And in this case, I am doing something I almost never do: I am using terms like "none" in a mathematically precise way, and not in the ordinary conversational way. Let Mike "Broken" Reed, Alf "the Alien" O'Mega, or anyone else who wants to take me to task for "speaking in absolutes" have at it.)

Oh the joy! Kill the fatted calf, call the friends and neighbors together, rejoice and be merry! I fall upon your neck and weep for the long-despaired homecoming! Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity, eschewing unjustified generalizations. I beseech you, my dear friend, sit down and be content with such modest claims, to go no more out forever. Now I must hide myself and wallow in superfluity of exultation. Oh the joy!

[Mortal Man]

My only fear at this point is that, somehow, Dialogue will choose not to publish your scroll length paper.

From the news we received yesterday, I'd say that once again your fears are unfounded. With a little luck, you'll be able to discredit both our paper and us in your FAIR talk.

However, considering their ever-diminishing standards, I doubt that is very likely.

Somehow I don't think that bad-mouthing Dialogue will earn you any points among whomever you're trying to score points with. Perhaps you should forward this snide little remark to Kevin Barney (to whom I sent a complimentary copy of our paper) if you really think it's so amusing.

[Pahoran]

Oh the joy! Kill the fatted calf, call the friends and neighbors together, rejoice and be merry! I fall upon your neck and weep for the long-despaired homecoming! Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity, eschewing unjustified generalizations. I beseech you, my dear friend, sit down and be content with such modest claims, to go no more out forever. Now I must hide myself and wallow in superfluity of exultation. Oh the joy!

Actually Alf, normal people normally speak in generalisations. It is normal.

Not all-encompassing or exclusively the case; just normal.

Please note that in the example under discussion, I was in fact using the word "none" as an absolute. I simply pointed out that in so doing, I was departing from my usual usage.

Someone you may not have bothered to read -- Jane Austen -- pointed out that words like "always" and "never" are used in conversation to mean generally and not very often, respectively. They are in no wise "absolutes" when thus used.

And when certain parties pretend that they are, they are mischievously (at best) misrepresenting what is really going on.

Either that, or they don't know how normal English conversations work.

But if you are now prepared to cease and desist from such behaviour, then I am quite prepared to kill the fatted calf with you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Alf O'Mega]

Please note that in the example under discussion, I was in fact using the word "none" as an absolute.

And it was a justified absolute. I feel so aflutter, so Elizabeth-Bennett-in-Mr.-Darcy's-picture-gallery. To think that such measured language was within your grasp the whole time!

[Mortal Man]

Lame jokes aren't going to save you.

Save me from what?

I invite MM to demonstrate that any of these, let alone a significant proportion of them, are disgraced with "gratuitous polemics" or dedicated primarily to discrediting critics:

Since, according to MM, "gratuitous polemics" and a primary purpose of discrediting critics are principal characteristics of FARMS publications, it should be quite easy for him to demonstrate his accusation with the now forty-two (42) specimens of FARMS publishing that I've supplied for him.

Okay Dan, you win. In fact, I'd say that you and the other representatives of FAIR and FARMS on this thread have completely discredited me. Was that your primary purpose?

[Greg Smith]

Okay Dan, you win. In fact, I'd say that you and the other representatives of FAIR and FARMS on this thread have completely discredited me. Was that your primary purpose?

You must be a slow learner.

The point is not to discredit you. The point is to rebut your argument. Which, given your refusal to engage the specifics, (intentionally?) misconstrue what others say, and use snide remarks in place of demonstrative discourse, it rather looks like they have.

These are not identical goals--they are quite different.

Only you or your behavior can discredit you. Others may--and have--discredit your argument.

I hope you won't keep making this mistake. The distinction is not difficult to grasp, and has been explained multiple times.

[MorningStar]

You're using the Brady Bunch for your anti-Mormon agenda? Disturbing. Very disturbing. And suddenly I want to see the episode where Marsha gets hit in the nose with the football.

[mathilde]

Here are a few examples, other than the introductory paragraph that we've discussed already, and what is in the current Gospel Principles manual, of what I think it is fair to say the Church has to say about the BofA:

What the Church is teaching children from the Primary manual 5:

"Lesson 20: Joseph Smith Translates the Bible and Other Scriptures,

[Mortal Man]

You're using the Brady Bunch for your anti-Mormon agenda? Disturbing. Very disturbing. And suddenly I want to see the episode where Marsha gets hit in the nose with the football.

I hearby declare that MorningStar has discredited me and all of the other anti-Mormon critics who try to hide behind the Brady Bunch!

BTW MorningStar, do you work for FAIR or FARMS?

[Greg Smith]

You're using the Brady Bunch for your anti-Mormon agenda? Disturbing. Very disturbing. And suddenly I want to see the episode where Marsha gets hit in the nose with the football.

It's always about Marsha! Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!

[MorningStar]

It's always about Marsha! Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!

Poor Jan.

[MorningStar]

I hearby declare that MorningStar has discredited me and all of the other anti-Mormon critics who try to hide behind the Brady Bunch!

BTW MorningStar, do you work for FAIR or FARMS?

That's classified. But thank you for recognizing my superior debating skills.

You wanted Greg and Marsha to get married, didn't you? It's OK. You can admit it.

[William Schryver]

- Nevermind

[Mortal Man]

Here are a few examples, other than the introductory paragraph that we've discussed already, and what is in the current Gospel Principles manual, of what I think it is fair to say the Church has to say about the BofA:

What the Church is teaching children from the Primary manual 5:

"Lesson 20: Joseph Smith Translates the Bible and Other Scriptures,

[Mortal Man]

You wanted Greg and Marsha to get married, didn't you? It's OK. You can admit it.

Oh my goodness no. That would be incest! Although, Marsha was indeed a babe.

MorningStar, PLEASE tell me that you remember the lesson Greg learned about 'exact words'.

[MorningStar]

Oh my goodness no. That would be incest! Although, Marsha was indeed a babe.

MorningStar, PLEASE tell me that you remember the lesson Greg learned about 'exact words'.

They're not related by blood. Their parents weren't married until they were older, so that episode where they were allowed to share the attic with a sheet dividing it. Really wrong!

I do remember that episode. Please tell me you saw The Brady Bunch Movie where they parody the inappropriateness of Greg and Marsha sharing the attic. It's way funny.

[Daniel Peterson]

FAIR and FARMS have long lists of articles, I really do get that, but none stand with the complete backing of the Church no matter how comprehensive these articles might be.

An irrelevant red herring.

Not every ordinary church member reads these articles. There really are church members, not even oddball members, who are under the impression from church sources that the book of Abraham is one of the oldest scriptures we have, was translated by Joseph Smith from Egyptian papyrus that even the most educated men could not understand after he was able to learn the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language.

I'm under the pretty much the same impression.

I believe that the Book of Abraham is one of the oldest scriptures that we have, and that it was translated by Joseph Smith by revelation.

And your point is?

Save me from what?

From having revealed yourself as a mendacious character assassin who isn't disposed to make even a slight effort to back his allegations up with facts and is unashamed and unrepentant when they're shown to be untrue.

Okay Dan, you win. In fact, I'd say that you and the other representatives of FAIR and FARMS on this thread have completely discredited me. Was that your primary purpose?

I couldn't possibly care less about you.

I do, however, care when false and malicious accusations are made against me and against people whom I like and respect.

Demonstrating these allegations to be not only malicious but false, as I've done here, restores the status quo ante. That you've discredited yourself, to some extent at least, is none of my doing and, really, none of my affair.

.

[Mortal Man]

They're not related by blood. Their parents weren't married until they were older, so that episode where they were allowed to share the attic with a sheet dividing it. Really wrong!

Wait, you mean the boys had a different biological mother and the girls a different biological father? Woah! Suddenly so many things make sense!

I do remember that episode. Please tell me you saw The Brady Bunch Movie where they parody the inappropriateness of Greg and Marsha sharing the attic. It's way funny.

I started watching that movie but became offended when they appeared to be making fun of the regular series.

[volgadon]

Oh my goodness no. That would be incest! Although, Marsha was indeed a babe.

MorningStar, PLEASE tell me that you remember the lesson Greg learned about 'exact words'.

The problem is not exact words. The problem is that you could not show where the lesson manuals state that the BoA is central to the restored gospel of jesus Christ. You couldn't show where they did. The best you could come up with was an Ensign article, yet still failed to show where it said that the BoA was central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I broke down each occurence of the word 'center' (and its derivatives). Not a single instance was even remotely similar to 'the BoA is central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ'. One example. The article (I am paraphrasing) said that the BoA was a Christ-centered text. That does not say that the BoA is central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ is central to my life, that does not mean that I am central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, just because the word central is used.

I find it extremely hard to swallow that you can be so fundamentally ignorant of simple grammar and word-usage.

The next time you start talking of galactic-sized holes in apologetic arguments, you might wish to avail yourself of the services of an ophtometrist, preferably one who engages in carpentry on the side.