Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[wenglund]

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

Less defensive people, and those unlikely to play the victim (particularly while perpetrating) would in no way view as "invective" my pointing our your evident problem with reading comprehension, nor would they consider "non sequitur" my reasonable and relevant question to you, which you still continue to dodge. B ut, I am fine with leaving it at that--not that it would do any good to press you further.

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.

For premise #1 to be false would require that you had falsely answered "yes" to my specific question: "I am wondering if you were personally 'shocked' by the supposed difference between how you undserstood the LDS lesson manual and what was written in the FAIR, FARMS, and Ensign articles?". Maybe, yet again, you didn't correctly comprehend the question.

Perhaps you could break your question down into short easily-digestible pieces to accomodate my limited comprehension.

That's an idea. But, perhaps it was best for you to leave it to mathilde to answer since she seemed able to easily digest and comprehend the question as asked.

I have a very hard time following even simple arguments, just ask Dan.

There is no need to ask Dan. You have made this quite evident in the brief exchange I have had with you on this thread. Perhaps you should spend less time trying to be cleaver, and more time trying to make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

How can you expect critics to understand this if even "regular" LDS, such as myself, don't?

Unless you and/or the critics have an impediment to learning, then why shouldn't I expect that you would eventually understand this like "regular" LDS such as myself?

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?

I am quite certain I didn't use the word "limited" (intentionally so).

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

[volgadon]

Why does it seem that for critics the criteria for being a 'regular member' is ignorance?

[LeSellers]

Why does it seem that for critics the criteria for being a 'regular member' is ignorance?

The word isn't "seem", btw.

It's projection.

Lehi

[justdreamin]

Why does it seem that for critics the criteria for being a 'regular member' is ignorance?

If this is aimed at me, I think that if you go back and read what I have posted you should be able to see that I fully recognize and accept that information is available to any who seek it. I don't believe that not knowing about or caring about the history of the BoA means that one is ignorant.

Perhaps while I have your attention, what is your opinion of this. Joseph Smith did not refer to the Book of Abraham as scripture, is that correct? The Pearl of Great Price was not canonized until 1880. On several occasions prior to it's canonization the actual papyri that Joseph had in his possession was interpreted by several different people with the knowledge they had at the time. I believe the consensus was, then, that the scrolls were funerary documents. Despite this, the body of the church voted to canonize them as scripture anyway. Do you think it was ever the intention of Joseph Smith to use the BoA as sacred scripture equal to the Book of Mormon?

[volgadon]

You did seem to be differentiating between 'regular' members and those who have looked into this issue.

[justdreamin]

A.--Unless you and/or the critics have an impediment to learning, then why shouldn't I expect that you would eventually understand this like "regular" LDS such as myself?

B.--I am quite certain I didn't use the word "limited" (intentionally so).

C.--The reason for the apologetic responses is charity--i.e. they are sacrificing their time and energy and skills to help remove the oft self-imposed stumbling blocks to certain peoples' growth in faith so they can get back to utilizing and living the gospel as it is intended.

Were you and the critics to all finally understand what the restored gospel is really all about, and the part the BoA plays in relation thereto, there would no longer be a need for apologetics--like that is ever going to happen.

A.--I don't know that answer to that. Why do you expect that regular LDS, such as the both of us, get what the restoration is all about?

B.--I stand corrected

C.--Thank you for your response. I think that I do understand what the restored gospel is all about, but I admit that I do have self imposed stumbling blocks. These do not change the way I feel about Jesus Christ, only make me wonder why there is so much confusion mixed with things I consider to be true. For example, I may find ways to apply the BoA in a Christ centered life, but because of the controversy surrounding the BoA, I have a hard time considering it to be scripture.

Would you consider giving your opinion of the question that I just posted to Volgadon about the BoA having meant to become canonized?

[Daniel Peterson]

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

I don't regard slander and misrepresentation as acceptable whether done openly or clandestinely.

I stand by my assertion that the primary purpose of both FAIR and FARMS is to discredit the critics

You're imprudent and unwise to do so.

While FAIR was established to deal with criticism of the Church (which is not quite the same thing as "discrediting the critics," though it often results in their being discredited), responding to critics was scarcely on the radar screen (if it was even a consideration at all) at the founding of FARMS and continues to be a relatively small part of what FARMS does -- and an even tinier part of what the Maxwell Institute does.

[Greg Smith]

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.

Glory be! :-)

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").

The primary purpose of FAIR is to defend the doctrines and leaders of the Church against mispresentation and falsehood. It is thus hardly surprising that some of the critics' arguments are often discredited. As Chesterton once said, "

[Greg Smith]

Why does it seem that for critics the criteria for being a 'regular member' is ignorance?

Because only an ignorant person could believe in the Church and the gospel, silly. The problem can't be with how the critic has conceptualized matters. They were once blind, but now they see. That's axiomatic.

The only other options appears to be being either a mercenary hack or a closet revisionist out to smooth off all the rough edges.

GLS

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

So I take it that you do regard FARMS as gratuitously polemical?

If so, I wonder if you could possibly do me the favor of identifying significant gratuitously polemical passages in a representative sampling of the following FARMS publications, chosen essentially at random:

Jordan Vajda. Partakers of the Divine Nature.

M. Gerald Bradford, and Alison V.P. Coutts, eds. Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon.

William J. Hamblin, and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. Warfare in the Book of Mormon.

Gaye Strathearn. "The Valentinian Bridal Chamber in the Gospel of Phillip." Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 1 (2009).

Hugh W. Pinnock. Finding Biblical Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon.

Royal Skousen. Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 6: 3 Nephi 19 - Moroni 10.

David R. Seely, JoAnn H. Seely, and John W. Welch, eds. Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem.

Donald W. Parry. Harmonizing Isaiah.

Stephen D. Ricks, and John W. Welch, eds. King Benjamin's Speech: "That Ye May Learn Wisdom".

Donald W. Parry, and Dana M. Pike, eds. LDS Perspectives on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, eds. Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon.

Charles Swift. "Lehi's Vision of the Tree of Life: Understanding the Dream as Visionary Literature." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005).

Susan Easton Black, ed. Expressions of Faith: Testimonies of Latter-day Saint Scholars.

Camille Fronk. "Desert Epiphany: Sariah and the Women in 1 Nephi." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000).

Keith Edward Norman. Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology.

Kevin Christensen. Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and its Significance for Mormon Studies.

Daniel Belnap. "The Divine Warrior in Jacob's Speech of 2 Nephi 6-10." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 17/1 (2008).

Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen.

James E. Faulconer. Romans 1: Notes and Reflections.

John W. Welch. The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount.

Bruce J. Boehm. "Wanderers in the Promised Land: A Study of the Exodus Motif in the Book of Mormon and Holy Bible." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1 (1994).

I stand by my assertion that the primary purpose of both FAIR and FARMS is to discredit the critics

Can you point to substantial evidence for your assertion in the items cited above? (There are literally thousands of other pages where those come from.)

Can you show us how the film Journey of Faith or the film Journey of Faith: The New World or the seven-part Messiah documentary is "gratuitously polemical" or has as its "primary purpose" the "discrediting of the critics"?

.

[wenglund]

A.--I don't know that answer to that. Why do you expect that regular LDS, such as the both of us, get what the restoration is all about?

I expect it because I trust that we are reasonable and rational people, and as such, we will at some point be able to grasp what God and the Church have clearly expressed is the intent of the restored gospel.

C.--Thank you for your response. I think that I do understand what the restored gospel is all about, but I admit that I do have self imposed stumbling blocks. These do not change the way I feel about Jesus Christ, only make me wonder why there is so much confusion mixed with things I consider to be true. For example, I may find ways to apply the BoA in a Christ centered life, but because of the controversy surrounding the BoA, I have a hard time considering it to be scripture.

If you understood the restored gospel correctly, you would know that "controversy" is not a valid determinate of what is scripture or not, and this because it mistakely leaves in the hands of fallible humans to decide the things of God. Rather, according to the gospel, the way to determine if the BoA is scripture is by reading and studying it and asking God (as per Moroni 10) and by apply the precepts of the BoA in one's life (as per Alma 32). The "controversy" is but a distraction (metaphorically, as Nephi explains, it is part of the "mist of darkness" that leads people away from the path leading to the tree of life) and a stumbling block, the removal of which comes by refocusing one's eye singly on the intended objective of becoming like Christ, and by employing the gospel to that end and in the way it is designed.

Would you consider giving your opinion of the question that I just posted to Volgadon about the BoA having meant to become canonized?

Not that it should matter to you, but here is what was recorded in Joseph's journal shortly after the papyri came into his possesion: "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236--emphasis mine)

When Joseph later recommenced translating the BoA, he said; "We would also say to all the churches, that inasmuch as they want the blessings of God and angels, as also of the Church of Jesus Christ, and wish to see it spread and prosper through the world, and Zion built up and truth and righteousness prevail,--let all the different branches of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in all the world, call meetings in their respective places and tithe themselves and send up to this place to the Trustee in Trust, so that his hands may be loosed, and the Temple go on, and other works be done, such as the new translation of the Bible, and the record of Father Abraham published to the world." (History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.517)

As with the revelations that comprised the D&C, Joseph also published "my translations of the Book of Abraham" in the church newspaper, in this case the "Times and Seasons". (History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.520)

So, while Joseph may never have referred to the BoA explicitly as scripture, he implicitly consider it to contain reveal truths that were translated by the gift and power of God, and of sufficient importance to be published to the world. That is all you really need to know. And, if you doubt the BoA's divine provinance, and the part it plays in bringing about the intents of the gospel, then I invite you to ask God (as per Moroni 10) and apply the precepts contained therein (as per Alma 32), for that is, according to the gospel, the only valid ways to come to know the truth thereof.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WalkerW]

Your entire line of reasoning shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

"One of Shaw's!"

"You bastards."

[Mortal Man]

The primary purpose of FAIR is to defend the doctrines and leaders of the Church against mispresentation and falsehood.

Contrary to popular FAIR opinion, not every investigation into the facts constitutes "misrepresentation and falsehood." It is possible to come to a non-faith-promoting conclusion without ever desiring to attack the church. Sadly however, this possibility is utterly foreign and absolutely unthinkable to the apologetic mindset.

Presumably the critics wouldn't be saying what they were unless they were convinced that they were right and the Church or its members wrong, would they? So, FAIR is a problem because it believes and argues for its stance, but the critics are just what? Disintereted searchers for truth? Not interested in discrediting the LDS, their leaders, or their world-view?

There exists on this planet such a thing as interested searchers for truth. I consider myself one of them. I have zero interest in discrediting the LDS church as an institution or its leaders for their world-view. I feel compelled, however, to point out to certain ego-driven apologists the galactic-size holes in their arguments.

If discrediting an argument discredits a person, I've yet to see how. (Of course, that some critics continue the same lies, misrepresentations, fallacies, and jejune thinking despite being replied to ad nauseum may indeed say something about their character, honesty, intelligence, or probity--but, that's their fault, not the fault of those who point out the flaws in their arguments.) I refuse to be held accountable for someone else's failure to do their homework--I will do mine, and if that makes them look bad, so be it.

You're beginning to make me regret my earlier assertion that FAIR is not gratuitously polemical.

So, it's not "gratuitously polemical," just full of patent falsehood? Got it. :-) It couldn't be, by chance, that those discussing an issue might actually have different takes on what's going on? Is it possible to disagree with your view of the matter without telling falsehoods?

I pointed to four specific quotes from one specific article. You reflexively broaden my comment to all of FAIR to maximize your umbrage. I hope your cathartic exercise has helped you.

For the record, from what I have seen, Gee's remarks are an accurate reflection of a great deal that some said about the Book of Abraham matter. [i would caution, too, about nailing one's colors too firmly to the BoA-is-a-sinking-ship mast. I suspect the playing field may alter dramatically even further in Gee's favor none-too-distantly.]

You have inspired me, just now, to save the FAIR page in question to my hard drive. I suspect you'll be completely overhauling it (or perhaps deleting it) "none-too-distantly" and I really don't think the revision will be in "Gee's favor". (Hint: you may wish to consult with your buddy Will regarding the claim that,

[justdreamin]

Not that it should matter to you, but here is what was recorded in Joseph's journal shortly after the papyri came into his possesion: "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236--emphasis mine)

When Joseph later recommenced translating the BoA, he said; "We would also say to all the churches, that inasmuch as they want the blessings of God and angels, as also of the Church of Jesus Christ, and wish to see it spread and prosper through the world, and Zion built up and truth and righteousness prevail,--let all the different branches of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in all the world, call meetings in their respective places and tithe themselves and send up to this place to the Trustee in Trust, so that his hands may be loosed, and the Temple go on, and other works be done, such as the new translation of the Bible, and the record of Father Abraham published to the world." (History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.517)

As with the revelations that comprised the D&C, Joseph also published "my translations of the Book of Abraham" in the church newspaper, in this case the "Times and Seasons". (History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.520)

So, while Joseph may never have referred to the BoA explicitly as scripture, he implicitly consider it to contain reveal truths that were translated by the gift and power of God, and of sufficient importance to be published to the world. That is all you really need to know. And, if you doubt the BoA's divine provinance, and the part it plays in bringing about the intents of the gospel, then I invite you to ask God (as per Moroni 10) and apply the precepts contained therein (as per Alma 32), for that is, according to the gospel, the only valid ways to come to know the truth thereof.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why assume it doesn't matter to me? If it didn't, I wouldn't bother asking. As always, I appreciate your reply and advise. At some point my compulsion to "know" may be displaced by a much sought after peaceful personal revelation, but until then questioning is what I feel I need to do.

[Daniel Peterson]

Contrary to popular FAIR opinion, not every investigation into the facts constitutes "misrepresentation and falsehood." It is possible to come to a non-faith-promoting conclusion without ever desiring to attack the church. Sadly however, this possibility is utterly foreign and absolutely unthinkable to the apologetic mindset.

If that's true, then I must not have an "apologetic mindset."

Which seems rather counterintuitive.

Do you really never tire of false universals and of attacking other people unfairly?

I feel compelled, however, to point out to certain ego-driven apologists the galactic-size holes in their arguments.

That would be genuinely useful. Please let us know when you're going to begin doing it.

So far, what I've seen from you has been egregious misreading, distortion, triumphalism, and character-assassination.

You're beginning to make me regret my earlier assertion that FAIR is not gratuitously polemical.

That ought to be very, very far down the list of the things for which you feel regret. Sadly, it seems that it's not.

How, incidentally, are you coming at identifying "gratuitous polemics" and attacks on critics in the twenty-one FARMS publications and the nine-hours of FARMS-produced documentary films that I provided for you just above? If these are really primary characteristics of FARMS, as you claim, the task should be an easy one.

[William Schryver]

MM:

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.

First of all, I'm not sure how my public announcement of having spoken with John about you and your ongoing antics can be accurately described as my "need ... to continually trash [you] behind [your] back ..." especially in light of the fact that your continuing disparagement of him takes place in venues he does not frequent, and about which he would know nothing were I not to inform him.

Secondly, I think you are entertaining a hubristic fantasy if you sincerely believe he has any interest in working with you, on this or any other area of study. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, he is not actively working on "the length issue," but has, at least for the time being, yielded to the work of someone else on that subject--someone with whom you probably have neither the inclination nor the hope of working with, nor he with you.

Indeed, the way things appear to be evolving, I can't envision a scenario of collaboration between you and any representatives of the "evil empire" you are seemingly dedicated to denigrate, if not altogether destroy.

[wenglund]

Why assume it doesn't matter to me? If it didn't, I wouldn't bother asking. As always, I appreciate your reply and advise. At some point my compulsion to "know" may be displaced by a much sought after peaceful personal revelation, but until then questioning is what I feel I need to do.

I, too, appreciate the respectful manner in which you have enquired. However, what I am assuming is that, in terms of meeting the desired objective of becoming like Christ, it shouldn't matter.

Of course, though, you are free to question and seek to know to your hearts content. It is just that if you desire is to progress in faith, then it is in your interest to ask the right questions (i.e. those questions that will best advance you towards the desire objective) and pose those questions to the right sources (i.e. the parties that best know the answers), and seek the knowledge that will prove most beneficial to you. From what I can tell in this specific instance, with the best of intents you may be doing the opposite. But, that is your choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

For premise #1 to be false would require that you had falsely answered "yes" to my specific question: "I am wondering if you were personally 'shocked' by the supposed difference between how you undserstood the LDS lesson manual and what was written in the FAIR, FARMS, and Ensign articles?". Maybe, yet again, you didn't correctly comprehend the question.

Okay Wade, here you go.

I was shocked at the FAIR, FARMS and Ensign articles because I am spiritually defective. I let go of the Iron Rod and thus lost my spiritual and electrical grounding. This caused a negative charge to build up in my soul, which subsequently attracted Satan's lightning. This "shocking" experience drove me into mists of darkness wherein I encountered a great and spacious building. It was full of seemingly friendly people who enticed me to come in by properly massaging my ego. The Lord sent wise and mighty men to rescue me from my caustic environment but I sneered at their counsel, assassinated their character, disparaged their home institutions and made up crazy stories about their friends.

Is that what you were looking for?

[William Schryver]

I was shocked at the FAIR, FARMS and Ensign articles because I am spiritually defective. I let go of the Iron Rod and thus lost my spiritual and electrical grounding. This caused a negative charge to build up in my soul, which subsequently attracted Satan's lightning. This "shocking" experience drove me into mists of darkness wherein I encountered a great and spacious building. It was full of seemingly friendly people who enticed me to come in by properly massaging my ego. The Lord sent wise and mighty men to rescue me from my caustic environment but I sneered at their counsel, assasinated [sic] their character, disparaged their home institutions and made up crazy stories about their friends.

So shines a flash of truth in an otherwise darkened soul ...

( )

[wenglund]

Okay Wade, here you go.

I was shocked at the FAIR, FARMS and Ensign articles because I am spiritually defective. I let go of the Iron Rod and thus lost my spiritual and electrical grounding. This caused a negative charge to build up in my soul, which subsequently attracted Satan's lightning. This "shocking" experience drove me into mists of darkness wherein I encountered a great and spacious building. It was full of seemingly friendly people who enticed me to come in by properly massaging my ego. The Lord sent wise and mighty men to rescue me from my caustic environment but I sneered at their counsel, assasinated their character, disparaged their home institutions and made up crazy stories about their friends.

Is that what you were looking for?

I was simply looking for a genuine and honest and direct answer from you to my specific question. Evidently, you are intent on playing smartaliky and deflective games. So, again, never mind. Let me know when you have matured a bit and have become less defensive and reactionary and dramatic, and then maybe we can have an intelligent dialogue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

So I take it that you do regard FARMS as gratuitously polemical?

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

If so, I wonder if you could possibly do me the favor of identifying significant gratuitously polemical passages in a representative sampling of the following FARMS publications, chosen essentially at random:

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.

Can you point to substantial evidence for your assertion in the items cited above?

MM: "Most water on Earth is salty."

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

Can you show us how the film Journey of Faith or the film Journey of Faith: The New World or the seven-part Messiah documentary is "gratuitously polemical" or has as its "primary purpose" the "discrediting of the critics"?

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 your ostensible purpose.

[Mortal Man]

If that's true, then I must not have an "apologetic mindset."

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.

Do you really never tire of false universals and of attacking other people unfairly?

That would be genuinely useful. Please let us know when you're going to begin doing it.

So far, what I've seen from you has been egregious misreading, distortion, triumphalism, and character-assassination.

That ought to be very, very far down the list of the things for which you feel regret. Sadly, it seems that it's not.

<sigh...>

I thought you were going to get some rest and tell us about your adventures in Turkey?

I suppose we can go another round if you insist, just have your towel ready so I know when to stop.

How, incidentally, are you coming at identifying "gratuitous polemics" and attacks on critics in the twenty-one FARMS publications and the nine-hours of FARMS-produced documentary films that I provided for you just above? If these are really primary characteristics of FARMS, as you claim, the task should be an easy one.

You know Dan, I've been thinking about your situation and I want to help. I am keenly aware that, by publishing such a vast number books, articles and films all over the world for so many years, the restitution aspect of repentance is no longer available to you. Clearly you're having difficulty sleeping at night. After mulling it over, I believe I've hit upon a partial solution to your dilemma. Instead of torturing yourself and lashing out at the messenger, you could go in the exact opposite direction by actually embracing the object of your pain; i.e., rather than issuing denial after denial after denial, you could boldy declare that FARMS (better, the Maxwell Institute) will henceforth destroy any critic who gets in its way. This new approach could generate a flurry of activity sufficient to distract you from matters of concience. Of course, your soul would still carry the chains of your victims, but at least you'd generate additional readership (and desperately needed revenue, or so I'm informed).

[Mortal Man]

MM:

First of all, I'm not sure how my public announcement of having spoken with John about you and your ongoing antics can be accurately described as my "need ... to continually trash [you] behind [your] back ..." especially in light of the fact that your continuing disparagement of him takes place in venues he does not frequent, and about which he would know nothing were I not to inform him.

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

Secondly, I think you are entertaining a hubristic fantasy if you sincerely believe he has any interest in working with you, on this or any other area of study. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, he is not actively working on "the length issue," but has, at least for the time being, yielded to the work of someone else on that subject--someone with whom you probably have neither the inclination nor the hope of working with, nor he with you.

My interest in working with him derived primarily from his access to the papyri and my desire to build bridges. Neither Chris nor I needed to work with him.

Regarding your assertion that I'm desperately eager yet wholly unworthy to work with you, well golly gee whiz Will, I'm simply crushed. Will you pleeeeeease still give me your autograph at the FAIR conference?

Indeed, the way things appear to be evolving, I can't envision a scenario of collaboration between you and any representatives of the "evil empire" you are seemingly dedicated to denigrate, if not altogether destroy.

Don't you ever run out of paint? Your fears are unfounded.

[Greg Smith]

Contrary to popular FAIR opinion, not every investigation into the facts constitutes "misrepresentation and falsehood." It is possible to come to a non-faith-promoting conclusion without ever desiring to attack the church.

Indeed. But, the FAIR wiki exists in large part to reply to misrepresentation and falsehood, of which we have a surfeit of riches. I have no where claimed--and the FAIR wiki nowhere claims--that disagreeing with the Church, or coming to different conclusions, is grounds for being considered "anti-Mormon" or inherently dishonest, or twisting the facts. In fact, the wiki argues quite the opposite in the relevant article:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Anti-Mormon

Sadly however, this possibility is utterly foreign and absolutely unthinkable to the apologetic mindset.

I've long been wary of those who characterize diverse groups of people and opinions with sweeping, absolutist statements that only a fool would hold. It suggests to me that they are either disingenous, uncharitable, or lacking in intellectual rigor, especially when such caricature is so trivially easy to disprove.

There exists on this planet such a thing as interested searchers for truth. I consider myself one of them. I have zero interest in discrediting the LDS church as an institution or its leaders for their world-view. I feel compelled, however, to point out to certain ego-driven apologists the galactic-size holes in their arguments.

So...just as you are an apologist for your world-view, so you will find that apologists for other views likewise "compelled" to point out the giant holes in the critics' claims.

But, when you do this it gets characterized as being an "interested searcher...for truth." When FAIR or FARMS does this, it's apparently all about discrediting the opposition and they aren't really interested in seeking the truth? Got it.

If you can't appreciate why this might seem a double standard, then there may be little hope for insight here.

You're beginning to make me regret my earlier assertion that FAIR is not gratuitously polemical.

I don't think those words mean what you apparently think they mean. Nothing I've said can be fairly characterized as "polemical," [unless all demonstrative arguments are 'polemical'] much less gratuitously so. But, throwing such labels around does allow one to avoid coming to grips with the specifics, I suppose.

I pointed to four specific quotes from one specific article. You reflexively broaden my comment to all of FAIR to maximize your umbrage. I hope your cathartic exercise has helped you.

I was speaking about the one specific article. I didn't broaden it at all, as a look at the relevant text makes clear:

So, it's not "gratuitously polemical," just full of patent falsehood? Got it. :-) It couldn't be, by chance, that those discussing an issue might actually have different takes on what's going on? Is it possible to disagree with your view of the matter without telling falsehoods?

For the record, from what I have seen, Gee's remarks are an accurate reflection of a great deal that some said about the Book of Abraham matter. [i would caution, too, about nailing one's colors too firmly to the BoA-is-a-sinking-ship mast. I suspect the playing field may alter dramatically even further in Gee's favor none-too-distantly.]

I remember when he wrote this little entry, and nothing struck me as strange since I had seen those very things going on at the time he wrote. [Were others elsewhere making other arguments? Doubtless. But, that hardly makes Gee's account 'patently false.' At worst, it is simply not exhaustive--which is hardly surprising, nor an intellectual crime. This was his good faith effort--I presume--to state his opinion and the reasons for it at the time.]

And, I note that these are debates about facts, not about personalities. The aim (as in all such discussion, in the academy and elsewhere) is to arrive a truth via the clash of opinions. It is not about "discrediting the critic"--just the particular claim which they advance.

The alert reader will note such clues in the phrases (which I have helpfully highlighted) as: "an issue" (the singular--i.e., the page to which you referred), "the matter" (singular), "Gee's remarks" (on the page in question), "this little entry" (singular), "Gee's account" (singular), "it is simply not exhausitve" (singular), "his good faith effort" (singular).

Don't worry, there's no "umbrage." I'm amused at your double standard and retreat to bluster, but nothing more.

You have inspired me, just now, to save the FAIR page in question to my hard drive. I suspect you'll be completely overhauling it (or perhaps deleting it) "none-too-distantly" and I really don't think the revision will be in "Gee's favor".

Yes, it would indeed be a terrible thing and evidence of perfidy if we updated our materials when new and better data came along. Shocking, really. As I said, I expect we'll have much more data available relatively soon on this, but I suspect it will support Gee's view of what the Book of Abraham and its related materials are and aren't much more closely than the critics' (or, apparently, yours).

I will now disclose a terrible secret: anytime better info or an error is brought to our attention, we include it. Hence, if you can demonstrate falsehoods or lacunae, they will be fixed. If you can find a rare example of gratuitous polemic or ad hominem, it will be fixed.

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone. It might change how they look at "apologists."

(Hint: you may wish to consult with your buddy Will regarding the claim that,