Fair'S Book Of Abraham Dvd

[Xander]

Of course you cheerlead for your fellow anti-Mormons.

Maybe you'll one day be able to rise to the level of intellectual honesty shown in FAIR and other LDS apologetic endeavours. And that would be a very good thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

Are you prepared to debate this? I've asked you on numerous occasions to show where I have presented misinformation, lied, been intellectually dishonest or whatever your flavor of the week rhetoric happens to be. You just keep asserting that I do it but you seem impotent when it comes to backing up your claims.

But we'll give you another shot at it. Go ahead and explain to me how this is intellectually dishonest of me, whereas the FAIR presentation I reviewed, wasn't.

Good luck.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Xander

[Storm Rider]

Incidentally, I ordered the FAIR DVD on the BoA a month ago and I plan to do a review when I get around to it. It was torturous listening to some of the things they were saying, mainly because I have respect for some of those participants (i.e. Ash) and couldn't believe some of the things they were claiming. I had to stop watching about half way. It was that bad. For example, Kerry Muhelstein dropped a bomb claiming we have a papyrus mentioning the sacrifice of Abraham on an altar. Of course, this is patently false and it is difficult to imagine how anyone with any amount of expertise on this subject could possibly make such an erroneous statement. Even Gee never made that claim. I started a review last month but couldn't get around to finishing it.

Patently false. Why do you think they would lie?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

For what it's worth, Xander, I for one have appreciated the information you've shared in your discussions here. I've often disagreed with your tone, and I am personally not persuaded that the Book of Abraham has been shown to be evidence of Joseph Smith's fiction-writing abilities (I'm something of a catalyst-theory guy myself), but I think that just as people who disagree with Mormon truth-claims are often too quick to denigrate the work of apologists (a term I personally don't mind, unless it's used as a euphemism for "inherently inaccurate"), we LDS are often too quick to categorize someone as "anti". It's frustrating, because I'm usually friends with both "types" of people. Kinda like watching the 'rents fight and seeing bits of truth in both sides of their argument.

I think as long as both sides are doing their best to tell the truth, there is room for reasonable disagreement. Obviously, not everyone from either side is solely interested in truth-telling, of course, and we all have bad days and say incendiary stuff to each other. But I think both perspectives lend themselves to spotting information that the other doesn't catch.

[Xander]

Patently false. Why do you think they would lie?

"Lie' is your choice of words. I can only say that the information is false. Kerry Muhlestein is free to justify his reasons for presenting false information, but his reasons are irrelevant to the point. The point being, his claim is false, and that reflects poorly on the his credibility as well as FAIR's. His description of papyrus Leiden I 384:

And the text says - it's got a picture of a man on a lion couch —and the text says, "this," er "Abraham upon his couch."

This is something no scholar has ever argued. That's because it is not true. So it is technically wrong to say the DVD presents nothing new. It presents new misinformation.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Xander

[Brade]

Patently false. Why do you think they would lie?

I just have to jump in on this point because it's a pet-peeve of mine. To say that something somebody said is false is not to say that they're lying. Debates around here and elsewhere often get over contentious because people interpret disagreement as accusations of deceit. One of things I loved about my philosophy courses was that we would disagree with one another, often strongly, but it never got personal and claiming or arguing that something somebody said was false was never interpreted to mean "Nah, uh, you liar!".

[diglot]

Every apologist I know and knew (when I was one), never had a problem with that identity.

"Anti-Mormon," on the other hand, is an obvious slur intended to kill discussion. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the Church knows that all you have to do is call someone an anti-Mormon and everyone's mind shuts down. Why? Because that person is evil. His agenda is crafted by Satan. To even listen to him means you're giving into temptation and abandoning the spirit. This is why folks like Loran and Pahoran are constantly dropping the anti-Mormon bomb, and say nothing else. That's how powerful a word it is. No argument necessary. No evidence necessary. All you have to do is drop the word and members in an LDS audience will start ignoring your opponent on that basis alone.

I hear ya. I get tired of the anti-Mormon rhetoric I see. It is a sign of desperation and that one doesn't want to engage in fruitful dialogue.

Lol, I remember I read a book review on FARMS by some guy with the last name Tvedntes (can't remember his first name off the top of my head). The book he was reviewing was a doctoral dissertation on 1 Cor 15.29 (the verse which mentions baptism for the dead). I've read the dissertation twice now, and the only time I remember seeing Mormonism mentioned is briefly in the introduction. Yet that didn't stop Tvedntes from calling the author "anti-Mormon" a few times in the review. Even worse was that Tvedntes demonstrated that he does not understand the Greek language at all. It was, without exaggeration, quite possibly the worse review I have read (especially if it was meant to be some sort of scholarly review).

I appreciate the work you put into this whole BoA issue. I don't have any time (or any desire) to do some investigation of my own, but I am content with reading the back-and-forth between yourself and Mormon apologists.

Edited November 20, 2011 by diglot

[Pahoran]

I hear ya. I get tired of the anti-Mormon rhetoric I see. It is a sign of desperation and that one doesn't want to engage in fruitful dialogue.

That's not true.

The reality is that we are exposing a fact that the anti-Mormons would rather remained unknown. As we were reminded on another thread:

Men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

John 3:19-20

Anti-Mormons gnash their teeth and foam at the mouth whenever we shine a light upon their activities, because they don't want their agenda to be known.

Diglot, I've had the impression that you were a reasonably intelligent, fair-minded individual. I would be disappointed if you were now to subside into the slough.

Lol, I remember I read a book review on FARMS by some guy with the last name Tvedntes (can't remember his first name off the top of my head).

John. (Not usually a hard name to remember.)

The book he was reviewing was a doctoral dissertation on 1 Cor 15.29 (the verse which mentions baptism for the dead). I've read the dissertation twice now, and the only time I remember seeing Mormonism mentioned is briefly in the introduction. Yet that didn't stop Tvedntes from calling the author "anti-Mormon" a few times in the review. Even worse was that Tvedntes demonstrated that he does not understand the Greek language at all. It was, without exaggeration, quite possibly the worse review I have read (especially if it was meant to be some sort of scholarly review).

Call for references, please.

John A Tvedtnes has had a number of reviews published. Were you referring to this review? http://maxwellinstit...19&num=2&id=674 If so, the book under review was not a doctoral dissertation, and Tvedtnes nowhere refers to the author as an anti-Mormon. Or were you referring to this one? http://maxwellinstit...10&num=2&id=297 If that is the case, then the author, Luke S. Wilson, was indeed a professional anti-Mormon; but once again, the item under review was not a doctoral dissertation, but two articles published in Wilson's own propaganda rag.

Or was it something else? If so, then feel free to point it out. You can find a complete list of his FARMS-published articles here: http://maxwellinstit...rs/?authorID=62

If you want an ideological anti-Mormon to think you're a splendid fellow, throwing out vague accusations against legitimate LDS scholars is definitely the way to do it; but if you want the rest of us to respect you for your Christ-like approach to your opponents, you may need to raise your game a little. If you can show that John A. Tvedtnes wrote a review that resembles your description, I'd like to read it for myself. But if you have misremembered, as seems likely, then perhaps you might like to apologise to the scholar whose reputation you have attacked.

I appreciate the work you put into this whole BoA issue. I don't have any time (or any desire) to do some investigation of my own, but I am content with reading the back-and-forth between yourself and Mormon apologists.

You enjoy seeing a master hate propagandist at work, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

You enjoy seeing a master hate propagandist at work, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Xander is certainly an antimormon. And unfortunately, he is the worst sort of antimormon: one with a chip on his shoulder. Every post he makes is done with an attitude that is belittling the apologist. But what we see from antimormons with a chip on their shoulder is from the past. They were the major persecutors of the mormons. Xander is certainly intelligent but as long as he has a chip on his shoulder his posts will be uninteresting.

And it is a shame.

[Minos]

I see. You are letting disobedience to rules determine how rules should be enforced--never mind that Pahoran indirectly called me anti-Mormon too.

Must be time for me to take another break from this place.

There is no rule. That is why we are not going to enforce the use of anti-Mormon in a thread where apologist is routinely used as a slur. Xander has been informed and chose to open up his thread to both labels. When the thread the goes in full meltdown we will just close it. His call.