Missing Scroll Theory

[floatingboy]

i can't confirm that if i don't know what presuppositions we don't share.

[wenglund]

i can't confirm that if i don't know what presuppositions we don't share.

Couldn't you confirm the logic of what I said even without knowing the presuppositions?

Whatever the case, I have in mind the presupposition that in your mind bridged the leap between your premise: "Joseph Smith et al. do not really know that said portions are not really the actual writings of Abraham," and your conclusion: "Ergo, the scrolls are not needed" (and I am not here referring to you premise #9 "The text of the book flows through Joseph Smith regardless of this oversight.")

That those purporting the belief in question may view Joseph as not correctly knowing where on the scroll is the text that he was translating, doesn't mean that they must believe the scroll was not needed. They can.

Thanks -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

That those purporting the belief in question may view Joseph as not correctly knowing where on the scroll is the text that he was translating, doesn't mean that they must believe the scroll was not needed. They can.

Thanks -Wade Englund-

This is correct. People can believe whatever they wish, regardless of probability, soundness of logic, evidential support, etc.

[wenglund]

This is correct. People can believe whatever they wish, regardless of probability, soundness of logic, evidential support, etc.

They can also believe based on their own reasonable perception of where the probabilities, logic, and evidence support, though it may be different from how you and others may see it.

I realize that certain parties in this discussion believe that their position is the only one supported by probabilities, logic, and evidence. For my part, while I believe that my position is best supported, I can respectfully accept that other people may reasonably view things differently. That is why, even though I believe otherwise, I can see as reasonable, people concluding that Joseph may have believed the text in the right-hand column of the 1835 Abr, Mss. were translations of characters in the left-hand column, but that Joseph may have been wrong in his belief, though made thereby no less a prophet and the BoA made no less revelatory scripture. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

I guess I have nothing to say to that.

[wenglund]

I was recently informed via personal message that in my brief analysis of Henry Caswell's account (see HERE) I may have mis-identified one of the fragments, and because of that I, as an apologist, have damaged the testimonies of struggling members.

Setting aside for the moment whether members testimonies should be damaged by a possible error informal online analysis that is entirely irrelevant to the intents and purpose of he gospel and the means God has established for growth in faith, I am happy to make any legitimate correction to my work.

In my analysis I had attributed certain portions of Caswell's comments to Facsimile #2. I did so because from my limited selection of papyri fragments, I found it to be the best fit.

However, I have since been told that the "Neferirub" fragment is a perfect fit. I was shown a tiny picture of the fragment with areas conveniently marked allegedly corresponding to details in Caswell's account, but because of the small size and my bad eyes I couldn't make anything out--though, since so many testimonies hang in the balance, I will take several critics word for it, and gladly make the change.

The good news is, it doesn't change in the least the main point of my analysis. Indeed, it may even have strengthened it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was recently informed via personal message that in my brief analysis of Henry Caswell's account (see HERE) I may have mis-identified one of the fragments, and because of that I, as an apologist, have damaged the testimonies of struggling members.

Whaaa?!

That is it, I am out of here. I cannot take such imperfections.

[Xander]

Kevin continues to crank up his self-deluding fog machine to the point he can't even see straight enough to realize that in a way I was doing him a favor by clarifying and focusing his vague and somewhat meaningless assertion--even now he can't see the contradiction in his shotgun position.

Classic Wade! Once his trademark straw man construction has been exposed, he then tries to claim he was just testing me all along or doing me some kind of favor. Again, you're the only person on this forum who claims to be confused over what I have argued. Everyone else seems to understand what I have said and they have expressed appreciation for the clarity in which my argument was delivered. Your failure to comprehend what I have argued is not my fault. It is yours.

However, as promised, I won't be interacting with him until he demonstrates a change from his dogmatic posting style to something approximating open-minded and productive dialogue. So, if floatingboy wishes to take up some of Kevin's expressed points, I will be happy to explore them with him. If not, then oh well...

This is my thread, so if you do not want to answer my questions as you promised you would, then you have no credibility and should just leave. You just exposed yourself and can no longer pretend to be interested in the truth or civil dialogue. This topic isn't your little playground where you get to overwhelm everyone with one pithy post after another, producing nothing of substance. All you've done so far is ignore the evidence I have presented while trying to recreate my argument just so you can then make all these ridiculous, rhetoric-based comments about how this and that is "contrary to what Kevin" says/wants... etc. You've presented no evidence that runs contrary to anything I've said. In fact, all you've done is illustrate what I have already known; you simply do not understand this subject well enough to maintain a informative debate. And while you're constantly taking pointers from William and apologetic articles, it is obvious they can't help you either.

Robert,

You have made a tremendous, well-illustrated effort on this thread to present your views, and I have no doubt that many appreciate it very much. I certainly do...

I appreciate the feedback, Robert. Please notice that I never engaged Hamblin on this subject. He is the one who keeps intruding on my threads with his dismissive "move along, nothing to see here," comments. I think I have dealt with the facts calmly. Dealing with the dismissive rhetoric is where I have trouble. But I've been told I'm improving. Now back to wade,

I realize that certain parties in this discussion believe that their position is the only one supported by probabilities, logic, and evidence. For my part, while I believe that my position is best supported

Based on what evidence? Your entire presentation in these seven pages is based on subterfuge and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You've provided absolutely zero evidence for a missing scroll of Abraham. Zero. I've asked you repeatedly for your evidence and all you have done thus far is attack an argument I never made. It doesn't seem that you know how to come up with arguments and properly process available evidence. All you ever do is go look up some outdated apologetic article and then present those talking points as if this were something you came up with on your own. This describes every single thing you have said in this thread. Once I refute these talking points and show that they've been refuted for years, you then revert back to the straw man beating claiming over and over how this and that is "contrary" to what Kevin says. Again, this is the hallmark of a rhetoric-based defense because it has no evidence for support.

However, I have since been told that the "Neferirub" fragment is a perfect fit. I was shown a tiny picture of the fragment with areas conveniently marked allegedly corresponding to details in Caswell's account, but because of the small size and my bad eyes I couldn't make anything out--though, since so many testimonies hang in the balance, I will take several critics word for it, and gladly make the change.

Interesting that when a critic points out the evidence, you fight tooth and nail against it, claiming the critic is making baseless assumptions "contrary" to the evidence, etc. Only when a fellow apologist corrects you do you acknowledge the obvious. But I guess you should get some credit for at least admitting ignorance in this area. But, I don't know how anyone on these forums can pretend to discuss this matter effectivekly if they don't even have access to the relevant documents. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address your misrepresentation of Appleby's account, as well as your defense of William Schryver's superficial understanding of this subject, as shown in his blatant misrepresentation of the Book of Abraham manuscripts and his ridiculous claim that none of the papyri characters are found on the Book of Abraham manuscripts.

[wenglund]

I don't intend to interact directly with Mr. Graham. However, for my own benefit and possibly the benefit of interested readers, there are several points in his post that I think worthy of attention.

First, if anyone doubts the confusion and vagueness of Kevin's assertion, I invite interested readers to check out the responses to his initial question HERE. As intimated earlier, this thread was a spin-off of the linked thread.

Also, in this thread I needed to ask clarifying questions HERE and HERE (I needed to pose this last question several times before Kevin finally got around to answering it).

And, If anyone doubts that Kevin's assertion is meaningless to the scroll length issue and other prominent Book of Abraham issues, ask your self whether any of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented (not to be confused with the few subjectively interpreted circumstantial historical evidence he has alluded to) tells us explicitly or implicitly where exactly on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, particularly the first chapter and a half or the first three verses?

Even were Kevin correct about the historical data all pointing to extant portions of the papyri (he isn't entirely correct), all this may tell us is that the portion of the scrolls that were exhibited, along with certain fragments, tended to be those parts that were typically at the beginning of the scrolls and were later preserved under glass so as to prevent further deterioration. And, since none of the witness statements evinced where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, and given that there is reason to believe the text wasn't contained on the beginning portion of the scroll or on certain other extant papyri fragments, then the evidence Kevin presented is meaningless to the relevance of the scroll length issue. it is also meaningless in terms of what the critics argue as to where the text of the Book of Abraham is located. In some respects it may even counter what the critics suggest.

In short, while this may have been an interesting exercise in matching witness statements to extant papyrus, it does nothing to establish the relevance or irrelevance of the scroll length issue (contrary to what Kevin suggests), nor does it further the discussion about whether the EA/GAEL were used to translate portions of the Book of Abraham from the papyri, nor does it further the discussion about whether the 1835 Abr. Mss. constitute a deciphered or enciphered "translation", if a "translation' at all. This, essentially, was my point.

I will look at my analysis of the Appleby account to see if there is anything I believe may need correcting. Regarding the inconsequential correction I made to my Caswell analysis, it was prompted by a critic rather than an apologists, contrary to what Kevin suggested.

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it is I, or Mr. Graham, who doesn't understand the issues and the evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 3, 2011 by wenglund

[Brade]

And, If anyone doubts that Kevin's assertion is meaningless to the scroll length issue and other prominent Book of Abraham issues, ask your self whether any of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented (not to be confused with the few subjectively interpreted circumstantial historical evidence he has alluded to) tells us explicitly or implicitly where exactly on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, particularly the first chapter and a half or the first three verses?

Let's assume that all of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented do not explicitly or by strict logical implication tell us exactly where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham.

P1: If All of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented do not explicitly or by strict logical implication tell us exactly where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, then [Wade, please fill in the consequent here].

P2: All of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented do not explicitly or by strict logical implication tell us exactly where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham

C3: Therefore, [Wade, please insert the consequent of P1 here].

[wenglund]

Let's assume that all of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented do not explicitly or by strict logical implication tell us exactly where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham.

P1: If All of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented do not explicitly or by strict logical implication tell us exactly where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, then [Wade, please fill in the consequent here].

P2: All of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented do not explicitly or by strict logical implication tell us exactly where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham

C3: Therefore, [Wade, please insert the consequent of P1 here].

Then one cannot logically assume that the text of the Book of Abraham is on the extant papyri. And, If one cannot make that logical assumption, then that leaves open the prospects of the text being found on non-extant portions of the papyri. Hence, among other things, one cannot logically assert that the historical evidence renders irrelevant the scroll length issue (which issue considers the proposition that the text is not on the extant papyri but on the missing portions of the scroll).

Think of it as analogous to the question of a needle in a haystack. Even were the historical evidence to speak only about the tip of the haystack, but it tells us nothing about where the needle is in the haystack (which means that the needle could be anywhere in the haystack), then the historical evidence doesn't make irrelevant the issue of the size of the haystack--i.e. whether it is much larger or not than the tip of the haystack, which issue arises out of consideration that the needle may have been elsewhere in the haystack than the tip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 3, 2011 by wenglund

[Brade]

Then one cannot logically assume that the text of the Book of Abraham is on the extant papyri.

Wade, before I replace the blue text in the above syllogism with the consequent you propose here, I'd like to get clearer on it. I know I'm being really nit-picky here, but I think the matter is important enough to pick at nits. I hope you don't interpret this as hostility. I just want to get as clear as we can.

My main concern is that I don't know what it is to logically assume. Logic, in a rather rough way of putting it, is what goes on between premises. To assume something is to suppose it to be the case without proof. In argument, when a statement is assumed it's either granted for the sake of argument or simply accepted because of, say, it's intuitive force or something along those lines. In fact, to amend the first sentence on logic, logic is what goes on between premises, some of which are assumptions. Given all this, it seems odd, and perhaps (as is my suspicion) it simply isn't right, to say that one can or cannot logically assume something or other. If we assume something we typically are either temporarily bracketing it off from the operation of logic or we genuinely hold it to be the case sans support by logic. In this light, I would say that the statement 'One cannot logically assume that the text of the Book of Abraham is on the extant papyri' is true, but it's true because one cannot logically assume anything just as one cannot, say, frantically meditate.

It seems to me that what you're trying to say is that the evidence Kevin has presented is not good evidence in favor of the view that the extant papyri are the source for the text of the Book of Abraham - that one ought not believe that the extant papyri are the source on the basis of the evidence Kevin has offered. Is that right? If you agree with what I've said about 'logically assume' (and, actually, even if you disagree) and my understanding of your position is correct, may I propose the following as a replacement:

Then none of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented, individually or taken as a whole, provide any good reason to believe that the extant papyri are the source for the text of the Book of Abraham.

Do you accept this replacement?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Brade

[Xander]

First, if anyone doubts the confusion and vagueness of Kevin's assertion, I invite interested readers to check out the responses to his initial question HERE. As intimated earlier, this thread was a spin-off of the linked thread.

Unable to show how anyone else in this thread shares in your confusion, you go digging into previous threads to garner support for yourself. You're getting desperate huh? Freedom's professed confusion was due to his failure to understand what the word "extant" meant. That isn't my fault. Stop trying to recruit more people to join you in your "confusion," as it makes you look silly. The fact is, in this very thread I have been thanked by a number of people and emailed by several others, for presenting a very straightforward argument that is supported by evidence and easily understood. In fact, I am constantly asked to present on this subject for that exact reason. That you are eternally confused is hardly surprising. So do everyone a favor and stop trying to make excuses for your constant straw man construction. If you do not understand my argument as others clearly have, then the problem is with you.

And, If anyone doubts that Kevin's assertion is meaningless to the scroll length issue and other prominent Book of Abraham issues, ask your self whether any of the historical witness statements Kevin has presented (not to be confused with the few subjectively interpreted circumstantial historical evidence he has alluded to) tells us explicitly or implicitly where exactly on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, particularly the first chapter and a half or the first three verses?

Absolutely stunning!

Wade is still trying to pound this straw man. He is clinging to it for dear life, hoping no one notices that this is all he is left with. After numerous corrections to his failure to properly comprehend, there should be no doubt who is at fault here. So now wade wants to withdraw from the discussion while maintaining a presence so he can continue to pollute the thread with red herrings and straw man arguments. Well, if that is the case, then get out of my thread.

Even were Kevin correct about the historical data all pointing to extant portions of the papyri (he isn't entirely correct)

Oh so now you're finally going to acknowledge and challenge what I actually said? I thought you said it was too confusing for you to understand? And why don't you prove me wrong instead of asserting that I am? William gloated on the "Riddle me this" thread that I was bluffing, but neither of you understand how burden of proof works. If you want to keep claiming there is a missing text from which the Book of Abraham was translated, and if you keep asserting that there is an abundance of historical evidence pointing to such a text, then you have to at least provide some examples of historic references describing non-extant portions of the Joseph Smith papyri. So far you've provided none, though Gee, Nibley and Schryver have tried by misrepresenting the data. After dismissing their failed apologetic as myth, we see that virtually all historic references to the papyri collection refer explicitly to the extant materials. You keep acting as if I have to prove they all refer to the scroll of Abraham, but I have to do no such thing. I'm content that many of them properly describe the other materials not attributed to Abraham's record. You're the one with the burden of proof here. You're the one claiming there is a missing scroll of Abraham, therefore you are the ones with the burden. And the burden should be an easy one. All you have to do is show us a single reference to the Abraham record, that cannot be accounted for in the extant papyri. That's it. That's all you have to do. But the fact is if the Book of Abraham text was shown to numerous individuals over the course of two decades, then we'd expect at least ONE of them to describe something we don't currently have. But instead we have a dozen historic references to that "tiny fragmented collection" the apologists keep saying had nothing to do with translating the Book of Abraham. What are the chances that everyone is going to keep describing an insignificant portion representing around 5-10% of the whole? This is not reasonable to assume, and that it my point.

(not to be confused with the few subjectively interpreted circumstantial historical evidence he has alluded to)

So wade then shoots his own apologists in the feet! You just can't make this stuff up folks. So according to Wade, Charlotte Haven's account suddenly comes down to a mere "subjectively interpreted circumstantial" piece of evidence that isn't worth much at all. Of course he only says this after I used her account to explain how she is one of many who describe the papyri we have today.

Apparently, the fact that this account serves as the sole lynchpin for Schryver's "long" roll argument, has completely escaped him. Wade is now arguing for the sake of arguing without realizing that he has come to full circle and is now firing on his own side. So Haven's account is now rendered meaningless! I can live with that. But the apologists can't.

all this may tell us is that the portion of the scrolls that were exhibited, along with certain fragments, tended to be those parts that were typically at the beginning of the scrolls and were later preserved under glass so as to prevent further deterioration.

Which account are you referring to? You don't even say.

And, since none of the witness statements evinced where on the scroll may be found the text of the Book of Abraham, and given that there is reason to believe the text wasn't contained on the beginning portion of the scroll or on certain other extant papyri fragments, then the evidence Kevin presented is meaningless to the relevance of the scroll length issue.

Unbelievable. Just when you thought he saw the light and "got it," wade then goes back to his confused state. Again, my argument doesn't require that any of the witnesses identify the exact location of the Abraham text (though some do). He's trying to force that requisite into my argument when it doesn't exist.

it is also meaningless in terms of what the critics argue as to where the text of the Book of Abraham is located. In some respects it may even counter what the critics suggest.

So now after seven pages you think you're going to just drop assertion bombs on us without evidence? Like I said, interact with me and the evidence or leave the thread. This thread isn't your lecture podium.

In short, while this may have been an interesting exercise in matching witness statements to extant papyrus, it does nothing to establish the relevance or irrelevance of the scroll length issue (contrary to what Kevin suggests)

Then you do not understand the relevance of the scroll length issue. The only reason it has become an "issue" is because the apologists want to argue that the Book of Abraham was probably translated from a missing scroll or missing portions from the scrolls we have. The context of every apologetic argument for a missing text is based on the necessity of a missing Abraham text. They're not arguing for a missing text just for kicks. They're doing so for a purpose. They want people to believe that the Book of Abraham was translated from this missing portion. And of course, they do this because they want to take Joseph Smith's translation abilities into the realm of the unfalsifiable. Though this is like trying to diffuse a bomb that has already exploded.

I will look at my analysis of the Appleby account to see if there is anything I believe may need correcting. Regarding the inconsequential correction I made to my Caswell analysis, it was prompted by a critic rather than an apologists, contrary to what Kevin suggested.

I already corrected you but you kept on with the rhetoric claiming I was setting up a "self-delusional fog machine."

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it is I, or Mr. Graham, who doesn't understand the issues and the evidence.

That doesn't appear to be the case at all. Like William, you two rely on a particular method of persuasion that deals primarily in rhetorical strategy. It doesn't rely on evidence. Your dancing about, pretending that your straw man was a result of my failure to be clear in my argument, is a rhetorical strategy in and of itself. Will's claim that I was "bluffing" as he quickly leaves the premises never to return, is a rhetorical strategy as well.

What about the evidence? Why is it that after seven pages of this thread, neither of you can produce a single historical reference to a missing text said to contain the Book of Abraham?

The answer is obvious. You fill up page after page with dismissive rhetoric and diversion, simply because you cannot produce the evidence I requested. Pretending you didn't understand the request, or that you didn't comprehend what I've been saying, is just rhetoric again. And we both know that the only reason you're now refusing to "interact" with me directly, is because I asked you to answer a few questions that you can't afford to answer.

Wade responds to Brade's question:

Then one cannot logically assume that the text of the Book of Abraham is on the extant papyri.

So according to wade, every single account must explicitly locate the Abraham text on an extant portion of the papyri collection, otherwise there is no way we can logically assume the text is on the extant papyri?

The fact is we have several examples that do in fact, explicitly identify the Book of Abraham as the Breathings text. First and foremost is the Book of Abraham itself. Abr 1:12-16 refers explicitly to Facsimile #1 which we know to be the opening viginette of the Breathings text. The Abr translation refers to itself as following that depiction, which was supposedly Abraham being sacrificed by a priest.

Then we have the fact that multiple scribes and close associates of Joseph Smith believed the characters from the Breathings text represented the Book of Abraham text. At this point all the arguments about dictation or what came first from the translation manuscripts are irrelevant to the fact that we can safely assume that these men at least believed the characters in the left margins corresponded to the Book of Abraham translation. This is just as good as having three seperate accounts by Phelps, Parrish and Williams stating, "the Book of Abraham came from the Breathings text." None of the apologists have dealt with this evidence because they're too busy diverting everyone's attention to the preexistent text theory. Then we have the GAEL where we find out that Joseph Smith participated in a project that dissected a characters taken from the same scroll and translated one character to mean "Abraham."

So there are clear, explicit references that point directly to the Breathings text as the source used for translating the Book of Abraham.

After seven pages of rhetoric, Wade has dealt with none of these.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Xander

[Loran Blood]

Go away Bill, unless you have something to add to this topic.

Kevin is the high holy grandmaster of irony. One thing about him that I must admit is that he never fails to meet or exceed all expectations of him based no his always meeting or exceeding those very expectations in the past.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

tyrj

Edited December 4, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Who do you think you are kidding? Like Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin, you think you can claim to be ignoring me because I'm an anti-Mormon (!) but then, whenever you think you've finally found some sliver of hope in showing how I made an error, you instantly leap to the occasion to, well, ignore me no longer. Funny how that works. The fact is you've been dodging me since 2004 because you cannot respond to the number of refutations that destroy whatever credibility you imagine for yourself.

The second I jump in, you make an announcement that Gee has recommended you take a leave of absence. I predicted this to a number of folks offline, and lo and behold, I'm a prophet! Of course, you could prove I am wrong by addressing teh number of threads I started that highlight your abject ignorance on this subject.

No, this is just another example of William Schryver having no clue what he is talking about by misrepresenting what the critics have argued. Again, if you were interested in what your critics have argued, you wouldn't have to go digging to find out what an obscure RLDS historian once said, and use that as the basis of your apologetic. But then, you didn't really go digging, did you? That would require actual research.

Now you can stick around and address the numerous refutations I've provided you, particularly the whammy in the other thread, or you can slink away as usual.

You were only refusing to address the embarrassing fact that you weren't aware of what you said in your own interview. And you obviously do not "ignore" me whenever I post here on subjects which you clearly know nothing about. You're always there waiting with your dismissive quips and pom-poms to help your budding apologists. You clearly have nothing informative to say on this topic, so why are you even posting in my threads?

Sigh! Wade, I'm not the one who has been diagnosed with multiple learning disabilities.

Whatever happened to the "board rules" around here? Why is this boorish neurotic allowed to flame, spit, hiss, and paw the ground here, seemingly without restraint, while others would have been summarily flung from this thread for similar talk long ago?

Why is Graham getting so much face around here?

Threads such as this one are always quite interesting and informative - until Graham shows up and turns the entire thing into his own personal arena for venting the inner conflicts, contradictions, and psychological trauma surrounding his apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Please do that at the other board, which was set up for exactly that purpose. Criticism of the teachings of the Church is, of course, welcome here, but Graham never has had, and does not now have, the temperament or personality of a kind necessary to engage in rational, civil, intellectually substantive debate. As I've said numerous times, Graham is nothing more than the Keith Olbermann of Internet anti-Mormonism. He is not a serious interlocutor to the apologetics community and never has been. I only wish the delusions of grandeur in his own mind as to his megalithic intellectual status could be some how brought back to the reality of its actual pea-like stature, as perceived by others outside the confines of his own unusually narcissistic subjective thought world.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

Loran, go away.

This isn't your thread and you obviously have nothing of substance to add to this issue.

Wade has been dodging my questions for days now and needs to own up to that fact. He doesn't get to take over my thread with a bunch of straw man arguments and backhanded remarks trying to prop himself up as an expert who is just toying with me. And you're not doing your side any favors with your drive-by attacks. Wade hasn't even begun to address the arguments in my opening post. We've seen nothing but seven pages of rhetoric and diversion. When I try to hold his feet to the fire, he tells the world he will no longer interact with me. Well fine, then get out of my thread. But I will reiterate the fact that he refuses to answer the questions he promised he'd answer.

[Loran Blood]

Loran, go away.

Strange, that's the same thing you just told Bill Hamblin. Neither I, nor Hamblin, nor Will, nor anyone else here can be held responsible for doing nothing more than pulling your mask off and exposing you for what you really are.

This isn't your thread and you obviously have nothing of substance to add to this issue.

But then, Kevin, neither do you. Get it now? That's the point! That's the point Will, Wade, and on occasion, I, have been trying to drive home to you for years now, but which does not as yet seem to have penetrated your sagittal crest.

Wade has been dodging my questions for days now

I've never, ever, seen Wade "dodge" anything, ever. You really need to stop reading the Marvel comic book in your own mind and engage these folks here in some semblance of philosophically serious discourse.

and needs to own up to that fact.

As soon as you own up the your long, dreary record of misrepresenting and willfully misconstruing the arguments and points of your intellectual opponents, and admit that your actual knowledge of the relevant primary sources in this debate, and even the actual arguments of your interlocutors here, is minimal at best and, at times, nearly nonexistent, as they have been trying to tell you for years now.

He doesn't get to take over my thread with a bunch of straw man arguments and backhanded remarks trying to prop himself up as an expert who is just toying with me.

Toying with you is easy. The problem is trying to have a civil, logical, reasoned debate on the merits of any case with you.

And you're not doing your side any favors with your drive-by attacks.

Its going to be "drive by" because there is little point in engaging you at any length. Don't tell me to leave the thread. You, based on your general behavior since you've been back here, and especially in this particular thread, as I delineated with a few tidbits among many I could have posted, above, should at all events not be in this thread either, and perhaps on this board. I've seen others taken out of threads and banned for much less.

This is really very simple. Grow up and start having actual discussions with the intelligent, educated, sincere people here defending the church and willing to engage sincere critics in serious, civil opposing dialogue.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Minos
Loran has left the building

[wenglund]

Do you accept this replacement?

While I think you are reading way too narrowly and literally my informal use of the word "assume," I am fine with the replacement, if it is of help to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Evidently, someone doesn't grasp the important distinction between:

1. The phrasing of his own arguments vs. the phrasing of the arguments he borrows without attribution.

2. Excuses vs. valid explanations.

3. Directly engaging him vs. indirectly engaging some of what he has said, and this by way of people who are capable of carrying on a reasoned discussion.

4. Projection vs valid criticism

5. Assertion vs, carefully reasoned argumentation.

6. What he deems to be evidence and reasoning vs, what fair-minded people deem the same.

7. Old misinterpreted arguments from other people vs. current misinterpreted arguments from me.

8. What is being argued against vs. what is being argued for.

9. Eyewitness statements vs circumstantial evidence

10. What he mistakenly assumed I was referring to as circumstantial evidence vs what I was actually referring to.

11. A somewhat interesting matching game vs. relevant argumentation on key Abrahamic issues.

12. What he thinks is relevant to the scroll length issue vs. what is actually relevant.

13. "Every single account must explicitly locate the Abraham tex" vs. not a single witness account locates the Abraham text.

14. What Wade has dealt with in the past vs. what Wade has said he will deal with in the future.

15. Who does and does not have the right to kick people off a thread as well as valid reasons for doing so.

In short, someone ironically isn't getting who really is confused, lacking comprehension, dodging, setting up straw men, dismissing, diverting, and throwing bombs. Someone is seriously lacking in healthy introspection and a rational sense of self and others.

Leave it to this someone to turn this all into streams of invitations begging for his eloquent pontifications as well as a victory march where in his mind he has thoroughly vanquished his foes. And, far be it from me to dissuade him from such harmless flights of fantasy, even if I could.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 4, 2011 by wenglund