Ryan Larsen's ("mormon Puzzle Pieces") Response To Professor Brian Hauglid

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Your response is basically you whining that he won't listen to you.

No, the reason I mention my inability to discuss this with him privately is to assure readers that I attempted to correct the issue privately before correcting it publicly.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[The Nehor]

So you can't back up your characterization.

 

I invite the discerning reader to disagree with you. As a non-discerning reader you are disqualified.

 

No, the reason I mention my inability to discuss this with him privately is to assure readers that I attempted to correct the issue privately before correcting it publicly.

 

Oh.....the humiliation he must feel...  [/sarcasm]

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I invite the discerning reader to disagree with you.

Yet you do not explain on what grounds they would disagree with me.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Oh.....the humiliation he must feel... [/sarcasm]

Setting aside your false characterization of my disclaimer, why do you attempt to define my post by a small side-note rather than it's central thesis?

Edited February 7, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[mfbukowski]

I can see why it could look that way at first, but what I actually am saying is people ought *not* assume that they have "won" an argument, especially using that assumption as a reason to disengage from the discussion and dismiss the other person's arguments. Doing so is like

presuming to have won a chess game and putting away the board and pieces while the other person is making their move. Rather, people should play it out to the end as much as possible, and not presume to have won the argument unless the other person is checkmated. This gives the other person a chance to clear up misunderstandings and raise points you might not have seen / showing you lines of play you had not seen.

The point is, play it out and don't assume it is over until the other person actually has no moves left.

So one should listen endlessly to a raving maniac on the street corner.

 

I think not.

[ERayR]

I can see why it could look that way at first, but what I actually am saying is people ought *not* assume that they have "won" an argument, especially using that assumption as a reason to disengage from the discussion and dismiss the other person's arguments. Doing so is like

presuming to have won a chess game and putting away the board and pieces while the other person is making their move. Rather, people should play it out to the end as much as possible, and not presume to have won the argument unless the other person is checkmated. This gives the other person a chance to clear up misunderstandings and raise points you might not have seen / showing you lines of play you had not seen.

The point is, play it out and don't assume it is over until the other person actually has no moves left.

 

So you are not in a discussion to exchange information but to win an argument?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

So you are not in a discussion to exchange information but to win an argument?

No. Playing chess is exchanging information. If someone has an idea that you disagree with, play it out by seeing what their response is. Then respond to their response and so forth.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[mfbukowski]

No. Playing chess is exchanging information. If someone has an idea that you disagree with, play it out by seeing what their response is. Then respond to their response and so forth.

What if they do not know how to play the game?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

So one should listen endlessly to a raving maniac on the street corner.

I think not.

You don't have unlimited time to listen to people. But do not presume to judge the truthfulness of someone's message by how the person looks or sounds. For example, one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims escaped alive. He was naked and could not understand English, but he was alive. He was frantic and yelling, you might say a "raving maniac." Then Jeffrey Dahmer comes along, well spoken and groomed. Dahmer told a police officer that he was taking care of the man, and a story about the man having mental issues. The officer forced the man to return to Dahmer, who forcibly took him back and killed and ate him. Dahmer was the maniac.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

What if they do not know how to play the game?

Postpone the game, if you'd like. But don't claim that they lost.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Kevin Graham just illustrated what I'm advocating. He commented on my response to Dr. Hauglid, proposing Hauglid may have meant "History of the Church" but said "journal" accidentally. Kevin asked what the difference is. I then reminded him that there's a big difference. What I appreciate is that Kevin asked. He made a move and then deferred to me to respond. And if he has a response to my response, I am perfectly open to hearing it. Certain other people might not have exhibited Kevin's open-mindedness, but might have said something more along the lines of, "This is stupid. It doesn't matter if Joseph wrote it in his journal, because he says the same thing in H.C. so I'm not going to listen to you because you have proven that you are an idiot." This is the equivalent of putting the pieces away instead of playing it out and seeing if the other person sees something you don't see.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[Jeanne]

But sadly, apologists can be more like a 6 year old who changes the rules mid-game to compensate for the fact that they just lost their queen. 

This is so true.  I have mentioned a time or two how my mother's bishop offered to have her "pay up" on tithing to attend my brother's Temple Wedding.

A few apologist here said that they had never heard of this before.  Since then, it has been mentioned by others with acceptance.  I just remember Mr. Petersen telling me "no..no..no... you are so wrong".

[mfbukowski]

You don't have unlimited time to listen to people. But do not presume to judge the truthfulness of someone's message by how the person looks or sounds. For example, one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims escaped alive. He was naked and could not understand English, but he was alive. He was frantic and yelling, you might say a "raving maniac." Then Jeffrey Dahmer comes along, well spoken and groomed. Dahmer told a police officer that he was taking care of the man, and a story about the man having mental issues. The officer forced the man to return to Dahmer, who forcibly took him back and killed and ate him. Dahmer was the maniac.

Your presumption that I do that is precisely what you are condemning.

[mfbukowski]

Postpone the game, if you'd like. But don't claim that they lost.

They should not care if they "lost" in the first place.  Teaching is not a chess game.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Your presumption that I do that is precisely what you are condemning.

Where did I presume you did anything? I think you may have taken a statement the wrong way.

[Brian Hauglid]

Dear Ryan,

 

I sincerely apologize for this unfortunate misunderstanding. I know very that JS did not keep an 1835 journal until Sept. 1835. I also know well very that thanks to W. W. Phleps (who aided in writing the manuscript history in 1843 Nauvoo) we have entries that deal with July 1835 (which we can find in the HC). I may have been thinking of the HC when I made the comment in the podcast. I do not specifically recall. But I would appreciate the benefit of doubt and I would appreciate this being the end of the matter.

 

Thanks,

Brian

 

ETA: I'd really be grateful of this thread were closed.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

They should not care if they "lost" in the first place. Teaching is not a chess game.

It would be incorrect to say he lost. That alone is reason to care about someone claiming he lost. But the scenario you asked about with someone not knowing how to play is a bit of a straw man I think, because the idea I have been trying to convey is that someone can look at the same facts that you are looking at and see things that you aren't seeing, so if they express a view or make a move and you think their view/move is clearly wrong (for instance in chess their move causes them to lose their queen like Fischer did in a shocking move that ended up winning because he saw what no one else could see in the same set if facts, i.e. the chess pieces are available for everyone to see), you should not dismiss it but should play it out. Do you disagree with this?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Dear Ryan,

I sincerely apologize for this unfortunate misunderstanding. I know very that JS did not keep an 1835 journal until Sept. 1835. I also know well very that thanks to W. W. Phleps (who aided in writing the manuscript history in 1843 Nauvoo) we have entries that deal with July 1835 (which we can find in the HC). I may have been thinking of the HC when I made the comment in the podcast. I do not specifically recall. But I would appreciate the benefit of doubt and I would appreciate this being the end of the matter.

Thanks,

Brian

ETA: I'd really be grateful of this thread were closed.

Hi Dr. Hauglid. I would not like this thread closed, or discussion otherwise censored or shut down, because the issue involved and the discussion taking place is important to me - but you of course do not need to participate if you do not wish to do so.

Your request to have the thread shut down, if granted, would prevent me from replying to your post that you addressed to me. You may not have considered this fact, but I hope you will be interested in my response. This is just a quick note to make sure the thread stats open, but I will address the other content of your post shortly.

Thank you.

[Brian Hauglid]

I'm sorry if my response did not satisfy you. I don't know what else to say. I admit my mistake. Your further correction of me seems unwarranted, unwanted, and unwise. I do not appreciate a thread dedicated to a sincere mistake. Can't you just say thanks for the apology and move on?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I'm sorry if my response did not satisfy you. I don't know what else to say. I admit my mistake. Your further correction of me seems unwarranted, unwanted, and unwise. I do not appreciate a thread dedicated to a sincere mistake. Can't you just say thanks for the apology and move on?

Dr. Hauglid, I sincerely disagree with your characterization of this thread, and I do not understand why you would want communication shut down.

To clarify what I mean by that, the error I wish to correct is the notion that Joseph Smith necessarily said the things in question which have been attributed to him. Where the quotes appear (journal or HC) is not the significant issue. I hope that helps to clarify.

[Brian Hauglid]

So then, what precisely do you want from me?

[DragonLancer]

So then, what precisely do you want from me?

 

Thanks for what you have said Brother Hauglid.  I for one do not expect anything else, and I'm not asking for anything else, and I for one am not looking for any further interaction.  I intend to leave you alone and anyone else like you from the worlds of FAIR or Interpreter or anything else.  I think my research and Ryan's research can live in their own respective worlds without bothering you or anyone else like you further.

 

Ed

[Brian Hauglid]

Thanks for what you have said Brother Hauglid.  I for one do not expect anything else, and I'm not asking for anything else, and I for one am not looking for any further interaction.  I intend to leave you alone and anyone else like you from the worlds of FAIR or Interpreter or anything else.  I think my research and Ryan's research can live in their own respective worlds without bothering you or anyone else like you further.

 

Ed

 

Thank you Brother Goble. For the record I have taken your theory seriously, but I have not had the time to carefully weigh it. When the time comes that I do engage your theory it will be in a publication format with well thought out analyses. And that generally comes ever so slowly.

 

All the best,

Brian

 

Edited to fix grammar

Edited February 8, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

So then, what precisely do you want from me?

Dr. Hauglid, what would be helpful would be a retraction or disclaimer helping people understand that Joseph Smith is not necessarily the one who made the statement in question. Or, if you feel that he is necessarily the one who made the statement, then an explanation of how that conclusion can be reached when so many of the statements attributed to Smith in HC did not actually come from him.

[DragonLancer]

Thank you Brother Goble. For the record I have taken your theory seriously, but I have not had the time to carefully weigh it. When the time comes that I do engage your theory it will be in a publication format with well thought out analyses. And that generally comes ever so slowly.

 

All the best,

Brian

 

Edited to fix grammar

 

Dear Brother Hauglid,

 

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your lack of response previously.  Please forgive my frustration and so forth.

 

For everyone else reading this:

 

 

I think it is important that I point out here however that the fundamental principles between my theory and Ryan's are almost identical, in spite of the fact that we have just barely met one another a few weeks previous to this.  His work focuses on Facsimile #3 decipherment, while mine has focused on decipherment of KEP/Sensen text characters, which means that we have stumbled upon almost the same thing from different parts of the same papyrus.  The only real difference here is his theory of how the Sensen Papyrus is the Book of Abraham, which differs from mine.  But I'm impressed by it to the degree that I believe it stands just as plausible as my own to explain how things got this way.

 

Ed