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

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Why is it you have to teach me? Why can't it be the other way round? Is this because it threatens your theory?

ETA: You seem so certain I'm spreading false information. Please tell me precisely what " false information" I'm spreading. And then please tell me why you're not doing the same thing you're accusing me of.

Dr. Hauglid, I want it to be the other way around as well - both ways. That is why I sought specific criticisms on my solution to the Book of Abraham, which you declined to give. The only specific criticism I ever received was a misunderstanding, as I explain here: http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/being-aware-and-avoiding-straw-man.html?m=1

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Has it been published yet?

I believe so. It is a "source and text critical" edition of History of the Church.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Oh. That explains it.

Vogel has a lot to learn about philosophy. Now I am really out!

He is the same category as Riskas as a logical positivist though he probably doesn't know it.

That may be, but if he offers specific sources which can be verified by the reader, then this work could be very useful.

[ERayR]

mfbukowski, I enjoyed discussing things with you. I hope you will return and explain why you think the statements are contradictory.

 

Please show me the discussion.  All I saw was you lecturing.

Edited February 9, 2015 by ERayR

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I'm doing the best I can. I have a desire to help people, I'm not trying to hurt anyone and I am sorry for things I said that were hurtful.

[Calm]

I believe so. It is a "source and text critical" edition of History of the Church.

Then it sounds to me like it would be a good idea for you to research on the specific quotation that is in question and get back with us and Dr. Hauglid when you have that information.  Until then, it seems to me the conversation is stalled out on what might or might not be true.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Then it sounds to me like it would be a good idea for you to research on the specific quotation that is in question and get back with us and Dr. Hauglid when you have that information. Until then, it seems to me the conversation is stalled out on what might or might not be true.

What we do know is that HC attributes many things falsely to Joseph Smith. So a disclaimer I think is useful in helping people sort out the information.

[cinepro]

You said that the words in question came from Joseph Smith, even though HC routinely attributes words to Smith which did not actually come from him.

 

 

Just so I'm clear, is this the passage you're all discussing?

 

History of the Church, Volume II, chapter 16:

 

[Page 236]

The Writings of Abraham and Joseph.

 

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, 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.

 

So, the question is where did the claim that "the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.," come from?

 

The obvious answer is that Joseph said it, and the man in charge of his journal (William Clayton?) wrote it down. 

 

But apparently this obvious (and relatively benign, all things considered) explanation doesn't work for you.  So I would have to ask what your theory is.  If Joseph didn't actually say that the papyri contained "the writings of Joseph of Egypt", then where did that statement come from?  Did the scribe make it up?  If so, that would seem to be a much more damaging theory, because once we acknowledge that friends and scribes of Joseph made up stuff that he said (out of wholecloth), that leads us down a path that is much darker than having to explain "The Book of Joseph."

[ksfisher]

Just so I'm clear, is this the passage you're all discussing?

 

History of the Church, Volume II, chapter 16:

 

 

 

 

So, the question is where did the claim that "the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.," come from?

 

The obvious answer is that Joseph said it, and the man in charge of his journal (William Clayton?) wrote it down. 

 

But apparently this obvious (and relatively benign, all things considered) explanation doesn't work for you.  So I would have to ask what your theory is.  If Joseph didn't actually say that the papyri contained "the writings of Joseph of Egypt", then where did that statement come from?  Did the scribe make it up?  If so, that would seem to be a much more damaging theory, because once we acknowledge that friends and scribes of Joseph made up stuff that he said (out of wholecloth), that leads us down a path that is much darker than having to explain "The Book of Joseph."

 

Perhaps they didn't make it up out of wholecloth, but sort of a cotton poly blend.  

[cinepro]

Perhaps they didn't make it up out of wholecloth, but sort of a cotton poly blend.  

 

Or Dri Lux?

[The Nehor]

I'm out too.

 

ETA: Before I sign off I just want to say that my interactions with Ryan have pretty much followed this kind of exchange. What I say and do is never enough. It finally gets to the point of diminishing return and I have to bow out. I am happy to have two-way conversations.

It is a personality flaw. Some people crave interaction with people because they imagine it gives them credibility. In my experience it is more fun to ignore them and giggle at the tantrums and meltdowns because you will never satisfy them. To each their own I guess.