Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Ouagadougou]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks for your ad hominem, Gervin.  So, since I am such a horrible person, perhaps you could talk with Ouagadougou and ask why he lied about Muhlestein being the author of a video he attacked, a video which is anti-Mormon, but which Ouagadougou condemns is pro-Mormon.  In an age of fake news and fake facts, perhaps you think that is perfectly alright, and thus calling someone to account for such nonsense is always inappropriate.  Had you actually followed the discussion, you would note that I simply raised the question for him very nicely, but that he repeatedly ignored his own mistake (perhaps not even realizing that he had made the mistake, very much like a drunk not being able to track a conversation).  That sort of blatant incoherence is actually not typical of him, and represents a new low.  I am puzzled by it.  Hence, the question of inebriation or other psychological problem.  I am open to a better explanation.  Do you have one?

This is the video that I watched and was referring to:

It is a rebuttal to Muhlestein's claims he presents in his videos:

https://mormonchallenges.org/2013/02/10/abraham-challenge-2/

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

This is the video that I watched and was referring to:

It is a rebuttal to Muhlestein's claims he presents in his videos:

https://mormonchallenges.org/2013/02/10/abraham-challenge-2/ 

That certainly makes a lot more sense than your earlier post, which I insert here:

Quote

Posted Thursday at 10:48 PM ·

Quote

 

Is there anything in the youtube that this guy got wrong, or maybe he didn't put in enough research?

Quoting Ouagadougou here:

At the beginning of this video, Muhlestein is blatantly lying, IMO, when talking about facsimile #1.  His words even contradict the church's essay below:

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1."
https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

Not only that, but the BoA published in 1842 had facsimile # 1 on the front page.  This is lying, denial, and cognitive dissonance being manifest in such apologetics like this video.  

Can you see why I was puzzled?  Then, when you repeatedly failed to correct your error, I began to think the worst.  Does that make any sense to you?

Trying to edit this so that it makes sense, but the system won't allow it.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That certainly makes a lot more sense than your earlier post, which I insert here:

Can you see why I was puzzled?  Then, when you repeatedly failed to correct your error, I began to think the worst.  Does that make any sense to you?

Trying to edit this so that it makes sense, but the system won't allow it.

I now see why you were puzzled.  This is the video I watched and commented on.  I was puzzled as well because the video I watched showed Muhlestein and his statements on the BoA...but you made mention that this wasn't the case.  

Anyway, we clearly have different views on the BoA--and the purpose of my post wasn't to ruffle any feathers and/or offend others.  I respectfully disagree with some of your opinions/views.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I now see why you were puzzled.  This is the video I watched and commented on.  I was puzzled as well because the video I watched showed Muhlestein and his statements on the BoA...but you made mention that this wasn't the case.  

Anyway, we clearly have different views on the BoA--and the purpose of my post wasn't to ruffle any feathers and/or offend others.  I respectfully disagree with some of your opinions/views.  

Actually, my comments had nothing at all to do with whether we agree or disagree on the BofA, but whether your post was coherent and meaningful.  That is what the dust-up was all about, leading some people to blame me for getting on your case.  A lot of time was wasted to no purpose.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Thinking]

It meant what it seems to mean, until it didn't. Now it means something else, and we should have known that meaning all along.