Page 12 of 15
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:59 pm
by Shulem
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:14 pm
To pull God and angels out of the picture you have to create some artificial hoops to jump through.
Actually, it's just the opposite, MG. Like all those angels appearing in the Kirtland temple or whatnot. Look, to put God and angels in the picture you have to create artificial hoops to jump through! Anybody can say they see angels but proving it is impossible.
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:06 pm
by Marcus
Shulem wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:55 pm
Marcus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:45 pm
Shulem, a question. If I recall correctly, the papyrus is missing for facsimile 3, and all we have is the drawn image made into the engraving, right?
That's all we have. Facsimile No. 3 as published in the Times and Seasons provides the only imagery of everything of that particular vignette. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers have no other documentation for that vignette.
Thanks! I know about Anubis’ snout (of course!), but is it possible the arms were drawn in or were recreated also, due to a tear or missing piece? They seem a little weirdly shaped.
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:06 pm
by Shulem
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:21 pm
Some folks may not have even realized that there is a Pearl of Great Price Central.
All anyone has to do is look at my signature and
click the link.
Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene
They will learn about Pearl of Great Price Central right away and how wrong that site is and learn how I literally destroy the fundamental claims and arguments for Facsimile No. 1. I trust the Backyard professor has been digesting that link this week getting ready for his new podcast.
It's over for the Book of Abraham. It's toast!
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:11 pm
by Shulem
Marcus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:06 pm
Thanks! I know about Anubis’ snout (of course!), but is it possible the arms were drawn in or were recreated also, due to a tear or missing piece? They seem a little weirdly shaped.
I think the arms are fine. I don't recall Ritner ever complaining about arms or limbs. It's the face which is the problem and a single jackal ear atop the head is a dead give away that it's Anubis. It's the only ear on that person. There is no human ear. The black arms and legs are black fur, not skin per se.
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:18 pm
by Marcus
Shulem wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:11 pm
Marcus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:06 pm
Thanks! I know about Anubis’ snout (of course!), but is it possible the arms were drawn in or were recreated also, due to a tear or missing piece? They seem a little weirdly shaped.
I think the arms are fine. I don't recall Ritner ever complaining about arms or limbs. It's the face which is the problem and a single jackal ear atop the head is a dead give away that it's Anubis. It's the only ear on that person. There is no human ear. The black arms and legs are black fur, not skin per se.
Ok, I see. Thank you!
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:18 pm
by consiglieri
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:14 pm
consiglieri wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:14 pm
It is often surprising the mental gymnastics one will go through to continue believing something one wants to be true.
Your podcast which tried to tie your experience with magic to Joseph’s Book of Mormon translation was a bit of the same.
To pull God and angels out of the picture you have to create some artificial hoops to jump through.
Regards,
MG
This is similar to what Uri Geller said when exposed by James Randi.
“Just because Randi can duplicate my effect by magic doesn’t mean the way I do it is not supernatural.”
It’s an argument with a long pedigree.
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:24 pm
by consiglieri
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:42 pm
consiglieri wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:54 pm
Let me here make the unremarkable observation that it is always easier to fool a spectator who wants to be fooled.
That’s under the assumption that Oliver Cowdery was that type of individual. Again, you’re having to build a caricature that involves having to assign Oliver with motives that cut against the grain in regards to the actual historical record.
You have to assume that he’s a simple minded dupe that was not only duped once, but over and over and over again.
And you have no other options other than to believe this to be true.
Here’s Oliver’s testimony. Of course, you can take it or leave it.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng
Regards.
MG
I never said anyone was a simple dupe.
That’s a strawman.
It is axiomatic among magicians that, as a general principle, the intelligent and educated are often the easiest to fool.
It is the desire to believe that is important.
What does Alma 32:27 say about the “desire to believe”?
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:12 pm
by Philo Sofee
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:14 pm
consiglieri wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:14 pm
It is often surprising the mental gymnastics one will go through to continue believing something one wants to be true.
Your podcast which tried to tie your experience with magic to Joseph’s Book of Mormon translation was a bit of the same.
To pull God and angels out of the picture you have to create some artificial hoops to jump through.
Regards,
MG
God and angels are the artificial hoops.
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:19 pm
by Rivendale
consiglieri wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:18 pm
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:14 pm
Your podcast which tried to tie your experience with magic to Joseph’s Book of Mormon translation was a bit of the same.
To pull God and angels out of the picture you have to create some artificial hoops to jump through.
Regards,
MG
This is similar to what Uri Geller said when exposed by James Randi.
“Just because Randi can duplicate my effect by magic doesn’t mean the way I do it is not supernatural.”
It’s an argument with a long pedigree.
Wait. MG 2.0 left out demons. Demons do magic all the time. Whenever the trick can't be explained it has to be demons.
Re: Shulem to a wider audience
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:25 pm
by consiglieri
