FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_Trevor]

I am way beyond making that particular defense from the Old Testament. But, your post intrigues me. Where does the Old Testament "call it for that it was," adultery? That's a new one.

rcrocket

David and Bathsheba. She was the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

[_Mister Scratch]

What is stupid is leaving out pertinent information. Gee's "speculation" is based on a method Egyptologists use to estimate lengths of scrolls when they have only a piece of one. It has to do with the curvature of the fragment. It is a measurement. Or maybe you weren't stupid for leaving that out. Maybe you weren't aware, in which case you were merely ignorant. Neither is very good for a person who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility.

Well, was Gee being "stupid" when he failed to let everyone know that his mentor, Dr. Ritner, walked off of his dissertation committee? Not very good for a Mopologist who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility!

[_Pokatator]

Forget about the sex. After creating a religion in which obedience to God’s commandments and receiving saving ordinances was requisite to getting into heaven, Joseph introduced a new system. Simply by being sealed to a Church authority and no other action, one could insure salvation for oneself and family. This fact is established beyond refutation.

Isn’t this sufficient to dismiss the man as a prophet? The sex part is irrelevant.

John

Hi John

Welcome to the board. I have followed PostMormon since its conception. You have been a great asset to them. I am sure you will be a great asset here. I have enjoyed your input.

I have to agree with you that Joseph Smith did plenty to dismiss him as a prophet of God, even without the sex. The sex part is (forgive me) the icing on the cake. The abuse of his fabricated sealings, marriages and abuse of his position and authority to insure salvation for someone, doesn't seem too different from Catholic indulgences, in my opinion. This whole sordid situation without sex seems totally an abomination to everything Christian, with sex, well the path is paved to hell either way.

Pokatator

[_charity]

[chartity]

I take it you weren't at Dr. Gee's presenation at the FAIR conference 2007.

Like they would let me through the door.

That is the story you would like to tell. I think we would have thought it was great to have you in the room. Maybe you would have learned something. Of course, you hope people believe you would have not been allowed in. Something else to hold agaisnt FAIR. A nice try at starting a vicious rumor. [/b

]

So you really don't know what he said about measuring papyri fragment. Or else you would know not to parade your ignorance.

I know his argument is absurd, as I have several authorities far more knowledgeable than Gee, who said so.
[b]
You mean about measurements of existing papyri fragments? Or are you just talking generally, and hoping the measurement thing falls through the crack, because you haven't a clue what it was all about.

You have nobody. You have nothing except Gee’s say-so. He presents this not in an academic presentation but at an apologetic conference where none of listeners have the ability to critique it. You guys merely buy anything anyone says at these conferences because it is all about feeling good about your positions. You rely on each other to confirm what you want to believe.

Again, another one of your wishful thinkings.

I know anything that mentions the Book of Abraham throws you into a tizzy.

Only when ignorant people like you pretend to have a clue about the subject; hence, my signature line. All you do is worship FARMS articles and any Mormon who writes about it and then consider the case shut. The case is pretty much shut, however you’re on the losing side and you’re in denial.

If you weren't so blinded by your anger, you would see the steady trickle of affirming evidence. But that's okay. Since you keep casting aspersions on other people's characters, it doesn't make me feel too bad that one of these days the hole you are digging for yourself will collapse in on you.

You got so heated when you thougth I said you were the apologist who got handed his head in a basket, you assumed I was talking about the licking you took over the Book of Abraham (It was someone else in a different situation, and it wasn't the Book of Abraham.)

Now you’re just flat out lying. I got “heated” because you were rumor-mongering just like good apologists do, and everyone here knew you were referring to me. If not, then who? Oh yea, you can’t tell us. How convenient.

I can tell, but I won't. You see what happens to absolutely decent, honest scholars on this board. Nobody deserves that. You could find out on your own if you did your research. But it you are too lazy, then you can twist in the wind and worry about it.

But it is obvious you see red so quickly on the subject, you can't see clearly.

I defend myself when people suggest I’m lying. You have already done this once and you’re also a faithful member of that crowd over there who hates my guts. Don’t insult anyone’s intelligence here by pretending you were not rumor-mongering about me. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who you’re alluding to, anymore than it takes a genius to figure out who Bokovoy has in mind when he goes to MAD, immediately after one of our spats, and starts explaining why some apologists turn critics.

I don't think you are lying. I think you are telling the truth as you see it, through a warped viewpoint. DAvid can speak for himself. But I know your tirades against me, including the insults and name calling, are symptoms of a problem. Maybe lithium would help your paranoia.

Any good counselor can tell you that it is never a good idea to get into a discussion when you are overly emotional. Emotion clouds the logical thinking processes.

Which is why the Mormon testimony is logically bankrupt. This is why the entire LDS apologetic position is virtually void of reasoning. Good grief, one of your top apologists just announced to the world that he thinks struggling members should engage in logical fallacies to overcome their concerns. If the evidence leads someone to disbelieve, then he doesn’t recommend leaving. He recommends we change our assumptions and never allow our presupposition that the “Church is true” to be overthrown by evidence.

I think David's topic was spot on. We all have to engage in either assimilation or accomodation. One technique is just as valid an approach as the other. Your determination that one includes logical fallacies is simply not correct..
[/quote]

[_Jason Bourne]

Before I respond to this post I'll need you to concede, for purposes of argument only, that plural marriage is (1) nowhere prohibited in scripture,

The New Testament prohibits plural marriage and promotes monogamy. A bishop is to be the husband of ONE wife according to the book of Timothy.

(2) was sanctioned by god in the Old Testament, and

It was not sanctioned but rather tolerated. And it was not a sealing, was not polyandry and was not required for entrance to heaven.

(3) was considered by Joseph Smith to be part of the package of the restoration of all things.

I believe the Joseph taught this.

If you can't concede for purposes of my argument only these facts, then absolutely of course I cannot engage you with the specifics of Hyde and Huntington Smith Young.

Why concede to partially erroneous arguments?

[_charity]

Well, was Gee being "stupid" when he failed to let everyone know that his mentor, Dr. Ritner, walked off of his dissertation committee? Not very good for a Mopologist who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility!

I wonder who looks bad in this? Sounds to me like Ritner's act was one of "you can't fire me, I quit." Since Dr. Gee got his ph. d. at Yale, it seems to me some members of his committee must have thought he was more credible than Ritner.

[_dartagnan]

That is the story you would like to tell. I think we would have thought it was great to have you in the room. Maybe you would have learned something. Of course, you hope people believe you would have not been allowed in. Something else to hold agaisnt FAIR. A nice try at starting a vicious rumor.

You idiot, the statement was tongue in cheek, but I think it has merit nevertheless. After all, the FAIR crowd insists they want absolutely nothing to do with me. If anyone even brings up my name the entire mod squad hits the defcon 5 switch as all possible proxy respondents are shut down.

You mean about measurements of existing papyri fragments?

Of course of the existing papyri fragments. The formula depends on the curvature which is not data he can ascertain given the fact that the fragments were glued.

Or are you just talking generally, and hoping the measurement thing falls through the crack, because you haven't a clue what it was all about.

Gee has never had a clue what he is talking about, and just to prove how ignorant and gullible you MADites are, and how easily wooed you are with any FAIR conference presentation, and how you have no sense of critical thought, just go ahead and tell me what Gee’s source was for his formula. Did you take notes? Did anyone?

I dare you.

I double dare you.

Nobody at MAD wants to provide it and Gee doesn’t respond to email inquiries about it. Both Christ Smith and myself have been ignored when asking for his source. Something smells wrong about all of this, but given Gee’s history of deception, it should be easy to figure out where the smell is coming from.

The fact is Ritner and Bell are both Egyptologists who have no clue what the hell Gee is talking about.

Again, another one of your wishful thinkings.

Then prove me wrong. The fact is you know nothing about this. Al you know is what Gee told you at the FAIR apologetics presentation. He doesn’t publish this or speak about this in a scholarly atmosphere because he would be laughed at. As he told Chris Smith some time ago, “Who would believe it”? Well, obviously he found a crowd gullible enough to believe anything, which is why he chose to present this nonsense at the FAIR conference.

If you weren't so blinded by your anger, you would see the steady trickle of affirming evidence.

What affirming evidences? Start listing them

Since you keep casting aspersions on other people's characters, it doesn't make me feel too bad that one of these days the hole you are digging for yourself will collapse in on you.

Gee made his own bed the minute he played us all for fools with his ridiculous “guide” to the Papyri. He based arguments on color photos that had been altered in color. He wasn’t expecting Metcalfe to share his color photos with the world, and prove he was lying. This guy has a track record of deception. He deserves every bit of “aspersion” that comes his way.

I can tell, but I won't.

You won’t because you can’t. You’re lying and we know it.

I know your tirades against me, including the insults and name calling, are symptoms of a problem.

Yes, and that problem is your stupidity. I note intellilgence when I see it, and I do the same with stupidity.

Maybe lithium would help your paranoia.

Why would I be paranoid because of your stupidity? Oh way, your comments aren’t supposed to make sense. I keep forgetting.

I think David's topic was spot on.

So you agree LDS should engage in logical fallacies if necessary, to salvage what’s left of their testimony? That’s an astonishing admission coming from him, but no surprise coming from you.

We all have to engage in either assimilation or accommodation.

That isn’t all Bokovoy said, but I no longer expect you to understand much of anything. The rational and reasonable thing to do is follow the evidence where it takes us. If that takes you to the conclusion that the Church isn’t true, then you don’t spit it out just because it doesn’t taste good. There is nothing “right” or noble about avoiding this logical path for the sake of saving what makes you feel good.

One technique is just as valid an approach as the other.

What a stupid comment.

Your determination that one includes logical fallacies is simply not correct

It is correct, and everyone here understands this except you. I think even Bokovoy recognizes it. Only you are trying to say it doesn’t.

[_Runtu]

If you weren't so blinded by your anger, you would see the steady trickle of affirming evidence.

Maybe you should start a thread on this trickle of evidence. When I asked Dr. Peterson about this subject, he sent me to a John Clark article that was less than affirming.

[_Jason Bourne]

Why do you dodge reasonable questions?

I usually don't answer a whole lot of questions that are not on the topic of my original post.

Why di you attempt to impugn me with your comment about simply accepting attacks agains a despised religion.

I didn't. I was speaking generically. Just keep in mind that when you are looking at historical evidence of the Church, you are looking at very biased sources -- both ways. If we were talking about vanilla Presybterianism, you wouldn't see that polarity. But we're not. Critics of the Church often and usually disregard the bias inherent in the sources of evidence upon which they rely. Arrington was good at assessment. Stenhouse to a degree. Compton was not -- I have chased down several of his sources and am shocked by the quality of them. Ditto for van Wagoner. Quinn is somewhat critical but he dumps so much stuff into his footnotes his loses it.

There is plenty of evidence that Joseph married these women who were married? Are you disputing that?

Yes on some pieces of evidence, no on others.

I see you still are avoiding that question I reasonably asked about this. Am I to assume you have no answer?

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, was Gee being "stupid" when he failed to let everyone know that his mentor, Dr. Ritner, walked off of his dissertation committee? Not very good for a Mopologist who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility!

I wonder who looks bad in this? Sounds to me like Ritner's act was one of "you can't fire me, I quit." Since Dr. Gee got his ph. d. at Yale, it seems to me some members of his committee must have thought he was more credible than Ritner.

You are changing the subject. You tried to make about about "full disclosure," and yet it's clear you don't apply the same standards to Mopologists that you do to critics. More hypocrisy from Ms. "Pure Love of Christ." Your screen name, it seems, is growing more rancid by the second.