Three things

[_Runtu]

But I don't know all the answers yet.

However, I know enough to know that the "simplest" answer is not going to be applicable in this particular case, and that many of the allegedly "simple" answers given so far have been flatly wrong.

In any case, I'm quite certain that disbelief will almost always prove to be a more defensible proposition than belief. It's just the nature of the thing.

I don't need all the answers, William. But just a tiny bit of plausibility would help. At this point, I'm not even seeing that.

[_William Schryver]

But I don't know all the answers yet.

However, I know enough to know that the "simplest" answer is not going to be applicable in this particular case, and that many of the allegedly "simple" answers given so far have been flatly wrong.

In any case, I'm quite certain that disbelief will almost always prove to be a more defensible proposition than belief. It's just the nature of the thing.

I don't need all the answers, William. But just a tiny bit of plausibility would help. At this point, I'm not even seeing that.

Sorry, I'm plumb out of plausibility.

But I've got a boat load of possibility at a highly discounted rate.

[_Runtu]

Sorry, I'm plumb out of plausibility.

But I've got a boat load of possibility at a highly discounted rate.

Hell, it's possible that the papyrus in question contains a Chinese restaurant's menu from Havana, 1959. If that's all we're dealing with is possibilities, then apologetics becomes meaningless.

[_harmony]

Admit it, Will.

Dissonance,

The only thing I will admit is that it is a fool's errand to discourse with someone like you. You are, most probably, the single most obnoxious female I have ever come across in my life. Your obtuseness is utterly epic in its scope.

I'd curse you like I have Ray, but I frankly don't see how even God could makes matters worse for you.

Oh ho! Can't answer me, can you? So you have to descend to name calling and insults.

Well, Will, you realize that means I won.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Sorry, I'm plumb out of plausibility.

But I've got a boat load of possibility at a highly discounted rate.

Hell, it's possible that the papyrus in question contains a Chinese restaurant's menu from Havana, 1959. If that's all we're dealing with is possibilities, then apologetics becomes meaningless.

Yeah, it really seems like Will has just given up. Good for him, if he is.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Admit it, Will.

Dissonance,

I'd curse you like I have Ray, but I frankly don't see how even God could makes matters worse for you.

Talk about your delusions of grandeur.

[_CaliforniaKid]

However, the fact remains that the only way Gee's calculations can be wrong is if he either: 1-is lying, or 2-is inept. I've seen no indication, at this point, of either being the case.

I believe a third, more likely possibility is that Gee's reasoning with respect to the Book of Abraham is severely impaired by confirmation bias. This is amply demonstrated by his writing on the subject. See, for example, his suggestion that the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts might be intended to "decorate the beginnings of paragraphs," or his unqualified statement that the "known contents" of the Hor roll include "another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved," or his statement that "While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." These statements in his Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri reveal that although Gee is not ignorant of the sources, he has failed to read them through the lens of a sufficiently responsible and critical historical methodology. And these examples of his missteps unfortunately barely scratch the surface.

[_William Schryver]

However, the fact remains that the only way Gee's calculations can be wrong is if he either: 1-is lying, or 2-is inept. I've seen no indication, at this point, of either being the case.

I believe a third, more likely possibility is that Gee's reasoning with respect to the Book of Abraham is severely impaired by confirmation bias. This is amply demonstrated by his writing on the subject. See, for example, his suggestion that the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts might be intended to "decorate the beginnings of paragraphs," or his unqualified statement that the "known contents" of the Hor roll include "another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved," or his statement that "While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." These statements in his Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri reveal that although Gee is not ignorant of the sources, he has failed to read them through the lens of a sufficiently responsible and critical historical methodology. And these examples of his missteps unfortunately barely scratch the surface.

Frankly, although you characterize what you are about to write as a "third" and "more likely possibility," I can detect no substantive difference between his offenses as you describe them, and the simple combination (as Runtu suggested above) of mendacity and ineptitude. If Gee is guilty of the things you charge him with, then his professional integrity is also potentially in question; certainly his professional reputation.

I suppose it remains to be seen if your case is as strong as you make it out to be. I'm not so certain myself. I must admit to discerning a few other possibilities.
.
.
.
.
==================

[_Droopy]

Despite what I think about Loran's rather caustic online persona, he is an intelligent man and often holds his own among people who are more educated than he is.

I rather like Loran most of the time. I wish he could understand that people can disagree without attacking each other.

There are many people who I have strongly disagreed with whom I have never attacked. I have always reserved any "caustic" attributes of my own for a particular kind of person who says particular kinds of things in particular kinds of ways.

Call that what you may, its only ever been aimed at certain people.

[_Droopy]

You've been checkmated yet again, Loran.

I've been here as long as you have, and I've mentioned some of my struggles before, especially with plural marriage, and the deep struggle I went through with in as a youth.[/quote]

You wondered about the veracity of the Church on account of plural marriage? Where did you mention that? A link would be nice. Also: "struggling" when you are a kid hardly counts, Loran. Unless you don't feel that you've evolved--intellectually speaking--since that time.

I have done deep, philosophical searches within my own soul on a number of issues, but I'm afraid its probably the case that I approached these issues from a different bias than someone such as yourself.

Another devastating slip-up. Here, you admit that your bias prevents you from a serious, intelletually rigorous search for the truth. Check. Mate. Again.

I also have a testimony of the Gospel, which means that, no matter what the issue, approaching any issue from the position that the Church or Gospel as a system could ultimately be wrong would involve being dishonest and disingenuous to myself at the outset even though I did not at that time have the answer to any specific question.

As I said: Check. Mate. Again.

Runtu:

I don't think it's fair to say that Loran has never challenged the church or considered that it might not be what it claims to be. He may well have come to his conclusions about the veracity of the church after some serious study and soul-searching. I really don't know.

He just admitted that he's never done this. He has always been biased, and thus, he has never examined the Church in a rigorous way.

I now see why I ceased talking to Scratch probably a year ago.

Its like hearing Klansmen talk about Jewish bankers.