William Schryver wrote:
In any case, beastsheba, since you’ve apparently forgotten your Bible stories, it was David, from his roof-top, observing Bathsheba "washing herself," that aroused within him the wicked desires that led to his eventual fall from grace:
Oh, for heaven's sake, I know the story of David and Bathsheba. That story has nothing to do with David and Goliath, which was the image you invoked earlier, comparing yourself to David, and Brent to Goliath. I was simply following up on your ego-filled imagination, but pointing out that, instead of a well-placed stone, you were emitting a foul stench from your slingshot by insinuating Brent had a dark secret to hide about the Hofmann affair.
Will, imagining himself to be David:
viewtopic.php?p=354200#p354200Your age physically, but whose heart and soul are so much more nubile and so much less cankered by the unrelinquished resentments that have afflicted you for so long.
Snore.
I have defined it. Indeed, I made it perfectly clear in my FAIR conference address. Multiple times. With pronounced emphasis on each occasion.
That you and your cohorts can’t seem to comprehend these things is of no concern to me. Remember, you’re not my target audience. I am convinced that there is nothing that could open your eyes at this point. You have all, more or less without exception, gone past the point of no return. You would not believe even were one to rise from the dead before your very eyes. Your hardened apostate hearts are past feeling.
The point I was making with Wade is that even your most faithful followers apparently didn't "get" what you pronounced with emphasis on each occasion to justify your rejection of Nibley, other than the fact that there were nonEgyptian figures present. You certainly emphasized that, over and over. But now you claim it's irrelevant to your rejection of Nibley that Joseph Smith et al likely believed the figures were Egyptian, and even Wade admits to not having a reason to reject Nibley if that were the case.
The only thing that will convince me that you're not knowingly and deliberately blowing hot air, and you KNOW that your main reason to reject Nibley was that some figures weren't Egyptian, and you're now buying time to think of something else will be for you to clearly and simply state what that something "far more definitive" actually was. Apparently it's not apostasy that renders me unable to recognize it, since your lapdog Wade can't, either. So it's simply your own poor presentation... unless, of course, this is all bluster, which is what I truly believe.
by the way, I still want to know if you knew that Joseph Smith et al likely believed the Masonic characters WERE Egyptian and just neglected to mention it, or if you just didn't know.
I still want to know how you reconcile this statement of Nibley's with your theory:
It was not the habit of Joseph Smith to suppress his revelations. He made every effort to see to it that each excerpt from the book of Abraham was published to the world the moment it was presentable. "One cannot read the pages of the early periodicals of the Church," writes James R. Clark, " . . . without being impressed with the fact that to Joseph Smith, availability of the new revelations of God where people could read them and immediately profit by their instruction was more important than the technicality of having acomplete text of these ancient records at the start . . . " Hence, Clark notes, it was his custom to publish them in the form of extracts as he went along.30