DiscussMormonism.com

Kevin Graham wrote:Well you have to feel sympathy for them at some point. This has been a very rough year for LDS apologetics.

I LOVE what you are doing, and no we don't have to have sympathy for them. That's like everyone being asked to have respect for ding-a-ling doctrines. We do NOT have to respect faith and fake deference for authority when it clearly does not deserve it. You can acknowledge belief, but you do not have to respect it and pretend it makes sense and is logical and consistent. No, what you are doing, simply telling the truth about things is vastly superior to faking sympathy with those who do not deserve it.

2011? The Psalter baby is easily put to bed anyway, with Caswall's false reporting of Joseph Smith's speech mannerisms.

Kevin, please continue to do what you do to piss off people.

I no longer dig into these threads... just seeing Mormon defenders upset at you brings me tremendous joy.

Thank you.

bcspace wrote:2011? The Psalter baby is easily put to bed anyway, with Caswall's false reporting of Joseph Smith's speech mannerisms.

Dream on, dipstick. grindael here cites Josiah Quincy that clogs the the toilet of that FAIR canard from flushing.

Go back to the drawing board.

L-d$,inc..., syphilis as organized religion.

The LDS Apologist Pahoran sure loves the missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham.
Here is what he has stated:

As you must know, if you are half as well informed as you so loudly and incessantly boast, the real apologetic argument put forward by Gee et al is that a great deal of the papyri Joseph once had is now missing, and therefore, absent any authoritative statement on the subject from Joseph or someone close to him, any speculation about which bit of papyrus was the (or a) source for the Book of Abraham is necessarily inconclusive.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/562 ... his/page-2



In reality, the missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham is really a red herring. We already have the Papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was 'translated' from. The Book of Abraham was 'translated' from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text). Yet, Pahoran refuses to accept that reality.

viewtopic.php?p=746582#p746582

Brackite wrote:The LDS Apologist Pahoran sure loves the missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham.
Here is what he has stated:

As you must know, if you are half as well informed as you so loudly and incessantly boast, the real apologetic argument put forward by Gee et al is that a great deal of the papyri Joseph once had is now missing, and therefore, absent any authoritative statement on the subject from Joseph or someone close to him, any speculation about which bit of papyrus was the (or a) source for the Book of Abraham is necessarily inconclusive.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/562 ... his/page-2



In reality, the missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham is really a red herring. We already have the Papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was 'translated' from. The Book of Abraham was 'translated' from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text). Yet, Pahoran refuses to accept that reality.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 82#p746582

How does the infamous Mopologist known as "Pahoran" deal with the 'not missing' facsimile 1 papyrus and associated translation published in The Book of Abraham?

Name calling and snark?