Brian Hauglid has a meltdown

Post by **_dartagnan** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:41 pm

Bob, I can't believe you just called him a fag.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:45 pm

dartagnan wrote:
Joseph Smith didn't need the papyri to yield the Book of Abraham.

Then why didn't he produce the Book of Abraham without using the papyrus? When it came into his possession in 1835 he told everyone it contained the Book of Abraham. He began a translation shortly afterwards and continued using the papyri for this purpose until 1842.

You offer ad hoc nonsense that flies in the face of the historical record. Saying he could have done it without the papyrus doesn't change the fact that he didn't. We already know Joseph Smith used the papyrus for producing the Book of Abraham. Are you really this ignorant on the subject?

If so, then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

But isn't my formulation the standard one? I mean, don't LDS apologists -- at least some of them -- maintain that the papyri were mere mnemonic devices for the Prophet to yield an ancient translation of a lost, but original holograph?

We read in the historical record that Joseph Smith did not think to ask about baptism, or the priesthood or, I imagine, plural marriage, until something external he was reading triggered the question to the Lord. Seems that very fortuitous arrival of the papyri (I mean, Ohio? Come on) and his subsequent possession of them was the sufficient trigger to yield a document the Lord wanted him to have.

We see lots of stories in the scriptures similar to that -- Jesus coming upon the withered fig tree, Jesus arriving at the pool of Siloa (sp uncertain here), and various prophets encoutering externalities which yield something far greater. That is what happened here. One develops an understanding and testimony of the Book of Abraham by reading it and feeling the Spirit that it yields -- anachronisms and other difficulties you pose notwithstanding. One feels the same thing by reading the Bible, with all of its corruptions and anachronisms. Something -- the Spirit -- is going on to counter the critics. I see it every day in what I do.

Post by **_Phaedrus Ut** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:47 pm

rcrocket wrote:A sort of Scratchian mocking -- make statements while having no substantive knowledge on the subject. The subject bores me. Joseph Smith didn't need the papyri to yield the Book of Abraham. It could have said something completely different and indeed did.

What ever scratchian mocking may be I'm sure it's fun???? And sure he didn't need the papyri to produce the Book of Abraham. I can pull all sorts of crazy scenarios out of my hind quarters to double talk around the subject. The problem is they are all a null set. You have no evidence to support that speculation.... other than your feelings the Book of Abraham is true and the reality that the source documents don't match. Oh and the small problem that Joseph's own words and work are contrary to your thesis.

On the same boat will you also concede the same reality for the extant Book of Mormon characters?

Phaedrus

Post by **_antishock8** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:48 pm

rcrocket wrote:Is it in your English dictionary? You don't want to commit a faux pas, my good recchione, do you?

rcrocket

Just memorializing this...

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:50 pm

dartagnan wrote:Bob, I can't believe you just called him a fag.

I'm sorry; I meant to say "macaroni". My bad.

Post by **_antishock8** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:54 pm

So we have a FARMS contributor calling people "fag" on the Internet? Wow.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:59 pm

antishock8 wrote:So we have a FARMS contributor calling people "fags" on the Internet? Wow.

I apologized. The spell-checker spit the word out when I misspelled macaroni.

This is too precious.

Post by **_antishock8** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:03 pm

rcrocket wrote:
antishock8 wrote:So we have a FARMS contributor calling people "fags" on the Internet? Wow.

I apologized. The spell-checker spit the word out when I misspelled macaroni.

This is too precious.

I'm sure it is for a partner in his law firm who uses his firm's time to Mopologeticize, probably bills his clients for time spent Mopologeticizing, contributes work to FARMS if I'm not mistaken, calls a French term English, and then calls someone a "fag" when it's pointed out he's a moron.

Mormonism produces good fruits, indeed. The Mormon priesthood manifested, folks. Right here.

Post by **_Phaedrus Ut** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:04 pm

rcrocket wrote:
antishock8 wrote:So we have a FARMS contributor calling people "fags" on the Internet? Wow.

I apologized. The spell-checker spit the word out when I misspelled macaroni.

This is too precious.

No need to apologize, we're all adults here. However a student of American or English history would know calling someone a macaroni is essentially calling them a fag.

Phaedrus

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:05 pm

antishock8 wrote:
rcrocket wrote:
antishock8 wrote:So we have a FARMS contributor calling people "fags" on the Internet? Wow.

I apologized. The spell-checker spit the word out when I misspelled macaroni.

This is too precious.

I'm sure it is for a partner in his law firm who uses his firm's time to Mopologeticize, probably bills his clients for time spent Mopologeticizing, contributes work to FARMS if I'm not mistaken, calls a French term English, and then calls someone a "fag" when it's pointed out he's a moron.

Mormonism produces good fruits, indeed. The Mormon priesthood manifested, folks. Right here.

I never claimed to be perfect. Plus, I like my macaroni friends. I am a libertarian and support macaroni rights. Calling somebody a macaroni is calling somebody a friend -- I like you.