Brian Hauglid has a meltdown

[_dartagnan]

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.

You're not dealing with the serious problems that history has yielded. Such as the fact that Joseph Smith believed he was literally translating Egyptian characters into English. Doesn't that matter? There is every indication that this is what he believed he was doing. This is already beyond dispute, as proved with his various and erroneous "translations" from the Facsimile.

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.

So Joseph Smith gets a free pass, and nothing he says or did can or should be tested? Is there truly no amount of evidence that one could present, that would convince you Joseph Smith was not a real prophet?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Wow, Bob. I'm surprised at you. You've really been called out this time. I hope that you'll make a sincere apology, and that you won't resort to the cheap Mopologetic tactic of trying to be all jokey in order to make light of your significant faux pas. That was a very disgusting slip-up on your part, counselor.

[_dartagnan]

Well at least he didn't call you irenic.

[_William Schryver]

Well at least he didn't call you irenic.

I hate to admit it, but I did laugh out loud when I read this.
.
.
.
By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate? Like this thread, for example. Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice.

It's a sociological wonder.

[_rcrocket]

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.

You're not dealing with the serious problems that history has yielded. Such as the fact that Joseph Smith believed he was literally translating Egyptian characters into English. Doesn't that matter? There is every indication that this is what he believed he was doing. This is already beyond dispute, as proved with his various and erroneous "translations" from the Facsimile.

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.

So Joseph Smith gets a free pass, and nothing he says or did can or should be tested? Is there truly no amount of evidence that one could present, that would convince you Joseph Smith was not a real prophet?

I'm not sure the test that Jesus offers in John 14 and John 16 regarding the spiritual manifestation of his mission constitutes a "free pass." Nor do I deal with speculation about what might be produced in the future (i.e., "no amount"). I don' t know what logical fallacy that question might be, but I know I can never get away with asking a witness a question like that. Just dealing with the Book of Abraham, I think that its metaphysical nature -- on its face -- is enough to answer my questions about the way it was produced. Again, the literal words on the papyri may have had nothing to do with the message intended by its authors to convey.

[_rcrocket]

Wow, Bob. I'm surprised at you. You've really been called out this time. I hope that you'll make a sincere apology, and that you won't resort to the cheap Mopologetic tactic of trying to be all jokey in order to make light of your significant faux pas. That was a very disgusting slip-up on your part, counselor.

I sincerely apologize for thinking and writing my opinion that AntiShock8 is less than a man, and not in a womanly way, either.

[_antishock8]

Wow, Bob. I'm surprised at you. You've really been called out this time. I hope that you'll make a sincere apology, and that you won't resort to the cheap Mopologetic tactic of trying to be all jokey in order to make light of your significant faux pas. That was a very disgusting slip-up on your part, counselor.

I sincerely apologize for thinking and writing my opinion that AntiShock8 is less than a man, and not in a womanly way, either.

Misogyny, too? Man... Lol... This guy is unbelievable.

[_dartagnan]

I'm not sure the test that Jesus offers in John 14 and John 16 regarding the spiritual manifestation of his mission constitutes a "free pass."

Bob, the problem with this test is that the majority of those who take it are assured that Joseph Smith is a fraud. How can you explain this?
I see nothing in the Bible that tells us to reject logical conclusions based on feelings. The logical conclusion, based on a deduction of the facts, is that 1) Joseph Smith truly believed he was translating Egyptian papyri into English, and that 2) he really couldn't.

Just dealing with the Book of Abraham, I think that its metaphysical nature -- on its face -- is enough to answer my questions about the way it was produced. Again, the literal words on the papyri may have had nothing to do with the message intended by its authors to convey.

But that is not what Joseph Smith believed, so why should we? Can't you at least admit how your explanation strikes us as ad hoc and even apologetic nonsense? You seem to be coming up with just about anything in order to avoid the obvious logical cocnlusion that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed. By this approach, there is no amount of evidence that could dissuade you, right?

The irony here is that Joseph Smith never said we should test him using an New Testament Verse. He told people to prove he wasn't a prophet by testing his products, including his translations. This is why he had characters from the plates looked at by an expert. He was looking for validation, but not on a spiritual level as you would assume. You see this all the time in his sermons. Such as his doctrine of the plurality of gods. He justified his doctrine on his translation of the Hebrew scripture and then again with his translation of the Book of Abraham. He never told anyone to go pray about in order to find out if it was true. Instead, he assured his audience that he had studied with a learned Jew who taught him the plurality of elohim.

It seems to me 1 John 4 has been hijacked by modern apologists and used in ways that were never intended by Joseph Smith or any other early Mormon leader. And again, most people who pray about things Mormon do not come away convinced. This proves the method is flawed or misunderstood.

Will,

You're presence is required over in Pundits. Brian lost his pacifier.

[_CaliforniaKid]

By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate? Like this thread, for example. Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice.

Sort of like how Robert throws you a biscuit and you immediately join in the fun? Here's a fun game: how many ways can we call the critics "fags" without actually using the word "fag"?

[_Chap]

Well at least he didn't call you irenic.

I hate to admit it, but I did laugh out loud when I read this.
.
.
.
By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate? Like this thread, for example. Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice.

It's a sociological wonder.

QFT. Just to show us the fruits of the Spirit yielded when Priesthood Power puts the Restored Gospel into action. The CoJCoLDS really does produce some very special Christians, doesn't it?

And more proof that degrading one's intellect by persuading oneself that palpable nonsense is credible has deleterious effects on other parts of one's personality.