Brian Hauglid has a meltdown

[_rcrocket]

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.

Huh? [Getting out his dictionary to interpret this post along with the word "pompous"].

[Guest]

Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice.

Will is just pissed because he can never get anyone to pay any attention to his rants at MADB.

Its OK. This is the same guy who thinks Joseph Smith paid his scribes to make exact "copies" of an original manuscript, while making sure they copied every scratch out and punctuation error in the process. And then at the same time he tells us the critical argument is flawed because there is no evidence the Book of Mormon translation involved any simultaneous dictation.

What an idiot. Smith only had one scribe during the Book of Mormon translation and he was an inexperienced one at that. With the Book of Abraham Smith already had two experienced scribes working for him and he then hired a third. So why not use them at the same time?

If Brian and Will care so much about parallels with the Book of Mormon translation process, then let's see them produce evidence that Joseph Smith requested exact copies of the original Book of Mormon manuscript with all the scratch outs and similar errors etc.

The fact is Joseph Smith learned a lesson after losing the 116 pages. In 1835 he had the money and the resources so he used two scribes to work on the Book of Abraham translation with him. Something as important as an original translation manuscript of scripture, would plausibly require two scribes. That is what we clearly see with Ms1a and Ms1b. I have presented many evidences to this effect over the past two years and neither Will nor Brian has addressed them.

To postulate that these manuscripts, with their exact errors in the exact places, could be explained as copies, is borderline idiotic. They only have one decent case for dittography, and it has already been explained in the context of a dictation scenario. Aside from that, they have nothing. And they know it. Hauglid is just window dressing again for faith promoting purposes. After two years, this is still all they have to offer. Just more assurance that somewhere, behind closed doors, he and a group of unknown "experts" are working on the critical argument and they have already reached the conclusion that it is "fatally flawed." Well, where is the evidence? Don't hold your breath.

The funny thing is watching him try to explain to us that this wasn't his assumption from the start. Of course it was. If you accept these as dictation manuscripts then this is the first step on the slippery slope of losing your testimony. You cannot believe these were dictation manuscripts while at the same time, accepting Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know of nobody on the planet that maintains both positions. So for him to pretend he could easily accept the critical argument, if only it were supported by the evidence, is just rhetoric he doesn't really believe.

[_rcrocket]

Can't you at least admit how your explanation strikes us as ad hoc and even apologetic nonsense?

Jargon doesn't impress me. My explanation is what it is. It works for me and others.

[_rcrocket]

What an idiot.

I love it. Sorts of put the appropriate emphasis on everything you say. Everybody's an idiot.

[_dartagnan]

Does that mean you can't admit it?

And you never answered my questions.

Is there any amount of evidence that could be presented to dissuade you from your current belief?

[_rcrocket]

Does that mean you can't admit it?

And you never answered my questions.

Is there any amount of evidence that could be presented to dissuade you from your current belief?

If the man in the moon came to earth and had a video replay of the First Vision or its absence, I might be convinced. Come on, I don't deal with speculation. Thus far, there has been insufficient evidence. And, it seems I know the details better than you do. I am waiting for you to start a Crockett/Graham debate; except, I conceded lack of Book of Abraham knowledge. Come on -- Scratch has refused to debate me.

Start a thread, formulate a position I have to prove or disprove. Be specific, and limit it to Church history or Biblical doctrine.

[_Mister Scratch]

Does that mean you can't admit it?

And you never answered my questions.

Is there any amount of evidence that could be presented to dissuade you from your current belief?

If the man in the moon came to earth and had a video replay of the First Vision or its absence, I might be convinced. Come on, I don't deal with speculation. Thus far, there has been insufficient evidence. And, it seems I know the details better than you do. I am waiting for you to start a Crockett/Graham debate; except, I conceded lack of Book of Abraham knowledge. Come on -- Scratch has refused to debate me.

Start a thread, formulate a position I have to prove or disprove. Be specific, and limit it to Church history or Biblical doctrine.

I defeated you twice in the last few weeks: once on the issue of whether or not the Church hides its history, and once on the issue of whether or not the Church hides its finances. It would be more dignified of you to concede your defeat.

[_cksalmon]

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?

I don't believe it's the standard formulation. Gee states that 1/3 of Mormons adhere to this theory, "according to [his] informal, admittedly unscientific surveys." I have no idea if this is correct or not.

According to Gee, most Mormons don't care whence the Book of Abraham translation derives.

The theory you've sketched seems generally to be believed by LDS who recognize that Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the extant papyri but who reject the missing papyri theory (for which Gee argues). On this view, the papyri catalyzed Book of Abraham via revelatory and inspirational (i.e., non-translational) means.

This view's particular strength is that it removes Book of Abraham from the arena of text-critical analysis, thereby rendering Smith's "translation" unfalsifiable.

Of course, Gee's missing scroll theory makes Smith's translational product unfalsifiable as well.

CKS

[_dartagnan]

I'm trying to debate you right now but you just admitted you're too ignorant on the matter at hand.

All you have to go on here is a a feeling you prefer to call spiritual. That works for you, fine. But nothing changes the fact that it is inconsistent.

But the problem I have with the Church is that they do not tell investigators these things. They suppose that the Church could be disproved, but that it isn't because its true. "There is no way Joseph could have written this... we find evidences pointing to Nephite culture all the time...etc." They are more than willing to exagerrate the extent of evidences in favor of the Church, but when it comes to evidences against it, suddenly its time to get on your knees and "pray."

You on the other hand, believe that no amount of evidence could ever disprove it. That proves right there that Mormonism encourages irrationality. The "reasoning of men" is always presented in a negative, evil context in LDS literature. Mormonism is anti-reason.

And let's be realistic here. Do you really think for a second that any prospective convert familiar with the current Book of Abraham controversy, would ever be baptized? Of course not. They do not already have their life invested in the Church so they have no reason to entertain these stupid apologetic arguments about how Joseph Smith could have produced scripture from some mysterious document that is no longer extant, even though he believed and argued that his revelation was derived from something that in his possession. So you have to make sure they have zero familiarity with the whole thing. All of your ad hoc nonsense is just something you developed for yourself, to help you manage your life with Mormonism and knowledge of the rational evidence against it.

You buy this nonsense because you are too far in it at this point. You've been hooked on the whole "spirit" nonsense that is such a dominant theme in Mormon culture. Your family, your entire life is saturated in all things Mormon. You cannot see critical evidence without seeing the face of Satan on it. You have been preconditioned to reject it out of hand while grasping onto just about any crazy rationale you can. You probably wouldn't know how to live without the Church.

But new converts are misled intentionally. They are told that any critical information they might have been given is "anti" and that evil spirits will run off the "spirit of God" if they continue with it. And when a prospective convert doesn't join, Mormons blame it on the devil's influence. You guys have rigged the game from the start. The only way you can successfully convert people is to control the environment and dictate all conditions in which they are supposed to be learning.

[_dartagnan]

Metcalfe posted this just now:

Hi Brian,

On the use of irenic, you may want to alert seasoned Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman to the "inferior scholarship" meaning since he fancies himself an "irenic" interpreter of Mormonism (R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], xxii).

But maybe he purloined the usage from a tainted source—after all, he noted that a publication by two critics of Mormonism "makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered" (R. Bushman, review of H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record [Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994] in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6 [1994], 2:133, emphasis added). Sounds a tad similar to one of the endorsements on the dust jacket:

"In an arena often mired in apologetics and polemics, Michael Marquardt and Wesley Walters articulate the intricacies of Mormon origins irenically"

The endorser?... Me.

In any event, I'm falling asleep and drooling on my keyboard (16-hour work days are taking their toll). I'll post a few comments tomorrow about your less-than-subtle posturing on text-critically interpreting the BoAbr manuscripts.