Well I was banned.
LOL... that didn't last long.
I responded to Traveler but was prohibited, so i started a new thread and they immediately deleted it. This is what I responded to:
You put yourself on a high pedastal, but your word usage screams foul attack. You do not even discuss points, but call others' viewpoints 'nonsense' and use colorful idioms and ad hominous arguments to make your points.
To excuse Joseph Smith inability to translate Egyptian characters, by saying he never was trying to literally translate Egyptian characters in the first place, is in fact nonsense. It is a bald assertion that doesn't rely on evidence. Instead, it flies in its face. We already known for a fact that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the Egyptian symbols.
You give no quarter to the allowance for 'wiggle room' within the situation
You're right. I don't give much credit to apologetic assertions that aren't based even on even the flimsiest amount of evidence.
but demand that your interperetation of the evidence
I don't require such a thing. If you don't believe me, then trust Joseph Smith. He is the one who said this is what he was doing. Don't take my word for it. This isn't about "interpretation" of any evidences. It is a matter of accepting what he said.
You do interject evidence- which is good- but it is amid a carnival act of abuse. That seems less like discussion and more like open emnity.
Give me a break. There is simply no easy way to present evidence like this that would be welcomed. It is always met with fierce resistance, and I guess it is understandable. For most people here, the Church is not only true, but it
has to be. The prospect that Joseph Smith really couldn't do what he said, isn't really something they're prepared to entertain on an emotional level, let alone argue on an intellectual one.
Another thing- no one said they didn't believe Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient records- merely that, in the case of the Book of Abraham, he might not have made a direct translation.
But there is no evidence of this. It appears to be
ad hoc apologetic theory in the face of the evidence to the contrary.
Get real - I think you a fraud
Convenient for you.
Chiasmus are ancient Hebrew literary form - not Egyptian.
I never said it was Egyptian. I asked if that is what you had in mind. Clearly you're aware that this has been argued previously. Well, probably not.
I will give you another hint.
Quit your posturing. If you have something to present then stop beating about the bush and present it. I think we both know you have no clue what you're talking about. You're probably getting ready to relay something you found in Nibley, Gee or Hauglid. And of course, they haven't left the faith so they must be reliable and objective scholars, right? Well, I happen to know for a fact that Gee isn't reliable. And neither is Nibley.
You don't want to debate me on the elephant, so stop pretending that you do.
Answer these questions and perhaps you and I will have a discussion – continue your ridiculous rants and false accusations concerning my post and I will request that you be banned from this forum.
Of course this was the objective all along. That's the best way to "deal" with people who present uncomfortable facts. You certainly aren't up to the task of refutation. You simply don't have the required background to do so. So go make your complaints and get control of the environment for further indoctrination without information. That appears to be all you're interested in.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein