Swindled by FAIR!!

[_harmony]

Brian essentially admits that he is entering the debate with a closed mind. It is beyond being persuaded. Yet, this is always how he describes the critical perspective, in mocking terms.

There is no debate in Brian's mind. The thinking has been done; the subject is closed; the only thing left is to laugh at the losers.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hauglid essentially admits what Pacman admitted two years ago. He was asked what amount of evidence could be produced tod issuade him from his current belief. He responded: "No amount of evidence."

Hauglid essentially said the same thing above. He said that even if the Book of Abraham is what the critics say, he won't change his mind!!!!

No wonder he passed the interview process to get access to the KEP.

[_Gadianton]

Kevin,

May I ask, who is Pacman? And what is this interview process regarding seeing the KEP? Who controls access to it?

[_moksha]

Sounds like you got Gypped. They saw you coming a mile away though.

My guess is that his order was banned.

[_Chap]

This is more from Hauglid's opening rant:

I'm totally biased that it is the word of God - totally biased. I really believe with all my heart that this is the word of God. Ok, if that offends anybody, then good (crowd laughter). Because that is the way it is. Because its the holy spirit that's told me it is true. So everything that I tell you today, whether its this evidence or all this technical stuff, Ok, really doesn't convince me one way or the other, because if it is what the critics say, then I still believe the Book of Abraham is true. That's not ever going to change, because I've had that witness, and I think I have some people out here that feel that too. I know I do. Uh, that it doesn't matter what they say, we still know its true all the way (roaring applause).

Now if keeping my solemn covenant, and I say solemn covenant, to sustain and defend the kingdom of God upon this earth makes me an apologist so be it. Now you can call me an apologist all day long (jaded applause) because I'm gonna keep that covenant.

I suggest that this kind of thing is something of a distraction, and shows a sense of weakness in Hauglid's position. If he really thought the non-spiritual case for the Book of Abraham was strong he would concentrate on that, and we would not hear anything like so much of this kind of playing to the TBM gallery.

In any case the counter is obvious: one simply asks "For those who do not have a spiritual witness of the Book of Abraham (a group which probably includes quite a few LDS), do you believe the public and objective evidence is strong enough in itself to convince an impartial observer that this is a genuine ancient text from the time of Abraham, preserved to the present day by reliable means"?

We must always remember that the object is not to make someone like Hauglid implode publicly and say "Goodness me - I've been wrong all along", but to indicate to the uncommitted or wavering reader how very very weak is the case put forward by such hyper-committed LDS apologists as Hauglid, Gee - and (let us never forget) that great powerhouse of supercharged testosterone, Schryver.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump