Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_sock puppet]

Are similarities between the D&C and Abr merely emanations from the same author, Joseph Smith? Or do they point to God being the same author (an overlay of Truth)?

I hope this is a rhetorical question.

Indeed. But you already knew that. One is the rational conclusion, the other dependent on the irrational: faith.

One thing in Mak's favor, he stuck around for many more posts after Will Schryver turned tail and ran for cover (MAD).

Should he brag or apologize for that?

Well, Kevin, he's already done the bragging, at MAD. Actually you ask a moral question. For defending the Realm of faith, all hail the braggadocio. Dr. Peterson insists it is the Obligation to Do Apologetics, after all. Contrast that with Trevor having already apologized for being much less offensive.

His admitted level of ignorance makes one wonder what kind of "scholar" would presume to be able to speak on a subject he doesn't know much about. It smacks of arrogance and scholarly malpractice.

He wants to dissect a tiny portion from oen page of one manuscript, and insist we all agree with his conclusion (one which weighs on the meaning of the entire KEP as a whole), or else we're all irrational and beyond persuasion.

Mak is the type of scholar that professes faith, but feels the need to reconcile that with logic and vanquish the foes of the Realm of faith. He is an apologist.

If he can frame the issue so narrowly, and the stakes so broadly, he can use his text-criticism skills to slay the apostate dragon in the smallest of skirmishes.

Contrary to myth, of the two of us I'm trhe only one who has demonstrated a willingness to change a viewpoint, even a passionate viewpoint. Ask FAIR about my willingness to change my passionate views as an apologist, and ask Trevor about my willingness to change my views on politics, or as EA about my willingness to change my views on science, etc.

The problem isn't me and my refusal to be persuaded.

Certainly not. But you see, that intellectual flexibility is viewed by MADmen at best as weakness, and at worst--the sine qua non of an apostate.

The problem is they don't have a coherent argument that is supported by sufficient evidence.

True enough. They feel the need to complicate the Abr issues, further and further. Whatever his motives, Mak did that with all the text-criticism lingo.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello folks,

As one who clearly is WAY over his pay grade to be posting in this thread, please accept my apology for the intrusion.

Simply put, IMHO, this is one of the best threads I have read on any of these boards. No matter what camp you happen to be in (critic, devout LDS, or silly Catholic), the mutual respect being displayed is most refreshing and certainly worthy of admiration!

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge/perspectives with folks like me (a lurker who has no dog in the fight but who is indeed fascinated by the dogs)

Thank you double for the manner in which you have chosen to communicate to each other.

WELL DONE!
GREAT THREAD!
FASCINATING!
THANKS!

Peace,
Ceeboo

WOW! This thread got ugly in a hurry! (Cosidering how it began, it's an utter shame, IMHO)

A loss for ALL!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_TBSkeptic]

One explanation that was suggested in response is that they were trying to fulfill a requirement for "two or three witnesses" and didn't think it through very well. Someone observed that since the second instance of the paragraph is much messier than the first-- i.e. contains more errors and sloppier punctuation-- it may be that Williams realized the futility of recopying it, and so rushed through it.

What I don't get is if this was truly a dittograph, wouldn't we expect the 2 to look fairly identical? I mean jeez, manuscripts 1a and 1b are more identical up to this point than these 2 paragraphs. And they were supposedly copied by 2 different people! How does the dittograph account for the numerous anomolies between the 2 'copies'? It was copied by the same person!

Why was 1 of the 3 differences 'corrected' (^many^ flocks), while the other 2 were not ("-me- abraham", and "followed -after- me")? What about the punctuation differences as well?

A simple dittograph just does not add up.

[_Droopy]

Want to know what's really up Kevin's sleeve and what degree of competence he really brings to this discussion (and most others)?

If you do, than just look at what he accuses his opponents of thinking and doing. Just take a look at the slurs, ad hominem put downs, and demeaning of intelligence he aims at Mak, Will and Nomad (not to mention me), and you will then have a fair understanding of Kevin himself and why he continues to make a clown of himself in public on everything regarding the Book of Abraham while insisting that it is, in reality, all of his interlocutors who are doing so. Observe this post below:

So says the guy who is admittedly ignorant of the manuscripts as a whole. Only an intellectual fraud would pass judgment on a document he has not read in its entirety. Sorry, but you wanted to play the intellectual authority card, so you'll have to fall by the same sword.

My argument is based on evidence that is found all throughout the document; evidence you refuse to engage because it disrupts Will's theory. So keep posturing Mak, I'm sure you're impressing some people. In Utah.


I responded numerous times, but the problem is you do not have the intellectual honesty to respond to my actual argument. I've caught you doing this aat least twice now, and I can only conclude it is just a smokescreen to detract people from the fact that you cannot admit being wrong when refuted. Instead of engaging in intelligent, respectul conversation, you condescend to us from your ivory tower and expect us to just give in. You focus on irrelevancies that do nothing to address the primary argument for dictation. And funny how you complain about the company. You weren't complaining a few hours ago when nimrods like Nomad and Droopy were polluting the discussion with emotionally charged rhetoric. But the funniest thing is that you pretend the educated people would agree with you, and yet virtually everyone here who has responded to your whiney "concern" have more education and experience than you do, and can see right through your false representation of scholarly standards.

In the meantime, you're stuck with college drop out Will Schryver and High School students, Nomad and Droopy. So forgive us if we laugh when you insist expertise in a specific field is required before we can dare challenge your arguments.

Here, in one concise self aggrandizing, narcissistic tantrum, Graham nicely combines key elements of many of his posts over the course of some years now into a single vitriolic blast against those who are immune to and can see right through his self generated fortress of self justification.

No one has the right credentials. No one is intelligent or educated. All are stupid, moronic, and intellectually dishonest (I'm not at all sure why Graham calls me a "High School student", as I've been here in this forum since its inception and he must know that I've been at university working toward an advanced degree for years now, and took my first year of college in 1977).

Graham's hatred for anything that partakes of light, righteousness, or truth and his venomous animus towards those who disagree with him and who he cannot use as allies in his endless quest to rationalize his apostasy is now so palpable - and transparent - that it rather defies belief that he is not aware of its thin veneer.

Mak has made a valiant attempt at a serious, civil, critical discussion of the issues here. For his efforts, he has received what all of us who have made similar attempts over the years have received: a circus-like, adolescent maelstrom of mockery, self satisfied posturing, name calling and head gaming.

Will has pointed out time and again that Graham has little idea, and never has had much idea, what he is talking about regarding the Book of Abraham and KEP, and would probably be best served by sitting quietly and trying to learn something from those who actually do.

Kevin, however, reaping the "bitter fruits of apostasy" isn't driven by intellect, reason or a desire to know the truth. He is being driven by a burning, self justificational animus that can be seen in every post he makes, every insult he hurls when cornered by his own ignorance and sloppy thinking, and every attack on the intelligence or credentials (credentialism being the last refuge of an intellectual hack, in my view) of those he cannot hold his own against in the marketplace of ideas.

How sad and tragic this person really is.

[_Darth J]

He is being driven by a burning, self justificational animus that can be seen in every post he makes, every insult he hurls when cornered by his own ignorance and sloppy thinking, and every attack on the intelligence or credentials (credentialism being the last refuge of an intellectual hack, in my view) of those he cannot hold his own against in the marketplace of ideas.

This is your brain.

This is your brain once it has graduated from law school.

End of discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14140&p=351513&hilit=brain#p351513

You are a bottom feeding parasitical legalist playing law school word games and avoiding logical argument because you have no argument. The only reason you are debating me at all is because your virulent hatred of the Church drives you to find a point of contention and bore into it.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12898&p=319868&hilit=law+school#p319868

.....no small thanks precisely to the mechanitions of the lawyer class, a particularly virulent sub-species of parasitical organisms that thrive at the expense of society, in all too many cases, rather than as a cooperative and productive aspect of it.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13286&p=329535&hilit=lawyer#p329535

He's a lawyer who thinks he can bait me into a trap where he can use legal technical jargon and a cross examination type of questioning to squirt glue into the doorknob, and I'm not going to fall for it.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12857&p=319889&hilit=lawyer#p319889

[_maklelan]

I've provided a thread just for discussion of the dittography in Ab2 in the Celestial Forum. I am hoping to keep it entirely professional:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14285&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[_Droopy]

He is being driven by a burning, self justificational animus that can be seen in every post he makes, every insult he hurls when cornered by his own ignorance and sloppy thinking, and every attack on the intelligence or credentials (credentialism being the last refuge of an intellectual hack, in my view) of those he cannot hold his own against in the marketplace of ideas.

This is your brain.

This is your brain once it has graduated from law school.

End of discussion.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... in#p351513

You are a bottom feeding parasitical legalist playing law school word games and avoiding logical argument because you have no argument. The only reason you are debating me at all is because your virulent hatred of the Church drives you to find a point of contention and bore into it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... ol#p319868

.....no small thanks precisely to the mechanitions of the lawyer class, a particularly virulent sub-species of parasitical organisms that thrive at the expense of society, in all too many cases, rather than as a cooperative and productive aspect of it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... er#p329535

He's a lawyer who thinks he can bait me into a trap where he can use legal technical jargon and a cross examination type of questioning to squirt glue into the doorknob, and I'm not going to fall for it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... er#p319889

The courtroom technique just will not work here Darth. It just will not work in the real world.
None of this shows any hypocrisy on my part. All I'm doing with both your and Graham is telling the truth about you and making observations to that effect. I am observing and commenting upon what I have observed. Graham and you attack and impugn those trying to have a civil discussion for no other reason than that they disagree with you and are defending the Church, an institution you fear and loath. In both Graham's and your case, your initiation of hostility and insult against otherwise sincere and civil posters are what drives my critique of you, not that you can be hostile and insulting. We all can.

You are indeed a "bottom feeding parasitical legalist playing law school word games". That's a cool, rational observation. I'm not angry and hostile, as are Graham and yourself, when I say it. Why do I think this of you? Because that is the manner in which you have presented yourself in virtually every post you have made in this and the MADboard since you arrived on the scene.

A bag of heated gas with an agenda, which puts you in the best of company in the Trailerpark.

[_Darth J]

The courtroom technique just will not work here Darth. It just will not work in the real world. None of this shows any hypocrisy on my part. All I'm doing with both your and Graham is telling the truth about you and making observations to that effect. I am observing and commenting upon what I have observed. Graham and you attack and impugn those trying to have a civil discussion for no other reason than that they disagree with you and are defending the Church, an institution you fear and loath. In both Graham's and your case, your initiation of hostility and insult against otherwise sincere and civil posters are what drives my critique of you, not that you can be hostile and insulting. We all can.

You are indeed a "bottom feeding parasitical legalist playing law school word games". That's a cool, rational observation. I'm not angry and hostile, as are Graham and yourself, when I say it. Why do I think this of you? Because that is the manner in which you have presented yourself in virtually every post you have made in this and the MADboard since you arrived on the scene.

A bag of heated gas with an agenda, which puts you in the best of company in the Trailerpark.

He is being driven by a burning, self justificational animus that can be seen in every post he makes, every insult he hurls when cornered by his own ignorance and sloppy thinking, and every attack on the intelligence or credentials (credentialism being the last refuge of an intellectual hack, in my view) of those he cannot hold his own against in the marketplace of ideas.

[_Darth J]

The courtroom technique just will not work here Darth. It just will not work in the real world.

Please note that Droopy has now stated that this message board is the real world.

[_harmony]

Please product me the translation of "Zub Zool oan" to German.

As far as I know, we (interpret this word as you want) have a German prophet, seer, revelator and translator. One of the Twelve.

He knows it.

Okay, Paracelsus, that was funny! LOLOL