Mormon Egyptologist Debunks the Book of Abraham

[_aussieguy55]

47 guests listed as following this thread. who could they be? TBMs lurking? Danites?

[_Fence Sitter]

47 guests listed as following this thread. who could they be? TBMs lurking? Danites?

I would expect that many of our guests are those who post regularly at MDD and do not want it known they frequent here.

[_Droopy]

I'm sure you have everyone scared shitless Loran, considering how much your ipinion is worth here... or anywhere for that matter.

Graham, you have no idea whatsoever what my opinion is worth anywhere, perhaps except here - a very unusual (and utterly obscure) environment to say the least.

Please do not think for one moment that I do not see clearly and lucidly right through your entire pose as a self assured, confident, intellectual powerhouse. From a psychological perspective, your entire affect and temperament, in the long tradition you have of attacking and savaging defenders of the restored gospel, is indicative of quite the opposite.

The vast majority of what you say about me, Wade, Will, and others (how ignorant we are, how uneducated we are, how envious we are of your magnificent intellectual prowess etc.) is very, very clearly what amounts to a single, megalithic edifice of projection upon others of your own kaleidoscopic insecurities, self doubt, internal conflicts, and pretensions of scholarly attainments when, in reality, you have neither the temperament nor the intellectual depth or creativity for that kind of thinking.

Oh, you could develop such talents. You clearly already have the capacity and native intellectual attributes to do so, but the problem is that you are not driven by a desire to know the truth, or to explore the possibilities of just what the truth might be, with other educated, knowledgeable, and sincere interlocutors who disagree with your perspective.

Like so many apostate critics and non-apostate critics before you, from Quinn or the Toscanos on the one, secularist hand, to Decker or Martin on the EV side, you are a man on a mission of polemical and intellectual destruction aimed at the LDS church and its defenders. You have a fiery, intense personal agenda, not just a bias (as we all do), and fierce, driving agendas simply do not make for good scholarship, good argument, good philosophy, or civil discourse.

You do not know, do not understand, and have not intellectually digested, in a deep and perspicacious manner, anything approximating that which you believe you have. The proof in that pudding is not just the logical weaknesses and inferential dislocations in many of your arguments (which do, in point of fact, exist in profusion throughout the entire KEP dependency theory), but in your affect; in your wild, unconstrained hostility, constant pointing out to others of your own self importance and alleged intellectual superiority, and your intense need to be the most important person in the room in every debate.

These, all of them, are signs, not of deep conviction and personal confidence in your arguments and core position, but of deep insecurity and self doubt as to the substantiveness of your arguments and your own relevance to the totality of the debate. It is your affect; your anger, resentment, hostility, boorishness, narcissism, and apparent egomania that lead many to believe your actual arguments themselves are bosh, not just on the logical merits, but because no one who was really confident in the substance of their arguments would need to present them in the manner you do, half of which is always, not the arguments themselves, but the personal denigration and defamation of the character, motives, and intelligence of all who do not see in your arguments what you see in them.

Everything you claim about those who disagree with you appears to be a deeply felt and deeply needed projection of your own characterological attributes onto others who for you appear to be templates upon which you can inscribe the very internal conflicts and compensatory thinking strategies that drive your anger and hatred of your intellectual opponents.

I know you probably don't "get" any of this at all, but others do. All of us understand perfectly well how it is possible to disagree with the Book of Abraham as a divinely revealed ancient text. We all understand that the dependency theory is plausible from within the precincts of one set of philosophical assumptions.

What we do not understand is you, and you, as the presenter of your particular perspective, is the most salient piece of evidence we have that your perspective is fatally flawed.

[_schreech]

I know you probably don't "get" any of this at all, but others do. All of us understand perfectly well how it is possible to disagree with the Book of Abraham as a divinely revealed ancient text. We all understand that the dependency theory is plausible from within the precincts of one set of philosophical assumptions.

Who are these others that get "any of this"?

Also, the fact that you felt the need to type "intellectual" 8 times in one post screams of insecurity. I know you can't stand that people don't take you seriously on both this site and the MAD site but if you toned it down a bit, quit pretending like thesaurus abuse equals "intelligence" and actually tried to address arguments instead of attacking people more knowledgeable than you it might help your cause...Oh, and step away from talk radio for a couple days, it seems to get your blood boiling....

[_Droopy]

Who are these others that get "any of this"?

They're all out at Hanger 18. Drop by and have a root beer sometime.

Also, the fact that you felt the need to type "intellectual" 8 times in one post screams of insecurity.

I snipped the rest of your quite well practiced imitation of Graham's Kindergarten psychologizing because, not only is it utterly worthless as as cognitive material, its regurgitation of the verbiage of the master regurgitator himself.

I don't think you frankly have the reflective capacity or psychological maturity to know why I use certain terms n time is a post or why I use certain terms at all and not others. This shows up most clearly in the fact that, in no thread that I can recall have you ever so much at once engaged me in a serious, critical, point-counterpoint argument on opposing viewpoints. Your entire history of dealing with me here is in taking note of my prose style, how many and what kind of words I use, and extrapolating from this, with a lot of help from Graham's own little black bag of ego gratifying smears, my internal psychological states.

Do yourself a favor, Schreech, once you get out of High School, and do some serious study on the subject of counseling psychology, psychotherapy, and personality theory, as I have. Then, you will probably find that the psychological dynamics you see in me are actually the one's you have cut off Kevin Graham and pasted onto me because, like Kevin, it makes you feel better about what you know very well, deep, deep down inside, is your inability to meet me, face to face, on intellectual grounds, in the arena of ideas.

As to my use of words and phraseology, if your reading comprehension level and literary expectations are at a similar plateau as many others here, you will just have to get over it and move on.

Don't read my posts if it keeps you up at night reading Carl Jung books.

[_Darth J]

As to my use of words and phraseology, if your reading comprehension level and literary expectations are at a similar plateau as many others here, you will just have to get over it and move on.

What Droopy means to say is that we can see how close he is to the Lord by how closely Droopy emulates Him.

In the Doctrine and Covenants, we learn that the Lord has a certain love/hate relationship with getting to the point. In fact, in the D&C, so enamored with the journey of trying to make a point is the Lord that sometimes He forgets about the destination. So, too, is Droopy.

Also, because the Lord wants us to see a certain gravitas to His words---Him being the organizer of this and many other worlds, after all---the Lord finds it helpful to pad his messages with strings of synonyms and redundancies. See, e.g., D&C 132:7 Such a technique conveys deep intellectual import, and should not at all be confused with logorrhea. Only the keenest of intellects can appreciate such a wall of prolixity. Those with simpler minds only confuse it with an attempt to disguise banal observations and pedestrian ideas.

Such as it is with the Lord's words in the D&C , so also is it with Droopy.

Some people still hold to this unsophisticated notion that clear, concise writing that conveys an intelligible message is actually much more indicative of coherent thinking and intelligence. According to this semi-literate view, circuitous banter and repetitive babbling have the same function for the person doing the writing as a Corvette has for a balding middle-aged man who is not altogether confident in his sexual prowess. But time again, we are shown that the Lord and Droopy know better.

[_Darth J]

And now for a quick review of a post in which Droopy said, with no apparent irony, "As to my use of words and phraseology, if your reading comprehension level and literary expectations are at a similar plateau as many others here, you will just have to get over it and move on."

Who are these others that get "any of this"?

They're all out at Hanger 18. Drop by and have a root beer sometime.

hanger: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hanger

hangar: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hangar

Also, the fact that you felt the need to type "intellectual" 8 times in one post screams of insecurity.

I snipped the rest of your quite well practiced imitation of Graham's Kindergarten psychologizing because, not only is it utterly worthless as as cognitive material, its regurgitation of the verbiage of the master regurgitator himself.

"I snipped the rest of your quite well-practiced imitation of Graham's kindergarten psychologizing because not only is it utterly worthless as cognitive material, it's reguritation of the verbiage of the master regurgitator himself."

I don't think you frankly have the reflective capacity or psychological maturity to know why I use certain terms n time is a post or why I use certain terms at all and not others.

"Frankly, I don't think you have the reflective capacity or the psychological maturity to know why I use certain terms [???] and not others."

This shows up most clearly in the fact that, in no thread that I can recall have you ever so much at once engaged me in a serious, critical, point-counterpoint argument on opposing viewpoints.

"This shows up most clearly in the fact that, in no thread that I can recall, have you ever so much as once engaged me in a serious, critical, point-counterpoint argument [redundancy of following "point-counterpoint" with "opposing viewpoints" omitted]."

Your entire history of dealing with me here is in taking note of my prose style, how many and what kind of words I use, and extrapolating from this, with a lot of help from Graham's own little black bag of ego gratifying smears, my internal psychological states.

"Your entire history of dealing with me here is in taking note of my prose style, how many and what kind of words I use, and extrapolating from this my internal psychological states --with a lot of help from Graham's own little black bag of ego gratifying smears."

Do yourself a favor, Schreech, once you get out of High School, and do some serious study on the subject of counseling psychology, psychotherapy, and personality theory, as I have. Then, you will probably find that the psychological dynamics you see in me are actually the one's you have cut off Kevin Graham and pasted onto me because, like Kevin, it makes you feel better about what you know very well, deep, deep down inside, is your inability to meet me, face to face, on intellectual grounds, in the arena of ideas.

"Do yourself a favor, Schreech: once you get out of high school, do some serious study on the subject of counseling psychology, psychotherapy, and personality theory, as I have. Then you will probably find that the psychological dynamics you see in me are actually the ones you have cut off Kevin Graham and pasted onto me because, like Kevin, it makes you feel better about what you know very well, deep, deep down inside, is your inability to meet me, face to face, on intellectual grounds, in the arena of ideas."

[Editor's note: did anyone count the number of dependent clauses here?]

[_Kevin Graham]

As to my use of words and phraseology, if your reading comprehension level and literary expectations are at a similar plateau as many others here, you will just have to get over it and move on.

What Droopy means to say is that we can see how close he is to the Lord by how closely Droopy emulates Him.

In the Doctrine and Covenants, we learn that the Lord has a certain love/hate relationship with getting to the point. In fact, in the D&C, so enamored with the journey of trying to make a point is the Lord that sometimes He forgets about the destination. So, too, is Droopy.

Also, because the Lord wants us to see a certain gravitas to His words---Him being the organizer of this and many other worlds, after all---the Lord finds it helpful to pad his messages with strings of synonyms and redundancies. See, e.g., D&C 132:7 Such a technique conveys deep intellectual import, and should not at all be confused with logorrhea. Only the keenest of intellects can appreciate such a wall of prolixity. Those with simpler minds only confuse it with an attempt to disguise banal observations and pedestrian ideas.

Such as it is with the Lord's words in the D&C , so also is it with Droopy.

Some people still hold to this unsophisticated notion that clear, concise writing that conveys an intelligible message is actually much more indicative of coherent thinking and intelligence. According to this semi-literate view, circuitous banter and repetitive babbling have the same function for the person doing the writing as a Corvette has for a balding middle-aged man who is not altogether confident in his sexual prowess. But time again, we are shown that the Lord and Droopy know better.

ROFL!

This is so, so true.

[_EAllusion]

Do yourself a favor, Schreech, once you get out of High School, and do some serious study on the subject of counseling psychology, psychotherapy, and personality theory, as I have. Then, you will probably find that the psychological dynamics you see in me are actually the one's you have cut off Kevin Graham and pasted onto me because, like Kevin, it makes you feel better about what you know very well, deep, deep down inside, is your inability to meet me, face to face, on intellectual grounds, in the arena of ideas.

I have serious post high-school education in personality psychology in that I've had grad-level classes on the subject. Less so in counseling psych/psychotherapy, though my general psych education and profession have required me to have a background that exceeds the average person by a fair amount. Plus, I tend to aborb things in my orbit well.

So, with my super, super serious study I'm going to go ahead and point out that you are using about 40,000 words to accuse posters of psychoanalytic concepts many people with barely a passing familiarity of these subjects are aware of. Which is why you see it in message board conversations all the time. They aren't treated at all seriously in the fields you mentioned beyond historical curiosity. So you accused Kevin of projecting. Deep study there, Droopy.

But hey, maybe I'm giving you the short shrift. Maybe you aren't a person who is trying to make up for his lack of knowledge and intellectual insecurities with bluster and condescending boasting of exenstive study. Could you help me out? I mean, I'm aware that psychoanalysic notions are a failed project with little empirical support. But I'm also aware that some ideas found there have kernals of truth that were picked up by more scientific approaches to understanding behavior and cognition. Is this the case with projection? What's going on there? Why do people seem to inaptly accuse others of their personal faults? Do they? Help me out with your studies, Droopy.

[_EAllusion]

At least there's no pictures of naked men wearing skirts.

If they are wearing skirts, then they aren't naked. Just becuase you can see underneath the skirt in your sweaty, feverish fantasies doesn't mean that we can.