Degrees, Credentials, Egyptian, Hypocrites and Will

[_wenglund]

Your previous post reminded me of how difficult it is to be kind and civil online. If nothing else, maybe it was just a reminder that I need to behave better.

I am pleased if I was somehow the catalyst for your self-improvement. It is just that I am not sure how a genuine complement would make it dicfficult for you to be kind and civil online.

Thank, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

It is too easy to dismiss Beastie as an "expert". It appears to those of us who actually are professional researchers that you she isn't a researcher; she hasn't been trained to do it; she tends not to document her research, and it tends to be Google research. Google research is not all that respected.

You're a lawyer, Bob. Punkt. Drop the BS. You obviously just have a bug up your butt about beastie.

In terms of attacking Will as not being an expert, who can really be an expert in this field?

I agree with you, Bob. Obviously John Gee did not at one time, but my guess is that his views have changed now that Will has found a way to say something useful to the apologetic cause.

[_Kevin Graham]

Wade, John Gee is a liar. Sorry, but it is true. I've proven this on numerous occassions and Chris Smith later found another example of his lies which led him to the intellectually honest conclusion that he was in fact a liar. Of course, within the world of MAD, only critics are liars, so only they are permitted to be called liars, and Chris was criticized left and right at MADB for stating the obvious and he later apologized and downgraded the "lie" to a gross misrepresentation or something watered down.

So instead of sucking up to Gee, pretending he is a scholar with integrity, why don't you go ahead and pull out all your mental gymnaastics to "explain" his documented lies: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... f=1&t=3715

[_Trevor]

Actually, for those who aren't looking at Gee's or my comment through the distorting lense of self-justification, will likely see that it is quite the opposite. What Gee is suggesting is a way of testing whether some of the viewing and critical public are correct in seeing themselves as clothed adequately with knowledge, or in truth whether they, on specific topics, are intellectually naked and haven't a stitch of a clue.

Utter and complete nonsense.

[_Trevor]

I think we in the Church take the text for what it is. Unlike the plates, where there were witnesses to them, we don't have any witnesses to testify about the translation method for the Book of Abraham.

You know, Bob, your non-beastie-oriented commentary is so much more sensible and worthwhile than the beastie commentary.

[_Runtu]

I am pleased if I was somehow the catalyst for your self-improvement. It is just that I am not sure how a genuine complement would make it dicfficult for you to be kind and civil online.

Thank, -Wade Englund-

I really didn't expect you to understand my point.

[_Tchild]

Your previous post reminded me of how difficult it is to be kind and civil online. If nothing else, maybe it was just a reminder that I need to behave better.

I am pleased if I was somehow the catalyst for your self-improvement. It is just that I am not sure how a genuine complement would make it dicfficult for you to be kind and civil online.

Thank, -Wade Englund-

Indeed. Reading about traffic deaths acts as a "catalyst" for me to slow down and drive more carefully.

Yes Wade, you are useful like a traffic fatality. Congrats.

[_MrStakhanovite]

So instead of sucking up to Gee, pretending he is a scholar with integrity, why don't you go ahead and pull out all your mental gymnaastics to "explain" his documented lies: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... f=1&t=3715

Holy crap.

[_wenglund]

Emphatic claims? All I said was that his presentation, if it's about the KEP, must be about the translation process.

You used the word "must". If that isn't emphatic, then I can't imagine what is.

Your emphatic statement assumes that a presentation about the KEP "must be about the translation process". This is demonstrably false, which you would know if you had a clue about Will's presentation.

Now perhaps he's doing his best to dissociate it from the Book of Abraham, but it is still about the translation process.

Here you are ignorantly conjecturing about the "dissociation", and once again repeating your false emphatic claim that it is "still about the translation process." Again, you don't have a clue what you are talking about in terms of Will's presentation, but that doesn't stop you from making conjectural and emphatic claims about things you know not.

But I won't go down this rabbit hole any more with you. That was just one example in my larger point.

That's understandable because, as previously explained, for apologist, the real issue isn't over a lack of credential when credentials aren't needed, but critics presuming to know what they are talking about when they haven't a clue (as you continue to illustrate in terms of the KEP--and this after admitting that "I don't discuss the details of the Book of Abraham, because I've never bothered to study it deeply"), and critics presuming to know better than the experts on things that require expertice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

This is certainly a "watershed" moment in Mormon apologetics, if, for no other reason, the simple fact that their attitude towards "relevant expertise" has taken a drastic 180 degree turn.

Next year droopy will be "changing the game" with respect to Nauvoo Expositor, by presenting proof, not evidence, but proof, that it never really existed and historians have gotten it wrong all these years.

Jskains will follow that up with a presentation on DNA, and by presenting proof, not evidence but proof, that the actors in "Dances with Wolves," have Jewish blood.