Update from Ritner

[_DonBradley]

Paul! I'm glad to see you in discussion again.

What are you delving into in your latest research?

Don

[_Paul Osborne]

Paul! I'm glad to see you in discussion again.

What are you delving into in your latest research?

Don

Actually, I haven't been doing much research or reading at all. Been taking a break from it all and am just trying to smell the roses.

It seems to me that the Book of Abraham disputes are intensifying. I really don't see the missing roll theory surviving much longer in the main LDS apologetic camp. It's hard to hold on to a conventional missing roll translation when one considers all the facts and evidence at hand. If Gee and Peterson will drop the missing roll and allow for a supernatural translation through symbolism and other means - then there will be a total shift in the LDS apologetic front. But these guys hold the cards in which the main body of Book of Abraham apologists follow. It's a question of basic honesty and mixing faith with reality. I dare say that Gee and Peterson must drop the missing roll theory in order to find peace in their souls when it comes to the makings of the Book of Abraham out of papyrus. Of course, however, I can't speak for them.

On another note, the apologists are going to have to come to terms that the apologetic paradigm built by Hugh Nibley is false. He was not inspired in building this paradigm. Nibley's ideas are that of man and are founded in the realm of a schoolastic arena whereby supernatural means takes a back seat. Too many good LDS people have put their trust in Hugh Nibley or, the arm of man. LDS people need to think these things out for themselves and consider the possibility that things may not be as they want them to be - but God works in mysterious ways - and the prophet himself didn't always know what was going on but managed to plow his way through his accomplishments. LDS people can believe in the inpiration of Joseph Smith without requiring him to work after the manner of the world when it comes to translation and interpretation. LDS people need to realize that Joseph Smith was dabbling in Adamic language but tagged it with Egyptian roots because the language was not entirely lost in the days of Abraham in Egypt.

Paul O

[_Polygamy Porter]

Actually, I haven't been doing much research or reading at all. Been taking a break from it all and am just trying to smell the roses.

It seems to me that the Book of Abraham disputes are intensifying. I really don't see the missing roll theory surviving much longer in the main LDS apologetic camp. It's hard to hold on to a conventional missing roll translation when one considers all the facts and evidence at hand. If Gee and Peterson will drop the missing roll and allow for a supernatural translation through symbolism and other means - then there will be a total shift in the LDS apologetic front.

Supernatural what? Smith himself said he TRANSLATED the papyrus. Mormon historical "research" is already a laughing stock in the real world, and your ideas of Smith using supernatural means will only make Mormons out to be complete and outright kooks. You are a desperate member Paul. With far reaching statements like this, desperate to hold onto Mormonism at any cost, it is evident you are on the cusp of losing your testimony.

But these guys hold the cards in which the main body of Book of Abraham apologists follow.

Boy you really need to back away from this before your jealousy consumes you.

It's a question of basic honesty and mixing faith with reality. I dare say that Gee and Peterson must drop the missing roll theory in order to find peace in their souls when it comes to the makings of the Book of Abraham out of papyrus.

And for you to fing peace in your soul, you need to accept the fact that smith was a fraud. The Book of Abraham proves that. Would you give any other person the same credibility if they claimed to use "supernatural" means to bring about a revelation from god? Why not?

Of course, however, I can't speak for them. Mixing faith and reality will never result in honesty. HELLO? You have faith that smith used magic, other have faith that he merely TRANSLATED. Again, you are grasping at straws. Smith had very little honesty when he was alive, why then would you expect to find honesty from followers of him doing research.

On another note, the apologists are going to have to come to terms that the apologetic paradigm built by Hugh Nibley is false.

Oh and the one you are building is not? Tsk tsk, too bad Paul, Nibley got all of the fame and will forever be revered by the members and you will only be remembered by a few as the crazy member with kooky ideas full of hate for the lords anointed scholars. BYU will NEVER name a building after you.

He was not inspired in building this paradigm. Nibley's ideas are that of man and are founded in the realm of a schoolastic arena whereby supernatural means takes a back seat. Too many good LDS people have put their trust in Hugh Nibley or, the arm of man.

What is the difference in the trust people have put in other men? Like Smith and Young and many others? You make no sense.

LDS people need to think these things out for themselves and consider the possibility that things may not be as they want them to be - but God works in mysterious ways - and the prophet himself didn't always know what was going on but managed to plow his way through his accomplishments. LDS people can believe in the inpiration of Joseph Smith without requiring him to work after the manner of the world when it comes to translation and interpretation. LDS people need to realize that Joseph Smith was dabbling in Adamic language but tagged it with Egyptian roots because the language was not entirely lost in the days of Abraham in Egypt.

Is this APaul'ogetics? Sounds like.
Let me ask you this, when a member "works things out for themselves", and their conclusions fall outside of the accepted norm, or your APaul'ogetics, then what do you have to say to them?

Stop being a hypocrite Paul. You are a wet exmormon. Time to dry off, ditch the pills and come into the real world.

[_Paul Osborne]

Porter,

You give absolutely no avenue for Joseph Smith to take a supernatural path. You give no consideration to what a supernatural translation can consist of. You just want to kill the prophet! I am firm in my testimony of the prophet and the foundation of Mormonism. I can assure you, I would die this very minute for my testimony. On the other hand, I think you would murder in cold blood to thwart testimonies if you had the chance to get away with it. You are a spiritual murderer!
I am jealous of nothing. The scholars at BYU can have all the credit and glory and give me nothing. They only need to turn away from incorrect assumptions and embrace a better interpretation.

I have peace in the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham. My spirit is calm and grounded in testimony that Joseph Smith received it through revelation unlike that known to man today. Joseph Smith was a pioneer in his field and all the prophets admire him. He was an honest man of the highest character. You, on the other hand, are a vulgar man that takes delight in mocking the Lord’s anointed – thereby you would call Christ a liar had you lived in his day. You seem to think I want recognition in my work. Hell, I don’t want recognition. I want to see the KEP vindicated and a better paradigm built by LDS apologists that allows the facts to express truth. I tell you my heart is grounded in those things that give me peace. I don't care if you believe me. Your soul isn't precious to me and in this I sin.

Look, you greasy slime ball, when others don’t follow APaulogetics of my liking they can take it to their bank and try to cash in – but they will come up empty with the missing roll theory because it is false. You know that, and I know that. So, we can agree on that much. Now, you think I’m a hypocrite. That is utter nonsense. You don’t even know what the word means but like to toss it out like a rotten tomato on your foes. Wipe your own face of and face reality! Supernatural is the name of the game and you are furious with that kind of apologetic reasoning. You are an unreasonable person who refuses to consider the possibilities outside your own comfortable box in which you have placed yourself. You’re not very bright and you think within limits of a mind that is stunted. I guess what I am saying is: “You’re a stupid man”. And with that, you deserve every insult slung at you.

Now, go masterbate and leave me alone.

Paul O

[_Mister Scratch]

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

You know, I feel as if I have had the wool pulled over my eyes. I felt a little bit bad after Dr. Shades posted DCP's email regarding the whole Quinn gossipmongering affair. But what is he doing now? I think it is worthwhile to reiterate again that DCP is obviously a dishonest (and quite possibly pathologically sick) individual. I have hesitated at making these declarations in the past, but it has become clear now that he seems virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns. He can make sarcastic jokes about it all he wants, but the truth remains: he sits, comfortably and laughingly in his BYU sinecure, launching these various cruel and dishonest attacks on others. Was he involved in a BKP-headed conspiracy to destroy Mike Quinn's life? You be the judge.

[_Dr. Shades]

You know, I feel as if I have had the wool pulled over my eyes. I felt a little bit bad after Dr. Shades posted DCP's email regarding the whole Quinn gossipmongering affair. But what is he doing now? . . . it has become clear now that he seems virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns. He can make sarcastic jokes about it all he wants, but the truth remains: he sits, comfortably and laughingly in his BYU sinecure, launching these various cruel and dishonest attacks on others.

In FAIRness, I think it likely that DCP was a victim of Gee's duplicity. In my opinion, rather than outright lying, the most likely scenario is that DCP innocently (if naïvely) took Gee's story to be the gospel truth, then passed it along--with unfortunate results.

[_dartagnan]

You know, I feel as if I have had the wool pulled over my eyes. I felt a little bit bad after Dr. Shades posted DCP's email regarding the whole Quinn gossipmongering affair. But what is he doing now? . . . it has become clear now that he seems virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns. He can make sarcastic jokes about it all he wants, but the truth remains: he sits, comfortably and laughingly in his BYU sinecure, launching these various cruel and dishonest attacks on others.

In FAIRness, I think it likely that DCP was a victim of Gee's duplicity. In my opinion, rather than outright lying, the most likely scenario is that DCP innocently (if naïvely) took Gee's story to be the gospel truth, then passed it along--with unfortunate results.

That is my take on it as well. Gee is the liar here, not Dan. Dan is a gossiper who gossips what he truly believes to be true.

Now gets to know what it feels like to have trusted Gee unwittingly.

[_Blixa]

Paul! I'm glad to see you in discussion again.

What are you delving into in your latest research?

Don

Actually, I haven't been doing much research or reading at all. Been taking a break from it all and am just trying to smell the roses.

It seems to me that the Book of Abraham disputes are intensifying. I really don't see the missing roll theory surviving much longer in the main LDS apologetic camp. It's hard to hold on to a conventional missing roll translation when one considers all the facts and evidence at hand. If Gee and Peterson will drop the missing roll and allow for a supernatural translation through symbolism and other means - then there will be a total shift in the LDS apologetic front. But these guys hold the cards in which the main body of Book of Abraham apologists follow. It's a question of basic honesty and mixing faith with reality. I dare say that Gee and Peterson must drop the missing roll theory in order to find peace in their souls when it comes to the makings of the Book of Abraham out of papyrus. Of course, however, I can't speak for them.

On another note, the apologists are going to have to come to terms that the apologetic paradigm built by Hugh Nibley is false. He was not inspired in building this paradigm. Nibley's ideas are that of man and are founded in the realm of a schoolastic arena whereby supernatural means takes a back seat. Too many good LDS people have put their trust in Hugh Nibley or, the arm of man. LDS people need to think these things out for themselves and consider the possibility that things may not be as they want them to be - but God works in mysterious ways - and the prophet himself didn't always know what was going on but managed to plow his way through his accomplishments. LDS people can believe in the inpiration of Joseph Smith without requiring him to work after the manner of the world when it comes to translation and interpretation. LDS people need to realize that Joseph Smith was dabbling in Adamic language but tagged it with Egyptian roots because the language was not entirely lost in the days of Abraham in Egypt.

Paul O

[my emphasis]

I have to go with Paul on this one.

I don't believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon or god. But, I think that if someone is going to, then they have to find "supernatural" explanations the most compelling. That is what spiritual belief is all about, insofar as I understand it. That is the only "plausible" way to explain Joseph Smith's "translations" of both sets of scripture, even though Joseph Smith himself seemed to indicate a less supernatural and more conventional translation process for the Book of Abraham.

Once you have a prophet in place, receiving wisdom from direct revelation over and above what he himself does/can know, and the idea that not all of god's motivations make sense to humans, then I think you can reconcile yourself to the Book of Abraham.

I can't. But I can see where there is a certain kind of consistency to this chain of thought. I've (loosely) followed Paul's arguments at FAIR and MAD and I think they are emphatic in thier consistency. That's not something I've found in many of the "apologetic" arguments, which often seem to me to be an contradictory aggregation of retro-fitted stop gaps, each perhaps making some sense in a local context, but falling apart globally.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Porter,

You give absolutely no avenue for Joseph Smith to take a supernatural path. You give no consideration to what a supernatural translation can consist of.

The problem with the aPaulogetics of supernatural theories is they are unbounded. Did monkeys fly out of Josephs butt? How do you know?

Additionally, in the mainstreaming vein of the current LDS Inc organization, supernatural is too weird to sell to the public.

You are the one boxed in. Boxed in by the walls of your own fear of the unknown and ego of your aPaulogetics.

Now go take another pill.

[_Paul Osborne]

Porter,

Now that I've had another pill, I can still say that I disagree with you. Further, I think that the most supernatural person ever to live was Jesus. Everything about him was supernatural from his birth to his resurrection. When I read about the life and times of Jesus I see how he operated in the most supernatural ways known to man. A lot of people can accept this concept. Thereby, there should be some who can also accept that Joseph Smith was involved in supernatural things as well. So, if you will come out of your comfort box you will find there is much more in the universe than you want to allow. Get out of your little box! Do you think that God and prophets have to do what you say in order to be validated? YOU want to dictact what God and prophets can and can't do in order to operate within the scope of their roles.

It is YOU who are in doubt, not me! You are afraid - I can see that quite clearly. Perhaps you aren't as dumb as I first thought.

Paul O