Gnat Straining and the Apologist

[_Tobin]

The reason I'm refusing to discuss things any further with you Themis is you start bringing in other discussions about unrelated topics to what we are discussing and knowingly misstating my positions on those topics as well. You then pretend that I'm being inconsistent on the topic at hand while being openly deceitful. I believe your tactics are thoroughly rotten and underhanded and reflects your true morals.

Yet I am the one showing with evidence that you are inconsistent, but somehow I am the dishonest bad guy. I don't see why other discussions somehow can't be used to back up what I have said. I have been civil and honest with you the whole time. I don't think your inconsistencies make you a bad guy or dishonest. We can all be inconsistent at times.

The inconsistencies only appear when you misrepesent my positions. The only reason you are bringing up these other discussions is because others aren't familiar with what was fully stated in those discussions (since they go over many pages) and you can be deceitful as you want about your representations about them. I'm stating matter of factly that you are lying about my positions and that makes you a "bad guy".

[_Themis]

The inconsistencies only appear when you misrepesent my positions. The only reason you are bringing up these other discussions is because others aren't familiar with what was fully stated in those discussions (since they go over many pages) and you can be deceitful as you want about your representations about them. I'm stating matter of factly that you are lying about my positions and that makes you a "bad guy".

Yet again you don't plead your case with any evidence while I have. I find it more successful if you provide evidence.

[_Tobin]

The inconsistencies only appear when you misrepesent my positions. The only reason you are bringing up these other discussions is because others aren't familiar with what was fully stated in those discussions (since they go over many pages) and you can be deceitful as you want about your representations about them. I'm stating matter of factly that you are lying about my positions and that makes you a "bad guy".

Yet again you don't plead your case with any evidence while I have. I find it more successful if you provide evidence.

All someone needs to do is read this thread. You were the one that brought up other discussions. You were the one that made the misrepresentations about them. I stated that you were both misrepresenting my positions and making other irresponsible statements.

For example, I have stated to you that Joseph Smith was mistaken when he made his original statements about the Book of Abraham. I have also pointed out by citing Nibley and Ashment, andt both of them agreed, that Joseph Smith was ultimately corrected by the Lord. The fact is you know this since you participated in discussing the topic with me. However, you instead have misrepresented my position in this thread. And that makes you a "bad guy".

[_Themis]

All someone needs to do is read this thread. You were the one that brought up other discussions. You were the one that made the misrepresentations about them. I stated that you were both misrepresenting my positions and making other irresponsible statements.

All you have done is simply stated assertions without evidence.

For example, I have stated to you that Joseph Smith was mistaken when he made his original statements about the Book of Abraham. I have also pointed out by citing Nibley and Ashment, andt both of them agreed, that Joseph Smith was ultimately corrected by the Lord. The fact is you know this since you participated in discussing the topic with me. However, you instead have misrepresented my position in this thread. And that makes you a "bad guy".

You never provided any evidence of correction. In fact your main argument was God didn't correct Joseph, but then you have been very inconsistent on the Book of Abraham. I am curious to what you think God corrected Joesph about. I see no where Joseph saying any of it was not true that he stated about the Book of Abraham, papyri, etc.

[_Tobin]

You never provided any evidence of correction. In fact your main argument was God didn't correct Joseph, but then you have been very inconsistent on the Book of Abraham. I am curious to what you think God corrected Joesph about. I see no where Joseph saying any of it was not true that he stated about the Book of Abraham, papyri, etc.

You are such a liar. I'm done with you. You damn well know what I said, I cited and quoted the article published by Ashment with Nibley's comments where they stated definitively that Joseph Smith later on did not believe the papyri were the source of the Book of Abraham (and I agreed when I cited it), and I'm sick of your misrepresentations. Seriously, I hope I never speak with you EVER again.

[_Themis]

You are such a liar. I'm done with you. You damn well know what I said, I cited and quoted the article published by Ashment with Nibley's comments where they stated definitively that Joseph Smith later on did not believe the papyri were the source of the Book of Abraham (and I agreed when I cited it), and I'm sick of your misrepresentations. Seriously, I hope I never speak with you EVER again.

And I believe we asked you where the evidence is for this. You seem to be under an incorrect view that Nibley and ashment saying anything is evidence that Joseph didn't believe the papyri was the source of the Book of Abraham. If I remember you were asked to give any evidence to this and you never did. I think this just shows more of your inconsistency when trying to make apologetic arguments. You need to change it around for each instance. This is why you argued for many pages that God did not correct Joseph. Your main theory was based on this.

Now evidence here would be any statement made by Joseph or those around him saying Joseph did not think the papyri was the source of the Book of Abraham. The problem is there is no evidence for this at all.

[_sleepyhead]

Do you know for a fact that God did or did not speak with Joseph Smith? Do you know for a fact that God did not reveal the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? And so on...

These aren't things in which we are trying to gain further insight into them (seeking wisdom). We are trying to determine if they are true at all. Unless God tells you they are true, there is no reason to believe these claims.

Hello tobin,

1st let me say that it's unfortunate that the discussion has drifted into what satan can and can't do. For what it's worth I don't believe your testimony is the result of satan.
With regards to the 1st paragraph the questins in themselves are irrelevent. They only become significant with respect to whatever actions we take as a result of our views. That said I have formed the opinion that Joseph Smith didn't have any special calling as a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is not historical.
You stated "We are trying to determine if they are true at all". My understanding of your position is that you believe the Book of Mormon etc. because God has told you it was true. I believe you and I don't believe it was really satan.

Drifting,

You sound like you are a part of the church heirarchy when you pester tobin about whether he is a tbm or not. I personally think it's a good thing that he gives his tithing to causes he believes in rather than to the LDS corp.

[_Tobin]

You are such a liar. I'm done with you. You damn well know what I said, I cited and quoted the article published by Ashment with Nibley's comments where they stated definitively that Joseph Smith later on did not believe the papyri were the source of the Book of Abraham (and I agreed when I cited it), and I'm sick of your misrepresentations. Seriously, I hope I never speak with you EVER again.

And I believe we asked you where the evidence is for this. You seem to be under an incorrect view that Nibley and ashment saying anything is evidence that Joseph didn't believe the papyri was the source of the Book of Abraham. If I remember you were asked to give any evidence to this and you never did. I think this just shows more of your inconsistency when trying to make apologetic arguments. You need to change it around for each instance. This is why you argued for many pages that God did not correct Joseph. Your main theory was based on this.

Now evidence here would be any statement made by Joseph or those around him saying Joseph did not think the papyri was the source of the Book of Abraham. The problem is there is no evidence for this at all.

Another baseless absurd charge from you.

I both cited Ed Ashment's article "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal" and quoted from it as well as Nibley's reply. I have not been able to find an online source for this, but you are welcome to read it - "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal" (Sunstone, Dec. 1979, pp. 33-48) by Ed Ashment and comments by Hugh Nibley. I quoted what Ed Ashment determined from examining the Facsimiles and various of Joseph Smith's statements concerning the Egyptian papyri. Ed stated that he viewed Joseph Smith's challenge to "find out these numbers" on Facsimile 2, for example, was an indication he did not know what they meant and was an admission he could not translate them. That as a result "the prophet cannot be held responsible for establishing a relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham when he may not have been sure about it himself." (p. 44) As further proof of his assertion, he noted that Joseph Smith was working on an incomplete Alphabet and Grammar. If he had been able to translate the papyri, why was he still trying to decipher the alphabet and grammar? He also noted that the prophet provided vignettes of the Facsimiles and oddly did not render the meaning of any of the hieroglyphic.

All of this is spelled out in Ashment's article and Nibley's reply.

All of this was cited, quoted, and stated in the discussion thread on the Book of Abraham.

The fact is you lied about my position. You lied about my responses. And those facts make YOU A LIAR.

[_Themis]

Another baseless absurd charge from you.

I both cited Ed Ashment's article "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal" and quoted from it as well as Nibley's reply. I have not been able to find an online source for this, but you are welcome to read it - "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal" (Sunstone, Dec. 1979, pp. 33-48) by Ed Ashment and comments by Hugh Nibley. I quoted what Ed Ashment determined from examining the Facsimiles and various of Joseph Smith's statements concerning the Egyptian papyri. Ed stated that he viewed Joseph Smith's challenge to "find out these numbers" on Facsimile 2, for example, was an indication he did not know what they meant and was an admission he could not translate them. That as a result "the prophet cannot be held responsible for establishing a relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham when he may not have been sure about it himself." (p. 44) As further proof of his assertion, he noted that Joseph Smith was working on an incomplete Alphabet and Grammar. If he had been able to translate the papyri, why was he still trying to decipher the alphabet and grammar? He also noted that the prophet provided vignettes of the Facsimiles and oddly did not render the meaning of any of the hieroglyphic.

All of this is spelled out in Ashment's article and Nibley's reply.

All of this was cited, quoted, and stated in the discussion thread on the Book of Abraham.

The fact is you lied about my position. You lied about my responses. And those facts make YOU A LIAR.

Again we see tobin falsely accusing me of lying. This has everything to do with him not understanding what others are saying or asking of him. When I said he didn't provide any evidence it was about evidence of Joseph thinking the papyri was not the source of the Book of Abraham. It is true that he did not. He mistakenly thought I was saying he didn't provide the article in question where ashment or nibley are stating their opinions on no evidence. I think it may also be that he does not understand the nature of what evidence is.

[_Tobin]

Hello tobin,

1st let me say that it's unfortunate that the discussion has drifted into what satan can and can't do. For what it's worth I don't believe your testimony is the result of satan.
With regards to the 1st paragraph the questins in themselves are irrelevent. They only become significant with respect to whatever actions we take as a result of our views. That said I have formed the opinion that Joseph Smith didn't have any special calling as a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is not historical.
You stated "We are trying to determine if they are true at all". My understanding of your position is that you believe the Book of Mormon etc. because God has told you it was true. I believe you and I don't believe it was really satan.

Drifting,

You sound like you are a part of the church heirarchy when you pester tobin about whether he is a tbm or not. I personally think it's a good thing that he gives his tithing to causes he believes in rather than to the LDS corp.

There are some important questions we need to determine some answers to:
1) Is there a God?
2) If there is, who and what is (and so on) is God?
3) Provided we can establish God is of some benefit (and has a benevolent disposition towards us), can we experience, see, speak with or interact with this God on any level?

I believe Mormonism is aimed primarily at addressing these questions.
1) Yes, there is a God.
2) God formed us, is like us, understand us.
3) The formation, saving, exalting, enlightening and betterment of intelligent beings is what God does. So God is benevolent and interested in us.

Now, how did I get those answers from getting answers to the questions above.

Well, the fact God interacted with Joseph Smith means God isn't done talking to us as many Christians maintain. It also means the Bible isn't the last set of stories about God we are likely to read about. What Mormonism adds to Christianity is worthwhile too. It helps us understand why we exist, why God shows an interest in us, why God is benevolent, and so on. I think those are valuable things.

Now, to get there, we have to accept some rather unusual things (things that don't happen everyday). We have to know there is such a being and that being can show up in some form (as God, as Angels or through some miraculous event). Without experiencing such things, belief in Mormonism is rather worthless. It would be like believing the Lord of the Rings is true and has no practical value to us.