You guys are still at it! (why am I not surprised?)

[MG 2.0]

I think the evidence shows the opposite to be true.

Also, to be clear, the "bomb throwers" end up being an 'elite' few of the critics that inhabit this place.

Just a few.

I've had many productive conversations with a number of folks here.

Marcus just doesn't happen to be one of them.

She is the "bomb thrower". And it hasn't been just at me. In my opinion she is not an asset to the board. Simply a critic and provocateur with nothing to offer.

She could change her ways, however, and that would be a breath of fresh air.

Regards,
MG

I think the evidence shows you're capacity for self deception is in a class all its own.

Something a critic would say.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Umm...yes.

I find it fascinating how believers make excuses for the Book of Abraham. I think it is the smoking gun of Mormonism and that is probably why you aren't getting any responses. It is indefensable, most people fall back on the motte-and-bailey tactic which is what MG just did when he went with the cornerstone analogy. Jim Bennet did the same thing with the Book of Abraham.

I had not heard the phrase "motte-and-bailey tactic" before, so i looked it up, thank you! I really enjoyed reading up on the background. That is a very useful description of a common fallacy used, and, as you noted, very common in Book of Abraham discussions. Thank you again.

[The Stig]

I think the evidence shows you're capacity for self deception is in a class all its own.

Something a critic would say.

Regards,
MG

Nice substance-free dismissive. More evidence.

[Rivendale]

I find it fascinating how believers make excuses for the Book of Abraham. I think it is the smoking gun of Mormonism and that is probably why you aren't getting any responses. It is indefensable, most people fall back on the motte-and-bailey tactic which is what MG just did when he went with the cornerstone analogy. Jim Bennet did the same thing with the Book of Abraham.

I had not heard the phrase "motte-and-bailey tactic" before, so i looked it up, thank you! I really enjoyed reading up on the background. That is a very useful description of a common fallacy used, and, as you noted, very common in Book of Abraham discussions. Thank you again.

You are welcome. I have to give credit to RFM and Colby Reddish for introducing that to me. It is superfluous in Mormon apologetics. I have no problem with believers defending their faith but to do so dishonestly reflects more about their altered epistemology than it does about their innate human decency.

[Moksha]

I think RFM was referring to the Motte problem of every aspect of the Book of Abraham being fictitious, while the apologetics placed the blame solely on tapirs. The Bailey referred to everybody giving the tapirs a free pass because they were cute and went out of their way to help lug those cumbersome Nephite steel chariots. LDS Critics have a soft spot in their hearts when it comes to lovable tapirs.

Hope that helps, although I admit the ways of RFM are largely inscrutable. Anyway, that is something a critic would say.

[I Have Questions]

This phraseology is Narcissism 101. A normal person would say something like "I agree with Professor Gee what Professor Gee says about the Book of Abraham...". But not a narcissist. The narcissist has to present as the superior person in the equation.

In no way is that what I'm stating.

Read your own words again…

Gee agrees with me, if I remember correctly, that the church doesn't rise or fall on the Book of Abraham anyway.

…that’s exactly what you stated.

I am saying that he and I happen to agree.

No, what you said was that Gee agreed with with you. That’s a grandiose phraseology. It specifically implies that Gee read something you wrote or said and then subsequently agreed with it. It’s obvious narcissistic phraseology.

Can we lay off the amateur psychology? I could just as well apply the term narcissist to you without any evidence. That wouldn't make it true.

But I didn’t apply the term to you “without evidence”. Your own phraseology is the evidence.

[I Have Questions]

Interesting that the final defence for the Book of Abraham is that it's irrelevant doctrinally. Brilliant.

It's not irrelevant doctrinally.

Regards,
MG

Yes it is. There’s no meaningful doctrine in it that cannot be found elsewhere. So it’s irrelevant. Superfluous. Unnecessary. Pointless. Worthless. As Shulem has pointed out, the Church’s credibility is harmed by its existence. Gee recognises that fact which is why, despite expending countless years of his life on it, he seeks to minimise and diminish its value.

[MG 2.0]

MG: I am saying that he and I happen to agree.

No, what you said was that Gee agreed with with you. That’s a grandiose phraseology. It specifically implies that Gee read something you wrote or said and then subsequently agreed with it. It’s obvious narcissistic phraseology.

B.S.

You may want to look at one or more of these descriptors and honestly question whether your head is screwed on straight:

Misunderstanding or Misinterpretation: The accuser might have misunderstood the accused person's language, perceiving it as overly complex or pretentious when it was not intended that way.

Projection: The accuser could be projecting their own insecurities about language or communication onto the other person.

Bias or Prejudice: The accusation might stem from a preconceived bias against the accused, possibly rooted in differences in education, background, or communication styles.

Defensiveness: If the accused person's language challenges the accuser's ideas or beliefs, the accusation could be a defensive reaction to feeling intellectually intimidated.

Desire to Undermine Credibility: The accuser might be attempting to discredit the other person by framing their communication style as unnecessarily complex or insincere.

Ultimately, such an accusation says more about the accuser's perspective, assumptions, or motives than it does about the accused person's actual communication style.

Perplexity A.I.

IHAQ, even though you are unwilling to be a bit vulnerable so that we can get to know you as a person and what makes you tick (loneliness? insecurity? etc.), I think I'm getting to know you. The thing is, what I'm learning is somewhat troubling. It's not pretty. But unlike you (and one or two others that engage in the same behavior) I am not going to plaster it all over a public message board.

Because I could be wrong. I don't have enough evidence. So I keep my mouth shut. As should you.

This pseudosociology crap has been used before. See above. Look in the mirror.

I've come to certain resolutions/conclusions/hypotheses independent of anyone else. Obviously I'm not placing myself above someone like him who has the training that he does. I'm simply happy that we see things similarly.

You will do anything and say anything to score a point.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It's not irrelevant doctrinally.

Regards,
MG

Yes it is. There’s no meaningful doctrine in it that cannot be found elsewhere.

Truth is truth, wherever it is found. The Book of Abraham contains some priceless truths.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Something a critic would say.

Regards,
MG

Nice substance-free dismissive. More evidence.

Critics are constantly making the accusation that believers have been deceived.

You're not the first. You won't be the last.

Regards,
MG