Why anyone would think this was a good thing is a mystery to me.

Fun idea to pass the time while you're browsing this thread!

Look for clues scattered throughout his posts and see if you can come up with a way to distinguish Droopy's mentality from that of:

(a) a member of the Mutaween in Saudi Arabia;
(b) a minister in Salem, Massachusetts circa 1692;
(c) a tribal shaman in Polynesia warning people about the wrath of the volcano god;
(d) a fire-and-brimstone Baptist preacher in the American south.

*Bonus question*

Explain, in your own words, how Droopy proves that the LDS Church is not a cult.

To a Nietzschean immoralist, it is a mystery, and a deep one at that.

One doesn't have to be a "Nietzschean immoralist" to not want to lose oneself. What a horrible prospect. Perhaps the desire to lose oneself comes from loathing of the self?

No can do. Droopy is a fine example of a crazed Mormon spreading the cult. Let his Mormon light shine because it reduces positive credibility about the church in the eyes of nonmembers. Let Droopy keep barking like a crazy dog. He's helping us out! In a way, he's an anti-Mormon because he does more to hurt his church than help it.

Thank you Droopy!

Paul O
PS. Just think how much more crazier Droopy is going to be after he officially apostatizes from the church and joins in actively speaking against the church. At that point he will probably make the anti-Mormons look like we have a weaker position because he will be such a nutcase. It's better that Droopy stay in the church and keep barking as he is.

You should left out the (c) item.

Volcanoes do exist, and the lava can drown Your parking spot, if You don't believe in volcano god.
The wrath of that god...


Moreover, we humans have created our volcano gods, and can't master them...

"The smoldering graphite, fuel and other material above, at more than 1200 °C, started to burn through the reactor floor and mixed with molten concrete from the reactor lining, creating corium, a radioactive semi-liquid material comparable to lava." (Chernobyl)

They couldn't.



You're having a hard time keeping up huh? Just review how this exchange went and you'll see that you were clearly referring to their belief in the Book of Abraham, not their politics:



Now you say this question was about politics, which you didn't even mention until later.

You can't even keep up with your own comments.



I'm not sensitive to being called a liar, especially by someone who has no credibility. I do, however, resent your attempt to belittle Don Bradly and Brian Hauglid, based on your inability to achieve basic comprehension and tendency to infer nonsense from nothing, just so you can go on with you usual blackballing campaign against those you suspect of apostasy.



I "implied" no such thing because the issue of "justification for apostasy" was never even brought up. The issue was always about a believer's "insight into the mind of an apostate," and Don's insight is infinitely superior to yours because he has experienced apostasy. Try to keep up.



What a shocker!



In theory you do, but in practice there has never been an instance where you have conceded this to specific individuals. You treat all apostates with the same contempt. Always have, and probably always will.



Standards? No. But teachings? Yes. Of course you have no way of knowing either because you've never experienced it. The fact is people leave the Church all the time because they find out things the Church never told them. Don understands this better than most, especially you. You reject it because it makes you feel better. When dozens of apostates tell you this is why they left, you're reduced to calling them all liars. Why? Because the Church tells you what their motives must be, and so therefore you believe uncritically.



Agreed. At the expense of reason, which is too high for most of us. You've gladly slaughtered your rational faculties on the altar of faith. We refuse.



People come back into the Church for a variety of reasons but most of it has to do with the social aspect. This is especially true in foreign countries like Spain and Brazil, which unlike you, I know something about.



Note Loran's inability to grasp the distinction here. He says I use Hauglid to support my views of the Book of Abraham. I deny this because we obviously have different views of the Book of Abraham. Loran then moves the goal posts and says I used Hauglid as a "foil" against Schryver. Apparently, Loran thinks loyalty to the Book of Abraham is synonymous with loyalty to Schryver. And he thinks he is a deep thinker! The fact is Hauglid rejects Schryver's apologetic nonsense for the same reasons I have, but that doesn't mean, contrary to Loran, that I have "used Hauglid" to support my view of the Book of Abraham.



He'll tell you that everything I have said is true, which means you will be left to calling the two of us liars - since we already know you haven't the capacity to admit being wrong about anything.



He believes it is bonafide LDS scripture and inspired doctrine from God.



He disagrees with Will's argument for a cipher, but so what? When he explained this to Will, Will ceased communications with him. He has no interaction with William anymore, but this is mainly because Will's pride got the best of him. He had an ally in Brian Hauglid but decided to treat him as an enemy, simply because he had the audacity to disagree with him on one of his pet theories. Brian asked William the same questions I had previously asked him (i.e. "why would Joseph Smith want to encipher this stuff?") and William couldn't handle critical feedback, even from his own authority.



And your degree is expected in 2014 or was it 2016? So you're a nomadic student who can't commit himself to complete an education? Either way, your opinion on all things scholarly is hilariously irrelevant when compared to folks like Hauglid and Bokovoy. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a degree in something nowadays, but you can't even say that much. Yet to recreate your resume and decorate your lack of education with "dedication", as if I'm supposed to be impressed? If you were half as dedicated you pretend to be you would have finished school before you were forty, like the rest of us. At this rate you'll be sixty before you'll be able to boast equality with my 22 year old Nephew.



But nothing peer-reviewed, of course. You're an intellectual legend in your own mind.



Call for References that this is what David Bokovoy believes. He has indicated no such thing to me and I don't ever recall him expressing such sentiments. I suspect you're full of s*** as usual.



My you have a hard time keeping up. This was from Hauglid not Bokovoy. If you don't know what he is trying to say, then that's par for the course.



The traditional FARMS defense of the Book of Abraham? I doubt you even know what that is. And after spending the last three hours with Brian Hauglid, I can assure you I have a better idea of what he is trying to do than you ever will.



And who among the scholars I've named, holds to such a position? You're talking out of your ass as usual.



Read Hauglid's views for yourself:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... raham.html

Particularly this portion:



Words of wisdom that you could use more than most.



I've been "alienated" from none of these things, so you're just talking out of your ass again. Try telling this to the folks who keep coming to my house trying to build relationships so they can convince me to go back to Church and let my kids be baptized. Tell them they've alienated me. Try telling this to the number of LDS apologists who regularly email me and ask for my input on a number of issues. The only people who actually claim to alienate me in any way are a few obscure posters online who insist they ignore me, while at the same time demonstrating an inability to actually ignore me. William Hamblin is a perfect example, but then, how can I be "alienated" from Hamblin when we were never even acquaintances to begin with?



Probably because you're not welcomed at the forum that despises you. I know you think you have a cult following of posters who love you, but that following, if it exists, is a tiny minority and the rest mostly refuse to be vocal against you because they know the mods are going to kick you out any moment anyway.



I can assure you you don't know all of them.



Because you strike them as an idiot and embarrassment to the Church.



If that were true, you never would have been banned from MAD.



But the opposite happened in three earlier threads, which blows apart your argument that they were biased on by behalf. Will was finally banned only when my argument left him defenseless and he had to restort to the same low-level apologetic tactis that you adhere to. To this day, I'm still "thread-banned" regularly for doing nothing more than presenting truth that triggers an emotional rant from some idiot like Selek or Pahoran. So you're just deluded if you think these folks love me with open arms. They still have an agenda to orchestrate a faith-promoting scene in every thread. Your problem is that you have such a man-crush on Schryver that you think any rejection of Schryver is synonymous with rejection of the Gospel. Just because he claims to be defending it doesn't mean people have to swallow anything he comes up with. The fact is Schryver's arguments have become boring and idiotic, and more and more LDS scholars are realizing it. FAIR has taken notice and wants to distance themselves from such extremism for the same reasons. Allowing me to pummel Schryver's Cipher theory into the ground, was their way of doing that.



This is horse**** and you know it. Anyone with half a brain knows that the epic thread that demolished Schryver's Cipher nonsense, did nothing of the kind. Here it is:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/564 ... msearch__1

Then there was this thread where LDS scholar Clinton Bartholemew joined in to support my argument, calling it dead on: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/564 ... msearch__1

Then there was this decimation of John Gee's sequence argument: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/565 ... msearch__1



Again, you're deluded mind doesn't have the power to recreate history. Unfortunately for you, it is all documented on the forum for anyone to see. If even half of what you said was true, then I wouldn't have been contacted by scholars thanking me for that presentation, and I certainly wouldn't have been congratulated by the MAD mods for a "job well done." By "well done," they were referring specifically to the fact that I engaged in none of the stuff you just mentioned.

One day Mormon apologists, after much humiliation, will just give up on the false notion that the Book of Abraham was "translated" from Egyptian papyrus and arrive at the truth that Joseph Smith had could not read them, had no idea what he was looking at, and that the BofA, if true, is an origin story shown to Joseph Smith by the Lord. It has nothing to do with what is portrayed in the papyrus and Mormons that hang their hat on the false assumption that it does (or that Joseph Smith knew what he was looking at and could translate it) are going to be continually disappointed.

The problem with the catalyst theory is the Book of Abraham text is full of anachronisms and historical inaccuracies too, even if you could divorce it from the papyri. So it doesn't work as pure inspired text, either.

Your level of denial and self delusion are at megalithic levels of deeply entrenched neurosis. You need deep, sustained, and serious help, my friend.

Serious help.

At this point, I'd imagine the only therapeutic possibility for you would be being dropped from a aircraft in central Alaska with a bowie knife and a loin cloth and allowed to work your way back to reality.






This is bad, Kevin. Very, very bad. Where did I change the subject to politics? My entire query was about Don and Hauglid's view of the provenance of the BofA. I can't keep up with my own comments? Kevin, you're not even lucid anymore. You're seeing pink elephants in the words of others that do not exist. It was your yourself who told me clearly that you share similar political views with Bokovoy and Hauglid. But that wasn't my question to you. That only had reference to the curious phenomena of putative apologists and faithful members of the church linking arms with and aiding and abetting one of the most visceral, hostile, bigoted and aggressive anti-Mormon critics on the Internet.

Normally, apologists don't cuddle with people like the Tanners, Decker, Martin, Larson, Tryke, White, Johnson, Quinn, Hutchinson, the Toscanos, or you. Bokovoy and Hauglid are understood to be apologists. Their close relationship with you (which would be the equivalent of me collaborating with Michael Moore on a movie about Cuba) is odd. It is not odd because people cannot be civil and friendly with those with whom they disagree. It is odd because you are not just an inactive member or a "Jack" Mormon, but an active apostate critic who has completely abandoned his faith and testimony and is now overtly hostile to, as best I can tell, virtually every major or minor truth claim the Church makes for itself and its teachings.

You already made clear to me long ago that these apologists share political (i.e. leftist/progressive) views close to yours. Part and parcel of this is a strong tendency toward a sociological explanation for the Church's modern scripture, particularly the BofA and BofM.

I find Hauglid's terming of your contribution to the debate "deft and scholarly" to be highly instructive, especially given the perception among other experts in this area that it is everything but. There is a heterodoxy of views here, and Hauglid does not dominate them.

I haven't belittled any of them. All I asked was for a clarification of their specific views here, which you refuse to do.



Mine could also be infinitely superior to his because I haven't. Logically, this cuts both ways. Upon what basis is having experienced apostasy (as if all apostasy is the same in all psychological details) a superior window into apostasy qua apostasy.

I suspect that, as with many other apostates, as with other areas of the human condition in which we choose to drink the dregs and taste the bitter cup, confronting the reality that such could have been avoided, and did not have to be, is a heavy weight.

As with my alcoholism, it didn't have to be. The fact that, through my own choices, it was, is the reality, and good can come of that, if I choose to comprehend and decoct from it all the light, intelligence, and knowledge I can for use in maintaining my own sobriety and in helping and persuading others to avoid my experience.

But a non-alchoholic is just as useful as a persuader and teacher of a better way. Then, we want to know why and how this person never so much as approached the abyss. That's just as valuable a lesson as lessons learned the hard way.



More lying and character defamation. You have no idea what you're talking about (as usual, and on virtually any subject). I have disagreed civilly on many occasions with people critical of the church and who have left it. With one caveat: I am a human being, and I have a certain psychological orientation. The very fact that, in forums such as this, an unusual number of exmos are people like you (ranting, bitter, bigoted neurotics seeking emotional and psychological catharsis in rancorous argument with defenders of the Church), I tend to have two choices available to me: not to engage such people at all, or shoot back. I'm a very patient and understanding person - to a point. When insulted, defamed, impugned, smeared, and trashed, and when the Church, the Brethren, and beliefs I hold sacred are dragged through a field of excrement by intellectual pornographers such as you, I can react with vigor.



I can't speak for Don, as I don't know him (but you do, which is why I asked you), but in my case, nothing the Church "never told me" was actually anything that wasn't available in numerous books from major Church publishers, or to be found in the scriptures themselves. I can't speak for Don, but when I did find things that I had never heard in gospel doctrine class, or found in a manual, I did what I have always done.

Read, studied, reflected, pondered, read and studied more, and then prayed for light and wisdom. This never failed me, and I suspect, never will. This is how not to apostatize, and is just as valuable has understanding how to apostatize.



Nope. Sorry Kevin, but all your psychologizing and foam flecked mind reading won't save another of your rambling rants from the intellectual dumpster. I don't call all apostates liars. I only call liars liars. As I've made very clear on many occasions, the key to apostasy is to be found in the parable of the sower, and that is the basis of all my criticism of it.



This is just standard atheist/"freethinker"/secularist boilerplate that does nothing but raise a hornet's nest of philsophical/epistemological problems that I won't bother going into here as you are not intellectually equipped to negotiate them.



And I'm sure you have some robust empirical evidence to substantiate that claim, don't you? I could care less if I know anything about conditions within the church in Spain and Brazil, as I see no relevance whatsoever to the phenomena of apostasy per se (and I know a lot about it here in North America).

So, is Don back for the pot luck dinners and father son outings, or because the church contains the doctrines, authority, and ordinances of exaltation?



Good. Now that you've just walked right into it here, you can now answer my original question, at least in part. Leaving Don aside, what are Hauglid's views on the origin and provenance of the BofA? I'm not interested that he disagrees on Will's cypher theory, but just origin and provenance of the text.

I've seen the criticisms of the text. The one I love is the notion the Egyptians didn't do human sacrifices or it wasn't done. That one makes me laugh. The reason is Abraham's story in the Bible confirms such a notion existed when he is commanded to perform a human sacrifice. That didn't happen in a vacuum. Many of the criticisms of the Book of Abraham I find follow a similar vein in almost every regard and are similarly uninspired.

There is no evidence of human sacrifice in Egypt during Abraham's time frame. But I was thinking of the anachronistic 19th century cosmology (influenced by incorrect notions from Newton and Thomas Dick), and the 19th century ideas about the Canaanites, and the anachronistic reference to the Chaldeans. Oh, and also the mistaken idea that Pharaoh was someone's given name.

I noticed you avoided noting that God proposed that Abraham perform a human sacrifice in the Bible itself. Like I said, the criticisms of the BofA are uninspired and follow a similar vein of dismissing the Bible as well.

Now, let's tackle the Chaldean criticism, which is so much baloney. The bad assumption is Ur of the Chaldees was located in Mesopotamia. The BofA makes it clear it was not. It was under Egyptian influence and in the same ecological zone as Haran and was experiencing a famine. The other bad assumption is the Chaldeans just suddenly appeared out of thin air. Another example of poor thinking on the critics part. The Kassites (Chaldeans) moved into southern Mesopotamia and weren't from there originally. Every time you examine one of these criticism of the BofA, you find something similar. Bad assumptions, uninspired reading (or just plain dismissal of the Bible), or some other non-sense is going on. I have a hard time taking these critics seriously any more.

No one does, Tobin, at least anyone who takes serious thinking seriously and approaches the subjects at hand with at least a reasonable quantity of good faith and an open, creative, exploratory mind (imagination, in other words).

I was not aware that the bible was Egyptian, and I don't see how you have addressed what buffalo said.



You are poorly regurgitating a bad apologetic. I will let someone else say it better then I could.



Here is a link to the thread

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9103&start=0

You definitely need to have a good imagination to try and get around the facts. Some though who also have a good imagination don't think it is a good idea to use it to get around reality.

Take the facts of Fascsimile No. 3 for example. Droopy has not been able to offer up a proper king's name (neither could Hugh Nibley and DCP). Joseph Smith might have added one in his Explanations but he opted to keep it open. He did however offer up the name Shulem wich is also supposed to be in the Egyptian writing. But it's not and what does DCP and John Gee have to say about that? Not much.

So, we see how the failed translations of Fascimile No. 3 prove Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian and he was just making up names. How does that bode with all the names he made up in the Book of Mormon and the D&C? I think we can conclude that Joseph Smith was consistent in making things up and pretending to translate. His track record is horrible and he was caught lying just as soon as modern Egyptology came around the corner to prove Joseph a false translator.

I have no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith was a false translator. He was a total fraud. I know that with every sensible part of my being. I guess you could say I have a testimony! And that testimoy isn't based on fuzzy feelings and warm thoughts that everyone gets when they think about things to stir them up. No. It's based on facts and genuine raw data -- proved using scientific methods. There is nothing LDS apologists can say to counter this. All they can do is rant and rave and gnash their teeth against the revealed scientific truth. Mormons have a way of denying truth and protecting their cause even though it has been shown to be positively false. Being a faithful Mormon can be bummer.

Paul O

Where did the concept of human sacrifice come from in the Bible? Why did God propose it to Abraham? If it was so shocking and unprecedented, why did Abraham not immediately revolt and reject the command? It seems like this didn't happen in a vacuum and I see no response on the other side.

Actually, it is your poor understanding of the Bible itself that is the problem. The Chaldean word comes from the Greek word xaldaioi found in the Septuagint. However, when we look for the cuneiform of the city being discussed as the Hebrew Ur of Chaldees, then why isn't it properly identified as Urim? Also, it is ridiculous to assert that groups and tribes did not possess their identity for thousands of years in the old world. On what basis is that assertion valid? The Jews have retained their identity for thousands of years and exist in the modern era. I also noticed that you regurgitated a bunch of material but failed to address the main points I hightlighted:

1) How was there a famine in both Ur and Haran?
2) And you completely ignore the time period and Egyptian influence in Ur which both clearly indicate that we aren't talking about Urim in Mesopotamia

Human sacrifice was fairly common among the Hebrews up until the 6th century BC, and common among their Semitic neighbors. It was not found among the Egyptians of the time, however.

CFR - and btw, the events described didn't occur in Egypt itself. By your own admission, human sacrifice was occuring in this very region under discussion.

I'm sorry, how does this counter the historical fact that the Chaldeans were not a people in any time Abraham could have existed?