Kevin's not driven by hate, bigotry, or self justification. No, how could anyone have ever gotten that impression?
I don't believe I said that. I mentioned above, I beleive, you, David, Hauglid, and Don all share similar political beliefs.
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:
Dunce: I wonder if you could elucidate, to the best of your knowledge, what Don's views at the present time are on the church's core truth claims regarding the Book of Abraham
Kevin: What part of "I do not know and I do not care" do you not understand?
Dunce: I knew you'd run away with your proverbial tail between your proverbial legs with that question, Kevin. Which is why I asked it. You know what Hauglid thinks about this issue, and I'm sure you know what Don thinks.
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.
Interesting how sensitive you are about being called a liar, especially in view of the fact that there is hardly a FARMS scholars till breathing who you have not accused of lying, deception, and intellectual fraud on countless occasions.
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 had no theory. You seemed to imply that Don was one of a group of people who felt that there reasons for leaving the church were justified
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.
While I don't ever think such is justified
What a shocker!
I do think people can be sincere about it
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.
What I don't accept is that people, although sincere, are wholly pure in their motives. One leaves the church - always - because one decides, at some level, the he/she cannot live or accept its standards and teachings.
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.
The cost of discipleship appears too high.
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.
One comes into, or back into the Church, when the costs recede and the blessings become the important aspect to consider - no matter what one has to sacrifice in the process.
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.
No, Pinocchio you've used Hauglid's name with me more than once as a foil against Will. You also made clear to me, long ago, and he shares similar political views with you.
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 me he doesn't know what his position on the Book of Abraham is? I see...
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.
So, how then would you characterize Hauglid's overall view of the BofA?
He believes it is bonafide LDS scripture and inspired doctrine from God.
Is he only against Will's theory, or is he against what Will is trying to prove - that the KEP has nothing to do with the origin of the BofA and the BofA is an authentic ancient document?
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.
Actually, I have four years of college and university at this juncture
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.
well over 25 years as an auto-didact who has been dedicated (when not working myself to the bone in the hot sun dong nice things to people's yards) of intense and consistent study, reflection, and writing on a number of subjects I consider important, a gigantic humanities/social science library that I will be hard pressed to get through before the bucket gets kicked, and I was born and raised in Washington state and San Diego, California.
But nothing peer-reviewed, of course. You're an intellectual legend in your own mind.
Yes, because, among other odd beliefs for a Latter day Saint, he also leans toward believing, that the BofA is a product of Joseph Smith's imagination, just as you do, but with perhaps some caveats relative to the "inspired fiction" angle needed to preserve his own legitimacy as a faithful member holding down the gospel fort. I know this through "the grapevine," not from you, in any case.
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.
The nebulousness of this is of little use in determining Bokovoy's actual perception of the KEP matter. What is he actually trying to say?
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.
I don't know what he's trying to do. You don't seem to now, either, although in the past you have happily linked arms with him and others (some named, some not) against the traditional FARMS defense of the BofA.
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.
One thing is clear, however. If anyone takes the position that the Book of Abraham was the creation of Joseph Smith's imagination, that it was not translated by the gift and power of God (as the church claims the BofM was), and that it was not an authentic ancient text, then that is an apostate position, and in outright rebellion against official church doctrine. Whether such a person is an "apostate" in some other global sense is another matter.
And who among the scholars I've named, holds to such a position? You're talking out of your ass as usual.
Be more specific please.
Read Hauglid's views for yourself:http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... raham.html
Particularly this portion:
What to do? A few thoughts:
1) Treat the person with respect.
One-on-one can help avoid this. After the Bushman symposium 3 people approached him on the Book of Abraham. He noticed that the important thing is that their questions do not make them bad Mormons, etc. Ask away. The three were appreciative of that. They had tough questions, however, but were sincere. So he treated them as such, of course. Sometimes, though, we are so anxious to answer the question that we forget to actually listen. This leads to the perception that you aren't really listening to them. It can be personal, so it becomes us to answer with love. This should be obvious, coming from people who believe in the Savior. Matt Roper mentioned the scripture at the Bushman seminar, "as all have not faith, teach one another."
2) Treat questions seriously
Instead of saying "that's a dumb question" or "oh, that old thing?" "Just pray and read the scriptures," or "that isn't important to faith." These answers can be insulting or can give the impression that you have something to hide or are confused or wrong, etc. Hauglid read excerpts from a letter of a doubting Latter-day Saint who wrote to a Bishop. The Bishop handed it to a counselor who responded in a very regrettable way. For example, because the letter misspelled Banking in the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society, the respondent said "Did he burn the cookies?" The counselor also mocked the writer and flat out called him an apostate. The writer said he had been praying, etc. and didn't know that he could stay in. The counselor told him that was false, and he must not have been sincere. Hauglid said this is a lost opportunity. Sometimes we do need to say "I don't know," especially when we don't know. Something like that would be better than a snarky response or a quick dismissal.
Hauglid talked about the name above the figure in facsimile 3, the JST calls it Pharaoh, but it is actually a name, etc. There are good questions we don't have perfect answers to. However, even with those answers we still can't know exactly what that means, or proves Joseph Smith is a true prophet.
3) Sometimes we must acknowledge that the critics are right on some things.
We know Joseph Smith did a little treasure seeking, that he had multiple wives, etc. We have those facts, but don't have to use them in the same way the critics do. They can have a hay day with some of this, but we must be very cautious and careful and plod through what our responses will be. We don't want to completely discredit the critics because, of course, they do present some facts or some truths.In researching the Kinderhook plates, many LDS believed that they were genuine for 130 years (until 1980 when they were determined a fraud.) Some have dismissed Clayton. However, Clayton was a very accurate source. Suppose Joseph Smith did "translate" something from them? First, he may have believed, himself, that they were OK. He looked and tried for inspiration but got nothing. Perhaps he constructed something from it as best he could for a moment, conjecture. No inspiration led to no inspiration. Perhaps he was looking at them as a scholarly pursuit, and he wanted to test it out. Maybe he did both. We don't know. Why stick to one answer when it may be better and more accurate to allow other possibilities. It is no different with the Book of Abraham.
The critics are right: The papyrus attached to Facs. 1 doesn't translate to the Book of Abraham, it is a straight up conundrum.
However, the critics assertion that the manuscripts are dictation manuscripts is something with which Hauglid disagrees. So what are they, then? Catalyst theory is possible, that Joseph thought that is what the characters meant, etc. Hauglid doesn't really agree with that theory. The deeper he gets in the manuscripts, the more he sees that the simple explanation that Joseph Smith was a fraud is too simplistic. He doesn't have a problem with these problems, they are a mystery but he is still OK.
Words of wisdom that you could use more than most.
But from the church, from the gospel, and from anyone who dares defend it.
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?
I know of no one in the church, or in apologetics, who despise me...
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.
"They," whoever they are (and I know who they are)
I can assure you you don't know all of them.
have serious problems with both my political philosophy and my apologetic defense of the Church
Because you strike them as an idiot and embarrassment to the Church.
Yes, about 5% of the time
If that were true, you never would have been banned from MAD.
You were allowed to run rampant over there for thread after thread while Will was banned from the discussion.
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.
You were allowed to flame, bash, character assassinate, and spew insults almost in every paragraph of your semi-intellectual diatribes on the KEP
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
Others were banned outright for calling you out, while you were simply given warnings and allowed to continue.
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.