New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_hagoth7]

...No, I don't particularly want people in my group that don't have a testimony of the Book of Abraham and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers....

Ed,

What you're proposing is interesting.

Respectfully, however, I think that accepting only TBM's could be a flawed tactic, and I'd suggest rethinking. Opposing views could help you see flaws in your research, approach, assertions, and conclusions that your team might otherwise overlook. (That's assuming there are any such who might be willing to collaborate in such an effort.)

Why not open your process up to exposing and resolving any such flaws prior to publication, rather than after? It would save your team having to backpedal to correct things later.

However, if you're simply going for digital publication, my suggestion becomes a bit less important, since you could incorporate and respond to valid online feedback in subsequent editions relatively easily.

[_hagoth7]

Fair enough. I appreciate your plain speaking.
But you just rebutted your claim that you are doing research. You're not, you're doing faith promotion.

I'm doing faith promotion. Absolutely, no if's and's or but's about it. Give that man a cigar.

I didn't come here to argue about epistemology. Apologetics is not open minded at all, and isn't supposed to be, because testimony is the foundation stone that causes all arguments that are otherwise circular to be grounded....

Depends on what you mean.

I only write/publish things when I am satisfied the research sufficiently supports the faith-promoting hypothesis I was exploring/testing. If I were to find a hypothesis that didn't end up being on reasonable square footing, I would move on to testing the next faith-promoting hypothesis.

If TBM research is not intended to be open-minded, but I approach it with that intent, perhaps that's one of the several reasons I don't consider myself an apologist.

Have I misunderstood your meaning?

[_Maksutov]

Well, at least it seems to be a break from your post-scientific, transhumanist silliness. Bravo.

[_Dr Exiled]

This does seem like a waste of time since the evidence proves the Book of Abraham was invented out of whole-cloth. Also, internally, the Book of Abraham seems to be nothing other than nonsensical riffs on biblical myths.

[_hagoth7]

Ed,

If your group needs a free home for your pending website, I might be able to provide your site a home.

[_EdGoble]

Ed,

If your group needs a free home for your pending website, I might be able to provide your site a home.

Thanks for the offer Hagoth, but the group actually didn't work out, and neither did the conference we were thinking of putting on. We have a loose group of individuals doing their own research still, but couldn't really agree on some fundamentals, and some other unfortunate stuff happened like bad health, etc.

I'm hoping to find someone to help make youtube videos and stuff like that for my basic theory. But for now, I am just sticking with my blogspot thing for my site for now.

I have added some foundational articles to the blog that better explains the point of view.

For those genuinely interested, here is the blog again:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

[_EdGoble]

This does seem like a waste of time since the evidence proves the Book of Abraham was invented out of whole-cloth. Also, internally, the Book of Abraham seems to be nothing other than nonsensical riffs on biblical myths.

Of course that is your opinion. It seems to be an opinion shared by those who do not have faith. But my point of even posting here is to leave information for those few who do truly have interest and who have faith, as I do. I know there are only a few among you like this on this message board, but they are out there, and if I can get through to them, then it is worth it, even though I have to deal with others who make comments like yours. I'm not really doing this for the sake of those of you who do not have testimonies in this work. You have already made your choice what you believe. I aim to help those who have not as yet lost their faith, and show them that there is hope, and there is no occasion to give up.

[Guest]

Depends on what you mean.

I only write/publish things when I am satisfied the research sufficiently supports the faith-promoting hypothesis I was exploring/testing. If I were to find a hypothesis that didn't end up being on reasonable square footing, I would move on to testing the next faith-promoting hypothesis.

If TBM research is not intended to be open-minded, but I approach it with that intent, perhaps that's one of the several reasons I don't consider myself an apologist.

Have I misunderstood your meaning?

I don't consider myself a classic apologist either, because I strive for evidence-based research, as far as that goes, or in other words, I seek to pair evidence-based things with faith promotion. What I mean to say is that it is a foregone conclusion that apologists (whether they call themselves that or not) choose to focus on that which is faith-based. We are not open to the option that Mormonism is a fraud, because the Holy Ghost says it is fundamentally true and real. And in that sense, we are deliberately not open-minded to a conclusion that it is a fraud. We have made that choice based on information from the Holy Ghost. And so, everything we produce is deliberately faith promoting.

[_EdGoble]

You have little chance of getting close to the truth when you have already made certain conclusions that cannot be questioned before you even look at the facts. Might make you feel good though.

Well, here is the problem. Yes, admittedly, it makes me feel good, that is, I feel good about the fact that I do what I do because I have come to my conclusions about Mormonism based on the Holy Ghost. Now, you do have the right to question. But by the nature of what I do, I am at a disadvantage. My starting point of my epistemology is based on evidence that some of you do not accept, and that starting point is not negotiable. That evidence is internal, in my soul. To some of you that is delusion. Fair enough, but that is how it has to be. My information provides a service to those similar to myself that do not believe that a testimony from the Holy Ghost is delusion. I can't prove to you objectively or with empiricism that my internal testimony is not delusion. And I didn't come here with that intent anyway.

[_EdGoble]

Perhaps you are just ignorant of the facts here, so let me explain. The Book of Abraham supposedly comes from a 1st century Egyptian papyrus (missing or otherwise). Would you care to explain why Egyptian pagans would be burying their dead with both a papyri about Egyptian myths like the Sons of Horus AND Hebrew myths like Abraham in the 1st century BC?

Ignorant of facts? You ask me if I care to explain why. I have. Have you read my blog, where the very fundamentals of my theory are based on the facts that you suppose I am ignorant of? It seems that you have not. That is the very foundation of my claim that I say that my theory is based on forensic evidence of the papyri, yet faith promoting at the same time, which is pretty much fundamentally different from every other apologetic theory I know of on this subject. I assert that apologetics needs to retool itself to take positions like I have taken, instead of asserting that there is a missing papyrus. Joseph Smith never had any other papyrus than the papyri in the hands of the LDS Church (with the exception of the known missing pieces such as the original for facsimile #3 and so forth). Joseph Smith never had any papyrus in his hands that had the text of the Book of Abraham on it. If any papyrus with the text of the Book of Abraham existed in ancient times in some ancient language, then that papyrus is truly missing, but it was always missing in our day. Contrary to Missing Papyrus theorists, I assert that Joseph Smith never had a papyrus like that.