New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

Ed, you can't come to conclusions about seer stones without examining them. What you say about them speaks not about them, but what you have been taught about them and speculated about them. You don't take the final step and put it on the line. Some stones are magnets. Some are radioactive. These are extraordinary properties. The only way you find out if they are is if you test them. If you avoid that then you have to build a world view around avoiding investigation. Good luck with that.

Small groups of people discussing passionately the stories and characters that they love is a good description of a literary club and a gathering of Mopologists. It is a not a scientific or academic conference. It's about affirmation, not discovery. It's people trying to prop up each other's testimonies because they care about them and they think it's helpful. I don't see malice or stupidity or superstition in that. I do see, in this case, futility.

Maksutov,

I invite examination of anything that anyone wants to examine. Everything is already on the line. My information is there for review. The seer stones are things that are sacred things, and the Church would not likely give permission for their examination. But I for one think that seer stones are just stones. But yes, if I were the owner of the seer stones, I would want them examined to see if there is anything out of the ordinary about them. I would welcome that. But I predict that there is nothing out of the ordinary about them, and when they are used, that it is simply the power of God upon them, and it doesn't cause any fundamental transformation.

Yes, indeed apologetics is admittedly to a degree about affirmation. But Mormons will continue to do the best they can in the circumstances we are in. And for now, apologetics and conferences of "affirmation" are what we have to offer. for now. We are in a state that is sort of out of our control in the sense that we do not have power over the natural world to give us evidences we don't have. We seize on any evidence we do have and do our best to squeeze what we can from the evidences we do have. Yes, it would be nice if we had more, but that is the nature of religion. If we had more, it would be science, not religion. But it is not science, and I admit that.

But, in the end, believers believe, not because of evidence. They search for evidence to uphold belief where possible. This is the admitted nature of the thing. You won't find other apologists admitting this, but I do admit it, because it is just the way it is, and there is no sense not making the admission.

[_Maksutov]

Ed, you can't come to conclusions about seer stones without examining them. What you say about them speaks not about them, but what you have been taught about them and speculated about them. You don't take the final step and put it on the line. Some stones are magnets. Some are radioactive. These are extraordinary properties. The only way you find out if they are is if you test them. If you avoid that then you have to build a world view around avoiding investigation. Good luck with that.

Small groups of people discussing passionately the stories and characters that they love is a good description of a literary club and a gathering of Mopologists. It is a not a scientific or academic conference. It's about affirmation, not discovery. It's people trying to prop up each other's testimonies because they care about them and they think it's helpful. I don't see malice or stupidity or superstition in that. I do see, in this case, futility.

Maksutov,

I invite examination of anything that anyone wants to examine. Everything is already on the line. My information is there for review. The seer stones are things that are sacred things, and the Church would not likely give permission for their examination. But I for one think that seer stones are just stones. But yes, if I were the owner of the seer stones, I would want them examined to see if there is anything out of the ordinary about them. I would welcome that. But I predict that there is nothing out of the ordinary about them, and when they are used, that it is simply the power of God upon them, and it doesn't cause any fundamental transformation.

Yes, indeed apologetics is admittedly to a degree about affirmation. But Mormons will continue to do the best they can in the circumstances we are in. And for now, apologetics and conferences of "affirmation" are what we have to offer. for now. We are in a state that is sort of out of our control in the sense that we do not have power over the natural world to give us evidences we don't have. We seize on any evidence we do have and do our best to squeeze what we can from the evidences we do have. Yes, it would be nice if we had more, but that is the nature of religion. If we had more, it would be science, not religion. But it is not science, and I admit that.

But, in the end, believers believe, not because of evidence. They search for evidence to uphold belief where possible. This is the admitted nature of the thing. You won't find other apologists admitting this, but I do admit it, because it is just the way it is, and there is no sense not making the admission.

I appreciate your honesty. Thanks.

Now about your transhumanism...

[Guest]

Yes, I thoroughly agree that Joseph Smith's information was "channeled" by powers from the unseen world. If it wasn't that, it was plain made up thing. There is no if's, and's or but's about that. But of course, being a faithful Mormon, I opt that it was channeled from the unseen world. The seer stone and spectacles are certainly "occult" instruments if there ever were any. I own a copy of Quinn's Early Mormonism and Magic Worldview. I own a copy of the brand new book on Joseph Smith's Seerstones, ironically put out by Deseret Book, which references Quinn a lot. I am perfectly comfortable with prophets using "occult" instruments. Other Mormons that are uneducated TBM's, maybe not so much, but the facts are what they are.

The problem is that these instruments are the common tools of the fraud. How many LDS believe in crystal balls, palm reading, tarot cards, etc?

And so, for critics and Mormons alike, the issue is between those two options: whether it was channeled or whether it was made up. Some critics who are also believers in the unseen world, of course, will say that it was an unclean spirit that was the being behind the channeling. Critics that believe that it was made up believe that either Joseph Smith was a sincere fraud, or that he was fooling himself.

There is also the option he was just a fraud. I have no problem with him being a pious fraud.

So, once again, it comes down to a religious conclusion, ones religious beliefs and subjective conclusions based on one's discernment from the Holy Ghost. That is what Mormons are left with, and of course, we all know what the conclusions of the Mormons are on this matter. They believe that their discernment has led them to the conclusion that Joseph Smith got it from the right source in the unseen world.

Actually Mormons are all over the map when it comes to how they view their subjective feelings. They can even move from doubt to belief and from belief to doubt. The experience is after all very subjective and we cannot rule out non-divine sources. That's why when a Mormon looks at the evidence they may conclude differently then other Mormons.

So, yes, I admit the "difficulties" that you speak of. Nevertheless, at this point, for a Mormon, the difficulty rests only in spiritual discernment, not in scholarship or science.

No, not all of us Mormons think the same way. Many of us Mormons understand the importance of the physical evidence and that it should not conflict with subjective feelings telling us something different. It is a good guide that the more subjective is more likely to be wrong then the more objective.

So, if I have some channeled document, that may have been channeled by some other "medium" for example, I can discern each claim in that document by way of the Holy Ghost. I can even do this with Satan's claims in Eden, where some of his claims are true, and some false. His description of opposition in all things where the fruit of the tree of knowledge would cause a transformation, where Adam and Eve would then experience these opposites, was correct. Yet, the source of this was the mouth of Satan himself. Satan's claim that Adam and Eve would not die, on the other hand, was false. So, in this instance, even from the mouth of Satan, we have something that was true on the one hand, and something that was false on the other. And by the Spirit, regardless of the source, we can discern each claim made in a document, and know which claims are true, and which claims are false, regardless of the source of the document.

Adam and Eve are the most likely to be mythological fiction, but unfortunately Joseph tied himself too much to their real existence. It is even more of a problem for those like you who accept humans evolving over time and then make up stuff like they were brought here from another planet. Why would God need to do that if he already had created humans on this planet.

As for your comments on Joseph Smith's Egyptian, and on the apologists that have tried to save him. Actually from a Mormon point of view, Nibley did a great job, and came up with some great defenses. Not defenses that are convincing to a critic of course, but defenses that are helpful to a Mormon. Similarly, Schryver led the way in showing a point of view where Egyptian symbols can be able to de-coupled (in the Computer Science sense) from the ties of the strict Egyptological definitions of the symbols, where they are used as a code scheme in a cipher. Schryver's only problem was a claim that it was a modern-day cipher. He was not wrong that the KEP/GAEL/EAG is a code-book or cipher, so to speak. He was just wrong about the people that put it together. Ancient people created this cipher. And Joseph Smith transmitted those ancient pairings of symbols to meaning assignments into modern speech. This is different from the regular Egyptological use of Egyptian. It is where ancient Egyptians turned Sensen papyrus symbols into an encoding scheme, and had a key like the KEP that provided the meaning assignments, like a modern day code-book that is used as a substitution cipher. People in the ancient world did use substitution ciphers.

Many Mormons like me have read Nibley and found his defenses not very good. Schryver was an idiot for many of the believing members, and there is a reason he gave up.

[_Themis]

Well, then Themis, I welcome you to review my material yourself and show that I have not indeed demonstrated that a cipher exists in the KEP/Facsimile Explanations. Or, anyone you please can review my material. It is there for the reviewing, not for the dismissing.

I cannot demonstrate the non-existence of something. You made the claim. You are the one who has to demonstrate that a cipher actually exists. I am open to it, but you have still not shown one exists. You are just speculating someone created one and have admitted if they did write it down we don't have a copy to show one really existed. You are just selling the possibility of one. I could do that with any document.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

[_EdGoble]

I appreciate your honesty. Thanks.

Now about your transhumanism...

No problem. But now, about my transhumanism. At least I have more than Mormon Transhumanists on my side for the issue of Transhumanism. At least there are some non-Mormon transhumanists, and at least there are scientists and rationalists among them.

[_EdGoble]

Well, then Themis, I welcome you to review my material yourself and show that I have not indeed demonstrated that a cipher exists in the KEP/Facsimile Explanations. Or, anyone you please can review my material. It is there for the reviewing, not for the dismissing.

I cannot demonstrate the non-existence of something. You made the claim. You are the one who has to demonstrate that a cipher actually exists. I am open to it, but you have still not shown one exists. You are just speculating someone created one and have admitted if they did write it down we don't have a copy to show one really existed. You are just selling the possibility of one. I could do that with any document.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

I have demonstrated it in my blog and in my foundational articles that are easily accessible from the links on the top of the blog.

So, my blog is the thing that is in need of review. I am not so sure that just because you say what you say that the burden is on me now to paste my material here when I have provided the reference material on the blog. Rather, I think the burden is on the critics now to review what I have produced, and disagree and critique where and what they will.

[Guest]

The problem is that these instruments are the common tools of the fraud. How many LDS believe in crystal balls, palm reading, tarot cards, etc?

There is also the option he was just a fraud. I have no problem with him being a pious fraud.

Actually Mormons are all over the map when it comes to how they view their subjective feelings. They can even move from doubt to belief and from belief to doubt. The experience is after all very subjective and we cannot rule out non-divine sources. That's why when a Mormon looks at the evidence they may conclude differently then other Mormons.

No, not all of us Mormons think the same way. Many of us Mormons understand the importance of the physical evidence and that it should not conflict with subjective feelings telling us something different. It is a good guide that the more subjective is more likely to be wrong then the more objective.

Adam and Eve are the most likely to be mythological fiction, but unfortunately Joseph tied himself too much to their real existence. It is even more of a problem for those like you who accept humans evolving over time and then make up stuff like they were brought here from another planet. Why would God need to do that if he already had created humans on this planet.

Many Mormons like me have read Nibley and found his defenses not very good. Schryver was an idiot for many of the believing members, and there is a reason he gave up.

Themis, am I to understand that you are a Mormon still? Yes, true, not all of us think the same way. Not all Mormons are believing of the core claims. I am an apologist of the sort that seeks to uphold core claims.

I don't know Schryver's whole story, but I have seen some of the criticisms of him unrelated to his scholarship, which even if true, sort of are not very helpful in ascertaining the value or lack thereof in his scholarship. I'm not particularly interested in Schryver's life or identity outside of his scholarship. Not that such things are not important to a degree, but I am interested in what good he did that I find of value, not his mistakes.

I don't know the reason he gave up, and I'm not real interested in it.

I know that the Mormon Mystics on the Mormon Mystic email group are believers in the occult, such as Joe Swick, etc. Many of the Freemasonic LDS are also believers in the occult to a degree.

Mormon rationalists (at least those that try to be to the degree possible) who are still believers in core claims, as a necessity, must adopt a stance that embraces some occultism in the sense of prophets employing physical objects.

Yes, I get it that most Mormon Evolutionists would like Adam and Eve to just be evolved humans like the rest. That is certainly another option. I, however, like the theory of the hybridization, with them being direct children of Heavenly Parents. Its sort of a compromise between evolution and Mormon tradition. And its cool, because Adam and Eve are then still immortal in the Garden, and actually fall into mortality, while the rest of the human race are still evolved.

[_Maksutov]

Well, then Themis, I welcome you to review my material yourself and show that I have not indeed demonstrated that a cipher exists in the KEP/Facsimile Explanations. Or, anyone you please can review my material. It is there for the reviewing, not for the dismissing.

I cannot demonstrate the non-existence of something. You made the claim. You are the one who has to demonstrate that a cipher actually exists. I am open to it, but you have still not shown one exists. You are just speculating someone created one and have admitted if they did write it down we don't have a copy to show one really existed. You are just selling the possibility of one. I could do that with any document.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

I have encyclopedias of the paranormal where proponents of seemingly endless models of reality are put forth relating to everything from free energy to economic systems to forgotten books of the Bible to alien contact, ad infinitum. It's fascinating to see the differing perspectives, degrees of sophistication and sacralization of mundane things.

James Mosely, late editor of Saucer Smear and veteran reporter on all things UFO, confided late in life that he stopped believing in the extraterrestrial possibility many years before, but what kept him fascinated was the endless bizarre parade of people: sincere and frauds, creative and derivative, an unfolding cultural phenomenon that is still with us.

[_EdGoble]

I have encyclopedias of the paranormal where proponents of seemingly endless models of reality are put forth relating to everything from free energy to economic systems to forgotten books of the Bible to alien contact, ad infinitum. It's fascinating to see the differing perspectives, degrees of sophistication and sacralization of mundane things.

James Mosely, late editor of Saucer Smear and veteran reporter on all things UFO, confided late in life that he stopped believing in the extraterrestrial possibility many years before, but what kept him fascinated was the endless bizarre parade of people: sincere and frauds, creative and derivative, an unfolding cultural phenomenon that is still with us.

Indeed. Such is the world of believers. But Mormon believers are doing our best at least to do what we can do to be as scientific as we can be, and as rational as we can be, within the constraints in which we are set, trying to walk the tightrope of belief and trying to uphold core claims.

[_Themis]

I have demonstrated it in my blog and in my foundational articles that are easily accessible from the links on the top of the blog.

So, my blog is the thing that is in need of review. I am not so sure that just because you say what you say that the burden is on me now to paste my material here when I have provided the reference material on the blog. Rather, I think the burden is on the critics now to review what I have produced, and disagree and critique where and what they will.

I cannot critique what does not exist. We have had this conversation before. I know you mean well, but your argument so far is to argue Egyptians used ciphers so maybe one was used with the papyri. Cipher use is ancient and used any most of not all advance civilizations of the past. Just adding meaning to different sections of the papyri is not much of a cipher if at all, and you cannot show one really existed in the ancient past. All you can do is speculate. Schryver was trying for many years but gave up. Joseph was just trying to suggest to his believers about how to translate Egyptian. I think he knew he was making much of it up to impress, but he was claiming to translate an ancient langue like he did with what he called reformed Egyptian. Like he did with the Greek document. Like he did with the kinderhook plates which we certainly know was not ancient. Abraham is not even considered a real person by most scholars some of whom are Christian.