New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

My problem is not my belief in seer stones or divining rods. My problem is whether members of the Church have authority to use them, or if the authority only resides in the leadership. I wouldn't mind having the "gift of the rod" myself, if only I knew that I had authorization.

Ah, but you should be very interested in them. Because they may be examples of alien technology, according to your theory, correct?

Good one.

[_Themis]

In a number of places in the blog, I have shown various examples, but here is one that is a step-by-step example that demonstrates the thing and leads the reader through every concept. And I identify the principles of the linkages between the symbols and the meaning assignments.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/dictionaries-what-is-dictionary-is.html

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to claim from this link. It seems to be very nonsensical. Could you briefly explain what you are getting at with the Book of Abraham part?

[_Themis]

When I say problem, I don't mean a problem for all Mormons. Just some. The problem is how Mormons view today the occult and crystal balls, Ouija boards, diving rods, etc then Mormons and others did in the past. It's easier for many to see who this looks like fraud.

Right. That's the faith test for the 21st Century Mormon.

The faith you are talking about is blind faith. It means that when one is confronted with evidence against a belief you will be tested to see if you will continue to believe. It really doesn't matter if your faith in something that is true or false. It is a test to see if you will continue to believe against the evidence. What is the difference between a Mormon and Scientologist who both keep believing in their religion when confronted with evidence against? Why would this be considered a good trait?

[Guest]

In a number of places in the blog, I have shown various examples, but here is one that is a step-by-step example that demonstrates the thing and leads the reader through every concept. And I identify the principles of the linkages between the symbols and the meaning assignments.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/dictionaries-what-is-dictionary-is.html

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to claim from this link. It seems to be very nonsensical. Could you briefly explain what you are getting at with the Book of Abraham part?

Actually, its extremely straight forward. Go back and read it again, and tell me what part confuses you. You need to put a little effort into this. Sorry. I went to the extreme of basically spoon-feeding even the most casual reader that doesn't want to apply the least amount of mental effort, leading them by the hand, and I shouldn't have had to go to that extreme. And I did it precisely because people like you continually claim that they don't get it. Sorry. The problem is not my writing, because this time, I REALLY did go out of my way for people like you. Please read it again, and this time pay extra special attention to what is being said about mappings between symbol and meaning assignment, and the linkage between them. Then come back and talk. If you can't see how this is precisely what a legend is doing, I can't help you, because I already did the work for you, I mean ALL of the homework for you, and if you still don't get it, sorry. I mean, I have gone WAY out of my way for people that don't want to think. If you come back again and say something similar again, the problem is on your end. I know you are an intelligent person after what you have said in this, and I know you can get it if you want to. But do you really want to?

[_EdGoble]

The faith you are talking about is blind faith. It means that when one is confronted with evidence against a belief you will be tested to see if you will continue to believe. It really doesn't matter if your faith in something that is true or false. It is a test to see if you will continue to believe against the evidence. What is the difference between a Mormon and Scientologist who both keep believing in their religion when confronted with evidence against? Why would this be considered a good trait?

You are wrong about that. Sorry. We have piles of evidence that when looked at in the right light are extremely suggestive of precisely what apologists are arguing for. They are just not proof. No. Its not blind faith. It's educated faith. It requires still the "leap" part, but it is indeed educated.

[_Maksutov]

If you can't see how this is precisely what a legend is doing, I can't help you, because I already did the work for you, I mean ALL of the homework for you, and if you still don't get it, sorry. I mean, I have gone WAY out of my way for people that don't want to think. If you come back again and say something similar again, the problem is on your end. I know you are an intelligent person after what you have said in this, and I know you can get it if you want to. But do you really want to?

Maybe he doesn't see it the way you do, Ed. Maybe he isn't convinced. I know I'm not. And I'm pretty sure Ritner and other nonLDS experts--many of whom are acquainted with codes and cryptography--would reject your presentation.

You're trying to bypass the usual way that new discoveries are published and discussed and you are berating people because they don't accept your conclusions. Maybe they're expecting to subject you to analysis the way that they would other people. That's perfectly reasonable. Your special pleading for special treatment is, well, unreasonable.

You keep avoiding the peer review route. As long as you do, you'll be considered a hobbyist or, worse, a crackpot. There's no reason you should get exceptional treatment when the internet--and the world--is full of people who make extraordinary claims they won't honestly test. You haven't demonstrated that you are any different. The burden still remains squarely on you.

[_SteelHead]

The faith you are talking about is blind faith. It means that when one is confronted with evidence against a belief you will be tested to see if you will continue to believe. It really doesn't matter if your faith in something that is true or false. It is a test to see if you will continue to believe against the evidence. What is the difference between a Mormon and Scientologist who both keep believing in their religion when confronted with evidence against? Why would this be considered a good trait?

You are wrong about that. Sorry. We have piles of evidence that when looked at in the right light are extremely suggestive of precisely what apologists are arguing for. They are just not proof. No. Its not blind faith. It's educated faith. It requires still the "leap" part, but it is indeed educated.

Piles of evidence?

P!ease show.

And by show, I mean show where this same encryption/association schema is used somewhere else with the same associations. Pointing at Joseph Smith's associations and deriving stuff from the Book of Abraham papyrus is entirely self reverential, circular and proves nothing.

[_Maksutov]

You are wrong about that. Sorry. We have piles of evidence that when looked at in the right light are extremely suggestive of precisely what apologists are arguing for. They are just not proof. No. Its not blind faith. It's educated faith. It requires still the "leap" part, but it is indeed educated.

Piles of evidence?

P!ease show.

And by show, I mean show where this same encryption/association schema is used somewhere else with the same associations. Pointing at Joseph Smith's associations and deriving stuff from the Book of Abraham papyrus is entirely self reverential, circular and proves nothing.

This is interesting. It's almost like Ed is approaching this as a "conversion" problem. You aren't trying enough, prospective believer. Maybe a bit more prayer?

If there truly are "piles of evidence", that will be clear in a published study in a substantial journal.

Actually, I do believe that this story will eventually be published, in the halls of ivy and to great acclaim...but it will be as part of a survey of the bizarre, baroque excesses of Mormon apologetics in the last days of the church.

[_EdGoble]

If you can't see how this is precisely what a legend is doing, I can't help you, because I already did the work for you, I mean ALL of the homework for you, and if you still don't get it, sorry. I mean, I have gone WAY out of my way for people that don't want to think. If you come back again and say something similar again, the problem is on your end. I know you are an intelligent person after what you have said in this, and I know you can get it if you want to. But do you really want to?

Maybe he doesn't see it the way you do, Ed. Maybe he isn't convinced. I know I'm not. And I'm pretty sure Ritner and other nonLDS experts--many of whom are acquainted with codes and cryptography--would reject your presentation.

You're trying to bypass the usual way that new discoveries are published and discussed and you are berating people because they don't accept your conclusions. Maybe they're expecting to subject you to analysis the way that they would other people. That's perfectly reasonable. Your special pleading for special treatment is, well, unreasonable.

You keep avoiding the peer review route. As long as you do, you'll be considered a hobbyist or, worse, a crackpot. There's no reason you should get exceptional treatment when the internet--and the world--is full of people who make extraordinary claims they won't honestly test. You haven't demonstrated that you are any different. The burden still remains squarely on you.

It doesn't matter that you aren't convinced. I think we have spoken about this about ten times on this thread. The only thing that matters is if the argument was made clearly. This is isn't about you being convinced by it. I think we have been over that point before. If I were able to make a scientific argument, I would make it. He is telling me that my argument is not made clearly. It most certainly is in fact made very clearly. If he isn't convinced by it by the type of evidence mustered, that is a different issue altogether.

[_EdGoble]

This is interesting. It's almost like Ed is approaching this as a "conversion" problem. You aren't trying enough, prospective believer. Maybe a bit more prayer?

If there truly are "piles of evidence", that will be clear in a published study in a substantial journal.

Actually, I do believe that this story will eventually be published, in the halls of ivy and to great acclaim...but it will be as part of a survey of the bizarre, baroque excesses of Mormon apologetics in the last days of the church.

Umm. No. I'm saying that there is enough suggestive evidence for a believer, when one already has belief. In other words, there is enough to bolster already existing faith. For someone that has already gone to the other side of the fence, sorry, I don't have enough scientific evidence to sway you back. I think we've been over this too. The nature of reality, as we know it, is that faithful research is only of use and helpful to those of faith. You can say all you want about this that and the other. I've made all kinds of admissions about the nature of the beast that we are dealing with here. Show me the proof, you say. Well, sorry. God is the guy for that, and since he isn't willing for reasons known to him, we are in the situation we find ourselves.

I've shown you the evidence. You don't accept that. Well, that's because you aren't a person of Mormon faith, it appears, and I thought we both already knew that.