New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_Maksutov]

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.

If it depends on Mormon faith, then you should be presenting your findings to the leadership of the church. Not the "trailer park" internet forum. Do you not have enough faith in your presentation, or perhaps your leaders have no faith in what you talk about?

Yes, we can all say amazing things and then turn to God for our vindication. This is an old human pattern and not a very good one. You're going backwards in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance and social costs. While I sympathize, there's no going back, only forward.

[_Themis]

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?

I guess I just don't see anything to support the idea of a dual meaning some Egyptian created for the papyri. It doesn't make any sense to do so. Sure you could make a legend with two meanings. Even critics use a legend to show Joseph got it very wrong. I'm not sure how repeating what the critics have done and claiming some Egyptian made both is to be taken seriously. At this point it is speculation made up with no corroborating evidence. A lot of apologists like the catalyst theory. It doesn't need to involve some Egyptian making a dual meaning for no good reason and no way for anyone to even know a second meaning was created. The other problem is Joseph claimed it was written in Egyptian and that he could translate it like he did with reformed Egyptian. Of course reformed Egyptian from plates we conveniently don't have. He pretended to know Greek and translate the kinderhook plates. He made up stories of zelph the white lamanite. At a certain point I had to go with the obvious, even though it wasn't a conclusion I preferred at thew time.

[_Themis]

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 and no examples, and if I don't look at just the right angle I wont see it.

[_Themis]

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.

There wasn't for this believer and so many others. I don't think you know the people you are talking to. We didn't go over to some other other side before looking at all this so called evidence. We just didn't find it compelling or good evidence, and plenty of good evidence showing Joseph was making it up. DNA is the killer of the Book of Mormon most don't know about, but there is so much more. How do three successful migrations that lasted thousands of years, even up to today for two of them, disappear so thoroughly when much less successful migrations are easily seen?

[_Themis]

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.

You know the great thing about this excuse is you can use it for any religious claim you want. When you can use it for all, it is useless for all.

[_SteelHead]

Piles of evidence that only the believing can see...........


Sounds like the witnesses to the plates.

a.k.a. the emperor's new clothes.

[_Lemmie]

You need to put a little effort into this.... 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....

There is a disconnect between your post above, Ed, and this one below.

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.

If I understand what you are saying, you do not have a body of research that justifies putting scholastic effort and time into an evaluation if it only contains, by your own definition, "faithful research."

If you don't have the "scientific evidence," as you call it, then why ask people to go to the effort of reading and understanding on a scientific level? You have not gone out of your way 'for people that don't want to think,' because you are defining your work right up front as something to be felt with the spirit first; by definition you are ruling out people that want to think without referencing spiritual proofs. That's ok, but why insist people take your work seriously on an academic level when you are not willing to present an academic level of work? Just present your work to the faithful and stop there.

[_EdGoble]

If I understand what you are saying, you do not have a body of research that justifies putting scholastic effort and time into an evaluation if it only contains, by your own definition, "faithful research."

If you don't have the "scientific evidence," as you call it, then why ask people to go to the effort of reading and understanding on a scientific level? You have not gone out of your way 'for people that don't want to think,' because you are defining your work right up front as something to be felt with the spirit first; by definition you are ruling out people that want to think without referencing spiritual proofs. That's ok, but why insist people take your work seriously on an academic level when you are not willing to present an academic level of work? Just present your work to the faithful and stop there.

Wow. Let's review a few facts about what my participation on this thread was about. It was about answering your questions that you were asking, and searching for faithful Mormons with whom I can see eye to eye. I answered your questions. I made a multitude of admissions making a distinction between faithful research from a faithful point of view, and science. I repeated over and over again how I was comfortable with all this, and comfortable with my work. I had no intent of caring what you had to say about my work, because I kept repeating to you the same statement that it was a preordained fact that you would reject my evidence because I am, fundamentally, an apologist, and seek to uphold truth claims of Mormonism to those who accept that. Yet, I think I have been more than accommodating in answering your questions. Mormonism is academic, within its sphere, especially within the secular Mormon studies sphere. Apologetics, no matter how HONEST, WHERE IT ACTUALLY ADMITS ITS OWN LIMITATIONS, will never be acceptable to you. Again, I get tired of repeating myself. So you can either be friendly and cordial after all of my admissions of the limitations of the sphere in which I work, or you can leave the thread, or I can leave the thread.

[_EdGoble]

There wasn't for this believer and so many others. I don't think you know the people you are talking to. We didn't go over to some other other side before looking at all this so called evidence. We just didn't find it compelling or good evidence, and plenty of good evidence showing Joseph was making it up. DNA is the killer of the Book of Mormon most don't know about, but there is so much more. How do three successful migrations that lasted thousands of years, even up to today for two of them, disappear so thoroughly when much less successful migrations are easily seen?

Oh, I think I know precisely who I'm speaking to after all you've put me through, even before this message you posted.

[_EdGoble]

I guess I just don't see anything to support the idea of a dual meaning some Egyptian created for the papyri. It doesn't make any sense to do so. Sure you could make a legend with two meanings. Even critics use a legend to show Joseph got it very wrong. I'm not sure how repeating what the critics have done and claiming some Egyptian made both is to be taken seriously. At this point it is speculation made up with no corroborating evidence. A lot of apologists like the catalyst theory. It doesn't need to involve some Egyptian making a dual meaning for no good reason and no way for anyone to even know a second meaning was created. The other problem is Joseph claimed it was written in Egyptian and that he could translate it like he did with reformed Egyptian. Of course reformed Egyptian from plates we conveniently don't have. He pretended to know Greek and translate the kinderhook plates. He made up stories of zelph the white Lamanite. At a certain point I had to go with the obvious, even though it wasn't a conclusion I preferred at thew time.

Well, then, you have made your conclusion, and I already made mine. It seems that we are yet again at an impasse. It seems no longer is our conversation of worth to either of us.