New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

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.

Well, my newfound friend (I like you as a person), it seems that the thread has run its course.

[_Lemmie]

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.

Ok, got it. I misinterpreted this then:

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,.... 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.

I didn't get from the above that you meant this:

I made a multitude of admissions making a distinction between faithful research from a faithful point of view, and science

However, you've made your point, now, that you are not presenting an academic argument.

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.

I'll have to disagree with that, however. You haven't answered a number of academic questions, but I understand that you have your stopping point as defined by your faith. I disagree that Mormonism is academic, within ANY sphere, but I can see we will have to agree to disagree on that.

[_EdGoble]

I'll have to disagree with that, however. You haven't answered a number of academic questions, but I understand that you have your stopping point as defined by your faith. I disagree that Mormonism is academic, within ANY sphere, but I can see we will have to agree to disagree on that.

So, you are saying that Mormon Studies performed by Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe and Ed Ashment and Robert Ritner is not academic? I would say it is. And I would even say that some Mormon scholars have done a fair amount like them that can qualify to what you would hope for for "academic," that is for example where Metcalfe praised people like Hauglid for their objective manner.

[_Themis]

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.

I'm sure you may not think we were good believing Mormons or we really didn't want to believe right?

[_Themis]

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.

Your problem is not with me. It is with a hypothesis that has no evidence. You cannot even get believing members to really accept you have something here. There is no evidence the people preparing the papyri ever intended to add some other meaning to it, and no reason to. If they wanted a Book of Abraham story recorded they would have written one and thrown it in. If you cannot convince those who want to believe in Joseph, then how much evidence do you really have. I'm open minded but it is clear this is no more then speculation/possibility making. I know you hope to get more and good luck to you.

[_EdGoble]

I'm sure you may not think we were good believing Mormons or we really didn't want to believe right?

It's not my intent to be sanctimonious and tell you where you are or were wrong or if you were wrong in the life choices you have made. To believe is a choice. Some people are ok and comfortable with making a choice to believe without the kind of evidence others think is foundational for them to continue to believe. I am not here to judge you based on your choices, or the framework within which that choice was made. I have my framework within which I remain comfortable, to remain who I am with the identity I have chosen. My framework is not a judgement of yours.

[_EdGoble]

Your problem is not with me. It is with a hypothesis that has no evidence. You cannot even get believing members to really accept you have something here. There is no evidence the people preparing the papyri ever intended to add some other meaning to it, and no reason to. If they wanted a Book of Abraham story recorded they would have written one and thrown it in. If you cannot convince those who want to believe in Joseph, then how much evidence do you really have. I'm open minded but it is clear this is no more then speculation/possibility making. I know you hope to get more and good luck to you.

Thanks for that, but it remains to be seen how many Mormons my information will be helpful to. The feedback I get is mixed, as expected. Some give high amounts of praise. Others are just ho hum. And so, it is what it is. If I have helped some to not turn away from the Church, because my ideas are more plausible than say, Missing Papyrus theory, then all the stuff I have gone through will have been worth it, because I sacrificed my time and effort and went through a lot of heartache and personal sacrifice in the rescuing of the one that may have been otherwise separated from the ninety and nine. In a way, this is a rescue effort as much as any type of effort in reactivation. I just feel a call toward the far more complex cases, so to speak. I can speak to a bitter apostate and communicate to them in ways that a regular Chapel Mormon could never do, because I share a fundamental thing in common with you all, and that is, I've had my own faith crisis and reconstruction. All Mormons, whether post Mormon or reconstructed-faith Mormon have been through that, and can relate on that level. The difference between me and most is that it happened to me in 1986, and I've had 30 years of reconstruction of faith. For most people, especially Millennials, it happened just relatively recently.

[_grindael]

I don't recall you demonstrating that it is a cipher by showing how it works. It's not much of a cipher by just assigning text to different hieroglyphs. Where did you reverse engineer it?

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

This is pure gobbledegook. You could not explain this coherently to anyone if you tried. It's all jargon that has no meaning whatsover in relation to the KEP.

[_Lemmie]

I'll have to disagree with that, however. You haven't answered a number of academic questions, but I understand that you have your stopping point as defined by your faith. I disagree that Mormonism is academic, within ANY sphere, but I can see we will have to agree to disagree on that.

So, you are saying that Mormon Studies performed by Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe and Ed Ashment and Robert Ritner is not academic? I would say it is. And I would even say that some Mormon scholars have done a fair amount like them that can qualify to what you would hope for for "academic," that is for example where Metcalfe praised people like Hauglid for their objective manner.

I apologize, I was not clear. I meant "I disagree that [YOUR contributions to] Mormonism [are] academic, within ANY sphere." My comments here are in reference to your work, not any one else's work.

[_EdGoble]

This is pure gobbledegook. You could not explain this coherently to anyone if you tried. It's all jargon that has no meaning whatsover in relation to the KEP.

Nice. Thanks so much for the in-depth analysis.