Fac 2: 1,22,23,5,6,7 And Fig 4 Of Fac 3 Just For Fun

[Olavarria]

Her Amun,

Look very closely at the translations of the labels:

Label for Isis (Fig. 2 of Facsimile 3)

(VIII/4)

[Chris Smith]

Her Amun,

I am not "impugning" your motives. You have made comments in the past indicating that while the question for me is closed, you allow it to remain open because you are a believer with a testimony. In other words, you will continue to search for a faith-preserving way to explain the data. I indicated to you at the time that I respect that. So for me to point out your motive is not to impugn it, but rather to remind you that you are engaging in a sort of radically selective cognition to which I am not inclined. That is why we arrive at different conclusions. I'm perfectly OK with that, as long as you can respect that I am going to read the evidence that JS was wrong-- and it is evidence-- in a straightforward way.

an insult?

No. I said that your assertion (that my evidence is not in fact evidence) is a fantasy. That was a strong statement, but it was not intended as an insult.

I thought you said the catalyst theory was BS, because one had to prove the BoB came from BoA?

I do think the catalyst theory is BS, but I also think it is substantially more tenable than the Nibley-esque reinterpretation approach.

-CK

[Loquacious Lurker]

this time I mean it. The last bump.

The only bump I'm concerned about is the one jutting out of God's lap in figure 7.

[Olavarria]

are engaging in a sort of radically selective cognition to which I am not inclined.

How is gathering more info radically selective? If anything, its more inclusive of data than your view.

You are only using the fac 3 without refrence to anything else. I think its oversimplified.

That is why we arrive at different conclusions. I'm perfectly OK with that,

same here

as long as you can respect that I am going to read the evidence that JS was wrong-- and it is evidence-- in a straightforward way.

straight forward or overly simplified, again we agree to disagree.

No. I said that your assertion (that my evidence is not in fact evidence) is a fantasy. That was a strong statement, but it was not intended as an insult.

Though I respectfully disagree about the evidnce part, fair enough

I thought u were referring to my intellectual integrity.

I do think the catalyst theory is BS, but I also think it is substantially more tenable than the Nibley-esque reinterpretation approach.

remember im a semetic redaction/adoption man. Im just trying to point out how little redaction was needed for the adoption to be made, u digg?

ps.

our respective religous beliefs have nothing to do with Joseph or his work, thus any mention of them is pointless.

[Noggin]

Show me how I am wrong Noggin.

No one can show you that you are wrong. You have to find that yourself.

Facts, not rhetoric is what wins over an intelligent mind.

We see eye to eye there. Yet later on in your response to me, you dismiss this... when I get to your dismissal, I'll remind you.

The Hathor cow with the sun between her horns is the Eye of Re.

Eye of Re=Hathor cow

Eye of Re=Sun

She is also the milky way.

Get used to it.

I read two articles so that I could experience the full monty of Her Amun backlash for my attempting to make a couple of observations.

Noggin wrote:

Meanwhile, the rest of the professionally world reknowned egyptologists who do not have an LDS testimony to justify, see no reason to run to a Mormon baptismal font and join the church.

Her Amun responds: Did I ever say they did? Read my actual threads Noggin.

You did not have to say it. And I was in no way trying to imply that you said anything of the sort. I was making a pertinant observation as to what you are spending so much time on researching and posting. The point still stands. You chided me for allowing scholars to do my thinking for me. It's almost as if I cannot have a valid point about this because I am unwilling to spend the hours you do trying to prove a preconceived notion (being: Smith was a true prophet). If the evidences that you keep posting here on these types of threads for Joseph Smith's prophetic abilities can be found in the likes of enish-go-on-dosh and Hathor etc, then why do you post them here?

If you truly are on to something, shouldn't you publish?

Tighten your proofs and theories up, Her Amun. Send this out to peer review immediately or as soon as is possible. If you do not, you could be liable for countless of non LDS egyptolgists not joining the church and I find that selfish of you.

OR

If the evidences you post here and there do NOT have the ability to convince a nonLDS egyptologist, then I don't think it unwise for me to not take you seriously.

Then again, I dont allow scholars (mormon,catholic,jewish,atheist,buddhist or whatever) to do thinking for me. Im sorry if that is what you are learning/have learned at the university. Scholars save us time. I reserve the right to think for myself.

The find two things sad in your post:

1) you think a freethinker studying things out for himself is pathetic.

2) You allow the most important descisions in your life be dictated by the thinking others.

I told you I would point out where you dismiss the statement you made of "facts not rhetoric win over the intellectual mind". There it was. The fact is that you are not convincing non LDS experts in this field.

Now I understand that last quote of yours was written out of emotion. It appears I rankled you just a tiny bit for you to write it. Do I view you as pathetic? Not really. Honestly, I think you are allowing what you believe to be Truth regarding Mormonism cloud the way you view all of this fanciful egyptology you have become so conversant in. I do not find much objectivity in your posts as CK et al have pointed several fatal flaws out to you already over the months that, had you been objective, you would have caught yourself. Her Amun... you are very smart, the fact that you have others point out things to you obviously caters to the idea that you are under the influence of confirmation biases.

Do I allow "most important decisions" in my life to be dictated by the thinking of others? I review the expert opinions and studies about key issues and act according to what makes the most sense. I have read what non biased (non LDS, even a few non anti mormon) egyptologists experts (say that three times quickly!) have written and concluded about Joseph Smith and his ability to translate egyptian. It is enough for my satisfaction, given the other more untrustworthy aspects of Smith's character, that no non LDS egyptologist is joining the church through independent review of explanations such as yours or Hugh Nibley or John Gee.

And people fault mormons for "blindly" following the Bretheren?

If I am blind, I bask in it's technocolor. Truth is, Her Amun, we all have blind spots. I hope you can see yours. There are Muslim experts who can do similar feats of intellectualisms paralleling what you are doing with Fac 2 with their Koran. Why aren't you compelled to read the hundreds of hours of pages they produce that "obviously" show the Koran to be the word of God? Think about it. That is one of your blind spots. Okay??

Try using your noggin and actually read all of my Fac 2 threads and posting rebuttals to what I actually say ala CK. Then explain to me why anti videos like The Lost Book of Abraham, a remarkable mormon claim lack any treatment on the subject of Fac 2.

Why would I want to read all of your Fac 2 threads? I tried to wade through the first couple many moons ago when you first started generating them but then the general sentiments I just disclosed in this post surfaced most powerfully. I took a break from this board, came back, found you still generating what I call red herrings, and summoned the tenacity to put what I feel in writing.

If I did actually read all of your Fac 2 threads, I would be doing the very thing I am accusing you of doing... and that is chasing red herrings in spite of what qualified non lds experts have already weighed in on the matter. I would be more inclined to get down to brass tacks if a weighty unbiased opinion were to surface.

When you turn the heads of non lds unbiased experts, then I will delve deeply into your research.

You (basically): Noggin is a fool for commenting without reading everything I have written on this matter, how dare him.

I am as much a fool as any unbiased, non LDS, expert egyptologist who does not see any weight in your revelations is.

Noggin

[Olavarria]

No one can show you that you are wrong. You have to find that yourself.

We see eye to eye there. Yet later on in your response to me, you dismiss this... when I get to your dismissal, I'll remind you.

I read two articles so that I could experience the full monty of Her Amun backlash for my attempting to make a couple of observations.

Noggin wrote:

Meanwhile, the rest of the professionally world reknowned egyptologists who do not have an LDS testimony to justify, see no reason to run to a Mormon baptismal font and join the church.

You did not have to say it. And I was in no way trying to imply that you said anything of the sort. I was making a pertinant observation as to what you are spending so much time on researching and posting. The point still stands. You chided me for allowing scholars to do my thinking for me. It's almost as if I cannot have a valid point about this because I am unwilling to spend the hours you do trying to prove a preconceived notion (being: Smith was a true prophet). If the evidences that you keep posting here on these types of threads for Joseph Smith's prophetic abilities can be found in the likes of enish-go-on-dosh and Hathor etc, then why do you post them here?

If you truly are on to something, shouldn't you publish?

Tighten your proofs and theories up, Her Amun. Send this out to peer review immediately or as soon as is possible. If you do not, you could be liable for countless of non LDS egyptolgists not joining the church and I find that selfish of you.

OR

If the evidences you post here and there do NOT have the ability to convince a nonLDS egyptologist, then I don't think it unwise for me to not take you seriously.

I told you I would point out where you dismiss the statement you made of "facts not rhetoric win over the intellectual mind". There it was. The fact is that you are not convincing non LDS experts in this field.

Now I understand that last quote of yours was written out of emotion. It appears I rankled you just a tiny bit for you to write it. Do I view you as pathetic? Not really. Honestly, I think you are allowing what you believe to be Truth regarding Mormonism cloud the way you view all of this fanciful egyptology you have become so conversant in. I do not find much objectivity in your posts as CK et al have pointed several fatal flaws out to you already over the months that, had you been objective, you would have caught yourself. Her Amun... you are very smart, the fact that you have others point out things to you obviously caters to the idea that you are under the influence of confirmation biases.

Do I allow "most important decisions" in my life to be dictated by the thinking of others? I review the expert opinions and studies about key issues and act according to what makes the most sense. I have read what non biased (non LDS, even a few non anti mormon) egyptologists experts (say that three times quickly!) have written and concluded about Joseph Smith and his ability to translate egyptian. It is enough for my satisfaction, given the other more untrustworthy aspects of Smith's character, that no non LDS egyptologist is joining the church through independent review of explanations such as yours or Hugh Nibley or John Gee.

If I am blind, I bask in it's technocolor. Truth is, Her Amun, we all have blind spots. I hope you can see yours. There are Muslim experts who can do similar feats of intellectualisms paralleling what you are doing with Fac 2 with their Koran. Why aren't you compelled to read the hundreds of hours of pages they produce that "obviously" show the Koran to be the word of God? Think about it. That is one of your blind spots. Okay??

Why would I want to read all of your Fac 2 threads? I tried to wade through the first couple many moons ago when you first started generating them but then the general sentiments I just disclosed in this post surfaced most powerfully. I took a break from this board, came back, found you still generating what I call red herrings, and summoned the tenacity to put what I feel in writing.

If I did actually read all of your Fac 2 threads, I would be doing the very thing I am accusing you of doing... and that is chasing red herrings in spite of what qualified non lds experts have already weighed in on the matter. I would be more inclined to get down to brass tacks if a weighty unbiased opinion were to surface.

When you turn the heads of non lds unbiased experts, then I will delve deeply into your research.

You (basically): Noggin is a fool for commenting without reading everything I have written on this matter, how dare him.

I am as much a fool as any unbiased, non LDS, expert egyptologist who does not see any weight in your revelations is.

Noggin

If you actually read my threads you would see that :

1) I never said I had a slam dunk case

2)I believe in the semetic adaption/redaction theory. Hence the BoA is nt an egyptological questian.

I think the title of this thread says it all:

Fac 2: 1,22,23,5,6,7 And Fig 4 Of Fac 3 Just For Fun, The Prophet's explanations are very believable. An incomplete asse(sment).

Try not to overstate the opnions of others and actually try to attck the arguments they make.

As for "unbiased opinions", no one can have one in regards to Joseph Smith, not you and not me. We all have a theological pony in this race. I admit my bias, do you?

Your post contained nothing but rhetoric. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a business plan to write.

ps. As for the Koran, I believe Mohhammed was a Servant of God, and recieved from God all that could be recieved, without recieving the complete Gospel; that is to be revealed thru Isaac's seed not Ishmael's. Yes, I believe the Koran reflects, to varying degrees, the mind of God and Mohammed.

Alma 29:8

8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

[Olavarria]

I think this deserves a bump.

Noggin's posts are a perfect example of the anti tendancy to use rhetoric over fact. And for many anti's,not all anti's, the tendancy to let non-mormon opnion on these issues go unquestianed thus suspending critical thought.

No one can show you that you are wrong. You have to find that yourself.

We see eye to eye there. Yet later on in your response to me, you dismiss this... when I get to your dismissal, I'll remind you.

I read two articles so that I could experience the full monty of Her Amun backlash for my attempting to make a couple of observations.

Noggin wrote:

Meanwhile, the rest of the professionally world reknowned egyptologists who do not have an LDS testimony to justify, see no reason to run to a Mormon baptismal font and join the church.

You did not have to say it. And I was in no way trying to imply that you said anything of the sort. I was making a pertinant observation as to what you are spending so much time on researching and posting. The point still stands. You chided me for allowing scholars to do my thinking for me. It's almost as if I cannot have a valid point about this because I am unwilling to spend the hours you do trying to prove a preconceived notion (being: Smith was a true prophet). If the evidences that you keep posting here on these types of threads for Joseph Smith's prophetic abilities can be found in the likes of enish-go-on-dosh and Hathor etc, then why do you post them here?

If you truly are on to something, shouldn't you publish?

Tighten your proofs and theories up, Her Amun. Send this out to peer review immediately or as soon as is possible. If you do not, you could be liable for countless of non LDS egyptolgists not joining the church and I find that selfish of you.

OR

If the evidences you post here and there do NOT have the ability to convince a nonLDS egyptologist, then I don't think it unwise for me to not take you seriously.

I told you I would point out where you dismiss the statement you made of "facts not rhetoric win over the intellectual mind". There it was. The fact is that you are not convincing non LDS experts in this field.

Now I understand that last quote of yours was written out of emotion. It appears I rankled you just a tiny bit for you to write it. Do I view you as pathetic? Not really. Honestly, I think you are allowing what you believe to be Truth regarding Mormonism cloud the way you view all of this fanciful egyptology you have become so conversant in. I do not find much objectivity in your posts as CK et al have pointed several fatal flaws out to you already over the months that, had you been objective, you would have caught yourself. Her Amun... you are very smart, the fact that you have others point out things to you obviously caters to the idea that you are under the influence of confirmation biases.

Do I allow "most important decisions" in my life to be dictated by the thinking of others? I review the expert opinions and studies about key issues and act according to what makes the most sense. I have read what non biased (non LDS, even a few non anti mormon) egyptologists experts (say that three times quickly!) have written and concluded about Joseph Smith and his ability to translate egyptian. It is enough for my satisfaction, given the other more untrustworthy aspects of Smith's character, that no non LDS egyptologist is joining the church through independent review of explanations such as yours or Hugh Nibley or John Gee.

If I am blind, I bask in it's technocolor. Truth is, Her Amun, we all have blind spots. I hope you can see yours. There are Muslim experts who can do similar feats of intellectualisms paralleling what you are doing with Fac 2 with their Koran. Why aren't you compelled to read the hundreds of hours of pages they produce that "obviously" show the Koran to be the word of God? Think about it. That is one of your blind spots. Okay??

Why would I want to read all of your Fac 2 threads? I tried to wade through the first couple many moons ago when you first started generating them but then the general sentiments I just disclosed in this post surfaced most powerfully. I took a break from this board, came back, found you still generating what I call red herrings, and summoned the tenacity to put what I feel in writing.

If I did actually read all of your Fac 2 threads, I would be doing the very thing I am accusing you of doing... and that is chasing red herrings in spite of what qualified non lds experts have already weighed in on the matter. I would be more inclined to get down to brass tacks if a weighty unbiased opinion were to surface.

When you turn the heads of non lds unbiased experts, then I will delve deeply into your research.

You (basically): Noggin is a fool for commenting without reading everything I have written on this matter, how dare him.

I am as much a fool as any unbiased, non LDS, expert egyptologist who does not see any weight in your revelations is.

Noggin

Not one attempt at an argument, just "non member egyptologists are getting baptized" and complete disregard for my actual arguments. WHy? Because I dont have a PHD.

What the heck does a PHD have to do with whether something is true or not?

[Chris Smith]

Her Amun, I am a bit puzzled by your statement that our respective religious beliefe have nothing to do with JS and his work. I would think they have a great deal to do with Joseph and his work. What was your train of thought when you wrote that? Just curious.

[Olavarria]

Her Amun, I am a bit puzzled by your statement that our respective religious beliefe have nothing to do with JS and his work. I would think they have a great deal to do with Joseph and his work. What was your train of thought when you wrote that? Just curious.

well, I try, emphasis try, to base my arguments of facts. i just think its pointless to say: "ur on X train of thought, because you are a beliver in X".

Its like telling Muhammed ALi that he believes in Islam because he is a muslim. If I want to derail Islam I get facts and then build an argument on those facts. I dont tell a muslim apologist. Eh, "you just say that because you have a vested intrest in Islam being true." Or "if islam is true, why doesnt DCP convert?" Who cares about DCP or Muhammed Ali, lets talk about the Koran.

u digg?

[Noggin]

I think this deserves a bump.

Noggin's posts are a perfect example of the anti tendancy to use rhetoric over fact. And for many anti's,not all anti's, the tendancy to let non-mormon opnion on these issues go unquestianed thus suspending critical thought.

Not one attempt at an argument, just "non member egyptologists are getting baptized" and complete disregard for my actual arguments. WHy? Because I dont have a PHD.

What the heck does a PHD have to do with whether something is true or not?

1. I am enjoying this, btw. I almost feel like a troll. I don't engage you in debating the fly by night concoctions and therefore, all I am good for is rhetoric and suspension of critical thought. hmm. As if you are employing "facts" to build a case. You just got done stating something like "facts win over intellectual minds" yet your facts do not do this.

2. correction: non member expert egyptologists are NOT joining the church.

3. I made no attempt at an argument not because you do not hold a PHD but moreover because I see what you are doing (apologetics) as no more convincing than the Jehovah's Witnesses and their apologetics I debated a few months ago. Both of you carry the same fever pitch type style of

engage me... prove where I am wrong.... I will rip you to shreds.

Her Amun, if you do not spend anxious moments wondering about whether or not you should be checking and double checking the outlandish claims made by those who argue in favor of the Koran.... if that is you... then you will know exactly why I made little attempt at an argument against your work.

I thank you for the reminder that you do not have a slam dunk case. I just feel that with your gifted intellect, you could help step things up in our world by attempting to say... solve the Darfur conflict, or something. But here you are, whiling away the hours... on this.

You sell yourself short.

Her Amun wrote:

ps. As for the Koran, I believe Mohhammed was a Servant of God, and recieved from God all that could be recieved, without recieving the complete Gospel; that is to be revealed thru Isaac's seed not Ishmael's. Yes, I believe the Koran reflects, to varying degrees, the mind of God and Mohammed.

Alma 29:8

8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

This is not intended to derail the thread but calling Mohammed a servant of God is a bit watered down since the story goes that God declared to Joseph Smith (allegedly) that all religious creeds of that day were an abomination in God's sight. So then according to you, God authors abominations.

And you quote the Book of Mormon to back it up. Here is what I think about this. I think you believe Mohammed was a servant of God because it weakens your position in our discussion to agree with my view that he was in no way any sort of messenger of any god. Because if Mohammed was nothing more than an inventor of religious ideology, and now has over 2 billion following his religion, that strongly suggests how gullible humans can be. It also suggests that a man can write a book, fake it, call it divine, and people will find all sorts of ways to confirm that a faked out sham of a book really is divine.

Not good for what you try to do on these latest threads of yours.

Noggin

[Olavarria]

I just feel that with your gifted intellect, you could help step things up in our world by attempting to say... solve the Darfur conflict, or something. But here you are, whiling away the hours... on this.

You sell yourself short.

thank you, I think you might be on to something(as self serving as that sounds).

Her amun, signing out.

[Olavarria]

This is not intended to derail the thread but calling Mohammed a servant of God is a bit watered down since the story goes that God declared to Joseph Smith (allegedly) that all religious creeds of that day were an abomination in God's sight. So then according to you, God authors abominations.

And you quote the Book of Mormon to back it up. Here is what I think about this. I think you believe Mohammed was a servant of God because it weakens your position in our discussion to agree with my view that he was in no way any sort of messenger of any god. Because if Mohammed was nothing more than an inventor of religious ideology, and now has over 2 billion following his religion, that strongly suggests how gullible humans can be. It also suggests that a man can write a book, fake it, call it divine, and people will find all sorts of ways to confirm that a faked out sham of a book really is divine.

Not good for what you try to do on these latest threads of yours.

Noggin

For Parley P. Pratt' and George A. SMith's views on Mohammed:

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_03/refJDvol3-7.html

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_03/refJDvol3-8.html