Robert F. Smith Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 To quote Billy Sheehan, "The middle ground is very seldom won,It ends up overcooked or underdone."Yep.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 ........................................................... Robert Ritner or Ed Ashment (non-LDS Egyptologists) .................................................................................non-Mormon Egyptologists and academicians who do not have a pro-Mormon bias, namely Robert Ritner, Ed Ashment ........................................................................................................ Mr. Metcalfe is a former Mormon, and a critic of Mormonism. .............................................................................Ed Ashment. He does not mistreat the evidence the way Kerry Muhlstien and John Gee do. I do not agree with Ed Ashment or Brett Metcalfe about their criticisms of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his translations. I only know that they are right about the fundamental evidence. Their conclusions based on that evidence are incorrect......................................................................................So, are you saying that Ashment and Metcalfe are both former Mormons? You call Ashment a non-Mormon. Does this mean that he has left the LDS Church?
DragonLancer Posted December 11, 2014 Posted December 11, 2014 So, are you saying that Ashment and Metcalfe are both former Mormons? You call Ashment a non-Mormon. Does this mean that he has left the LDS Church? I was under the impression that Ashment is a critic/Anti-Mormon. Whether he has left the church or not by removing his records, I would not know. When I read his words, I read the words of an Anti. I know enough to know he is certainly a critic and is published with the critics. If I have to retract my statement to the degree of saying that he is a Mormon on record that is a critic, then I will do that if that is the case. His bishop would know. I would not. It is immaterial to the facts whether he is or not, but if he is still a Mormon, it does nothing but strengthen my case, that yet another Mormon academic would be treating the forensic evidence of the Book of Abraham translation process as it ought to be, contrary to John Gee's position. However, the status of critics of the Church that have not removed their records yet from the Church is clear, according to President Packer (quoting President Moyle) in the talk, the Mantle is Far Far Greater than the intellect. In effect, a person that is an Anti-Mormon that has not left the Church or had his records removed "has excommunicated himself" anyway by his actions and attitude, and that status remains until he repents. So, if this is true of Ashment, which it appears to be from Ashment's writings, then, in effect my words would still be basically true regardless of the status of the records of Mr. Ashment. I know that Metcalfe is a critic and an excommunicant. Anti-Mormons can be right on fundamental issues, which fact, for example, Brian Hauglid has acknowledged in podcasts and so forth, even in his dealings and communications with Metcalfe. Hauglid has thought enough of Metcalfe to actually take him seriously. Others of establishment fame disrespect him in infantile Ad-hominems, like William Hamblin's calling him a "Butthead" in an Acrostic in his writings. It's not the critics' fault that the apologists have chosen deliberately to mistreat and misrepresent fundamental factual evidence for decades and make bald-faced denials of that evidence. The way apologists mistreat evidence is like favoring a bad witness on the stand of a court proceeding while ignoring the forensic, scientific evidence of a dead body. Once again, in a court setting it would be color of law, but instead it is color of academic authority. It's not the critics' fault that the evidence is so obvious to the reasonable person of non-Mormon ideological bent (and of course, to the reasonable Mormon of the non-Missing-Papyrus ideological camp). It is only the Missing Papyrus camp that denies, evades and simply will not accept, only on ideological grounds, evidence that is basically forensic in nature, of the translation process of the Book of Abraham. Truth ought to be embraced, and faith-promoting conclusions ought to start to build their case where the evidence leads. They ought not to be "house-of-cards" constructions skirting around the evidence. Both Ashment and Metcalfe, even though they seem to not be believers, have been remarkably reasonable and even-handed in their treatment of evidence. link removed, too much character assassination with the temple content. Yeah, I know some people will criticize me for quoting and pointing out facts from web pages and so forth from critics. Again, the things I quote happen to be true, which is why I point them out and quote them. So if any of you choose to criticize me on those grounds, get over it. Facts are what they are. You may apologize them away and act like they aren't facts, but they just come back to bite you later if you do that, which is why apologists are criticized so much for the Missing Papyrus theory and the Scribes did it theory. Remarkably, they still act like the theories are defensible.
BCSpace Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) I would like to take this opportunity to put in a good word for tagging your newly created topic with a variety of key words (up to 10 key words possible), especially ones like these, so it can become part of the index and more easily found later or so that it can become part of a growing "body of work" on the topic of each key word. Edited December 12, 2014 by BCSpace 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 I was under the impression that Ashment is a critic/Anti-Mormon. Whether he has left the church or not by removing his records, I would not know. When I read his words, I read the words of an Anti. I know enough to know he is certainly a critic and is published with the critics. If I have to retract my statement to the degree of saying that he is a Mormon on record that is a critic, then I will do that if that is the case. His bishop would know. I would not. It is immaterial to the facts whether he is or not, but if he is still a Mormon, it does nothing but strengthen my case, that yet another Mormon academic would be treating the forensic evidence of the Book of Abraham translation process as it ought to be, ............. ..................................................... a person that is an Anti-Mormon that has not left the Church or had his records removed "has excommunicated himself" anyway by his actions and attitude, and that status remains until he repents. So, if this is true of Ashment, which it appears to be from Ashment's writings, then, in effect my words would still be basically true regardless of the status of the records of Mr. Ashment. I know that Metcalfe is a critic and an excommunicant............................................................... ............................................................................................................ Brother Goble,Unless and until you actually know whether someone has left the LDS Church, or has been excommunicated, it is always inappropriate to claim that they have -- or to equivocate on the question. My suggestion is that you discuss their various views without attributing any particular Church status to them. Let their views be evaluated on the basis of the facts, without prejudice or special favor. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 Brother Goble, Unless and until you actually know whether someone has left the LDS Church, or has been excommunicated, it is always inappropriate to claim that they have -- or to equivocate on the question. My suggestion is that you discuss their various views without attributing any particular Church status to them. Let their views be evaluated on the basis of the facts, without prejudice or special favor.Agreed. All that amounts to is an ad hominem argument anyway. I haven't forgotten my reply to you on that other thing.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 13, 2014 Posted December 13, 2014 .......................................................................................... The Naqada I and Naqada II peoples were not immigrants.They were at least immigrants from southern Egypt. In any case, this takes place during the fabled “Primeval Time of the Two Lands” (pЗwt tЗwy) partially described in Book of Abraham 1:21-27, which is, incidentally, an account in line with the unpopular theory of the Naqada II Asiatic or Semitic “Dynastic Race” – possibly the elite “Followers of Horus” (šmsw Hr) – who entered Lower Egypt at that time, perhaps accounting for the swift social and political centralization of Egyptian society. Moreover, the late Klaus Baer supported this Naqada theory of the spread of Egyptian rule and the uniting of the Two Lands (smЗ tЗwy). The Egyptians did not start from Egyptus (I know Nibley didn't mention her here....because it would have opened him to unending ridicule by those that actually believe what the archaeological finds witness of; an unbroken chain of Egyptian history that goes past and beyond the Biblical flood.)..........................................................Egyptus is simply the Latin form of the ancient Egyptian name for the capital and country (at times even the river Nile), the Temple of Ptah, otherwise known as Memphis. In Appollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2:1:4-5) he is the son of Belus & Anchinoe, and the first conqueror of Egypt. The Book of Abraham says that it is the daughter of Egyptus who "discovered the land [when] it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it," and that "the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham." The text is unclear as to how many women were actually named Egyptus, but the variant name for her as Zeptah in KEP is interesting, because this is transparently Egyptian "Daughter of Ptah," and actually a well-known male and female royal name in Egypt. Moreover, Ptah is the equivalent of Noah and the other ancient Near Eastern flood heroes. However, you will note that the BofA does not say that Egyptian history begins with Zeptah/Egyptus and her son, but says that the land was under water when she came -- not the Great Deluge, but the annual Inundation of the Nile --- which would put the time of her arrival around September in some year of the Predynastic Era. Another version of the myth was that Hathor (as pictured in Fac 2:5) was the virgin mother of Re`, the first king of Egypt and the Sun God (she could also be the daughter of Re` and the mother of Horus). Her sons were the "followers of Horus" (šmsw Hr), whom Wainwright saw as the enemies of and victors over the "followers of Seth" of Naqada I or II (Journal of Egyptian Archeology, 49:17-18; cf. Urkunden IV, 86, 4, and JEA 39:36ff). The "Mother of the King of Upper & Lower Egypt" (mwt niswt-biti or mwt niswt), i.e., of the living king, was addressed as "God's daughter" sЗt ntr (Lexikon der Ägyptologie, I:930, II:799, 824-825, 1172 n. 1, 1173 n. 1; III:473, 537 n. 4; V:992). Astarte is also "Daughter of Ptah" in the Hieratic story of "Astarte and the Sea" (see "Astarte and Yam" in Pritchard, ANET, 17-18; Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca I [bruxelles, 1932], 76-81). 2
DragonLancer Posted December 13, 2014 Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) Brother Goble,Unless and until you actually know whether someone has left the LDS Church, or has been excommunicated, it is always inappropriate to claim that they have -- or to equivocate on the question. My suggestion is that you discuss their various views without attributing any particular Church status to them. Let their views be evaluated on the basis of the facts, without prejudice or special favor. Excuse me Brother Smith. If you didn't want some hair splitting on someone's status, you shouldn't be talking about it yourself or bringing attention to it yourself. This was all in some attempt to find some chink in my armor where you could stick me with a dagger. I am perfectly willing to not mention it again. Remember, that the fact that I even discussed it in more detail was in answer to your query. If you didn't want me to answer you in more detail, you shouldn't have asked. You should have made the comment of your reprimand in your first statement about it, not your second one. However, discussing in the first place whether someone is a critic or not is entirely in line with the fact that Apologists dismiss them and their foundational claims just because they are critics. It is not with the original purpose of pointing out that they are critics in the first place, but pointing out the deep hypocrisy of establishment apologists, for which purpose, it was necessary. Its the apologists in the first place whose ad hominems I have brought attention to that was the point. Go take it up with people like William Hamblin that call people he doesn't agree with names in code, which is the real problem here. Indeed, let them all be evaluated on the basis of facts. Go tell FAIRMormon and Interpreter and BYU elitists this. Not me. Your mistake is an attempt to call on the carpet telling ME to let their views be evaluated on facts, when its me already that was calling for precisely that. Go tell your colleagues this if you are truly concerned and want this to happen in Book of Abraham studies. Reprimand your colleagues for it, not me, if you are truly concerned about people's status, whether in the Church, or whether they have academic authority or not affecting whether their ideas are to be evaluated on facts. Edited December 13, 2014 by DragonLancer
DragonLancer Posted December 13, 2014 Posted December 13, 2014 Agreed. All that amounts to is an ad hominem argument anyway. I haven't forgotten my reply to you on that other thing. Sir. It was not with the in intent of an ad hominem argument against critics. It was with the purpose to point out hypocrisy and ad hominems of the establishment elitist apologists. Brother Smith has decided to derail the point with this.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 14, 2014 Posted December 14, 2014 Excuse me Brother Smith. If you didn't want some hair splitting on someone's status, you shouldn't be talking about it yourself or bringing attention to it yourself. This was all in some attempt to find some chink in my armor where you could stick me with a dagger. I am perfectly willing to not mention it again. Remember, that the fact that I even discussed it in more detail was in answer to your query. If you didn't want me to answer you in more detail, you shouldn't have asked. You should have made the comment of your reprimand in your first statement about it, not your second one. However, discussing in the first place whether someone is a critic or not is entirely in line with the fact that Apologists dismiss them and their foundational claims just because they are critics. It is not with the original purpose of pointing out that they are critics in the first place, but pointing out the deep hypocrisy of establishment apologists, for which purpose, it was necessary. Its the apologists in the first place whose ad hominems I have brought attention to that was the point. Go take it up with people like William Hamblin that call people he doesn't agree with names in code, which is the real problem here. Indeed, let them all be evaluated on the basis of facts. Go tell FAIRMormon and Interpreter and BYU elitists this. Not me. Your mistake is an attempt to call on the carpet telling ME to let their views be evaluated on facts, when its me already that was calling for precisely that. Go tell your colleagues this if you are truly concerned and want this to happen in Book of Abraham studies. Reprimand your colleagues for it, not me, if you are truly concerned about people's status, whether in the Church, or whether they have academic authority or not affecting whether their ideas are to be evaluated on facts.My initial inquiry was innocent in that I do not know whether my old friend Ed Ashment had left the Church. You admit that you spoke without knowledge on the matter, which you seem to realize was inappropriate. Here in your reply you show great anger and further misunderstanding of my intent. You need to practice great restraint in such matters, stop guessing at imagined intent, and just deal with the academic issues. You will find that everyone, including you, will be much more content with a reasonable discussion where we can all disagree without being disagreeable. Have a Merry Christmas, Brother Goble. And a Happy New Year.
DragonLancer Posted December 14, 2014 Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) My initial inquiry was innocent in that I do not know whether my old friend Ed Ashment had left the Church. You admit that you spoke without knowledge on the matter, which you seem to realize was inappropriate. Here in your reply you show great anger and further misunderstanding of my intent. You need to practice great restraint in such matters, stop guessing at imagined intent, and just deal with the academic issues. You will find that everyone, including you, will be much more content with a reasonable discussion where we can all disagree without being disagreeable. Have a Merry Christmas, Brother Goble. And a Happy New Year. How I have been treated here historically by a great many people, it is not hard to end up on the defensive all the time. All one has to do is to look at any historic discussion on Book of Mormon Geography or Book of Abraham and KEP on this board, and it is evident. So, though you may have not intended it the way I took it, it is not hard to see how I could have concluded from the words that it was yet another attempt to attack me. So I apologize for this last bit, but I stand by the rest of the content of my messages here. Yet another evidence that my participation in this thread must end, because the whole thing is clearly unproductive. Marry Christmas. Farewell for now. Edited December 14, 2014 by DragonLancer
Recommended Posts