Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[Kenngo1969]

But see you are equating mental gymnastics with faith. I do not see how or where I have performed any such gymnastics. 

You're just suffering from Cog-Dis and don't know it, LVJD.  You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's out of this rather lengthy treatment by "TruthSeeker2013"

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/ZKUKMhFwHPIQEcoynvAiSdYQJI3tod7URBx4fqjNPPxg2KJFDSrlHZijOuoLg5Il?dl=1

The above was linked to in a discussion on another board and the OP summary is from that thread.

So why hasn't DBMormon provided that reference as directed by the moderators? Or did he do so and I missed it? Edited November 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I did find it interesting today that IMO by and large it seems all here acknowledge both the catalyst and missing papyrus theories are deeply flawed either by saying so or by not really trying to defend either.

Perhaps it's that many of us find it tedious to respond each and every time you come on here and pronounce something "deeply flawed."

Don't misinterpret silence as assent.

[DBMormon]

Did DBMormon ever provide that reference? I went back to the OP and didn't see one.

 

It came from a thread at New Order Mormon

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39415

[DBMormon]

So why hasn't DBMormon provided that reference as directed by the moderators? Or did he do so and I missed it?

had not visited this thread in a few days... sorry

[canard78]

Perhaps it's that many of us find it tedious to respond each and every time you come on here and pronounce something "deeply flawed."

Don't misinterpret silence as assent.

 

The problem with this forum is that people spend so much time either shooting or ignoring the messenger that often the message is never properly addressed.

 

DB wanted to discuss the topic and yet many of the posters on this thread have wanted to discuss DB.

Edited November 15, 2014 by canard78

[DBMormon]

The problem with this forum is that people spend so much time either shooting or ignoring the messenger that often the message is never properly addressed.

 

DB wanted to discuss the topic and yet many of the posters on this thread have wanted to discuss DB.

Maybe they are jealous of my good looks

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem with this forum is that people spend so much time either shooting or ignoring the messenger that often the message is never properly addressed.

 

 

How can you spend time ignoring something or somebody? Ignoring a thing is, by definition, not spending any time.

[DragonLancer]

Here is my answer:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/some-background-on-my-stance-on-book-of.html

 

And a sample of my evidence:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/karduniash-and-chalsidonhiash-reed.html

[SmileyMcGee]

you shouldn't dethrone a theory without re-enthroning another one. So, based on everything that Joseph Smith and others said ( I am assuming you've read everything) where do you think the BOA came from?

What? Why? That doesn't make any sense.

[canard78]

Here is my answer:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/some-background-on-my-stance-on-book-of.html

And a sample of my evidence:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/karduniash-and-chalsidonhiash-reed.html

Is this your blog? I'll happily work through the evidence you present, but your opening paragraph is a little concerning:

There are two separate papyri for the Book of Abraham. (1) The one that Abraham wrote which contained the Book of Abraham text, and (2) the one that Joseph Smith got from a mummy that he used. The one that Abraham wrote was lost in ancient times, and Joseph Smith never had it. The one that he got from the mummy wasn't exactly the same, but served its purpose well.

I'd say CFR but you'd probably point me back to your blog. Anything specific.

[DBMormon]

What? Why? That doesn't make any sense.

I thought so too

[Duncan]

What? Why? That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

This Baffles me! how do you not get it????!!! You can't or shouldn't say that theory A is bad without saying that theory B is better and for these reasons. You can't just poke holes in theory A, what do you have that is better?

[cdowis]

del 

Edited November 19, 2014 by cdowis

[canard78]

This Baffles me! how do you not get it????!!! You can't or shouldn't say that theory A is bad without saying that theory B is better and for these reasons. You can't just poke holes in theory A, what do you have that is better?

There's no Geneva convention of faith crises.

You can't say it's against the rules to not accept theory A without having an alternative.

[Pahoran]

Sorry Duncan and Mola, that's not how it works.  The scope of truth about anything is not limited to the existing theories. 

 

In the case of a faith-based belief like the Book of Abraham, it is perfectly valid for believers and non-believers alike to state that they do not subscribe to the existing theories without needing to offer a different (let alone better) theory in return.

Not if they expect people to accept their conclusions.

If someone is going to insist that the Book of Abraham can't be an inspired translation, then they need to do one of two things: either (1) show that an inspired translation has certain key characteristics that the BoA lacks, or (2) prove that it's something else that precludes it being an inspired translation.

Saying "It isn't, so there" doesn't work. We need a better explanation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

Not if they expect people to accept their conclusions.

If someone is going to insist that the Book of Abraham can't be an inspired translation, then they need to do one of two things: either (1) show that an inspired translation has certain key characteristics that the BoA lacks, or (2) prove that it's something else that precludes it being an inspired translation.

Saying "It isn't, so there" doesn't work. We need a better explanation.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

THANK YOU!!!! like my theory isn't good then show me what's better!!!

[Duncan]

There's no Geneva convention of faith crises.

You can't say it's against the rules to not accept theory A without having an alternative.

 if my theory doesn't work, then show me why and show me what is a better one to believe in

 

and I've never been to Geneva thank you very much

[bcuzbcuz]

How can you spend time ignoring something or somebody? Ignoring a thing is, by definition, not spending any time.

I disagree. Ignoring a bad behavior and focusing on trying to get a good behavior instead, is not only time consuming but extremely worthwhile. It is, also, extremely difficult to develope the ability to consistently ignore a bad behavior. Just think, for a minute, about parenting and the difficulty in ignoring a bad behavior of a two year old....or worse, of a teenager,, and conceiving and maintaining a reward system for good behaviors.

If you think ignoring is not worth spending any time on, then you've only been thinking of ignoring as an end in and of itself.

[mfbukowski]

Here is my answer:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/some-background-on-my-stance-on-book-of.html

 

And a sample of my evidence:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/karduniash-and-chalsidonhiash-reed.html

Haven't really gotten into your stuff yet, but it sure seems to represent the way I have seen it forever myself.   Very interesting.

 

As, you can see, characters to the left of the English text in the manuscript are from the Sensen Papyrus.  And the English text itself was revealed separately, based on cues from revelations the Prophet received on the pictographic usage of these characters.  It has always been clear to everybody that the symbols in the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham are pictures.  Repeatedly, in the explanations for the Facsimiles we are told, this or that picture in them "is made to represent" such and such.  Now, I am asking people to change the way they think about the other characters, and think of them the same way.  Instead of assuming that characters that appear to be only "text" are in fact only that, I ask people to consider them pictographically.  It is, as if, each character in the "text" becomes a little picture or little facsimile on its own, rather than part of a text.  As you dig in to my blog, you will see that I have a real basis for this, and it is not merely a "pet theory" that characters like this could be used this way.

 

 

The pictures tell the story- I have always believed that.  Look at facsimile 2 section 7.  If you listen to the Egyptologists, we have a very different story than if you just look at the picture and read the explanation.  As a picture it clearly "represents" temple material.   What the Egyptologists see is very different of course

 

Don't know where you take this, but it seems to agree with my view of the catalyst theory - and as I have said before, I don't care if Joseph was "translating" the prints on the wallpaper- what was produced was the Book of Abraham, which was essentially pure inspiration.

 

To be continued...

[Brian 2.0]

if my theory doesn't work, then show me why and show me what is a better one to believe in

and I've never been to Geneva thank you very much

Let me put this is another way that might make sense.

I have a theory for what inside a black hole... A Starbucks. Now if anyone wants to discount my theory, they better have another theory that's better.

[Duncan]

Let me put this is another way that might make sense.

I have a theory for what inside a black hole... A Starbucks. Now if anyone wants to discount my theory, they better have another theory that's better.

 

 

that's what I am saying!!!! some folks seem to say that a theory is invalid because of XYZ but they aren't replacing it with something better

[Brian 2.0]

that's what I am saying!!!! some folks seem to say that a theory is invalid because of XYZ but they aren't replacing it with something better

Can't they replace it with "we don't know"?

[Duncan]

Can't they replace it with "we don't know"?

 

 

well, "we" implies both of us and maybe I think I know the answer and they just don't see it or accept it or I am not explaining it properly

 

but personally I like it when historians engage an argument and show why it isn't the case and they show me what is a better theory

 

When I was in University I wrote a big paper on the Canadian Conscription Crisis of 1917 and boy sparks flew man in terms of what historians had to say about it and each others theories!

Edited November 17, 2014 by Duncan

[Brian 2.0]

well, "we" implies both of us and maybe I think I know the answer and they just don't see it or accept it or I am not explaining it properly

but personally I like it when historians engage an argument and show why it isn't the case and they show me what is a better theory

When I was in University I wrote a big paper on the Canadian Conscription Crisis of 1917 and boy sparks flew man in terms of what historians had to say about it and each others theories!

I should have probably said "I don't know"

Either way, don't you think it's valid for someone to say, "I don know how ABC occurred but I discount your theory on it because of evidence XYZ"?