Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[Duncan]

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"?

 

well, if you want me to give you credibility then no! hahahhaha! I want to know the truth and not just what is wrong with whatever. somethings will have to wait until the next life and so in the here and now we have the give and take of what might be true or not

[Brian 2.0]

well, if you want me to give you credibility then no! hahahhaha! I want to know the truth and not just what is wrong with whatever. somethings will have to wait until the next life and so in the here and now we have the give and take of what might be true or not

 

I'm speaking in general.  I just think you might be jumping on some people here for doing something that is perfectly normal, acceptable, and something we all do, probably including yourself, on various topics all the time... namely, challenging the validity of a theory without having a competing theory to take its place.

[Brian 2.0]

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!

 

By the way... I learned something today.  I had to look up what this crisis was.  I kept trying to imagine what it would be.  Turns out I really just never knew what the word "conscription" meant.  You use some funny words up there.  

[Duncan]

By the way... I learned something today.  I had to look up what this crisis was.  I kept trying to imagine what it would be.  Turns out I really just never knew what the word "conscription" meant.  You use some funny words up there.  

 

 

well, what can I say! not to derail but it was a BIG thing here a hundred years ago!

[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

Yes from what I have seen you are definitely a "comrade in arms"

 

Your view is more scientific, dealing with observation and interpretation of data whereas mine is more philosophical, but we definitely come to the same conclusions, as far as I can tell.  Good making your acquaintance.

 

Philosophically I am a Constructivist and Pragmatist, so I think I see the notion of "truth" differently than you do, and I have different views on how important historical data is to these questions, but I think in the final analysis we come to very very similar conclusions.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

That's the point. Ignoring a thing -- such as, say, DBMormon's incessant faultfinding -- doesn't take any time or effort at all, other than perhaps a momentary resolution to ignore it. Nor does it amount to a tacit admission that his point is irrefutable, a facially absurd notion.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

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

Ok then Pahoran and Duncan... Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Through the 1940s and 1950s there were lots of theories.

The church answer today is to disavow those old reason and provide no new explanation. Do you have a theory? Does the church leadership?

Talking about the ban, Elder Oaks said: "I didn't understand why; I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given"

Do you both apply the same standard to Elder Oaks? Does he have to accept the 1940s explanations for the ban because he has no better explanation to replace them?

[canard78]

well, if you want me to give you credibility then no! hahahhaha! I want to know the truth and not just what is wrong with whatever. somethings will have to wait until the next life and so in the here and now we have the give and take of what might be true or not

Please see my reply to Pahoran. Do you still believe that curse of Cain/Premortal conduct should still be the doctrinal explanation for the ban or do you prefer the current status of "we don't know why, but we certainly don't accept the old explanation." Do you hold your church leaders to the same standard.

[DragonLancer]

Yes from what I have seen you are definitely a "comrade in arms"

 

Your view is more scientific, dealing with observation and interpretation of data whereas mine is more philosophical, but we definitely come to the same conclusions, as far as I can tell.  Good making your acquaintance.

 

Philosophically I am a Constructivist and Pragmatist, so I think I see the notion of "truth" differently than you do, and I have different views on how important historical data is to these questions, but I think in the final analysis we come to very very similar conclusions.

 

Thanks.  Yeah, I appreciate that.  I think you are right.

 

Ed

[DragonLancer]

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

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

yes.  Its my blog.  It's a conclusion from deductive logic.  I do not buy into the pseudepigrapha option.  Abraham wrote a papyrus with his own hand.  Joseph Smith didn't have that, contrary to missing papyrus theorists.  He had the Sensen papyrus.  Ergo, two separate papyri, both that are the Book of Abraham.   One literally, the other, ritualistically/symbolically through iconotropic substitution.

[DragonLancer]

cdowis, You say "This sounds somewhat like the mnemonic theory.  Since Gee does not endorse it, it will simply be ignored."

 

My response:  I am unconcerned.  With all due respect our dear brother Gee and brother Schryver and brother Ash, I do not seek for their validation anymore.  At points in time in the past, even when I had posted about this theory in the past, I hoped for it, but that is hopeless.  I have always been more concerned with coming up with an explanation to fit the evidence rather than to engage in quackery for the sake of apologetics.  But then when it became clear to me that I was always going to be on my own in my fight, then I gave up, and dug in my heels to remain rooted where I stand.  I will still look for allies, but not among the people that have rejected me and my work in the past, including all those who have rejected me before and dismissed me out of hand on this forum in the past.

 

This is not the mnemonic device theory at all, although you could say that a mnemonic might be a product of it, not its primary intent.  If there is a mnemonic in it, it is simply a by-product, or happy accident.  this is actually something more along the lines of acrostics and ancient abecederia, with Semitic adaptation and iconotropy following the lead of Jonathan Moyer, Kevin Barney and William Hamblin.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/07/jonathan-moyers-2003-article-jewish.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/07/for-those-confused-with-secondary.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/08/abstractions-and-concretions-in.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2013/12/syncretistic-adaptation-of-characters.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/02/khonsu-and-lunar-zodiac-origin-of.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/02/ancient-abecedaria-ay-bee-cee-dur-ee.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-two-bulls-sun-and-moon-eyes-of-god.html

 

Ed Goble

[rodheadlee]

 

lvjd66, on 14 Nov 2014 - 1:06 PM, said:

So what do we do when something we want to believe has too many problem to be worthy of faith or in otherwords is saw likely to be untrue that there is not suffcient room to exercise faith?  should we believe anyway or are we responsible to acknowledge error as such? 

 

We trust Heavenly Father. WIll he hand you a stone? Do I need to quote the scripture? Put the need for proof on a shelf until you meet Christ. Trust in the Lord and do good. We cry for meat and then we can't digest it. Develope faith. Not in JS but in Heavenly Father. Do you think He is not capable of keeping the BOA from His Son's Scripture to us?

[Duncan]

Ok then Pahoran and Duncan... Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Through the 1940s and 1950s there were lots of theories.

The church answer today is to disavow those old reason and provide no new explanation. Do you have a theory? Does the church leadership?

Talking about the ban, Elder Oaks said: "I didn't understand why; I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given"

Do you both apply the same standard to Elder Oaks? Does he have to accept the 1940s explanations for the ban because he has no better explanation to replace them?

 

 

I have a theory as to why they were denied the priesthood but I obviously don't speak for the Church or even know if it's the right theory

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok then Pahoran and Duncan... Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Through the 1940s and 1950s there were lots of theories.

The church answer today is to disavow those old reason and provide no new explanation. Do you have a theory? Does the church leadership?

Talking about the ban, Elder Oaks said: "I didn't understand why; I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given"

Do you both apply the same standard to Elder Oaks? Does he have to accept the 1940s explanations for the ban because he has no better explanation to replace them?

I am at a loss for why you are bringing this up. It is irrelevant to what Pahoran was saying.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[USU78]

I am at a loss for why you are bringing this up. It is irrelevant to what Pahoran was saying.

It is a simple matter of moving the goalposts. A typical anti Mormon tactic

[HappyJackWagon]

Obviously it is brought up as an example of how a theory could be dismissed as faulty without providing an alternative. I don't understand why one would think this is anti-mormon goal post moving.

 

Discovering that something doesn't work is usually the first step to finding something that does. Otherwise one wouldn't know to keep looking for the right answer.

 

 

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
― Thomas A. Edison

[canard78]

I am at a loss for why you are bringing this up. It is irrelevant to what Pahoran was saying.

It is a simple matter of moving the goalposts. A typical anti Mormon tactic

I'm at a loss at how badly you can miss the point.

[canard78]

Obviously it is brought up as an example of how a theory could be dismissed as faulty without providing an alternative. I don't understand why one would think this is anti-mormon goal post moving.

Discovering that something doesn't work is usually the first step to finding something that does. Otherwise one wouldn't know to keep looking for the right answer.

Phew! Thank you.

[USU78]

I'm at a loss at how badly you can miss the point.

 

No, you are either missing the point or being disingenuous, and the jury's out from my perspective.

 

Your attempt to draw an analogy from a second hot-button issue either pulls everybody down a rabbit hole, and the original discussion is lost somewhere between "eat me" and "drink me," or simply invites other "analogies" which land us at he feet of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle Dum.

 

Which deflection is either the main point or the inevitable consequence of your moving the goalposts.

 

Either way, it's a cheap trick.

[canard78]

No, you are either missing the point or being disingenuous, and the jury's out from my perspective.

Your attempt to draw an analogy from a second hot-button issue either pulls everybody down a rabbit hole, and the original discussion is lost somewhere between "eat me" and "drink me," or simply invites other "analogies" which land us at he feet of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Which deflection is either the main point or the inevitable consequence of your moving the goalposts.

Either way, it's a cheap trick.

That's funny. Few of the apologist-type responses have bothered to actually engage with the concern expressed by DB in the OP and have instead criticised him even asking the question and yet I'm the one accused of trying to take it off topic?

I have no desire to discuss the ban. I am using that as a specific example of a time when the church had a specific theory for explaining doctrine and then debunked it while replacing it with nothing more than "I don't know." I showed an example of Elder Oaks doing exactly that.

This was done simply to make the point that it really is acceptable to express a view that "Theory 1" is unacceptable without providing a "Theory 2."

Now do you understand? I would be very happy to stay on the OP topic. The problem remains that some posters have tried to avoid the topic entirely by saying that without proposing a new theory, DB shouldn't be allowed to question the existing theories.

So, shall we accept that taking that position is silly and get back to the actual topic in the OP. If so, I'd be delighted to not mention outdated race theories again.

[Duncan]

That's funny. Few of the apologist-type responses have bothered to actually engage with the concern expressed by DB in the OP and have instead criticised him even asking the question and yet I'm the one accused of trying to take it off topic?

I have no desire to discuss the ban. I am using that as a specific example of a time when the church had a specific theory for explaining doctrine and then debunked it while replacing it with nothing more than "I don't know." I showed an example of Elder Oaks doing exactly that.

This was done simply to make the point that it really is acceptable to express a view that "Theory 1" is unacceptable without providing a "Theory 2."

Now do you understand? I would be very happy to stay on the OP topic. The problem remains that some posters have tried to avoid the topic entirely by saying that without proposing a new theory, DB shouldn't be allowed to question the existing theories.

So, shall we accept that taking that position is silly and get back to the actual topic in the OP. If so, I'd be delighted to not mention outdated race theories again.

 

no one is saying you aren't allowed to question a theory but tell us what is a better theory. In law this happens all the time, alternative theories of a crime. Prosecution says it's person A and the defence says no it's someone else

 

as I read the OP he's saying this theory is dumb but I don't know what is better, meaning he can't make sense of the evidence but he knows someone is wrong and to me that is silly

[Scott Lloyd]

no one is saying you aren't allowed to question a theory but tell us what is a better theory. In law this happens all the time, alternative theories of a crime. Prosecution says it's person A and the defence says no it's someone else

 

as I read the OP he's saying this theory is dumb but I don't know what is better, meaning he can't make sense of the evidence but he knows someone is wrong and to me that is silly

In fact, there is scarcely any qualitative difference between doing that and doing what an avowed, garden-variety detractor would do. Yet DBMormon insists that he "leads with faith," whatever that means.

[canard78]

no one is saying you aren't allowed to question a theory but tell us what is a better theory. In law this happens all the time, alternative theories of a crime. Prosecution says it's person A and the defence says no it's someone else

as I read the OP he's saying this theory is dumb but I don't know what is better, meaning he can't make sense of the evidence but he knows someone is wrong and to me that is silly

At the risk of going round in circles, I'm pointing out that you're applying a standard to DB that you don't apply to church leaders. When the 2013 race essay came out they disavowed the old theories for why the ban happened but provided a "we don't know" as to why it did happen. Elder Oaks said "I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given" but hasn't replaced the explanations with a new one. Is that ok or not?

So if DB says, in reference to the BoA origin, "I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given" without giving a new explanation he's doing no more or less than the church leaders have done on the subject of the race ban.

[Mystery Meat]

In fact, there is scarcely any qualitative difference between doing that and doing what an avowed, garden-variety detractor would do. Yet DBMormon insists that he "leads with faith," whatever that means.

 

While I don't agree with DB's approach in all aspects, I don't think it is fair to attack or at least allude to an attack on his motives. I believe he is sincere and is just looking for answers.

[strappinglad]

I can see canard's point. It is not necessary to supply a new theory if one rejects other theories. However, the question is then left hanging," well, if it isn't X and it isn't Y then what is it? " . The elephant in the room then is " It was all made up by Joseph and there is no divinity involved, " DB doesn't say this but leaves that balloon floating. At least dragonslayer has a theory to put forward for examination.