Proofs of the Book of Abraham?

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

The same is not true for induction (see the tests for induction I listed previous).

[wenglund]

There are four points that render Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

I

[wenglund]

Could it be that this discussion is a miracle cure for insomnia?

I know that I am growing increasingly weary of the dizzying circles.

But, as may be the case with not being able to avert one

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

I know that I am growing increasingly weary of the dizzying circles.

It only seems that way to you because you are trying to make distinctions without a difference. You are trying not to understand what I

[wenglund]

-continued from above-

The beauty of inductive arguments is that they are tested against one another. So, which is most probable: the scenario outline by me and Marvin Hill, or the one invented on the spot (ad hoc) by Wade Englund to escape his crumbling hypothesis. How likely is it that Lucy joined the Presbyterians in 1820, quit shortly after, joined another speculated church in 1824, quit shortly after, and rejoined the Presbyterian Church before being disfellowshipped in 1830? Not very. This is rich in irony, because Wade began this debate to prove that I was guilty of unfounded speculation.

Vogel is more than a little confused. First, as reiterated previously, while inductive arguments may be tested against each other, one is not necessarily obliged to accept or concede one or the other, but one may withhold judgement on both, or even reject each of them outright.

Second, the fact that certain persons may deem one inductive argument more probable than the other, does not oblige certain other persons to concede it. With induction there is no logical necessity. As such, different people are free to weigh and evaluate the evidence and relationships between the observations and conclusions differently. In other words, just because Vogel thinks it more probable, doesn

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Vogel is more than a little confused. First, as reiterated previously, while inductive arguments may be tested against each other, one is not necessarily obliged to accept or concede one or the other, but one may withhold judgement on both, or even reject each of them outright.

This is complete tripe. You have given yourself permission to reject any inductive argument you choose. Well, I have more faith in people than you obviously do. If you did not think that it was more likely that Lucy joined the Presbyterians in 1824 than 1820, it is unlikely that you would have conceded the point.

Second, the fact that certain persons may deem one inductive argument more probable than the other, does not oblige certain other persons to concede it. With induction there is no logical necessity. As such, different people are free to weigh and evaluate the evidence and relationships between the observations and conclusions differently. In other words, just because Vogel thinks it more probable, doesn

[wenglund]

Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Well. . .that is enough nonsense for me to address for one day. I hope to finish the last of this cyclical and counterproductive exchange in the next several days. What I hope to do in the interim, is go through this thread and compile all of the statements in which Vogel has made factual and interpretive errors. The shear volume should say much about Vogel

[wenglund]

....So, now you want to compile my

[noel00]

Are you accusing Vogel as being disfunctional? Seems discussions on this board generate to that level. I have been at the receiving end from RayA. All we would like is some discussion of the plausiblity of the events in the Joseph Smith story. Did the family join the Presbyterian church after the 1823-24 revival? Cowdery, William Smith, Lucy Smith and other details seem to support that view. The revival in 1823-24 according to the material gathered by Walters was of the type described by Smith. Walter's wrote to Backman concerning one of the footnotes in his book, but received no response. Backman did not cite Walter's Dialogue article. This is supposed to be scholarship. I have a letter which Backman wrote to me on his footnote, he writes like Walters does not exist.

[T-Shirt]

Hi Dan. I have reviewed this thread but I have not read the entire thing, so please forgive me if I repeat things that have already been said.

I appreciate your thoughts here; you have obviously put a lot of work into it. Personally, I have no problem assuming some error on the part of Joseph or Lucy as they wrote their histories. Joseph

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Thanks for your participation. You basically restate Wade

[T-Shirt]

Keep in mind Wade was trying to prove my reconstruction was unfounded speculation, which it is not. So, the discussion is more about my reconstruction than it is about Wade

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments and for sticking to the subject.

Keep in mind Wade was trying to prove my reconstruction was unfounded speculation, which it is not. So, the discussion is more about my reconstruction than it is about Wade

[T-Shirt]

Lucy does not unambiguously say she joined a church in 1820, only that she

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Lucy does not unambiguously say she joined a church in 1820, only that she

[MorningStar]

I was wondering which tactic you'd decide to use.

[TrespassersW]

The FAIR section provides these links:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/deejay.htm

http://www.mormonfortress.com/nelson1.html

Also, they recommend the book They Lie in Wait to Deceive (volumne I deals with Dee Jay Nelson, IIRC). It's a pretty good series. A bit mean-spirited, IMO, but excellent information for anyone who might have been tempted to take "Dr." Nelson seriously.

[golddigger]

It has nothing to do with what the actual translations are. The Egyptologists are not in the correct "Spiritual Plane" , so they will never be able to translate them properly.

Interestingly enough, the Dead Sea scrolls can be translated into the Book of Breathings, if you are in the correct "spiritual plane".  This is a proven fact.

Oh, so that explains the Kinderhook plates. I guess Jo could make up stories from anything with scribbles on it, whether it was authentic or not since he was on a different "spiritual plane" than most.