Ahab Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think most members don't care much at all about the BoA issues because the book impacts about zero percent of their life. What we know and understand impacts 100% of our life.
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 48 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: Let me see if I can give you an example of the cipher theory, assuming I understand it myself. Let's say that in 2020, a Christian creates the following document intended for a Christian audience. He writes the description of the images above them in English. He uses common images that he borrowed from the internet. The sites he borrowed the images from were random and had nothing to do with Christianity. Now, suppose this document is discovered 4000 years in the future at a time when Christianity has long sense disappeared and English is no longer known or understood. Scholars get together and study the document and correctly translate the words above the images as, "Serpent", "Harlot", "Empty Tomb", "Groom", "Lamb" and "Bride". Now, imagine that a man, like Joseph Smith, comes along and translates the document and produces the following translation: Should this man be declared a fraud and a fool for getting the translation so wrong? Why or why not? More or less, yes that is what I mean. So, if indeed, the spirit of what "groom" was used to mean by a Christian, *the Savior*, was successfully transmitted by the guy 4000 years in the future, then the transmission of that data was true and correct.
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, that helps, can you elaborate on how the theories for these keys are being used for the BoA topic? Is there a theory that the key Joseph and team produced to explain the text was somehow correctly explaining the text because there was an ancient key somewhere that we don’t have access to today for scholarly analysis, and that this ancient key aligns with what Joseph was doing in the 19th century? If so, this sounds a bit like the Skousen spiritual translation committee idea to explain early modern English in the BoM. (I know that this idea wasn’t seriously promoted, but it was at least imagined and discussed at some time) Let me try to disabuse you of a notion that you might have. The text of the Breathing permit has nothing to do with the cioher/symbolic usage of the characters. Rather, the Hor Papyrus was used as a source of random characters to be used outside of the text entirely, a usage that has nothing to do with the content of the message of the text they were lifted from. Therefore the Gael/KEP is a key representative of the usage of these same characters in a random fashion having nothing to do with the content of the text they were lifted from. The KEP itself is a modern translation of an ancient cipher key that we do not have an Egyptian original for. We only have the document that the characters were originally lifted from.
CA Steve Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 54 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: Fair enough, but people that are not motivated, and who do not believe, are many times motivated to become part of the "great and spacious" to point fingers at those who choose to believe, and are motivated. In other words, they lack charity for those that choose to believe, and find fault with them for suggesting that it is rational to suggest a different possibility than the unbelieving one, and make them the object of scorn because they do not choose the same alternative. Yet, honesty would demand that those that are part of the great and spacious be honest that a choice to believe and be motivated and to have a preference of something that is congruent with belief is also a rational and logical choice, even if it is not the choice preferred by the unbeliever I am not sure who you are directing this at, as I have said nothing in regards to finding fault with any theory here other than to point out that some theories are more complex than others. You may want to step back and ask yourself if this kind of response is one that facilitates discussion or brings it to a screeching halt? Classifying people as part of the great and spacious building simply because they are uninterested in deeply investigating a particular aspect of Mormonism is an unwarranted criticism. Would you level the same criticism at those who are uninterested in looking deeply into the documentary hypothesis, multiple 1st vision accounts, polygamy, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Book of Mormon anachronisms, the priesthood ban, DNA and the Book of Mormon, or any of dozens of other complex Mormon issues?
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I am not sure who you are directing this at, as I have said nothing in regards to finding fault with any theory here other than to point out that some theories are more complex than others. You may want to step back and ask yourself if this kind of response is one that facilitates discussion or brings it to a screeching halt? Classifying people as part of the great and spacious building simply because they are uninterested in deeply investigating a particular aspect of Mormonism is an unwarranted criticism. Would you level the same criticism at those who are uninterested in looking deeply into the documentary hypothesis, multiple 1st vision accounts, polygamy, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Book of Mormon anachronisms, the priesthood ban, DNA and the Book of Mormon, or any of dozens of other complex Mormon issues? I am not directing it at anybody in particular. It is an observation of a tendency of certain unbelievers in general that inhabit certain forums such as MormonDiscussions. The intent is not to be abrasive. Only to highlight that honesty must include honest concessions about the multiple possibilities that exist. And typically, unbelievers of that sort that inhabit that place do not concede the possibility that the believers are rational, and the mere choice of a believing paradigm that includes apologetics does not make one irrational. But rather shows how one has employed one's intelligence in a way different from someone else that has different motivations.
hope_for_things Posted January 17, 2020 Author Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, EdGoble234 said: The KEP itself is a modern translation of an ancient cipher key that we do not have an Egyptian original for. We only have the document that the characters were originally lifted from. What evidence do you have to support that the KEP is a modern translation of an ancient cipher key? Sounds like creative imagination rather than actual scholarship.
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: What evidence do you have to support that the KEP is a modern translation of an ancient cipher key? Sounds like creative imagination rather than actual scholarship. Well, you are welcome to familiarize yourself with the evidence. I would recommend familiarizing yourself intimately with the arguments developed over a decade and a half of time and digesting them, rather than making off-putting remarks. It doesn't matter if you don't believe the arguments. You ought to understand them. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11G2X9Cu2EMPlq0vP1TqPRq1Ys9TA-k_W/viewhttps://www.academia.edu/38539983/The_Principles_of_Book_of_Abraham_and_Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers_Symbolismhttps://independent.academia.edu/EdwinGoblehttp://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com Thanks.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 16 hours ago, EdGoble234 said: Well, you are welcome to familiarize yourself with the evidence. I would recommend familiarizing yourself intimately with the arguments developed over a decade and a half of time and digesting them, rather than making off-putting remarks. It doesn't matter if you don't believe the arguments. You ought to understand them. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11G2X9Cu2EMPlq0vP1TqPRq1Ys9TA-k_W/viewhttps://www.academia.edu/38539983/The_Principles_of_Book_of_Abraham_and_Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers_Symbolismhttps://independent.academia.edu/EdwinGoblehttp://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com Thanks. Can you share a brief summary on compelling evidence around these theories? Then I can determine if I’m interested enough to dive deeper. Thanks
EdGoble234 Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Can you share a brief summary on compelling evidence around these theories? Then I can determine if I’m interested enough to dive deeper. Thanks I already have. I leave it to you to do a dive. I've done my part of the effort. Now its time for other people to put in theirs.
EdGoble234 Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Can you share a brief summary on compelling evidence around these theories? Then I can determine if I’m interested enough to dive deeper. Thanks Let me put it this way. You have been provided with all the information you need on where to find it, and it is beneath me to cater to your sarcasm and try to make my case. If you care, then you will profit from it. If you don't, then you can remain as you are. I am not compelled to "sell" it to you as if I were Rod Meldrum in a business suit selling Heartlander snake oil science or something, complete with a cruise and a hotel stay, if only you will just heed believe me and join my following. I don't "need" *you* to believe me. I already have the knowledge that I need to progress and am no longer seeking the validation of other people to be convinced. Once upon a time I was when I cared. Now I don't.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 4 hours ago, EdGoble234 said: I already have. I leave it to you to do a dive. I've done my part of the effort. Now its time for other people to put in theirs. You shared ideas about keys and ciphers, without sharing any evidence to support those ideas. I have to dig into the literature you linked in order to see the evidence. But the challenge for me is I already have a compelling explanation for the BoA production that fits with the evidence I’ve seen, and it’s a naturalistic explanation that comports with all the other evidence out there for how Joseph or any other human produces various different things. The burden for evidence your theory would need to provide is extremely large, because of the nature of the claim.
EdGoble234 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: You shared ideas about keys and ciphers, without sharing any evidence to support those ideas. I have to dig into the literature you linked in order to see the evidence. But the challenge for me is I already have a compelling explanation for the BoA production that fits with the evidence I’ve seen, and it’s a naturalistic explanation that comports with all the other evidence out there for how Joseph or any other human produces various different things. The burden for evidence your theory would need to provide is extremely large, because of the nature of the claim. I submit that you care more about the cover of a book than it's contents. You seem to be convinced that a simple answer is superior based on it's simplicity, and that is an indicator of truth. The simplicity of MOND theory in astrophysics has not led to it's adoption by those who are rigorously engaged in finding the truth about dark matter. I would suggest that chaos theory is not a simple thing, and is not straight forward. Niels Bohr and Pauli are known to have been right, while Einstein himself was wrong about the quantum realm, and Einstein's biggest blunder is now known to have lead to one of the most important insights about nature: Dark Energy. If it were true that simplicity is a direct indicator of truth. If you care so much about my talking about my evidence, you are welcome to look up the multitudinous threads on this very site in years past where individuals like you with the same attitudes as you demanded my evidence yet didn't pay attention or study carefully when I did present it. You are not genuine, and you want an easy explanation, and you want others to do the work for you. There is no profit for me to repeat yet again here what happened in years past. You have the keys. Drive the car yourself if you care. But you don't.
hope_for_things Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 36 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: I submit that you care more about the cover of a book than it's contents. You seem to be convinced that a simple answer is superior based on it's simplicity, and that is an indicator of truth. The simplicity of MOND theory in astrophysics has not led to it's adoption by those who are rigorously engaged in finding the truth about dark matter. I would suggest that chaos theory is not a simple thing, and is not straight forward. Niels Bohr and Pauli are known to have been right, while Einstein himself was wrong about the quantum realm, and Einstein's biggest blunder is now known to have lead to one of the most important insights about nature: Dark Energy. If it were true that simplicity is a direct indicator of truth. If you care so much about my talking about my evidence, you are welcome to look up the multitudinous threads on this very site in years past where individuals like you with the same attitudes as you demanded my evidence yet didn't pay attention or study carefully when I did present it. You are not genuine, and you want an easy explanation, and you want others to do the work for you. There is no profit for me to repeat yet again here what happened in years past. You have the keys. Drive the car yourself if you care. But you don't. Are you serious comparing a complicated BoA apologetic to theoretical physics? By that standard which apparently even Einstein wasn’t smart enough to comprehend, you are truly in an elite and very small group of intelligent apologists who understand something the rest of us dolts can’t possibly grasp. 1
EdGoble234 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Are you serious comparing a complicated BoA apologetic to theoretical physics? By that standard which apparently even Einstein wasn’t smart enough to comprehend, you are truly in an elite and very small group of intelligent apologists who understand something the rest of us dolts can’t possibly grasp. Actually, indeed I am comparing this to the phenomenon in science where people get it wrong more than occasionally when they side religiously and blindly with the philosophies of William of Occam. And you aren't a dolt. But you do seem to refuse to acknowledge the distinct plausible possibility that Joseph Smith was right that he was transmitting ancient information. That is a reflection of a choice you are making, not a reflection on your intelligence. If he was right about that claim, then how does that work? I submit that you are not interested in that kind of discovery of potential information. While that is indeed not an indicator of a lack of intelligence, it may be an indicator that you don't want to make a choice that is potentially the wiser one. That is fine. That is called free agency.
hope_for_things Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 10 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: Actually, indeed I am comparing this to the phenomenon in science where people get it wrong more than occasionally when they side religiously and blindly with the philosophies of William of Occam. And you aren't a dolt. But you do seem to refuse to acknowledge the distinct plausible possibility that Joseph Smith was right that he was transmitting ancient information. That is a reflection of a choice you are making, not a reflection on your intelligence. If he was right about that claim, then how does that work? I submit that you are not interested in that kind of discovery of potential information. While that is indeed not an indicator of a lack of intelligence, it may be an indicator that you don't want to make a choice that is potentially the wiser one. That is fine. That is called free agency. I feel like I continue to pursue truth throughout my life. I definitely am biased towards a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence as I find that it best explains not only BoA but all the other products of Joseph Smith and even other claimed clairvoyants throughout history. If the evidence were strong enough to overturn this paradigm, the assumptions that I’m bringing to this topic, then I would certainly reconsider. I’ve reconsidered and reconstructed a very large number of paradigms in recent years. But I am cautious about supernatural claims these days because of the vast amount of multi disciplinary evidence that weigh down against such claims. I definitely feel like skepticism is a strong influence on my mindset. Hence my position that the burden of proof needs to be extremely strong and compelling to overturn the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
EdGoble234 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I feel like I continue to pursue truth throughout my life. I definitely am biased towards a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence as I find that it best explains not only BoA but all the other products of Joseph Smith and even other claimed clairvoyants throughout history. If the evidence were strong enough to overturn this paradigm, the assumptions that I’m bringing to this topic, then I would certainly reconsider. I’ve reconsidered and reconstructed a very large number of paradigms in recent years. But I am cautious about supernatural claims these days because of the vast amount of multi disciplinary evidence that weigh down against such claims. I definitely feel like skepticism is a strong influence on my mindset. Hence my position that the burden of proof needs to be extremely strong and compelling to overturn the mountains of evidence to the contrary. That's reasonable, but not a faith-based choice.
hope_for_things Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: That's reasonable, but not a faith-based choice. Are you saying Dr. Jensen and Brian Hauglid are unfaithful? Depends on how you define faith. Faith in a particular interpretation, or faith in the truth, regardless of where that takes a person.
EdGoble234 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Are you saying Dr. Jensen and Brian Hauglid are unfaithful? Depends on how you define faith. Faith in a particular interpretation, or faith in the truth, regardless of where that takes a person. I'm very narrowly saying that Dr. Jensen and Dr. Hauglid have no faith in the faithful tradition of taking Joseph Smith at his word that he was actually transmitting something ancient in the actions of "acting upon" the Hor Papyrus characters and the Hypocephalus pictures and the Book of the Dead Papyri characters. That is a very narrow statement. And I say "acting upon" because the way Joseph Smith used the word translation has become loaded. Jensen and Hauglid assume that it is enough to suppose that in his activities, he produced mere revelations, and did not transmit anything of value where an ancient usage of ancient characters is concerned. While this is still "faithful" in a certain way, by saying Joseph Smith still genuinely got revelation, it has sacrificed all of his ability to actually translate by the Holy Ghost because of a notion that the "evidence" for his translation effort is not what apologists hoped it would be. If apologists would stop hoping it would be something they were expecting, then they could move on to what the evidence actually shows it was: an ancient cipher that has actual reproducible results. And while there was no classical missing papyrus, there still had to be an ancient source of the writings of Abraham, whether or not Joseph Smith had it in hand. That, my dear sir, is a much narrower statement than saying that Hauglid and Jensen are not being faithful. I never said that.
hope_for_things Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 29 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: I'm very narrowly saying that Dr. Jensen and Dr. Hauglid have no faith in the faithful tradition of taking Joseph Smith at his word that he was actually transmitting something ancient in the actions of "acting upon" the Hor Papyrus characters and the Hypocephalus pictures and the Book of the Dead Papyri characters. That is a very narrow statement. And I say "acting upon" because the way Joseph Smith used the word translation has become loaded. Jensen and Hauglid assume that it is enough to suppose that in his activities, he produced mere revelations, and did not transmit anything of value where an ancient usage of ancient characters is concerned. While this is still "faithful" in a certain way, by saying Joseph Smith still genuinely got revelation, it has sacrificed all of his ability to actually translate by the Holy Ghost because of a notion that the "evidence" for his translation effort is not what apologists hoped it would be. If apologists would stop hoping it would be something they were expecting, then they could move on to what the evidence actually shows it was: an ancient cipher that has actual reproducible results. And while there was no classical missing papyrus, there still had to be an ancient source of the writings of Abraham, whether or not Joseph Smith had it in hand. That, my dear sir, is a much narrower statement than saying that Hauglid and Jensen are not being faithful. I never said that. I've listened to both Jensen and Hauglid on multiple occasions and I believe they are being sincere in their interpretation of the evidence. Not only that, I think both of them started out from positions where they did believe that something ancient had been translated, and the more they dug into the evidence the more they were unable to continue to hold such a position because the evidence was pointing a different direction. I think this shows integrity on their parts, especially in the context of working for the church and recognizing that the evidence they discovered goes against the tradition with all the incentives and to find apologetics to try and fit the evidence to their prior views, they were willing to break the mold. These are the kind of people that I admire most. Lastly, we all make mistakes in our lives. Joseph Smith is no exception. I hope the people that remember me, will forgive my mistakes, and I also hope that they don't feel compelled to have faith in any erroneous statements I made with the limited knowledge and perspectives I held during my life. I want people to have faith in the good things I did, not faith in my mistakes.
EdGoble234 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I've listened to both Jensen and Hauglid on multiple occasions and I believe they are being sincere in their interpretation of the evidence. Not only that, I think both of them started out from positions where they did believe that something ancient had been translated, and the more they dug into the evidence the more they were unable to continue to hold such a position because the evidence was pointing a different direction. I think this shows integrity on their parts, especially in the context of working for the church and recognizing that the evidence they discovered goes against the tradition with all the incentives and to find apologetics to try and fit the evidence to their prior views, they were willing to break the mold. These are the kind of people that I admire most. Lastly, we all make mistakes in our lives. Joseph Smith is no exception. I hope the people that remember me, will forgive my mistakes, and I also hope that they don't feel compelled to have faith in any erroneous statements I made with the limited knowledge and perspectives I held during my life. I want people to have faith in the good things I did, not faith in my mistakes. The evidence they dug into certainly wasn't what was produced by me, notwithstanding Hauglid's promises to me to the contrary, that he would dig into my evidence. I am 100% confident that Hauglid has not touched my evidence as it stands in 2020. He had a few glances at it where it stood in 2012. So, while you are right, that Hauglid is more convinced by Vogel's point of view and taken on the evidence, I can guarantee that he has not given more than a glance to what I have produced, because he shares the same attitude toward me as many of the people on this message board that have not seriously considered the implications of what I have produced, and haven't more than given a cursory glance at my material. So while you are right that they were willing to "break the mold", they have not paid attention to the evidence as a whole, which, if they had, would lead them in a different direction than they had gone. They are only convinced by Vogel, and assume that all apologetic efforts have yielded nothing of value. That is a choice they made to ignore part of the evidence, not to prove by rebuttal that the other part of the evidence that they ignored was not of value. Therefore, no, they have not "shown integrity" to the evidence and just let it take them where it goes. They have cherry picked among evidences and ignored the rest that they don't like such as what I produced, the very thing that people like Vogel and Metcalfe and the hoard at MormonDiscussions are constantly accusing the apologists of doing. At the very least, they must refute my evidence on a deep and well-thought out level, not ignore it. That is not integrity to evidence. That is ignorance to evidence.
hope_for_things Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: The evidence they dug into certainly wasn't what was produced by me, notwithstanding Hauglid's promises to me to the contrary, that he would dig into my evidence. I am 100% confident that Hauglid has not touched my evidence as it stands in 2020. He had a few glances at it where it stood in 2012. So, while you are right, that Hauglid is more convinced by Vogel's point of view and taken on the evidence, I can guarantee that he has not given more than a glance to what I have produced, because he shares the same attitude toward me as many of the people on this message board that have not seriously considered the implications of what I have produced, and haven't more than given a cursory glance at my material. So while you are right that they were willing to "break the mold", they have not paid attention to the evidence as a whole, which, if they had, would lead them in a different direction than they had gone. They are only convinced by Vogel, and assume that all apologetic efforts have yielded nothing of value. That is a choice they made to ignore part of the evidence, not to prove by rebuttal that the other part of the evidence that they ignored was not of value. Therefore, no, they have not "shown integrity" to the evidence and just let it take them where it goes. They have cherry picked among evidences and ignored the rest that they don't like such as what I produced, the very thing that people like Vogel and Metcalfe and the hoard at MormonDiscussions are constantly accusing the apologists of doing. At the very least, they must refute my evidence on a deep and well-thought out level, not ignore it. That is not integrity to evidence. That is ignorance to evidence. I can understand you being frustrated that your evidence hasn't been taken seriously by some of the key players on this topic. Since I and apparently others on this message board haven't taken it seriously either, I imagine that is also frustrating from your perspective. I gave my reasons for not having an interest in pursuing your line of thinking further. I can suspect that Hauglid and Jensen have their reasons as well. I don't think every theory presented in any given context requires or deserves a well-thought out rebuttal. I don't know enough about your theory to judge whether its worthy of such a review by others or not.
aussieguy55 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) I have connected with Brian Hauglid on FB. When Dan Vogel did an extensive video on the Book of Abraham he seemed to welcome it and felt Dr Gee's efforts were going nowhere. Edited January 20, 2020 by aussieguy55 fix 1
EdGoble234 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I can understand you being frustrated that your evidence hasn't been taken seriously by some of the key players on this topic. Since I and apparently others on this message board haven't taken it seriously either, I imagine that is also frustrating from your perspective. I gave my reasons for not having an interest in pursuing your line of thinking further. I can suspect that Hauglid and Jensen have their reasons as well. I don't think every theory presented in any given context requires or deserves a well-thought out rebuttal. I don't know enough about your theory to judge whether its worthy of such a review by others or not. Of course you don't. And whether it deserves such will be judged by history and not by you.
hope_for_things Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 16 hours ago, aussieguy55 said: I have connected with Brian Hauglid on FB. When Dan Vogel did an extensive video on the Book of Abraham he seemed to welcome it and felt Dr Gee's efforts were going nowhere. https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1XiUMbe-xIdsLWx3Mv7jACDxZuDMnQe320VsyoJukq8c/edit Yes, thanks, I'm familiar with Hauglids FB comments about Vogel's videos. I believe Jensen and Hauglid may have somewhat differing ways of reconciling the way they approach the topic, but that on the substance of the evidence they are somewhat more aligned. For example, I haven't heard Hauglid explain revelation in the same terms as Jensen did with his examples about parents seeking revelation for their child's illness. I think that example is somewhat unique, and I'd love to have the change personally to probe Dr. Jensen further on it, because I think there is some promise in the way he's approaching things, but I also think there are some glaring holes in the approach which I'd like to see how he reconciles those holes in the logic. I'd also love to talk with Hauglid and better understand his approach to scripture these days.
Recommended Posts