LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cleon said:
At the time Smith was concocting the BoA, scientists had just started to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the field of archaeology as a whole was very new. It's entirely possible that Smith didn't think his writings ever could be fact-checked.
Click to expand...

Not in his lifetime, at least.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Let the record reflect: (Revered Dr. C. W. Gaddy's words in blue, taken from the sermon, "Superstition and Religion", dated Mat 1, 2005.
Click to expand...

You put Dr. Gabby's words in blue, and they do not print in this window. I made a copy of your post, which includes Dr. Gabby's words--not convenient but functional.

GABBY: What the apostle Paul discovered about religion in ancient Athens was very much akin to what today we can discover about religion in our local communities--except, it was different.

You say that is special pleading. Special pleading involves the use of a double standard. Gabby doesn't demand less strict treatment for his position than for what Paul discovered.

GABBY: Let me explain. Paul traveled to ancient Athens with no small degree of reticence.

You respond: "Unwarranted, unattested, untested assumption--as if The Acts of the Apostles could serve as self-validating evidence for the veracity of the claims made in The Acts of the Apostles."

This is a draconian interpretation of what Dr. Gabby wrote. To characterize it as "unwarranted, unattested, untested" is an exercise in ludicrousness, in addition to being utterly unsupportable.

GABBY: Though academically well trained and blessed with a mind as nimble as it was sharp. . . .

Your bizarre interpretation of this statement is that it qualifies Dr. Gabby as a demagogue because he never met Paul. Yet you, having never met Paul or any of the apostles (above), call Dr. Gabby's statement that Paul had misgivings about traveling to Athens an "unwarranted, unattested, untested assumption." You contradict yourself.

GABBY: Paul recognized Athens as the international center of philosophical thought.

There is nothing "unwarranted" or "untested" about that statement. Gabby is referring to The Acts of the Apostles. That is his source. He has every right to use it.

[To be continued; I'm out of time.]
 
skyrider44 said:
<SNIPO>

GABBY: Paul recognized Athens as the international center of philosophical thought.

There is nothing "unwarranted" or "untested" about that statement. Gabby is referring to The Acts of the Apostles. That is his source. He has every right to use it.

[To be continued; I'm out of time.]
Click to expand...

Have a nice nap. In the meantime, per the World English Bible:

17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw the city full of idols.
Click to expand...
For some curious reason I cannot reconcile that with the "international center of philosophical thought".

:con2:
 
skyrider44 said:
You put Dr. Gabby's words in blue, and they do not print in this window. I made a copy of your post, which includes Dr. Gabby's words--not convenient but functional.

GABBY: What the apostle Paul discovered about religion in ancient Athens was very much akin to what today we can discover about religion in our local communities--except, it was different.

You say that is special pleading. Special pleading involves the use of a double standard. Gabby doesn't demand less strict treatment for his position than for what Paul discovered.

GABBY: Let me explain. Paul traveled to ancient Athens with no small degree of reticence.

You respond: "Unwarranted, unattested, untested assumption--as if The Acts of the Apostles could serve as self-validating evidence for the veracity of the claims made in The Acts of the Apostles."

This is a draconian interpretation of what Dr. Gabby wrote. To characterize it as "unwarranted, unattested, untested" is an exercise in ludicrousness, in addition to being utterly unsupportable.

GABBY: Though academically well trained and blessed with a mind as nimble as it was sharp. . . .

Your bizarre interpretation of this statement is that it qualifies Dr. Gabby as a demagogue because he never met Paul. Yet you, having never met Paul or any of the apostles (above), call Dr. Gabby's statement that Paul had misgivings about traveling to Athens an "unwarranted, unattested, untested assumption." You contradict yourself.

GABBY: Paul recognized Athens as the international center of philosophical thought.

There is nothing "unwarranted" or "untested" about that statement. Gabby is referring to The Acts of the Apostles. That is his source. He has every right to use it.

[To be continued; I'm out of time.]
Click to expand...

You emphasize exactly the point I am raising.

The good Reverend uses the content of The Acts of the Apostles to demonstrate that the events in The Acts of the Apostles are, in fact, factual. Events, which, BTW, include Paul being said to say that he met Jesus who was said to be said to be "the Christ" only after that Jesus was dead.

If zombi messages form an admittedly dead person do not qualify to be classed as "superstition", especially when those zombi messages differ significantly form what is said to be the report of those said to be witnesses of the original delivery of the message, then there is no sense of using the word at all.

You also overlook the good Reverend's sleight-of-word in pretending that all "superstition" is based upon "fear" and, since belief in the Jesus who was said to be said to be "the christ" is not based on fear (even though those who do not so believe will be tortured forever) such belief is not superstition.

In reality, any belief based upon supernatural causality is properly referred to as "superstiton":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

The superstitions of your sect are not very interesting to me. I am, however, fascinated when those superstitions lead you to make unevidenced claims about reality, and claim that I should believe those unevidenced claims because you have faith that evidence to support them may be discovered in the future.
 
tsig said:
Then why did the church publish them?
Click to expand...

Janadele said:
In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.
Click to expand...
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
 
Janadele said:
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
Click to expand...


So, it is acceptable to complete disregard that the Book of Abraham was a giant hoax by Joseph Smith because it is filled with personal enlightenment. What a curious standard you have for religious text.
 
skyrider44 said:
You put Dr. Gabby's words in blue, and they do not print in this window....
Click to expand...

[aside]
The [Quote] function does not reproduce quotations within the post you are quoting. That is why the blue text didn't get included; Slowvehicle had rendered Gabby's text within quote tags.

There is a simple trick to getting the full post included, though. It suffers a bit in the description, but it is actually quite easy to do. What you do is this:
  1. Click on the user name to the left of the post you want to quote.
  2. A menu should appear.
  3. Click on the "Quote this post in a PM to <username>".
  4. A "Send a Private Message" window will appear with the full text of the post included between quote-tags.
  5. Copy the entire text of the message except the first quote-tag. It doesn't include the pointer to the original post, so we don't want it.
  6. Use the browser back function to abandon the private message and return to the thread.
  7. Now, click on the [Quote] button as you normally would.
  8. Replace all of the text in the Reply to Thread window except the quote tag at the beginning.
  9. Enter your response text as per normal.
[/aside]
 
Janadele said:
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
Click to expand...

:mysteryma This doesn't take away from those nagging, legitimate questions about how the BoA was created, Janadele.
 
Janadele said:
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
Click to expand...

Think about this Janadele. If we sincerely seek to expand our understanding of the Book of Abraham parchments, we should first seek out bonifide ancient Egyptian language and hieroglyphics experts to tell us what the parchment says.

We should probably run it by two or three, to make sure we are getting an accurate reading.

Do you agree?
 
Janadele said:
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
Click to expand...

No... Smith was a con man and your book is a fraud. How can you not be galled be the naked contempt he showed is followers? There's no enlightenment here, you just fell for a scam.
 
jsfisher said:
So, it is acceptable to complete disregard that the Book of Abraham was a giant hoax by Joseph Smith because it is filled with personal enlightenment. What a curious standard you have for religious text.
Click to expand...
The "burning in the bosom" that some Mormons can self-induce when reading something Smith produced, no matter how fraudulent the document in question has since been proved to be, is apparently all that is required for them to abandon reason and good sense.
 
Olowkow said:
Something about getting Rosetta stoned and showing her his etchings.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

:)



Janadele said:
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
Click to expand...


How does one research a language that's never existed?

Perhaps you'd like to provide some links to the published scholarship about it.*




* By which I mean, of course, real scholarship and not some bilge that the LDS has published on the subject
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me that Janadele is answering a completely different question than people are asking.

Imagine if the question were: "How can you believe this stuff?" Imagine if it were asked not rhetorically or sarcastically, but as a genuine question.

That seems to be the question she's answering: First, you have to approach it with the right mindset. Not everyone can do it. You need to ignore what scholars have said and focus on the work itself and look for spiritual insights...

That's actually a useful answer for someone who is asking with the mindset: "I want to be a Mormon. How do I do it?"

The problem is that we're not asking with that mindset. We don't want to know how to do it, because we have no incentive to do it.

It seems that Mormons (and believers in other similar evangelical religions) sometimes divide non-members into people who might be interested in joining but are held back somehow and just need some convincing, and people whose worldview is completely incomprehensible. I think we're in the latter class to people like Janadele, so all she knows how to do, is treat us as if we're in the former class.

And honestly, it's a perfectly good sales technique, if the goal is sales (or evangelizing), rather than communication. Imagine a salesman approaching everyone who passes with the same short sales pitch. To him, it doesn't matter if 90% of the people ignore him or laugh at him and walk away. What he cares about are the random, unpredictable 10% who are intrigued and stop to listen. He gives them the next stage of the sales pitch, loses a few more, but eventually let's say 1% stay and actually buy.

If 1% is an average sales rate for the industry, he'd be doing a perfectly good job. Yet if you asked any of those 99% how he did, they'd say he didn't do well enough to sell the product, and 90% might say his sales pitch was the stupidest thing they'd heard.

In other words, Janadele's answers are perfectly good answers, but only for the tiny percentage of people who are looking for those kinds of answers.
 
Janadele said:
In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.
Click to expand...


Janadele said:
In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."
Click to expand...

Janadele said:
Mere mortals who do not meet the criteria need not bother even considering the matter. :p
Click to expand...

Are you saying a proven scam has spiritual value, Janadele?
Really?
Why is the LDS deliberating scamming people aboout the provenance of the BoA?




Pixel42 said:
The "burning in the bosom" that some Mormons can self-induce when reading something Smith produced, no matter how fraudulent the document in question has since been proved to be, is apparently all that is required for them to abandon reason and good sense.
Click to expand...

Yes.
We've seen that argument here before.
Some people will do anything to protect themselves from acknowledging they've been scammed.

Well, skyrider44, anything to add to this discussion of an LDS scam?
I've asked several times for your intake about this fraud, but haven't seen any reply yet.
Ignoring the scam won't make it go away.
Tomorrow morning the BoA will still be a fraudulent hoax, after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom