New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

That's as close to a self-description as I have ever seen from you, Ed.

Well, I do know who my friends are on this thread. That is for sure. I thank you, those of you with charity toward those you disagree with.

[_EdGoble]

He is very knowledgeable about these issues, but can be rather blunt. I haven't seen any relation to the KEP either. At least not such that has evidence showing a dual meaning, legend, cipher, etc is actually going on from an ancient source. The simplest explanation is Joseph attaching meaning to different parts of the papyri to come up with a Book of Abraham story that we know today do not match up at all with the Egyptian translations of it.

Is that so? I see no original analysis from him when presented with something new before him. A rehashing of a party line, as if a Republican is spouting Republican party rhetoric? That isn't analysis of a contrary point of view. That isn't careful weighing of the evidence someone else presents. That's a lemming repetition, just like the followers of FARMS scholars rehash what FARMS scholars say. Party line. There is no thought in it. No analysis. Sorry.

Actually, no, the thing that can actually claim an Occam's razor-esque position is the one that actually takes Joseph Smith's claims at face value, where he simply got revelation, and that it is as simple as that, and that he presented to the world an ancient reality that was hidden from view of the world before it was revealed through him. That is the true application of Occam's razor here.

[Guest]

He is very knowledgeable about these issues, but can be rather blunt. I haven't seen any relation to the KEP either. At least not such that has evidence showing a dual meaning, legend, cipher, etc is actually going on from an ancient source. The simplest explanation is Joseph attaching meaning to different parts of the papyri to come up with a Book of Abraham story that we know today do not match up at all with the Egyptian translations of it.

Is that so? I see no original analysis from him when presented with something new before him. A rehashing of a party line, as if a Republican is spouting Republican party rhetoric? That isn't analysis of a contrary point of view. That isn't careful weighing of the evidence someone else presents. That's a lemming repetition, just like the followers of FARMS scholars rehash what FARMS scholars say. Party line. There is no thought in it. No analysis. Sorry.

Actually, no, the thing that can actually claim an Occam's razor-esque position is the one that actually takes Joseph Smith's claims at face value, where he simply got revelation, and that it is as simple as that, and that he presented to the world an ancient reality that was hidden from view of the world before it was revealed through him. That is the true application of Occam's razor here.

Do you extend the same consideration and interpretation to Emanuel Swedenborg, Helena Blavatsky, George Adamski? All of them claimed extraordinary things and presently still have committed believers.

Or does this privilege extend only to a certain group of followers of Joseph Smith?

[_Morley]

Actually, no, the thing that can actually claim an Occam's razor-esque position is the one that actually takes Joseph Smith's claims at face value, where he simply got revelation, and that it is as simple as that, and that he presented to the world an ancient reality that was hidden from view of the world before it was revealed through him. That is the true application of Occam's razor here.

Which do you find to be a simpler explanation?

That a man saw an angel, got some golden plates that he interpreted via a blessed rock in a hat. The man did not even need the plates to do the translation, which was a good thing, because the angel took them away again. Said translation, of plates he did not have, resulted in a book about ancient Hebrews and Jesus in America. It explicitly tells of things that have no support in history, archaeology, or biology. None.

This same man was caught with several women who were not his wife. He explained that another angel with a flaming sword had made him to do it.

You can believe these things happened as the man reported--or you can believe the man was prevaricating.

I think the theory that the man was lying is the simpler explanation. What am I missing?

[_Maksutov]

Ed, you might want to consider what Sterling McMurrin said:

"I think it is unfortunate that a church should ground
itself so thoroughly on something that is, in my opinion, not genuine and obviously
is seriously doubted by thousands of persons who are in the Church and
love the Church. But the Church is not a book, nor is it a collection of books—
the standard works. Nor is it simply an ecclesiastical organization. The Church
is the people who constitute it and their relationships to one another, their
hopes and aspirations, their mutual love, their joys and tragedies. Whatever
one might say about the Church's scriptures, its ecclesiastical organization, or
its theological or historical claims, the Church is certainly not a facade. It is a
living, moving, religious community and should not be judged on any other
terms than its character and quality — its capacity to bring satisfaction and
happiness to the people, to give them the strength and courage to live through
the dangers and tragedies of life."

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... N01_20.pdf

[_SteelHead]

@Morley
Faith in the emporer's magical new clothes. If you believe hard enough he isn't naked.

[_grindael]

This is pure gobbledegook. You could not explain this coherently to anyone if you tried. It's all jargon that has no meaning whatsover in relation to the KEP.

Nice. Thanks so much for the in-depth analysis.

That was an in-depth analysis. That is all it merits.

[_Themis]

Actually, no, the thing that can actually claim an Occam's razor-esque position is the one that actually takes Joseph Smith's claims at face value, where he simply got revelation, and that it is as simple as that, and that he presented to the world an ancient reality that was hidden from view of the world before it was revealed through him. That is the true application of Occam's razor here.

Face value? Your hypothesis rejects what Joseph has to say about the papyri and what he says he is doing. He is saying he is translating Egyptian writing and pictures into English with the original meaning intended. He claims to be able to do so with God's power. He doesn't claim any dual meaning. He doesn't claim somehow he is out of the loop and God is just letting him have incorrect ideas about it. He identifies certain parts and says what they mean like Abraham's signature. He claims the papyri was written by Abraham. He claims he was figuring out actual Egyptian, not some dual meaning. He even claimed 5 degrees of interpretation of the hieroglyphs. I take him at face value and analyze to see if he was really translating an ancient language. If you want a dual meaning you have to show something to back it up. Until them you will get few believers to think there is something to it.

[_Physics Guy]

Can you give me an example of some belief I might choose (outside of religion, of course) that evidence does not influence?

I don't know about "does not influence", because "influence" covers a lot of ground. And of course it depends on exactly what you mean by "believe".

But suppose I get a hunch that a certain tract of real estate is going to increase in value, sometime in the future. Maybe even after my own death. I'm not necessarily absolutely certain that this area is going to be valuable; I just think it's a good bet, given certain trends that I think I can see. My perception might be wrong, and I know that; I consciously discount some opposite trends, because on balance I feel that the signal for this land going up is the strongest trend. So I decide to buy up this land, lot by lot, as I can afford it, in order to leave a legacy for my children. I keep on socking my surplus cash into this land, year after year.

In this example, I would say that I have decided to believe in the future value of this land. I'm not kidding myself that it's really a proven fact. But in practice, I act as though it were. I spend my money as though it were. And when I daydream about my kids' futures, as I may well often do when I grow older, I spend a lot of time mentally entertaining the picture of this land being valuable, and very little time imagining that it might not be. Eventually, I almost forget about the very possibility that my land bet might be wrong. If pressed, I'll still acknowledge that it could be. But the scenario comes to seem like a far-fetched fantasy, not a real possibility that I have to take seriously. I mean, why should I take it seriously? I've already done my best at real estate trend-guessing, and I've settled on this land scheme, and now I'm in execute mode. It takes persistence to pull of anything big in life. So now I'm going to persist, and not look back. Why should I even bother thinking about alternative scenarios on which I'm never going to act? I have chosen instead to believe in my land's future worth.

Of course, that kind of legacy-building strategy isn't for everyone. I wouldn't really even choose it myself. What I think, though, is that it has a certain logic. So it's an example of how it could be reasonable, at least in a way, to choose to believe—at least in a sense.