Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_Robert F Smith]

Back to the names of the 4 gods. If I remember what I have read in regards to these names, they are:
a. names found in the Bible
and/or
b. explained as mishmashes of chunks of languages from the area.

Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought
Stephen E. Thompson "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham"
footnote 67

Wheeeeeeee, the sharpshooter fallacy again rears its ugly head.

If I take a couple of names from the Bible, make up a couple more and claim that they are the name of Egyptian gods, as I am allowed whatever 4 names I choose to represent them, because "The four do not have to have only one set of names." (eg I can claim whatever 4 words I want) What have I proven?

Absolutely nothing.

It is true, Steelhead, that anti-Mormons feel no obligation to carry on a coherent, substantive discussion, and they deal impatiently with any claim made by real scholars which does not conveniently fit into their preconceptions. The reason for anti-Mormons preferring to play with "loaded dice" in such circumstances is that truth or scholarship is not the objective, but rather winning the debate at all costs. For them the activity is a kind of war, and throwing light on the subject is the last thing on their agenda.
So, yes, any claim can be made by anybody about anything. Whether it squares with scholarship is not usually even considered. Why do you give short-shrift to scholarship?

[_Robert F Smith]

Themis,
You are now inventing and attributing to me positions which I have not taken,

I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you could elaborate.

possibly because you are afraid to read and respond to my "A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

I have read it, and we have commented on a couple of points. I have asked you multiple times to bring up one or two points in your article and we can go from there.

Why are you afraid to reply to my actual statements and examples? I provide plenty of scholarly examples. You say that you have taken decades to arrive at your current position. Too bad you didn't bother to read scholarly discussions of the issues, and instead simply uncritically took in the anti-Mormon position.

How can one be in apologetics so long and not get where the problem of people changing their views in the church come from. It's not from anti sources, but from friendly or more neutral(scholarly work). This is where we go to get information from.

Now why have you from beginning to end not dealt with what I have asked about the facsimiles and papyri and what Egyptology has to say about them, and why you think we should reject that? If you want a starting point lets start with what they say about fac 3. I have provided more then one source, but then I expect you have been around long enough to know what they do say. Perhaps that is why I have yet to see you address these issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

I see that you are still talking around the subject, and are unable to discuss specifics -- about which you know nothing.
Perhaps the problem for you is that you see everything in terms of apologetics and polemics, rather than any sort of commitment to scholarship.

[_SteelHead]

You know Robert, I've published in scientific, peer reviewed journals. I understand scholarship. Claiming an unsupported dual meaning to make a "translation" appear from a papyrus where no one else sees it is conjecture. My Revenge of the Sith scenario is just as plausible, using the same types of parallels as you point to for your dual meanings hypotheses.

[_Themis]

I see that you are still talking around the subject, and are unable to discuss specifics --

Funny that you are accusing me of what you are doing in this thread. You even quote me trying to get you to give specifics from your article you think are important. A couple have been brought up like your very brief argument about ancient Semitic people living and adopting both their religious ideas with other groups. Irrelevant to the issue, and one that doesn't deal with any critic arguments I am aware of. The other one is chiasmus. Not even all apologists are on board with that one, and for good reason. One reason is translating problems from one language to another. Another is that it is a writing style used by a number of languages including English, and was known. The Bible, which was the best source of people back then, uses it as well. Also no one shows that it cannot come by random. When writing reports people usually start with a introduction, and end with a conclusion. The funniest post I ever saw was years ago over at MAD when this topic was being discussed. One poster wrote a post of about 3 paragraphs defending it as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon being an true. Another observant poster broke up his quote to show that they had unintentionally made a fantastic chiastic structure to their post. This certainly demonstrated how easy they can show up. I think it is some what of a natural way of present a story or idea in written form.

about which you know nothing.

Ah, the I am right, and you are wrong argument because I supposedly know knowing about it and you think you do. I would hope better from you Bob.

Perhaps the problem for you is that you see everything in terms of apologetics and polemics, rather than any sort of commitment to scholarship.

I am more then willing to look at the evidence. I just don't think you are. I didn't find much in your article. I have asked you multiple times to bring up one issue from it you think is good, and you have avoided doing so. The only thing worse is your avoidance of dealing with what the scholars say about the issue. I have asked even more times to deal with this, and even gave you are staring point with fac 3. Joseph gives a general interpretation on what is happening, and then gives an interpretation of each individual and one object. Not one of them fits with what the experts say they are, or what is happening in this scene. We have both iconography and text to help them identify each individual. You have yet to say why we should reject the experts here.

I am not really surprised you have avoided this, but hoped a little that you would have dealt with these issues.

[_Robert F Smith]

I see that you are still talking around the subject, and are unable to discuss specifics --

Funny that you are accusing me of what you are doing in this thread. You even quote me trying to get you to give specifics from your article you think are important. A couple have been brought up like your very brief argument about ancient Semitic people living and adopting both their religious ideas with other groups. Irrelevant to the issue, and one that doesn't deal with any critic arguments I am aware of. The other one is chiasmus. Not even all apologists are on board with that one, and for good reason. One reason is translating problems from one language to another. Another is that it is a writing style used by a number of languages including English, and was known. The Bible, which was the best source of people back then, uses it as well. Also no one shows that it cannot come by random. When writing reports people usually start with a introduction, and end with a conclusion. The funniest post I ever saw was years ago over at MAD when this topic was being discussed. One poster wrote a post of about 3 paragraphs defending it as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon being an true. Another observant poster broke up his quote to show that they had unintentionally made a fantastic chiastic structure to their post. This certainly demonstrated how easy they can show up. I think it is some what of a natural way of present a story or idea in written form.

about which you know nothing.

Ah, the I am right, and you are wrong argument because I supposedly know knowing about it and you think you do. I would hope better from you Bob.

Perhaps the problem for you is that you see everything in terms of apologetics and polemics, rather than any sort of commitment to scholarship.

I am more then willing to look at the evidence. I just don't think you are. I didn't find much in your article. I have asked you multiple times to bring up one issue from it you think is good, and you have avoided doing so. The only thing worse is your avoidance of dealing with what the scholars say about the issue. I have asked even more times to deal with this, and even gave you are staring point with fac 3. Joseph gives a general interpretation on what is happening, and then gives an interpretation of each individual and one object. Not one of them fits with what the experts say they are, or what is happening in this scene. We have both iconography and text to help them identify each individual. You have yet to say why we should reject the experts here.

I am not really surprised you have avoided this, but hoped a little that you would have dealt with these issues.

More nonsense from you, rather than a response to my article. I provided the scholarly detail and you automatically denied it exists -- typical non-response by someone in a traumatic state of denial. You clearly do not understand what it means to have an actual discussion in which substantive points are brought up and sources are cited which throw light on them. Such discussions, conducted in a civil manner, with mutual respect, can help everyone understand the issues better. That is not an objective you have in mind, and you are certainly not willing or interested in looking at the evidence unless someone has told you beforehand that it negates Mormon claims. Your anti-Mormon diatribe and false statements should be an embarrassment to other self-respecting anti-Mormons who believe that high ethical and moral principles have real value. The late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, for example, firmly believed in being fair and even-handed in his attacks on Mormonism. He was a good friend and I could always have a useful exchange of views with him. Why is that not possible with you?

[_Themis]

More nonsense from you, rather than a response to my article.

I have brought up some, and you are free to show how I am wrong. I have asked repeatably with just silence from you. I have also asked repeatably for you to bring up what you like about it.

I provided the scholarly detail and you automatically denied it exists -- typical non-response by someone in a traumatic state of denial.

CFR where I denied.

You clearly do not understand what it means to have an actual discussion in which substantive points are brought up and sources are cited which throw light on them. Such discussions, conducted in a civil manner, with mutual respect, can help everyone understand the issues better.

I'm still waiting for you to act in a civil manner. I have respected you the whole time. I wish you would in return, but you are to busy calling everyone an anti-Mormon.

That is not an objective you have in mind, and you are certainly not willing or interested in looking at the evidence unless someone has told you beforehand that it negates Mormon claims. Your anti-Mormon diatribe and false statements should be an embarrassment to other self-respecting anti-Mormons who believe that high ethical and moral principles have real value. The late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, for example, firmly believed in being fair and even-handed in his attacks on Mormonism. He was a good friend and I could always have a useful exchange of views with him. Why is that not possible with you?

CFR on where I have been unfair. You just keep attacking me. I am more then willing to discuss, but I am still waiting for to engage in honest discussion. You still have yet to answer questions about things like fac 3 which I have asked from the beginning and you have avoided this whole time. I am not the one trying to get out of a discussion. Can you be fair and start trying to discuss with a more open mind. I have commented multiple times you make incorrect assumptions about people here including me.

[_Robert F Smith]

Let me know, Themis, if you should ever decide to leave the pretend world you have constructed for yourself (in which real discussion is not necessary or desirable) and carry on an actual discussion. Of course that would require sincerity and actual engagement with substantive issues.

[_Themis]

Let me know, Themis, if you should ever decide to leave the pretend world you have constructed for yourself (in which real discussion is not necessary or desirable) and carry on an actual discussion. Of course that would require sincerity and actual engagement with substantive issues.

I did try. I have been respectful and civil with you. All I get back is attacks and just assertion that I am wrong instead of trying to say why. I have asked from the beginning for you to address what the Egyptologists say and why they are wrong. In particular fac 3. You have ignored this request as though you want to pretend it doesn't exist.

I have discussed some of your paper yet you don't say anything about why you think my opinion is wrong other then to assert it is nonsense. Is that what we are to view as discussion? I have asked you to bring up what you like from your article and we could discuss it, but have got silence for this. Do you really expect anyone to to think I am the one avoiding discussion.

I will remain open to discussion if you want to really discuss. I don't hold any hard feelings towards you and hope you have a great life.

[_Tobin]

Robert,

I think you've now had the Themis experience. He doesn't discuss or exchange ideas. He doesn't own up the facts or even acknowledge them when they are inconvenient and even those he cites are superficial references at best. He brings nothing to the table other than anti-mormon propaganda that has become his new gospel and doctrine.

[_Bazooka]

Themis,
You are now inventing and attributing to me positions which I have not taken, possibly because you are afraid to read and respond to my "A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Why are you afraid to reply to my actual statements and examples? I provide plenty of scholarly examples. You say that you have taken decades to arrive at your current position. Too bad you didn't bother to read scholarly discussions of the issues, and instead simply uncritically took in the anti-Mormon position.
Bob

Bob,

I've read your article and then I prayed about it.
I didn't get the feeling that it was true.
So it can't be true, right?
(I'm being flippant. Your work seems considered and well researched. But you do seem to have avoided specific responses to some of Themis's questions. I have found Themis to be worth the effort of dialoging with)