With regard to the $6,000 figure, help me understand something which I see as black or white. Isn’t there an equal chance that Quincy was given the wrong figure from someone in Joseph Smith’s party? Making the automatic assumption that Quincy was at fault doesn’t seem fair. He certainly could have been given the wrong figure from mother Smith or even Joseph Smith himself. It had been several years since the mummies were purchased and it could be that doubling the value was part of the discussion. So how does Bayesian factor that?
As a matter of speculation, I propose the idea that Smith was trying to royalize the mummies in order to increase their value for a possible resale. Perhaps even double the price of the original purchase. Certainly, the mummies would increase in value considerably if a potential buyer believed one of them was a king of Egypt. One might even think about purchasing them with the sole intention of reselling them for profit.
Could it be that Quincy was told one of the mummies was Necho for purposes of creating a more valuable product and spreading the word of that product? I’m just throwing that out there as speculation which doesn’t seem too farfetched.
Ryan?
That seems like a clever idea. But then the handwriting of Abraham would fall into that same category, which would mean that, even if Joseph said it in a moment of temptation, it could not be counted on to represent his actual claims about the papyrus.
There are multiple heavy hitting threads and arguments on this board showing that the scroll of Abraham was the handwriting of Abraham and the scroll of Joseph was the handwriting of Joseph who was the “better” scribe because his writing was neater. We have covered that in great depth on this board. The Latter-day Saints believed they had in their possession literal autographs of the Patriarchs. That was a universal belief in early Mormonism.
The name “Abraham” is found 21 times in the chapters of the Book of Abraham. Each time it’s written (21) that in and of itself is a signature because Abraham is the one who wrote it. So, while Smith presented the papyrus before Quincy there were no less than 21 opportunities to point out the very name of Abraham which was penned *BY* Abraham. Thus his signature. Like I said, I believe Josiah Quincy.
21 times! Add that to the bayesian interpretations.
With regard to the $6,000 figure, help me understand something which I see as black or white. Isn’t there an equal chance that Quincy was given the wrong figure from someone in Joseph Smith’s party? Making the automatic assumption that Quincy was at fault doesn’t seem fair. He certainly could have been given the wrong figure from mother Smith or even Joseph Smith himself. It had been several years since the mummies were purchased and it could be that doubling the value was part of the discussion. So how does Bayesian factor that?
As a matter of speculation, I propose the idea that Smith was trying to royalize the mummies in order to increase their value for a possible resale. Perhaps even double the price of the original purchase. Certainly, the mummies would increase in value considerably if a potential buyer believed one of them was a king of Egypt. One might even think about purchasing them with the sole intention of reselling them for profit.
Could it be that Quincy was told one of the mummies was Necho for purposes of creating a more valuable product and spreading the word of that product? I’m just throwing that out there as speculation which doesn’t seem too farfetched.
Ryan?
That seems like a clever idea.
It certainly seems fair whether clever or not. Why should we give Joseph Smith and his party a blank check for being accurate or mistake free? They are people and they make mistakes too. It is not fair to even suggest that Smith or members of his party could not have lied or made mistakes.
And what I know about Joseph Smith -- well, he was a liar.
It’s not a problem. I know you were frustrated, and it’s okay to be frustrated.
I’m relieved to hear that. You see, I recently had a run in with Ed Goble here on this board and it happened up here in the Celestial Forum and was dragged down to Terrestrial where things got a bit nasty and I got nasty too. So, I’ve been on edge as of late and multi-tasking and running around.
I hope we can be friends. Welcome to the Celestial Board. Up here we are supposed to be on our best behavior. It’s not my interest to put anyone down or make them feel bad, not here in Celestial. I can go down to the lower board and do that if I have that need. I trust you’ll allow me to be open and frank about how I feel Joseph Smith was deceptive and it’s sometimes hard to express that without being offensive. But with that said, to this day, I totally forgive Joseph Smith for all his faults and deception and hold no grudges against him anymore.
Check back as often as you like and take things at your own pace. You will not be hassled up here in the Celestial and we will not gang up on you, per se. I apologize for yelling at you with those capital letters in the previous post. I was still upset about the Ed Gobble thing and it rubbed off in this thread.
PS. I went back and edited the supersized font to regular sized font.
Shulem, how would Joseph have known the name Necho if it had not appeared on the seer stone? Also, why did the name Necho not appear in the Book of the Dead or Breathings scrolls that came with the mummies?
I would be interested in seeing your Bayesian analysis, could you post more details? I didn't see any probabilities, priors or otherwise, equations or any discussion of your bayesian analysis in the link in the OP.
I don’t rely on it personally, so I’m more interested in the direction of Bayesian movement. Does that make sense?
Not really, can you explain more?
I have my own intuitive framing of things, but I know BYP and others are into Bayesian modeling, and I’m interested in their ideas on it.
Okay, but several times in this thread, you referred pretty specifically to having used Bayesian analysis to support your paper. Are you saying now that you did not actually do such an analysis? Were you using the terms in a different way?
Shulem, how would Joseph have known the name Necho if it had not appeared on the seer stone? Also, why did the name Necho not appear in the Book of the Dead or Breathings scrolls that came with the mummies?
Moksha,
Pharaoh Necho is mentioned by NAME 4 times in the King James Bible. Therein we learn that the archers of king Necho injured king Josiah at the battle of Megiddo in 609 BC in which the king of Judah was taken home to Jerusalem to die. Joseph Smith was well aware of king Josiah and his fate. That is a main staple of the Old Testament especially since Josiah was a particularly righteous king who ever walked in the ways of David. Nobody need a seer stone to read about Necho in the Bible.
Necho is not included in the papyri purchased by the Latter-day Saints.
It’s not a problem. I know you were frustrated, and it’s okay to be frustrated.
I’m relieved to hear that. You see, I recently had a run in with Ed Goble here on this board and it happened up here in the Celestial Forum and was dragged down to Terrestrial where things got a bit nasty and I got nasty too. So, I’ve been on edge as of late and multi-tasking and running around.
I hope we can be friends. Welcome to the Celestial Board. Up here we are supposed to be on our best behavior. It’s not my interest to put anyone down or make them feel bad, not here in Celestial. I can go down to the lower board and do that if I have that need. I trust you’ll allow me to be open and frank about how I feel Joseph Smith was deceptive and it’s sometimes hard to express that without being offensive. But with that said, to this day, I totally forgive Joseph Smith for all his faults and deception and hold no grudges against him anymore.
Check back as often as you like and take things at your own pace. You will not be hassled up here in the Celestial and we will not gang up on you, per se. I apologize for yelling at you with those capital letters in the previous post. I was still upset about the Ed Gobble thing and it rubbed off in this thread.
PS. I went back and edited the supersized font to regular sized font.
I’m really grateful to hear this. I think we can get along just fine, and I do understand the topics involved can get heated.
Siblings fight but usually end up growing closer in the long run because they’ve seen each other at their best and worst. And that’s okay. I appreciate that you are authentic and I look forward to discussing the issues.
I don’t rely on it personally, so I’m more interested in the direction of Bayesian movement. Does that make sense?
Not really, can you explain more?
I have my own intuitive framing of things, but I know BYP and others are into Bayesian modeling, and I’m interested in their ideas on it.
Okay, but several times in this thread, you referred pretty specifically to having used Bayesian analysis to support your paper. Are you saying now that you did not actually do such an analysis? Were you using the terms in a different way?
Perhaps you read more into what I said than what I actually said? Would you be willing to find one of the statements I made which you evidently interpret as contradicting what I said above?
Not really, can you explain more? Okay, but several times in this thread, you referred pretty specifically to having used Bayesian analysis to support your paper. Are you saying now that you did not actually do such an analysis? Were you using the terms in a different way?
Perhaps you read more into what I said than what I actually said? Would you be willing to find one of the statements I made which you evidently interpret as contradicting what I said above?
...and explain why, from a Bayesian view, it's not as reliable as we might have expected....
Using Bayesian analysis, whether you do it quantitatively or qualitatively, implies a specific methodology. We've discussed its usefulness in the social sciences a number of times in this forum, if you'd like to search and read some examples.
In this thread, you've used the terms several times but I haven't seen any actual analysis to back up your conclusions. It's not a given that simply adding information or interpretation is sufficient to support a conclusion that your posterior probability has moved in a direction that supports your theses, or even that the probability you are considering is relevant to the overall picture. That's why you need to show that your conclusion is supported with your specific analysis.
