Will back to using his Nomad alt at MAD

[Guest]

I'll continue for your sake though. The Bible calls faith evidence. I'm merely pointing out how that makes sense to me.

We all agree that in one place the Bible calls faith, evidence of things not seen. This of course does not make sense, so many members will think that it may not be translated correctly. Remember the church views the Bible as the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. I seem to have missed how it makes sense other then the Bible says it in Hebrews.

Faith is, at least to believers, given of God.

Although that has been said in more then one place, it to makes no real sense. Especially with LDS who belief the most important thing God gave was our agency. Not to mention that God is suppose to be fair, so why would he give faith in him to so few? It can't be for those who earn it first, becuase then it is not a gift but a choice they made. In reality faith is a choice everyone makes on many things. Some base it on very little, or events that are very subjective, while others may base it on beliefs that have more evidential support, and evidence that is more objective in nature.

It is made up of spiritual experience.

That's what I have been saying all along. Faith is based on the spiritual expereince. This is the evidence, or interpreted as evidence for ones faith(for which ever God, religion, etc).

When someone prays and determines that God hears and answers prayers, that is experience or evidence for that person that God is there.

I have been saying this all along as well.

It is not meant to be proof or knowledge. It is evidence.

Not proof, but certainly people consider it knowledge from God, and it is considered evidence for their God or their religion, etc. Funny how they don't agree very well.

It is one piece that supports the notion that there is a God who hears prayers. Does that mean the person could be mistaken? Sure. But that does not mean there is no evidence for individuals.

While I think I have very good reasons to think they have interpreted the experience incorrectly, I have always recognized that for them this is good evidence. I have stated many times that this is the basis for why people cannot accept good physical evidence against many beliefs they may hold, whether with LDS or other religions. The spiritual experience tends to have very powerful emotional components to them, and that can keep believing regardless of how much evidence there exists to the contrary. A global flood and Book of Abraham are good examples.

Other than that, I think critics pound their chest a little too hastily on some of the topics associated with the Church, like the Book of Abraham.

Not really. The critics have some of the most sound arguments backed by solid evidence regarding the Book of Abraham.

there is tons of information out there to help provide some evidence for the Book of Abraham.

LOL where? I have studied the issue a fair bit, and haven't seen any good evidence that the papyri ever had any Abraham story on it. We have all three facsimiles and they do not contain the story, even though two of them contain hieroglyphs. I wonder why people think hieroglyphs on some missing section would translate into an Abraham story when they don't on the facsimiles we do have.

And sure there is tons of information out there that makes it appear the Book of Abraham is something made up. The weighing of evidence may be individual, or may be based on one's stated position. Who knows? But this issue is filled with smoke and mirrors.

So if it is not so cut and dry, why do so many members stop believing over it, and why do so many who have maintained belief in the church, but have taken up the catalyst idea?

[_Themis]

Perhaps?

I respect and enjoy both of these people but have seen little from MM on this topic and have seen nothing from George on this topic (Did REALLY enjoy the contributions that Mr. Miller shared about the fascinating history of the Temple)

For me, Kevin's work and massive amount of knowledge in and around this topic, puts him very near the top of a very short list. (If not the very top)

I look forward to seeing the work of MM and George on this topic.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I am not sure there is anyone more hated at Mad then Kevin. I think it is partially due to him being a staunch defender of the church at one time. He certainly knows more then almost everyone on the topic.

[_Buffalo]

Perhaps?

I respect and enjoy both of these people but have seen little from MM on this topic and have seen nothing from George on this topic (Did REALLY enjoy the contributions that Mr. Miller shared about the fascinating history of the Temple)

For me, Kevin's work and massive amount of knowledge in and around this topic, puts him very near the top of a very short list. (If not the very top)

I look forward to seeing the work of MM and George on this topic.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I am not sure there is anyone more hated at Mad then Kevin. I think it is partially due to him being a staunch defender of the church at one time. He certainly knows more then almost everyone on the topic.

Part of it is he speaks very plainly, and doesn't shy away from calling liars liars. To stay there as a critic you have to walk on eggshells (of course as an apologist you can do as you please).

[_Fence Sitter]

Hey FS,



I respect and enjoy both of these people but have seen little from MM on this topic and have seen nothing from George on this topic (Did REALLY enjoy the contributions that Mr. Miller shared about the fascinating history of the Temple)

For me, Kevin's work and massive amount of knowledge in and around this topic, puts him very near the top of a very short list. (If not the very top)

I look forward to seeing the work of MM and George on this topic.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I agree with you on Kevin's involvement and extent of knowledge, from my limited uninformed view. I know that Mortal Man has been involved with Chris Smith working on determining how long the original scroll was from which the Book of Abraham was translated. Mortal Man's sense of humor alone makes his posts a must read. I believe he and Chris Smith have actually published a paper, which I have not read, on the scroll length.

George Miller would be in a much better position, obviously, to explain his involvement with the KEP but as I understand it he is working on a connection between EA/GAEL and the text of the Book of Abraham. He believes, and here is where I probably really butcher what he is trying to say, that Joseph Smith took the hieroglyphs and broke them down into parts, assigned each of these parts pronunciation and meanings which resulted in the first two verses of Abraham 1.