I question the right of one to engage in a discussion about Egyptology who has never been required to defend a dissertation in the area.
The discussions are not usually about Egyptology. The critical issue regarding the veracity of the Book of Abraham has more to do with the KEP and what they represent. Ed Ashment had personal hands-on access to these documents when Gee was just an undergrad student. The Church paid him to analyze them, and his findings were not what they had hoped.
So after losing faith in the Church he probably lost interest in pursuing a doctorate in Egyptology. I don’t know this for a fact, but it is more plausible that the scenario you are trying to conjure up, which implies that maybe he wasn’t smart enough to get one.
I automatically discount his/her qualifications.
Then you must also disqualify Joseph Smith.
Ooops… time for another double-standard. Quick, think of something witty.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
I would trust what a James Charlesworth would have to say automatically over what a James White would say
And therein is your problem. You want the fast-food version of deductive reasoning. You want an automatic conclusion by using the process of elimination. You don’t want to bother yourself with the facts. I never said one should “automatically” accept either of them. What you should do is familiarize yourself with the debacle, and listen to both sides from each participant. You are then expected to deduce from this which is most likely correct. That is why God gave you a brain.
The problem I have with you and FARMS is that you are all about shutting down the other side. These silly book reviews at FARMS are aimed at one purpose, and that is to ensure the readers that they should feel NO REASON whatsoever to read these books.
They do not want you to read anti-Mormon books, not because the devil is really in them, but because they contain facts that are not presented by the Church. This makes the Church look bad for neglecting to share these things. You guys do not support full disclosure in any sense. You want to control the environment of your students, and dictate what they should and should not read, the same way missionaries have to control the environment before they can begin a discussion.
At least you are practicing what you preach.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
I question the right of one to engage in a discussion about Egyptology who has never been required to defend a dissertation in the area.
The discussions are not usually about Egyptology. The critical issue regarding the veracity of the Book of Abraham has more to do with the KEP and what they represent. Ed Ashment had personal hands-on access to these documents when Gee was just an undergrad student. The Church paid him to analyze them, and his findings were not what they had hoped.
So after losing faith in the Church he probably lost interest in pursuing a doctorate in Egyptology. I don’t know this for a fact, but it is more plausible that the scenario you are trying to conjure up, which implies that maybe he wasn’t smart enough to get one.
I automatically discount his/her qualifications.
Then you must also disqualify Joseph Smith.
Ooops… time for another double-standard. Quick, think of something witty.
Whether God and His Prophet are qualified as Egyptologists is one thing. I'll leave it to Him.
Whether you qualify as an Egyptologist or a rhetorician is a completely different matter.
dartagnan wrote:Well, obviously my choice of words has everything to do with the fact that Bob calls virtually everyone on this board a coward.
I think the preference of ad hominem over dealing with arguments (I.e. I don't have to deal with that person's arguments because he sells insurance!) is just as cowardly as posting with a pseudonym.
You confuse an ad hominem with a challenge to one's credentials. I question the right of one to engage in a discussion about Egyptology who has never been required to defend a dissertation in the area. I automatically discount his/her qualifications. The reason for this is that in such a technical field, I lack the qualifications.
For that reason, I would trust what a James Charlesworth would have to say automatically over what a James White would say -- principally because the former has defended a dissertation from a credible university and the latter has not. To not understand the distinction between an ad hominem and a challenge to one's qualifications to speak on a subject is demonstrable weakness, my friend.
rcrocket
you don't need a PHD in chemistry to tell someone at the local tasty freeze that he is putting automobile oil on your sundae and not chocolate sryup.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I would trust what a James Charlesworth would have to say automatically over what a James White would say
And therein is your problem. You want the fast-food version of deductive reasoning. You want an automatic conclusion by using the process of elimination. You don’t want to bother yourself with the facts. I never said one should “automatically” accept either of them. What you should do is familiarize yourself with the debacle, and listen to both sides from each participant. You are then expected to deduce from this which is most likely correct. That is why God gave you a brain.
The problem I have with you and FARMS is that you are all about shutting down the other side. These silly book reviews at FARMS are aimed at one purpose, and that is to ensure the readers that they should feel NO REASON whatsoever to read these books.
They do not want you to read anti-Mormon books, not because the devil is really in them, but because they contain facts that are not presented by the Church. This makes the Church look bad for neglecting to share these things. You guys do not support full disclosure in any sense. You want to control the environment of your students, and dictate what they should and should not read, the same way missionaries have to control the environment before they can begin a discussion.
At least you are practicing what you preach.
There you go with "you guys" and "you". I am not FARMS. I have only published in FARMS, reviews of two different books. I don't even possess those books because two Sundays ago a non-member asked to read the books I had reviewed, and I parted with them.
In particular, which book review at FARMS should I look at for an example of being told not to read a book because the book "contains acts that are not presented by the Church?" Give me your very best example.
Whether God and His Prophet are qualified as Egyptologists is one thing.
So credentials only mean something when they work in favor of the Church. That’s convenient. After all, Robert Ritner is far more credentialed than Gee or Nibley. But in this case it isn’t credentials that matter; its bias and attitude right? The goal posts are always moving back.
Joseph Smith had credentials to do nothing except dig for treasure. When the credentialed experts refute the apologists, aren’t you supposed to appeal to the canard about the “arm of the flesh vs. the arm of the spirit”? Don;’t you know LDS scripture and the LDS tradition teaches us to reject the reasoning of men and prefer whatever the Church says?
Isn’t this the real reason behind your rejection of critical conclusions?
Don’t be a coward now, just fess up.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
thestyleguy wrote: you don't need a PHD in chemistry to tell someone at the local tasty freeze that he is putting automobile oil on your sundae and not chocolate sryup.
And, it doesn't take technical expertise to make that distinction.
But, it takes technical expertise to date a parchment.
thestyleguy wrote: you don't need a PHD in chemistry to tell someone at the local tasty freeze that he is putting automobile oil on your sundae and not chocolate sryup.
And, it doesn't take technical expertise to make that distinction.
But, it takes technical expertise to date a parchment.
Is there any debate as to the date of the parchment or its translation?
thestyleguy wrote: you don't need a PHD in chemistry to tell someone at the local tasty freeze that he is putting automobile oil on your sundae and not chocolate sryup.
And, it doesn't take technical expertise to make that distinction.
But, it takes technical expertise to date a parchment.
You are a Bishop so I am sure you will let us see your advanced degree from a Theological Seminary.
Whether God and His Prophet are qualified as Egyptologists is one thing.
So credentials only mean something when they work in favor of the Church. That’s convenient. After all, Robert Ritner is far more credentialed than Gee or Nibley. But in this case it isn’t credentials that matter; its bias and attitude right? The goal posts are always moving back.
Joseph Smith had credentials to do nothing except dig for treasure. When the credentialed experts refute the apologists, aren’t you supposed to appeal to the canard about the “arm of the flesh vs. the arm of the spirit”? Don;’t you know LDS scripture and the LDS tradition teaches us to reject the reasoning of men and prefer whatever the Church says?
Isn’t this the real reason behind your rejection of critical conclusions?
Don’t be a coward now, just fess up.
Ritner: I respect his conclusions and value them. I don't know anything about moving goal posts.
I don't think Noah was credentialed to build a boat or Mohammed to lead an army. But God was.