Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Author

[malkie]

Don Bradley's name caught my eye, so I'm responding only to your paragraph I quoted above. I can say with some confidence that you are wrong in what you say about Don.

Don had a great deal of capital here before he temporarily left Mormonism.

He retained that capital after he rejoined the church.

in my opinion, it's worthwhile to think about why that might be, and, by extension, why some others who have had various relationships with the church either have or have not established and/or retained capital here.

Why don't you enlighten me. Thanks.

Why don't you first provide compelling evidence for your statement?

[Ed1]

Why don't you enlighten me. Thanks.

Why don't you first provide compelling evidence for your statement?

Nice. No. Actually, I won't do that. You have shown yourself to be argumentative now on this point. I am not continuing with you. Thanks.

[malkie]

Why don't you first provide compelling evidence for your statement?

Nice. No. Actually, I won't do that. You have shown yourself to be argumentative now on this point. I am not continuing with you. Thanks.

a.k.a. Ed refusing to provide a basis for his statement.

I'm perfectly fine with you not "continuing" with me. Here is why:

1. You make a statement that is insulting to a member of the board
2. I tell you that you are wrong
3. You ask me to prove that you are wrong - attempting to shift the burden of proof to me
4. I point out that the burden rests with you
5. You call me argumentative and refuse further discussion

If you think that this is how to establish capital on a discussion board, I suggest that you have misunderstood how these things work.

[Ed1]

.

[Ed1]

Reading this thread and after looking at some of your stuff Ed, I must say you are one INTERESTING duck. Your voice along with others needs to be heard. Please don’t let the naysayers discourage you from exercising YOUR right to make your voice heard. For some folks your voice my lend itself towards a sort of bridge between what some might consider “childish” and that which is real. Whatever reality REALLY IS, is truth at its core. We see through a glass darkly. Discerning truth/reality is a lifelong process.

Any insights that help us see through that glass with a lesser degree of opaqueness is welcome. And yes, we all have certain biases that may either encourage greater exploration into those things that are spiritually discerned at their core or discourage us from taking these things seriously. That is a personal preference. But that shouldn’t discourage you from traveling the path you’re on and sharing your insights/research with others. I agree with you that die hard secularists are going to have a difficult time taking you seriously. But that may not be the actual audience you are really talking to.

Keep up your work.

When and through what publisher are you going to get your work out there? I think there are folks that will welcome your contributions to Mormon studies. Especially where it deals with the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon. Just remember that for your work to have real impact it needs to be understood and appreciated by both scholar AND layperson alike. And both need to know that your work is even out there to be had.

Best wishes,
MG

Thank you for what it is worth. This is encouraging. Better than Marcus' continual combativity.
Waking Lion Press owned by my friend Jack Lyon, who is a publisher. He is author of Moroni Code and a number of other books, and has a lot of connections.

My manuscript has been sent in for copyright, and Jack now has to present the finished manuscript with chapters, etc. before it comes out. So I will have to just see how long it takes for that process to be completed, since he is a busy man.

[Tator]

I yet again am leaving this place, and .....

Edone do you have a count on how many times you have said you were done?

[Ed1]

.

[Marcus]

That is absolutely incorrect. My beliefs had no basis in my analysis.

The fact that you think your critques are "logic based" is the point. There is no logic to your point. You only want to get away with stupid, nonsense criticisms.

if there’s no logic to my points, it will be simple to refute them logically. I haven’t seen that happen.

You don't get the point that this is both a list of pictograms, and at the same time actually says something in Egyptian. And that those pictograms have a secondary usage, and that ordering is based on what they say in Egyptian, not what they interpret to as far as numbers go as if a numerical ordering would have significance. There is no need for numerical ordering when it actually has to say someting in egyptian as well.

okay, but that doesn’t address my question.

You only care about being able to do an analysis that is like a hit and run driver. When an Egyptian jams crap together that has 2 separate purposes in two separate contexts, yes, those two contexts actually have an effect on each other for the end product. But all you care about is to do a drive by shooting type of analysis. Of course there are two hieroglyphs that are the same, because gramatically to actaully say something in Egyptian as well as have the numbers, the author had no choice. And the point of the repetition is not to add meaning or extra numbers, but to cause a coherent grammar in Egyptian. How would you, because you don't give a rip about technical issues.

Actually no, I am exactly asking about a technical issue with regard to this. I am specifically asking why you left one of the 13 symbols out of your analysis, which allowed you to conclude a 12 number result which you compared to a calendar. You gave no explanation for that, and definitely no grammatical explanation. If you’d like to explain that, I’m interested.

…You think that each and every pun has to match the puns from Ifrah. Not at all. There are all kinds of puns that are unique to many Egyptian documents, and the point of quoting and showing Ifrah's work is to point out the principle, not to establish the expectation that the puns that exist in the hypocephalus would match Ifrah's. He was just making a point with examples.

Okay. You spent a majority of your article explaining his puns as they relate to mostly numbers 1-15, but not only do not “each and every pun” match, but not one single pun from your arguments matches anything Ifrah wrote. That’s what I am asking about.

But of course you don't give a damn, because you are a drive by shooter and a hit and run driver. You have no concept of an actual critique any more than you would notice if a dog bit your butt. Because you are numb and ignorant to what is actually going on here. And your ignorance is manifest with every continual statement you make.

again, no. I am asking legitimate questions, and you are attacking, not me.

You are not a specialist in this area. I happen to be a specialist in what I have studied for years on this matter. You are not qualified to critique this.

no, I’m not a specialist. Your techniques, however, don’t match anything I’ve read in this area at all, so just stating you are a specialist isn’t sufficient. Can you answer the questions?

I'b be interested in hearing your basis for:

1) choosing to leave one of the 13 symbols out of your analysis, which allowed you to conclude a 12 number result which you compared to a calendar; and

2) why you referenced Ifrah so much, but ultimately not one of your 'puns' matched anything he documented as a pun, even for the same numbers.

Thanks.

If you’d rather not, fine. But please stop with the personal attacks.

[Shulem]

The New Name of DUMB Ed's thread:

.

[drumdude]

What is it with faithful Mormons deleting threads?


I have tons of threads that don't go the way I would like and they're still there for the world to see.