O Come O Come Emmanuel

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by Marcus »

KevinSim wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:40 pm
..If someone really wants to know the truth (about the Book of Abraham, about the LDS Church in general, or for that matter about anything controversial) then that someone needs to set up a forum and get enough people involved in that forum that the LDS Church (or whatever organization is involved) feels motivated to make its best case regarding the matter. Only after an open ended debate of the matter has resolved itself can that someone (or any of the rest of us for that matter) have any degree of confidence that we really know the truth….

…I still maintain that the way to find out the truth on such matters is via that forum….
I agree with Chap on this, but, for argument’s sake, let’s try it on something “controversial,” to use KS’s definition of the word:
..If someone really wants to know the truth [about cold fusion] then that someone needs to set up a forum and get enough people involved in that forum that the [cold fusion proponent group] feels motivated to make its best case regarding the matter. Only after an open ended debate of the matter has resolved itself can that someone (or any of the rest of us for that matter) have any degree of confidence that we really know the truth….

…I still maintain that the way to find out the truth on such matters is via that forum….
No, it doesn’t take a forum and “debate,” at least not the way KS “debates”, it takes careful analysis of the data available, and open availability of the results.

Adjudicating such claims demands a community of researchers that is united in the spirit of inquiry, despite disagreements about evidence or interpretation. Cold fusion showed us the dangers of polarization, the distorting influence of commercial interests and the importance of being open about methods, data and mistakes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01673-x

For some, cold fusion represented a classic example of pathological science. This term was coined in the 1950s to describe a striking claim that conflicts with previous experience, that is based on effects that are difficult to detect and that is defended against criticism by ad hoc excuses. In this view, cold fusion joins an insalubrious list that includes the N-rays of 1903, the polywater affair of the late 1960s and the memory of water episode of the late 1980s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01673-x
Some additional details from the same article about the cold fusion story provide some interesting and very applicable background:

Although often held up as a textbook case of science’s self-correcting capacity, the cold-fusion episode is instructive for how it brought out both the best and worst in scientists.

We should not too quickly judge, and thereby alienate, scientists who make controversial claims. The ridicule that was sometimes directed at Fleischmann and Pons was bound to make them double down. When researchers turn out to have been mistaken, they must be allowed a way back without disgrace. Nor should the science under scrutiny be reflexively regarded as being pathological. Some assertions at the time, along the lines of “I knew it was nonsense,” scarcely exhibited the openness to surprise on which science depends.

Yet the architects of cold fusion were their own worst enemies. Fleischmann launched ad hominem attacks on his critics; he and Pons were obstructive about their methods. The ill-advised, short-lived attempt by their university to capitalize on cold fusion made matters worse. Some researchers faced unconscionable legal threats for simply trying to do good science. The discipline-led triumphalism — with chemists claiming to have achieved in a cheap test tube what physicists failed to do with high-tech equipment — was trite and divisive. Without a tolerant and collaborative spirit, feelings can rapidly sour.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01673-x
A familiar story, no? “Pathological science” seems like a pretty good term to use when discussing mopologist attempts to assert that the Book of Mormon is a historical document, or similar claims about the Book of Abraham.
KevinSim
Bishop
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 1:09 am

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by KevinSim »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:08 pm
KevinSim wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:40 pm
Back in 1999, and then again in 2003, I was on the verge of setting up such a forum myself, but each time when my wife found out about it she was terrified, so much that she got me to promise her I wouldn't do it, and I intend to keep those promises. But I still maintain that the way to find out the truth on such matters is via that forum. My promises to my wife are more important to me then finding out the truth that way. How about you, Doc?
How about me what?
Is there anything more important to you than finding out the truth?
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Also, you should watch the videos.
Why is that, Doc?
Frankly, I'm just tired of the back and forth, back and forth, that I mentioned in my last post. Critics criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a long time passes, the Church responds to the criticism, critics respond to that response, another long time passes, the Church responds to that response, and on and on endlessly. There's got to be a better way to find out the truth about things concerning God.
KevinSim
Bishop
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 1:09 am

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by KevinSim »

Chap wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:27 pm
KevinSim wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:40 pm
If someone really wants to know the truth (about the Book of Abraham [...] then that someone needs to set up a forum and get enough people involved in that forum that the LDS Church (or whatever organization is involved) feels motivated to make its best case regarding the matter.
There, I regret to have to say, I disagree with you.
That's fine, Chap. You have a right to disagree with me.
Chap wrote:There used to be an ExMormon poster on this board, who once coined the immortal saying "The Mormon religion isn't just not true, it's obviously not true".
Different things are obvious to different people. To many people on this forum it's obvious that there is no God. To me it's obvious that there is one.
Chap wrote:I suspect, however, that any reasonable person accustomed to weighing historical evidence, and who was not brought up in the Mormon religion by their parents, has only to read a neutral factual account of the origins and nature of the piece of 19th century English prose known as "The Book of Abraham" to realise that it is simply not worth spending time on any further investigation of whether it is what it purports to be.
Is there a neutral factual account of those origins and that nature? It's because I sincerely doubt the existence of such a neutral account that I suggest the creation of a neutral forum to produce such an account.
KevinSim
Bishop
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 1:09 am

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by KevinSim »

Marcus wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:50 pm
A familiar story, no? “Pathological science” seems like a pretty good term to use when discussing mopologist attempts to assert that the Book of Mormon is a historical document, or similar claims about the Book of Abraham.
And that would be a real tragedy, to have a rigorously fair debate about the merits of cold fusion?
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by Marcus »

KevinSim wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:25 pm
Marcus wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:50 pm
A familiar story, no? “Pathological science” seems like a pretty good term to use when discussing mopologist attempts to assert that the Book of Mormon is a historical document, or similar claims about the Book of Abraham.
And that would be a real tragedy, to have a rigorously fair debate about the merits of cold fusion?
….By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9]

In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion.

A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]

Presently, since articles about cold fusion are rarely published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, they do not attract the level of scrutiny expected for mainstream scientific publications.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8981
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

We need to have a neutral discussion about the Flat Earth theory. A neutral forum needs to be set up, where we can hear all sides and really mull the issue over, and then hopefully after that the National Academy Sciences can make a determination whether or not the earth is flat or not. Until then, we can never really know.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by Marcus »

KevinSim wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:11 pm
Chap wrote:I suspect, however, that any reasonable person accustomed to weighing historical evidence, and who was not brought up in the Mormon religion by their parents, has only to read a neutral factual account of the origins and nature of the piece of 19th century English prose known as "The Book of Abraham" to realise that it is simply not worth spending time on any further investigation of whether it is what it purports to be.
Is there a neutral factual account of those origins and that nature? ….
Dr. Shaffhausen? Paging Dr. Emil Shaffhausen?Image

No wait, we’ve got somebody even better… Shulem! Paging Shulem!
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by Chap »

Chap wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:27 pm
I suspect, however, that any reasonable person accustomed to weighing historical evidence, and who was not brought up in the Mormon religion by their parents, has only to read a neutral factual account of the origins and nature of the piece of 19th century English prose known as "The Book of Abraham" to realise that it is simply not worth spending time on any further investigation of whether it is what it purports to be. Historians of folk religion in early 19th century America will no doubt find this text of interest but they are a fairly limited group.
KevinSim wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:11 pm
Is there a neutral factual account of those origins and that nature? It's because I sincerely doubt the existence of such a neutral account that I suggest the creation of a neutral forum to produce such an account.
No-one disputes that Joseph Smith, a person of little education and convicted 'glass looker' from upper-state New York who claimed to have had visions of divinities and been given direct revelations from those entities, bought some Egyptian mummies from a travelling showman, and hence obtained some funerary papyri that accompanied them. Then, although he had never studied ancient Egyptian as a language, or its hieroglyphic writing system, he produced a text which purported to be a translation of the writing on some of those papyri, accompanied by various study aids. He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to ancient Egyptian. The most detailed Egyptological study of the question is that of the late Robert Ritner, and it comes to the same conclusions as his predecessors, but argued in greater detail and at full length.

I think you would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
KevinSim
Bishop
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 1:09 am

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by KevinSim »

Chap wrote:
Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:19 pm
Chap wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:27 pm
I suspect, however, that any reasonable person accustomed to weighing historical evidence, and who was not brought up in the Mormon religion by their parents, has only to read a neutral factual account of the origins and nature of the piece of 19th century English prose known as "The Book of Abraham" to realise that it is simply not worth spending time on any further investigation of whether it is what it purports to be. Historians of folk religion in early 19th century America will no doubt find this text of interest but they are a fairly limited group.
KevinSim wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:11 pm
Is there a neutral factual account of those origins and that nature? It's because I sincerely doubt the existence of such a neutral account that I suggest the creation of a neutral forum to produce such an account.
No-one disputes that Joseph Smith, a person of little education and convicted 'glass looker' from upper-state New York who claimed to have had visions of divinities and been given direct revelations from those entities, bought some Egyptian mummies from a travelling showman, and hence obtained some funerary papyri that accompanied them. Then, although he had never studied ancient Egyptian as a language, or its hieroglyphic writing system, he produced a text which purported to be a translation of the writing on some of those papyri, accompanied by various study aids. He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to ancient Egyptian. The most detailed Egyptological study of the question is that of the late Robert Ritner, and it comes to the same conclusions as his predecessors, but argued in greater detail and at full length.

I think you would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Chap, I can't agree with that until I understand what you're saying. You said the Egyptologists made plain their view that none of the material Smith produced beared any relation to ancient Egyptian. Well, of course it bore no relation to ancient Egyptian. What Smith produced was English, not ancient Egyptian.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel

Post by Chap »

KevinSim wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:28 am
Chap, I can't agree with that until I understand what you're saying. You said the Egyptologists made plain their view that none of the material Smith produced beared any relation to ancient Egyptian. Well, of course it bore no relation to ancient Egyptian. What Smith produced was English, not ancient Egyptian.
OK, rephrased to clarify (bold text is modified):

"No-one disputes that Joseph Smith, a person of little education and convicted 'glass looker' from upper-state New York who claimed to have had visions of divinities and been given direct revelations from those entities, bought some Egyptian mummies from a travelling showman, and hence obtained some funerary papyri that accompanied them. Then, although he had never studied ancient Egyptian as a language, or its hieroglyphic writing system, he produced a text which purported to be a translation of the writing on some of those papyri, accompanied by various study aids. He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to an ancient Egyptian original text. The most detailed Egyptological study of the question is that of the late Robert Ritner, and it comes to the same conclusions as his predecessors, but argued in greater detail and at full length."

As for your last sentence, Smith did indeed produce a work that purported to explain the ancient Egyptian language at some length and with copious examples. See his:

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, circa July–circa November 1835

in the Joseph Smith Papers. A specimen is shown here:
11 ✦
✦ This character shown dissected

✦36 Kiah brah oam.37 Coming down from the beginning— right by birth— and also by blessing, and by promise— promises made; a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the com mandment of God; a patriarch; a rightful heir; a high priest.38
✦ [3.15]39 Iota nitahveh ah que.40 Its signification is increased five times from the fourth.41
✦ [1.1]42 Ah lish43 The first Being— supreme intillegence; supreme power; supreme glory= supreme Justice; supreme mercy without begining of life or end of life comprehending all things, seeing all things: the invisible and eter[n]al godhead.
✦ [1.2] Phah eh. The first man, or Adam coming from Adam. Keys44 or right over Patriarchal right by appointment.
✦ [1.3] Phaah.45 The Largest riegn, the greatest dominion, possessions or power.
✦ ✦ [1.4a, b] Phah ho e oop—46 A king who has universal
✦47 dominion, over all the earth.
✦ [1.5] Ho oop hah48 Queen Kah tou mun,49 a distinction of of Royal <​female​> lineage or descent, from
[p. 3]
5th D
her whom Egypt was discovered while it was under water, who was the daughter of Ham.— a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by the tradition of Ham and accordding to the tradition of their elders; by who<​m​> also the tradition of the art of embalming in was kept.
A few years ago, I took the trouble to study an introductory text on Middle Egyptian and the hieroglyphic writing system, which took me to the level where I could read fairly standard tomb inscriptions, and a few other easy texts (I am out of practice now). What I learned then confirmed – if any confirmation were needed – that the Egyptologists who dismiss Smith's "Egyptian" as nonsense are correct.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Post Reply