For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Polygamy-Porter]

There is sure a lot of ganging-up going on here.

Good job guys!

Simon, your persecution complex has no bearing here on this board.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I challenge Simon to prove the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham without using self induced emotional epiphanies, a.k.a. warm fuzzies.

Nothing can be proven, Polygam-Porter. All we have is evidence which draws us to a conclusion. So, what you are asking is just as impossible as what I am asking: prove that it the Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham.

You and your church have zero evidence which supports the Book of Abraham as an authentic translation of Egyptian papyrus.

Proving Mormon factual claims to the secular world will always be futile because feelings fail in the face of facts --at least in the real world.

Which is why I do not accept that you "feel" duped by the Church.

in my opinion, you are duping your children. When are they allowed to make a choice about membership in the church of their father?

[_marg]

Simon, I can't post right now because I've been drinking alcohol and board rules prohibit me from posting while drinking within 24 hours -- give or take a few hours -- Dr. Shades don't know any better.

So, sorry I can't reply, let alone read the posts effectively without slurring. But, I sure feel good! Got that warm burning in my bosom from the sweet white wine. That's better than holy ghost! Try it you'll like it.

Paul O

So Paul tell me what this "special feeling" is which some Mormons claim to have. Are they B.S'ing? If not, is it like drinking alcohol, drugs, sex..what are they talking about?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Simon,

A couple of things.

First, because several people share a similar opinion does not mean they are "ganging up." It just means that we have arrived at a similar conclusion.

Secondly,

Okay, but Aristotle Smith said it was okay to appeal to expertise. Nibley knew a lot of stuff, you cannot deny that. Therefore when he publishes something, we must at least accept that he has done the minimal amount of research necessary to include it in his publication.

Did HN know a lot of stuff. Yep. Did he make up stuff, misinterpret stuff, claim stuff that was not true, and make a mess of all sorts of stuff? YEP!

At one time, as a TBM, I was a huge fan of Nibley. I read many of his books, trusted him, and was quite a fan... until I started questioning some of his "facts." As a teenager at BYU I recall coming across some "facts," that I was pretty sure were incorrect... looked them up and lo and behold, NIBLEY was way off. This happened numerous times. There were some occasions where he was flat out wrong, and others where he took a real fact and misconstrued it so badly that it was a blatant misrepresentation (trying to be nice here), but supported the church. This happened over and over.

It wasn't until many years later that I realized the scholarly world did not hold Nibley's work in high esteem, that even honest apologists recognized (and admit), his lack of, shall we say, "care," when it comes to his scholarly writings. It is a given that he was brilliant, but most certainly he is NOT trustworthy when it comes to his "stuff."

I would invite you to provide some sort of evidence to support Nibley's claim regarding Anubis then we can have a real discussion on the topic. :-)

Just keeping it real,

~td~

Paul, my dear friend.... we need you. Stop drinking and come up for air! :-)

[_Simon Belmont]

in my opinion, you are duping your children. When are they allowed to make a choice about membership in the church of their father?

They are always allowed. I suspect they will go along with what their parents teach them until a certain age (this does not harm them at all).

[_Aristotle Smith]

Okay, but Aristotle Smith said it was okay to appeal to expertise. Nibley knew a lot of stuff, you cannot deny that. Therefore when he publishes something, we must at least accept that he has done the minimal amount of research necessary to include it in his publication.

Yes Simon, you may appeal to Nibley as an expert. However, your comments thus far have shown that you don't really understand what the actual issues are and what Nibley was saying.

I'll repeat just one point again. Part of Paul's argument is that the explanation of the iconography on Fac #3 is just wrong. Nibley cites a German dissertation talking about how pictures similar to Fac #3 can tell different stories. This doesn't actually address the issue, because it doesn't say anything about the iconography. So yes, cite Nibley as an expert, he knows that pictures similar to Fac #3 can tell different stories, but this doesn't address the issue of the iconography.

Let me make this as clear as I can. In the following picture the iconography is stable, it is a picture of Mary with baby Jesus.



However, it can be used to tell two different stories. One is found in Luke 2, the other in Matthew 2. However, Matthew 2 and Luke 2 are completely different. Same iconography, different stories. What Joseph Smith did was the equivalent of saying the picture is of Lady GaGa holding the baby Elvis. You simply can't make the iconography do that. That you can tell different stories with the same picture is irrelevant.

[_Fionn]

(this does not harm them at all).

How can you make such a claim with a straight face? Absolute statements such as this are doomed to fail. They are fallacies. How can you possibly account for the experiences of every single human being involved in such a situation?

But more to the point, who are you to question the subjective experience of others?

[_Simon Belmont]

But more to the point, who are you to question the subjective experience of others?

Um... they are my children. I know when they are being harmed.

I fail to see how the Church harms anyone. If you can show that it does, I will hear you, but until then it is simply a Church.

Does your child's public education harm him or her?

[_Fionn]

Um... they are my children. I know when they are being harmed.

And what metric do you use to quantify such knowledge? Further, what methodology do you use to then extrapolate that knowledge from your own children out to all children?

I fail to see how the Church harms anyone. If you can show that it does, I will hear you, but until then it is simply a Church.

I will have to address this in a separate post. Obviously, I can only speak to my own experience. But somehow, I suspect no matter what I say about how I, personally, was harmed by some (correlated) teachings of the Mormon Church, you will dismiss it and tell me it's my fault for feeling harmed.

Does your child's public education harm him or her?

It most certain could. I am an atheistic agnostic. My child attends a parochial school. I pay very close attention to the religious teachings promulgated by his school. The vast majority of the time, I have no issue with what is taught. But there have already been occasions where we have had to sit down and discuss certain things so that he understands that there are alternative points of view in this world and what he is being taught at school is but one of those viewpoints.

Is this harmful? The potential is certainly there. My job, as his parent, is to ameliorate any potential harm I see coming from those exclusive teachings.

For me personally, attending a predominantly Mormon public school in a predominantly Mormon area and as one of the few local jack Mormons in that area, I can tell you that there were times where I did feel harmed. Both by teachings and by people. In my educational life as a minor child, Mormonism was strongly commingled with my public education.

At any rate, whatever "harm" people believe they have experienced would necessarily be a subjective and personal definition. For you to insist that I was never harmed is ludicrous. You cannot possibly know such a thing. You merely believe it to be true because it confirms your own needed bias.

[_Simon Belmont]

And what metric do you use to quantify such knowledge? Further, what methodology do you use to then extrapolate that knowledge from your own children out to all children?

What metric do you use to determine whether the Church is harmful?

I will have to address this in a separate post. Obviously, I can only speak to my own experience. But somehow, I suspect no matter what I say about how I, personally, was harmed by some (correlated) teachings of the Mormon Church, you will dismiss it and tell me it's my fault for feeling harmed.

I will indeed dismiss it. You are responsible for your choices, and for your life. It is an act of cowardice to blame another person or an organization because your life did not happen the way you expected it to. We are all responsible for ourselves, and we need to own that responsibility.

I am an atheistic agnostic.

There is no such thing.

The vast majority of the time, I have no issue with what is taught. But there have already been occasions where we have had to sit down and discuss certain things so that he understands that there are alternative points of view in this world and what he is being taught at school is but one of those viewpoints.

How do you know he even cares?

Is this harmful? The potential is certainly there. My job, as his parent, is to ameliorate any potential harm I see coming from those exclusive teachings.

Why is it harmful to teach about a loving father in heaven, etc.?

For me personally, attending a predominantly Mormon public school in a predominantly Mormon area and as one of the few local jack Mormons in that area, I can tell you that there were times where I did feel harmed. Both by teachings and by people. In my educational life as a minor child, Mormonism was strongly commingled with my public education.

Harmful by people is not the same as harmful by an organization.