Marg....What Faith IS!

[_marg]

This seems to be where you are running afoul of the whole thing. I presented no argument, whatsoever, in favor of the the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon. I was asked to express what I believed; that's it and that's all I expressed. I did not attempt to convince anyone else to adopt my own conclusions.

Ok replace the word argument with your opinion or beliefs. You offered your theory because you did accept Egyptologist's translation of the papyri and you appreciated that their findings would lead one to conclude Smith was lying. Hence you invoked magic to explain the evidence away. As I said already my opinion of what you did, involved some subjective assessment. I don't believe that you truly believe that theory. I think you throw it out for apologetic purposes and it apparently flies with the people you normally throw it out to. Perhaps you've even picked it up from apologetics you've heard or read.

I'm not sure how that makes me "dishonest" (to honestly express my personal belief), but I do take exception to your repeated statements essentially calling me a liar.

That is my opinion Tim, even though I appreciate why you would take exception. If there is one thing I have learned over the 10 + years of reading message boards and investigating Mormonism and I don't often express this because Mormons in particular would be indignant, it seems that lying is pervasive within Mormonism. It was initially build upon lies and I find in general while Mormons get indignant about anyone suggesting that they are dishonest or are lying, they on the other hand don't seem to be bothered that authority in the church who lie or have lied. And I think the main reason for this, is that to defend Mormonism requires secrets, lies and distortions of truth. It's the nature of the beast of Mormonism.

When one is brought up in an environment in which one doesn't have to believe what authority dictates, when one is free to explore and question, when one is free objectively evaluate ...then telling the truth, being objective, being honest..is easy. There is no need to play games.

You happened to be the focus at the time, and many people in that thread were expressing how great it was that you openly admitted you hold your beliefs based upon your faith. So yes you are honest about having religiously based faith beliefs, but beyond that your explanation for the Book of Abraham wasn't intellectually honest. And in my opinion I don't believe that your theory was even something that you believe.

[_JAK]

Post Reference

Nightlion stated:
I think there is a case for faith to trump what is evident and rational.

Such “a case” has not been made. The very computer on which you access this bb is a triumph of applied science. It’s a result of reasoning and evidence applied.

Every religious denomination, sect, or cult regards its faith as superior. Each regards its "faith" as superior to other faiths, and each generally regards it as superior to “rational” thinking especially when that rational thinking runs contrary to doctrines of specific doctrines of their faith.

No “case” has been made by any one of these hundreds if not thousands of “faith(s)” that it trumps “what is evident and rational.”

JAK

[_ttribe]

And in my opinion I don't believe that your theory was even something that you believe.

With respect, ma'am, this statement is the height of hubris. I was asked my belief. I stated my belief. For you to accuse me of dishonesty is absurd. Frankly, I don't care whether you accept my expression of belief as "reasonable" or not. Such is the lot of any who expresses faith to the faithless. But, for you to outright state that I am a liar is unacceptable and without foundation. It's speculation on your part, and irresponsible speculation at that; especially given the fact that (I presume) you and I have never met.

[_Nimrod]

This seems to be where you are running afoul of the whole thing. I presented no argument, whatsoever, in favor of the the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon. I was asked to express what I believed; that's it and that's all I expressed. I did not attempt to convince anyone else to adopt my own conclusions.

I'm not sure how that makes me "dishonest" (to honestly express my personal belief), but I do take exception to your repeated statements essentially calling me a liar.

- Tim

I don't think it is dishonest to believe what cannot be explained rationally. There are aspects to the human experience beyond what is academic. For example, there are emotional and social aspects. I suspect that ttribe's beliefs include an element expressed repeatedly by Gazelem--God will explain all things in due time.

On the other hand, I think it is dishonest for some apologists to use sophistry and pass it off as rational explanations of that which is not explainable. E.g., DCP. Or others to claim that they are working on but not yet ready to roll out the big breakthroughs that will stifle critics. E.g., Will Schryver and the ever promised apologetic for the BoAbr. Or to dodge the crux of legitimate questions, with a pithy deflection. E.g., many.

I think the premise of MST is dishonest--we really smart people yet believe in LDS Inc so you dumb people can rest assured you can too.

[_marg]

And in my opinion I don't believe that your theory was even something that you believe.

With respect, ma'am, this statement is the height of hubris. I was asked my belief. I stated my belief. For you to accuse me of dishonesty is absurd. Frankly, I don't care whether you accept my expression of belief as "reasonable" or not. Such is the lot of any who expresses faith to the faithless. But, for you to outright state that I am a liar is unacceptable and without foundation. It's speculation on your part, and irresponsible speculation at that; especially given the fact that (I presume) you and I have never met.

You offered an extremely absurd ridiculous irrational theory ..what was it according to you, the words magically changed on the papyri so Smith wasn't translating what was in front of him but God was inspiring him to translate an Ancient text written by Abraham. I evaluated just how absurd your theory was and based on that concluded you were being dishonest. That is my opinion. And if you don't like it, then tough.

It doesn't seem to bother you much that the evidence indicates Smith lied about what he was doing. This is what I mean about Mormonism, it seems Mormons become very indignant when accused of dishonesty but it doesn't bother them when it's obvious the people in authority they give respect to, were dishonest. Dishonesty and lying is part of the acceptable Mormon culture it seems.

[_ttribe]

You offered an extremely absurd ridiculous irrational theory ..what was it according to you, the words magically changed on the papyri so Smith wasn't translating what was in front of him but God was inspiring him to translate an Ancient text written by Abraham. I evaluated just how absurd your theory was and based on that concluded you were being dishonest. That is my opinion. And if you don't like it, then tough.

Look, as far as I know, I've never interacted with you. You don't like my basis for belief? I don't really care. You want to call it "absurd," or "silly," or "laughable," or any number of insulting things, fine. But for you to just accuse me of lying because you don't agree (or buy) what I said is utterly inane.

My belief is my own. I was asked what it was, I stated what it was. I wasn't attempting to rationalize my belief to anyone and I certainly wasn't trying to persuade any one else to adopt my belief. I was asked to disclose it and that's what I did. Were I to be placed under oath under penalty of perjury I would still answer those questions the same way. Why you insist on labeling me a liar is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

It doesn't seem to bother you much that the evidence indicates Smith lied about what he was doing. This is what I mean about Mormonism, it seems Mormons become very indignant when accused of dishonesty but it doesn't bother them when it's obvious the people in authority they give respect to, were dishonest. Dishonesty and lying is part of the acceptable Mormon culture it seems.

Don't hurt yourself lifting that broad brush you are painting with; I wouldn't want you to strain your back.

[_marg]

I wasn't attempting rationalize my belief and I certainly wasn't trying to persuade any one else to adopt my belief.

I didn't say you were trying to persuade anyone. You did try to rationalize away the evidence. The evidence indicates the papyri were not what Smith claimed, did not contain the text Smith claimed it did. So you explained it away through the rationalization that magic was involved. Heaven forbid you should look at the evidence objectively and honestly and not invoke magic.

Were I to be placed under oath under penalty of perjury I would still answer those questions the same way.

And I would still think you are being dishonest.

Don't hurt yourself lifting that broad brush you are painting with; I wouldn't want you to strain your back.

it's been 10 years of observations and you fit well within it by your statements.

[_ttribe]

I didn't say you were trying to persuade anyone. You did try to rationalize away the evidence. The evidence indicates the papyri were not what Smith claimed, did not contain the text Smith claimed it did. So you explained it away through the rationalization that magic was involved. Heaven forbid you should look at the evidence objectively and honestly and not invoke magic.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again since I was talking about the weights assigned to evidence utilizing a Bayesian system for belief revision (for example). I did not dismiss evidence; I weighted it differently than you. That's not lying, under any possible definition of the word.

And I would still think you are being dishonest.

An accusation, of course, which you cannot prove and which appears to belie the actual working definition of "dishonesty."

it's been 10 years of observations and you fit well within it by your statements.

My what a little ray of sunshine you are. It must be awfully convenient for you to be able to categorize people so easily.

Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm a fool, or stupid, or deceived, or duped, or an idiot for believing what I do. However, I do care when I am accused of lying; and unjustifiably so.

[_marg]

Maybe you should read what I wrote again since I was talking about the weights assigned to evidence utilizing a Bayesian system for belief revision (for example). I did not dismiss evidence; I weighted it differently than you. That's not lying, under any possible definition of the word.

Feel free to copy what you wrote and I'll read it again if you think I missed something in particular. I'm not planning to go back and reread that thread.

[_ttribe]

Feel free to copy what you wrote and I'll read it again if you think I missed something in particular. I'm not planning to go back and reread that thread.

Feel free to make a good faith effort to see whether you have any actual basis for repeatedly calling me a liar. Here, I've done your work for you, and while I was specifically referring to the Book of Mormon in my quote, the same explanation applies:

"To put this in other terms - many social scientists believe humans utilize some form of Bayesian analysis for judgment and decision making. In that process, the individual assigns various weights to evidence in favor of, or in opposition to, any given issue and makes a decision based on the result of that process. Some people assign greater weight to the relative dearth of archaeological evidence in favor of the claims of the Book of Mormon. I happen to assign a lesser weight to that evidence due to the impact of an answer to personal prayer. It's really that simple." (http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 53#p314253)