Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[Jeff Lebowski]

In this thread, Viking has attacked AA and AA has attacked Viking; you are both sullied I think you both need to take this to PMs and work it out. STFU, Lingo. Nobody asked your opinion.

Yes. Please stop.

[All-American]

Dude, calm the <redacted> down. I remember you talking about a kinder, gentler Viking. This is the old piss in your sacrament cups Viking.



That's below the belt. Also, referring to the Red Iguana lunch is lame. #1 Rocky's not here to defend himself. #2 Meeting a stranger at a restaurant when you're on a business lunch, especially a stranger who has threatened to call you, what was it, a "fuckwad" to your face upon meeting you, regardless of whether or not you get along, is stupid. No one in their right mind would meet someone that aggressive.

In this thread, Viking has attacked AA and AA has attacked Viking; you are both sullied I think you both need to take this to PMs and work it out. STFU, Lingo. Nobody asked your opinion.

Very well.

[All-American]

Personal attacks on my bro are exempted.

Especially when they come from a dude who seems just moments from proclaiming himself the lord de omni re scibili et quibusdam aliis and then starts bagging on people who may not be fully employed. To make matters worse, I am pretty sure I know this kid's family and I'm not going to take shit from him.

Boardmail coming. Apologies to the rest of you. We'll take it from here.

[Viking]

Wait a minute. How can you be so sure? Maybe Satan took the Book of Abraham scrolls and changed them just to make people who believe in reason and evidence apostatize. That's only one of infinite conceivable scenarios. I bet you can't say for sure that pigs can't fly.

Whether pigs can or cannot fly can be empirically proven.

Whether JS saw what he said he saw cannot. Is it highly improbable? Absolutely. Could he have been telling the truth? High improbable, but possible.

[SeattleUte]

I'm confused. AA and doctorcoug agree on the merits--essentially, they reject the linked article's conclusion that the LDS Church is embarrassed by the Book of Abraham. But AA attacked doctorcoug. I don't get it.

[SeattleUte]

Whether pigs can or cannot fly can be empirically proven.

Whether JS saw what he said he saw cannot. Is it highly improbable? Absolutely. Could he have been telling the truth? High improbable, but possible.

Bullshit. It's just a continuum--proving pigs can't fly is a little less complicated and easier because there are a lot of living examples of pigs. However, the B of M absolutely fails any empirical test you could think of, including most signifiantly common sense.

[SeattleUte]

But, as you could imply, those empirical failings may originate from the science of the devil. It's a vast conspiracy led by the adversary that has linked indian DNA in the americas to asia, not the middle east.

Well, that's what I'm saying. If you want to make stuff up, I guess anything's possible. I said that to Fiyero earlier in the thread. Apart from that, yes, the Book of Mormon, like the Book of Abraham, like the Shroud of Turin, like the Adam and Eve story, can be empirically challenged as false.

"Proof" means what does the evidence show, applying a standard of proof such as beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance, etc. Don't get carried away with what we mean by "emprically proven." On the other hand, if you talk to believers long enough my pigs could fly analogy becomes quite apt, as you demonstrate in the above post.

I don't think Cardiac thought very hard before he posted what he said about the Golden Plates. It was nonsensical, and from a guy who usually makes sense.

[Guest]

Maybe Satan took the Book of Abraham scrolls and changed them just to make people who believe in reason and evidence apostatize.

Remember the good ol' days when MW would, in earnest, compare you to Satan? I miss that guy.

[Viking]

Well, that's what I'm saying. If you want to make stuff up, I guess anything's possible. I said that to Fiyero earlier in the thread. Apart from that, yes, the Book of Mormon, like the Book of Abraham, like the Shroud of Turin, like the Adam and Eve story, can be empirically challenged as false.

"Proof" means what does the evidence show, applying a standard of proof such as beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance, etc. Don't get carried away with what we mean by "emprically proven." On the other hand, if you talk to believers long enough my pigs could fly analogy becomes quite apt, as you demonstrate in the above post.

I don't think Cardiac thought very hard before he posted what he said about the Golden Plates. It was nonsensical, and from a guy who usually makes sense.

Look, I am with you. But, there is a Joseph Smith I'd like...repeat: like...to believe.

I'd like to believe that Joseph, whose enormous flaws are incontrovertible, actually was telling the truth about seeing God. Thereafter, most of what he did fell apart. Such as the BoM (likely); the PoG; polygamy; banking; and even the concept of Zion is enormously flawed and incosistent.

However, at the core, I would like for it to be true that JS was telling the truth about seeing God and Jesus.

Does this mean that I'd pay 10% of my $$ or devote my life to the man's cause? Hell no. But it would be great to hope that life may be a little more than birth, exist, death.

If that experience really did happen, it would be a game changer, even in light of the nonsense that ensued thereafter.

[All-American]

Remember the good ol' days when MW would, in earnest, compare you to Satan? I miss that guy.

Well, that doesn't mean that he wasn't right, but he did mean it in the nicest way possible.

[SeattleUte]

Look, I am with you. But, there is a Joseph Smith I'd like...repeat: like...to believe.

I'd like to believe that Joseph, whose enormous flaws are incontrovertible, actually was telling the truth about seeing God. Thereafter, most of what he did fell apart. Such as the BoM (likely); the PoG; polygamy; banking; and even the concept of Zion is enormously flawed and incosistent.

However, at the core, I would like for it to be true that JS was telling the truth about seeing God and Jesus.

Does this mean that I'd pay 10% of my $$ or devote my life to the man's cause? Hell no. But it would be great to hope that life may be a little more than birth, exist, death.

If that experience really did happen, it would be a game changer, even in light of the nonsense that ensued thereafter.

You're making stuff up. First you said no, SU, you don't konw. But all you're doing is engaging in flights of fancy.

[Viking]

You're making stuff up. First you said no, SU, you don't konw. But all you're doing is engaging in flights of fancy.

No and yes.

No, I'm saying that the null hypothesis of the non-believer cannot be proved empirically. Is it likely that the null hypothsis is correct? YES but can it really be proven? No.

And, yes, I am taking a flight of fancy re: JS. I would love for what he said about the FV to be true.

[LA Ute]

. . . I will say most emphatically that I know there were no golden plates.

The pure irony of this statement leaves me at a loss for words.

[LA Ute]

Quick, not-carefully-thought-through idea, posted without plowing through this entire thread:

The Book of Moses resulted from Joseph Smith's efforts to enhance and correct the Bible. There is no claim it is based on any manuscript at all - it's pure revelation (and among my favorite set of scriptures). If JS had not claimed that the Book of Abraham was based on those papyri, but had simply said the papyri got him thinking the way the Bible translation did, would we be having this conversation?

[woot]

Quick, not-carefully-thought-through idea, posted without plowing through this entire thread:

The Book of Moses resulted from Joseph Smith's efforts to enhance and correct the Bible. There is no claim it is based on any manuscript at all - it's pure revelation (and among my favorite set of scriptures). If JS had not claimed that the Book of Abraham was based on those papyri, but had simply said the papyri got him thinking the way the Bible translation did, would we be having this conversation?

Clearly, we wouldn't. But he got careless and was discovered.