Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: AP Today: The Mormon Book of Abraham!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Ray, I think John Gee is consistent with my approach to the question. Let me know what you think about it, Ray!
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 31 8:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ray,

      I think John Gee is consistent with my approach to the question.

      Let me know what you think about it, Ray!

      http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=1&id=699

      Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri
      by John Gee
      Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2008

      The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

      (excerpts)

      The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on how the Book of Abraham was translated or from what papyrus.

      That the church takes no official position, however, does not mean that individual members do not have some opinions on the subject.

      Church members tend to fall into four groups regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham.

      (1)

      The smallest group, comprising about one-half of 1 percent of Mormons—according to my informal, admittedly unscientific surveys—thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the existing fragments that were in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

      (2)

      The next largest group thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragments that no longer exist.

      (3)

      About one-third think there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments.

      (4)

      The largest group, more than half of church members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from.

      Critics routinely assert that the Latter-day Saint position is the one that is actually the least popular of all.

      They want it to be our position because it is the most convenient straw man.

      The only eyewitness to the translation process to describe it was Joseph Smith's scribe Warren Parrish, who after he left the church claimed,

      > "I have set by his side and penned
      > down the translation of the Egyptian
      > Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to
      > receive it by direct inspiration
      > from Heaven."

      The majority of Latter-day Saints are probably comfortable leaving discussion of the translation of the Book of Abraham at that, and I will leave it at that here too except to say that no theory about the translation accounts for all the evidence.

      ---------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------------
    • Ray Ausban
      Hugh Nibley was to ancient history and liquistics as Tesla was to electricity.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Nibley   He was not some joke-a-Moe
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hugh Nibley was to ancient history and liquistics as Tesla was to electricity.
         
         
        He was not some "joke-a-Moe" spouting an opinion. He was well respected for his work by both LDS and non-LDS scholars. That is not to say he wasn't criticized, but all great people get that.
         
        The Book of Abraham is quite different (in a good way) than other LDS scripture. That's part of the reason Nibley wrote so many books about it.
         
        Many anti-Mormons try and portray the LDS beliefs and the earthly founder as some type of simple minded foolishness. The facts are just the opposite. For example, I mentioned yesterday that highly accurate word print software detects more than three dozen authors inside the Book of Mormon. If the Book is fake, then Joseph was a literary genius because no author is known to write in more than their own style. If you read in the opening chapters of the B of M and flip to the middle of the book, you will immediately see a difference in writing style. The computer can detect all the different authors which gives validity to Joseph's claim that he translated, not wrote the B of M. 
        There is much more to this subject. I will mention one more: word print software was used to identify Joseph's style of writing in his journal and letters. None of the 'authors' in the B of M match Joseph's writing style.
         
        I have observed when anti-mormons attack, truth means little. Hate and belittlement in their words are dominate. Fact omission is prevalent. A propaganda smear is the rule.
         
        The Book of Abraham stands up just fine on its own. I'm not going into the details of it because I am working on C-14 dating right now.

        From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:44 AM
        Subject: Re: [M & B] AP Today: The Mormon Book of Abraham!

         
        --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28079
        Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

        > They should have read some of
        > Hugh Nibley's books on the subject.

        Ray,

        You previously advised us that Mormons have been very effective in creating thousands and thousands of pages of material and Linda has advised us that Mormons are apt to believe just about anything about various aspects of Mormonism.

        And so it is with the Book of Abraham, from what I see.

        There are lots of material for those wishing to peruse the stuff. Nibley is just one of a number of folks to consider. John Gee is another who gets his name all over that issue.

        And so it is commonly reported that Mormons have various opinions regarding the Book of Abraham.

        It also seems to me that it has suffered more and more from critical examination.

        And so it goes!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty



      • Ray Ausban
        Hey Robert,   I will try and read this article fairly soon.   Joseph was around from 1830 to 1844. Only 14 years as a church leader. In that time a great
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Robert,
           
          I will try and read this article fairly soon.
           
          Joseph was around from 1830 to 1844. Only 14 years as a church leader. In that time a great many things were happening. The mormons lived in many different places, had to deal with hostiles every where they lived. They had to struggle to survive. Joseph was brought up for trial over and over again.
           
          It is amazing to me that so much of the history was recorded. There is some confusion as to the exact nature of how the Book of Abraham came about due to all that was going on.
           
          Church members do work on these things as it is like archeology. They try and reconstruct the missing parts of the past. They don't always get it right and have to start over some times. It's all part of discovery and can take a lot of time.
           
          For example, it wasn't until 1980 that the significance of Christ's birth date (April 6, 1 B.C.) was fully understood as it related to ancient history, astronomy and B of M chronology. This was uncovered by a lay church member who worked on it as a researcher. The result of his work is nothing short of amazing. However, this is 150 years after the Lord's birth date was identified by Joseph. 150 years is a lot of time!
           
          Just because there is confusion as to how the Book of Abraham came about doesn't indicate it is a fraud. The exact origin is merely a victim of turbulent times.

          From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:05 PM
          Subject: [M & B] Re: AP Today: The Mormon Book of Abraham!

           
          Ray,

          I think John Gee is consistent with my approach to the question.

          Let me know what you think about it, Ray!

          http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=1&id=699

          Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri
          by John Gee
          Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2008

          The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

          (excerpts)

          The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on how the Book of Abraham was translated or from what papyrus.

          That the church takes no official position, however, does not mean that individual members do not have some opinions on the subject.

          Church members tend to fall into four groups regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham.

          (1)

          The smallest group, comprising about one-half of 1 percent of Mormons—according to my informal, admittedly unscientific surveys—thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the existing fragments that were in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

          (2)

          The next largest group thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragments that no longer exist.

          (3)

          About one-third think there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments.

          (4)

          The largest group, more than half of church members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from.

          Critics routinely assert that the Latter-day Saint position is the one that is actually the least popular of all.

          They want it to be our position because it is the most convenient straw man.

          The only eyewitness to the translation process to describe it was Joseph Smith's scribe Warren Parrish, who after he left the church claimed,

          > "I have set by his side and penned
          > down the translation of the Egyptian
          > Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to
          > receive it by direct inspiration
          > from Heaven."

          The majority of Latter-day Saints are probably comfortable leaving discussion of the translation of the Book of Abraham at that, and I will leave it at that here too except to say that no theory about the translation accounts for all the evidence.

          ---------------------------------------------
          ---------------------------------------------



        • rlbaty50
          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28083 ... How about we consider a little different approach on all of that, Ray! You seem to admit
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28083
            Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

            > Just because there is confusion as to
            > how the Book of Abraham came about
            > doesn't indicate it is a fraud.
            >
            > The exact origin is merely a victim
            > of turbulent times.

            How about we consider a little different approach on all of that, Ray!

            You seem to admit that there is some confusion as to how the Book of Abraham came about; that the exact origin is unknown.

            While some may be in on the know regarding that, for our purposes I think we can accept those as the stipulated facts.

            While that, alone, does not indicate it is fraud, it is consistent with an intended fraud.

            Consistent with my earlier efforts to get Linda Fiatoa, Mormon Apologist, to engage a discussion of such matters, I will propose that Joseph Smith did NOT receive any revelations directly, personally, literally from God that he transcribed into the Book of Abraham or otherwise caused it to be produced; whether involving papyri or not.

            I don't have to know how the Book of Abraham came to be in order to accept the proposition that God didn't directly, personally, literally reveal it to Joseph Smith; with or without reference to any papyri.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • Ray Ausban
            Maybe I should clarify what I meant. When the B of  M was translated, there were people around who recorded the process. This was written about by those
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Maybe I should clarify what I meant. When the B of  M was translated, there were people around who recorded the process. This was written about by those witnesses. When Joseph did his 'translation' of the Bible, there were people who wrote of the process. And even with the Book of Abraham there were people who wrote of the process but the difference here is those accounts are less detailed.
               
              In his book, "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri", Nibley lays it out about translating Egyptian. In pages 47 through 55, he makes it abundantly clear that Egyptian is the type of language that can not be done word for word. You need the whole text and must have an Egyptian mentality.
               
              P.52, "Even while they deplore anything that smacks of mysterious or defies cold logic, no scholars are more keenly aware of the intuitive nature of translation than the Egyptologists. They constantly mention it."
               
              The point he is making is each word has many meaning. For example, the word "heaven" in Egyptian has 47 different meanings. Without the whole text to compare it to, there is no way to either "prove" or "disprove" Joseph's 'translation' of the Papyri which we have. All those who are making claims to it being this or that do so dishonestly, with an axe to grind. The real problem is the people doing it KNOW they are deliberately being misleading and THAT does not seem to bother them at all: as long as they are "right" in "proving" Joseph wrong.
               
              These same people do not bother to point out that in so many of Joseph's "translations" and "new doctrine", that ancient texts have been found (after Joseph recorded them or after his death) which show that Joseph didn't simply make it up and that it was part of ancient history. One example of this is the "room of mirrors" from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The purpose of the room corresponds quite well with the Sealing Room in the LDS Temples which is also a room of mirrors.
               
              You can claim all you want they he never recieved a revelation from God, then I will say to you that he was the luckiest guesser of all time as I said to Todd. It is statistically impossible for Joseph to have simply "guessed" or "made up" all the specific things he did. The room of mirrors and the modern sealing rooms are just another example of this. The odds here are of guessing this one alone are less than one in a million. Start taking all the things like this and the odds are astronomical. We have to talk in terms of  "one in ten to the Nth power". In other words, impossible.
              Joseph was indeed "tapped into" something. He said it was God and because of my own spiritual experience I believe he knew what he was talking about.
               
               

              From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 9:30 AM
              Subject: [M & B] Re: AP Today: The Mormon Book of Abraham!

               
              --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28083
              Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

              > Just because there is confusion as to
              > how the Book of Abraham came about
              > doesn't indicate it is a fraud.
              >
              > The exact origin is merely a victim
              > of turbulent times.

              How about we consider a little different approach on all of that, Ray!

              You seem to admit that there is some confusion as to how the Book of Abraham came about; that the exact origin is unknown.

              While some may be in on the know regarding that, for our purposes I think we can accept those as the stipulated facts.

              While that, alone, does not indicate it is fraud, it is consistent with an intended fraud.

              Consistent with my earlier efforts to get Linda Fiatoa, Mormon Apologist, to engage a discussion of such matters, I will propose that Joseph Smith did NOT receive any revelations directly, personally, literally from God that he transcribed into the Book of Abraham or otherwise caused it to be produced; whether involving papyri or not.

              I don't have to know how the Book of Abraham came to be in order to accept the proposition that God didn't directly, personally, literally reveal it to Joseph Smith; with or without reference to any papyri.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty



            • rlbaty50
              ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28087 ... I think that does pretty well go to the problem; though it doesn t quite frame the issue
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 2, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28087
                Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

                > You can claim all you want they he never
                > recieved a revelation from God, then I
                > will say to you that he was the luckiest
                > guesser of all time as I said to Todd.
                >
                > It is statistically impossible for Joseph
                > to have simply "guessed" or "made up" all
                > the specific things he did.
                >
                > Joseph was indeed "tapped into" something.
                >
                > He said it was God and because of my own
                > spiritual experience I believe he knew what
                > he was talking about.

                I think that does pretty well go to the problem; though it doesn't quite frame the issue properly.

                We can "guess" about the non-miraculous source of Joseph's claims, and some may even offer informed opinions about the source.

                However, we don't have to be able to explain the non-miraculous nature of Joseph's claims in order to deny the miraculous claims.

                Ultimately, that last line, I think, states the fundamental, disputed issue regarding the Mormon question.

                Mormons believe Joseph Smith received direct, literal, personal communications from God, not because of the available, objective evidence, but because they make the same claim for themselves; just as Ray claims above.

                Ray cannot substantiate his own claims for our consideration and rebuttal. However, he can for his own purposes maintain his claim.

                I have mentioned on a number of occasions the problem with that approach and that with reference to what Flew said in his debate with Warren and which Warren endorsed.

                That debate is available on line.

                Here's the reference again:

                http://www.thebible1.net/video1/warrenflewdebate/

                Antony G.N. Flew on "Religious Experience"

                > I am doing all this because I think
                > something ought to be said about
                > this sort of appeal to religious
                > experience.

                > This is extremely common in
                > Protestant circles in my country,
                > though maybe it is not a thing in
                > the Church of Christ here.

                > The distinction between two senses
                > of the word "experience" is
                > absolutely crucial for considering
                > this sort of move.

                > What will not do, but what is all too
                > often done, is to try and slide from a
                > claim about experience in the private,
                > limited sense, a claim about which you
                > do have special authority, after all it
                > is your dream, your vision, or
                > whatever, you cannot expect anyone
                > else to have or see your dream, your
                > vision, your hallucination or whatever,
                > the temptation is the temptation to
                > which people all too often succumb,
                > to move from a claim about their
                > experience in the private sense, to
                > a conclusion maintaining that you
                > have had experience of something
                > independent of yourself and that
                > you have had experience in the
                > public sense.

                > Maybe you have.

                > But this further and bolder claim--
                > the one that (refers) to causes out
                > there and to something other than
                > your private experience is not
                > something other people, or even
                > you, should or can accept against
                > all probability on your say so alone.

                > However vivid it was, you are not
                > justified in saying:

                >> "I actually had an experience
                >> that was caused by something
                >> out there. I have been in
                >> contact with the Blessed Virgin,
                >> or whatever it may be."

                > Even you are not entitled to do
                > this, in defiance of other evidence
                > as to what was going on out
                > there and without any inquiry
                > about what any independent
                > evidence of what was going on
                > out there showed.

                > It may have been terribly vivid.
                > So may an hallucination be.

                >> Antony G.N. Flew
                >> Warren-Flew Debate
                >> Thursday Night Session
                >> Pages 225, 226, 227 (hardcover)
                >> 1976

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • Todd Greene
                Ray, there s nothing statistical about it. You re forgetting how I pointed out, in detail, that Joseph Smith never came up with the ideas in the first place,
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 2, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ray, there's nothing "statistical" about it. You're forgetting how I pointed out, in detail, that Joseph Smith never came up with the ideas in the first place, but that the ideas were already being talked about and discussed before Smith was even born.

                  Which, of course, destroys your argument.

                  And that's not even talking about all the things Smith got wrong.

                  - Todd Greene


                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28087
                  > Ray Ausban wrote, in part:
                  >
                  > > You can claim all you want they he never
                  > > recieved a revelation from God, then I
                  > > will say to you that he was the luckiest
                  > > guesser of all time as I said to Todd.
                  > >
                  > > It is statistically impossible for Joseph
                  > > to have simply "guessed" or "made up" all
                  > > the specific things he did.
                  > >
                  > > Joseph was indeed "tapped into" something.
                  > >
                  > > He said it was God and because of my own
                  > > spiritual experience I believe he knew what
                  > > he was talking about.
                  >
                  > I think that does pretty well go to the problem; though it doesn't quite frame the issue properly.
                  >
                  > We can "guess" about the non-miraculous source of Joseph's claims, and some may even offer informed opinions about the source.
                  >
                  > However, we don't have to be able to explain the non-miraculous nature of Joseph's claims in order to deny the miraculous claims.
                  >
                  > Ultimately, that last line, I think, states the fundamental, disputed issue regarding the Mormon question.
                  >
                  > Mormons believe Joseph Smith received direct, literal, personal communications from God, not because of the available, objective evidence, but because they make the same claim for themselves; just as Ray claims above.
                  >
                  > Ray cannot substantiate his own claims for our consideration and rebuttal. However, he can for his own purposes maintain his claim.
                  >
                  > I have mentioned on a number of occasions the problem with that approach and that with reference to what Flew said in his debate with Warren and which Warren endorsed.
                  >
                  > That debate is available on line.
                  >
                  > Here's the reference again:
                  >
                  > http://www.thebible1.net/video1/warrenflewdebate/
                  >
                  > Antony G.N. Flew on "Religious Experience"
                  >
                  > > I am doing all this because I think
                  > > something ought to be said about
                  > > this sort of appeal to religious
                  > > experience.
                  >
                  > > This is extremely common in
                  > > Protestant circles in my country,
                  > > though maybe it is not a thing in
                  > > the Church of Christ here.
                  >
                  > > The distinction between two senses
                  > > of the word "experience" is
                  > > absolutely crucial for considering
                  > > this sort of move.
                  >
                  > > What will not do, but what is all too
                  > > often done, is to try and slide from a
                  > > claim about experience in the private,
                  > > limited sense, a claim about which you
                  > > do have special authority, after all it
                  > > is your dream, your vision, or
                  > > whatever, you cannot expect anyone
                  > > else to have or see your dream, your
                  > > vision, your hallucination or whatever,
                  > > the temptation is the temptation to
                  > > which people all too often succumb,
                  > > to move from a claim about their
                  > > experience in the private sense, to
                  > > a conclusion maintaining that you
                  > > have had experience of something
                  > > independent of yourself and that
                  > > you have had experience in the
                  > > public sense.
                  >
                  > > Maybe you have.
                  >
                  > > But this further and bolder claim--
                  > > the one that (refers) to causes out
                  > > there and to something other than
                  > > your private experience is not
                  > > something other people, or even
                  > > you, should or can accept against
                  > > all probability on your say so alone.
                  >
                  > > However vivid it was, you are not
                  > > justified in saying:
                  >
                  > >> "I actually had an experience
                  > >> that was caused by something
                  > >> out there. I have been in
                  > >> contact with the Blessed Virgin,
                  > >> or whatever it may be."
                  >
                  > > Even you are not entitled to do
                  > > this, in defiance of other evidence
                  > > as to what was going on out
                  > > there and without any inquiry
                  > > about what any independent
                  > > evidence of what was going on
                  > > out there showed.
                  >
                  > > It may have been terribly vivid.
                  > > So may an hallucination be.
                  >
                  > >> Antony G.N. Flew
                  > >> Warren-Flew Debate
                  > >> Thursday Night Session
                  > >> Pages 225, 226, 227 (hardcover)
                  > >> 1976
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Robert Baty
                  >
                • Todd Greene
                  Science fiction pulp writer Garrett P. Serviss was obviously inspired by God. The 6 Most Important Sci-Fi Ideas (Were Invented by a Hack) by Cezary Jan
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 2, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Science fiction pulp writer Garrett P. Serviss was obviously inspired by God.

                    The 6 Most Important Sci-Fi Ideas (Were Invented by a Hack)
                    by Cezary Jan Strusiewicz
                    (Cracked.com, 7/30/2012)
                    http://www.cracked.com/article_19949_the-6-most-important-sci-fi-ideas-were-invented-by-hack.html

                    Chuckling,
                    Todd Greene


                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Ray, there's nothing "statistical" about it. You're forgetting how I pointed out, in detail, that Joseph Smith never came up with the ideas in the first place, but that the ideas were already being talked about and discussed before Smith was even born.
                    >
                    > Which, of course, destroys your argument.
                    >
                    > And that's not even talking about all the things Smith got wrong.
                    >
                    > - Todd Greene
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28087
                    > > Ray Ausban wrote, in part:
                    > >
                    > > > You can claim all you want they he never
                    > > > recieved a revelation from God, then I
                    > > > will say to you that he was the luckiest
                    > > > guesser of all time as I said to Todd.
                    > > >
                    > > > It is statistically impossible for Joseph
                    > > > to have simply "guessed" or "made up" all
                    > > > the specific things he did.
                    > > >
                    > > > Joseph was indeed "tapped into" something.
                    > > >
                    > > > He said it was God and because of my own
                    > > > spiritual experience I believe he knew what
                    > > > he was talking about.
                    > >
                    > > I think that does pretty well go to the problem; though it doesn't quite frame the issue properly.
                    > >
                    > > We can "guess" about the non-miraculous source of Joseph's claims, and some may even offer informed opinions about the source.
                    > >
                    > > However, we don't have to be able to explain the non-miraculous nature of Joseph's claims in order to deny the miraculous claims.
                    > >
                    > > Ultimately, that last line, I think, states the fundamental, disputed issue regarding the Mormon question.
                    > >
                    > > Mormons believe Joseph Smith received direct, literal, personal communications from God, not because of the available, objective evidence, but because they make the same claim for themselves; just as Ray claims above.
                    > >
                    > > Ray cannot substantiate his own claims for our consideration and rebuttal. However, he can for his own purposes maintain his claim.
                    > >
                    > > I have mentioned on a number of occasions the problem with that approach and that with reference to what Flew said in his debate with Warren and which Warren endorsed.
                    > >
                    > > That debate is available on line.
                    > >
                    > > Here's the reference again:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.thebible1.net/video1/warrenflewdebate/
                    > >
                    > > Antony G.N. Flew on "Religious Experience"
                    > >
                    > > > I am doing all this because I think
                    > > > something ought to be said about
                    > > > this sort of appeal to religious
                    > > > experience.
                    > >
                    > > > This is extremely common in
                    > > > Protestant circles in my country,
                    > > > though maybe it is not a thing in
                    > > > the Church of Christ here.
                    > >
                    > > > The distinction between two senses
                    > > > of the word "experience" is
                    > > > absolutely crucial for considering
                    > > > this sort of move.
                    > >
                    > > > What will not do, but what is all too
                    > > > often done, is to try and slide from a
                    > > > claim about experience in the private,
                    > > > limited sense, a claim about which you
                    > > > do have special authority, after all it
                    > > > is your dream, your vision, or
                    > > > whatever, you cannot expect anyone
                    > > > else to have or see your dream, your
                    > > > vision, your hallucination or whatever,
                    > > > the temptation is the temptation to
                    > > > which people all too often succumb,
                    > > > to move from a claim about their
                    > > > experience in the private sense, to
                    > > > a conclusion maintaining that you
                    > > > have had experience of something
                    > > > independent of yourself and that
                    > > > you have had experience in the
                    > > > public sense.
                    > >
                    > > > Maybe you have.
                    > >
                    > > > But this further and bolder claim--
                    > > > the one that (refers) to causes out
                    > > > there and to something other than
                    > > > your private experience is not
                    > > > something other people, or even
                    > > > you, should or can accept against
                    > > > all probability on your say so alone.
                    > >
                    > > > However vivid it was, you are not
                    > > > justified in saying:
                    > >
                    > > >> "I actually had an experience
                    > > >> that was caused by something
                    > > >> out there. I have been in
                    > > >> contact with the Blessed Virgin,
                    > > >> or whatever it may be."
                    > >
                    > > > Even you are not entitled to do
                    > > > this, in defiance of other evidence
                    > > > as to what was going on out
                    > > > there and without any inquiry
                    > > > about what any independent
                    > > > evidence of what was going on
                    > > > out there showed.
                    > >
                    > > > It may have been terribly vivid.
                    > > > So may an hallucination be.
                    > >
                    > > >> Antony G.N. Flew
                    > > >> Warren-Flew Debate
                    > > >> Thursday Night Session
                    > > >> Pages 225, 226, 227 (hardcover)
                    > > >> 1976
                    > >
                    > > Sincerely,
                    > > Robert Baty
                    > >
                    >
                  • Ray Ausban
                    This really is the heart of the matter. The entire Old and New Testament is about God answering prayers and directly inspiring and influencing people.
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This really is the heart of the matter. The entire Old and New Testament is about God answering prayers and directly inspiring and influencing people. Apparently, God did it in the past.
                       
                      Why does Robert believe that God does not answer prayers directly?

                      From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
                      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:20 PM
                      Subject: [M & B] Re: AP Today: The Mormon Book of Abraham!

                       
                      --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28087
                      Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

                      > You can claim all you want they he never
                      > recieved a revelation from God, then I
                      > will say to you that he was the luckiest
                      > guesser of all time as I said to Todd.
                      >
                      > It is statistically impossible for Joseph
                      > to have simply "guessed" or "made up" all
                      > the specific things he did.
                      >
                      > Joseph was indeed "tapped into" something.
                      >
                      > He said it was God and because of my own
                      > spiritual experience I believe he knew what
                      > he was talking about.

                      I think that does pretty well go to the problem; though it doesn't quite frame the issue properly.

                      We can "guess" about the non-miraculous source of Joseph's claims, and some may even offer informed opinions about the source.

                      However, we don't have to be able to explain the non-miraculous nature of Joseph's claims in order to deny the miraculous claims.

                      Ultimately, that last line, I think, states the fundamental, disputed issue regarding the Mormon question.

                      Mormons believe Joseph Smith received direct, literal, personal communications from God, not because of the available, objective evidence, but because they make the same claim for themselves; just as Ray claims above.

                      Ray cannot substantiate his own claims for our consideration and rebuttal. However, he can for his own purposes maintain his claim.

                      I have mentioned on a number of occasions the problem with that approach and that with reference to what Flew said in his debate with Warren and which Warren endorsed.

                      That debate is available on line.

                      Here's the reference again:

                      http://www.thebible1.net/video1/warrenflewdebate/

                      Antony G.N. Flew on "Religious Experience"

                      > I am doing all this because I think
                      > something ought to be said about
                      > this sort of appeal to religious
                      > experience.

                      > This is extremely common in
                      > Protestant circles in my country,
                      > though maybe it is not a thing in
                      > the Church of Christ here.

                      > The distinction between two senses
                      > of the word "experience" is
                      > absolutely crucial for considering
                      > this sort of move.

                      > What will not do, but what is all too
                      > often done, is to try and slide from a
                      > claim about experience in the private,
                      > limited sense, a claim about which you
                      > do have special authority, after all it
                      > is your dream, your vision, or
                      > whatever, you cannot expect anyone
                      > else to have or see your dream, your
                      > vision, your
                      hallucination or whatever,
                      > the temptation is the temptation to
                      > which people all too often succumb,
                      > to move from a claim about their
                      > experience in the private sense, to
                      > a conclusion maintaining that you
                      > have had experience of something
                      > independent of yourself and that
                      > you have had experience in the
                      > public sense.

                      > Maybe you have.

                      > But this further and bolder claim--
                      > the one that (refers) to causes out
                      > there and to something other than
                      > your private experience is not
                      > something other people, or even
                      > you, should or can accept against
                      > all probability on your say so alone.

                      > However vivid it was, you are not
                      > justified in saying:

                      >> "I actually had an experience
                      >> that was caused by something
                      >> out there. I have been in
                      >> contact with the Blessed
                      Virgin,
                      >> or whatever it may be."

                      > Even you are not entitled to do
                      > this, in defiance of other evidence
                      > as to what was going on out
                      > there and without any inquiry
                      > about what any independent
                      > evidence of what was going on
                      > out there showed.

                      > It may have been terribly vivid.
                      > So may an hallucination be.

                      >> Antony G.N. Flew
                      >> Warren-Flew Debate
                      >> Thursday Night Session
                      >> Pages 225, 226, 227 (hardcover)
                      >> 1976

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty



                    • Ray Ausban
                      Todd, The B of M makes special reference to those who cloak themselves in unbelief. Step one, is the blindness of mind , the step two, the hardness of
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 3, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Todd,
                        The B of M makes special reference to those who cloak themselves in unbelief. Step one, is "the blindness of mind", the step two, "the hardness of heart", then step three engaging "in wickness".
                         
                        I which to note that the responses I continue to get fall, into the "blindness of mind" catergory. Intitially, I spoke of Joseph and astronomy and his stance on the universe. You claimed he must have heard it from others when in fact, no one anywhere near the back woods of New York heard it from others. You make the assumption that ideas and theories in 1830 travel as it does today. That is completely ridiculous.
                         
                        I have noted that the B of M apparently had dozens of authors which has long been verified and is not possible for the most talented writer to 'fake'. I noted the room of mirrors from the Dead Sea scrolls corresponding to the LDS temple sealing room in description and purpose which were not discovered until 1947, more than 100 years after Joseph died. These types of items I have mentioned are but a beginning to a long list of unlikelyhoods and impossiblitiies.
                         
                        Now, you posted an article of the sci-fi origins from a hack. A few months ago, I watched a show titled, "the prophets of sci-fiction" where the documentary demonstrates how sci-fi writers (notably Jewels Vern) had taken known technology (as the industrial revolution was under way) with a little imagination to create futuristic stuff. The age of industry, advanced mechanics, electricity, flight, chemistry, physics was exploding at the end of the 19th century. To compare the 1890's to the 1830's is about the same as comparing today to the 1830's. There is no comparison. It is easy for a "hack" to have great ideas and imagination in the environment of knowledge after the Civil War .
                         
                        Not giving some one the benefit of the doubt is hardly the best approach in any venue.

                        From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 6:59 PM
                        Subject: [M & B] Re: AP Today: The Mormon Book of Abraham!

                         
                        Ray, there's nothing "statistical" about it. You're forgetting how I pointed out, in detail, that Joseph Smith never came up with the ideas in the first place, but that the ideas were already being talked about and discussed before Smith was even born.

                        Which, of course, destroys your argument.

                        And that's not even talking about all the things Smith got wrong.

                        - Todd Greene

                        --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28087
                        > Ray Ausban wrote, in part:
                        >
                        > > You can claim all you want they he never
                        > > recieved a revelation from God, then I
                        > > will say to you that he was the luckiest
                        > > guesser of all time as I said to Todd.
                        > >
                        > > It is statistically impossible for Joseph
                        > > to have simply "guessed" or "made up" all
                        > > the specific things he did.
                        > >
                        > > Joseph was indeed "tapped into" something.
                        > >
                        > > He said it was God and because of my own
                        > > spiritual experience I believe he knew what
                        > > he was talking about.
                        >
                        > I think that does pretty well go to the problem; though it doesn't quite frame the issue properly.
                        >
                        > We can "guess" about the non-miraculous source of Joseph's claims, and some may even offer informed opinions about the source.
                        >
                        > However, we don't have to be able to explain the non-miraculous nature of Joseph's claims in order to deny the miraculous claims.
                        >
                        > Ultimately, that last line, I think, states the fundamental, disputed issue regarding the Mormon question.
                        >
                        > Mormons believe Joseph Smith received direct, literal, personal communications from God, not because of the available, objective evidence, but because they make the same claim for themselves; just as Ray claims above.
                        >
                        > Ray cannot substantiate his own claims for our consideration and rebuttal. However, he can for his own purposes maintain his claim.
                        >
                        > I have mentioned on a number of occasions the problem with that approach and that with reference to what Flew said in his debate with Warren and which Warren endorsed.
                        >
                        > That debate is available on line.
                        >
                        > Here's the reference again:
                        >
                        > http://www.thebible1.net/video1/warrenflewdebate/
                        >
                        > Antony G.N. Flew on "Religious Experience"
                        >
                        > > I am doing all this because I think
                        > > something ought to be said about
                        > > this sort of appeal to religious
                        > > experience.
                        >
                        > > This is extremely common in
                        > > Protestant circles in my country,
                        > > though maybe it is not a thing in
                        > > the Church of Christ here.
                        >
                        > > The distinction between two senses
                        > > of the word "experience" is
                        > > absolutely crucial for considering
                        > > this sort of move.
                        >
                        > > What will not do, but what is all too
                        > > often done, is to try and slide from a
                        > > claim about experience in the private,
                        > > limited sense, a claim about which you
                        > > do have special authority, after all it
                        > > is your dream, your vision, or
                        > > whatever, you cannot expect anyone
                        > > else to have or see your dream, your
                        > > vision, your hallucination or whatever,
                        > > the temptation is the temptation to
                        > > which people all too often succumb,
                        > > to move from a claim about their
                        > > experience in the private sense, to
                        > > a conclusion maintaining that you
                        > > have had experience of something
                        > > independent of yourself and that
                        > > you have had experience in the
                        > > public sense.
                        >
                        > > Maybe you have.
                        >
                        > > But this further and bolder claim--
                        > > the one that (refers) to causes out
                        > > there and to something other than
                        > > your private experience is not
                        > > something other people, or even
                        > > you, should or can accept against
                        > > all probability on your say so alone.
                        >
                        > > However vivid it was, you are not
                        > > justified in saying:
                        >
                        > >> "I actually had an experience
                        > >> that was caused by something
                        > >> out there. I have been in
                        > >> contact with the Blessed Virgin,
                        > >> or whatever it may be."
                        >
                        > > Even you are not entitled to do
                        > > this, in defiance of other evidence
                        > > as to what was going on out
                        > > there and without any inquiry
                        > > about what any independent
                        > > evidence of what was going on
                        > > out there showed.
                        >
                        > > It may have been terribly vivid.
                        > > So may an hallucination be.
                        >
                        > >> Antony G.N. Flew
                        > >> Warren-Flew Debate
                        > >> Thursday Night Session
                        > >> Pages 225, 226, 227 (hardcover)
                        > >> 1976
                        >
                        > Sincerely,
                        > Robert Baty
                        >



                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.