Non LDS Egyptologist agrees with Joseph Smith

[Justice]

I once heard that in order to have faith you must suspend reason in order to believe in the absurd. I have no use fro the absurd.

Since you "assure me as one who knows" what do you know? Show me what you know so that I can know as well.

I posted verses from Ether 12. Look them over carefully.

[Lstinthwrld]

I posted verses from Ether 12. Look them over carefully.

I don't believe in the book of mormon as you believe in it. That would be like me telling you to read an excerpt from the bagavadgita and wondering why you don't take it as scripture like they do in India. How about relating it to me in a dialoge that is not mormon specific?

[Justice]

Tell you what, look them over and tell me what you think.

Truth is truth no matter the source. If you read them and tell me you don't think what he says is truth, I will find the process elesewhere.

[Honorentheos]

It is knowable. The pattern has been declared by God. He has told us how every sinlge person that has ever been born can come to know of His exitence for themselves. It starts with hope, it does not end there.

First I apologize as I am new to this forum and am feeling out how to have a respectful dialog without violating board rules or intentionally offending. If I do, please know it is unintentional.

I think that the problem you and I have is in found in your statement above. In it, you suggest that the proof of God's existence (unto knowledge, rather than belief I would add) is found in a pattern declared by God. Yet, don't we have to first believe that the pattern came from God to believe that if it is followed it will lead to knowledge of God?

And isn't that fairly circular in our reasoning?

For example, suppose you were not LDS and were exposed to similar truths and given a different pattern (similar to someone who was raised with beliefs in another religious system, christian or otherwise). Can you say that the pattern's success is predetermined by an outside source or by internal experience? I would contend that knowledge and belief in the pattern make using the pattern possible - which is a "justification" of one's beliefs but does not constitute knowledge outside of those beliefs. You acted in a certain manner and the desired outcome was achieved - justified! But your assurance that the pattern actually came from God rather than was the product of observation of human behavior (i.e. - a strong belief mixed with an earnest prayer supported by action will yield brain chemical response 'A') is not justified.

You don't "know".

I would like to think that we would hold such things as "truth" and actual knowledge to a higher standard than we do. I personally feel it cheapens both to be so loose in applying them in situations where it is not justified. I also think it can lead to emotional immaturity as well in that a person may stop utilizing their reasoning skills effectively in favor of this "belief yields justification = knowledge" pattern which does not describe the world we current reside in accurately at all.

I know some if not most here will disagree. And perhaps it is a matter of linguistics. But it is one of linguistic precision to better qualify one's definition of knowledge.

Otherwise, I think there is a reasonable analogy to be made in someone who is willing to date any ol' person based on reciprocated attraction-only. One should have standards regarding truth claims even more so than in other things.