Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Evidence for the Book of Abraham


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Because Latter-day Saints and LDS leaders frequently (if not consistently) merge the two spheres to claim that secular truths can be known through religious experience--ie., praying to know that the BofM is ancient history.

The most common criticism of my chapter in Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics (you can read and early draft here) by both apologists and postmormon Dehlinites was of me arguing for the different spheres of knowledge and how one has no intrinsic bearing on the other.

Thanks, I hadn't seen these, but I knew your position on this stuff from previous conversations. I don't know how we fix this. Ironically it's the only thing that can save the church intellectually, and yet members keep rejecting it.

They are drowning and you throw them a rope and then they throw it away.

I had the philosophy before I joined the church and partially joined the church because of how it fits the philosophy.

Not to mention the pure humanism of the idea that we can become gods.

And then you have Kant and the synthetic a priori creating reality from matter unorganized through human intelligence.

But no, we insist on Cartesian dualism and the correspondence theory, all of which got Christianity into trouble in the first place

Sigh. What are you going to do with these folks?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Some personally, some published. Steve Densley's (IMO incredibly weak) review for the Interpreter is one, where his criticisms are mostly a variation of him bemoaning my claim that secular apologetic scholarship has no direct bearing on religious claims. (Ironically, on the flipside, Dehlin and many of his acolytes have called me an apologist for the same reason.)

Well I'll have to catch myself up but it is on odd claim.  In some cases perhaps there is a direct bearing wherein in others it may be more of an indirect bearing.  But as I said, I'd have to catch myself up by reading what you've written.  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

I dunno. It's a variation of a category that friends and I have for those who take a new-atheist-like approach to Mormonism after reading the CES Letter or listening to 600+ hours of Mormon Stories episodes. Makes sense that the criticism come from both sides, since, as I sometimes joke, the CES Letter-inspired faith crises tend to transition black and white believing Mormons to white and black disbelieving postmormons.

gotcha.  

Link to comment
On 1/2/2019 at 9:43 AM, the narrator said:

Because Latter-day Saints and LDS leaders frequently (if not consistently) merge the two spheres to claim that secular truths can be known through religious experience--ie., praying to know that the BofM is ancient history.

The most common criticism of my chapter in Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics (you can read and early draft here) by both apologists and postmormon Dehlinites was of me arguing for the different spheres of knowledge and how one has no intrinsic bearing on the other.

I finally got a chance to read both of these papers, and I think that we are in full agreement. 

I loved your mention of Wittgenstein and your examples and analogies were right on point. Thanks for the links- good stuff!  I don't see how we get others to understand what is totally obvious to us.  And yes you are right those who argue in favor of scholarship for apologetics simply do not get it and just make the problem worse.

Very frustrating. The answers are right there in spheres of contextual truth and nobody sees it.

I think I should just start writing for the nine other people out there who do get it and forget the boards.  ;)

At least I could get technical.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't see how we get others to understand what is totally obvious to us.

So is the life of a Wittgensteinian. As an early undergrad in philosophy I would get frustrated that others couldn't grasp some points I was trying to make. It wasn't until a year or so later that I discovered Wittgenstein as someone who was articulating my own views (and having the same frustrations with the philosophers of his day.) Similarly, I found comfort in reading DZ Phillips frustrations when in discussion with Alvin Plantinga, Stephen Davis, and others. I was able to meet Phillips a few times, but he unfortunately passed away shortly before I went to CGU to study with him.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, the narrator said:

So is the life of a Wittgensteinian. As an early undergrad in philosophy I would get frustrated that others couldn't grasp some points I was trying to make. It wasn't until a year or so later that I discovered Wittgenstein as someone who was articulating my own views (and having the same frustrations with the philosophers of his day.) Similarly, I found comfort in reading DZ Phillips frustrations when in discussion with Alvin Plantinga, Stephen Davis, and others. I was able to meet Phillips a few times, but he unfortunately passed away shortly before I went to CGU to study with him.

Interesting because I also found W to articulate views I already had! and I have read several articles that have mentioned how difficult later W is to read, when I found him to be a breath of fresh air and clear as a bell.

I think it must relate to the difference between readers who are looking for a concrete "doctrine" or a statement of how things "really are" - a metaphysics-  as opposed to those who intuitively see the "artificiality of reality" as a linguistic construct, and by nature are anti-realists.

Maybe it is something about the way we learned language as opposed to others that makes a difference?

Richard Rorty is also called "the lucid philosopher" (see my siggy) but I find that folks hereabout for the most part just don't get it.

Very interesting.

I have not read Phillips. Can you suggest something?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting because I also found W to articulate views I already had! and I have read several articles that have mentioned how difficult later W is to read, when I found him to be a breath of fresh air and clear as a bell.

I think it must relate to the difference between readers who are looking for a concrete "doctrine" or a statement of how things "really are" - a metaphysics-  as opposed to those who intuitively see the "artificiality of reality" as a linguistic construct, and by nature are anti-realists.

Maybe it is something about the way we learned language as opposed to others that makes a difference?

Richard Rorty is also called "the lucid philosopher" (see my siggy) but I find that folks hereabout for the most part just don't get it.

Very interesting.

I have not read Phillips. Can you suggest something?

I haven't studied Rorty much. Did you know he was married to a Mormon? A friend of mine wrote a piece in Dialogue a few years ago about his experience as Rorty's hometeacher. IIRC he mentioned Rorty holding his baby in a prayer circle while the bishop did the blessing and naming.

Re: Phillips, if you can get a hold of it, I highly suggest Wittgenstein and Religion. Other favorites of mine are The Problem of Evil and the Problem of GodReligion and Friendly Fire, and Death and Immortality. The last had a major impact on me after my belief in traditional theism collapsed. Religion and the Hermeneutics of Contemplation is also one of his essential books and is probably the most theoretical.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, the narrator said:

I haven't studied Rorty much. Did you know he was married to a Mormon? A friend of mine wrote a piece in Dialogue a few years ago about his experience as Rorty's hometeacher. IIRC he mentioned Rorty holding his baby in a prayer circle while the bishop did the blessing and naming.

We had a thread on that a while back. (Can't seem to find it) In addition to Scott Abbott I've heard that Chauncey Riddle for a short time was also his home teacher. I've not been able to confirm that though. It was stated to me by an other BYU philosophy professor while I was in the library shelves getting a Rorty book for a paper I was doing for Riddle in 1990 - but it's also possible that he was just conflating Riddle and Abbott. I never remembered to ask Riddle about it and then lost touch with him after I got married. The professor who was quite happy I was using Rorty for my paper seemed to think it'd rile Riddle up a bit although he never explained why.

Sadly Rorty's kids left the church - I believe over LGBT issues - although I think his widow is still active.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it must relate to the difference between readers who are looking for a concrete "doctrine" or a statement of how things "really are" - a metaphysics-  as opposed to those who intuitively see the "artificiality of reality" as a linguistic construct, and by nature are anti-realists.

Of course I'd say Peirce offers the way to reconcile these issues.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
On 1/1/2019 at 7:59 PM, clarkgoble said:

Certainly it's not terribly Peircean. It is quite Jamesian. Dewey is a bit more complicated but I'll not get into that debate. I primarily consider myself a Peircean although I have a strong continental and analytic background. I consider myself a pragmatist, but this really isn't the pragmatism I know and love. So to me this whole approach, whether James, Wittgenstein or Rorty, is ultimately irrelevant. I just think them wrong.

I should note that Peirce's own religious views are a bit odd and not something I share. However I think they largely arise out of his lack of religious experience of the sort I think necessary to validate certain beliefs. Peirce's conception of God is in certain ways more akin to a Buddhist perspective. 

I agree. I've brought up the whole fictional point as well. Mark disagrees with that characterization. However at least a lot of art has propositional content and it seems undeniable that the Book of Abraham does as well. So surely that content can be analyzed along more traditional senses. But I think Mark's whole approach (and arguably the approach of those who take all scripture as fiction) is that all that matters is how it determines meaning in that Wittgenstein religious sense. I just think that pretty difficult to reconcile with what to me is Joseph's clear tendency to materialize such spiritual phenomena in terms of every day experience and common sense. So to my eyes, Joseph is going the exact opposite direction from Wittgenstein, at least religiously.

All that said, I do think Mark's views are helpful. Not everyone is quite the verifcationalist I am. Clearly many view religion as he does. I certainly do think that at least William James is very helpful for those in that perspective. I just ultimately disagree.

HI Clark,

I agree with you.

On 1/2/2019 at 12:02 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'll confess my ignorance here. I hadn't known Widstoe was a pragmatist although I knew B. H. Roberts frequently quoted James. I knew William Chamberlain was partially exposed to the pragmatists when he was getting his degree. While I've not really studied his thought too much, I believe he studied with Royce for some time. (Royce was deeply influenced by Peirce but also Hegelian in various ways - although arguably the later Peirce was as well) But alas my knowledge of Royce is pretty limited to. I know while he was influenced by James he didn't really fit as closely to that style of pragmatism. Chamberlain I believe brought back a lot of pragmatic ideas. Was that what you were referring to? 

I actually didn't think there was much pragmatism in Mormon thought. Even the Roberts quotes are pretty superficial. And, as I said, I hadn't even known of Widstoe. That's really fascinating. You know any good studies on this?

I'm not sure I could agree with that. Certainly that is the experience of many. (More or less that's Peirce's view for instance) But I don't think one could say that spiritual facilities can only relate the more mystical aspect of religion.

A question. Since you consider yourself a theist and not something more abstract along the deist lines, that implies a personal God. But how could one know of a personal God unless our spiritual faculties were able to tell us of such a thing. Doesn't your very theism undermine your claims here?

I'll try to find a mormondiscussions link I posted some time ago about the history of pragmatism in Mormonism. I don't believe my spiritual faculties tell me God is personal. I believe my rational faculties help allow me to trust in that. I trust in a hybrid Pascal's wager, modified a bit. I think it is possible God is not personal, I believe it is possible God is personal, I believe it is possible God isn't at all. It seems to me reality is manifold in how it presents itself to us. Of all the the choices I trust a personal God makes more sense with my personal personhood, the intention of existence, introspection, wonder, etc.. But those trusts are in rational possibilities supported by the sublime sense of something greater and transcendent than this. They are not beliefs or certainties we speak of naturally. I actually think that is closer to Wittgenstein. 

Edited by mikwut
Link to comment
On 1/3/2019 at 10:22 AM, the narrator said:

I haven't studied Rorty much. Did you know he was married to a Mormon? A friend of mine wrote a piece in Dialogue a few years ago about his experience as Rorty's hometeacher. IIRC he mentioned Rorty holding his baby in a prayer circle while the bishop did the blessing and naming.

Re: Phillips, if you can get a hold of it, I highly suggest Wittgenstein and Religion. Other favorites of mine are The Problem of Evil and the Problem of GodReligion and Friendly Fire, and Death and Immortality. The last had a major impact on me after my belief in traditional theism collapsed. Religion and the Hermeneutics of Contemplation is also one of his essential books and is probably the most theoretical.

I did know that and there is a Rorty video out there in which Rorty discusses a supposedly fictitious female science professor who is a Catholic. He also mentions Mormons in the same video.

As it turns out that suppedly fictitious individual perfectly describes his wife who was a professor in one of the sciences. The video describes why is there is no conflict between science and religion and of course it is exactly on this point of contextual truth, and as I recall he also quotes Wittgenstein

We did discuss your friend and the fact that he was Rortys home teacher,. I think at some conference, perhaps Fair. That's how I knew about the Mormon- Rorty connection, and remember the conversation. I have been one of his fans for half my life but never knew that about him.

I am thinking that maybe a full-faith collapse is necessary for one to come back and find the path this way, to come back from a blank slate intellectually while one still feels the stirrings of spirituality.

Thanks for those suggestions!!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 1/1/2019 at 6:59 PM, clarkgoble said:

Certainly it's not terribly Peircean. It is quite Jamesian. Dewey is a bit more complicated but I'll not get into that debate. I primarily consider myself a Peircean although I have a strong continental and analytic background. I consider myself a pragmatist, but this really isn't the pragmatism I know and love. So to me this whole approach, whether James, Wittgenstein or Rorty, is ultimately irrelevant. I just think them wrong.

I should note that Peirce's own religious views are a bit odd and not something I share. However I think they largely arise out of his lack of religious experience of the sort I think necessary to validate certain beliefs. Peirce's conception of God is in certain ways more akin to a Buddhist perspective. 

I agree. I've brought up the whole fictional point as well. Mark disagrees with that characterization. However at least a lot of art has propositional content and it seems undeniable that the Book of Abraham does as well. So surely that content can be analyzed along more traditional senses. But I think Mark's whole approach (and arguably the approach of those who take all scripture as fiction) is that all that matters is how it determines meaning in that Wittgenstein religious sense. I just think that pretty difficult to reconcile with what to me is Joseph's clear tendency to materialize such spiritual phenomena in terms of every day experience and common sense. So to my eyes, Joseph is going the exact opposite direction from Wittgenstein, at least religiously.

All that said, I do think Mark's views are helpful. Not everyone is quite the verifcationalist I am. Clearly many view religion as he does. I certainly do think that at least William James is very helpful for those in that perspective. I just ultimately disagree.

I've told you several times that I do not believe scripture is "fiction" in any way shape or form.

And once more Joseph's intentions are irrelevant to the question. 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Calm said:

The first one is the one I was thinking of, and it's got that video too.

The only problem is that the video builds to a conclusion and the video dies before it reaches the conclusion. It's like waiting for the punchline on a joke. Really a shame.

What is important is that Rorty clearly makes the point that we are making here, essentially about language games.

But all those posts say pretty much the same thing.  And what is noticeable is that the responses show the problem that we were discussing that people have understanding Wittgenstein

Calm, Your research capabilities are just plain spooky thank you

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am thinking that maybe a full-faith collapse is necessary for one to come back and find the path this way, to come back from a blank slate intellectually while one still feels the stirrings of spirituality.

Sorry to intrude but, since I experienced a full faith collapse (and left the church), I want to say that although Rorty and Wittgenstein changed my thinking about religion, a degree of empiricism is still central to my paradigm. That is, for me, historical claims, whether made by a historian or a prophet, must have an empirical referent of some kind or I can’t/won’t accept the claim.

The historicity of the BoA (said by the Prophet of the Restoration to have been written by Abraham’s own hand upon papyrus) and the historicity of  Nephites is an issue for me. That’s why I’m not a Mormon. I chose to put my faith back in Jesus as something that might help me live a better life since it’s entirely possible he really did exist and maybe he really did rise from the dead. The existence and content of old writings proves nothing, but at least I have some indisputably ancient writings purporting to be eyewitness accounts and an indisputably ancient place called Jerusalem on which to hang my faith hat. 

If I was persuaded that Jerusalem or Rome don’t exist and never did, I’d drop Christianity in a hot minute and never look back, no matter how much participating in the Divine Liturgy makes me happier or a better person - even if leaving Christianity made my life more difficult. Going to church for me would be totally meaningless, akin to trying to find meaning and fulfilment by attending meetings with those ‘Chariots of the Gods’ whackos.

So - I guess I’m saying there’s probably still a need for scholarship in LDS apologetics. You’ll never reach people like me without it. Show me the ruins of Zarahemla and we can talk!

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I've told you several times that I do not believe scripture is "fiction" in any way shape or form.

And once more Joseph's intentions are irrelevant to the question. 

 

If say, Adam and Eve's story did not happen as described in the OT, if say, they weren't the first humans created, and what is described is ritualized myth, how is it not fiction in any way shape or form?  It seems to me all that is scripture carries some amount of fiction, in some way shape and form.  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I've told you several times that I do not believe scripture is "fiction" in any way shape or form.

And once more Joseph's intentions are irrelevant to the question. 

I think I stated your position on both of those. That is you don't think it's fiction. You've just not clarified how on earth that could work. That is it seems to me your Wittgenstein/James approach doesn't care if it's fiction. And the rejection of empirical issues as mattering highlights that. Thus as a practical matter it functions in a fashion akin to the fiction model since epistemologically your position allows that it be fiction. The example I've raised here is James' example of a drug experience in terms of religious experience. So you might not say it's an issue of fiction, but surely the question of fiction (or at least bad interpretation) matters a great deal.

The appeal to aesthetics tries to avoid this by making it first an appeal to the non-propositional and secondarily a consideration of public meaning independent of authorial intentions. But that again runs aground in the problem that works of arts have non-aesthetic elements. The example I've given several times over the past month or so is Sherlock Holmes, undeniably an artistic work but undeniably containing propositional meaning. Indeed the propositional meaning is essential for its aesthetical functioning. That seems the example that parallels our Book of Abraham the most.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I stated your position on both of those. That is you don't think it's fiction. You've just not clarified how on earth that could work. That is it seems to me your Wittgenstein/James approach doesn't care if it's fiction. And the rejection of empirical issues as mattering highlights that. Thus as a practical matter it functions in a fashion akin to the fiction model since epistemologically your position allows that it be fiction. The example I've raised here is James' example of a drug experience in terms of religious experience. So you might not say it's an issue of fiction, but surely the question of fiction (or at least bad interpretation) matters a great deal.

The appeal to aesthetics tries to avoid this by making it first an appeal to the non-propositional and secondarily a consideration of public meaning independent of authorial intentions. But that again runs aground in the problem that works of arts have non-aesthetic elements. The example I've given several times over the past month or so is Sherlock Holmes, undeniably an artistic work but undeniably containing propositional meaning. Indeed the propositional meaning is essential for its aesthetical functioning. That seems the example that parallels our Book of Abraham the most.

Pronouncements plucked out of thin air with no support for anything.

Joseph did not set out to write fairy tales, that's clear as a bell.

That's how it works.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pronouncements plucked out of thin air with no support for anything.

Joseph did not set out to write fairy tales, that's clear as a bell.

That's how it works.

That's a non-answer since something can be fictitious without being intended to be fictitious. (Think of the histories of George Washington that used to include the cherry tree incident) The question is whether the propositional content is about things. I know you don't like anything smacking of correlation so let's just say predictions about future evidence. It seems to me there are some key issues you're intentionally avoiding.

1. If we discover all the rest of the missing papyri pieces along with evidence they are all the papyri, will we find any text dealing with Abraham as say Robert and John Gee argue?

2. If we in the future talk with Abraham and ask him about his past, will the events recounted in the Book of Abraham have actually happened to him?

3. If we ask Abraham whether he wrote something like the Book of Abraham including the variant on Genesis 1 will he say he wrote it?

It seems to me that within Mormon thought even if we can't now answer those in terms of evidence now they are completely comprehensible questions with answers. Our answers to those questions determines how we think of the Book of Abraham. 

Now no one is denying fallibilism in all this. I'm sure Robert, were strong evidence to come out undermining his theory, would adjust his theory. I certainly would. But it tells us what we think right now. By avoiding those questions (which is fine by the way) you're more or less saying that it doesn't matter if it is fiction - or pseudopigrapha if you prefer that term instead.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a non-answer since something can be fictitious without being intended to be fictitious. (Think of the histories of George Washington that used to include the cherry tree incident) The question is whether the propositional content is about things. I know you don't like anything smacking of correlation so let's just say predictions about future evidence. It seems to me there are some key issues you're intentionally avoiding.

1. If we discover all the rest of the missing papyri pieces along with evidence they are all the papyri, will we find any text dealing with Abraham as say Robert and John Gee argue?

2. If we in the future talk with Abraham and ask him about his past, will the events recounted in the Book of Abraham have actually happened to him?

3. If we ask Abraham whether he wrote something like the Book of Abraham including the variant on Genesis 1 will he say he wrote it?

It seems to me that within Mormon thought even if we can't now answer those in terms of evidence now they are completely comprehensible questions with answers. Our answers to those questions determines how we think of the Book of Abraham. 

Now no one is denying fallibilism in all this. I'm sure Robert, were strong evidence to come out undermining his theory, would adjust his theory. I certainly would. But it tells us what we think right now. By avoiding those questions (which is fine by the way) you're more or less saying that it doesn't matter if it is fiction - or pseudopigrapha if you prefer that term instead.

I will let Wittgenstein answer this one.

 

"Christianity is not based on historical truth rather it offers us a historical narrative and says: now believe! But not believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to a historical narrative, rather believe through thick and thin which you can do only as the result of a life. Here you have a narrative, don't take the same attitude to it as you take to other historical narratives make quite a place in your life for it there is nothing paradoxical about that"

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Christianity is not based on historical truth rather it offers us a historical narrative and says: now believe! But not believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to a historical narrative, rather believe through thick and thin which you can do only as the result of a life. Here you have a narrative, don't take the same attitude to it as you take to other historical narratives make quite a place in your life for it there is nothing paradoxical about that"

The answer there is that it doesn't matter if it's true or fiction. So you're basically conceding my point. I'd add that while that might be an adequate description of historic Christianity, I don't think it's an adequate description of Mormon thought where there is a huge emphasis on truth. More or less what you're saying is that's a mistake. Which is of course fine, but I think you'd acknowledge that for the typical member they do believe in historic Nephites and a historic Abraham and it really would matter to them if it wasn't true. To the degree I'm following you're argument you're just saying this is a mistake and they shouldn't see it like that.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a non-answer since something can be fictitious without being intended to be fictitious. (Think of the histories of George Washington that used to include the cherry tree incident) The question is whether the propositional content is about things. I know you don't like anything smacking of correlation so let's just say predictions about future evidence. It seems to me there are some key issues you're intentionally avoiding.

1. If we discover all the rest of the missing papyri pieces along with evidence they are all the papyri, will we find any text dealing with Abraham as say Robert and John Gee argue?

2. If we in the future talk with Abraham and ask him about his past, will the events recounted in the Book of Abraham have actually happened to him?

3. If we ask Abraham whether he wrote something like the Book of Abraham including the variant on Genesis 1 will he say he wrote it?

It seems to me that within Mormon thought even if we can't now answer those in terms of evidence now they are completely comprehensible questions with answers. Our answers to those questions determines how we think of the Book of Abraham. 

Now no one is denying fallibilism in all this. I'm sure Robert, were strong evidence to come out undermining his theory, would adjust his theory. I certainly would. But it tells us what we think right now. By avoiding those questions (which is fine by the way) you're more or less saying that it doesn't matter if it is fiction - or pseudopigrapha if you prefer that term instead.

Thanks Clark, this is an excellent post that you made that gets back to the heart of this issue, and why I don't understand the answers that MFB is giving to your pointed questions.  I will answer it my way for a contrast to how he answered it.   

1.  If we found all the missing papyri pieces, we should expect that they will be consistent with the pieces we already have, meaning that they won't have anything to do with Abraham. 

2.  Abraham likely didn't exist as a real human, perhaps he did, but even if a real human named Abraham did exist we have no evidence to support that any of the stories about Abraham had even a shred of historicity to them.  Therefore, we shouldn't expect that anything Joseph imagined about Abraham would conform to an actual historical event.  

3.  No, everything about the accounts written in Genesis came so many years after the man Abraham was supposed to have existed, that we shouldn't expect that anything written in Genesis conforms to anything historical.  We also have all the textual and literary evidence that ties the stories in Genesis to the context of the times and the authors that wrote them.   The Documentary Hypothesis is our best scholarly explanation for how these accounts came to be.  

All of the above being said, I think there is a way to approach scripture as symbolic myth that has a lot of value.  Its a post critical naivete view towards God and scripture.  Its a little different than how MFB describes his approach in my opinion.  Its an approach I've read Marcus Borg articulate quite well, and I think its compatible with a rigorous intellectual evaluation and an appreciation for the spiritual component of life at the same time. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Clark, this is an excellent post that you made that gets back to the heart of this issue, and why I don't understand the answers that MFB is giving to your pointed questions.  I will answer it my way for a contrast to how he answered it.   

1.  If we found all the missing papyri pieces, we should expect that they will be consistent with the pieces we already have, meaning that they won't have anything to do with Abraham. 

2.  Abraham likely didn't exist as a real human, perhaps he did, but even if a real human named Abraham did exist we have no evidence to support that any of the stories about Abraham had even a shred of historicity to them.  Therefore, we shouldn't expect that anything Joseph imagined about Abraham would conform to an actual historical event.  

3.  No, everything about the accounts written in Genesis came so many years after the man Abraham was supposed to have existed, that we shouldn't expect that anything written in Genesis conforms to anything historical.  We also have all the textual and literary evidence that ties the stories in Genesis to the context of the times and the authors that wrote them.   The Documentary Hypothesis is our best scholarly explanation for how these accounts came to be.  

All of the above being said, I think there is a way to approach scripture as symbolic myth that has a lot of value.  Its a post critical naivete view towards God and scripture.  Its a little different than how MFB describes his approach in my opinion.  Its an approach I've read Marcus Borg articulate quite well, and I think its compatible with a rigorous intellectual evaluation and an appreciation for the spiritual component of life at the same time

I think you have no idea what Clark is talking about and that you are simply co-opting his post because it provides a convenient platform for your own talking points, which, as usual, conflate an absence for evidence in the deep past with persuasive evidence for absence.

For instance, what evidence do you have that Abraham "likely didn't exist as a real human"? I'm guessing absolutely none. All you can responsibly say is that there isn't enough evidence yet to convince you that he did exist.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you have no idea what Clark is talking about and that you are simply co-opting his post because it provides a convenient platform for your own talking points, which, as usual, conflate an absence for evidence in the deep past with persuasive evidence for absence.

For instance, what evidence do you have that Abraham "likely didn't exist as a real human"? I'm guessing absolutely none. All you can responsibly say is that there isn't enough evidence yet to convince you that he did exist.

I'm trying to participate in a discussion is all.  I have no platform, not sure what that even means.  It doesn't sound very charitable though.  

For my point about Abraham, I'm just pointing out what I've read from modern biblical scholars about the historicity question on Abraham.  I'm not aware of any compelling scholarly evidence that supports a historical Abraham.  I also said that he might have existed and that we don't know.  But we don't have any evidence that any of the stories about Abraham have even a shred of historical evidence to them.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary that you can point me towards?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Historicity

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The answer there is that it doesn't matter if it's true or fiction. So you're basically conceding my point. I'd add that while that might be an adequate description of historic Christianity, I don't think it's an adequate description of Mormon thought where there is a huge emphasis on truth. More or less what you're saying is that's a mistake. Which is of course fine, but I think you'd acknowledge that for the typical member they do believe in historic Nephites and a historic Abraham and it really would matter to them if it wasn't true. To the degree I'm following you're argument you're just saying this is a mistake and they shouldn't see it like that.

"True or fiction"?????

A odd opposition and usage.

Define those. Is Star Wars "false"?

Is every false statement fiction?

Is poetry fiction?  Is phrenology and phlogiston "fiction"

And what is your definition of Truth?

Incredible oversimplifications and blurring of clear distinction. 

What is the propositional content of a Jackson Pollock painting and how do we know if we have the correct interpretation of what constitutes "propositional" ?

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"True or fiction"?????

A odd opposition and usage.

Define those. Is Star Wars "false"?

Is every false statement fiction?

Is poetry fiction?  Is phrenology and phlogiston "fiction"

And what is your definition of Truth?

Incredible oversimplifications and blurring of clear distinction. 

What is the propositional content of a Jackson Pollock painting and how do we know if we have the correct interpretation of what constitutes "propositional" ?

 

Mark, sorry I can't resist jumping in.  :D

Are you familiar with Marcus Borg and other progressive Christians who advocate a metaphorical approach to God & scripture?  He calls this a post critical naivete.  I've heard Boyd Peterson talk about this a bit referencing Paul Ricoeur who calls this the Second Naivete, but I haven't read any Ricoeur yet.  I haven't found many Mormons who really articulate a position in the same way that some of the Christian scholars approach things.  

It seems a little different than your approach where you say that you don't care if the BoM or other scriptures are historical, but that you still personally believe that they are.  And your recent discussions with me suggest that you have another category for that belief of historicity, that isn't based on scholarly historicity, but is a religious category with a different definition of historicity. 

The Borg approach, if I'm representing it accurately, would say that scriptures aren't historical in a scholarly sense but would also say that you can find truth in the stories of scripture even though the stories aren't literal or historical.  Where he differs from you is that I've never heard him articulate that he believes the stories are historical in a religious sense (your new category for defining history).  He would openly acknowledge the stories aren't historical and then discuss why there can be truth in the stories, even though its not literal/historical truth, its a metaphorical truth. 

Can you comment on how your approach differs and whether you're familiar with these other approaches?  

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/topic/1321-borg-and-post-critical-naivete/

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Mark, sorry I can't resist jumping in.  :D

Are you familiar with Marcus Borg and other progressive Christians who advocate a metaphorical approach to God & scripture?  He calls this a post critical naivete.  I've heard Boyd Peterson talk about this a bit referencing Paul Ricoeur who calls this the Second Naivete, but I haven't read any Ricoeur yet.  I haven't found many Mormons who really articulate a position in the same way that some of the Christian scholars approach things.  

It seems a little different than your approach where you say that you don't care if the BoM or other scriptures are historical, but that you still personally believe that they are.  And your recent discussions with me suggest that you have another category for that belief of historicity, that isn't based on scholarly historicity, but is a religious category with a different definition of historicity. 

The Borg approach, if I'm representing it accurately, would say that scriptures aren't historical in a scholarly sense but would also say that you can find truth in the stories of scripture even though the stories aren't literal or historical.  Where he differs from you is that I've never heard him articulate that he believes the stories are historical in a religious sense (your new category for defining history).  He would openly acknowledge the stories aren't historical and then discuss why there can be truth in the stories, even though its not literal/historical truth, its a metaphorical truth. 

Can you comment on how your approach differs and whether you're familiar with these other approaches?  

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/topic/1321-borg-and-post-critical-naivete/

 

I will comment when I get a chance. I have read a fair amount of Ricoeur, but it was long ago but I'm sure that it influenced my thinking. that was before I moved out of Continental philosophy and got more into analytical philosophy, where I had to be in US universities to get degrees in philosophy in those days.

I think Wittgenstein nailed it. I just quoted a good statement from him exactly on this just a couple hours ago up thread.

I live as if the Book of Mormon is historical, and that is all that matters to me. This whole concept of" seeing" as " is very important in W.  Essentially I see the Book of Mormon as W's rabbit duck figure. just as one can flip between the two perspectives in that illustration one can flip it between a faithful historical view and a fully spiritual view. Which is true is it a rabbit or a duck? It is both at once. Google paraconsistent logic.

image.jpeg.cf190547c2c92702dc1d9883a0f605ae.jpeg

"

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...