Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[CA Steve]

I don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to start petitioning the Brethren to add Kuhn to the canon.

Who is with me? 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

For you and those who believe in correspondence there can be no "objective evidence" but to millions with another paradigm the evidence is massive and totally "objective"

Go ahead and try to define "objective" - but of course we have been through this probably a thousand times, right?

I have still not seen a coherent definition.  Have you read Thomas Nagel yet? Rorty?  James?  Dewey?  Heidegger? 

If you want to use philosophical terms your credibility depends on having read this stuff.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/activities/modules/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf

I wouldn't use the term objective, regardless if there were millions, or hundreds, or billions of people who subscribed to this belief.  Its not the number of people that make something objective, its the ability to evaluate the claim using an agreed upon set of criteria that can be measured and evaluated with as little bias as possible.  

You didn't comment on my point about how any claim by any religious group is equally true when it comes to saying it was accomplished by the power of God.  I think this is the main point I was trying to make.  Claiming something is done by the power of God is not unique to Mormonism.  

I wasn't aware I was using philosophical terms per say, I think you know I'm not trained/educated in this arena.  Just having a conversation.  

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Just a theory"?  And your view is the "TRUTH?" Right?

Perhaps you should become acquainted with Kuhn's work regarding paradigms and how others show how they are considered "true" within a context for a given audience.

This is my major criticism of your position- that you think it is "True" without establishing or even referencing a theory of truth to substantiate it.

It's worth noting that Kuhn himself moved away from paradigms and a more naturalistic approach to a more a priori approach using theories. It's also important to recognize that Kuhn used paradigm in different ways. There was paradigm as a kind of foundation theory combined with practices, values, rules and norms. Then there was the arguably more important paradigm as exemplar. Certainly Kuhn adopts a more anti-realist view of truth and rejects reference as dominating natural kinds. That means that one can't translate between schemes/paradigms. However of course one need not agree with Kuhn here.

I'm not sure someone is wrong to use the traditional sense of truth, especially when it remains a majority position in philosophy. (Only around ¼ of philosophers hold to a deflationary notion of truth) Even if you make appeal to language games, then it seems the problem is that the language game you are playing is completely different from what everyone else is discussing. More to the point, if you're discussing Joseph Smith historically the way Kuhn discussed historic period of science then you have to adopt the language and positions of Joseph Smith. That is you're making the same move you're accusing others of doing by translating Joseph's work into this new paradigm for which there's no evidence Joseph used. All you've really done is appropriated Joseph but haven't shown you're being true to Joseph himself.

Edited December 19, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Equally right?"

By what standard?

And yes, philosophically within communities truth is contextual.  If you are mixing paradigms then of course the paradigms do not cohere with each other and none man's "right" is another man's "wrong"

Can you show any other coherent definition of what "right" could mean that is not contextual?  Why do you keep repeating this stuff without answering?  Please give me some basis for your definition of "right".

I used the term equally right, because you said that Joseph got it half right.  I didn't exactly love that term "right" in the first place, but since you used that term I thought I would point out that Joseph was just as right as Nostradamus or any other person who claims prophetic powers. 

Its all subjective and according to the terms you're using, people can't evaluate how accurate a person actually was about their claims, because you aren't using criteria that can be objectively evaluated.  You are making a separate point about spiritual value, and spiritual value is purely subjective.  

[Dan Vogel]

 

Quote

I'm convinced that's how the Book of Abraham was produced. Joseph naively looked at the images and guided by what he thought was the gift and power of God he created what he thought was a translation.

 

He was only half wrong. What he had as a result was given by the gift and power of God but was not a translation. ...

 

I am also totally convinced that Joseph completely thought he was translating the Egyptian by the power of God. 

 

So much for deception.

 

At least he got it half right, it was definitely by the power of God.

 

 

 

And you know this how? How is this not positivism as you have defined it? I see, it’s not positivism because you can’t demonstrate it. This is merely apologetic wishful thinking.

 

At least I can point to the text itself to show JS believed God can inspire deception for the greater good.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Dan Vogel
left out response, can't get it to work

[CA Steve]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting that Kuhn himself moved away from paradigms and a more naturalistic approach to a more a priori approach using theories. It's also important to recognize that Kuhn used paradigm in different ways. There was paradigm as a kind of foundation theory combined with practices, values, rules and norms. Then there was the arguably more important paradigm as exemplar. Certainly Kuhn adopts a more anti-realist view of truth and rejects reference as dominating natural kinds. That means that one can't translate between schemes/paradigms. However of course one need not agree with Kuhn here.

Does one need to understand what paradigm they are using before he can understand what the word paradigm means?

Asking for a friend. 

[CA Steve]

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They're impressive given the inherent limitations I suppose. I didn't know that they're lead not wood - I was going by Ritner's paper which said they were woodcuts. Thanks for the link. I hadn't known the JSP had the original plate. Lead suggests they were easier to make than wood. So that reduces the probability of a mistake. Unfortunately we don't have the original papyri here so we don't know if a portion was missing and reconstructed as appears to be the case with facsimile 1. Comparing facsimile 1 with the original vignette though there clearly are lots of small differences so I think it's pretty plausible this was a mistake or reconstruction.

Do we know what condition the original was in when the lead plate was made. Given facsimile 1 it may well be that the vignette for facsimile 3 was damaged. (Again, my apologies for not knowing all the nuances here) Given the erroneous reconstructions for the lion couch I'm not sure why we should assume that's not going on in facsimile 3. Even if the lead is scraped off intentionally (not at all clear) it could just have been that Hedlock, Joseph or someone else didn't like the reconstruction.

Looking at the lead plate for fac 1 it seems about on part with fac 3 in roughness. We know the "hands" of the "victim" reconstructed actually are filling in for something else entirely based upon similar vignettes. I'd imagine the same thing happened with facsimile 3. Without the original papyri for fac 3 I'm not sure we can say too much.

We do not have the original copy of Facsimile #3 but we can be reasonably confident that it was intact at the time the woodcut was made for a variety of reasons. With the exception of the question about Anubis' snout, the reproduction we now have is consistent with what one would expect to see in this type of funerary scene. This isn't the case for either of the other two facsimiles.  For damage to have occurred at the snout it would have to have been precisely at the snout and top of the head without any other adjacent damage to close by areas. This would mean the damage was at the interior portion of the facsimile and would not be where we expect to see damage, which is at the edges. Also facsimile #3 was on the interior end of the scroll and we have this contemporary description of the scroll from the Cleveland Whig on March 27, 1835 before it was purchased by Joseph Smith, describing how the ends were somewhat damaged but the interior leaves were in good shape.

Quote

There was found deposited in the arms of the old man referred to above, a book of ancient form and construction, which, to us, was by far the most interesting part of the exhibition. Its leaves were of bark, in length some 10 or 12 inches and 3 or 4 in width. The ends are  somewhat decayed, but at the centre the leaves are in a state of perfect perseveration. It is the writing of no ordinary penman, probably of the old man near whose heart it was deposited at the embalming.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by CA Steve

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Dan Vogel said:

However, I have to wonder what “spiritual value” means to you since the text clearly reflects the values and understandings of the 19th century regarding the black race. Nevertheless, I don’t deny that you are capable of deriving “spiritual value” from almost anything if you try hard enough.

I'd probably quibble here. While there's no doubt the early Mormons were, as nearly all Americans, racist what's interesting is how long it took for the Book of Abraham to be used in a racist fashion. Second if we go by the text it's interesting that the type of southern slavery apologetic that Brigham Young later latched onto is missing. The priesthood discussed is a patriarchal priesthood. i.e. right of the firstborn passed down to the firstborn son. (1:2) This is quite different from what Brigham later asserts. 

Further historians the past few years have quite conclusively shown Joseph didn't share Brigham's views on race and was quite willing to ordain black men to the priesthood. Abel was ordained in 1836 well before the Times and Seasons publication. 

The only other thing you could point to is Joseph's appropriation of Anubis as a black servant. However that doesn't necessarily mean blacks are essentially servants nor does it imply Joseph thought all servants were black. 

Now exactly how to take the patriarchal priesthood is up for debate still. Jonathan Stapley tends to reject treating it as a separate priesthood the way Ehat did. I'll confess I'm still a bit skeptical of Jonathan here although I've not had time to really deal with the nuances of his argument. So I may well be just misunderstanding things still. Stapley has noted parallels between Mormon baptism and Puritan sealing of the Abrahamic lineage for instance. 

In any case, whatever is going on in Abraham 1, it just doesn't seem that similar to racial ideas of the era. If the vignettes were being seen through a racial identity theory, then the question would be why the figures in fac 1 & 3 are white and not black if Abr 1 should be read as blacks being denied the priesthood. I think some have even noted that the bad reconstruction on the lion couch scene makes the face of the sacrificer white rather than black like the original Anubis. If Abraham is to be read racially that seems a very odd thing to do.

25 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

We do not have the original copy of Facsimile #3 but we can be reasonably confident that it was intact at the time the woodcut was made for a variety of reasons.

But doesn't that completely undermine the theory that the lead plate was modified? After all the papyri was being regularly shown. If what was in Times and Seasons doesn't match what's on the papyri people would immediately notice.

I must be missing something obvious here. 

33 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Does one need to understand what paradigm they are using before he can understand what the word paradigm means?

Asking for a friend. 

Kuhn in his original work is often ambiguous and equivocates at times. He got more careful in his later work but that work moves away from the position I think Mark wants. In the original work there's two main uses. The first is a social conception of the theories, practices, values and so forth scientists use. This is more obvious when there's a divide and conflict between groups of scientists over how to do science. The second and arguably most important notion is paradigm as an exemplar. So the cycles in Aristotilean physics and geocentric astronomy versus linear motion in Newtonian and heliocentric astronomy. The other example Kuhn uses is vortices in Descartes' physics prior to Newton. Its basically an idea that is both an example within the science but also the model to explain how to do science.

It's a pretty simple idea. The next key idea in Kuhn is that reference doesn't matter. This is where he breaks with many other philosophers and is why while he's influential in philosophy of science there's really no Kuhnian school. Since one doesn't refer to objects but only has semantic descriptions there's an inability to fully be able to translate between two ways of doing science. Both Kuhn and Feyerabend had similar ideas. However as I noted Kuhn moves away from this somewhat in his later work treating it as a semantic issue rather than the broader problem in his early work. What becomes incommensurate in the mature Kuhn is primarily taxonomical schemes.

The problem is that as soon as you have the ability to refer then the incommensurability thesis breaks down. There's also a question by many philosophers as to whether Kuhn even on his own terms is able to argue well for the incommensurability thesis. (Some suggest this may be why he moved away from it) You have IMO pretty devastating critique of Kuhn here by Davidson, Kripke, and particularly Putnam (who was largely following Peirce).

All in all, I don't think I buy Mark's claim here by appealing to Kuhn. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Dan Vogel]

 

Quote

Note that OUR definition of "translate" is NUMBER 6 of these 7 definitions while including in its connotation "to express the SENSE of one language into another" .  That is clearly not what we would call a "literal" translation.

 

No one is saying JS translated from the papyri, except Gee and Muhlestein, and they claim we don’t have the text. So debating about kinds of translation is irrelevant.

 

Quote

I see no basis for the accusation of "deception" when it is clear Joseph thought they were literal translations.

 

The whole assertion that there was "deception" demands that we are able to peer into Joseph's brain and know what his motivations are.

 

No competent historian does that.

No, claiming that JS thought he was translating the papyrus when he was not requires mindreading, because there is nothing else to support that assertion except wishful thinking and apologetic necessity. We conclude all the time that people are trying to deceive us based on the facts not supporting the claims. That’s what JS provided us when he produced the working papers. To say that JS naively thought he was actually translating each character is to (1) read his mind, and (2) cast doubt on all his revelations. However, if you posit that he intentionally deceived to help people believe what he sincerely believed were inspired writings, then I think that is the lesser miracle.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Dan Vogel

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But doesn't that completely undermine the theory that the lead plate was modified? After all the papyri was being regularly shown. If what was in Times and Seasons doesn't match what's on the papyri people would immediately notice.

First off I am not trying to defend any particular theory being put forth. Though when I looked closely earlier today at the area in question I could see why someone would think there are chisel marks where the snout should have been. I can see why some might think it was removed. The quality of the photo in the JSP is amazing and the zoom function is astounding. I don't know about you but when I zoom in closely, I see what appears to have been an area where a snout was removed. Lead printing plate photo of Facsimile #3

Now as far as whether or not people would have mentioned the removal, I don't necessarily think that follows from what we know from that time. Most people probably never saw the Egyptian artifacts after the Facsimiles were published in 1842.  For those that did it was just a quick tour for which they paid to see the entire collection. How many of them might have had in hand a copy of the T&S when they took such a tour? What are the chances these people would have even noticed such a change? Add to that the fact the  other two facsimiles had significant additions made to them that would have been immediately obvious to anyone comparing the originals to what was printed in the T&S but we don't have any contemporary accounts, that I know of, that mention such additions. So I think we cannot read anything into the fact that no one mentioned the purported snout removal in #3.

 

ON Edit.

Clark you might find this interesting. This is a sketch of facsimile#2 made probably by Williard Richards sometime between 1841 & 1842. This sketch shows the damaged condition of the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq at that date from which it can be determined what areas Joseph filled in on his own and which were original. Hand drawn sketch of Facsimile #2 in 1842.

Edited December 19, 2018 by CA Steve
Edited 2nd time to add clairty.

[Dan Vogel]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd probably quibble here. While there's no doubt the early Mormons were, as nearly all Americans, racist what's interesting is how long it took for the Book of Abraham to be used in a racist fashion. Second if we go by the text it's interesting that the type of southern slavery apologetic that Brigham Young later latched onto is missing. The priesthood discussed is a patriarchal priesthood. i.e. right of the firstborn passed down to the firstborn son. (1:2) This is quite different from what Brigham later asserts. 

Further historians the past few years have quite conclusively shown Joseph didn't share Brigham's views on race and was quite willing to ordain black men to the priesthood. Abel was ordained in 1836 well before the Times and Seasons publication. 

The only other thing you could point to is Joseph's appropriation of Anubis as a black servant. However that doesn't necessarily mean blacks are essentially servants nor does it imply Joseph thought all servants were black. 

Now exactly how to take the patriarchal priesthood is up for debate still. Jonathan Stapley tends to reject treating it as a separate priesthood the way Ehat did. I'll confess I'm still a bit skeptical of Jonathan here although I've not had time to really deal with the nuances of his argument. So I may well be just misunderstanding things still. Stapley has noted parallels between Mormon baptism and Puritan sealing of the Abrahamic lineage for instance. 

In any case, whatever is going on in Abraham 1, it just doesn't seem that similar to racial ideas of the era. If the vignettes were being seen through a racial identity theory, then the question would be why the figures in fac 1 & 3 are white and not black if Abr 1 should be read as blacks being denied the priesthood. I think some have even noted that the bad reconstruction on the lion couch scene makes the face of the sacrificer white rather than black like the original Anubis. If Abraham is to be read racially that seems a very odd thing to do.

I'm not commenting on JS vs BY, or even the priesthood ban. The concept of the curse of Cain being preserved through the flood in Egyptus and the Hamites, which is discussed in one of the videos.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

They're impressive given the inherent limitations I suppose. I didn't know that they're lead not wood - I was going by Ritner's paper which said they were woodcuts. Thanks for the link. I hadn't known the JSP had the original plate. Lead suggests they were easier to make than wood. So that reduces the probability of a mistake. Unfortunately we don't have the original papyri here so we don't know if a portion was missing and reconstructed as appears to be the case with facsimile 1. Comparing facsimile 1 with the original vignette though there clearly are lots of small differences so I think it's pretty plausible this was a mistake or reconstruction.

Do we know what condition the original was in when the lead plate was made. Given facsimile 1 it may well be that the vignette for facsimile 3 was damaged. (Again, my apologies for not knowing all the nuances here) Given the erroneous reconstructions for the lion couch I'm not sure why we should assume that's not going on in facsimile 3. Even if the lead is scraped off intentionally (not at all clear) it could just have been that Hedlock, Joseph or someone else didn't like the reconstruction.

Looking at the lead plate for fac 1 it seems about on part with fac 3 in roughness. We know the "hands" of the "victim" reconstructed actually are filling in for something else entirely based upon similar vignettes. I'd imagine the same thing happened with facsimile 3. Without the original papyri for fac 3 I'm not sure we can say too much.

Perhaps. To me it's just a version of the "it's all fiction" so I confess I don't find it interesting. If he was working backwards - i.e. using his revelations he already had to try and figure things out I guess that might work.

Earnest question though, if someone thinks Sherlock Holmes was real (as many do) would you say that doesn't matter in the same way you appear to think fiction doesn't matter for Joseph? Because I confess I just don't quite understand why you find this "useful fiction" position appealing.

But of course this extreme relativist position is very much a minority position in philosophy and few philosophers hold to it. That's worth pointing out. It's hardly the logical slam dunk you portray it to be. Clearly you are persuaded by it, but I'm confused as to why you apparently think it obvious enough that anyone would believe it who have read those figures.

 

I pretty much hold to Rorty's position as everyone here knows.

Be nice or I will show the video again!  Rorty has been called the "lucid philosopher" 

On the other hand, like Wittgenstein, and Derrida, he sought to put philosophy out of business by curing all its problems, like a good doctor "putting disease out of business".  You cannot expect philosophers to like that too much.

For Mormons who supposedly eschew the "philosophies of men" it is a great match!

And regarding "fiction" I NEVER use that word because "fiction" is the telling of a tale which is never supposed by the author to have "actually happened".

Along with the "deceit" argument against Joseph- that interpretation simply does not fit Joseph's behavior.

I mean here is a guy who just went through the Anthon affair with a concern that his "characters" may not be translatable the way he translated them and THEN provides ACTUAL COPIES of the text in the facsimilies for everyone to see and yet calls them a "translation" quite boldly!

Does that sound "deceitful" to you??

It is not fiction and it is not deceit.  Clearly Joseph thought that his translation was "correct" and put forth the raw text boldly.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Perhaps. To me it's just a version of the "it's all fiction" so I confess I don't find it interesting

All art is "fiction"?

Very odd view imho

[Dan Vogel]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Just a theory"?  And your view is the "TRUTH?" Right? 

Perhaps you should become acquainted with Kuhn's work regarding paradigms and how others show how they are considered "true" within a context for a given audience.

This is my major criticism of your position- that you think it is "True" without establishing or even referencing a theory of truth to substantiate it.

In short you are using your theory - which is also "just a theory"- to say the catalyst position is just a theory!

Of course they are both theories!!

And yes of course I am ignoring what you see as "evidence" within your paradigm which I see as erroneously applying your paradigm in a religious context in which your "evidence" is not "evidence" at all.

And if other Mormons want to debate that point while accepting your paradigm, that is their problem!  I see that as an unwise strategy. 

They should understand that the restoration brings with it the Restoration paradigms found in Moroni 10 and Alma 32- where religious truth is what is "sweet" to the person testing the theory.

Your argument is reminiscent of Boghossian's "Fear of Knowledge"  https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/0199230412

To put his complex argument into a few words, he maintains that relativism cannot be "True" because it debates the meaning of "truth".  And so supposedly it cannot be "true" because the view itself says there is no "truth" at least in the context under discussion.

Unfortunately for his argument the relativist reply is "Yes that is exactly right- my paradigm is no more true or false than yours"

Relativists know that even relativism is only "relatively true" within a paradigm and with in a community context.   If Mormons want to debate the evidence with you while accepting your evidence AS evidence, using the same "rules" you use,  I think all of you are making the same mistake. 

But of course that assertion can only be justified through discussion of the assertion which involves issues in philosophy and theology.  Should you want to go there, I would love to move the discussion in that direction.

Sorry, you might think that your catalyst theory is in a different paradigm than the long scroll theory or even my pious fraud theory—it’s not. You and others have invented the catalyst theory, not your religion. It didn’t come by revelation, which might be argued is another source of knowledge that positivism denies. That’s not your position. It therefore is not immune to scholarly critique. You must have a warrant for your position, or else its mere wishful thinking. 

 

A shortcoming of Kuhn is that he could not explain how paradigm shifts or change occurs if no one can understand or admit the evidence of the other. We know that a theory is never completely disproven, but is abandoned for a better one. No one has time or patience to stick around to the bitter end except diehards. The reason that a theory can’t be totally disproven is because diehards keep making adjustments and everyone has a different tolerance for contradiction. Little wonder Kuhn is a favorite for Creationists, Flat Earthers, and every other pseudo-historian and scientist.

 

There’s no need to defend relativism and the nature of truth. The use of postmodernism by apologists is a waste of time since they end up making assertions and defending them the same as anyone else. So once you make an assertion that is supposed to describe the nature of physical reality—in this instance, the BOA and associated documents, you are accountable to demonstrate why you make such an assertion or else it is a mere opinion.

[Michael Sudworth]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:20 PM, mfbukowski said:

As Galileo might have said the Book of Abraham teaches us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go or how to translate Egyptian.

This statement is incorrect.

You are asserting a false dichotomy with no supporting evidence.  The Book of Abraham teaches us *both* "how to go to heaven" and "how the heavens go." 

On what basis are you asserting we need adopt a subset of what the scriptures teach us? 

Quote

The papyri were a catalyst for inspiration for Joseph like looking into a flame or watching the ocean. They were a visual stimulus to receive inspired prose.

Those who don't understand how that works will never understand the Book of Abraham.

But don't you ignore the vast majority of the text of the book? Didn't the Lord give us those words for a purpose? 

I think I understand the Book of Abraham quite well.  It teaches me spiritual truths.  It also teaches me truths about the physical world.

Quote

Those who do understand it will never understand the critics who are fundamentalist literalists.

I do not understand this sentence.

Quote

 

Critics like Vogel are just as literalist as people who believe in a worldwide flood.

They are unified in fundamentalism but just have different religions, Vogel's being fundamentalist scientific positivism, and the other being fundamentalist Christianity.

 

Rhetoric like this is ultimately counterproductive.

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No deception.

He thought they were translations.  And for my money, they were especially when you take into consideration the definitions for "translation" used in his community and time.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

Note that OUR definition of "translate" is NUMBER 6 of these 7 definitions while including in its connotation "to express the SENSE of one language into another" .  That is clearly not what we would call a "literal" translation.

I see no basis for the accusation of "deception" when it is clear Joseph thought they were literal translations.

The whole assertion that there was "deception" demands that we are able to peer into Joseph's brain and know what his motivations are.

No competent historian does that.

Ok. But the "translations" of the facsimiles were not correct and Joseph Smith thought he was translating them correctly through inspiration from God. So, was Joseph Smith a little delusional or was God deceptive in allowing Joseph to claim wrong translations were correct?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

mfbukowski,

 

Again, I don’t find your remarks responsive to my position.

 

 

 

In order to "respond" to your remarks I would have to actually argue within your paradigm.  Of course I am not going to accept your paradigm as you are used to most Mormons doing because your paradigm, I believe is insufficient to establish an understanding of spiritual matters.

That is really the entire problem here as I have said from the beginning.   I feel you do not understand any possible paradigms or frames of reference other than your own, and in my opinion, your paradigm is deliberately hostile to my position.

I am questioning all of your tacit unanalyzed assumptions that make up "your position".   I am intentionally taking the discussion "up a notch" to a meta-level and examining your assumptions about what justification and truth are.

Quote

 

I quite clearly said my position “has nothing to do with denying the BOA is inspired. Scholarship can’t determine that.” I have even conceded that JS may have believed he was inspired to dictate the text. So I think we are essentially agreed on this point.

 

 

Agreed and as far as I am concerned this is the end of the discussion.   All else is irrelevant.  But it seems to me you still want to make more of all this.  You still want to debate the "translation" which you just admitted is irrelevant to its spiritual value. You want to debate that Joseph was "deceptive" which would require a mind reader to prove and then of course one would have to prove that mind reading is possible and that the one making the assertion was in fact a mind reader.  Good luck.   Oh well then we shall continue I suppose.

Quote

 

However, I have to wonder what “spiritual value” means to you since the text clearly reflects the values and understandings of the 19th century regarding the black race. Nevertheless, I don’t deny that you are capable of deriving “spiritual value” from almost anything if you try hard enough.

 

 

What it is is Alma 32. Feelings in your heart.  Also Moroni 10, "burning of the bosom"

It's how how you know killing babies for fun is wrong without "evidence".  It is how you know that you love your wife without "evidence".  It is how you knew that every decision in your life that matters was "right" or "wrong" and even possibly changed from one to another.  THAT is the nature of "spiritual value".   Yes it is subjective and that is precisely the point and why all your arguing about Egyptian is irrelevant.   It is how you know that your political party is right and others are less right or downright wrong.  It is about how you knew what profession was "right" and why you did not become a fireman.  It is about what works for you to construct your place in the universe in your own subjective world.   

It is the world you create for yourself from matter unorganized.  Did you know that is what Mormonism is really about and not papyri?   It is knowing that to be a perfect human is better than being a drug dealing murderer, without any objective evidence whatsoever.

Quote

 

JS’s use of deception isn’t relevant if all you want is the “spiritual value” you might derive from the text. However, there are other questions to ask of texts where deception does matter.

 

 

Sure there are, but these ain't them.   

This is not a court of law where Joseph is going to jail because you think he should.  The triers of fact (the jury) is still out.  And what is the truth of a legal verdict? The opinion of a community of peers.  And at the moment you are not among his believing Mormon peers on the jury so we win. 

All the world is "peer review" and one's peers who agree with your assumptions decide what is good or bad.  Ever noticed how lawyers choose who is on the jury and who is not?  They are finding "triers of fact" who agree with their clients.   Why?  Because there is no better definition of "fact" than one's peers.   That notion goes deep in our culture!!

And that is why I am not arguing by your rules even though other Mormons may.   Theirs is a losing battle because the Restoration itself has given us the community that calls "burning in the bosom" "true" in their social context.

Quote

 

The author’s or poet’s or artist’s intentions do not matter if you are assessing the work on its own merits, but there are other approaches to literary works depending on the kinds of questions you are trying to answer.

 

 

Of course there are precisely for the reasons I am raising!!   Other contexts require other approaches and "rules".  But you appear to be stuck on "my way or the highway" which is a little.... unflexible!    You keep presenting my points for me !

Quote

 

 If you assume the BOA isn’t a translation, then approaching it like fiction might make sense; but if you are trying to determine if it is a translation or how it was created, then your approach is going to be different.

 

 

Notice that starts with "IF"!!  Yes of course you are right again and we agree, but it is not "fiction".  In fiction both the author and the audience know it is "made up".   Here the author didn't know it was "made up" and in fact claimed he was not the author- God was!   So it is clearly NOT "fiction"- but yes of course if it was fiction it would follow other rules.

And I am not trying to determine if it is a "translation" because it patently is not except in a different sense than the usual usage.  

It is like someone reading tea leaves and then giving an answer which is capable of changing lives with its wisdom.  I don't call that "fiction" OR a "translation" of the tea leaves.  It is something else entirely.

Quote

 

Again, it doesn’t matter to me if you think you can find “spiritual value” in the BOA.

 

 

Good. !

Then why all the fuss?  I think you might be fibbing on this one!    If you thought that people could find spiritual value here what's the beef?   It's like arguing about transubstantiation as something being scientifically incorrect!   Most Catholics would say "DUH!! Be quiet!  I am communing with the Lord- quit bothering me!"

So why are you bothering us with issues that are so obvious??

Quote

 

My interest is primarily confined to those like Gee and Muhlestein who want to defend the text as a translation of a missing papyrus or those like Robin Jenson who think JS mistakenly thought he was translating the Breathing Permit when he wasn’t. Evidence of conscious deception is well attested in the working papers.

 

 

Good then go ahead confine your comments to those who share your paradigm! 

Quote

 

Of course proof by analogy is a fallacy. The most it can supply is an understanding of how you view it, not how JS viewed it. That would be circular. Behind this analogy is a definition of “translation” that is question begging. You haven’t demonstrated that JS viewed translation other than in the ordinary sense of the word, although he was aided by revelation. You haven’t show that JS’s translation’s translation of the Egyptian papyri is as Picasso’s painting are to reality. 

 

It is a valid interpretation of the word "translate" current in Joseph's time and your interpretation is no better than mine.

That Joseph consciously understood that or not is irrelevant to the product.  You develop a drug for acne and it turns out to be useful for heart disease.  Again it becomes an issue of whether or not and in what case the artist's intentions are relevant

And regarding the last sentence I am ASSERTING that point, not even attempting to "show" it!  It's like you asserting that you love your wife and me demanding that you "show" the feelings of your heart as objective evidence.  I am asserting an analogy which you can accept or not- either it works for you or it doesn't.  And besides quite frankly any further discussion would involve a detailed lengthy argument involving Dewey's aesthetics and the nature of "reality" itself and what "correspondence to reality" is or means- and therefore the philosophy of language since assertions are after all- linguistic utterances and symbols and the relationship between these symbols and "reality" is a tenuous one at least.

In order to prove that something "corresponds" to reality one has to give up the notion of the "appearance of reality" as opposed to "reality itself" and then get outside "appearances" and observe "reality itself" independent of "appearances"to decide if the statement does or not not "correspond" to the symbolic utterance floating through the air or by squiggles on a page alleging that such statements "correspond to reality"

And regarding "reality"- read the Rorty quote below in my siggy.  

Quote

 

Rather, JS’s “translation” has no semblance to the papyri, whereas Picasso has some.

 

"Semblance"?  That was simply an example I chose- I could have picked instead a painting by Kandinsky that has no semblance to "reality" to make the point- the point being that like music, or seeing the world itself, art is subject to interpretation- or "in the eye of the beholder".  It is like citing an example like the Mozart "Requiem" and saying it "sounds sad".   In what way could vibrations floating through the atmosphere "correspond" to "sadness"??  Could that be established through empirical evidence about "the world"?   How do vibrations in the atmosphere or reflected photons striking our retinas "represent reality" which we cannot really "see" independent of our minds forming images which may or may not "correspond" to "reality"?

But that is beyond this discussion.  I do not subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth.

Quote

The two references in the first chapter of the BOA do not matter if you are only interested in the “spiritual value” of the text...

Great.  End of discussion as far as I am concerned

Quote

but it matters if you are Gee and Muhlestein trying to defend JS’s claims to have translated the text from the papyrus.

That is the problem Gee and Muhlestein have taken upon themselves.   Ask them not me.

Quote

 

Would you get the same feeling from Warhol’s painting if he used a fictitious soup company?

 

I have no understanding of the point this is supposed to make.   The entire point Warhol was making was not about "feelings" but the point that I am also making- that everything- even the most common item of life- a can of soup- is "high art" if you put it into an art museum.

He was making the same point I am right now, and that Wittgenstein made, that context IS meaning.  You take an object and change its context and you give it a whole new meaning.

You take the papyri and call it "art" and you have changed the meaning.  One relates to it as an art piece not seeing it as "text" but as something else entirely- a gift from God- story about the life of Abraham or whatever you want to make of it including arguing about the alleged translation.   The latter is one of many options.

Quote

 

Again, would you get the same feeling from Warhol’s painting if he used a fictitious soup company? No. Another question might be does knowing JS did not translate the text of the BOA change how it is viewed? Yes. It may have “value as ... an aesthetic object,” but it no longer has historical value.

 

Yep

it has spiritual value and the historical value is irrelevant.  You are beginning to catch on.  So why argue about its irrelevant historical value?

Quote

Oh, really? Says who? I thought the author’s intentions don’t matter? Now you are just talking nonsense.

You crack me up.  I never said that the artists intentions mattered or not.  The point is that cannot be taken as a blanket rule either way- just that changing the context changes the meaning of the piece.  And like most things, nonsense depends on your paradigm

To me this is ALL nonsense.  You keep agreeing about the spiritual value and then argue about what is irrelevant- history et al.

Quote

 

So you want to claim JS intended the BOA as poetry and not as a translation of an ancient document. This is another example of a question-begging definition fallacy.

 

Oh my.  I am dismayed!

I never said that Joseph intended the BOA "as poetry" just that I see it that way.   I have no clue how that was supposed to be fallacious or question begging.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting that Kuhn himself moved away from paradigms and a more naturalistic approach to a more a priori approach using theories. It's also important to recognize that Kuhn used paradigm in different ways. There was paradigm as a kind of foundation theory combined with practices, values, rules and norms. Then there was the arguably more important paradigm as exemplar. Certainly Kuhn adopts a more anti-realist view of truth and rejects reference as dominating natural kinds. That means that one can't translate between schemes/paradigms. However of course one need not agree with Kuhn here.

I'm not sure someone is wrong to use the traditional sense of truth, especially when it remains a majority position in philosophy. (Only around ¼ of philosophers hold to a deflationary notion of truth) Even if you make appeal to language games, then it seems the problem is that the language game you are playing is completely different from what everyone else is discussing. More to the point, if you're discussing Joseph Smith historically the way Kuhn discussed historic period of science then you have to adopt the language and positions of Joseph Smith. That is you're making the same move you're accusing others of doing by translating Joseph's work into this new paradigm for which there's no evidence Joseph used. All you've really done is appropriated Joseph but haven't shown you're being true to Joseph himself.

Unfortunately as often happens in our discussions, there are a lot of ambiguous "isms" blurring the boundaries.   For example the 24% in the deflationary camp might or might not include coherence theorists since Rorty for example, is classified as using both views.

If I found it important one might say that "coherence" is actually a subset of deflationism since both rely upon a general notion that truth is what the community accepts.  And there appears no "coherence" category- just an "other" category which makes up over 17% of respondents.  If all those are tacit "correspondence" or Deflationary theorists depending on interpretation, the numbers become pretty useless.

But I have never minded being in the minority of people who get it "right" anyway. 

 

[Gervin]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All art is "fiction"?

Very odd view imho

how about all art is a "lie"?

 

“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

― Pablo Picasso

Edited December 20, 2018 by Gervin

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Ok. But the "translations" of the facsimiles were not correct 

Please share with us your credentials in Egyptology since you obviously think you are qualified to make such an opinion.

Kerry Muhlestein,. PhD in Egyptology at UCLA talks about recent research on the Book of Abraham.  

https://youtu.be/gCH529IgDrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzU6C5Wb8U
https://youtu.be/6EHKY1NUmcg?t=1m10s
He has a playlist of 15 videos on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzU6C5Wb8U

Dr. Muhlestein's credentials == 
PhD in Egyptology at UCLA
Chairman of a national committee for the American Research Center in Egypt and serves on their Research Supporting Member Council.
He has also served on a committee for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, and currently serves on their Board of Trustees and as a Vice President of the organization.

Senior Fellow of the William F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research.

Participating with the International Association of Egyptologists, and has worked with Educational Testing Services on their AP World History test. He gave a presentation at the international Egyptological conference in Moscow held in the fall of 2009.

Published articles in professional journals including the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology.
A sampling of Dr. Muhlestein’s other Egyptological work includes: “Binding with Heraldic Plants,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, 2 vols., ed. Jean-Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse Studies, 2007), 1335–41; “Empty Threats? How Egyptians’ Self-Ontology Affect the Way We Read Many Texts,” JSSEA 34 (2007): 115–30; “Execration Ritual,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich (Los Angeles, Cali.: UCLA, 2008), online athttp://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000s3mqr (Accessed February 27, 2013); “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” in The Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 51/2 (2008): 181–208; “Teaching Egyptian History: Some Discipline-Specific Pedagogical Notes,” in The Journal of Egyptian History, 2/1–2 (2009): 173–231.

 

Now, YOUR turn.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am ready to start petitioning the Brethren to add Kuhn to the canon.

Who is with me? 

Just think about it from an apologetic point of view.  This is an age of positivism which though dead is sealed in the popular mind as being a definition of "reason".   Positivists say that any statement which cannot be empirically and objectively verified are "nonsense".  Not false, not unwise, not silly but meaningless nonsense.

In the quest to win souls we are in competition with a public who still believe this because they are uneducated in philosophy.   Just google "positivism is dead" to see how philosophers see postitivism.  It's founding fathers mostly abandoned it themselves eventually.  It is self-contradictory because the statement itself that propositions must be verifiable to have meaning has itself NO VERIFICATION- thereby making it self-contradictory within its own paradigm!!

But the public still clings to such drivel and that is what we have to combat with angels and gold plates and speaking to God all by ourselves.  Not easy,

There is no way to win this battle unless we turn it philosophically and point out the contradictions of their own paradigm.  And Kuhn is totally Pragmatism- in fact there was quite a discussion about whether or not Kuhn misappropriated the theory from Polyanyi 

 

Quote

 

Polanyi–Kuhn debate[edit]

Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over epistemology before either had achieved fame. The charge of plagiarism is peculiar, for Kuhn had generously acknowledged Polanyi in the first edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.^[7] Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay.^[26]

 

The relevant line of course is that "scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline".  Stated that way it is debatable, but nevertheless from my point of view, it demonstrates that "truth" is derived - even in science- by a community of "peers" and their beliefs about what conclusion is "justified"

Justified belief of a community becomes the standard, and "knowledge" and "truth"  as absolute certainty goes out the window.  And still there are those right in this thread who are positivists or believe in the Santa Claus of certainty about the nature of the world.

Sigh.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

how about all art is a "lie"?

 

“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

― Pablo Picasso

Picasso was not a philosopher but I like it anyway. He understands that truth is what is given to us and is created, not found.  Of course!  He was an artist!  Creation is the ultimate human activity and God is the ultimate artist!

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

 

"can't get it to work"

Please try again if you have time.  It is frustrating sometimes.  I cut and paste copies every paragraph or so so that I can go back and reconstruct it easily without wasting too much time.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Does one need to understand what paradigm they are using before he can understand what the word paradigm means?

Asking for a friend. 

Use "theory" as a substitute until you figure out the answer.  It is about what theories you accept about the nature of the world.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

 

 

No one is saying JS translated from the papyri, except Gee and Muhlestein, and they claim we don’t have the text. So debating about kinds of translation is irrelevant.

 

No, claiming that JS thought he was translating the papyrus when he was not requires mindreading, because there is nothing else to support that assertion except wishful thinking and apologetic necessity. We conclude all the time that people are trying to deceive us based on the facts not supporting the claims. That’s what JS provided us when he produced the working papers. To say that JS naively thought he was actually translating each character is to (1) read his mind, and (2) cast doubt on all his revelations. However, if you posit that he intentionally deceived to help people believe what he sincerely believed were inspired writings, then I think that is the lesser miracle.

 

Since with both think that the other is requiring "mindreading" just illustrates well the subjective character of all this.  If he was not certain of his result why would he publish the facsimilies even after the Anthon affair?

He left himself wide open for your criticisms- he cannot have seen them coming.