New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[Bart Burk]

There is nothing in the Bible itself save the experience of reading it and feeling the Spirit.

I know the English Bible is a scholarly translation of an ancient text. Part of my ability to exercise faith in it comes from that knowledge. On the other hand we have Joseph Smith''s rendering of the Book of Abraham which seems to be his own attempt at translating an ancient text using his own intellect. In that way it is a completely different type of translation than the Book of Mormon. We are provided facsimiles of the papyri which show us his translation and as mentioned previously he flunked the test. Mormons might be better off admitting that Joseph was no Egyptian scholar and that the Book of Abraham is not trustworthy for doctrine. It's contents contain no essential doctrine of the Restoration and in fact are in conflict with other Restoration scriptures. Not one thing would be lost by abandoning the Book of Abraham. I was always told that Mormons cared about truth and would abandon things that were proven to be false. It seems to me the Book of Abraham is a good test case of that proposition.

[mfbukowski]

I know the English Bible is a scholarly translation of an ancient text. Part of my ability to exercise faith in it comes from that knowledge. On the other hand we have Joseph Smith''s rendering of the Book of Abraham which seems to be his own attempt at translating an ancient text using his own intellect. In that way it is a completely different type of translation than the Book of Mormon. We are provided facsimiles of the papyri which show us his translation and as mentioned previously he flunked the test. Mormons might be better off admitting that Joseph was no Egyptian scholar and that the Book of Abraham is not trustworthy for doctrine. It's contents contain no essential doctrine of the Restoration and in fact are in conflict with other Restoration scriptures. Not one thing would be lost by abandoning the Book of Abraham. I was always told that Mormons cared about truth and would abandon things that were proven to be false. It seems to me the Book of Abraham is a good test case of that proposition.

The BOA is they key to understanding the spiritual content of the endowment, as it says it does.

 

It gives a hidden framework in parables that opens up the full meaning of the endowment to those who can find it.

[mfbukowski]

I think they would have been better off leaving this topic alone rather than trying to address it so poorly. There is nothing in that article which will bring people closer to Christ or justify the Book of Abraham as scripture. Excuses, excuses and more excuses ...

The article answers the old problem of those who would give a F for translation and in so doing completely miss the entire purpose of this incredible book.

 

It tells others that there are volumes between the lines if they would but seek them out through their own revelations.

[mfbukowski]

You gotta love this.  Or maybe not...

 

Frighteningly ignorant.

[Scott Lloyd]

The article answers the old problem of those who would give a F for translation and in so doing completely miss the entire purpose of this incredible book.

 

It tells others that there are volumes between the lines if they would but seek them out through their own revelations.

I see great value in the new Gospel Topics entry.

 

And, more than ever before, I regard the Book of Abraham as authentic and divine scripture which, like the Book of Mormon, came forth by the gift and power of God. The Church is not going to "de-canonize" it -- nor should it.

 

That said, the disappointing way this thread has developed has left me feeling that there are some who would intransigently refuse to give the Church the benefit of the doubt no matter how reasonable or persuasive the explanation.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I know the English Bible is a scholarly translation of an ancient text. Part of my ability to exercise faith in it comes from that knowledge. On the other hand we have Joseph Smith''s rendering of the Book of Abraham which seems to be his own attempt at translating an ancient text using his own intellect. In that way it is a completely different type of translation than the Book of Mormon. We are provided facsimiles of the papyri which show us his translation and as mentioned previously he flunked the test. Mormons might be better off admitting that Joseph was no Egyptian scholar and that the Book of Abraham is not trustworthy for doctrine. It's contents contain no essential doctrine of the Restoration and in fact are in conflict with other Restoration scriptures. Not one thing would be lost by abandoning the Book of Abraham. I was always told that Mormons cared about truth and would abandon things that were proven to be false. It seems to me the Book of Abraham is a good test case of that proposition.

I have never understood why a man expressing his inspired opinion 3000 years ago is better than a man expressing his inspired opinion 150 years ago.

 

Can you explain why you feel that way?

[mfbukowski]

I see great value in the new Gospel Topics entry.

 

And, more than ever before, I regard the Book of Abraham as authentic and divine scripture which, like the Book of Mormon, came forth by the gift and power of God. The Church is not going to "de-canonize" it -- nor should it.

 

That said, the way this thread has developed has left me feeling that there are some who would intransigently refuse to give the Church the benefit of the doubt no matter how reasonable or persuasive the explanation.

I could not agree more.  The article defines the way we should have, and at least, from now on should, understand the Book of Abraham.

 

To me, it makes all the previous "scholarship" irrelevant. 

[mfbukowski]

We are a church which encourages spiritual experiences and witnesses.  It encourages us to experience directly the incredible phenomenon of intelligence streaming into our brain with the unmistakable attending knowledge that it is not coming from us.

 

We also then tell others about our experiences, in bearing testimonies.  When we finally understand that that experience is, for us individually, what prophets "receive" for others and the church at large, we understand what it means to be a prophet.

 

The scriptures tell us that a testimony of Christ is "the spirit of prophecy" and one cannot have a testimony without at least in some sense being a "prophet".

 

When we tell others of our experience, we ourselves are creating "scripture" at that moment, and that experience leads us to a true understanding of what "scripture" is and is not. 

 

God speaks in all languages at once- in streams of pure intelligence and non-verbal intuitive comprehension flowing into our minds.  It is then up to our frail abilities of our frail human brains to put that into symbols we call language which can then in a feeble way communicate something to our fellow humans.

 

The fact that some beloved prophets tried to do that 3000 years ago is simply confirmed by our own understanding that we can experience today, and we have others who do that today for God's people.

 

The fact that others have had similar experiences throughout history is a great confirmation to me that we, the family of humanity, are all brothers and sisters of a common Father who loves us dearly as his beloved children, and each of us can receive his messages in our hearts as others have throughout history.

[UtahTexan]

We are a church which encourages spiritual experiences and witnesses.  It encourages us to experience directly the incredible phenomenon of intelligence streaming into our brain with the unmistakable attending knowledge that it is not coming from us.

 

We also then tell others about our experiences, in bearing testimonies.  When we finally understand that that experience is, for us individually, what prophets "receive" for others and the church at large, we understand what it means to be a prophet.

 

The scriptures tell us that a testimony of Christ is "the spirit of prophecy" and one cannot have a testimony without at least in some sense being a "prophet".

 

When we tell others of our experience, we ourselves are creating "scripture" at that moment, and that experience leads us to a true understanding of what "scripture" is and is not. 

 

God speaks in all languages at once- in streams of pure intelligence and non-verbal intuitive comprehension flowing into our minds.  It is then up to our frail abilities of our frail human brains to put that into symbols we call language which can then in a feeble way communicate something to our fellow humans.

 

The fact that some beloved prophets tried to do that 3000 years ago is simply confirmed by our own understanding that we can experience today, and we have others who do that today for God's people.

 

The fact that others have had similar experiences throughout history is a great confirmation to me that we, the family of humanity, are all brothers and sisters of a common Father who loves us dearly as his beloved children, and each of us can receive his messages in our hearts as others have throughout history.

 

wow.

 

that. was. beautiful.

 

Thank you for sharing that

[Bart Burk]

I have never understood why a man expressing his inspired opinion 3000 years ago is better than a man expressing his inspired opinion 150 years ago.

Can you explain why you feel that way?

I don't feel that way at all. The Book of Abraham purports to be an ancient text, not just inspired opinion. That is how it needs to be judged. I am amazed that a church which requires an historical BOM is willing to accept the BOA as something less. If God wanted to reveal these things simply as inspiration a direct revelation to Joseph Smith without a questionable "scripture" would have worked. A "catalyst" wasn't necessary unless we believe God is interested in creating stumbling blocks to faith. As for the temple endowment it can stand on its own without the BOA. The Book of Moses and the D&C provide all we need to know about the pre-existence in preparation for the endowment. Edited July 12, 2014 by Bart Burk

[Bart Burk]

We are a church which encourages spiritual experiences and witnesses.  It encourages us to experience directly the incredible phenomenon of intelligence streaming into our brain with the unmistakable attending knowledge that it is not coming from us.

 

We also then tell others about our experiences, in bearing testimonies.  When we finally understand that that experience is, for us individually, what prophets "receive" for others and the church at large, we understand what it means to be a prophet.

 

The scriptures tell us that a testimony of Christ is "the spirit of prophecy" and one cannot have a testimony without at least in some sense being a "prophet".

 

When we tell others of our experience, we ourselves are creating "scripture" at that moment, and that experience leads us to a true understanding of what "scripture" is and is not. 

 

God speaks in all languages at once- in streams of pure intelligence and non-verbal intuitive comprehension flowing into our minds.  It is then up to our frail abilities of our frail human brains to put that into symbols we call language which can then in a feeble way communicate something to our fellow humans.

 

The fact that some beloved prophets tried to do that 3000 years ago is simply confirmed by our own understanding that we can experience today, and we have others who do that today for God's people.

 

The fact that others have had similar experiences throughout history is a great confirmation to me that we, the family of humanity, are all brothers and sisters of a common Father who loves us dearly as his beloved children, and each of us can receive his messages in our hearts as others have throughout history.

That works until your revelation conflicts with the revelation of an equally faithful LDS.

[mfbukowski]

I don't feel that way at all. The Book of Abraham purports to be an ancient text, not just inspired opinion. That is how it needs to be judged. I am amazed that a church which requires an historical BOM is willing to accept the BOA as something less. If God wanted to reveal these things simply as inspiration a direct revelation to Joseph Smith without a questionable "scripture" would have worked. A "catalyst" wasn't necessary unless we believe God is interested in creating stumbling blocks to faith. As for the temple endowment it can stand on its own without the BOA. The Book of Moses and the D&C provide all we need to know about the pre-existence in preparation for the endowment.

In my opinion you are confusing two issues here.  It is an epistemological problem.  One question is whether or not both volumes are "historical" or "really happened".

 

The other question is the epistemological problem- how we KNOW that they are historical.

 

I believe both volumes are "historical"- that Abraham "really did" write the volume we have as the BOA- but that it was received by direct revelation.  Sane for the BOM- I believe that what we call "Nephites" were a sub-culture of the Maya, just as we LDS are a sub-culture of the world cultures of today. 

 

I also believe the BOM is in the same category- Joseph "translated" it while looking into a seer-stone, the same way he "translated" the BOA- but in that case he was looking at fragments of papyri.  Both of those- the seer stone and the fragments were somehow the stimulus to launch his mind into the state necessary to receive that intuition which we take on faith as "inspired" and from God himself.

 

But then we have the epistemological problem of how we "know" that is true.

 

We cannot possibly prove either of those assertions through factual evidence- there is no factual evidence possible to prove that in a factual way.

 

I mean it is possible that the entire script of the "Star Wars" trilogy ACTUALLY HAPPENED "long ago on a galaxy far away"- literally word for word.

 

But it cannot possibly be proven that it did.  If one held the SW trilogy to be "scripture"- I think the case is perfectly analogous.  One can imagine someone taking all the talk about "the force" as a religious story about real forces in the real cosmos- and accepting that as scripture.

 

But those folks would be in the same position- there is no way to PROVE that any of it "really happened".  They would have to accept it on faith.

 

But I see that as no different than the belief that there "really was" a Person named "Jesus of Nazareth" who died for our sins, or that there was a real person named "Moses" who spoke to a burning bush.

 

It's impossible to prove, by any means other than testimony.

 

Catholics believe it because they trust in their church tradition.  That's fine for them- but I don't trust anybody or anything that I cannot prove for my self to my satisfaction.  The fact that someone told a story 3000 years ago is no better to me than a story told 150 years ago, or a guy raving outside Wal Mart on a Wednesday afternoon.

 

I am not going to accept any of it.  But when what I myself call "God" streams intelligence into my mind- I am sold- lock stock and barrel.  Done.  Stick a fork in me.  I have had direct experience of it.

 

So yes, the church wants us to believe ALL of it is "historical"- I have no problem with that.  I can think of a dozen ways it all could be perfectly "historical" and we would have no evidence of it whatsoever. 

 

The bible is no better- people do not get up from the dead no matter what it says in some old fable.  People cannot take on other people's sins- how is that possible?  A just God lets someone else take my punishment?  Why would he do that?  It doesn't happen in the real world.

 

But what if it DID?  Then everything changes!

 

Every science fiction story every written requires us to look at the world from a different view point and presume that the "real" world is very different from the way we see it.  That is the EASY part- imagining the historicity.

 

But the other issue is PROVING it .  That will never happen, and people who do not understand that, in my opinion, are missing the point entirely.

 

So yes, I believe it is all "historical" and "really happened"- on faith.

 

But for me what is important is the MESSAGE that God loves us and forgives our sins, and all the other lessons of the scriptures.  And those I KNOW are true in the only way possible- by testimony.

 

I know it by direct experience.  That knowledge is more real to me than any historical "fact" that I could not have possibly experience directly and have to accept what someone else says by hearsay.

 

Does that help?

[mfbukowski]

wow.

 

that. was. beautiful.

 

Thank you for sharing that

[Bart Burk]

In my opinion you are confusing two issues here. It is an epistemological problem. One question is whether or not both volumes are "historical" or "really happened".

The other question is the epistemological problem- how we KNOW that they are historical.

I believe both volumes are "historical"- that Abraham "really did" write the volume we have as the BOA- but that it was received by direct revelation. Sane for the BOM- I believe that what we call "Nephites" were a sub-culture of the Maya, just as we LDS are a sub-culture of the world cultures of today.

I also believe the BOM is in the same category- Joseph "translated" it while looking into a seer-stone, the same way he "translated" the BOA- but in that case he was looking at fragments of papyri. Both of those- the seer stone and the fragments were somehow the stimulus to launch his mind into the state necessary to receive that intuition which we take on faith as "inspired" and from God himself.

But then we have the epistemological problem of how we "know" that is true.

We cannot possibly prove either of those assertions through factual evidence- there is no factual evidence possible to prove that in a factual way.

I mean it is possible that the entire script of the "Star Wars" trilogy ACTUALLY HAPPENED "long ago on a galaxy far away"- literally word for word.

But it cannot possibly be proven that it did. If one held the SW trilogy to be "scripture"- I think the case is perfectly analogous. One can imagine someone taking all the talk about "the force" as a religious story about real forces in the real cosmos- and accepting that as scripture.

But those folks would be in the same position- there is no way to PROVE that any of it "really happened". They would have to accept it on faith.

But I see that as no different than the belief that there "really was" a Person named "Jesus of Nazareth" who died for our sins, or that there was a real person named "Moses" who spoke to a burning bush.

It's impossible to prove, by any means other than testimony.

Catholics believe it because they trust in their church tradition. That's fine for them- but I don't trust anybody or anything that I cannot prove for my self to my satisfaction. The fact that someone told a story 3000 years ago is no better to me than a story told 150 years ago, or a guy raving outside Wal Mart on a Wednesday afternoon.

I am not going to accept any of it. But when what I myself call "God" streams intelligence into my mind- I am sold- lock stock and barrel. Done. Stick a fork in me. I have had direct experience of it.

So yes, the church wants us to believe ALL of it is "historical"- I have no problem with that. I can think of a dozen ways it all could be perfectly "historical" and we would have no evidence of it whatsoever.

The bible is no better- people do not get up from the dead no matter what it says in some old fable. People cannot take on other people's sins- how is that possible? A just God lets someone else take my punishment? Why would he do that? It doesn't happen in the real world.

But what if it DID? Then everything changes!

Every science fiction story every written requires us to look at the world from a different view point and presume that the "real" world is very different from the way we see it. That is the EASY part- imagining the historicity.

But the other issue is PROVING it . That will never happen, and people who do not understand that, in my opinion, are missing the point entirely.

So yes, I believe it is all "historical" and "really happened"- on faith.

But for me what is important is the MESSAGE that God loves us and forgives our sins, and all the other lessons of the scriptures. And those I KNOW are true in the only way possible- by testimony.

I know it by direct experience. That knowledge is more real to me than any historical "fact" that I could not have possibly experience directly and have to accept what someone else says by hearsay.

Does that help?

That works until you claim that people who don't accept your beliefs are unworthy. Of course I consider myself to be a hopeful universalist who believes God won't ever lock anyone out who is sincerely trying to follow Jesus. Edited July 12, 2014 by Bart Burk

[UtahTexan]

In my opinion you are confusing two issues here.  It is an epistemological problem.  One question is whether or not both volumes are "historical" or "really happened".

 

The other question is the epistemological problem- how we KNOW that they are historical.

 

I believe both volumes are "historical"- that Abraham "really did" write the volume we have as the BOA- but that it was received by direct revelation.  Sane for the BOM- I believe that what we call "Nephites" were a sub-culture of the Maya, just as we LDS are a sub-culture of the world cultures of today. 

 

I also believe the BOM is in the same category- Joseph "translated" it while looking into a seer-stone, the same way he "translated" the BOA- but in that case he was looking at fragments of papyri.  Both of those- the seer stone and the fragments were somehow the stimulus to launch his mind into the state necessary to receive that intuition which we take on faith as "inspired" and from God himself.

 

But then we have the epistemological problem of how we "know" that is true.

 

We cannot possibly prove either of those assertions through factual evidence- there is no factual evidence possible to prove that in a factual way.

 

I mean it is possible that the entire script of the "Star Wars" trilogy ACTUALLY HAPPENED "long ago on a galaxy far away"- literally word for word.

 

But it cannot possibly be proven that it did.  If one held the SW trilogy to be "scripture"- I think the case is perfectly analogous.  One can imagine someone taking all the talk about "the force" as a religious story about real forces in the real cosmos- and accepting that as scripture.

 

But those folks would be in the same position- there is no way to PROVE that any of it "really happened".  They would have to accept it on faith.

 

But I see that as no different than the belief that there "really was" a Person named "Jesus of Nazareth" who died for our sins, or that there was a real person named "Moses" who spoke to a burning bush.

 

It's impossible to prove, by any means other than testimony.

 

Catholics believe it because they trust in their church tradition.  That's fine for them- but I don't trust anybody or anything that I cannot prove for my self to my satisfaction.  The fact that someone told a story 3000 years ago is no better to me than a story told 150 years ago, or a guy raving outside Wal Mart on a Wednesday afternoon.

 

I am not going to accept any of it.  But when what I myself call "God" streams intelligence into my mind- I am sold- lock stock and barrel.  Done.  Stick a fork in me.  I have had direct experience of it.

 

So yes, the church wants us to believe ALL of it is "historical"- I have no problem with that.  I can think of a dozen ways it all could be perfectly "historical" and we would have no evidence of it whatsoever. 

 

The bible is no better- people do not get up from the dead no matter what it says in some old fable.  People cannot take on other people's sins- how is that possible?  A just God lets someone else take my punishment?  Why would he do that?  It doesn't happen in the real world.

 

But what if it DID?  Then everything changes!

 

Every science fiction story every written requires us to look at the world from a different view point and presume that the "real" world is very different from the way we see it.  That is the EASY part- imagining the historicity.

 

But the other issue is PROVING it .  That will never happen, and people who do not understand that, in my opinion, are missing the point entirely.

 

So yes, I believe it is all "historical" and "really happened"- on faith.

 

But for me what is important is the MESSAGE that God loves us and forgives our sins, and all the other lessons of the scriptures.  And those I KNOW are true in the only way possible- by testimony.

 

I know it by direct experience.  That knowledge is more real to me than any historical "fact" that I could not have possibly experience directly and have to accept what someone else says by hearsay.

 

Does that help?

 

 

Let me ask this:  When God streams intelligence into your mind.....what do you mean?  What is streamed, exactly?  I mean, did God stream you all the details?  All the intellectual evidence?  If not, how does a steam of "it happened" become a true stream of knowledge?  Am I making sense?  My question sounds much better in my head....

[mfbukowski]

That works until your revelation conflicts with the revelation of an equally faithful LDS.

No it doesn't at all.

 

No more than I can't do algebra and someone else can do advanced calculus or whatever is beyond that- that I cannot even comprehend.  I think Catholics are Catholics because there is something there for them to learn, and EV's are EV because there is something there for them

 

And I don't mean that those positions are "inferior" to ours- just different with different lessons and different ways of thinking about it.  That Trinity thread was really revealing for me because the EV's could not break out of their literalistic view, the Catholics could not break out of their traditional view, and the Mormons could not break out to understand the other two views- all we talked about was testimony.

 

But what I personally like about Mormonism is that it teaches MY point of view.  I had this point of view before I joined the church.  Do I think it is the "correct" point of view?  Of course!  Who doesn't think that they are right about their own point of view??

 

But I recognize that there are other intelligences in the world who might differ with my opinion even if they are wrong. 

 

But I think our strength is this very point of view- that there is truth in other churches but they do not see the truth in ours.  But of course that is my point of view anyway. 

[mfbukowski]

That works until you claim that people who don't accept your beliefs are unworthy. Of course I consider myself to be a hopeful universalist who believes God won't ever lock anyone out who is sincerely trying to follow Jesus.

We also believe that.  I don't know why you think otherwise.  We believe we all get to progress in the spirit world and have as many chances as we need to "really get it".

 

If you are talking about temple attendance, that has to do with having the Mormon point of view.  If you don't see the world as Mormons do- the temple will just be a total downer.  I wasn't ready for it at first and was incredibly disappointed and nearly left the church because I had a literal understanding of it and did not see the symbolism at first.

 

And yet I was allegedly "worthy".   It is a question of gospel maturity more than it is worthiness- it's just that doing all the behaviors we define as "worthy" is some indication of gospel maturity.  But it doesn't always work that way.

[mfbukowski]

Let me ask this:  When God streams intelligence into your mind.....what do you mean?  What is streamed, exactly?  I mean, did God stream you all the details?  All the intellectual evidence?  If not, how does a steam of "it happened" become a true stream of knowledge?  Am I making sense?  My question sounds much better in my head....

Well my education was in philosophy which was fortunate for my skeptical brain because I learned that all that intellectual stuff is pretty much rubbish, and I learned that itself is actually as an intellectual position called "fideism".  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

 

When one doubts all- and I mean ALL, one understands that to even get up from a chair and do anything in life, nothing intellectual can justify getting out of bed in the morning.

 

To put it in popular terms, it is the "brain in a vat" scenario, or Descartes "I think therefore I am" kind of thing- although that statement itself makes too many assumptions, that there is an "I" which "thinks". 

 

But what I am discussing is an overwhelming sense of peace and love that comes suddenly like turning on a faucet, like a warm shower throughout your being- on the INSIDE of your body instead of the outside.  It is an overwhelming peace and love in response to a question in your heart which you ask of the Great Intelligence outside yourself whose presence you can feel.  And then ideas will pop into your mind giving you understanding of "how it works" to answer your questions..

 

Imagine driving over the ridge of a hill and suddenly coming upon a beautiful vista.  How do you feel at that second or nano second?  How do you "know" that THAT is "beautiful"?  Why do we call looking at the stars or an ocean sunset "beautiful"?  Can there be any doubt?

 

What does that experience have in common with seeing beautiful painting or picture, or entering a beautiful cathedral?  What is that sense of reverence and awe?  Can you doubt that things are "beautiful" in a way which cannot be defined in words?

 

Do you know that that is true?  What if someone said- "No, you are wrong.  It's merely the star of our solar system as seen through the atmosphere reflecting the longer rays of the spectrum, reaching your brain and causing an emotional response of brain chemicals.  Beauty does not exist!"

 

That is analogous to the "intellectual" point of view.  It steps outside the experience, and defines it in words instead of staying within the experience.

 

Is that person "wrong"? - no he is just seeing it from a different point of view, and I would see that as a very improverished point of view missing out on the richness of the world of experience.

 

But for me, I KNOW what beauty is when I see it.  Can I describe or define it?  No.  

 

That is an analogy for what I am speaking of.

Edited July 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes we have a thought and cannot express it, or "find the right words"

 

THAT is one thing that proves that thought is not the same as language.  Even when we search for the right word, sometimes it just doesn't exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sometimes we have a thought and cannot express it, or "find the right words"

 

THAT is one thing that proves that thought is not the same as language.  Even when we search for the right word, sometimes it just doesn't exist.

Brant Gardner said some philosophers refer to this "language of thought" by the name mentalese.

 

In fact, Gardner had some interesting things to say along these lines in a Fair Conference lecture a couple of years ago pertaining to the seer stone as an instrument of translation. Here's my Church News report of that presentation.

 

There's probably a verbatim text of Brant's lecture on the FairMormon website somewhere, but I don't want to take time to look for it right now.

 

Edited to add:

 

I found the verbatim transcript of the speech on FairMormon. Here it is

Edited July 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Although Wittgenstein was not by conventional standards religious, his philosophical remarks and journal entries reveal what might be described as a religious sensibility and are informed by a definite sympathy toward at least certain features of religion. For Wittgenstein, as for Kierkegaard, whom he admired, religion was less a matter of theory than of practice. “I believe that one of the things Christianity says is that sound doctrines are all useless. They have to change your life. (Or the direction of your life.)…Wisdom is passionless. But faith by contrast is what Kierkegaard calls a passion” (1980, 53e).

It has been argued that Wittgenstein's later thought, though perhaps not overtly fideistic, nevertheless lends itself to fideistic interpretation. According to this interpretation, religion is a self-contained and primarily expressive enterprise, governed by its own internal logic or “grammar.” This view—commonly called Wittgensteinian Fideism—is variously characterized as entailing one or more of the following distinct (but arguably inter-related) theses: (1) that religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; (2) that religious discourse is essentially self-referential and does not allow us to talk about reality; (3) that religious beliefs can be understood only by religious believers; and (4) that religion cannot be criticized.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

 

This is really the essence of Mormon "Orthopraxis".  It is "right action" valued over "correct belief"

[mfbukowski]

Brant Gardner said some philosophers refer to this "language of thought" by the name mentalese.

 

In fact, Gardner had some interesting things to say along these lines in a Fair Conference lecture a couple of years ago pertaining to the seer stone as an instrument of translation. Here's my Church News report of that presentation....

The link is messed up.

 

Yeah, I don't believe in "mentalese".  It does not account for non-propositional experiences like the sudden intuition of beauty I described.

Edited July 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

The link is messed up.

 

Sorry. I guess I forgot to copy the link before pasting it.

 

I fixed the link in my post, but here it is again:

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/61249/By-the-gift-and-power-of-God.html

 

Yeah, I don't believe in "mentalese"

 

Well, I know next to nothing about it, other than how Brant defined it:

 

He spoke of the language of thought, denoted by some philosophers as "mentalese," the ability of the mind to conceive meaning without expressing it in language.

 

I thought that's what you were referring to, but it could be we're not talking about the same thing.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no philosophy expert.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

What do infants think before they learn a language?

Edited July 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

What do infants think before they learn a language?

That's what I thought mfb was referring to, but apparently he takes a very dim view of the concept.