Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[cinepro]

..and atheists to be better atheists.

 

That's like saying "And brunettes to be better brunettes..."

[mfbukowski]

I find that more appealing than the missing papyrus.  

A plot by Egyptian priests to change the meaning of the Egyptian pictographs because of Abraham?   Really?  What am I missing?  Maybe I misunderstood the theory.

[volgadon]

I don't see the difference between "iconotropy" and what is known as the "catalyst theory" in the BOA.

 

I think they are essentially one and the same.  Joseph interpreted the pictures the way he did, because of his total experience with the bible, folk magic, masonry and who knows how many other inputs, including as a primary one, direct inspiration from God.

 

THAT is my understanding of the "catalyst theory", or is at least my version of it.  Is that different from your view?  He interpreted the pictures and was inspired to reveal the Book of Abraham?

 

The key difference is that the iconotropy would have been done by others before Joseph translated it.

[cdowis]

del 

Edited November 19, 2014 by cdowis

[cinepro]

Kevin Barney makes a case here that Egyptian vignettes may have been adopted or adapted as illustrations for the Book of Abraham story.

 

Well, I guess you would have to define what is being claimed.

 

When Joseph Smith created the "explanations" for the figures in the facsimiles, was he telling us what meaning the original creator of the facsimiles meant for them to have?

 

In other words, when the original illustrator drew Facsimile #1, was he thinking "Okay, I'll draw a picture of Abraham on the alter, and this tall guy here is the Priest of Elkanah, and these little guys down here are the idolatrous gods, and this is Raukeeyang, and so on".

 

Or did the original illustrator sit down and say "Okay, I'll draw a picture of Osiris here, and these are the canopic jars down here, and so on"?  And then Joseph Smith looked at the illustration and came up with his own characterization of the scene, either by his own creative powers or through revelation (i.e. God was revealing the Book of Abraham to him, which has a story of someone being sacrificed on an altar, and so He thought it would be nice to finally have an illustration in the scriptures of one of the stories so he had Facsimile 1 included with re-defined elements.)

 

I think the the evidence points to one of those theories and not the other, but let's see what you think first.

[Brian 2.0]

"What if it is not true and I am simply blinded by my commitment?"  At some point you have to make a choice because there will never be sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the Church's truth claims.  Until you commit to at least plant the seed, you will be as the scripture states, as a child - "tossed to and fro with every wind..."  I don't want theories to dictate my choices and life direction and ultimate happines.  I am comfortable having voids in my understanding, because I have an anchor to my soul.  The roots from the seed I have planted grow deep as I have stopped playing with scales.

Worth repeating.

 

I hope that everyone who experiences a faith crisis within the Church and its Gospel comes out with this view.  It's certainly been mine.

 

As someone who has experienced/is experiencing a "faith crisis" I can say that this advice works nicely under some circumstances.  It's true that there will probably never been sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the church's truth claims 100%.  There rarely is for anything.    But that doesn't mean my evaluation of the evidences comes out at 50/50.  It's not a toss-up choice between belief or disbelief on certain issues.

 

"Planting the seed" and making your decision on the outcome of that "experiment" is a lot easier when you're evaluating the evidence to be around 50/50, or 33/33/33 if you're debating 3 choices, or 10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10 if you're debating 10 choices.  

 

But when you evaluate the evidence and it seems (to you) that the options have a 90/8/2 probability of being correct, and you do the "experiment" and you feel the 2% option is correct -- and that option is also the option you've been raised your whole life to believe is the correct one -- well... it's a lot harder to trust that experiment, and one can find themselves questioning the whole process of the experiment in the first place.  And then one often ends up going with the 90 choice... but keeps looking and evaluating the number as new evidence presents itself.

 

That's where I'm at at least.

 

I will say to counter myself to say that the "experiment" is nice on choices that don't have a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer (i.e. should i marry this person?  Should I take this job? etc).  And I know some view the chruch/gospel/God in that way.  "Should I attend and participate in the Mormon Church?" is a very different question than "Did a resurrected Jesus appear to a group of people in the Americas?"

Edited November 19, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

 

The rules that make you dismiss it are something you made up in your mind, that keep you from adequately taking the evidence in, and interpreting it in its own terms, not on yours.

That's essentially the problem I have with the approach.  Evidence does not interpret itself. 

 

It is always interpreted by a human mind.  Once we understand THAT, the mistaken belief that "evidence" is relevant drops out of the equation disappears completely and we can face the truth that we all WANT to believe that the Book of Abraham is scripture, AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

 

Saying that "I have a testimony that it is true" is a PERFECTLY DEFENSIBLE PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION that it is indeed "true",  And that is a position I had before I joined the church, based on philosophy alone.

 

That is all based on the writings of William James, John Dewey, Richard Rorty, Wittgenstein, and most of the phenomenologists.   It is based on an understanding of "truth" which is indeed held by most philosophers today.

 

We don't need all the mental gymnastics of finding "evidence" to justify religious beliefs.   We just don't.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

 

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

The deflationary theory has gone by many different names, including at least the following: the redundancy theory, the disappearance theory, the no-truth theory, the disquotational theory, and the minimalist theory. There is no terminological consensus about how to use these labels: sometimes they are used interchangeably; sometimes they are used to mark distinctions between different versions of the same general view. Here we will use ‘deflationism’, and ‘the deflationary theory of truth’ to denote the general view we want to discuss, and reserve other names for specific versions of that view....

 

....The deflationary theory has been one of the most popular approaches to truth in the twentieth century, having received explicit defense by Frege, Ramsey, Ayer, and Quine, as well as sympathetic treatment from many others. (According to Dummett 1959, the view originates with Frege.) The following passages all contain recognizable versions of the doctrine, though they differ on points of detail.

 

In fact, I would go so far as to say that any other theory of truth denies Alma 32 which says that truth is "what is sweet" to us, IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS and Moroni 10:4 which tells us that the spirit reveals "the truth of all things".

 

Evidence is not relevant to religious belief.

 

We are not constructing rockets here, we are discussing what beliefs give meaning to our lives.

 

No one could possibly rationally think the BOA is "true" based on "evidence" unless they ALREADY WANTED TO, AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. 

 

It's time we face the facts.  In the long run, it is all about testimony- nothing more nothing less.

Edited November 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Mars]

As someone who has experienced/is experiencing a "faith crisis" I can say that this advice works nicely under some circumstances.  It's true that there will probably never been sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the church's truth claims 100%.  There rarely is for anything.    But that doesn't mean my evaluation of the evidences comes out at 50/50.  It's not a toss-up choice between belief or disbelief on certain issues.

 

"Planting the seed" and making your decision on the outcome of that "experiment" is a lot easier when you're evaluating the evidence to be around 50/50, or 33/33/33 if you're debating 3 choices, or 10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10 if you're debating 10 choices.  

 

But when you evaluate the evidence and it seems (to you) that the options have a 90/8/2 probability of being correct, and you do the "experiment" and you feel the 2% option is correct -- and that option is also the options you've been raised to believe is the correct one -- well... it's a lot harder to trust that experiment, and one can find themselves questioning the whole process of the experiment in the first place.  And then one often ends up going with the 90 choice... but keeps looking and evaluating the number as new evidence presents itself.

 

That's were I'm at at least.

 

I will say to counter myself to say that the "experiment" is nice on choices that don't have a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer (i.e. should i marry this person?  Should I take this job? etc).  And I know some view the chruch/gospel/God in that way.  "Should I attend and participate in the Mormon Church?" is a very different question than "Did a resurrected Jesus appear to a group of people in the Americas?"

 

That's an entirely fair characterization of the problem. 

 

I go back to square 1 all the time.  More than I'd like.  I've made - and likely will again make - the 90/8/2 decision.  That's not to beat my chest at how strong my faith is and you-just-need-to-pray-harder-like-me-Brother-Brian2.0, it's just to acknowledge that it is something many go through.

 

Some come out feeling certain in the 2, even though 8 and 90 may seem like the better option.

 

Some never come out.

 

Some never go in.

 

Some don't see it as 90/8/2, which you alluded to.

 

I dunno, man.  I'm doing my best to make sense of sticky issues, reconcile what the world says about my spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon with what the Church says about them.  And then at the end of both of those, reconcile what I say about my experiences.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Mars

[DragonLancer]

I don't see the difference between "iconotropy" and what is known as the "catalyst theory" in the BOA.

 

I think they are essentially one and the same.  Joseph interpreted the pictures the way he did, because of his total experience with the bible, folk magic, masonry and who knows how many other inputs, including as a primary one, direct inspiration from God.

 

THAT is my understanding of the "catalyst theory", or is at least my version of it.  Is that different from your view?  He interpreted the pictures and was inspired to reveal the Book of Abraham?

 

 

Well, I guess I'll go ahead and answer another one.  Here's the thing.  I am perfectly willing to be corrected if I have misunderstood the nature of the catalyst theory.

What I believe I have understood for the typical catalyst theory is something like this.  Its akin to a magical talisman, having any old scrap of papyrus that is totally unrelated and concentrating on it as if somehow that helps in the revelation process, regardless of its contents.

 

If Joseph Smith himself transformed this into some symbology that was never an ancient thing, I guess that is possible.  But that is modern iconotropy by the hands of the prophet.  I guess you could still call that iconotropy, and I remember that William Hamblin did mention this option before.  I didn't know this was what people may be referring to when they say "Catalyst."  But that is not authentically ancient iconotropy.  

 

Authentically ancient information transfer for ancient usage of this document is what I'm hoping for, which for me is a key to authentic "translation," and that is what I believe I have demonstrated.  I could be wrong.

 

What makes my concept of iconotropy different and meaningful to me, is that people in ancient times had meaningful relationships between symbols that they chose and the things that are represented by those symbols.  And that Joseph Smith got revelation on their usages.  To me, that is a meaningful transmittal of information from ancient times.  That is what makes the Sensen papyrus symbology meaningful for being transformed into Abrahamic symbology.  Is that Joseph Smith wasn't making it up that people in ancient times actually used this papyrus to represent Abraham and his story.  And that the actual symbols he was translating were actually used by ancient priests to mean what he was saying they were using them for.  In other words, for me, iconotropy means we have an authentic transfer of the authentically ancient symbology of this document from ancient times to modern times.  And that is what makes Joseph Smith's translations in the KEP meaningful.  To me, this is the breakthrough of the information that I present on my blog.  And for me, this could be called a catalyst in some sense because Joseph Smith was using these things as cues to get a revelation on the text.  But I don't want to use the word catalyst, because it mixes

[DragonLancer]

somehow my last message got cut off before I finished.

I don't like the word catalyst because it mixes my theory up with other people's usages of the word, and then before you know it, I have people accusing me of having a theory that is "just another catalyst theory."

I've already seen this type of thing on this thread having people accuse me of having "just another mnemonic device theory" or a "mnemonic-ish" theory.

It is nothing of the sort.  

[mfbukowski]

I have no problem with how it is done, I have a problem though with said prophet claiming it came one way only to find that said mode is not how it occurred.  I may be able to make it work with some fudging but still not fun to do so.

Joseph BELIEVED he was "translating" when it was given to him- by supernatural means- in both instances of the BOA and BOM.

 

What's wrong with just saying those words?  Who is to say those words are WRONG?   Why does that take mental gymnastics?

 

Do we have accounts about what the prophets of old used as devices to receive revelation?  No.  Joseph was honest and shared his.

 

Do we actually think Isaiah, Jeremiah and the boys just sat there and wrote saying "Thus sayeth the Lord"?   How do we know it was "The Lord" guiding their hand?

 

It makes no sense to believe in Isaiah's revelation based on - what evidence? while doubting Joseph's because we have no "evidence"

 

It's totally irrational.  Either they were both bogus or not, or somewhere in between.  How do we know??   Testimony is the only way to know that EITHER ONE  is true or false,

[mfbukowski]

del 

I know what that word means, trust me.

[pogi]

As someone who has experienced/is experiencing a "faith crisis" I can say that this advice works nicely under some circumstances.  It's true that there will probably never been sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the church's truth claims 100%.  There rarely is for anything.    But that doesn't mean my evaluation of the evidences comes out at 50/50.  It's not a toss-up choice between belief or disbelief on certain issues.

 

"Planting the seed" and making your decision on the outcome of that "experiment" is a lot easier when you're evaluating the evidence to be around 50/50, or 33/33/33 if you're debating 3 choices, or 10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10 if you're debating 10 choices.  

 

But when you evaluate the evidence and it seems (to you) that the options have a 90/8/2 probability of being correct, and you do the "experiment" and you feel the 2% option is correct -- and that option is also the option you've been raised your whole life to believe is the correct one -- well... it's a lot harder to trust that experiment, and one can find themselves questioning the whole process of the experiment in the first place.  And then one often ends up going with the 90 choice... but keeps looking and evaluating the number as new evidence presents itself.

 

That's where I'm at at least.

 

I will say to counter myself to say that the "experiment" is nice on choices that don't have a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer (i.e. should i marry this person?  Should I take this job? etc).  And I know some view the chruch/gospel/God in that way.  "Should I attend and participate in the Mormon Church?" is a very different question than "Did a resurrected Jesus appear to a group of people in the Americas?"

 

What good is truth if it isn't what you want and doesn't make you happy?  Why should all the evidnece in the world sway you from committing to principles and ideas that make you and others happy?  I say, lay all of the evidences aside and commit to the principles that bring you light, peace, joy, happiness, etc.  Even if you are wrong, I believe that if you are true to yourself, you will be on the side of right in the end.

 

The experiment only works where there is desire and hope.  This hope is all one needs really, it's all we have to commit to at first.

[stemelbow]

That's like saying "And brunettes to be better brunettes..."

yeah because them danged atheists don't have any common traits like unto us religious folks. they just some group of random people who don't think nothing alike, just like a group randomly selected brunettes.

[omni]

I'm probably not understanding what you're asking but I'm interested.

Why would there be a difference in the defense if JS was lying about it? If we have all the data we have regarding it, but really JS was lying about it?

It seems to me the defenses we are seeing are exactly what one would expect to see if JS was in fact making it up.

[DragonLancer]

That's essentially the problem I have with the approach.  Evidence does not interpret itself. 

 

It is always interpreted by a human mind.  Once we understand THAT, the mistaken belief that "evidence" is relevant drops out of the equation disappears completely and we can face the truth that we all WANT to believe that the Book of Abraham is scripture, AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

 

Ok.  But here's the deal.  If people are trying to find secondary intent in the Sensen document, I'm saying that people are not justified in ignoring the rules of interpretation already in the KEP and imposing their own rules for interpretation of this document for the concept of "secondary intent".  The KEP shows the rules of interpretation, and ignoring those rules and transforming the KEP into something that it is not are the whole problem to begin with.  When I say, interpreting it on its own terms, I mean according to the rules defined in the KEP documents.

Edited November 19, 2014 by DragonLancer

[stemelbow]

Somehow, I don't remember that part in his talk. 

If atheists can commit to good principles that make them happy and help other people, God bless them for it.  Their knee shall bow no differnt from the faithful Muslim.

Well of course. If any good is done in the world today it sure ain't 'cause of religion, they tell me. my atheist neighbor is more likely to give my kids a gift unexpectedly and clean up my yard when I'm outta town moreso than my Mormon neighbor.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I guess you would have to define what is being claimed.

 

When Joseph Smith created the "explanations" for the figures in the facsimiles, was he telling us what meaning the original creator of the facsimiles meant for them to have?

 

In other words, when the original illustrator drew Facsimile #1, was he thinking "Okay, I'll draw a picture of Abraham on the alter, and this tall guy here is the Priest of Elkanah, and these little guys down here are the idolatrous gods, and this is Raukeeyang, and so on".

 

Or did the original illustrator sit down and say "Okay, I'll draw a picture of Osiris here, and these are the canopic jars down here, and so on"?  And then Joseph Smith looked at the illustration and came up with his own characterization of the scene, either by his own creative powers or through revelation (i.e. God was revealing the Book of Abraham to him, which has a story of someone being sacrificed on an altar, and so He thought it would be nice to finally have an illustration in the scriptures of one of the stories so he had Facsimile 1 included with re-defined elements.)

 

I think the the evidence points to one of those theories and not the other, but let's see what you think first.

While keeping an open mind and declining to dogmatize on one theory or another, I find this commentary in the Church's Gospel Topics essay to be reasonable:

 

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.²⁸ Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose.²⁹ Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure.

Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.³⁰

 

[mfbukowski]

It seems to me the defenses we are seeing are exactly what one would expect to see if JS was in fact making it up.

I will concede that.  So what?

 

And what evidence do you have that Isaiah and the boys were not "making it up"?

 

If the answer is "none" then I also have no quarrel with you, except you don't belong on this thread.  This thread is about religious beliefs, if you don't believe, there are other places to discuss that.

[Brian 2.0]

That's an entirely fair characterization of the problem. 

 

I go back to square 1 all the time.  More than I'd like.  I've made - and likely will again make - the 90/8/2 decision.  That's not to beat my chest at how strong my faith is and you-just-need-to-pray-harder-like-me-Brother-Brian2.0, it's just to acknowledge that it is something many go through.

 

Some come out feeling certain in the 2, even though 8 and 90 may seem like the better option.

 

Some never come out.

 

Some never go in.

 

Some don't see it as 90/8/2, which you alluded to.

 

I dunno, man.  I'm doing my best to make sense of sticky issues, reconcile what the world says about my spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon with what the Church says about them.  And then at the end of both of those, reconcile what I say about my experiences.

 

I dig it.   You seem like a person I'd like have a drink with at the next MDDB mixer.   That is after I've seeked out Rob Obsorn just because it's good fun sparring with him... then I'd have to go over to mfbukowski so he can calm me down by waving his hand in front on my face while saying... "Don't worry... there are no facts."  Then I'd be chill enough to meet with you and share a drink.

 

... it would be really interesting to meet so many in here in some hotel ballroom... but it'd probably kill the fun because we'd all seem so much more agreeable there as apposed to here.  Much love to everyone here.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

What good is truth if it isn't what you want and doesn't make you happy?  Why should all the evidnece in the world sway you from committing to principles and ideas that make you and others happy?  I say, lay all of the evidences aside and commit to the principles that bring you light, peace, joy, happiness, etc.  Even if you are wrong, I believe that if you are true to yourself, you will be on the side of right in the end.

 

The experiment only works where there is desire and hope.  This hope is all one needs really, it's all we have to commit to at first.

Well you need to understand that applies only to religious truth, not, say, scientific theories about disease.

 

Were that true scientifically, the best cure for ebola would be a bottle of Jack Daniels to make you happy.

[mfbukowski]

What good is truth if it isn't what you want and doesn't make you happy?  Why should all the evidnece in the world sway you from committing to principles and ideas that make you and others happy?  I say, lay all of the evidences aside and commit to the principles that bring you light, peace, joy, happiness, etc.  Even if you are wrong, I believe that if you are true to yourself, you will be on the side of right in the end.

 

The experiment only works where there is desire and hope.  This hope is all one needs really, it's all we have to commit to at first.

Well you need to understand that applies only to religious truth, not, say, scientific theories about disease.

 

Were that true scientifically, the best cure for ebola would be a bottle of Jack Daniels to make you happy.

Edited November 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Well of course. If any good is done in the world today it sure ain't 'cause of religion, they tell me. my atheist neighbor is more likely to give my kids a gift unexpectedly and clean up my yard when I'm outta town moreso than my Mormon neighbor.

Have you ever given any indication to your Mormon neighbor that you would like that sort of thing done? Do you know your Mormon neighbor as well as your atheist neighbor?

 

Maybe you have and you do. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm only suggesting that any number of variables could be at play, and isolated anecdotal information is generally not very helpful in establishing a pattern.

[Mars]

@Brian2.0

 

Anytime, brother.  I don't see myself hitting up any get togethers anytime soon.  I'm in the DC area, so I don't make it to Utah very often.

 

I hope you don't mind the testimony, but...  I believe.  I feel pretty confident and sure in that belief.  It sometimes wavers, and changes, and it's certainly not to say that you're nuts if you don't believe.  I hope that someday changes for you, but if it doesn't, hopefully we can at least respect each other's positions and live in peace.  I share the Gospel because I love it, because of what it's brought to me, how it's shaped my relationship and worship with God, and because I actually believe a dude named Nephi lived and walked around, etc...  It sucks when someone doesn't want it, or believes and then changes their mind, but that's life.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Mars

[stemelbow]

Have you ever given any indication to your Mormon neighbor that you would like that sort of thing done? Do you know your Mormon neighbor as well as your atheist neighbor?

 

Maybe you have and you do. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm only suggesting that any number of variables could be at play, and isolated anecdotal information is generally not very helpful in establishing a pattern.

I'm not trying to establish a pattern. of course I know them both and I agree there are plenty of factors involved. I have no interest whatsoever to say that atheists on the whole are better people than Mormon people, although anecdotally I'd say there are plenty in both camps that are great.

My only point is, that an atheist can be a good person just as well as a Mormon can be. God loves them both, and may favor them both in ways we simply don't understand.