Does it even matter if the Book of Abraham isn't a correct translation?

[salgare]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What facts would prove that a man dying on a cross takes away your sins??

To me the assertion that that is even possible- for some "fact" to prove that- is absurd.

But I know you will not answer, because there is no answer.

 

 

mfb has also taught me (might be hearing/comprehending it wrong) that a logical extension to this might be:

What facts would prove that a man dying on a cross was needed to take away your sins??

eta

I believe mfb using this concept in relationship to truth, as in if you choose to believe it, it is true ... to you.

Thus if one individual chooses to believe in the Atonement of Christ, then that makes it true and thus is needed for/by the believing individual.

And also, if an individual chooses to not believe in Christ at all, then that is true for them, thus having no effect on the unbelieving individual.

However what I'm not sure of is if mfb believes that there is an individual with some kind of control of a global true (one over two or more individuals) that might bless one and condemn another.

Edited January 3, 2016 by salgare
eta

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

One causes us to have to get over our feelings, the other causes us to doubt fact.  Emotion and reason both getting tested.

God will teach us faith no matter what it takes.  We will be tried in all things.  And if we aren't tried in all things our faith may not produce the salvation we hope for.

Maybe I was meant to be a Scientologist, because when it comes to faith, God tests my faith much more with the emotion and reasoning in Scientology than with the CoJCoLdS.

[VideoGameJunkie]

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I was meant to be a Scientologist, because when it comes to faith, God tests my faith much more with the emotion and reasoning in Scientology than with the CoJCoLdS.

Don't let Lord Xenu take over your soul.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

To us sceptics it seems there might be a little issue of blind faith and credulity without some good supporting facts.  Lots of people feel they have a strong faith that can't be shaken and they're not LDS.

Very true.  Lots of people, including skeptics, have strong faith in their beliefs, and all of us should respect that.  No faith should be dropped like a bad habit, without good reason.  So, where possible, let's discuss the facts -- if we can even agree on what they are -- and then discuss our various methods of analysis and interpretation.  If we do it respectfully, we might all learn something.

[Monster]

Quote

Does it even matter if the Book of Abraham isn't a correct translation?

That seems like you are moving the goal posts to me. It use to be critically important now it is not?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I was meant to be a Scientologist, because when it comes to faith, God tests my faith much more with the emotion and reasoning in Scientology than with the CoJCoLdS.

That's because faith still requires evidence of the unseen.  Scientology is pure Sci-Fi.

And that makes you mad I'm guessing...

[VideoGameJunkie]

39 minutes ago, Monster said:

That seems like you are moving the goal posts to me. It use to be critically important now it is not?

Well I just know from experience that doubting any part of the church or church history doesn't bring me any happiness, only anxiety and depression.

Edited January 4, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, salgare said:

mfb has also taught me (might be hearing/comprehending it wrong) that a logical extension to this might be:

What facts would prove that a man dying on a cross was needed to take away your sins??

eta

I believe mfb using this concept in relationship to truth, as in if you choose to believe it, it is true ... to you.

Thus if one individual chooses to believe in the Atonement of Christ, then that makes it true and thus is needed for/by the believing individual.

And also, if an individual chooses to not believe in Christ at all, then that is true for them, thus having no effect on the unbelieving individual.

However what I'm not sure of is if mfb believes that there is an individual with some kind of control of a global true (one over two or more individuals) that might bless one and condemn another.

Truth is about statements- not about the world.  There are no "true" things- true tables and chairs, there are true sentences and sentences are always spoken within a context and for a purpose.  So "The Atonement" is not true or false- but statements about the atonement might be.  Chairs and tables are not "true or false" but statements about them might or not be.

The only statements we can make about the atonement, in my opinion, if they are to make sense at all,  are about how BELIEF in the atonement has changed my life.  So statements like "I know that through the atonement my sins are forgiven because the spirit has testified that to me" can be true or false- either that person has had that experience or has not.  If they say that, and have not had that experience, they are lying.  So in a recommend interview you might lie to the Bishop.

Statements about the atonement and its effects are essentially statements about our internal feelings about our belief in the atonement.  So it's not as if the ATONEMENT is true for someone who chooses to believe it and false for those who do not, the statement is about their BELIEF in the atonement.

So the variables are either you believe in it or you don't (true or false that you believe or don't), that it has had an effect in your life or it hasn't (you believe but it has not changed your life)  That's four variables on that point.  I suppose there might be someone in the class of people for whom the atonement has changed their lives, but no longer believe.  Perhaps they joined the church but then fell away.  So theoretically I guess one might logically say "It's true that the atonement has changed my life, but it is false that I believe in it" and that could be a true statement

So for me, if I cannot classify statements about the atonement into one of those four variables, in my opinion, the statement is confused and doesn't make sense.  So that is why I am a stickler for "full sentences" because I do not understand throw away phrases unless the context is very clear.

"The atonement" cannot be true or false any more than the Revolutionary War can be true or false, or a chair can be true or false.

But yes, the power of the atonement in your life is what matters.  It is not that the atonement is "true or false" for an individual, it is whether or not the atonement has changed the attitude of that individual toward life

What varies is the statement "I have a testimony of the atonement" or "I know that the power of the atonement can heal" or "I am grateful for the atonement and the peace it gives me in my life".  Those statements may be true or false depending on the individual.

What might be hard to understand is that statements about the atonement are always statements about the internal state of the individual- not about events in the world.

If the person believes the atonement was an "actual event"- good- but STILL that is a statement that he BELIEVES that the atonement was an "actual event".

In no case can we get "beyond" our BELIEF in the atonement to the "atonement itself" because there is no way to "verify" that belief - to justify the belief as "true" other than through its effects in our lives.

That probably confuses everything further but to me it is crystal clear and in fact beyond debate.  To me it is as clear as A=A, literally.

So- chairs and tables and atonements cannot be true or false- only sentences can be true or false.  To say "I know x" is a statement about your internal certainty about x- it is a statement about your psychological state.  You internally are certain about x.  It implies nothing about the world, just your internal state.  That can even be true of quantum physics. We are certain about theories or statements about experiments about quantum physics, but we also know that those are intermediate results and we are not "finished" in learning about the world itself, insofar as that is possible.  But that is for another day and that is about the "correspondence theory of truth"

Religion always deals in statements about our internal states, because as President Kimball and D&C says, truth is always in a certain "sphere" or context.

Statements about ethics and religion can only be justified (classed as true or false) as if they are statements about internal psychological states.

How do you "know" murder is wrong?  You feel it inside.  No other way to verify it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Does this mean, Mark, that the demons who know God as a fact but chose not to obey him, did not believe in the Atonement?  That is, they did not believe it its efficacy, and so rejected the Plan of Salvation?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I was meant to be a Scientologist, because when it comes to faith, God tests my faith much more with the emotion and reasoning in Scientology than with the CoJCoLdS.

You mean on the E meter?  Going clear?

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does this mean, Mark, that the demons who know God as a fact but chose not to obey him, did not believe in the Atonement?  That is, they did not believe it its efficacy, and so rejected the Plan of Salvation?

Well I am not too well read on Demon Epistemology and how they know or do not know things,  or even how their language works  so that's a tough call. I wonder if Nagel will write an essay on "What it's like to be a Demon".    But I think the idea of personal "demons" could be a useful way to think about some very evil people I have known about and unfortunately even met one or two possibly in that category.

I think we get our concepts of good, as humans, almost literally "in our DNA" and have a natural desire to help each other- call it the Light of Christ or an evolutionary necessity to live in society as social beings from a social constructivist position, but perhaps there "really are" beings that derive power and influence from evil and murder to "get gain".  We have certainly seen some famous examples in the 20th century.

That's a long-winded way to say "I don't know"

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean on the E meter?  Going clear?

I remember clearly those E-meters on the UCLA campus in 1967-68;  they looked like two tin cans that you held in your hands and two wires going into a black box with some kind of numerical display.  I just could not get into that.

Then there was Nichiren Shoshu.  "Chant and your parking tickets with go away".  They actually taught that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Sh%C5%8Dsh%C5%AB

Quote

 

Morning gongyō consists of a series of five sutra recitations followed by silently recited, prescribed prayers. Evening gongyō encompasses only three sutra recitations and the second, third, and fifth of the same silent prayers. This practice, particularly when shared with others, is regarded as the "true cause" for attaining enlightenment.

The logic behind this is that through thoughts, words, and deeds, every being creates causes, and every cause is to have an effect. Good causes produce positive effects; bad causes, negative ones (see karma). This law of causality is the universal principle underlying all visible and invisible phenomena and events in one's physical and spiritual daily life. Nichiren Shōshū believers strive to elevate their "life condition" by acting in accordance with this law in their day-to-day lives and by sharing their faith and practice with others, believing their Buddhist practice to be the ultimate good cause for effecting changes in life and attaining enlightenment, and achieving peace in the world.

 

I think something got lost in the translation between that and the parking tickets.  

Edited January 4, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Monster said:

That seems like you are moving the goal posts to me. It use to be critically important now it is not?

It never was for me.  No change.

 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So- chairs and tables and atonements cannot be true or false- only sentences can be true or false.  To say "I know x" is a statement about your internal certainty about x- it is a statement about your psychological state.  You internally are certain about x.  It implies nothing about the world, just your internal state.

Mark, thank you for your time in trying to help me see this.  The chairs and tables example does help me in my grasping for a larger glimpse of this vision.  I  need to chew on this response for awhile, which I definitely will be doing.

As to my sentences, much is out of ignorance, some plan lazy/sloppiness, yet still a part a simple probing for acceptable limits and bounds.

I will put more effort into this in the future. 

Thanks again

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Monster said:

That seems like you are moving the goal posts to me. It use to be critically important now it is not?

When was it critically important to anyone other than Church critics?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

When was it critically important to anyone other than Church critics?

So very, very very true!

[Kenngo1969]

Here, let me help my Brother, Mark, out a little bit.  Perhaps we can boil down what he's saying to this: All experience transcends language used to describe it.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I was meant to be a Scientologist, because when it comes to faith, God tests my faith much more with the emotion and reasoning in Scientology than with the CoJCoLdS.

If faith is the substance of things hoped for then having faith in Scientology is probably a moral defect.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Quote

Robert F. Smith said:

Does this mean, Mark, that the demons who know God as a fact but chose not to obey him, did not believe in the Atonement?  That is, they did not believe it its efficacy, and so rejected the Plan of Salvation?

Well I am not too well read on Demon Epistemology and how they know or do not know things,  or even how their language works  so that's a tough call. I wonder if Nagel will write an essay on "What it's like to be a Demon".    But I think the idea of personal "demons" could be a useful way to think about some very evil people I have known about and unfortunately even met one or two possibly in that category.

I think we get our concepts of good, as humans, almost literally "in our DNA" and have a natural desire to help each other- call it the Light of Christ or an evolutionary necessity to live in society as social beings from a social constructivist position, but perhaps there "really are" beings that derive power and influence from evil and murder to "get gain".  We have certainly seen some famous examples in the 20th century.

That's a long-winded way to say "I don't know"

I was thinking, Mark, of both the one-third of the host of heaven who went with Satan, as well as James 2:19, "the devils also believe, and tremble" (cf. Luke 8:27-32, Acts 16:16-18).  What is their real problem?  Is it pouty wilfullness?  Or . . . 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Here, let me help my Brother, Mark, out a little bit.  Perhaps we can boil down what he's saying to this: All experience transcends language used to describe it.

Dang dude.

You nailed it!  Can I steal that?

See I am used to thinking about it the other way around.  I was talking to my wife about this the other day- and she is honestly the smartest person I actually know.  She has no background in philosophy at all, and yet I just say a phrase to her and she gets it immediately. I quoted a philos. prof. I once had in a paper I am working on and I was wondering if what he said would communicate to laymen.  The phrase was "you can't get from experience to objects".   She got it instantly.

The idea is that you have your experience of chairs and tables- but that experience is synthesized in your mind/brain/consciousness/spirit.  Your eyes are bombarded by wavelengths of light, smells, touch sensations and you put that all together into a "chair".  The "chair" one might argue is "really" atoms and molecules with space between, quarks, whatever, but in your mind it is a "chair" because your mind has synthesized it that way.

But now you have the word to describe the experience.  That gives it another layer of ambiguity.  What kind of chair?  A bench in a park?  A tree stump used as a chair?  A leather bound executive chair?  A king's throne?.

So what is the chair "really"??  The professor's point was that from what is in your head/mind/spirit/consciousness etc you cannot get to the "object in itself".  All we can know about the "object" is the experience of the object.

So I have always thought about language not being able to get "down" to the object, through the filters of first the ambiguities of language and secondly what has been synthesized in our minds.  The upshot of that is that "truth" cannot possibly correspond the "what is real" because truth is always a statement in language- one ambiguity- describing our experience - another layer of ambiguity- of the "object itself" which really is unknowable.  Something's out there- but exactly "what it is" cannot be deciphered by our minds.  So we are eternally stuck in our experience of things- not the things themselves.  We synthesize "reality" AS WE KNOW IT in our minds.

That's a long answer to why I had not looked at it as you have here in this simple phrase.  I never thought of it in terms of experience "transcending" language.   I don't like the word "transcending" because of Neoplatonic overtones.  My problem is that I am so concerned about stating things clearly that I tend to repeat the same language, and if it doesn't communicate, I get stuck!

But that's exactly the phrase that communicates quite well I think.

Thanks mucho.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was thinking, Mark, of both the one-third of the host of heaven who went with Satan, as well as James 2:19, "the devils also believe, and tremble" (cf. Luke 8:27-32, Acts 16:16-18).  What is their real problem?  Is it pouty wilfullness?  Or . . . 

Yes I think basically that sort of thing.

What leads people to get into organized crime?  What drives people to become murderous dictators?   I think it is hard for decent folks to understand the "high" evil brings- the power of life and death over innocent victims.  I suppose it is aspiring to be a god- the exact opposite but similar drive perhaps to those who seek becoming LIKE God in exaltation or theosis.

I suppose in a sense there are two paths to becoming like a god, as again perhaps illustrated in the Didache.  There is the path of service to others and the path of exploitation of others.  Hatred and willful rebellion against authority can be incredibly powerful.   I think it is pride really- my will be done instead of "Thy will be done".

As a kid sometimes I would do things out of pure rebellion.  If my parents told me to do something- I would do the opposite just to "spite" them.

Always of course the natural consequences came later, the "school of hard knocks". 

But at least I finally learned that following the commandments actually made life better and easier than following my own will.  That became very important to my comprehension of what Isaiah Berlin calls "Positive Liberty".  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Again, that is the same thing the Didache says.  I think Berlin stole it. 

I think those spirits never did learn that, or never wanted to.

Edited January 4, 2016 by mfbukowski

[salgare]

I went to start a new thread "An interesting philosophy" and copy Marks and Roberts comments over to it, with some further inquiries from me.  Kenngo now joined in.  Anyone interested in continuing this derail in its own thread?  If so, would you be willing to introduce it Mark?

Edited January 4, 2016 by salgare

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 3:13 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

A lot of people say the Book of Abraham is the biggest destroyer of faith in the CES letter.

There may be some truth in that.

What we know is that the translation of the papyri given by Joseph Smith has nothing to do with the actual contents of the papyri and facsimile we still have.

And the new Church essay admits as much.

This leads to the question, "If Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyri from which he claimed to translate, can the same thing be said for the Book of Mormon?"

And might this not be confirmed by the newly acknowledged fact that Joseph Smith did not even use the plates during his translation of the Book of Mormon?

This is the link that is causing so much trouble, I think.

And the fact that the first chapter of Abraham specifically references the facsimile at the beginning (which is the one we still have) pretty much does away with the idea that none of the Book of Abraham is represented by the fragments we possess.

And the Kirtland Egyptian papers pretty much did away with that idea a long time ago, anyway.

It is a sticky wicket, to say the least.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

There may be some truth in that.

What we know is that the translation of the papyri given by Joseph Smith has nothing to do with the actual contents of the papyri and facsimile we still have.

And the new Church essay admits as much.

This leads to the question, "If Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyri from which he claimed to translate, can the same thing be said for the Book of Mormon?"

And might this not be confirmed by the newly acknowledged fact that Joseph Smith did not even use the plates during his translation of the Book of Mormon?

This is the link that is causing so much trouble, I think.

And the fact that the first chapter of Abraham specifically references the facsimile at the beginning (which is the one we still have) pretty much does away with the idea that none of the Book of Abraham is represented by the fragments we possess.

 

Of course, all of this is addressed in the Gospel Topics essay on lds.org, which you mention above. See excerpt below:

 

Quote

 

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

Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”³¹

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation.³³ According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.³⁴

 

Quote

And the Kirtland Egyptian papers pretty much did away with that idea a long time ago, anyway.

This assertion not self-evident.

Edited to add:

The board software is behaving weirdly. The bottom portion of my post appears as strike-through text. This was not intended by me, and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to fix it.

Accordingly, please disregard the strike-through and pardon the distraction.

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

..................................................

What we know is that the translation of the papyri given by Joseph Smith has nothing to do with the actual contents of the papyri and facsimile we still have.

And the new Church essay admits as much.

This is not so in a host of ways, and the LDS Gospel Topics essay on the BofA says no such thing.

This leads to the question, "If Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyri from which he claimed to translate, can the same thing be said for the Book of Mormon?"

And might this not be confirmed by the newly acknowledged fact that Joseph Smith did not even use the plates during his translation of the Book of Mormon?

False premise, and false extrapolation.  Assumes facts not in evidence.  Joseph did use the plates during part of his translation, and we have firsthand evidence that he did.  The Book of Mormon is not in a comparable class with the BofA as a translation document.

................................................................

And the fact that the first chapter of Abraham specifically references the facsimile at the beginning (which is the one we still have) pretty much does away with the idea that none of the Book of Abraham is represented by the fragments we possess.

I don't know of anyone who claims that "none of the Book of Abraham is represented by the fragments we possess."  What they often say is that none of the now available papyri have the text of the BofA thereon.  The facsimile explanations are clearly related to the BofA text, but they are not the text, and even the anti-Mormons admit that none of the now available papyri have the text of the BofA thereon.  That leaves us with the possibility that the text was on some of the no longer available papyri, or that Joseph simply invented a text.  Take your choice.  But please don't make the repeatedly false statement that the the text comes from the papyri we now have, or make the silly claim that Joseph was translating holes in the papyri.  That simply is not so -- as a matter of demonstrable fact.

And the Kirtland Egyptian papers pretty much did away with that idea a long time ago, anyway.

.............................................................

KEP did no such thing.  Far too many absurd assumptions must be made, with a result which is self-contradictory.  I have taken my own look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .