Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an interesting comment, and I'm curious what it is about your paradigm that forms the foundation for this kind of thinking?  Its good to be confident about some things, and Mormonism definitely has its influence on this idea that we can have a sure knowledge about things, or that Mormonism contains the fullness of knowledge about things.  It sounds like you're very confident in your understanding about prophets, that you "personally define prophets accurately".  

Why such confidence in your opinion?  This kind of confidence comes across to me as a hubris that is lacking in the humility necessary to be open to new ideas and new perspectives.  I would also argue that your understanding about prophets isn't in alignment with the perspective that Mr. Mason is sharing in his talk.  Could you expound upon why you think that your perspective is so accurate or Nibley's for that matter.  What makes you think you have it right?  

I have covered this subject many times on this board, mainly utilizing non-Mormon scholarly sources, and I have yet to hear an objection.  What is it about my comments on prophets which you find so out of line with the best scholarship?  Or in Nibley, who is so engaging and easy to read?  I find my understanding of prophets very much in line with that of Professor Mason, and heartily recommend his lecture to all interested parties.  So I don't understand any part of your above comments.  Are you sure that we are discussing the same thing?  Or have you confused me with someone else?

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Lennon might have been a hypocritical ignoramus when it came to social, moral and economic issues, but you're revealing your own ignorance if you think there is anything about song writing that you know (and he didn't) that would put you in a position to judge anything he ever did from an artistic standpoint.

"All You Need Is Love" was meant to be a worldwide anthem (and was premiered in a worldwide broadcast "music video" which included contributions from 19 nations), and so it had to be easily understood in any culture and language, and it couldn't focus one particular religion or outlook.  So the simplicity and universality are intentional, even if that leads to an oversimplified message that ultimately lacks substance. 

Indeed, for those of you who aren't impressed, find the best songwriter among you, and have him write a "Beatles"-like song.  And if any of you can write a song that is like the Beatles in quality, then you are justified in saying that you don't think it's a great song.

But if you can't make one like it, you are under derision if you don't admit that it's still a great song.

I do not believe Lennon and McCartney were songwriters so much as they were song transcribers. If one examines their songs closely, it is clear that many of the notes they used are they very same notes used by that famous 16th century songwriting duo of  Simon Bar Jona Madelka & Hermann Finck. Clearly the Beatles songs were written by 16th century song writers in the spirit world and revealed to them by a process we just don't understand. They is no other explanation for the usage of such archaic notes.

[cinepro]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I do not believe Lennon and McCartney were songwriters so much as they were song transcribers. If one examines their songs closely, it is clear that many of the notes they used are they very same notes used by that famous 16th century songwriting duo of  Simon Bar Jona Madelka & Hermann Finck. Clearly the Beatles songs were written by 16th century song writers in the spirit world and revealed to them by a process we just don't understand. They is no other explanation for the usage of such archaic notes.

Be careful.  Sometimes two great songs can sound similar when in fact they're totally different.

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have covered this subject many times on this board, mainly utilizing non-Mormon scholarly sources, and I have yet to hear an objection.  What is it about my comments on prophets which you find so out of line with the best scholarship?  Or in Nibley, who is so engaging and easy to read?  I find my understanding of prophets very much in line with that of Professor Mason, and heartily recommend his lecture to all interested parties.  So I don't understand any part of your above comments.  Are you sure that we are discussing the same thing?  Or have you confused me with someone else?

I don't know of your prior history talking on this subject on this message board.  I was questioning your statement that I quoted in the thread where you clearly expressed that you have an accurate definition of prophets.  I found it puzzling that anyone could be that sure of their position on prophets.  You described your position not as a belief, but you used the term "accuracy", which is a pretty strong term to use about subjects of belief even in Mormon culture.  

The sentiment seems out of alignment with Patrick Mason's talk.  I've listened to Patrick on a few podcasts, and read two of his books. I don't get the impression that he has a strong belief in a specific definition of a prophet. I get the impression that he's pretty open to different interpretations and that he's more interested in other aspects of Mormonism.  But that's my impression.

I was hoping you could share just briefly your paradigm on prophets and why you think your view is the accurate one.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Lennon might have been a hypocritical ignoramus when it came to social, moral and economic issues, but you're revealing your own ignorance if you think there is anything about song writing that you know (and he didn't) that would put you in a position to judge anything he ever did from an artistic standpoint.

"All You Need Is Love" was meant to be a worldwide anthem (and was premiered in a worldwide broadcast "music video" which included contributions from 19 nations), and so it had to be easily understood in any culture and language, and it couldn't focus one particular religion or outlook.  So the simplicity and universality are intentional, even if that leads to an oversimplified message that ultimately lacks substance. 

Indeed, for those of you who aren't impressed, find the best songwriter among you, and have him write a "Beatles"-like song.  And if any of you can write a song that is like the Beatles in quality, then you are justified in saying that you don't think it's a great song.

But if you can't make one like it, you are under derision if you don't admit that it's still a great song.

Dude

Remain Calm.

I consider it a major tragedy to western civilization that he died so young. Seriously, -- major fan.

Goob goob a choo.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

I would also point out that, relevant to this discussion, that song was recently derided in a conference talk by President Monson (quoting a critic of that era):

 

I believe that was the most momentous invocation of a pop song in General Conference since President Benson invoked this classic so many years ago...

 

The Osmonds didn't popularize this song. The Hollies (another of my favorite groups ) did. 

And the story the song was based on was already very famous, made so by Father Flanagan's Boys Town in Omaha, Nebraska. I'm fairly certain President Benson was making reference to the story, not the song based on it. I don't think President Benson was that in touch with the pop music scene. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't know of your prior history talking on this subject on this message board.  I was questioning your statement that I quoted in the thread where you clearly expressed that you have an accurate definition of prophets.  I found it puzzling that anyone could be that sure of their position on prophets.  You described your position not as a belief, but you used the term "accuracy", which is a pretty strong term to use about subjects of belief even in Mormon culture.  

The sentiment seems out of alignment with Patrick Mason's talk.  I've listened to Patrick on a few podcasts, and read two of his books. I don't get the impression that he has a strong belief in a specific definition of a prophet. I get the impression that he's pretty open to different interpretations and that he's more interested in other aspects of Mormonism.  But that's my impression.

So, based on complete ignorance of what I have said on this board about prophets and prophecy, you decided that I must be wrong?!  And that I'm out of alignment with Professor Mason?!  Extraordinary.

Quote

I was hoping you could share just briefly your paradigm on prophets and why you think your view is the accurate one.  

Just briefly?  Well, O.K., here's the short version:

Hebrew nābʼî  Aprophet, one called by God@ (Mari nabû “diviner”; Akkadian nabû “to name, call”) = I Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11 prophētēs πρoφήτης Aprophet.@  So too, Hebrew nbʼ “to prophesy” (Arabic nbʼ “to inform, announce”) = Greek prophēmi “to foretell, inform.”[1]

Despite the common notion that prophets lack “an independent will,” according to Yohanan Muffs, a prophet is actually an “agent of the Lord.”[2]  However, Muffs continues, a “prophet has another function: He is also an independent advocate to the heavenly court . . . ,”[3] but he is both “the messenger of the divine court to the defendant,” and also “the agent of the defendant, attempting to mitigate the severity of the divine decree.”  In Genesis 18:17-25, for example, “God’s hands are tied until Abraham, a human being, makes a request–that is, until a prophet intercedes.”[4]  So too, Moses argues with God that, deserving or not, God is obligated to clear His own name and reputation by redeeming His people – “even though they do not deserve” it.  Moreover, Heaven forbid that God might breach His own unconditional covenant!![5] (cf. Exodus 32:7-13, Numbers 14:15-16; Deuteronomy 9:26-29)  Prophets might actually carry out divinely ordered executions, as in the case of Samuel slaying Agag, King of the Amaleqites (1 Samuel 15:33),[6] or of Nephi slaying Laban, a Captain of Fifty in Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:29-4:3,7-18).

“The usual definition of a prophet–someone whose prophecies come true–is really quite superficial,” Muffs points out.  “The first function of a prophet is to announce the Lord’s punishment and to call on the people to repent,” i.e., as “the messenger of the Lord.”  The second “function of the prophet is . . . to go into the breach, to build a protective wall and to prepare for the battle against the Lord.  The prophet is like a mighty warrior, but his only strength is his eloquence, the strength of his prayer, which may deflect the Lord from destroying his people.”[7]  “The breach that the prophet must protect is the breach of sin.  The enemy is not the army of the gentiles that is placing a siege around Jerusalem.  The Lord himself is the enemy, the warrior who is setting his face against Jerusalem to destroy it,”[8] and this was as true for Lehi as it was for Jeremiah.  Muffs concludes:

Quote

Prophecy does not annihilate the personal independence of the prophet; it demands such autonomy as a prerequisite for the prophetic role.  Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach, calling on people who do not listen and a God who just might.[9]

The Jaredite equivalent may have been Akkadian muḫḫû, muḫḫūtu, maḫḫû “prophet, ecstatic prophet (Sumerian annibatu), cultic performer” (Sumerian ansala, MU.AN.SAL.LA; luʼede, lu₂-ed₃-de₃; lu₂-al-ed₂-de₃; luguba, lu₂-gub-ba; lunisub, lu₂-ni₂-su-ub, which also correspond variously to Akkadian aḫurrû, kurgarrû, assinnu “cult functionary,” zabbu).[10]   Cf. also Mari āpilu, āpiltu “answerer.”  Such prophets were often organized into a college of seers (barû-college),[11] which performed various cultic divinitory functions, such as liver extispicy,[12] astral magic, etc.[13]  At Ugarit, as in biblical “’consultations’ the ‘messenger’ (malʼāk) of the king and of Yahweh recurs constantly (cf. Jg 13:3ff.; 2 Kg 1:2ff.).”[14]  There are also many other parallels among the prophets of Mari, Ugarit, and Israel.[15]

Liver-divination is both biblical (Ezekiel 21:21, 29:13, Proverbs 7:23, Psalm 7:9), and ancient Near Eastern in general.[16]  Hugh Nibley has dealt with arrow-divination (balomancy) and the Liahona in various sources.[17] In other contexts, the proper incan­tations could be used along with "substitute" figurines for vicarious atonement in Neo-Babylonia.[18]  Erica Reiner has covered "Fortune-Telling in Mesopotamia" for us,[19] while most other features of what is thought "magical" today were also familiar throughout the biblical world.[20]

As the late William F. Albright pointed out, "the prophets were originally called ro'im, 'diviners' (I Sam. 9:9)" -- a synonym of ḥozim (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan [1968], 215 [= 187 in London ed.]), both of which are normally translated "seers" (cf. II Sam 24:11).

---

[1] Cf. H. B. Huffmon, “Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, V:477-482.

[2] Yochanan Muffs, “Agent of the Lord, Warrior for the People: The Prophet’s Paradox,” Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):21.

[3] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):21-22.

[4] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002: 22.

[5] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23-24.

[6] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):24.

[7] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):27.

[8] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):27.

[9] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):56.

[10] ePennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary.

[11] Ivan Starr, "The Baru Rituals," unpublished doctoral dissertation (Yale Univ., 1974) [bārū "seer"]; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 206ff.

[12] Cf. A. Finet and J. Aro on liver extispicy in La Divination en Mesopotamie Ancienne, 14e Recontre Assyr­iologique Internationale (1966).

[13] Erica Reiner, “Astral Magic in Babylonia,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 85/4 (Philadelphia, 1995), online at https://archive.org/stream/AstralMagicInBabylonia/Reiner_astral_magic_in_babylonia#page/n1/mode/2up ; cf. S. Ahituv in Encyclopaedia Judaica, VI:111-116 (esp. column 114), citing W. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, N.Y., 1968), 123-194 (= 107-168 in London ed.).

[14] del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2^nd ed., 263 n62.

[15] A. Malamat, “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents,” in P. Miller, ed., Ancient Israelite Religion (Phila., 1987), 33-47; Malamat, Mari and The Early Israelite Experience (Oxford, 1989); Malamat, “Parallels between the New Prophecies from Mari and Biblical Prophecy: 1) Predicting the Death of a Royal Infant,” NABU, 4 (1989):88; cited in del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2^nd ed., 48, 262.

[16] M. Dahood, Psalms (1965), xxx, on Ps 7:10 (Heb), which has a formula appearing also in Jeremiah and on inscribed liver-models from Ugarit, referring to God as "He who tests hearts and livers (minds)."

[17] Nibley, "The Arrow, the Hunter, and the State," Western Political Quarterly, 2 (1949):328-344 = Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 10:1-32; Nibley, "The Liahona's Cousins," Improvement Era, 64 (Feb 1961): 87-89, 104-111 = Since Cumorah, 283-296 = Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 7:251-263; Boyd Barrick, “Elisha and the Magic Bow: A Note on 2 Kings 13:15-17,” VT, 35/3 (1985):355-363.

[18] R. F. G. Sweet, "An Akkadian Incantation Text," in J. Wevers and D. Redford, eds., Essays on the Ancient Semitic World (1970), 6-11.

[19] Reiner "Fortune-Telling in Mesopotamia," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 19 (1960):23ff.

[20] E. Grant, "Oracle in the Old Testament," American Journal of Semitic Lang­uages and Literature, 39 (1922/23):257-281; S. H. Black, "The Curse, the Blas­phemy, the Spell, and the Oath," Hebrew Union College Annual, 33 (1950/51):73-95; Hyrum P. Jones, "Magic and the Old Testament," unpublished master's thesis (BYU, Dept. of Religion, 1933); Brian Schmidt, “The ‘Witch’ of En-Dor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient Near Eastern Necromancy,” in M. Meyer and P. Mirecki, eds., Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (1995), 111-129; Mordechai Cogan, “The Road to En-Dor,” in D. Wright, D. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, eds., Pomegranates and Golden Bells (1995), 319-326.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

 

 

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Osmonds didn't popularize this song. The Hollies (another of my favorite groups ) did. 

And the story the song was based on was already very famous, made so by Father Flanagan's Boys Town in Omaha, Nebraska. I'm fairly certain President Benson was making reference to the story, not the song based on it. I don't think President Benson was that in touch with the pop music scene. 

I think you underestimate (or overestimate?) President Benson...

Quote

Your most important friendships should be with your own brothers and sisters and with your father and mother. Love your family. Be loyal to them. Have a genuine concern for your brothers and sisters. Help carry their load so you can say, like the lyrics of that song, “He ain’t heavy; he’s my brother.”

(Emphasis added)

 

 

As for which version President Benson was referring to, I can only say that should I bump into him in the afterlife, this will be the question I ask him.

Edited August 19, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Dude

Remain Calm.

I consider it a major tragedy to western civilization that he died so young. Seriously, -- major fan.

Goob goob a choo.

Well, I don't know about Western Civilization, but I'm guessing the fur coat industry has never been the same.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

 

I think you underestimate (or overestimate?) President Benson...

 

As for which version President Benson was referring to, I can only say that should I bump into him in the afterlife, this will be the question I ask him.

Well, OK. I'll give you that one. 

But I'm quite certain about the Hollies being the group that had the first hit with it (I know the Osmonds sang it a lot in their concerts though) and about the story originating with Boys Town. 

Everybody back on topic. Yeah, yeah, yeeeaaahh

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, based on complete ignorance of what I have said on this board about prophets and prophecy, you decided that I must be wrong?!  And that I'm out of alignment with Professor Mason?!  Extraordinary.

Just briefly?  Well, O.K., here's the short version:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I'm questioning your use of the bold claim that you have an accurate view of prophets, but at the same time commenting that your views and Mr. Mason's were in alignment.  I was seeking for understanding about this claim of accuracy.  You didn't address that in your response.

I get the impression your views about the role of a prophet are heavily influenced by the Hebrew Bible paradigm.  I see little parallels between Hebrew constructs for prophets and our modern prophets, other than the concept that prophets weren't expected to be infallible and our modern ones certainly aren't either.  At any rate, sounds like you are more annoyed at my question than anything else.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to Moroni 7 and I Cor 13, you may want to note that many scholars find a precursor in ancient Stoic talk of "faith, truth, love, hope," and which shows up in various combinations in I Esdras 4:35-38 (3 Ezra), IV Maccabees 17:2,4 (pistis, elpis, hupomonē), I Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6, Colossians 1:4-5, Hebrews 10:22-24, and I Peter 1:21-22.  The first step is to study the intertextuality.  Top rank scholars see the Three Graces preceding Paul, as with F. F. Bruce, ed., Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, 1982), 45:12, also citing A. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, 33-35.  

 I agree Paul borrowed ideas from ancient sources, but do you have evidence Paul borrowed these exact words and sentences from a very ancient source that dates before 600 BC? 

Moroni 7 charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. 

1 Cor 13 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth

but for the sake of argument let's assume Moro 7 and 1 Cor 13 share a common ancestor. Let's get to your next point

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You don't pay close attention:  All direction to the Church from God (all of it) comes through human filters.  None of it comes direct from God.  All of it is interpreted by humans.  Every time.  No exceptions. .

In other words you are saying that prophets are not fax machines, but is your statement "None of it comes direct from God. All of it is interpreted by humans. Every time. No exceptions" official doctrine? I admit it makes sense, but official church doctrine? 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I expect you to take seriously my advice, and to read the sources I cited.  You have obviously not done that, and have not done everything.  I will add here advice from another source, from a recent master's thesis at Loyola University in Maryland:

I have done everything found in the Preach My Gospel and other church publications. 

I will read Kevin Christensen when I get the chance. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is not just a Mormon thing.  You really need to get that straight.

I know. There are two possibilities. 1. The Holy Ghost is real 2. or  It is just our brain. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I'm questioning your use of the bold claim that you have an accurate view of prophets, but at the same time commenting that your views and Mr. Mason's were in alignment.  I was seeking for understanding about this claim of accuracy.  You didn't address that in your response.

Well, if you think that my claims are so out of alignment with Prof Mason's, perhaps you could specify why that might be.  I don't see anything he says that I can disagree with.  Indeed, at the FairMormon conference he received more of an ovation than anyone else -- most attendees seemed to like and approve of what he had to say.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I get the impression your views about the role of a prophet are heavily influenced by the Hebrew Bible paradigm.  I see little parallels between Hebrew constructs for prophets and our modern prophets, other than the concept that prophets weren't expected to be infallible and our modern ones certainly aren't either.  At any rate, sounds like you are more annoyed at my question than anything else.  

Annoyed?  What would indicate that?  As for my brief coverage of ancient Near Eastern prophecy (I did not limit my summary to Hebrew), I see no disjuncture between that and modern prophecy.  Perhaps you could indicate in what ways they differ, if at all.

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 I agree Paul borrowed ideas from ancient sources, but do you have evidence Paul borrowed these exact words and sentences from a very ancient source that dates before 600 BC? 

Moroni 7 charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. 

1 Cor 13 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth

but for the sake of argument let's assume Moro 7 and 1 Cor 13 share a common ancestor.  ............................

Remember, those "exact words and sentences" you are quoting are in English.  The Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian.  Thus, whatever translating was done had to go through a human filter -- likely a filter very familiar with those exact English words and sentences, and likely to reuse them -- especially if they were given directly to him from the LED screen of a solid state device.  After all, neither Joseph nor (most likely) his predecessor in "translation" actually knew ancient Egyptian.  It had not yet been deciphered at that time.

54 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

In other words you are saying that prophets are not fax machines, but is your statement "None of it comes direct from God. All of it is interpreted by humans. Every time. No exceptions" official doctrine? I admit it makes sense, but official church doctrine? 

Why not?  What problem do you see in that principle?  As I and Mark Bukowski have pointed out on this board, Ludwig Wittgenstein and David Hume long ago proved that everything is filtered.  We have no direct knowledge of anything.  You should have gotten that in first year philosophy class.

54 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I have done everything found in the Preach My Gospel and other church publications. 

I will read Kevin Christensen when I get the chance. 

I know. There are two possibilities. 1. The Holy Ghost is real 2. or  It is just our brain. 

That is why I emphasize that this is not just a Mormon thing.  You may need to look at it from a non-Mormon POV in order to make progress.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Remember, those "exact words and sentences" you are quoting are in English.  The Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian.  Thus, whatever translating was done had to go through a human filter -- likely a filter very familiar with those exact English words and sentences, and likely to reuse them

So you believe in the loose translation theory, and Joseph Smith used a Bible to help him? 

It is an interesting point, but that weakens the supposed translation evidence by Dan Peterson.

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why not?  What problem do you see in that principle?  As I and Mark Bukowski have pointed out on this board, Ludwig Wittgenstein and David Hume long ago proved that everything is filtered.  We have no direct knowledge of anything.  You should have gotten that in first year philosophy class.

That is why I emphasize that this is not just a Mormon thing.  You may need to look at it from a non-Mormon POV in order to make progress.

What you are saying makes sense only if the Holy Ghost is real. I will get back to you after I read Kevin Christensen. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if you think that my claims are so out of alignment with Prof Mason's, perhaps you could specify why that might be.  I don't see anything he says that I can disagree with.  Indeed, at the FairMormon conference he received more of an ovation than anyone else -- most attendees seemed to like and approve of what he had to say.

Annoyed?  What would indicate that?  As for my brief coverage of ancient Near Eastern prophecy (I did not limit my summary to Hebrew), I see no disjuncture between that and modern prophecy.  Perhaps you could indicate in what ways they differ, if at all.

My first question to you that is still unanswered and is the main reason that I commented in the first place, is why do you feel that your views about prophets are "accurate".  How can you be so sure as to proclaim accuracy about the concept of prophets?  This implies that you have some kind of knowledge that is verifiable and also implies that others views aren't accurate.  I think this idea of accurate views on prophets goes against the grain of Patrick Mason's talk.  I can give more detail about why I think this is in contrast to Mr. Mason's approach, but I'd like to hear you answer my original question first about why you think your views about prophets are accurate.  Why?  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

My first question to you that is still unanswered and is the main reason that I commented in the first place, is why do you feel that your views about prophets are "accurate".  How can you be so sure as to proclaim accuracy about the concept of prophets?  This implies that you have some kind of knowledge that is verifiable and also implies that others views aren't accurate.  I think this idea of accurate views on prophets goes against the grain of Patrick Mason's talk.  I can give more detail about why I think this is in contrast to Mr. Mason's approach, but I'd like to hear you answer my original question first about why you think your views about prophets are accurate.  Why?  

The onus is on you to tell me where my views of prophets and prophecy are inaccurate, or are out of synch with those of Prof Mason.  I cite my sources, while you neglect to do so.  If you find some sort of fault in my coverage, I would appreciate knowing about it so that I could improve my accuracy.  Of the two of us, thus far, I am the only one who has delivered on his claims.  You have not.  Why?  Is it that you actually know  nothing about prophets and prophecy -- not historically, and not in modern times.

At the same time, if you have specific questions about prophets and prophecy, I would be happy to answer those queries.  Perhaps that would help you understand what I have been saying all along -- for years on this board.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The onus is on you to tell me where my views of prophets and prophecy are inaccurate, or are out of synch with those of Prof Mason.  I cite my sources, while you neglect to do so.  If you find some sort of fault in my coverage, I would appreciate knowing about it so that I could improve my accuracy.  Of the two of us, thus far, I am the only one who has delivered on his claims.  You have not.  Why?  Is it that you actually know  nothing about prophets and prophecy -- not historically, and not in modern times.

At the same time, if you have specific questions about prophets and prophecy, I would be happy to answer those queries.  Perhaps that would help you understand what I have been saying all along -- for years on this board.

I think we're talking past each other.  I'm not interested in a battle to prove who's views about prophets are accurate or not.  When I said that I think you're out of sync with Professor Mason, I'm talking about your claim of accuracy that's out of sync.  I'm trying to understand why you think your views are accurate.  That is a bold claim that I'm used to hearing from orthodox and fundamental believers, but I don't hear it as often from more educated and thinking individuals, and I've read enough posts by you that I consider you in this category of educated and thoughtful.

Its a simple question really.  Why do you think your current concept about prophets is so iron clad that you are bold enough to proclaim accuracy about your position?  

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, OK. I'll give you that one. 

But I'm quite certain about the Hollies being the group that had the first hit with it (I know the Osmonds sang it a lot in their concerts though) and about the story originating with Boys Town. 

Everybody back on topic. Yeah, yeah, yeeeaaahh

Let's hear it moderation team member!!!

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So you believe in the loose translation theory, and Joseph Smith used a Bible to help him? 

Since Joseph did not in fact do the translation and merely read it off the stone as it appeared in front of him in the hat, You seem not to understand the process.  No one saw Joseph ever use a Bible during the process, and why would he if it were delivered to him automatically on the stone?  How the initial translation was done into early Modern English centuries before Joseph, I have no clear idea.  But a human filter is a strong possibility.  Perhaps you have a better idea.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

What you are saying makes sense only if the Holy Ghost is real. I will get back to you after I read Kevin Christensen. 

I hope that you will do more than that.  Try sitting zazen for 20 minutes each morning and evening.  See how that goes.  Do it in complete quiet and isolation.  Try a Zen koan while you meditate:  "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think we're talking past each other.  I'm not interested in a battle to prove who's views about prophets are accurate or not.  When I said that I think you're out of sync with Professor Mason, I'm talking about your claim of accuracy that's out of sync.  I'm trying to understand why you think your views are accurate.  That is a bold claim that I'm used to hearing from orthodox and fundamental believers, but I don't hear it as often from more educated and thinking individuals, and I've read enough posts by you that I consider you in this category of educated and thoughtful.

Its a simple question really.  Why do you think your current concept about prophets is so iron clad that you are bold enough to proclaim accuracy about your position?  

Your question is so open-ended as to be meaningless, hope.  Moreover, I did not say that my understanding of prophets and prophecy is "iron clad." Indeed, I suggested that it could be improved.  In the academic world, in which I have spent my entire adult life, we attempt constant improvement in our intellectual understanding.  We do that through constant reading and interchange of ideas with colleagues and others.  We always shoot for accuracy, which often entails caution in certain matters which are beyond human ken.  You seem not to understand any of that.  Perhaps you have a legitimate question about prophets or prophecy which you would like answered.  Are you even conversant with such issues?

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your question is so open-ended as to be meaningless, hope.  Moreover, I did not say that my understanding of prophets and prophecy is "iron clad." Indeed, I suggested that it could be improved.  In the academic world, in which I have spent my entire adult life, we attempt constant improvement in our intellectual understanding.  We do that through constant reading and interchange of ideas with colleagues and others.  We always shoot for accuracy, which often entails caution in certain matters which are beyond human ken.  You seem not to understand any of that.  Perhaps you have a legitimate question about prophets or prophecy which you would like answered.  Are you even conversant with such issues?

The bolded statement above I completely agree with.  That is why I was surprised to hear you use the word accuracy to describe your view of prophets because I think accuracy is a difficult if not impossible position to arrive at for religious perspectives.  I would like accuracy too, and I think you can be accurate about specific facts about subjects, but to say you're accurate about your broader subject like, views on prophets, is what I questioned.  

I don't think you can answer my questions about prophets.  I do think you can give me your opinions on prophets, but I wouldn't consider those answers necessarily, just one man's perspective.  

In your response to theSkepticChristian you just said this: 

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since Joseph did not in fact do the translation and merely read it off the stone as it appeared in front of him in the hat, You seem not to understand the process.

This is an interesting response that does shed some light to me on your opinions about prophets.  Surely you are aware that there are many competing and different hypothesis around the translation method.  Tight translation seems to be the one you're describing here, and you make this statement about it as if this is an established fact, rather than one of many possible methods that could have been happening.  

I guess I haven't read enough of your posts to understand your way of conversing.  If you regularly speak as if your views are the correct views, that you have the accurate perspectives on things, then this is helpful for me to know.  There are others on this message board to converse like this as well, I just didn't know you fell into this camp.  

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 No one saw Joseph ever use a Bible during the process, and why would he if it were delivered to him automatically on the stone? 

Now you are confusing me, you said, "All direction to the Church from God (all of it) comes through human filters. None of it comes direct from God. All of it is interpreted by humans. Every time. No exceptions." Now you are saying "delivered to him automatically"  So directly from God yes or no? Can prophets be fax machines?  

If Joseph Smith didn't use a Bible and if it was just Joseph Smith's interpretation, how did Moroni 7 end up with the exact words and sentences of 1 Cor 13? or vice versa, how did 1 Cor 13 end up with the exact words and sentences of Moroni 7?      

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I hope that you will do more than that.  Try sitting zazen for 20 minutes each morning and evening.  See how that goes.  Do it in complete quiet and isolation.  Try a Zen koan while you meditate:  "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

I will think about it, but you realize that "complete quite and isolation" makes the brain hallucinate? 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-isolation-space-messes-your-mind-180952952/?no-ist 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The bolded statement above I completely agree with.  That is why I was surprised to hear you use the word accuracy to describe your view of prophets because I think accuracy is a difficult if not impossible position to arrive at for religious perspectives.  I would like accuracy too, and I think you can be accurate about specific facts about subjects, but to say you're accurate about your broader subject like, views on prophets, is what I questioned.  

I don't think you can answer my questions about prophets.  I do think you can give me your opinions on prophets, but I wouldn't consider those answers necessarily, just one man's perspective.  

That you are afraid to ask me questions about prophets and prophecy indicates not only your lack of knowledge in that subject-matter, but a deep fear that I might just be correct in my replies -- showing up your shallow notions for what they are.

Quote

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

This is an interesting response that does shed some light to me on your opinions about prophets.  Surely you are aware that there are many competing and different hypothesis around the translation method.  Tight translation seems to be the one you're describing here, and you make this statement about it as if this is an established fact, rather than one of many possible methods that could have been happening.  

That you think a mechanical reading of a previous translation from a stone surface indicates "tight" translation, indicates further that you don't understand anything connected with translation, and have likely never done any.  If shallow assumptions are your stock in trade, then it is no surprise that you feel fear to expose your ignorance in asking questions about prophets and prophecy.  Academics have been discussing that subject-matter extensively now for centuries and you talk as though they have concluded nothing from all that effort.

Quote

I guess I haven't read enough of your posts to understand your way of conversing.  If you regularly speak as if your views are the correct views, that you have the accurate perspectives on things, then this is helpful for me to know.  There are others on this message board to converse like this as well, I just didn't know you fell into this camp.  

This is a frank admission on your part that you actually know nothing about prophets and prophecy, and are very much afraid to learn anything which might upset your narrow and superficial views.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Now you are confusing me, you said, "All direction to the Church from God (all of it) comes through human filters. None of it comes direct from God. All of it is interpreted by humans. Every time. No exceptions." Now you are saying "delivered to him automatically"  So directly from God yes or no? Can prophets be fax machines?  

I guess we have to go back to square one, Skeptic, and you need to carefully track the entire seequence.  The translation read off the stone by Joseph was previously done a couple of centuries before Joseph by a human who filtered everything.  You are confusing yourself by not paying close attention, also likely the reason why you don't understand other aspects of Mormon religion.

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

If Joseph Smith didn't use a Bible and if it was just Joseph Smith's interpretation, how did Moroni 7 end up with the exact words and sentences of 1 Cor 13? or vice versa, how did 1 Cor 13 end up with the exact words and sentences of Moroni 7?

Once again, reread what I said about that.  Nothing has changed.  It is simply a question of which human was doing the translating.  I never said that it was Joseph's intepretation.  That is what you said to yourself, and that is the only voice you seem to hear.  No wonder the Holy Spirit can't get through to you.  You are unable to focus.

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I will think about it, but you realize that "complete quite and isolation" makes the brain hallucinate? 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-isolation-space-messes-your-mind-180952952/?no-ist 

Well, if you are afraid of quiet isolation (such as you might find while sleeping at night), then by all means put yourself in the midst of tremendous noise and tumult and see if that is conducive to meditation and reflection.