Book of Abraham == the New View

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with you.

 

Glenn

Fair enough. All of these sources (two statements by Wilford Woodruff, Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, Lucy Smith) are all removed a few years except for the newspaper article. The statement was made in the New York Sunday Morning News from August 16th, 1835, and reported that Joseph examined "the papyrus through his spectacles."

Anyways, I could certainly see someone feeling like they needed a more specific account of the process, like we have with the BoM.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Fair enough. All of these sources (two statements by Wilford Woodruff, Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, Lucy Smith) are all removed a few years except for the newspaper article. The statement was made in the New York Sunday Morning News from August 16th, 1835, and reported that Joseph examined "the papyrus through his spectacles."

Anyways, I could certainly see someone feeling like they needed a more specific account of the process, like we have with the BoM.

I would think it likely that all of these sources are dependent on a single source, and not independent.  They do not indicate first hand knowledge.

Joseph Smith tended to kept the translation details to himself.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me that the conundrum lies in the way that the church interpreted many elements of Christianity in a hyper literalistic way.  Modern scholarship has shown that Christianity hasn't always had a focus on such literal interpretations of scripture, this is a fairly recent trend.  So if you can accept that the whole story of Abraham was likely passed down as myth and that even if an actual person named Abraham did exist at some point, that doesn't mean any of the narrative we have about Abraham describes actual events in this person's life.  If you can look at the entire story of Abraham as a metaphor for theological purposes, then its easy to accept that Joseph Smith was telling a story for modern theological purposes as well. 

I see the metaphorical approach to religion as the only one that can endure in a modern secular age.  Otherwise you're teaching people to ignore scholarship and logical inconsistencies that are present when people try to take the Bible as literal history.  Same problems with the BoM.  This is why I think those that insist on the historicity of the BoM or many of these texts are sailing on a sinking ship.  

Maybe this will help you understand me better- this is a good point but a better point is to understand that ALL language, even science, is a "metaphor".

Saying that scripture is a "metaphor" denies its "reality"

Think of peeling a banana.  The color, the feel of the skin, the resistance of the skin as you pop off the top, the aroma as the skin separates and yes perhaps the bruises and dark spots.  As you bite into it, the texture and flavor strike your senses.

All those words- are descriptions.  They are nothing like the actual experience.  They are symbols and metaphors for the actual experience but never measure up to the "reality"

So even "The banana is yellow" is entirely a metaphorical sentence.  A chemical formula is a metaphor, calculations in quantum physics are metaphors.

Scriptures are descriptions of some else's beliefs and experiences.  They are no more "metaphorical" than any other linguistic utterance.

THAT is, I believe what we need to learn.  Understood that way, scripture is on the same "level" as science, just a different subject matter.

Let me know if that helps.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

So in your opinion, mnemonics were not necessary to conserve space on the plates but that each character / symbol represented a word (or perhaps a sort phrase or abbreviation)... Is there any indication which part of the plates Joseph copied from (Nephi's inserted small plates or the portions)?

Don't know, but it could be from a page in the book of Lehi (the lost 116 pages), which we no longer have.  I say that because it does not appear to be from any part of our current Book of Mormon.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Don't know, but it could be from a page in the book of Lehi (the lost 116 pages), which we no longer have.  I say that because it does not appear to be from any part of our current Book of Mormon.

It would be interesting to know whether at this stage Joseph oriented the book as a 19th century American would (thus copying Moroni's characters that would have been on top, upside-down and backwards), or he already knew to follow the back-to-front, left-to-right Hebrew writing orientation (thus copying Mormon's characters from the Title Page). Also, whether this first page might have used highly stylized, encoded characters to render the translation nonsensical to uninspired, unauthorized translators.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

It would be interesting to know whether at this stage Joseph oriented the book as a 19th century American would (thus copying Moroni's characters that would have been on top, upside-down and backwards), or he already knew to follow the back-to-front, left-to-right Hebrew writing orientation (thus copying Mormon's characters from the Title Page). Also, whether this first page might have used highly stylized, encoded characters to render the translation nonsensical to uninspired, unauthorized translators.

Actually, the Caractors Transcript has many Egyptian hieratic characters in the proper order, reading from right to left. (even though Joseph copied them from left to right)  In addition, the entire document is highly structured and deliberate.  The repetitive nature of groups of characters in the Transcript enable the scholar to search for similar sequences in the current BofM, where they cannot be found.  That is why I suggest that the Transcript is from someplace in the plates represented by the missing 116 pages, i. e., the book of Lehi as edited by Mormon.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, the Caractors Transcript has many Egyptian hieratic characters in the proper order, reading from right to left. (even though Joseph copied them from left to right)  In addition, the entire document is highly structured and deliberate.  The repetitive nature of groups of characters in the Transcript enable the scholar to search for similar sequences in the current BofM, where they cannot be found.  That is why I suggest that the Transcript is from someplace in the plates represented by the missing 116 pages, i. e., the book of Lehi as edited by Mormon.

That covers all my questions!

[cinepro]

On 11/11/2016 at 5:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

"I SAW" is a subjective statement.

You see things in  a dream also.  It doesn't mean that if you were standing beside him you would see the same thing

The point is that Joseph Smith's claim sets a very solid scriptural foundation for Abraham being "real."  If President Monson stood in Conference and said that he was at a Temple dedication and the heavens opened and he saw "Joseph Smith, Paul the Apostle, and Gandolf the Gray", we would probably assume he was misspeaking.  I don't think our theology is flexible enough to incorporate visions of fictional characters.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

The point is that Joseph Smith's claim sets a very solid scriptural foundation for Abraham being "real."  If President Monson stood in Conference and said that he was at a Temple dedication and the heavens opened and he saw "Joseph Smith, Paul the Apostle, and Gandolf the Gray", we would probably assume he was misspeaking.  I don't think our theology is flexible enough to incorporate visions of fictional characters.

Fictional?

What are you talking about?

Do you honestly think that you would have seen the savior had you been standing next to Joseph Smith?  Perhaps as Stephen had the heavens open?

Quote

 

⁵⁵ But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

⁵⁶ And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

⁵⁷ Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

⁵⁸ And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Dang.

I guess they did not see the same things.

"Fiction" is a deliberately made up story.  We are not speaking about fiction.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/11/2016 at 6:26 PM, cdowis said:

There were multiple visions and  witnesses to these visions.

D&C 110 

 2 We ^asaw the Lord ^bstanding upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure ^cgold, in color like amber.

 3 His ^aeyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his ^bcountenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his ^cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of ^dJehovah, 

--Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Yeah multiple subjective experiences of the same thing.

You know - kind of like both you and me having a testimony. 

Your point?  We have ostensibly 15 million people who have had a subjective experience telling them the church is true.

Heck when we listen to conference together we might even get teary at the same time.   Ever noticed that?  

[Benjamin Seeker]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, the Caractors Transcript has many Egyptian hieratic characters in the proper order, reading from right to left. (even though Joseph copied them from left to right)  In addition, the entire document is highly structured and deliberate.  The repetitive nature of groups of characters in the Transcript enable the scholar to search for similar sequences in the current BofM, where they cannot be found.  That is why I suggest that the Transcript is from someplace in the plates represented by the missing 116 pages, i. e., the book of Lehi as edited by Mormon.

Is that research published? I'm just curious to see it (not throwing out a skeptical CFR).

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah multiple subjective experiences of the same thing.

You know - kind of like both you and me having a testimony. 

Your point?

I guess we simply disagree on what constitutes a "subjective experience", so we are quibbling over semantics.   I have over 60 years of dealing with issues of the real world, testing my "subjective" experiences with real world consequences, while others get their concept from books and philosophical debates.

I really do know the difference between fact/reality and opinion/assertion.  And that is my point.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Is that research published? I'm just curious to see it (not throwing out a skeptical CFR).

I have written a full account, but it is not yet published.  Most of it is quite scattered:  The deliberate internal structure was laid out in 2001 by both C. Wade Brown, The First Page of the Golden Plates (Plymouth, Calif./ Orem: Granite Publ., 2001), and Blair B. Bryant, AThe >Caractors Transcript=A  (Laurel, MD: author 2001).  The Hieratic Egyptian has been commented on by many observers, but most importantly by the late W. C. Hayes, a non-Mormon Egyptologist.  Etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I guess we simply disagree on what constitutes a "subjective experience", so we are quibbling over semantics.   I have over 60 years of dealing with issues of the real world, testing my "subjective" experiences with real world consequences, while others get their concept from books and philosophical debates.

I really do know the difference between fact/reality and opinion/assertion.  And that is my point.

Unfortunately, there are no "facts" as such, but only interpretations of "facts."  We are (as David Hume pointed out long ago) prisoners of our senses, and we cannot know anything directly.  Perhaps a god has that capacity.  Humans do not.  Assertion is not the same thing as fact.  Moreover, even the act of observation changes the nature of the thing/phenomenon being observed.  This all comes under the heading of epistemology -- how do we know what we pretend to know?  Both historians and physicists are well aware of this quandary, and it will do no good to wish it away.  Objectivism, like Ayn Rand, is passe.

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unfortunately, there are no "facts" as such, but only interpretations of "facts."  We are (as David Hume pointed out long ago) prisoners of our senses, and we cannot know anything directly.  

The scriptures tell me otherwise.  My personal experiences tell me otherwise.

I do not have a perfect knowledge of all things, but I do have it for a few very important things.  It appears to me that you are a prisoner of Hume and the false philosophies that he spouts.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, cdowis said:

The scriptures tell me otherwise.  My personal experiences tell me otherwise.

I do not have a perfect knowledge of all things, but I do have it for a few very important things.  It appears to me that you are a prisoner of Hume and the false philosophies that he spouts.

You  mean that your interpretation of the scriptures tell you otherwise.  All personal experiences are subjective.  That's what "subjective" means.  Most people think as you do, so it is not an unusual assertion, but I don't know of any professional historians or physicists who would share that view.  A good course in college physics might help you see the difficulties in making a facile connection between what your senses tell you and what science tells you.  A course in the history of philosophy might also be of use, with a focus on epistemology.  I only mentioned the Humean approach because it has become normative (accepted) within philosophy.  Just can't get around it.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fictional?

What are you talking about?

Do you honestly think that you would have seen the savior had you been standing next to Joseph Smith?  Perhaps as Stephen had the heavens open?

Dang.

I guess they did not see the same things.

"Fiction" is a deliberately made up story.  We are not speaking about fiction.

I'm not sure what you think you're arguing.  My point is that LDS can't accept the idea of a mythical/fictional "Abraham" because Joseph Smith's vision means he has to be real.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You  mean that your interpretation of the scriptures tell you otherwise.  All personal experiences are subjective. 

May I ask you a very basic question.

Are you a man who dreams of a butterfly, or are you a butterfly dreaming that you are a man.  What do the normative philosophies say?  Just curious.

[hope_for_things]

On 11/12/2016 at 1:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

Maybe this will help you understand me better- this is a good point but a better point is to understand that ALL language, even science, is a "metaphor".

Saying that scripture is a "metaphor" denies its "reality"

Think of peeling a banana.  The color, the feel of the skin, the resistance of the skin as you pop off the top, the aroma as the skin separates and yes perhaps the bruises and dark spots.  As you bite into it, the texture and flavor strike your senses.

All those words- are descriptions.  They are nothing like the actual experience.  They are symbols and metaphors for the actual experience but never measure up to the "reality"

So even "The banana is yellow" is entirely a metaphorical sentence.  A chemical formula is a metaphor, calculations in quantum physics are metaphors.

Scriptures are descriptions of some else's beliefs and experiences.  They are no more "metaphorical" than any other linguistic utterance.

THAT is, I believe what we need to learn.  Understood that way, scripture is on the same "level" as science, just a different subject matter.

Let me know if that helps.

I understand you better now than a few months ago, but its a challenge for me, because I think that the common meaning of words has a different meaning for you.  I'm not sure is a function of your philosophical training, but its makes my head spin sometimes and makes communication difficult.  Perhaps this is intentional on your part, because you are hoping get people to really think deeply about what you're saying instead of just giving a surface level response to comments.  At any rate, after thinking about this for a while, I am going to try and respond.  

The way I'm using metaphor in this context is to distinguish between events that involved living people, and events that are imagined or written as a story for some purpose by the author, but these events didn't actually happen, its just a story.  Parable would be another descriptor that I think applies here.    

I will agree with you that scriptures are someone else's beliefs and experiences.  Since we can never get into the head of the authors of the scriptures its difficult to confidently know whether what they wrote is a description of something that they experienced, or if what they wrote was a story being told for some other purpose, but that has no basis in experience.  

I'm thinking Paul H. Dunn is a good modern example.  He told some stories that he knew weren't factual representations of what he actually experienced, but he likely was telling these stories for another purpose.  Whether his justification was ethical or not, I won't comment on.  There is a difference between explaining something that you actually experienced, and making something up for another purpose.  

The evidence clearly shows that the scriptures contain both types of stories at all different levels on the spectrum.  Some may very accurately represent historical events, while others may only partially represent events which a large doses of creative imagining, while others may be entirely made up.  Its difficult to discern the levels of fact from invention in ancient texts, but that is what scholars attempt to do with higher criticism, etc.  

What I'm saying is that we can look for meaning in the stories outside of questions about historicity. You say that calling scripture metaphor denies its reality, and I'm reading a book by Marcus Borg right now where for him, metaphor is more REAL than not.  It sounds like his entire spiritual/mystical experiences are enlivened by the metaphor, not diminished by it.  Perhaps it works differently for you though, but I don't see any reason to look down on metaphor as something less real.  

Its just different, but that doesn't make it less real just because its happening inside one person's head, its very real to that one person, even if it has no tie to other people or substance in the outside world.  But there is a distinction between events that Paul H. Dunn intentionally made up, and events that he experienced in the world.  That distinction is important to make, and that's what I was saying with the character Abraham which may have been no more a real person than Harry Potter, but Abraham's story may still be a powerful metaphor that can guide our spiritual journey.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Dang.

I guess they did not see the same things.

"Fiction" is a deliberately made up story.  We are not speaking about fiction.

I commented on this in my longer post.  But is there any question that our canonized scripture contains deliberately made up stories?  There is strong evidence for this all throughout scripture that biblical scholars are helping us to understand better.  What was the original author's intent, and how grounded in facts were these accounts, what might have been the motivation of the author, how does this fit into the culture and history of the times these narratives were written.  Aren't these elements insightful to look at?  Scripture contains all this and more.  

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand you better now than a few months ago, but its a challenge for me, because I think that the common meaning of words has a different meaning for you.  I'm not sure is a function of your philosophical training, but its makes my head spin sometimes and makes communication difficult.  Perhaps this is intentional on your part, because you are hoping get people to really think deeply about what you're saying instead of just giving a surface level response to comments.  At any rate, after thinking about this for a while, I am going to try and respond.  

The way I'm using metaphor in this context is to distinguish between events that involved living people, and events that are imagined or written as a story for some purpose by the author, but these events didn't actually happen, its just a story.  Parable would be another descriptor that I think applies here.    

I will agree with you that scriptures are someone else's beliefs and experiences.  Since we can never get into the head of the authors of the scriptures its difficult to confidently know whether what they wrote is a description of something that they experienced, or if what they wrote was a story being told for some other purpose, but that has no basis in experience.  

I'm thinking Paul H. Dunn is a good modern example.  He told some stories that he knew weren't factual representations of what he actually experienced, but he likely was telling these stories for another purpose.  Whether his justification was ethical or not, I won't comment on.  There is a difference between explaining something that you actually experienced, and making something up for another purpose.  

The evidence clearly shows that the scriptures contain both types of stories at all different levels on the spectrum.  Some may very accurately represent historical events, while others may only partially represent events which a large doses of creative imagining, while others may be entirely made up.  Its difficult to discern the levels of fact from invention in ancient texts, but that is what scholars attempt to do with higher criticism, etc.  

What I'm saying is that we can look for meaning in the stories outside of questions about historicity. You say that calling scripture metaphor denies its reality, and I'm reading a book by Marcus Borg right now where for him, metaphor is more REAL than not.  It sounds like his entire spiritual/mystical experiences are enlivened by the metaphor, not diminished by it.  Perhaps it works differently for you though, but I don't see any reason to look down on metaphor as something less real.  

Its just different, but that doesn't make it less real just because its happening inside one person's head, its very real to that one person, even if it has no tie to other people or substance in the outside world.  But there is a distinction between events that Paul H. Dunn intentionally made up, and events that he experienced in the world.  That distinction is important to make, and that's what I was saying with the character Abraham which may have been no more a real person than Harry Potter, but Abraham's story may still be a powerful metaphor that can guide our spiritual journey.  

Perhaps "allegorical" works better for MF than "metaphorical".

I get what he's saying about all language being symbolic but I don't think that means all language is metaphorical. It's imprecise and represents a person's understanding. If I say the carpet is blue, that reflects my understanding about "blue" which may or may not be exactly what "blue" is to another person. I once read a story about a man who was color blind but didn't realize it. Very interesting. We are subject to our own limitations of understanding as we use symbols of words to express our thoughts.

Sometimes symbols are used because they are the only means to communicate a person's best interpretation of an event or an idea. Many symbols are so common that they are generally agreed upon to convey understanding. Other times, symbols are purposely used to represent alternate interpretations as a comparison, such as in an allegory.

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps "allegorical" works better for MF than "metaphorical".

I get what he's saying about all language being symbolic but I don't think that means all language is metaphorical. It's imprecise and represents a person's understanding. If I say the carpet is blue, that reflects my understanding about "blue" which may or may not be exactly what "blue" is to another person. I once read a story about a man who was color blind but didn't realize it. Very interesting. We are subject to our own limitations of understanding as we use symbols of words to express our thoughts.

Sometimes symbols are used because they are the only means to communicate a person's best interpretation of an event or an idea. Many symbols are so common that they are generally agreed upon to convey understanding. Other times, symbols are purposely used to represent alternate interpretations as a comparison, such as in an allegory.

Thanks, that makes sense.  My Dad is colorblind, so I know all about that, and its funny when we disagree about what color something is, knowing that his experience is just different than mine, but no less real.

I think another thing we do as humans is try to find symbols where none were intended.  This is how our brains work, we try to make connections and identify patterns that the original author had no intention of when crafting their narrative.  In a sense we add complexity to something that is really much more simple.  My dog literally did eat my homework, no allegory intended people!  :-)  

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

I guess we simply disagree on what constitutes a "subjective experience", so we are quibbling over semantics.   I have over 60 years of dealing with issues of the real world, testing my "subjective" experiences with real world consequences, while others get their concept from books and philosophical debates.

I really do know the difference between fact/reality and opinion/assertion.  And that is my point.

An interesting, if subjective, view actually very similar to mine in the long run.  I have 10 years on you- maybe that is the difference.   Maturity counts you know!

I know that "reality", even if falling off a cliff, which I have actually done, is a subjective experience of falling off a cliff while your life flashes before your eyes, along with the rocks going by.  The rocks are as real as the visions of your life.  THAT is reality as we know it, full of real rocks and real visions.  And then the pain which is as real as both.  But of course you do not feel my pain, do you?  Is that pain objective?

You realize of course that we are quibbling about words.....    maybe not.   oh well. 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

The scriptures tell me otherwise.  My personal experiences tell me otherwise.

I do not have a perfect knowledge of all things, but I do have it for a few very important things.  It appears to me that you are a prisoner of Hume and the false philosophies that he spouts.

How do you know that your experiences are perfectly symbolized in language?   How do you know that the light waves/particles and sound waves through the air which hit your retina and eardrum and which are organized by your mind/brain are the only possible world which could be organized?  Why don't you see cosmic rays or hear very low tones or ultrasonic frequencies?   Are they real or not?   Even machines which detect these phenomena are simply translation devices to allow you to "hear" soundwaves with your eyes which cannot be heard.Your perceptions of "reality" are limited by your sense organs and what God gave you, (and/or evolved) to see only the "reality" which was useful for you to avoid falling off cliffs and getting eaten by predators while not coming close to you even seeing all "reality".  

Quote

 

1 Corinthians 2:9New King James Version (NKJV)

9 But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.

 

Do you believe this?  Yet you think that because you have not seen it, it is not "real"?

Can you see how religion can be part of "reality" that on one side you accept yet reject the fullness of the reality that awaits you by incorporating visions and the spirit in your life?

This is the essence of why the correspondence theory of truth cannot be "true" for Christians and yet these issues are not understood.  

Quote

 

 

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, as soon as the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[7]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Vagueness_or_circularity

To affirm that the only reality is what you see leaves God out of reality.

Do you not understand that?

And how do you know that your experiences are perfectly symbolized in language?  Has anyone ever misunderstood you?   Why?

And so you know what subjectivity is and objectivity, while I do not?  We are brothers here and this is a critical issue- it is important we understand that the God of visions is as real as the computer in front of you- so that reality cannot be just what you see.

Perhaps you do not know that you espouse the same epistemology as Dawkins.   You are right if he is.

Edited November 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure what you think you're arguing.  My point is that LDS can't accept the idea of a mythical/fictional "Abraham" because Joseph Smith's vision means he has to be real.

This is the problem- the definition of "real" and what that means.  Robert is right- what we need around here is a good course in epistemology

Actually that is the error of every critic here- they think they know what reality is.  That is what Dawkins says too.