Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In actual context, there is nothing at all wrong with the three Illustrations accompanying the text of the Book of Abraham, as first published by Joseph Smith long ago.  The explanations for those three illustrations is right on target so often as to be beyond accidental correlation, as I summarize in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . 

As for the paper - looks interesting.  Send it to the review editors at http://jnes.edmgr.com/ and see what they say.  Send us the comments from JNES on your manuscript.  As for me I am more interested in early 19th century sources for midrash on abraham [Qur'an 87:18-19], i.e. these "earlier scriptures", - "suhuf's of Abraham and Moses."  Like Gee we're all frustrated to not have a chance to get a good look at the missing book on Abraham by Hecataeus of Abdera. 

[Foreigner]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean perhaps the claim by the physicist Werner Heisenberg that "it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth"? (from his Physics and Philosophy)  

Of course, Bertrand Russell pointed out that without belief or testimony there can be no truth or falsehood (Problems of Philosophy, chapter 12), which comports with Lehi's Law of Opposities.  So, are you suggesting that, for philosophers at least, since belief/testimony is prior to truth, therefore "there is no truth but testimony"?

Is Immanuel Kant correct to say that we cannot know the noumenon, but only the phenomenon?  Was Friedrich Nietzsche correct to say that "there are no facts, only interpretations"?  Is this what you are getting at?

That goes too far beyond the board. I am tired enough with Rorty's teachings advertised here frequently.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That goes too far beyond the board. I am tired enough with Rorty's teachings advertised here frequently.

Not to mention James and Dewey as also endorsed by David Paulsen.  If you have a better explanation for truth, by all means let me know.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

Edited February 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Atheist Mormon]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Prof. Luther also considered the Epistle of James to be "an epistle of straw."  Why?  Because he didn't like doctrine preached therein by James the Brother of Jesus -- whose epistle is one of the earliest we have (contemporary with Pauline epistles).

Who is "Prof, Luther"?

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That goes too far beyond the board. I am tired enough with Rorty's teachings advertised here frequently.

I mentioned nothing about Rorty, Foreigner.  You made a statement, which I am trying to clarify, and it certainly does not go beyond this board to do so.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Who is "Prof, Luther"?

You are the one who referred to him as follows:

 

Quote

On 2/3/2017 at 11:56 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

On the same same tone will Christianity abandon some of the most speculative, absurd books?

Given a chance I'd start from "Book of Revelation" which Martin Luther called "Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic".

I just assumed that you knew who you were talking about, and that you knew that he was a professor at Wittenberg University, in addition to being an Augustinian Monk and Priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, blueglass said:

As for the paper - looks interesting.  Send it to the review editors at http://jnes.edmgr.com/ and see what they say.  Send us the comments from JNES on your manuscript.

I love the Journal of Near Eastern Studies.  I can still recall making its acquaintance over 50 years ago while a young student of archeology and biblical history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  I used to sit down with the latest issue in the library and just read it for pleasure, and have done so frequently throughout the years.  So, you are proposing that I have my "Brief Assessment" sanctified or consecrated by JNES, and report back?  One finds that sort of silly suggestion on this board for a variety of issues, as though they would even consider such a submission, and as though only then could anything said be valid . . .  In fact, my paper only asserts what has already been said and accepted within mainstream, peer-reviewed ancient Near Eastern studies.

19 hours ago, blueglass said:

  As for me I am more interested in early 19th century sources for midrash on abraham [Qur'an 87:18-19], i.e. these "earlier scriptures", - "suhuf's of Abraham and Moses."  Like Gee we're all frustrated to not have a chance to get a good look at the missing book on Abraham by Hecataeus of Abdera. 

A worthwhile interest, certainly, and that is why I cited a massive source dealing with all that in my footnote 2:  John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee, eds., Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham, Studies in the Book of Abraham 1 (Provo: FARMS/ISPART, 2001), with its very helpful index of  "Unique Elements" (pp. 537-547).  My colleague John Tvedtnes was kind enough to give me a free copy years ago.  Copies can be purchased from the BYU Maxwell Institute.

[Gray]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps, although I'd like to see some evidence to that effect.

Take Revelation 12.

This clearly describes the premortal "war in heaven" and the casting out of Satan and the 1/3 part of the hosts.
Even the usage of "there WAS war in heaven" describes a previous, not a future event.
So, unless you have more information, I stand by my statement that not all of Revelation is apocalyptic (end time) focused.  And as I stated to AtheistMormon's claim, I doubt Luther would have had the benefit of the restored gospel to recognize such things.

I don't think much of anything in Revelation is very clear at all. But remember, you're reading this through 21st century Mormon eyes, and it was written by a late first century christian. 

Now, personally, I don't know what the author was referring to in the war in heaven stuff. Apparently some scholars think it's meant to be a reference to end times, others think it's more symbolic of "current" events (for the time). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Heaven

Quote

Several modern Bible-commentators view the "war in heaven" in Revelation 12:7–13 as an eschatological vision of the end of time or as a reference to spiritual warfare within the church, rather than (as in Milton'sParadise Lost) "the story of the origin of Satan/Lucifer as an angel who rebelled against God in primeval times."[3][4][5][6] Some commentators have seen the war in heaven as "not literal" but symbolic of events on earth.[7][8]

Could it be a reference to past events? Maybe. But remember, early Christians did not have the same notions about human preexistence that modern Mormons have. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think much of anything in Revelation is very clear at all. But remember, you're reading this through 21st century Mormon eyes, and it was written by a late first century christian. 

Now, personally, I don't know what the author was referring to in the war in heaven stuff. Apparently scholars think it's meant to be a reference to end times, others think it's more symbolic. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Heaven

Could it be a reference to past events? Maybe. But remember, early Christians did not have the same notions about human preexistence that modern Mormons have. 

Personally, I have no reason to believe that whoever wrote the book of Revelation was looking 2000+ years into the future.  I tend to believe they were talking about and responding to events that were a part of their time and culture, and perhaps past as well.  

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That goes too far beyond the board. I am tired enough with Rorty's teachings advertised here frequently.

 One needn't necessarily be a devotee of Rorty, or of Kant, or of anyone of that ilk (or of anyone who is of a more philosophical bent generally) to realize that one sees truth, less as it is, and, rather, more as he (the observer) is.  Try as he might to escape it or to minimize it, no one is immune from that phenomenon, whether he seeks truth through a philosophical paradigm, or through an artistic one, or through a legal one, or even through a scientific one.  What one sees has much to do with one's perspective, with the lens(es) he chooses to use, with the data available to him and how he interprets it, and so on. Yet many on this Board who are most of an empirical bent like to delude themselves into thinking that, somehow, indeed, they are immune from that phenomenon.  Alas, simply saying it (or assuming it, and ya'll know what assuming does ) doesn't make it so.  

Edited February 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Who is "Prof, Luther"?

 Forgive me, but I'm rather amused by your implicit assertion that no one who accepts silly notions regarding faith, regarding the so-called supernatural, regarding the purportedly divine, or regarding anything outside the realm of observable, testable, quantifiable human experience possibly could be worthy of such a title and of admission into the hallowed, exalted realms of the Ivory Tower (as well as by your ignorance of Luther's credentials, although, to be fair, I, myself, hadn't thought much about whether he was a qualified member of the academy in his day).

Pardon the interruption.  Carry on!

[Foreigner]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you have a better explanation for truth, by all means let me know.

I have:

 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

I have:

 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

There you have it. God himself validated the correspondence theory of truth.

Pack it up, everyone. Last one to leave turn out the lights.

[Foreigner]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You made a statement, which I am trying to clarify, and it certainly does not go beyond this board to do so.

You have not helped much with your clarifications.

The path leading up to truth has two sides, namely reason (evidence) and faith (testimony). As it was said: "seek learning even by study and also by faith". I am afraid, philosophers do not help much with keeping the straight line. Yet I am especially concerned with one philosopher at this board (mfbukowski) who persists to keep one wayside.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

I have:

 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

Yep that's the one I use too in a church context though it doesn't really work logically.  But it is the best description of the FEELING of "what truth is" that one can come up with

Things as they are are not words though.  When I say "chair" a chair doesn't come out of my mouth.   Words are not things as they are.  And unfortunately there are no true things as they are.  There are no true or false chairs or tables or any THING is.

So there is a little problem talking about truth as this discussion shows.  Direct experience- wordless immersion in reality or "knowledge" as we experience it requires no "truth" as a word- it just IS reality as it is. It is knowledge in a hebrew "yada" sense. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h3045

Knowing the world as it is is like knowing a person.  It is not lingusitic.

So I think "yada knowing" of things as they are actually makes the WORD "truth" meaningless.  Facts about your dear friend- hair color, height weight  etc are not KNOWING that person - they are mere linguistic facts.   To yada KNOW that person is to know them intimately- not necessarily in a sexual way unless that is the context

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Quote

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

SNOW as it IS is white.  To know snow "as it is"- as the scripture says- is to know that snow is white wordlessly.   Snow IS white.  Undebatable.   That's the way it is.

To know snow is white is to know snow as it is.  You can say that the statement "snow is white" is true- but that is superfluous to the knowledge of snow as it is.   Of course saying that is "true"- so what?

The word "truth" only applies to attempted linguistic representations of "things as they are", but linguistic representations are always ambiguous and are NOT "things as they are"

So from one perspective the statement "Truth is the knowledge of things as they are" is itself absolutely "true"- IN ONE CONTEXT.

Suppose a blind person does not know that snow is white, having never had the direct experience.  In that context it is "True that snow is white" and it contains useful information for that person.

But that is a teaching experience talking about how to know what is true about statements about snow.   It is a STATEMENT ABOUT snow, not snow itself.  Truth is not snow so truth cannot be "things as they are"

So putting it more accurately- which was not the context nor the purpose of the scriptural statement- I would say the word "true" describing a statement is only useful in a given context if and only if the words adequately represent "things as they are" or the "experience" as the person experienced it.

And I would add that there ARE only "adequate representations" for a given purpose

But how are we supposed to know that that scriptural definition itself is a true representation of things as they are?

Only by testimony.

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

You have not helped much with your clarifications.

The path leading up to truth has two sides, namely reason (evidence) and faith (testimony). As it was said: "seek learning even by study and also by faith". I am afraid, philosophers do not help much with keeping the straight line. Yet I am especially concerned with one philosopher at this board (mfbukowski) who persists to keep one wayside.

Contradictory.

Philosophy is learning and study.  If you want to remain .... "unstudied" about truth, ignore philosophers

And how does one define "reason" pray tell?   How does reason tell you it is immoral to kill people for fun?  What is your evidence?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There you have it. God himself validated the correspondence theory of truth.

Pack it up, everyone. Last one to leave turn out the lights.

At first blush you seem to be right.  But even that statement made by a fallible human under the influence of the philosophy of his times can be interpreted quite differently

Of course it depends on what "things as they are" are.  

See above

So to know the statement is to know words on a page as they are.  I can make words on a page too, and you will see them as they are

So anything I write are things as they are and then you have knowledge of my statements as they are, so they are automatically true

This proves I am infallible.

I can live with that.  

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Foreigner]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Only by testimony.

"seek learning even by study and also by faith"

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

At first blush you seem to be right.  But even that statement made by a fallible human under the influence of the philosophy of his times can be interpreted quite differently

Of course it depends on what "things as they are" are.  

See above

So to know the statement is to know words on a page as they are.  I can make words on a page too, and you will see them as they are

So anything I write are things as they are and then you have knowledge of my statements as they are, so they are automatically true

This proves I am infallible.

I can live with that.  

 

I believe there is also that passage in Alma you often quote that takes a more pragmatic approach to truth. This just goes to show, unyielding literalism under the assumption that scripture is some kind of infallible transcript of God's thoughts is a sucker's game  

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are the one who referred to him as follows:

I just assumed that you knew who you were talking about, and that you knew that he was a professor at Wittenberg University, in addition to being an Augustinian Monk and Priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

I didn't refer him as Prof. I didn't even know anyone that epoch was called Prof. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There you have it. God himself validated the correspondence theory of truth.

Pack it up, everyone. Last one to leave turn out the lights.

One more

Knowledge of things as they are is not the same as STATEMENTS about things as they are.  There are no facts- perfect representations in language- there are only interpretations of symbols or "words"- which are symbols

So truth may be knowledge of things as they are- if you want to put it that way.  But statements in language are not "things as they are"

Maybe that is a better explanation

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I love the Journal of Near Eastern Studies.  I can still recall making its acquaintance over 50 years ago while a young student of archeology and biblical history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  I used to sit down with the latest issue in the library and just read it for pleasure, and have done so frequently throughout the years.  So, you are proposing that I have my "Brief Assessment" sanctified or consecrated by JNES, and report back?  One finds that sort of silly suggestion on this board for a variety of issues, as though they would even consider such a submission, and as though only then could anything said be valid . . .  In fact, my paper only asserts what has already been said and accepted within mainstream, peer-reviewed ancient Near Eastern studies.

Look - you are the one making a claim that JS "explanations for those three illustrations is right on target" - yet when I suggest you have your claims scrutinized by peers you back away that it would be silly?  I think we all remember when Holland said, "the vehicle for that, I do not understand, and don't claim to know, and know no egyptian".  What's wrong with Ritner's JNES 62/3 (2003): 161–77?  Please lay out the problems, the rationale for why such an effort is "silly".  Why have Gee, Rhodes, and Muhlestein struggled to get their work on the JS Papyri published in JNES?  I think there is a strong correlation to the early work by Martin Harris to get caractors copied off the plates to scholars like Samuel Mitchell, Samuel Rafinesque, Caleb Atwater to verify that they were of ancient origin before investing in the project.  If we had the plates today and copied a few plates verbatim and sent them to scholars - what would they say?  "Ah this looks similar to meroitic - let me run this through an AI deep learning heuristic to detect language patterns but I need more characters."  or would they say "uh - looks like random occultic runes - don't have any idea what this says".  

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A worthwhile interest, certainly, and that is why I cited a massive source dealing with all that in my footnote 2:  John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee, eds., Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham, Studies in the Book of Abraham 1 (Provo: FARMS/ISPART, 2001), with its very helpful index of  "Unique Elements" (pp. 537-547).  My colleague John Tvedtnes was kind enough to give me a free copy years ago.  Copies can be purchased from the BYU Maxwell Institute.

Yes - I picked up a copy after reading Cook's Dialogue paper. However, what I am interested in specifically are the texts available to JS in early 19th century.  

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

"seek learning even by study and also by faith"

So where's your study of truth?  I have faith or I wouldn't be here.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You have not helped much with your clarifications.

The path leading up to truth has two sides, namely reason (evidence) and faith (testimony). As it was said: "seek learning even by study and also by faith". I am afraid, philosophers do not help much with keeping the straight line. Yet I am especially concerned with one philosopher at this board (mfbukowski) who persists to keep one wayside.

Your comment on philosophers seemed a bit opaque to me, perhaps misunderstanding them and giving them (collectively) a bad rap.  So I primed the pump by actually quoting some philosophers, but you didn't bite, and I am still wondering what you really mean.  And now you add the odd notion that philosophers don't keep a straight line, which sounds like a riddle, or a koan.  Help me out here, Foreigner.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Of course it depends on what "things as they are" are.  

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

What would Frege & Russell say about "are" here?  Is it predicative?