mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Whether or not I can find out if anything corresponds to the unknowable is besides the point. The point is that models that withstand the most empirical tests and explain the imperfectly observed evidence work for me. Please watch the following video if you still don't get the point. Cute. Then why did you say truth corresponds to the unknowable? Ridiculous and self contradictory. You said it not me. If you actually understand and support that video then we agree and there's no reason to carry this on. If you are just playing games which seems to be the most likely then there is still no reason to carry this on.
Analytics Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Cute. Then why did you say truth corresponds to the unknowable? Ridiculous and self contradictory. You said it not me. If you actually understand and support that video then we agree and there's no reason to carry this on. If you are just playing games which seems to be the most likely then there is still no reason to carry this on. I didn't say the truth corresponds to the unknowable. I said I believe the evidence corresponds with the truth. This belief works for me.
Physics Guy Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) I don't want to hijack the thread but I think that some posts here may have given me answers of the kind I've been seeking in my investigation of Mormonism. I'm a skeptic of Mormonism myself, but I'm interested in how people form and maintain world views, and Mormonism has been a puzzle to me. As a skeptic I see many red flags for fraud in Joseph Smith's basic story; and as a (rather liberal) Christian there are a lot of important parts of Mormonism that just look to me like massive theological steps backwards towards primitive paganism. I believe in theological progress, and in a continuing revelation whose current phase is scientific, so to me restoration of a Bronze Age worldview is the last thing that God would want to do. Nonetheless there are many intelligent and educated Mormons who are committed to their faith and not afraid to discuss it, even criticize it. My basic question is, How the heck can do you all do that? It's not a rhetorical question—I have always assumed that there is a good answer—but I really have been baffled as to what it might be. The answer I'm seeing now seemed to emerge when Clark Goble, smac97, and I were discussing the Bayesian implications of Smith's caginess regarding his plates. I felt that on this issue the fraud theory gained a lot of ground against the prophet theory, because the teasingly limited display of the plates would be exactly what a con artist would be bound to do, while offering divine commandments as an excuse. I argued that on the other side the prophet theory could account for caginess—by saying that God commanded it—but could offer no particular reason by God would prefer caginess over anything else. Thus the fraud theory made a definite call and nailed it, while the prophet theory played it too safe to win big. What both Clark and smac97 seemed to me to say to that, though, was that the plates business did not seem nearly as arbitrary to them as it did to me. To me the commandments to control access to the plates are convenient excuses for behavior that helps with deception, but to smac97 and Clark—if I read them right—those same commandments are the natural and expected attitude of the Mormon God. And to them the whole business of the plates, they seem to me to be saying, is by no means just a token whose association with the rest of Mormonism is arbitrary, but an integral part of the coherent whole. If that's really how they feel, then my question about how the heck they can look past all the red flags for fraud is at least partly answered. I don't see how Mormons can undo the fact that the plates story fits so neatly with how a fraud would play out, because it just does. But perhaps they can fight to a draw on this point, in Bayesian terms, by showing that the plates story also fits neatly with how genuine revelation would play out, given the Mormon expectations for revelation. In retrospect I kind of kick myself for not seeing this possibility in advance, because of course the Mormon expectations for revelations were formed within the religious movement that kicked off from Joseph Smith's golden plates. For whatever reasons, that movement turned out to have legs, and it grew and developed. I might be surprised that it did grow, but given that it did, it's pretty obvious that it would grow into something within which cagily revealed golden plates would be just how God did things. Duh. The point I missed is that whatever that view of God and God's ways may be, it's something with which Mormons will have lived and grown up, and for them it will have been firmly in place long before they started thinking critically about the details of the golden plates story. So for Mormons the expectations this theology raises, for how a genuine prophet would act, are just as much a definite call made in advance as the expectations from fraud are for skeptics. Mormons are entitled to award their theory the same Bayesian score on this point that the skeptics are; the match is a draw, after all. At any rate that now seems to me to be possible. So I feel I've learned something I wanted to learn. Thanks for the discussion. Edited October 7, 2017 by Physics Guy
Analytics Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: I don't want to hijack the thread but I think that some posts here may have given me answers of the kind I've been seeking in my investigation of Mormonism. I'm a skeptic of Mormonism myself, but I'm interested in how people form and maintain world views, and Mormonism has been a puzzle to me. As a skeptic I see many red flags for fraud in Joseph Smith's basic story; and as a (rather liberal) Christian there are a lot of important parts of Mormonism that just look to me like massive theological steps backwards towards primitive paganism. I believe in theological progress, and in a continuing revelation whose current phase is scientific, so to me restoration of a Bronze Age worldview is the last thing that God would want to do. Nonetheless there are many intelligent and educated Mormons who are committed to their faith and not afraid to discuss it, even criticize it. My basic question is, How the heck can do you all do that? It's not a rhetorical question—I have always assumed that there is a good answer—but I really have been baffled as to what it might be. The answer I'm seeing now seemed to emerge when Clark Goble, smac97, and I were discussing the Bayesian implications of Smith's caginess regarding his plates. I felt that on this issue the fraud theory gained a lot of ground against the prophet theory, because the teasingly limited display of the plates would be exactly what a con artist would be bound to do, while offering divine commandments as an excuse. I argued that on the other side the prophet theory could account for caginess—by saying that God commanded it—but could offer no particular reason by God would prefer caginess over anything else. Thus the fraud theory made a definite call and nailed it, while the prophet theory played it too safe to win big. What both Clark and smac97 seemed to me to say to that, though, was that the plates business did not seem nearly as arbitrary to them as it did to me. To me the commandments to control access to the plates are convenient excuses for behavior that helps with deception, but to smac97 and Clark—if I read them right—those same commandments are the natural and expected attitude of the Mormon God. And to them the whole business of the plates, they seem to me to be saying, is by no means just a token whose association with the rest of Mormonism is arbitrary, but an integral part of the coherent whole. If that's really how they feel, then my question about how the heck they can look past all the red flags for fraud is at least partly answered. I don't see how Mormons can undo the fact that the plates story fits so neatly with how a fraud would play out, because it just does. But perhaps they can fight to a draw on this point, in Bayesian terms, by showing that the plates story also fits neatly with how genuine revelation would play out, given the Mormon expectations for revelation. In retrospect I kind of kick myself for not seeing this possibility in advance, because of course the Mormon expectations for revelations were formed within the religious movement that kicked off from Joseph Smith's golden plates. For whatever reasons, that movement turned out to have legs, and it grew and developed. I might be surprised that it did grow, but given that it did, it's pretty obvious that it would grow into something within which cagily revealed golden plates would be just how God did things. Duh. The point I missed is that whatever that view of God and God's ways may be, it's something with which Mormons will have lived and grown up, and for them it will have been firmly in place long before they started thinking critically about the details of the golden plates story. So for Mormons the expectations this theology raises, for how a genuine prophet would act, are just as much a definite call made in advance as the expectations from fraud are for skeptics. Mormons are entitled to award their theory the same Bayesian score on this point that the skeptics are; the match is a draw, after all. At any rate that now seems to me to be possible. So I feel I've learned something I wanted to learn. Thanks for the discussion. I think you nailed it. We grew up with this story and it makes perfect sense that God would do things this way. if you spend your whole mental life swimming in the hypothesis that it is all true, then this all make total sense and it is the critics who have the burden of proof. The witnesses prove the plates actually existed, and the plates no longer being around proves an angel took them away. It is a perfectly coherent story that matches the evidence. The critics have the burden of proof for explaining where the plates came from and where they went. In the believer's mind, a conspiracy to pull this off would be exceedingly difficult and there is no reason anybody would go to such trouble. An especially thoughtful believer migh concede that there is some contrary evidence. They would be likely to say that in totality the evidence is a Bayesian tie. They would then say that's just the way God wants it, so that the ultimate decision must be made based on faith--believing because of proof is okay. Believing because of faith is better. Edited October 7, 2017 by Analytics
Popular Post cdowis Posted October 7, 2017 Popular Post Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: The point I missed is that whatever that view of God and God's ways may be, it's something with which Mormons will have lived and grown up, and for them it will have been firmly in place long before they started thinking critically about the details of the golden plates story. So for Mormons the expectations this theology raises, for how a genuine prophet would act, are just as much a definite call made in advance as the expectations from fraud are for skeptics. Mormons are entitled to award their theory the same Bayesian score on this point that the skeptics are; the match is a draw, after all. At any rate that now seems to me to be possible. So I feel I've learned something I wanted to learn. Thanks for the discussion. Let me teach you something else. Many thoughtful Mormons joined the church later in life, with their intellectual abilities fully formed without the "brainwashing" you seem to imply. And I am one of them . How the plates were handled fully fits my expectation on how God does things. After the resurrection, Christ did NOT appear to Pilate, the Sanhedrin, to Caesar, but to the faithful disciples -- which, in your worldview, is suspicious, indicative of a fraud. Why not appear to Caesar and allow his experts to carefully examine him? Why hide from the world. Well, that is how God does things. Edited October 7, 2017 by cdowis 5
smac97 Posted October 7, 2017 Author Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Physics Guy said: I don't want to hijack the thread but I think that some posts here may have given me answers of the kind I've been seeking in my investigation of Mormonism. I'm a skeptic of Mormonism myself, but I'm interested in how people form and maintain world views, and Mormonism has been a puzzle to me. As a skeptic I see many red flags for fraud in Joseph Smith's basic story; and as a (rather liberal) Christian there are a lot of important parts of Mormonism that just look to me like massive theological steps backwards towards primitive paganism. I believe in theological progress, and in a continuing revelation whose current phase is scientific, so to me restoration of a Bronze Age worldview is the last thing that God would want to do. I do not understand . . . pretty much most of this. "Primitive paganism?" "Bronze Age worldview?" Quote Nonetheless there are many intelligent and educated Mormons who are committed to their faith and not afraid to discuss it, even criticize it. My basic question is, How the heck can do you all do that? We believe that acceptance of Mormonism is, at its core, a spiritual matter. Acceptance of Jesus Christ is a question of faith and the Spirit. For Mormons, "The Spirit" is a form of evidence. The evidence, in fact. In attempting to discern whether Mormonism is what it claims to be, we start with something fundamental: The Book of Mormon. We are encouraged to read it, to ponder and study it, to apply its precepts in our personaly, daily lives, and to pray with some measure of faith and ask God to tell us whether it is what it claims to be. Then, the reasoning goes, if a person feels "The Spirit" confirming that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then there are a series of inferences to be drawn from that experience. It goes like this: A person feels that the Spirit has confirmed to him that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. That person is then invited to exercise faith based on that experience. We propose that this means . . . Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior of the world. faith and acceptance of Jesus Christ is important. Necessary. Vital. obedience to the precepts taught by Jesus Christ (faith, repentance, baptism, love for and service to others, etc.) are important. listening to the servants of Jesus Christ (prophets and apostles) is important (since they are the conduits through which the Gospel is transmitted). authority (given by God) is important (since such is necessary to administer ordinances, govern "the church" community, receive continuing revelation, and so on). Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be. priesthood authority was restored through Joseph Smith. revelations given to Joseph Smith, pertaining to saving ordinances, missionary work, temple work, and so on, are from God. the Lord's Church, housing His "Restored Gospel" and the priesthood authority associated therewith, was established by God through Joseph Smith. the priesthood authority restored through Joseph Smith was preserved and continues to this day." This is, I think, whey Joseph Smith called The Book of Mormon "the keystone of our religion." Quote It's not a rhetorical question—I have always assumed that there is a good answer—but I really have been baffled as to what it might be. "How the heck can you all do that" is not a very clear question. Perhaps you could parse it out a bit. Quote The answer I'm seeing now seemed to emerge when Clark Goble, smac97, and I were discussing the Bayesian implications of Smith's caginess regarding his plates. You presuppose ill motives for this purported "caginess." We don't. The scriptures are replete with references to divine "secrets" and "mysteries." I don't think such things are kept from the world because God has wicked, deceitful motives. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant. (Psalm 24:15) But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. (Daniel 2:28) {Jesus} answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Matthew 13:11) Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. (1 Cor. 4:1) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I {Jesus} will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Matt. 13:35) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began. (Romans 16:25) We don't have the Ark of the Covenant or its contents. We don't have the spittle the Lord used to make mud to heal the blind man. We don't have the multiplied loaves and fishes, or the wine turned from water. We don't have "scientific" or any other form of testable, empirical "evidence" as to any of the miraculous events described in the Bible. Why we don't have these things is an imponderable. We can surmise. We can chalk it all up to the passage of time. We can chalk it up to "Well, God wants us to walk principally by faith, rather than by testing relics." But that's about as far as we can go. For me, I am comfortable with the absence of the Plates. Their absence makes quite a bit of sense to me. Quote I felt that on this issue the fraud theory gained a lot of ground against the prophet theory, because the teasingly limited display of the plates would be exactly what a con artist would be bound to do, while offering divine commandments as an excuse. But "the teasingly limited display of the plates" could also be characterized as "exactly what a prophet obeying divine commandments would be bound to do." Our faithful interpretation of this issue is every bit as valid as your skeptical one. Perhaps even more so, since we have multiple witness statements about the Plates. Quote I argued that on the other side the prophet theory could account for caginess—by saying that God commanded it—but could offer no particular reason by God would prefer caginess over anything else. I think there are all sorts of reasons why God would limit access to the Plates. Quote Thus the fraud theory made a definite call and nailed it, while the prophet theory played it too safe to win big. Such unilateral declarations of victory ring rather hollow. "Definite call?" "Nailed it?" Nope. Not by a long shot. The critics cannot even agree among themselves what accounts for the Plates. Did such an artifact exist, or not? If the artifact existed, was it a fabrication, or not? If it was a fabrication, who fabricated it? Or was it just a bag of sand? And how do we account for the Three Witnesses? Were they all in on a scam? Or were they collectively deluded/tricked? Insane? Why did they stand by their statements after becoming estranged from Joseph Smith and/or Mormonism? And what about the Eight Witnesses? Dan Peterson wrote a pretty good article on this sloppy, slapdash, let's-abandon-any-pretense-of-historiographical-analysis-and-instead-go-with-any-fraud-theory-at-hand approach to The Book of Mormon: "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for The Book of Mormon". I quoted it previously at some length earlier in this thread (see here). Quote What both Clark and smac97 seemed to me to say to that, though, was that the plates business did not seem nearly as arbitrary to them as it did to me. To me the commandments to control access to the plates are convenient excuses for behavior that helps with deception, but to smac97 and Clark—if I read them right—those same commandments are the natural and expected attitude of the Mormon God. Yes. The same God who limited access on Horeb and Sinai to Moses. The same God who limited access to the Ark of the Covenant from . . . well, pretty much everyone. The same God who limited access to personal interaction with Jesus Christ during His ministry. The same God who limited access to the resurrected Jesus Christ. The same God who said "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." (Matthew 13:11) And on and on and on. Quote And to them the whole business of the plates, they seem to me to be saying, is by no means just a token whose association with the rest of Mormonism is arbitrary, but an integral part of the coherent whole. Yes, that is correct. Quote If that's really how they feel, then my question about how the heck they can look past all the red flags for fraud is at least partly answered. There isn't much value in vague references to "red flags." If you want to get down to brass tacks, we can do that. Otherwise, "red flags for fraud" is nothing more than an exercise in begging the question. Quote I don't see how Mormons can undo the fact that the plates story fits so neatly with how a fraud would play out, because it just does. Again, you are begging the question. What you are describing is not "fact." If it were, we would not be having this discussion. You concede that "there are many intelligent and educated Mormons who are committed to their faith and not afraid to discuss it, even criticize it." Sounds good. But then you turn around and declare as "fact" that which is very, very much in dispute. Not so good. I can just as easily turn this question around on you: "I don't see how Physics Guy can undo the fact that the plates story fits so neatly with how God has interacted with His children since the world began, because it just does." Would you accept that as a starting point for a conversation? Quote But perhaps they can fight to a draw on this point, in Bayesian terms, by showing that the plates story also fits neatly with how genuine revelation would play out, given the Mormon expectations for revelation. Yep. So framing the question this way isn't very useful, it seems. Quote In retrospect I kind of kick myself for not seeing this possibility in advance, because of course the Mormon expectations for revelations were formed within the religious movement that kicked off from Joseph Smith's golden plates. For whatever reasons, that movement turned out to have legs, and it grew and developed. I might be surprised that it did grow, but given that it did, it's pretty obvious that it would grow into something within which cagily revealed golden plates would be just how God did things. Duh. Do you likewise accuse the God of Horeb and Sinai of being "cagey?" The God of the Ark of the Covenant? How do you, as a Christian, differentiate your willingness to accept Moses' uncorroborated experiences on Mounts Horeb (Burning Bush) and Sinai (Ten Commandments), and the Israelites' limited access to the Ark of the Covenant as "just how God did things," but then turn around and characterize comparable limitations in Joseph Smith's era as prima facie evidence of "fraud"? And what about the Resurrected Jesus Christ? A person skeptical of Christian belief in that event could just as easily say: "I don't see how Christians can undo the fact that the resurrection story fits so neatly with how a fraud would play out (the 'Stolen Body Hypothesis'), because it just does." How would you respond to that? Quote The point I missed is that whatever that view of God and God's ways may be, it's something with which Mormons will have lived and grown up, and for them it will have been firmly in place long before they started thinking critically about the details of the golden plates story. I think the same thing can be said about skeptics and their assessment of the plates. Interesting, then, that there are so many well-educated and thoughtful Mormons who have heavily scrutinized the details of the Plates and have come way with a very strong faith in Joseph Smith's account. Meanwhile, skeptics have not been able to present a coherent alternative explanation that does not A) rely pretty much exclusively on evidence-free speculation and question-begging, and B) do violence to the general principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis. Quote So for Mormons the expectations this theology raises, for how a genuine prophet would act, are just as much a definite call made in advance as the expectations from fraud are for skeptics. Not really. The pattern fits with those found in the Bible. God revealed things, but also kept secrets. God speaks to prophets, who then speak to the rest of us. God speaks to us through the Spirit, and expects us to walk by faith, not by scientific scrutiny of artifacts. Quote Mormons are entitled to award their theory the same Bayesian score on this point that the skeptics are; the match is a draw, after all. I'm not sure about that. Mormons can present a cohesive and plausible explanation for the text of the Book of Mormon. Critics can't. Quote At any rate that now seems to me to be possible. So I feel I've learned something I wanted to learn. Thanks for the discussion. Thank you, also. It's been invigorating. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 7, 2017 by smac97 4
mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Analytics said: I didn't say the truth corresponds to the unknowable. I said I believe the evidence corresponds with the truth. This belief works for me. Thanks for your response and I am sorry I have been so uncharitable of late. I have had some minor surgery done which has given me some pain and I have been unusually grumpy. Instead of brushing off your objections, I have decided to address them, if not for you, then for others, and I reserve the right to use this material elsewhere should I desire. If I respond to anyone I should respond as if she is a person I care about, and I have not done that in your case, sorry about that. I know these things can be confusing. Perhaps a course in logic would be beneficial. Words are ambiguous and that means they have many meanings so sometimes one meaning of a word will confuse us with other meanings of the same word, but a good logician does not make the assumption that "truth" means the same thing as "reality" since clearly reality is different than statements about reality. Again, when I speak about chairs, chairs don't fall out of my mouth- words do and words are not chairs. Here is exactly what you said- go back and check it if you like: Quote From my perspective, I believe some models of the universe better correspond to the unknowable ultimate reality of the universe than others. In this sense, some models are better than others. As a short hand, a model that corresponds better to reality than competing models is called "the truth." Note that above you said that "the evidence corresponds with the truth" That statement is not found anywhere in your original post. You are mentally linking one set of statements with other statements as if the two are identical when they may not be. From someone who is into logic, that appears very confused. There are many issues there- one is that "evidence" is not a "model". A model takes human perceptions which are assumed to BE "evidence"- they may be or not- and mulls over the alleged "evidence" - in a human mind with all its prejudices etc- and puts together what the observer THINKS is "evidence" into an overall theory about that which the observer wants to explain. The observer's motivation often depends on the question he seeks to answer. For example, the same "evidence" - say what we call a "dinosaur bone"- and the information about the "age of the bone" derived from whatever method is used to determine the alleged "age" may be used for multiple purposes by different observers. One observer may want to date the bone to find out about say, the geology of when the bone was deposited in the area, another may want to be dating when the species lived, still another may be wanting to show that the earth is older than 6000 years. So the same "evidence" may be interpreted and put into models according the the PURPOSES of the model maker. Models don't fall from the sky- they are created by people with a purpose for the model in mind when the model is created. So "models of the universe" vary according to the purpose of the modeler, and are not the same as "evidence" even if one accepts, in this example, that the bone in question "really IS" a "dinosaur bone" belonging to species x- thereby making the identity of the bone correspond to ...... what? "Reality"? No, the correspondence here is to the other accepted models created by humans that define what a "dinosaur bone" IS and what the species of that dinosaur IS etc So does alleged evidence correspond to alleged reality? No, even if it IS evidence- that is, that the bone was classified correctly within the accepted classification system, and the dating process was correctly performed - by accepted standards for determining those things. What does the alleged evidence correspond to? It corresponds not to "reality" necessarily- but it may- but what it corresponds to is ACCEPTED OTHER MODELS of reality. So the only justified logical conclusion without further assumptions is that evidence corresponds to other INTERPRETATIONS generally accepted by humans and other "models of the universe" CREATED BY HUMANS and presently generally accepted by humans Such models change all the time. We thought that the sun revolved around the earth and now we "know" that the earth revolved around the sun. No one, including me, doubts that as the presently accepted model- and I doubt that it will ever change. But there are other models that make it clear that what we are talking about here are humanly created models and not "reality". Pluto was know to be a "planet" when I was a kid. Now the model has changed and seems to continue changing. Why and how it keeps changing is not about "truth" or "reality" at all but is about the model making process itself. As you say yourself the "reality is unknowable" Fine. If it is unknowable then why even worry about reality at all, or truth at all? Just say that BELIEF in the model is justified. We act on the model and doing so works. We can send probes to Pluto based on the model and get back more information to refine the model of Pluto- after humans interpret the alleged "evidence" Animals can be re-classified by genus and species and we never think that the "discovery" that animal x did not descend from animal y but from animal z. Let's revisit your original statement and then the revision Quote From my perspective, I believe some models of the universe better correspond to the unknowable ultimate reality of the universe than others. In this sense, some models are better than others. As a short hand, a model that corresponds better to reality than competing models is called "the truth." So the way I would say that- erasing those elements which cannot be justified- I would say "From my perspective, I believe some models of the universe better correspond to models which can be shown to work than others" and leave it at that. I actually see the rest of your statement here as quasi-religious! You BELIEVE in the "unknowable ultimate reality" which cannot be observed and that models which correspond to what is unknowable are called "the truth". That means that you believe in a realm of truth and reality which is by your own admission, unknowable. So Pragmatists erase the "appearance/reality distinction". Our lives do not change according to belief in the path of descent of a particular species or if Pluto is classified under narrow definitions to be a "planet" or not. On the other hand we all have personal subjective beliefs like yours above in an unknowable truth Some of those can be life-changing and others not so much. The belief we are discussing now are in the "not so much" category. Other beliefs about truth can be life changing. Whether or not I should sign up for the Marines and be prepared "to die for freedom" CAN be a life changing decision based on my personally created models of unknowable reality, however, can be. I am not saying for one second that that is not a good model upon which to live one's life! What I am saying is that one must think that through carefully and examine what every word in that belief means before committing to that decision. The same can be said for the belief that "abortion is murder". That, like every other sentence, is based on ambiguous words So back to you. You also said Quote As a short hand, a model that corresponds better to reality than competing models is called "the truth." I trust that by this point you can see why I have problems with this. But to believe this statement directly above makes truth unknowable and meaningless in my opinion. If reality is unknowable there is no way to know if the model corresponds to it or not. You have not addressed that at all. That in fact is the principle point Rorty is making and I find it odd you would use Rorty against Rorty. It is self-contradictory. I would suggest that you listen again to the very Rorty video you posted and see that it contradicts everything you have been saying. Perhaps we are in total agreement somewhere in all this mess but I certainly think we are not speaking as if we are. Again, you got one of many possible long answers because hopefully it may benefit someone else some day, and I hope it has moved our discussion forward a bit. From this point we can get into it on a serious level if you like with quotes about the deflationary theory of truth etc or we can just drop it. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ In one of your previous posts you said something about my approach being "interesting" or something like that- I do not recall exactly. This is NOT "MY" approach at all- it is the approach of MOST of 20th century philosophy. Read that link if you care to, otherwise let the discussion die. If you are serious, I will continue. If you are not, fegitaboutit. I will still use this for others who are. Edited October 7, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
Physics Guy Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Such unilateral declarations of victory ring rather hollow. "Definite call?" "Nailed it?" Nope. Not by a long shot. The critics cannot even agree among themselves what accounts for the Plates. Did such an artifact exist, or not? If the artifact existed, was it a fabrication, or not? If it was a fabrication, who fabricated it? Or was it just a bag of sand? And how do we account for the Three Witnesses? Were they all in on a scam? Or were they collectively deluded/tricked? Insane? Why did they stand by their statements after becoming estranged from Joseph Smith and/or Mormonism? And what about the Eight Witnesses? Dan Peterson wrote a pretty good article on this sloppy, slapdash, let's-abandon-any-pretense-of-historiographical-analysis-and-instead-go-with-any-fraud-theory-at-hand approach to The Book of Mormon: "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for The Book of Mormon". I quoted it previously at some length earlier in this thread (see here). I've already taken my best stab at explaining why appeals to "historiographical analysis" in evaluating a historic fraud are ridiculous, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in even a millimeter. Let me try one more time. Suppose a family member comes to you for advice about a possible business deal. Your relative is worried because they've noticed some worrying details about the deal being offered and the person who's offering it. They cannot say exactly what might go wrong with the deal, however, because a lot of relevant information is inaccessible to them, and they're not sure how many of the other people involved in the business may be in on the scam, if it is a scam. They run by you several different fraudulent scenarios that they fear might be happening. Are you really going to tell this family member, "Whoa, you keep changing your story about this, in the hope that something sticks! You've abandoned any pretense of historiographical analysis. You're being sloppy and slapdash. So stop it right now and go sign that check!"? I bet you wouldn't say that to your worried family member. But that's what you and Peterson are saying to skeptics who suspect Joseph Smith of fraud. The definite calls which the fraud theory makes and nails include these: the plates should be shown in carefully controlled ways, such as being covered up or enclosed in a box or only revealed after hours of prayer; they should be used to extract witness statements that affirm Smith's possession but say as little as possible about the plates themselves; and then they should be disposed of as soon as possible so that no-one can ever check them again. Those are red flags for fraud. Or wouldn't you say so, if a niece came to you for advice about investing in a product whose only prototype was displayed in those ways? Quote How do you, as a Christian, differentiate your willingness to accept Moses' uncorroborated experiences on Mounts Horeb (Burning Bush) and Sinai (Ten Commandments), and the Israelites' limited access to the Ark of the Covenant as "just how God did things," but then turn around and characterize comparable limitations in Joseph Smith's era as prima facie evidence of "fraud"? And what about the Resurrected Jesus Christ? A person skeptical of Christian belief in that event could just as easily say: "I don't see how Christians can undo the fact that the resurrection story fits so neatly with how a fraud would play out (the 'Stolen Body Hypothesis'), because it just does." How would you respond to that? Have you perhaps only ever met very conservative Christians? I am not willing to accept Moses's uncorroborated experiences. I don't suppose at all that the accounts in Exodus are accurate history. There may have been a real Moses of some sort at some point; that's about as far as I go. So the text does not tell me what happened to Moses. It tells me what the Hebrew religious story was in the first millennium BCE. And since God is evidently cool with leaving us that kind of Scripture about Moses, I find it totally out of character for God to deliver Scriptures on gold plates via angel and translate them into somewhat peculiar English by miracle. The stories of the resurrection of Jesus do not fit fraud so neatly, because they have too few details to fit anything neatly. They're a weird set of stories, though, from any point of view, and I would never argue that these stories constitute evidence sufficient to warrant belief that someone rose from the dead. They are only evidence about what early Christians thought their story was. The only reason anyone should ever bother considering that Jesus might actually have risen from the dead would be if they were already convinced, for other reasons, that Jesus was an extremely special person. Edited October 7, 2017 by Physics Guy 1
cdowis Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Physics Guy said: I bet you wouldn't say that to your worried family member. But that's what you and Peterson are saying to skeptics who suspect Joseph Smith of fraud. The definite calls which the fraud theory makes and nails include these: the plates should be shown in carefully controlled ways, such as being covered up or enclosed in a box or only revealed after hours of prayer; they should be used to extract witness statements that affirm Smith's possession but say as little as possible about the plates themselves; and then they should be disposed of as soon as possible so that no-one can ever check them again. Those are red flags for fraud. Or wouldn't you say so, if a niece came to you for advice about investing in a product whose only prototype was displayed in those ways? You can prove anything with an analogy. OK, you have a close friend whom you trusted over the years. He is very familiar with the proposal and the individuals involved - he has dealt with them in the past. He has been himself a participant in such ventures many times, and has a great deal of experience. He assures you it is legit and that the so-called red flags are normal business protocols, not an indication of fraud. Now comes the question whether you would accept his endorsement.
Analytics Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks for your response and I am sorry I have been so uncharitable of late. I have had some minor surgery done which has given me some pain and I have been unusually grumpy. Instead of brushing off your objections, I have decided to address them, if not for you, then for others, and I reserve the right to use this material elsewhere should I desire. If I respond to anyone I should respond as if she is a person I care about, and I have not done that in your case, sorry about that. That is a kind sentiment. I don't come here expecting to be coddled so there really isn't anything to apologize for. I'm sorry about your painful recovery--I hope the procedure was a success and that you are feeling better soon.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Analytics said: That is a kind sentiment. I don't come here expecting to be coddled so there really isn't anything to apologize for. I'm sorry about your painful recovery--I hope the procedure was a success and that you are feeling better soon. The conversation here reminds me of this passage from Foucault: Quote Instead of referring back to the synthesis or the unifying function of a subject, the various enunciative modalities manifest his dispersion. To the various statuses. the various sites. the various positions that he can occupy or be given when making a discourse. To the discontinuity of the planes from which he speaks. And if these planes are linked by a system of relations, this system is not established by the synthetic activity of a consciousness identical with itself, dumb and anterior to all speech, but by the specificity of a discursive practice. I shall abandon any attempt, therefore, to see discourse as a phenomenon of expression - the verbal translation of a previously established synthesis; instead, I shall look for a field of regularity for various positions of subjectivity. Thus conceived, discourse is not the majestically unfolding manifestation of a thinking, knowing, speaking subject, but, on the contrary, a totality, in which the dispersion of the subject and his discontinuity with himself may be determined. It is a space of exteriority in which a network of distinct sites is deployed. I showed earlier that it was neither by 'words' nor by 'things' that the regulation of the objects proper to a discursive formation should be defined; similarly, it must now be recognized that it is neither by recourse to a transcendental subject nor by recourse to a psychological subjectivity that the regulation of its enunciations should be defined. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2017 Posted October 8, 2017 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: The conversation here reminds me of this passage from Foucault: Oh yeah- that's exactly what I was saying! Wasn't it obvious? Sheesh! 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 8, 2017 Author Popular Post Posted October 8, 2017 (edited) On 10/7/2017 at 12:33 PM, Physics Guy said: I've already taken my best stab at explaining why appeals to "historiographical analysis" in evaluating a historic fraud are ridiculous, First, at least some principles of historiography can be used, surely? The same goes for evidentiary analysis adapted from general principles of law. For example, percipient witness testimony should generally be favored over second-hand testimony. Second, you are begging the question. Again. "Evaluating a historic fraud" destroys the possibility for discussion before it even begins. Quote Suppose a family member comes to you for advice about a possible business deal. Your relative is worried because they've noticed some worrying details about the deal being offered and the person who's offering it. They cannot say exactly what might go wrong with the deal, however, because a lot of relevant information is inaccessible to them, and they're not sure how many of the other people involved in the business may be in on the scam, if it is a scam. They run by you several different fraudulent scenarios that they fear might be happening. Are you really going to tell this family member, "Whoa, you keep changing your story about this, in the hope that something sticks! You've abandoned any pretense of historiographical analysis. You're being sloppy and slapdash. So stop it right now and go sign that check!"? No, I would not. Your supposition is not useful in this context. Quote I bet you wouldn't say that to your worried family member. But that's what you and Peterson are saying to skeptics who suspect Joseph Smith of fraud. Not really. Again, your supposition is not useful. It's a rigged deck. It is inapposite. It's apparently an attempt to goad us Mormons into anger. To give offense. To insult and demean things we hold sacred. I'm working hard at maintaining civility, but you seem intent on giving me a run for my money. Quote The definite calls which the fraud theory makes and nails include these: the plates should be shown in carefully controlled ways, such as being covered up or enclosed in a box or only revealed after hours of prayer; But that's not "definite" at all. "The plates should be shown in carefully controlled ways" is also indicative of a prophet obeying divine commandments. It can be construed either way, so calling it a "definite call" either way is simply wrong. Quote they should be used to extract witness statements that affirm Smith's possession but say as little as possible about the plates themselves; Again, this is not "definite" at all. Your criticism is a matter of subjective preference, nothing more. A Latter-day Saint can readily and comfortably find that the Witness statements are sufficient for their intended purpose. You feel they aren't. So be it. You have your interpretation, we have ours. Neither is "definite." Quote and then they should be disposed of as soon as possible so that no-one can ever check them again. Again, this is not "definite" at all. A faithful approach to this issue could draw upon comparisons to the Ark of the Covenant, or the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Quote Those are red flags for fraud. Those are also indicia of prophetic behavior. Your subjective approach yields one result, ours yields another. To call either result "definite" is to beg the question. That is all you are doing here. Quote Or wouldn't you say so, if a niece came to you for advice about investing in a product whose only prototype was displayed in those ways? Apples to oranges. Again. Quote Have you perhaps only ever met very conservative Christians? I am not willing to accept Moses's uncorroborated experiences. I don't suppose at all that the accounts in Exodus are accurate history. There may have been a real Moses of some sort at some point; that's about as far as I go. So the text does not tell me what happened to Moses. It tells me what the Hebrew religious story was in the first millennium BCE. As you like. "Yeah, well, I don't really buy into the Bible, either" or "Moses was presumptively a fraud, too" may work for you. And if so, I will leave you to it. Quote And since God is evidently cool with leaving us that kind of Scripture about Moses, "That kind of scripture?" You mean the subjective, take-it-on-faith kind? The same kind that Latter-day Saints accept vis-à-vis Joseph Smith, the Plates, the translation, the Book of Mormon, etc.? Quote I find it totally out of character for God to deliver Scriptures on gold plates via angel and translate them into somewhat peculiar English by miracle. This is a rather significant non sequitur. I see no bridge in your logic between "that kind of Scripture about Moses" and the above sentence. FWIW, I don't find the story of the Plates "out of character for God" at all. God using an obscure and politically/socially/economically insignificant person to perform a divinely-appointed task? Check. See, e.g., David, Samuel, Peter, and many, many others. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." (1 Cor. 1:27) God using miraculous means to convey information? Check. See, e.g., the Ten Commandments, Belshazzar's feast, and many, many other examples. God deliberately obscuring overt manifestations of the divine? Check. See, e.g., the Ark of the Covenant, the Pillar of Fire / Cloud, Matthew 13:11, and many, many others. God using angels as messengers? Check. See, e.g., Lot and his family, Hagar's experience in the wilderness, the experiences of Elijah, Daniel, Zacharias, Mary, the Shepherds, Mary Magdelene, and many, many others. And on it goes. What you see as "totally out of character for God" I see as being very much in character for Him. Funny how that works. Quote The stories of the resurrection of Jesus do not fit fraud so neatly, because they have too few details to fit anything neatly. A neat bit of special pleading there. I don't buy it. Your skepticism as to the Book of Mormon would, as applied to the Resurrection, yield the Stolen Body Hypothesis or some other allegation of fraud. The lack of available details makes an allegation of fraud easier. There was a guy running around Palestine 2000 years ago. He ended up with some followers who were very devoted. The Romans killed him. The followers, not being willing to abandon their positions of power, concocted a scheme wherein they stole their dead leaders body from out of the tomb, then contrived to have reports issue forth about him being brought back to life and ascending into heaven. Voila! A martyred leader to cherish! Claims of miracles! Emphasis on life after death! And the principal piece of for all of this - the resurrected fellow - is conveniently missing. Then along comes a skeptic and declares "Oh, man. Red flags for fraud are all over this story." See how easy it is? Quote They're a weird set of stories, though, from any point of view, and I would never argue that these stories constitute evidence sufficient to warrant belief that someone rose from the dead. Nor would we. Quote They are only evidence about what early Christians thought their story was. I'm a bit confused about what you believe, but I won't delve into it. I'm generally not big into nosy inquiries into another's faith for the intended purpose of tearing down and demeaning and insulting that faith. Quote The only reason anyone should ever bother considering that Jesus might actually have risen from the dead would be if they were already convinced, for other reasons, that Jesus was an extremely special person. "The only reason" for Christian belief in the Resurrection is "if they were already convinced, for other reasons?" I have no idea what this means. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97 7
jkwilliams Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 On 10/7/2017 at 8:20 PM, mfbukowski said: Oh yeah- that's exactly what I was saying! Wasn't it obvious? Sheesh! I wouldn't have thought you'd be on board with the idea of the dispersal of the self. Go figure.
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I wouldn't have thought you'd be on board with the idea of the dispersal of the self. Go figure. Sarcasm, dearie, sarcasm. It seems to me that here F. is confusing a first and third person perspective, and as usual ignoring anything like phenomenology. Again read Chantal Bax, Subjectivity after Wittgenstein. She accounts for all of these different perspectives. Edited October 11, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 7 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I wouldn't have thought you'd be on board with the idea of the dispersal of the self. Go figure. Just to follow up on this and hopefully resolve those old misunderstandings we went on and on about in thread after thread- THIS was precisely what I saw as the point of disagreement between us and what F. is saying is also said by Rorty and is exactly what I disagree with in Rorty AND why it was so important for me to establish a basis for some kind of non-linguistic intuition in our earlier discussions and why I thought that your position in support of guys like F. and here R. and Saussure et al leads directly to atheism Here is a quote from R: Quote On the view I am suggesting, the claim that an "adequate" philosophical doctrine must make room for our intuitions is a reactionary slogan, one which begs the question at hand. For it is essential to my view that we have no prelinguistic consciousness to which language needs to be adequate, no deep sense of how things are which it is the duty of philosophers to spell out in language. What is described as such a consciousness is simply a disposition to use the language of our ancestors, to worship the corpses of their metaphors. Unless we suffer from what Derrida calls "Heideggerian nostalgia," we shall not think of our "intuitions" as more than platitudes, more than the habitual use of a certain repertoire of terms, more than old tools which as yet have no replacements. I can crudely sum up the story which historians like Blumenberg tell by saying that once upon a time we felt a need to worship something which lay beyond the visible world. Beginning in the seventeenth century we tried to substitute a love of truth for a love of God, treating the world described by science as a quasi divinity. Beginning at the end of the eighteenth century we tried to substitute a love of ourselves for a love of scientific truth, a worship of our own deep spiritual or poetic nature, treated as one more quasi divinity. The line of thought common to Blumenberg, Nietzsche, Freud, and Davidson suggests that we try to get to the point where we no longer worship anything, where we treat nothing as a quasi divinity, where we treat everything - our language, our conscience, our community - as a product of time and chance. To reach this point would be, in Freud's words, to "treat chance as worthy of determining our fate." In the next chapter I claim that Freud, Nietzsche, and Bloom do for our conscience what Wittgenstein and Davidson do for our language, namely, exhibit its sheer contingency. Contingency Irony and Solidarity p 21-22 This is the position that I think Bax adequately defends against in "Subjectivity After Wittgenstein" https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441127327/ I think these points are of crucial importance in rationally sustaining belief in religion and the possibility of "intuition"- as Rorty uses the word here, and I am surprised that LDS thinkers don't even seem to be aware of the issues, at least as far as I have seen. It is especially important for an alleged "postmodernist" like me taking a position which can be seen as anti-postmodernist. But I think Bax truly gets it So just putting our disagreements in context at least as I saw them at the time. I don't think you saw their importance to me or why I got so "exercised"- there's a Mormon word for you- in defending my position.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 On 9/23/2017 at 8:35 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: I hate to be the party pooper, but there is another important angle that is being ignored. Even if JS did truly have ancient Nephite plates, there is little to no reason to believe that he got the translation correct. In fact there are several cases that suggest he got the translation wrong. A great deal of BofM research has been done over the years, much of it strongly indicative of the authenticity of the book and of the civilizations it describes. That research covers the broadest possible range of literary as well as archeological research. Naturally one must be at least willing to consider that research long enough to deal with it seriously. Most of the time it is simply dismissed without any consideration whatsoever. On 9/23/2017 at 8:35 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: Case #1: JS translated some hieroglyphics from the Egyptian papyri and produced a little known text that began the story of a princess Katumin from Egypt (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/valuable-discovery-circa-early-july-1835/7). Both the original hieroglyphics and the translation are included in the resulting document, and from what I understand, the translation has nothing to do with the hieroglyphics and the princess and other aspects of the translation appear to have never existed. The VDN material to which you refer is in the hand of Oliver Cowdery and Willard Richards. We do not know its existential status since it was never offered in any way as canonical Scripture, and close study of the hieratic Egyptian characters there and on other of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers do not appear to be placed on the page first and then "translated" in some fashion. In fact the opposite appears to be true. What does appear to be the case is that this is merely a continuation of cipher-key work begun by W. W. Phelps before the arrival of the mummies and papyri at Kirtland -- that is, encipherment by substitution. On 9/23/2017 at 8:35 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: Case #2: JS offered a translation of a couple passages of the Book of Mormon into Hebrew at a meeting in Kirtland prior to his Hebrew studies. The text he produced does not appear to relate to Hebrew at all. The document copied by both Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G Williams is titled Questions Answered in Hebrew (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-2-document-2a-characters-copied-by-oliver-cowdery-circa-1835-1836/1#source-note). We do not actually know how this Cowdery & Williams document came to be, but doc 2a does have some hieratic Egyptian characters on it credibly reading "Book of Mormon," and "Interpretation of languages." See, for example, Benjamin Urrutia, “The Name Connection,” New Era, 13/6 (June 1983):39, online at https://www.lds.org/new-era/1983/06/the-name-connection?lang=eng , See also my discussion of this at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66716-does-it-even-matter-if-the-book-of-abraham-isnt-a-correct-translation/?page=5. On 9/23/2017 at 8:35 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: Case #3: JS translated strings of heiroglyphics on Facsimiles 2 and 3 from the Egyptian papyri. It appears that his translation of the characters does not relate to the actual heiroglyphics at all. False. Joseph's explanations (identifications) of the items in all three facsimiles are surprisingly accurate, as I explain in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, version 9 online Feb 20, 2018, online http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . Not only does Joseph correctly identify the icons in the registers, he even correctly translates several of the actual Egyptian words and phrases accompanying the icons. On 9/23/2017 at 8:35 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: These are three examples where JS translated and we have both the source and his translation. All three demonstrate that JS didn't actually translate the source language into any semblance of its meaning, and instead his translation is something else entirely. False. Even when we have professional non-Mormon Egyptologists examine the so-called "Anthon Transcript" (the "Caractors Transcript"), they declare it to be authentic ancient Egyptian cursive script -- so both W. C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker. Even the Mormon papyrologist Dee Jay Nelson declared those characters to be Egyptian hieratic, every character facing the proper direction. In addition, Nelson declared several items described by Joseph Smith in the facsimiles to be right on target. Later, Nelson apostatized, but we still have his published comments (courtesy of the Tanners). 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 It might be helpful if I add some additional comments to my reply to Benjamin Seeker: D. J. Nelson found the phrase, “signifying the first creation,” to be a correct description of Fac. 2:1 (1975), which matches the accompanying Egyptian phrase in Fac. 2:10-11, “the First Occasion, Creation.” S. A. B. Mercer says of Fac. 2:3, that, although Joseph “here comes nearer the truth than anywhere else” – a significant admission – “who would not guess that a person, apparently sitting upon a throne, would be most likely to be possessed of ‘power and authority?’ It is only such people who are accustomed to sit upon thrones.” Nelson also finds God to be “pictorially obvious,” and "power and aauthority" to be “inferred." As it happens, the wЗś-scepter held by "God" in Fac. 2:3 actually means what Joseph says it does: Mercer, for example, admits that it is “the royal sceptre which gave dominion over heaven and earth,” “dominion” being synonymous with “authority.” Budge said that it meant “power.” Gardiner saw it as “divine power, dominion,” both Faulkner and Scamuzzi as “dominion,” Brunner as “power,” while J. G. Griffiths defined the wЗś as meaning “power, might,” and, according to te Velde, “power,” while also symbolizing “order,” among other things. All non-Mormon Egyptologists. T. Deveria saw Fac. 1:4-8, 2:6, and 3:5 (Egyptian in bottom register) each as “the gods of the four cardinal points.” We also see them in in Papyrus Joseph Smith III.A (illustration to Book of the Dead spell 125). Mercer said that Fac. 2:6 "represents the four funerary genii who are the four children of Osiris, or Horus (according to different texts). They represent the four cardinal points." D. J. Nelson says "As Joseph Smith, Jr. indicates in his explanation of Facsimile No. 2, Fig. 6, they were the gods of the four cardinal points of the compass. This statement is quite correct." Nelson also said "Joseph Smith correctly identified them as representing the four quarters of the earth!" Budge and Gardiner agreed. Why can't standard Egyptology be applied throughout? The blatant dishonesty of many commenters is what I don't understand. Well, maybe they decided to comment without having done any research. 1
clarkgoble Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) On 5/28/2018 at 3:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Even the Mormon papyrologist Dee Jay Nelson declared those characters to be Egyptian hieratic, every character facing the proper direction. Wasn't Nelson a fraud with a phony degree? I'd love the anthon transcript to be normal heiratic but I'm not aware of strong evidence for that. Quote Even when we have professional non-Mormon Egyptologists examine the so-called "Anthon Transcript" (the "Caractors Transcript"), they declare it to be authentic ancient Egyptian cursive script -- so both W. C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker I know Jerry D. Grover, Jr. purports to have a translation of the "Caractors Transcript" but I thought most people saw that as dubious. So far as I know no one has convincingly tied the characters unambiguously to Egyptian scripts. This was a big deal to John Gee for instance. I thought Hayes and Parker just superficially looked at it and said it looked Egyptian but later scholars (including Mormon ones) who looked closely didn't think it was. Do you have a link to something by Hayes and Parker making the stronger claim? Because it's not a claim I think even Gee or other Mormon Egyptologists make. The history of Hayes that I could find was this: In 1956 a request for review of the Caractors Document was made to three recognized Egyptologists, Sir Alan Gardiner, William C.. Hayes, and John A. Wilson. Gardiner replied that he saw no resemblance with "any form of Egyptian writing." Hayes stated that it might be an inaccurate copy of something in hieratic script and that "some groups look like hieratic numerals", adding that "I imagine, however, that the inscription bears a superficial resemblance to other scripts, both ancient and modern, of which I have no knowledge." Wilson gave the most detailed reply, saying that "This is not Egyptian writing, as known to the Egyptologist. It obviously is not hieroglyphic, nor the "cursive hieroglyphic" as used in the Book of the Dead. It is not Coptic, which took over Greek characters to write Egyptian. Nor does it belong to one of the cursive stages of ancient Egyptian writing: hieratic, abnormal hieratic, or demotic. For Parker all I could find was stuff in the Tanners' works where he denies there being anything like this. I know Richard Bushman apparently spoke with him, but that's kind of a memory of a conversation so I'd not want to pin much on it. Particularly given his comments to the Tanners. Even Parker thought it was in an unknown script from what I could find. (Including a footnote in something you wrote) Again though it seems like a pretty superficial analysis with an offhand "it could be Meroitic like." So I'm not sure they work as confirmation for the nature of the characters. I know in a few places you've mentioned having a copy of a letter by Hayes to Stan Kimball which isn't available online anywhere I could find. However this seems pretty speculative and not something most others agree with. Even Hayes, from the above quote, seems to assume they've been highly distorted at best and seems pretty tentative in claims. Edited May 30, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Wasn't Nelson a fraud with a phony degree? .................................................. The apostate Dee Jay Nelson was a papyrologist, even if a fraud on many counts. On the rest, you have been misinformed, Clark. As Adolf Erman said of the ever more abbreviated style of hieratic Egyptian: Quote We have to take a group of signs as a whole, . . . * * If we reflect that the writing underwent this complete degeneration at the same time as the orthography also degenerated . . , we shall be able to imagine the peculiar character of many handwritings of later time.[1] This is the sort of abbreviated or “short-hand” Egyptian which was described as tachygraphie by Champollion in his 1824 Précis.[2] Is it possible, as William C. Hayes suggested to Stanley Kimball on Monday, February 6, 1956, that the "Caractors Transcript" begins with a date formula, as found at the beginning of so many inscriptions and papyri, e.g., the Canopus Decree and Rosetta Stone? Egyptologist Hayes (then with the Metropolitan Museum of Art) made notes of his proposed transcription of the first Egyptian hieratic characters of that formula as ḥ3t sp 6, 3bd 4, 3ḫt, sw, which would mean "Regnal year 6, month 4, of the Inundation, day . . ."[3] Hayes there and then provided those notes to Stanley B. Kimball, a doctoral student at Columbia University, and Kimball eventually sent a copy of those notes (along with his journal entry for that day) to FARMS.[4] Of course today the first characters would be transcribed as ḥ3t, or rnpt-ḥsbt (rather than ḥ3t sp) "(year of) counting."[5] However, whether in fact Hayes' suggested transcription (and implied translation) of these first characters is credible or correct is another matter, dependent on a coherent translation of the entire Transcript. Later, while a visiting scholar at Brown University, Richard Bushman spoke with Egyptologist Richard A. Parker about the same Caractors Transcript - Parker commenting that it appeared to be a copy of a real document in Egyptian script, but possibly in an unknown language such as Meroitic (Indeed, Hugh Nibley thought many names in the Book of Mormon not only sounded like Meroitic, but that the writing on the Caractors Transcript itself looked Amost like Meroitic@[6]). In a letter to Marvin W. Cowan, March 22, 1966, Richard A. Parker stated that “the signs purportedly from the Book of Mormon . . . could well be the latest form of the written language – demotic characters.” [1] Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt (Macmillan, 1894), 342. [2] Jean-Francois Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique, I:18, 20, 354-355, abréviations d'hiéroglyphiques, and hiératique, véritable tachygraphie, and simple tachygraphie des hiéroglyphes. [3] Hayes provided Kimball with notes on the hieratic along with a hieroglyphic transcription (copy in my possession, along with the Sunday, February 5, 1956, personal journal entry of Stanley B. Kimball). [4] Hayes also wrote a letter to Paul M. Hanson of the RLDS Church later that year (June 8, 1956) saying that the Caractors Transcript “could conceivably have been an inaccurate copy of an Egyptian account or something of the sort written in hieratic script. With some imagination the beginning of the inscription could be taken as a date, and many of the other groups look like hieratic numerals” – quoted in Hanson, “The Transcript from the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Saints’ Herald, 103 (Nov 12, 1956):6 (Hanson included negative comments on the Transcript from Egyptologists John A. Wilson and Alan H. Gardiner). [5] James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 104. [6] Nibley, Since Cumorah, CWHN VII:170-171. Edited May 30, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
clarkgoble Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 Again though Robert, it seems to me the key issue is that if these things are as clear as you suggest (rather than superficial and speculative hypothesis) shouldn't the Mormons with formal training in Egyptology agree with them? All I've found is pretty strong skepticism from Gee and others. The above you quote was what I was referring to. Note the number of "weasel words" that suggest strong speculation rather than a confirmed hypothesis. "Is it possible?" "possibly? in an unknown language" Those don't suggest conclusions but speculative starting points.
Benjamin Seeker Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Wasn't Nelson a fraud with a phony degree? I'd love the anthon transcript to be normal heiratic but I'm not aware of strong evidence for that. I know Jerry D. Grover, Jr. purports to have a translation of the "Caractors Transcript" but I thought most people saw that as dubious. So far as I know no one has convincingly tied the characters unambiguously to Egyptian scripts. This was a big deal to John Gee for instance. I thought Hayes and Parker just superficially looked at it and said it looked Egyptian but later scholars (including Mormon ones) who looked closely didn't think it was. Do you have a link to something by Hayes and Parker making the stronger claim? Because it's not a claim I think even Gee or other Mormon Egyptologists make. The history of Hayes that I could find was this: In 1956 a request for review of the Caractors Document was made to three recognized Egyptologists, Sir Alan Gardiner, William C.. Hayes, and John A. Wilson. Gardiner replied that he saw no resemblance with "any form of Egyptian writing." Hayes stated that it might be an inaccurate copy of something in hieratic script and that "some groups look like hieratic numerals", adding that "I imagine, however, that the inscription bears a superficial resemblance to other scripts, both ancient and modern, of which I have no knowledge." Wilson gave the most detailed reply, saying that "This is not Egyptian writing, as known to the Egyptologist. It obviously is not hieroglyphic, nor the "cursive hieroglyphic" as used in the Book of the Dead. It is not Coptic, which took over Greek characters to write Egyptian. Nor does it belong to one of the cursive stages of ancient Egyptian writing: hieratic, abnormal hieratic, or demotic. For Parker all I could find was stuff in the Tanners' works where he denies there being anything like this. I know Richard Bushman apparently spoke with him, but that's kind of a memory of a conversation so I'd not want to pin much on it. Particularly given his comments to the Tanners. Even Parker thought it was in an unknown script from what I could find. (Including a footnote in something you wrote) Again though it seems like a pretty superficial analysis with an offhand "it could be Meroitic like." So I'm not sure they work as confirmation for the nature of the characters. I know in a few places you've mentioned having a copy of a letter by Hayes to Stan Kimball which isn't available online anywhere I could find. However this seems pretty speculative and not something most others agree with. Even Hayes, from the above quote, seems to assume they've been highly distorted at best and seems pretty tentative in claims. As far as the Anthon transcript goes, there was a photograph recently found that shows the document with another portion attached: The text reads, “The Book of the Generationa of Adam,” which is referred to in Moses 6:8. “Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;” The point being, though this document was thought to be characters from the plates, new evidence suggests that the document is something else entirely, and there may be no reason at all to try to connect the characters to hieratic, except in that JS likely believed there was some connection between the pure language or Adamic and Egyptian. 1
clarkgoble Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: As far as the Anthon transcript goes, there was a photograph recently found that shows the document with another portion attached: The point being, though this document was thought to be characters from the plates, new evidence suggests that the document is something else entirely, and there may be no reason at all to try to connect the characters to hieratic, except in that JS likely believed there was some connection between the pure language or Adamic and Egyptian. Yes, I believe Robert had linked to a discussion of that a few times. One speculation there is that Whitmer had copies of some of the early revelations (OTMan3) and had copied the Book of Mormon characters as well. (Although some of the writing may be in his brother Christians hand) We do know Joseph had his own copy he kept until his death. It's quite plausible this is a copy by Whitmer of that.
Recommended Posts