"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I hit him with some Kuhn and Rorty and he had no clue.  No Willam James even. That stuff is pushing 130 years old. Total scientism.

Right but I don't think people need be familiar with the philosophical debates to not be a positivist. That said, I'm skeptical he doesn't know those things given how many people have brought such points up with him. I suspect that unless this was quite some time ago he was feigning ignorance.

[hope_for_things]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Wow, Case 1 & 2, I've never ran across before, thanks this is amazing.  I think you could also add the story of the Greek Psalter and the Kinderhook plates as well as statements Joseph made from time to time about his prowess to translate and understand other languages, even the work on the Adamic language is interesting when you think about all these language endeavors.  

I've said this before, but I've seen no evidence that Joseph ever understood or translated anything correctly from one language to another language.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but I don't think people need be familiar with the philosophical debates to not be a positivist. That said, I'm skeptical he doesn't know those things given how many people have brought such points up with him. I suspect that unless this was quite some time ago he was feigning ignorance.

So he pretends to not know the arguments that can overthrow his case while he knows them all along?

He deliberately displays ignorance in debating an issue? This was probably in 2012.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 9/24/2017 at 10:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

I do not disagree with anything you are proposing above, I just question the importance of pursuing such studies since for me, they are irrelevant.

I presumed from the first time I read the Book of Mormon that it was a fable taught for spiritual purposes.  I do not see it as "fiction" in that I think that Joseph himself thought he was translating text by the "gift and power of God"

In fact I think that Joseph was similar to the prophets of old who likewise felt they were receiving messages from God.  And by that I do not mean that they were or they were not- one can only decide that for oneself!   So I have no problem seeing Joseph on the same grounds as the person or persons we call "Isaiah" or the person or persons who wrote the book of Revelation or "Moses" whether or not he was a historical individual or many individuals.   I believe there probably also there would be similar inconsistencies in what these individuals believed about what they were doing, were we in a position to interview them. And that would apply to all who are considered "prophets" in all religions.

This stuff is not logical nor is it meant to be.   It is a different kind of literature than any other.  It is like scriptures throughout the world, but for me personally, these resonate in ways the others do not.

In other words, I think one must be a little "touched in the head" to be considered a "prophet".  Possibly marginally delusional, possibly touched by genius, but definitely amazingly imaginative, creative and poetic.   I can think of "mad poets" who might come close if their writings were in the context of alleging prophet hood.

On the other hand, I think all of us have a tendency for such writing to resonate with us, and with some it resonates more than others.   I think those with whom such texts resonate have perhaps a touch of the same world view as those who write them.

You can call that "communication with the spirit" or not, depending on your own prejudices concerning the content of these texts.

As I have said, reading tea leaves, watching the ocean and other kinds of stimulation can produce a creative effect in a certain kind of mentality.

So bottom line, I think "prophecy" cannot be judged by historical standards.   It is LIKE fiction in that it certainly does not tell a story of "what actually happened" though perhaps the writer may think it does due to the power of his vision.

When I first read the Book of Abraham and the story of its translation, I said to my companion "This is great stuff!!   I don't care if he was 'translating" the pattern on his wallpaper- I love this stuff!"

I found that "this stuff" resonated deeply with my being.  It was like reading the Epistles where Paul intentionally creates Christianity out of the simple sayings of Jesus- but these stories modified Christianity in ways making it more compatible with our times today

Truly these were written for "The Latter Days" perhaps BECAUSE they were written in the latter days, but what was happening was no different than what Paul did to the church of his day- totally changing it by spiritually knowing ideas never uttered by Jesus- whom he had never met nor heard.

What is the difference between Joseph and Paul?  Or Joseph and Isaiah?

For these reasons I suppose I am not the best person with whom to discus this if you are trying to find historicity in these texts.  You won't find it- that is not what they are about.

These are magical revelations brought forth by the universe through Joseph.  They are poetry brought forth from a creative mind in the heat of revelation.

If one cannot see them that way and find them "valid" anyway, then perhaps one's world view is incompatible with finding value in them.

I have had experiences like Joseph's and I think that if one has not had such experiences oneself, one will never "get" their message.  

If you haven't read Ann Taves new book "Revelatory Events" yet, you really need to pick it up.  She compares three spiritual movements, one of which I found particularly fascinating called "A Course in Miracles" and the dynamics of how groups influence revelatory experience.  I find her work fascinating and it really has been my new foundational paradigm for what I think is the most plausible explanation for the events of early Mormon revelatory experiences.   

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

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

This article lays things out fairly well:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-imperative-for-a-historical-book-of-mormon/

Thanks.  That helps. 

I think the notion that inspired fiction means, there were no plates, and JS' whole story is fabricated to be problematic on a number of levels.  I'd also point out that a view of historicity is problematic too.  I think included in the inspired fiction theory is a possibility of scripture and Nephi and Lehi being people who lived and traveled from Jerusalem to the western hemisphere.  So its possible the general story happened, but what we get in the BoM is not a very good representation of what was etched on plates.  The dictation was not a representation of what was on the plates, so much as scripture for our day, as we like to say, under the theme of a story we simply can't, or God has no interest for us to, recreate quite like we'd want.  Scripture, then, becomes less about historicity and more about creating theology, or something like it, while alluding to, at times, situations of the past, most aptly applied to today.  That's how the Bible was put together and that's how the other projects Joseph worked on, as they related to times of the past, were accomplished, it appears, too. 

David Bokovoy puts it this way in a blog entry from a couple of years ago:

Quote

This method of using scripture is similar, therefore, to the work Joseph Smith performed in creating new expanded literary works based upon the Bible—texts such as the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. As theological expansions upon biblical material, Joseph Smith’s scriptural works parallel an ancient literary pattern for revelatory text. This same type of genre is seen in later Jewish pseudepigraha and Rabbinic midrash, as well as within the Bible itself.

 

The term “midrash” refers to a method of interpreting biblical material that fills in literary and legal gaps featured in the biblical sources. Joseph Smith’s work fits in well with the way biblical authors used scriptural sources as a springboard to create new religious literature, independent of original authorial intent and historical setting. For Latter-day Saints, a text such as the Book of Abraham, therefore, can be defined as inspired Prophetic Midrash.

Does historicity matter? Of course. But apparently it doesn’t for the creation of scripture.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/03/does-historicity-matter/#058gsR0oKYYtIMxh.99

In this sense, inspired fiction doesn't mean the whole story is made up, but the result of what we get in scripture is not historicity.  There could have been ancient plates, in Joseph's hands.  But that he didn't refer to them also may suggest what he dictated was not a story found on the plates so much as story created to help define, in some sense, theology (and maybe theology is the wrong word, but what else might I use?)

[champatsch]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is much more going on in King Benjamin's speech than a bucketful of phrases.

Yes, indeed. And that is the most important thing: the content and how it's laid out. Thank you for the link.

Of course, Nevo and others mention phrases and they think, after some study, that these phrases necessarily point to something that is actually quite unlikely:

On 7/11/2016 at 6:00 PM, Nevo said:

Honestly, as much as it pains to me to say it, I'm going to have to go with Grant Palmer. Given that the "big picture" suggests Joseph Smith as author, and that King Benjamin plainly uses nineteenth-century revival language and imagery, and that the entire sermon is a Christian homily, I think the odds are against a real-world pre-Columbian Mesoamerican setting. Then there are the unrealistic touches such as Benjamin having written copies of his speech "sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice" (Mosiah 2:8) and what Nibley called "the odd circumstance in which the people 'all cried aloud with one voice' (Mosiah 4:2) and proceeded to recite in unison an ecstatic statement of some fifty words." 

This is where the form and structure of the language of the Book of Mormon come into play. They are inherently less important than content, yet they are able to dismiss in a concrete, quantifiable way the above view that Nevo asserted last year and that he currently maintains, making it an extremely unlikely position. In terms of evidentiary value, the complexity of morphosyntax overrides the simple syntax of phrases.

[hope_for_things]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:58 AM, clarkgoble said:

Even though I fundamentally disagree with Vogel, I probably should come to his defense. He's fairly forthright in that he's assuming traditional naturalism and providing an interpretation of Joseph Smith's life in that regard. In the sense that he's forthright that this is just one way of reading the evidence I think charges of positivism towards him are unfair. (Not that anyone here is making that charge - just commenting on a common criticism) As such I think he's actually much closer to the typical Mormon writer just with a different set of ontological assumptions he's bringing to bear. I think he's found lots of interesting parallels. Yet he's not done a fantastic job of looking at their limits. But then that's true of most Mormon apologists as well.

If you start thinking of him as a kind of apologetic for the naturalist camp then I think he's writing makes a ton more sense - and more importantly can be a bit more appreciated. Again I fundamentally disagree with him but I think he gets an unfair rap. I'll confess that I've always enjoyed my discussions with him.

Thanks Clark.  I agree and I would also say that the research Vogel has done on early Mormon source documents is amazing and has contributed to Mormon historiography in substantive ways.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So he pretends to not know the arguments that can overthrow his case while he knows them all along?

He deliberately displays ignorance in debating an issue? This was probably in 2012.

I don't remember when I had the discussion so I don't want to say. It was a few years ago but whether it was 2012 or before I just can't recall. I'm not at home so I can't look up the time stamps. But Alan Goff certainly brought up the positivism issue, albeit more in the sense the term is used in history rather than philosophy. (Although they are related terms) I was more assuming you were talking about a recent discussion. If so, then I'd be pretty confident he'd heard about the standard critiques.

As for whether they'd overthrow his case, I can only say that in discussions with me that he was forthright his was one interpretation among others but that he was consciously picking the interpretation with the naturalistic assumptions. (Here using naturalistic in its loose sense rather than its technical sense as I don't think miracles are supernatural)

Edited September 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the notion that inspired fiction means, there were no plates, and JS' whole story is fabricated to be problematic on a number of levels.  I'd also point out that a view of historicity is problematic too.  I think included in the inspired fiction theory is a possibility of scripture and Nephi and Lehi being people who lived and traveled from Jerusalem to the western hemisphere.  So its possible the general story happened, but what we get in the BoM is not a very good representation of what was etched on plates. 

It's very useful to distinguish historical accuracy from what normally is called historicity in these sorts of debates. It's true historicity can apply to people or events. However with regards to the Book of Mormon as soon as you say fiction you're pretty well saying events happened nothing like described, not that the general story was possible.

[Kevin Christensen]

On Positivism/Empiricism for the Uninitiated.

Quote

During the 1930’s and 1940’s the positivists had taken science as the norm for all meaningful discourse. Religious language was considered neither true nor false, but meaningless. The positivists had declared the famous Verification Principle, which states that, apart from tautologies and definitions, statements are meaningful only if they can be verified by sense data.⁶⁹ Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for all genuine knowledge, they dismissed religion as “purely emotive.”

During the 1950’s positivism came under increasing attack, but many of its assumptions were perpetuated in the empiricism which came to replace it as the dominant interpretation of science. Among the empiricist claims were the following. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, [Page 144]objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria. Philosophers under the sway of such empiricism continued to say that religion can legitimately make no cognitive claims.⁷⁰

Quote

These ideas came under increasing attack in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and three counter-claims were advanced. (1) All data are theory-laden; there is no neutral observation-language. (2) Theories are not verified or falsified; when data conflict with an accepted theory, they are usually set to one side as anomalies, or else auxiliary assumptions are modified. (3) There are no criteria for choice between rival theories of great generality, for the criteria are themselves theory-dependent.

The attack on empiricism was carried a step further in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Kuhn held that the thought and action of a scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, defined as ‘standard examples of scientific work which embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions’. He maintained that observational data and criteria for assessing theories are paradigm-dependent.⁷¹

Quote

Let us look next at the debate as to whether or not theories can be verified or falsified. To the positivists, verification had seemed a clear-cut and straight-forward process. It was assumed that theories are verified by their agreement with experimental data. Knowledge, it was said, consists of proven propositions established by the hard facts. The famous ‘Verification Principle’ went on to assert that, apart from formal definitions, the only meaningful statements are empirical propositions verifiable by sense-experience…

No scientific theory can be verified. One cannot [Page 146]prove that a theory is true by showing that conclusions deduced from it agree with experiment, since (1) future experiments may conflict with the theory, and (2) another theory may be equally compatible with present evidence. From a finite set of particular observations one cannot derive a universal generalization with certainty (the much debated logic of induction can provide no inferential grounds for making assertions about all cases when only a particular group of cases has been examined).⁷²

Quote

Cannot theories at least be falsified, then? Even if many instances of agreement with experiment do not prove that a theory is true, it would seem that even a single counterinstance of data which disagrees with theory should conclusively prove it false. Karl Popper, acknowledging that scientific theories are never verifiable, contended that they must be in principle falsifiable. Science advances by bold conjectures and stern attempts to refute them. Popper dwelt on the importance of “crucial experiments” through which an hypothesis is definitively eliminated. Intellectual honesty, he said, requires the scientist to specify in advance experiments whose results could disprove his theory. Statements which are in principle unfalsifiable have no place in science.

But Popper’s view has in turn received considerable criticism. Discordant data do not always falsify a theory. One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a “crucial experiment”; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one cannot be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the deduction was based, was in error. A network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.⁷³

Citing Ian Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, quoted in my "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in Interpreter.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you haven't read Ann Taves new book "Revelatory Events" yet, you really need to pick it up.  She compares three spiritual movements, one of which I found particularly fascinating called "A Course in Miracles" and the dynamics of how groups influence revelatory experience.  I find her work fascinating and it really has been my new foundational paradigm for what I think is the most plausible explanation for the events of early Mormon revelatory experiences.   

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

My review of Taves is underway.  So also is a move from Bethel Park to Canonsburgh over the next several weeks, so it may take a while yet, but I am about 16 pages in with at least that much more to go.  My title is "Playing to an Audience."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[champatsch]

10 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On Positivism/Empiricism for the Uninitiated.

And how do you apply all this to your 2008 article on Benjamin in Mosiah?

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't remember when I had the discussion so I don't want to say. It was a few years ago but whether it was 2012 or before I just can't recall. I'm not at home so I can't look up the time stamps. But Alan Goff certainly brought up the positivism issue, albeit more in the sense the term is used in history rather than philosophy. (Although they are related terms) I was more assuming you were talking about a recent discussion. If so, then I'd be pretty confident he'd heard about the standard critiques.

As for whether they'd overthrow his case, I can only say that in discussions with me that he was forthright his was one interpretation among others but that he was consciously picking the interpretation with the naturalistic assumptions. (Here using naturalistic in its loose sense rather than its technical sense as I don't think miracles are supernatural)

OK well that might be a change then.  I am not positive about the date- it could be as early as 2008 now that I think about it.  He did not seem aware of the entire concept of different paradigms in our conversations, maybe now he is.

And incidentally I never meant to criticize his ability in historiography - just his belief that it was possible to discover "The Truth" of history and thereby affect belief in Mormonism through historical criticism of Joseph Smith et al.  Clearly he is an intelligent and very able scholar.  My only point was that he seemed unaware that there were any other possible ways of viewing these issues other than his own.

[champatsch]

 

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So its possible the general story happened, but what we get in the BoM is not a very good representation of what was etched on plates.

This is probably a simplistic, inaccurate view.  It could have been a dynamic/creative translation, with varying degrees of literal representation.

And the Lord himself said the translation was correct.  He should know.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Hadn't occurred to me! It seems the human search for knowledge is inherently flawed no matter the form of inquiry.

I suggest you read the Rorty quote in my siggy.

Everything mankind knows is...... wait for it...... is a human mind-state, including science.

If we know it "where" else is it but in our minds?

Yes of course there is a world of "causes" out there- yes we can fall off of cliffs, but even the experience of falling off the cliff will be as a human perceives what humans call "falling off a cliff"

We can know nothing but a humanly perceived and ordered universe.  That does not say God did or did not make it- it is just an undeniable fact of logic which is also a human way of ordering our thoughts/language.  If it is not in language we cannot communicate- so language for all practical purposes becomes reality as we speak about reality.

Science and religion are in the same boat- both are perceived only through human consciousness, and it cannot be otherwise.

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

My review of Taves is underway.  So also is a move from Bethel Park to Canonsburgh over the next several weeks, so it may take a while yet, but I am about 16 pages in with at least that much more to go.  My title is "Playing to an Audience."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Cool, thanks for the update, good luck on the move.  Make sure to have the EQ help out, those can be stressful!  Looking forward to your review.  

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's very useful to distinguish historical accuracy from what normally is called historicity in these sorts of debates. It's true historicity can apply to people or events. However with regards to the Book of Mormon as soon as you say fiction you're pretty well saying events happened nothing like described, not that the general story was possible.

Well to be fair the reason anyone would think inspired fiction, while considering it scripture, is because there is definite lack of support for it being an accurate portrayal of history. 

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, champatsch said:

 

This is probably a simplistic, inaccurate view.  It could have been a dynamic/creative translation, with varying degrees of literal representation.

And the Lord himself said the translation was correct.  He should know.

Saying the Lord Himself said... is a bit of a simplistic (I won't say inaccurate because we don't really know)  view though.  It may be that the Lord did speak such words, or it may be that someone felt inspired to say the Lord felt that way, or supported such a notion.  It's more complicated because we do not see the Lord coming around and talking directly to anyone. 

I'd say because "it could have been a dynamic/creative translation, with varying degrees of literal representation", does not mean the view expressed was inaccurate.  But in the end, I agree, it could be many things.  That's part of the problem with the OP, in my view. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you read the Rorty quote in my siggy.

Everything mankind knows is...... wait for it...... is a human mind-state, including science.

If we know it "where" else is it but in our minds?

Yes of course there is a world of "causes" out there- yes we can fall off of cliffs, but even the experience of falling off the cliff will be as a human perceives what humans call "falling off a cliff"

We can know nothing but a humanly perceived and ordered universe.  That does not say God did or did not make it- it is just an undeniable fact of logic which is also a human way of ordering our thoughts/language.  If it is not in language we cannot communicate- so language for all practical purposes becomes reality as we speak about reality.

Science and religion are in the same boat- both are perceived only through human consciousness, and it cannot be otherwise.

Ultimately how do you make value judgments in the world if everything is just perceptions, and all is equal?   I've been able to agree with your paradigm up to a certain point but I haven't allowed myself to traverse further because I don't understand how you reconcile this.  Value judgments must be made when it comes to beliefs and/or experiments, and not everything is equal.  We have to have the ability to test things and determine what is more valuable to society. 

You can't build a rocket to the Moon based on someone's psuedoscience.  We don't want to give preference to homeopathy proponents and the anti-vaxer crowd because those positions of belief have demonstrable flaws in logic in addition to negative outcomes for individuals and society.  There are means we can use to judge that have statistically more reliable results, everything is not equal when it comes to beliefs.  Thoughts? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you haven't read Ann Taves new book "Revelatory Events" yet, you really need to pick it up.  She compares three spiritual movements, one of which I found particularly fascinating called "A Course in Miracles" and the dynamics of how groups influence revelatory experience.  I find her work fascinating and it really has been my new foundational paradigm for what I think is the most plausible explanation for the events of early Mormon revelatory experiences.   

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

Interesting stuff- I will have to read the book.

But the explanation stinks in my opinion- I hope the book actually does not say what the explanations says it says.  It alleges it is not dualistic and yet immediately presents dualism.

I will bold the parts of the wikipedia quote that indicate this to me.

• Quote

   

  • It states that everything involving time, space, and perception is illusory. It presents a nondualism which states that God is the only truth and reality: perfect, unchanging, unchangeable, extending only love, though not in time and space, which cannot really be comprehended from a dualistic perspective. The theory further states that all life as we perceive it is actually one life (because God has only one son, sometimes called the collective sonship), dreaming of separation and fragmentation. It claims that eternity is outside time and space and that this dream never occurred in reality and is "already over", though not the (illusory) perception. When addressing the question of how such an illusory dream could arise from a perfect and unchanging God, the Course states that to ask that question is to presume that the time-space dream is real, which it states is not. A Course in Miracles states that to think we exist as individuals is the fundamental error. However, since we experience ourselves in time and space, reading these pages, the course presents its thought system on a second level:
  • The time-space level, or "perceptory" level, which is referred to as "the dream". A Course in Miracles states that this level was "made" by the "sleeping Son" as an attack on God. Furthermore, the "Son" is regarded as not just Jesus, but as all collective life. In this time-space dream, perception is continuously fueled by what it originated from: separation, judgment, and attack. This results in what the Course calls the "sin-guilt-fear" cycle: we sinned by rejecting God and making a universe of time-space (the Big Bang); this results in guilt over our rejection of our Creator, and subsequent fear of God's wrath. The "sin-guilt-fear" is described as too horrendous to face, and therefore subsequently projected out, so that to Homo sapiens it seems that evil is everywhere except in himself. The world becomes a threatening place, in which we are born only to fear, fight, and die. The thought that keeps this process going is referred to as "ego", or "the wrong mind". A Course in Miracles concludes that happiness cannot be found in earthly time-space life, and urges the reader not to commit suicide but rather to make a fundamental mind shift from "condemnation-out-of-fear" (mindlessness) to "forgiveness-out-of-love" (mindfulness), since our "right mind" is outside time-space and cannot be harmed by worldly attacks. According to the course, seeing "the Face of Christ" in all living things is the way to "accept the Atonement" and ultimately awaken from the dream and return to the eternity of God. Ultimately, this means the end of individuality and of the ego. In this respect, there are parallels with the Indian concept of karma and the Bhagavad Gita scriptures, which Helen Schucman reports that she was not familiar with, although William Thetford was.

   

  All of these ideas are what we in the West would call "Neoplatonic" and highly dualistic.  The world as we know it is a world of illusion and there is another world beyond- classic Platonism as we call it in the West and it relates also clearly to Hindu dualism.

This is all classic eastern philosophy with a quasi-Christian overlay.

Dunno.  Guess I have to read more.

My view is totally the opposite- for the Pragmatists there IS no appearance/reality distinction and consequently no dualism.  I suppose I could threaten with the old Rorty video again but this time I will only post a link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Interesting stuff- I will have to read the book.

But the explanation stinks in my opinion- I hope the book actually does not say what the explanations says it says.  It alleges it is not dualistic and yet immediately presents dualism.

I will bold the parts of the wikipedia quote that indicate this to me.

• All of these ideas are what we in the West would call "Neoplatonic" and highly dualistic.  The world as we know it is a world of illusion and there is another world beyond- classic Platonism as we call it in the West and it relates also clearly to Hindu dualism.

This is all classic eastern philosophy with a quasi-Christian overlay.

Dunno.  Guess I have to read more.

My view is totally the opposite- for the Pragmatists there IS no appearance/reality distinction and consequently no dualism.  I suppose I could threaten with the old Rorty video again but this time I will only post a link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

 

I didn't even read the wiki about "A Course in Miracles" I was just giving you a link in case you hadn't heard of the movement before, I hadn't heard of it either prior to reading Ann's book.   Taves makes no commentary on the beliefs of this movement in her book.  Rather, she is comparing the early development of three spiritual movements for similar dynamics from a group revelatory experience perspective, the other two movements being Mormonism and the AA movement.   She also expounds on her materialization of the golden plates thesis.  I think you'll like it as I think it fits well within what I've read about your paradigm.  

She had an interesting interview on Mormon Matters podcast to discuss her book, if you want to listen it would give you a preview for the content.  

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2017/07/25/403-406-revelations-of-joseph-smith-and-others-a-naturalistic-hypothesis/

[Kevin Christensen]

On 9/26/2017 at 1:43 PM, champatsch said:

And how do you apply all this to your 2008 article on Benjamin in Mosiah?

I've internalized all of this since the early 1990s, publishing many times.  Kuhn and Barbour both explain that the way to get past Positivism and Empiricism is to consciously use criteria of assessment for choosing between paradigms that are not paradigm dependent.  While these exist, Kuhn observes that there are no rules for applying them, which means that reasonable people can use them differently.  So in making comparisons between my reading of King Benjamin versus, say, Grant Hardy's case for a 19th century revival context, I look to 'puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (the things that would not see without having explored the hypothesis), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. Kuhn says that paradigm choice always involves choosing "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" and "Which paradigm is better?"  A choice of "Better" requires comparison.  And the choice of which problems are more significant and which is better always involves subjective elements, but even so, we can give reasons and make our cases.  By that standard comparison against criteria that are not paradigm dependent, historicity as I explored in the 2008 article, and many more, strikes me as being more testable, making some very interesting predictions across a wide set of circumstances (ritual, literary, cultural, geographical etc.), unexpectedly fruitful (there is a reason why several of the historians who reviewed Palmer's book wondered why he didn't refer to the large volume on King Benjamin's Discourse), simpler, and certainly, from my perspective, more promising.  I gather that Palmer didn't even mention the sort of things I did because doing so would complicate the explanation in rhetorically unhelpful ways.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 27, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
corrected name

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

Of course, Nevo and others mention phrases and they think, after some study, that these phrases necessarily point to something that is actually quite unlikely.

That's a pretty sick burn!

I actually made quite a few posts last year laying out arguments against historicity. If you're interested, here are some of them: overview, Joseph's creativity, anti-Universalism, Indian origins, anachronistic theology, dependence on NT, Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Mount II, formation of the Bible, Nephi's bow, Arabia Felix, Bountiful, Nephi as scribe, Nephi as scribe (again),  Brass Plates, miracle.

And here are some older ones: republican ideology, falling into trances as though dead, anachronistic autobiography, scribalization of prophecy.

Obviously I didn't include all my respondents' counterarguments, but here's a quick summary:

Kevin Christensen: Barker, Kuhn, Nibley.
Mark Bukowski: Rorty, empirical nihilism.
Robert F. Smith: Only a yokel would think that way.
Rajah Manchou: It all happened in Malaysia!

Anyway, I'm in a better place now, so I don't really want to rehash everything, but suffice it to say that I don't think that EModE morphosyntax is the only data point worth paying attention to.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  That helps. 

I think the notion that inspired fiction means, there were no plates, and JS' whole story is fabricated to be problematic on a number of levels. 

I agree.  I would also propose that these levels exist in both LDS and non-LDS paradigms.  It's just an all-around poor theory.

Quote

I'd also point out that a view of historicity is problematic too. 

In the non-LDS paradigm, I quote agree.  The foundational claims of the LDS Church are pretty bold.  Audacious.  I can understand and respect feelings of incredulity and skepticism about them.  

But in the LDS paradigm, I think "a view of historicity" is pretty much the intended, go-to perspective on the Book of Mormon, and therefore not "problematic."

Quote

I think included in the inspired fiction theory is a possibility of scripture and Nephi and Lehi being people who lived and traveled from Jerusalem to the western hemisphere. 

I don't think so.

Quote

So its possible the general story happened, but what we get in the BoM is not a very good representation of what was etched on plates. 

I don't think that is an accurate statement of the theory.  "The general story happened" is, I think, antithetical to the word "fiction" in "Inspired Fiction."

Do you have citations to "Inspired Fiction" theorists that espouse a yes-Lehi-and-his-family/descendants-were-historical-but-we're-still-going-to-call-the-Book-of-Mormon-"fiction" line of thought, I'd like to see them.

Quote

The dictation was not a representation of what was on the plates, so much as scripture for our day, as we like to say, under the theme of a story we simply can't, or God has no interest for us to, recreate quite like we'd want. 

I think the theory is more foundational than that.  "Fiction," by definition, precludes a historical Lehi and Nephi and so on.

Quote

Scripture, then, becomes less about historicity and more about creating theology, or something like it, while alluding to, at times, situations of the past, most aptly applied to today. 

The Book of Mormon being "historical" (describing actual people and actual events) is, in my view, part and parcel of the "doctrines" found in the text.  For example, Jesus Christ only has value in our lives if He is a "historical" figure.  A fictional Christ has no power to create the earth, no power to atone, no power to save.

Quote

That's how the Bible was put together and that's how the other projects Joseph worked on, as they related to times of the past, were accomplished, it appears, too.

And yet the Bible is also rooted in historicity.  Again, if we reject the historicity of Jesus Christ, if we re-characterize him as an ahistorical fictional character with some good things to say, then what differentiates faith in such a being from faith in, say, Captain America or Atticus Finch?

Quote

In this sense, inspired fiction doesn't mean the whole story is made up, but the result of what we get in scripture is not historicity. 

I don't see how this works.  So we are supposed to ignore the word "fiction" in "inspired fiction?"

Which "Inspired Fiction" theorists are espousing the notion that Lehi was a historical person, but one about whom we have an imperfect historical record?  CFR, please.

Quote

There could have been ancient plates, in Joseph's hands. 

Again, "historicity" pertains to much more than just the existence of the plates.  It pertains to their provenance and their content.

Quote

But that he didn't refer to them also may suggest what he dictated was not a story found on the plates

Except that he said "what he dictated" was "a story found on the plates."  That's what Joseph Smith said.  And the Three Witnesses (who claim that they were told this by no less than the voice of God).

I think you are trying to salvage the "Inspired Fiction" theory by ignoring its core characterization, which is a denial of "historicity": that there were no authentically ancient plates, no Lehi, no Nephites and Lamanites, no Mormon and Moroni, no angel Moroni, no angelic visitations to Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith was lying/deluded/insane, and Joseph Smith fabricated fake plates and passed them off as ancient, and the Witnesses were all duped, and the Three Witnesses lied about or were collectively insane/deluded in their testimony, and on and on and on.

"Fiction" and "historicity" seem to be mutually exclusive attributes of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 26, 2017 by smac97

[blueglass]

what are your thoughts on the relationship between doc&cov 17 where it speaks of 5 artifacts in vs1, but then says that you will only have a view of them  "by your faith" ?   , "that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. " 3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;"  Lucy when speaking of Joseph as a treasure seer says he was hired by Stowell "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye."  So for the first 5 spiritual witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris,  Lucy Harris, and Mary Whitmer this is a visionary experience of seeing the plates.  Then for the eight this could be seeing the plates that joseph manufactured (data points for convincing props include voree plates, Pb plates of Sacromonte, Kinderhook), then for the actual translation rather than the brown seer stone teleprompter tight translation, I see this more like Lehi in 1Nephi 1, being caught up to heaven and reading a heavenly book.   So in this sense it could be similar to Pearl Curran.  At John hopkins university they have a course on the production of books by heavenly angels.  Syllabus attached.  So I see going forward a combination of Pearl curran spontaneous composition with Ostler modern expansion.  As for the plates joseph manufactured and didn't really use other than to copy down charactors and send Martin Harris down to Philadelphia and meet with  Samuel Rafinesque and Caleb Atwater at the American philosophical society to get a book of abraham/ style Egyptian alphabet and grammar - David whitmer says in theDeseret Evening News, 16 August 1878, that they were not buried at Cumorah or returned to the angel but were buried in or near the miner's hill cave. http://archival.link/mormoncave/sources#david-whitmer  There may be more opportunity for an indiana jones style search to find the plates Joseph manufactured somewhere near there. 

 

spontaneous composition_HopkinsAS060203.pdf

Edited September 26, 2017 by blueglass