Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[Dan Vogel]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 1:31 PM, Vance said:

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 9:28 PM, Dan Vogel said:

The characters in the margins of the translation manuscript are from JSP XI. It is clear that the English text is meant to be a translation of the characters. How do I know that? See my first video.

Ok, I asked for the claim and you provided none.  You can make of the scribbles what ever you want.  But the fact of the matter is that you can't provide a reference where JS claimed that the "book of breathings" was the source of the BOA.

Why are you stuck on a quote as if there is only one way to demonstrate JS claimed to have translated the Book of Breathings? The best explanation for characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts is that they represent the source or translation of the English text next to them. Gee has speculated that the characters were added to either decorate or organize the English paragraphs. However, it is clear that the characters were not added as afterthoughts. The characters line up with the English text, but the text is divided in the middle of sentences to alien the text with specific characters.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

You evidently are not familiar with my work. I do not psychoanalyze Joseph Smith. Robert Anderson did. I used family systems theory, which is the sociology of the family. I used the same methods Kyle Walker has used on the Smith family, only we disagree on the interpretation of sources; his is too apologetic and dismissive of non-Mormon accounts.

 

An argument is not an opinion. An opinion has no evidence or arguments. You should learn the rules of this game. I don’t need verifiable objective evidence, that is, in the sense of requiring an out-of-the-body experience. That’s a red herring. I’ll settle for formulating the most probable or defensible interpretation.

 

If you can say there are bad arguments, then arguments are not as subjective as you think.

 

I’m not repeating a bad argument; it’s perfectly sound.

 

JS said he translated the papyrus

his translation was not verified

ergo JS only pretended he translated

 

Concluding JS only pretended to translate doesn’t require mindreading. The only way you can say that its mindreading is by calling all similar inferences mindreading. In such case, I could be accused of mindreading if I assumed you mean what you write. But that would be silly. However, if I accused you of writing things you don’t believe without giving evidence, you could rightly accuse me of mindreading.

Your distinction between argument and opinion is ill defined and sounds exactly as you describe them as "rules of a game" and are merely stylistic guidelines for what "should" be in a paper.

I am not a high school sophomore. I do not need to be taught how to write a term paper using "evidence" when you appear unable to define the term.

Philosophers question what counts as "evidence", but it is always dependent on context. It appears you cannot counter or reply to the philosophical arguments I have put forth.

I have never said that JS "pretended" to translate. I believe no such thing.

I also have not distinguished between one kind of mind-reading and another.

I have quoted an article which says that "psychohistory" is a fake science and you have not responded to that.

I have said that your opinions are subjective and showed instances of that and you have not responded to that either, except with more subjective and poorly defined "rules of the game".

There doesn't seem to be much reason to carry this on. 

it's odd that you have said that you understand the difference between religion and science, while you seemingly continually confuse the difference in evidence each demands.

And incidentally what is the evidence for family systems theory, and how is it more "objective" than any other paradigm within it's own context?

That's yet another question you will most likely not answer.

Perhaps this article will help

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

Edited December 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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

It is was not my intention to argue Southerton's position, DNA, or Lamanites. I was merely pointing out to Robert that his quote of Southerton no longer represented what Simon believed due to advances in DNA science. It is hard to fault a scientist for revising his beliefs based on advances in his own field.  I do find something interesting here. 

I grew up in a church whose members were taught by apostles and prophets that native Americans were all descendants. The skin of Indian placement students was noticeably lighter that that of their parents.  To this day, my 85 year old father believes the American Indians are Lamanites. We had Lamanite Polynesian dancers staying in our house when they came over from Hawaii to perform in the U.S.  Regardless of what modern science or even more "nuanced views" of the Book of Mormon tell us, it is evident that when we criticize Simon for "absurd and false" claims we are also criticizing past apostles and prophets who within our own lifetimes were making statements like this:

At one time, I was a yokel just like all the other credulous fools who thought BofM geography was continental (north & south America were the lands northward and southward, with Mesoamerica as the narrow neck of land), and I was unaware that scholars such as John Sorenson had already (1950) decided that this was impossible on a close reading of the text -- which had actual distances described which would allow no more than a couple hundred miles in length at most for all BofM lands.  All of us, including the Brethren needed some reality therapy, but we wouldn't get much of it right away.  Realization took time.

However, Southerton and other scientists had no excuse for their ridiculous errors.  By the time he and others were speaking publicly about genetics and the BofM, the limited geography approach was a matter of scientific consensus.  Indeed, even the Brethren allowed Sorenson to publish his basic views on the matter in a couple of 1984 issues of the Ensign.  This was long before Southerton and others began making their absurd assumptions.  Scientists should at least be well informed before pontificating.

Quote

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

The way things are going, I suspect there may only be a couple of acres on the coast of Guatemala that may rightly be considered the "Promised Land" that Lehi was promised.

Very funny.  😁  Yet, even if I had been raised to falsely believe that the biblical Israelites encompassed a geography from Anatolia to Nubia, Lebanon to Saudi Arabia (that fantasy being the necessary extent of land in which Israelite history had been played out), I would sooner or later have to face archeological reality.  Jesus himself lived and traveled within that same very small land we sometimes call "Palestine."  Arguing that church leaders could not understand that limited geography doesn't really excuse them.  Some of them came to realize that fact well enough to revise a statement on Lamanites which had been inserted into the introduction to the 1981 edition of the BofM by Elder McConkie.  Somebody got the message.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Yes, of course. Do you not follow my argument that such explanations are ad hoc and fallacious the same as the catalyst theory, at least the version Robin Jenson stated: that JS thought he was translating the Breathing Permit but actually wasn't.

Well, at least you and I agree that the catalyst theory is pretty silly.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I grew up in a church whose members were taught by apostles and prophets that native Americans were all descendants. The skin of Indian placement students was noticeably lighter that that of their parents.  To this day, my 85 year old father believes the American Indians are Lamanites. We had Lamanite Polynesian dancers staying in our house when they came over from Hawaii to perform in the U.S.  Regardless of what modern science or even more "nuanced views" of the Book of Mormon tell us, it is evident that when we criticize Simon for "absurd and false" claims we are also criticizing past apostles and prophets who within our own lifetimes were making statements like this:

I think that some prominent, very vocal, figures pushed a hemispheric model. However one doesn't have to look far to find exceptions. Part of the problem was that the apostles who disagreed often just weren't as vocal and didn't get put into the manuals. So I get why this was a common belief. However it never was the only view and it clearly is a problematic view. Part of the problem was that from the 70's through early 90's most converts faced a "gospel according to McConkie" situation. Which was unfortunate both because Mormon Doctrine> is a problematic tome but also because it was an unfortunate way to avoid searching the scriptures to get an "easy" approach to doctrine and theology. Further it simply didn't well represent the range of thought from the period before. (And arguably, given when Cheesman and Sorenson wrote, even the views of the main period of the late 60's through early 90's)

I recognize you know all this. My point simply is that there's nothing wrong with Orson Pratt or Bruce R. McConkie and others being wrong on some things. Further those promoting this as the only substantial view within the Church are simply wrong. Again particularly given the place of Cheesman and Sorenson not to mention the many articles in the Ensign pushing a limited geographic model over the years. As others have noted Cheesman's filmstrip was heavily used in the 70's and pushed a limited geographic model. Further Sjodah's rather well known and popular commentary saw it as a limited geography.

I think it pure sophistry to simply attack the Church by presupposing this is the only view rather than primarily a view arising from Orson Pratt that others adopted without thinking about it too much and largely popularized by McConkie who wrote the introduction and chapter headings in the scriptures used from the 80's onward. So even in the era you likely are talking about things were far more complex than you suggest. (I grew up in the 70's and 80's and while I heard people pushing the hemisphere model also was aware of the other models)

10 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

I’m not repeating a bad argument; it’s perfectly sound.

 

JS said he translated the papyrus

his translation was not verified

ergo JS only pretended he translated

Umm. I think you need to relook at that argument. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the two premises and thus isn't valid let alone sound. To say "pretended" is to make a claim about his mental intents which simply aren't even asserted by the two premises.

I get why people think the argument is reasonable but then they're making an inductive leap via unstated premises. One has to make explicit those premises, show they're true, and then argue for each inductive leap. It's simply not even a deductive argument. (Soundness is a property only of deductive, not inductive arguments)

To see why the above is neither sound nor valid simply consider the possibility Joseph misspoke. (I'm not saying he did - I'm just making a point about your argument's soundness)

10 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Yes, of course. Do you not follow my argument that such explanations are ad hoc and fallacious the same as the catalyst theory, at least the version Robin Jenson stated: that JS thought he was translating the Breathing Permit but actually wasn't.

I confess I don't see why this is necessarily ad hoc rather than just a different theory explaining the evidence. Especially given what we know of the translation of the Book of Mormon where there was no 1:1 connection between the plates and translation. It was all inferred but the translation (at least in the early period) was purported to be reading text out of the seer stones. So Joseph couldn't have known what page/plate he was translating at any time. While the mechanism of the Book of Abraham work is more mysterious (and yes I'm familiar with the argument the grammar was used to translate a few verses in Abr 2) it seems anything but ad hoc to assume a similar divide between source and production was true there.

Again that's not to say the arguments are themselves persuasive. I'm just here addressing whether it's ad hoc or fallacious. i.e. the claim about why they fail on logical rather than empirical grounds. I think ultimately the issue is one of hermeneutics not logic as you are portraying it. (Again just making a point about the arguments not how persuasive they are)

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

 Quotes that are sill shown on the church's own websites.

See The Lamanites.

First that doesn't say there weren't others in the land, just that those in the Americas and the pacific islands had them as ancestors. That's a much more narrow claim. It may be false (although I actually have no trouble accepting it) but it's not the claim you're asserting it is. Further given that the Lamanites quickly became a political term and given the extent of Mayan trading, it's hard not to see this as at least plausible without buying into the hemisphere model in the least.

Second the fact the Church has old issues of magazines seems beside the point since no one is claiming (I hope) that every article is revelation. Especially when there were articles pushing the opposing view. In 1984 they had a two issue series on the limited geographic model for instance. So by the early 80's the views had already substantially shifted. Nibley was already arguing (often in prominent books like Since Cumorah or in The Improvement Era) for other peoples. So Nibley wrote in 1967:

• Moreover, there were no pure-blooded Lamanites or Nephites after the early period, for Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, and Sam were all promised that their seed would survive mingled with that of their elder brethren (2 Nephi 3:2, 23; 9:53; 10:10, 19—20; 29:13; 3 Nephi 26:8; Mormon 7:1). Since the Nephites were always aware of that mingling, which they could nearly always perceive in the steady flow of Nephite dissenters to one side and Lamanite converts to the other, it is understandable why they do not think of the terms Nephite and Lamanite as indicating race. The Mulekites, who outnumbered the Nephites better than two to one (Mosiah 25:2—4), were a mixed Near Eastern rabble who had brought no written records with them and had never observed the Law of Moses and did not speak Nephite (Omni 1:18); yet after Mosiah became their king, they “were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi” (Mosiah 25:13). From time to time large numbers of people disappear beyond the Book of Mormon frontiers to vanish in the wilderness or on the sea, taking their traditions and even written records with them (Helaman 3:3—13). What shall we call these people—Nephites or Lamanites?

  And just as the Book of Mormon offers no objections whatever to the free movement of whatever tribes and families choose to depart into regions beyond its ken, so it presents no obstacles to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge; for hundreds of years the Nephites shared the continent with the far more numerous Jaredites, of whose existence they were totally unaware.⁴Strictly speaking, the Book of Mormon is the history of a group of sectaries preoccupied with their own religious affairs, who only notice the presence of other groups when such have reason to mingle with them or collide with them. 

Again, I completely understand why people who assumed the hemisphere model made that assumption. However those, like Southerton, who know better are being misleading when they portray that as the only real Mormonism.

To keep this tied to Abraham, I think this same problem often arises there as well. After all we have in Joseph Smith's corpus many examples one may say are catalyst translations. Moses 6-7 or D&C 7 being obvious examples. While I have problems with the catalyst theory relative the Abraham, I think it simply erroneous to dismiss it as ad hoc or radically different from Joseph's productions.

Edited December 29, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It should probably be added that the swelling Nephite/Lamanite populations were likely due, at least in part, to mixture with indigenous peoples. It especially seems that the Lamanites experienced this phenomenon. So even their reported population growth within the limited scope of their region was probably not representative of their unique DNA dispersion. But as Clark noted, this DNA discussion is really neither here nor there.  

Maybe not, and we really don't know the full extent of the Conquista bottleneck -- in which over 90% of all Mesoamericans died of various plagues.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Vance said:

Assumptions are influenced by opinions about the evidence.

Quite frankly, we only know about the fragment of papyrus that is available.  We can only ASSUME the implications about the rest that no longer exists.

You can measure this and that and the other thing all you want.   But you have to assume what it all means to the no longer existent scroll.

And what if you what you assumed was off by a factor of 2?  What real difference would it make?

What if the damage to the fragment was from a second mode effect rather than a first?

So, assume the constraints on the assumptions all you want.  To me, it is all just hot air.

Again, it'd be more helpful if you were at least familiar with the arguments since the arguments are largely tied to the calculation as applied to actual papyri rolls. i.e. it's largely an empirical question. My point is that the assumptions have to be tied to empirical measurements. You're proceeding as if they aren't.

 

 

[CA Steve]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At one time, I was a yokel just like all the other credulous fools who thought BofM geography was continental (north & south America were the lands northward and southward, with Mesoamerica as the narrow neck of land), and I was unaware that scholars such as John Sorenson had already (1950) decided that this was impossible on a close reading of the text -- which had actual distances described which would allow no more than a couple hundred miles in length at most for all BofM lands.  All of us, including the Brethren needed some reality therapy, but we wouldn't get much of it right away.  Realization took time.

However, Southerton and other scientists had no excuse for their ridiculous errors.  By the time he and others were speaking publicly about genetics and the BofM, the limited geography approach was a matter of scientific consensus.  Indeed, even the Brethren allowed Sorenson to publish his basic views on the matter in a couple of 1984 issues of the Ensign.  This was long before Southerton and others began making their absurd assumptions.  Scientists should at least be well informed before pontificating.

We seem to be conflating two aspects here. One is the interpretation of religious claims being made by religious leaders and religious texts, and two, is the science that can, at times, evaluate those claims.

Regarding the religious claims. In 1981, several years before Sorenson published in the Ensign, the church added an introduction to the Book of Mormon which said that the "Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians". This introduction remained in the Book of Mormon until 2006, two years after Simon published "Losing a Lost Tribe." Yes, I realize the introduction is not part of the text of the Book of Mormon but then neither is the Ensign. So criticizing Simon for a ridiculous error that could be taken directly from the Book of Mormon at the time of his publication doesn't really fit what was going on. His error, if there even was one, was to take the text and Brethren at their word at the time of his publication, that is hardly an absurd assumption or a ridiculous error. 

 

Claims to the locations of Book of Mormon lands are not based on having actually found them, but rather are based on fitting the text to known locations both geographically and archeologically. So while some may believe that the scientific consensus favors the limited geography approach, I don't think it has had anymore success actually identifying a known Book of Mormon location or artifact than the Heartland model. I suppose we do need to give some credit to the Heartland advocates, for all their hoop jumping, they, at least, know which direction is North. 😉

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

We seem to be conflating two aspects here. One is the interpretation of religious claims being made by religious leaders and religious texts, and two, is the science that can, at times, evaluate those claims.

It doesn't really matter to me what the traditional religious leaders may have said about a religious text, whether the Bible or the BofM.  In fact, Sorenson had long since put the lie to the notion that LDS leaders had spoken with one voice on BofM geography -- his compilation of leaders' views was amazingly diverse.  What should be most important to scientists is the science, not religious folderol.

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Regarding the religious claims. In 1981, several years before Sorenson published in the Ensign, the church added an introduction to the Book of Mormon which said that the "Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians". This introduction remained in the Book of Mormon until 2006, two years after Simon published "Losing a Lost Tribe." Yes, I realize the introduction is not part of the text of the Book of Mormon but then neither is the Ensign. So criticizing Simon for a ridiculous error that could be taken directly from the Book of Mormon at the time of his publication doesn't really fit what was going on. His error, if there even was one, was to take the text and Brethren at their word at the time of his publication, that is hardly an absurd assumption or a ridiculous error. 

Bruce McConkie was the source of that introductory opinion, which was removed due to being absurd.  For Southerton to have been unaware of the science indicates his lack of respect for science.  That is my reason for terming his assumptions ridiculous and absurd.  He had every opportunity to inform himself.

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Claims to the locations of Book of Mormon lands are not based on having actually found them, but rather are based on fitting the text to known locations both geographically and archeologically. So while some may believe that the scientific consensus favors the limited geography approach, I don't think it has had anymore success actually identifying a known Book of Mormon location or artifact than the Heartland model. I suppose we do need to give some credit to the Heartland advocates, for all their hoop jumping, they, at least, know which direction is North. 😉   

It is not a matter of opinion or belief that the limited geography must be accepted for the BofM.  It is based on a hard and close reading of the actual text.  That is what scholars do  when reading ancient or modern texts:  They actually read them scientifically.  When distances are given in a text in terms of a certain number of days of travel, a scientific analysis requires that they be given serious consideration, and they be used to extrapolate the actual geography.  That is how biblical archeologists often make decisions about biblical geography.  One doesn't have to be religious or a believer in order to make such analyses.

From there one may make further extrapolations, such as asking the obvious question about any known literate, high civilizations in the New World.  There is only one place in the New World in which there have been literate, high civilizations.

It is easy to ignore such questions as irrelevant in view of the automatic assumption by non-scientists that the BofM is just a fairytale anyhow, so why bother to take it seriously in any way?  The problem with that is, we are not free to make scientific statements about a fairytale which is scientifically irrelevant at the outset.  Why make scientific statements at all, if they are not meant to be taken in a scientific context?  Southerton made several logical category mistakes.  That is quite acceptable for non-scientists, but not for a serious scientist (Southerton is a geneticist who heads his own genetics company).

[Vance]

19 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Who knows what really happened?

EXACTLY!!!!

Nobody really knows.    By the way,  you are included in that "nobody".

 

[Vance]

19 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Why are you stuck on a quote as if there is only one way to demonstrate JS claimed to have translated the Book of Breathings?

You (and others) made a misleading claim.  You have no support for that claim, neither do they.  That is why I am stuck on your unsupportable claim.

JS used the word "translate", fine.  The "book of breathings" part is just you critics misrepresenting what is known.  Your speculations are not facts.  Your opinions are not facts.  You can't stick with the facts because you would loose your narrative.

 

Quote

The best explanation for characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts is that they represent the source or translation of the English text next to them.

That is a statement of opinion, nothing more.

Quote

Gee has speculated that the characters were added to either decorate or organize the English paragraphs.

That is his opinion.

Quote

However, it is clear that the characters were not added as afterthoughts.

That is something you can't know.  Ergo, still just your opinion.

Quote

The characters line up with the English text, but the text is divided in the middle of sentences to alien the text with specific characters.

I think you meant align not alien.  Still, just your opinion.

All, signifying nothing.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Vance

[Vance]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, it'd be more helpful if you were at least familiar with the arguments since the arguments are largely tied to the calculation as applied to actual papyri rolls. i.e. it's largely an empirical question. My point is that the assumptions have to be tied to empirical measurements. You're proceeding as if they aren't.

Only some of the assumptions are tied to empirical measurements.  Others are independent of empirical measurements.

The end results are controlled by the assumptions.

 

We can speculate about what is not there all we want.  But with the information currently available to us, we can never know the length of the scroll with any degree of accuracy.

 

What real difference would it make if the scroll was 5 ft. or 50 ft. in length?

[cdowis]

On 12/28/2018 at 6:56 PM, Dan Vogel said:

It happened right after Murphy published his DNA essay. It might be found out there in cyber space somewhere. It's just an example of an ad hoc hypothesis; there are many. They all attempt to escape troubling evidence and preserve the central thesis. They are signs that a theory is in decline.

Scientists are known to suggest ad hoc theories to explain certain anomalies and issues e.g. evolution.  So it is your position that the theory is on the decline, or is it simply serving as a temporary  "place holder" until a better documented explanation can be found.

Methinks your stubbornly held  bias is clouding your judgement.  No pretense of objectivity is evident here but it is understandable based on your world view.

Edited December 30, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

In my video #7, I examine all seven sources Muhlestein uses to establish his long-scroll theory. They all fail. 

I predicted this failure decades ago.  I have pointed out there is another theory which has been  universally ignored until the scholars are forced to look elsewhere with the final failure of the missing papyrus theory. 

Methinks that day is near at hand.

The answer lies in the solution of the paradox:

1. The Book of the Dead is the Book of Abraham.
2. The Book of the Dead is NOT the Book  of Abraham.

Anyway, back under my rock to be ignored.

Edited December 30, 2018 by cdowis

[mikwut]

Hello mfbukowski,

Sorry for the delay in responding, I appreciate your contributions. I think you are deeply wrong in two areas that I would challenge you on. I will try my best to be simple and precise.

You keep quoting Wittgenstein as if he is somehow supporting your position. But, anyone familiar with Wittgenstein would see through that, I will explain. (I am not as up to speed with Rorty).

In Wittgenstein's later writings, he is not arguing or would he take a side in, for example, this very argument about the BoA and how we can know it is true. He would, I am afraid, categorically deny your "God told me" argument as gibberish.  He is attempting to persuade us that we are sick philosophically when we take sides in any philosophical debate such as ontology, essestialism/conventionalism, empiricism/rationalism. If he overlooked this thread for example he would say most of the musing are simply nonsense.

But, he does not argue that words do not ever represent things. A cat does represent a cat. Donald Trump does represent the man Donald Trump. These everyday ordinary benign representations are perfectly correct from our language talking about things, places and such. It is when we try to transcend this benign realm of language and ordinary nouns that we are attempting to be metaphysicians and philosophers and we become ill. Exactly what your doing. You are trying to transcend the ordinary with "God told me". And you further complicate Wittgenstein because  you pretend "God told me" would somehow be within his neighborhood. When in fact it is the opposite. This is because that is representation and you are taking a side philosophically of representationalism (God is a real object that represents the experience you had of him telling you it is true). That is not Wittgenstein.

Dan is the one who is more appropriately in Wittgenstein's neighborhood because he is closer to arguing within the ordinary natural language, that  of the benign and normal everyday experiences we all share.  He is simply taking a reading of the historical record and doing what most would in fact do drawing understanding from our normal everyday understanding.

God may have told you the BoA is true. I couldn't ever know for sure. But it is problematic in the ordinary way we understand things and language. I think most of us understand for example Wordsworth's, "a sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused.."  That kind of general sense is familiar but how that can correspond to specific historical facts aout the BoA for you ignores ordinary understanding.  It is not Wittgenstein. 

mikwut

Edited December 30, 2018 by mikwut

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, mikwut said:

You keep quoting Wittgenstein as if he is somehow supporting your position. But, anyone familiar with Wittgenstein would see through that, I will explain. (I am not as up to speed with Rorty).

In Wittgenstein's later writings, he is not arguing or would he take a side in, for example, this very argument about the BoA and how we can know it is true. He would, I am afraid, categorically deny your "God told me" argument as gibberish.  He is attempting to persuade us that we are sick philosophically when we take sides in any philosophical debate such as ontology, essestialism/conventionalism, empiricism/rationalism. If he overlooked this thread for example he would say most of the musing are simply nonsense.

That's certainly true of the early Wittgenstein.  The later Wittgenstein's views are similar, but different in important ways. In his later works he says that as language religion is simply different from science. The positivist aspect of his early thought saw this as meaningless but in his later thought just saw them as having different criteria for meaning. That is the later Wittgenstein's main way of dealing with the positivist problem was to see verification as one type of language game in science and meaning as life guidance in religion as a different criteria. I think it's this sense that Mark is appealing to and thus why he keeps saying Dan doesn't understand the difference between science and religion. He's using that in the sense Wittgenstein said the same thing.

Now I personally disagree with both Mark and Wittgenstein here. This works, I think, only for the type of liberal religiosity that was common among educated Germans of the first half of the 20th century. But I do think that situates this thought rather well. This quote by Wittgenstein seems appropriate:

• Asking him is not enough. He will probably say he has no proof. But he has what you might call an unshakeable belief. It will show, not by reasoning or by appeal to ordinary ground for belief but rather by regulating for in all his life (Wittgenstein (1972), ‘Lectures on Religious Belief’, 53)

Thus what Mark is appealing to with Wittgenstein is a rejection verificationism of any strong sense. His point about the religion vs. science divide that he thinks people are missing is this desire for verification. Again as a person who thinks verification is key to religious knowledge, I disagree fundamentally with him. However I think you're missing what his argument, particularly with Wittgenstein, is really about. This is also why he calls Wittgenstein pragmatic since this view of religion is fairly similar to William James'.

6 hours ago, mikwut said:

Dan is the one who is more appropriately in Wittgenstein's neighborhood because he is closer to arguing within the ordinary natural language, that  of the benign and normal everyday experiences we all share.  He is simply taking a reading of the historical record and doing what most would in fact do drawing understanding from our normal everyday understanding.

I'm anything but a Wittgenstein expert. So take what I say with a grain of salt. However I think Wittgenstein sees religious language as not being ordinary natural language. Now I'll grant you that the problem with what gets called "fundamentalism" or "literalism" is that it applies everyday talk to religious exegesis. But that's not what Wittgenstein does with religion.

Edited December 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, mikwut said:

I'm anything but a Wittgenstein expert......God may have told you the BoA is true. I couldn't ever know for sure. But it is problematic in the ordinary way we understand things and language

Many years ago I had been asking about the BOA.  As I related else, one night I had a dream giving me a clear indication on the key  on how it would be translated.   took that as an answer to  my efforts -- not a yes or no, but something like "You will find this is  the key, so go figure it out."

It is a beetle, but not a beetle. 
It is the BOA, but NOT the BOA, so figure it out.

Edited December 31, 2018 by cdowis

[edgoble123]

51 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Many years ago I had been asking about the BOA.  As I related else, one night I had a dream giving me a clear indication on the key  on how it would be translated.   took that as an answer to  my efforts -- not a yes or no, but something like "You will find this is  the key, so go figure it out."

It is a beetle, but not a beetle. 
It is the BOA, but NOT the BOA, so figure it out.

I have kind of wrapped up my research on the Book of Abraham, and I think I have kind of summarized my work in this following statement.

This summarizes all of my work, and this is the key of why there is a paradox.  Because the Symbols in Joseph Smith's materials don't match the content, because the symbols themselves are not information containers in the first place.  The fundamental linkage principle between symbol and content is still ancient but different.

https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-fundamental-principles-of-joseph.html

The Fundamental Principles of Joseph Smith's Egyptian
I feel that I am wrapping up my research on this subject, and I wish to leave my blog and paper up for future researchers to profit by, should they choose to take it seriously.  And I want to document a few things as I come to a close in this research, so this will serve as sort of a summary of the most important points.

The fundamental principles of Joseph Smith's Egyptian are these:

(1) The hieroglyphics that Joseph Smith employed in his Egyptian are not containers of information at all.  There is no information in them to translate.  They are decorative artwork chosen to go along with content.  If you can understand this point, you can understand why these symbols do not "translate to" the content.  They merely accompany the content.  They are recycled symbols from other documents.
(2) The information in the content in Joseph Smith's translations does not come from the papyri that he had in his hands.  The source of that content is from non-extant, ancient documents.
(3) The linkages between the content that Joseph Smith produced and the symbols that were chosen and paired with them are ancient Egyptian puns of various types.  In other words, every pair formed by symbol and content in English constitutes a pun of some kind.  These puns can be seen by reverse-engineering the Egyptian meaning of the symbol and comparing that with the English content paired with it, and then the puns become apparent.
(4) Ancient people produced the content, and created the puns that link that content with the symbols Joseph Smith used by assigning each symbol with the text that accompanies it.  The extant evidence that the content is ancient in Joseph Smith's productions are the puns themselves, since the Egyptian originals for the content are not available.

If you can internalize and become very familiar with these fundamental principles, you can begin to understand where I am coming from in every article on my blog.  This is why Anti-Mormons and some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are wrong when they try to say that Joseph Smith attempted to translate the content from the available symbols in his documents.  Because these things form artistic pairs.  The symbols do not contain the content.  The miracle here is that Joseph Smith successfully produced English renderings of ancient content that is not extant in its original Egyptian form.  Whether he did this through visionary or revelatory means doesn't matter much.  So, far from being an evidence of fraud that Joseph Smith could not translate, the pairings between symbols and content actually stand as ancient evidence of the reality of this work, when the ancient puns between them are elucidated.

[PacMan]

On 12/28/2018 at 6:32 PM, Dan Vogel said:

 

JS said he translated the papyrus

his translation was not verified

ergo JS only pretended he translated

I have it on good authority that Dan Vogel is a nice guy. I don’t know him personally, but I have no reason to believe otherwise. 

That said, my difficulty with Vogel’s scholarship is multi-faceted and perfectly evidenced by this little snipet.

First, Vogel has no problem holding Joseph Smith to what Joseph likely said. But he does not analyze what Joseph meant. For example, JS repeatedly referred to “translation.” Read the heading to the Book of Moses.  “An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed...” What does that even mean? It makes no sense unless we understand that JS repeatedly conflated translation and revelation. For all the talk of seer stones and the U&T, what was the actual process for “translating” ancient texts? It’s D&C 8:2 - the translation was revelation to reveal “those parts of my scripture of which has been spoke by the manifestation of my Spirit.”  Note: it does not say “a literal word for word translation from the text to modern English.”  Thus, Vogel makes a terribly (false) assumption that JS’s translation somehow follows our modern understanding of translation.

Second, Vogel then errs that because it’s not verified (whatever that means), it’s “pretend.”  This does not logically flow. A good many things that are not “verified” are not pretend.

Third, “pretend” is a conclusive statement of opinion - not fact. Others, like Abraham Gilieadi, fall into this trap.  Gileadi has some good stuff out there, but his factual insights are conflated with his opinions.  It is one thing to say “Isaiah said ABC” and another to say “so XYZ will soon happen.” At most, Vogel can (attempt) to conclude that JS was incorrect but Vogel doesn’t do that because he’s not interested in debating or proving his pious fraud theory of JS.  Instead, he stays quiet, throws out some statements that look somewhat related, and assume that people will simply accept his nonsense logic because he said so.  Sorry, not happening.

As a final note, people need to stop talking about the long scroll theory in context of the Mansion House. It was the Nauvoo House - a completely separate building that had not been completed at the time of the martyrdom and a perfect place to engage in work away from the household bustle. There is absolutely no basis to conclude that the length of the scrolls did not line up due to the location of the doors in the Mansion House when the original quote is that it all happened in an entirely different building. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by PacMan

[mikwut]

Hello Clark,

I am very familiar with the early and late Wittgenstein. The only real discussion Wittgenstein gives about religion is from the paper you quoted, i.e. his, "Lectures on Religious Belief". But, you have to understand his Lectures on Religious Belief in the context of his Investigations and On Certainty.

When he is discussing Religious beliefs he indeed separates them, as you say, from science but he is also only talking about specific kinds of religious beliefs that are not verifiable. Such as I feel God's presence, I feel the holy spirit, etc... He is not talking about beliefs with a historical back story and evidence like the BoA has. Only beliefs that have no evidence. The BoA has evidence, it is not in the category that Ludwig speaks.

Edited December 31, 2018 by mikwut

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, mikwut said:

Hello Clark,

I am very familiar with the early and late Wittgenstein. The only real discussion Wittgenstein gives about religion is from what you quoted his Lectures on Religious Belief. But you have to understand what he is writing in the context of his Investigations and On Certainty. When he is discussing these beliefs he indeed separates them as you say but he is only talking about specific kinds of beliefs that are not verifiable such as my Wordsworth quote earlier or the still small voice. He is not talking about historical back story beliefs only beliefs that have no evidence. BoA has evidence it is not in the category Ludwig speaks.

I am Mark not Clark.

No the BELIEFS in the Boa are clearly religious beliefs.  The facsimilies give keys to the puzzle of temple symbolism.

Essentially the work is a work of hermeneutics not of translation- from my point of view

I and others in our community find it to be a key for religious belief but not a translation.  Just read the threads currently running for evidence of that.

It is simply paraconsistent logic resulting from dialetheism.

Neither the conclusion that it is a bad translation nor the belief that it is a good key to temple symbolism are trivial notions.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, cdowis said:

Many years ago I had been asking about the BOA.  As I related else, one night I had a dream giving me a clear indication on the key  on how it would be translated.   took that as an answer to  my efforts -- not a yes or no, but something like "You will find this is  the key, so go figure it out."

It is a beetle, but not a beetle. 
It is the BOA, but NOT the BOA, so figure it out.

This is paraconsistent logic and that was a revelation

look it up no time to talk

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mikwut said:

Hello Clark,

I am very familiar with the early and late Wittgenstein. The only real discussion Wittgenstein gives about religion is from the paper you quoted, i.e. his, "Lectures on Religious Belief". But, you have to understand his Lectures on Religious Belief in the context of his Investigations and On Certainty.

When he is discussing Religious beliefs he indeed separates them, as you say, from science but he is also only talking about specific kinds of religious beliefs that are not verifiable. Such as I feel God's presence, I feel the holy spirit, etc... He is not talking about beliefs with a historical back story and evidence like the BoA has. Only beliefs that have no evidence. The BoA has evidence, it is not in the category that Ludwig speaks.

Oh my gosh

"It is in the category"

"It is not in the category"

See above.

Since when are such "categories" objective and observable?  Poof!

[CA Steve]

20 hours ago, PacMan said:

As a final note, people need to stop talking about the long scroll theory in context of the Mansion House. It was the Nauvoo House - a completely separate building that had not been completed at the time of the martyrdom and a perfect place to engage in work away from the household bustle. There is absolutely no basis to conclude that the length of the scrolls did not line up due to the location of the doors in the Mansion House when the original quote is that it all happened in an entirely different building

Not only that, the original quote didn't even mention an unrolled scroll or two rooms. Here is the earlier version of the Hugh Nibley quote:

Quote

As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered "as if it were yesterday" his "Uncle Joseph" down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil.

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by CA Steve

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is paraconsistent logic and that was a revelation

look it up no time to talk

Since you asked, the dream was a monk drawing/painting an illuminati on a manuscript.  I had the understanding that was the key to the translation.

I happened to call Tvedtnes at BYU and he immediately understood the meaning of the dream, based on his own research......... and the rest is history.

I then came up with the paradox to explain the translation, that if someone can resolve the paradox, they will hold the key to the translation process.  And the EAG is that key.  It is enormously ironic that Vogel had stumbled over this.  But was unable to understand what he had found and only supposed he had discredited JS, rather than confirming the process of translation.

But everyone went gaga over the missing scroll theory including Tvedtnes.  I made the prediction that my findings would remain buried until the missing scroll theory collapsed.  Again, Vogel is involved it its demise.

Edited January 1, 2019 by cdowis