Book of Abraham – Robin Jensen Discussion

[hope_for_things]

I found this discussion very interesting, and personally I really appreciate the way that Robin Jensen is approaching the BoA and the challenges with reconciling the traditional church narrative against modern scholarship.  I’d like to know what others think about this approach as well, and I’d like to focus this thread onto a specific line of reasoning that Jensen employs.  

Dr. Jensen gives a hypothetical example where he says we should consider parents who have a child struggling with a long-term health issue.  The parents pray and study the issue out to try and determine the best course of action for their child.  The parents are inspired to call a specialist who treats the child and their child is healed.  They credit the recovery of their child to following this inspiration.  Three years later they find out that the doctor who prescribed the treatment was a quack and that the methods this doctor employed weren’t based on science, that the information they researched in books or online was also outdated and based on faulty logic, in addition they discovered that the doctor who treated their child had been stripped of his/her license.  

Then Dr. Jensen asks the question, does this discovery invalidate the “revelation” that these parents received?  Dr. Jensen says No, that this doesn’t invalidate the revelation the parents received.  I’d like to know what others think of this logic and how it applies to the BoA.  Here are a few thoughts I had on this line of reasoning to kick things off.  

1.    If we make decisions based on specific information, and then later find out that the information was erroneous, we ought to re-evaluate our perspective and the conclusions we drew especially when they were founded on flawed information in the first place.  In Dr. Jensen’s example, if their child started to have those old health problems again, should they take their child back to the now discredited doctor who’s been stripped of their license?  What if the parents pray about it again, and in spite of the knowledge they have about the doctor being discredited, they still feel inspired that God wants them to use the same doctor as last time.  Or should the parents make a new decision based on more accurate information?  

2.    Based on other comments from Dr. Jensen about Joseph Smith, he takes the position that Joseph sincerely believed that he was actually translating Egyptian.  The position of Joseph’s sincerity seems to be why Dr. Jensen considers Joseph a prophet.  Dr. Jensen stated that Joseph’s position as prophet cannot be validated or invalidated through scholarly means.  I find this interesting as it relates to revelation.  This seems to be a position that revelation is completely subjective, meaning it has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims that a person makes, if you believe that person is inspired by God, the veracity of the claims that person makes seem to be of zero consequence.  Like in the doctor example, it doesn’t matter that the treatment was completely flawed and had nothing to do with the recovery of the child in any scientific sense, the parents “revelation” that they should take their child to that doctor is still valid. 

Lastly, I’d like to ask that the participants in this thread stay narrowly focused on the ideas Dr. Jensen discussed in the linked recording.  Please try not to side track into a critique about other BoA apologetics.  Those things have been discussed many times before.  I find Dr. Jensen’s ideas on this topic to be somewhat unique and I’d like to discuss these ideas rather than sidetrack or rehash other arguments.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2020/01/dialogue-podcast-46-w-robin-scott-jensen/

Edited January 15, 2020 by hope_for_things

[stemelbow]

1.  I don't see the meaning of revelation here.  All I see is the possibility of whatever sickness was had to be healed whether by dr interference or not.  It's a silly hypothetical.  He's claiming revelation can just be anything we want if we want something and if it works, great.  But what if it doesn't work?  

2.  I don't know.  I think the BoA is kind of lame and doesn't really add much meaning to a person's life or to the Church itself.  If its revelation or can be considered such in any sense, it amounts to God just toying around with Joseph's psyche or feeding joseph's personal need to sound prophetic or something.  

I don't understand why he started by saying he hoped this would help people's appreciation for the BoA as scripture when all he really seemed to do is discredit it.  I think that's just me, though.

 

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

1.  I don't see the meaning of revelation here.  All I see is the possibility of whatever sickness was had to be healed whether by dr interference or not.  It's a silly hypothetical.  He's claiming revelation can just be anything we want if we want something and if it works, great.  But what if it doesn't work?  

I think he’s taking the perspective of the parents.  They believe their answer was revelation at first, their child was healed.  Since they later found out about the problems with their logic and the doctor, he’s saying that the earlier position of revelation still stands, independent of later information.  I believe you are correct, that he’s making a case that revelation is anything a person subjectively defines as revelation.  Essentially, its just a description of how you relate to some experience, like how you feel about a piece of art.  If you feel like the art was inspired, then it doesn’t matter what you know about the artist or the method that the artist used to create the art.  Even if the artist blatantly plagiarized the art from another artist.  Your feelings about the art are independent of the information you later learn about the art.  Its an interesting perspective, but somewhat perplexes me at the same time.  

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

2.  I don't know.  I think the BoA is kind of lame and doesn't really add much meaning to a person's life or to the Church itself.  If its revelation or can be considered such in any sense, it amounts to God just toying around with Joseph's psyche or feeding joseph's personal need to sound prophetic or something.  

I find the way Dr. Jensen focuses on the concept of sincerity interesting.  It seems to make a difference to him.  Although, I personally would argue that sincerity for individuals comes in degrees.  I think some fraudsters likely believe in their own deception to some degree, and that is hard if not impossible to measure.  Also, since there is no way to measure the “divine” and the “human” when it comes to what is produced in the BoA, as the divine portion is subjective and purely a position of faith, then this becomes an argument that seems to be based solely on someone’s personal preferences.  Which I will state, that this is fine to do, but then later statements are made about truth without qualifying what is meant by that definition of truth.  It seems clear that from a scholarly perspective, there is nothing "true" about the BoA translation.  

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't understand why he started by saying he hoped this would help people's appreciation for the BoA as scripture when all he really seemed to do is discredit it.  I think that's just me, though.

His perspective is not one that I think the average member would appreciate.  It comes from a very privileged position of years of study and wrestling with these ideas, while also trying to maintain employment with the church and a position of perceived loyalty by the institution.  I do give him credit for the level of honesty and transparency from his perspective.  He pulls no punches and doesn’t use any deflective excuse making apologetics.  I very much appreciate this line of reasoning to the older apologetics. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he’s taking the perspective of the parents.  They believe their answer was revelation at first, their child was healed.  Since they later found out about the problems with their logic and the doctor, he’s saying that the earlier position of revelation still stands, independent of later information.  I believe you are correct, that he’s making a case that revelation is anything a person subjectively defines as revelation.  Essentially, its just a description of how you relate to some experience, like how you feel about a piece of art.  If you feel like the art was inspired, then it doesn’t matter what you know about the artist or the method that the artist used to create the art.  Even if the artist blatantly plagiarized the art from another artist.  Your feelings about the art are independent of the information you later learn about the art.  Its an interesting perspective, but somewhat perplexes me at the same time.  

I find the way Dr. Jensen focuses on the concept of sincerity interesting.  It seems to make a difference to him.  Although, I personally would argue that sincerity for individuals comes in degrees.  I think some fraudsters likely believe in their own deception to some degree, and that is hard if not impossible to measure.  Also, since there is no way to measure the “divine” and the “human” when it comes to what is produced in the BoA, as the divine portion is subjective and purely a position of faith, then this becomes an argument that seems to be based solely on someone’s personal preferences.  Which I will state, that this is fine to do, but then later statements are made about truth without qualifying what is meant by that definition of truth.  It seems clear that from a scholarly perspective, there is nothing "true" about the BoA translation.  

His perspective is not one that I think the average member would appreciate.  It comes from a very privileged position of years of study and wrestling with these ideas, while also trying to maintain employment with the church and a position of perceived loyalty by the institution.  I do give him credit for the level of honesty and transparency from his perspective.  He pulls no punches and doesn’t use any deflective excuse making apologetics.  I very much appreciate this line of reasoning to the older apologetics. 

wowee...this thread took off, huh?  Just kidding.  I like it.  I'm glad you pointed me to this.  I remember hearing about this event, but forgot about it not realizing there'd be recordings.  Looking forward to the others.

I wonder if anyone will make notice that Dr. Jensen and Hauglid worked on the JSPP, as it relates to the BoA and Gee and Muhlstein did not.  Really what contradictory views these guys have.  I find it very encouraging actually.  It means in time there will be more room for members to accept a less literal view of scripture and religion.  

[Calm]

Link didn’t work for me and I am wondering if transcript is available. I have a general rule not to trust paraphrases of people I don’t know much about since I won’t have other context to see if the paraphrase is consistent with their previously expressed ideas. 
 

If there isn’t a transcript, do you have a time stamp for when he uses this analogy?

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

wowee...this thread took off, huh?  Just kidding.  I like it.  I'm glad you pointed me to this.  I remember hearing about this event, but forgot about it not realizing there'd be recordings.  Looking forward to the others.

I wonder if anyone will make notice that Dr. Jensen and Hauglid worked on the JSPP, as it relates to the BoA and Gee and Muhlstein did not.  Really what contradictory views these guys have.  I find it very encouraging actually.  It means in time there will be more room for members to accept a less literal view of scripture and religion.  

I'm glad at least you enjoyed it.  😃  I know there has been some push back from some of the more conservative apologists towards Jensen and Hauglid and that particular edition of the JSP that talks to the BoA.  I'm encouraged by it as well though because I think its a step in a more sustainable direction.  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link didn’t work for me and I am wondering if transcript is available. I have a general rule not to trust paraphrases of people I don’t know much about since I won’t have other context to see if the paraphrase is consistent with their previously expressed ideas. 
 

If there isn’t a transcript, do you have a time stamp for when he uses this analogy?

Hmm..  I'm not sure why the hyperlink didn't work.  Try this one.  Also, I couldn't find a transcript for this on their site, I don't think they typically transcribe these discussions.  If it helps the portion of the recording where he starts to talk about these issues is at about 39 minutes.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2020/01/dialogue-podcast-46-w-robin-scott-jensen/

[Calm]

Both links work now.  Maybe there was an interruption at my end (tech is finicky).

Edited January 15, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Both links work now.  Maybe there was an interruption at my end (tech is finicky).

I noticed the original hyperlink I pasted had changed, so I edited the OP to include the right link, so it wasn't user error or tech to blame this time at least.   

[Calm]

That's reassuring. Thanks...and I plan on listening to as much of the podcast as I can handle this evening, so appreciate the time stamp to ensure I get to that.

[Ahab]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

1.    If we make decisions based on specific information, and then later find out that the information was erroneous, we ought to re-evaluate our perspective and the conclusions we drew especially when they were founded on flawed information in the first place.  In Dr. Jensen’s example, if their child started to have those old health problems again, should they take their child back to the now discredited doctor who’s been stripped of their license?  What if the parents pray about it again, and in spite of the knowledge they have about the doctor being discredited, they still feel inspired that God wants them to use the same doctor as last time.  Or should the parents make a new decision based on more accurate information?  

I think trusting and believing what God tells us is always a good thing, so I think they should follow the same process as before.  Study the issues while praying for guidance and then follow whatever guidance God gives you. What other people think about that isn't important.

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

2.    Based on other comments from Dr. Jensen about Joseph Smith, he takes the position that Joseph sincerely believed that he was actually translating Egyptian.  The position of Joseph’s sincerity seems to be why Dr. Jensen considers Joseph a prophet.  Dr. Jensen stated that Joseph’s position as prophet cannot be validated or invalidated through scholarly means.  I find this interesting as it relates to revelation.  This seems to be a position that revelation is completely subjective, meaning it has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims that a person makes, if you believe that person is inspired by God, the veracity of the claims that person makes seem to be of zero consequence.  Like in the doctor example, it doesn’t matter that the treatment was completely flawed and had nothing to do with the recovery of the child in any scientific sense, the parents “revelation” that they should take their child to that doctor is still valid. 

Once upon a time God told a prophet to tell a man with leprosy to go wash himself in a muddy river and then he would be healed.  So he did, and the man with leprosy did as he was told and was then healed.  All that matters is that it worked.

 

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think trusting and believing what God tells us is always a good thing, so I think they should follow the same process as before.  Study the issues while praying for guidance and then follow whatever guidance God gives you. What other people think about that isn't important.

That’s an interesting perspective, can you elaborate a little more about this?  It sounds like you’re saying you’d ignore the evidence in front of you in favor of a spiritual witness that you interpret as contradicting it?  In the hypothetical example Dr. Jensen gave, the parents had multiple layers of evidence that discredited this doctor and the entire methodology the doctor was using as a sham.  If you had interpreted an answer to prayer as contradicting the other evidence you have, you’re saying you’d act in favor of the spiritual answer.  Do you see any problems with this way of operating if you apply this same method of reasoning to other groups of people who align with different ideologies? 

53 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Once upon a time God told a prophet to tell a man with leprosy to go wash himself in a muddy river and then he would be healed.  So he did, and the man with leprosy did as he was told and was then healed.  All that matters is that it worked.

Ok, but what if the leper wasn’t healed because he/she went and washed in the water, but rather was healed just from the normal course of the disease, and the leper is giving credit to something he/she did, when taking no action would have resulted in the same healing effect.  Wouldn’t this be a case of fallacious thinking if we give credit to something that had no causal influence in reality? 

[Tacenda]

I like the honesty put forth here. Looks like the possibility that Joseph took thoughts from commentary in his day, is there. I see that it is too difficult for scholars like Jensen,  to refute. I appreciate people like him and Don Bradley that want the truth whether faithful of not. I wasn't able to listen fully yet before commenting, but hopefully later. 

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That’s an interesting perspective, can you elaborate a little more about this?  It sounds like you’re saying you’d ignore the evidence in front of you in favor of a spiritual witness that you interpret as contradicting it?

Yes.  I would trust God over anything else.  He can see things that I can't see even if I'm looking real hard and using all of my brain power, as vast as that is.

Quote

In the hypothetical example Dr. Jensen gave, the parents had multiple layers of evidence that discredited this doctor and the entire methodology the doctor was using as a sham.  If you had interpreted an answer to prayer as contradicting the other evidence you have, you’re saying you’d act in favor of the spiritual answer.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.  

Quote

Do you see any problems with this way of operating if you apply this same method of reasoning to other groups of people who align with different ideologies? 

No, aside from the fact that people who think differently wouldn't necessarily agree with me.  I've become accustomed to that, though, and I don't believe there will ever be a time when everybody will agree with everybody else about anything.

Quote

Ok, but what if the leper wasn’t healed because he/she went and washed in the water, but rather was healed just from the normal course of the disease, and the leper is giving credit to something he/she did, when taking no action would have resulted in the same healing effect.  Wouldn’t this be a case of fallacious thinking if we give credit to something that had no causal influence in reality? 

If that were the case, yes.  But since we're playing "What if" games what if God healed the leper simply because the leper did what God told him to do, rather than because the water was muddy or had some type of miraculous healing power in and of itself?

We can play "What if" games as long as you want to but if God tells me to do something and that simply by doing it I will receive some kind of wonderful reward for my obedience, I am just going to do it.  

Being forgiven for all of my sins simply by following Christ and his teachings doesn't make much logical sense to me, either,  but it works!  

Edited January 15, 2020 by Ahab

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That’s an interesting perspective, can you elaborate a little more about this?  It sounds like you’re saying you’d ignore the evidence in front of you in favor of a spiritual witness that you interpret as contradicting it?

Yes.  I would trust God over anything else.  He can see things that I can't see even if I'm looking real hard and using all of my brain power, as vast as that is.

I appreciate your responses, thanks for clarifying.  Just a follow up question on this part.  Couldn't it be your interpretation of the spiritual experience that's in error, rather than your interpretation of the secular (for lack of a better descriptor) evidence?  Why would you by default assume that your interpretation of spiritual experience is generally more reliable than other information you interpret.  

BTW, this is an interesting concept to think about if we consider some of the psychological evidence out there on the subject.  Jonathan Haidt uses an example in his great book The Righteous Mind, where he likens our decision making to that of an elephant and a rider.  The elephant decides where to go, and the rider is essentially just along for the ride and describes what is happening in logical terms to explain what path was taken as if the rider were in control all along, but that in reality the elephant is in control.  The elephant being our emotional decision making or in this case the spiritual experiences we have that cause us to make decisions, which are later being rationalized by our mind to explain why we instinctively chose the things we did in a post hoc rationalization.  I think there is some definite truth to this being a very common way of operating, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it as it doesn't feel like the most rational approach to life.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I like the honesty put forth here. Looks like the possibility that Joseph took thoughts from commentary in his day, is there. I see that it is too difficult for scholars like Jensen,  to refute. I appreciate people like him and Don Bradley that want the truth whether faithful of not. I wasn't able to listen fully yet before commenting, but hopefully later. 

I hope you enjoy it, please check back in after you've listened to add any commentary to the thread.  Thanks

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I appreciate your responses, thanks for clarifying.  Just a follow up question on this part.  Couldn't it be your interpretation of the spiritual experience that's in error, rather than your interpretation of the secular (for lack of a better descriptor) evidence?  Why would you by default assume that your interpretation of spiritual experience is generally more reliable than other information you interpret.  

BTW, this is an interesting concept to think about if we consider some of the psychological evidence out there on the subject.  Jonathan Haidt uses an example in his great book The Righteous Mind, where he likens our decision making to that of an elephant and a rider.  The elephant decides where to go, and the rider is essentially just along for the ride and describes what is happening in logical terms to explain what path was taken as if the rider were in control all along, but that in reality the elephant is in control.  The elephant being our emotional decision making or in this case the spiritual experiences we have that cause us to make decisions, which are later being rationalized by our mind to explain why we instinctively chose the things we did in a post hoc rationalization.  I think there is some definite truth to this being a very common way of operating, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it as it doesn't feel like the most rational approach to life.  

Yes, my interpretation of a spiritual experience could be in error and aside from doing my very best to interpret the spiritual experiences I know about I don't see that there is much I can do to avoid making an error like that.  And even while knowing that, I still don't see anything better than trusting God to guide me, or you trusting God to guide you, while we each try to interpret our own spiritual experiences as well as we can.  Supposedly, and I have done some research on this, our Father in heaven knows and understands more than any of us now does, except maybe Jesus who also might know and understand everything as our Father does now, so better to trust him or them over what we can see and understand which when comparing to them is not so much.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Ahab

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, my interpretation of a spiritual experience could be in error and aside from doing my very best to interpret the spiritual experiences I know about I don't see that there is much I can do to avoid making an error like that.  And even while knowing that, I still don't see anything better than trusting God to guide me, or you trusting God to guide you, while we each try to interpret our own spiritual experiences as well as we can.  Supposedly, and I have done some research on this, our Father in heaven knows and understands more than any of us now does, except maybe Jesus who also might know and understand everything as our Father does now, so better to trust him or them over what we can see and understand which when comparing to them is not so much.

Earlier in life I might have aligned closer to how you operate.  Today, I'm very skeptical of my intuitions (thats a broad category that includes spiritual and emotional decision making).  There is so much evidence out there around motivating reasoning and confirmation bias.  I think our minds are amazing things, but we don't necessarily make the best decisions all the time.  When it comes to anything that science has made significant inroads on, things like our physical health, or the accuracy of history, or the probability of events happening that can be measured and analyzed, I will try to follow the data 99 times out of 100 before I would preference my personal intuition on these kinds of decisions. 

I think spiritual decisions ought to be focused primarily on other categories of decision making that we are less capable of measuring.  Things like what kind craft project you might work on to give to someone you love who is struggling with something.  Or perhaps which girlfriend you're dating that you enjoy spending the most time with and who you might be best compatible with.  But even that decision has some criteria you could evaluate from a data perspective.  Its a struggle for me, because I do recognize that my feelings have a significant impact on my decisions whether I like it or not, but I try to find other evidence outside of my intuitions to help aid me in making a good decision based on data, rather than intuition.  Hope that makes sense.  

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Earlier in life I might have aligned closer to how you operate.  Today, I'm very skeptical of my intuitions (thats a broad category that includes spiritual and emotional decision making).  There is so much evidence out there around motivating reasoning and confirmation bias.  I think our minds are amazing things, but we don't necessarily make the best decisions all the time.  When it comes to anything that science has made significant inroads on, things like our physical health, or the accuracy of history, or the probability of events happening that can be measured and analyzed, I will try to follow the data 99 times out of 100 before I would preference my personal intuition on these kinds of decisions. 

I think spiritual decisions ought to be focused primarily on other categories of decision making that we are less capable of measuring.  Things like what kind craft project you might work on to give to someone you love who is struggling with something.  Or perhaps which girlfriend you're dating that you enjoy spending the most time with and who you might be best compatible with.  But even that decision has some criteria you could evaluate from a data perspective.  Its a struggle for me, because I do recognize that my feelings have a significant impact on my decisions whether I like it or not, but I try to find other evidence outside of my intuitions to help aid me in making a good decision based on data, rather than intuition.  Hope that makes sense.  

Do you actually go out and do polls or look at poll results before making your mind up about what you will choose to do?

When you do come to a decision, do you feel good about the decision you are making?  So good that you would still make the same decision even if 99 out of 100 people decided to change their mind and do something different?

That's the point I shoot for, that level of confidence in my decision that isn't based so much on popular opinion but is instead based on what i feel is the right decision. Based on what God assures me is the right thing to do.  Whether other people agree with me or not.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Do you actually go out and do polls or look at poll results before making your mind up about what you will choose to do?

When you do come to a decision, do you feel good about the decision you are making?  So good that you would still make the same decision even if 99 out of 100 people decided to change their mind and do something different?

That's the point I shoot for, that level of confidence in my decision that isn't based so much on popular opinion but is instead based on what i feel is the right decision. Based on what God assures me is the right thing to do.  Whether other people agree with me or not.

Its not about polls, its about research and data.  On the example Dr. Jensen gave, its not a poll that determined the doctor was a quack, its science.  Its peer reviewed study.  I'm talking about decision making that where there is data and research and information that can be critically reviewed and we can see trends from.  

On the flip side, my question to you would be how can you measure the accuracy of your confidence in what you interpret as God's answers to prayers?  You seemed to acknowledge that interpretations could be incorrect when it comes to spiritual experiences.  There are many religious people who use demonstrably false reasoning because they believe their spiritual convictions are telling them to do this.  I will use the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions or the Christian Scientists and a multitude of medical treatments that they refuse to participate in.  If you have a personal conviction that God is telling you to do something other than the best treatment that scientific medicine has to offer today, I would seriously question that perhaps your interpretation of God's will is in error, rather than the recommended medical treatment.  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not about polls, its about research and data.  On the example Dr. Jensen gave, its not a poll that determined the doctor was a quack, its science.  Its peer reviewed study.  I'm talking about decision making that where there is data and research and information that can be critically reviewed and we can see trends from.  

On the flip side, my question to you would be how can you measure the accuracy of your confidence in what you interpret as God's answers to prayers?  You seemed to acknowledge that interpretations could be incorrect when it comes to spiritual experiences.  There are many religious people who use demonstrably false reasoning because they believe their spiritual convictions are telling them to do this.  I will use the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions or the Christian Scientists and a multitude of medical treatments that they refuse to participate in.  If you have a personal conviction that God is telling you to do something other than the best treatment that scientific medicine has to offer today, I would seriously question that perhaps your interpretation of God's will is in error, rather than the recommended medical treatment.  

It's mainly just an accumulation of personal experience based on years of trial and error.  A long time ago I began with the concept that there was such a thing as a good idea with evil/stupidity being it's opposite and that God represented the good side while Satan represented what was evil/stupid.  I then began to classify my thoughts as either good or evil and when I wasn't sure I would act on a thought and see where it led.  If something good resulted then I considered the idea to be good, and if something bad happened I thought that maybe I should stop doing that as well as overcome the thought that inspired me to want to do it.  That did involve a lot of mistakes but over time I got better and better at discerning between good and evil and I got to know both God and Satan on a very personal level.  

I think that answers your question but if you would like more clarification I'll try to help you as well as I can.

By the way, I believe that any time I open my mind up while trying to receive a good idea I am praying to God, even if I'm not on my knees or with my head bowed. To me prayer is more a state of mind rather than a matter of having my body positioned in any particular way, and I pray pretty much all of the time while I am awake unless for some reason I am distracted by something.

[Tacenda]

After listening, and not having slept good for about 5 days because I'm watching my grandbaby for the week, I gathered that from Jensen's perspective, it doesn't matter that it wasn't really a translation in the translation sense. It was more revelation since what was really on the papyri was Egyptian breathings. And to Jensen, it meant far more than had he translated in the traditional way.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

After listening, and not having slept good for about 5 days because I'm watching my grandbaby for the week, I gathered that from Jensen's perspective, it doesn't matter that it wasn't really a translation in the translation sense. It was more revelation since what was really on the papyri was Egyptian breathings. And to Jensen, it meant far more than had he translated in the traditional way.

Sorry to hear about the sleeping situation, good luck with that, you're doing a great service for your kids I'm sure!  

I agree that his focus is not on the translation.  He also admits there are problems with the catalyst theory in the church essay, but doesn't go into those problems specifically.  I think this all comes down to his hypothetical example, that it doesn't matter whether or not the information you get is accurate or factual, what matters is how you feel about it.  How you feel about it, makes it revelation, even if the accuracy of information is demonstrably false.  This seems to be why he considers Joseph's sincerity to be a key to defining him as a prophet.  If Joseph was sincerely thinking that he was translating Egyptian, it doesn't matter that Joseph was completely wrong in a factual sense, it only matters what Joseph's intentions were.  

This kind of brings us back to debates about the prophet puzzle.  I would argue that you can't judge Joseph as being 100% sincere or 100% insincere, so that binary dichotomy is something I reject from the outset.  People are much more complex than that.  From my perspective on Joseph, he clearly had some sincerity religiously, there are many evidences that support this.  But he also had some elements of deception and justification in his motivations, and I think there are many evidences to support that as well.  People are complicated. 

So what does that tell me about the BoA at the end of the day?  Lets take the worse case scenario and say that Joseph had more bad moral motivations than good when he crafted the BoA.  Lets say he knew with 90% certainty that he was just making it up and that he was attempting to bolster his credentials through duping his followers into believing something that he knew for the most part was a fraud.  Can I get something good from a text that was produced under these circumstances?  At this point, I would say yes.  I can read the text, not as revelation from a divine source, but as a catalyst for personal inspiration in my life.  As a text that I can glean metaphors from that can inspire me to do good in the world and that are resonant with the central gospel message.  In this sense the text of the BoA operates somewhat independently from the motivations of its creator, and that includes the claims made by the dominant traditional views about this text.  BTW, this is how I approach scripture in general these days and I'm finding it an approach that works for me both spiritually and intellectually.   

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

It's mainly just an accumulation of personal experience based on years of trial and error.  A long time ago I began with the concept that there was such a thing as a good idea with evil/stupidity being it's opposite and that God represented the good side while Satan represented what was evil/stupid.  I then began to classify my thoughts as either good or evil and when I wasn't sure I would act on a thought and see where it led.  If something good resulted then I considered the idea to be good, and if something bad happened I thought that maybe I should stop doing that as well as overcome the thought that inspired me to want to do it.  That did involve a lot of mistakes but over time I got better and better at discerning between good and evil and I got to know both God and Satan on a very personal level.  

I think that answers your question but if you would like more clarification I'll try to help you as well as I can.

By the way, I believe that any time I open my mind up while trying to receive a good idea I am praying to God, even if I'm not on my knees or with my head bowed. To me prayer is more a state of mind rather than a matter of having my body positioned in any particular way, and I pray pretty much all of the time while I am awake unless for some reason I am distracted by something.

Thanks for sharing your approach.  I think what you’ve described here is very compatible with a lot of how Mormonism encourages a reliance on the spirit and an attempt to grow more in tune with your spiritual side.  I think this is good in general, but from my perspective it must be married with study and tempered by a humility around your ability to interpret spiritual communication.  We’ve learned a whole lot about fallacies of thinking through psychological studies, including confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.  These biases also apply to sincerely religious people including Mormons.  See an article about a study at the UoU from just a few years ago for some interesting findings around how return missionaries felt spiritually about quotes from what they thought were leaders of the church, but really weren’t.  Also, I would say the spiritual experiences that sincerely believing members had when listening to Paul H. Dunn and his inspirational stories is another example of possible incorrect interpretations about spiritual experiences.  

https://www.upr.org/post/religion-and-brain-what-happens-when-mormons-feel-spirit
 

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing your approach.  I think what you’ve described here is very compatible with a lot of how Mormonism encourages a reliance on the spirit and an attempt to grow more in tune with your spiritual side.  I think this is good in general, but from my perspective it must be married with study and tempered by a humility around your ability to interpret spiritual communication.  We’ve learned a whole lot about fallacies of thinking through psychological studies, including confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.  These biases also apply to sincerely religious people including Mormons.  See an article about a study at the UoU from just a few years ago for some interesting findings around how return missionaries felt spiritually about quotes from what they thought were leaders of the church, but really weren’t.  Also, I would say the spiritual experiences that sincerely believing members had when listening to Paul H. Dunn and his inspirational stories is another example of possible incorrect interpretations about spiritual experiences.  

https://www.upr.org/post/religion-and-brain-what-happens-when-mormons-feel-spirit
 

The purpose of study, for me  is so that I can get some ideas to think about that I might not otherwise think about if left all on my own, and I do study for that purpose, but all the humility anyone needs is to realize their status before God, our Father, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  Those 3 persons are the primary sources all of us need to tap into to get the good ideas they have, which are all of the good ideas about everything, so when anyone else gets a good idea they are somehow getting it from them or someone they have inspired.

When that is understood I think it's a lot easier to avoid getting sucked into the hole of relying on people other than God for some good ideas,.  When studying we should also be praying/communing with God so that God can assure of any truth we see while we are studying, rather than just sucking up whatever someone else says as if they are sharing words of absolute perfect truth and goodness.  Everything should involve prayer, including any studying or research we do to try to  learn about something, otherwise when we're studying we're just absorbing the thoughts of some people like us who might be right or might be wrong or who might have a mix of both truth and error in their message.  Still good to get ideas from people like us, though, as something to think about and ponder while praying to God for guidance.  I've learned a lot from God while reading thoughts from people on this website as well as from people who speak in our General Conference addresses, and other people on this planet, too.  But I give all of the credit to God because he is the one I rely on to help me know what is true and good and separate fact from fiction.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ahab