hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 22 minutes ago, Ahab said: 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. I like that you seem to have a strong center with respect to your willingness to have independent thoughts that might disagree with authority figures at times, and also that you’re taking ownership for determining truth at a personal level, rather than outsourcing this. This is great and I think a very valuable insight that somewhat runs counter to the dominant cultural in our church and a default deference to authority. One thing that I don’t think you’ve answered well to my satisfaction, that also ties back to the OP here on Dr. Jensen’s approach to the BoA, is this idea that your interpretation of revelation from God which might be in error. You seemed to acknowledge this earlier in the thread that its possible you’re interpreting God incorrectly at times. Dr. Jensen doesn’t directly address this in his hypothetical about the parents who felt inspired to send their kid to a doctor who they later discovered was a sham doctor. Dr. Jensen essentially says that the original inspiration/revelation is still valid, even though the doctor and the practices of the doctor were debunked. I have this question for you, how do you know whether your interpretation of God is correct? If you acknowledge that it might be in error from time to time, you seem to also have a very strong level of confidence in your ability to interpret God’s will, increasingly so as you described yourself as getting better at this over time. If something turns out for the best (like in Dr. Jensen’s example) and your child is healed, won’t you incorrectly attribute this result to your interpretation that this was God’s will that you send you kid to that doctor? In hindsight it appears that it was an incorrect interpretation of God’s will, unless you believe God deliberately intended to inspire you to send your kid to a quack doctor. To me, this brings us back to the original interpretation of God’s will, and tells me that its our interpretation of God’s will that’s in error with respect to this hypothetical. So the original revelation isn’t valid still, like Dr. Jensen asserts, how can it still be valid? Its my interpretation that God wanted me to take my kid to a sham doctor that is in error. Otherwise this is a model for a God that intentionally inspires us to do detrimental things, and I have a hard time making sense of that.
Ahab Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I like that you seem to have a strong center with respect to your willingness to have independent thoughts that might disagree with authority figures at times, and also that you’re taking ownership for determining truth at a personal level, rather than outsourcing this. This is great and I think a very valuable insight that somewhat runs counter to the dominant cultural in our church and a default deference to authority. One thing that I don’t think you’ve answered well to my satisfaction, that also ties back to the OP here on Dr. Jensen’s approach to the BoA, is this idea that your interpretation of revelation from God which might be in error. You seemed to acknowledge this earlier in the thread that its possible you’re interpreting God incorrectly at times. Dr. Jensen doesn’t directly address this in his hypothetical about the parents who felt inspired to send their kid to a doctor who they later discovered was a sham doctor. Dr. Jensen essentially says that the original inspiration/revelation is still valid, even though the doctor and the practices of the doctor were debunked. I have this question for you, how do you know whether your interpretation of God is correct? By how strongly I feel God's assurance that I am understanding him correctly. That feeling of assurance is what I seek, and sometimes it is stronger than at some other times when I don't feel his assurance as much. But it's still what I seek and how I determine if I am understanding him correctly. 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If you acknowledge that it might be in error from time to time, you seem to also have a very strong level of confidence in your ability to interpret God’s will, increasingly so as you described yourself as getting better at this over time. If something turns out for the best (like in Dr. Jensen’s example) and your child is healed, won’t you incorrectly attribute this result to your interpretation that this was God’s will that you send you kid to that doctor? In hindsight it appears that it was an incorrect interpretation of God’s will, unless you believe God deliberately intended to inspire you to send your kid to a quack doctor. This is a hypothetical situation so we could say pretty much anything at this point. It could be that God wanted me to go to that doctor and that because I was obedient he cured my child. Doctors aren't the only ones who can heal people. Maybe the "quack" doctor simply used the power of the priesthood, as someone who had that power. Or maybe later I got more clarification from God and I realized that I had misunderstood him. Not doctor Peirce, but doctor Peerce... and God just healed my child anyway because he saw that I misunderstood him and was still trying to do what he wanted me to do. 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: To me, this brings us back to the original interpretation of God’s will, and tells me that its our interpretation of God’s will that’s in error with respect to this hypothetical. So the original revelation isn’t valid still, like Dr. Jensen asserts, how can it still be valid? Its my interpretation that God wanted me to take my kid to a sham doctor that is in error. Otherwise this is a model for a God that intentionally inspires us to do detrimental things, and I have a hard time making sense of that. While trying to make sense of that, I suggest that you commune with God to try to find out what he thinks. He can help you t think of things that you may not have even thought of yet, and he can assure you when you somehow get the right idea.
hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 23 minutes ago, Ahab said: By how strongly I feel God's assurance that I am understanding him correctly. That feeling of assurance is what I seek, and sometimes it is stronger than at some other times when I don't feel his assurance as much. But it's still what I seek and how I determine if I am understanding him correctly. This is a hypothetical situation so we could say pretty much anything at this point. It could be that God wanted me to go to that doctor and that because I was obedient he cured my child. Doctors aren't the only ones who can heal people. Maybe the "quack" doctor simply used the power of the priesthood, as someone who had that power. Or maybe later I got more clarification from God and I realized that I had misunderstood him. Not doctor Peirce, but doctor Peerce... and God just healed my child anyway because he saw that I misunderstood him and was still trying to do what he wanted me to do. While trying to make sense of that, I suggest that you commune with God to try to find out what he thinks. He can help you t think of things that you may not have even thought of yet, and he can assure you when you somehow get the right idea. Thanks for the answers, I think you've given me enough to understand your perspective. I'd be worried that my judgement about how I interpret God's will is erroneous, and that no matter how strong or assured I feel, that I still am interpreting incorrectly. From my perspective, this is a huge part of the mortal journey, the idea that we have to make decisions even without a clear answer from God, that we have to take a leap of faith, recognizing in hindsight that we often make mistakes, and that our confidence in a given moment does not necessarily reflect an accurate interpretation of the will of God. Even the best intentions and strongest intuitions are frequently proven to be wrong in the re-evaluation of greater light and knowledge we receive as we continue to seek to understand and grow. I can personally tell you that as I've evaluated the past in my life I definitely see a lot of mistakes made because of my overconfidence, and this has caused me to be even more humble in my assertions about what I know and how confident I am about a particular perspective that I hold. The more I've learned, the less certain I have become, and from my vantage point this is a good thing.
Ahab Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the answers, I think you've given me enough to understand your perspective. I'd be worried that my judgement about how I interpret God's will is erroneous, and that no matter how strong or assured I feel, that I still am interpreting incorrectly. From my perspective, this is a huge part of the mortal journey, the idea that we have to make decisions even without a clear answer from God, that we have to take a leap of faith, recognizing in hindsight that we often make mistakes, and that our confidence in a given moment does not necessarily reflect an accurate interpretation of the will of God. Even the best intentions and strongest intuitions are frequently proven to be wrong in the re-evaluation of greater light and knowledge we receive as we continue to seek to understand and grow. I can personally tell you that as I've evaluated the past in my life I definitely see a lot of mistakes made because of my overconfidence, and this has caused me to be even more humble in my assertions about what I know and how confident I am about a particular perspective that I hold. The more I've learned, the less certain I have become, and from my vantage point this is a good thing. I think were pretty much opposites in this regard. Maybe because I don't see mistakes as bad things but instead things that help me to learn and grow while developing new talents and abilities. I'm actually learning to communicate with God here! to get his thoughts and to feel his influence. His love, as well as his intelligence. And it feels awesome to me! Someone, I don't remember who, said something about... as I started writing this I got more info through inspiration from God... Thomas Edison said something about, after being asked how he felt after about 1000 failures... now from Google after being inspired to look there... When a reporter asked (him), "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps." "Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy." To actually be able to communicate with God is a marvelous thing, and even if it takes more than 1000 steps to get it totally perfect without any mistakes, it is totally worth it. Imagine how wonderful it would be if you could do it, and then work at it to make it happen. I still feel humbled when I consider how wonderful and glorious God is but that doesn't keep me from wanting to communicate with him. In fact it has the opposite result.
hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Ahab said: I think were pretty much opposites in this regard. Maybe because I don't see mistakes as bad things but instead things that help me to learn and grow while developing new talents and abilities. I'm actually learning to communicate with God here! to get his thoughts and to feel his influence. His love, as well as his intelligence. And it feels awesome to me! Someone, I don't remember who, said something about... as I started writing this I got more info through inspiration from God... Thomas Edison said something about, after being asked how he felt after about 1000 failures... now from Google after being inspired to look there... When a reporter asked (him), "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps." "Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy." To actually be able to communicate with God is a marvelous thing, and even if it takes more than 1000 steps to get it totally perfect without any mistakes, it is totally worth it. Imagine how wonderful it would be if you could do it, and then work at it to make it happen. I still feel humbled when I consider how wonderful and glorious God is but that doesn't keep me from wanting to communicate with him. In fact it has the opposite result. I think we agree about mistakes being a good thing and a learning opportunity. I definitely feel that way as well. But perhaps its more about how we characterize that learning. If I falsely attribute causality to God (think back to the Dr. Jensen example with the quack doctor), when it was really just a coincidence, that doesn't help me to better interpret God. If it takes 1000 steps to reach a desired outcome, one thing I would learn in that process is just how humble I need to be about my ability to get something right in any given attempt. I've got a .001% batting average, thats pretty bad, so why would I think that for any particular "at bat" that I'm going to make a swing with God helping my form. I applaud your desire to get better at understanding the will of God, I have that same desire, even though I describe the journey and my abilities along the way quite differently. Best to you.
Ahab Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think we agree about mistakes being a good thing and a learning opportunity. I definitely feel that way as well. But perhaps its more about how we characterize that learning. If I falsely attribute causality to God (think back to the Dr. Jensen example with the quack doctor), when it was really just a coincidence, that doesn't help me to better interpret God. If it takes 1000 steps to reach a desired outcome, one thing I would learn in that process is just how humble I need to be about my ability to get something right in any given attempt. I've got a .001% batting average, thats pretty bad, so why would I think that for any particular "at bat" that I'm going to make a swing with God helping my form. I applaud your desire to get better at understanding the will of God, I have that same desire, even though I describe the journey and my abilities along the way quite differently. Best to you. As I said when we first started talking about this, I attribute all good things to God and all bad/evil/stupid things to Satan. So when I do something good or get a good idea, I am being more like God than Satan, and when I do something bad or get a bad/evil/stupid idea, I am being more like Satan. So if you find out through some experience that what you did wasn't good, or wasn't right or was something stupid to do, then you have just learned that was something you could attribute to Satan, rather than God, which actually does help you to get to know God better. It's either one or the other, and learning about one helps you to learn about the opposite, too. Edited January 16, 2020 by Ahab 1
hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: As I said when we first started talking about this, I attribute all good things to God and all bad/evil/stupid things to Satan. So when I do something good or get a good idea, I am being more like God than Satan, and when I do something bad or get a bad/evil/stupid idea, I am being more like Satan. So if you find out through some experience that what you did wasn't good, or wasn't right or was something stupid to do, then you have just learned that was something you could attribute to Satan, rather than God, which actually does help you to get to know God better. It's either one or the other, and learning about one helps you to learn about the opposite, too. Yes, but the only way to measure the effectiveness of this method is to methodically track your progress over time. If you logged all your spiritual experience interpretations over time, and then evaluated the efficacy of your decisions over time, you'd could trace your effective rate and see if you're method is actually improving in accuracy over time. You could also compare it to placebo, or consider other contributing factors in the process. The problem with our subjective sense of how we perform from an accuracy perspective is that we typically overestimate our abilities. See the Dunning Kruger effect as an example of someone thinking they are good at something in a small sample size, but really being quite poor at that very thing. And the odd thing about psychological phenomenons like this, is that often when someone is presented with evidence to the contrary, they are more likely to continue to believe their fallacious way of thinking. Not saying you're guilty of any of this, but that its helpful to think about the regular mistakes humans make with thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Ahab Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, but the only way to measure the effectiveness of this method is to methodically track your progress over time. If you logged all your spiritual experience interpretations over time, and then evaluated the efficacy of your decisions over time, you'd could trace your effective rate and see if you're method is actually improving in accuracy over time. You could also compare it to placebo, or consider other contributing factors in the process. The problem with our subjective sense of how we perform from an accuracy perspective is that we typically overestimate our abilities. See the Dunning Kruger effect as an example of someone thinking they are good at something in a small sample size, but really being quite poor at that very thing. And the odd thing about psychological phenomenons like this, is that often when someone is presented with evidence to the contrary, they are more likely to continue to believe their fallacious way of thinking. Not saying you're guilty of any of this, but that its helpful to think about the regular mistakes humans make with thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect It's still better to put our trust in God and try to learn from him rather than placing someone else in that primary role. I by myself am not enough to make me perfect and other fallible people can't make me perfect, either. So this is the program. The best we can do. Someone said, I don't remember who... okay now I remember who... the just will live by faith. I can see why he said that. Faith from God as we do our best to learn from him and learn about him, even if we mess up a lot and learn a lot from his archnemesis opponent..
The Nehor Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: 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. Is he arguing that Joseph's perception of how the translation process worked are unimportant or that the veracity of the finished text is irrelevant because those are two very different hypotheticals to deal with.
hope_for_things Posted January 17, 2020 Author Posted January 17, 2020 15 hours ago, Ahab said: It's still better to put our trust in God and try to learn from him rather than placing someone else in that primary role. I by myself am not enough to make me perfect and other fallible people can't make me perfect, either. So this is the program. The best we can do. Someone said, I don't remember who... okay now I remember who... the just will live by faith. I can see why he said that. Faith from God as we do our best to learn from him and learn about him, even if we mess up a lot and learn a lot from his archnemesis opponent.. You aren't putting your trust in God directly, and I would argue that this isn't even possible and if it were possible it would actually contradict the point of the gospel. Instead you are putting your trust in your interpretation of God. That is the point where the human frailty and erroneous thinking problems comes in. Sure, if you could directly tap into a divine source that sounds wonderful, but its not possible. We always see through a glass darkly.
hope_for_things Posted January 17, 2020 Author Posted January 17, 2020 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: Is he arguing that Joseph's perception of how the translation process worked are unimportant or that the veracity of the finished text is irrelevant because those are two very different hypotheticals to deal with. From what I head, Dr. Jensen does seem concerned about Joseph's perception of the translation process, at least when it concerns sincerity. He said he believes Joseph sincerely thought he was translating Egyptian. That also connects with the way he considers Joseph is a prophet. I would love to dig deeper on these items with Dr. Jensen, as he sounds like a very thoughtful person who has considered these things at great length. As for the veracity of the finished text, I suspect you mean veracity in a historicity sense, but if not please clarify. Dr. Jensen sounds totally fine with the idea that actual text has nothing to do with Abraham and that a scholarly translation of the text is not at all connected to Joseph's rendering. At the same time, he said that the text contains gospel truths. So I think from his perspective, the gospel truths portion of the produced text truths independent of any historicity. He doesn't subscribe directly to the catalyst theory, and he even mentioned that it has problems, but he didn't elaborate on what those problems are. Hope that helps, let me know your thoughts. Thanks
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 I want to ask a question to those who have followed this thread. Why would the paradigm of Jensen and Hauglid (Joseph Smith not translating correctly) be attractive to Latter-Day Saints when they have a better alternative: Ancient Dynamic Representationalism. I don't even need to tout my own theory for this. I will tout the theory of others. I bring to your attention the work done by William Schryver. Schryver promoted the idea of people in the modern era creating a modern substitution cipher out of ancient characters. Why does it need to be a modern cipher? Why not an ancient one? This is an example of a Substitution cipher key created by Egyptologists for the ancient substitution cipher used in the tomb of Khnumhotep II, from somewhere around 1900 BC. https://weekly-geekly.github.io/articles/321338/index.html http://www.hta-inc.com/Download/APreHistoryofCryptography.pdf Instead of an modern substitution cipher as envisioned by Schryver, Joseph Smith's work probably represents an ancient substitution cipher employing the Hor Papyrus that he has transmitted to the modern day, and the KEP/EAG represents a reconstruction of an ancient key for that substitution cipher by revelation. There isn't a shred of difference between this concept and the concept of iconotropy as promoted by Hamblin, and the concept of Semitic Adaptation promoted by Kevin Barney. Substitution is the core concept in all of these, and iconotropy/Semitic adaptation essentially creates a substitution mechanism. Why is it that Jensen's and Hauglid's paradigm has become popular, when there are much better explanations. Just look to William Schryver's explanation, but put an ancient twist on it. I don't get it. Why not give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that he was transmitting something ancient? Please answer the question. Why would anyone prefer Jensen's and Hamblin's explanation over this idea when it is a much better alternative?
hope_for_things Posted January 17, 2020 Author Posted January 17, 2020 23 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: I want to ask a question to those who have followed this thread. Why would the paradigm of Jensen and Hauglid (Joseph Smith not translating correctly) be attractive to Latter-Day Saints when they have a better alternative: Ancient Dynamic Representationalism. I don't even need to tout my own theory for this. I will tout the theory of others. I bring to your attention the work done by William Schryver. Schryver promoted the idea of people in the modern era creating a modern substitution cipher out of ancient characters. Why does it need to be a modern cipher? Why not an ancient one? This is an example of a Substitution cipher key created by Egyptologists for the ancient substitution cipher used in the tomb of Khnumhotep II, from somewhere around 1900 BC. https://weekly-geekly.github.io/articles/321338/index.html http://www.hta-inc.com/Download/APreHistoryofCryptography.pdf Instead of an modern substitution cipher as envisioned by Schryver, Joseph Smith's work probably represents an ancient substitution cipher employing the Hor Papyrus that he has transmitted to the modern day, and the KEP/EAG represents a reconstruction of an ancient key for that substitution cipher by revelation. There isn't a shred of difference between this concept and the concept of iconotropy as promoted by Hamblin, and the concept of Semitic Adaptation promoted by Kevin Barney. Substitution is the core concept in all of these, and iconotropy/Semitic adaptation essentially creates a substitution mechanism. Why is it that Jensen's and Hauglid's paradigm has become popular, when there are much better explanations. Just look to William Schryver's explanation, but put an ancient twist on it. I don't get it. Why not give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that he was transmitting something ancient? Please answer the question. Why would anyone prefer Jensen's and Hamblin's explanation over this idea when it is a much better alternative? Would you mind dumbing this down a little for me? I’m not sure what an ancient cipher vs. a modern cipher even is or how this factors into an explanation for the BoA. I don’t recall encountering these theories before, so a high level summary would be helpful for me. As for the Jensen and Hauglid perspectives, I can tell you why they appeal to me, its because they are more honestly interpreting the evidence in a less heavily biased direction, rather than coming up with some theory to fit an apologetic. The main apologetic arguments seem to want to still hold out some hope that what Joseph was doing with respect to the translation has some correspondence with the Egyptian and with an ancient Abraham. For people like me, I haven’t found any of those apologetics intellectually believable, and neither has anyone outside of a very niche group of Mormon insider apologists. Whether Jensen and Hauglid’s approaches this will play with your average member better than the old school apologetics is yet to be seen. I would argue that the old school apologetics aren’t that well known by your average member anyway. Most members I encounter still believe that Joseph’s translation of Egyptian was accurate, and they don’t even know the evidence doesn’t support this and that the church’s own essay says that both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree on this fact. Most members I talk to don’t know even the basics of what the gospel topics essay addresses.
CA Steve Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, EdGoble234 said: Why would anyone prefer Jensen's and Hamblin's explanation over this idea when it is a much better alternative? Ed, I am not disputing yours, Barney's or Schryver's theories here, just responding to your question. I think you meant Hauglid here, and the answer is because it is simpler to understand. It's been years, but I have listened to Schryver's presentation and read Barney's paper and they are not easier to understand than what Jensen, Hauglid and others are saying. Most members are not going to spend the time to try and wrap their heads around any sort of theory where the text potentially has two meanings, the straight forward one and a hidden one. It is much easier to visualize Joseph studying a text and writing down what he thought it said even if he was wrong about what the original text said. The addition of a hidden second meaning to that text adds a layer of complexity that demands a more in depth explanation and evidence. Jensen and Hauglid's explanation also have the additional advantages of supplying simple explanations for the KEP documents, both the translation manuscripts and the GAEL and eliminates the need to explain how two, one of a kind, never before seen texts (Book of Abraham & Book of Joseph) buried in two separate locations on different mummies, years, if not centuries apart, over two thousand years ago, made their way to Kirtland in 1835. Edited January 17, 2020 by CA Steve
CA Steve Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Most members I encounter still believe that Joseph’s translation of Egyptian was accurate, and they don’t even know the evidence doesn’t support this and that the church’s own essay says that both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree on this fact. Most members I talk to don’t know even the basics of what the gospel topics essay addresses. I would not say "most" but when I heard Dr Jensen present on this, in a group of about 30 people, I would say about a third of them were surprised to hear that the papyri we have does not translate to the Book of Abraham. 1
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Would you mind dumbing this down a little for me? I’m not sure what an ancient cipher vs. a modern cipher even is or how this factors into an explanation for the BoA. I don’t recall encountering these theories before, so a high level summary would be helpful for me. As for the Jensen and Hauglid perspectives, I can tell you why they appeal to me, its because they are more honestly interpreting the evidence in a less heavily biased direction, rather than coming up with some theory to fit an apologetic. The main apologetic arguments seem to want to still hold out some hope that what Joseph was doing with respect to the translation has some correspondence with the Egyptian and with an ancient Abraham. For people like me, I haven’t found any of those apologetics intellectually believable, and neither has anyone outside of a very niche group of Mormon insider apologists. Whether Jensen and Hauglid’s approaches this will play with your average member better than the old school apologetics is yet to be seen. I would argue that the old school apologetics aren’t that well known by your average member anyway. Most members I encounter still believe that Joseph’s translation of Egyptian was accurate, and they don’t even know the evidence doesn’t support this and that the church’s own essay says that both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree on this fact. Most members I talk to don’t know even the basics of what the gospel topics essay addresses. You have a key (a table on a paper), where you assign the name Bob to the symbol of an elephant, because Bob is Republican. Anywhere you use the picture of an elephant in another document, your audience with your substitution key (a paper showing that Elephant = Bob) knows that you mean Bob when you use the picture of an elephant. Without the substitution key, everybody else wonders why you are using the picture of an elephant everywhere in your writings.
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Ed, I am not disputing yours, Barney's or Schryver's theories here, just responding to your question. I think you meant Hauglid here, and the answer is because it is simpler to understand. It's been years, but I have listened to Schryver's presentation and read Barney's paper and they are not easier to understand than what Jensen, Hauglid and others are saying. Most members are not going to spend the time to try and wrap their heads around any sort of theory where the text potentially has two meanings, the straight forward one and a hidden one. It is much easier to visualize Joseph studying a text and writing down what he thought it said even if he was wrong about what the original text said. The addition of a hidden second meaning to that text adds a layer of complexity that demands a more in depth explanation and evidence. Jensen and Hauglid's explanation also have the additional advantages of supplying a simple explanations for the KEP documents, both the translation manuscripts and the GAEL and eliminates the need to explain how two, one of a kind, never before seen texts (Book of Abraham & Book of Joseph) buried in two separate locations on different mummies, years, if not centuries apart, over two thousand years ago made their way to Kirtland in 1835. Ok. To summarize what you are saying, your *personal preference* is a simple possibility, that Joseph Smith couldn't translate. However, Joseph Smith claimed he was producing something ancient. Therefore, honesty demands taking into account the possibility, whether that is your chosen belief or not. That doesn't mean that your personal preference has to change. To address the possibility that you personally do not prefer, however, honesty demands that we address that possibility, despite your personal preference. So that possibility is (1) He produced something that is ancient, and (2) that ancient thing doesn't make sense to the modern reader on the surface, therefore (3) the answer is not straight forward, and (4) the ancient answer must be found in things that are less known.
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Most members are not going to spend the time to try and wrap their heads around any sort of theory where the text potentially has two meanings, the straight forward one and a hidden one. By the way, this is NOT saying the text has two meanings. I am saying something entirely different from that.
Ahab Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: You aren't putting your trust in God directly, and I would argue that this isn't even possible and if it were possible it would actually contradict the point of the gospel. Instead you are putting your trust in your interpretation of God. That is the point where the human frailty and erroneous thinking problems comes in. Sure, if you could directly tap into a divine source that sounds wonderful, but its not possible. We always see through a glass darkly. I interpret what you are saying as if you are saying we don't really experience anything, only our own interpretation of what we say we experience. As if you are saying: 1) I didn't really understand what you just said. I only understand my interpretation of what you just said 2) I can't really get any clarification from you to help me understand an idea you want to share with me. I can only get my own interpretation of an idea you try to share with me. 3) I can't really get to know you, at all, in any way whatsoever. I can only get to know my own interpretation of you and what you try to share with me Hmm. And you know what, you may be right about that. But I can still give you a name and say you are the person I interact with who helps to give me these interpretations that I get from my interaction with you. And I can do that for any and every person I interpret as the person I interact with. Edited January 17, 2020 by Ahab 1
CA Steve Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, EdGoble234 said: Ok. To summarize what you are saying, your *personal preference* is a simple possibility, that Joseph Smith couldn't translate. However, Joseph Smith claimed he was producing something ancient. Therefore, honesty demands taking into account the possibility, whether that is your chosen belief or not. That doesn't mean that your personal preference has to change. To address the possibility that you personally do not prefer, however, honesty demands that we address that possibility, despite your personal preference. So that possibility is (1) He produced something that is ancient, and (2) that ancient thing doesn't make sense to the modern reader on the surface, therefore (3) the answer is not straight forward, and (4) the ancient answer must be found in things that are less known. Ed, You asked why anyone would would prefer Jensen's and others theory over yours or other similar theories like yours. The answer is because it is much easier to understand. That answer has nothing to do with which theory is correct or honesty or preferences, it has to do with how motivated people are to fully understand and compare alternatives. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 17, 2020 Author Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: I would not say "most" but when I heard Dr Jensen present on this, in a group of about 30 people, I would say about a third of them were surprised to hear that the papyri we have does not translate to the Book of Abraham. I'm guessing the audience for that meeting was more informed than your average chapel going member, would that be safe to say?
EdGoble234 Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 12 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Ed, You asked why anyone would would prefer Jensen's and others theory over yours or other similar theories like yours. The answer is because it is much easier to understand. That answer has nothing to do with which theory is correct or honesty or preferences, it has to do with how motivated people are to fully understand and compare alternatives. Fair enough, but people that are not motivated, and who do not believe, are many times motivated to become part of the "great and spacious" to point fingers at those who choose to believe, and are motivated. In other words, they lack charity for those that choose to believe, and find fault with them for suggesting that it is rational to suggest a different possibility than the unbelieving one, and make them the object of scorn because they do not choose the same alternative. Yet, honesty would demand that those that are part of the great and spacious be honest that a choice to believe and be motivated and to have a preference of something that is congruent with belief is also a rational and logical choice, even if it is not the choice preferred by the unbeliever.
T-Shirt Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) Let me see if I can give you an example of the cipher theory, assuming I understand it myself. Let's say that in 2020, a Christian creates the following document intended for a Christian audience. He writes the description of the images above them in English. He uses common images that he borrowed from the internet. The sites he borrowed the images from were random and had nothing to do with Christianity. Now, suppose this document is discovered 4000 years in the future at a time when Christianity has long sense disappeared and English is no longer known or understood. Scholars get together and study the document and correctly translate the words above the images as, "Serpent", "Harlot", "Empty Tomb", "Groom", "Lamb" and "Bride". Now, imagine that a man, like Joseph Smith, comes along and translates the document and produces the following translation: Should this man be declared a fraud and a fool for getting the translation so wrong or is he more right than the scholars? Why or why not? Edited January 17, 2020 by T-Shirt 2
hope_for_things Posted January 17, 2020 Author Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, EdGoble234 said: You have a key (a table on a paper), where you assign the name Bob to the symbol of an elephant, because Bob is Republican. Anywhere you use the picture of an elephant in another document, your audience with your substitution key (a paper showing that Elephant = Bob) knows that you mean Bob when you use the picture of an elephant. Without the substitution key, everybody else wonders why you are using the picture of an elephant everywhere in your writings. Ok, that helps, can you elaborate on how the theories for these keys are being used for the BoA topic? Is there a theory that the key Joseph and team produced to explain the text was somehow correctly explaining the text because there was an ancient key somewhere that we don’t have access to today for scholarly analysis, and that this ancient key aligns with what Joseph was doing in the 19th century? If so, this sounds a bit like the Skousen spiritual translation committee idea to explain early modern English in the BoM. (I know that this idea wasn’t seriously promoted, but it was at least imagined and discussed at some time)
stemelbow Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 I think most members don't care much at all about the BoA issues because the book impacts about zero percent of their life.
Recommended Posts