Inspired Fiction - Did Joseph Smith Believe He Was Translating Real Records?

[JVW]

I just wanted to pop on and say thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. I can see a lot of hours spent in crafting responses and engaging in discussion and I've learned a ton. It was a really nice ride going through all of the comments and I know it's a lot of effort to participate. So again, thank you all.

(On a side note, this thread reminds me of this video on YT which some of you will hate, and others will get a kick out of.)

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I just wanted to pop on and say thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. I can see a lot of hours spent in crafting responses and engaging in discussion and I've learned a ton. It was a really nice ride going through all of the comments and I know it's a lot of effort to participate. So again, thank you all.

(On a side note, this thread reminds me of this video on YT which some of you will hate, and others will get a kick out of.)

 

Definitely a Time Traveler - Im guessing the Dr. Who type.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/12/2024 at 1:05 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Where did Joseph retrieve the gold with which he made the plates? Are there some good gold veins around Palmyra?

 

It was believed to be "gold" or "golden" which can be taken differently.  The word "brazen" can indicate either gold or brass- or for that matter any yellow metal.  Moses of course made the "Brazen Serpent" to raise in the desert after the Israelites were bitten by "firey serpents", and those who looked upon it were healed.

And supposedly the 'Golden Calf' was of course.... golden!

But where did they get the gold for that?

Sometimes we need to take things symbolically, when questions like that come up.   The answer is we just don't know, and besides, it doesn't matter if we take it literally or symbolically- the important thing is the lesson taught in the story.

We don't know much about the "prodigal son"- not his name or address!     What if the special lamb meat was overcooked?   Maybe the celebration had to be put off because of rain? 

We simply have to stick with the lessons being taught and not so much about the details!

 

Edited July 16 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

Are any of the parables that Jesus spoke not based on real events? Do they need to be, in order to have value? Of course not. 

As for things that are explicitly histories, then it seems reasonable to assume that what the Lord is revealing is something that actually happened, to real people, and the events as described are described accurately. Especially if the story involves persons of known historical provenance, such as Moses or Abraham. 

I know that God reveals things to those who are in his trust. To me have been revealed things, on a couple of occasions, that were shortly to come to pass in my personal life. These came to me in short sentences that were very to the point, in words, though not audibly. So there is no doubt in my mind that God could give entire scriptures to his prophet in whatever format that was usable at the time 

I have learned to trust God through the revelations that God has given me from time to time.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Especially if the story involves persons of known historical provenance, such as Moses or Abraham. 

What do you mean here by “known historical provenance”?

[Stargazer]

On 7/19/2024 at 11:59 AM, Calm said:

What do you mean here by “known historical provenance”?

I might have been stretching a point in attributing "known historical provenance" to Moses and Abraham, since there is no archaeological proof or evidence of their historicity, but from a biblical historical point of view, these are known persons who are presumed to have actually existed, and did the things claimed for them. But there might be a question concerning the existence of the person the Lord called Lazarus in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel according to Luke. Did he actually exist? In the parable, both Lazarus and the Rich Man are pictured after death, where the Rich Man asks God to send Lazarus to his family still in mortality to warn them that they would be punished for real for their sins. It seems that neither this Lazarus nor the Rich Man were real persons, but are made up for the story. When it comes to parable about the woman who, upon missing her silver piece, sets out to search her house thoroughly for the coin, she doesn't seem to be a real person -- maybe she is, but it's not necessary for the teaching. 

Other perhaps doubtful persons mentioned in the Bible might be Job, of Book of Job fame. Was he real? Or just the subject of a very detailed sermon? Given the supernatural events described, such as Satan coming to visit God and God giving Satan power to do anything he wants to Job, short of taking his life, in order to prove to the devil that some will not deny God, no matter the provocation, it seems a bit unlikely that either Job or anyone mentioned in the story actually existed.

[OGHoosier]

On 7/9/2024 at 4:03 PM, the narrator said:

Writing and speaking extemporaneously use different parts of the brain and structure language differently--particularly due to writing leaving the text in place to review and remember and speaking requiring different ways for the brain to retrieve information. For this reason, while it was long thought that parallelisms and chiasmus were utilized to make memorization and recitation easier, there is new research arguing that those instead reflect the ways in which the brain retrieves information. This is based on how our brains are, for many reason, wired to see and experience the world through symmetry, and thus for millennia when humans told their stories, they would do so as the brain was prone to, by recollecting it in a symmetrical pattern that pulled the memory to its climax and then rescinded from it

I'm curious about this. Do you have sources at hand?

[mfbukowski]

On 7/20/2024 at 10:04 AM, Stargazer said:

Other perhaps doubtful persons mentioned in the Bible might be Job, of Book of Job fame. Was he real? Or just the subject of a very detailed sermon?

Which of course is irrelevant to the story and what it teaches, which is the purpose of the story in the first place.

And that makes him as "real" as he needs to be.

Think of all the people who have "existed" who changed the world with their ideas or the story of their ideas.  The importance of their "reality" for humanity is what they did or what they thought that made a difference to the Knowledge Pool which creates "The Culture" which we see as "true".

In what sense did Newton "discover" gravity?   No one ever fell before Newton?

Of course not!  His "reality" exists in the impact he had on culture in finding out ABOUT gravity.   Without that we may have some genealogical info which would be important to his family alone- but what about his effect on humanity?

Would it be relevant to humanity if he actually lived and walked around on this planet or not?

And so with Job and Lazarus!  The only importance they had- and therefore their "reality" in one sense- was the impact of their stories.

Was there a prodigal son?   Of course!  He has been embodied on this planet thousands of time as "real"!

 

 

Edited July 31 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 7/9/2024 at 1:03 PM, the narrator said:

I don't think anything I have said here goes against the BofM possibly being a "translation" of the history of an ancient people--but at any bare minimum, I think such a belief must accept that "translation" be understood as "loosely based on real story."

Based on a story is still based on a story.  It's hard to define, I think, what a "real story" would be, as compared to an "unreal story".

I see the whole issue as irrelevant to the lessons we learn through the BOM.   What works, works.

I find them similar to studying the stories of Krishna in order to learn about the relationship between Father and Son gods, and there IS a lot to learn about transcendence and immanence there.

And of course such stories have been central to a world religion for thousands of years.   It's George Washington and the cherry tree- but we still can learn from it.

What matters is whether or not we accept these stories into our lives as lessons in becoming Godlike.   In that case they become a part of US and WE can be the ones living out their "reality"in our own subjective lives.   Their objectivity becomes totally irrelevant.

I pray that all our folks can learn that and stop arguing about irrelevancies.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Which of course is irrelevant to the story and what it teaches, which is the purpose of the story in the first place.

And that makes him as "real" as he needs to be.

Think of all the people who have "existed" who changed the world with their ideas or the story of their ideas.  The importance of their "reality" for humanity is what they did or what they thought that made a difference to the Knowledge Pool which creates "The Culture" which we see as "true".

In what sense did Newton "discover" gravity?   No one ever fell before Newton?

Of course not!  His "reality" exists in the impact he had on culture in finding out ABOUT gravity.   Without that we may have some genealogical info which would be important to his family alone- but what about his effect on humanity?

Would it be relevant to humanity if he actually lived and walked around on this planet or not?

And so with Job and Lazarus!  The only importance they had- and therefore their "reality" in one sense- was the impact of their stories.

Was there a prodigal son?   Of course!  He has been embodied on this planet thousands of time as "real"!

 

 

You're absolutely correct! 

"And that makes him as "real" as he needs to be."  <- Brilliant statement.

What is important is the teaching of important principles. But strictly speaking, Job may never have existed as a real "real" person. Was the earth created and human beings placed on the earth in six days? Of course not -- unless we're actually living in a very sophisticated Matrix-like simulation, and nothing we see around us actually exists. Which would then put into question Reality itself. But regardless, it's as "real" as it needs to be. By the way, over the years I've tried to follow your arguments with other advanced philosophers on this board, but ended up just more puzzled than before. I'm just not smart enough -- but I'm as smart as I need to be.

However things go, we are presented every day with "reality" and offered choices as to how we deal with it. Will we do wrong, or will we do right? And that is the crux, and the whole point of it all. We're being evaluated for our suitability for eternal life. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're absolutely correct! 

"And that makes him as "real" as he needs to be."  <- Brilliant statement.

What is important is the teaching of important principles. But strictly speaking, Job may never have existed as a real "real" person. Was the earth created and human beings placed on the earth in six days? Of course not -- unless we're actually living in a very sophisticated Matrix-like simulation, and nothing we see around us actually exists. Which would then put into question Reality itself. But regardless, it's as "real" as it needs to be. By the way, over the years I've tried to follow your arguments with other advanced philosophers on this board, but ended up just more puzzled than before. I'm just not smart enough -- but I'm as smart as I need to be.

However things go, we are presented every day with "reality" and offered choices as to how we deal with it. Will we do wrong, or will we do right? And that is the crux, and the whole point of it all. We're being evaluated for our suitability for eternal life. 

Well thanks- 

For me, and in one sense I hate to repeat this - but it is all here in a couple of sentences by Rorty, acknowledged as one of the greatest philosophers in the 20th century- and I would put him in a small herd of "goats"-   ( Greatest of All Time).   It's all right there in a couple of lines- all of philosophy and religion and human knowledge in a couple of lines!!!!   Learn this principle- and it is a life-changer.  Study it out - seriously- and magic happens.   

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

And all alleged "descriptions" are "stories" of our personal experience, some of which become part of the huge Book of Human Stories- the pool of all human "knowledge", and whatever portion of it we have personally absorbed.   Absorbing more of that pool makes one "Educated", but it is still just stories.   Again we get back to Columbus "discovering" America which was occupied already by others- but NOW "America" was in the book of EUROPEAN knowledge!   

It's stories all the way down- and what we perceive of "truth" depends on what stories we have experienced.   Human experience creates "truth" but not everyone has the same experience.

That's THE problem in the religion business we need to "fix"

Newton discovered gravity.

Uh huh.

I had probably fallen a thousand times before I heard his name,- we all did-  but the story was already made up.

Columbus "discovered" America.  Uh huh.

Stories all the way down.

 

Edited July 31 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Newton discovered gravity. Uh huh.

You're misstating it. Or you're repeating what others have misstated.

While some scientists had already established new knowledge of certain principles of gravity (e.g. that dissimilar masses fall at the same rate), Newton was the first (so far as we know) to quantify it so that we could use that knowledge in order to make predictions. He didn't discover gravity, obviously. He discovered the mathematical principles that described it. The principles that he uncovered existed already, but he was the first to usably quantify it for human usage. So far as we know. 

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Columbus "discovered" America.  Uh huh.

To "discover" is to uncover what was previously covered and unseen, or unrealized. This doesn't necessarily mean that nobody previously knew about whatever it was, just that the knowledge in question had previously been "covered" from the view of a person or segment of the population. Other segments might already be fully aware of the "thing" that is discovered (e.g. the inhabitants of America). Columbus discovered America for Western Europeans, who were previously unaware of it. Prior to that, it had become known to a certain segment of Northern Europeans. 

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're misstating it. Or you're repeating what others have misstated.

While some scientists had already established new knowledge of certain principles of gravity (e.g. that dissimilar masses fall at the same rate), Newton was the first (so far as we know) to quantify it so that we could use that knowledge in order to make predictions. He didn't discover gravity, obviously. He discovered the mathematical principles that described it. The principles that he uncovered existed already, but he was the first to usably quantify it for human usage. So far as we know. 

To "discover" is to uncover what was previously covered and unseen, or unrealized. This doesn't necessarily mean that nobody previously knew about whatever it was, just that the knowledge in question had previously been "covered" from the view of a person or segment of the population. Other segments might already be fully aware of the "thing" that is discovered (e.g. the inhabitants of America). Columbus discovered America for Western Europeans, who were previously unaware of it. Prior to that, it had become known to a certain segment of Northern Europeans. 

 

I think you are making Mark’s point for him.  He is just using a broader definition of “story” than you are.

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you are making Mark’s point for him.  He is just using a broader definition of “story” than you are.

LOL! I don't doubt that. He could argue me into knots. 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/31/2024 at 1:14 PM, Calm said:

I think you are making Mark’s point for him.  He is just using a broader definition of “story” than you are.

Thanks! 

There isn't one "fact" of science that did not come out of a human brain and human perceptions of the world AS WE SEE IT. 

The more we think we are studying something "outside" of human perception the more the delusion grows.

That's why I post the Rorty quote below in my "signature" but either folks don't understand it, but no one has ever argued with it.  You can't.

All of human knowledge is a human expression of human perception.   

We humans organized reality as we know it.   And amazingly that is LDS doctrine- God is an exalted human who "went down" where there was matter to be organized, and when he had finished he CALLED it "good".

 

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks! 

There isn't one "fact" of science that did not come out of a human brain and human perceptions of the world AS WE SEE IT. 

The more we think we are studying something "outside" of human perception the more the delusion grows.

That's why I post the Rorty quote below in my "signature" but either folks don't understand it, but no one has ever argued with it.  You can't.

All of human knowledge is a human expression of human perception.   

We humans organized reality as we know it.   And amazingly that is LDS doctrine- God is an exalted human who "went down" where there was matter to be organized, and when he had finished he CALLED it "good".

 

And who was it who "went down" and created all things?

The "WORD"  !!!

All things are created by "THE WORD".

John 1

Quote

 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

That's what it says, right?

Anyone want to discuss it?

[manol]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And who was it who "went down" and created all things?

The "WORD"  !!!

All things are created by "THE WORD".

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That's what it says, right?

Anyone want to discuss it?

I don't have much to offer but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. 

At first glance it looks to me like John chose the word "Word" to indicate Christ, but I don't know why he did so.  And that analysis seems vastly overly simplistic. 

Some of the wording is reminiscent of D&C Section 88 (verses 6-13, 41, and 47-50), which in turn is reminiscent of other passages in John.  But going down this road hasn't helped me figure out why John used the word "Word".

I can't help but wonder whether John had in mind a concept for which we literally do not have words. 

If nothing else, it's a GREAT opening line because of the intriguing cognitive dissonance it invokes.  Kinda like "Jeremiah was a bullfrog! Was a good friend of mine!" 

Edited August 3 by manol

[teddyaware]

51 minutes ago, manol said:

I don't have much to offer but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. 

At first glance it looks to me like John chose the word "Word" to indicate Christ, but I don't know why he did so.  And that analysis seems vastly overly simplistic. 

Some of the wording is reminiscent of D&C Section 88 (verses 6-13, 41, and 47-50), which in turn is reminiscent of other passages in John.  But going down this road hasn't helped me figure out why John used the word "Word".

I can't help but wonder whether John had in mind a concept for which we literally do not have words. 

If nothing else, it's a GREAT opening line because of the intriguing cognitive dissonance it invokes.  Kinda like "Jeremiah was a bullfrog! Was a good friend of mine!" 

The Joseph Smith translation of John 1:1 is rendered as, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Created = organized/built/synthesized using uncreated/pre-existing material.

 

Edited August 3 by ZealouslyStriving

[manol]

35 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Joseph Smith translation of John 1:1 is rendered as, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

Well maybe it is that simple.  

Still hoping for @mfbukowski's perspective. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

I don't have much to offer but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. 

At first glance it looks to me like John chose the word "Word" to indicate Christ, but I don't know why he did so.  And that analysis seems vastly overly simplistic. 

Some of the wording is reminiscent of D&C Section 88 (verses 6-13, 41, and 47-50), which in turn is reminiscent of other passages in John.  But going down this road hasn't helped me figure out why John used the word "Word".

I can't help but wonder whether John had in mind a concept for which we literally do not have words. 

If nothing else, it's a GREAT opening line because of the intriguing cognitive dissonance it invokes.  Kinda like "Jeremiah was a bullfrog! Was a good friend of mine!" 

And no, I am not a scholar in that area- ancient languages- but I certainly am fascinated by that translation of....????

But honestly I look at IDEAS, intended or not, and even "Freudian" slips.   

For me, history is unbelievable, hearsay is unbelievable- every utterance I see or hear is unbelievable until I actually personally experience it and agree with it in my heart, so for me this is how I see it.

A translation by scholars would be helpful, for sure, but all it would be for me is one person's opinion.

I love to read our alleged "prophets" because I have experienced so much of what they speak about.  Frankly I am super-busy on various activities, but if you feel like to study it out, I would like to see what you find out!

Taking it traditionally it can be seen to mean that He creates all through his "word"- he just says it and it happens.  That's fine but it smacks of Ex Nihilo, which is inconsistent with all of our theology of an immanent creation, and without immanence Christ could not become mortal, nor could Father/the Word "go down" and organize matter into a "world"

Quote

 

AI Overview- Google

In the Bible, the phrase "the Word of God" has multiple meanings:

Jesus Christ

In John 1:1-2, the term "Word" is used as a title for Jesus, who is referred to as the "Logos" or "Word" of God. The Greek word logos means "the expression of a thought" or "the rational principle that holds the whole fabric of the universe together". John's purpose in referring to Jesus as the Word is to establish that Jesus is both God and man, and that God chose Jesus as his messenger to reveal himself to humanity.

 

I would pretty much agree the above- "Word"= Logos= the expression of a thought.

Sounds workable to me.

[manol]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But honestly I look at IDEAS, intended or not, and even "Freudian" slips.  

Same here, on my dumbed-down level. 

I really like that the LDS canon includes injunctions to (paraphrasing) "ponder the scriptures" and "liken the scriptures to yourself", which imo is different from (but by no means proscriptive of) "conduct scholarly research on the scriptures".  Any of us can ponder the scriptures and apply them to our own lives because true principle are generally (i.e. not just specifically) applicable. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The Joseph Smith translation of John 1:1 is rendered as, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

So what word was with the Son?   Not sure what that means at all.

So there are three entities there?  Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost as the "Word"?  Possibility I suppose, but the raw concept is still the same as I see it- God's thought or idea occurred- which could also mean simply that His word (Idea- Concept-Plans- Wishes- Faith) became visible through effort- ie: "Going down" because there was matter there.

I hope I don't get struck by lightning here  but let's think of how human intelligence creates "worlds" 

Uh- as  by Walt Disney- -

He had an idea and then "went down" to Anaheim- because there was space and a bunch of orange groves there and a little town.   He bought up all the land and turned into a parking lot , uh, a world no one else ever thought of!  Disney "World" also was created and then many others around the world.

So yes, "The Word"- Logos- was the idea which was physically created by moving matter directed by ideas, into OUR world in which we live.

So saying that "The Word"- the concept- does not mean it was done ex nihilo  at all- as it says in the Bible the whole thing SAYS it took "six days"- some period of time- to bring it all together.

To me, that destroys "Ex Nihilo" right there...... but....

Immanence of the alleged "Father" could not BE a Father IF he was transcendent as often understood.  Saying he was BOTH immanent and transcendent is simply a self-contradiction- nice fun to play with but a view which makes no sense.   He was Orange and Purple at the same time?  It's a senseless proposition.  He existed and did not exist at the same time.

Sorry but for me, that illuminates nothing and is useless to even try to understand

"Yes, it is a Mystery beyond human understanding"-  ok - we don't understand resurrection either- but we don't TRY to even talk about it. 

So for me, that is what it means when it says EVERYTHING was created by the Word of God.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, manol said:

Same here, on my dumbed-down level. 

I really like that the LDS canon includes injunctions to (paraphrasing) "ponder the scriptures" and "liken the scriptures to yourself", which imo is different from (but by no means proscriptive of) "conduct scholarly research on the scriptures".  Any of us can ponder the scriptures and apply them to our own lives because true principle are generally (i.e. not just specifically) applicable. 

EXACTLY!

But that's another discussion--- 

 

[manol]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Taking it traditionally it can be seen to mean that He creates all through his "word"- he just says it and it happens.  That's fine but it smacks of Ex Nihilo, which is inconsistent with all of our theology of an immanent creation, and without immanence Christ could not become mortal, nor could Father/the Word "go down" and organize matter into a "world".

I don't know how it all began.  Immanent creation invites the question, where did the matter used for creation come from to begin with?   At the risk of coming across like a first-grader (and a slow one at that) who presumes to have insights into stochastic calculus...

Matter arises from energy (M=E/C^2 is a re-writing of E= MC^2), and energy arises from vibration (E = HC/L, where H = the Planck constant, L = wavelength, and C is once again the speed of light).  My point being, if you connect the dots, matter is a form of vibrational energy.

The spoken (or sung) Word is also a form of vibrational energy.   

Yes I know, I'm conflating two different worlds.  That won't be the last time it happens in this post.

My "theology" has an open canon which includes near-death experiences, and I've read and/or heard multiple near-death experiencers describe what the material universe is made of at its most fundamental sub-atomic level:  They say matter is made of the vibrational energy of love. 

Of course I have no idea how the "vibrational energy of love" is transmuted from the non-physical world into the physical world, into tiny subatomic bits of matter, but maybe there is a mechanism we don't yet know about.  I suppose if one takes the miracle of the loaves and fishes literally, such is not completely out of the question.  (As an aside, note that near-death experiencers consistently report that "there" [what we would call the "non-physical world"] is actually far more real than "here".)

For the sake of discussion, consider this:  If you grow the energy of love in your heart, is there not just a tiny bit more love energy in the universe than there was before?  So... if love energy can be "created", and if (at God's level) that love energy can be transmuted into some form of physical matter, we have a hypothetical first stage in the process of creation which does not require pre-existing matter. 

Imo "organizing" matter into specific physical forms is a different stage of the process, and I think this is the stage Genesis is talking about. 

And, imo there is more of the "vibrational energy of love" in words sung than in words spoken.

IF, at its most fundamental sub-atomic level, matter is the vibrational energy of love that was (or is being) sung into existence by God, then maybe the word "uni-verse" is one of those "Freudian slips" you mentioned. 

I'm pickin' up good vibrations...

Edited August 4 by manol