Biblical Figures' Historicity Confirmed by Extra-Biblical Sources - Do you care?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For met at least, it means that some of the people talked about in the Bible actually existed. So it would help in making the book more valid in some aspects.  But it does not make it divine.

I agree.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But it gives a big one up on the Book of Mormon which has no support that the people or places (other than Jerusalem) existed at all.

Respectfully, I believe there is quite a bit of support for the ancient origins of The Book of Mormon.  And the ramifications of that support are, IMO, weightier as compared to corollary supports for The Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 2, 2024 by smac97

[Mfbnew]

On 11/28/2024 at 1:24 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I had said "One also needs to have an inspired political compact, such as the U.S. Constitution."

The only value to an inspired Constitution is that, as a practical matter, it might mollify the yokels among us who want to create their own "special" understanding of "rights" and "nature."  Note that I bolded "might."  One constantly hopes that most citizens understand and enable that common approach to govt.  Unfortunately, most of them erroneously believe that a U.S. govt "of the people, by the people, and for the people" does not exist, and is perhaps the enemy.  They are unable to take the responsibility for their own self-governance.

This has nothing to do with discovering objective reality, but only with finding a practical modus vivendi which enables us to be a true community.  That is culture.

Meantime, it may well be that Western civilization is over, and that the sword of Damocles is about to drop.  Luckily, I won't be here to see it.  

Well in my book you are too late.

We already live in a different world than Joseph

Well I am hoping that in fact we are on the edge of finding what religious experience is- and describing how God can communicate to us without lowering himself to our "dark mirror" of language- at least so that we can understand what is happening when we receive a revelation-  not necessarily precisely what the revelation is, since the significance and the message itself is for the recipient of the revelation to decipher.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#KnowWhatItLike

The key to the whole thing is "Qualia" - which is the basis for moving beyond scientific objective descriptions to discussing internal, subjective- not objective- events that happen in our lives.

An analogy is usually found by capturing an idea of "what it is like" to have an indescribable experience.

Suppose you want to tell a colorblind person "what it is like" to see the color red.   Verbalize, if you can, the difference between the EXPERIENCE of seeing red, with the experience of seeing yellow.  As a child you were shown a block or some object

Yes we know that the word "red" is the word we use to see- using scientific language- reflected light waves of a certain wavelength into the retina of the eyes, and then being processed by the brain, and we call the EXPERIENCE "seeing red".  Fine.

But what IS the subjective experience of "red"?  Describe how the EXPERIENCE of seeing red is different from the EXPERIENCE of experiencing "Yellow".

It cannot be done.

Not verbally.  It cannot be done.   Period.

Perhaps yellow is more "bright" more "LIKE the sun".   But wait.

One needs to know what the sun is "like"!   It is more "bright" than anything else in the "Sky".  

But what if one has never SEEN the sun, nor what "bright" means?   Is there not a way to describe these concepts scientifically?   After all, science knows EVERYTHING about reality so of course it can describe this feature of human perception- right?   I mean we are just talking about what "red" IS- not anything like building the hydrogen bomb or sending rockets to the moon- quantum mechanics- etc.

SCIENCE cannot tell us what it is like to personally experience the color red??

So if science cannot speak about what it is to personally see red, HOW CAN IT TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT what it is like to hear the "still small voice?"

How can we know God is "real"?  But billions of people believe there is something "more out there" and they feel it "in their heart"!!   How can that possibly be "TRUE?"

And yet when we understand "Qualia" we learn that the subjective is just as "real" as anything "out there".

And all these ideas go back in history to around the same time Joseph Smith had his revelations.

Is it possible that philosophers - who also might have been inspired- began laying the ground for a whole new way of seeing revelation- as various qualia which humans are constructed- as one sees color- much of this started between Hegel and Kant- as you already have noted.  The key to all this for Kant is his "synthetic apriori" which I am not going to go into here.

But is it possible that a "God" or some kind of "Intelligent Universal Force" caused this "coincidence"?

What is it like to see both sides of this question at once?   Uh oh.  Back to the rabbit and the duck.  One with the ability and understanding to see it both ways will tell us that thar ain't no dif-france   🥶  

God sent the philosophers to soften the ground for the landing of Joseph?  The Zeitgeist always keeps on marching, and will run us over if we don't see these changes as what was there for us always.

It's our only way out- the combination of Postmodernism and the affirmation of the notion of Qualia, and some LDS Post-"Mormonism" is the only way our church can be saved, imo.   And President Nelson is right in there digging us out of 200 years of mud.  I hope the Force keeps him going for another hundred years!

Santa Claus ain't real, but the Christmas Spirit as a set of Qualia from some "Force" - for the secularists- could save us from our sinking ship; again- is it the rabbit or the duck.  One can see both at the same time.

If the meaning of scripture is defined by its context, and we now live in an entirely different "context" (Zeitgeist) than Joseph did, we are in trouble.   

Just look at the word "translate" in Webster 1828 to make it clear:

Quote

 

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

Yes, there is our word in meaning #6!.

We live in another world and speak another language.  Same truth, different words, different meanings for everything.   Either we jump on the bus or it will run us over.

I guess some of us are already under the front wheels.

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Well in my book you are too late.

We already live in a different world than Joseph

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

The key to the whole thing is "Qualia" - which is the basis for moving beyond scientific objective descriptions to discussing internal, subjective- not objective- events that happen in our lives.

So, when Joseph says the following, what is the key to understanding it?

“We cannot but think the Lord has a hand in bringing to pass His strange act, and proving the Book of Mormon true in the eyes of all the people. . . . It will be as ever has been, the world will prove Joseph Smith a true prophet by circumstantial evidence, in experiments, as they did Moses and Elijah.”  Times and Seasons, III/22 (Sept 15, 1842):922.

5 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

An analogy is usually found by capturing an idea of "what it is like" to have an indescribable experience.

Suppose you want to tell a colorblind person "what it is like" to see the color red.   Verbalize, if you can, the difference between the EXPERIENCE of seeing red, with the experience of seeing yellow.  As a child you were shown a block or some object

Yes we know that the word "red" is the word we use to see- using scientific language- reflected light waves of a certain wavelength into the retina of the eyes, and then being processed by the brain, and we call the EXPERIENCE "seeing red".  Fine.

But what IS the subjective experience of "red"?  Describe how the EXPERIENCE of seeing red is different from the EXPERIENCE of experiencing "Yellow".

It cannot be done.

Not verbally.  It cannot be done.   Period.

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

SCIENCE cannot tell us what it is like to personally experience the color red??

So if science cannot speak about what it is to personally see red, HOW CAN IT TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT what it is like to hear the "still small voice?"

Science and religion are two very separate modes of thought.  The STEM fields are not liberal arts.

5 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

How can we know God is "real"?  But billions of people believe there is something "more out there" and they feel it "in their heart"!!   How can that possibly be "TRUE?"

And yet when we understand "Qualia" we learn that the subjective is just as "real" as anything "out there".

And all these ideas go back in history to around the same time Joseph Smith had his revelations.

Is it possible that philosophers - who also might have been inspired- began laying the ground for a whole new way of seeing revelation- as various qualia which humans are constructed- as one sees color- much of this started between Hegel and Kant- as you already have noted.  The key to all this for Kant is his "synthetic apriori" which I am not going to go into here.

Nihilism and apriorism don't seem like a valid basis for any sort of meaningful inquiry.

5 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

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

The Zeitgeist always keeps on marching, and will run us over if we don't see these changes as what was there for us always.

It's our only way out- the combination of Postmodernism and the affirmation of the notion of Qualia, and some LDS Post-"Mormonism" is the only way our church can be saved, imo.   And President Nelson is right in there digging us out of 200 years of mud.  I hope the Force keeps him going for another hundred years!

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

If the meaning of scripture is defined by its context, and we now live in an entirely different "context" (Zeitgeist) than Joseph did, we are in trouble.   

Just look at the word "translate" in Webster 1828 to make it clear:

Quote

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

 

Yes, there is our word in meaning #6!.

I don't think so, Mark, mostly because the idea of "transfer" works best for what Joseph did in reading an already extant text to his scribes.  The overwhelming presence of Early Modern English makes that the best explanation -- even though it neglects to tell us who did the English translation of the BofM over 200 years before Joseph saw it.

5 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

We live in another world and speak another language.  Same truth, different words, different meanings for everything.   Either we jump on the bus or it will run us over.

I guess some of us are already under the front wheels.

Yes, even Joseph did not think that the EModE BofM was optimum, and sought in the 2nd and 3rd editions to "correct" the "bad grammar."

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, when Joseph says the following, what is the key to understanding it?

“We cannot but think the Lord has a hand in bringing to pass His strange act, and proving the Book of Mormon true in the eyes of all the people. . . . It will be as ever has been, the world will prove Joseph Smith a true prophet by circumstantial evidence, in experiments, as they did Moses and Elijah.”  Times and Seasons, III/22 (Sept 15, 1842):922.

In Joseph's time the word "Qualia" was not known, as invented by philosophers like Frank Jackson- I put a link to this discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia in the previous discussion.

Alma 32:33

Quote

 

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

I will answer your questions one by one in separate posts- I gotta get another computer!

No, of course these are not examples of OBJECTIVE "experiments" as science would use the term, yet seeing these experiments are about qualia changes the game entirely.

Qualia are about "what it is like to FEEL..." some qualia or others- they are about INTERNAL SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS,like "what is it LIKE to see the color "red".

 

Edited December 3, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nihilism and apriorism don't seem like a valid basis for any sort of meaningful inquiry.

Nothing I am saying has anything to do with these views.   Kant's "synthetic apriori" is about showing how HUMAN EXPERIENCE can be defined as "a priori" knowledge- and not only about mathematical equations 

This is from a book my professor wrote with whom I had many discussions while I was a philosophy student at UCLA.  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jan-16-me-passings16.4-story.html, and at CUNY Queens College in my graduate work.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Rationalism_to_Existentialism/iHM9ABHZyB0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=solomon+%22To+perceive+an+object+is+not+merely+to+have+an+experience%22&pg=PA18&printsec=frontcover

Here is a shorter explanation of the same material, also by prof Solomon.

And so in a sense, one can know that two houses-one with 15,000 square feet and stories of rooms and classic architecture and the other of 1500 square feet in the "1950 Knock 'em out and sell em" style  are BOTH "houses" - and the claim is that we know that "a'priori" BECAUSE our experiences have been combined into an "objective unity"

 

This concept is very similar to the notion of "qualia"- or, again, the assumption that"what it is like to see red" becomes an "a'priori truth" that we both have the same color experience that what you see is "really red" or that we are both having the same experience when each of us experience seeing a "STOP" sign, say.   We will all agree that the sign is "red" even though we cannot "prove" scientifically that we see the "same color".

So this notion of qualia makes it possible to say things like "I was impressed by the Holy Ghost to.....xyz" and each of us who has experienced the quale of "experiencing the Holy Ghost" will know that "what it is like to feel the Holy Ghost" is the same- in certain non-verbal ways perhaps- for each of us.

So the notion of "qualia" gives us the philosophical right to say that- "what it is like to feel the holy ghost" is the same for all of us, in a similar way we know that both of us experience "stop" signs as being "red".

The bottom line- is that "feeling the Holy Ghost" is as "real" as the experience of "red".

And so revelation can be seen as a valid communication from God- as "real" as any other experience we can have.

Alma 32:32- 35 becomes the key to the "experiment" that Joseph/Alma wishes us to have, but they do not call it "the same quale" because that word had not yet been invented.

These are "private" and subjective experiences that one can compare with others.   No, thank goodness it is not science which can never find "purpose" for any statement- it only speaks about how things work, and makes their EXISTENCE irrelevant.

And ultimately that is what "Existentialism" is all about, and why we need to understand Postmodern thought.

Religion has no meaning without Postmodernism-it is scientifically meaningless- and that is why Positivism is now dead, and God is resurrected.

If we don't blow up the world , it will be a wonderful place.

Maybe even something like our story of the Millennium ... 

 

Edited December 3, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

Error.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't think so, Mark, mostly because the idea of "transfer" works best for what Joseph did in reading an already extant text to his scribes.  The overwhelming presence of Early Modern English makes that the best explanation -- even though it neglects to tell us who did the English translation of the BofM over 200 years before Joseph saw it.

Disagree again unfortunately!  

Can you imagine the world of Mormonism saying that "Joseph Smith transferred the Book of Mormon" as opposed "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon"?

The meanings are quite different in our day.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Respectfully, I believe there is quite a bit of support for the ancient origins of The Book of Mormon.  And the ramifications of that support are, IMO, weightier as compared to corollary supports for The Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you have one piece of evidence showing a person from the BoM actually lived or evidence of city mentioned like say Zarahemla?  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

But it gives a big one up on the Book of Mormon which has no support that the people or places (other than Jerusalem) existed at all.

Respectfully, I believe there is quite a bit of support for the ancient origins of The Book of Mormon.  And the ramifications of that support are, IMO, weightier as compared to corollary supports for The Bible.

Do you have one piece of evidence showing a person from the BoM actually lived or evidence of city mentioned like say Zarahemla?  

I addressed this back in 2020:

Quote

Quote

Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am:  What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record?  Is there any evidence?  And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything.  Just evidence in support of.

Yes, there is evidence.  Quite a bit, IMO.  The sufficiency and probative value of the evidence is very much in dispute, but the existence of the evidence is pretty hard to deny.

Putting aside "evidence" from the Spirit, I would first point to the text overall.  Its origins need to be accounted for.  I don't think Joseph Smith could have written it at all, let alone in the timeframe involved.  

Second, I would point to the statements of the Witnesses, and to the credbility of those witnesses (starting, perhaps, with Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses).

Third, I would point to evidences within the text.  Its complexity.  Its narrative structure.  Linguistic elements.  It's internal chronological and geographic consistency.  Hebraisms.  Chiasmus.  Lots and lots of good stuff in here.

Fourth, there are some evidences which have some sort of interaction with or facet touching on archaeology.  See, e.g. this article: Five Compelling Archeological Evidences For the Book of Mormon.  The "five evidences" are:

• Metal Plates
• The Nahom Altar
• Cement in Mesoamerica
• The Seal of Mulek
• Barley in the Americas

Of these, the Seal of Mulek seems to be the one that I think critics would be most likely to construe as "archaeological" (read: artifactual) evidence (though the Nahom Altar seems pretty hard to ignore).  But both of these are Old World artifacts, and I think critics want artifacts from Mesoamerica.

Fifth, I would point an interested party to the Book of Mormon Central website: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/

Sixth, I would point an interested party to Jeff Lindsay's "Book of Mormon Evidences" page: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Seventh, I would point an interested party to FAIR's page about evidences for the Book of Mormon: https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon

Eighth, I would point an interested party to the following essays:

• The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
• I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
• The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
• Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

These are the resources that immediately come to mind.

Much of what is termed "evidence for the Book of Mormon" is better characterized as "assumptions regarding and interpretations of evidence for the Book of Mormon."

I think Hamblin's "Basic Methodological Problems" essay is particularly worth a read in this context.

Another: Our own Robert F. Smith's The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage

Another: By John E. Clark: Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief

Another excellent resource (authored by Jack Welch, an attorney well-versed in the role of "evidence") : The Role of Evidence in Religious Discussion

Whatever you think of me, I really hope you give Welch's piece a read.  His training in the law, in the evaluation and sifting of "evidence" on disputed issues, is really helpful when presented in the context of assessing the claims of the Church and the Restored Gospel.

In the end, it is the Spirit, much more so than any of the foregoing, that creates a foundation for acceptance of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be.  The above resources a supplementary and corroborative.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Another excellent resource (authored by Jack Welch, an attorney well-versed in the role of "evidence") : The Role of Evidence in Religious Discussion

Whatever you think of me, I really hope you give Welch's piece a read.  His training in the law, in the evaluation and sifting of "evidence" on disputed issues, is really helpful when presented in the context of assessing the claims of the Church and the Restored Gospel.

In the end, it is the Spirit, much more so than any of the foregoing, that creates a foundation for acceptance of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be.  The above resources a supplementary and corroborative.

Thanks,

Ok I will consider taking a look at the Welch item.  But see it always boils down to the spirit. And I don't find the "spirit" reliable because people get a witness to all sorts of things that contradict each other.  And do any of your abundant links give us evidence of people or places that are outlined in the Book of Mormon? I have not read into BoM apologetics for a long time. But they all seemed based on the Book being what it claims then finding evidence that is loosely connected at best and often seemed a stretch to me.

[Mfbnew]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will consider taking a look at the Welch item.  But see it always boils down to the spirit. And I don't find the "spirit" reliable because people get a witness to all sorts of things that contradict each other.  And do any of your abundant links give us evidence of people or places that are outlined in the Book of Mormon? I have not read into BoM apologetics for a long time. But they all seemed based on the Book being what it claims then finding evidence that is loosely connected at best and often seemed a stretch to me.

What scientific evidence is needed to vote Republican or Democrat?  Or that abortion is murdering a baby, or the rights of a woman over "her own body"?  What scientific evidence is needed to show that we should treat people the way we want to be treated, or that "all humans are created equal"?  Or that we should support Israel or their enemies, whoever they may be?   How about picking a mate based on the "knowledge" that you will be with that person in 50 years?   What evidence do you have that YOU will pick the right school and get the best education for the jobs you would like to have? Or even knowing WHAT job you would like to have "when you grow up"?  Or that it's wrong to grab the purse of an old lady in a store?   Or just steal stuff from anyone you can?

You are confusing what can be confirmed by science and what cannot!

Matters of "the heart" cannot EVER be confirmed by science- they are about decisions YOU MAKE in governing your life, and how you want to live.  Trying to apply science in these matters is like alleging that we can find "evidence" of the future before it happens.   All of these are matters of FAITH!!

"HOPE for things UNSEEN"!

The question is not about historical accuracy and never has been.   

The choice is deciding on what stories work for you, to give you a happy life.   If that changes, it changes and you find another story, like that Science is useful in spiritual matters.

You don't use a monkey wrench to program a computer.

Category errors.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will consider taking a look at the Welch item.  But see it always boils down to the spirit.

Ultimately, yes.  But there's a lot more in addition to that.

My wife is, by pretty much every objective measure, a wonderful person.  In the end, though, my relationship with her works because I love her, and she loves me.  Although our relationship has much more going on in it, "it always boils down" to our mutual regard for each other.  Without that mutual and well-maintained regard, I don't think our relationship would work, even considering her wonderfulness.

The Book of Mormon has a lot going for it.  A fascinating origin story.  An interesting plot.  Increasingly probative evidentiary supports, and so on.  In the end, though, the book has value to me because of its moral precepts and message of Jesus Christ, and because of the Spirit's confirmation to me of its truthfulness.  Without these things, the book would only be a curiosity.  With these things, however, it is among the most consequential books ever written.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And I don't find the "spirit" reliable because people get a witness to all sorts of things that contradict each other. 

Michael Ash's "Four-Legged Stool" analogy has been helpful to me on this point.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And do any of your abundant links give us evidence of people or places that are outlined in the Book of Mormon? I have not read into BoM apologetics for a long time. But they all seemed based on the Book being what it claims then finding evidence that is loosely connected at best and often seemed a stretch to me.

Hence the value of examining, or re-examining, our expectations and presuppositions about what "evidence" can and cannot do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2024 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

On 12/1/2024 at 11:00 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Peterson is criticized primarily by political partisans who misunderstand the nature of academic debate.  Indeed, those who hate him the most are deeply threatened by the questions he raises about the validity of their woke assumptions.  The high nabobs or society are the most frightened by his discomfiting comments and systematic analyses.  The shift in the debate is palpable.

That's like saying that Lysenkoism is scientific, and that Mendelian genetics is religious.  The third Earl of Russell thought Marxism to be a religion.  Why?  Perhaps because it has strong devotees who read the sacred texts from their prophets (Marx, Engles, Lenin, Mao), a belief system focused on achieving a utopian future -- a form of salvation from the evil capitalist social order, and finally with automatic harmony in a communist millennium.

Milovan Djilas, the top theoretician in the Yugoslav Communist Party, defined Marxism best in his The New Class (Praeger).

Let's not forget equally heretical religious texts such as Atlas Shrugged. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Let's not forget equally heretical religious texts such as Atlas Shrugged. 

Yep.  Peterson can't stand Ayn Rand.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/2/2024 at 8:02 PM, Mfbnew said:

Disagree again unfortunately!  

Can you imagine the world of Mormonism saying that "Joseph Smith transferred the Book of Mormon" as opposed "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon"?

The meanings are quite different in our day.

Yes.  Maybe try "transmit," which is the same thing.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/2/2024 at 7:47 PM, Mfbnew said:

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

And so in a sense, one can know that two houses-one with 15,000 square feet and stories of rooms and classic architecture and the other of 1500 square feet in the "1950 Knock 'em out and sell em" style  are BOTH "houses" - and the claim is that we know that "a'priori" BECAUSE our experiences have been combined into an "objective unity"

Too Platonistic for me.

On 12/2/2024 at 7:47 PM, Mfbnew said:

This concept is very similar to the notion of "qualia"- or, again, the assumption that"what it is like to see red" becomes an "a'priori truth" that we both have the same color experience that what you see is "really red" or that we are both having the same experience when each of us experience seeing a "STOP" sign, say.   We will all agree that the sign is "red" even though we cannot "prove" scientifically that we see the "same color".

So this notion of qualia makes it possible to say things like "I was impressed by the Holy Ghost to.....xyz" and each of us who has experienced the quale of "experiencing the Holy Ghost" will know that "what it is like to feel the Holy Ghost" is the same- in certain non-verbal ways perhaps- for each of us.

So the notion of "qualia" gives us the philosophical right to say that- "what it is like to feel the holy ghost" is the same for all of us, in a similar way we know that both of us experience "stop" signs as being "red".

The bottom line- is that "feeling the Holy Ghost" is as "real" as the experience of "red".

redness, chairness, Holy Ghostness, etc., as qualia.  As close as we can get to reality -- still smacks of Plato.

On 12/2/2024 at 7:47 PM, Mfbnew said:

And so revelation can be seen as a valid communication from God- as "real" as any other experience we can have.

Alma 32:32- 35 becomes the key to the "experiment" that Joseph/Alma wishes us to have, but they do not call it "the same quale" because that word had not yet been invented.

But Alma is speaking of a basis for knowledge garnered from the experimental method (science).

On 12/2/2024 at 7:47 PM, Mfbnew said:

These are "private" and subjective experiences that one can compare with others.   No, thank goodness it is not science which can never find "purpose" for any statement- it only speaks about how things work, and makes their EXISTENCE irrelevant.

And ultimately that is what "Existentialism" is all about, and why we need to understand Postmodern thought.

Religion has no meaning without Postmodernism-it is scientifically meaningless- and that is why Positivism is now dead, and God is resurrected.

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

A jury still has to weigh the forensic and verbal testimony -- beyond a reasonable doubt.  And each of us does the same as we meander through life, trying to get it right via (1) the school of hardknocks, and (2) extrapolation.  Practical reality comes up and hits us between the eyes, both literally and figuratively.

As to existentialism, I have always thought that existentialists cannot find certainty, i.e., the verification principle of logical positivism, which you and they reject, and which seems to leave no hope and no exit.  Seems to me that an existentialist also rejects the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Well, maybe I'm wrong:  Do Latter-day Saint existentialists accept that way out?  Do they allow revelation?

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will consider taking a look at the Welch item.  But see it always boils down to the spirit. And I don't find the "spirit" reliable because people get a witness to all sorts of things that contradict each other.

That's where smac's nice assemblage of scientific evidence sources comes in.  A lot of people are uncomfortable depending on the witness of the Holy Spirit, for the very reasons you state.  Although it has to be said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is oddly very united, despite emphasizing the witness of the Spirit.

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

  And do any of your abundant links give us evidence of people or places that are outlined in the Book of Mormon? I have not read into BoM apologetics for a long time. But they all seemed based on the Book being what it claims then finding evidence that is loosely connected at best and often seemed a stretch to me.

As to the content of the BofM, it does have a couple of cultures which rise and fall in concert with several Mesoamerican civilizations.  The Jaredites in the book of Ether, for example, begin and end with the Mother Culture of Mesoamerica, the Olmec.  The culture of Chiapas, along the Grijalva River, rises and falls with the Nephites.  The BofM uses the 360-day Long Count calendar of Mesoamerica.  BofM peoples use cement construction just as the peoples of Mesoamerica.

[Mfbnew]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Too Platonistic for me.

redness, chairness, Holy Ghostness, etc., as qualia.  As close as we can get to reality -- still smacks of Plato.

But Alma is speaking of a basis for knowledge garnered from the experimental method (science).

A jury still has to weigh the forensic and verbal testimony -- beyond a reasonable doubt.  And each of us does the same as we meander through life, trying to get it right via (1) the school of hardknocks, and (2) extrapolation.  Practical reality comes up and hits us between the eyes, both literally and figuratively.

As to existentialism, I have always thought that existentialists cannot find certainty, i.e., the verification principle of logical positivism, which you and they reject, and which seems to leave no hope and no exit.  Seems to me that an existentialist also rejects the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Well, maybe I'm wrong:  Do Latter-day Saint existentialists accept that way out?  Do they allow revelation?

As far as "Platonism" I agree that it is easy to conclude that the two views- ( Belief in Qualia as reality vs Platonic dualism or the belief in transcendent, abstract and invisible "Forms" as being the only reality) may seem similar, but upon some deeper analysis one can see that they are actually diametrically opposed to each other.

My experience with AI is that it is generally useless when it comes to philosophy- yes it seems to find all the right words, but misses the nuances of meaning, BUT I simply googled "Plato Allegory of the Cave" to get a quick summary, and this turned out to be a pretty good snapshot, or at least not horrible.    The Allegory itself can be found at  https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/seyer/files/plato_republic_514b-518d_allegory-of-the-cave.pdf

So again, THE QUOTE IMMEDIATELY BELOW is the AI summary.

 

Quote

 

AI Overview

Learn more

Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a story about prisoners trapped in an underground cave who can only see shadows on the wall in front of them. The allegory is a way to represent how people use their senses to understand reality, and how some people can break free of this limitation. 

Here are some key points from the allegory:

• The prisoners
  The prisoners are chained up in the cave and can only see shadows on the wall cast by people holding up objects behind them. They believe the shadows are the reality, and spend their time playing games based on the shadows. 

• The freed prisoner
  A prisoner breaks free and witnesses the outside world. The freed prisoner is initially angry and blinded by the sunlight, but eventually adjusts and sees the world as it is. 

• The message
  The allegory's message is that people should seek the truth and not settle for what they see as reality. It also explores the idea that reality is a construction, and that the world is only as big as we can imagine. 

The role of the enlightened philosopher
Socrates and Plato believe that enlightened philosophers should "return to the cave" to help others understand the nature of the world.

 

So for Plato, "reality" is NOT what we see around us- THOSE are only "reflections" of the intellectual "Forms" which exist in a immaterial realm reachable only after years of dedication to finding the "truth".   "God" is not anything like a human being- "he" is not in a human form at all.  For Plato, God is the FORM OF GOODNESS- and to conceive Him to have a material body OR would create worlds made of earthly matter would be virtually blasphemy or at least a display of complete ignorance.

BUT the LDS position obviously is completely different- for us, God exists in matter, creates worlds from matter, and is not the "FORM - or model - of Goodness" but an exalted embodied human being who has, over an indescribable period of time- yes, time- has perfected himself to become our God.

Big difference.

So how do we know about God?

 Qualia are not "as close as we can get to reality" BUT REALITY ITSELF- there is no KNOWABLE "reality" we can actually talk about - because even talking itself - or writing or language are all semiotics- or interpretations each of us have of what our brains tell us it is receiving from our senses.

It is useless to even try to get "beyond Qualia" because it would be self contradictory- the argument would be attempting to get beyond WORDS by using WORDS!   There is literally NO THING to discuss because discussion itself moves us from the "real world of Qualia" into semiotics- the world of symbols. 

All we can do is "discuss" our EXPERIENCE which we can only describe in terms of QUALIA!

Imagine trying to talk to a blind person- blind from birth- about the difference between yellow and red.  No words exist to do that.  There are no "symbols" because the blind person has never seen the color, and we cannot fully image his/her world as it is.  It simply cannot be done.   Describe the difference in taste between turkey and chicken.  Describe the sound of glass breaking to someone deaf from birth.

Certainty?   Of course one can be certain of any belief one can hold.   "Certainty" is one way of understanding of what "religion" is all about.  I have read several philosophical volumes on certainty and the present view is pretty much that- like everything else- "certainty" is a psychological state, nothing more or less.   Perhaps one could believe that certainty protects one from further inquiry and locks the mind from beliefs one has not yet heard about.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But Alma is speaking of a basis for knowledge garnered from the experimental method (science)

Frankly, I must agree again- and see no EVIDENCE  that he is talking about objective scientific evidence, BUT subjective "knowledge" of the state of the heart based on subjective feelings.

 

Quote

 

Alma 32:27–37. Experimenting on the Word of God Brings Conversion

• Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that a willingness to perform Alma’s experiment leads to conversion:

  “We know that both members and nonmembers are more likely to be thoroughly converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ when they are willing to experiment upon the word (see Alma 32:27). This is an attitude of both mind and heart that includes a desire to know the truth and a willingness to act on that desire. For those investigating the Church, the experiment can be as simple as agreeing to read the Book of Mormon, to pray about it, and to earnestly seek to know if Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet.

  “True conversion comes through the power of the Spirit. When the Spirit touches the heart, hearts are changed. When individuals, both members and investigators, feel the Spirit working with them, or when they see the evidence of the Lord’s love and mercy in their lives, they are edified and strengthened spiritually, and their faith in Him increases. These experiences with the Spirit follow naturally when a person is willing to experiment upon the word. This is how we come to feel the gospel is true” (in Conference Report, Oct. 2000, 97; or Ensign, Nov. 2000, 75).

• At times the swelling motions, the enlarging of souls, the enlightening of understanding, and the beginning of delicious feelings from the Spirit spoken of in Alma 32:28 are difficult to verbally express. However, being hard to express does not discount the truthfulness of the feeling.

  President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, shared an experience that describes the difficulty of verbal expression. He bore his testimony to an atheist that there is a God. The man said he could not know such a thing. President Packer compared his testimony and knowledge with knowing what salt tastes like (see commentary for Alma 30:15–16 on page 214; see also “The Candle of the Lord,” Ensign, Jan. 1983, 51–52).

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-30-alma-32-35?lang=eng

NOTE THAT LAST SENTENCE THAT PROVES THAT WHAT HE IS SPEAKING ABOUT IS A COMPARISON OF QUALIA, though of course he does not use the philosophical word "qualia".

•  

 

[Mfbnew]

Just for the sake of making my point, I will quote Alma and add bold to make it more clear.  I don't know how anybody could claim that the "experiment" is an objective scientific experiment:

Book of Mormon, Alma verses 33 to 43:

Quote

 

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

 

This clearly is not about scientific objective evidence

Edited December 4, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Mfbnew said:

Just for the sake of making my point, I will quote Alma and add bold to make it more clear.  I don't know how anybody could claim that the "experiment" is an objective scientific experiment:

Book of Mormon, Alma verses 33 to 43:

This clearly is not about scientific objective evidence

Of course not, but it is the pragmatic experimental method, rather than a revelatory method, concrete rather than figurative.  Very different than Moroni 10:4-5, which is the general go-to option used by the vast majority of Latter-day Saints and strongly favored by General Authorities (and strongly condemned by evangelicals as no more than a "feeling").  There is an epistemic difference, even if complete objectivity is forever out of our grasp in the Humean sense.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Mfbnew said:

Frankly, I must agree again- and see no EVIDENCE  that he is talking about objective scientific evidence, BUT subjective "knowledge" of the state of the heart based on subjective feelings.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-30-alma-32-35?lang=eng

NOTE THAT LAST SENTENCE THAT PROVES THAT WHAT HE IS SPEAKING ABOUT IS A COMPARISON OF QUALIA, though of course he does not use the philosophical word "qualia".

Well, of course, ordinary folk share with science a desire to find what actually works, as a practical matter.  Or as the lords of technology make it happen at SpaceX.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

As far as "Platonism" I agree that it is easy to conclude that the two views- ( Belief in Qualia as reality vs Platonic dualism or the belief in transcendent, abstract and invisible "Forms" as being the only reality) may seem similar, but upon some deeper analysis one can see that they are actually diametrically opposed to each other.

Plato (Socrates) did the best he could with what he had, but we have come a long way in physics since then.

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

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

BUT the LDS position obviously is completely different- for us, God exists in matter, creates worlds from matter, and is not the "FORM - or model - of Goodness" but an exalted embodied human being who has, over an indescribable period of time- yes, time- has perfected himself to become our God.

Big difference.

So how do we know about God?

 Qualia are not "as close as we can get to reality" BUT REALITY ITSELF- there is no KNOWABLE "reality" we can actually talk about - because even talking itself - or writing or language are all semiotics- or interpretations each of us have of what our brains tell us it is receiving from our senses.

It is useless to even try to get "beyond Qualia" because it would be self contradictory- the argument would be attempting to get beyond WORDS by using WORDS!   There is literally NO THING to discuss because discussion itself moves us from the "real world of Qualia" into semiotics- the world of symbols. 

All we can do is "discuss" our EXPERIENCE which we can only describe in terms of QUALIA!

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

Certainty?   Of course one can be certain of any belief one can hold.   "Certainty" is one way of understanding of what "religion" is all about.  I have read several philosophical volumes on certainty and the present view is pretty much that- like everything else- "certainty" is a psychological state, nothing more or less.   Perhaps one could believe that certainty protects one from further inquiry and locks the mind from beliefs one has not yet heard about.

True enough, and one could follow up by arguing that at least since Isaac Newton, physicists have been able to see more and more clearly that our surface impressions can be very misleading.  Certainty must therefore be forever elusive to even a well-trained human eye.  However, even though those human limits are obvious, that does not make practical application of what we do know nothing.  Only limited, if infinitesimal.  Ordinary folk are not cowed by that existential dilemma.

[Mfbnew]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not, but it is the pragmatic experimental method, rather than a revelatory method, concrete rather than figurative.  Very different than Moroni 10:4-5, which is the general go-to option used by the vast majority of Latter-day Saints and strongly favored by General Authorities (and strongly condemned by evangelicals as no more than a "feeling").  There is an epistemic difference, even if complete objectivity is forever out of our grasp in the Humean sense.

Moroni 10-4-5 IS a major part of my conversion and life.   I could tell the story and maybe I will here, though it is too sacred for me to tell it here.   I find it impossible NOT to see it as "Revelatory" and I am not sure what you mean by "concrete rather than figurative".   Who is pouring the "concrete"?

Bottom line: I got clobbered big time.   

OK I will tell the story leaving out the parts I feel are "too sacred" to mention in this context.   I don't know if it will help anyone but I hope it does- hope for things UNSEEN!

I am not sure what you are saying here.  This was the most amazing REVELATION I have received- PROVING to me that God wanted me in this church.   It was an incident where I was lost in another city, pondering the first words I had read of the Book of Mormon.  I was 30 years old, and had all my courses done to get a Master's in philosophy, on a path toward my PhD.

I had been praying for an answer to my philosophical question about HOW  a "God" could communicate with mankind, and I like to drive while I am pondering philosophical answers.   Someone had shown me Alma 10:4-5 the night before and I could not possibly how such a thing- revelation- could possibly be "real."

But I could not get that question "out of my head", so I was driving up the coast on Pacific Coast Highway, starting Venice CA. where I lived.  I could not get it out of my head as I was driving.  It was getting late and I had covered a lot of miles driving essentially randomly.  It was time to turn around and get home.   So I noticed I was in Santa Barbara- and though "Man!  It's a long way home!  How did I get here"?

But I really did not know Santa Barbara.

At the age of 12,:

I was encouraged by Sister Mary Cletus- a "nun"- to start thinking about if I wanted to become a priest.  At that time I lived in San Diego and was in a Catholic school, and in the 8th grade.   I didn't know if I wanted to be a priest particularly, but I wanted to "get closer to Jesus" and would seriously think about becoming a priest.   So arrangements were made, and in a week or so, got onto the bus to spend a weekend checking out what life would be like if I decided to move into essentially a high school for boys who wanted to become priests.   It was called a "seminary".

So I shuffled my feet onto that bus and it went a long way.  There was one or two of my buddies on the bus too, but it was full of guys our age who got picked to take the trip.  We "messed around" during the journey of several hours, mostly talking about girls and sports and other things that 12 year old boys would talk about.

I got off and it turned out to be in Santa Barbara.   I am skipping a lot of what happened there at age 12, but after the experience I could not decide if I wanted to go to the seminary.   I felt strongly that God wanted to be a priest, but I also felt just as strongly that he wanted me to get married.   I was very puzzled.

But one thing was essential to the story

Back to age 30:   Time to turn around- but, I suddenly found myself RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT!!   Without knowing where I was going or why- THERE I was!

And there was a little chapel there that happened to be open!

So I went in and knelt down.   I poured out my heart to whoever "God" really was and asked him how it was possible to receive messages from him- IF he really "existed"- in a philosophical way- of course.     I don't know how long I prayed.

I got clobbered.  There I was in a Catholic chapel in a Catholic seminary- re-found "by accident" after around 18 years, while God told me that "The book of Mormon is true"- a fully non- philosophical statement!   I pondered that and pondered it another hour- at least- and decided to join the LDS church, which I had studied quite a bit before all this happened.

So I got into my car- without a clue of my exact location- and get myself back to the freeway to home.   I pulled out of the parking lot and decided to "follow my nose", and turned left.   After a couple of seconds, "my nose"- or REVELATION told me  I should have turned right.  

I did, and suddenly in front of me, there was and LDS chapel.

There is no way that these experiences were NOT "revelatory"

 

 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True enough, and one could follow up by arguing that at least since Isaac Newton, physicists have been able to see more and more clearly that our surface impressions can be very misleading.  Certainty must therefore be forever elusive to even a well-trained human eye.  However, even though those human limits are obvious, that does not make practical application of what we do know nothing.  Only limited, if infinitesimal.  Ordinary folk are not cowed by that existential dilemma.

Well I guess this shows we agree, finally.  I am not sure that was your intent, but that is how I see it.

I will simply use bold text on portions of the above post, and then reply without messing around with quote boxes.

"...since Isaac Newton, physicists have been able to see more and more clearly that our surface impressions can be very misleading."

"Seeing clearly" is exactly the problem !  As I SEE it  - there we go- using our symbolic linguistic grunts to describe a world which does not "correspond" with reality-which is all about how we see the world, not the world itself. 

This is exactly my view, but in my case, it indicates that -very clearly- they have NOT FOUND the "concrete reality" you appear to me, to be seeking.  I know you are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.   Things are not quite as "concrete" as some may think- and the problem appears to be caused by our own measuring system.- it is a world in constant flux, but we are still trying to see it as "concrete" and amazingly,  we see what we want to see.  Unfortunately our own measuring system is inadequate to solve the problem, at least that is the way I see it.  

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle#:~:text=Formulated by the German physicist,about its speed and vice

"However, even though those human limits are obvious, that does not make practical application of what we do know nothing."

Well, as a pretty orthodox believer in Pragmatism, I certainly agree with that, and would never argue against it.  But if the human limits are obvious, what are we talking about?  Even in this conversation, it seems to me that "human limits" are precisely what I WISH were "obvious".   Perhaps one could say that precisely what I want to emphasize is that "human limits" make it impossible to know "reality as it is"- which incidentally is also scripture: "Now we see through a dark mirror (I would add "created by our limited perception), but THEN, face to face".

As I see it, that means that there IS a state possible for us to reach, in which, perhaps by revelation, we WILL see "face to face".

But quite obviously our lives are deeply re-constructed by science in ways that are "useful".   It beats hanging out in trees, as science would tell the story.

"Ordinary folk are not cowed by that existential dilemma."   Well I think we all would be, unless we have not studied it for a few years.  But I like your wording, because that makes me "extraordinary" in your mind.  Of course I am not, but thanks for the compliment.  So I guess that is proof that even ordinary people ARE "cowed by that existential dilemma." 

A very popular song among "ordinary folk" shows that many of these "ordinary folk" were quite enamored by a sort of puzzle in a poem recited at the beginning of the song- the song was done by the group Moody Blues  

 

Cold hearted orb that rules the night

Removes the color from our sight

Red is grey, and yellow white

But we decide which is right

"And which IS an illusion!"

If you have ever been in an unlit parking lot looking for a blue car which is now grey, along with perhaps and red cars as well, I think anyone might begin to question whether or not "RED" can be called "REAL"- OR if it even IS an "illusion".

It seems these "ordinary folk" do occasionally wonder about existential questions.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Mfbnew