A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
RubinHighlander
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:20 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by RubinHighlander » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:44 am

Palerider wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:58 pm
Now their only recourse is to try vainly to spin and mitigate. Obfuscation is the name of the game.
+1

I went on a mission in the early 80's to GB and came across some anti-mo lit describing JS as a treasure digger and several other things that I find out later in life to be actually true; so much cogdis! How much longer can their stupid argument of blaming the members go on? And honestly, how well would my mission of preaching in GB have gone if the truths were out there in the open? Can you imagine telling the real JS story? It would be something along the lines of Brother Jake's Youtube videos.

The Correlated Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opAxushh6-E
Explanation of Correlation (the musical): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB0iOc7t7e4
Gospel Topics Commercial (we looked into it, so you don't have to): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ1ouziD56o

You get the idea. I think most here have enjoyed Brother Jake's fine work. Here's his channel if you have not:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0u7ZM ... =0&sort=dd
“Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.”
--Douglas Adams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzmYP3PbfXE

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:07 pm

The next one was about the anachronisms. Also written by Gardner. Nothing new here.
Here's an interesting quote in the introduction in response to critics that claim anachronisms prove the BoM false.
...if the Book of Mormon claimed to be an ancient text, but it does not. It claims to be a translation of an ancient text, and that is a very important distinction.
So this whole chapters argument will depend on your issues being resolved in the previous chapter, and your acceptance of an imperfect translation. Sweet.

There are two categories, physical anachronisms, and translational anachronisms. First for the physical anachronisms.

There are three ways of dealing with these.
1. You can just believe that there is scientific evidence that will eventually make itself known that will point to the veracity of the anachronism and make it no longer an anachronism. Gardner cites Wade Miller, of BYU-I, as having done work that introduces horse fossils clear up until 1120 BC. Still before the Nephites, but darn close. I have not looked up these references, the ones Gardner lists are not peer-reviewed. I will need to do some more reading on that. But that is one available approach.

2. Word choice in the translation process.
No one suggests that the Old and New testament must be false because they mention candles, even though candles were not yet used.
Nobody also claims the the Bible is the most correct book, and that it was translated word-for-word by those words appearing on a rock that Joseph called out. Apples and Oranges. Gardner tries to make room for Joseph just flat out getting it wrong. Never mind that some of the anachronisms are words that flat out have no English analogue. I am thinking about the coins and the woolly mammoths. It sounds like to me Gardner would need to advocate for a change to Article of Faith number 8. Maybe I will start a petition.

3. Shifting meanings of words.
He brings up chariots for this one. He points to languages evolving over time and points to an early Mexican discovery of four-wheeled conveyances that someone in the early 1800's described as chariots. His point is that just because it says chariots, doesnt mean it should conjure any specific meaning in our minds. It seems that he would like us to conjure up whatever would support the faith. Seriously, with this argument all written meaning looses any significance and value as a means of communication, especially a method of communication used by freaking God himself! A word shouldnt make us conjure up any specific meaning? What the heck should they do then?

Now for translation anachronisms.

There are 2 ways of dealing with these.

1. Anachronisms introduced by the authors. This is just throwing the Nephites under the bus. He suggests that Joseph was actually translating things literally and correctly, thus those anachronisms result from the Nephites not knowing what to call things, and they called them something that made sense to them. I am guessing this is where the tapir argument comes in, although he does not bring up any specific example. He does talk about Latin speakers coming to a Hippopotamus and calling it a "river horse." I get this argument. But it does not explain all of the problems.

2. Anachronisms introduced by translators. This is going to throw Joseph under the bus and requires a loose translation view. He brings up the harrow anachronism, where in describing complex emotions and feelings Joseph reverted to language he was familiar with and worked for him. Gardner recognizes that this does not provide answers to all if not few examples.

There follows a conversation about anachronisms in context, which is super confusing to follow. Horses and chariots being used for war is an example used. I think the point is to use context instead of the actual word to infer what is being talked about. Instead of horse, Gardner says to use the word glerk, and you can still figure out what is being talked about. He talks about how the BoM never says explicitly that horses pull the chariots, only that chariots and horses are made ready. I dont know, its weird and requires a substantial amount of gymnastics to understand. Even if you expend the energy, you are left thinking, "really, thats what you got?"

So in brief, Gardner uses the old spaghetti method for this issue. Throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. You would have to use a combination of different methods to resolve all these anachronisms. No one method will tackle all of them. The problem with that is that some of them exclude the other if they are applied generally. I suppose in every specific instance you could apply these 5 different methods, see which one works best, then move on to the next. But why should we have to do that if this is Gods word to us in the latter days, and it is so dadgummed important? God really messed this one up, or he did it on purpose, either thought I am fairly uncomfortable with. Or, Joseph was the principle author and it all makes sense. Parsimony. Thats what I like.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by slavereeno » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:11 pm

RubinHighlander wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:44 am
You get the idea. I think most here have enjoyed Brother Jake's fine work. Here's his channel if you have not:
Damnit RH, now I am binge watching this entire channel and laughing my arse off... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks a lot.

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7076
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Hagoth » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:39 pm

Anchor = Jesus
Boat = church

So far so good, but the problem is:

Chain = imaginary
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7076
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Hagoth » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:42 pm

Emower wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:11 pm
"Yes, we found out that this stuff was all true, but people are cool with it now and that means that it is not a big deal."
I'd be ok with that if they would concede that it also means there were no gold plates and the BoM isn't history.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:00 pm

Hagoth wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:42 pm
I'd be ok with that if they would concede that it also means there were no gold plates and the BoM isn't history.
Nelson approached that line when he talked about how the BoM was not a history text. The problem is that he will embrace the history of it somewhere else.

20/20hind
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:31 am

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by 20/20hind » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:14 pm

Mormonism came about from a guy who claimed he had obtained buried metal plates.

Then he "translated" them, with a rock in a hat, revealing a giant terd of a book. It's boring, and full of anachronisms.

I dont know why you would ever seek a testimony, or try and maintain one, regarding such absurdities.

Mrs. Hales, why dont they have statues of all of joseph's wives along with emma at temple sqaure?

Why dont they study the lives of his other wives in church teaching materials?

Are they just to busy? Or are they ashamed of their past?

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:56 pm

20/20hind wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:14 pm
Are they just to busy? Or are they ashamed of their past?
There has never at any time been anything in our history to be ashamed of. I dont know what you are talking about man...

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:13 pm

Time for another installment.

The next chapter was about the Three Witnesses, written by Alexander Baugh who is a professor of Church History and Doctrine at the illustrious BYU.

Baugh paints a pretty black and white picture of how "faithful" people interpret the testimonies and how "critics" paint it. He writes towards the end:
Some secularists, or those who do not believe in the divine, have explained the experience of the Three Witnesses as being some sort of mental delusion, a metaphysical mystical abnormality, a psychological fantasy, or perhaps more simply, religious hypnosis or hallucination.
I dont subscribe to any of those explanations and I take issue with him putting all critics in a box. Probably in much the same way as he may object to me putting all believers in the same box as well.
The view I subscribe to is peer pressure, authority pressure, and manufactured feelings and memories. There is not mention in here of the situation where the three tried to get the vision and could not see anything. Then Joseph told them it was because of sin and they needed to repent. Tried again, still no manifestation. Joseph again berated them for being unworthy and needing to repent. Here is what he said.
"The prophet answered them, 'O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins!"
Martin Harris, bless his poor little spiritually abused heart, thought it was him and volunteered to withdraw, Joseph accepts. So they try again. This time, Whitmer and Cowdery, probably exchanged sidelong looks and mouthed "we have to see it this time or we are the sinners," then they "saw" the vision with their spiritual eyes. Then, Joseph finds Martin Harris praying, probably berating himself for being wicked. Joseph informs him that the others saw the vision, why dont we try again? Martin, trying a third time, probably wishing with his whole little heart that he can just be one of the cool kids, and by the way had his whole fortune and reputation tangled up in this, finally sees the vision with his "spiritual eyes." I feel like just the circumstances and context point to it being manufactured through pressure without any of the other issues.

To add to the spiritual abuse that at least Martin was going through see the thread about D&C 19.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2394
He was told exactly what he must say, how to say it, and threatened to be destroyed if he didnt do it all.

I also really hate the typical apologist strategy of painting anyone who cannot buy this as someone who is not spiritual.

Baugh emphasizes the fact that the three said they held and handled the plates. He does not mention that Joseph called them liars, cheats, and scoundrels later.

Predictably Baugh also emphasized the fact that even though all three left the church they never denied their testimony. He does, to his credit bring up the spirtual eyes thing, and spends about 2 sentences dealing with it.
While they did indeed occasionally speak of seeing the plates in a spiritual sense, we learn from scripture that individuals who experience heavenly visions or divine manifestations undergo a spiritual transformation, sometimes referred to as being transfigured or 'quickened by the spirit of God' so they actually can 'see' or observe the divine.

His view is that when they referred to their spiritual eyes they were referring to the fact that they were quickened to be able to see it. I feel like this is not being honest with the context of Martin Harris' statements. When Martin admitted to seeing the plates with his spiritual eyes, it was in response to a question being asked if he had seen the plates with his naked eyes. Thats a far cry from referring to a transformation.

Baugh them uses some scripture to guilt anyone who may be having doubts about the validity of visions. Kind of a turn-off for me.

Here is the ending statement:
Critics will continue to cry foul and insist that Joseph Smith was a cunning manipulator of the witnesses who were victims of his deception.
However, to individuals whose hearts and minds are open and attuned to the divine and who believe in spiritual manifestations and communication from the heaven, the collective testimonies of the three and eight witnesses stand as a powerful affirmation of the existence of gold plates and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ
Read; "you are a short-sighted, narrow individual who doesn't believe in the right God if you do not accept these testimonies as true."
I think the thing I most object to in this chapter was his characterization of the critics point's as being nothing but accusations that Joseph hypnotized people, which we all know is ridiculous. The reality is a lot more complex. And more simple at the same time. Its weird.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:42 am

Time for another installment.

The next chapter was about Priesthood Restoration. This is one of my major issues so I was interested to see how this chapter would go.

Written by Ronald O. Barney. He is a mormon historian who worked for the church history dept. Editor for Mormon Historical Studies, wrote a couple of books, Executive director of the Mormon Historical Society for a couple of years. I guess this is supposed to be a good resume and qualification for quieting fears about the priesthood being a fraud.

The structure of the essay is pretty predictable with sections about the concept of authority, the Aaronic priesthood, Melchizedek, further priesthoods given in the Kirtland temple (keys), and the last section dealing with how the restoration accounts were disclosed.

Right off the bat, he makes several assertions that I think are kind of ballsy as a Mormon historian, but typical faith-promoting views. One was that Joseph was not overly religious and was not very familiar with formal church, and was not saturated with religion. His reasoning for this is that while his mother was Methodist, his father was not. Ergo, he must not have been "saturated" with religion? I think I would disagree with this even as a TBM, but whatever.

He sets up a strawman pretty early on by saying that lots of people wonder why Moroni didnt restore the preisthood. I dont think that anyone who is serious about issues with church history really wonders this. His argument for Moroni not restoring the priesthood was also unsatisfactory as it relied on a quote from Orson Pratt that had the words "in all probability he had not the right to do so." and then Barney says:
Apparently, Moroni was not given the authority to restore lost priesthoods.
The next section Barney talked about the need for a "gradual unfolding" of the restored gospel. Barney, and several apostles he used for quotes feel like the pattern God uses is line upon line and precept upon precept and that is how the priesthood came about; as an answer to a question, and a responsibility as understanding increased. He used the strawman talked about above to dog on those that think it should have happened any other way. At this point I was waiting for the real issues to be talked about in the next sections.

The next section talked about the Aaronic priesthood. It gave the story as recounted by Oliver Cowdery, and thats it. It did not even raise the issue about why no one talked about the restoration until 1834, or even apparently used the authority, even though authority was apparently important enough to restore in 1829. And I get it, you dont want to bring up stuff that people may or may not know, but if you are writing a stinking book about issues, they better have the issues. This is just a high level overview of what happened, which you can get from a correlated church manual. But this is coming from a correlated, church broke historian so, no surprise.

The next section was the Melchizedek. Now, this one actually brings up the fact that nobody really talked about this restoration either:
While both Oliver and Joseph created a brief narrative of their experience with John the Baptist, there is a lack of certainty as to whether it was their intent to to recount the reception of the higher or greater priesthood from Peter, James, and John as they both did regarding the lesser priesthood. At any rate, such a portrayal was never prepared for publication.
He acknowledges that this is an issue for some people, but goes on to explain why it shouldn't. He relies on Oliver's continued testimony that it happened, even though Oliver was crossways with the church. This is all he has got. Just an "Oliver and Joseph said it happened. So it did." He then talks about the Keys restored at the Kirtland temple. Again, relying on testimony from Joseph and Oliver. No mention of doctoring the book of commandments to put the revelation in its chronological spot. No mention of the conflict of a theology at the time that did not require authority and in fact eschewed it.

The last section did talk about the accounts coming out later. He cites Joseph's account where they had to keep it secret due to the persecution he experienced. They wanted to keep their experience divine and special, so they kept it to themselves. I guess this set the precedent for the current leadership picking and choosing what they want to communicate based on "sacredness."
He notes that this is consistent with other prophetic figures who have done the same thing. He illustrates this with the examples of ... Joseph and Oliver? He doesnt actually talk about any other prophetic figures who have kept things secret due to the sacredness like:
  • Moses and the burning bush ... wait that was not secret...
  • Noah and the Ark ... Wait that was not secret either ...
  • Paul and his experience on the road to Damascus .... Wait, that wasnt secret....
  • The 12 disciples and their call and authority ... Wait, that wasnt secret either...
  • The 2 Alma's and their experience with the divine authority ... wait, also not secret...
  • Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Moroni, Mormon, Mahonri Moriancumer?
Nope, all public record. I'm starting to think that there isnt much scriptural precedent for hiding your calling from God based on some percieved persecution.
The hilarious thing Barney shares is this quote:
Not only did Joseph understand this principle, but he also tried to teach this precept to Church leaders, helping them understand that keeping sacred experiences sacred was expected of all to whom the Lord revealed such things.
Especially polygamy I'm guessing huh?
Thus it was not surprising that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery kept their sacred experiences to themselves until it was required and appropriate that they should explain the essential restoration of the priesthood.
That was it. There was zero depth, discussion, or even interest in this chapter. It felt like a penny tossed in a bucket of discussion and arguments where each could be worth dollars.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:01 pm

The next chapter was Isaiah in the BOM. Written by Kent (dont forget the "P.") Jackson, of the BYU faculty. The introduction for this chapter was really nice. It laid out the two biggest issues (KJV language and multiple authors), noted that there were critics, and then said that there are sound arguments in defense. It was simple, non-judgey, and straightforward. Other chapters have had an undercurrent/tone of why you shouldnt be feeling any doubt, the "smart" guys all believe, and any critiques are dumb. This had none of that.

The first issue he talks about is the obvious KJV language in the Isaiah chapters. He lays it out pretty even-handed:
It seems that is Nephi had copied them from the plates of brass in Hebrew onto his own record and if Joseph Smith had then received the English translation by the gift and power of God, the Isaiah passages would read more like the 1830 Book of Mormon and less like the 1611 King James Bible. After all, Nephi and Isaiah were native speakers of the same language, so one might expect that Isaiah in the Book of Mormon would resemble Nephi more than it does.
He brings up the explanation that Joseph just copied out of the KJV when he saw passages that were clearly from the Bible. For me, this "Lazy Joseph" explanation was never satisfying because what about the plain and precious things that were taken out of the bible? Is he just making a conscious choice to not see if something was different when God was giving him the original story? This explanation is also Problematic for Jackson based on work by Royal Skousen which indicates that a printed bible was not used, and no one mentioned a bible being used. Jackson proposes 3 explanations:
  • 1. God intended KJV language to be in the bible. In Jackson's estimation having biblical text in BOM wording might have hurt credibility among people at that time. (I dont know, it sure hurts credibility now. Boy, JS just cant win for losing can he?)
  • 2. The passages were ripped right from the Bible. (Good for him for listing this as a possibility. It is refreshing)
  • 3. He offers a third option, which is really a variation on the first, that because he was reading the words off of a stone that is what God wanted.
He moves on to the second issue, multiple authorship.
He makes it clear from the outset that there is zero ancient evidence for multiple authorship. That is, everyone until modern times thought that it was one guy. He says:
Some modern scholars, however, see features within the text of the book that cause them to conclude that in its present state, it is not the product of one author, but of two, three, or perhaps more.
I would be happier if he didnt use the weasel word "some scholars" and used the more accurate "virtual majority" instead, but oh well.
He lists the reasons why scholars think there are multiple authors (e.g. biographical info, historical anachronisms, different theological perspective between sections, literary styles etc.), and acknowledges that LDS scholars agree. He goes on to acknowledge that there is information from 2nd Isaiah in the BOM which makes it a big deal.
Here are the arguments he lists that reject the idea that those chapters could not have been written before Lehi's time:
  • The burden of proof for those who say that the lack of biographical information in the later chapters is on those scholars or critics who say that there are different authors. Just because the book doesnt say who wrote it, doesnt necessarily follow that someone else wrote it.
  • The later chapters of Isaiah seem to address a different historical and theological theme is par for the course for a prophet who is prophesying, and not unique to Isaiah. He could have been speaking to a different time, just like BOM prophets. So, this is fine, but it falls flat for me. If this were the case, the writing styles would still be the same, and that would persist into the BOM. This is yet another instance of LDS apologetics bucking evidence and scholarship in favor of confirmation bias. Plus most prophets seem to indicate when they are prophesying and they dont just leave people guessing, in my limited view.
  • Arguments centering around literary styles are inconclusive.
    Even conservative scholars who argue for the unity of the entire book note some stylistic differences between "first" and "second" and "third" Isaiah. More significant, however is the fact that even critical scholars who argue for multiple authorship see a great deal of Isaiah son of Amoz throughout the entire collection, pointing to language and themes that were carried on in later chapters.
I think this is a rare case when multiple avenues of explanations presented work together for me to explain something. This makes sense to me.

Jackson's argument really rests on a unity theory of the whole book. He feels that Isaiah was a prophet, seeing beyond his time, writing with a literary style that afforded flexibility in how he wrote, organizing his thoughts, revelations and feelings into discrete groups and themes within his writing. This got written down and included in the Brass Plates. In fact he believes that the BOM provides that crucial evidence for second Isaiah being in fact from the "real" Isaiah. He loses me here. Classic circular logic. "The book of Mormon is true, that makes Isaiah a unified book, which makes the book of Mormon more true! YAY!" He thinks that those who cannot accept that are mainly people who do not accept that people can see beyond their time. What do you think?

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Corsair » Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:21 pm

Emower, I appreciate your ongoing review of this book. Now I don't have to suffer through it.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:58 pm

Time for another installment.

Next up, the Book of Abraham. By the Kerry Muhlestein. He is an Egyptologist you know.

Ok, so he goes through the history, a section introducing the possibility of other scrolls, and a few sections detailing the mechanics of the translation.

The history was heavy on the divine providence, and definitely downplays the weird traveling salesman aspect. All he mentions is that some antiquities would "work their way" to Kirtland. As if they are the one ring to rule them all coming home to the master. The rest of the history seemed up front. Nothing to report.

Which papyri were translated? This is the section that introduces the possibility of more scrolls. This was heavy on the "anti-mormons are unfaithful" tone, and light on the details.
For them, it is simply a given that Joseph Smith translated the text adjacent to Facsimile 1 as the Book of Abraham.
Kerry suggests 3 ways to test this assumption
  • 1. Examine the text to see if there are clues that indicate the relationship and position of the Facsimile to the text
  • 2. Examine papyri from a similar time to determine if the texts and "vignettes"? were adjacent to each other
  • 3. Examine accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the papyri and knew where Joseph was translating from
So, for point one he brings in verse 12 of the 1st chapter which refers the reader to the facsimile "at the commencement of the record." This suggests to Kerry that the Facsimile and the text Joseph was translating from were not next to each other. This does not explain why the "book of breathings" would be on the same scroll as the one Abraham used, and why those facsimiles which are in the "book of breathings" would be referring to the Book of Abraham, but maybe I have gotten some wires crossed.
For point two Kerry says "examining papyri from the same period reveals a similar pattern." Thats it. Take his word for it.
So at this point Kerry says that we cannot assume that the text giving rise to the book of Abraham is adjacent to the Facsimile.
Then for point three he brings in the eyewitnesses. He does say earlier that "Modern speculation about the role of the extant papyri in the translation of the Book of Abraham would be less important than evidence from eyewitnesses."
This is where the long roll comes in. Presumably, this will include all the third hand, 100 years later recollections of what the eyewitnesses told their grandkids. As citations he lists one Charlotte Haven, and a granddaughter of Hyrum Smith. Maybe I will track down these sources later. Maybe not. Probably not. This still does not explain why the book of breathings is present on Abraham's scroll, and why some of the book of breathings stuff is in the grammar and alphabet. Serious problems those are. Not dealt with in this essay are they.

Ok, now the mechanics of translation. He made me mad with this quote right off the bat:
For most people, the idea of translating is fairly straightforward.
But of course, nothing about what Joseph did is straightforward. It is all shrouded in secrecy, mystery, and convoluted. I dont want a God that plays mindgames. Anyway...

Kerry goes on to look at all the ways Joseph used the word "translate."
  • Book of Mormon --- Seer stones called Urim and Thummim, as well as the rock. Basic point here is that Joseph translated an ancient language often without looking at the source material.
  • Parchment written by John, shewed unto Joseph in a vision --- WTF, I never thought about this. Joseph was shown a vision of a record, that he "translated" i.e. God told him what was on it. D&C 7. The point is, he had no record, he just knew what to write. This is not inspiring confidence...
  • The JST version of the Bible --- "He studied an English version of the Bible and provided us with another English version of the text that contained a translation (emphasis his) of things that enhanced the text. We know that Joseph ripped most of this off from Adam Clark's commentary widely available at the time. See http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296
  • Next was the Book of Abraham --- The gist here is the catalyst theory. Joseph already demonstrated a willingness to translate in unorthodox ways,
    and "some clues" point to this being the way he did it.
By the end of this section Kerry basically points to 4 ways in which Joseph "could have translated" and says it was probably a combination of all 4. To his credit, Kerry is probably right, Joseph did use all of his experiences and knowledge to bear to translate this record. The problem is that there are major issues with all of his experiences and past translations as well, and then this one provides the most damning of all problems, leaving us to doubt the whole shooting match altogether. Put all your eggs in Joseph's basket and bad things are going to happen.

Next comes the grammar part. I confess, I dont know a whole lot about the Grammar and Alphabet. But Kerry didnt make me feel very good about it.
Some have postulated that Joseph Smith used the Egyptian Alphabet to translate the characters on the Book of Abraham manuscript and that this is was both the source of the Book of Abraham and the method of it's translation. If this explanation were true, it would certainly simplify the questions we have been trying to answer. Unfortunately, this theory does not fit the evidence we have.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Kerry talks about Champollion and how they failed at deciphering Egyptian characters.
This is not surprising considering that none of the authors claimed to know or understand Egyptian and the translation of Egyptian characters had stumped scholars for centuries.
Except that one of them was a prophet claiming direct communication from God telling him how to translate, either way you slice it. Academic interest in the alphabet aside. Everyone knows that the grammar and alphabet were not used to translate the book. A question I have is whether Joseph led people to believe that his academic efforts were what translated it. There is no discussion of this in Kerry's essay. Makes me think that Joseph probably did. Why else would he do it? Is the grammar and alphabet a big deal to some of you, or more of an oddity?

Next Kerry compares the BOA to modern discoveries.
Many people ask how Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles compare to the interpretation an ancient Egyptian would have given that same drawing. This is a question worth asking but not simple to answer. ( :lol: ) Part of the reason this question is dificult to answer is because it is not necessarily the right question to ask.
I am getting really tired of church people telling me that that is not the right question. Or instructing people to only answer question that people "should" have asked. Or first let me change the question. No, answer the question I have, not the one you want!!! Its a simple question!
Kerry goes on to pretty much say that maybe Joseph was just telling us how he viewed the facsimiles as a part of the spiritual interpretation needed in our time. Blech. What does all that mumbo jumbo on the facsimile have to do with spirituality? If members actively began to try and read into what those facsimiles really meant, church leaders would say it is unimportant to your salvation and you need to study more about tithing.

He then goes on to throw the entire Egyptology profession under the bus with a discussion about how what they know changes over time and maybe in the future what Joseph said will become true. It will if we move the goal posts enough. He goes on to relate all things about Egyptian culture that Egyptologists have changed their minds on. The problem with this discussion was that all of his citations were to either himself or Gee and most were publications in church journals. The professional ones were not top-tier. Now, I dont want to be an academic snob, but if you are going to try and upend the state of knowledge for Joseph Smith, it better be top-tier stuff. He talked a little about harmonizing Joseph Smith's view and an Egyptologists view of the texts. Based on my understanding of what Joseph said about the Book of Abraham, there just shouldnt be 2 different views.

He then talks about similarites between the BOA and non-biblical traditions regarding Abraham.
Yet each of the three Egyptian representations, or facsimiles, Joseph Smith said were associated with Abraham actually was associated with him by ancient Egyptians.
I dont really know what this means, and he does not explain it.

A few traditions that were not known in Josephs day but are found in the BOA:
  • Disrupting worship of idols was punished by death
  • Abraham prayed for deliverance when he was about to be killed for disrupting idol worship
  • The priest trying to kill him was killed instead
  • Abraham was heir to the priesthood because of his father
  • Abraham had a Urim and Thummim
  • Abraham possessed records
I dont know where some of this stuff comes from, do any of you know? Are there historical records of Abraham detailing some of this stuff?

The conclusion is basically to say that the Book of Abraham defies all explanation and is thus a miracle of revelation. I disagree with that assessment. I think it is easily explained once certain assumptions are discarded. Therein lied the rub though, Kerry specifically mentions that he thinks I have damaging assumptions that I must let go of. Mine are rooted in rationality though. His are rooted in dogma.

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by blazerb » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:41 am

Not Buying It wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:52 pm

You are right that the spin is a problem, but it isn't the only problem. One purpose of inoculation is to teach the youth of the Church that it was morally justifiable for a married man in his thirties to have romantic and sexual relationships with teenage girls and married women behind his wife's back using his religious power and authority over often vulnerable females. It corrupts the youth's sense of morality to preserve the truth claims of the Church. It teaches them to lie to themselves that they think Joseph Smith's behavior was OK. In the words of Thomas Paine:
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
This is what I have been trying to put my finger on. Inoculation seems wrong to me now, in spite of its apparent truthiness. Just telling everyone exactly what happened may keep some more people in the church, but they will not be more moral for the experience. They will be given warped ideas about what behavior is acceptable.

Now, I don't think that the church has any intention of telling people exactly what happened, regardless of the fact that it would be the best way to keep more members in the long term. I think they will continue to spin and to hide things. Most active members will likely continue unaware of the bulk of church history comfortable knowing that President Oaks has several yards of books on his shelf detailing church history. However, the standards of honesty and kindness will be undermined by the acceptance of really bad behavior on the part of early Mormon leaders.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:10 am

blazerb wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:41 am
Most active members will likely continue unaware of the bulk of church history comfortable knowing that President Oaks has several yards of books on his shelf detailing church history.
That killed me! :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Corsair » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:33 am

Emower wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:58 pm
Time for another installment.

Next up, the Book of Abraham. By the Kerry Muhlestein. He is an Egyptologist you know.

. . . .

The conclusion is basically to say that the Book of Abraham defies all explanation and is thus a miracle of revelation. I disagree with that assessment. I think it is easily explained once certain assumptions are discarded. Therein lied the rub though, Kerry specifically mentions that he thinks I have damaging assumptions that I must let go of. Mine are rooted in rationality though. His are rooted in dogma.
Emower, thanks for your continuing installments of commentary. I find that Book of Abraham issues are technical enough that this kind of hand waving and unfounded assertions seem to work from an apologetic standpoint. It might be amusing if Dr. Muhlestein had to be in a moderated debate with Dr. Robert Ritner on this subject.

Dr. Ritner is not the only Egyptologist that would wipe him out. But, this kind of discussion will never occur because LDS apologists have their internal narrative maintaining that "so-called" Egyptologists (i.e., accredited, unbiased Egyptologists) are not going to include any divine consideration of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. As a result, such a confrontation would not be helpful to the cause of LDS truth claims and they simply won't pursue it.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Emower » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:22 pm

The next chapter was the kinderhook plates by Mark Ashurst McGee and Don Bradley. I actually enjoyed this chapter. They made a cogent argument in my estimation that did not involve sketchy info, hiding other info, and dealt fairly straightforwardly.

Bradley summarized the arguments made by critics and apologists alike, which was nice.
we need to be able to explain how Joseph Smith could have translated from fraudulent plates.
Because Joseph Smith never claimed that he could not be deceived, his mistaken belief that the Kinderhook plates were genuine does not detract from his prophetic claims.
This is kind of the crux of Bradley's argument. He bolsters this argument with discussion around the only first-hand contemporary sources that talk about the kinderhook plates really do indicate that the effort was largely academic, not your typical prophetic or inspired process.
This falls a little flat to me because it seems that Joseph was really bad at communicating with God about ancient scripture, but he was able to get some pretty specific details about plural wives and such. Doesnt really make sense...
So, when Joseph Smith attempted to translate from the kinderhook plates, was he acting as a prophet or was he acting as an amateur linguist?
An unbiased examination of the Kinderhook plates episode would have to consider both possibilities and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
I dont know how I feel about this. On the one hand, yes one should follow every argument and avenue, but the thought of Joseph being an amateur linguist and using amateur methods to translate ancient scripture just doesnt sit right with me. But, he was excited about languages, he liked hebrew and egyptian stuff (for obvious reasons), and it does seem that he tried to decipher some of this stuff in a more academic way. But something that does not get brought up often is that Joseph thought everything was revelation from God somehow. I dont think he would have put himself in the amateur linguist category, why should we?

Don Bradley does bring up the Charlotte Haven story which has the prophet on record as saying he would try to translate them "by the help of revelation." Bradley tries to downplay this story by throwing Charlotte under the bus and saying she was unreliable because she exaggerated the size of the plates, therefore she must have exaggerated her story. But that was a third hand account.

Bradley brings up the only three contemporary primary sources we have, Parley P Pratt, William Clayton, and some dude who wrote a letter to the New York Herald. (Fake news folks...)
All three stories corroborate one another and indicate that Joseph used his Egyptian grammar and Alphabet book to translate it. There are several paralells with characters in on the kinderhook plates with characters in the Grammar and Alphabet which Joseph would have immediately seen, and his translation follows that coincidence that he saw.

Basically, yup Joseph was wrong. But his is really not a problem because he was clearly (to some) not acting as a revelating prophet receiving power from God to do this work. Thus, we can kick the can down the road. It is a decent and infuriating argument, and one that has to be used all the time with Joseph Smith. One could maybe say that he was acting not as a prophet through a good deal of his time leading the church.

Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Reuben » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:59 am

Emower wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:22 pm
But something that does not get brought up often is that Joseph thought everything was revelation from God somehow. I dont think he would have put himself in the amateur linguist category, why should we?
After some reflection, I think I'm okay with other people using the "amateur linguist" label. I think we have to label Joseph and his actions in ways he wouldn't have recognized or would have rejected, because his own labels aren't supportable (or in a nuanced-faith world, aren't always supportable).

In my mind, he's a pious fraud (in the technical sense, of believing his own fraudulent divine claims) and a talented bullshitter (also in the technical sense, of communicating without reference to the truth). Applying these labels has helped me make sense of him and (I believe) get closer to the truth, but I could only do it after rejecting his labels.

I see nuanced-faith members walking the same road. They've rejected his labels and are applying their own, and in doing so have reduced the leverage that the church has over their hearts and minds.
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.

User avatar
Dravin
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:04 am
Location: Indiana

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by Dravin » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:22 am

Emower wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:01 pm
The other thing I didnt like was the classic blame the victim game. She says that it is everyone's responsibility to read and be educated on touchy topics because the church cannot possibly have the time to educate us.
Other side of the mouth: Don't read anti-Mormon lies and material.

End result? Members don't study touchy topics and when they do encounter them they often discount them as anti-Mormon materials because they don't conform to the simplified and quite frankly white-washed Sunday School narrative. It would be one thing if the Church just wasn't going into depth on various topics and we saw notes on lesson manuals like, "X issue is more complicated than can be fully covered here. Please see the Race and the Priesthood Essay on LDS.com/essays or check out The Big Book of Mormon History Issues from the church library." That is not what you see in the manuals, lessons, or day to day rhetoric.

Also, you can't blame time constraints for Joseph Smith reads the plates to translate them vs. Joseph Smith has his face in a hat imagery.
Hindsight is all well and good... until you trip.

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: A reason for faith by Laura Hales

Post by wtfluff » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:58 pm

Because Joseph Smith never claimed that he could not be deceived, his mistaken belief that the Kinderhook plates were genuine does not detract from his prophetic claims.
This is wonderful. We can apply Joseph's same "mistaken belief" to the golden plates also, right? And the Book of Abraham? And... And... And...
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

You can surrender without a prayer...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests