Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Newton

Post by Res Ipsa »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:17 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:56 pm
If you want to design a GPS system using satellites, you have to use Einstein's theory of special relativity to account for the speed of the satellites.


In which I totally agree!

But if an apple falls from a tree and bonks me on the head then I will use Newton's theory.

;)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Newton

Post by Shulem »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:20 pm
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ikr

:lol:
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Physics Guy »

Since you're playing my song ...

I think one may even need to use General Relativity to get GPS to work nicely. For once the names are not utterly misleading: Special Relativity is a special case of General Relativity, which is a more general theory. The names are still pretty misleading, however, because they don't mention what the more general theory covers that the special theory does not cover. What the more general theory covers is gravity.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, developed ten years after the special theory in 1915, is the modern theory of gravitation. To learn your location from a satellite you need to know the elapsed time between transmission of a radio signal from the satellite and reception in your device. The satellite includes the transmission time in its signal, and your device has its own clock to tell you the reception time, so you're all set—as long as the satellite clock is accurate.

We already know from Special Relativity that the clock on a GPS satellite will run a bit slower than a clock on Earth, because the orbital speeds are quite fast. General relativity provides an additional small effect in the opposite direction: the satellite clock runs a bit faster because it is farther from the center of the Earth. I guess that it would be possible to just correct the small General Relativistic clock drift periodically with instructions from a station on Earth, but I understand that the satellite navigation systems actually have the general relativistic corrections built in, presumably just so that they require less correction.

Newtonian physics is still completely current for lots of problems in which more recent corrections are too small to matter. Newton's theory has been translated into at least three different mathematical languages, which each give it a quite different look-and-feel from Newton's original formulation, but the four different versions can all be mapped onto each other one-to-one. You could say that it's still the same theory under the hood, but the user interface has been upgraded a few times.

Newton's book Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis is another story. It really is obsolete, and it was obsolete even for Newton himself when he wrote it, because it wasn't so much an exposition of his new science as it was a public relations exercise, pitching his new science to conservative natural philosophers. In particular he avoided using calculus in his derivations, and stuck to thousand-year-old geometry even when it was incredibly clunky in comparison.

Newton discovered both calculus and the physics of motion. This was kind of like inventing both the digital computer and the concept of an algorithm. In that analogy, Newton's book was like an introduction to computer science using only an abacus. Instantly obsolete, but perhaps a necessary marketing measure.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Res Ipsa »

Thanks, PG. I hadn’t known about the general relativity correction.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:53 pm
Since you're playing my song ...

Very, very interesting, and I thoroughly enjoyed that and will be reading it again when a refreshing is in order. And it makes for an excellent reference. THANK YOU for that amazing contribution to the thread! Gems like this in a thread double the value of the entire thread.

I can only imagine Newton must have had a very high IQ. He was totally inspired from within and his contributions to humanity in general is literally astronomical. Thank you, Sir Isaac Newton!


Image
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Res Ipsa »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:51 pm
Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:53 pm
Since you're playing my song ...

Very, very interesting, and I thoroughly enjoyed that and will be reading it again when a refreshing is in order. And it makes for an excellent reference. THANK YOU for that amazing contribution to the thread! Gems like this in a thread double the value of the entire thread.

I can only imagine Newton must have had a very high IQ. He was totally inspired from within and his contributions to humanity in general is literally astronomical. Thank you, Sir Isaac Newton!


Image
He was a fascinating guy. Would you stick a needle in your eye to figure out how it works? https://jsaulburton.com/2014/07/27/isaa ... is-bodkin/

And he tried to create a Philosopher's Stone to change lead into gold. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -alchemist
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by MG 2.0 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:57 pm
I entirely agree with how you are presenting this Shulem. Excellent, straight forward - not rude - questions demonstrating why so many of us had our end due to the Book of Abraham, and Gee has not changed that. I believe Lindsey is also quite stretching things in attempting to portray this apologetic missive as having a broad audience. It does not have such. Great thread, and keep up the good work. I too would invite Lindsey here for a discussion of the actual issues with the Book of Abraham, not the John Gee approach.
What if, and this is just a what if, the Book of Abraham was a side project of Joseph Smith that he didn’t intend to be used as scripture in the authoritative sense along with the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the D&C?

During the entire process of translation of the Book of Abraham, Joseph never claimed direct inspiration of God. Apparently it was produced through application of his acquired knowledge, rather than with any claim to extraordinary [divine] assistance. [C. Webb, Joseph Smith as a Translator (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1936), p.73]

Although at times Joseph referred to the ancient records as "sacred", he never referred to the Book of Abraham as scripture. In the Doctrine and Covenants, there are many references to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There was no reference in the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to the Book of Abraham even though the Book of Abraham had been purchased 9 years prior and had been published 2 years before the death of Joseph Smith.

The first part of the translation of the Book of Abraham was finally published in Times and Seasons [vol 3, No.9 (March 1,1842), pg 703-706]. The title and preface read as follows: "Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." The use of the words "purporting to be" would seem to indicate at least some degree of doubt on the part of Joseph Smith, Jr. regarding its authenticity. This same preface as written above is repeated verbatim in the LDS History, vol 4, p 524. The original 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great

Price carried the same inscription. In the later editions of the Pearl of Great Price, as published by the LDS Church, the preface is also given, however, without the words, "purporting to be."

The same edition of the Times and Seasons that carried the first portion of the Book of Abraham, is also found the "Wentworth Letter" in which Joseph outlined the beliefs of the church. In the outline, Joseph stated, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Even though the first installment of the Book of Abraham was being published, Joseph neglects to mention it as part of the beliefs of the Church.

Two months prior to Joseph Smith's death, an article was published in the Times and Seasons which stated, "If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an impostor." [Times and Seasons, vol 5, No.7 (April 1,1844), pg 490] What is interesting is that there is no mention of the Book of Abraham, even though it had been published two years prior while Joseph was the editor of the Times and Seasons.

If Joseph Smith was responsible for both the Inspired Translation of the Bible (Inspired Version) and the Book of Abraham AND IF he considered both scriptural, why didn't he modify both to teach the same thing ( either a monotheistic God or plurality of Gods. The abrupt difference would suggest that his translation of the Book of Abraham was simply an honest human effort by one interested in ancient languages. Because his perceptions of the Egyptian alphabet gave rise to the translation that discusses plural gods it does not necessarily endorse that belief. Compare KJV Genesis 1:1-5 with the Inspired Version Genesis 1:3-8 which inidcate monotheism and the Book of Abraham 4:1-5 which indicates polytheism.
During the 1880 semiannual conference of the LDS Church, the Pearl of Great Price was accepted as one of their standard books of scripture. Along with it, the Book of Abraham was elevated to scriptural status. As canonized scripture, the LDS Church committed itself to the accuracy and validity of the book.

https://2think.org/hundredsheep/Book of Abraham/rlds.shtml
Might we consider the possibility that all the hoopla in regards to the Book of Abraham controversy may be unnecessary? We are living with the results of a possibly mistaken canonization of this serialization project in the early Times and Seasons that may have been looking for ways to up its subscription base? The Book of Abraham may have been more or less a midrash or riff from the mind of Joseph Smith?

Except for a few doctrinal teachings that seem to find their roots in the Book of Abraham there seems to be little use, comparatively speaking, of the Book of Abraham in the modern church. Or the JST for that matter. And it was never canonized.

Now if I’m wrong and I find out at some later date that there was no mistake about it, the Book of Abraham was authoritative scripture that was canonized as a direct result of revelation from God, then so be it. But I’m open to the possibility that because of whatever mitigating factors may have been going on back in the later 1800’s when this canonization occurred, there may have been a mistake made…and we are living with the results of that….then, it is what it is.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:57 pm
I entirely agree with how you are presenting this Shulem. Excellent, straight forward - not rude - questions demonstrating why so many of us had our end due to the Book of Abraham, and Gee has not changed that. I believe Lindsey is also quite stretching things in attempting to portray this apologetic missive as having a broad audience. It does not have such. Great thread, and keep up the good work. I too would invite Lindsey here for a discussion of the actual issues with the Book of Abraham, not the John Gee approach.
What if, and this is just a what if, the Book of Abraham was a side project of Joseph Smith that he didn’t intend to be used as scripture in the authoritative sense along with the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the D&C?

Greetings, MG. I realize that you were addressing Philo’s post but would be grateful if you’d allow me to also comment. If memory serves the last time you and I had a meaningful conversation was on the old defuncted Mormon Discussion board when you opened a thread entitled, “A few questions for Shulem” where we discussed the importance of the Explanations of the Facsimiles and the providence upon which they were given. I trust you recall that rather lengthy conversation. The evidence presented in that thread witnessed the fact that Joseph Smith considered the Explanations of the Facsimiles to be inspired and given of God to the Church and to the whole world at large.

The question you pose to Philo above is based upon a “what if” scenario which also means that it’s pure conjecture and is only an idea. Therefore, we must rely on statements made by Joseph Smith and those of church officials serving under him while representing President Smith’s work in official church publications as well as other forms of communication. This is how we can determine Smith’s real motives in publishing the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons.

Do we see eye to eye on that?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
What if, and this is just a what if, the Book of Abraham was a side project of Joseph Smith that he didn’t intend to be used as scripture in the authoritative sense along with the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the D&C?

Such speculation was probably brought up in the counsels of John Taylor early on when he assumed the Presidency or perhaps earlier during Brigham Young’s Presidency. Young could have canonized the Pearl of Great Price but for whatever reason elected not to. But as soon as Taylor ascended the office of President he got right on it and the Pearl of Great Price (including the Book of Abraham) was canonized in the October 1880 General Conference. Taylor had a special interest in the Book of Abraham having worked directly with Smith at the printing press in getting it published in the Times and Seasons.

MG, you are welcome to speculate that the Book of Abraham was a so-called “side project” that Smith never intended to be added to canon but apparently his successors felt otherwise and canonized the complete work in Conference by the unanimous vote of the Church in the affirmative. With uplifted hands of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Seventy, and all the members of the Church residing at Conference, the work was sustained and added to the canon. The manifestation was given from on high and the process was totally binding on the Church and viewed as being the mind and will of God.

But getting back to your original question regarding Smith and his intentions; let us just say that if Smith did not ever intend to canonize the work then he was not in step or in line with what the future leaders of the Church envisioned and what the general membership sustained. If that be the case, then Mormon doctrine clearly states that Joseph Smith had a deficiency and lacked certain understanding although he was not held accountable or subject to that responsibility.
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
What if, and this is just a what if, the Book of Abraham was a side project of Joseph Smith that he didn’t intend to be used as scripture in the authoritative sense along with the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the D&C?

MG, I suggest you pause for a moment and consider the many statements that are on record about Smith’s intentions regarding the Book of Abraham. Also, don’t forget that Joseph Smith also intended to translate the Book of Joseph but was unable to accomplish that goal. Think about what was said and plug it into your question about Smith’s Book of Abraham. Remember the conversation we had on the old board about the divine providence of the Explanations of the Facsimiles and the evidences I presented in the “A few questions for Shulem” thread? Here is the link in the Terrestrial Forum (RATED PG):

A few questions for Shulem


PS. Please do not fret because I have much more to say regarding the rest of your original post.
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply