Book of Mormon Transliteration

[_Maksutov]

What on earth does Smith's vocabulary have to do with anything if he's merely reading English words off of a rock?

That's my point. Is he merely reading words off of a rock or are there some pretty dang complex systems/operation(invisible for the most part from where we sit) that are in play. As I said earlier, if God is involved in this process we're going to have to take things up a notch in regards to the 'technology' required to pull this off.

Afterall, look, reading words off of a seerstone. That right THERE tells you that either we have a fraud/charlatan on one hand, or a process that is a bit above our pay grade to get a grasp on. During this thread I'm attempting to show that there may be some other directions to come at this translation/transliteration(concepts/visualizations/ideas...put into words) process. I'm not in anyway saying that what I'm describing is how it actually was. But I think that a bit of creativity is involved in trying to understand the process knowing what we know now about some of ins and outs of the whole thing. Otherwise, we are strictly obligated to go the route of automatic writing, channeling, or outright fabrication/fraud.

One thing I think many of us can agree on is that Joseph Smith couldn't have hobbled together the Book of Mormon on his own. There's something else in play. I've looked at the alternative theories and for me they simply don't explain the 'whole picture'.

Regards.
MG

And many of us keep finding more and more evidence Smith did do it on his own--with the help of a superstitious family and a cultural milieu that encouraged such things. But of course you don't consider those examples and research because you are willing to range far and wide to find the least crumb to sustain your faith. Keep searching. You're projecting your own desires and cognitive dissonance and imagination. Otherwise you'd be able to consider the hundreds of other channeled texts and examples of prophets, which you haven't, aren't and won't. You want to believe in your own particular cult of Joseph Smith and will bend time, space and reality to that end. Enjoy.

[Guest]

One thing I think many of us can agree on is that Joseph Smith couldn't have hobbled together the Book of Mormon on his own. There's something else in play. I've looked at the alternative theories and for me they simply don't explain the 'whole picture'.

Regards.
MG

MG -

Going back to the Grant Hardy book episode, you focused then on the Book of Mormon being a work that exhibited literary value above and beyond anything anyone had formerly recognized. Yet in this thread, when asked to point to the riches of wisdom and cultural wealth it contains you chose to focus on your project du jour. Those being hidden artifacts of language that demonstrate connection to ancient sources above and beyond anything anyone has formerly recognized.

The Grant Hardy approach had the singular virtue of being novel, though I'm not surprised it's fallen to the way side. Your grasping out at the flotsam and jetsam of Book of Mormon theories that have proliferated out of the absolute wreck of the simple, faithful explanation for the Book of Mormon's existence is understandable given it's resemblance to that of a person attempting to keep their head above water grabbing at whatever bit of the wreckage that floats by seeking some final refuge they can scramble atop.

But the fact is, the Book of Mormon doesn't describe any population that lived in the Americas two thousand years ago. Its contents are a combination of 19th century western frontier beliefs about the world's history, proposes just so answers for questions debated among Christian communities of the time and region where Joseph Smith lived, portrays the Native Americans in a way only defensible as reflecting the racist beliefs of that time and place as well, and largely missing anything related to what coalesced into the LDS faith some 10 to 14 years after it's publication. The legend it's narrative purported to convey has been disproven through DNA, archeology, military science, agriculture, geography, anthropology, and more other disciplines than Sarah Sanders heard FBI agents express dissatisfaction with James Comey.

But carry on, MG. The mind is a magnificent instrument for identifying patterns regardless of whether or not they were intentionally there to begin with. And there is a certain class that takes great interest in the creative application of this capacity of the mind, drawing from it's own hoarded resources of intellectual bits and bobs, that values that sort of exercise as the best of sports. So clearly it isn't going to go to waste. It just should be acknowledged that it's the thrashing about between theories that is doing the work of keeping your belief afloat rather than the actual "evidence" being put forward in order for you to maintain that Mormonism and your personal view on Pascal's Wager intersect into some odd idea that this is the best course available given the options. Perhaps it is for you, so keep on churning the waters around you, MG. You clearly don't care for ropes being tossed out anyway.

[_Maksutov]

We all use Occam's Razor and Pascal's Wager as we determine for ourselves which route to take.

You don't know what Pascal's Wager was, do you? It's very different from parsimony, so your associating it with Occam is disingenuous or, as I suspect, deeply ignorant. Pascal's Wager ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of religions with profoundly contradictory beliefs. It pretends to a binary choice, a "wager", where there are actually multitudes. It's even more crudely stupid than Lewis' trilemma, which is something.

[_Physics Guy]

Pascal's Wager ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of religions with profoundly contradictory beliefs. It pretends to a binary choice, a "wager", where there are actually multitudes.

I've never understood this objection. I'm not sure Pascal ever played roulette, but I expect he understood one part of its logic: you don't have to bet on only one number. You can bet on "all the reds" versus "all the blacks". In the same way you can bet on "some kind of God exists," with the "some kind of" wiggle room being just as wide or narrow as you wish.

So Pascal's Wager can certainly be a genuinely binary choice, if I simply choose to bet that way. Who cares how many possibilities there are, when I can combine as many of them as I like into one proposition by taking their logical union? I mean, that actually happens every time something is decided by coin toss. There are uncountably infinitely many ways that a coin can land. We just group them into two categories, "Heads" and "Tails", to make it a binary choice. And that works. If it works for coins, why can't it work for God, too?

[_jfro18]

What on earth does Smith's vocabulary have to do with anything if he's merely reading English words off of a rock?

That's my point. Is he merely reading words off of a rock or are there some pretty dang complex systems/operation(invisible for the most part from where we sit) that are in play. As I said earlier, if God is involved in this process we're going to have to take things up a notch in regards to the 'technology' required to pull this off.

The problem is that the evidence is pretty clear that God was not involved in the process whatsoever. You're starting with the conclusion which is why the rest of this can't possibly work.

Afterall, look, reading words off of a seerstone. That right THERE tells you that either we have a fraud/charlatan on one hand, or a process that is a bit above our pay grade to get a grasp on. During this thread I'm attempting to show that there may be some other directions to come at this translation/transliteration(concepts/visualizations/ideas...put into words) process. I'm not in anyway saying that what I'm describing is how it actually was. But I think that a bit of creativity is involved in trying to understand the process knowing what we know now about some of ins and outs of the whole thing. Otherwise, we are strictly obligated to go the route of automatic writing, channeling, or outright fabrication/fraud.

You're attempting to show a process that doesn't fit at all with what we now know about how Joseph "translated" the Book of Mormon. He read the words directly off a stone in a hat (it's only a seer stone if you believe Joseph was real). That stone failed Joseph as a treasure digger... it's track record is basically what you'd expect for a stone in the dirt.

The fact that you're admitting that it takes creativity to make this work illustrates how ridiculous the idea is that there's a deeper system in place than what the quotes/records show. You have to get creative to try and make this work -- that's what apologists do.

One thing I think many of us can agree on is that Joseph Smith couldn't have hobbled together the Book of Mormon on his own. There's something else in play. I've looked at the alternative theories and for me they simply don't explain the 'whole picture'.

This isn't remotely true for those who have studied the Book of Mormon creation along with the source materials and ideas that are woven in the Book of Mormon. It's actually quite easy to see how Joseph Smith put it all together, and it doesn't take the creativity or redefining Joseph Smith' history to do so.

[_Themis]

If it works for coins, why can't it work for God, too?

I think he is saying there are multiple God choices that cannot be combined into one when we look at the real world. You cannot combine the Christian God of the JW's with the Christian God of the baptists. You cannot be a baptist and expect the JW God to reward you for belief in the biblical God. If we have to choose from all the different choices, JW may be the best if you view non-existence as the worst outcome.

[_Maksutov]

If it works for coins, why can't it work for God, too?

I think he is saying there are multiple God choices that cannot be combined into one when we look at the real world. You cannot combine the Christian God of the JW's with the Christian God of the baptists. You cannot be a baptist and expect the JW God to reward you for belief in the biblical God. If we have to choose from all the different choices, JW may be the best if you view non-existence as the worst outcome.

Exactly. In some sects you go to hell and others a kind of heaven. It's as varied as you'd expect human inventions without reality checks to be.

[_Themis]

That's my point. Is he merely reading words off of a rock or are there some pretty dang complex systems/operation(invisible for the most part from where we sit) that are in play. As I said earlier, if God is involved in this process we're going to have to take things up a notch in regards to the 'technology' required to pull this off.

You keep suggesting reading words created by some entity working for God could not create a complex operation, which would be false. The best method to create a complex and cohesive narrative would be to give Joseph word for word so he doesn't screw it up. All the witnesses say this is how he did it, and they even give descriptions of him rereading things so they got it right. Why would he need a seer stone in a hat with his face buried in the hat?

[_Themis]

Exactly. In some sects you go to hell and others a kind of heaven. It's as varied as you'd expect human inventions without reality checks to be.

What's funny is seeing Mormons suggest his wager. If you to use the wager in the real world you would go with the religion that has the worst outcome for the non-believer in their religion. Mormons have one for the best outcomes for the non-believers.

[_Gadianton]

I've never understood this objection. I'm not sure Pascal ever played roulette, but I expect he understood one part of its logic: you don't have to bet on only one number. You can bet on "all the reds" versus "all the blacks". In the same way you can bet on "some kind of God exists," with the "some kind of" wiggle room being just as wide or narrow as you wish.

So Pascal's Wager can certainly be a genuinely binary choice, if I simply choose to bet that way. Who cares how many possibilities there are, when I can combine as many of them as I like into one proposition by taking their logical union? I mean, that actually happens every time something is decided by coin toss. There are uncountably infinitely many ways that a coin can land. We just group them into two categories, "Heads" and "Tails", to make it a binary choice. And that works. If it works for coins, why can't it work for God, too?

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

You can't bet on both Christianity and Islam at the same time, it is binary. Well, you can bet on them both, but not without disrespecting their unique messages. live as though Christ exists, and if Islam is right, that could merit substantially more torment for you in hell then had you just been a general non-believer. Believe in Allah but don't call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, then again. Hellfire. Eternity. Giant Spiders.

The bet you're making, PG, is less like the bet Pascal made, and more like the bet I'm making as an atheist. You see a central theme in theism (I'm guessing, based on what I've read so far) a "redness" that is captured by many different faiths. And really, the various articulations of theism all break down into a single proposition: the ontological argument. It doesn't sound to me like you want to get all invested in particulars. But most religious people, like Pascal, want to get into particulars, and don't really see the possibility of beliefs outside their own with its particulars that make an afterlife good for them, and bad for everyone else, as real possibilities -- other faiths with their threats of eternal torment seem silly or evil.

Betting on "redness" makes the bet very general, perhaps there is an infinite being who brought about us all but very little else follows from there, including afterlives. If you were wrong and that's all at death, then a small loss. If you were right and there is an infinite being at the helm with some kind of great plan, you expect to be a part of that because you're above all the silly particulars, fire and brimstone, scorpions with giant stingers. But I too am making a similar bet. I don't believe there is a God, but something in cosmology or modal logic one day might sway me and I might think, maybe there is some kind of grand design? If there is and I'm wrong, having bet black not red, then this infinite being is unlikely to be a megalomaniac and so I feel like I've given seeking the truth a fair shot, and God's primary concern may not even have been my level of devotion and ass kissing. I feel like the general kind of God will work things out with me if I'm wrong and he does exist -- as I bet on black and not red.

But if particulars do matter, and if God really is going to have snakes biting me in the ground for eternity for not being Muslim (as one very nice Muslim lady once told me in a particularly endearing way) then betting red or black was the wrong bet. But the bet now is so complicated, it's worse than pricing a credit default swap on a CDO. At that point, the best bet is to just do what makes you happiest and most fulfilled in this life because there's no way to asses the odds of how to live from a probability standpoint. And further, if there's anything at all to existentialism, that living authentically is more important than solving a giant math problem, then the whole idea of optimizing my life program by actuarial science seems a little ridiculous. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, for correctly calculating the net present value of eternal rewards and eternal threats, and making the most self-serving choice."