Book of Mormon Transliteration

[Guest]

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).

Pensée 233 does not mention Hell at all. It begins with a couple of paragraphs about how the nature of God is unknowable and God's exisistence is logically undecidable. So it's pretty clear that the Wager is solely about the existence of God as an unknowable infinite being, and not about believing in any particular theory of what God is like.

The final paragraphs of Pensée 233 do recommend following specific religious observances, but not because they are the subject of the Wager. Rather, Pascal explicitly accepts that some people may be persuaded by his Wager argument that it would be a good plan for them to believe in God, yet find themselves unable to put the plan into practice because they cannot simply choose to believe. Pascal suggests that they should go through the motions of living as though they believed in God, because by doing so they will gradually come to believe in God for real: fake it till you make it.

Pascal doesn't make clear in or near Pensée 233 why believing in God should bring an infinite gain if you're right. Maybe he spells this out somewhere much earlier in the the Pensées, but they're a loose collection of jottings that Pascal never organized into a single coherent argument. So if I simply lift out the Wager itself from the rest of the text, without attaching it to any specific theory of how eternal judgement works, then I really don't think I'm violently cutting the Wager out of its context. That's how it's written.

I think it's a valid objection to the Wager that the postulated infinite reward for belief in God has been arbitrarily assumed. It's certainly not clear to me that any reasonable God is really going to reward anyone so disproportionately just for their opinions. I don't think the objection about there being many religions really has anything to do with Pascal's Wager, however. I think the "there are many religions" point is more an objection to crude "turn or burn" appeals that have been confused with Pascal's idea. "Believe everything I say because otherwise you're going to Hell" is after all a much older spiel than Pascal's, and it's clearly not what Pascal said. So it makes no sense to refer to that as Pascal's Wager.

The worthwhile idea that I see in Pascal's Wager, and for which I think Pascal deserves credit, is the forthright emphasis on belief as a game move in a game with insufficient information. We are not spectators. We can do our best to judge what is true, but in concrete terms what belief means is that we act in certain ways during our finite lifetimes, and think in certain ways. Those are moves in a game that we don't understand but from which we cannot escape. So we should think in terms of risk and reward rather than knowledge and proof.

[_Symmachus]

OK. I guess I pretty much go along with the Primary Version, the only caveat being that I wouldn't call it "Smith's church". Rather I would call it the restored church of Jesus Christ.

Just a minor...or not so much...quibble.

It's funny, in a way, that after many years of going on the roller coaster ride of a faith journey/crisis that I'd end up back in Primary. But Jesus did say except ye be as little children ye cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Maybe there's actually something to that.

Regards,
MG

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with believing it. To me it's a question of domain.

[_mentalgymnast]

The worthwhile idea that I see in Pascal's Wager, and for which I think Pascal deserves credit, is the forthright emphasis on belief as a game move in a game with insufficient information. We are not spectators. We can do our best to judge what is true, but in concrete terms what belief means is that we act in certain ways during our finite lifetimes, and think in certain ways. Those are moves in a game that we don't understand but from which we cannot escape. So we should think in terms of risk and reward rather than knowledge and proof.

I like that. I would throw in cause and effect too. Certain actions cause certain outcomes. Some for better, some for worse. Although it is sometimes difficult at the front end to determine the better/worse as a matter of fact.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Then as time went on I gradually came to the realization that belief in God was the number one thing to consider. Everything else was an appendage to that. As I read, thought, and read some more I saw belief in a creator/God as being a reasonable way to go. When I made that choice I found that I looked at Mormonism with new eyes and found that I was able to view things differently...through the eyes of what I consider to be reasonable faith based on some evidence. All the evidence? No. Is it completely rational? No. But there is enough there to move forward in faith...as far as I'm concerned. Others don't agree. I'm OK with that. I can see where they/you might be coming from.

One thing that bothers me about Mormonism is the idea that belief in God has to be tied to belief in Mormonism.

I hope that isn't something that you believe all Mormons believe. I, for one, don't.

I can believe in God and also see where the evidence is clear that people are exploiting that, such as Joseph Smith in so many ways during his life.

But then you have the sincerity factor in which Joseph, many times, often in private journals, etc., called upon God/Christ to administer to him in times of need/concern and to bless the lives of others. It is a bit difficult to wrap your mind around the duplicity, isn't it?

While I understand that you admit that you have to ignore some evidence to make it work for you, what you present here is just not the same church that the church presents itself as... I guess for me that's where I can't reconcile your position.

I don't know that I intentionally ignore evidence. I know that the church has whitewashed its history in some respects. But I don't find that surprising considering the players and how much there was to lose/win. These people really believed that they were at the forefront of the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth. They didn't want to let human foibles, of which I'm sure they were well aware, get in the way.

I get that it works for you, and that's great, but you also have to reinvent the concept to work and I just can't ignore the overwhelming evidence to claim the church is something different.

I realize the church is a work in process, just like I am. I suppose that I am rather forgiving and willing to cut slack to human beings that are trying to do their level headed best, but at times don't always make correct decisions and/or screw up.

I suppose that's why I can walk away from Mormonism and still hold out hope there is a God - because this church is nothing more than pseudepigrapha, so once you peel that away there's still a core under it.

I hope that you can continue to hold on to your "hope there is a God". I agree that the core of the church, and it is especially manifest nowadays, is the worship and understanding of Jesus Christ and His atonement. I think the church itself has peeled away and even discarded/put aside some of the layers to expose the underlying purpose for the restoration in the first place. That is, to help people stay and/or enter on the covenant path that leads towards greater faith in and obedience to God's laws and the happiness that comes from doing so.

Regards,
MG

[_jfro18]

One thing that bothers me about Mormonism is the idea that belief in God has to be tied to belief in Mormonism.

I hope that isn't something that you believe all Mormons believe. I, for one, don't.

The leaders teach it, which is all I'm concerned about from that standpoint. Even Corbridge's talk about primary/secondary questions framed it in a way that God is connected to the church when in reality Mormonism is an extension of God.

I can believe in God and also see where the evidence is clear that people are exploiting that, such as Joseph Smith in so many ways during his life.

But then you have the sincerity factor in which Joseph, many times, often in private journals, etc., called upon God/Christ to administer to him in times of need/concern and to bless the lives of others. It is a bit difficult to wrap your mind around the duplicity, isn't it?

The thing is that Joseph started writing in his journals a history of the church (or dictated it) so clearly he knew it would be read by others and as such would write/dictate in it as he would like people to think of his teachings/experiences. So to me it's really easy to wrap my head around that.

[_Gadianton]

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

MG: That's my point.

Oh, that was your point the entire time when you were explaining about expansions and Blake Ostler and Brandt. Okay.

MG: 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

Well, there's nothing complex going on in the mind of Joseph Smith now is there, by definition of the word "read" and "English" etc? Now, what's going on beneath the seer stone is another matter. It's a black box. It could be a translation committee in the spirit world or a random text generator, or a Google translator. It could be the output of a game where one person makes up Nephi and the next Jacob and go ahead and take a random guess.

MG: 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)

What in God's unholy name are you talking about? If he's reading English off a stone, then here is nothing about "concepts" or "visualizations" "ideas" or anything that have anything to do with the mind of Joseph Smith. So throw that out the window. If you want to call BS on the LDS.org version and admit, like apparently Brandt and Blake, that Joseph Smith was getting this done by other means and not reading English words off a stone, then we can entertain your suggestions of "expansions".

MG: 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.

You haven't described anything yet, have you? Do you reject the version on LDS.org? Yes or No. If No, then there is only one "out", the output of the seer stone that Joseph Smith read. There is no creativity at work in the mind of Joseph Smith. Now, is there creativity at work in the mind of the spirit world translation committee? Maybe. what about that would you like to discuss since there are virtually no constraints to speculation in that case?

One thing I can tell you that accounts for everything, is somebody making up fake "Bible writing" scripture.

[_Themis]

The worthwhile idea that I see in Pascal's Wager, and for which I think Pascal deserves credit, is the forthright emphasis on belief as a game move in a game with insufficient information. We are not spectators. We can do our best to judge what is true, but in concrete terms what belief means is that we act in certain ways during our finite lifetimes, and think in certain ways. Those are moves in a game that we don't understand but from which we cannot escape. So we should think in terms of risk and reward rather than knowledge and proof.

I like that. I would throw in cause and effect too. Certain actions cause certain outcomes. Some for better, some for worse. Although it is sometimes difficult at the front end to determine the better/worse as a matter of fact.

Regards,
MG

The problem is this wager has no way to determine risk or reward even a little. It is all claims made by people we don't even know, and the claims have many different claims to rewards and risks. You obviously don't take it seriously by the fact you remain LDS.

[_honorentheos]

The worthwhile idea that I see in Pascal's Wager, and for which I think Pascal deserves credit, is the forthright emphasis on belief as a game move in a game with insufficient information. We are not spectators. We can do our best to judge what is true, but in concrete terms what belief means is that we act in certain ways during our finite lifetimes, and think in certain ways. Those are moves in a game that we don't understand but from which we cannot escape. So we should think in terms of risk and reward rather than knowledge and proof.

Interestingly, this could describe my reasons for non-belief and why I choose to live as I do. Given the finite information available, I can see how my actions and thinking affect other people, and I make decisions based on that guided by a few concepts regarding what it means to be a virtuous person. The idea there is more to existence than this life that should play into that kind of decision-making strikes me as problematic precisely due to it being beyond the event horizon of mortality. If there is a god that is something we may consider just or good, then I can't see why not pretending while also attempting to treat people well and fight the entropy of the universe would be out of line with the concepts of justice and goodness said deity must hold as well. And if said deity is neither just nor good, and instead cares less about how one treats others rather than is most concerned with how they behave towards contradictory evidence then I suppose it wasn't going to end well for me anyway.

[_Lemmie]

this could describe my reasons for non-belief and why I choose to live as I do. Given the finite information available, I can see how my actions and thinking affect other people, and I make decisions based on that guided by a few concepts regarding what it means to be a virtuous person.The idea there is more to existence than this life that should play into that kind of decision-making strikes me as problematic precisely due to it being beyond the event horizon of mortality.

That is exactly the problem I have with the argument in another thread that people will always need religion in order to best organize themselves into meaningful groups or provide service for others. Very well said, honor.

[_mentalgymnast]

Well, there's nothing complex going on in the mind of Joseph Smith now is there, by definition of the word "read" and "English" etc? Now, what's going on beneath the seer stone is another matter.

The stone is the visual. The words appear. It's how those words got there that is the question. Joseph's world and his language and that of the surrounding milieu are there. You mention a translation committee of some sort that is overseeing the project. My contention is that the system/operation in which Joseph, the reference sources (language/structure of the KJ Bible, etc.), and the 'committee' are all working together is complex and running at a processing speed that might equal and/or surpass the processing speed of our computers. The output is the language, Joseph's language being part and parcel, seen on the stone. Now, would Joseph's grammatical errors be part of that? Why not? If it's his brain producing the language from the input of other sources, why would we not expect his syntax to be the basis of said output?

As I've said before, we tend to make everything simple. Words on stone. Joseph writes the words. Why do we make the assumption that there aren't some layers of complexity involved in the project?

If you want to call BS on the LDS.org version and admit, like apparently Brandt and Blake, that Joseph Smith was getting this done by other means and not reading English words off a stone, then we can entertain your suggestions of "expansions".

Where have I said that Joseph was not reading words off of a stone? The process itself can be tight (words are literally appearing on and being read off of the stone) while at the same time allowing for the collaboration and complexity of having multiple participants involved in the project.

Do you reject the version on LDS.org? Yes or No.

What part of that version do you think I am rejecting?

...there is only one "out", the output of the seer stone that Joseph Smith read.

True.

There is no creativity at work in the mind of Joseph Smith.

The whole process is a creative enterprise. Including Joseph's own mind which acts as the medium in which that process comes together for the language output.

Now, is there creativity at work in the mind of the spirit world translation committee? Maybe. what about that would you like to discuss since there are virtually no constraints to speculation in that case?

Nothing in particular at this time except to point out that there may have been others involved in the project besides Joseph and God.

One thing I can tell you that accounts for everything, is somebody making up fake "Bible writing" scripture.

The Bible is surely a component/influence on the language and also structure of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG