Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

[dastardly stem]

The problem I see is when belief in fantasy turns into misguided politics and sometimes war. Too much of our politics has religious overtones to it and I think both major parties in the US misuse it. If that weren't a problem that has plagued society over the years, then sure, have at the fantasy. Dream as many dreams as one wants. But, perhaps, think real hard prior to spreading the fantasy to others.

I think I agree with you here. Despite Kishkumen's well reasoned protestations, I still think we'd all better off the more people we get thinking rationally in place of them seeing make-believe myths as the basis for reality. But we live with what we have, I suppose.

[Kishkumen]

In a way Mormonism is exactly what is expected in religion making it seems to me. Meaning just as you suggest there are various strands of influence on Mormons the same could be said of Christianity, it seems to me. Traditional Christianity feels grander and more important because its been around longer, the origins are more mysterious, and far more people refer to it for religion than Mormonism. But, interestingly, neither, in my view, are any more historically, philosophically or empirically viable than the other. If there is anything to the concept of "spirituality" in the west, Mormonism has as much a right to it as any. The seemingly obvious man-made or con aspect of it is immaterial. no doubt if we had as much on early Christianity as we do on early Mormonism it'd look just as fraudulent. I'd say it does look just as fraudulent. But who cares? "Spiritual" is the concept that debunks any criticism of religion anyway. If people get meaning and purpose, I suppose, we conclude that's what's important. I mean truly if people are better off dedicating their lives to make-believe things...I mean have at it. And, yet, I'd clarify, I'd still say that what they think they are better off doing, I disagree with. I mean they'd be better off without religion or the concept of spiritual...but they don't think so.

We can't just dismiss that which is very important to so many. I grant all of that. And I appreciate you pushing this perspective for that purpose. It hits closer to home for me when people want to dismiss Mormonism as if dismissing it and not dismissing all religion makes any sense.

Yes. As an ancient historian, I really don't view the origins of Christianity as being much more mysterious. It looks like an earlier stage of the same conversation. Being one sect of a much larger religion (Christianity), Mormonism is obviously not as big as the whole. It is a small slice of a global juggernaut. That does not detract from its interest, in my view. Spiritual is not a rhetorical gesture, in my opinion. I mean, it can be, but I think that behind this there is a recognition that the cosmos is so much more than what we can grasp with our finite abilities but that we can nevertheless sense or experience a glimpse of under the right circumstances. It is assumed that this larger reality is intelligent and far greater than ourselves, but that we are connected to it in a fundamental way. Of course, we can only grasp it in our very limited way, and every attempt to do so will bear the fingerprints of our inadequate efforts. As part of the human sphere, these efforts will also be subject to all of the vagaries and vicissitudes of human life, including abuse at the hands of the unscrupulous. Still, I don't think that it is necessary to abandon the project altogether because it is inevitably entangled in human limitations.

[Kishkumen]

I think I agree with you here. Despite Kishkumen's well reasoned protestations, I still think we'd all better off the more people we get thinking rationally in place of them seeing make-believe myths as the basis for reality. But we live with what we have, I suppose.

I don't think there is an either/or here. I would say that reason springs from the same origins as spirituality.

[Kishkumen]

It is ridiculous to drink the Mormon cool-aide as it were and so how else could I put it? And by the way, I hated the Mormon leadership structure long before leaving. I grew up surrounded by it and didn't like what I saw. But, I had experiences that I thought were from outside of myself and that kept me from totally disavowing it, going back to the sty for a while and then ultimately rejecting it once I realized that I was tricked into believing the nonsense. Looking back on how the church was run and how the leaders I knew were so incredibly ordinary, without any inspiration, and I knew some of the highest officials over the years, that realization was certainly one of the final nails in the coffin for me. They were nice enough but nothing special that would make you think you were in the presence of someone called by a god.

Now, of course this has nothing to do with our history and I find it interesting probably because there has been a continued effort to whitewash it.

Hey, you do you, Exile. All I am saying here, and I don't think that this should be exceptionable, is that your experience of Mormonism is bound by your own experience in your own time and place. You totalize from there, and that is your prerogative as it pertains to you. But it looks kinda dumb for you to make big pronouncements based on your limited experience. This is what I mean by epistemic humility. I don't use the term to rob you of your dignity as a person who has to make important personal decisions based on the data you have. I use it to note that you and I are just two people with our own views, and that your view is one that you consistently refer to yourself and your own experience.

On the one hand, I join you in having made a very similar calculation that took us out of the LDS Church.

On the other, if I speak in terms of history to try to get beyond my personal experience in the here and now, I may not be ultimately successful, but by damn I tried, but I did not try to invalidate your decisions. I do, however, challenge your confident assertions.

[Don Bradley]

You did very well Don! It was a terrific appearance by phone, it made the program! If there is anything I can do to help out and study with you let me know. I think up to this point, if it can be looked at as a basis and anchor point the chronology that Vogel has presented is seriously helpful! I have benefitted from it enormously.

Thanks, Philo! I will want to take you up on your offer to walk me through the documents as you understand them.

Don

[Philo Sofee]

You did very well Don! It was a terrific appearance by phone, it made the program! If there is anything I can do to help out and study with you let me know. I think up to this point, if it can be looked at as a basis and anchor point the chronology that Vogel has presented is seriously helpful! I have benefitted from it enormously.

Thanks, Philo! I will want to take you up on your offer to walk me through the documents as you understand them.

Don

I would be truly happy to for you amigo. Any particular time? We can figure out a time I am more than sure.

[Marcus]

... That does not detract from its interest, in my view. Spiritual is not a rhetorical gesture, in my opinion. I mean, it can be, but I think that behind this there is a recognition that the cosmos is so much more than what we can grasp with our finite abilities but that we can nevertheless sense or experience a glimpse of under the right circumstances. It is assumed that this larger reality is intelligent and far greater than ourselves, but that we are connected to it in a fundamental way. Of course, we can only grasp it in our very limited way, and every attempt to do so will bear the fingerprints of our inadequate efforts. As part of the human sphere, these efforts will also be subject to all of the vagaries and vicissitudes of human life, including abuse at the hands of the unscrupulous. Still, I don't think that it is necessary to abandon the project altogether because it is inevitably entangled in human limitations.

I appreciate your opinion on this, but I would disagree slightly with your language. When you say “it is assumed that this larger reality is intelligent and far greater than ourselves, but that we are connected to it…” you seem to be implying that that is an agreed upon assumption, when it is not. It is your assumption, which I respect, but it’s not mine.

I liked your definition of humility though…

…But it looks kinda dumb for you to make big pronouncements based on your limited experience. This is what I mean by epistemic humility….

Back to the topic, I do agree with this:

…I still think we'd all better off the more people we get thinking rationally in place of them seeing make-believe myths as the basis for reality…

[Moksha]

Is that really the reason? I suspect that you ceased to find any spiritual worth in Mormon scripture before you had problems with the theocracy part.

He may have been tempted by the scent of the demon coffee rather than an objection to true theology. Demon coffee could have sent his olfactory receptors into a full stupor of thought mode.

[Shulem]

How do you reconcile either of the two most accepted faithful solutions (Missing Scroll theory and Catalyst Theory) to the Book of Abraham in light of the following?

Multiple sources show that when Joseph Smith examined the Kinder hook plates, he consulted the GAEL (Book of Abraham Document named the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language)

“The gentlemen who found them were / unconnected with this church but have brought them to Joseph / Smith for examination & translation a large number of Citizens / here have seen them and compared the characters with / those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this / city. I have no time for particulars but you will hear more soon on this subject. I must now notice your letter. / 2 of the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon have been cast off / from the church for some misconduct but have never / denied their testimony. we hope they will be restored again / soon. The other (Martin Harris) is still in the church” - Parley P. and Orson Pratt’s May 7th 1843 Letter to John Van Cott

(Check the newspaper image included)

And

Analysis from historians Mark Ashurst-McGee and Don Bradley indicate that the translated “portion” mentioned by William Clayton and Parley P. Pratt comes from a single “boat-shaped” character in the Egyptian Alphabet (a vaguely similar character appears on one of the Kinderhook Plates facsimiles).

Once you have Joseph Smith relying on the GAEL, the "Missing Papyrus" Theory is dead in the water. And once you see Joseph Smith using a specific symbol and getting a specific translation, the Catalyst Theory is shanked & bleeding out. Again the catalyst theory seems to take on significant water if we have Joseph claiming to receive a specific translation to a specific symbol

Please do help me make one of these theories hold water in light of the evidence?

MormonDiscussionInc,

You should know that there is a thread up in the Celestial Forum wherein I am discussing the Kinderhook plates and somewhat critiquing Don Bradley's article in which he ask me to do last year. I've already noted that as Smith was interested in the Kinderhook plates he needed to first find out if the hieroglyphic inscriptions thereon were a KNOWN language or another dead language such as the Egyptian. He consulted various persons and textbooks to enquire. Joseph Smith had to be sure that the language was an UNKNOWN language prior to performing a translation lest scholars pop out of the woodwork and refute his translation and make a him a fool. I do believe Smith was convinced that the language on the Kinderhook plates which he as everyone else believed to be genuine was a dead language. Thus, Smith was free to tell what the plates represented and promised to give a translation someday. Recall that a similar story occurred with the papyrus. Smith already knew the Egyptian language was a dead language, UNKNOWN. He was free to do what he would. He quickly translated a few characters for Chander and soon revealed to everyone that the scrolls were the writings of Abraham & Joseph. A translation would follow but only after laboring on his Egyptian grammar for quite some time.

Well, we get a similar effect with the Kinderhook plates but first Smith had to be sure nobody could decipher or read the language on them. Once he felt safe, he popped the cork about the plates being a "history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt." William Clayton was simply recording what he was told as was everyone else in the prophet's presence.

Anyway, it may interest you to know that I am going to give my thoughts on the NEB and reveal exactly what I believe Wilburn Fugate was up to when he etched the characters on the plates which Bridge Whitton had crafted. I think you will find it somewhat enlightening! But I will be doing that up in the Celestial Forum, not here. You don't want to miss out because I've got some red hot stuff to say. Oh boy!

[dastardly stem]

Yes. As an ancient historian, I really don't view the origins of Christianity as being much more mysterious. It looks like an earlier stage of the same conversation. Being one sect of a much larger religion (Christianity), Mormonism is obviously not as big as the whole. It is a small slice of a global juggernaut. That does not detract from its interest, in my view.

I very much agree with this, kishkumen. Well expressed.

Spiritual is not a rhetorical gesture, in my opinion. I mean, it can be, but I think that behind this there is a recognition that the cosmos is so much more than what we can grasp with our finite abilities but that we can nevertheless sense or experience a glimpse of under the right circumstances. It is assumed that this larger reality is intelligent and far greater than ourselves, but that we are connected to it in a fundamental way. Of course, we can only grasp it in our very limited way, and every attempt to do so will bear the fingerprints of our inadequate efforts. As part of the human sphere, these efforts will also be subject to all of the vagaries and vicissitudes of human life, including abuse at the hands of the unscrupulous. Still, I don't think that it is necessary to abandon the project altogether because it is inevitably entangled in human limitations.

And this is where we part ways. I'm still unsure of what you mean by "spiritual" and if there is really any good basis or reason to think there is a spiritual realm somehow greater than what we have here, or as you put it "this larger reality is intelligent and far greater than ourselves, but that we are connected to it in a fundamental way". It feels like assumption or explanation to justify believing in that which is not real. That's what I'd think of as make-believe, or a realm that people really want, for various reasons, and yet can't justify rationally. As I've said, and I realize I'm just repeating myself, described in different ways, I'm not sure why anyone feels like there is reason for this type of thinking. Earlier, or in another thread, you suggested a naturalist only view is lacking imagination. I don't think there is any merit to that accusation. It sounds like an accusation born out of fear of losing a pretend world to me. Anyone can imagine anything they want whether naturalist or not. ITs a matter of whether one thinks whatever they imagine should be a basis for reality or not, in my mind. I just don't think an imagined world is real simply because people want it to be (and I really wonder based on the reasons given if it is a good place anyway).

I don't think there is an either/or here. I would say that reason springs from the same origins as spirituality.

Sounds very wishful to me. But how would one go about showing that spirituality springs from the same origin as reason? What is spirituality and one must wonder how it differs from reason. If its just reason, then that'd be something, I suppose. If its imagining a different world because we want it, then I question the idea, particularly with the explanation of we can imagine it, that means it's real. And I press back on that, I guess, continually.