Reformed Egyptian?
|
Since we all dig scholarly evidences, here are some interesting links in regards to Reformed Egyptian as well as the geography of the Arabian peninsula. There are strong indications that the BOM was written in Hebrew using Egyptian characters (since they take up less space and are easier to engrave on metal plates). There are also some interesting evidences of the BOM in the Arabian peninsula. My dad actually travelled to these places (Wadi Sayq, Salalah) in Oman, and even went to Yemen (with hired armed guards). Check it out, it's only fair since I have been subjecting myself to plenty of anti-mormon websites in order to be an informed member of society. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/lehiEgypt.pdf http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=35 http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian To quote a few passages off the last link: "One of the most common attacks against the BOM focuses on the use of "reformed Egyptian" as a writing system for the golden plates (Mormon 9:32-34). It is alleged that no self-respecting Isrealite would ever use Egyptian to write sacred scripture, and it is alleged that no such language as "reformed Egyptian" has ever existed. These arguments are typified in the anti-Mormon book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by "Dr." John Ankerberg and "Dr." John Weldon (neither one of which appears to have a legitimate Ph.D):" (pg. 17) "Several modified or "reformed" Egyptian scripts are well known, including forms called Demotic and Hieratic...However the Reformed Egyptian used by the Nephites is described as a language system unique to them (Mormon 9:32-34), having evolved with their culture over a 1000 year period. It was apparently used for sacred writings, and should have been almost wholly lost with the destruction of Nephite civilization. How can we expect Egyptologists, with typically no training in Central American matters, to know whether such a language ever existed there?" (pg. 17) Then there is some evidence that Jews did indeed use Egyptian characters in their writings, such as the Papyrus Amherst 63, a text from the second century BC, which contains Aramaic texts written in demotic Egyptian script. (Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew and was the spoken language of Jesus). The first link also provides evidence of why Isrealites( like Lehi) would know how to write in Egyptian. Apparently Egypt was a historic enemy of Judah, but was the least hated of their conqueres and was used as an ally to overcome the rule of the much nastier Assyrians and Babylonians. Successful business people of the time would likely have been fluent in Egyptian. "As for the grammar [of the BOM] there certainly were many strange and awkward structures in the original manuscript...That's completely unacceptable English--but it's very good Hebrew, known as the Hebraic conditional...There are dozens of examples of other expressions and grammatical structures in the 1830 Book of Mormon, many which survive in the current printing, that are unusual or awkward in English yet are natural and proper in Hebrew...The language of the Book of Mormon cannot be explained as the English of Joseph Smith or the King James English of the Bible. It's more Semitic than either." (pg.27) "Uto-Aztecan " [language of ancient Central America] as a language family exhibits more similarities with Hebrew than could be attributed to coincidence; nevertheless, that Hebrew element is obviously mixed with other language elements very different from Hebrew...there are still many traces of similarity suggesting some degree of contact or derivation. Over 1000 similarities have been derived, enough to merit further investigation." (pg. 28) "...This type of [language] structure [in Mosiah 7:21-22] is an ideal way of translating the typical Hebrew hal-clause(or circumstantial clause)...Many English sentences in the BOM that an English editor would tear apart are perfectly acceptable in Hebrew structures, appearing to be fairly literal translations. The King James translation loses much of the literal flavor of such passages, but they are present in the original Hebrew. (pg.28-29) "The name 'sheum' appears in Mosiah 9:9 as a foodstuff in a list of grains...sheum is a prefectly good Akkadian cerial name...this word was not know to scholars until at least 1857, long after the BOM had been published. How did Joseph Smith make up this ancient word from the Near East and properly treat it as a grain?" (pg.32) "The non LDS Rabbi Yosef ben Yehuda notes that 'Liahona' was probably coined by the Nephites but represents very good Hebrew...The related roots fit the meaning of Liahona quite well." (pg.32) "Near Eastern scholar, William F. Albright, though not a believer in the BOM, wrote a letter in response to an anti-Mormon critic, noting that Joseph Smith probably could not have learned Egyptian from scholars of his day, yet included some authentic Egyptian names in the BOM" (pg.33) "..no spot has received more vigorous attacks than Alma7:10 , which contains a prophecy of Alma about the birth of Christ. This passage makes the 'enormous blunder' of placing Christ's birth in the land of Jerusalem, rather than Bethlehem...In fact, the phrase 'land of Jerusalem', which is used dozens of times in the BOM, is never used in the Bible...The Dead Sea Scrolls and other recently discovered ancient documentations from Isreal confirm that phrase 'land of Jerusalem' was an authentic term used to describe the area around Jerusalem--an area that includes nearby Bethlehem...Use of that term was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the BOM over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered." (pg.34) "Yale's Harold Bloom is perplexed as to how to explain the many parallels between Joseph Smith's writing and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature...'I can only attribute his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or the Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly" (pg.45) Also fascinating is the section on Chiasmus, the use of Cement in Ancient America, and Gardens, Towers and multiple markets. All aspects of meso-American culture unkown about in Joseph Smith's time, but discovered more recently. Also particularly interesting is the section on the Arabian peninsula (you'll have to scroll upwards to find this info). "The description of Lehi's journey through the desert has been attacked in anit-Mormon literature. Finding a garden spot on the coast of the Arabian peninsula was laughable and was laughed at in the 1800s, because nobody knew of a place that could come anywhere close to being a candidate for Lehi's Bountiful..." (pg.9) Then there are photos to support the discovery of garden spots in the Arabian Peninsula, namely Wadi Sayq and Salalah, (both places have been visited by my parents recently). "'By describing in such precise detail a fertile Arabian coastal location, as well as the route to get there from Jerusalem (complete with directions and even a place-name en route), Joseph Smith put his prophetic credibility very much on the line. Could a young, untraveled farmer in rural New York somehow have known about a fertile site on the coast of Arabia? Could a map or some writing other than the Nephite record have been a source for him? The answer is a clear no. Long after 1830 publication of the BOM, Maps of Arabia continued to show the eastern coastline and interior as unknown, unexplored territory...'" The article also points out other Arabian landmarks described in the BOM that were previously undiscovered, but that correspond with the distances traveled and directions given in the BOM. Anyhow, given this scholarly info on the Hebrew writing styles and the geography of the Arabian penensula, I would say this qualifies as having an infinitesimally small probablilty of all being a coincidence. Then combine this with other evidences in this article and it's pretty impressive. |
||
8 Comments:
I have a couple of problems with the 'proofs' regarding reformed Egyptian you cite. Specifically Jeff Lindsay is nuts. Read the rest of what he writes on his site. He is a cerebral Chinese acrobat when it comes to the mental gymnastics required to get the BOM to line up with the real world.
Even beyond my personal ad hominem argument against Mr. Lindsay, he quotes from another individual who has a track record of saying anything to prove the BOM - that being one Daniel C. Peterson.
Mr. Petersen, an apologist employed by FAIR/FARMS, does not submit his papers for peer review, and is notorious for quoting less-than-primary sources in his research.
Given the fact that I have no personal experience in the field of linguistics, I would defer my opinion of the actual arguments presented by Mr. Petersen until they are peer-reviewed, and evaluated.
In regard to the topical guide by Mr. McGuire, his argument is not the existence of reformed Egyptian as a language, he is specifically refuting an argument that Lehi, a Jew, would be writing/speaking Egyptian. I think that particular argument is irrelevant when asking the question,"Is reformed Egyptian a real language?" Mr. McGuire has also not released this paper for peer review, which I don't really expect him to do since he's just an amateur apologist anyway.
FAIR/FARMS does not generally release their work for peer review for some reason...
This may leave some to speculate that they are not sure their work could stand the scrutiny. I don't know that for a fact, but it does seem odd.
The other problem I have with FAIR/FARMS is that it seems that their apologists are willing to give professional opinions outside of their specialty. Notably the Mr. Peterson I mentioned above has written articles defending elements of language, DNA, archeology, sociology, nautical engineering, and several other topics. Since he only has a bachelor's degree in Greek and philosophy and a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, I fail to see that he is properly qualified to comment on many topics.
This tendency to give present opinion without first giving disclosure that the author is not qualified to give comment can be seen as underhanded and unprofessional.
In regard to the topic of reformed Egyptian in general, I find it extremely odd that there has only been one document found to be written in reformed Egyptian. Furthermore, documents that Smith previously 'translated' were easily read by Egyptologists after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the translations did not match. So as far as I'm concerned, at this point one must either go with the 'not a translation, but a gift from God' or 'hidden meaning within another document' arguments to continue to believe that Smith translated anything. I see both of those arguments as pretty weak.
Yeah, that Lindsay guy is kind of weird, but aside from quoting Peterson he does utilize multiple other scholars, including many non-LDS ones (some of which I quoted above).
I'd like to think that at least some of the LDS scholars are legit and honest, as it would likely be an overgeneralization to say that ALL their work is compromised due to bias. Tell me how I can check into what's been peer reviewed OK?
The following article was published in an evangelist magazine in 1998 by anti-Mormon critics, on the need to deal with those pesky Mormon apologists. I'd be interested in your opinion on what they had to say.
http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html
As for Reformed Egyptian, I was only trying to establish that it's not entirely unreasonable to consider the hypothesis that an ancient Isreali could be fluent in both Egyptian and Hebrew and could quite possibly choose to engrave records in Hebrew using Egyptian characters, for the sake of efficiency.
You open a new can of worms with this Rosetta Stone issue. I'll try to track down some of the stuff I've read about this....
Anyhow, you never addressed the inexplicable ancient Semitic nature of the BOM's grammar, terminology and linguistic style. You'll notice these evidences are even supported by non-LDS scholars. I'd be interested in your opinion and any peer reviewed scholarly work that attempts to refute these intriguing observations.
Angelinni
P.S. I didn't give very good directions to find those articles on atheism. They're fairly entertaining and I wondered what you would think of them. Here's the actual links...
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040412cosmology.html
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/041101case.html
Found something for ya on the Book of Abraham issue. I'm sure you could punch holes in much of this argument, but there are a couple of good points in there, such as the ink colors reported on the origional papyri, the reported size of the original papyri and the fact that 2 out of the 3 facsimiles are still missing. Not to mention Joseph's accuracy on the explanations attatched to the existing facsimile (though I don't know Vestal and Wallace's credentials).
http:www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/disproved.htm
More importantly, consider this: If Joseph Smith was indeed a fraud, why not destroy ALL of the evidence to avoid being disproved by experts? Better yet, why didn't God just let somebody hang on to the gold plates, so that when the persecution died off somebody could take it in for study by nonbaised experts, much like the Dead Sea Scrolls? Wouldn't that be a great way to prove to the whole world the authenticity of the BOM and the fact that an uneducated farm boy was able to translate a previously unknown language?
But perhaps scientific proof is not what God wants people to base their beliefs on. That's always been the whole challenge of religion. Seeking out real world evidences can be fun and interesting, but in light of LDS doctrine on the nature of God and purpose of life, it actually makes sense that there is no irrefutable scholarly proof.
I like the way you think Rick. It's refreshing to share dialogue with someone that is not making statements based on ill-considered indignance, but rather based on well-studied, logical thought. I have no ambition of changing your mind about the church, this is simply about defending the rationality of many Mormons. I object to the commonly held generalization that all Mormons are mindless Morgbots, incapable of critical thought in regards to their beliefs (although granted some of them are).
Different people will have different reasons for believing in a religion and I don't buy the whole indoctination theory in all cases because this does not account for the many NON-indoctrinated converts, who often face social pressure to the contrary.
Anyhow, the best a Mormon scholar can ever be expected to do is provide evidence of plausibility or refute dogmatic anti-Mormon claims. This is all I would ever aim to do as well. From there an individual may or may not choose to seek empirical evidence via the Holy Ghost on a personal basis. And if there is a creator, perhaps that's exactly the way the creator want's it.
Anyhow, tell me what you think of some of the arguments in regards to missing papyrus sections. Can we really be 100% sure about Joseph Smith's translation failure? And can we really be 100% sure that the BOM's reformed Egyption never existed for that matter?
Nermal said: I'd like to think that at least some of the LDS scholars are legit and honest, as it would likely be an overgeneralization to say that ALL their work is compromised due to bias. Tell me how I can check into what's been peer reviewed OK?
I'd like to think that BYU/FARMS/FAIR would expect their scholars to be legitimate and honest too. The only problem being that they have shown time and time again that they don't. Over and over, every time some scholar brings up something which the leaders of the church decide is not faith-promoting, they are asked to bury it; do not publish it or risk reprisal. And woe be unto the fellow who publishes such a work without the leaders being aware that it's not faith promoting ahead of time. The list of authors who have been under the employ directly or indirectly by the church and who have been reprimanded, disfellowshipped or excommunicated continues to grow from its' already substantial number. In an environment like that, it's not much of a stretch to think that some scholars may actually think about the personal repercussions of their work and purposely avoid any topics or conclusions which could impact their job, family or salvation. This mindset runs contrary to the spirit of research, and persons under such a regime can hardly be expected to act impartially.
One can tell if a scholar's work has been peer reviewed, generally, when it has been published in the field's periodicals. By offering up one's work to all the subscribers of a field periodical, you invite the feedback from the subscribers of that periodical. Most feedback will itself be published, and thus peer reviews take place in an open forum. FARMS findings on archeology are not published in the American journal of archaeology, FARMS articles on linguistics are not sent for review to the Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics. FARMS articles are generally not for public consumption. They exist primarily to assuage the questioners of the faith, and to give some response to non-faith promoting, worldly ideas. I believe FARMS to be less of an institute for study and more an association of spin.
Nermal said: ... you never addressed the inexplicable ancient Semitic nature of the BOM's grammar, terminology and linguistic style.
Given any large data set I can assure you that one can find all sorts of patterns. The existence of any particular word or phrasing, or sentence structure is less indicative of truth than it is of bulk. Given that a fair amount of the BOM was lifted from the Bible, I really wouldn't expect anything less anyway.
Nermal said: If Joseph Smith was indeed a fraud, why not destroy ALL of the evidence to avoid being disproved by experts? Better yet, why didn't God just let somebody hang on to the gold plates, so that when the persecution died off somebody could take it in for study by nonbiased experts, much like the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Why indeed? Why keep half of the evidence? Unless that's because the other half never really existed. The breastplate and the golden plates were never handled by anyone other than Smith. All the other people who testify to the existence of these items have stated that it was in a 'spiritual state' or 'with spiritual eyes'. I can't begin to give justice to this argument, and if you get a chance, Grant Palmer's - An Insider's View does a much better job than I ever could .
Nermal said: I don't buy the whole indoctrination theory in all cases because this does not account for the many NON-indoctrinated converts, who often face social pressure to the contrary.
Perhaps I can comment on this statement when I meet a non-indoctrinated convert ...
Nermal said: the best a Mormon scholar can ever be expected to do is provide evidence of plausibility or refute dogmatic anti-Mormon claims.
I am of the opinion that the best a Mormon, or non-Mormon scholar can do is to provide an argument that relies on the best knowledge they have available; noting where the current knowledge is lacking, and drawing conclusions which are directly correlated to the current level of knowledge. No opinions, no speculations, and no fallback positions of faith. If a conclusions cannot be drawn from the current set of data, then just say it's a matter of faith. If the goal of the scholar is to disprove another's argument, they must first prove that the data presented was not correctly obtained, is not applicable or simply is not substantial enough to draw conclusions from. If the data is sufficiently legitimate, then the argument must be shown to be logically flawed. It's really that simple. What should not occur are character attacks and refutation of credentials. Unfortunately, anyone who has spent any time on the FARMS bulletin boards will note that the apologetics practiced by most FARMS scholars has more to do with Ad Hominem and Straw Men than any substantial attacks on data sets or arguments...
Nermal said: ... tell me what you think of some of the arguments in regards to missing papyrus sections. Can we really be 100% sure about Joseph Smith's translation failure? And can we really be 100% sure that the BOM's reformed Egyptian never existed for that matter?
I believe that since current Egyptologists can read hieroglyphics as easily as I can read the morning paper, that we can be assured that Smith's translation was a complete failure. As it has been previously commented on in many sources, the Book of Abraham papyrus was nothing more than a common funeral document ( instructions from the Book of Breathings ) enclosed with mummies of former Egyptian priests. There was no reformed Egyptian on this document. It was as easy to read as any other Egyptian papyrus. Scholars didn't puzzle over it due to any reformed language on it. It read plain as day, and there are no arguments about what the actual symbols of the facsimile mean. If I read 'Cat in the Hat' and say it is a record of the lost tribes of Mars, but everyone else who knows how to read tells me it's just a children's book, does the fact that I'm the only one who thinks as I do make my gift god-given - or does it mean that I just wrong? I think you know how I feel about this.
Of particular interest to me is part of an article on Richard Packham's website (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/linguist.htm) , which I'll close with.
A much more serious problem for Mormons, however, is the justification which is given for writing in Egyptian characters rather than in Hebrew. Mormon, after whom the book is named, supposedly writing the abridgement on the gold plates which later became the Book of Mormon, explains (Mormon 9:32-33):
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
It appears that Mormon is saying that writing in Hebrew characters would have taken up too much space, and that Egyptian characters were therefore more space-efficient. That is not a credible assertion. Anyone who is familiar even slightly with ancient Hebrew and ancient Egyptian writing must reject that explanation as unbelievable. Hebrew consisted of an alphabet of twenty-two characters, mostly consonants. Most vowels were not written at all, and thus most words could be written with three or four characters, the consonants. "Jehovah" was written YHWH, "Israel" was YSR'L, "Moses" was MSH. In other words, Hebrew is a very concise written language. The only form of Egyptian that a person such as Lehi would have known in 600 B.C. was Hieratic, which was certainly not more space-saving than Hebrew, and would not have been suitable for engraving on metal.
Why then, did Nephi choose to write in a form of Egyptian? The obvious answer seems to be that Joseph Smith felt he was less likely to be exposed if he showed plates with engravings in a still-undeciphered language (Egyptian) than in a relatively better-known language (Hebrew). To add an additional degree of safety, he claimed that the Egyptian had been "altered."
Got a few points to make here
1. Some of the BOM is indeed lifted from the Bible (not always identically), however the majority of the BOM is not. More importantly, the observation, even by non-LDS scholars, is that the BOM has even more Hebraic grammar and linguistic style than the English KJV.
2. When I refer to un-indoctrinated converts, I mean those who were previously exposed to anti-Mormon environments, or faced fierce opposition from family, but were still baptized upon initial exposure to the BOM. Yes this does happen.
3. There is no claim that the Book of Abraham was originally written in reformed Egyption, just plain Egyption. I won't question the abilities of modern Egyptologists, just whether or not the entire papyrus was available for translation in the first place.
4. It may be true that Martin Harris said something to the effect that viewing the gold plates was a spiritual experience (yes I've seen the quotes). Assuming that the documentation of this statement was accurate, let's consider that all three witnesses were interviewed on the subject between about 40 to 70 times each throughout their lives, and consistently stated over and over again, in all sorts of papers and publications, that they had seen and handled the gold plates and that the experience was as real as anything else. They never denied it, even during times when they had left the church or were mocked, and made sure it was clear they never denied it when rumors to the contrary ever surfaced. All three backed up the BOM on their death beds as well. What would motivate them all to do that?
5. As for ad-hominems, and character and credential attacks, this is indeed unfortunate argumentative tactics for people who are supposed to be well-educated and Christian. But I think it's very safe to say that it goes both ways. Also, from my experience and readings, such unbecoming behaviour is not as prominent on FAIR/FARMS as you claim, which leads me to the impression that you have been far more heavily exposed to anti-Mormon material than pro-Mormon (or at least more pre-disposed to accept anti-Mormon claims). First of all, I have seen some apologists do a fine job of simply showing that a critic's argument is not applicable or not substantial enough, or simply breaks down the logic. It doesn't take a PhD in many cases, just a reasonable mind, and proper documentation of where their information was obtained (and thereby accessable to any other reader). Many apologists don't make claims of being a scholar at all, just presenting arguments based on logic and publicly available documents. Furthermore, it seems that any scholar that honestly thinks they have discovered evidence that disproves the church, the BOM or the prophets, would not take issue with being ex-communicated and would probably prefer to leave the church anyhow (and would be free to publish whatever they wish).
Secondly, unlike FARMS, FAIR is NOT owned, controlled or affiliated with the LDS church. I've actually seen conflicting opinions on this site. Also, from what I've seen, it's perfectly acceptable to discover and present findings which are not faith promoting. For example, the Salamander letter was very available to the public, and very disconcerting. There are other examples of baffling findings that were not suppressed. In the meantime, the attitude has been "well if it's disconcerting, there will eventually be an explanation."
I suspect in the case of those scholars who have been disciplined, it has not been due to the scholarly presentation of findings in and of itself, but rather the public announcements of their own personal speculations of those findings (and you yourself stated that opinions and speculations should be avoided). Furthermore, personal speculations are allowed, but if those speculations are publicly announced to the world, then the church understandably does not want to be represented by one individual's questionable opinions and speculations. Of course critics of the church will twist this into appearing to be some sinister "regime" to oppress legitimate findings and discoveries. The presentation or acknowedgement of purely scientific, archeological or historical findings are not oppressed. And as I said, if someone interprets that data to have anti-Mormon implications or conclusions, well then what interest do they have in being affiliated with a supposedly false church anyhow?
6. As for Packham's article, it was certainly interesting, but ultimately such things as anachronisms and vocabulary nit-picking are of little consequence when it comes to the criticism of divine translation, for three reasons. a)there are always problems with semantics in language, and no doubt there was in ancient languages as well b)how do we know for sure that a scholar's knowledge of a dead language is perfect? And what does it matter if peers concur if they all have learned from the same (possibly flawed) sources, or simply don't want to admit they could be wrong and rock the boat? c)as for anachronisms, first it's quite possible for old world immigrants to give old world names to existing new world things that seem similar, and as for Christian terminology, who says they weren't familiar with such terms in the new world, and even if they weren't, the BOM was translated for a modern audience. The word "Christ" for instance, refers to a particular person, whether or not that is the exact word used in the translation to the ancient language.
The important thing in communication is that the intent of the communicator is accurately transmitted to the recipients, regardless of language or vocabulary. By what means that is accomplished is less relevant than having the intended point of the message successfully conveyed.
As for Egyptian vs. Hebrew, my understanding was that although Hebrew was only written in consonants, Egyptian symbols could be biconsonental or triconsonental. I guess I don't know exactly what the symbols looked like in both languages, but it does seem there is a disagreement here, (and I notice Packham is learned in many languages, but NOT Egyptian, I wonder what all the peers say on this.)Anyhow, this leads me to my comments on scholarship in general.
Scholarship certainly has it's place in the world. Certainly the more intellectual knowledge you have, the more you have to work with when making conclusions. But the problem with intellectual knowledge in this world is that oft times it is relative truth, or fluid, in that it's often subject to change upon learning new knowledge and discoveries. And oft times peers don't always concur, an example being in the area of diet and nutrition, where there is a hot debate over high protien and saturated fats vs. the traditional food pyramid and low fat. Each camp touts impressive scientific evidences for their argument.
And so, just as I have been saying from the beginning, it all depends on what sources you choose to place your trust. My mother-in-law consistently claims that she was directed by an audible voice to rescue her 5-year old from suffocating in a locked trunk. My uncle did drown in a lake and mysteriously woke up on the shore, told no one, and was told in a blessing by someone (who knew nothing of the event) that his life had indeed been saved that particular day. There are other accounts of this nature told to me first hand by people, who I have determined in my life experience with them, are of sound mind and do not lie. I have to admit that I trust these people more than some smug scholar with an agenda.
If, hypothetically speaking, my husband swore to me that he had seen a ghost in the house, or a space alien in the back yard, I may very well wish to witness such evidence for myself before accepting such things as reality, but this should certainly open the door for consideration of such things, especially if my husband were to stick to the same story over the years and was otherwise of sound mind. Still, this can't be considered proof of something, of course.
Thus, most important of all is one's own direct experiences. There are some areas in life where intellectual persuasion could be effective, and often it's all we have to rely on. But one does not need a scholar to know certain things. I know when I someone speaks to me on the phone, I am hearing their words. I know when someone touches me in the dark, I am being touched. I know that I love my children. I know that if I stubb my toe, it hurts. It would not matter if, hypothetically speaking, scientists and their peers wrote multiple papers proving that there is no way that the nerves in the toe should register pain in the central nervous system. I would have to assume they have made their conclusions based on incomplete or flawed data, and have probably never stubbed their own toe.
The word "feelings" encompasses many things, including sensory experiences of hot, cold, pain etc. When you refer to "feelings" you define them as hunches or thoughts or strong desires in the context of this conversation. However, people who believe they have witnessed the Holy Ghost or the power of the Priesthood would describe those experiences as being real sensory input from an external source. Therefore any presentation of scientific evidence or any form of logic in this argument is like telling someone that stubbing their toe shouldn't hurt, or that chocolate isn't sweet. If someone hasn't ever stubbed their toe, or tasted chocolate, such tactics could be convincing....but if they have, good luck talking them out of it simply by means of a scientific study. Likewise, if someone has merely been indoctrinated in a religion, intellectual persausion may very well change their mind. People leave the church for many various reasons. If I ever do, it would have less to do with other people's "proofs" and more to do with my own issues with the nature and ways of God (or the decision that maybe I'm not cut out for the Celestial Kingdom).
But ultimately if you pit scholarly evidence against one's own direct experiences, it's obvious which source of evidence will prevail, and I think that's justified.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oops, sorry, didn't mean to delete that last comment. I'll redo it. One more thing (I promise). Packman criticized the accuracy of the KJV translations which Joseph utilized (as well as the whole Elohim/Jehovah debate). It should be noted, in all fairness, that there are over a 100,000 ancient copies of the Bible, none of which are identical, and very few of which date any earlier than 2nd century AD (most don't precede 9th century). It's reasonable to believe that some of the meanings in those manuscripts have been corrupted, even in those manuscripts which are written in Hebrew. Therefore, who can tell through scholarly methods exactly what the intent was of the original biblical authors if we have no original documents and thousands of non-identical accounts? Thus, if Joseph deemed certain KJV passages to be good enough to convey the intent, it's pretty difficult to argue whether or not he was wrong.
Rick, I gotta apologize, I noticed those athiesm articles were written by Peterson. Sorry about that!
Anyhow, I guess this topic grows old, but thanks for participating.
Ang
Post a Comment
<< Home