This post could be considered a follow-up to my previous post, but in fact this one has been on my mind for years.
There are all kinds of disabled people in this world: blind, deaf, paraplegic, quadriplegic, down's syndrome, autism, anxiety disorders.... We generically tend to lump them under general terms, like disabled or handicapped.
Actually, those terms have fallen out of grace in recent years. In fact I heard a woman on the radio talking about the need to eliminate the term "handicapped" from parking slots at stores due to bad connotations, and instead "use something like... special, or reserved..."
The Germans had a different term around the time of Hitlers rise to power: "Nutlos Esser" or "Useless Eaters", though it wasn't actually their idea, the concept actually may have originated in the United States. John Harvey Kellogg (of Kellog's cornflakes fame) was a great champion of eugenics in the US. (Though it predates him as well, bits of it show up in the writings of Karl Marx. Ideas were also borrowed from Darwin, and even earlier, Plato and others.
The Philosophy which Kellogg championed, was that humans, as the top of the food chain, had no natural predators, and thus must be self-responsible for the "culling of the herd" to eliminate the genetically weak, or inferior. If not, they would continue to breed, diluting the evolutionary advantage of humans, and from an economic standpoint, the healthy and "normal" individuals of society wold be overburdened with the cost of caring for the sick, the diseased... the inferior. Mr. Kellogg's solution was mandatory sterilization of inferior people. Take away the ability to pass on inferior genes and they will simply... die out. Hitler liked the idea, and took the the next logical step. If these people are a burden on society, simply eliminate them from the outset, so that the world's resources won't be wasted on them, and will instead be used to accelerate the evolution of the genetically superior. The end result being stronger, smarter people, more wealth, less poverty, more health, less illness...
Now the one point they had right was the fact that, if the population of "disabled" grows too large, the burden to care for them will overwhelm the rest of the population which will inevitably lead to collapse. There are practical limits to how many people one person can provide food, clothing and shelter for.
But they had the entirely wrong idea as to how to eliminate the "disabled"
I think there is a much better approach. Here are the crucial steps:
1. Stop the "warm fuzzy talk" and use correct labels. Terms like "special" are useless. "Handicapped" is equally useless, slightly better if properly prefixed (physically, mentally). Blind would be better still, as it gets closer to an accurate description of a specific challenge a specific person faces. can you imagine expecting a doctor to correctly treat you after being told only that you had a case of "sick"?
You want a label for the parking stalls? how about "Mobility Impaired"? That's the point of those spots isn't it? A place close to the front door, with few impediments, to facilitate those who find getting around a greater than normal challenge?
And don't let the ignorant take words away. retard is a valid word with a valid, useful meaning ("verb - delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment."), just because some moron misuses it, doesn't mean we should stop using it appropriately. Keep dropping misused words from the language, and in time there will be no words left.
2. Acknowledge the challenges/weaknesses - Everyone has strengths. Everyone has weaknesses. It is stupid to pretend otherwise, and even dumber to overstate a weakness. A person with no legs is not likely to excel in professional soccer. That doesn't mean he can't be a good swimmer, or motivational speaker (Google Nick Vujicic).
3.Identify Strengths - we spend too much time focusing on what a person with disability "x" can't do. Why not focus on what they are able to excel at instead? The blind often have sharpened hearing, With autism, there are a number of specialized skills which often emerge, musically, computationally... I have a nephew who has hydrocephalus. He has a sharp mind for faces, and an enormous positivity, and kindness. When I watch him interact with others, I often find myself thinking that what is holding him back from doing more in this life is our inability to communicate with him. I think he has a great deal of sage advice he could share with the world, if only we could understand what he is trying to tell us.
3. Change the environment - In some cases perhaps the only thing holding a person back is the way we have constructed the world. Justin Sewell is attributed with saying “TEAMWORK: A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction.” One of those human nature things- we people get together and build societies, and when we do we tend to shape them in our own image. It is a reasonable thing to do, but all to often, we overdo it. We expect everyone to be "just like us", to think "just like us". What we call normal, may only be normal in our mind. Example: Roughly half the human population is lactose intolerant, so which then is "normal", the ability to digest milk, or the inability? I think British people have an accent, they think I have an accent, so which one of us speaks "normally"? roughly one of every 5 youth is diagnosed as ADHD. One of five. Twenty percent. Is it really a disorder, or just a different "normal"?
Instead of expecting everyone to accommodate us all the time, perhaps we need to learn to be more accommodating of them. One example of success in this area is specialisterne, a company that specializes in contracting and placing autistic employees. They have taken the time to understand their employees, and they have adapted the workplace and job selection to the specific talents and challenges their employees face. An entire class of "useless eaters" are now productive participants, as a result.
And that ultimately is the way to eliminate the disabled. Understand them, accommodate them where possible, and give them the means to be self-reliant and successful. Don't limit them.
We humans are uniquely able to engineer the means to enable our success, to alter our very environment if need be. We use that ability daily to enable us to live in environments whose conditions exceed the significant limitations of our rather frail bodies. We can do the same thing for these, so-called disabled, and in doing so, we can remove the disability. No longer charity cases, no longer "useless eaters", no longer dependent on the good will of others, or the strength of the economy, because they are themselves contributors to, drivers of economic success.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Mental Health: Is it really a disorder/illness?
I was just listening to a radio program, talking about mental health, and the need to have a "real conversation" about mental illness.
They of course talked about the usual suspects. Dealing with the stigma of mental illness, recognizing that mental illnesses are as real as other illnesses, handicaps, etc...
I had a thought though, which I have never heard addressed: What if some of these disorders, aren't actually disorders? What if some/many of these disorders are only disorders because we as a society have overly-restricted the definition of "normal"?
Take ADD/ADHD as an example: This country, I would argue, only exists because of ADD/ADHD. It would take a person with ADD characteristics to overlook the enormous risks and potential consequences, abandon all they had, and cross thousands of miles of ocean to come to an unknown, wild land and try to build a new life from nothing! And it would take an ADD brain to survive some of the events the early settlers experienced.
What if many of these people are in fact perfectly healthy, normal people, who are struggling, suffering because society has allowed a few nut-jobs to incorrectly define "normal"?
What if there is a simple way to "fix" them, not by medicating them, but by accommodating them?
Autism is one case where this is starting to happen. What about other "disorders"?
What if many of these shooting tragedies suicides, etc... could be prevented by changing the conversation from disorder/illness and treatment to understanding the different characteristics/qualities of people, and adjusting our society to accommodate them?
They of course talked about the usual suspects. Dealing with the stigma of mental illness, recognizing that mental illnesses are as real as other illnesses, handicaps, etc...
I had a thought though, which I have never heard addressed: What if some of these disorders, aren't actually disorders? What if some/many of these disorders are only disorders because we as a society have overly-restricted the definition of "normal"?
Take ADD/ADHD as an example: This country, I would argue, only exists because of ADD/ADHD. It would take a person with ADD characteristics to overlook the enormous risks and potential consequences, abandon all they had, and cross thousands of miles of ocean to come to an unknown, wild land and try to build a new life from nothing! And it would take an ADD brain to survive some of the events the early settlers experienced.
What if many of these people are in fact perfectly healthy, normal people, who are struggling, suffering because society has allowed a few nut-jobs to incorrectly define "normal"?
What if there is a simple way to "fix" them, not by medicating them, but by accommodating them?
Autism is one case where this is starting to happen. What about other "disorders"?
What if many of these shooting tragedies suicides, etc... could be prevented by changing the conversation from disorder/illness and treatment to understanding the different characteristics/qualities of people, and adjusting our society to accommodate them?
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Modern Disease and Mobility
Random thought of the day:
I have hear a fair amount of speculation regarding the causes of modern diseases (including cancers and various autoimmune disorders), Some of the more popular theories I have read tie it to diet, or to the increased use of chemicals, pesticides, etc.. (one more recent theory I mentioned in a previous post suggest a link between 1st world poverty and modern disease).
Of course, some of these seem unlikely, because the timelines don't really fit. For instance the assertion that the introduction of Grains, or the agricultural diet is the cause. The modern disease timeline goes back hundred of years, agricultural diet goes back thousands. The processed foods, or pesticides argument is closer, though there are still some holes in the correlation.
But I just had a random thought this afternoon. What about modern mobility? We have, and take advantage of an increasing ability to traverse in large numbers over vast distances. A simplistic but supporting example:
It has been reported that small, isolated groups tend to have less disease. a family, living in complete isolaion, for instance. However, if they come in contact with other groups, they tend to have low resistance the bacteria and virii those visitors are carrying with them. This was considered to be a major contributor to the decimation of native american populations when Europeans arrived in the new land. Native Americans lived primarily in smaller tribal groups, with relative isolation, and limited travel. Their immune systems weren't prepared for the disease the white man brought from Europe.
But if that were the case, why then were the pilgrims not equally decimate by Native american diseases? Much of it may be explained by the points in this article- in short the introduction of rats (specifically the black rat) and fleas as carriers/transmitters, and comparatively poor hygiene of native american populations (respecting soil, water and food).
But what if there is something else that plays in as well? What if there is a (complicated) equation which can be derived, relating...
Population Size
Population Mobility
Range of Mobility
Viral and/or bacterial interactions relating to population, distance, and time
vs. rate of adaptability of the human immune system?
(Yeah, probably some multi-variable calculus involved in that).
What if, with our increasing ability to traverse increasingly large distances, in increasingly shorter times, we have created an environment in which our immune systems simply can't evolve fast enough to keep up with the intermingling and evolution of bacterial and viral strains?
That was my random thought for the day.
I have hear a fair amount of speculation regarding the causes of modern diseases (including cancers and various autoimmune disorders), Some of the more popular theories I have read tie it to diet, or to the increased use of chemicals, pesticides, etc.. (one more recent theory I mentioned in a previous post suggest a link between 1st world poverty and modern disease).
Of course, some of these seem unlikely, because the timelines don't really fit. For instance the assertion that the introduction of Grains, or the agricultural diet is the cause. The modern disease timeline goes back hundred of years, agricultural diet goes back thousands. The processed foods, or pesticides argument is closer, though there are still some holes in the correlation.
But I just had a random thought this afternoon. What about modern mobility? We have, and take advantage of an increasing ability to traverse in large numbers over vast distances. A simplistic but supporting example:
It has been reported that small, isolated groups tend to have less disease. a family, living in complete isolaion, for instance. However, if they come in contact with other groups, they tend to have low resistance the bacteria and virii those visitors are carrying with them. This was considered to be a major contributor to the decimation of native american populations when Europeans arrived in the new land. Native Americans lived primarily in smaller tribal groups, with relative isolation, and limited travel. Their immune systems weren't prepared for the disease the white man brought from Europe.
But if that were the case, why then were the pilgrims not equally decimate by Native american diseases? Much of it may be explained by the points in this article- in short the introduction of rats (specifically the black rat) and fleas as carriers/transmitters, and comparatively poor hygiene of native american populations (respecting soil, water and food).
But what if there is something else that plays in as well? What if there is a (complicated) equation which can be derived, relating...
Population Size
Population Mobility
Range of Mobility
Viral and/or bacterial interactions relating to population, distance, and time
vs. rate of adaptability of the human immune system?
(Yeah, probably some multi-variable calculus involved in that).
What if, with our increasing ability to traverse increasingly large distances, in increasingly shorter times, we have created an environment in which our immune systems simply can't evolve fast enough to keep up with the intermingling and evolution of bacterial and viral strains?
That was my random thought for the day.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Dog Stew
I made a dozen red currant and blueberry oatmeal muffins last night, thinking they would make a great breakfast. I tried one. It was delicious! Then my kids called from California. The phone was wigging out, so I ran downstairs to use my office phone. When the call was over, I went upstairs to resume looking for something to store the muffins in.
Only there were no muffins to store. Just a grinning dog, lying on her back attempting to look cute.
I told my boss about it at work, the next day and suggested that I might be considering dog stew for dinner tonight. He didn't seem to think that would taste as good as the muffins.
Only there were no muffins to store. Just a grinning dog, lying on her back attempting to look cute.
I told my boss about it at work, the next day and suggested that I might be considering dog stew for dinner tonight. He didn't seem to think that would taste as good as the muffins.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
What if it isn't true?
I was asked this question by a friend, when I was in College. My first year in college, I had been back from my Mission for... maybe 6 months. I think it came up in part because he had been proselyted by a group of religious atheists - I have always found that aspect of Atheism a bit humorous. They eschew religion while being a religion themselves - In the sense that a religion is an organized collection of beliefs, or world views relating to humanity, and providing some sort of structure. I am not referring to atheists in general, but rather that group of zealous atheists who preach with conviction that science has proven the non-existence of God. Science can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God at the present time, nor is it likely to be able to in the foreseeable future. You may be able to make a case regarding certain qualities of an intelligent being, but not dis/prove one.
But back to the question. "What if it isn't true?" At the time I was grossly incapable of answering the question. Fresh from a mission, I was still positively brimming with missionary-ness. I could not even comprehend "It" not being true. I have matured somewhat in the ensuing years (probably not much), and thought I would take a stab at answering that question now.
So, what if it isn't true? What if there is no God? What if all those we have been following over the years, believing they were "men of God" were all part of an elaborate conspiracy, or more likely (applying Hanlon's Razor), were men with an incredible abundance of imagination, and an incredible lack of ability to distinguish between fact and fancy? Well, then I have part of an enormous fraud, which has been perpetuated through millenia. I have been giving up 10% percent of my income, untold hours of my time - I've been following a bunch of rules and guideline's - all for no reason.
But what does that really mean for me? Ignoring the human frailties which are part of any organization run by humans, whether founded by a divine being or no, what are the actually fundamental implications of my devotion to this fraud? What are the actually tenets and objectives which the Church itself - not individuals within the church - has attempted to instill in me?
At the core, it is all about aspiring to something greater. The most fundamental, core doctrines are love, and personal accountability. Seriously, take some time to pick it all apart, lay it out, and look at the big picture, recognize the influence of stupid, which is part of all human endeavor and distill the core meaning. It is all about taking responsibility for my actions, accepting my faults, and seeking to overcome them, it is about not blaming others but recognizing that I am responsible for me. And then, in what seems to be a contradiction of the former, it is about recognizing the influence which I have on others. About understanding that what I do can influence others, can shape others. And because of this core belief that we are the offspring of a deity, Those "others" are literally my brothers and sisters. All children of a Loving God and all therefore of infinite worth to him. If that is the case, then why would I not do all in my power to help them to achieve their full potential?
Putting that in simple, temporal terms, If I have a dear friend, who I know is a recovering alcoholic, am I going to pressure him to go to the Bar with me? NO! To do so, to put my friend at risk of Jail, of Death... it would be unconscionable! So in that same vein, if all around me are my brothers and sisters, it makes sense that I should do what I am able to help them to be happy, healthy... the best they can be.
And that is the core of what I have belonged to. The gospel of Jesus Christ fundamentally is about improving myself, being responsible for myself, avoiding things which could lead to addictions, and embracing things which improve my knowledge, health, happiness and overall well-being, and helping others as best I can, or at the very least, not being a roadblock to their improvement.
So, I try to avoid things which are harmful for my physical body, I try to eat good food, get sufficient sleep (I said try), I try to treat other with respect, to keep my anger and selfishness and pride in check. I give money and time to my church, to build church building where people can gather together to fast and pray together, to share messages of hope and faith with one another, to inspire each other and "bear one anothers burdens". I give money to my church to help build schools, to help provide resources to those who have fallen on hard times; see to their immediate needs and help them get back on their feet.
I have invested considerable time in an organization which has encouraged me to follow the example of one who spent his life seeking to help, to heal, to lift, and to love.
What if it isn't true? What I have gained far exceeds what I have lost.
What if it is true?
But back to the question. "What if it isn't true?" At the time I was grossly incapable of answering the question. Fresh from a mission, I was still positively brimming with missionary-ness. I could not even comprehend "It" not being true. I have matured somewhat in the ensuing years (probably not much), and thought I would take a stab at answering that question now.
So, what if it isn't true? What if there is no God? What if all those we have been following over the years, believing they were "men of God" were all part of an elaborate conspiracy, or more likely (applying Hanlon's Razor), were men with an incredible abundance of imagination, and an incredible lack of ability to distinguish between fact and fancy? Well, then I have part of an enormous fraud, which has been perpetuated through millenia. I have been giving up 10% percent of my income, untold hours of my time - I've been following a bunch of rules and guideline's - all for no reason.
But what does that really mean for me? Ignoring the human frailties which are part of any organization run by humans, whether founded by a divine being or no, what are the actually fundamental implications of my devotion to this fraud? What are the actually tenets and objectives which the Church itself - not individuals within the church - has attempted to instill in me?
At the core, it is all about aspiring to something greater. The most fundamental, core doctrines are love, and personal accountability. Seriously, take some time to pick it all apart, lay it out, and look at the big picture, recognize the influence of stupid, which is part of all human endeavor and distill the core meaning. It is all about taking responsibility for my actions, accepting my faults, and seeking to overcome them, it is about not blaming others but recognizing that I am responsible for me. And then, in what seems to be a contradiction of the former, it is about recognizing the influence which I have on others. About understanding that what I do can influence others, can shape others. And because of this core belief that we are the offspring of a deity, Those "others" are literally my brothers and sisters. All children of a Loving God and all therefore of infinite worth to him. If that is the case, then why would I not do all in my power to help them to achieve their full potential?
Putting that in simple, temporal terms, If I have a dear friend, who I know is a recovering alcoholic, am I going to pressure him to go to the Bar with me? NO! To do so, to put my friend at risk of Jail, of Death... it would be unconscionable! So in that same vein, if all around me are my brothers and sisters, it makes sense that I should do what I am able to help them to be happy, healthy... the best they can be.
And that is the core of what I have belonged to. The gospel of Jesus Christ fundamentally is about improving myself, being responsible for myself, avoiding things which could lead to addictions, and embracing things which improve my knowledge, health, happiness and overall well-being, and helping others as best I can, or at the very least, not being a roadblock to their improvement.
So, I try to avoid things which are harmful for my physical body, I try to eat good food, get sufficient sleep (I said try), I try to treat other with respect, to keep my anger and selfishness and pride in check. I give money and time to my church, to build church building where people can gather together to fast and pray together, to share messages of hope and faith with one another, to inspire each other and "bear one anothers burdens". I give money to my church to help build schools, to help provide resources to those who have fallen on hard times; see to their immediate needs and help them get back on their feet.
I have invested considerable time in an organization which has encouraged me to follow the example of one who spent his life seeking to help, to heal, to lift, and to love.
What if it isn't true? What I have gained far exceeds what I have lost.
What if it is true?
A Musing on the Book of Abraham
This post is a specific response to a thread which started on facebook, as a result of this post by the LDS church regarding the Book of Abraham, a portion of LDS scripture known as the Pearl of Great Price, and this subsequent article by the Salt Lake Tribune. The SLTrib article rubbed me the wrong way, due to it's rather sensationalist feel but lack of any real substance, and due to the fact that they didn't bother to reference the original article they were writing about (what can I say working fro 8am to 2am for a week had me in a cranky mood).
At any rate, a recurring question appeared around the pictographs contained in the Book of Abraham (which can be found here). The question in essence being, since these pictures are common pictures found in Egyptian Funerary texts (Known as the Book of Breathings or the Book of the Dead, and since present day scholars (and presumably scholars in Joseph Smith's time, given that the debate over the veracity of the Book of Abraham goes back to the early 1800's), does this not at the very least discredit the Book of Abraham, as a literal translation, and possibly even exposes Joseph Smith as a fraud?
First let me wade through a few points I already discussed for the sake of completeness. I am not aware that the Church at any time has taught as doctrine that the scriptures are a literal translation. The Joseph smith was relatively uneducated, seems to suggest that they were not literal translations.
Let me also for completeness include the definition of a literal translation as one which is a word-for-word rendering in another language, and point out that literal translations are frequently not useful, as a word-for-word translation fails to convey the correct culture, and often ideas or meanings the author intended. And since some scripture is poetic in nature, it is often necessary to translate non-literally in order to maintain the flow, which can be just as important as the words in presenting the intended meaning.
I would further point out that this makes accurate translation a very tricky business, since it is meaning which is most important (spend a little time at song meanings.com and you will get an idea what I mean. just one example is Radioactive by Imagine Dragons, it is interpreted as everything from dealing with depression (the most likely, given that author of the song said it was this) to drug use, to a promotion of new age religion).
So, that out of the way, let me come back to the facsimiles. First, since the recovered portion of the scrolls from which the Book of Abraham is said to have been translated represents roughly 12% of the entirety of the scrolls, what we have represents no real proof of anything. Insufficient data.
But that aside, and based on what little information we actually do have, let me propose one alternative which fits.
Several years ago I had the opportunity to become acquainted with a man who was a Freemason, of relatively high rank - I do not recall the title now. In our conversations, he shared with me some details of the Freemason ceremonies. While not wishing to divulge detail around what he shared, as it is considered secret/sacred. I will say that I found a curious number of similarities between it, and certain ceremonies performed in LDS temples, including specific clothing, hand shakes, hand gestures...
In fact some have claimed the Joseph was Freemason and that he borrowed from their ceremonies to create the temple ceremony. But where did the Freemasons come by it? There history, as explained to me traces it back to one of three origins. The first is that it was an organization of craftsmen founded in the middle ages. This is based on the earliest known documents related to the Freemasons.
Freemason tradition however points to an earlier source. Many indicate that its origins are tied to the Temple of Solomon, where workers who constructed the temple gleaned the rituals of Solomon's temple. Others however indicate that it predates Solomon's temple, and in fact traces back to Egypt. In either of these cases, the constant is that it was tied to, or gleaned from ancient Israel (referring to the progeny of Jacob, Son of Isaac, son of Abraham).
Now, going to Jacob and moving forward: Bible history says that Jacob had a Son, Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt, and then rose to power, as the Pharoah's right hand man. This was accomplished through Joseph's interpretation of a dream which Pharoah had, predicting a seven year period of abundance, followed by a seven year famine. this foreknowledge allowed Pharoah the opportunity to prepare for the famine during the prosperous years. These events culminated in Jacob and his family migrating to Egypt and reuniting with Joseph.
Now consider: This event would have made the Pharoah quite prosperous. It is reasonable to assume that, at that point, Joseph, and by association Joseph's family - were held in relatively high regard by the Pharoah, and those around him.It is also reasonable to assume that Joseph, being devoutly religious shared his religious views and history with Pharoah and others within his circle of influence.
So then, is it possible that the book of the Dead, an Egyptian text, did in fact originate, or at the very least was influenced by Joseph, and his Family? I have a friend who had the opportunity to see parts of a Book of Breathings on display in the Musee du Louvre. I have not had the opportunity to personally study the book of the dead, or its translation, so I am trusting my friend at his word, but his description of the Book of the dead and translation offered included parts which again bore striking resemblance to portions of the Masonic ceremonies, and LDS temple ceremonies.
As such, it seems possible that the Book of the dead may have in fact been influenced by Abraham's progeny. It seems possible that portions of Abraham's writings may have found there way into Egyptian texts.
I don't offer this as fact, I have never heard anyone else pose this theory, this scenario is entirely my own creation. It is not offered to prove or disprove any point in particular, only to point out that there are other alternatives to the extremes being offered by the media, the religiously or intellectually overzealous on either side of the debate.
It goes back to a point I have made before, that we humans are not nearly as smart as we think we are. We are incredibly bad at keeping an unbiased view, and are therefore quite often blinded to many possible scenarios which fit the limited data we have to work with. Frequently I hear arguments that "God doesn't exist because (insert fact) is a contradiction". Well, no. (fact) doesn't disprove the existence of an intelligent being, it only calls into question certain assumptions about the characteristic of said being.
We assume too much and understand too little. We all too often place on a pedestal, and blindly accept as infallible, "prophets" of either a spiritual or intellectual nature. And where one worships, another seeks to dethrone by exposing their malice. We would be much better served by a general tendency to trust, respect and the liberal application of Hanlan's razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or incompetence").
At any rate, a recurring question appeared around the pictographs contained in the Book of Abraham (which can be found here). The question in essence being, since these pictures are common pictures found in Egyptian Funerary texts (Known as the Book of Breathings or the Book of the Dead, and since present day scholars (and presumably scholars in Joseph Smith's time, given that the debate over the veracity of the Book of Abraham goes back to the early 1800's), does this not at the very least discredit the Book of Abraham, as a literal translation, and possibly even exposes Joseph Smith as a fraud?
First let me wade through a few points I already discussed for the sake of completeness. I am not aware that the Church at any time has taught as doctrine that the scriptures are a literal translation. The Joseph smith was relatively uneducated, seems to suggest that they were not literal translations.
Let me also for completeness include the definition of a literal translation as one which is a word-for-word rendering in another language, and point out that literal translations are frequently not useful, as a word-for-word translation fails to convey the correct culture, and often ideas or meanings the author intended. And since some scripture is poetic in nature, it is often necessary to translate non-literally in order to maintain the flow, which can be just as important as the words in presenting the intended meaning.
I would further point out that this makes accurate translation a very tricky business, since it is meaning which is most important (spend a little time at song meanings.com and you will get an idea what I mean. just one example is Radioactive by Imagine Dragons, it is interpreted as everything from dealing with depression (the most likely, given that author of the song said it was this) to drug use, to a promotion of new age religion).
So, that out of the way, let me come back to the facsimiles. First, since the recovered portion of the scrolls from which the Book of Abraham is said to have been translated represents roughly 12% of the entirety of the scrolls, what we have represents no real proof of anything. Insufficient data.
But that aside, and based on what little information we actually do have, let me propose one alternative which fits.
Several years ago I had the opportunity to become acquainted with a man who was a Freemason, of relatively high rank - I do not recall the title now. In our conversations, he shared with me some details of the Freemason ceremonies. While not wishing to divulge detail around what he shared, as it is considered secret/sacred. I will say that I found a curious number of similarities between it, and certain ceremonies performed in LDS temples, including specific clothing, hand shakes, hand gestures...
In fact some have claimed the Joseph was Freemason and that he borrowed from their ceremonies to create the temple ceremony. But where did the Freemasons come by it? There history, as explained to me traces it back to one of three origins. The first is that it was an organization of craftsmen founded in the middle ages. This is based on the earliest known documents related to the Freemasons.
Freemason tradition however points to an earlier source. Many indicate that its origins are tied to the Temple of Solomon, where workers who constructed the temple gleaned the rituals of Solomon's temple. Others however indicate that it predates Solomon's temple, and in fact traces back to Egypt. In either of these cases, the constant is that it was tied to, or gleaned from ancient Israel (referring to the progeny of Jacob, Son of Isaac, son of Abraham).
Now, going to Jacob and moving forward: Bible history says that Jacob had a Son, Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt, and then rose to power, as the Pharoah's right hand man. This was accomplished through Joseph's interpretation of a dream which Pharoah had, predicting a seven year period of abundance, followed by a seven year famine. this foreknowledge allowed Pharoah the opportunity to prepare for the famine during the prosperous years. These events culminated in Jacob and his family migrating to Egypt and reuniting with Joseph.
Now consider: This event would have made the Pharoah quite prosperous. It is reasonable to assume that, at that point, Joseph, and by association Joseph's family - were held in relatively high regard by the Pharoah, and those around him.It is also reasonable to assume that Joseph, being devoutly religious shared his religious views and history with Pharoah and others within his circle of influence.
So then, is it possible that the book of the Dead, an Egyptian text, did in fact originate, or at the very least was influenced by Joseph, and his Family? I have a friend who had the opportunity to see parts of a Book of Breathings on display in the Musee du Louvre. I have not had the opportunity to personally study the book of the dead, or its translation, so I am trusting my friend at his word, but his description of the Book of the dead and translation offered included parts which again bore striking resemblance to portions of the Masonic ceremonies, and LDS temple ceremonies.
As such, it seems possible that the Book of the dead may have in fact been influenced by Abraham's progeny. It seems possible that portions of Abraham's writings may have found there way into Egyptian texts.
I don't offer this as fact, I have never heard anyone else pose this theory, this scenario is entirely my own creation. It is not offered to prove or disprove any point in particular, only to point out that there are other alternatives to the extremes being offered by the media, the religiously or intellectually overzealous on either side of the debate.
It goes back to a point I have made before, that we humans are not nearly as smart as we think we are. We are incredibly bad at keeping an unbiased view, and are therefore quite often blinded to many possible scenarios which fit the limited data we have to work with. Frequently I hear arguments that "God doesn't exist because (insert fact) is a contradiction". Well, no. (fact) doesn't disprove the existence of an intelligent being, it only calls into question certain assumptions about the characteristic of said being.
We assume too much and understand too little. We all too often place on a pedestal, and blindly accept as infallible, "prophets" of either a spiritual or intellectual nature. And where one worships, another seeks to dethrone by exposing their malice. We would be much better served by a general tendency to trust, respect and the liberal application of Hanlan's razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or incompetence").
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Using the Law to Push a Moral Agenda
I have heard this phrase several time recently, and have had some thoughts rattling around. I thought I would give them some place else to rattle.
Warning - This is very likely to be offensive, Dark, and Disturbing.
--------------------------
Yeah, we should totally get rid of all the laws on the books that are there merely to push some group's moral agenda.
Let's start with drugs and alcohol. What is it with age limits? Why can a 21 year old have a beer, but a 19 year old can't? Most of the rest of the world has a lower age limit; some have no limit. Clearly there is nothing universal about it. And why do I have to get a note from a doctor to get prescription meds? The drug store has it for sale, I have money, and a need. Why does the government get involved in the middle? Who am I hurting (other than possibly myself) if I take a little codeine every night, to help me sleep? If I want to do heroin in my house, and I can afford it, who are you to tell me I can't?
Now about theft. Is stealing really wrong? You say so, but that is just your moral opinion. There have been cultures which celebrated, even revered thieves. Isn't robin hood considered a hero to most? It's human nature to take what we want. Look at little babies. They see something, they want it, they take it.
What about rape? I understand they have found a gene that makes some people prone to this behavior. We have accepted the gay gene, why not the rape gene? Why does it get treated differently?
And again with age or relation limitations - with respect to sexual behavior. The rest of the planets animals don't seem to care. I've raised chickens long enough to know the rooster doesn't treat mom, sister or child any differently than any other hen. We throw the term "Pedophile" around. Why not pedo-sexual? It has a genetic marker as well, so it is apparently a natural phenomenon.
And so many laws regarding killing... Let's be honest. killing is as natural as it gets. In fact it serves several beneficial purposes. The stronger, faster, smarter, creatures prey upon the slower, weaker, dumber creatures. It serves to improve the overall genetic quality of the survivors, it serves to control the population size... Death is part of a healthy ecosystem. And by artificially preventing death, we allow inferior humans to propagate their inferior genes. It is a necessary function of evolution.
And let's face it, we humans do take to it quite readily. When in all of history has there NOT been at least one war going on somewhere? When we aren't at war, we involve ourselves in the wars of others. If that option isn't available to us, we come up with other ways to engage in conflict. We create gangs. We divide into conflicting groups over almost anything, and then push the boundaries of violence in spite of all the laws put in place to restrain our natural urge. Why just last week a woman at a gathering that was all about peace and love and taking care of the environment stabbed a man who asked her to stop honking her horn like a crazy for 30 minutes.
And if we can't participate in war or burgeoning violence we spectate violence. Football, WWF, MMA, Boxing... We yearn for the conflict, we chafe at the laws which suppress our instinct to kill. Even the old sports - running, javelin, shot put, wrestling.... They were just ways for warriors to practice, and stay conditioned for the next war.
Some of course will try to argue that "God said..." Which God? Mars is the God of war, I don't think he cares. You mean the Old Testament God who arbitrarily gave commands to one nation of people to entirely wipe out another nation?
------------
If you find yourself agreeing with any of the above, get your head checked. Please.
ALL laws are "someone Pushing some moral agenda". Life is precious because we as a group collectively decided it was so, or because we as a people collectively believe in a God or gods who have "told us" it is so. Drugs are regulated because we collectively have decided that they must be regulated in order to protect the young, the less fortunate, the less educated, the innocent bystander, or those more prone to addiction. Theft is wrong because we, or our deity of choice said so. Families are supposed to look act and function in certain ways because we believe it benefits us as a collective group, or because that is our religious doctrine.
Regardless of where the line is drawn, unless you live under the rule of a dictator, or tyrannical regime, the line is drawn where the group chose to draw it. Yes, they "pushed their morals" in exactly the same way that you are trying to "push your morals".
Warning - This is very likely to be offensive, Dark, and Disturbing.
--------------------------
Yeah, we should totally get rid of all the laws on the books that are there merely to push some group's moral agenda.
Let's start with drugs and alcohol. What is it with age limits? Why can a 21 year old have a beer, but a 19 year old can't? Most of the rest of the world has a lower age limit; some have no limit. Clearly there is nothing universal about it. And why do I have to get a note from a doctor to get prescription meds? The drug store has it for sale, I have money, and a need. Why does the government get involved in the middle? Who am I hurting (other than possibly myself) if I take a little codeine every night, to help me sleep? If I want to do heroin in my house, and I can afford it, who are you to tell me I can't?
Now about theft. Is stealing really wrong? You say so, but that is just your moral opinion. There have been cultures which celebrated, even revered thieves. Isn't robin hood considered a hero to most? It's human nature to take what we want. Look at little babies. They see something, they want it, they take it.
What about rape? I understand they have found a gene that makes some people prone to this behavior. We have accepted the gay gene, why not the rape gene? Why does it get treated differently?
And again with age or relation limitations - with respect to sexual behavior. The rest of the planets animals don't seem to care. I've raised chickens long enough to know the rooster doesn't treat mom, sister or child any differently than any other hen. We throw the term "Pedophile" around. Why not pedo-sexual? It has a genetic marker as well, so it is apparently a natural phenomenon.
And so many laws regarding killing... Let's be honest. killing is as natural as it gets. In fact it serves several beneficial purposes. The stronger, faster, smarter, creatures prey upon the slower, weaker, dumber creatures. It serves to improve the overall genetic quality of the survivors, it serves to control the population size... Death is part of a healthy ecosystem. And by artificially preventing death, we allow inferior humans to propagate their inferior genes. It is a necessary function of evolution.
And let's face it, we humans do take to it quite readily. When in all of history has there NOT been at least one war going on somewhere? When we aren't at war, we involve ourselves in the wars of others. If that option isn't available to us, we come up with other ways to engage in conflict. We create gangs. We divide into conflicting groups over almost anything, and then push the boundaries of violence in spite of all the laws put in place to restrain our natural urge. Why just last week a woman at a gathering that was all about peace and love and taking care of the environment stabbed a man who asked her to stop honking her horn like a crazy for 30 minutes.
And if we can't participate in war or burgeoning violence we spectate violence. Football, WWF, MMA, Boxing... We yearn for the conflict, we chafe at the laws which suppress our instinct to kill. Even the old sports - running, javelin, shot put, wrestling.... They were just ways for warriors to practice, and stay conditioned for the next war.
Some of course will try to argue that "God said..." Which God? Mars is the God of war, I don't think he cares. You mean the Old Testament God who arbitrarily gave commands to one nation of people to entirely wipe out another nation?
------------
If you find yourself agreeing with any of the above, get your head checked. Please.
ALL laws are "someone Pushing some moral agenda". Life is precious because we as a group collectively decided it was so, or because we as a people collectively believe in a God or gods who have "told us" it is so. Drugs are regulated because we collectively have decided that they must be regulated in order to protect the young, the less fortunate, the less educated, the innocent bystander, or those more prone to addiction. Theft is wrong because we, or our deity of choice said so. Families are supposed to look act and function in certain ways because we believe it benefits us as a collective group, or because that is our religious doctrine.
Regardless of where the line is drawn, unless you live under the rule of a dictator, or tyrannical regime, the line is drawn where the group chose to draw it. Yes, they "pushed their morals" in exactly the same way that you are trying to "push your morals".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)