Proofs, burdens, abrahamic claims, and out-of-band data

Just a note to anyone not aware --

When you get a trust point certificates so you can tell if the site
that shows up when you point your browser to, for instance,

http://www.lds.org

or even your bank's web site, is run be the people it says it is run
by, and is not being spoofed at the moment, etc., you want to get your
trust point certificates by an out-of-band method, which means by a
method that does not directly involve in-band transmission. (In-band
means via usual internet connections.)

People who understand the in-band technologies are exactly the people
best able to establish fake web sites and even sometimes transmit fake
data that appears to originate from the real web sites.

The usual way to do out-of-band is to have the manufacturer of your
browser or OS supply you with a packet of trust point certificates
pre-installed in your browser or OS-supplied keychain. These trust
point certificates are used to prove the identity of companies that
specialize in proving identities, "internet certified public accounts
specializing in identities", so to speak. Then the trust points can
assist in establishing the identities of your bank or church's web
sites, or what-have-you.

I'll point out a couple of the more obvious problems with this
approach: First, the manufacturer of your software becomes the implicit
root of all your trust (in regards to the internet). Second, you don't
know the people you're delegating your trust to, either the software
manufacturer or the trusted third parties who are acting as iCPAs.

Anyway, certificates on the OS or browser CDs, passed by hand, are
definitely being communicated out-of-band.

Another out-of-bound approach is to meet the person whose certificate
you want face-to-face, perhaps with a mutual trusted acquaintence to
vouch for each of you, and exchange the certificates by hand.

This is not perfect, because, for instance, if your bank kept a stack
of CDs with certificates on them, for the customers to take home and
install in their browsers and/or keychains, how does the bank prevent
an unscrupulous officer from slipping a customized CD into the stack so
a particular well-to-do customer gets an evil certificate? (There are
ways to make it difficult, but no ways to completely prevent it.)

Nevertheless, the more ways you have of verifying identity, the greater
confidence you have in the identity. In-band proofs are not entirely
useless, but using the the out-of-band proofs strengthens our
confidence in the identities of those with whom we do business over the
web.

Back in (I think it was the) Claims for the Book of Abraham thread
before it was closed, I challenged James about his insistence on
relying solely on what I call in-band data. He misunderstood the
question, and I'm afraid others may have as well.

Why would I consider what he calls direct evidence in-band?

I'm sure it's going to ruffle feathers for me to say so, but there is
not a single industry in which humans engage that has not been the
scene of deceptive activities. Peer review is valuable, but it is known
to have difficulties as well, particularly in regards to accepting data
which would raise issues with the currently accepted theories and
practices. I don't want to go dig too far into this, but what about
global warming? Both sides are charging coverup and deception (and I'm
personally inclined to believe both sides). The drug industries? Health
food industries? Computer OS manufacturers? Automobile manufactures?

When a new technology is hot, it often appears to be immune to these
issues, but we later find that the progress was fueled by partial
participants, and deception has all too often been used to win tech
wars that need not have been fought, or at least need not have been
won.

It seems like this is off-topic, but it is not.

What is out-of-band in regards to the general arena of human endeavor?
One thing I can think of is human conscience. It isn't perfect and can
also be fooled, just like the case of the unscrupulous bank officer I
mentioned above. But applying it to the in-band proofs we have can
help.

Some people will suggest that we should all make our consciences
subject to logic, but logic is an in-band activity. False steps can be
introduced in an argument that are difficult for the uninitiated to
perceive, and the experts who are the ones with the most reputation to
lose are also the ones with the greatest opportunity to introduce the
false steps, and if they are vain enough to think they can't be caught,
the ones with the most motivation to try to game the system.

So logic should not be given ascendency over conscience either.

Have I acknowledged that conscience can be deceived? We have scriptural
references to searing (I think was the word) the conscience, so we
should not think conscience can't be deceived. We definitely can fool
ourselves if we let ourselves do it. Also, if we can't see our
assumptions perfectly, we can become confused.

So, what do we rely on?

In the doctrines of the church, we talk about the light of Christ and
the spirit of truth, and we talk about the Holy Ghost. My understanding
is that conscience is part of the light of Christ. This would be more
out-of-band data. Prayer, meditation, and scripture study are the ways
we access this out-of-band data.

Is it completely reliable? Some say it isn't, but my experience is that
the data from this source is far more reliable than my connection to
the source. In other words, I think that God doesn't lie, but I don't
doubt my ability to misunderstand. I am unreliable.

So, what do we rely on?

I say we muddle through the best we can and make lots of mistakes, but
I also say that we can become better able to understand the out-of-band
data and I say that we should not avoid it. Better to use all the
sources of data that we can get.

So, what happens when I read the Book of Abraham and it says things
about Kolob and this planet and that, and it doesn't match with
astronomy? (Is the Book of Abraham out-of-band or in-band? Depends on
the person reading it and the way he or she is trying to read it, I
think.)

Anyway, when I was younger, I tried to make those descriptions fit the
astronomy we know, but I quickly found that there weren't many places I
could get it to match even what I would suppose Joseph Smith knew about
our solar system and about stars in general (except the part about
there being lots of stars and lots of worlds like this one). So I am
left to decide either that Joseph Smith was cracked or that he was
talking about something else.

The only reason I have to assume that Joseph Smith wasn't taking about
something else is my teen-age desire to read "science" into it. So it
seems quite reasonable to assume Joseph Smith and God were talking
about something else, now that I'm not so anxious to prove science by
religion or vice-versa. Maybe they were talking about what's at the
center of our galaxy? Maybe not? Who knows?

So what truths do I get out of the Book of Abraham?

Along with the astronomy part that I only partially understand, there
is this explanation of ranking or orderings. It seems rather
inconsequential, but when I first read it (as a teenager), I was also
reading Asimov and who knows what else. And somebody I read pointed
out, concerning competition, that when you try to live by being the
biggest and the baddest, sooner or later you find that there is someone
bigger and badder than you. That made sense, but when I read the same
principle there in the Book of Abraham, that out-of-band source told me
in my heart that I was seeing an important eternal truth.

So, I didn't have the proofs of in-band astronomy that I thought I
wanted, but I learned some important social truths (that people who
like to talk about business as if it were war like to hide), and I have
out-of-band confirmation that God is bigger than all the institutions
of men.

Now, James, does that help you understand my references to out-of-band
data?

JDZ

.

Relevant Pages