By His Own Biased Hand

[rameumptom]

Because the papyri that the Book of Abraham came from doesn't have Abraham's name on it.

Once you pull out the magically jargonized LDS version of the word "translation" and start allowing for even known fakes like the Kinderhook plates (I know it was rameumtom who said this, not you) to be "catalysts" for true scripture through revelation, you pull the Book of Abraham and any other thus-produced LDS scripture straight out of the realm of academic study and scrutiny, and squarely into faith-based territory. Ritner isn't approaching it from that point of view. He's approaching it as if the question is whether the Egyptian words on the papyri that really exists actually mean what it is believed (by non-LDS who just don't get the peculiar LDS meaning of "translation") Joseph Smith said they meant. And they don't.

You guys are working from an understanding that would allow Joseph Smith to "translate" a work of new scripture from a jelly donut and have that be a correct "translation", and wondering why a non-LDS scholar doesn't get it.

I have no problem with Ritner comparing it with the Egyptian translation of the sensen and BoB. What I do have a problem with, is he stops there. He doesn't discuss the issues of the actual text: how did Joseph hit correctly on ancient traditions that find themselves within the document? How did Joseph know that Abraham taught the Egyptians astronomy (did he have a copy of Josephus on hand?), or that Abraham was sacrificed (did he have ancient Arab texts on hand?), etc. It is just too convenient that non-LDS scholars do not discuss these issues.

They don't have to deal with the catalyst theory, as not all LDS accept it, either. I have no problem with that. If someday we find that there are more papyri that do include the BoA, I'll be happy for it. Still, Joseph's history supports a catalyst theory: else how does one explain the Book of Moses as part of a Bible "translation"?

It is on the same level as the Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ anti-Mormon video now out. They claim to be looking at evidence all the way around, but only show Joseph's "failed" prophecies. They don't bother letting anyone know that he prophesied of the Civil War and the world wars to come; or any of his other unique revelations that have been spot on. It is just too easy for "scholars" to play in a small sandbox, and conveniently ignore the rest of the beach. Are there any non-Mormon scholars that have critically addressed the text itself, and the "hits" on ancient traditions? If there are, they are very rare, indeed.

And no, Joseph wouldn't have used a jelly donut as a catalyst, because they hadn't been invented yet.

[Theophilus07]

I'm unaware of any effort to supress the teaching of evolution in the schools. Could you provide some specifics supporting your claim, and then expand on how your evidence demonstrates a substantial clash between religion in general and science in general? Thanks in advance.

I understand that you're busy, Dr. Peterson, and that you may have simply missed my first request to you to clarify this position.

I'm unsure whether I should interpret the above statement as a joke or what. A man of your education achieves the superlative writing ability demonstrated in your posts only through intensive study and a substantial amount of reading. I'm having a difficult time believing that with all the reading you do, you have not encountered the numerous news articles stretching back decades detailing the efforts of fundamentalist Christians to get elected to boards of education in many states not only in the Bible Belt, but also in such states as California, so they can supress the teaching of evolution in schools. When they DO get elected, they take steps to stop the teaching of evolution, or at a minimum, give creationism an equal chance. Then there is the counterattack by supporters of evolution who get themselves elected to the boards of education to replace the fundamentalists so they can stop the attempted supression of the teaching of evolution. This decades-long and well publicized conflict took an interesting turn in the 1990s when the Discovery Institute underwrote the so-called Wedge strategy in which the fundamentalists repapered creationism in the guise of Intelligent Design to combat the teaching of evolution. The state legislature of Oklahoma actually passed bills to sticker evolution textbooks with disclaimers that evolution was a theory and not fact. The state legislature of Alabama also flirted with other creationist schemes. In the texts of these various endeavors, can be found explicit wording describing the clash between religion in general and science in general.

If you, Dr. Peterson, genuinely haven't heard of any of the above, I would be genuinely surprised. Could you clarify, please, so we critics will know what your actual stand is? Please note that this is my second request for your clarification.

Theophilus07

[Calm]

If you, Dr. Peterson, genuinely haven't heard of any of the above, I would be genuinely surprised. Could you clarify, please, so we critics will know what your actual stand is? Please note that this is my second request for your clarification.

Theophilus07

I think the good Dr. is out of town for a couple of days though I may be confusing him mentioning a trip during another classtime rather than last Wednesday. You might need to bump this again when you see him posting on the board.

[Theophilus07]

Daniel Peterson, April 10 2007

I'm unaware of any effort to supress the teaching of evolution in the schools. Could you provide some specifics supporting your claim, and then expand on how your evidence demonstrates a substantial clash between religion in general and science in general? Thanks in advance.

I understand that you're busy, Dr. Peterson, and that you may have simply missed my first request to you to clarify this position. You made this claim:

I'm unsure whether I should interpret the above statement as a joke or what. A man of your education achieves the superlative writing ability demonstrated in your posts only through intensive study and a substantial amount of reading. I'm having a difficult time believing that with all the reading you do, you have not encountered the numerous news articles stretching back decades detailing the efforts of fundamentalist Christians to get elected to boards of education in many states not only in the Bible Belt, but also in such states as California, so they can supress the teaching of evolution in schools. When they DO get elected, they take steps to stop the teaching of evolution, or at a minimum, give creationism an equal chance. Then there is the counterattack by supporters of evolution who get themselves elected to the boards of education to replace the fundamentalists so they can stop the attempted supression of the teaching of evolution. This decades-long and well publicized conflict took an interesting turn in the 1990s when the Discovery Institute underwrote the so-called Wedge strategy in which the fundamentalists repapered creationism in the guise of Intelligent Design to combat the teaching of evolution. The state legislature of Oklahoma actually passed bills to sticker evolution textbooks with disclaimers that evolution was a theory and not fact. The state legislature of Alabama also flirted with other creationist schemes. In the texts of these various endeavors, can be found explicit wording describing the clash between religion in general and science in general.

If you, Dr. Peterson, genuinely haven't heard of any of the above, I would be genuinely surprised. Could you clarify, please, so we critics will know what your actual stand is? Please note that this is my second request for your clarification.

Theophilus07

Bump to get Dr. Peterson's attention.

Theophilus07

[Tanyan]

Bump to get Dr. Peterson's attention.

Theophilus07

I believe tha Dan Peteerson is out of the U.S.A for several days in Canada or Europe [Do not remember which].