Ritner's Response To Lds Statement On The Book Of Abraham

[why me]

"without having any impact at all upon the Book of Abraham"  How can the work of Ritner and others not have any impact on the Book of Abraham. No need for the sarcasm to.

It actually doesn't have any impact. Of course, it would be nice to have more proof about the book of abraham. But I never expected any mormon scripture to be proven. Nor would I expect the bible to be proven. Nor the book  of mormon. There would be no reason for faith.But it would be nice if they were proven.  We then can all be active in the lds church knowing that god actually does exist because he would have been proven beyond doubt. But...alas, it is not to be. One must still have faith.

 

I suppose that it will be upon death that we will find out the true story. It will be a bummer if nothing happens but darkness. I  would then like to punch the gospel writiers out for lying.

Edited August 11, 2014 by why me

[Helen47]

My sympathy was not meant in a sarcastic way. I know plenty of Mormons here and they are not aware of the debates over the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. Probably don't care because the religion suits their needs.  I can trust Ritner on his comments about the papyri. I can trust Smith and Cooke about the length of the papyri. I am sure Ritner would prefer spending his time with real egyptological issues. I remember waking up one morning after reading lots of material on the BOA (Era/Nibley) and later Dialogue articles and came to the conclusion it was false.  BTW how did Ritner not have " particular expertise about the Book of Abraham."? He obviously has read all the apologetic material on it. You guys use words like "teachable" "contrite spirit" to refer to persons who easily taught the gospel. Once one starts questioning one is an anti, a critic, disgruntled exmormon etc. I am amazed how often i see the word "anti" is in discussions here.

[why me]

My sympathy was not meant in a sarcastic way. I know plenty of Mormons here and they are not aware of the debates over the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. Probably don't care because the religion suits their needs.  I can trust Ritner on his comments about the papyri. I can trust Smith and Cooke about the length of the papyri. I am sure Ritner would prefer spending his time with real egyptological issues. I remember waking up one morning after reading lots of material on the BOA (Era/Nibley) and later Dialogue articles and came to the conclusion it was false.  BTW how did Ritner not have " particular expertise about the Book of Abraham."? He obviously has read all the apologetic material on it. You guys use words like "teachable" "contrite spirit" to refer to persons who easily taught the gospel. Once one starts questioning one is an anti, a critic, disgruntled exmormon etc. I am amazed how often i see the word "anti" is in discussions here.

Most christians are unaware of the academic debate about the origins of christianity and the debates about the life of christ. Some saying that he was the son of god and others saying that he was a just a man and teacher. And you would be right, they don't care because their faith in christ suits their needs. Also, it doesn't matter if Ritner read all the apologetic material about the BoA and BoM etc. No one can prove the book of abraham true as no one can prove the bible true. One can only give interpretations about any religious books.

 

There is nothing wrong with questioning the gospel but I suppose that it has more to do with the tone of the questioning. Sometimes a person can question their way out of the gospel or question when they are actually critiquing.it. And yes, I would love for a religous book to prove the existence of god. But how can that be done? I can only take Joseph Smith's word for it and how he lived his life and how he kept his faith in the face of death. And how the 11 witnesses kept to their testimony of what they saw and felt with their hands. Or emma and how she kept her belief in her husband throughout her life and did not consider him a fraud regardless of how she felt about polygamy.  

[bcuzbcuz]

If you look at Fac 3 and check out the scholars interpretations of these they all agree that the figure are Isis, Osiris, Maat, the deceased (Hor) and Anubis.  It actually in the notes below the Fac that their names are written above. "King Pharoah, whose name is given in the characters above his head" Yet we we know fromscholarship that this is Isis. Also according to Ritner saying 'King Pharoah" is like saying ":king king" Just curious how you  get Smith's interpretation around this.

I totally agree on the points you make. The text and the pictures have absolutely nothing to do with the ""translation" done by Joseph Smith. His "Kirkland Papers" or "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" miss completely on every symbol written about.

[bcuzbcuz]

The Book of Abraham isn't about Egyptology. Rather, it is about Abraham and his interactions with and revelations from God.

It's not often I say it but I totally agree with your point. The scripture produced by Joseph Smith has absolutely nothing to do with the text nor the facsimiles in the possession of the church. His Alphabet and Grammar, similarly, have nothing to do with the symbols and the text that is produced from them.

This is so obvious as to cause me to wonder how you did not know this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This part I am not surprised about though. It takes members different amounts of time to reach the same conclusion. It took me many, many years and was not self-evident, neither from my studies of the scripture nor the foreword found in my Pearl of Great Price.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not often I say it but I totally agree with your point. The scripture produced by Joseph Smith has absolutely nothing to do with the text nor the facsimiles in the possession of the church. His Alphabet and Grammar, similarly, have nothing to do with the symbols and the text that is produced from them.

 

Here is a shocking revelation, but no one but the critics are trying to prove that. I hope you understand that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can trust Smith and Cooke about the length of the papyri.

Bwahahahaha. You had me at hello.

[ERayR]

I can trust Ritner on his comments about the papyri. I can trust Smith and Cooke about the length of the papyri.

 

Of course you can.  That is what you want to believe.

 

I am sure Ritner would prefer spending his time with real egyptological issues.

 

Not so much.  If he did he would do it.  Nobody is forcing him.

[wenglund]

My sympathy was not meant in a sarcastic way. I know plenty of Mormons here and they are not aware of the debates over the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. Probably don't care because the religion suits their needs.  I can trust Ritner on his comments about the papyri. I can trust Smith and Cooke about the length of the papyri. I am sure Ritner would prefer spending his time with real egyptological issues. I remember waking up one morning after reading lots of material on the BOA (Era/Nibley) and later Dialogue articles and came to the conclusion it was false.  BTW how did Ritner not have " particular expertise about the Book of Abraham."? He obviously has read all the apologetic material on it. You guys use words like "teachable" "contrite spirit" to refer to persons who easily taught the gospel. Once one starts questioning one is an anti, a critic, disgruntled exmormon etc. I am amazed how often i see the word "anti" is in discussions here.

 

I don't know about "anti," but you have evidently built an impregnable wall around your echo chamber, and apparently you aren't here to reasonably discuss, but rather to preach your unbelief.

 

That is your right.

 

However, you should know that have yet to give me and others a good reason to privilege the arm of flesh over the arm of God in matters of God, as you have done.

 

So, please tell me, what advantage would there be in bowing at the feet of Ritner instead of God when it comes to assessing the spiritual verity of scripture?

 

Can Ritner enable me to draw closer to Christ and become more like him?

 

In what way can Ritner assist in saving and exalting my soul and the souls of those I love?

 

How or does Ritner open eyes to better see the spiritual eternities?

 

In what ways will he spiritually edify me?

 

Etc., etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It's not often I say it but I totally agree with your point. The scripture produced by Joseph Smith has absolutely nothing to do with the text nor the facsimiles in the possession of the church. His Alphabet and Grammar, similarly, have nothing to do with the symbols and the text that is produced from them.

This part I am not surprised about though. It takes members different amounts of time to reach the same conclusion. It took me many, many years and was not self-evident, neither from my studies of the scripture nor the foreword found in my Pearl of Great Price.

 

Whether or not there is a meaningful relationship between the characters on the extant or non-extant papyri and the Book of Abraham, is a question that is still open to reasonable minded people, but of no substantive value to fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the restored gospel.

 

And, while it has become increasingly clear that the English text associated with the non-Egyptian and Egyptian characters of the Kirtland AE's and GAEL were derived from an earlier translation of part of the Book of Abraham as well as other scriptures (for purposes that remain a mystery), this too is relatively inconsequential to fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the Church.

 

What is important to the mission of the Church are the revealed and edifying precepts contained within the divine translation of the Book of Abraham.

 

Most believing members I know, who are aware of the Egyptology brouhaha, get this.

 

And, those who aren't aware of the brouhaha, are no less blessed by the Book of Abraham in their pursuit of the 4-fold mission, as well they should be.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 12, 2014 by wenglund

[why me]

I  think that we need tor remember that JS had nothing to gain by commiting a fraud with the BoA. If he were a fraudster  his power base was already solid. He didn't need to invent new texts or scripture. And so why would he take a risk by doing an another fraud? I  see none. However, what we do have is quite an interesting text in the BoA. It is well written and meaningful and breaks new ground in religious thought. It is a work of genius. So  how did it come about? And when did he imagine the storyline if he were a fraudster? These are questions that critics will need to answer. It is one thing to criticize and quite another to give an explanation as why he wrote it and when did he imagine it. And if he told emma what he did.

[MAsh]

Should we note the bias of apologists, in favor of Mormonism, that unavoidably colors their arguments and interpretations?

 

Of course. I don't claim otherwise. My point, however, is that such bias is not unique to Mormons or believers, and affects Ritner as well. Caveat lector.

[mfbukowski]

http://signaturebooks.com/2014/08/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

 

Interesting response to the various arguments in defence of the Book of Abraham.

Ritner says:

 

If scholarly dispute over translation and historicity is ultimately irrelevant, why bother to devote extended paragraphs to rebuttals of unmentioned objections on “Translation and the Book of Abraham,” “The Papyri,” and “The Book of Abraham and the Ancient World”?

 

He's right.

 

Don't ask me why we are obsessed with BOA scholarship.

 

We should have just acknowledged from the beginning that Joseph was a prophet who had the BOA revealed to him and it was never a literal "translation".

 

I have believed that forever.   At least we are now figuring that much out.

 

That was clear from Joseph's "translation" of the Bible.  Through inspiration alone, he added chapters, changed verses, added "not" thereby reversing what was said, and took away other "nots" reversing other verses.

 

It can only be verified by testimony.  If you don't have a testimony none of it makes sense, if you do, it can change your life.

 

It's as simple as that.  We have misinterpreted the word "translation" from the beginning starting with the Book of Mormon all through Joseph's revelations.

[Helen47]

"It can only be verified by testimony.  If you don't have a testimony none of it makes sense, if you do, it can change your life"

 

This is the only defence Mormons can argue  with. .

[Pahoran]

My sympathy was not meant in a sarcastic way.

Sure it wasn't.

 

I know plenty of Mormons here and they are not aware of the debates over the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. Probably don't care because the religion suits their needs.

Probably there are more important things in their lives than obsessing over a little handful of anti-Mormon talking points.

 

I can trust Ritner on his comments about the papyri.

So can I.

But when he presumes to declare, on his authority as an egyptologist, that the Book of Abraham is a forgery, he loses all credibility.

Because he's talking about something beyond the scope of his qualifications.

 

I can trust Smith and Cooke about the length of the papyri.

And more importantly -- you want to.

 

I am sure Ritner would prefer spending his time with real egyptological issues.

Then why doesn't he?

 

I remember waking up one morning after reading lots of material on the BOA (Era/Nibley) and later Dialogue articles and came to the conclusion it was false.

And you triumphantly beat the drum whenever anything shows up to confirm your assumption.

 

BTW how did Ritner not have " particular expertise about the Book of Abraham."? He obviously has read all the apologetic material on it.

Why? Why should it matter to him?

 

You guys use words like "teachable" "contrite spirit" to refer to persons who easily taught the gospel. Once one starts questioning one is an anti, a critic, disgruntled exmormon etc. I am amazed how often i see the word "anti" is in discussions here.

Given the amount of anti-Mormon propaganda under discussion here, I'm not.

It is what it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Helen47]

"Because he's talking about something beyond the scope of his qualifications. "  What qualifies one to discuss the Book of Abraham?

[Scott Stevenson]

 

We should have just acknowledged from the beginning that Joseph was a prophet who had the BOA revealed to him and it was never a literal "translation".

 

 

No, Joseph should have acknowledged this.

[Robert F. Smith]

Probably was I tend to miss on a few.

What is noteworthy in the various responses to Helen's note on Ritner's essay is that there is no substantive discussion of what Ritner claims are and whether they are valid.

 

What we get instead is a bunch of Weisenheimers popping off.

[Robert F. Smith]

"It can only be verified by testimony.  If you don't have a testimony none of it makes sense, if you do, it can change your life"

 

This is the only defence Mormons can argue  with. .

CFR Helen.  Perhaps you could support this statement with some citation of sources.  In my opinion this is a blatantly false statement.

[mfbukowski]

No, Joseph should have acknowledged this.

Acknowledged that he thought it was a translation?

 

He translated the BOM with his face in a hat looking at a stone, with the plates in another room.

 

He thought it was a literal translation and it cannot be disproved that it was not.

 

We have nothing to compare any of his "translations" with, so the matter is moot.

[Scott Stevenson]

 

He thought it was a literal translation and it cannot be disproved that it was not.

 

We have nothing to compare any of his "translations" with, so the matter is moot.

 

So he thought he was making a literal translation but you know better that he wasn't? How do you know this? Why have witnesses to the Gold Plates if he was just having the Book of Mormon "revealed" to him? Making a claim that is unfalsifiable is nonsense. 

 

For instance, if Victor Hugo claimed that Les Miserables was a true history of Jean Valjean and that it taught spiritual lessons of redemption, forgiveness, and sacrifice and was revealed truth to him by the creator of the universe, but, good news, you don't have to take his word for it. You can just rely on feeling the spirit while you read the book to know of it's truthfulness. Then you don't need physical evidence that the people in the book actually existed. You now know they did exist because you've had a spiritual witness.

 

Do you see how the trick works? How do you know that feeling the spirit is a reliable truth detector. You've been told by the person that wrote the book. It's a powerful trick that makes you think you are making an independent decision.

 

There are plenty of things to compare Joseph's translations to. Since Joseph claims things in the BOM and the BOA that reside well within the realm of scientific inquiry, we could start there right?

 

Can you construct any scenario in your mind that would give you second thoughts about the Church being what it claims to be? I can think of things that would make me change my mind about Joseph Smith's truth claims. 

[ERayR]

What is noteworthy in the various responses to Helen's note on Ritner's essay is that there is no substantive discussion of what Ritner claims are and whether they are valid.

 

What we get instead is a bunch of Weisenheimers popping off.

 

Note Pahoran's post # 90 above.

[mfbukowski]

So he thought he was making a literal translation but you know better that he wasn't? How do you know this? Why have witnesses to the Gold Plates if he was just having the Book of Mormon "revealed" to him? Making a claim that is unfalsifiable is nonsense. 

 

For instance, if Victor Hugo claimed that Les Miserables was a true history of Jean Valjean and that it taught spiritual lessons of redemption, forgiveness, and sacrifice and was revealed truth to him by the creator of the universe, but, good news, you don't have to take his word for it. You can just rely on feeling the spirit while you read the book to know of it's truthfulness. Then you don't need physical evidence that the people in the book actually existed. You now know they did exist because you've had a spiritual witness.

 

Do you see how the trick works? How do you know that feeling the spirit is a reliable truth detector. You've been told by the person that wrote the book. It's a powerful trick that makes you think you are making an independent decision.

 

There are plenty of things to compare Joseph's translations to. Since Joseph claims things in the BOM and the BOA that reside well within the realm of scientific inquiry, we could start there right?

 

Can you construct any scenario in your mind that would give you second thoughts about the Church being what it claims to be? I can think of things that would make me change my mind about Joseph Smith's truth claims. 

I would suggest you read this article about the nature of truth, and I will be glad to discuss it with you

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Making a claim that is unfalsifiable is nonsense

."Murder is wrong"

I just did.

 

People go to prison for this "nonsense".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For instance, if Victor Hugo claimed that Les Miserables was a true history of Jean Valjean and that it taught spiritual lessons of redemption, forgiveness, and sacrifice and was revealed truth to him by the creator of the universe, but, good news, you don't have to take his word for it. You can just rely on feeling the spirit while you read the book to know of it's truthfulness. Then you don't need physical evidence that the people in the book actually existed. You now know they did exist because you've had a spiritual witness.

 

Do you see how the trick works? How do you know that feeling the spirit is a reliable truth detector. You've been told by the person that wrote the book. It's a powerful trick that makes you think you are making an independent decision.

Here is an idea why don't you try it and see how successful you will be. Let see if you are even 1/2 as successful with it. Heck I would even go with 1/15th as successful. BTW it is not a "trick" and it is grossly over simplified.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would suggest you read this article about the nature of truth, and I will be glad to discuss it with you

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

."Murder is wrong"

I just did.

 

People go to prison for this "nonsense".

Oh snap, pooned.