Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[california boy]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Parables are made up stories and fables?  Wow!  Have you ever taken a literature class?

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would help.  I said it was not an original ciriticism and that we have seen again and again.  

But apparently you believe religion is NOT about parables, so I would conclude that you believe in a 6 thousand year old earth since that is what people think who do not think that religion is about parables

You can't have it both ways.   Either religion is largely about parables or it is literal and a science class.

Which is it?

Julie, I think your reading comprehension is just fine.  Mfbukowski likes insulting people before he responds to what they write.   He thinks it increases his credibility to his remarks. 

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a problem if people have a problem with it.

Boy is that not true.
 

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Seriously?  Did you just invite someone to leave the Church?  Who gave you that kind of authority?

The authority to stop believing in authority? Brilliant question

 

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

You mean made up stories and fables?

Sounds like you agree with him.

Religion is FULL of fables.

Story of Job?  People still aren't sure if he ever existed (scholars say no).  And yet his story remains in holy writ and is even referenced by the Lord himself in the D&C.
Or the creation story in Genesis etc?  While latter day revelation confirms the existence of Adam and Eve, Brigham Young and other leaders state that much of the creation account is fable (or to be more precise, symbolic).

Much of Christ's teachings were done in fable and parable.  Doesn't change their doctrinal truths at all.
Just like the Book of Abraham.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JLHPROF

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But the "church leaders" have made statements about that.  If they trust the church leaders they should listen to them.  If they do not trust the church leaders, it's all over anyway.

Its hard to trust someone today, who misled you yesterday.  Would you apply this same liberal forgiving kind of trust in areas of finance or business?  I can understand why someone feels burned and moves after feeling betrayed, and don't fault them at all.  

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Reliability of revelations??  If they are ...... uninformed enough to think there is ANY way to judge the reliability of revelations other than what God tells you personally, they are not long for this religion thing anyway.

That sounds brutal perhaps but such is life- such things happen in all religions.  People might think Mohammad dreamed it all up without the angel, People might think the Pope is a fraud after looking into the history of Popes or conclude that talking donkeys and 6000 year earths and the sun standing still are tall stories and not "reliable" revelations or doubt that the death of one man takes away their sins

If that's where you are coming from it's all pretty preposterous you know.

There are a lot of people who do not get this stuff at all.   THAT is what we have to worry about- to teach the

Yes, I agree and this is how I see religion now as well.  However, I don't think this is how your average chapel Mormon experiences the religion and by your definition you say they aren't long for this religion, however, I see many of them living and dying with these same naive convictions in tact.  I'm not using naive as a pejorative term here, but rather I'm using it affectionately.  

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Parables are made up stories and fables?  Wow!  Have you ever taken a literature class?

Yup and yup.

You believe parables are historically factual stories instead of fictional stories or fables?

Definition of a parable:

"a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

synonyms:allegory, moral story/tale, fable, exemplum"

I'm not saying that parables don't have meaning and aren't beautiful stories that teach.  But they are made up stories.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Religion is FULL of fables.

Story of Job?  People still aren't sure if he ever existed (scholars say no).  And yet his story remains in holy writ and is even referenced by the Lord himself in the D&C.
Or the creation story in Genesis etc?  While latter day revelation confirms the existence of Adam and Eve, Brigham Young and other leaders state that much of the creation account is fable (or to be more precise, symbolic).

Much of Christ's teachings were done in fable and parable.  Doesn't change their doctrinal truths at all.
Just like the Book of Abraham.

I agree.  That's not the point I was making.  I think the parables teach a great deal even though they aren't based on true events.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Buckeye]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't see the problem

It's on the same footing with the Book or Mormon and no Mormon seems to have a problem with that.

If you have a problem with it you should leave the church.   It's that simple.

It's revelation for Pete's sake.  Either you see it as such or not.  No biggie- I cannot even understand the problem.   Yes literalists have gotten it wrong forever.  What else is new?

Could it still be history delivered by revelation?  Of course.  Does knowing the unknowable history matter?  Of course not.

We might as well be arguing about Atlantis and whether or not it is historical.  Who cares?   What can we learn about ourselves by even worrying about whether or not Atlantis was historical?

I am not losing sleep over any of it.  Did Joshua stop the sun?   Did a donkey talk?  Did one man getting crucified save mankind from their sins?

And we are worried about some papyrus?  Give me a break! 

I'm largely in agreement with you, but I disagree as to the importance of discounting history for the church's truth claims. The catalyst theory is a Pandora's box. If God could have allowed Joseph to misunderstand the nature of his work in "translating" the papyrii, then God could have allowed Joseph (and everyone else) similar misunderstandings with respect to the first vision, BOM translation, dispensation of priesthood keys, and everything else. 

For me, the only way I can deal with the BOA is through the catalyst theory. That's not a big problem since very little of my testimony is wrapped up with the BOA (though Facsimile 1 was my favorite "scripture" as a youth). But accepting the catalyst theory changes literally every other part of my testimony. Now I'm not confident that the first vision happened, that the BOM is historical in any degree, or that the church really has any meaningful authority that's different from other church's. I'm still a very active member with a TR, but I wouldn't say my testimony is what my general or local authorities would hope. They seem to want a belief in historical events and real keys. The catalyst theory prevents me from believing in those; at best I can say that I'm agnostic. My real testimony is the gospel improves lives and that the church practices the gospel at least as well as any other group I know of (at least for me and my family).  

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is called the "catalyst theory" and is the theory presented by the church in the essay on the BOA.

Actually, the church essay presents the catalyst theory as one of several options. The essay quite intentionally does not take a position on how the BOA came to be.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  That's not the point I was making.  I think the parables teach a great deal even thought they aren't based on true events.

So I am not sure why the Book of Abraham presents so many problems for members.

If the only issue is that Joseph thought he was actually translating (ie literally) and said so but he was in fact wrong and was only receiving revelatory teaching prompted by study of the papyrus, well, that is a really silly thing for a member to get all worked up about.

In the end, it is the content, spirit, and doctrine of the Book of Abraham that gives it all its value.  If Joseph was wrong about how it came into being, well, he was human and it doesn't change the book one single word.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not just his conclusions, its the data as well.  He's not on a lone island with his conclusions.  There isn't one non-LDS scholar out there that agrees with the apologetic theories that have been proposed.  Also, many LDS scholars have different interpretations of the data some even that are very close too and knowledgeable of the BoA like Brian Hauglid.  

What your post says to me is that there are a lot of different opinions on it from lots of different knowledgable people.  Some opinions agree with each other.  Others's don't.

Ritner states that his opinions on the BoA have been confirmed (which is to say, proven).   They obviously haven't been proven though.  

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Religion is FULL of fables.

Story of Job?  People still aren't sure if he ever existed (scholars say no).  And yet his story remains in holy writ and is even referenced by the Lord himself in the D&C.
Or the creation story in Genesis etc?  While latter day revelation confirms the existence of Adam and Eve, Brigham Young and other leaders state that much of the creation account is fable (or to be more precise, symbolic).

Much of Christ's teachings were done in fable and parable.  Doesn't change their doctrinal truths at all.
Just like the Book of Abraham.

Unless the modern day revelation itself is not factually accurate. If the BOA is fables, then it's just a possible that God allowed Joseph to believe he was visited by Adam, Noah, etc., because that was necessary in Joseph's mind for him to continue the work. And following the logic, God allows us to continue to (falsely) believe that we have some special priesthood authority because otherwise we'd give up on the gospel. Considering how most every other faith group claims unique authority, it shouldn't be surprising that God allows that falsehood as part of His great and mysterious plan. 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is precisely it isn't it?

He thinks it is all made up?  Not exactly an original criticism, is it?  Nothing much we can do with such folks I am afraid- they do not understand religion is about parables.

You confuse me sometimes.  Its all made up.  Parables are made up, Joseph had no ability to translate Egyptian and the papyri have nothing to do with Abraham.  So yes, Joseph made up a story about Abraham.  A trained Egyptologist is pointing out what the evidence clearly shows.

Are you saying this is a non event, because it contradicts the official church narrative for most of the past 175 years.  

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So I am not sure why the Book of Abraham presents so many problems for members.

If the only issue is that Joseph thought he was actually translating (ie literally) and said so but he was in fact wrong and was only receiving revelatory teaching prompted by study of the papyrus, well, that is a really silly thing for a member to get all worked up about.

In the end, it is the content, spirit, and doctrine of the Book of Abraham that gives it all its value.  If Joseph was wrong about how it came into being, well, he was human and it doesn't change the book one single word.

Would you say the same thing about temple covenants and priesthood authority? It doesn't really matter that the keys, tokens, and signs will not be needed in the next life. They're just a fiction that is nonetheless valuable to our development here. Kind of like Santa Claus and the Elf and the Shelf help encourage my children to be kind and good.

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The authority to stop believing in authority? Brilliant question

 

Let's try this again - Who gave you the authority to make decisions on who can stay in the Church and who cannot?  Who gave you the authority to go around inviting other people to leave the Church?  I strongly believe you are not your target's Stake President.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Unless the modern day revelation itself is not factually accurate. If the BOA is fables, then it's just a possible that God allowed Joseph to believe he was visited by Adam, Noah, etc., because that was necessary in Joseph's mind for him to continue the work. And following the logic, God allows us to continue to (falsely) believe that we have some special priesthood authority because otherwise we'd give up on the gospel. Considering how most every other faith group claims unique authority, it shouldn't be surprising that God allows that falsehood as part of His great and mysterious plan. 

Would it matter if Joseph Smith wasn't actually visited by Moroni, Adam, Noah, etc. --- but God just let him believe that or led him to believe that? 

For me (and I think, many others), if there weren't actual visitations from actual angels, there really isn't any point to Mormonism. This is especially the case if the priesthood keys weren't actually transmitted by the laying on of hands. If that isn't an objective reality, then the Church doesn't matter at all. 

That's a line that I'm not personally able to cross, and it's a line that I don't think is terribly helpful except for people who already don't think it matters at all, one way or another. 

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Boy is that not true.
 

Why not?  I'm saying people and their perceived problems are relevant, regardless of whether their problems are factual or even reasonable. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

He's says it's been confirmed. I'm just asking where I can read that confirmation. 

I didn't realize all he was saying was that his conclusions on the BOA have proven it's made up. 

Hi Bluebell,

He's made the case that the translation was based off of portions of the papyrus that remain extant. 
He argues that Gee and Muhlestein (two that were cites in the essay) have made "citations of sources that are of minor relevance, misleading or false does not advance the cause of the church and its disputed scripture".  he built his case by showing how Muhlestein's point regarding evidence of human sacrifice doesn't quite fit in with what we know of ancient Egypt, as he concludes, "That would happen under Roman prosecution of Christians, but personal worship (or its refusal) was not a basic concern of the ancient Egyptian state. The LDS citation of Muhlestein’s work does not support the narrative of the Book of Abraham"

As per Gee's citations he responds, "It is not fully accurate to claim that the third-century Demotic papyrus cited by Gee “connects Abraham with an illustration similar to facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham.” The text in question, a Leiden magical papyrus in Demotic Egyptian and Greek (P. Lugd. Bat. I 384 verso = PGM XII), does include a picture of a mummy attended by Anubis —mentioned by name— on a lion funerary couch (not an “altar”), but the text is a love compulsion spell intended to force a woman to submit to a male’s sexual lust, not a reflection of the Book of Abraham. As accompanying magical words of power the speaker recites: “..aydyo oryx thambyto abraam o epy … planoyegxybyoth” etc. The string of abracadabra words does include “abraam,” and this spelling has been corrected to “Abraham” in a recent edition.⁶ However, the name is just one of a string of magical names and no more relevant to the image than “oryx thambyto” or “planoyegxybyoth.” Moreover, there is no intent here to represent a sacrifice, just Osiris tended by Anubis, who are both invoked to inflame the libido of the female victim of the spell. The body on the lion bed is certainly that of the deceased Osiris (as it is Hôr’s vignette), not a threatened Abraham."

After he argues against these citations he addresses the notion as per the essay "Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary"

In the end he concludes that this point can't be credible.  Here are some of the relevant points for him to so argue.  "The dates of 1965-1966 are significant, because the microfilm edition contains not only the “Egyptian Alphabet,” but the evolving manuscript pages for the future Book of Abraham as well. These pages contain copies of specific Egyptian text from the “Breathing Permit of Hôr,” column 2. That section of the papyrus was not reproduced in the Book of Abraham or any other publication until the rediscovery of the Smith papyri in New York in 1967 and the publication of sepia photographs in The Improvement Era in January and February of 1968. The copies made in 1965 and 1966, and the 1966 publication by Tanner, cannot then be forgeries since no forger could have had the unknown papyrus as a model to copy. The equation of the Book of Abraham and the “Breathing Permit of Hôr” is thus undeniable, and the source of Smith’s nineteenth century composition is settled. Period."

Thus, he's argued since the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (EAG) sheets have hieroglyphs directly from the Breathing Permit of Hor it must be that these factor into the translation process.  That the attempt here is the corresponding English text was the translation of the hieroglyphs. 

"Exactly like the “Alphabet and Grammar,” the pages include copies of Egyptian script on the left corresponding to lengthy English on the right. But in these texts, the English is the text of the Book of Abraham as it was being modified and would be published, with obvious deletions and revisions in the handwritten English text. Also unlike the “Alphabet and Grammar” hand copies, the Egyptian script on most of these sheets is immediately clear and readily translated by modern Egyptologists. "

If his arguments hold then, the BoA is "perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith".

I still have in my mind the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar were not really part of a translation but were an attempt to learn how to translate, as they say, after the translation occurred.  It is odd, because, he uses Parrish's quote which is a bit nonsensical in my view--"have set (sic) by his side and penned down the Egyptian hieroglyphicks (sic) as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from heaven".  Did Parrish say he penned down the Hieroglyphs? What would be the point of that?  And if he penned the hieroglyphs why did he have to get them from Joseph who claimed to have gotten them from heaven?  As it is Parrish doesn't support the notion that the EAG was the translation, because the hieroglyphs on it were copied from the Breathing Permit of Hor.  If Parrish meant he penned the English then what would be the point of copying in the margins a supposed corresponding hieroglyph?  To me his argument doesn't fit as neatly as it does to him.  It seems possible there is more to this. 

 

 

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So I am not sure why the Book of Abraham presents so many problems for members.

If the only issue is that Joseph thought he was actually translating (ie literally) and said so but he was in fact wrong and was only receiving revelatory teaching prompted by study of the papyrus, well, that is a really silly thing for a member to get all worked up about.

Because how do we know the same thing didn't happen with the translation of the Book of Mormon?

Add what happened with the Kinderhook plates, and it really doesn't look good.

Of course this doesn't change that there are good teachings in the Book of Mormon.  I feel less that way about the Book of Abraham though.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What your post says to me is that there are a lot of different opinions on it from lots of different knowledgable people.  Some opinions agree with each other.  Others's don't.

Ritner states that his opinions on the BoA have been confirmed (which is to say, proven).   They obviously haven't been proven though.  

Because to Ritner they are confirmed.  You have to decide for yourself what evidence is the most compelling to you.  Yes, its true you can find a variety of opinions on the BoA.  Many of these opinions seem reasonable and are credible to the people that find them credible.  

You can also find a variety of opinions on whether or not NASA landed on the moon.  You decide, are they all credible in your eyes?  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hi Bluebell,

He's made the case that the translation was based off of portions of the papyrus that remain extant. 
He argues that Gee and Muhlestein (two that were cites in the essay) have made "citations of sources that are of minor relevance, misleading or false does not advance the cause of the church and its disputed scripture".  he built his case by showing how Muhlestein's point regarding evidence of human sacrifice doesn't quite fit in with what we know of ancient Egypt, as he concludes, "That would happen under Roman prosecution of Christians, but personal worship (or its refusal) was not a basic concern of the ancient Egyptian state. The LDS citation of Muhlestein’s work does not support the narrative of the Book of Abraham"

As per Gee's citations he responds, "It is not fully accurate to claim that the third-century Demotic papyrus cited by Gee “connects Abraham with an illustration similar to facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham.” The text in question, a Leiden magical papyrus in Demotic Egyptian and Greek (P. Lugd. Bat. I 384 verso = PGM XII), does include a picture of a mummy attended by Anubis —mentioned by name— on a lion funerary couch (not an “altar”), but the text is a love compulsion spell intended to force a woman to submit to a male’s sexual lust, not a reflection of the Book of Abraham. As accompanying magical words of power the speaker recites: “..aydyo oryx thambyto abraam o epy … planoyegxybyoth” etc. The string of abracadabra words does include “abraam,” and this spelling has been corrected to “Abraham” in a recent edition.⁶ However, the name is just one of a string of magical names and no more relevant to the image than “oryx thambyto” or “planoyegxybyoth.” Moreover, there is no intent here to represent a sacrifice, just Osiris tended by Anubis, who are both invoked to inflame the libido of the female victim of the spell. The body on the lion bed is certainly that of the deceased Osiris (as it is Hôr’s vignette), not a threatened Abraham."

After he argues against these citations he addresses the notion as per the essay "Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary"

In the end he concludes that this point can't be credible.  Here are some of the relevant points for him to so argue.  "The dates of 1965-1966 are significant, because the microfilm edition contains not only the “Egyptian Alphabet,” but the evolving manuscript pages for the future Book of Abraham as well. These pages contain copies of specific Egyptian text from the “Breathing Permit of Hôr,” column 2. That section of the papyrus was not reproduced in the Book of Abraham or any other publication until the rediscovery of the Smith papyri in New York in 1967 and the publication of sepia photographs in The Improvement Era in January and February of 1968. The copies made in 1965 and 1966, and the 1966 publication by Tanner, cannot then be forgeries since no forger could have had the unknown papyrus as a model to copy. The equation of the Book of Abraham and the “Breathing Permit of Hôr” is thus undeniable, and the source of Smith’s nineteenth century composition is settled. Period."

Thus, he's argued since the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (EAG) sheets have hieroglyphs directly from the Breathing Permit of Hor it must be that these factor into the translation process.  That the attempt here is the corresponding English text was the translation of the hieroglyphs. 

"Exactly like the “Alphabet and Grammar,” the pages include copies of Egyptian script on the left corresponding to lengthy English on the right. But in these texts, the English is the text of the Book of Abraham as it was being modified and would be published, with obvious deletions and revisions in the handwritten English text. Also unlike the “Alphabet and Grammar” hand copies, the Egyptian script on most of these sheets is immediately clear and readily translated by modern Egyptologists. "

If his arguments hold then, the BoA is "perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith".

I still have in my mind the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar were not really part of a translation but were an attempt to learn how to translate, as they say, after the translation occurred.  It is odd, because, he uses Parrish's quote which is a bit nonsensical in my view--"have set (sic) by his side and penned down the Egyptian hieroglyphicks (sic) as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from heaven".  Did Parrish say he penned down the Hieroglyphs? What would be the point of that?  And if he penned the hieroglyphs why did he have to get them from Joseph who claimed to have gotten them from heaven?  As it is Parrish doesn't support the notion that the EAG was the translation, because the hieroglyphs on it were copied from the Breathing Permit of Hor.  If Parrish meant he penned the English then what would be the point of copying in the margins a supposed corresponding hieroglyph?  To me his argument doesn't fit as neatly as it does to him.  It seems possible there is more to this. 

 

 

Yes, i read his argument earlier.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Because to Ritner they are confirmed.  You have to decide for yourself what evidence is the most compelling to you.  Yes, its true you can find a variety of opinions on the BoA.  Many of these opinions seem reasonable and are credible to the people that find them credible.  

You can also find a variety of opinions on whether or not NASA landed on the moon.  You decide, are they all credible in your eyes?  

Well, that's an odd way to say such a thing in my opinion.  It would be like me saying "it has been confirmed that the BOM is ancient scripture" based on my own arguments on the BOM.  

 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Would you say the same thing about temple covenants and priesthood authority? It doesn't really matter that the keys, tokens, and signs will not be needed in the next life. They're just a fiction that is nonetheless valuable to our development here. Kind of like Santa Claus and the Elf and the Shelf help encourage my children to be kind and good.

I'm not sure I'm following your point.
Who says they won't be needed in the next life?
And what does the usage of temple teachings in eternity have to do with the fact that scripture contains symbolism and fable and scripture can come by revelation (even if the revelator thinks it's a translation)?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, i read his argument earlier.  

Cool.  Then you can see it's more than just conclusions.  He sets out to make his case. 

[Buckeye]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Would it matter if Joseph Smith wasn't actually visited by Moroni, Adam, Noah, etc. --- but God just let him believe that or led him to believe that? 

For me (and I think, many others), if there weren't actual visitations from actual angels, there really isn't any point to Mormonism. This is especially the case if the priesthood keys weren't actually transmitted by the laying on of hands. If that isn't an objective reality, then the Church doesn't matter at all. 

That's a line that I'm not personally able to cross, and it's a line that I don't think is terribly helpful except for people who already don't think it matters at all, one way or another. 

I believe you're correct that most members wouldn't accept the priesthood keys being a fiction - a valuable God-inspired one, but a fiction nonetheless. That's why I labeled the BOA catalyst theory as a Pandora's box. There's no logical reason why Joseph could mistakenly believe what he was doing with the BOA, but not also mistakenly believe what he was doing with the priesthood keys and everything else. 

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Nice dodge, but it is rather beside the point; which is - you don't get to decide you stays and goes and overt invitations to leave are far more harmful than you may realize.

I never claimed to decide that, how could I possibly?  It was a recommendation. I stand by my statement. 

I believe that people should act rationally. If you don't believe something you leave it behind.

If you want to stand up for irrationality be my guest.

Edited February 9, 2017 by mfbukowski