Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

Whether or not someone has set out to make his case has no bearing on whether or not they have made conclusions. The definition of a conclusion is to sum up an argument.  That's what he's done.  He's put forth an argument and then summed up what that argument means to him.

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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)?

I'm not saying they won't be needed. I'm agnostic on that point. But you can't logically say that God allowed Joseph to mistakenly believe and teach that the BOA was a translation of the papryii without also acknowledging that God could be allowing all us to believe in the church's claim to priesthood keys and necessary signs and tokens even though those things are not factually true - i.e., they won't actually be needed to pass into the celestial kingdom.

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

Whether or not someone has set out to make his case has no bearing on whether or not they have made conclusions. The definition of a conclusion is to sum up an argument.  That's what he's done.  He's put forth an argument and then summed up what that argument means to him.

I know.  Wasn't sure what you meant earlier so I tried to help.   I thought you had suggested you didn't know what he was basing his conclusions on.  Guess not.  oopsie. 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I know.  Wasn't sure what you meant earlier so I tried to help.   I thought you had suggested you didn't know what he was basing his conclusions on.  Guess not.  oopsie. 

No, i said i didn't know what he was basing his confirmation on.  

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

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.  

Which is it? Religion is not finance.  Unless you are a televangelist.

There's not much anyone can do for those who believe in such things.

Edited February 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, i said i didn't know what he was basing his confirmation on.  

I think it'd be the same thing.  He thinks his argument has confirmed it.  Confirm in this context just means to establish the truth, or validity of something.  I don't read it as he is suggesting everyone or anyone agrees with him.

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

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. 

Projection is a powerful thing.

I am sure she was not offended. She can certainly handle her own affairs. She is not a shrinking violet like others here.

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

(eyeroll) You have absolutely no idea who is on the other end of your comment.  You use *rationality* as a blunt instrument to score polemic points.  What if the person expressing concern over this single issue otherwise finds value in his/her Church membership?  Is it appropriate, then, to instruct them to leave over this one issue?  You're way too caught up in the *war* to see that your opponent is actually a living, breathing person who matters.

Edited February 9, 2017 by ttribe
spelling

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I think it'd be the same thing.  He thinks his argument has confirmed it.  Confirm in this context just means to establish the truth, or validity of something.  I don't read it as he is suggesting everyone or anyone agrees with him.

Not really.  Not from my point of view.  If someone makes an argument that the holocaust didn't happen (this is the example that came to my mind because i had to study holocaust deniers a while back.  I'm not saying Ritner's argument is equal to those of holocaust deniers), would that mean that a newspaper could legitimately and reasonable use the headline "It has been Confirmed: Holocaust Never Happened"?  

I mean, it could certainly use that headline, but it wouldn't be true, right?  The opinions of writer alone doesn't confirm the holocaust didn't happen, no matter how much evidence he cites.  

When something is confirmed it means that what was previously argued or suspected as been proven or established as fact.  Ritner's article doesn't do that.

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

 

 

Of course. I'm not understanding your point.

My point was that everyone knows that. It seemed like you were criticizing them for not being historical. If I got your message wrong I apologize.

Edited February 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Not really.  Not from my point of view.  If someone makes an argument that the holocaust didn't happen (this is the example that came to my mind because i had to study holocaust deniers a while back.  I'm not saying Ritner's argument is equal to those of holocaust deniers), would that mean that a newspaper could legitimately and reasonable use the headline "It has been Confirmed: Holocaust Never Happened"?  

I mean, it could certainly use that headline, but it wouldn't be true, right?  The opinions of writer alone doesn't confirm the holocaust didn't happen, no matter how much evidence he cites.  

When something is confirmed it means that what was previously argued or suspected as been proven or established as fact.  Ritner's article doesn't do that.

Well that's what he's saying.  He thinks he's made a strong enough case; thus his conclusion is "With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith".  I was trying to review that which he thought was confirming it, as previously you had asked to see that.  But, then we went down this rabbit-trail in which was revealed you already knew that which you were asking for.   

So nothing to see here, I guess. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Boy is that not true.
 

Not true?

This always makes me think about Satan telling us to keep our Covenants. Now if Satan is telling us to keep our covenants does that mean we should or should not actually keep our Covenants?

We should do what Satan tells us to do?

Edited February 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well that's what he's saying.  He thinks he's made a strong enough case; thus his conclusion is "With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith".  I was trying to review that which he thought was confirming it, as previously you had asked to see that.  But, then we went down this rabbit-trail in which was revealed you already knew that which you were asking for.   

So nothing to see here, I guess. 

Yes, it never occurred to me that he was using himself as the authority on whether or not it had been confirmed!  I wanted to see the confirmation, not realizing that Ritner believes his opinion and argument alone is the confirmation.  Guess i shouldn't have been surprised.

On the upside, think of all the things we can declare have been confirmed now!  He has set the bar fairly low.  Make an argument, support it with evidence and voila!  Confirmed!    

Edited February 9, 2017 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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.

Well I guess that makes two of us that misunderstood you.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Not true?

This always makes me think about Satan telling us to keep our Covenants. Now if Satan is telling us to keep our covenants does that mean we should or should not actually keep our Covenants?

We should always do what we say.  If we make a convenant with Satan we should keep it, well unless it's about marrying 30 or 40 women or killing people for no good reason, or other such vile stuff.  If we promise Satan "I promise I will be nice to Elizabeth today" we should try and keep that promise.  If in return Satan promises to poke us with is pitch fork toy, then so be it.  We should take the abuse and fulfill our en of the promise.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

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).  

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.

You cannot base rational conclusions on what is unknowable. These questions about previous history are largely unknowable. The only basis we have for believing is our testimonies.

In my never humble opinion I think we have to face that affirm it and stop worrying. If you know it works in your life and God tells you it's true go with it. That's really the only rational explanation. And my whole purpose for being on this board is to show that it is indeed rational to believe such things as shown by James, Dewey, Wittgenstein Rorty  and others. 

That is precisely what pragmatism is about. If there is no other way to show it , if the  belief works in your life,  it's true, at least for you.

Don't mentally label yourself as an agnostic. You are a true believing Mormon with a more nuanced understanding than most others

You have a temple recommend that's all you need.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course. I'm not understanding your point.

My point was that everyone knows that. It seemed like you were criticizing them for not being historical. If I got your message wrong I apologize.

No they don't. If they did there wouldn't be such an emphasis on literalism in the church. For being so open minded and logical you sure are harsh in your judgments of others if they don't agree with your way of viewing things.

Edited February 9, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[mfbukowski]

Every Revelation essentially is based on  the Catalyst Theory.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No they don't. If they did there wouldn't be such an emphasis on literalism in the church. For being so open minded and logical you sure are harsh in your judgments of others if they don't agree with your way of viewing things.

Not really I should have said many know. Actually I meant everyone here knows.

Actually I don't mean to be at all harsh on anyone who takes any of this literally because to me they are all just different paradigms. For all I know the Earth is actually 6000 years old Adam and Eve lived there was a flood Etc.

What is unknown is unknown.

People who disagree with me may be perfectly right. They are just irrational.

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, it never occurred to me that he was using himself as the authority on whether or not it had been confirmed!  I wanted to see the confirmation, not realizing that Ritner believes his opinion and argument alone is the confirmation.  Guess i shouldn't have been surprised.

On the upside, think of all the things we can declare have been confirmed now!  He has set the bar fairly low.  Make an argument, support it with evidence and voila!  Confirmed!    

I think his evidence is very strong that Joseph Smith "translated" from extant pieces of the papyrus. (There is no such thing as "proof" for this kind of thing, though - that's for math and whiskey.) It sounds like we can effectively rule out the missing papyrus theory (not that it ever had much going for it, IMO). However, the catalyst theory is non-falsifiable and doesn't have anything to do with Egyptology, so Ritner can't rule that out. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.  

 

I think what Ritner is saying is accurate, here it is again.  

Quote

With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith, the LDS church may well devote some reflection to the status of the text.

He believes the evidence confirms the text is erroneous (the claim the Egyptian was translated and that the papyri has anything to do with Abraham is erroneous).  He's not making any spiritual faith claims with this comment.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

For all those trying to figure out what in Ritner's mind confirms the BoA as erroneous, it's not only his own conclusions he is talking about. He cites a long history of scholarship outside and inside the church that has confirmed various aspects of the translation as erroneous.

The facsimiles and JS's translations have been investigated by Egyptologists since the 1860s, consistently resulting in the conclusion that JS's translation does not match typical Egyptian understanding and sometimes is blatant nonsense (e.g. mixing up of gender). Since the discovery of the papyri fragments in the 1970s(?), it has been repeatedly confirmed that they have nothing to do with Abraham, and that the characters in the BoA manuscript margins, which characters are drawn from the Book of Breathing in matching order to the characters directly next to facsimile 1, are not translated correctly in the body of the text. The same goes for the multiple examinations of JS' translation of the Egyptian characters in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, a document with multiple copies, one in the hand of JS and others in the hands of his scribes/inner circle. 

The repeated conclusions of many scholars that the facsimiles, BoA, and Alphabet/Grammar are not correct translations and that the papyri cuttings, which were mounted for display in the mansion house in JS' time (for example there is one contemporary descriptions of him explaining that the displayed papyri are the writings of Abraham and Moses), have nothing to do with Abraham (or Moses, Joseph, Princess Kitumin, celestial astronomy, or Patriarchal Priesthood) are the confirmation that Ritner refers to. His own conclusion is just another in a long line of matching conclusions by Egyptologists and scholars.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Which is it? Religion is not finance.  Unless you are a televangelist.

There's not much anyone can do for those who believe in such things.

Religion is not finance, yet people are willing to sacrifice their finances for religion.  Many people are willing to die for their religious convictions.  Seems like trust is an important component to me.  

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not true?

This always makes me think about Satan telling us to keep our Covenants. Now if Satan is telling us to keep our covenants does that mean we should or should not actually keep our Covenants?

We should do what Satan tells us to do?

Ha!  I've wondered that many times, am I supposed to believe the words of this Satan character in the presentation.  Fun to speculate about, thats a part of it that kept me awake at least.  :-)  

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Every Revelation essentially is based on  the Catalyst Theory.

Some people might call this the tall tales or fish tales theory, or maybe even the BS theory.