Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[bluebell]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

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

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.  

Yes, i can see that he believes that it's been confirmed.  Just like some people believe it's been confirmed that the holocaust never happened.  Under these kinds of circumstances though, the word confirmed loses all meaning.  It's an odd way to use the word because of that.  

But as i said to stem, my mistake was believing that he wasn't basing his confirmation on his own arguments and opinions.   I shouldn't have assumed that.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, i can see that he believes that it's been confirmed.  Just like some people believe it's been confirmed that the holocaust never happened.  Under these kinds of circumstances though, the word confirmed loses all meaning.  It's an odd way to use the word because of that.  

But as i said to stem, my mistake was believing that he wasn't basing his confirmation on his own arguments and opinions.   I shouldn't have assumed that.

How else would someone base a confirmation besides including their own arguments and opinions?  Is there some independent panel out there that pronounces confirmations that Ritner should have consulted?  Or should no-one ever use the word confirmed in conversations of topics like this because its impossible to confirm things with 100% accuracy.  Seems to me like you're nitpicking on the use of this word confirmed.  

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How else would someone base a confirmation besides including their own arguments and opinions?  Is there some independent panel out there that pronounces confirmations that Ritner should have consulted?  Or should no-one ever use the word confirmed in conversations of topics like this because its impossible to confirm things with 100% accuracy.  Seems to me like you're nitpicking on the use of this word confirmed.  

The definition of "to confirm" is that an argument previously suspected or believed has been established as fact or proven. 

He hasn't proven anything. He hasn't established anything as fact.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Yet you state that people who can't accept the BoA can't accept the BoM and therefore should leave the church. Your position is contradictory. Otherwise people who don't view either as literal could be welcomed in the church, find value in the scripture (even if non-literal) and therefore should stay.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Every Revelation essentially is based on  the Catalyst Theory.

I totally agree. Papyrus and manuscripts aren't necessary for a person to be inspired or receive revelation. The problem arises when a person receives inspiration/revelation and then 1- doesn't understand the way in which revelation was received or 2- exaggerates the experience to sound more mystical in hopes that people will be more likely to believe.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The definition of "to confirm" is that an argument previously suspected or believed has been established as fact or proven. 

He hasn't proven anything. He hasn't established anything as fact.  

Bluebell, essentially a scholarly consensus has been reached through 150 years of investigation with the repeated conclusion that JS' translations of Egyptian are erroneous. That's the confirmation he is talking about. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Bluebell, essentially a scholarly consensus has been reached through 150 years of investigation with the repeated conclusion that JS' translations of Egyptian are erroneous. That's the confirmation he is talking about. 

So both non-LDS and LDS scholars believe that the BoA is an invention?

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

It seems that my special purpose for being on this board is to contradict whatever mfbukowski espouses.

My recent discovery about philosophy:

God, as well as Satan, instruct people. First uses prophets, the second philosophers.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

One trusts in the Lord not in some old guy even if the old guy seems inspired and seems to give good advice.  Blind obedience is foolishness.

That is just plain common sense.

I am a full tithe payer because I am participating in the Lord's work and I know that for myself.  There is no better organization on the face of the earth than the church.  But I am an old guy and if you listen to me you are a fool also.  Figure it out yourself or be a slave to others opinions.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

It seems that my special purpose for being on this board is to contradict whatever mfbukowski espouses.

My recent discovery about philosophy:

God, as well as Satan, instruct people. First uses prophets, the second philosophers.

OOOO you could probably get banned for that!  Hey man- nothing personal.   Unfortunately every word out of your mouth is philosophy if you know it or not.  Have a good one.

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So both non-LDS and LDS scholars believe that the BoA is an invention?

Actually, there have been many scholars from within the church that have come to the conclusion that JS' translation of the facsimiles are erroneous (see Ritner's essay for documentation). I believe all examination of the Egyptian Grammar/Alphabet document, inside and outside of the church, has concluded it does not contain correct translation of the Egyptian characters. The scholars from within the church who have acknowledged that the BoA manuscripts indicate a translation of the accompanying Egyptian characters in the margin have also concluded that the translation is erroneous (e.g. Brian Hauglid, one of the contributors to the BoA Gospel Topics essay).

Thats not to say there aren't dissenting scholars from within the church. Ritner, as a good scholar would, recognizes these and does a pretty fantastic job debunking the most significant arguments in his response.

[Foreigner]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The only basis we have for believing is our testimonies

Nonsense. In case of BoM God himself ensured special evidence - testimonies of 3 and 8. This has value equal to evidence. For Christians Bible is full of evidence, and for Jews it is like family history. Philosophers had to work hardly to cause people doubt in everything.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally agree. Papyrus and manuscripts aren't necessary for a person to be inspired or receive revelation. The problem arises when a person receives inspiration/revelation and then 1- doesn't understand the way in which revelation was received or 2- exaggerates the experience to sound more mystical in hopes that people will be more likely to believe.

How mystical it is is in the eye of the beholder.  Next time you have a vision tell me how mystical it was.   Maybe make up a mystical scale?

Oh wait- there's no basis for comparison that I can verify is there?  So I think I am justified in saying that the idea of "more mystical or less mystical" is blowing steam.

For the same reason so is "exaggeration".

I agree with the first sentence.  That's something

Ever stared out over the ocean thinking and gotten ideas?   Looked into a fire or over the lake?

I guess oceans and tea leaves don't work in Utah- but it's the same principle.   How about staring at the stars?

The human mind creates worlds from matter unorganized.  The same way we got the "constellations" is the same way Joseph saw the translation, I think.

I don't think tea leaf readers think they are not understanding the process and I think Joseph was right and not "mistaken".  He just spoke his mind directly.   He looked at the manuscript and "saw" the translation in his mind.

No mistake.  The fact that it did not "correspond to reality" is irrelevant.   He saw what he said he saw.

We just can't see it the way he did because we are not where he was and do not have his mind/brain/spirit/intuition.

This is pure phenomenology.   Once again philosophy saves the rationality of the gospel.  Too bad no one studies it hereabouts.

I will quote Rorty again if you are not good.

Words are not reality.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Nonsense. In case of BoM God himself ensured special evidence - testimonies of 3 and 8. This has value equal to evidence. For Christians Bible is full of evidence, and for Jews it is like family history. Philosophers had to work hardly to cause people doubt in everything.

OH my gosh.

Why do you believe THEM??   

Philosophy shows it is rational to believe "the gospel is true". THAT is why I am here.  If you don't understand that- I cannot help you.  Read that stuff under my avatar.

Philosophy shows how it is rational to believe in revelation.  If you do not believe philosophy you do not believe revelation can be taught to atheists.

There are atheists who believe revelation is rational and that religious experience is rational.  You are just arguing against your own best interests and don't even know it.  Cheesh.

<<<<< READ THIS

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Foreigner]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

???

!!!

Christ intentionally used parables and no man of reason has any problem with this.

Joseph Smith declared true translation from real Abraham writing and now many have problem with this.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet you state that people who can't accept the BoA can't accept the BoM and therefore should leave the church. Your position is contradictory. Otherwise people who don't view either as literal could be welcomed in the church, find value in the scripture (even if non-literal) and therefore should stay.

Hey that's a good one- I like it!!  Maybe it is contradictory- I will have to think about it.  Thanks!  

I don't believe it's literal either but it could be.

Yep the more I think about the way I stated it- you are completely right!  I will have to make my statements more nuanced in saying that those who do not believe in the church should leave and I should also say straight out that the catalyst theory is one paradigm as are others.

Good point- you caught me- and thanks for pointing it out!!

That's pretty exciting!! 

I retract that way of speaking about it!   Thanks!!

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The definition of "to confirm" is that an argument previously suspected or believed has been established as fact or proven. 

He hasn't proven anything. He hasn't established anything as fact.  

I would add though if overstating his case is the main concern or complaint you have then it's probably wise to stay away from scholarly works altogether.  It'll keep you busy all day each day just offering your complaints.

but I made the same point wondering if his conclusion is justified 

[Foreigner]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OH my gosh.

Why do you believe THEM??  

Why any court of justice believe any sworn witness?

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

???

!!!

Christ intentionally used parables and no man of reason has any problem with this.

Joseph Smith declared true translation from real Abraham writing and now many have problem with this.

I have no problem with that paradigm, for the record.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Why any court of justice believe any sworn witness?

Sworn witness?  How do you know that?

And of course courts impugn the credibility of sworn witnesses all the time

For some reason you have no problem with it all being fables but now you are saying we should believe sworn witnesses who wrote the fables?  That what?  The fables "really happened"??

Very confusing.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

???

!!!

Christ intentionally used parables and no man of reason has any problem with this.

Joseph Smith declared true translation from real Abraham writing and now many have problem with this.

Again, this only shows error in Joseph's understanding of the methodology, NOT in the resulting book of scripture.
I still don't see why "many" have a problem with this.
I don't care if Joseph found the Book of Abraham at the bottom of a crackerjack box.  It's still an inspired work of scripture.

[Foreigner]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OOOO you could probably get banned for that!

I could be banned because of my opinion on philosophy but the temple teaching remains. Let you ban it first.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Nonsense. In case of BoM God himself ensured special evidence - testimonies of 3 and 8. This has value equal to evidence. For Christians Bible is full of evidence, and for Jews it is like family history. Philosophers had to work hardly to cause people doubt in everything.

I get it now, English is definitely your second language- that is why we are having trouble communicating.  No definite articles, perhaps no articles at all.  Russian?  Semitic languages?

This philosophy is an American way of viewing the world.  Pragmatism is definitely part of the American character: Manifest destiny- go out and carve out your own space from the wilderness- essentially create your own world from matter unorganized.   Lack of respect for tradition.  Culturally we escaped from European kings- suspicion of authority and tradition.  The old west- trust no one and carry your sixgun.

That could be the problem- clashing cultures.

[JulieM]

47 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Joseph Smith declared true translation from real Abraham writing and now many have problem with this.

Where was the "real Abraham writing"?

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

I could be banned because of my opinion on philosophy but the temple teaching remains. Let you ban it first.

Aha!  A definite article!

LOL I would never ban the temple.  I work there every week doing ordinances.  I am a temple worker because philosophy makes it rational to believe.

The reason you could be banned was saying I was of satan.  But I don't care about that, I just hope the mods don't.

I am sorry if I am personally offending you- I will withdraw.  I never meant it to be personal.  To me it is just banter- I don't take all this very seriously unless it a case of a serious anti.

Bantering between members is just an argument over the dinner table about politics or something.- that's about the level I take it on.

I won't bother you any more- sorry.