Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[hope_for_things]

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.  

According to what standard are you judging proof and establishment of the facts?  

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where was the "real Abraham writing"?

ESL

He meant Joseph Smith declared it was a literal translation and now it is not recognized as such and people have a problem with that.

I think.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Then by your definition foolishness is an epidemic in Mormonism and other fundamentalist leaning traditions.  

For example, I just watched the Malcom X movie with Densel Washington for the first time, and at one point he said he was willing to die to save the reputation of his leader Elijah Mohammed, until he later had a crisis of trust in his leader and realized that he was very flawed and stopped following him.  

I often see a similar level of dedication to leaders in the Mormon faith, I personally had a similar level of dedication myself, and perhaps that's why my faith crisis has been so hard, because I was formerly so devoted to my trust in flawed humans.  I believe I came by this trust honestly and that was how I was taught as a child, and I recognize that my trust was blind on many levels. 

Do you believe all these people with different degrees of blind trust in the Mormon faith, and I would contend that this represents the majority of chapel Mormons, do you find them all foolish, this seems to dismiss them in an unfair way.  

[Foreigner]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Check carefully what Buckeye wrote at page 2. It seems that people have problem with credibility of Joseph Smith as a prophet. No one have problem with credibility of Christ because he used parables. People get problem with credibility of Smith because he declared something what is found unsupported. The problem is not so much with BoA, which is rather insignificant doctrinally. The problem is that Mormons have to redefine status of the prophet. They are still to discover the true prophet.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

It's weird that there are dissenting scholars from within the church, if the fact that Joseph invented the BoA has been proven.  But it's also not that weird because it actually hasn't been proven (or confirmed, to use Ritner's word).

I'm not commenting on the strength of Ritner's argument or his conclusions, except where he thinks that he's proven something as fact.  I don't think it's even possible to prove what he says he's proven.  

Is there anyway for a scholar to prove that JS didn't get the BoA from God and instead invented it himself?

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

It's weird that there are dissenting scholars from within the church, if the fact that Joseph invented the BoA has been proven.  But it's also not that weird because it actually hasn't been proven (or confirmed, to use Ritner's word).

I'm not commenting on the strength of Ritner's argument or his conclusions, except where he thinks that he's proven something as fact.  I don't think it's even possible to prove what he says he's proven.  

Is there anyway for a scholar to prove that JS didn't get the BoA from God and instead invented it himself?

If JS didn't get the BoA...why would you think God would?  You would still believe it? 

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

According to what standard are you judging proof and establishment of the facts?  

Just the regular standard, that someone can show, definitively, that what they have stated is true based on the evidence, and all reputable scholars agree.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

If JS didn't get the BoA...why would you think God would?  You would still believe it? 

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you are asking.  Can you rephrase?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you are asking.  Can you rephrase?

I guess I was confused on your last sentence above...that God would have invented it himself?  Like what do you mean?  I am sorry if I am not understanding you.  But would God invent or put something out through Joseph without no absolute evidence at all?  And it seems it makes JS a fool.  I can't believe that if there is no evidence that JS could translate something that had nothing to do with Abraham..that God would have anything to do with that.  Forgive me if I am being obtuse.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 2/8/2017 at 10:11 AM, hope_for_things said:

 For myself, not being a scholar, I have to say that I haven't found any of the apologists attempts to legitimize the BoA as convincing.  

I'm curious, however......

Do you find Bible convincing? If so, what part is more convincing than BoM?

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just the regular standard, that someone can show, definitively, that what they have stated is true based on the evidence, and all reputable scholars agree.

Ritner has essentially done that with respect to a few elements of the conversation, these are largely accepted by reputable scholars.  1. That Joseph Smith had no ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs.  2. That the papyri contains nothing about a man named Abraham.   3. That there is a direct correlation between Joseph's use of the papyri and the text of the BoA.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's weird that there are dissenting scholars from within the church, if the fact that Joseph invented the BoA has been proven.  But it's also not that weird because it actually hasn't been proven (or confirmed, to use Ritner's word).

I'm not commenting on the strength of Ritner's argument or his conclusions, except where he thinks that he's proven something as fact.  I don't think it's even possible to prove what he says he's proven.  

Is there anyway for a scholar to prove that JS didn't get the BoA from God and instead invented it himself?

There are dissenting opinions in almost every field and espeacially in areas where people's faith and beliefs are implicated (e.g. Evolution).

Following are items that have been proven. Each is accompanied with the most typical apologist response and counter-argument to the best of my knowledge:

1. It has been proven that none of the Joseph Smith papyri script treats Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Princess Kitumin, Celestial Astronomy, or Patriarchal Priesthood. 

Apologists agree/concede that the script of the papyri does not address these topics. The most typical argument is that there is a missing scroll that contains the book of Abraham.

I've never read an apologist who believes that the missing scroll also contains the Book of Joseph and the creation account in the hand of Moses. 

I'm not familiar with apologetic arguments justifying the erroneous translation of the Egyptian characters resulting in the beginning of the account of princess Kitumin. Because the characters that this account is purported to have been translated from are copied in the journal with the account and specifically referenced as the source of the account, a different apologetic approach would need to be taken.

2. It has been proven that Joseph's translation of the facsimiles are wrong. Not only do the symbolic representations not match typical Egyptian understanding, but more importantly the translation of characters in the facsimiles is erroneous.

Apologists recognize that the JS translation of the facsimiles doesn't match  Egyptian understanding. Some argue that Joseph's translation of the facsimiles could align with Hebrew reuse of Egyptian funerary texts to represent stories of figures from Hebrew scripture. However, there is no indication that anything of this nature was happening with Hor's funerary texts (the JS papyri).

Maybe someone could chime in here. Has the above theory lent any direct parallels between JS' use of the Egyptian material and Hebrew-Egyptian's from the time period when the Joseph Smith papyri were originally produced?

3. It has been proven that the Egyptian characters in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language are erroneously translated.

Apologists agree that the characters are not translated correctly. They argue that JS is not primarily responsible for the translations in these documents, that the translation process didn't involve revelation, or that the document isn't mean to represent a typical translation from one language to another.

4. It has been proven that the Egyptians characters in the margin of the BoA manuscripts, which are drawn in order from the characters next to facsimile 1 in Hor's Book of Breathings, are not represented in the text of the BoA, nor are the characters correctly parsed (i.e. character groupings that form a single word are split into two or more(?) groups).

Apologists agree that the characters aren't represented in the translation text. Apologists argue that either these manuscripts aren't the originals from the dictation process, that the characters don't represent the translation process, and/or they are drawn from someplace else besides the characters next to facsimile one on the Book of Breathings papyri.

 

  

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just the regular standard, that someone can show, definitively, that what they have stated is true based on the evidence, and all reputable scholars agree.

thats I think what he's claiming.  Until it's effectively disputed this is where we stand I guess

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But would God invent or put something out through Joseph without no absolute evidence at all?  And it seems it makes JS a fool.  I can't believe that if there is no evidence that JS could translate something that had nothing to do with Abraham..that God would have anything to do with that.

Yes.  God would absolutely do that.
God wants us to exercise faith, not find proof and evidence.  It has always been that way.
Otherwise God himself would be walking the streets among us telling us exactly what he wants and what we should be doing. 
His son did that, even performing miracles, healings, raising the dead, walking on water.
And people still didn't believe, killed him, and went on with their blind lives.

All the evidence in the world doesn't make a believer.  100% proof doesn't make a believer.  A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Even if I could show a word for hieroglyphic translation matrix that proved the Book of Abraham came from the papyrus it still wouldn't convince people of its truthfulness.
They have no faith at all.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There are dissenting opinions in almost every field and espeacially in areas where people's faith and beliefs are implicated (e.g. Evolution).

Following are items that have been proven. Each is accompanied with the most typical apologist response and counter-argument to the best of my knowledge:

1. It has been proven that none of the Joseph Smith papyri script treats Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Princess Kitumin, Celestial Astronomy, or Patriarchal Priesthood. 

Apologists agree/concede that the script of the papyri does not address these topics. The most typical argument is that there is a missing scroll that contains the book of Abraham.

I've never read an apologist who believes that the missing scroll also contains the Book of Joseph and the creation account in the hand of Moses. 

I'm not familiar with apologetic arguments justifying the erroneous translation of the Egyptian characters resulting in the beginning of the account of princess Kitumin. Because the characters that this account is purported to have been translated from are copied in the journal with the account and specifically referenced as the source of the account, a different apologetic approach would need to be taken.

2. It has been proven that Joseph's translation of the facsimiles are wrong. Not only do the symbolic representations not match typical Egyptian understanding, but more importantly the translation of characters in the facsimiles is erroneous.

Apologists recognize that the JS translation of the facsimiles doesn't match  Egyptian understanding. Some argue that Joseph's translation of the facsimiles could align with Hebrew reuse of Egyptian funerary texts to represent stories of figures from Hebrew scripture. However, there is no indication that anything of this nature was happening with Hor's funerary texts (the JS papyri).

Maybe someone could chime in here. Has the above theory lent any direct parallels between JS' use of the Egyptian material and Hebrew-Egyptian's from the time period when the Joseph Smith papyri were originally produced?

3. It has been proven that the Egyptian characters in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language are erroneously translated.

Apologists agree that the characters are not translated correctly. They argue that JS is not primarily responsible for the translations in these documents, that the translation process didn't involve revelation, or that the document isn't mean to represent a typical translation from one language to another.

4. It has been proven that the Egyptians characters in the margin of the BoA manuscripts, which are drawn in order from the characters next to facsimile 1 in Hor's Book of Breathings, are not represented in the text of the BoA, nor are they correct parsing of the characters (i.e. character groupings that form a single word are split into two or more(?) groups).

Apologists agree that the characters aren't represented in the translation text. Apologists argue that either these manuscripts aren't the original from the dictation process, that the characters don't represent the translation process, and/or they are drawn from someplace else besides the characters next to facsimile one on the Book of Breathings papyri.

 

  

 

Thank you.  From what you've said here, it looks like some things that Ritner concludes have been confirmed (I assumed as much).

What hasn't been confirmed is that JS made the BoA up, despite Ritner stating that it has. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

thats I think what he's claiming.  Until it's effectively disputed this is where we stand I guess

It is what he's claiming. He can't back it up though.

None of his arguments prove that JS made the BoA up.  None of his arguments prove that the BoA isn't scripture despite his words that such has been confirmed. 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ritner has essentially done that with respect to a few elements of the conversation, these are largely accepted by reputable scholars.  1. That Joseph Smith had no ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs.  2. That the papyri contains nothing about a man named Abraham.   3. That there is a direct correlation between Joseph's use of the papyri and the text of the BoA.  

But he hasn't done that in regards to his main statement. He hasn't proven (he hasn't confirmed) that JS made the BoA up. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is what he's claiming. He can't back it up though.

None of his arguments prove that JS made the BoA up.  None of his arguments prove that the BoA isn't scripture despite his words that such has been confirmed. 

Well that's what youre claiming to be fair.  While I personally feel there is something as I described that seems to poke a whole in his conclusion I don't know that anyone else has.  An argument that convinces has to be put forth.  One has yet to be--at least not one that's been properly vetted.  But in the meantime people are free to conclude, and to wit your conclusion comes off as confirming as his even if you did not use the word,  whatever they want.  

Edited February 9, 2017 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you.  From what you've said here, it looks like some things that Ritner concludes have been confirmed (I assumed as much).

What hasn't been confirmed is that JS made the BoA up, despite Ritner stating that it has. 

Its clear that JS was likely drawing on other sources in the 19th century, and a faithful believer would also say that JS was inspired by God.  But thats still "making it up", with the help of God, he's making it up.  Ritner is not even trying to prove or disprove whether God was involved in the process, that is outside the scope of his professional expertise.  

Do you have an alternative theory for where Joseph Smith is getting the text for the BoA?   

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Its clear that JS was likely drawing on other sources in the 19th century, and a faithful believer would also say that JS was inspired by God.  But thats still "making it up", with the help of God, he's making it up.  Ritner is not even trying to prove or disprove whether God was involved in the process, that is outside the scope of his professional expertise.  

Do you have an alternative theory for where Joseph Smith is getting the text for the BoA?   

All the of scripture is made up

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well that's what youre claiming to be fair.  While I personally feel there is something as I described that seems to poke a whole in his conclusion I don't know that anyone else has.  An argument that convinces has to be put forth.  One has yet to be--at least not one that's been properly vetted.  But in the meantime people are free to conclude, and to wit your conclusion comes off as confirming as his even if you did not use the word,  whatever they want.  

What argument could be put forth to prove the BoA is scripture?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its clear that JS was likely drawing on other sources in the 19th century, and a faithful believer would also say that JS was inspired by God.  But thats still "making it up", with the help of God, he's making it up.  Ritner is not even trying to prove or disprove whether God was involved in the process, that is outside the scope of his professional expertise.  

Do you have an alternative theory for where Joseph Smith is getting the text for the BoA?   

Being inspired by God is not the same thing as making it up.

As soon as Ritner stated "it has been confirmed the BoA was an invention of JS" that is exactly what he is saying.  He is saying that it has been proven that the BoA is not scripture.

And like you said, that is outside the scope of his expertise and abilities.  Which is why i see it as problematic and odd that he has said it.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you have an alternative theory for where Joseph Smith is getting the text for the BoA?   

God.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well that's what youre claiming to be fair.  

What am i claiming?  I'm not sure what you are saying so just asking for clarification. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Yet she gave me a rep point for me pointing out your habit of demeaning people on a regular basis and her specifically.  Of course she can take it.  I can also take the demeaning attacks you regularly volley against me.  It doesn't mean that your habit of personal attacks directed at others is appreciated.  And it doesn't mean that we have to put up with it.  When an apology for calling in question her reading comprehension should have been the correct response, you instead decide to defend your rude behavior.  Really?