Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So what? 

All that stuff is unimportant.  The apologists are just missing the point entirely.  It's revelation for Pete's sake.  Missing papyrus- all that stuff is just silly stuff supposed to sound "scholarly" to beat them at their own game

It's all a waste of time.   It's direct revelation or its junk.  Either you have a testimony or you don't

I have a testimony big time

 

Mr. Bukowksi,

You drive me nuts sometimes.  At times you are great at including color, thought, and nuance to discussion, then other times you do this and try to paint it all as black and white, shrug your shoulders and say "eh, it's that easy".  Can't a member cleave to his/her membership and yet reject the BoA as scripture?  That is can't someone have a testimony of the Church, but also consider some of the Church's teachings and positions to be questionable or erroneous?  If you say no to this I'm taking back all the rep points I"ve given you over the years.

Edited February 10, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm saying that he hasn't confirmed that the BoA isn't the word of God.  As far as that seems to be one of his conclusions, then yes, i'm saying he hasn't done that.

I find the wording of his concluding paragraph fascinating.  I don't know where he gets the chutzpa, or whatever the is, to say, "Despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation. The book still has its uses and significance, but not for the ancient world of Egypt and Abraham."  Is he also an expert on 19th century early American religious history and texts?  Beats me--but I'd guess MfBukowksi has a point in that he's making claims that in one sense are mundane and in another are way over his head.  I'm standing by my critiques of his piece and no one has yet addressed them.  But I'd also maintain that there is no need to get worked up about the word "confirm" as he's used it.  I don't think he means anything more than using it to draw his conclusion. 
 

And I'll continue to note, as far as I see, I'm the only one who has offered any sort of challenge to his conclusion other than you who has offered your conclusion as a challenge to his conclusion. 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

These are some of the items that underpin Ritner's statement that the BoA has been confirmed to be an erroneous translation. Bluebell and others were debating what has been confirmed/proven, and I was helping to clarify the situation. Notice she said thank you. 

I wasn't making an argument, but since you brought it up, the essay leaves room for a mistaken Joseph, but it really puts a catalyst theory forward where Joseph isn't mistakenly translating specific characters. Instead it implies that JS just receives the BoA via revelation untied to specific characters. This is the version of the catalyst theory that Ritner refutes in his response,from what I understood. 

I need to go back and review the essay, but as far I know, it doesn't address the characters in the margin of the manuscripts, the GAEL, the Princess Kitumin translation, the missing book of Joseph, or the missing cutting of the creation account in Moses' hand, so while the church is acknowledging some of the issues it's not addressing all of them. Personally, I feel Ritner's response is right on. He is making it very clear that there is practically no grounds for a literal connection between the Joseph Smith papyri and Abraham. Despite the church essay's proposal of a catalyst theory among other possibilities, it is still, even in the catalyst theory, hanging onto and searching for a literal connection of some kind between the BoA and a historical Abraham, which both of us know is missing the mark as revelation doesn't appear to function that way.

What do the characters in the margins bring to the table in trying to prove that JS was translating the Breathing Permit of Hor into English?  I'm really not sure.  Did JS tell his scribe to etch the character in the margin and that character means...?  I don't really know.  It sounds weird and quite a bit different from his BoM translation process.  I kind of like imagining both translations were done similarly and prefer to think of the EAG stuff as just stuff they were playing around with as they tried to understand the translation.  But it seems Ritner and others are confident that they are sure the EAG was/is the translation, or translation attempt as they see it. 

With that I'd feel pretty confident in concluding JS didn't refer to the papyrus during the translation, kinda like he translated the BoM.  is that a no go in your view and if so, why? 

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Well, it is a good man and woman that can have faith in a God who hides.  I can't believe this. 

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Mr. Bukowksi,

You drive me nuts sometimes.  At times you are great at including color, thought, and nuance to discussion, then other times you do this and try to paint it all as black and white, shrug your shoulders and say "eh, it's that easy".  Can't a member cleave to his/her membership and yet reject the BoA as scripture?  That is can't someone have a testimony of the Church, but also consider some of the Church's teachings and positions to be questionable or erroneous?  If you say no to this I'm taking back all the rep points I"ve given you over the years.

I said it was either a revelation or junk and that I believed it is a revelation.

I didn't say anyone else had to believe it.

It's not on the recommend interview.

But I would wager that those who do not accept the book of Abraham as revelation do not understand the temple keywords signs and tokens

Edited February 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This thread has no point for its existence

Quoting Ritner, with underlining added:

The essay is NOT "a defense against scholarly debate".  It specifically acknowledges that such study is irrelevant.  And yet he continues arguing against what the church does NOT claim in the essay.

The church does NOT have "discomfort" over its conclusions- that the BOA was translated by the gift and power of God from the beginning

The purpose of the essay was to acknowledge criticisms made by anti-Mormons and help members deal with them.   The article was for MEMBERS and not for scholars.  It was to refute the entire idea that scholarly criticism was even relevant to the spiritual truths.

The essay does NOT attempt to engage in scholarly debate.   That is absurd.

Of course it cites BYU apologists BECAUSE it is not supposed to be a scholarly article.  It IS an apologetic article citing BYU apologists.   Who else would it cite?

Why rebut unmentioned objections?   BECAUSE the church is not in the business of quoting anti-Mormons!  

This guy has no understand of the church or its purposes

This guy has no understanding of religion.  This guy has no understanding of the spirit or of religious matters, of parables or anything which is actually relevant to the BOA

I don't know how I let myself get sucked into this nonsense.

He even essentially gives away his entire argument in the conclusion

DUH

We knew that from the beginning.

Ridiculous waste of time

I think many people find the subject interesting, sorry you think its a waste of time.  You sound a little upset in this post, its apparent you're frustrated with this debate, as I don't typically see you use the anti-Mormon label.  

I will agree with you that the Gospel Topics Essay is not directly engaging in the scholarly debate.  Ever since the Topics essays came out, people have wondered who the primary audience is for these essays, as the church has not advertised them, and many people believe the church is conflicted with respect to promoting the material in the essays as the material directly challenges the traditional narrative that many members are familiar with.  Hence the criticisms have come that the church is hiding its essays.  

Who is the audience for these essays exactly?  Why is the church not more forthright and transparent on controversial issues about its history?  These are questions that many informed individuals that engage within and without Mormonism have.  

 

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well, it is a good man and woman that can have faith in a God who hides.  I can't believe this.

God isn't hiding.
Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing.
Or as Hebrews puts it "the evidence of things not seen".

It isn't about seeing God.  It's about seeing the evidence of God.

[Benjamin Seeker]

47 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do the characters in the margins bring to the table in trying to prove that JS was translating the Breathing Permit of Hor into English?  I'm really not sure.  Did JS tell his scribe to etch the character in the margin and that character means...?  I don't really know.  It sounds weird and quite a bit different from his BoM translation process.  I kind of like imagining both translations were done similarly and prefer to think of the EAG stuff as just stuff they were playing around with as they tried to understand the translation.  But it seems Ritner and others are confident that they are sure the EAG was/is the translation, or translation attempt as they see it. 

With that I'd feel pretty confident in concluding JS didn't refer to the papyrus during the translation, kinda like he translated the BoM.  is that a no go in your view and if so, why? 

There may be more similarities between the BoA and BoM translation than you realize. First, Joseph's attraction to the Papyri is actually a continued pattern of fascination with language, specifically Adamic, Hebrew, and Egyptian. The earliest documented manifestation of that interest is the BoM. The BoM is purportedly originally written in reformed-Egyptian, some kind of mix of Egyptian and Hebrew. JS considered Egyptian and Hebrew to be the closest languages to the original "Adamic" or "pure" language. JS believed that there was spiritual power in language, believed that the pure language would one day be restored, and apparently found spiritual fulfillment in translating and otherwise interacting with Hebrew/Egyptian/Adamic.

The above addresses the general similarity between the BoA and BoM's language component. The translation process also appears to be similar. David Whitmer reported that when translating the BoM JS saw a single character and it's translation in the seer stone (I know not everyone buys into David Whitmer's description; however, Royal Skousen has found evidence that JS dictated in 20-30 word chunks, which does align with Whitmer's description). Similarly, on the BoA manuscripts, we get single characters of Egyptian paired with chunks of BoA text. It makes sense that there is a more open correlation between the source materials and translation for the BoA, meaning the characters written in the margin, now that the scribes and inner circle members can examine and interact with the source materials, unlike in the case of the BoM, where interaction with the plates only occurred under strict limitation. Also, the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language document provides further evidence of the translation approach where a single character lends a chunk of translation text. In the document single characters are described with at least a phrase, and more and more meaning is prescribed as the "degree" of interpretation deepens. Lastly, W.W. Phelps letter to his wife containing JS's 1832 revelation on the pure language is also worth mentioning. The revelation gives words in the Adamic language and their translation/definition. What is particularly notable about Phelp's letter is that he adds a single symbol to represent each of the adamic words/translations. While he doesn't provide a source, this is additional evidence that a translation method where a single symbol yields a chunk of text is present within early Mormonism's inner circle.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God isn't hiding.
Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing.
Or as Hebrews puts it "the evidence of things not seen".

It isn't about seeing God.  It's about seeing the evidence of God.

Then...He needs to provide some evidence...not just goosebumps on the inside. I am not condemning God.  I just don't think He would deal such a bad deck of evidence for faith to prevail.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Jeanne

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

That would depend on what you mean by "invention".  Are they developing or finding a way to express ideas given to them by God, one of the links in the line of communication such as a textbook conveying the principles of biology to the student functions or are they the origin of the ideas themselves; not just putting their unique contribution to a project/teachings that pass through their stewardship, but they are the author of the idea even if created by pulling various elements from their environment.

Are they a carpenter who both designs and builds the house, creating the structure of a home for others to take and reside in or the interior designer putting in a few cosmetic changes to help the house attract the residents that will turn it into their home?

The way we typically attribute authorship in society is to assign that authorship to the person who wrote the words.  A house would have multiple authors contributing to the completion of the structure, just like a book could have multiple authors writing different essays in the book and attribution could be given to multiple parties, the editors and others involved are often mentioned in the introduction to the book as well, but the primary author's name is still on the front page.  

I think many religious people believe that the way scripture is written, is that God uses a ghostwriter to pen the words of God.  That the real author of the book is God and that the human who wrote the words is just a ghostwriter for God.  This is the paradigm that I think many view scripture, and I think in some ways is naive.  

An even more extreme view of scripture is held by a teacher in our Sunday School class who when teaching the D&C this year frequently mentions that the D&C is the only scripture where we have God's actual words in English, communicated directly to humans.  As if Joseph Smith was just a megaphone for God.  The process going something like this: Joseph hears God's words in English then he repeats those words like a parrot would repeat what it hears, and then the scribe writes those words down exactly as God originally said them in English to Joseph Smith.  This view of scripture is very immature in my view.   

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't want to start another thread. A "yes" or "no" would suffice, the question was; Do you find Bible more convincing than BoM?  

Its too binary of a question.  They are different books with different backgrounds and authors and history.  I don't look at them as "convincing" or not.  I find value in both, but the Bible is a collection of hundreds of authors and thousands of years of history, poetry, song, legend, politics, etc.  The BoM is a much much different book.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Who writes the words down onto paper has nothing to do with where the words come from.  If I copy a verse of scripture into my journal, that does not mean I invented that verse. 

When someone invents something, it means they are the source of it.  They are the "originator", the "creator."  That's literally the definition of the word "invent". 

So no, all scripture is not the invention of the person writing it down. 

Scripture is scripture because God is the source. That is why another term for scripture is the word of God.  

Read my response to Calm on this subject, its relevant to our conversation.    

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

But God is the source of what people write. 

If people we're the source then scripture would be equal to Gone With the Wind and Dave Ramsey's Money Makover.  

But scripture is different from other books precisely because God is the source. 

You've got to read more history to understand how scripture becomes scripture.  The canonization process doesn't happen the way you're describing.  How did the Bible get to be the Bible, which books become what we have in our modern bible, which books were rejected, who determined what was scripture, how was that determined.  You've got to understand history to understand what is or isn't defined as scripture by any group of people at any period in time.    

By this historical process for how texts become scripture, a future society could take Dave Ramsey's Money Makeover and canonize it as scripture.  It could take your posts on this message board and canonize those as scripture.  Scripture is defined purely by whatever group of people consider them scripture.  

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to distinguish between whether a word written by an author has been inspired by God or not.  Your God is the source argument is impossible to prove or disprove.   

Who was the source of the words I just wrote, was it me or was it God?  This is a purely subjective question that can't be tested and evaluated.  The words written are my words, I wrote them.  God might have inspired me to write them, God might not have inspired me, maybe the devil inspired me.  Who knows. 

[Atheist Mormon]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its too binary of a question.  They are different books with different backgrounds and authors and history.  I don't look at them as "convincing" or not.  I find value in both, but the Bible is a collection of hundreds of authors and thousands of years of history, poetry, song, legend, politics, etc.  The BoM is a much much different book.  

Not really...You are the one who implies BoM is not a historically legitimate book....I asked whether you believe the Bible is? 

[Foreigner]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Just for record. I do not recollect saying something like this. I have expressed my negative opinion about philosophers. Yet I do not know any professional, philosophical work of mfbukowski and do not judge his achievements in this field. Sadly, I disagree with most of his communication at this forum. No offense intended. I am sorry for any misunderstanding.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Then...He needs to provide some evidence...not just goosebumps on the inside. I am not condemning God.  I just don't think He would deal such a bad deck of evidence for faith to prevail.

He has in my life.  He has in many lives.  The accounts of the hand of an unseeable God changing lives are too numerous to record and far too many to be considered mere coincidence by a rational mind.
The problem is people either refuse to accept any evidences or want 100% concrete proof.  God doesn't generally work that way.  But there are far more evidences out there than "goosebumps on the inside".

When the apostles record that Christ walked on water and raised the dead that's an evidence.
When the woman who would become my wife and I both had chosen not to go on the trip where we would meet and were both pushed into going by circumstance and spiritual promptings outside of any norm that's an evidence.
When a blessing is fulfilled, a prayer is answered, a vision is seen, these are all evidences.  Not proof.  Evidences.
 

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Not really...You are the one who implies BoM is not a historically legitimate book....I asked whether you believe the Bible is? 

Your question makes no sense if you even begin to understand how diverse the origins of the texts contained in our modern bible are.  Its not a yes or no answer, and by what measurement would you consider something historically legitimate?  Do you think they wrote history 2000 years ago the same way we write history today?  

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure plenty.  I just explained my take not according to LDS teaching.  I don't think Ritner adheres to LDS teaching on the topic.  Its like he has no interest in invoking a God did it and hid the means from us type argument,

If Ritner is dealing with LDS scripture, then he should understand our teachings on the subject.  

Ritner is dealing with a book that the LDS church teaches (and members consider) is scripture.  In an article that deals specifically with LDS scripture, he should at least know how LDS define scriptures and what makes them different from other books because his conclusions directly impact LDS teachings on the subject.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You've got to read more history to understand how scripture becomes scripture.  The canonization process doesn't happen the way you're describing.  How did the Bible get to be the Bible, which books become what we have in our modern bible, which books were rejected, who determined what was scripture, how was that determined.  You've got to understand history to understand what is or isn't defined as scripture by any group of people at any period in time.    

By this historical process for how texts become scripture, a future society could take Dave Ramsey's Money Makeover and canonize it as scripture.  It could take your posts on this message board and canonize those as scripture.  Scripture is defined purely by whatever group of people consider them scripture.  

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to distinguish between whether a word written by an author has been inspired by God or not.  Your God is the source argument is impossible to prove or disprove.   

Who was the source of the words I just wrote, was it me or was it God?  This is a purely subjective question that can't be tested and evaluated.  The words written are my words, I wrote them.  God might have inspired me to write them, God might not have inspired me, maybe the devil inspired me.  Who knows. 

I'm tired.  It's not worth it anymore.  I've said what i wanted to say and have no desire to continue talking to you about it.  You have no idea what i'm trying to say, and i have lost the ambition to figure out what you are saying anymore.

Let's just agree to disagree and end the conversation.  

I'll just add a PS-you're completely right in saying that there's no way to prove or disprove whether or not God is the source of something.  That has been my entire point. That's why anytime anyone (including Ritner) says that it's been confirmed that God isn't the source of the BoA and that JS is the source, you know that they've made an invalid and unreasonable conclusion.

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I find the wording of his concluding paragraph fascinating.  I don't know where he gets the chutzpa, or whatever the is, to say, "Despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history

But it is more than that.  It's an authentic narrative of the history of  Abraham's time and place.  Ritner deliberately avoids dealing with that issue.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

And this

 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, cdowis said:

But it is more than that.  It's an authentic narrative of the history of  Abraham's time and place.  Ritner deliberately avoids dealing with that issue.

 

Fabulous video- thanks!!  Very exciting stuff

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

He has in my life.  He has in many lives.  The accounts of the hand of an unseeable God changing lives are too numerous to record and far too many to be considered mere coincidence by a rational mind.
The problem is people either refuse to accept any evidences or want 100% concrete proof.  God doesn't generally work that way.  But there are far more evidences out there than "goosebumps on the inside".

When the apostles record that Christ walked on water and raised the dead that's an evidence.
When the woman who would become my wife and I both had chosen not to go on the trip where we would meet and were both pushed into going by circumstance and spiritual promptings outside of any norm that's an evidence.
When a blessing is fulfilled, a prayer is answered, a vision is seen, these are all evidences.  Not proof.  Evidences.
 

I love your words, experiences and conviction.  You have a faith that not only protects you..but gives those "goosebumps on the inside"  I respect your thoughts.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm tired.  It's not worth it anymore.  I've said what i wanted to say and have no desire to continue talking to you about it.  You have no idea what i'm trying to say, and i have lost the ambition to figure out what you are saying anymore.

Let's just agree to disagree and end the conversation.  

I'll just add a PS-you're completely right in saying that there's no way to prove or disprove whether or not God is the source of something.  That has been my entire point. That's why anytime anyone (including Ritner) says that it's been confirmed that God isn't the source of the BoA and that JS is the source, you know that they've made an invalid and unreasonable conclusion.

Bluebell,

I was getting tired too, so on that note we can agree.  But your last PS I will respond to.

Ritner never said that "God isn't the source of the BoA".  Lets re-read the comment by Ritner one more time.  

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. 

This statement seems to be where you're getting hung up.  When Ritner says that the BoA is an erroneous invention by Joseph, he is factually correct and specifically commenting on the BoA being erroneous in relation to the claims that it comes from the Egyptian papyri, and the claims that the papyri contain a story about Abraham.  They don't, there is nothing on the papyri about Abraham and Joseph didn't translate anything correctly from the papyri.

You are asking an entirely different question than what Ritner is making a statement about.  You are asking, did God inspire Joseph, is the BoA scripture and did it come from God.  Your question is a subjective one, and depends on what you believe about the BoA, it has nothing to do with Ritner's analysis.  The two things are separate and you keep conflating them.

The answers to your questions about the BoA as scripture are dependent on your beliefs, and the answer can absolutely be yes.  Yes Joseph was inspired by God.  Yes Abraham was a real person.  Yes the BoA is scripture.  Yes, Yes, Yes.  It all depends on you, and on faith and on your perspective. Ritner doesn't care about your religious convictions about the BoA.  You can believe whatever you want about the BoA.  If it inspires you, if it motivates you, thats all that matters when it comes to a religious question of faith.  Don't expect scientific inquiry to validate your religious perspective.  This is part of why MFBukowski is so frustrated with this thread, and I empathize with him on this point because as I've been slowly learning to separate my earlier paradigm where I used to combine religious conviction with factual scientific literal thinking, I'm beginning to realize that the two ways of thinking should be kept separate, and are two very different ways of knowing and determining truth.    

I know I've felt a little frustrated in trying to explain this point to you, and I apologize, I just was hoping to clear this up, because I think if you can understand this distinction, then it will help.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

He has in my life.  He has in many lives.  The accounts of the hand of an unseeable God changing lives are too numerous to record and far too many to be considered mere coincidence by a rational mind.
The problem is people either refuse to accept any evidences or want 100% concrete proof.  God doesn't generally work that way.  But there are far more evidences out there than "goosebumps on the inside".

When the apostles record that Christ walked on water and raised the dead that's an evidence.
When the woman who would become my wife and I both had chosen not to go on the trip where we would meet and were both pushed into going by circumstance and spiritual promptings outside of any norm that's an evidence.
When a blessing is fulfilled, a prayer is answered, a vision is seen, these are all evidences.  Not proof.  Evidences.
 

And the instant recognition I had for my wife though I had never met her before- and she had the exact same experience at the exact same time.  I knew we would be married as we discussed eternal progression on our first date while I was still a Catholic.

And my return, before my baptism, to a place where I had prayed about becoming a Catholic priest and where the answer was that I SHOULD be a priest and that I should also marry- which was unintelligible at the time as a Catholic- where the Lord descended into my heart with such force and warmth filling my being with light that I sobbed like a baby,  I knew it could not be anyone BUT the Lord who could do that.

And the sound of a wind when I was confirmed, and felt as it were a rushing water inside my being that was sudden and like turning a switch- a warm shower of love as tangible as standing under a physical shower of warmth and love.  I weep today just remembering it.

And the same feeling of calm peace when I enter the temple or take the sacrament- every single time.

God is real, he even loves crusty old Bukowski

These are evidences as real as my hand before my face.