Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I was ordained an Elder in the evening instead of the usual Sunday meeting  and at a little bit older age than the norm.
That evening my family and I went to dinner and Temple Square to celebrate.  I was dressed in jeans and an untucked shirt.
As my family and I walked into the South Visitors center a booming voice from an older missionary gentleman called out to me "Evening Elder".

He had no way of knowing I was a member and not a tourist, what office or calling I held, or anything else about me.
That was more than a coincidence.  That was a confirmation.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I was ordained an Elder in the evening instead of the usual Sunday meeting  and at a little bit older age than the norm.
That evening my family and I went to dinner and Temple Square to celebrate.  I was dressed in jeans and an untucked shirt.
As my family and I walked into the South Visitors center a booming voice from an older missionary gentleman called out to me "Evening Elder".

He had no way of knowing I was a member and not a tourist, what office or calling I held, or anything else about me.
That was more than a coincidence.  That was a confirmation.

There were three people in our community I really respected before I was baptized.   One was a supermarket cashier who always had a sunny disposition and a kind word for everyone.  The other was a printer I dealt with in my business.  The third was a garage mechanic I always took my car to, because if it was a simple repair, he would do the simple repair and change me $25. instead of dreaming up something major so he could get $250 instead. there was something about them in common which I could never put my finger on, other than being honest and kind.   Kind of a glow.

The first stake conference I attended- you guessed it- all three were there.

THAT was also a confirmation.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour 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.

 

Ritner responds to the human sacrifice claim in the Gospel Topics essay that portion sites Muhlestein and Ritner points out that the Topics essay clearly misuses this source in its claims about a human sacrifice parallel.   Ritner hasn't responded to and probably never will respond to all the multitude of ancient parallels that the Muhlesteins and Gees of the world put out there for our consumption.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fabulous video- thanks!!  Very exciting stuff

Could you explain to me how you aren't contradicting your earlier rant about how the essay doesn't attempt to prove anything scholarly about the BoA, that its a religious text and that religious claims shouldn't be mixed with scientific inquiry. Your whole, this discussion is a waste of time rant, now seems to be contradicted by your praise of this video. 

The video is all about how ancient parallels confirm that Joseph was historically accurate about all kinds of things that he couldn't possibly have known about and that he had no access to information about in the ancient world.  

On one hand you say that the church has moved on from this kind of thing and site the Topics essay as proof, and that the very discussion that Ritner wrote about is irrelevant and a waste of time, and on the other hand you say that you're excited about this video with all these amazing parallels to the ancient world somehow authenticating Joseph Smith through scientific findings.  I'm very confused, could you please explain.  

[CV75]

On 2/8/2017 at 11:11 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 still fine with identifying the content in the PoGP as scripture in our church (scripture is whatever a religious community collectively defines as scripture), but the overarching story about this text is problematic because of Joseph's claims that he was translating Egyptian texts when its very clear that there is nothing to do with Abraham on the papyrus fragments and that Joseph had no knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian.  

Both sets of ideas are wonderfully valid.

Joseph thought he was translating Egyptian; he had concepts of what translation meant to him; his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham; and, Joseph had no appreciable knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian… which is perhaps why: he thought he was translating Egyptian; his concepts on translation were nuanced and untechnical; his effort was about Abraham; and, he may have discovered an alternative knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian... which is perhaps why: Joseph thought he was translating Egyptian; he had concepts of what translation meant to him; his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham; and, Joseph had no appreciable knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian…

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

On one hand you say that the church has moved on from this kind of thing and site the Topics essay as proof, and that the very discussion that Ritner wrote about is irrelevant and a waste of time, and on the other hand you say that you're excited about this video with all these amazing parallels to the ancient world somehow authenticating Joseph Smith through scientific findings.  I'm very confused, could you please explain.  

Perhaps because both sets of ideas are wonderfully valid.

Edited February 11, 2017 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Could you explain to me how you aren't contradicting your earlier rant about how the essay doesn't attempt to prove anything scholarly about the BoA, that its a religious text and that religious claims shouldn't be mixed with scientific inquiry. Your whole, this discussion is a waste of time rant, now seems to be contradicted by your praise of this video. 

THE ESSAY IS NOT THE VIDEO.

Read every word and use your logic.

1- One paradigm believed by some is that there is no need for scholarly review of religious claims.  THAT IS MY VIEW and THAT OF THE CHURCH.  IN THE ESSAY

2- Another paradigm believed by others especially scholars is that SCHOLARLY RESEARCH HELPS others refute anti-Mormons ( as this does help to refute R's article to those for whom this is important)  That is their paradigm.  I don't think it is necessary but they do.  That's their thing.  THAT IS THE VIDEO

3- It is possible to enjoy a good argument even if you do not agree with the conclusion.  I enjoyed the video immensely 

For all I know, he is right.   There WAS a real Abraham and the person who drew the facsimile was casting the story of Abraham on an original one of a kind hypocephalus, Who knows?  Couild God do that?  Of course.

It's a good video.

It has nothing to do with the church essay.

Both are from entirely different paradigms.  I don't think the video helps and does not affect my understanding of the Book of Abraham but it could help someone else.

The research is remarkable- I would like to examine his sources to see if he is blowing smoke.  It's a interesting story

Neither paradigm is "THE TRUTH"

You still think it is one or the other.  It is not.

Edited February 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ritner responds to the human sacrifice claim in the Gospel Topics essay that portion sites Muhlestein and Ritner points out that the Topics essay clearly misuses this source in its claims about a human sacrifice parallel.  

Another video would be helpful in dealing with the context of Ritner's arguments.

Video #2

 

 

Edited February 11, 2017 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Another video would be helpful in dealing with the context of Ritner's arguments.

Video #2

 

 

Another great post that puts both paradigms together

There are no facts only interpretations- listen to God who is the only interpreter of data we need.

Here the consummate historian/scholar ends up on the same page as I am on

[hope_for_things]

On 2/10/2017 at 6:00 PM, CV75 said:

Both sets of ideas are wonderfully valid.

Joseph thought he was translating Egyptian; he had concepts of what translation meant to him; his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham; and, Joseph had no appreciable knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian… which is perhaps why: he thought he was translating Egyptian; his concepts on translation were nuanced and untechnical; his effort was about Abraham; and, he may have discovered an alternative knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian... which is perhaps why: Joseph thought he was translating Egyptian; he had concepts of what translation meant to him; his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham; and, Joseph had no appreciable knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian…

Can you clarify what you mean by that statement "his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham".  I can't dispute that Joseph may have thought he was translating Egyptian.  We will likely never know because we can't get into the mind of Joseph with a 100% level of certainty.  

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you clarify what you mean by that statement "his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham".  I can't dispute that Joseph may have thought he was translating Egyptian.  We will likely never know because we can't get into the mind of Joseph with a 100% level of certainty.  

This might be a good thing!

[hope_for_things]

On 2/10/2017 at 10:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

THE ESSAY IS NOT THE VIDEO.

Read every word and use your logic.

1- One paradigm believed by some is that there is no need for scholarly review of religious claims.  THAT IS MY VIEW and THAT OF THE CHURCH.  IN THE ESSAY

2- Another paradigm believed by others especially scholars is that SCHOLARLY RESEARCH HELPS others refute anti-Mormons ( as this does help to refute R's article to those for whom this is important)  That is their paradigm.  I don't think it is necessary but they do.  That's their thing.  THAT IS THE VIDEO

3- It is possible to enjoy a good argument even if you do not agree with the conclusion.  I enjoyed the video immensely 

For all I know, he is right.   There WAS a real Abraham and the person who drew the facsimile was casting the story of Abraham on an original one of a kind hypocephalus, Who knows?  Couild God do that?  Of course.

It's a good video.

It has nothing to do with the church essay.

Both are from entirely different paradigms.  I don't think the video helps and does not affect my understanding of the Book of Abraham but it could help someone else.

The research is remarkable- I would like to examine his sources to see if he is blowing smoke.  It's a interesting story

Neither paradigm is "THE TRUTH"

You still think it is one or the other.  It is not.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but please let me know if I'm wrong in my interpretation of whats happening.  I believe this example is showing that you have a bias towards "good arguments" when they are favorable to the church, which makes sense in that you are a committed member of the church.  I think this may largely be an experiential thing as well, because my experiences within the context of my faith transition make me very sensitive to bad apologetics and disingenuous scholarship.

Things like these videos are just round 5 or 10 or 100 from apologists trying to spin the evidence to prove how Joseph really got things right, after all the previous rounds of showing how Joseph got things right were proven wrong.  I have a problem just more silly attempts to prove that Joseph's actions were not only inspired by God, but that this inspiration proves that God was feeding him supernatural knowledge of the past or future or something that corresponds to facts in history.    

The contention I have for you, is that this seems to fly in the face of what you've been trying to get through my admittedly think skull about religion and how religious claims cannot and never should be thought of in the same sentence as scientific claims.  This is where I'm struggling with your "its a good video" and "but it could help someone else" comments.  To me this seems to go against what you've been trying to explain to me for the past few months.

Why do you not apply the same level of disdain towards the Gees and Muhlesteins of the world, attempts to prove that Joseph Smith really did have some scientifically verifiable supernatural abilities, and these ancient parallels prove it.  Am I right about your bias towards things that you believe benefit the church, and if so, can you explain to me how this squares with your philosophical approach towards religion?  

 

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This might be a good thing!

Yes, scary thought!  :-)  

[hope_for_things]

On 2/11/2017 at 1:15 AM, mfbukowski said:

Another great post that puts both paradigms together

There are no facts only interpretations- listen to God who is the only interpreter of data we need.

Here the consummate historian/scholar ends up on the same page as I am on

Ok, now I'm angry after watching this video.  I'm angry and I rarely get angry about these message boards.  I'm angry because I think this video is a pile of steaming hypocrisy and it offends my intellect.  Let me summarize what I find to be bogus claims in this video and maybe you can talk me off this ledge of frustration towards what I thought was intellectual honesty and wise perspective from you about a philosophical approach to religion, that honestly I've been trying to model a change in paradigm after many of the things you've pointed me toward and I've been reading and learning about here, and now this feels like a slap in the face against me and its hurting.  

1. Muhlestein starts by making a point about how the knowledge in the field of Egyptology is constantly changing by new discoveries.  This is true for Egyptology and many other fields of research.  However, this doesn't undermine the idea that we're building upon prior understandings.  The authors in the video sound like they are setting the listener up to believe that at any moment new discoveries could be made that would turn the entire foundation of the study of Egyptology on its head.  As if a new Rosetta stone might be discovered and all the sudden all of Joseph Smiths translations of the Breathing Permit of Hor will be confirmed as accurate after all.  This is the implication I get from the conversation about the changing nature of Egyptology, that literally ANYTHING is possible.  

2.  The end of the video is the part that really angers me.  When Muhlestein tells about how some members have lost their testimonies over a BoA issue that the evidence has changed on, and now the changing evidence proves that Joseph Smith was actually right about the BoA issue that earlier caused someone to lose their testimony.  As if that person could have just waited long enough, but alas....

What the heck?  What am I supposed to be doing here MFBukowski?  Am I supposed believe that Joseph Smith really did get the Egyptian translations correct about Abraham?  Am I supposed to just trust that all the 19th century ideas about history and science and observations of the world and speculations about the ancient world, and everything that Joseph Smith got factually wrong are actually not incorrect.  I should just hold out faith and hope that Joseph Smith will eventually be vindicated by some future discovery of science????  

This is such crap and I'm pounding on my keyboard now, because this frustrates me so bad that you are telling me that Muhlestein's perspective in this video "puts both paradigms together".  Does this mean that I'm supposed to just ignore all the evidence that shows that Joseph Smith was up in the night on a multitude of speculations that he made throughout his career as a "prophet" and I should just believe that eventually he will be proven correct?  This is what Muhlestein said in the video.  I would love you to please explain yourself, because right now I'm wondering if I shouldn't rethink what I believed was wise counsel from you over the past few months.  

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you clarify what you mean by that statement "his experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham".  I can't dispute that Joseph may have thought he was translating Egyptian.  We will likely never know because we can't get into the mind of Joseph with a 100% level of certainty.  

Since his translation (however Joseph conceptualized that process) yielded the Book of Abraham, considering what the Book of Abraham contains, Joseph's experience, as he describes it and however we might surmise it to have been, has everything to do with Abraham.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Since his translation (however Joseph conceptualized that process) yielded the Book of Abraham, considering what the Book of Abraham contains, Joseph's experience, as he describes it and however we might surmise it to have been, has everything to do with Abraham.

The way you are using this phase does not necessarily connect Joseph to the person the patriarch Abraham.  By this definition you or I could write a book, call our endeavor a translation, and we could say that our "experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham."  

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

2.  The end of the video is the part that really angers me.  When Muhlestein tells about how some members have lost their testimonies over a BoA issue that the evidence has changed on, and now the changing evidence proves that Joseph Smith was actually right about the BoA issue that earlier caused someone to lose their testimony.  As if that person could have just waited long enough, but alas....

 

Let me give you a specific example.  Perhaps you are familiar with the Salamander Letter.  I remember when I first learned about it that I thought: "If I am really an honest person, this should prove that JS was a fraud and a con.  I should leave Mormonism if I can claim any intellectual honesty."

I gave it some thought, and then I remembered that I had gotten a personal witness from God, an direct spiritual experience that JS was a prophet of God.  I then had to decide which road I would follow but the answer was obvious.

I know that many made the decision to leave the church.  And later, when it was proven that this was a forgery, how many then came back == probably few or none.  It was not an issue of waiting, but who are you going to believe.

As Christ said to Pete

Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The way you are using this phase does not necessarily connect Joseph to the person the patriarch Abraham.  By this definition you or I could write a book, call our endeavor a translation, and we could say that our "experience with translation had everything to do with Abraham."  

Absolutely. We are all connected to the patriarch Abraham, according to the Abraham covenant.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let me give you a specific example.  Perhaps you are familiar with the Salamander Letter.  I remember when I first learned about it that I thought: "If I am really an honest person, this should prove that JS was a fraud and a con.  I should leave Mormonism if I can claim any intellectual honesty."

I gave it some thought, and then I remembered that I had gotten a personal witness from God, an direct spiritual experience that JS was a prophet of God.  I then had to decide which road I would follow but the answer was obvious.

I know that many made the decision to leave the church.  And later, when it was proven that this was a forgery, how many then came back == probably few or none.  It was not an issue of waiting, but who are you going to believe.

As Christ said to Pete

Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

So in essence are you telling me that all of the claims that appear to be clearly incorrect inventions of Joseph Smith about the BoA will at some future date be vindicated as correct translations of the Egyptian?  That eventually scholars will discover evidence to prove that Joseph was correct about the papyri and facsimiles and I just need to trust and wait long enough for this confirming evidence to come to light?  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely. We are all connected to the patriarch Abraham, according to the Abraham covenant.

Well, then this is a very confusing way to speak about things.  If any of us can claim to write a book about a person named Abraham, and then you can assert that our writings "have everything to do with Abraham", this is a very odd way of speaking where I come.  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think I understand where you are coming from, but please let me know if I'm wrong in my interpretation of whats happening.  I believe this example is showing that you have a bias towards "good arguments" when they are favorable to the church, which makes sense in that you are a committed member of the church.  I think this may largely be an experiential thing as well, because my experiences within the context of my faith transition make me very sensitive to bad apologetics and disingenuous scholarship.

Things like these videos are just round 5 or 10 or 100 from apologists trying to spin the evidence to prove how Joseph really got things right, after all the previous rounds of showing how Joseph got things right were proven wrong.  I have a problem just more silly attempts to prove that Joseph's actions were not only inspired by God, but that this inspiration proves that God was feeding him supernatural knowledge of the past or future or something that corresponds to facts in history.    

The contention I have for you, is that this seems to fly in the face of what you've been trying to get through my admittedly think skull about religion and how religious claims cannot and never should be thought of in the same sentence as scientific claims.  This is where I'm struggling with your "its a good video" and "but it could help someone else" comments.  To me this seems to go against what you've been trying to explain to me for the past few months.

Why do you not apply the same level of disdain towards the Gees and Muhlesteins of the world, attempts to prove that Joseph Smith really did have some scientifically verifiable supernatural abilities, and these ancient parallels prove it.  Am I right about your bias towards things that you believe benefit the church, and if so, can you explain to me how this squares with your philosophical approach towards religion?  

 

There are different paradigms that work for different people.

YOU ARE STILL STUCK AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE VIEW THAT THERE IS ONE TRUTH FOR ALL WHICH REPRESENTS REALITY

Repeat that 500 times

There are different paradigms which work for different purposes and that's all there is of "truth"

Repeat that 500 times

No one paradigm is "true" in the sense of an all-encompassing "representation" of every possible event or thing in alleged "reality"

Repeat that 500 times

The bottom line is that all we can hope for is prejudiced data which we get to interpret in ways that work for us

Repeat that 500 times

My paradigm is that I am highly prejudiced toward the church because I have found that it works in my life like no other paradigm I have ever experienced.

I have examined each presumption of my various paradigms about the church and everything else several times each and found that they all still work for me perfectly, but I would change my paradigm if the opportunity arose which convinced me to change my paradigms.

Do not repeat that 500 times.    Find your own paradigms and reasons for accepting them.

For those who need a historical basis for all this, those videos are a great thing to base their paradigm on.  Essentially the last one ends up very close to the way I see things- enough for me to heartily affirm it.

Paradigms are like medicine.  No one medicine is the magic bullet for everyone/thing.  If I was dealing with someone who wanted a historical explanation I would choose that video to help him understand the BOA

I do not need that medicine - I need other medicine- I need to know that history is only another medicine among many that gets us spiritually to the right place.

I know there IS a right place spiritually because I have been there.  Whatever "drug" gives you the cure is the right one for you.

THAT is the essence of true pragmatism in my book.   Hope that helps.

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, then this is a very confusing way to speak about things.  If any of us can claim to write a book about a person named Abraham, and then you can assert that our writings "have everything to do with Abraham", this is a very odd way of speaking where I come.  

Huh?

If our book is about Abraham obviously the book has everything to do with Abraham.

What else is the book about?  No Abraham, no book.    Pretty clear.

If a book is about Xerxies of Galpogo then it has everything to do with him.

Even if it is total fiction our experience of writing it is clearly still "about" him, as a book about unicorns would be about the experience of writing a book about unicorns

Edited February 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, then this is a very confusing way to speak about things.  If any of us can claim to write a book about a person named Abraham, and then you can assert that our writings "have everything to do with Abraham", this is a very odd way of speaking where I come.  

It depends on what the writer asserts. But I do think the Book of Abraham narrative conveys far more information than a book about a person named Abraham.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

If our book is about Abraham obviously the book has everything to do with Abraham.

What else is the book about?  No Abraham, no book.    Pretty clear.

If a book is about Xerxies of Galpogo then it has everything to do with him.

Even if it is total fiction our experience of writing it is clearly still "about" him, as a book about unicorns would be about the experience of writing a book about unicorns

Thanks for your responses, and for overlooking my earlier more hostile tone, I definitely felt frustrated and I'll explain why, but I'm feeling more calm now.  I'm going to respond to your other post shortly.

Essentially I guess the difference here is that the person claiming to be writing about Abraham is claiming to have a supernatural knowledge from the divine about a person that lived thousands of years ago.  They are claiming divine revelatory knowledge, where as a person writing fiction isn't claiming that kind of knowledge, but is straight forward that they are just writing fiction.  

Most writings about unicorns aren't claiming that unicorns are actual creatures that exist in the real world, but its just fantasy writing.  It seems like these are two different scenarios.  If the person writing about unicorns was asserting that their writings are real, and that these stories about unicorns have truths that can't be ignored and your eternal salvation is in the balance if you don't consider the literal truth of these stories about unicorns, then it places these stories on a different level of seriousness.  

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for your responses, and for overlooking my earlier more hostile tone, I definitely felt frustrated and I'll explain why, but I'm feeling more calm now.  I'm going to respond to your other post shortly.

Essentially I guess the difference here is that the person claiming to be writing about Abraham is claiming to have a supernatural knowledge from the divine about a person that lived thousands of years ago.  They are claiming divine revelatory knowledge, where as a person writing fiction isn't claiming that kind of knowledge, but is straight forward that they are just writing fiction.  

Most writings about unicorns aren't claiming that unicorns are actual creatures that exist in the real world, but its just fantasy writing.  It seems like these are two different scenarios.  If the person writing about unicorns was asserting that their writings are real, and that these stories about unicorns have truths that can't be ignored and your eternal salvation is in the balance if you don't consider the literal truth of these stories about unicorns, then it places these stories on a different level of seriousness.  

Well that could be it.

I see no differences in the "level of seriousness"

Claims are claims.  What the author believes about their claims is irrelevant to what I believe about their claims.

Everyone is just blowing smoke- who cares.  If it doesn't make sense to me it is irrelevant to my life.  Claim what you like.  Most of humanity are incapable of making a good argument for anything 

Words are words, real is real.  Words cannot be about "reality" because words are symbols allegedly representing reality- which is impossible.  Symbols are not the thing

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There are different paradigms that work for different people.

YOU ARE STILL STUCK AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE VIEW THAT THERE IS ONE TRUTH FOR ALL WHICH REPRESENTS REALITY

Repeat that 500 times

There are different paradigms which work for different purposes and that's all there is of "truth"

Repeat that 500 times

No one paradigm is "true" in the sense of an all-encompassing "representation" of every possible event or thing in alleged "reality"

Repeat that 500 times

The bottom line is that all we can hope for is prejudiced data which we get to interpret in ways that work for us

Repeat that 500 times

My paradigm is that I am highly prejudiced toward the church because I have found that it works in my life like no other paradigm I have ever experienced.

I have examined each presumption of my various paradigms about the church and everything else several times each and found that they all still work for me perfectly, but I would change my paradigm if the opportunity arose which convinced me to change my paradigms.

Do not repeat that 500 times.    Find your own paradigms and reasons for accepting them.

For those who need a historical basis for all this, those videos are a great thing to base their paradigm on.  Essentially the last one ends up very close to the way I see things- enough for me to heartily affirm it.

Paradigms are like medicine.  No one medicine is the magic bullet for everyone/thing.  If I was dealing with someone who wanted a historical explanation I would choose that video to help him understand the BOA

I do not need that medicine - I need other medicine- I need to know that history is only another medicine among many that gets us spiritually to the right place.

I know there IS a right place spiritually because I have been there.  Whatever "drug" gives you the cure is the right one for you.

THAT is the essence of true pragmatism in my book.   Hope that helps.

Yes, ok, I'm still stuck, I think I'm further down the path than I started, but I'm probably still stuck.  I believe that the science of the discipline of Egyptology is a sound discipline and should be valued in its sphere.  I think that Ritner's observations about the papyri are accurate and I think it tells me that Joseph Smith's claims about the BoA were wrong on multiple counts, and that I shouldn't trust Muhlestein and other apologists who keep moving the goal posts each time that one of their speculative proofs of ancient parallels gets shot down.  They lost my trust on this subject, and I don't like how they keep churning out new speculative theories and keep moving the goals posts.  I don't consider their methods trustworthy and I'm skeptical because of the history of their approach and how often they twist scholarship in ways to benefit the church but wouldn't be acceptable by their peers in their field.  

Thank you for admitting your prejudice to the church, I appreciate your honesty with me, and thats what I expected, and I'm not surprised.  I'm prejudiced towards my family and towards my state and my country, and towards my church too.  I'm highly skeptical though of bad apologetics, and this goes back to my loss of trust in those who try to rationalize a defense of the traditional narratives that have become indefensible as additional history and scholarship comes to light.    

I really want to get to the place you've been preaching to me about, this place where we don't look for confirmation about spiritual things in the data.  This place where spirituality is purely subjective, but I think this means we have to let go of all the literal proofs that are part of our legacy.  That's why I cringed when you said you liked the videos.  Because you were so upset at the Ritner essay, do you realize that its the Muhlesteins and Gees of the world that created the environment where Ritner feels like he has to respond to the church's essay?  If these guys would just quit trying to find evidence for some ancient parallels and would quit using their resume, their PHDs in the field to legitimize these findings, then Ritner and other scholars in the field wouldn't feel the need to critique their approaches.   

Why can't we just put all that in the rear view mirror.  Quit jumping for joy at every BoA evidence that proves that Joseph got things right.  If we could take the focus off of the scientific proofs and put it entirely on metaphorical and spiritual meaning, then count me in.  I will be right on board with you on this journey, that perspective is working more for me every day.  But quit looking for proofs in these scientific disciplines and then hope that those scholars in the fields aren't going to be skeptical of those proofs.  This can't keep happening.  Just do like the Catholic church finally did with Galleo after hundreds of years.  Just admit he was right and move on.  Please don't take hundreds of years though, LDS church, lets move on now and quit living in the past.