"Standard Egyptology"

[EdGoble]

Brother Robert F. Smith on this message board finds it convenient, every time I mention anything that has to do with Egyptian, to claim that he and his points of view, and those of his colleagues are somehow representative of "Standard Egyptology."  I would just like to make the point that Robert Ritner and his point of view is what is actually representative of "Standard Egyptology," not any LDS Apologetic point of view, including that of John Gee.  And I grow tired of apologists that make war with other apologists and continually put down their points of view, as if only the establishment BigScholar apologists have the only valid points of view, and are the only ones that can quote from Egyptologists.  Sorry.  You don't.  And LDS Egyptologists that are apologists are not representative of anything that is scientific, let alone "Standard Egyptology."  While LDS scholars can do science, there is nothing scientific about apologetics, and certainly nothing scientific about Book of Abraham apologetics to be able to be called "Standard Egyptology."  So let's all just stop having the Pot calling the Kettle black here, when there is nothing scientific about apologetics.

Do not begin a thread to attack another poster. 

[Ahab]

I don't doubt for a second that there are some LDS who know what Egyptology and the Egyptian language and symbols are all about.  I don't know their names, but I know there are many who do.  Hugh Nibley would probably be the name I would drop, if I were to drop a name.

A distinction needs to be made though that LDS believe there is such a thing as a reformed Egyptian language, which is not the same thing as the Egyptian language.  I don't know if we have any relics around that show some examples of the reformed Egyptian writings, but we believe the Book of Mormon was translated from reformed Egyptian writings.  Joseph gave those records back to Moroni after he translated them, though, so we don't have those around to examine.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

Brother Robert F. Smith on this message board finds it convenient, every time I mention anything that has to do with Egyptian, to claim that he and his points of view, and those of his colleagues are somehow representative of "Standard Egyptology."  I would just like to make the point that Robert Ritner and his point of view is what is actually representative of "Standard Egyptology," not any LDS Apologetic point of view, including that of John Gee. 

I don't think it's that simple.  It seems that you are privileging Ritner's competency in the field, and denying Gee's, solely based on their respective attitutudes toward Mormonism (more particularly, their attitudes toward The Book of Abraham).  Is that a fair statement?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to narrow the scope of your assessment? 

13 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

And I grow tired of apologists that make war with other apologists and continually put down their points of view, as if only the establishment BigScholar apologists have the only valid points of view, and are the only ones that can quote from Egyptologists.  Sorry.  You don't.  And LDS Egyptologists that are apologists are not representative of anything that is scientific, let alone "Standard Egyptology." 

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment.  

13 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

While LDS scholars can do science, there is nothing scientific about apologetics, and certainly nothing scientific about Book of Abraham apologetics to be able to be called "Standard Egyptology."  So let's all just stop having the Pot calling the Kettle black here, when there is nothing scientific about apologetics.

So the point of your post is . . . preemptive censorship of viewpoints with which you disagree?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

Even if apologetics could answer all of the hard questions, it would all be for naught if it cannot exemplify the fundamental principles of Mormonism:

Quote

 

Frie(n)dship is the grand fundamental prin(c)iple of Mormonism. to revolutin (revolutionize?) civilize the world.— pour forth love.

-Joseph Smith