Robert Ritner - Book of Abraham Interview

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I read your comments and thought "Hmm.  This doesn't sound like Muhlestein."  Sure enough, I listened to the video and found that your characterization doesn't come close to accurately depicting his position. 

I didn't mention his position.  I snipped a couple of quotes.  He says the BoA isn't based on Egyptology in any way.  He says it at the 11 minute mark.  I'm not saying he's being completely consistent in this video.  Just pointing out a couple of interesting things he said.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some transcribed excerpts from the interview:

1. Muhlestein enthusiastically endorses the idea of "apply{ing} scholarly tools to the Book of Abraham," saying that we should do so because it helps us "understand the scriptures as well as possible," which "happens when we worship the Lord with our heart and our mind."  He says we should therefore "bring everything we have to the table, our whole minds ... if we are going to try to understand these things."

He also says, and I'll more accurately quote him:  "The Book of Abraham is not about Egyptology.  And it's not based on Egyptology, really, in any way..."

Now he may endorse applying scholarly tools to the BoA all day.  But as he said, the book is not about Egyptology and is not based on Egyptology in any way.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. Muhlestein says we need to sort out how we got the scriptures, what they say, and their context.  He says "I get more out of the Book of Abraham when I am both prayerfully pondering and using all my intellectual skills to try and draw something out of the text."

I think that's fine.  But hardly means much.  If there is nothing to draw out of the text, then what is he drawing?  I don't know.  But it hardly means the Book is about Egyptology, nor that it is based on it.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

3. Responding to the question "Is the historicity of the Book of Abraham important?", Muhlestein immediately and unequivocally states "I think it is important because I believe Abraham was a real person."  He notes that three great world religions trace their roots to him, such that "the story and the doctrine" of the Book of Abraham "revolve around Abraham the person."  He goes on to know that this "doesn't mean, either in Genesis or the Book of Abraham, that every single detail must be perfectly accurate," and that "both books have what we call 'redaction history,' someone who was copying it who made a mistake or thought that they'd throw in their own two cents," and that not all redactors were necessarily "inspired."  Nevertheless, he says that "for the most part we have a story about the real person, and that lends a real gravitas to the text, and it also makes it easier for me to apply it in my life because when I recognize that these are challenges a real person went through ... then I can relate to them better and see how their challenges apply to me."

4. Muhlestein goes on to summarize the Church's essay entitled "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," which he says represents a "clarification" of the Church's "official position" rather than a "change" to it.  He also notes that the Church's "position" is that the Book of Abraham "is canon," that it "was translated by the power of God by the prophet Joseph Smith, who was, among other things, a translator," and that the above essay provided further clarification that "there are a number of things that we don't know about the translation process."  He says "We know it's from God, and that's about all we can say.  Exactly how, the Urim and Thummim and so on, we don't have a position or doctrine on that, and frankly from an academic point of view we don't have enough data to say for sure what the translation method was, other than by all accounts from the time of Joseph Smith and by our doctrine, we believe it was translated by the 'gift and power of God.'"  

5. Responding to the question "What is the role of Joseph Smith in giving us the Book of Abraham?", Muhlestein says A) Joseph was "the one God used to give us this book of scripture," B) that "we have lots of theories as to whether the source {of the Book of Abraham} is the papyrus that we now have, whether it's papyrus that he had but has now been destroyed because most of it was destroyed in a fire," or whether it's "revelation that came to him as he was looking at the papyri but wasn't on the papyri," or "whether it was a combination of those things," C) and "in the end, we don't know."  He goes on to say that God used Joseph Smith as an "inspired translator," but also that he is "sure there is a human element in {the translation}," and also that he doesn't know if "Joseph always fully understood the translation process himself," which is "probably why with both the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon we don't get a lot of details from Joseph Smith."  He suggests that Joseph "{knew he was} getting the text and the way he's supposed to say it, and that it's through God," but that "more than that, he may not {have been} able to fully understand {that} this is a divine process that probably goes beyond anything of our ability to understand."

6. Muhlestein goes on to state that Joseph, "as he look{ed} at drawings on the papyri, or as he talk{ed} about {} characters, I don't know if he knows that, if he's receiving inspiration, if he's doing his best to reason things through, which he had been commanded to do."  He also states that "in the issues surrounding the production of {the Book of Abraham there was} a lot of the human element," but that "the actual text is inspired."

7. Regarding questions about the GAEL/KEP, he characterizes these as "some documents that were created, I would say not completely in conjunction with the translation.  It's very clear, if you look at the historical record, the eyewitness statements, that the translation starts first and then they start creating these documents.  There, at that point, there was some give and take as they work back and forth on doing one and then the other.  We have some documents, for example, that are called "Egyptian Alphabet," one that is called "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language."  It's pretty clear that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and W.W. Phelps, and the largest player seems to be W.W. Phelps by all accounts.  They are trying to figure out something about the Egyptian language based on the translation of the Book of Abraham.  So there have been a lot of theories and a lot of speculation as to what the relationship is.  And I've personally spent a lot of time on this lately, and I would say that it's pretty easy to demonstrate that it's not what many people theorize.  It's very clear that the translation comes first, and then the grammar, {and} not that the grammar was used to create the translation."  He then goes on to say that while we "can say what the relationship {between the documents and the text of the Book of Abraham} is not" we cannot say "what the relationship is" because "I don't think we understand," but is "probably a lot of good and crazy ideas mixed together as they try and do their best to decipher a language" would be his guess, but that he ultimately doesn't know.

8. Responding to the question "Does Egyptology prove the Book of Abraham true or false?", Muhlestein responds "No.  I actually don't think it's capable of doing either.  Some would argue that {Egyptology} has proved {the Book of Abraham} false, but every instance ... {is} based on some problematic assumptions."  He gives some examples of such assumptions, and then says "I do not think that {the Book of Abraham} has been or can be disproved because, in the end, the Book of Abraham is not about Egyptology, and it's not based on Egyptology really in any way.  We don't know what Joseph Smith's {} intent is with giving his explanations about the facsimiles, how much he is or isn't tying that into Egyptological ideas, or the translation, or any of those things.  We don't know.  So I think it's impossible to disprove it.  I also think it's impossible to prove it.  Egyptologically.  I think we can look at, use Egyptology ... to better understand the text, and that's been my goal all along as researcher.  I want to understand the text better.  Often that's turned into a form of apologetics.  I'm often painted as an apologist.  I don't set out to do that, and don't feel I am, but I understand that that point of view.  But it's because I apply my academic training to try and better understand the text and the context, then it often ends up supporting Joseph Smith.  But my goal is to understand the text and the context better so that we can draw more out of it.  And that's worth doing.  It creates a space where we can see {that} there is a decent case to be made here.  It's certainly plausible that this book is really about an ancient person from an ancient setting.  But proving it?  That's only going to happen one way, and that is by God revealing that to us.  That's a realm that's really outside of the academic ability ... {or} academic process, {which} can help us understand it better, but proof lies with God.  The text of the Book of Abraham doesn't rise or fall on my arguments or my reputation, or on another scholar's argument or reputation for or against it.  The text of the Book of Abraham stands on its own merit.  Whether it is true or not has nothing to do with what I say about it.  I can say all sorts of things that are good or bad research.  That doesn't change whether the text is true or not.  The text is either true, and is inspired and about a real ancient person, or else it's not.  {} All of our academic tools can only create a certain amount of knowledge about it.  The only way we'll know that is by finding out from God.

9. Responding to the question "Can reasonable people accept the Book of Abraham as ancient and inspired, or do we rely on faith alone?", Muhlestein says that "reasonable people can absolutely accept the Book of Abraham as ancient and inspired.  Again, faith is what will demonstrate the truth of it or not, but there is lots of reason to go behind that.  And that's what I love about what Pear of Great Price Central has been doing.  {The} videos and articles that have been created are based on really good research.  A really highly qualified, well-trained, very experienced, and intellectually diverse group of people were behind these articles and videos.  And often there was disagreement.  I was part of that.  I learned a lot from my colleagues, and I hope they learned a little bit from me.  We came to understand things better as we did it.  But it's good, solid research that I think paints a wonderful picture that helps us understand the ancient setting of the Book of Abraham.  The byproduct of that is that it also creates {a} very reasonable space where you can say 'That makes a lot of sense, this works for me.'  In fact, if we were to talk again about being able to prove or disprove, I would say that the arguments against the Book of Abraham ... there are a few that we just don't understand yet.  They're not convincing one way or the other. ... But in all the big cases, we can understand that, we can say 'Well, here's why this argument doesn't work.'  {Given} these little essays and articles that we've created {on Pearl of Great Price Central}, I find it's more difficult to explain those {arguments favoring historicity} away than it is {to explain away} the arguments against them.  You {would} have to say that Joseph Smith was hundreds of times luckier than any person that's ever lived on earth to have gotten all of these things so right.  Now again, my believe in the Book of Abraham doesn't actually ride on that.  But I've enjoyed seeing those things as I've tried to understand the text better.  And I believe it creates a very, very plausible place for people of intellect and reason to say 'This works.'  And it bolsters my faith.  Maybe we could call it ... 'confirming nudges' to our faith.  I would wholeheartedly recommend Pearl of Great Price Central.  I think it is a great repository of things that not only can be 'confirming nudges,' but also just help you {better} understand the world that Abraham was in {}, which will help you better understand Abraham and thus his text and how it applies to you better.  I wholeheartedly endorse it."

10. Responding to the question "What else might you recommend to someone who might have questions or be struggling with with doubts about the Book of Abraham?", Muhlestine says that "BookofAbraham.org is a great site.  There is FAIR.  There are lots of books, some that were put out by what was then called FARMS, now the Maxwell Institute, as part of the 'Book of Abraham Series.'  This had some really good books that present both translations of the papyri we have, articles about the context of the Book of Abraham, and {} ancient traditions about {} Abraham.  If you go to the Religious Studies Center website that is done by BYU. ... There are a lot of great articles in there.  In fact, in the next issue there will be an interview they did with myself and Robin Jensen, who is {with} the Joseph Smith Papers Project, {and who} helped created the critical {text} volume on the ... Egyptial Alphabet and Grammar.  ... There are a lot of great resources out there.  I am astonished all the time at how many independent researchers are doing work on the Book of Abraham that do good, solid work.  Some things I've seen are kind of crazy, but there's a lot of really good, solid work out there done by independent people out there.  And some of them submit things to places like The Interpreter or similar places, and some of them just publish it on their own blogs or websites. There's a lot of really good stuff out there." 

---

Last December I posted some remarks about a substantial mischaracterizations of Terryl Givens by two critics of the Church (RFM and Analytics).  See here (me responding to Analytics) :

And later in the thread:

I am seeing this again in Stem's significant distortion of Muhlestein. 

Please show how I distorted anything.  I offered two simple snippets.  In context I see nothing wrong about what I quoted.  They aren't misleading nor distorting.  You are being unnecessarily and unreasonably argumentative it seems to me.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Stem apparently watched the interview and came away with the perception that Muhlestein is on the cusp of admitting that "there not being any evidence for the BoA" and that "{t}here can't possibly be anything in Egyptology that provides evidence for it as some ancient record."  And yet this not remotely a fair or accurate characterization of what Muhlestein is saying.

Here's what I said, "I wonder if, in time, he's going to have to resort to there not being any evidence for the BoA.  There can't possibly be anything in Egyptology that provides evidence for it as some ancient record.  So...I guess we're left with nothing to verify it. "

WHy did you just distort my "in time" to "on the cusp"?  In time could mean something quite different from on the cusp.  Additionally, it was simply that "I wonder"ed, not that I am under the perception that Muhlestein is "on the cusp of admitting".  
my words can more certainly be understood to suggest that my wondering could very well be wrong.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, this does not seem like an isolated incident.  I feel like our critics are not really listening to us.  They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position.  It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charactize us.  They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not Analytics, though I should just take that as a compliment.  We are not of one mind and voice.  It is unreasonable to lump us together.  Particularly since, as it turns out, I didn't distort anything.  And, yet, you simply mischaracterized my point to suit this odd agenda.  

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

You responded to MFB's post by declaring that the Atonement is a "myth."

But that's my point.  Many of these discussions about religious topics can't really proceed because we start with examining the topics while not giving sufficient attention to the assumptions we bring to the table.

Really?  You allow for the possibility that God exists? 

Most definitely.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

That the Spirit is real and not "myth?"

Most definitely again.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

That God spoke to and inspired Joseph Smith? 

Yes.  I'm not completely close-minded even on that.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are open to these these things being true?

Open to possibility yes.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I admit that my assessment is based on my aggregate experience with you.  But that means my assessment is based on observation and experience, not guesswork or presumption.

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I only know you from your online handle, and a generalized perception based on your posts here.  That perception is that you are implacably hostile and opposed to the Church, its doctrines, its leaders, and so on.  If I have misread you, I am certainly open to correction.  I did not mean to offend.  I've abstractedly figured you to be a compatriot of RFM, Dehlin, Sam Young, Bill Reel, and so many of the dozens/hundreds of critics and dissidents that come to this board.  Am I wrong?

I feel confident you are wrong about me in a few days, but that's not very important to me.  I simply am nothing I'm not near as closed as you have assumed.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure I do.  I am open to that possibility.  But I have nevertheless staked out a contrary position.  I believe Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be.  You apparently do not.  Is that a fair statement?

I believe that too.  Of course who he claimed to be is a good question.  I do not necessarily believe the gospels for instance represent jesus.  They seem more prone to represent the hearsay level myths about jesus.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am confused.  You are open to the possibility that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?  To the Atonement?  To Joseph Smith's prophetic calling?

Yes.  If anyone has a reason to accept the above propositions, I'm all ears.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have.  Many times.

Well, no.  My position is based on experiential data.  I have tested the proposition that God exists, and have found sufficient, even ample, evidence that He does.  More particularly, I have tested propositions relating to the Restored Gospel, and have found evidence in its favor.

I don't know what, if any, tests you have made regarding such propositions.  

Thanks.  I won't press you to explain this, as I don't want to personalize this thread (more).  But I hope you keep trying.  And if I have misread your position relative to the Restored Gospel, I apologize.  I did not mean to offend.  

Well, I won't press the matter.  You unqualifiedly declare that "{t}here is no Spirit," and then imply that you somehow have "verified" this (by virtue of you saying I am "wrong" to say that you have not verified it).  That is difficult for me to understand.

More particularly there is no evidence or reason to think there is spirit.  It's just like saying there's no bigfoot, for many.  There is not sufficient reason to think there is.  

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  "A priori" in this context seems to mean "existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience ... not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic."  The Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the concept you describe, and instead invite - even require - adherents to read, ponder, pray, and obtain spiritual confirmation of the reality of the truths under consideration.  Moroni's Promise is incompatible with what you are suggesting here.

This is demonstrably inaccurate relative to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We are all continually and actively exhorted to seek out "verifying evidence."

I don't understand your criticism here.

Then I retract my characterization of you and apologize.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Again, I don't thinkwe are supposed to have an a priori faith.  Quite the contrary, we are supposed to study, ponder, pray, seek revelation, etc.

Again, I don't understand what you are saying here.  I haven't claimed to have "a special, privileged place," and I don't know what you mean by that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Bro. Smith,

I am continuing to read your Book of Abraham Essay, but somehow misplaced the link.  I know it is buried somewhere deep within some thread but thought I would kindly ask if you might share it with me again. 

Thank you,

PS: I tried to I/M you privately but was informed that you cannot receive I/M's.

The private message (PM) function seems to work fine.  So I PMd you.  Let me know, if it didn't work at your end.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

How far does this go?  If I look at a text, like the Book of Abraham, and interpret it as a secret code about the deep state and that God will rescue us like he did for Abraham, is that interpretation valid?  At a certain point one has to call an interpretation of a text invalid, objectively.  Sometimes belief is irrational and we need to be careful.  Sometimes outsiders are needed to take religious believers away from the precipice as in what happened in Jonestown long ago.  Yet, there is something outside of us that speaks to us if we will listen and there is irrational emotion that can overtake our interpretations as well.  It is a fine line at times.  I understand not wanting to grant a critic an audience in defense of the church but I don't think the defense of I will interpret the text as I see fit regardless of the meaning of words works in the end.  One has to be true to oneself and the ordinary meaning of words.  Otherwise, one plays into what the critics are saying: believers believe regardless of how irrational it seems.

In the end, all I know is that the scriptures speak to me, regardless of their origin.  If the book of mormon is internally inconsistent and therefore not history, so what.  If the book of abraham has a dubious origin, so what.  The scriptures speak to me.  I have had experiences that I cannot explain as a result of studying the scriptures and so, for me, it really doesn't matter what the critics say.  However, I believe, for me, the correct response is to listen to the critics and then realize that they are speaking of a different world, this world, and that there is a different world that is perhaps subject to different rules than this one, a spiritual world that we can touch at times.  Perhaps the scriptures are there to merely act as a guide to aid the traveler to touch the other world and give us a taste of possibilities and of what awaits us.  I don't know.  Anyway, let the critics do what they want.  For me, it doesn't matter whether or not this or that data point squares with what a critic considers as logical or not.  I have touched the other realm and that is enough for me.

You have to read this

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?do=findComment&comment=1209560314

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/1/2020 at 5:58 PM, OGHoosier said:

Let's take this paragraph sentence by sentence.

Yes. Bear in mind that Ritner, Rhodes, nor anybody else are actually ancient Egyptians, nor authors of these texts. That means that all we get are interpretations from the outside. Egyptologists can catalogue various symbols, catalogue their contexts, and thus figure out a general range of meaning for each one. That meaning, as best we can guess, is most likely going to represent a mainstream use of those symbols since it is drawn from a broad number of samples. This does not, however, mean that all possible meanings have been discovered by the scholars, or even can be. So, in conclusion, scholars can only give us a "most likely" interpretation of these things. It's always possible that it could be something other than they suggested. These are symbols we are talking about, not laws of nature. 

Since there are big anomalies regarding Figure 6, yes. Precisely. 

Not in the Breathing Permit, no. On another papyrus, whether or not Joseph Smith ever encountered it, yes. 

This is unfortunate, I found the paper quite interesting. If you'd like, you can check Barney's included bibliography, where he cites many mainstream Egyptologists and their findings, including Robert Ritner. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list them. Also, since we're on the Anubis figure, he argues that there are anomalies with the greater vignette, yes, but also with the Anubis figure itself, which weaken identifications of the figure as Anubis. 

I don't quite know what you mean by "point to Egyptian experts". Barney did original research, citing other credible Egyptian experts. People are allowed to put forth original theses, you know. Not everything has to first have been said by someone else. Were it so, scholarship would grind to a halt and be broken in its own paradox. 

He's critiquing the grounds upon which Ritner bases his certainty, not disputing what Ritner thinks about his own opinions. 

Unfortunately, all too often, critics attempt to run right over the top of sound philosophy regarding the scope, capabilities, and limitations of research and human knowledge. This often results in fetishization of a sense of certainty and authority, and a complementary intolerance for ambiguity. 

I mean, seriously: "because it's possible God did the unthinkable and has sent scholars in the wrong direction, distracted on their rules of scholarship and stuff."

Literally everything we have of scholarship has been dragged out of the ashes of past scholarship that has been burnt to the ground. The whole concept of ongoing research is built on the premise that scholars can be wrong! I'm going to presume that you know this and stop beating this particular dead horse. 

Also, define rules of scholarship. Let me guess: "peer review." When an apologetic statement is, actually, peer reviewed, the goalpost shifts: "peer-reviewed by non-Mormon experts." This seems to me like nothing more than rank ideological bigotry. What kind of free discourse can we conceivably claim if a person's opinions on a matter can be summarily dismissed based on his origins, life circumstances, or ideological opinions? That's why claims that "mUhLeStEiN aNd GeE aReN't ReAl EgYpToLoGiStS" merely convince me to regard the claimant as a bigot. Try these "rules of scholarship" on for size: intellectual humility, willingness to acknowledge the horizons of one's understanding, willingness to acknowledge the limitations of scholarship, and willingness to understand that all conclusions, including one's own, are held provisionally. Willingness to understand that not all explanations are or can be universal. Willingness to understand that institutional authority is not a trump card. 

No need for God to do the misleading: if Barney is right, the scholars have done that themselves. Nevertheless, "by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls."  The august dignity of "the wise" is of little concern. Finally, you misrepresent me. Have I ever said possibility implied probability? No, but it confounds certainty. I'm okay with the absence of that; much of it is probably false certainty anyway. 

Edit: I forgot this part:

I'm generally talking about the Semitic Adaptation Theory, which holds forth that Joseph Smith's translations represent how a Jewish redactor would have interpreted those symbols. It's basically that Semitic redactors adapted the facsimiles as illustrations of their own text - the Book of Abraham. Therefore, to declare the Egyptian sacerdotal interpretation of the scenes as a disproof of the Book is to commit a non sequitur - the Egyptian priest's interpretation is not exclusive, nor is it as important as the Semitic interpretation. Under SAT,  the facsimiles that Joseph received could have been included among Hor's possessions as an accompaniment to a Book of Abraham text, or they could simply be types, with Joseph receiving the rest by revelation. 

You also have to read this.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?do=findComment&comment=1209560314

 

[DBMormon]

The LDS Church in its Book Of Abraham Gospel Topic Essay uses the scholarship of Archaeologist Harco Willems to defend Human Sacrifice.

Harco Willems was recently asked "Is the description of the human sacrifice found with in the Book of Abraham match the type of human sacrifice your research discusses in 'Crime, Cult, Capital Punishment'? "
 

Harco was kind enough to respond,
 

"Dear Sir, The Biblical (Book of Abraham) passage DOES NOT CONFORM TO WHAT THE MU'ALLA TEXT DESCRIBES, as attentive reading of the argumentation set forth in my article will immediately show. My article has been publicly published and therefore can be used by anyone. However, I fail to see how my work, which does not have the intention to support ANY ideology and which proposes an interpretation that is completely at loggerheads with the suggestion you make, can be stated to support your truth claims. I strongly object to any statement in your publication suggesting I do support these claims." -

With best regards,

Harco Willems

 

The Footnote from the Gospel Topic Essay referenced

36.

Kerry Muhlestein, Violence in the Service of Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt (Oxford, U.K.: Archaeopress, 2001), 37–44, 92–101; Kerry Muhlestein, “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 51, no. 2 (2008): 181–208; Anthony Leahy, “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27, no. 2 (1984): 199–206; Harco Willems, “Crime, Cult and Capital Punishment (Mo’alla Inscription 8),” Journal of Egyptian Archeology 76 (1990): 27–54.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

The LDS Church in its Book Of Abraham Gospel Topic Essay uses the scholarship of Archaeologist Harco Willems to defend Human Sacrifice.

Harco Willems was recently asked "Is the description of the human sacrifice found with in the Book of Abraham match the type of human sacrifice your research discusses in 'Crime, Cult, Capital Punishment'? "
 

Harco was kind enough to respond,
 

"Dear Sir, The Biblical (Book of Abraham) passage DOES NOT CONFORM TO WHAT THE MU'ALLA TEXT DESCRIBES, as attentive reading of the argumentation set forth in my article will immediately show. My article has been publicly published and therefore can be used by anyone. However, I fail to see how my work, which does not have the intention to support ANY ideology and which proposes an interpretation that is completely at loggerheads with the suggestion you make, can be stated to support your truth claims. I strongly object to any statement in your publication suggesting I do support these claims." -

With best regards,

Harco Willems

 

The Footnote from the Gospel Topic Essay referenced

36.

Kerry Muhlestein, Violence in the Service of Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt (Oxford, U.K.: Archaeopress, 2001), 37–44, 92–101; Kerry Muhlestein, “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 51, no. 2 (2008): 181–208; Anthony Leahy, “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27, no. 2 (1984): 199–206; Harco Willems, “Crime, Cult and Capital Punishment (Mo’alla Inscription 8),” Journal of Egyptian Archeology 76 (1990): 27–54.

Oh no!!

A secular scholar disagrees with something in the BOA!!

That's it. I'm leaving the church.

You should apologize to him for wasting his time.

You are SO 1952.

Edited September 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh no!!

A secular scholar disagrees with something in the BOA!!

That's it. I'm leaving the church.

You should apologize to him for wasting his time.

You are SO 1952.

His complaint is that the Church has misused his scholarship to suit a proposition it does not support.  In other words they either lied, or made a mistake by not really paying attention to his argumentation or not understanding it.  

Oops.  

[smac97]

Here's a comment by Louis Midgley on DCP's page:

Quote

As I understand it, Professor Ritner seems to have declined to have an exchange over his differences with Muhlestein, and, if I have understood correctly, for unidentified health issues. There are quite a few health issues that older people tend to have that are solid reasons for avoiding an exchange of opinions with others. If anyone else has more information on this, please correct me if I am wrong.

I hope Dr. Ritner's health improves.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's a comment by Louis Midgley on DCP's page:

I hope Dr. Ritner's health improves.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pretty sure Midgely just confused things.  What was rejected was Ritner's offer to engage.  Muhlestein rejected it and has decided to work on talking past criticism through gradual outputs of his apologetics.  Interesting tactic by Muhlestein which will probably work for the faith community.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

His complaint is that the Church has misused his scholarship to suit a proposition it does not support.  In other words they either lied, or made a mistake by not really paying attention to his argumentation or not understanding it.  

Oops.  

Uh, no.

As he himself said

"My article has been publicly published and therefore can be used by anyone. However, I fail to see how my work, which does not have the intention to support ANY ideology and which proposes an interpretation that is completely at loggerheads with the suggestion you make, can be stated to support your truth claims. "

It's published material, and as he says, it can be used and interpreted by anyone.

He has no control over how someone interprets it.

Once a work is published it takes on it's own life. The intention of the author is irrelevant.

It seems the good Doc has a poor understanding of postmodernism and all that has happened in post-post modernism, and his first sentence contradicts the rest of his own argument.  

Yes it can be used by anyone, just as critics use anything Joseph ever said against him.

It happens.

You have no control over what interpretation any "ideology" uses.

Just look at either side in any given political campaign 

And then look at the usual arguments of critics against Joseph.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no.

As he himself said

"My article has been publicly published and therefore can be used by anyone. However, I fail to see how my work, which does not have the intention to support ANY ideology and which proposes an interpretation that is completely at loggerheads with the suggestion you make, can be stated to support your truth claims. "

It's published material, and as he says, it can be used and interpreted by anyone.

He has no control over how someone interprets it.

Once a work is published it takes on it's own life. The intention of the author is irrelevant.

It seems the good Doc has a poor understanding of postmodernism and all that has happened in post-post modernism, and his first sentence contradicts the rest of his own argument.  

Yes it can be used by anyone, just as critics use anything Joseph ever said against him.

It happens.

You have no control over what interpretation any "ideology" uses.

Just look at either side in any given political campaign 

 

He's not concerned with that it was used.  he's concerned with how it was used.  It was used in an attempt to justify a point that the scholarship does not in any way endorse.  

Ah well...live and learn I say.  The church should simply apologize, fix the error and move on.  But, likely...won't happen.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

he's concerned with how it was used.  It was used in an attempt to justify a point that the scholarship does

That's the point you are missing

It doesn't matter what he wants

Joseph did no want misuse of his statements either

Nobody does

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here's a comment by Louis Midgley on DCP's page:

I hope Dr. Ritner's health improves.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think I read that ever since it became public on MS podcast, there were quite a few testing to see if they'd be a good match, which is great news. Hopefully something comes of it.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the point you are missing

It doesn't matter what he wants

Joseph did no want misuse of his statements either

Nobody does

 

It's true anyone, anywhere and any time can take anything and misapply it, mischaracterize it's purpose and meaning.  I disagree that it doesn't matter.  Of course it matters.  It matters very much if the science, or if expert opinion is being misused.  If it didn't, then we have very little to work towards, it seems to me.  

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

he's concerned with how it was used.  It was used in an attempt to justify a point that the scholarship does not in any way endorse.  

Multiple footnotes only require part of the section to be relevant to a specific footnote, Iow a multi cite footnoted sentence could be a compilation of the references, so a specific cite not supporting everything claimed in the sentence is not a big deal unless the standard has changed since I wrote research papers. 
 

The footnoted sentence is the below. I am including the previous sentence as likely part of it, the “recent scholarship” referred to being at least some of those those cited demonstrating connection to Abraham’s time period, the second section requiring at least one of the cites demonstrating execution for religious dissent in those areas. 

Quote

 Recent scholarship has found instances of such punishment dating to Abraham’s time. People who challenged the standing religious order, either in Egypt or in the regions over which it had influence (such as Canaan), could and did suffer execution for their offenses.³⁶ 

Do you know what part of the claim is linked to his work and why he views it as wrong?

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's true anyone, anywhere and any time can take anything and misapply it, mischaracterize it's purpose and meaning.  I disagree that it doesn't matter.  Of course it matters.  It matters very much if the science, or if expert opinion is being misused.  If it didn't, then we have very little to work towards, it seems to me.  

There's nothing in science to cure this.

I have nothing more to say on this to you now

You just took it into the fog of metaphysics and "truth".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Multiple footnotes only require part of the section to be relevant to a specific footnote, Iow a multi cite footnoted sentence could be a compilation of the references, so a specific cite not supporting everything claimed in the sentence is not a big deal unless the standard has changed since I wrote research papers. 
 

The footnoted sentence is the below. I am including the previous sentence as likely part of it, the “recent scholarship” referred to being at least some of those those cited demonstrating connection to Abraham’s time period, the second section requiring at least one of the cites demonstrating execution for religious dissent in those areas. 

Do you know what part of the claim is linked to his work and why he views it as wrong?

 

 

 

 I don't know what specifically was asked of him.  DBMormon offers the answer to a question we did not see, apparently.  Would be interesting to find out.  

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 I don't know what specifically was asked of him.  DBMormon offers the answer to a question we did not see, apparently.  Would be interesting to find out.  

Wikipedia, postmodernism 

"Access to an unmediated reality or to objectively rational knowledge is rejected on the grounds that all interpretations are contingent on when they are made;^[8] as such, claims to objective fact are dismissed as "naive realism."^[4]"

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

DBMormon offers the answer to a question we did not see, apparently. 

Why am I not surprised.

If you are conversing with him, ask him to post it so people can follow the conversation better.  I have found when only one side of a conversation is reported, often there has been misunderstanding of the implications of the answer because context is missing (I am speaking in general, not referring to just criticism or support of apologetic positions).

[Bede]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Most definitely.  

Most definitely again.

Yes.  I'm not completely close-minded even on that.  

Open to possibility yes.  

 

I feel confident you are wrong about me in a few days, but that's not very important to me.  I simply am nothing I'm not near as closed as you have assumed.  

I believe that too.  Of course who he claimed to be is a good question.  I do not necessarily believe the gospels for instance represent jesus.  They seem more prone to represent the hearsay level myths about jesus.  

Yes.  If anyone has a reason to accept the above propositions, I'm all ears.  

More particularly there is no evidence or reason to think there is spirit.  It's just like saying there's no bigfoot, for many.  There is not sufficient reason to think there is.  

 

Yo Stem, I can vouch for you. You used to be LDS, and you used to get into fights with the haters. 
 

Now you are a (more mild) hater.

 

Accurate?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's true anyone, anywhere and any time can take anything and misapply it, mischaracterize it's purpose and meaning.  I disagree that it doesn't matter.  Of course it matters.  It matters very much if the science, or if expert opinion is being misused.  If it didn't, then we have very little to work towards, it seems to me.  

Who's the "we" in who's opinion "WE" are allegedly "looking toward", there Kimosabe?    http://wiki.c2.com/?WhoDoYouMeanWeKemoSabe

"Meaning" comes through interpretation of data, not data itself.  Science itself sees no "purpose" to bare data- bare data about the covid pandemic says nothing about the tragedy in human lives caused by those strings of numbers.

Whether or not the data is "important" is a judgement call for humans to make.  For LDS many thinking LDS folks, the bare historic data has no relevance for the spiritual value of the poetic descriptions of God's mode of operations found in the BOA.

The first mistake is thinking that there is meaning in raw data.   You cannot "mischaracterize" the meaning you impose on data- it comes without characterization so it cannot be "mischaracterized".

It's like looking at a load of lumber in a truck being delivered to build a doctor's office and saying "OH NO! The meaning of that lumber has been mischaracterized- it was supposed to be used to build a restaurant"!

It's "matter unorganized" which needs an "Organzier" to give it purpose and meaning, but here we have two different purposes!!

The purpose of the author is "historical accuracy"- which in my opinion is itself an impossible dream- while the goal of the thinking LDS person- IN MY OPINION- should be on the lessons God has to teach us in the parables of the Book of Abraham.

It's like telling me that we got the street address of the father of the prodigal son wrong, so the story was in fact not about Fred who lived at the "real address" but about Ted who lived down the street, therefore the prodigal son was not historically accurate and so it cannot have spiritual meaning as a story to bring us closer to God.

In short, in my opinion, it is a ridiculous idea that these historical details are at all relevant when the objective is learning about how to live a good life.

I hope that perspective sticks this time.  We don't have to agree, but it would be nice if at least you could understand where I am coming from, and give ME a good reason why I should come over to "your side" and the side of the author.

It is not even a relevant argument you are making much less something I would consider for one minute as "true".  If this is going somewhere I will put time into it but if not- the discussion itself is a waste of time

Edited September 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Why am I not surprised.

If you are conversing with him, ask him to post it so people can follow the conversation better.  I have found when only one side of a conversation is reported, often there has been misunderstanding of the implications of the answer because context is missing (I am speaking in general, not referring to just criticism or support of apologetic positions).

I'd like to see the question and full context too.  But the answer itself is pretty interesting.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Bede said:

Yo Stem, I can vouch for you. You used to be LDS, and you used to get into fights with the haters. 
 

Now you are a (more mild) hater.

 

Accurate?

I don't hate anyone.  And I figured I was nicer as a believer engaging with critics.  It feels like I was less adamant about my position then.  But you know, self-assessment can be problematic.

[Bede]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't hate anyone.  And I figured I was nicer as a believer engaging with critics.  It feels like I was less adamant about my position then.  But you know, self-assessment can be problematic.

I guess... lots of people have done self assessments and stay believers, including me.