Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Kevin Graham]

There are plenty of folks who believe the lies they peddle; their sincerity cannot infuse a fraud with credibility

Exactly.

It amazes me how successful some Mormon scholars have been in leading others by the nose with this kind of thinking. Suddenly there is no such thing as absolute truth anymore, and we're not to speak of it as such, so long as there are a bunch of people who "sincerely" believe in various falsehoods?

I know you have to approach Mormon studies with an extreme sense of balance, but good grief. Has it reached the point where we're being told it doesn't really matter if someone says up is down, right is left, and round is square?

Kish doesn't seem to understand that a large part of the reason why I approach their deceptions the way I do, is because this is exactly how they approach all criticisms. I'll take the gloves off in these situations because they deserve it. John Gee for example, wrote a review of Metcalfe years ago where he flat out stated Brent was being deceptive, etc. Turns out Metcalfe wasn't lying, and then years later when Metcalfe proved Gee was being ... misleading at best, on some other issue, the apologetic community went into an uproar, and Dan Peterson vowed never to speak to Brent again. They really believe they get special treatment just because they're a part of a believers community. We're all supposed to walk on eggshells around their religious sensibilities. Well screw that.

But all I have ever done is apply the same standards they apply to us. Mormons love to do this, and then recite "by their fruits you shall know them." The whole point is to find one misleading remark (or make something appear misleading even if it isn't!) recast it as a "lie" and then say the scriptures justify a dismissal of anything this person has to say.

Someone keeps referencing the Ensign article that defines the concept of "lying." This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It is their own standard and I'm applying it to them. Why should I be reluctant to call it as I see it when these people freely toss around these same words left and right whenever they respond to criticisms? Kish complains because I'm not a published scholar but for some reason thinks I should act as such, but he doesn't seem too upset about the fact that Gee has published numerous articles accusing his critics of deception, lying, etc.

Is that all fine and dandy because it is theoretically possible that Gee genuinely believes his own BS? I don't think so. Gee is a liar. If it were just one instance or two, and if he were to change his ways, then I probably wouldn't use that word. Some people here know I'm a very forgiving person when others admit to mistakes. But in Gee's case, he has for more than a decade established a long history of this kind of thing. He is 100% unrepentant, and continues to call critics liars. When people point his errors out to him, he acts as if he is above reproach, and demands to know their Egyptological credentials.

[Guest]

-

[_thews]

For the sake of this discussion I specifically referred to the Book of Abraham. I'm defining delusional as meaning, "A false belief or opinion" and I'm defining fraudulent to mean "Engaging in fraud; deceitful". In writing the Book of Abraham the evidence strongly suggests that Joseph Smith and co strongly believed and told others that they were able to translate the hieroglyphics and that they were written by the hand of Abraham.

So, everyone who has a belief that does not turn out to be true is delusional? Are you sure you want to call all of humankind delusional? And if you do, doesn't the word lose all force and usefulness? If a Christian believes that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, does that make this person "delusional"?

Notice the above response is phrased in the form of four questions. There's a binary answer to the question "Do chickens have lips?" To use that response, phrased as a question in response to a question asked, would actually be answering the question, as the answer to the question used is binary. In the above tap dance response, what it does is avoid all the data that proves the Book of Abraham false. The segue is to attempt to draw parallel lines to what also constitutes "delusional" beliefs, but one has to agree with the analogy in order to agree with the conclusion. Let's break down the actual post which was responded to with questions instead of answers...

For the sake of this discussion I specifically referred to the Book of Abraham. I'm defining delusional as meaning, "A false belief or opinion" and I'm defining fraudulent to mean "Engaging in fraud; deceitful".

The above is used to define what is, or is not delusional.... pretty straightforward.

In writing the Book of Abraham the evidence strongly suggests that Joseph Smith and co strongly believed and told others that they were able to translate the hieroglyphics and that they were written by the hand of Abraham.

Question to Kishkumen: Is it delusional to place belief in something that can be proven false with factual data?

In my view the word delusional is too fraught with associations with mental illness to be useful in this context. Furthermore, it is because of these associations that critics of religion want to apply it to believers. I am not accusing you personally of doing so; it is, rather, a fairly widespread phenomenon.

This is an obvious LDS apologetic ploy. The first part involves questioning the question asked. The second is to question the meaning of words in order to inject doubt. In this case, "In my view the word delusional is too fraught with associations with mental illness" assumes this view is correct, when it's just another layer of BS.
Question to Kishkumen: Is it delusional to place belief in something that can be proven false with factual data?

Your use of the word fraud has become even more confusing now that you have stipulated that Smith and his associates "believed" they could translate hieroglyphics. If they believed it, how is it fraudulent? This is most confused.

Once again we have the play on words to inject doubt. There's no doubt that Joseph Smith could not translate the Egyptian language. For reference:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm#full

"... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

Question to Kishkumen: Is it delusional to place belief in something that can be proven false with factual data?

The tap dance is easy to spot once you know what you're looking for... a trail of questions that attempts to discredit the question asked, rather than just answering the question asked and addressing the data presented. In support of the translation made by Joseph Smith of the Egyptian papyrus, I look forward to Kishkumen actually answering the question asked, with data to support his assertion that there is credibility in Joseph Smith's translation. If Kishkumen's answer is credible, then placing belief in Joseph Smith's truth claims would not be delusional. If the question is ignored or sidetracked with distortion, it's diffusional.

[_Themis]

If they believed it, how is it fraudulent? This is most confused.

There are plenty of folks who believe the lies they peddle; their sincerity cannot infuse a fraud with credibility. For example, there are plenty of snake-oil merchants who sincerely believe their particular ointment, pill, or elixir can cure cancer, or baldness, or small-penis syndrome. Their earnestness, however, does not alter the fundamental fact that they are perpetrating a fraud on those who accept and rely upon their claims.

If they believe what they are peddling, doesn't that mean they are not lying or being fraudulent? Would it not be accurate to say they are just incorrect. With Joseph Smith I think there is enough evidence to suggest he was being fraudulent in some of what he was doing. I think Kevin and others have demonstrated the same with people like Gee.

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

Deceit is too easy an answer to a very complicated question, and once we attribute deceit to one religious figure, which prophet or shaman is left who is not a deceiver? From an academic perspective, this is a dull tool for an intricate problem.

If our only interest is dismissing a religion because we know longer want to follow it, "deceit" is a fine answer because it gets us where we want to be so quickly. It does nothing, on the other hand, to increase our understanding of the phenomenon.

[_Themis]

The problem is self-deceit is many times closely related to deceiving others. If a person perpetrates a fraud and then starts believing it and deceiving themselves in the process of doing so to others then they would both be acting fraudulently and potentially believe (to a greater or lesser extent) in the lies themselves. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive and I think there are a number of factors which contribute to it.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Well then I think it would be accurate to say they are lying until they have fallen for their own scam. At that point it is not really lying, but just not true. Lying is defined as knowing you are saying something is true when you think it is false. I am open to the idea that Joseph and others may have convinced themselves after the fact. Justification can be very powerful. In the end it is still not true.

[_Themis]

Deceit is too easy an answer to a very complicated question, and once we attribute deceit to one religious figure, which prophet or shaman is left who is not a deceiver? From an academic perspective, this is a dull tool for an intricate problem.

If our only interest is dismissing a religion because we know longer want to follow it, "deceit" is a fine answer because it gets us where we want to be so quickly. It does nothing, on the other hand, to increase our understanding of the phenomenon.

I am not sure anyone here is just chalking it up to deceit. Most seem to suggest it is more complicated. I think Runtu's post explains how many think about it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

D'oh.

Here's the Christian extremist Themis again.

So brave. He's so brave.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Deceit is too easy an answer to a very complicated question, and once we attribute deceit to one religious figure, which prophet or shaman is left who is not a deceiver? From an academic perspective, this is a dull tool for an intricate problem.

If our only interest is dismissing a religion because we know longer want to follow it, "deceit" is a fine answer because it gets us where we want to be so quickly. It does nothing, on the other hand, to increase our understanding of the phenomenon.

This is too easy a response to a complicated claim, for which 'deceit' is just a useful shorthand label, and is getting dangerously close to an attack on a straw man.

By now more than one poster has made it quite plain that they recognize what a complex and multidimensional activity is going on even in the simplest case of deceit. Everybody who deceives others effectively has almost certainly succeed in inducing in themselves at least the consciousness of what it would be like to suspend disbelief. If they did not do that, they would make a very unconvincing job of getting others to believe.

It has also been pointed out that what starts off as a simple scam can actually end up with the scammer believing what he or she says, as enthusiastic audience reaction validates their (originally known to be false) statements, especially if they end up creating a strong social group of believers of which they are the center, and who hang on their every word - as happened to Smith.

I do not usually do in real life stuff, but this once I will: I spent years in close contact with a person (say A) who created an elaborate system of what might be called 'pious frauds', originally I think to provide comfort and reassurance to someone (say B) in desperate need of it. As the frauds became habitual, it became clear to me that the dividing line between truth and fiction had effectively been abolished for the person in question: A no longer had any sense of transgression or risk when crossing what was still for me an obvious line (I was not the target of the frauds, but an observer who saw and understood more than the fraud creator believed I did.) What is more, the frauds had become the basis of a way of dealing with life for both the people involved. A kind of small-scale private religion was created before my eyes.

This situation was a very complex one, which I prefer not to describe in greater detail. Did A deceive B? Yes, if a yes or no answer is required. But to say that is certainly not to say something simple.

So when I say 'Joseph Smith deceived his followers', anyone who thinks I am dismissing Smith in an off-hand way is failing to understand what I (and I think others) mean by that word. Smith was obviously a hugely creative, charismatic and empathic person, a true religious entrepreneur. But a deceiver? Yes, in brief - that too.