Smoot on Youtube

[_aussieguy55]

He looks like a young kid. Talking about the translation of the Book of Mormon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIWyFB-01ig

[_moksha]

One of the participants made a very good point: Using a brown stone is just part of the normal translation process, so it should not be regarded as "a big deal".

[_Kevin Graham]

I like how they got one if the 17 black Mormons on the planet involved. Gotta keep it PC. Having a couple of gay guys however, doesn't excuse the exclusion of a female.

[Guest]

Jesus Christ, this guy really doesn't care about ever getting a job in his field. I'm so glad BYU is saving a spot for him in Religious Education.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm so glad BYU is saving a spot for me in Religious Education.

They should be so lucky.

[_Symmachus]

I'm so glad BYU is saving a spot for me in Religious Education.

They should be so lucky.

Ha! I meant to write "for him" (Mr. Smoot)...damn auto-correcting phone.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Jesus Christ, this guy really doesn't care about ever getting a job in his field. I'm so glad BYU is saving a spot for him in Religious Education.

I think that this video, along with his blogging, etc., is in keeping with what I've said about him elsewhere: his main goal is to become a Dan Peterson-esque Mopologist. I sincerely doubt that his main interest is in eventually scoring a tenured professorship at Yale, or something in that vein. (If it is...well, then, I think you've discussed his prospects in rather vivid, brutal, and convincing detail, Symmachus....) It may be worth pointing out that so many of the Mopologists wound up at BYU; it's not as if they scored positions at non-LDS institutions. Bushman, Givens, and Hardy all have (or had) postings at other universities, but then again, I wouldn't really count them as Mopologists. As for Smoot, I think that he really wants to be this sort of "semi-celebrity" who other Mormons look up to: someone who can manufacture biting responses to critics, and who sort of hovers around the scene, gadfly-style.

[_Shulem]

One of the participants made a very good point: Using a brown stone is just part of the normal translation process, so it should not be regarded as "a big deal".

No big deal? Supernatural cultish practices are no big deal?

It's just a small deal, right? That's why the church never talked about it. It's a normal way to translate Egyptian into English.

I get it now.

[_Symmachus]

Jesus Christ, this guy really doesn't care about ever getting a job in his field. I'm so glad BYU is saving a spot for him in Religious Education.

I think that this video, along with his blogging, etc., is in keeping with what I've said about him elsewhere: his main goal is to become a Dan Peterson-esque Mopologist. I sincerely doubt that his main interest is in eventually scoring a tenured professorship at Yale, or something in that vein. (If it is...well, then, I think you've discussed his prospects in rather vivid, brutal, and convincing detail, Symmachus....) It may be worth pointing out that so many of the Mopologists wound up at BYU; it's not as if they scored positions at non-LDS institutions. Bushman, Givens, and Hardy all have (or had) postings at other universities, but then again, I wouldn't really count them as Mopologists. As for Smoot, I think that he really wants to be this sort of "semi-celebrity" who other Mormons look up to: someone who can manufacture biting responses to critics, and who sort of hovers around the scene, gadfly-style.

You know, when I read a similar sentiment you expressed on another thread—namely, that Mormonism is driving his interest in Egyptology rather than the subject itself—I thought that there is no way someone would do that. I mean, Smoot is a bright guy, so he can learn Egyptian on his own. It's not like you need to go to graduate school to do it, anymore than you need to get a PhD in Spanish to learn that language.

But then I remembered this from John Gee:

Egyptology itself provides no framework for making use of the knowledge of ancient Egypt that our discipline provides. Grounding in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, provides precisely such a framework. That framework led me to the field of study and without it there seems little point in looking back thousands of years if they have nothing to offer. I am an Egyptologist because I am a Latter-day Saint, not despite being one....

What if the Church of Jesus Christ is not true? [gratuitous Shakespeare quotation meant to display Gee's Nibley-esque learning removed-Symm.] then Egyptology is a waste of time. Since Egyptology every year produces far more written material than anyone can keep up with, most of what we write now is hardly read. Who will care about our research in twenty, or two hundred, or two thousand years? If, on the other hand, the gospel is true, then death is not the end and the research I do can have an eternal aspect to it. These people whom I study now I may meet one day. What will they think about what I have written about them? I will need to be not just fair to them, but I need to strive to actually get it right.

Well, there's an admission right there, Dr. Scratch. Egyptology is a waste of time, and his only reason to study it is because it has some connection to the Mormon gospel.

Of course, from my view, I would counter that, if the "Church of Jesus Christ" is true, then Egyptology is a total waste of time, along with just about every other human activity that isn't home teaching, temple work, genealogy, and missionary activity.

Many of the great scholars I admire, though, were so devoted to their subject precisely because the weight of mortality rested so heavily on their shoulders. As one Egyptian put it in the 19th Dynasty:

Man perishes. His corpse turns to dust. All his relatives pass away. But writings make him remembered in the mouth of the reader. (Chester Beatty Papyrus 4, trans. Toby Wilkinson and his little brown rock)

Gee's admission displays the narrow bounds of his own imagination.

[_Chap]

Many of the great scholars I admire, though, were so devoted to their subject precisely because the weight of mortality rested so heavily on their shoulders. As one Egyptian put it in the 19th Dynasty:

Man perishes. His corpse turns to dust. All his relatives pass away. But writings make him remembered in the mouth of the reader. (Chester Beatty Papyrus 4, trans. Toby Wilkinson and his little brown rock)

Gee's admission displays the narrow bounds of his own imagination.

Eagerly I googled, only to find:

in iw wn dy mi Hr-dd.f
in iw ky mi ii-m-Htp
Brad Wilcox xpr hAw n.n mi nfrti
Xty pAy.sn tpy
di.i rx.k rn n ptH-m-DHwty
xa-xpr-ra-snb
in iw ky mi ptH-Htp
kA-ir.s m mitt

Is there anyone here like Hordedef?
Is there another like Imhotep?
There is no family born for us like Neferty,
and Khety their leader.
Let me remind you of the name of Ptahemdjehuty
Khakheperraseneb.
Is there another like Ptahhotep?
Kaires too?

I can hear the scribe saying 'Damn! I just immortalised those guys and forgot to mention my own name. Doh!!