Open Letter to Kerry Muhlestein, Mormon Egyptologist

[_Lemmie]

People come to believe they were abducted first by believing that others have been abducted.

:biggrin:

[_Gadianton]

Yeah, that's a pretty good line.

[_Philo Sofee]

This is an outstanding thread, and the OP throws down the gauntlet as well as I have ever seen it interated. Mozeltov, Philo Sofee!

The posts in response by Kishkumen and Physics Guy are spot on. I particularly like the flare of the analogy: "Wine from a dusty bottle with a fancy label actually tastes better because you make sure to appreciate however it tastes." Physics Guy gets a two-for with that one; backhanded slap at the pretentiousness of the wine tasting culture, while putting down the appeal to the old because of its age somehow imbuing it with importance beyond that which it merits.

Apologetic 'scholarship' is like being all dressed with no place to go. It is like Gloria Swanson in full make-up and regalia descending the staircase of her home on (and in) Sunset Boulevard, imploring that she's "ready for her close-up, Mr. DeMille." Feelings are not evidence. That bears repeating, feelings are not evidence.

Come here if you have the cajones, Mr. Muhlestein, but don't bring L. Tom Perry's briefcase bulging with nothingness. Come with evidences.

Thank you, that is very nice to say. But RFM has demonstrated the Mormons want no part of truth and reality. They want their mythology over truth, their fantasy over reality. They are simply not capable of coming here and dialoguing, and they know it, and we know it. They cannot win, the evidence refutes them. It actually is just that simple now.

[_Dr Exiled]

They are chicken or the brethren who control them are chicken or both. Let's not stare at the stains on their pants as they run away. The latest exchange is embarrassing enough for them.

[_moksha]

[_Physics Guy]

The thing about the old wine bottles is, that they really work.

I believe that some people really can taste wine in incredible detail. Some people have perfect pitch, too. I have a mild case of red-green color blindness, tinnitus, and a palate dulled by chronic sinusitis. None of these is a really bad case but I make no pretensions to sensory acuity in general. Plus I just don’t notice stuff. So I believe real wine experts exist but I know I’m not one.

Most other people aren’t, either. Most people can’t tell red wine from white if they’re served at equal temperature in the dark. So people go a lot by cues to how wine is supposed to taste.

But taste is a subjective experience anyway. It makes no sense to say, “That wine didn’t really taste good, you just thought that it did.” Or at least it doesn’t make much sense. Worrying about how genuine an inherently subjective experience really is, that’s some tricky stuff.

Fancy bottles may not be as active an ingredient in wine as the alcohol is but I think they compete with the esters. At least for most people. And I think an awful lot of our thoughts and feelings are like this.

That’s a humbling perspective to me, because in one way it’s silly. We’re all snobs who like things for dumb reasons. But on the other hand that cynical judgement undermines itself. If we’re supposed to look only at the product itself and not regard its source or its package, then consider our thoughts and feelings about a product—or about anything—as a product themselves.

What difference does it make to our thoughts and feelings whether they came from dumb causes? They are what they are, and if they’re good then we owe thanks to whatever spawned them whether it be small or great. Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about a supposed tavern conversation between William Shakespeare and Ben Jonson on the sources of Shakespeare’s characters. The poem acknowledges that the charming accounts might have been drunken rambling but takes the attitude,

... if half of it were liquor
Blessed be the vintage!

And if half the taste of the liquor were in the label, blessed be the labeler.

[Guest]

...
But taste is a subjective experience anyway. It makes no sense to say, “That wine didn’t really taste good, you just thought that it did.” Or at least it doesn’t make much sense. Worrying about how genuine an inherently subjective experience really is, that’s some tricky stuff.

She ain't pretty she just looks that way

[_Stem]

Excellent letter.

Muhlestein has no intention to engage. Ritner pointed out a million things in the podcast series some of us listened to. Muhlestein mentions an item or two, without mentioning Ritner, and without an attempt to engage what specifically was being said, and then complains about the lack of engagement. He's simply signaling to apologists and using authority (in this case by virtue of his degree) to pacify any questioners. I don't know Muhlestein and I do not care hardly at all about the Book of Abraham. I still think it's about as useful to a Mormon as is 3/4ths of the Old Testament. They simply are largely ignored. For some reason I've followed it to some degree or another and during workouts I listened to the Ritner podcast (it was good). Anyway, I don't know why any Mormon would care at all, anyway.

The Mormon Church could say tomorrow, "the Book of Abraham isn't scripture. I mean we like some of it, but it's not scripture. We're going to take it out of the cannon, even if we believe that one passage we keep quoting. We'll quote it and use it, but the rest, I mean, it's kind weird and may not really represent anything true about the real old time Abraham. Just know, believers, Joseph didn't really elevate it as scripture and it was only elevated as such because back in the 19th century after Joseph died there were some speculations and those took on a life of their own sometimes. But they didn't mislead anyone. I mean it's fine. We're in control and get it. You know? So just keep on believing and reading your scriptures. You can read the Book of Abraham, just don't worry too much about it. And Jesus loves you, don't forget."

And the members largely wouldn't blink an eye. I mean certainly some will be appalled and upset (Gee and Muhlestein will basically lose their jobs), but most won't care. I"m only pointing this out to suggest that's why Muhlestein gets away with it--no one cares.

[_Dr Moore]

It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the tactics deployed by Hamblin (to Jenkins), and Muhelstein (to Ritner, without naming Ritner).

Avoid the direct questions
Hold up the ignorance of scholarship ("there is so much we don't know")
Complain about the venue
Question the accuser's sincerity
Refuse to admit even the most obvious as evidence "against"
Demand to admit purely internal evidence "for"

[_DarkHelmet]

For an idea of how Kerry M. would reply to Kerry S., head on over to the Mormon Dialog board. They have a 15 page thread going on the RFM/Dehlin interview of Ritner. It gives me a headache to read their arguments. Someone actually threw out the argument that Muhlestein made in his blog post, that Ritner should not assume that Joseph incorrectly reconstructed facsimile 1 because it is likely the scroll was damaged after Joseph made the facsimile, and therefore it always had a human head on the priest, and he is trying to sacrifice Abraham etc. It's all so stupid. I appreciate what Ritner is doing, and we can't expect his arguments to convert hardcore believers. It's like Carl Sagan (if he was alive) trying to convince flat earthers they are wrong. You can't force people to stop believing what they desperately want to believe. At some point they have to decide for themselves to join the rest of us in the real world.