Kerry Muhlestein Does Video Response to Robert Ritner

[_I have a question]

Strangely, Dr. Muhlestein states that "the Book of Abraham is not based on Egyptology in any way." 11.20

Where does that statement leave Gee’s career-long apologetic work?

[_Shulem]

Strangely, Dr. Muhlestein states that "the Book of Abraham is not based on Egyptology in any way." 11.20

Where does that statement leave Gee’s career-long apologetic work?

Gee would have us believe that Egyptology is based on the Book of Abraham which is the final authority and the revealed truth on which to base modern science. According to Gee, Egyptology and science must bow the knee before Joseph Smith.

You see why I say Gee is an APOSTATE Egyptologist? Do you see why I say that Gee is an enemy to Egyptology? He should be thrown out of the profession and dismissed as a heretic.

[_Philo Sofee]

Dan Petersen has chimed in about he Muhlestein video claiming that all is well with Kerry and the authorities in Egypt.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... raham.html

Which is pure bull roar. Things are NOT well, but there are attempts at a dialogue. Sheesh! Peterson is the misreader of everything these days isn't he?!

[_moksha]

It'll allow Kiwi57 to finally give up on calling everyone who disagrees with him a bigot.

Hard to imagine Kiwi giving up so easily.

[_I have a question]

Strangely, Dr. Muhlestein states that "the Book of Abraham is not based on Egyptology in any way." 11.20

Where does that statement leave Gee’s career-long apologetic work?

William (Bill) Gay Research Chair,[16] which focuses on study directly related to the ancient world and LDS scripture, particularly the Book of Abraham (the chair's current occupant is Egyptologist John Gee).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_Institute
According to that statement from Muhlestein, the William (Bill) Gay Research Chair has been a pointless exercise.

[_aussieguy55]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit

This example of a hypocephalus so similar to Fac 2 I love to know how Kerry would explain the appendage that the 'dove" has.

[_Shulem]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit

This example of a hypocephalus so similar to Fac 2 I love to know how Kerry would explain the appendage that the 'dove" has.

Receive the Holy Ghost!

OMFG. That damn snake really is a problem for Kerry Muhlestein.

:biggrin:

What would President NelSatan do?

[_Simon Southerton]

He still has a bet each way. He is desperately hanging onto both the missing scroll and catalyst theories. Gotta keep that paycheck coming in.

[_Dan Vogel]

They deleted my comment, so I’ll post it here:

Unfortunately, Kerry Muhlestein is still asserting the old Nibley apologetic that the translation of the Book of Abraham came before the three Egyptian Alphabets and Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar book. The best interpretation of the data is that the translation came after. This changes everything. The reversal of chronology that Muhlestein and other maintain makes a complete mess of the documentary evidence, which requires the invention of other strange interpretations promulgated by Muhlestein and John Gee. For a response to such apologetic attempts, see my 8-part video series “Truth of the Book of Abraham.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtJT_xjIgdM

[Guest]

I don’t know if this was posted, does it accompany the video?

Update from Kerry Muhlestein re: Raising the Abrahamic Discourse
September 2, 2020 by Trevor Holyoak 1 Comment

[This is an update to a post from August 25, Raising the Abrahamic Discourse: An Essay on the Nature of Dialogues About the Book of Abraham]

UPDATE
I believe that academic dialogue is important and can be fruitful. There are many scholars who are academically interested in the Book of Abraham, its translation, and its content. Some scholars have even made such study their life’s work. (This is not unusual in many specialized subject areas.)

Regardless of the area of study, all scholars approach any topic with their own sets of existing beliefs. It is impossible for a scholar to be a “blank slate” when it comes to any field of study. It is no surprise that my existing beliefs are consistent with what I view as the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. It is likewise no surprise that others, including Professor Ritner, start with a set of beliefs that preclude divine involvement in the work of Joseph Smith.

With that in mind and because I am truly interested in academic dialogue about the Book of Abraham, before I posted any kind of response online, I personally contacted Professor Ritner. I suggested that we work together on creating an academic volume on the subject. I suggested possible guidelines for doing so, possible academic venues, possible editors, and even a potential table of contents. I modeled it after volumes on contested issues that have been successfully done in academia elsewhere. The goal would be to have a balanced approach observing the highest academic rigor and tone, creating a dialogue with each other rather than having parties who speak past each other. If done correctly, I believe that such an approach can lead to real progress.

Dr. Ritner graciously declined, citing his current health circumstances. This is very understandable. I have responded, letting him know that I am open to other options as long as we can find something that would adhere to appropriate academic standards. I have also offered to fly to Chicago, once pandemic conditions have stabilized, to discuss this matter with him.

Finally, I hope that no one will speculate about Professor Ritner’s reasons for declining my invitation. The best thing for all of us is that others do not presume they know what either his or my intentions are, and that we are both given a reasonable space to work towards something together in the midst of his difficult circumstances. I believe it is possible to make true academic progress in this matter, and will continue to work towards making that happen.

Kerry Muhlestein, September 2, 2020

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2020/09 ... -discourse

I hate when apologists begin by saying everyone has a bias and therefore Mormons have a right to make things up to explain away negative evidence.That's not how scholarship works.The dividing line is not between believers and non-believers, it's between good scholarship and bad scholarship. Just because Muhlestein is a believer and he offers explanations that are consistent with a fundamentalist view of Joseph Smith and Mormonism does not mean that his scholarship isn't "abhorrent," to use Hauglid's term. Haulid's scholarship used to be abhorrent, but his more recent work was, as he promised, more rational and reasoned. Yet he and other Mormon scholars are seeking an explanation for the Book of Abraham that is both faithful and reasonable. Muhlestein's and Gee's approach relies on the invention of several absurd theories: the long scroll; an actual Book of Abraham now missing; the translation was completed by July 1835; the translation came first and then the Egyptian Alphabets; the Alphabets were the work of Phelps, not Joseph Smith; the Hebrew elements in Abraham 3-5 were added in Nauvoo to an already existing text, etc.