Robert Ritner Gives the Final Word on the Missing Scroll!

[_Carton]

What evidence is there that if the missing scroll portions were shown to be long enough to contain the Book of Abraham that the Book of Abraham is actually on those missing portions?

Good question.

[_Quasimodo]

Why does Ritner even care about this relatively small group of people that believe these crazy theories?

Bless his heart for stooping to address the crazies!

Sadly, I doubt that it will have much effect on the truly faithful. I've learned on this board that no amount of evidence (no matter how reliable) will sway them.

[_Fence Sitter]

Why does Ritner even care about this relatively small group of people that believe these crazy theories?

Could it be that he is trying to distance himself from Gee?

[_Carton]

Why does Ritner even care about this relatively small group of people that believe these crazy theories?

Bless his heart for stooping to address the crazies!

Sadly, I doubt that it will have much effect on the truly faithful. I've learned on this board that no amount of evidence (no matter how reliable) will sway them.

I'm just impressed he is smart enough to understand the Smith/Cook article. I sure wasn't. But that isn't saying much. I flunked out of geometry in high school.

[Guest]

Hey FS,

What evidence is there that if the missing scroll portions were shown to be long enough to contain the Book of Abraham that the Book of Abraham is actually on those missing portions?

In addition to the many complete and utterly bizarre things that one finds weaved into the entire fabric of Book of Abraham (KEP) discussion, I find the suggested proposed "possibilty" that part/parts of the scroll is missing to be another bizarre piece to a very bizarre puzzle.

Having said that, the "possibilty" does/will serve the desired purpose.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Carton]

Why does Ritner even care about this relatively small group of people that believe these crazy theories?

Could it be that he is trying to distance himself from Gee?

I think he did that a long time ago, didn't he? Isn't he the one who didn't want to let Gee get his PhD because he thought he was going to use it to do Mormon apologetics?

[_Fence Sitter]

Having said that, the "possibilty" does/will serve the desired purpose.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Perhaps, but if we get to a point where people agree that the scroll was long enough to contain the Book of Abraham then, to me at least, it just creates the problem of showing why there is any reason to believe that is what it contained.

If by "desired purpose" you mean giving the faithful something to hang on to, maybe. Either the faithful will be following the discussion and will know they have just shifted the problem from one area to another or they will not have been following it and remain unscathed either way. Of course there will be those believers who will only hear "it was long enough" and fail to ask the next question.

[_Chap]

.... Isn't [Robert Ritner] the one who didn't want to let Gee get his PhD because he thought he was going to use it to do Mormon apologetics?

That is the impression that some people would like to give.

What we actually know (because he has said so publicly) is that he asked to be removed from Gee's PhD committee, thereby disabling himself from putting forward any obstacle to Gee being granted the PhD.

That looks, does it not, like someone who was well aware of the possibility that some people would say that he "didn't want to let Gee get his PhD because he thought he was going to use it to do Mormon apologetics", and took steps to remove the grounds for that claim.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Why would Ritner get involved in this argument going on between a handful of Mormons? Does seem a bit odd.

Ritner was Klaus Baer's student. And John Gee was Ritner's student. This topic is in his academic genealogy.

Plus, how often does an Egyptologist get the chance to arbitrate a dispute for a living religion that millions of people still actually believe? :)

[_Quasimodo]

I'm just impressed he is smart enough to understand the Smith/Cook article. I sure wasn't. But that isn't saying much. I flunked out of geometry in high school.

But you are smart enough to pick Sidney Carton (and Ronald Colman) as your avatar. Carton is my favorite Dickens character.