He is lying that Ritner claimed that there were no other translations when they were and any scholar worth his salt should have known it?
Morris admits that Rhodes' work was "in progress" in early 2000, but that it wasn't published until July of 2002. He complains because Ritner didn't mention Rhodes' translation in his 2003 publication a year later.
So what?
Just as it took Rhodes a couple of years to finish his final maunscript for his translation, Ritner was likely working much longer on his JNES publication. And it seems clear that this was a minor point anyway. Since its discovery in 1967, nobody had provided any formal edition of the Joseph Smith Book of Breathing combining full translation and transliteration, until Rhodes published his in 2002.
This is not an important point since the Rhodes translation doesn't provide any apologetic significance. Morris' point is that "Ritner's failure to mention
The Hor Book of Breathings is an indication that he has not been keeping up with the current research," but he hasn't considered the fact that Rhodes is not even an Egyptologist to begin with. To expect someone of Ritner's academic stature to keep tabs on a publication record of a self proclaimed expert in Egyptology, is a bit silly. Teh most prominent Mormon Egyptologist is Ritner's student, John Gee. And Ritner finds his scholarship to be laughable apologetic nonsense. How much more would he ignore a Mormon who isn't even an Egyptologist at all?
He is lying that Ritner made a statement in his translation about the blacks and the prieshtood in the Church, which was a totally gratuitious statement?
It was a totally factual statement. You only have a problem because Morris has a problem with it, but scholars familiar with scholarship don't have a problem with it. So why should I have a problem with it? Morris wants to dictate the boundaries in which critics can offer criticism. What utter nonsense.
Taking your totally biased attitude and hatred toward the Church
As opposed to your totally biased and deification of the Church?
I think all the readers here can see who is closer on target, you or Larry Morris.
No you don't. That is why FARMS tries to get people like Morris to write up this tripe. He addressed not a single issue that dealt with the apologetic issue. Instead he spent all his time nit-picking little things he didn't like about "tone." Gee, that's original.
So you are on a par with David
As far as knowledge of Hebrew? Of course not. As far as being able to argue points and reaching reasonable conclusions unclouded by theological bias? I'm way ahead of him. I have produced several debates with Bokovoy, and I stand by all of them. I'll let the readers decide if his status at Brandeis will outweigh his inability to successfully argue his points.
and that is why you have been asked to present at just what symposia?
Well, his apologetic tendencies certainly aren't why he has been invited. This is the thing I despise about Mormons in academia. Ignorant followers seem to think it adds credibility to their faith if certain members can actually get doctorate degress and rack up academic feathers in their cap. People like Gee went into Egyptology for the sole purpose of trying to defend Joseph Smith. I'm beginning to think Bokovoy's fascination with Hebrew is along those same lines. Virtually everything they produce has some kind of Mormon twist to it.
It is certainly unusual in the fields I am acquatined with. But you still haven't told us where you have been asked to present?
You're not acquainted with scholarship at all, so stop kidding yourself. And who said I was ever asked to give presentations? You're beating up a straw man or either trying to get a rise out of me. It won't work. I'm proud of the fact that I have not become a whore to academia.
At least the convert population approaches the Book of Mormon from a different point of view than you suggest. But you don't want to acknowledge that, because it shoots your argument down.
We all know the convert population is misled and coerced into baptism, long before they have a firm grasp of the basics. Missionaries try to get people committed after the second discussion for crying out loud. The idea is to get them in officially, so whatever troubling facts they find out later, is no longer on their heads. If the member leaves - which is often the case since most members do leave shortly afterwards - then they become apostates and the subject of ridicule by bigots like yourself.
Stamdard anti-Mormon strategy. If you can't face the truth, call the person a liar. That gets pretty tired. And it is so transparent.
Then Mormons must be some of the best anti-Mormons around. They love to accuse the critics of lying. The difference is, we all know when you guys are lying for the Lord. You think it is in your best "spiritual" interest to do so.
Statements of OPINIONS.
Nobody called Joseph Smith's statements of fact, "opinions" until people like you came around and tried to pull the historical wool over our eyes. Calling them mere opinions doesn't change the fact that they were accepted as fact. Stop with the deception tactics, nobody here is stupid enough to buy into them.
A person who makes a statement as though it were a fact, with nothing concrete to back it up is stating an OPINION.
A person who presents a finding with evidence is stating FACTS. Does that help?
It certainly doesn't help you, since virtually everything the Church teaches must be "opinion." Virtually none of it is supported with anything concrete. Back in the early days of the Church, Joseph Smith's beliefs about the Book of Mormon were understood as fact. We know this. Historians know this. Historians know the HM was the dominant view throughout the last two centuries. But people like you dismiss and ignore this because you're only interested in deceiving your audience. You simply can't handle the truth.
The Prophet reveals doctrines of salvation. It is people, such as yourself, who get hung up on the non-salvific matters who are sadly, and even tragically, off track.
That is a crappy apologetic that likes to assume all the tuff issues are based on "non-salvific matters." That doesn't wash, since Brigham Young and Joseph Smith said it pertained to our salvation to know the character of God, to know he was once a man, to know he was Adam, to know polygamy was commanded of us all, etc. Yet "continuing revelation" by the non-prophets of the Church, turn all of that on its head while the anti-critical nimrods like yourself simply accept it without question. That's pathetic.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein