Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Bob Loblaw]

I don't find one-sided discussions, criticisms, and allegations compelling. For example, one of the charges here is plagiarism. Plagarism is a serious charge in the academic world. If Ritner really is making that charge, then he should also bring those charges to the proper academic oversight and seek to have them disciplined. If not, then what he is claiming is unconscionable and he should be discredited as a result.

So, your belief is that incidents of alleged plagiarism should never be discussed in public? Oddly, the academic community appears to disagree with you. And why does it discredit him that he's not making a formal complaint of plagiarism? The evidence seems fairly clear in the sections and footnotes Kevin cited, so not going for formal punishment seems kind, not unconscionable.

http://www.nature.com/news/misconduct-i ... 2881517313

[_Kevin Graham]

What Ritner did was demonstrate how the state of Mormon Egyptology is far more pathetic than any of us had previously imagined. I mean they are screwing up and bungling their translations on even the most basic things. I loved the way Nibley was trying to decipher Egyptian by doing word for word translations the same way someone might do so using a dictionary and just connecting the words together. LOL! And all this time we were told Nibley was a linguistic genius who knew enough Egyptian to handle the tasks at hand. I guess his close friend, Klaus Baer, didn't have the heart to tell it like it was with Nibley.

It seems that the only instances of true scholarship come when they plagiarize real scholars, and most of their nonsense is a tragedy of errors where they incestuously copy one another's errors while congratulating themselves for it in Mormon publications, passing this off as "scholarship."

But they obviously asked for it. Ritner's remarks were largely in response to things these guys have been saying about his past criticisms. If they had any sense, they should have just kept their heads down and avoided confrontation with the Master as much as they could.

[_nc47]

What Ritner did was demonstrate how the state of Mormon Egyptology is far more pathetic than any of us had previously imagined. I mean they are screwing up and bungling their translations on even the most basic things. I loved the way Nibley was trying to decipher Egyptian by doing word for word translations the same way someone might do so using a dictionary and just connecting the words together. LOL! And all this time we were told Nibley was a linguistic genius who knew enough Egyptian to handle the tasks at hand. I guess his close friend, Klaus Baer, didn't have the heart to tell it like it was with Nibley.

It seems that the only instances of true scholarship come when they plagiarize real scholars, and most of their nonsense is a tragedy of errors where they incestuously copy one another's errors while congratulating themselves for it in Mormon publications, passing this off as "scholarship."

But they obviously asked for it. Ritner's remarks were largely in response to things these guys have been saying about his past criticisms. If they had any sense, they should have just kept their heads down and avoided confrontation with the Master as much as they could.

Nibley was called a linguistic genius by the Dean of Harvard Divinity School, not just by Mormons.

[_Kevin Graham]

Nibley was called a linguistic genius by the Dean of Harvard Divinity School, not just by Mormons.

And now we can put that myth to rest.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

Ritner agrees with you in that Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian and shows why those who do think he could, are wrong. He does this by showing how poor their skills in Egyptology are. He is especially familiar with the capabilities of Gee since Gee was Ritner's student.

Yes, I know. That really wasn't the point I was making. I think it would be better to fairly and accurately make your arguments and demonstrate how and why they are mistaken and leave it at that.

[_nc47]

Nibley was called a linguistic genius by the Dean of Harvard Divinity School, not just by Mormons.

And now we can put that myth to rest.

Right, based on some anti-Mormon polemicist.

[_Kevin Graham]

Right, based on some anti-Mormon polemicist.

Uh huh, if that's what you need to believe, go ahead. The fact is Ritner demonstrated just how sophomorpic Nibley's understanding of Egyptian really was. He didn't assert it, he demonstrated it. And Nibley's attempt to declare something "gibberish" just because he couldn't properly translate it, was dishonest. Dismissing Ritner as an "anti-Mormon polemicist" is a typical apologetic cop-out.

Your attempt to spread a myth about something a former Dean allegedly said, is typical myth that has been spread about the web for more than a decade, and it is based on hearsay published by a Mormon (Truman Madsen) whose intention was to idolize this guy.

But however Smart Nibley may have been, there is no getting around the fact that he was willing to lie for the Lord. Yes, I said it. He willfully lied and suppressed evidence that conflicted with his arguments. For that reason he was untrustworthy and a very poor scholar. He is probably the reason the Church has produced so many others who were willing to lie just the same. He was their role model.

So Gee has no problem lying about two inks in the KEP because he knows his mentor Nibley lied about the non-existence of rubrics in the Joseph Smith papyri. Truth doesn't matter to these guys, all that matters is how well you can manipulate the truth for your religious cause.

[_Tobin]

I don't find one-sided discussions, criticisms, and allegations compelling. For example, one of the charges here is plagiarism. Plagarism is a serious charge in the academic world. If Ritner really is making that charge, then he should also bring those charges to the proper academic oversight and seek to have them disciplined. If not, then what he is claiming is unconscionable and he should be discredited as a result.

So, your belief is that incidents of alleged plagiarism should never be discussed in public? Oddly, the academic community appears to disagree with you. And why does it discredit him that he's not making a formal complaint of plagiarism? The evidence seems fairly clear in the sections and footnotes Kevin cited, so not going for formal punishment seems kind, not unconscionable.

http://www.nature.com/news/misconduct-i ... 2881517313

That isn't what I said. However, if you are going to make public charges like that, then you should follow through if you really believe they are true. It isn't a kindness to level a serious charge, and then not pursue it. Would it be alright if I were to witness a murder, tell a few of my friends and the newspaper and then not report it to the police (out of a kindness)?

[_nc47]

Right, based on some anti-Mormon polemicist.

Uh huh, if that's what you need to believe, go ahead. The fact is Ritner demonstrated just how sophomorpic Nibley's understanding of Egyptian really was. He didn't assert it, he demonstrated it. And Nibley's attempt to declare something "gibberish" just because he couldn't properly translate it, was dishonest. Dismissing Ritner as an "anti-Mormon polemicist" is a typical apologetic cop-out.

Your attempt to spread a myth about something a former Dean allegedly said, is typical myth that has been spread about the web for more than a decade, and it is based on hearsay published by a Mormon (Truman Madsen) whose intention was to idolize this guy.

But however Smart Nibley may have been, there is no getting around the fact that he was willing to lie for the Lord. Yes, I said it. He willfully lied and suppressed evidence that conflicted with his arguments. For that reason he was untrustworthy and a very poor scholar. He is probably the reason the Church has produced so many others who were willing to lie just the same. He was their role model.

So Gee has no problem lying about two inks in the KEP because he knows his mentor Nibley lied about the non-existence of rubrics in the Joseph Smith papyri. Truth doesn't matter to these guys, all that matters is how well you can manipulate the truth for your religious cause.

You are clueless dude. The quote was published in Barlow's book by Oxford and cited by an evangelical journal.

Even Brent Metcalfe has noted Hugh Nibley is well-venerated outside LDS circles.

[_Fence Sitter]

Yes, I know. That really wasn't the point I was making. I think it would be better to fairly and accurately make your arguments and demonstrate how and why they are mistaken and leave it at that.

Perhaps you can point out how Ritner was inaccurate or unfair in his remarks to back up what you are saying.

And by your reasoning then show us where Gee, Rhodes and or Muhlstein have sued Ritner for defamation, because lacking any such suit (again using your reasoning) obviously they agree with Ritner. Certainly they are not refraining out of kindness to Ritner.