Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Kishkumen]

No, no--I wasn't meaning to refer to "Mopologetic peer review." I was talking about the "reputable academic journals with a double-blind peer review process." Some of the Mopologists have suggested at times that Gee has managed to weave LDS apologetic arguments into the articles he's published in these "reputable academic journals." In other words, that he's surreptitiously putting, say, pro-Book of Abraham material into these articles such that the double-blind reviewers don't realize what he's doing.

If he's "sneaking" things like that into the articles, then it strikes me as being on a par with "Metcalfe is Butthead."

In my view that is a poor analogy. "Metcalfe is Butthead" is a juvenile swipe that has nothing to do with the substance of the article itself. It is unprofessional behavior. Good thing it was caught before the journal went out.

I am not sure whether Gee's arguments on other issues were driven by LDS assumptions or not. We all bring our unique perspective and biases to the table. We should be open about them as much as possible. There is no purely objective interpreter or interpretation. If Gee sees things that are compatible with his Mormon worldview, that is fairly predictable. He may be wrong or right in seeing those things. I don't know. Someone's Marxist view of Egyptology may or may not be right.

Real academic peer review is supposed to weed out those pieces that bring nothing of use to the discussion. I have seen and rejected some oddball arguments in my time. I am sure Egyptologists are likewise on the alert for the nut bag whose arguments are driven by a conviction of the truth of the film Stargate. If Gee's arguments had wandered too far into that territory, he would likely have seen his piece rejected on that basis. If some of his assumptions and arguments were a little quirky, but within the realm of plausible, they would not have fatally compromised the publication. I think DrW is basically right about that.

[_Kishkumen]

Robert Ritner is one of the finest Egyptologists in the U.S. His work is highly respected. His LDS detractors, on the other hand, have resorted to false accusations to tarnish his reputation among Mormons. That being the case, I have little doubt about who is dealing honestly and who isn't. Gee has been known to play fast and loose with scholarship on Mormon topics in order to protect testimonies in a paternalistic fashion. I give his Mormon apologetics and scholarship very low marks. He has distorted the truth in a misguided quest to protect the faith of others.

I post this to remind everyone of how I entered the thread. Tell me whether it looks like I am "coming after" Kevin here.

[_Chap]

Robert Ritner is one of the finest Egyptologists in the U.S. His work is highly respected. His LDS detractors, on the other hand, have resorted to false accusations to tarnish his reputation among Mormons. That being the case, I have little doubt about who is dealing honestly and who isn't. Gee has been known to play fast and loose with scholarship on Mormon topics in order to protect testimonies in a paternalistic fashion. I give his Mormon apologetics and scholarship very low marks. He has distorted the truth in a misguided quest to protect the faith of others.

I post this to remind everyone of how I entered the thread. Tell me whether it looks like I am "coming after" Kevin here.

I am glad to see this repeated, particularly the bolded part.

On this, though:

... it will become less problematic over time, as people come to understand what Joseph Smith was actually doing, as opposed to what they had assumed to be the case.

What concerns me is whether Joseph Smith was doing what he told his followers he was doing - and these were on the whole simple people who he must have known would take what he said in the literal and grammatical sense.

E.g. if Smith said "An angel appeared to me and told me where to find some ancient gold plates. I went and dug them up, and now I am translating an ancient book from them about Jews who came to America about 600 BC", then they would have interpreted him as saying that he had done just that.

If what he said was not true in the sense in which he must have known the great majority of his followers would understand it, then either he was deluded or he was being deliberately untruthful - and by that I mean "untruthful" in the sense that his followers most probably used the word about important things in their lives, and as indeed most people continue to use it today.

[_Themis]

What Joseph Smith was doing is uninteresting to you, so long as you can conclude confidently that it is all BS.

This is the issue most members are interested in when confronted with the problems of the Book of Abraham. Most apologists cling to the missing papyri because they know Joseph did claim to translate Egyptian in the way most people define the word. I know that there is a small and growing group that have catalyst type view of it. If it works for them fine, but It seems a very unreasonable view of God.

Listen, I don't care whether you believe in Mormonism or not. My questions are of a different kind. I want to understand what it was he was doing from a historical point of view. You evidently do not (you can correct me if I am mistaken), so we have little to discuss on this topic.

I do think there are some interesting things to try and understand with Joseph Smith just from a secular POV. Most of what goes on though is not. I think Gee like most apologists are less interested in this then in defending beliefs about Joseph Smith's as God's prophet.

[_Sammy Jankins]

If what he said was not true in the sense in which he must have known the great majority of his followers would understand it, then either he was deluded or he was being deliberately untruthful - and by that I mean "untruthful" in the sense that his followers most probably used the word about important things in their lives, and as indeed most people continue to use it today.

Silly Chap. Only the ignorant take Joseph Smith's claims at face value. You need to join the ranks of the "thoughtful" and "nuanced" who reinterpret what Joseph Smith meant by words such as 'translate' and phrases such as 'represented by these characters' to try to rescue Joseph Smiths prophetic claims. have a more intellectual world view.

[_Kishkumen]

From antiquity people have believed that Egyptian was a special language and that its hieroglyphs contained secret knowledge. That being the case, I have a difficult time seeing how Smith could be considered dishonest for maintaining that perspective and assuming others believed likewise.

[_Kishkumen]

Silly Chap. Only the ignorant take Joseph's smith claims at face value. You need to join the ranks of the "thoughtful" and "naunced" who reinterpret what Joseph Smith meant by words such as 'translate' and phrases such as 'represented by these characters' to try to rescue Joseph Smiths prophetic claims. have a more intellectual world view.

I find it amusing that you see your ignorance as a special form of intellectual clarity on these issues, and that, furthermore, you suppose I am trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here. Believe what you like; I really don't care. Good scholarship is generally about the quest to understand things on their own terms, not to make theological declarations about ultimate concerns or Truth. Smith was operating with a magical, esoteric, and Freemasonic perspective. It may be comforting to dismiss him as a conman and a fraud, but fulsome historical understanding is only frustrated by such simplistic dismissals.

[_Sammy Jankins]

From antiquity people have believed that Egyptian was a special language and that its hieroglyphs contained secret knowledge. That being the case, I have a difficult time seeing how Smith could be considered dishonest for maintaining that perspective and assuming others believed likewise.

Indeed. Egyptian is such a special language that the the Book of Abraham is actually on the extant papyri. You just have to read "between the lines."

[_Kishkumen]

Indeed. Egyptian is such a special language that the the Book of Abraham is actually on the extant papyri. You just have to read "between the lines."

Just let me know when you are interested in something more worthwhile than making snarky comments in regards to this conversation.

[_Sammy Jankins]

I find it amusing that you see your ignorance as a special form of intellectual clarity on these issues, and that, furthermore, you suppose I am trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here. Believe what you like; I really don't care. Good scholarship is generally about the quest to understand things on their own terms, not to make theological declarations about ultimate concerns or Truth. Smith was operating with a magical, esoteric, and Freemasonic perspective. It may be comforting to dismiss him as a conman and a fraud, but fulsome historical understanding is only frustrated by such simplistic dismissals.

Stop calling me ignorant you pretentious asshole.
You want to study Joseph Smith then do so by all means. But I'm not buying the apologetic that God was such a piss poor communicator that he wouldn't make it clear what the translation actually a catalyst for revealation or whatever post hoc apologetic you believe.
More than that, are you really making the argument that the nature of the Egyptain language really excuses the butchering of the "translation" found in Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3?

I'd love to see a non-Mormon Egyptologist asses your "educated" take.