Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Kishkumen]

Don't be silly. Discussions of issues of scholarship (such as plagiarism) are entirely appropriate in a scholarly paper. Spreading rumors about a person's personal and professional life is not.

I agree, Loblaw.

[_Shiloh]

Mormon teachings diverge from reality in ways that are already apparent to children in junior high and high school.

In fact, if they actually believe what they preach, many (of not all) Mormon GAs would score very poorly on tests in many areas of a good high school's science curriculum. In a Knowledge Bowl setting, they would have their lunch eaten by the every student in the room.

Just when I think you can't say anything more absurd, you always surprise me with gems like this.

Does your arrogance know no bounds?

I believe this is one reason why LDS Church leaders are so reticent to speak publicly outside of faithful Mormon settings, or to speak the press and other news media at all.

WTF????

Holland and Oaks have spoken at Harvard. Oaks at Chicago. GBH did press events all the time.

Probably more but these are the the ones that come to mind first.

As Romney and Holland have recently demonstrated, their unfounded Mormon beliefs tend to turn them high performance gaffe machines as perceived by the general, non-Mormon public.

And it continues.

WTF do Romney's political gaffes have to do with Mormonism.

And oh goodness..... Elder Holland got flustered and bumbled a question -- but actually expressed what some Mormons believe, that the Book of Abraham was a revelation and not a translation.

I'm sure that since you left Mormonism you have never been flustered or said something in a way that was sub-optimal.

The more the rest of the world sees of the Mopologists, Mormon GA's and many among the Mormon royalty (such as Ann and Mitt Romney), and understands how they think, what they believe, and how this informs their public speech, the less attractive the Mormon Church looks.

WTF are you talking about? Yes ... Mormons are so unattractive. That's why a disproportionate number are members of congress. Even Senate Majority leader. Two Mormons ran for President -- one got the nomination. Lots of Mormon CEOs .... I'm Mormon and well-respected by my colleagues in my field.

People don't give a rats ass about your metaphysics if you do your job well. So fine. Mormon beliefs are silly and nonsensical. Stop the presses!!

And there will soon be 70,000 young missionaries out there who will live with this sad reality every day of their two year servitude.

Yes. *sniff*

Just like my poor nephew who has been out 9 months. He's absolutely wasting his time with all of the service projects the mission has been involved with ... OH, and the interpersonal skills developed as a missionary ... a complete waste

But then again, this is coming from someone who thinks earning the admiration of Saudi Royals is a good thing.

[_ludwigm]

In fact, if they actually believe what they preach, many (of not all) Mormon GAs would score very poorly on tests in many areas of a good high school's science curriculum. In a Knowledge Bowl setting, they would have their lunch eaten by the every student in the room.

I believe this is one reason why LDS Church leaders are so reticent to speak publicly outside of faithful Mormon settings, or to speak the press and other news media at all. As Romney and Holland have recently demonstrated, their unfounded Mormon beliefs tend to turn them high performance gaffe machines as perceived by the general, non-Mormon public.

+1
(after I've searched the meaning of "Knowledge Bowl" and "gaffe")

[_Bob Loblaw]

I lost a lot of respect for Jeffrey Holland when he lied to the BBC.

[_Tobin]

So a bit of tit-for-tat is the proper way to respond to perceived slights?

Don't be silly. Discussions of issues of scholarship (such as plagiarism) are entirely appropriate in a scholarly paper. Spreading rumors about a person's personal and professional life is not.

I don't disagree. However, according to the OP, Ritner isn't doing that. I fail to see a discussion of plagiarism in the citation, but I do see an accusation plagiarism in the assessment. So either Kevin is acting as a proxy for Ritner to make that accusation or Kevin is making those accusations without Ritner's knowledge. Either way, something stinks here.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I don't disagree. However, according to the OP, Ritner isn't doing that. I fail to see a discussion of plagiarism in the citation, but I do see an accusation plagiarism in the assessment. So either Kevin is acting as a proxy for Ritner to make that accusation or Kevin is making those accusations without Ritner's knowledge. Either way, something stinks here.

Really? Ritner gives several examples of how Rhodes used his translation without attribution (which is plagiarism). How did you miss that?

[_Sethbag]

Shiloh, I almost feel like a cop getting sucked into a domestic dispute, and all that that implies, but I'm going to resist the angel on my right shoulder and disagree with you a little, in DrW's defense. It is my belief that your past disputes with him are leading you to attack him in this thread in ways that I think aren't reasonable, or at least are misguided.

Mormon teachings diverge from reality in ways that are already apparent to children in junior high and high school.

In fact, if they actually believe what they preach, many (of not all) Mormon GAs would score very poorly on tests in many areas of a good high school's science curriculum. In a Knowledge Bowl setting, they would have their lunch eaten by the every student in the room.

Just when I think you can't say anything more absurd, you always surprise me with gems like this.

Does your arrogance know no bounds?

Actually I think DrW nailed it with this statement.

Consider Mormon GAs actually standing up in a Knowledge Bowl setting (kids who know a few things, not the average ignorami) and asserting the following LDS teachings as fact:
Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens on Earth, and lived around 5000 or 6000 years ago, give or take.

That Adam and Eve performed some act, around 5000 to 6000 years ago, that caused blood to be formed in their human bodies, whereupon they became mortal for the first time, and that this occurred in all other living things extant on Earth at that time, so that things started dying for the very first time since the Earth was created.

All human beings on Earth except Noah and his family were killed in a global flood that occurred about 4000-5000 years ago or so, give or take, and that all humans currently alive on Earth are thus the direct descendants of Noah and his family, after they branched out from the flood landing spot and repopulated the Earth.

600 years before the birth of Jesus there was a group of Christian Jews who sailed over to the Americas and populated them, and who are the ancestors of the Native Americans and the Polynesians.

Ok, imagining these GAs making these assertions in front of this Knowledge Bowl crowd of somewhat informed kids, how do you think this is going to go?

I'm with DrW on this one: the teachings of the church the GAs lead are so absurd in light of what scientists have discovered over the last couple of centuries that well-informed High School students already should know the teachings are BS.

I believe this is one reason why LDS Church leaders are so reticent to speak publicly outside of faithful Mormon settings, or to speak the press and other news media at all.

WTF????

Holland and Oaks have spoken at Harvard. Oaks at Chicago. GBH did press events all the time.

Probably more but these are the the ones that come to mind first.

DrW didn't say it never happens. He said they were reticent about doing it. Which I think is true. And it's not all that hard to see why:

"I don't know that we teach that". Need I really say more about that whole fiasco?
"I am not a dodo." Need I really say more about that fiasco?

Randy Bott did nothing more than repeat what his General Authority leaders throughout his youth and young adulthood, including all the way up to the First Presidency of the church, said over and over again, and got pwned by the church's modern PR department, who essentially threw him under the bus. How likely do you think the FP would be to sit down in an interview to discuss the factual record of the LDS priesthood ban and discuss it substantively?

Would you say they might be "reticent" to do so? I think that would be the understatement of the year. Which I think was part of the point DrW was making.

The more the rest of the world sees of the Mopologists, Mormon GA's and many among the Mormon royalty (such as Ann and Mitt Romney), and understands how they think, what they believe, and how this informs their public speech, the less attractive the Mormon Church looks.

WTF are you talking about? Yes ... Mormons are so unattractive. That's why a disproportionate number are members of congress. Even Senate Majority leader. Two Mormons ran for President -- one got the nomination. Lots of Mormon CEOs .... I'm Mormon and well-respected by my colleagues in my field.

People don't give a rats ass about your metaphysics if you do your job well. So fine. Mormon beliefs are silly and nonsensical. Stop the presses!!

DrW specifically said that Mormonism is unattractive, not that everyone hates Mormons. I don't hate my Mormon relatives and neighbors, for instance, but would I go back and resume active membership? No way in hell, obviously.

So, if you're claiming it isn't unattractive to people, would you care to explain how many of your colleagues in your chosen profession are converting to Mormonism? How the church's convert baptism rate isn't in the toilet? How educated, affluent Americans and western Europeans are flocking to the church in droves?

DrW was talking about the attractiveness of the church to potential converts, not how current members of the church are judged by others. I don't think he was wrong in what he said.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Here are some examples of Ritner discussing evidence of possible plagiarism:

Though never acknowledging the prior appearance of my own study, the transliterations and translations bear striking resemblance to them. Evidence of incomplete reworking of Rhodes’ text shows obvious changes from readings by Nibley to readings by myself (incorporating arcane Demotic). 15 As my earlier Dialogue edition was widely distributed and advance copies were sent to FARMS by the editors of Dialogue in March 2002, 16 one can legitimately raise the question of plagiarism,

Since Rhodes made critical errors in the reading of simple hieroglyphs (see Col. I/2, 3 and 5), his expertise in Demotic is unbelievable (see the comments on Col. IV/9 nhs–k tw). Contrast the basic transcription in Rhodes 2002, p. 35, l. 3 (˙r) with his comments on pp. 11 and 27 (now suddenly Demotic 2). Note that in his paleographic comments, p. 6, the Demotic 2 is unmentioned. Contra Rhodes (following Nibley), an initial writing of ˙r was not reworked in this passage. Given these errors and inconsistencies, praise for Rhodes’ “discussion of the use of a Demotic sign instead of its hieratic equivalent”(!) is without merit in the partisan review by Muhlestein 2005, p. 475. This same uncredited borrowing appears in Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005, p. 35, n. 7. For further “borrowings” in Rhodes 2002, see the incompletely incorporated “n” in Col. II/1; the incompletely incorporated reading of p(£y)–s (for Nibley’s gs) in Col. II/7 (read both gs and ps on p. 80!); the incomplete substitution of qd–k for t¡.t–k in Col. V/7; the incomplete revision of grg into sdr in the same line; and the hasty, but poorly executed, insertion of my reading ¡r s£ in the final vignette, noted below. These obvious “smoking gun” examples leave unanswered the question of how many other (better incorporated) borrowings might exist. Note, however, that I have given him credit for his contribution in Col. III/3.

[_Tobin]

I don't disagree. However, according to the OP, Ritner isn't doing that. I fail to see a discussion of plagiarism in the citation, but I do see an accusation plagiarism in the assessment. So either Kevin is acting as a proxy for Ritner to make that accusation or Kevin is making those accusations without Ritner's knowledge. Either way, something stinks here.

Really? Ritner gives several examples of how Rhodes used his translation without attribution (which is plagiarism). How did you miss that?

16 Personal communication by Neal Chandler, editor of Dialogue, 3/2/02: “We plan to send an advance copy of the article to John Gee this week.” Gee (and Rhodes) had approximately four months (early March to early July) to examine my 2002 edition prior to the appearance of Rhodes’ volume. The July publication date for the Rhodes
volume is stated in Morris 2004, p. 357, n. 7; the new book announcement reached me by email on August 15. My JNES article had been sent to press on June 28, 2002. For reasons given above and throughout this study, I strongly doubt the assertion of Morris 2004, p. 357, that our editions were entirely made “independently of each other.” Mr. Morris, it should be noted, performed editorial duties for Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005; see that volume, p. xxiii. Since my “2003a” article was in press before the appearance of Rhodes 2002, one must disregard the criticism of Muhlestein 2005, p. 473, regarding my failure to cite it. Notably, Muhlestein had no objections to Rhodes’ failure to cite my prior work.

Are you really claiming this is a demonstration of plagiarism by Rhodes? It seems more likely this is what I was talking about and bit of tit-for-tat. However, let's assume Ritner is claiming plariarism here. Where is the evidence? What exactly was plagiarized? It seems like a rather deceitful way of making the charge without correction or even demonstrating the charge is true or valid in the least.

[_Fence Sitter]

After watching William Schryver, Gee ect. hand Graham both cheeks day after day, month after month, thread after thread in the pundits forum at the MDD board over the years, its a wonder he still has the chutzpa to show up anywhere

Hummm one would think if this were at all true, Schryver, Smith and others would show up here, as opposed to hiding behind the skirts of the moderation at MAD.