Kerry Muhlestein responds

[Rosebud]

https://interpreterfoundation.org/raisi ... ent-333034

"Further, a sad aspect of these online communications has been the efforts to just be dismissive of those who hold opposing points of view. Those who say that scholars such as myself or John Gee are pseudo-Egyptologists or only have a patina of scholarship have either completely failed to do their homework, or have willingly misconstrued the truth, presumably to help further their agendas"

KerryM questions the usefulness of online exchanges. He responds to the challenges to the academic work produced by those who accept the Book of Abraham. He attempts explanations as to why Anubis does not have a jackal head and suggests the printer might have added the head.

[_consiglieri]

Details...?

Details ...?

Nope!

No details.

[Guest]

We live in an era of online communications

This environment has provided a plethora of information to communicate with each other.

If these online communications have a downside, it is ensuring the accuracy of the information they convey. Many are accurate

I think mine is accurate. I quote Joseph Smith, his associates, and other credible eyewitnesses. Then I provide reasonable, thoughtful, and logical comments about what they said. Do you think that's something you might like to try, Kerry?

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II

I will probably continue to participate in such venues on some occasions in the future. When I do participate, I try to do all I can to make sure that the platform will encourage and maintain an appropriate kind of accurate discourse.

I look forward to Muhlestein making an appearance on Radio Free Mormon. Perhaps this would be a wonderful opportunity for Kerry to express himself and help RFM see the errors of his ways?

I will use one example. In one recent podcast Joseph Smith was attacked for what the guest felt was an inaccurate reconstruction of a missing part of a drawing on a papyrus. The debated point is whether a now-missing depiction of a head should have been of a human head or the head of the Egyptian god Anubis. If that part of the papyrus were already missing, then Joseph Smith seems to have directed the engraver of the facsimile to depict the figure with a human head, although we cannot be positive even on that point. In the podcast it was stated that this is not how such depictions were drawn, and thus Joseph Smith was inaccurate.

Please bring your knowledge of Church history coupled with Egyptology to the table and discuss this matter on Radio Free Mormon.

Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.

President Smith, chief editor for the Times and Seasons made explicit statements about his involvement in making the Facsimile reproductions. He was very much in charge. He wanted things done exactly as he prescribed. He said so. He also said he was responsible for all of it. It's simply a matter of taking what Smith said at face value. That is exactly what I do and I encourage you to do the same.

In fact, a good scholarly treatment of this vignette should admit that there are enough unusual things about it that we cannot honestly claim that we fully understand what is going on with it.

How about you appear on Radio Free Mormon and discuss this matter with RFM?

Additionally, whether originally the drawing depicted Anubis’s jackal head or the head of a human, it would have been understood that the role being performed would have been performed by a priest. Perhaps it was a priest representing Anubis, but a priest nonetheless.

Here is where you are wrong: Egyptology 101. This is not a scene for an Egyptian priest who dons a mask. This is a scene depicting the actual god Anubis who needs no mask because he's a jackal although he is in human form rather than his natural four footed jackal form! Hello, Kerry, it's Egypt 101! This is a scene with the actual god Osiris rising on his lion bed. The scene in Facsimile No.3 is not an earthly scene where a priest would wear a mask. It's a scene in heaven. That is really Anubis whom Smith :question: mutilated -- not a man with a mask.

Kerry, let me ask you a simple question. When you see Anubis featured on tomb walls in his full jackal form having four legs and feet; is he donning a mask?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

What makes you think human form Anubis in heaven is a mortal priest from earth donning a mask? Please explain your reasoning. Please, just answer the above question and let's discuss real Egyptology.

[_I have a question]

Perhaps Muhlestein will invite Ritner to participate in an online scholarly debate, like Hamblin and Jenkins did.

[_Dr Moore]

Remarkably specific identification of the accusation. Why is he not able to be as specific about the defense?

[_Shulem]

In fact, a good scholarly treatment of this vignette should admit that there are enough unusual things about it that we cannot honestly claim that we fully understand what is going on with it.

Your peers other than John Gee disagree with you. The world body of Egyptologists in a collective effort are going to agree with Robert Ritner's expert analysis rather than pseudo-Egyptian ideas in order to support Smith's ignorance regarding Egyptian language and iconography. So, it's Gee and Muhlestein against the whole world!

Thus, if that piece of papyrus were missing when Joseph Smith first acquired it, and if he said it should be reconstructed to depict a priest, such a reconstruction would be accurate to the meaning of the drawing, which would be remarkable in and of itself.

Whether the piece was missing or not when Smith acquired it the original had a jackal head and a HEADDRESS as remnants of that headdress have survived on the original vignette. We can clearly see the lower outline. Smith did not include a headdress just as he didn't include a jackal head. Smith was wrong on both accounts in making his restoration through Hedlock, his appointed assistant.

Moreover, we do not know if Joseph Smith was intending to provide us with what this would have been like anciently, or if he was trying to provide us with what we should derive from it spiritually in our day. We just don’t have enough data to know if the Prophet engaged in reconstructing this depiction, and if he did, why he did so or the relationship between their original context and their new one. Nor do we know enough about the intent of the original creators of the depiction. There is too little data to reach any firm conclusions on this point.

You don't KNOW? What do mean you don't "know"? Have you not read what Smith has actually said and wrote? You have some studying to do Kerry or you're just lying at this point. Go get the facts and then come back and tell us what we don't "know"! Smith made many clear cut statements about what he was doing and what he was revealing. So also did his assistants.

You're not fooling me, Kerry. I think you're lying and know better but are twisting and denying historic records in order to save faith in something that has been proven false.

I think that's evil.

[_Stem]

For example, some of the podcasts have addressed ancient Egyptian aspects of the Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. A lot of good scholarship has been exhibited when discussing the Egyptological interpretations of those drawings, and I find that discussion to be fruitful. Yet the valid data is then applied to the topic at hand based on a misunderstanding of what Latter-day Saint scholars believe or have said. In such a case we end up with good data and problematic application of it. This must be at least partially the fault of Latter-day Saint scholars. Apparently we need to do a better job of communicating what we think about these things. Hopefully a dialogue can be struck where we learn from one another rather than talk past one another. Until then, online communications will inevitably present somewhat meaningless sides of a discussion on different trajectories. Misrepresentations of points of view, even unintentionally, can only lead to misinformation.

I thought the offer was to have a conversation between the sides? Why is he intent on talking past each other while also complaining about talking past each other? I don't see how that's helpful.

Still he brought up an interesting point or two:

In one recent podcast Joseph Smith was attacked for what the guest felt was an inaccurate reconstruction of a missing part of a drawing on a papyrus. The debated point is whether a now-missing depiction of a head should have been of a human head or the head of the Egyptian god Anubis. If that part of the papyrus were already missing, then Joseph Smith seems to have directed the engraver of the facsimile to depict the figure with a human head, although we cannot be positive even on that point. In the podcast it was stated that this is not how such depictions were drawn, and thus Joseph Smith was inaccurate.

At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.

Further, in the same podcast it was pointed out that there are a number of unique features about this particular drawing (not all of which the guest or host pointed out). It seems logically inconsistent to dictate that one unknown part of the papyrus must conform to known drawings when other known parts of the papyrus clearly do not. In fact, a good scholarly treatment of this vignette should admit that there are enough unusual things about it that we cannot honestly claim that we fully understand what is going on with it.

Additionally, whether originally the drawing depicted Anubis’s jackal head or the head of a human, it would have been understood that the role being performed would have been performed by a priest. Perhaps it was a priest representing Anubis, but a priest nonetheless. Thus, if that piece of papyrus were missing when Joseph Smith first acquired it, and if he said it should be reconstructed to depict a priest, such a reconstruction would be accurate to the meaning of the drawing, which would be remarkable in and of itself.

Moreover, we do not know if Joseph Smith was intending to provide us with what this would have been like anciently, or if he was trying to provide us with what we should derive from it spiritually in our day. We just don’t have enough data to know if the Prophet engaged in reconstructing this depiction, and if he did, why he did so or the relationship between their original context and their new one. Nor do we know enough about the intent of the original creators of the depiction. There is too little data to reach any firm conclusions on this point.

Thus, while on the podcast, it was spoken of as if this were a simple, open-and-shut case, even the brief and simplistic treatment provided here should be enough to demonstrate that this issue is not so simple, and it is anything but closed. I believe it misrepresents the complexity and richness of the vignette and the possible ways Joseph Smith interacts with it. This kind of thing happens again and again in these forums, and the reader needs to be aware that they are not being given the whole picture. This is a shame, because an exciting and beautiful discourse could be had about this subject if the involved parties were willing to really engage. We could all have our understanding expanded. Instead, what is currently happening is misleading for listeners.

I don't know if he has good points regarding Anubis and the drawrings. If he does, great. But why then complain about parties not being willing to engage while not engaging? Why complain about one side being misleading while not also acknowledging the good points raised by Ritner that show he is misleading, due to his unwillingness to engage the issues?

This certainly feels less like a desire for actual engagement and more presented as a way to signal to his following apologists--"let's play it on the surface, pretend they aren't really engaging or dealing with our arguments, throw a couple of examples out to make people feel better, and keep talking past each other."

[_Shulem]

The way I see it there is no redemption. Muhlestein is playing games.

The world body of Egyptologists need to come together in unison and DEFROCK both Gee and Muhlestein.

Period. Just take them out in one worldwide swoop and get it over with. These clowns are not fooling anyone other than the gullible Mormon faithful who have a persecution complex in defending their testimonies.

Show no mercy. These clowns need to be defrocked, now. Their agenda is to pervert Egyptology at any cost in order to vindicate Joseph Smith. They will lie, cheat, and steal -- do anything to further this cause.

From this point forward, I do not consider either of them to be credible Egyptologists.

[_Kishkumen]

Moreover, we do not know if Joseph Smith was intending to provide us with what this would have been like anciently, or if he was trying to provide us with what we should derive from it spiritually in our day. We just don’t have enough data to know if the Prophet engaged in reconstructing this depiction, and if he did, why he did so or the relationship between their original context and their new one. Nor do we know enough about the intent of the original creators of the depiction. There is too little data to reach any firm conclusions on this point.

As David Bokovoy said much better in another context, why on earth did you see to it that David did not obtain employment at BYU for saying essentially the same thing you just have, Kerry? Has your understanding of the Book of Abraham now changed to the point that you feel you must allow for the possibility that Joseph Smith was employing antiquity for purposes other than describing ancient history? Should the LDS Church now fire you for arriving at the place you were afraid David occupied less than a decade ago?

Kerry, you must stop using Joseph Smith's 19th century revelations as your guide to reading ancient civilizations. It is professional malfeasance to do so. Nothing prevents you from using your knowledge of antiquity to help LDS people gain a better appreciation of their faith. In fact, it would be very disappointing if you were not to do that. That said, Joseph Smith did not have special insight into the data of ancient history. It is absolute lunacy to impose Joseph Smith's revelations onto academic historical narratives. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

Mormons should know about the ancient world, and the ancient world does help them appreciate their faith in a new way. That said, their faith does not tell the world or themselves hidden facts about the events of Ancient America or the Ancient Near East. Do not continue to be consciously or unconsciously complicit in the intellectual ghettoization of your community. Stop making a laughing stock of yourself in your profession. There is no special prize that you will get from Heavenly Father in the eternal realms for miseducating your students and your fellow parishioners.

At the same time, there is nothing that demands you to drop or downplay your faith in Mormon scripture. The LDS Church has nothing to be ashamed of in its canon in the context of the scriptures of other traditions. The LDS canon is only as unhistorical and problematic as the Bible, and the only people who think the Bible is more legitimate than LDS scripture in terms of history have not come to grips with the historical tenuousness of their literature. The Bible is not history. Neither is LDS scripture. We have no more knowledge of what Moses did historically thanks to the Bible than we do from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. A story about Moses composed in the Iron Age is no more factually verifiable than one composed in 1830.

Fundamentalism is intellectually dead and dangerous to the future of humanity. You are not a fundamentalist, so you should not read ancient scripture as a fundamentalist. Be a trailblazer in helping the LDS community understand scripture in a realistic, healthy, and spiritually enlivening way. The location of Olishem in the second millennium BC is not keeping Mormons in the pews. The legacy of the temple throughout history is. Drop the obscurantism. Embrace the present and the future in a uniquely LDS idiom. It does not require fudging academic history to do so.

[_Dr Exiled]

Moreover, we do not know if Joseph Smith was intending to provide us with what this would have been like anciently, or if he was trying to provide us with what we should derive from it spiritually in our day. We just don’t have enough data to know if the Prophet engaged in reconstructing this depiction, and if he did, why he did so or the relationship between their original context and their new one. Nor do we know enough about the intent of the original creators of the depiction. There is too little data to reach any firm conclusions on this point.

As David Bokovoy said much better in another context, why on earth did you see to it that David did not obtain employment at BYU for saying essentially the same thing you just have, Kerry? Has your understanding of the Book of Abraham now changed to the point that you feel you must allow for the possibility that Joseph Smith was employing antiquity for purposes other than describing ancient history? Should the LDS Church now fire you for arriving at the place you were afraid David occupied less than a decade ago?

Kerry, you must stop using Joseph Smith's 19th century revelations as your guide to reading ancient civilizations. It is professional malfeasance to do so. Nothing prevents you from using your knowledge of antiquity to help LDS people gain a better appreciation of their faith. In fact, it would be very disappointing if you were not to do that. That said, Joseph Smith did not have special insight into the data of ancient history. It is absolute lunacy to impose Joseph Smith's revelations onto academic historical narratives. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

Mormons should know about the ancient world, and the ancient world does help them appreciate their faith in a new way. That said, their faith does not tell the world or themselves hidden facts about the events of Ancient America or the Ancient Near East. Do not continue to be consciously or unconsciously complicit in the intellectual ghettoization of your community. Stop making a laughing stock of yourself in your profession. There is no special prize that you will get from Heavenly Father in the eternal realms for miseducating your students and your fellow parishioners.

At the same time, there is nothing that demands you to drop or downplay your faith in Mormon scripture. The LDS Church has nothing to be ashamed of in its canon in the context of the scriptures of other traditions. The LDS canon is only as unhistorical and problematic as the Bible, and the only people who think the Bible is more legitimate than LDS scripture in terms of history have not come to grips with the historical tenuousness of their literature. The Bible is not history. Neither is LDS scripture. We have no more knowledge of what Moses did historically thanks to the Bible than we do from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. A story about Moses composed in the Iron Age is no more factually verifiable than one composed in 1830.

Fundamentalism is intellectually dead and dangerous to the future of humanity. You are not a fundamentalist, so you should not read ancient scripture as a fundamentalist. Be a trailblazer in helping the LDS community understand scripture in a realistic, healthy, and spiritually enlivening way. The location of Olishem in the second millennium BC is not keeping Mormons in the pews. The legacy of the temple throughout history is. Drop the obscurantism. Embrace the present and the future in a uniquely LDS idiom. It does not require fudging academic history to do so.

Well said. I hope Dr. Muhlestein listens to you. Although, based on his videos, I doubt any change is forthcoming.