The Muhlestein/Ritner affair

[_Lemmie]

Muhlestein

...because I am truly interested in academic dialogue about the Book of Abraham, before I posted any kind of response online, I personally contacted Professor Ritner. I suggested that we work together on creating an academic volume on the subject. I suggested possible guidelines for doing so, possible academic venues, possible editors, and even a potential table of contents. I modeled it after volumes on contested issues that have been successfully done in academia elsewhere.

I would be interested in some examples of the “volumes on contested issues...done in academia” that Muhlestein is referring to here.

[_Kishkumen]

OK, I;m NOT trying to be a wet blanket here, I promise, but my skepticism meter just went off. It is not his book they like nearly so much as he has written it as a returned prodigal son to the fold. Had he continued writing as an atheist, they would have Lou Midgleyed him into Outer Darkness, and we all know it. I suspect it is not the content so much as the fact that he now, once again, writes as one of the faithful, And absolutely nothing disparaging is meant against Don in any manner.

I would guess that they like Don’s book because it is genuinely illuminating regarding important aspects of the Book of Mormon without really challenging core LDS beliefs about its miraculous origins and antiquity. Don did not write the book to undermine LDS testimonies. If anything, he sought to enrich the understanding of both believers and non-believers through good scholarship.

I disagree that the value of his work is solely or even principally in his status as a re-baptized member. If the book was bad, it wouldn’t get much attention. As someone who has read it, I can tell you it is a great book. Anyone can learn a lot of new and fascinating things about the Book of Mormon by reading it.

[_I have a question]

OK, I;m NOT trying to be a wet blanket here, I promise, but my skepticism meter just went off. It is not his book they like nearly so much as he has written it as a returned prodigal son to the fold. Had he continued writing as an atheist, they would have Lou Midgleyed him into Outer Darkness, and we all know it. I suspect it is not the content so much as the fact that he now, once again, writes as one of the faithful, And absolutely nothing disparaging is meant against Don in any manner.

I would guess that they like Don’s book because it is genuinely illuminating regarding important aspects of the Book of Mormon without really challenging core LDS beliefs about its miraculous origins and antiquity. Don did not write the book to undermine LDS testimonies. If anything, he sought to enrich the understanding of both believers and non-believers through good scholarship.

I disagree that the value of his work is solely or even principally in his status as a re-baptized member. If the book was bad, it wouldn’t get much attention. As someone who has read it, I can tell you it is a great book. Anyone can learn a lot of new and fascinating things about the Book of Mormon by reading it.

What important aspects of The Book of Mormon does Don's book illuminate?

[_Stem]

Why on earth would Ritner have ever wanted to publish anything with the Flat Earth Brigade? He has nothing to gain from it. He wrote what he wrote, and it will always be exponentially more valuable than anything Gee or Muhlestein will ever write about the Jospeh Smith Papyri. Ritner is at the top of his discipline. Gee and Muhlestein are barely on the map. No offense to them, as I too am barely on the map and Gee has published more in his field than I have in mine. But, I don’t pretend to be on par with people at the top of my field and pretend I have the wherewithal to extend such an arrogantly constructed and utterly silly invitation. On top of that, Muhlestein is extremely rude to refer to Ritner’s health in this way. From the outset M. shows zero class. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mopologists have made all Mormons look really bad here.

My deepest gratitude go to Prof. Ritner, RFM, and John Dehlin for highly valuable podcast episodes that show how badly Mopologists have mishandled the defense of the Book of Abraham. Anyone who makes it through the whole thing will have no doubt that Joseph Smith did not know and could not translate Egyptian, that the Book of Abraham is not an ancient text, and that Mopologists have obfuscated, misled, and behaved unprofessionally in their dealings with Prof. Ritner.

My only reservation about any of this is that obviously no one will come away from the podcast with any better understanding of what Joseph Smith was doing in this translation. While I understand and respect where Prof. Ritner is coming from, some of his negativity can cloud that issue. It will probably take someone who deals with similar religious phenomena to make a positive case for what Jospeh Smith was doing. Ritner is great for telling us what Smith was not doing in regards to Egyptian.

Not to sound like a broken record, but by all means read Don Bradley’s book if you want to know what Smith was doing in the Book of Mormon. Read Bill Davis’ new book if you want to know more about how he may have done it. Such work is being done, and it won’t be long before someone does something similar with the Book of Abraham. The biggest condemnation of Mopologetics I can think of is that not one of their scholars ever shed such light on the Book of Mormon as Bradley and Davis. At least they like Don’s book. That’s something.

I'd say this is close to what I was thinking about it. I was wondering if anyone had heard from Ritner about this invitation. If Muhlestein is unfairly using Ritner's health as the reason, then that just really does seem despicable. I could not figure out why he mentioned it. I'm feeling nosy because I'm just really curious what their conversation was like. I wouldn't doubt if Muhlestein sent him an email and got a response basically saying "I'd be willing to openly engage in a conversation on all the matters I've brought up. In my mind, its up to you to respond. I don't really have the time or interest to engage in a new book on the topic. I've done my research on that topic and haven't seen anything worth revisiting from what you've offered."

I suppose its likely we won't hear from Ritner on the conversation.

[_Stem]

I would be interested in some examples of the “volumes on contested issues...done in academia” that Muhlestein is referring to here.

Yes^^^

[_Fence Sitter]

Read Bill Davis’ new book if you want to know more about how he may have done it.

Kiskumen,

I apologize if you mentioned this before, I may have missed, but can you provide a title or Amazon link to this book?

Thanks

[_kairos]

KM does not accept that Ritner et al have nailed the Book of Abraham coffin shut. If he could get Ritner to go along with further "research", he will have effectively kicked the Book of Abraham can down the road for a few more years. Thus KM can say "well there is so much yet to look at, we just don't know the full story-the jury is still out". He could ride that to retirement as the research would go on and on and on!

k

[_malkie]

KM does not accept that Ritner et al have nailed the Book of Abraham coffin shut. If he could get Ritner to go along with further "research", he will have effectively kicked the Book of Abraham can down the road for a few more years. Thus KM can say "well there is so much yet to look at, we just don't know the full story-the jury is still out". He could ride that to retirement as the research would go on and on and on!

k

Surely KM could find others to collaborate on such research - even people who have already done work on the apologetic side of Book of Abraham.

Just off the top of my head:

• Shulem
• Philo
• Dartagnan

I've a feeling I'm missing a couple of others.

[Guest]

What important aspects of The Book of Mormon does Don's book illuminate?

What was in the lost 116 pages. How that lost narrative illuminates the Book of Mormon we have. Specifically, how the Passover was highly symbolic and relevant to the departure of Lehi and family from Jerusalem. The numerological significance of the seven tribes of the Book of Mormon. Which tribes were related to Manasseh and which to Ephraim. I could go on, but suffice it to say that Don's book really opens up some mysterious stuff about the Book of Mormon.

[_Kishkumen]

Kiskumen,

I apologize if you mentioned this before, I may have missed, but can you provide a title or Amazon link to this book?

Thanks

https://www.amazon.com/Visions-Seer-Sto ... 550&sr=1-1