Fence Sitter wrote: .... Isn't [Robert Ritner] the one who didn't want to let Gee get his PhD because he thought he was going to use it to do Mormon apologetics?
That is the impression that some people would like to give.
What we actually know (because he has said so publicly) is that he asked to be removed from Gee's PhD committee, thereby disabling himself from putting forward any obstacle to Gee being granted the PhD.
That looks, does it not, like someone who was well aware of the possibility that some people would say that he "didn't want to let Gee get his PhD because he thought he was going to use it to do Mormon apologetics", and took steps to remove the grounds for that claim.
I never paid very close attention to the Gee/Ritner controversy. I didn't know Ritner had explained his side of the story. I only knew it had something to do with Gee and apologetics.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Carton wrote: I'm just impressed he is smart enough to understand the Smith/Cook article. I sure wasn't. But that isn't saying much. I flunked out of geometry in high school.
But you are smart enough to pick Sidney Carton (and Ronald Colman) as your avatar. Carton is my favorite Dickens character.
It's my favorite version of the movie.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
CaliforniaKid wrote: Plus, how often does an Egyptologist get the chance to arbitrate a dispute for a living religion that millions of people still actually believe? :)
And at a time when the Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency will most likely be Mormon.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
As far as I can see, there will never be a final word on any of this. No one can prove that there was not a large amount of papyrus that is now missing. You can't prove a negative, you know. So, as long as it's possible, this argument will never go away--and because it will always be possible, if not plausible, it will endure.
It's interesting, but not a big deal. Most people who are not LDS and are aware of the Book of Abraham already believe there's no way it's a translation of the scroll--missing or otherwise. The facsimiles which we do have contain plenty of stuff to argue about without worrying about missing pieces. Either you accept the connections apologists make in those facsimiles as reasonable explanations for why the translations don't appear to match at first glance, or you think those explanations are implausible.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
CaliforniaKid wrote:Plus, how often does an Egyptologist get the chance to arbitrate a dispute for a living religion that millions of people still actually believe? :)
It looks like....well....just about everyone is getting something published...apart from you. Gutted for ya.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Carton wrote:Amazing happenings at MDD last night. It wasn't up long, but someone I know managed to grab a screenshot of it before it disappeared and I found it in my Inbox this morning.
In the "Scroll-Length" topic at MDD, Kevin Graham posted a description of an email he says he received from Robert Ritner last night:
Xander, on 17 November 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:
Just a short comment. I received an email from Robert Ritner this evening, informing me that he has read through this exchange and that Andrew and Chris have it right. The apologists have it wrong. Ritner is about to publish his volume on this subject in January, and he said he actually references Chris and Andrew's work. Great job guys.
Ritner, for those who do not know, is perhaps the world's authority in Egyptology. He was John Gee's teacher at Yale and currently heads the dept at the University of Chicago.
Ritner is going to be citing the Cook/Smith article in an upcoming book. Wow! So what does this mean for the future of the missing scroll debate? Does this put an end to that whole line of argument, even before Schryver was ever able to get his article published?
I know absolutely nothing about this stuff, but don't you people think it's premature to assume one person is wrong about something simply because someone else says so?
"Andrew and Chris have it right. The apologists have it wrong."
That's all it takes?
As I understand it, Schryver's article has never been published. But this other guy can just come along and say he's wrong?
Is this how you objectively examine the evidence and fairly consider all sides of the argument and then use your powers of reasoning to reach a rationale decision?
Mattie wrote: "Andrew and Chris have it right. The apologists have it wrong."
That's all it takes?
As I understand it, Schryver's article has never been published. But this other guy can just come along and say he's wrong?
Is this how you objectively examine the evidence and fairly consider all sides of the argument and then use your powers of reasoning to reach a rationale decision?
Something tells me you haven't bothered to read the dozens (and dozens) of threads about this subject on this site...
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs