Hail, consiglieri!

[_Kishkumen]

I want to thank consiglieri for responding to Dr. Kerry Muhlestein's obfuscatory, dilatory, and rude responses to the Ritner podcast. Dr. Muhlestein's excuses are an insult to everyone's intelligence. As consiglieri points out, clearly and factually, Joseph Smith, Jr. could not read Egyptian. Punkt.

It does not take yet another book to respond to that information with anything other than an acceptance of the facts and an attempt to move the ball forward in a realistic way. And, frankly, the way it needs to be moved forward is really not in the wheelhouse of Egyptologists. It is for scholars of religion in the Early Modern Period to the 19th century to address. Dr. Muhlestein and Dr. Gee can continue to provide research, writing, and instruction on Ancient Egypt to their students and colleagues, but they should really stop trying to mix Egyptology and Mormonism in the ways they have in the past.

The Book of Abraham is a fine example of the reception of antiquity in the 19th century. It is not an example of ancient writing by Abraham as conveyed in Ancient Egyptian.

I would much rather read another book by Sam Brown on this kind of topic than slog through yet another pointless mass of verbiage from Dr. Muhlestein or Dr. Gee. I am sure their Egyptology is just fine. Their Book of Abraham work just isn't.

[_Res Ipsa]

Amen, Reverend.

[_Shulem]

Yep, I agree. Mormonism and Egyptology don't mix.

[_Kishkumen]

Yep, I agree. Mormonism and Egyptology don't mix.

On the other hand, Mormonism does fit pretty well in the tradition of people who were fascinated with Egypt and interpreted it in their own way. Professor Ritner called it Egyptomania, which is, I think, a somewhat denigratory term. Another way to think of it is called "the reception of Antiquity," or how we use the past in our own culturally conditioned ways.

[_Holy Ghost]

As long as the mopologists take the Book of Abraham bait and keep talking about it, the more TBMs will begin questioning and discovering the reality that their scriptures are not what Joseph Smith claimed them to be or even by way of the introduction, the LDS church continues to claim them to be. The LDS scam's grip loosens a bit every time that the mopologists talk about the Book of Abraham.

[_Shulem]

Yep, I agree. Mormonism and Egyptology don't mix.

On the other hand, Mormonism does fit pretty well in the tradition of people who were fascinated with Egypt and interpreted it in their own way. Professor Ritner called it Egyptomania, which is, I think, a somewhat denigratory term. Another way to think of it is called "the reception of Antiquity," or how we use the past in our own culturally conditioned ways.

I absolutely agree with you. And I don't see anything wrong with people making an honest study of things they don't understand. Go for it! But when science comes along to force an adjustment then it is incumbent on those who embrace error to change their ways. Unfortunately, the Facsimiles are still being published by the Mormons as a historical and genuine Egyptian record.

That needs to change.

[_Shulem]

As long as the mopologists take the Book of Abraham bait and keep talking about it, the more TBMs will begin questioning and discovering the reality that their scriptures are not what Joseph Smith claimed them to be or even by way of the introduction, the LDS church continues to claim them to be. The LDS scam's grip loosens a bit every time that the mopologists talk about the Book of Abraham.

Very true. The more noise we make the more members will quit the Church. We are here to unbaptize members from the Church and to decrease their numbers and bad influence as they have seriously infected the planet with their nonsense.