Gadianton wrote:Fencesitter wrote:I suspect that the recent volume from the JSPP on the Book of Abraham is a strong clue why he is letting up. Not only does it not support his (following Nibley) theories on the creation of the Book of Abraham, it argues against it in support of people like Smith, Cook, Vogel & Metcalfe. While Gee may not care what non believers say about his work, it has to be a tough pill to swallow seeing a book come out which is produced by the Church's historian's office contradicting at the most fundamental level, his life's work on the Book of Abraham. His recent offering on the Book of Abraham, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham offered nothing new except feeble attempts to distance the Hor scroll from a missing scroll, attempts Vogel quickly put to rest. It is ironic how Gee, Bob Smith et al loudly condemn anyone who is not an Egyptologist for publishing on the Book of Abraham, yet when it comes to any their proffered arguments out of the field of Egyptology, they utter fail. See Gee's two inks fiaco, or his total failure at math in his length of the scroll papers. As a historian Gee is getting soundly thrashed by Vogel. In textual analysis Hauglid is also showing Gee his short comings.
Hauglid and Jensen are doing public presentations on the volume where they say Joseph Smith couldn't actually translate Egyptian, we have the papyri from which Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, and we as a church need to rethink what the word translation means in regards to Joseph Smith's work on the Book of Abraham. Think about that, if the church changes it's views on this and switches to a catalyst theory for the production of the Book of Abraham, there won't be a whole lot of demand for faithful Mormon Egyptologists.
A fantastic contribution Fence Sitter, this has me rethinking this entire episode from the beginning. Doctor Scratch, what is your professional opinion here?
I think that Fence Sitter's remarks are spot-on. As best as I have been able to tell, Gee didn't really *want* to be the de facto "official" Book of Abraham apologist. I don't know why he went into Egyptology in the first place--whether it was purely a matter of his own interests, or whether he showed promise in certain other ways, and some "mentor" thought he'd be useful for this purpose....Who knows? But it has long been very easy to see his (very visible) discomfort in the role. And who can blame him? Being the "top" Mormon apologist for the Book of Abraham sounds like one of the worst jobs imaginable. All that said, Gee put in the effort--I think you at least have to give him that. He "tried." Some of what he did was pretty awful (cf. "two inks"), and his connection to "classic FARMS" Mopologetics has also been toxic for him, I think. (He is very wrong to see those guys as legitimate allies.) I'm sure he at first calculated that what is apparently a sinecure at BYU was worth "throwing in" on behalf of the Book of Abraham. (I wonder if Smoot is expecting--or badly hoping for--a similar deal?) But, I'm sure he never anticipated the toll that this would take on him. He's gone totally grey in the past few years--rather like what happens to Leland Palmer on
Twin Peaks.
But the true focus of this thread, of course, has been the internal workings of Mopologetics, and I assume that's why you're calling upon my expertise, Dean Robbers. Candidly: I'm still not quite sure what's going on. Sure: I get that the Mopologists hate everyone at the Maxwell Institute with a white-hot fury, but does that explain all of this? Gee wants to get out just because DCP, Midgley, and others are sore over what happened seven years ago? I think there's more to it than that, including what Fence Sitter laid out. I bet that the hardcore Mopologists think that Hauglid and the other Maxwell Institute people are "apostates," and that their work on the Book of Abraham is Exhibit A in the case against them. We know that the Mopologists think that Rodney Meldrum and the "Heartland" people are apostates, due to their alternative views on the Book of Mormon. It makes sense that the Mopologists would *also* think that the Maxwell Institute and its personnel are *also* apostate due to their views on the Book of Abraham.
But, of course, this is an internecine conflict, and most of the parties seem to know that it is. If you are the Brethren, what do you do if the Interpreter people are complaining to you about the alleged "fact" that the Maxwell Institute is being run by closet apostates? It is very easy to laugh at this if you're an outsider, but seriously: imagine that things like this are really said. Imagine that Midgley has got the ear of some low-ranking GA, and is prattling on about how Brian Hauglid and others are trying to convince the Saints that the Book of Abraham was not true scripture? Strangely enough, when viewed in that light, I think that a lot of the recent events start to make more sense. I mean, how do you solve this? You've got one group of Mormon academics who are saying that the Book of Abraham is legitimate scripture, and one of their friends and allies has staked a major portion of his reputation upon that claim, and, meanwhile, you've got another group of Mormon academics--along with the entirety of the "gentile" academic community--saying that this is all bunk, and you've got people both in print (Metcalfe) and online who've provided pretty much irrefutable proof that the "friend's" claims are not only wrong, but probably dishonest. Shuffling people around is probably the best option: make each of them feel as if they've been "heard."
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to the war that the Mopologists are waging against the Maxwell Institute. This is a war that they absolutely cannot win, but they're still going to try to lay down a few final, desperate blows before the house burns down.
And
don't forget about this thread. At the time, I assumed it was about Schryver. But what if the "unpublished refutation" was actually Gee's?