John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Brackite]

Hi There Daniel Peterson,
Have you or John Gee yet had any luck at trying to find the ‘Missing Papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham’ on it??? Just Wandering!

John Gee wouldn’t recognize the Book of Abraham papyrus if it jumped off the table and hit him in the head. Even, after the many testimonies which have been given from the early brethren of the Church, Gee’s mind is in the dark, as was Nibleys. They are the blind leading the blind.

John Gee cannot tell us the name of the king found in Facsimile No. 3. He doesn’t have that kind of skill and can't read Egyptian like a prophet does. Joseph Smith could give us the name of the king because his Egyptology is based in revelatory representationalism and not in conventional means like the world does things. John Gee is worldly – Joseph Smith was spiritual. Gee’s Egyptology is patterned after the world, but the prophet’s was after things spiritual.

Can John Gee demonstrate which characters in Facsimile No. 3 spell out the name “Shulem”? I here say that Gee doesn’t have the knowledge to do that. His credentials for interpreting important parts of Joseph Smith’s work are pointless. He should just sit down and let others take on this work. John Gee doesn’t know a thing about how Joseph Smith translated or why he turned a god into a slave. In this regard I give him an F grade. He flunked.

I dare say that I know far more about the spiritual nature of Joseph Smith’s translations than Gee does. My understanding surpasses his and he is like a kindergarten kid while I am a professor. So, I wish Gee would sit down and quit crying like a baby over the writings of the critics. That includes puffed up Dan Peterson who thinks he is so learned and wise. If someone would just poke a pin in Dan and deflate him, that would do us all some good. The man's head is so big it is going to pop.

With that said, I’ve had shingles 5 times and if I get it again by arguing on these damn messages boards, I will be really pissed off. Now, I should go take tranquilizer.

Paul O

Hi Paul O.,
I kind of really like this Post of your on the Book of Abraham. That is a pretty well stated and a pretty Great Post on the Book of Abraham. John Gee's Missing Papyrus text theory for the Book of Abraham, is very ridiculous and ludicrous, and has already been successfully refuted.

[_Some Schmo]

Up until now, by contrast, in terms of Islamic subjects, I've chosen to invest my time -- hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours -- in creating a complex, four-part, multilingual publication series that will be foundational to the field of Islamic philosophy (as well as to the history of medieval science, the study of eastern Christianity, and several allied areas) for at least a century to come. It has cost me substantially in terms of my own research and writing, but I'm confident that my long-term contribution will be recognized as quite significant. In some circles, it already is. (And my own research is beginning to appear, anyway.) Will anybody be reading your articles fifty years from now?

LMAO... wow, so funny, yet so pathetic.

I had to stop and comment on this post because it's just so hilarious and typical of your average DCP post. Soon, Dannyboy will be pulling out a ruler to see whose dick is the biggest.

Pretty funny, little Danny. We certainly can't rely on you for intellectual discourse, now can we?

Schmo...that was rude.

:(

What was rude? Pointing out the elephant in the room?

(The use of the elephant metaphor was not intended to provide commentary and Dannyboy's alleged love of donuts).

Seriously, liz, Dannyboy deserves eveything he gets. How can you read what he wrote and not roll your eyes?

[_guy sajer]

I never, ever have advocated the use of government to put down unpopular and silly religious practices. If I did, of if it can be shown that I ever advocated it, I retract it. The ONLY contexts in which I feel comfortable advocating government limitations on religious practices are:

1. Religous practices that clearly break the law (I am willing to debate specifics, as there are likely exceptions)
2. Religious practices that violate others' civil rights/liberties. This also is a broad statement in which we could debate specifics.
3. Religous practices that put at direct risk others' health, particularly that of children (for example, I would lean toward requiring Christian Scientist parents to get modern medical care for their children).

I am willing to listen to other arguments, but this is where I currently stand.

Is THAT a clear enough clarification for you?

Your prior posts were much more strident against freedom of worship but I accept your restatement.

rcrocket

Well, that's the nature of internet communication; it often takes multiple iterations to get down to a point of clarity.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

My personal hunch is that "teaching the controversy" between ID and naturalistic models of evolution as random, undirected chance would help to revitalize interest in science in the United States, which is sorely lagging. When science is handed down simply as dogma, many find it boring. And when it's handed down as entailing naturalism, many others find it repulsive. If it were taught as problems to be solved, issues to be debated -- including but not limited to the most provocative ID arguments -- I think it would attract a great deal more interest.

I know that I, at least, were I a science teacher, would find such teaching enormously fun. I can imagine all sorts of ways that I would do things in the classroom to engage the students.[/quote]

Unfortunately, ID employs at times nonscience and at times very bad science to make its case. ID materials are often dishonest and always egregiously misinformed and poorly argued. When this is done, I can't see how that does not lead to greater confusion about science rather than greater enthusiasm for it. Of course, I would not favor the mere teaching of "scientific dogma" either. I don't think anyone would. My science education from about the highschool level and beyond was about problem-solving. Some of that was present all the way down to the elementary level, but I'd favor seeing even more emphasis on scientific reasoning over scientific "facts." It's always productive to explain why biologists think they way they do and to teach children to learn and analyze scientific reasoning for themselves. Scientific debate should not be neglected, but it should be left to areas where there exists reasonable debate within the scientific community. The "problems with evolution" as expressed by IDists generally are just old, bad anti-evolution arguments continually repackaged.

I would favor teaching ID if not for two difficult facts. One, it is generally instituted in classrooms as a means to implicitly support the religious faith of those who put the policy in place. I regard this as a violation of the US constitution if there is no scientific value. Two, our educational resources are limited. There are more productive things to be spending our time on. Learning what a TATA box is is more important than learning Behe's bad criticisms of evolution.

I don't see evolution as entailing naturalism anymore than I see electron cloud theory as entailing naturalism. I would be concerned if evolution was being taught as such and would gladly oppose it. However, I not sure this is occuring on any meaningful level.

All that said, the Discovery Institute is poised to unroll their next strategy with this textbook: http://www.exploreevolution.com/

The goal will be to teach their standard antievolution arguments along side evolution that are generally key in their ID arguments without actually teaching ID proper. "Critical analysis of evolution" as the new viral phrase goes. That's closer to the border of the constitutional question. As a practical matter, that's what the next series of debates in the public forums will be concerned with.

[_Daniel Peterson]

"A Light in the Darkness" and I appear to disagree. This is stunning, since we're allegedly the same person.

Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic,
And so am I.

[_Some Schmo]

"A Light in the Darkness" and I appear to disagree. This is stunning, since we're allegedly the same person.

Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic,
And so am I.

Me, posting as someone else:

I believe the church is true.

Some Schmo's response:

Someone else and I appear to disagree. This is stunning, since we're allegedly the same person.

How on earth can anyone possibly think that two screen names who post differing views could ever be the same person? It's impossible, I tell you! Impossible!

You really do think everyone else except you is stupid, don't you? I suppose that's why all the arguments I've seen you make are so transparent: you don't think anyone's going to see through them. Either that, or you... *stifles laughter* ...really believe... *stifles more laughter* ...what you're saying... *can't stifle laughter any longer and let's out a huge guffaw*

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sigh

[_harmony]

Sigh

Amen.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You really do think everyone else except you is stupid, don't you?

No, but . . . ["Dan, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." "Yes, mother."]

[_Some Schmo]

You really do think everyone else except you is stupid, don't you?

No, but . . . ["Dan, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." "Yes, mother."]

Yeah, like you ever listened to her advice on this before.

Please say you think I'm stupid Danny! Please? Nothing would validate my genius more.