John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Daniel Peterson]

How many of these "idiots" at USC and Yale support or even know about Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics? How many of these articles and presentations that were praised by non-LDS " idiots" were about his Book of Abraham apologetics? Is it fair to say that these "idiots" at Berkley and Yale were praising Gee's Egyptology, not his apologetics?

See above.

So are you saying that the only idiots in academia are the ones who gave Murphy his PhD?

Good grief. Are you calling the anthropology faculty at the University of Washington "idiots"? What have they ever done to you? Why are you dragging them into your quarrels and resentments and gripes?

The University of Washington is an excellent school. Like BYU, though, I'll bet they don't realize that the only really valid kind of scholarly review is performed anonymously on this board.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I don't question John Gee's competence as an Egyptologist, his decency as a human being, or the sincerity of your personal respect and rapport with him. But none of those things means that you should have to accept less-than-mediocre book reviews written by him for publication in your journal. As someone who specializes in seeing through bad arguments, I know you can see through Gee's. He has occasionally written articles in which I am hard-pressed to find even a single valid argument. While that in itself is something of a literary accomplishment requiring, no doubt, many hours of effort on his spinning wheel, it's more the kind of thing that belongs in the quilt contest at the State Fair than in an academic journal. If John Gee is really your friend, I recommend that next time he submits a review you at least challenge him on some of his less-cogent or charitable points and require that he resubmit. In so doing, you may be saving him the heartbreak of getting raked over the coals yet again. You will additionally be saving your journal the embarassment of being known for its use of argumentum crappum.

Speaking of that argument, I find it impossible to take the sort of over-the-top exaggeration on display above with even a smidgin of seriousness.

No serious person is likely to take you seriously when you write so ridiculously.

Speaking of preaching to the choir.

Dr. Peterson,

I feel fairly confident that if one were to enumerate the arguments Gee makes in his "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri" and to examine each one, we would find that about 10% are valid. The things he gets right are relatively uncontroversial points that he has borrowed from earlier writers on the Book of Abraham.

What's more, some of the points he makes in that article aren't just wrong; they're grossly wrong. The kind of wrong that makes you want to pull out your hair and scream for Mary to come save us all from ourselves.

-CK

[_beastie]

That's right. My printed work is never criticized. I like the safety of publishing that way.

Of course, just last November Dr. Michael Heiser delivered a critique of one of my published papers at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Since I was already due in Washington for another meeting, I went earlier and, at his invitation, was there in the audience while he critiqued my position. We then published his critique in the FARMS Review. (That's my ultra-clever way of evading criticism.)

You're right, I forgot to include a qualification: you seem to be willing to deal with critiques from evangelical critics. That's when you participated more seriously on Z, when most critics were from the Tanners board, at the beginning.

[Guest]

Are any of these presentations that Gee is making, and publications he's printing, to do with Mormon apologetics? Has he had scholarly work peer-reviewed in Egyptological circles supporting the Book of Abraham?

Yes, and yes.

You folks don't seem to be aware of the conversation that's going on.

CFR.

[Guest]

Dan you always crack me up when you do this.

You have consistently avoided any serious discussion about the primary issues in which Gee has proclaimed himself an expert. You play dumb when people highlight his faulty logic, apparent lack of integrity and sloppy apologetics.

This guy has produced a collection of embarrassing arguments and failed apologetics and all you can think to do is pull an Ivory Tower favorite on us. You throw out his resume on the table as if this means a hill of beans. I mean good grief, even George Bush went to Harvard. And John Gee has earned his place among the dumbest smart people in America.

Yes, he graduated from Yale. Yes, he can translate Egyptian. But in the long scheme of things, being able to translate Egyptian is irrelevant to the issue since nobody is disputing the fact that the available Joseph Smith papyri translate to the Book of Abraham. The fact is he has established himself as a man who cannot argue points intelligently because his apologetic agenda takes control. His bias is ten times worse than anything you could pin on Ritner. His inexcusable failures eclipse anything you can find in a FROB dedicated to bashing a critic for duplicity.

In a short time, he already has a significant record of bad apologetics - most of which can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the layman.

But you absolutely refuse to discuss the veracity of any of these claims. Instead, you think it is enough to throw out a resume and consider the ton of critical arguments refuting him to be little more than extraneous. I mean that is what one gets when they go through the motions to receiving a doctorate, right? They end up considering themselves above reproach as tenured professors expect to be.

Incidentally, Gee’s professor said he hid his apologetic agenda from him. He said he would not sign off on his doctorate because he did not think he had done the required work. But there was apparently pressure to get him rushed through the program since he had apparently already been promised a job on the BYU faculty. Ritner also notices Gees ambitious desire to be visible in the academic community, but he also noted that his rise in visibility should not be understood as a rise in respectability.

You refuse to deal with the discussions but you’ll whine and moan if anyone criticizes him. How would you know if the criticisms are valid, since you never deal with the issues? You even say it yourself. You have little interest in the Book of Abraham. You said you leave it up to Gee and you trust his apologetic ability.

If someone accuses him of duplicity, they are vile bigots in your mind. But if you accuse others of dishonesty (Mr. Scratch) then you are merely following the “overwhelming” evidence you say points that way. Well, maybe others like CK are also following the “overwhelming” evidence regarding Gee’s integrity. Has that possibility ever dawned on you?

Established hypocrisy aside, you’ll have none of this. You don’t care. Gee is your buddy and loyalty comes first. You don’t accept criticism of your colleagues no matter how much they deserve it. He was one of your early “investments” the same as Bokovoy is now, so you take criticism of them very personally. You nurtured Gee from his academic infancy in order to fill in an empty slot desperately needed in Mormonism: a credentialed Book of Abraham apologist. Now you want to pretend that the crap he has produced so far should be ignored simply because he graduated from Yale? You even spent three years trying to spread false rumors about how he was able to throw his professor of his dissertation committee, as a preemptive defensive strategy for what everyone anticipated: Ritner’s criticism of Gee. Talk about the mother of all backfires. Now that the world has an email from Ritner denying your claim, you want to go the dramatic route and attack me for trying to ruin your life and the future financial lives of your children. Again, there is no accountability at the Ivory Tower or at least that seems to be the mentality prevalent at BYU. It is always someone else to blame.

Is Gee smart? I have no doubt. Generally speaking, idiots don’t learn ancient languages. But Gee is completely incompetent when it comes to developing valid arguments, and once analyzed, they can only be explained in two ways: 1) dishonesty/extreme bias or 2) incompetence/laziness. Critical thinking and logic is a field of its own, and integrity is something that cannot be guaranteed with a degree.

If we perceive overwhelming evidence that he is incompetent, then you throw out his resume and start a ridiculous pissing contest contrasting that and the credentials of those who have refuted him (Yes, even the 21 year-old CK has made mincemeat of his ridiculous Book of Abraham scholarship). If we conclude he is dishonest, then you hypocritically accuse us of “crossing the line,” in which case, your cyber conniption fit persuades the MAD mods to ban or censor anyone at the scene of the crime.

Ultimately, you know relatively little –considering your position among the apologetic elite - about one of the most controversial and important apologetic subjects in the Church. You have indicated as much on several occasions. What’s worse, you don’t seem to care to know. All you know is that you have nurtured the guy who is supposed to know about this stuff, and you won’t tolerate any criticism of him or his work. The critics have to be wrong because they are critics, right? None of the criticisms against Gee can be valid. He simply cannot be duplicitous in any shape or form because that would reflect poorly on him, BYU, and above all, yourself. And besides, that is a character trait reserved only for critics, in the minds of BYU apologists.

So do yourself a favor and stop making Gee’s apologetic death your own. I am not saying to distance yourself from him, but at the least you should distancing yourself from his apologetic claims, which you don’t even seem to understand. I mean these guys you are relying on to take over for you and Nibley… It is like watching an Abbott and Costello skit. Gee strikes out and then runs to third base while Bokovoy flies out to the pitcher and then starts arguing with the water boy...on his own team.

[_evolving]

(That's my ultra-clever way of evading criticism.)

and all along I was under the impression by the sheer volume of non-binding non-opinions you seem to deliver was your method, or possibly the lack of interest you conveniently acquire when any doctrinal or historical criticism becomes too difficult for you to justify within your bubble view of Mormonism. -- Please -- if you are posting on this thread to defend Gee's review put your best defense down for everyone to read.. and possibly debate with..


if that is not your goal it seems your gathering the sad reputation of the great distractor.. congrats on that growing accomplishment, you are really putting your best foot forward.. sheesh

[_dartagnan]

You folks don't seem to be aware of the conversation that's going on. You're not part of it, but you think you're central figures in it.

This, coming from the guy who gloated for years about having the inside scoop regarding Gee's issues with Ritner. And when once challenged by Ritner himself, decides to attack me and refuse accountability for his actions.

Maybe you're not the central figure you presumed.

Gee is gaining visibility at academic onferences, but what do you think that means really?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're right, I forgot to include a qualification: you seem to be willing to deal with critiques from evangelical critics. That's when you participated more seriously on Z, when most critics were from the Tanners board, at the beginning.

As you yourself say, you haven't actually followed my work. What is it, then, that deludes you into imagining yourself qualified to deliver such a judgment?

I take Michael Heiser seriously because he's qualified. His critique of my work centered on the topic for which he earned his doctorate at a highly-ranked secular university. His comments were substantive and important. And he delivered them in a professional way, and in a genuine spirit of seeking to understand rather than to score points, to express a grudge, or to pursue a personal vendetta -- worlds apart, in other words, from the environment that prevails here.

Since Kevin has now, presumably without intending to, opened me up to the possibiity of a libel suit from Robert Ritner, I will not discuss the Ritner/Gee matter here -- except to say that there is very much in what Kevin says that I have considerable reason to dispute or reject.

[_dartagnan]

I keep hearing the rumor about Gee's famous refutation of Ritner in an Egyptological venue, but why doesn't Gee provide his CV online as do most scholars? Why, when I emailed him (at DCP's suggestion) for a list of his publications, he refused to provide? He wouldn't even name the publications in which his Ritner apologetic was published. Whenever Dan is asked for the publication, he tells them to go email Gee.

It is a neverending merry-go-round of "We got proof but you can't see it."

[_CaliforniaKid]

Gee doesn't answer emails.

I've tried several times.