asbestosman wrote:Perhaps, but probably not as good as it may have been had you not made the serious error in the first place for which you have fortunately appologized.
Yeah, you're probably right.
I also think it unlikely (though possible) that Dr. could have made a mistake such as you say. I mean why would the one side of the scroll be glued to other paper if it had writing on it? That doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie in your question so much as your question misinterpreted his initial meaning. But don't ask me what it was. I can hardly read history in English let alone anything in Egyptian.
I don't think I could have misinterpreted him that badly.
At one point, one of them said "this is Dr. Gee's thread" which was confusing, as Celestial Kingdom started the thread and I don't believe Dr. Gee posts at MADB, but who would dare question their assertions, unless they don't care about risking a suspension.
So you read the one that was subtitled "Peanut Gallery." Well, until this afternoon that was all attached to the pinned thread that was started by Chaos, but then the mods got uncomfortable with the way it was going and separated into a new thread that looks like it was started by Celestial Kingdom. It would have been nice if the mods had included a link between the two so people just coming in can figure out what's going on. But if you look at it from their point of view, the more confusing it is, the easier it will be to forget. ;)
That thread was very uncomfortable. I did not like seeing the moderators participating in the thread in such a cavalier way. Yea, I know they are not neutral, but at least in the past, we had at least a semblance that they were neutral. I think if they wished to participate, they should have done so by using their normal psedonyms and not their moderator personas.
emphasis added
...or sometimes both personas in the same thread! Oops!
Anyway, I agree with everything you said, pretty much.
Hi TheDude, thanks for explaining that. I did not see the thread earlier, but your explanation makes sense.
I also agree with what you said about the Egyptian test. I think it was bad form on Dr. Gee's part to respond to criticisms in this peevish way. If the tables were turned and one of the critics had pulled a stunt like that, we would have heard plenty of complaints from LDS.
Alter Idem wrote:I also agree with what you said about the Egyptian test. I think it was bad form on Dr. Gee's part to respond to criticisms in this peevish way. If the tables were turned and one of the critics had pulled a stunt like that, we would have heard plenty of complaints from LDS.
Why do we expect LDS scholars to react differently to criticism than anyone else does?
I don't think you should feel bad, or be tormented, for offering your opinion that John Gee "lied." I haven't seen the uproar when LDS posters have repeatedly accused "critics" like Brent Metcalfe of lying. Nor have I seen Brent, et al's.
Prior to reading Dr. Gee's paper in the Richard L. Anderson festschrift, I believed that LDS apologists were essentially honest, just mistaken. I continued to believe this of most even after reading that paper--but not of Gee. His paper demonstrates either sheer ineptitude in handling historical sources or purposeful deception, and it's difficult to believe that someone of his training and academic stature could be so inept. I'm open to seeing this differently--pending demonstration of a reasonable and honest way of arriving at the conclusions he leaps to in this paper, but for now I have to think it demonstrates likely dishonesty and possible ineptitude.
DonBradley wrote: I'm open to seeing this differently--pending demonstration of a reasonable and honest way of arriving at the conclusions he leaps to in this paper, but for now I have to think it demonstrates likely dishonesty and possible ineptitude.
Don
The thing is, with many apologists, Gee included, the conclusion, no matter what the subject of the paper, must always support the church. They start each project with the end firmly in mind, never deviating from their premise. There is no discovery, no proven or disproven hypothesis. The conclusion is always the same ("the church is true"), and all academic and apologetic papers support this conclusion. Dr Gee knows which side of his bread is buttered and who it is who provides the bread, the butter, and the knife with which he spreads it. He will not write a paper that in any way undermines the church.
I would have been nice if someone had saved a copy of the original Gee post because the mods there edited out the part where Gee spoke of lawsuits he was considering. I suspect this has everything to do with the fact that Ritner's email about a possible lawsuit was made public, and now everyone at MAD, DCP included, want to speak fo lawsuits as though this were a dispicable step to take since people have "real lives."
Hypocrites anyone?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
The thing is, with many apologists, Gee included, the conclusion, no matter what the subject of the paper, must always support the church. They start each project with the end firmly in mind, never deviating from their premise. There is no discovery, no proven or disproven hypothesis. The conclusion is always the same ("the church is true"), and all academic and apologetic papers support this conclusion. Dr Gee knows which side of his bread is buttered and who it is who provides the bread, the butter, and the knife with which he spreads it. He will not write a paper that in any way undermines the church.
Exactly. It is a sick joke for DCP as a BYU faculty member and friend and supporter of Gee to try to smear Ritner by claiming he wrote a paper highly critical of Gee because the IRR paid him to do so. As BYU's 'Intellectual freedom' (!) policy makes clear (http://fc.byu.edu/tpages/tchlrn/acadfree.html)
II.B Reasonable Limitations. It follows that the exercise of individual and institutional academic freedom must be a matter of reasonable limitations. In general, at BYU a limitation is reasonable when the faculty behavior or expression seriously and adversely affects the university mission or the Church.22 Examples would include expression with students or in public that:
1. contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy;
2. deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or
3. violates the Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others.
Reasonable limits are based on careful consideration of what lies at the heart of the interests of the Church and the mission of the university. A faculty member shall not be found in violation of the academic freedom standards unless the faculty member can fairly be considered aware that the expression violates the standards.
Wouldn't it obviously "seriously and adversely affect ... the Church" and contradict "fundamental Church doctrine or policy" if Gee ended up declaring that contrary to what Joseph Smith said he had come to the concluson that the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with the papyri purchased by Joseph Smith from a travelling showman? Clearly Gee can never take that risk. Hence if he does research into that topic there is only one conclusion he can allow himself to reach.