DiscussMormonism.com

Here is a color scan from a page in Gee's book.



Please notice Gee's argument below the photos, and please notice that the photos are all of a different hue. Explain to me why any argument based on the color appearance of the photos would not provide actual color photos?

Enter Brent Metcalfe, who owns high quality photo copies of the original documents. Here is a color copy of Gee's example #1, whereby he argues that this indicates 1) that two different inks were used and 2) that the Egyptian "runs over" the English text.




Of course the text clearly shows that the ink is precisely the same on both sides of the margin, and it is clear that the English text has not been "run over." This is why Gee gets a well deserved hard time from critics.

Yeah, that's a pretty blatant act of misleading one's audience. I think there can be little doubt it was a conscious decision. It reminds me of Sorenson and Brant talking about the "linguistic evidence" supporting the metal in the Book of Mormon without mentioning that the linguistic evidence only talks about natural outcrops, and metalworking of those naturally occurring bits of metal. Archaeologists have known about that for ages. There is no linguistic evidence for METALLURGY, which is the entire problem for the Book of Mormon. Brant once mentioned this linguistic evidence on FAIR (I wasn't posting there at the time) and I challenged him on Z to fess up and clarify his statement so he wouldn't mislead the FAIR readers. I do not believe he ever did so, if he did, it was long after our discussion and I never saw it.

So yes, this is a deliberate choice to be misleading about evidence. I think they feel justified likely because they believe FUTURE evidence WILL support their stance, so it's ok to be a bit fudgie about today's lack of evidence to protect the faith of others. It is a patronizing attitude that disrespects people who are genuinely searching for reliable information about these issues.

I remember a conversatin some time ago with Brant when I stated how it was disconcerting to me when members conducted Book of Mormon tours in Central American (sigh) when they clearly knew the sites they were visiting had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon... something really deceptive about this in my opinion. I asked Brant his opinion on the matter and If I recall correctly he stated something along the lines that, it was fine since it wasn't really hurting anyone.

I wonder if that is sort of the attitude some apologists take? Kind of a denial/minimization/ignore sort of thing?

Regardless, it is disheartening to say the least.

:-(

~dancer~

dartagnan wrote:Here is a color scan from a page in Gee's book.



Of course the text clearly shows that the ink is precisely the same on both sides of the margin, and it is clear that the English text has not been "run over." This is why Gee gets a well deserved hard time from critics.

It's clear to me (from the above cut) that the Egyptian characters were drawn first and then the English text. The KEP consistently demonstrated this basic order of operations. I pointed this out on my webpage:

"the characters seem to blatantly violate the space reserved for the text but the new paragraph is properly indented with the first word, "For", thus respecting the need for the intruding characters to be interpreted." (Paul O)

On the other hand, I was disappointed to see another LDS apologist on MAD look at the same cut (different photo) and get the basic order of operations wrong and misinterpret the texts from the characters:

"Look at the first set of characters on the page. They spill into the margins and curve up and over the words, “I dwell”. This shows that the text was on paper before the character was. In other words, a few characters did not give birth to the paragraph. The text was written and then the character was written after." (Her Amun)

How in the heck did Her Amun come to his conclusion?

Paul O

I think there can be little doubt it was a conscious decision.

And that’s the thing that makes this so bad.

People don’t seem to realize that for years we kept hearing people like Juliann (actually, primarily Juliann) assert over and over that Brent’s photos mean nothing since 1) He is not a scholar who knows how to examine things and 2) the LDS have John Gee, a real expert, to analyze the original documents.

Ok, so now that his arguments have been slaughtered, Gee tells people he never really saw the original documents, but was only analyzing photos; apparently the crappy photos he provided in his book. He knows he has to say this because every rational minded person would have to believe he lied, if he actually analyzed the originals. But if he goes this way to avoid being dishonest, he has to at least own up to the alternative: he sucks as an “expert.”

This line of defense presents two problems actually.

1) What kind of scholar neglects to analyze something first hand before writing a book about it?
2) Who is the photographer on the grassy knoll who gave Gee these manipulated photos?

There can be little doubt that the photos had been manipulated by someone, since even the worst camera would take better color photos than these provided above. The photos had clearly been manipulated with an alternative hue option; probably in order to hide from the audience the fact that the two inks were identical. Every other photo in Gee’s book was top-notch quality, clearly taken by a professional. But the KEP is really what the critical argument hinged upon, and he only provided a few portions, all of which looked like a child had spilt different flavors of kool-aid on each one.

So when Brent came along and dropped a bomb on the apologetic world with his counterevidence, it really did damage Gee’s credibility in more ways than one. But look how they respond? They refuse to even acknowledge he was wrong. At best they say he was “mistaken,” as if it was just a honest goof up.

John Gee's apologetics is NOT entirely honest. He is following in Hugh Nibley's footsteps. Honestly, I don't know how John Gee can sleep at night. Surely he knows better. All we can do is keep the pressure up and make it clear that we LDS are NOT happy with a major scholar out of BYU who is making crooked demonstations in order to defend his missing roll theory and jettison the KEP as an unholy thing. Perhaps we can drop leaflets over Salt Lake City complaining about how BYU has played dirty. Maybe that would get someones attention. Maybe a front page ad in the New York Times would get some attention. What do we have to do to force Church apologists to start playing honest and come clean?

Paul O

Here is another relevant photo of the KEP which demonstrates Gee's erroneous assertion that the Egyptian was written later:




Notice how the shade changes when the scribe changes either his quill or the ink. This suggests that the EGyptian character was written and the English text followed.

For those of you who do not seem to understand the importance here. If it can be shown that the Egyptian characters had been scribbled in after the English text was already written, then this would suggest that the papers represent something other than translation manuscripts. This is why Gee fudges and leaps to erroneous conclusions to reinforce that assumption. The apologetic premise is that these absolutely cannot be translation papers, so they're looking for any was they can to prove they aren't.

Crooked LDS apologetics fails to demonstrate how the characters were written AFTER the text. They simply make a sweeping statement that the text came first when all KEP evidence shoes that text came second. What evidence do they have? Two inks? Then let them prove it and put their money where their mouth is.

I challenge them to put it to the test and come clean. John Gee will have to demonstrate on a professional level that the text came first. No need to spout off his degree or various publications on this and that – but let’s get to the point. We want the KEP fully published and examined by world class experts, someone, anyone, we can trust. I don’t trust BYU, they have lost my trust and it will take a great deal of work to regain it.

Paul O

Shades can move it there if he wants.

I tend to stay out of the celestial forum. My hypocrisy only goes so far.