Look at where Dr. Gee has been!

[_charity]

The annual joint meeting of the American Academy or Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (and affiliated organizations), just concluded in San Diego.

And lo and behold, look at one of the listings.

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC)
Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55)
John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atrahasis?”

So Dr. Gee is not a respected scholar in his field and by his peers? Yeah, right.

I searched the whole program and couldn't find a listing for a Kevin Graham or a Brent Metcalfe. Did I miss something? Or maybe these people who like to take such pot shorts at Dr. Gee don't move in the same august circles as Dr. Gee and these society academicians.

[_harmony]

The annual joint meeting of the American Academy or Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (and affiliated organizations), just concluded in San Diego.

And lo and behold, look at one of the listings.

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC)
Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55)
John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atrahasis?”

So Dr. Gee is not a respected scholar in his field and by his peers? Yeah, right.

I searched the whole program and couldn't find a listing for a Kevin Graham or a Brent Metcalfe. Did I miss something? Or maybe these people who like to take such pot shorts at Dr. Gee don't move in the same august circles as Dr. Gee and these society academicians.

Yes, you missed something. No one denigrates Dr Gee for his expertise in Egyptology. He gets criticized for trying to tie his field of expertise to Mormonism. Or not, as the case may be.

Did you happen to notice the thread started by Trevor? He attended the conference.

I don't see where Dr Gee presented a paper that ties Egyptology to the Book of Abraham though. Perhaps it was listed elsewhere.


edited to take out snarky comment.

[_moksha]

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC)
Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55)
John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atrahasis?”

I have zero idea what this is about. Does it advance Mormon doctrine in any way or is it strictly an issue in Egyptology?

by the way, is there any mention of Reformed Egyptian at these conferences?

[_charity]

The point of the post was to show that Dr. Gee is not the laughable pseudo scholar that some here have painted him.

[_Gadianton]

The point of the post was to show that Dr. Gee is not the laughable pseudo scholar that some here have painted him.

Um, you've been listening to Peterson too long. He's the one I think who invented the idea that critics charge apologists with pseudoscholarship in their areas of expertise - or in those areas where they are acting as scholars, and not as two-bit cult defenders. Can you cite any examples of critics claiming Gee has no idea what he's talking about in his professional work that pays his electric bill?

[_harmony]

The point of the post was to show that Dr. Gee is not the laughable pseudo scholar that some here have painted him.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I never got the idea that Dr Gee was a laughable pseudo scholar, except when he oversteps his expertise or tries to inappropriately tie his expertise to his religion. Or ignores his field of expertise in order to promote his religion.

[_charity]

The point of the post was to show that Dr. Gee is not the laughable pseudo scholar that some here have painted him.

Um, you've been listening to Peterson too long. He's the one I think who invented the idea that critics charge apologists with pseudoscholarship in their areas of expertise - or in those areas where they are acting as scholars, and not as two-bit cult defenders. Can you cite any examples of critics claiming Gee has no idea what he's talking about in his professional work that pays his electric bill?

Dartagnan fairly frequenlty has very negative things to say about Dr. Gee.

[_Coggins7]

Then you haven't been paying attention. I never got the idea that Dr Gee was a laughable pseudo scholar, except when he oversteps his expertise or tries to inappropriately tie his expertise to his religion. Or ignores his field of expertise in order to promote his religion.

Except, Harmony, that you wouldn't know when Gee was overstepping his expertise-or if he was-if it reared up and sank its fangs into both cheeks.

The stark fact of the matter remains that there is mountainous evidence in ancient texts, ancient traditions, and comparative religion, that Joseph was really on to something that cannot be explained by facile retreats to naturalistic sociological explanations that embed his ideas in the nineteenth century.

It is the sheer desperation of critics to chase moonbeams of this kind that are forever intriguing to me. The Church's claims in this regard are plausible and intellectually respectable, and nobody is claiming that there will ever be objective proof of its claims. That would, after all, spoil all the fun...

[_Coggins7]

The point of the post was to show that Dr. Gee is not the laughable pseudo scholar that some here have painted him.

Um, you've been listening to Peterson too long. He's the one I think who invented the idea that critics charge apologists with pseudoscholarship in their areas of expertise - or in those areas where they are acting as scholars, and not as two-bit cult defenders. Can you cite any examples of critics claiming Gee has no idea what he's talking about in his professional work that pays his electric bill?

Dartagnan fairly frequenlty has very negative things to say about Dr. Gee.

Peterson has invented nothing. Ad hominem attacks on the intelligence and credibility of people with degrees from respected institutions and who make perfectly reasonable arguments in support of their positions is a longstanding tradition among both EV and cultural Mormon critics of the Church.

Dartagnan's flaming rants against me, Peterson, Gee and others are probably, without equivocation, the best evidence available of the insecurity that lies at the root of his anti-Mormon tree. Dartagnan, at least at some level, knows very well that, with the Book of Abraham, for example, he is dealing with a combination of facts, hypothesis, conjecture, and wishful thinking that apologists do, in fact, have plausible and logical answers to. What people like he and Brent Metcalf are loath to admit, and which is sometimes hidden behind a mask of bravado and smug posturing, is that the best of the apologists have them in check, and always have had. They do not claim checkmate, as the critics do in their periodic territorial displays, but the scholarly stalemate that they most assuredly have placed the critics in.

I'm fine with check, because I don't believe for a second that the Lord intends most of these questions to be empirically settled, at least for the time being. As I said before, that would spoil all the fun...

[_Gadianton]

The point of the post was to show that Dr. Gee is not the laughable pseudo scholar that some here have painted him.

Um, you've been listening to Peterson too long. He's the one I think who invented the idea that critics charge apologists with pseudoscholarship in their areas of expertise - or in those areas where they are acting as scholars, and not as two-bit cult defenders. Can you cite any examples of critics claiming Gee has no idea what he's talking about in his professional work that pays his electric bill?

Dartagnan fairly frequenlty has very negative things to say about Dr. Gee.

charity, are you just trying extra hard not to get something beyond simple?