Gee notes in an introductory post that "[t]he purpose of this blog is to deal with ancient stories. Most of them will probably not be about Vikings. Often there will be a modern connection but I will usually not make the connection explicit. 'He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.'"
In a post dated October 28, Professor Gee explains why he will not allow comments on his blog:
As I start blogging, I do so with some trepidation. Normally blogs have some sort of comment feature. The purpose behind such a feature is to have readers leave behind thoughtful comments. In reality, however, comments on most blogs that I have read are ignorant, hate-filled, and incoherent diatribes.
After quoting some thoughts from Arthur Brooks' Gross National Happiness regarding why ideologues are happy, Gee observes:
The Book of Mormon, as usual, has some interesting commentary on the subject. The letter of Mormon to his son Moroni preserved in Moroni 9 contains some of the most depressing passages in scripture: descriptions of the barbarous practices of the Nephites who “only a few years” previously had been “a civil and a delightsome people” (Moroni 9:12). One cause of the depravity was that “Satan stirreth them up continually to anger one with another” (Moroni 9:3). This is one reason why I am not overly enthusiastic about comments.
In a November 2 post, Gee informs his readers that Hugh Nibley's piece titled "Nobody to Blame" "should be required reading for any Latter-day Saint going into academics." He uses Nibley's piece to throw some jabs at some unnamed academic colleagues who he says seek popularity in academia more than they seek to build the Kingdom. Gee writes:
Granted the [Nibley] piece is dated a bit; it was written over fifty years ago and some thing [sic] about BYU have changed in the intervening years. The intellectual issues have not changed at all. There are still those who wish to be popular in the eyes of the academic world and think that they can get the academic world to respect them simply by capitulating to whatever other academics think. As Nibley points out, such individuals make their entire career one great face-saving move at the expense of the Church. I see this on a daily basis.
On November 4, Gee continued his discussion of Nibley's 1960 piece (an open letter to an individual considering graduate school first published in 2008) by launching a series of posts on what he refers to as "Nibley's Four Approaches to Learning.” In his letter, Nibley proposed ignoring the challenges of the learned world, running away from them, agreeing with them, or meeting them on their own grounds. Nibley's first approach:
We can ignore them. This is often a good idea, since the two greatest nuisances in the Church are (a) those who think they know enough to disprove the claims of Joseph Smith, and (b) those who think they know enough to prove them. Actually, nobody knows nearly enough either to prove or disprove the gospel—"Man cannot by searching find out God" (see Job 11:7). If we ignore the learning of the world, then of course we will have no need for institutions of higher learning.
Gee waxes philosophical about the importance of academic concerns here, invoking the example of the valiant LDS nurse who devotes her thinking to saving lives rather than "squabbles over hermeneutics":
I find it telling that Nibley, one of the most learned Latter-day Saints of his generation, considered ignoring the learning of the world as a legitimate option. There should be something sobering about that fact.
Thousands, if not millions, of Latter-day Saints live good decent lives without giving a thought to intellectual issues or the fads of academia. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. One can, for example, be a nurse using her mind to the utmost in serving God by helping other people. When one is racking one's brain for information that will save a person's life, squabbles over hermeneutics can seem petty by comparison.
Saints who build shelters, cook meals, comfort children, change bed pans, and mourn with those who mourn can be involved in Christian service and serving God and their fellowmen with all their heart, might, mind, and strength without worrying about the concerns of those who are ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. No minimum amount of study is a prerequisite to serve in the Kingdom of God.
Besides, Jesus mentioned feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick as things that let one enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 25:31-46). Degrees, blogging, and intellectual posturing are unmentioned. "For what shall it profit a man if he gain his degree, and lose his own soul?" (see Mark 8:36).
The following day, November 5, Gee throws some punches below the belt at some unnamed colleagues in a discussion regarding the second approach to the learned world proposed by Nibley:
We can run away from them. That is, we can claim to be scholars in the full and proper sense of the word and yet refuse to meet other scholars on their own round, confining our learned antics to audiences of "our own people." We at the BYU want the world to accept our academic pretensions, even though we do not begin to come up to its academic standards. We claim special status and immunity as a Church school and yet ask full faith and credit in the world for a brand of education which we will not allow the world to criticize. All this is a form of running away from our scholastic responsibilities. When books and articles against the Church and its teachings have come out in the past, no matter how patently false and unfair they have been, none of the Church's army of professional scholars has shown any inclinations to rush to the defense of the faith, though even a mercenary should show some measure of loyalty to his employer. Why is this so? Those who keep silence when the Church is attacked are neither vicious nor depraved, but they are afraid—they are playing safe in a ticklish situation. For having given out that they are scholars, they must, to save face with the Gentiles and the Saints, steer clear of any situation in which their limitations would be brought to light.
Gee tells us that “I think that Nibley had some of his colleagues in both the history and religion departments in mind when he wrote these words. These were individuals who, if they wrote at all, wrote only to Latter-day Saint audiences. Older faculty tell me that the situation began to change under President Holland, who insisted that the faculty needed to publish as well as teach.”
Lest we point a finger at BYU's faculty today for the same failings, Gee reassures his readers that “[w]hat Nibley said about BYU fifty years ago is not necessarily true now." Indeed, Gee writes, "I have several colleagues who have stepped up and defended their faith.” Still, Gee complains that
Unfortunately I also have some colleagues who keep silence when the Church is attack [sic] and would not dream of defending the faith. Nibley describes them as mercenaries who show no measure of loyalty to their employer. Some also wish those who defend their faith would keep silent. These seem not to be mercenaries but either intellectual pacifists or traitors.
Intellectual pacifists seem to think that if we just keep quiet everything will go away of its own accord. That might be true sometimes, but usually is not true. Honest intellectual pacifists would realize that they are not suited for academia and should abandon it for Nibley's first option. Instead, these intellectual cowards simply run away from their academic, to say nothing of their covenant, responsibilities.
Gee returns to the same subject a day later and takes up a discussion of Nibley’s third approach to learning:
We can agree with the world. This has always been standard procedure with our Mormon intellectuals. What else can they do, since they cannot stand up to the opposition and cannot afford to run away? Nothing is more prevalent among the LDS schoolmen than the illusion that they can enroll themselves in the company of the experts and gain their respect and recognition simply by agreeing with whatever they say. Naturally our poorly equipped scholars tend to panic when anyone threatens to substitute serious discussion for professional camaraderie. They have assailed me hysterically for daring to criticize Mrs. Brodie or speak of the Book of Mormon in polite company. And yet I cannot feel to chide them for their timidity—mere prudence admonishes them against rocking the boat in waters where they cannot swim. But the point is that they claim to be expert swimmers and volunteer themselves as lifeguards for all. And so their specious learning has been a source of weakness to the Church.
Gee then comments:
So some, perhaps many, intellectuals feel that the only thing that matters is for their colleagues to like them. Such people cannot possibly be taking the Book of Mormon seriously and, in fact, many of them do not. Unfortunately, I know a number of colleagues and not a few administrators who panic when anyone threatens to substitute serious discussion for professional camaraderie.
An acquaintance of mine wants so desperately to be liked that he refuses to point out when his colleagues and, even worse, his students spout utter nonsense. Although he himself believes, he will not point out that what they are saying is flatly absurd and utterly false. He seems to think that they will come around to the correct point of view if only they are shielded from seeing the error of their ways. He may think he is being nice, but he is actually denying them the opportunity to repent because he refuses to call them to repentance.
Looked at another way, what sort of real intellectual capitulates to the whims of the popular crowd? These days, many intellectuals have only the courage of others' convictions, not their own. As has been repeatedly pointed out, these days one type of diversity that is rare on college campuses is diversity of opinion.
It is not clear what Gee is referring to when he criticizes his unnamed acquaintance for failing to call colleagues and students to repentance. Is this a seminary teacher? An Institute teacher? A BYU religion professor? It seems to be a case of "'He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.'"
Gee finishes his series with comments on Nibley’s fourth proposed approach to learning:
We can meet the opposition on their own grounds, publishing in their journals (which are open to all) and presenting the clear evidence of the original sources. This is exactly what we have not been doing. We have fondly supposed through the years that we could mask out inadequacy behind the awesome facade of titles and degrees; our intellectuals rest their whole case on that very authoritarianism of rank and protocol which they have always affected to despise.
Gee applauds Nibley’s early record of publishing in the "opposition"’s journals, while acknowledging that “Nibley also realized that some arguments could not be published in academic venues: for some it was not appropriate, and others simply would not be accepted. But Nibley argued for his position on meeting the challenge of the learned world from experience. There was a point in his life when he lost interest in doing that sort of thing but he had paid his dues.”
“Fifty years later,” Gee complains, “there are a number of Latter-day Saint scholars who have taken up Nibley’s position but unfortunately it is still a minority position.” He concludes: “The trap that he noted that intellectuals fall into is still a trap that too many fall into. Nibley was able to point to a more excellent way, but few there be who find it.”
On November 8, Gee published his most revealing blog post yet. Noting that “[t]oday was the first day of the Mormon Media Studies Symposium,” Gee offers some guarded comments on the conditions on the ground at the Maxwell Institute, while revealing that he is not at liberty to discuss matters freely:
I presented at the one two years ago but have been ordered never to present again and any record of my having done so was deliberately expunged from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute which says something about the management of the Institute's actual attitude toward Mormon Studies.
Gee is referring here to a paper he co-authored with Louis Midgley and presented at the 2010 symposium titled "Under the Media’s Nose: Overlooked Factors Undermining the Presidential Campaign of Mitt Romney" (news coverage here). It's not clear what he means when Gee says that "any record" of his presentation "was deliberately expunged from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute." Perhaps he is referring to the Maxwell Institute website.
Gee continues:
I was only able to make a few of the papers. One of them was of particular interest. Rosemary Avance is not a Latter-day Saint but she is trying to follow the conversation between apologists and dissidents. As an example of apologists, she gave the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (http://www.fairlds.org)[;] as an example of dissidents she gave John Dehlin. She clearly has not mastered the intricacies of the discussion (for example, she confuses certain of the players and does not seem to care about the intellectual content of the discussions), but she has been trying to figure out what is going on and has some interesting things to say.
Avance told the story of how a response to Dehlin was suppressed at the Maxwell Institute giving Dehlin's version of the story. She summarized the article that was suppressed but admitted that she had not read it or even seen it.
Avance also said in response to a question that she sees no indication that the Maxwell Institute will be continuing with apologetics after this past summer. To the contrary, she says that they got rid of their major apologetic publication and have abandoned apologetics for Mormon Studies. I am still under interdict of talking about what may or may not be going on at the Maxwell Institute, but I thought that her take as an observer who is trying to follow the discussion closely was telling.
Although I cannot say more, I will say that I think Dehlin's version of the story grossly distorts his own role as a convenient and incidental pretext to what happened. Avance in a casual aside in her presentation hit somewhat closer to the truth than the Dehlin myth. We will have to see if her observation makes it into any sort of published version of her remarks.
On November 13, Gee got around to posting a disclaimer for his blogging, writing: “I suppose that it should be fairly obvious, but . . . The views expressed in this blog are the author's own. They do not necessarily represent those of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
In a post dated November 17, Gee takes up Bill Hamblin’s arguments regarding Mormon studies in a post titled “An Outside View." Gee begins his post by noting that Theodor Hopfner’s massive twentieth-century collection of Greek and Roman sources discussing Egyptian religion today “gathers dust on the shelf” for one reason: it’s “largely irrelevant.” Gee explains: “Classical authors writing about Egyptian religion are outsiders, not insiders. We have thousands of documents written by insiders who knew their religion better and actually understood it. There is thus no reason to rely on accounts written by outsiders who clearly did not understand the religion correctly.” Gee notes that some Classical authors were “downright hostile” toward Egyptian religion, quoting his one-time dissertation advisor Robert Ritner’s dismissal of one such author as “a satirist for whom ridicule—directed indifferently toward Roman, Greek or Egyptian—was an occupation” and who “had been expelled from Rome precisely for his propensity to compose offensive remarks.” Gee cannot resist taking a swipe at Ritner here, writing: “These remarks, coming from a source well-known for directing ridicule and offensive remarks indifferently, is [sic] ironic, but it is still wise counsel.” Alluding to Ritner’s published criticism of LDS scholarship regarding the Joseph Smith papyri, including Gee's, Gee delivers a lecture:
In looking at religion we do well to avoid paying heed to those for whom ridicule is an occupation, who are not disposed to be charitable, and who have a propensity to compose offensive remarks.
These considerations should apply not just to ancient Egyptian religion but to the study of all religions, and particularly to Mormon studies. In looking at Latter-day Saints, with so much insider information are outsider accounts really necessary? Are those who are not disposed to be charitable relevant? Studies giving preference or even credence to such accounts seem less interested in characterizing Latter-day Saints as in caricaturing them.
Finally, in a post titled “Academic Acceptance,” dated November 24, Gee waxes parabolic, drawing damning comparisons between Book of Mormon descriptions of the “great and spacious building” and modern academia. He writes: “A careful reading of the Book of Mormon indicates that in general, the secular academy will not accept those who hold fast to the rod of iron”; “most,” Gee says, “will, in fact, ‘point the finger of scorn at’ those who do (1 Nephi 8:33).” He quotes 1 Nephi 8:26’s description of the great and spacious building as “[standing] as it were in the air, high above the earth” as “suggest[ing] that the structure lacks any foundation.” Gee comments that these descriptions bring to mind two “disciplinary actions against academics for misconduct,” one involving a blogger fired by the Chronicle of Higher Education and the other involving a university professor who was exonerated for misconduct after he allegedly plagiarized from Wikipedia in his published work. “Not too long ago,” Gee tells us, “plagiarism and academic fraud were the only things that the academy would censure.” “That,” he solemnly announces to his readers, “is no longer the case.” Indeed, he says gloomily, "[t]ogether these, and similar incidents suggest that academia has no real standards and that their acceptance and rejection rests largely on whether what is being asserted fits in with whatever fad they currently accept.” He says he is reminded here of a discussion he had with a professor in graduate school (Gee does not identify him) who dismissed Gee’s argument that a particular book was heavily dependent on forged documents by saying, “It does not matter, because I like it.” For Latter-day Saints who might be concerned by the opinion of the academy regarding LDS scriptures, Gee offers his reassurance to them that “we expect no respect” from the academy and to “think otherwise is not to take the Book of Mormon seriously.” What matters, Gee says, “is whether, when all is said and done, we hear the words: ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant’” (quoting Matthew 25:21).
