John Gee has no reason to anymore even paying attention to anything with the papyri. He has now turned his talents to shoring up the morality of Mormonism. His next book is going to probably be "How to be a Real Good Mormon Housewife, and Rub Your Husband's Feet for Him When He Returns Home From a Hard Day's Work, The Gospel at Work for the Holiness of the Eternal Family."
It's only going to get worse for John Gee. His legacy already lies in ruins. Gee will be villainized and belittled for generations to come. His legitimate efforts in Egyptology will count for little -- mere footnotes in some obscure publication. Even the Church will throw him under the bus. Gee wasted his Ph.D., selling it for a mess of Smith's pottage -- defending the lies of a man whose main ambition in life was to spread as many legs as he could. What a sad tale of misery and woe! Gee utterly failed.
WIKIPEDIA wrote:
John Laurence Gee (born 1964) is a professional Egyptologist (Ph.D., Yale University). Gee is a Latter-day Saint scholar and apologist. He currently teaches at Brigham Young University (BYU) and serves in the Department of Near Eastern Languages. He is known for his scholarly writings in support of the Book of Abraham.
Because of his expertise in Near Eastern studies and Egyptology, Gee is highly visible in the debate over the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. His interest in these issues led to his involvement with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at BYU since the late 1980s.He has also presented on the Joseph Smith Papyri to the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR).
One of Gee's former Yale professors, Robert K. Ritner, later publicly criticized some of Gee's interpretations of the Joseph Smith Papyri; as well as his failure to include Ritner in professional peer reviews of his work, as his other students have.
One of Gee's former co-authors, fellow professors at BYU, and editor of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Brian Hauglid, is also critical of Gee's interpretations of the Joseph Smith Papyri. In 2018, Hauglid wrote, "I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic "scholarship" on the Book of Abraham abhorrent.
Gee's 2020 book Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith caused immediate controversy with its suggestion that sexual abuse might be a possible factor in homosexual attraction. Multiple reviewers noted that this and other claims were outside Gee's realm of expertise and asserted that he misinterpreted data to arrive at his conclusions. The book was pulled by its publisher.
A slave in King Pharaoh's court, by the name "Olimlah"
BYU Egyptologist, John-Boy-Gee, confirms Smith's racist revelation (see the writing above Fig. 6) that the black man is a "slave". Dark skinned "Olimlah" is unworthy to hold God's true priesthood simply because he's black and for no other reason. Amen to the priesthood of Olimlah! Only the white and delightsome can hold the priesthood in God's true church. No blacks allowed.
[1] Brigham Young
[2] Racist Mormons
[3] Mark E. Peterson
[4] Hugh Nibley
[5] Book of Abraham Pharaoh
We gave the blacks the priesthood starting in 1978. What more do you want? You Negros constantly whine and complain. Facsimile No. 3 is what it is. Deal with it!
Get a job!
From the Office of the White & Delightsome President of the Mormon Church
You know that the world body of Egyptologists will in general and definite terms, identify Fig. 6 as the Egyptian god Anubis even though he has been horribly mutilated by Hedlock. Regardless of the mutilation and the fact that the lead plate originally depicted Anubis in correct jackal headed form, Egyptologists are NOT going to side with the corrupt apologetic views of BYU scholars whose sole purpose is to cover up and excuse Smith's blundering interpretations. That is never going to happen. It is BYU scholars against world scholars and the world is going to side with the world scholars. There is nothing BYU can do to turn Anubis into a slave and justify Smith's deception.
The sooner you admit the truth and set the record straight the better off everyone will be.
Come now, and let us reason together. Let's sing a song in honor of Facsimile No. 3:
Abram wrote:
The ISIS bone connected to the OSIRIS bone,
The OSIRIS bone connected to the MAAT bone,
The MAAT bone connected to the HOR bone,
The HOR bone connected to the ANUBIS bone,
The ANUBIS bone connected to the SNOUT bone,
The SNOUT bone connected to the LEADPLATE bone,
Oh, hear the word of Amen-Re!
John Laurence Gee (born 1964) is a professional Egyptologist (Ph.D., Yale University). Gee is a Latter-day Saint scholar and apologist. He currently teaches at Brigham Young University (BYU) and serves in the Department of Near Eastern Languages. He is known for his scholarly writings in support of the Book of Abraham.Because of his expertise in Near Eastern studies and Egyptology, Gee is highly visible in the debate over the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. His interest in these issues led to his involvement with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at BYU since the late 1980s.He has also presented on the Joseph Smith Papyri to the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR).One of Gee's former Yale professors, Robert K. Ritner, later publicly criticized some of Gee's interpretations of the Joseph Smith Papyri; as well as his failure to include Ritner in professional peer reviews of his work, as his other students have.One of Gee's former co-authors, fellow professors at BYU, and editor of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Brian Hauglid, is also critical of Gee's interpretations of the Joseph Smith Papyri. In 2018, Hauglid wrote, "I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic "scholarship" on the Book of Abraham abhorrent.Gee's 2020 book Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith caused immediate controversy with its suggestion that sexual abuse might be a possible factor in homosexual attraction. Multiple reviewers noted that this and other claims were outside Gee's realm of expertise and asserted that he misinterpreted data to arrive at his conclusions. The book was pulled by its publisher.
