DiscussMormonism.com

As if last week's entry wasn't enough, John Gee, Daniel Peterson, and the rest of the folks at "Mormon Interpreter" have just published a second attack on the Church-sanctioned Joseph Smith Papers Project, once again aiming their ire specifically at vol. 4, which was co-edited by Brian Hauglid. The abstract to the article is as follows:

Gee wrote:Abstract: The volume editors of The Joseph Smith Papers Revelations and Translations: Volume 4 propose a theory of translation of the Book of Abraham that is at odds with the documents they publish and with other documents and editorial comments published in the other volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Two key elements of their proposal are the idea of simultaneous dictation of Book of Abraham Manuscripts in the handwritings of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish, and Joseph Smith’s use of the so-called Alphabet and Grammar. An examination of these theories in the light of the documents published in the Joseph Smith Papers shows that neither of these theories is historically tenable. The chronology the volume editors propose for the translation of the Book of Abraham creates more problems than it solves. A different chronology is proposed. Unfortunately, the analysis shows that the theory of translation of the Book of Abraham adopted by the Joseph Smith Papers volume editors is highly flawed.

He must be really peeved to have felt the need to crank out two articles in a row like this. Still, you have to admire his restraint this time around: he didn't use the phrase "anti-Mormon" a single time! Perhaps the editorial Powers-that-Be at Interpreter felt that it would be prudent to rein in those tendencies after last week? Regardless, the President of Interpreter is awfully glad about all of this:

Sic et Non wrote:I’m pleased to announce that yet another new article — this one by John Gee — has appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:

Meanwhile, down in the Comments at "SeN," someone notices something problematic:

Cobra Kai 4 Life wrote:John Gee wrote, “Unfortunately, the analysis shows that the theory of translation of the Book of Abraham adopted by the Joseph Smith Papers volume editors is highly flawed.”

Is John aware that the 4 individuals that comprise the editorial board are at the highest levels in the Church?

-Steven E. Snow - Church Historian and Recorder

-Richard E. Turley Jr. - Assistant Church Historian and Recorder

-Reid L. Neilson - Managing Director, Church History Department, and Assistant Church Historian and Recorder

-Matthew J. Grow Director, Publications Division, Church History Department

In addition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints directs the project in addition to publishing the volumes.

In my humble opinion, the appropriate course of action for John would have been to discuss his concerns privately to the 4 members of the Editorial Board. For reasons that escape me, John has instead decided to publicly air his perceived grievances he had with this Church project.

Good point. It's not often that the Mopologists go after Church-sanctioned projects, though they've certainly attacked specific General Authorities. I'm thinking of Midgley's aggressive confrontation of an emeritus GA who supported Meldrum. And there was also that time when Midgley boasted about needing for Apostle Mark E. Petersen to "die" so that they could plug their LGT ideas. So, there is very clearly a hostility towards Church leadership at the heart of Mopologetics. And so, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, Kiwi responds precisely by undermining the authority of the men who hold the keys in the Church:

kiwi57 wrote:An argument from authority is fallacious. Have those men engaged Dr Gee's argument with better arguments of their own? Or not?

From time to time, we see an interesting phenomenon here at Sic et Non: an anonymous poster, posing as a faithful Latter-day Saint in order to criticise the work of those who are defending the kingdom - often by invoking the authority and prestige of Church leaders.

We've seen it often enough that I'm starting to wonder whether we are seeing it again.

Dr Gee did not "publicly air" any "grievances." He critiqued a published argument.

The two things are not the same.

"[t]hose men"? Were they appointed by Church authorities, or not? Would the Mopologists have ever gone after Legacy like this? What about Mormon Doctrine? In any case, you can see that they've painted themselves into a corner. DCP is forced into having to wave the whole thing away:

Your humble opinion is duly noted, CK4L.

In academia, book reviews and articles are pretty much standard stuff. And I don't believe that the two volume-editors have ever wrapped themselves in apostolic authority or infallibility or claimed an exemption from academic critique for their editorial decisions.

"[A]cademic critique," eh? Does that include calling the project--and vol. 4's editors--"anti-Mormon"? This reminds me a lot of the whole "Korihor's Press" fiasco, except this is being aimed at an actual Church-sanctioned project. It's absolutely nuts when you think about it: this is a level of brazen chutzpah that goes well beyond just about anything they've ever done. And you can tell that a lot of this is motivated by rage, a sense of betrayal, and a lust for revenge: boy, do they ever hate Brian Hauglid! But they aren't just going after him in the typical smear-campaign way; instead, they are actually trying to tear down a volume of the JSP as a means of attacking Hauglid: they are actually willing to plow through apostolic authority in order to score points against an enemy. Quite shocking, when you think about it, and yet utterly predictable. It will be interesting to watch the fallout in the coming months.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:44 am

So, there is very clearly a hostility towards Church leadership at the heart of Mopologetics.

I am sure there were times the KGB felt peeved at the Kremlin for restraining their propaganda efforts or even being too "diplomatic" in their announcements. The Interpreter Foundation might have allies within the Church hierarchy who would like to see any push for historical accuracy fail. I imagine the KGB could have been relentless at times. Hopefully. Mr. Hauglid and the Joseph Smith Papers Project people will be able to avoid any plutonium capsules.

Gee has deservedly earned himself the reputation of being a crank when it comes to Mormon scholarship. Sorry, it is true. The guy may be brilliant, and he doubtless does competent work in Egyptology, but as concerns the Book of Abraham and anything connected to it, he is viewed as a crank, and rightly so.

Reading through the article, it seems that Gee disagrees with various assumptions, and replaces them with assumptions of his own. Okay, but then I found an odd footnote:

11. Unfortunately, the transcriptions provided in JSPRT4 are inadequate to study scribal characteristics. I give my own transcriptions throughout.

If I recall correctly, we discussed here when Gee disagreed with the published work, and his version of the transcriptions were not considered as reliable, or following proper technique. If what's happening here is Gee disagreeing, and simply supporting his opinion with his earlier, already somewhat discredited work, it is hard to give much credence to his conclusion. It certainly isn't enough to support his title where he implies JSPRT4 transcribers are presenting "Fantasy" while he presents "Reality":

Fantasy and Reality in the Translation of the Book of Abraham
John Gee
Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 42 (2021): 127-170

Kiwi57 wrote:An argument from authority is fallacious. Have those men engaged Dr Gee's argument with better arguments of their own? Or not?

Okay, if we allow Dr. Gee to have his article, will Kiwi be consistent and request that DCP take down Mormon Scholars Testify? Since that website is one gigantic appeal to authority and nothing else.

Kiwi57 wrote:An argument from authority is fallacious. Have those men engaged Dr Gee's argument with better arguments of their own? Or not?

It’s interesting that the Mopologists would use this argument when the authority they are arguing against is the Church itself.

Kiwi57 just let his mask slip. The Mopologists truly are at war with the Church.

Wow, it seems that the folks at "Interpreter" felt that it was necessary to convene for three+ hours on a Saturday:

Sic et Non wrote:First, though: The executive board of the Interpreter Foundation met this morning, from 9 AM to just a few minutes after 12:00 noon. (Virtually, I should add, lest some of my perpetual critics suffer cardiac arrest while vying with one another in their indignation and outrage over yet another redundant example of my depravity.) Anyway, it seems from that meeting that, in fact, Interpreter isn’t dead yet.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Meanwhile, Midgley is in full-on spin-doctor mode in the comments:

Midgley wrote:CK4L is badly out of date on who exactly the Church Historian and Recorder, and who the Assistant Director of the Church History Department is and so forth. CK4L does not realize that the volume of the Joseph Smith Papers project on the two individual, one of whom announced when he retired from BYU that he was not a faithful Latter-day Saint, who had adopted the theory promoted by a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ. Does CK4L think that he should have "discussed his concerns privately" with the actual editors of that volume? This is, it seems, exactly what CK4L, in his "humble opinion," seems to believe.

I don't think that's quite what Hauglid said, was it? Besides, the volume *was published.* Other people looked it over--I mean, why aren't they going after Jensen? Is the idea that he just sat on the sidelines the whole time, while the "cunning apostate" managed to smuggle in all these heretical views? And what about the editorial board that CK4L mentioned? Presumably, they looked at the manuscript, too, right? And yet the Mopologists are trying to pin all of this on Hauglid.

How long until all of this blows up in their faces? I just don't see this ending well for them.

I don't think that's quite what Hauglid said, was it? Besides, the volume *was published.* Other people looked it over--I mean, why aren't they going after Jensen?

Are they sorta doing this by saying, hey look, these so called faithful scholars just let an anti-moromon theory get published on their watch.

Huh. Mr. Stak might have to weigh in, but it’s starting to look like Mr. Peterson will have to pass the lolcow mantle to Bro. Gee. I haven’t seen someone self-sabotage their professional reputation this thoroughly since Gen. Flynn decided to become a Russian asset.

- Doc

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:45 am

I don't think that's quite what Hauglid said, was it? Besides, the volume *was published.* Other people looked it over--I mean, why aren't they going after Jensen?

Are they sorta doing this by saying, hey look, these so called faithful scholars just let an anti-moromon theory get published on their watch.

Yes, you're quite right, Dean Robbers, and in that sense, these articles from Gee and Interpreter are an attack on the Joseph Smith Papers Project itself. It's very cowardly of them that they are trying to lay all of the blame on Hauglid.