John Gee leaves bizarre message as he steps down from editorship, also his inappropriate Ritner review

[Kishkumen]

Is it crazy to think that people are capable of approaching evidentiary situations with an open mind? Without being so biased by beliefs that partisanship clouds everything?

I don't feel like the situation is so hopeless as that. People have biases and motivations. They should be acknowledged and taken into account. That does not mean that their arguments are necessarily invalid. I think Jenkins was absolutely correct in his arguments against the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. I think Ritner is right in his Egyptological position regarding the Book of Abraham. They can be biased, motivated by a mix of different things, AND correct in their arguments.

All I was urging at the outset was that we consider Gee's reasons for his seemingly inscrutable actions. Did he overreact? Oh yes, and what he did was really shoot himself in the foot spectacularly. But I think it is clear why he did so. I don't see people examining Gee's motivations, which I think are important to recognize and understand in order to take a proper measure of the whole situation. The thread title calls his message "bizarre." I think it is and yet in other ways it is not. The ways in which it is not are what I am talking about.

[Dr Moore]

None of us are mind readers...

In other words,

"Yes, Mormon boy, let's relish seeing you squirm while you try to avoid what we all know is clear: your scriptures are crap!"

Reverend, while I can't read Jenkins' mind any better than you, I'll take the other side of this re-narrating Jenkins.

Bias isn't static. More importantly, the burden of proof falls on those who assert those theories that contradict prevailing ones. Stating the most logical conclusions that flow from prevailing theories isn't biased -- it's the scientific method.

That, to me, was the whole point Jenkins tried to make, and which Hamblin refused to acknowledge.

In any field of study, evidence leads to hypotheses. Testing hypotheses for predictability leads to theories. Theories become stronger through interrogation, questions and further experimentation.

As Jenkins so eloquently stated, if the available evidence does not support any theory that there were Jews in the Americas, then the most logical conclusion is that the theory of the Book of Mormon as a historical document fails.

Period.

That statement doesn't have to be biased or motivated by anything other than an honest search for truth, following the scientific method. The statement certainly should not be judged to imply any sort of "Mormon boy...squirm...crap scriptures" meme drivel either. As a logical conclusory statement, it just is and it ought to be stated confidently by Mormon and non-Mormon scholars alike.

It is the choice to assert otherwise -- that the Book of Mormon is a historical document -- that exposes bias and motivation.

[dastardly stem]

None of us are mind readers...

In other words,

"Yes, Mormon boy, let's relish seeing you squirm while you try to avoid what we all know is clear: your scriptures are crap!"

Reverend, while I can't read Jenkins' mind any better than you, I'll take the other side of this re-narrating Jenkins.

Bias isn't static. More importantly, the burden of proof falls on those who assert those theories that contradict prevailing ones. Stating the most logical conclusions that flow from prevailing theories isn't biased -- it's the scientific method.

That, to me, was the whole point Jenkins tried to make, and which Hamblin refused to acknowledge.

In any field of study, evidence leads to hypotheses. Testing hypotheses for predictability leads to theories. Theories become stronger through interrogation, questions and further experimentation.

As Jenkins so eloquently stated, if the available evidence does not support any theory that there were Jews in the Americas, then the most logical conclusion is that the theory of the Book of Mormon as a historical document fails.

Period.

That statement doesn't have to be biased or motivated by anything other than an honest search for truth, following the scientific method. The statement certainly should not be judged to imply any sort of "Mormon boy...squirm...crap scriptures" meme drivel either. As a logical conclusory statement, it just is and it ought to be stated confidently by Mormon and non-Mormon scholars alike.

It is the choice to assert otherwise -- that the Book of Mormon is a historical document -- that exposes bias and motivation.

I think this is largely correct, Dr Moore. I also thought Kishkumen's point, raised earlier, is true too. The juxtaposition used by Jenkins, as if contrasting a traditional Christian view with Mormonism, didn't come off very well. Mormons are completely dependent on the claims of Christianity as any traditional Christian is. One reason he could use that juxtaposition is because the majority view falls to his side as a matter of majority and for no other reason it seems. That is listeners are either other Christians or ex-Mormons or I suppose, Mormon apologist types. There seemed to be some grandstanding in there--"you can't give evidence for the Book of Mormon.....but Christianity works.." Nah...if we want to be serious about it, they both come up short. That is the nature of religion or faith or whatever.

[Kishkumen]

Reverend, while I can't read Jenkins' mind any better than you, I'll take the other side of this re-narrating Jenkins.

Bias isn't static. More importantly, the burden of proof falls on those who assert those theories that contradict prevailing ones. Stating the most logical conclusions that flow from prevailing theories isn't biased -- it's the scientific method.

That, to me, was the whole point Jenkins tried to make, and which Hamblin refused to acknowledge.

In any field of study, evidence leads to hypotheses. Testing hypotheses for predictability leads to theories. Theories become stronger through interrogation, questions and further experimentation.

As Jenkins so eloquently stated, if the available evidence does not support any theory that there were Jews in the Americas, then the most logical conclusion is that the theory of the Book of Mormon as a historical document fails.

Period.

That statement doesn't have to be biased or motivated by anything other than an honest search for truth, following the scientific method. The statement certainly should not be judged to imply any sort of "Mormon boy...squirm...crap scriptures" meme drivel either. As a logical conclusory statement, it just is and it ought to be stated confidently by Mormon and non-Mormon scholars alike.

It is the choice to assert otherwise -- that the Book of Mormon is a historical document -- that exposes bias and motivation.

I agree with almost everything you said, but I do not grant your bracketing of exclusion that leaves out Jenkins' religion, his job at a religious university, and the connection between them. It would be like saying that micro-aggressions simply do not exist because nothing apparent in the moment looks too unfair to you. If we don't believe in structural racism and sexism, then we don't need to believe in structural religious bias either. If we accept some kinds of structural unfairness, then we need to be able to consider the possibility that there are others operating too. I believe structural discrimination against Mormons is a real thing, and that when a Protestant professor working at a Protestant university chooses the Book of Mormon to illustrate what pseudo-history is, that is not a bloodlessly rational exercise. When he shares his amusement about seeing Hamblin avoid arguments about the Book of Mormon that might be embarrassing to him, I take him at his word that he takes pleasure in seeing the Mormon professor squirm.

[The Stig]

Gee's noisy exit from his editorial role is one of the most self-serving, unprofessional, self-destructive acts I've seen in a while...and we just watched Donald J. Trump leave the White House a few weeks ago...to put things in perspective.

[Lem]

...The juxtaposition used by Jenkins, as if contrasting a traditional Christian view with Mormonism, didn't come off very well. Mormons are completely dependent on the claims of Christianity as any traditional Christian is. One reason he could use that juxtaposition is because the majority view falls to his side as a matter of majority and for no other reason it seems. That is listeners are either other Christians or ex-Mormons or I suppose, Mormon apologist types. There seemed to be some grandstanding in there--"you can't give evidence for the Book of Mormon.....but Christianity works.." Nah...if we want to be serious about it, they both come up short. That is the nature of religion or faith or whatever.

Except that juxtaposition wasn't his starting point. His first three or four blog entries before Hamblin started responding were about scholarship vs. speculation. From his first entry of the series:

In my next few columns, I want to suggest just why that scholarly consensus matters, whether we are dealing with alternative scriptures, bizarre historical claims, or pseudo-archaeology. I’ll also try to explain how we can tell the difference between real scholarship and fringe speculations.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbe ... to-believe

[Lem]

I believe structural discrimination against Mormons is a real thing, and that when a Protestant professor working at a Protestant university chooses the Book of Mormon to illustrate what pseudo-history is, that is not a bloodlessly rational exercise.

I would imagine Scientologists feel the same when they are discriminated against.

This argument seems utterly surreal to me. Yes, the Book of Mormon, as presented by the lds church, is exactly the definition of pseudo-history!

Why should an utterly fraudulent representation of history be beyond academic discussion or realistic evaluation, especially when it is specifically presented as historical by the religion and its representatives, simply to cater to the feelings of a religious group? It is nonsensical. Dianetics never garnered such respect, and for good reason.

Mormons can be, and certainly are, respected as a religion. That should suffice. Jenkins deserves respect as well for making the attempt to educate about scholarly resources and acceptable historical claims. He clearly specified he would not have continued to discuss Mormon issues if Hamblin hadn't stepped in, so why castigate him now for the debates? Hamblin asked him to continue engaging, and he did. It was a debate over concepts, not a discriminatory exercise.

[Philo Sofee]

Is it crazy to think that people are capable of approaching evidentiary situations with an open mind? Without being so biased by beliefs that partisanship clouds everything?

Depends on who you ask. Do we see evil in the world? An insight from Kabbalah teaches evil is an appearance only of our own limited outlooks based on incomplete grasping of reality. It's a difficult esoteric interpretation, but from that view, our evidentiary situation is that evil is very seriously real, yet from another wider view our partisanship of it is incorrect perceiving of reality. Our reality is clouded. Infinity is hidden from our finite views, so that everything we perceive is distorted, even when we use evidence to justify what it is we are seeing. I suspect that goes for every single subject we humans have ever been exposed to in our experiences in our lives.

[Shulem]

Infinity is hidden from our finite views, so that everything we perceive is distorted, even when we use evidence to justify what it is we are seeing. I suspect that goes for every single subject we humans have ever been exposed to in our experiences in our lives.

I touch upon this, very deeply, very seriously, in a series of short essays that I've written by taking notes from someone's experiences, one who touched and came close to the core -- infinity -- and came back to tell his story. I highly recommend you check this out. I've just released it on this board hoping to benefit someone other than myself.

Up on the Celestial forum:

God, the Meaning of Life

[Dr Moore]

I agree with almost everything you said, but I do not grant your bracketing of exclusion that leaves out Jenkins' religion, his job at a religious university, and the connection between them.

I just read Jenkins differently -- he addressed the potential conflict explicitly at the outset. Circling the evidence and claims/theories to be considered, Jenkins said (emphasis mine):

This story also has lessons for mainstream Christians, who to varying degrees also have to face the dilemma of how they teach or preach scriptures that are hard to support as literally historical.

and

We might compare the world described in the New Testament. Archaeology and history cannot substantiate the details of Christ’s ministry, or the supernatural claims surrounding him. But they provide indisputable evidence that a society of that general kind existed in Palestine and the Levant around that time, speaking those languages and following those cultural and religious practices. In order to falsify that story, you would have to discard how many tens of thousands of objects, archaeological digs, inscriptions, and historical texts. You can’t dig a hole in Jerusalem without finding something to indicate that something like the world portrayed in the Bible existed there thousands of years ago.

So Jenkins seems to openly bracket away his personal spiritual views appropriately for a scholarly discussion. His motive may be broader, but what he isn't doing is drawing a line around scholarship only to trample the rules of scholarship in service of broader aims. The point he makes clear is that tools of historical analysis are equally incapable of validating the spiritual claims of Mormonism as with Christianity. These same tools do validate the proposition that the peoples and cultures described in the Bible largely did exist (he doesn't say all, but in the main, and especially so with respect to the circumstances establishing the setting in which Jesus is purported to have lived) and at the same time do not in any way validate the proposition that the Book of Mormon peoples and cultures ever existed at all. Simple point, meagre as it is. Jesus may or may not have been miraculous, but the stories about him are surely not rooted in an imaginary historical setting. The distinctions are well supported by the available evidence, examined by thousands of scholars from all walks of life.

Over and over, Jenkins asks:

Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.

He's not debating whether the Book of Mormon is inspired. He's asking for a single piece of evidence to legitimize the proposed setting.

Lastly, why would Jenkins preface his discussion of the Book of Mormon this way, if he had any intention of goading or scoring polemical points?

I have a lot of sympathy for Mormonism and the LDS tradition, for multiple reasons. So many of their ideas and principles appeal to me, and my personal dealings with Mormons have been overwhelmingly positive. The church’s phenomenal social ministries fill me with awe. As to whether the church was founded by an authentic prophet: with all humility, I say, God knows.