Update from Ritner

[_dartagnan]

If what Ritner says is true, then the situation is more bleak for Gee than it first seems. For not only is Gee guilty of trying to discredit a world class scholar in the field, and misrepresenting the situation dishonestly, but he will be left with more explaining to do. For example, what strings he pulled in order to speed through the Ph.D process just so he could claim the teaching position at BYU that was awaiting him. I wonder if other LDS at Yale like Kenneth West had some influence in this. Whatever the truth behind this is, it seems clear from Ritner that as his professor, he was uncomfortable rushing Gee through the process and that Gee did not complete the required work that satisfied his criterion for a Ritner-earned doctorate.

[_dartagnan]

I wish the discussion would stay on the issues and not get personal. But for many years FARMS has thrived on ad hominem attacks, polemical tricks, and political maneuverings. I remember when they had an all out campaign to ruin Tom Murphy's career. There are many other like stories. While I don't approve of fighting dirty, FARMS and FARMS supporters can hardly take the moral high ground here. And when they do, like you just did, it's obscene.

And to be honest, this is what gets me more than anything. I feel like I just left the cess pool of back-biting and ad hominem and now I look back and see them complaining about being victims this time, when it seems clear to me that what they consider ad hominem against themselves is really minor stuff compared to what they have thrown on their critics in times past. The've dedicated entire issues to attacking specific critics, like Thomas Murphy. This comes closer to a "campaign" than anything they could point to in the current Ritner fiasco.

[Guest]

If what Ritner says is true, then the situation is more bleak for Gee than it first seems. For not only is Gee guilty of trying to discredit a world class scholar in the field, and misrepresenting the situation dishonestly, but he will be left with more explaining to do. For example, what strings he pulled in order to speed through the Ph.D process just so he could claim the teaching position at BYU that was awaiting him. I wonder if other LDS at Yale like Kenneth West had some influence in this. Whatever the truth behind this is, it seems clear from Ritner that as his professor, he was uncomfortable rushing Gee through the process and that Gee did not complete the required work that satisfied his criterion for a Ritner-earned doctorate.

I think Gee missed a great opportunity to get some of the wrinkles in his apologetic ironed out. But it does show that even someone like Ritner, who obviously could pass his little Egyptological test, can't dissuade him from his apologetic nonsense. On that ground, his test was disingenuous.

[_dartagnan]

You know I had wondered in the back of my mind if Ritner might actually make an appearance on that thread. He definately knew about it. That would have been something, but I suspect he is saving the best punches for Brent's book. I also wonder if he plans to include some kind of apendix that deals directly with this situation, now that he is aware of it. He said he would post his correspondence with Gee online, I guess I should ask him where exactly.

[_moksha]

A couple of questions:

1. Does Ritner have some bias against the Mormon faith other than disagreeing the translation of the Book of Abraham?
2. What was Dr. Gee's dissertation topic?
3. Was Dr. Gee trying to incorporate LDS thought into the dissertation?
4. Did Dr. Gee initially ask Dr. Ritner to be his chairman?
5. Was Dr. Ritner being reasonable/unreasonable in his demands?

[_dartagnan]

== Does Ritner have some bias against the Mormon faith other than disagreeing the translation of the Book of Abraham?

Well that is what the apologists want to declare, and that was the whole purpose behind the rumors. The insinuation was that since Gee “successfully” had Ritner “removed,” that there must have been some type of bias or impropriety on Ritner’s part to warrant this action.

== What was Dr. Gee's dissertation topic?

Don’t remember.

==Was Dr. Gee trying to incorporate LDS thought into the dissertation?

I doubt it, since Ritner said he had his apologetics hidden from him.

== Did Dr. Gee initially ask Dr. Ritner to be his chairman?

No idea. He was his professor, and he had given him the assigned work, so I think it was only natural that he be on the advisory board.

== Was Dr. Ritner being reasonable/unreasonable in his demands?

This is what Gee and Peterson have never established, but they have bent over backwards to make people think that is precisely what happened.

[_Nevo]

A couple of questions:
What was Dr. Gee's dissertation topic?

I just looked up Dr. Gee's dissertation (courtesy of ProQuest Digital Dissertations). The title is "The Requirements of Ritual Purity in Ancient Egypt." According to the abstract, it "explores the implications of the work showing that the Negative Confessions in Book of the Dead 125 have their origins in priestly declarations upon entry into the temple, or initiation into priestly office."

Gee certainly doesn't hide his religious affiliation. The dedication (to his parents) quotes passages from the Book of Mormon and the Acknowledgments section lists "the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies" as a "major source" of funding. He also mentions that the Department of Religion at Brigham Young University provided summer teaching experience.

The Acknowledgments section opens as follows:

In the many years that have passed before reaching this point, many have contributed financially and materially to the production of this dissertation, without whom I would not have been able to produce it. Robert Ritner, as my initial dissertation advisor[,] provided helpful comments on the early drafts of this work and prevented me from going in several wrong directions. When Professor Ritner was unable to complete the task of advising the dissertation, Professor William Kelly Simpson kindly moved in to help see the dissertation to completion.

[_dartagnan]

I doubt Gee hid his religious affiliation. It was his attempt to use Egyptology to serve his religious beliefs, which was what Ritner said he concealed from him. But the dissertation does seem to have Mormon overtones, so perhaps that is why Ritner asked Gee to find someone else for the job. Maybe it was at that point that Ritner realized he had an apologist on his hands.

[_Paul Osborne]

I think all this talk about legal action is a bunch of nonsense. From my casual observations it seems like some Christians are unwilling to allow others to slap their cheeks without putting up a fight . . . .

On another note, I think some LDS scholars are so high up in the clouds of pride that they have become banners of the pride of Mormonism in the last days - seen by Nephi of old. Could it be that the foundation of pride in the LDS Church is in the academic arena?

I want to focus on the teachings of the prophets and listen to the counsel given in General Conference. On the flip side, I’m very suspicious of the pride of LDS academia and concerned about what appears to be self righteous tactics to fool others for personal gain.

That’s what I think.

Paul O

[_marg]

I just looked up Dr. Gee's dissertation (courtesy of ProQuest Digital Dissertations). The title is "The Requirements of Ritual Purity in Ancient Egypt." According to the abstract, it "explores the implications of the work showing that the Negative Confessions in Book of the Dead 125 have their origins in priestly declarations upon entry into the temple, or initiation into priestly office."

Gee certainly doesn't hide his religious affiliation. The dedication (to his parents) quotes passages from the Book of Mormon and the Acknowledgments section lists "the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies" as a "major source" of funding. He also mentions that the Department of Religion at Brigham Young University provided summer teaching experience.

The Acknowledgments section opens as follows:

In the many years that have passed before reaching this point, many have contributed financially and materially to the production of this dissertation, without whom I would not have been able to produce it. Robert Ritner, as my initial dissertation advisor[,] provided helpful comments on the early drafts of this work and prevented me from going in several wrong directions. When Professor Ritner was unable to complete the task of advising the dissertation, Professor William Kelly Simpson kindly moved in to help see the dissertation to completion.

Which I think is wrong of Gee to do, that is associate his religious affliations to his scholarly work, particularly quoting from the Book of Mormon. It's a way of piggy-backing religious claims which are not open to critical objective investigation by experts in Egyptology onto scholarly work in Egyptology which is required to be objectively evaluated by experts. It is an attempt to add credibility to religious claims in this case. The implication is that if Gee has earned a doctorate on Egyptology based on this dissertation and he's quoting the Book of Mormon in the dedication, then anything within Mormonism which involves Eygptology must have been objectively evaluated by Gee.