DiscussMormonism.com

I don't think you are hitting the non-believers' main points here. Book of Mormon (and Book of Abraham and the rest) historicity bear centrally on the claim that we should pay attention to Joseph Smith's religious utterances, which appear to be the basis from which your particular 'spirituality' tak...

The thing is, with many apologists, Gee included, the conclusion, no matter what the subject of the paper, must always support the church. They start each project with the end firmly in mind, never deviating from their premise. There is no discovery, no proven or disproven hypothesis. The conclusio...

Yes, it is libel to pass on the comments of another. Sigh. Only if the comments are libel. Clearly what Ritner has to say is, at worst, justified as fair comment. Since Dr Doughnut is now saying he was just repeating hearsay, and Ritner is the horse's mouth on this one, I think it is EXTREMELY unli...

Tom - thanks for all that.

None of it looks like a direct full answer to Ritner to me. Looks like Gee just can't hack it.

Now we have an anonymous poster slandering Dr. Peterson with the allegations of some third party. Weird, ain't it. What passes for civility on this Board passes for cowardice elsewhere. rcrocket Unless Robert Ritner wrote to Dartagnan on the understanding that his message would be kept confidential...

Does anybody else have a reference?

Thanks - but did Ritner give any details of the publications by Gee - journal, year, etc?

There is discussion on MAD in which someone (Whoever) keeps asking if Professor Gee has ever published a reply to Professor Ritner's major published criticism of what he and Nibley have written about the Joseph Smith papyri. I think he keeps asking because no-one ever answers him. Sooner or later th...