DiscussMormonism.com

I have written a response to Smoot's review of my book but have not posted it anywhere. One of the first paragraphs reads: The review is unfortunate in that Smoot never engages my arguments dealing with the reverse-translation theory of the apologists, which is mostly why I wrote the book. Of course, as a doctoral student in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literature at the Catholic University of America, Smoot wants to defend the Book of Abraham’s antiquity, which he does at every opportunity, even when it is irrelevant to the discussion of my book. In fact, a person reading Smoot’s review still would not know what my book is about. Moreover, he repeatedly strawmans my arguments or bashes them with ad hominem and quickly reverts to defending the Book of Abraham’s antiquity as if to say apologetic parallels to the ancient world are more important than evidence deduced directly from Smith-related documents. But this is why I wrote the book to correct this neglect or misrepresentation of Smith Egyptian-English texts. Smoot is merely attempting to continue this mistake. In fact, despite his appeals to authority, Smoot is not the right person to review my book.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:00 pm

For me, since it is the subject most exercising me right now, it is John Gee splicing and dicing the witnesses to the papyri in illegal (unscholarly, unethical) ways in order to get them to look like they are saying something they are not. You cannot take the first half of one witness's description, and the second half of another witness's description and splice them together to mean something that neither witness ever said or meant. That methodology is so wrong it's not even wrong.

The second most heinous thing apologists have done is simply copy the above method in their own publications without looking into what the witnesses themselves said, but just trusting their own scholar associates. The three most egregious guilty are Michael Dennis Rhodes, John Gee, and Kerry Muhlstein. It is or has become inbred scholarship.

dan vogel wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:41 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:00 pm

For me, since it is the subject most exercising me right now, it is John Gee splicing and dicing the witnesses to the papyri in illegal (unscholarly, unethical) ways in order to get them to look like they are saying something they are not. You cannot take the first half of one witness's description, and the second half of another witness's description and splice them together to mean something that neither witness ever said or meant. That methodology is so wrong it's not even wrong.

The second most heinous thing apologists have done is simply copy the above method in their own publications without looking into what the witnesses themselves said, but just trusting their own scholar associates. The three most egregious guilty are Michael Dennis Rhodes, John Gee, and Kerry Muhlstein. It is or has become inbred scholarship.

"The three most egregious guilty are Michael Dennis Rhodes, John Gee, and Kerry Muhlstein. It is or has become inbred scholarship." I like that. It perfectly describes their method and goals.

K Graham wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:48 pm

John Gee's flat out lying about "red ink" is what started it all for me.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 8:17 pm

The "Metcalfe is Butthead" acrostic has to rank pretty high on the list. I would also put their lying about the 2nd Watson Letter up there. And Dan Peterson's lying about getting paid $20,000+ to serve as Chair of FARMS. And John Gee's "two inks" gambit. And Tvetdnes's attempts to block Murphy's tenure process. There are lots to choose from.