Dear John Gee

[_Daniel Peterson]

Get help, Scratch. Or else get a life and a sense of humor.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Dan,

If Gee's FR pieces on the Book of Abraham are peer-reviewed, then where the Book of Abraham is concerned you may need to find some new peer-reviewers.

Best,

-Chris

[_Doctor Scratch]

Get help, Scratch. Or else get a life and a sense of humor.

Oh, don't worry. I find it properly hilarious that your best response, in light of the the serious charge that the FARMS peer review process is essentially rigged, is to say, "You're insane. You need help." I marvel at the substance and rigor of your reply. And yes: you can bet that I'm full of good humor over this one. Also, though I risk attack from some of the uncivil posters on this board, I'll say again: it's impossible to comment intelligently on my views re: FARMS' peer review until one has read my earlier, in-depth posts.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not in charge of peer-reviewing for Göttinger Miszellen.

[_John Larsen]

One word: Huh?

Professor Gee's record of scholarly publications in non-Mormon Egyptological venues is not merely good. It's exceptionally good.

If that's the case, it is because he carefully masks from his colleagues the information he received from the translations provided by Joseph Smith. My guess is if he let on that he believed this stuff, his reputation in the academic world would be shot.

[_Brackite]

One word: Huh?

Professor Gee's record of scholarly publications in non-Mormon Egyptological venues is not merely good. It's exceptionally good.

If true, It still doesn’t change the fact that the Book of Abraham was 'Translated' from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text).

[_Henry Jacobs]

ROTFL.

Right. I need to study your musings in order to understand a process that I lead and to which you have no access.

As I say, I believe you're nuts. (And I'm not the only one here who does.) If your persona here isn't simply a stupid on-going joke, you need help.

Maybe it's just me, but Dan always seems to start talking like this when he is standing in quicksand. In this case he is forced to take up for Brother Gee, having nothing but an appeal to all the lofty publications Gee has associated with.

It's kind of funny because he can be so eloquent on some subjects but these kind of comments are the result of his clicking into bully-mode, when he has no other tricks left in his bag.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The specific point to which I was responding was Scratch's claim that, unless I read his posts here purporting to explain the FARMS Review peer review process -- a closed process over which I preside, which I created by modeling it on standard academic peer review, and which, in any given case, involves confidential communications between me, my three associate editors, and the peer reviewer (for a total of five people, none of whom is Scratch) -- I "cannot expect to comment intelligently" on the FARMS Review peer review process.

To find this ludicrous idea ludicrous is "clicking into bully-mode" because I have "no other tricks left in [my] bag"?

Am I on Candid Camera? Or, perhaps, The Twilight Zone?

Incidentally, I believe I have read Scratch's revelations about this subject of which he has no personal knowledge. They were as helpful as I had expected them to be.

*******

Dr. Gee's very impressive scholarly publication record is precisely relevant to smug put-downs by message board posters who, from their putatively lofty perch, try to portray him as an academic failure who can't pass peer review.

[_John Larsen]

Dr. Gee's very impressive scholarly publication record is precisely relevant to smug put-downs by message board posters who, from their putatively lofty perch, try to portray him as an academic failure who can't pass peer review.

For the record, I assume Gee to be a competent scholar who can pass peer review. However, he holds fast to ideas that are contradictory to his field of science which cannot pass peer review. These ideas are not pushed forward into the scholarly community. He lives a double life.

The intent of the OP, is that Gee suggests that Critics cannot comment on his ideas about Mormon Egyptology because they are unfamiliar with the greater field of Egyptology and are unqualified to comment on it. My mere suggestion is rather than criticize the critics for the lack of knowledge and inability to comment, he should subject Mormon Egyptology to the scrutiny of the greater academic community that meets his lofty requirements.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Have you read his articles for non-LDS audiences? Any of them?

Do you know what he's arguing? Are you sure he leads a double life? How can you be sure, if you haven't examined the supposed "other" life?