DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote:Which caused the irascible Midgley to erupt with:

”BOKOVOY!!!!

What about the possibility of this being a purely senior moment or possibly a signal to his nurse that he needed to make a bathroom visit?

My daughter told me that Dr. Bokovoy was her favorite Seminary teacher.

RockSlider wrote:Has David B left the church?

It seems I was mistaken. He still identifies as "Mormon" and has only ended all "professional" ties with the LDS church. I'm going to edit my earlier post. Please forgive the reading error.

Video of Gee’s rather weak and distasteful address is posted here.

Tom wrote:Video of Gee’s rather weak and distasteful address is posted here.

What a pathetic and miserable man. He sold his soul for a paycheck.

Pay to the Order: John Gee (mud) (Traitor to ancient Egypt -- world's worst Egyptologist)

What's the king's name in Facsimile No. 3? Speak up John Gee, you liar of the Lord -- you disgusting pathetic man -- filthy lying Mormon Egyptologist!

Go die in a fire, John Gee, you filthy man. Dirty liar.

Gee: “Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars.” 34:14-26

(I can’t hear any immediate response on the video.)

Tom wrote:Gee: “Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars.” 34:14-26

(I can’t hear any immediate response on the video.)

Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham (he pretended to translate) is a fabricated story built on lies.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are total lies.

CULT MEMBER Mormons LOVE TO LIE. THEY LOVE TO LIVE IN LIES. THEY GLORY IN LIES.

GO TO HELL, JOHN GEE! GO TO HELL YOU BASTARD LYING Mormon!

Tom wrote:Gee: “Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars.” 34:14-26

(I can’t hear any immediate response on the video.)

Hmmm. Well, someone who was present claimed to have heard Midgley say it, but it could be the case that it was not said loudly enough to be picked up by the mic recording Gee. It kinda depends on the mic and the volume of the utterance. I may have been mistaken about the volume. I don’t think, however, that the incident was fabricated.

In any case, our friend churchistrue attended Gee’s lecture and found the experience most discouraging. Hopefully he will pop by and share his thoughts. Maybe he, too, heard Midgley.

JOHN GEE, YOU LYING BASTARD!

We have all of the hieroglyphic texts Joseph Smith used to translate the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. We have every, single, character!

Joseph Smith falsely translated those Egyptian characters.

THERE IS NO MISSING TEXT FROM FACSIMILE NO. 3. WE KNOW JOSEPH SMITH LIED AND FAKED HIS TRANSLATION.

Stupid John Gee. You silly, stupid man. You are a disgrace to Egyptology. You are the worst Egyptologist ever.

Like Tom, I would prefer to have either corroborating or audio evidence, but I think that the Hon. Rev. Kishkumen is correct that the microphone is doing a poor job of recording the crowd's reactions. Towards the end of the video, John Gee reads aloud from a question that inquires about this opinion on one of Robert Ritner's pieces, and I am pretty sure that you can very faintly hear people laughing in the audience.

Whatever the case may be, this was a dismaying performance. Gee looks pained and disheveled in the video; there are times when he seems short of breath and red in the face, and I thought I could see a sheen of sweat developing on his temple. This is bad: if it is that uncomfortable and painful to be a Mormon apologist in front of *this* audience, what does that tell you?

But Gee's comments on Ritner towards the end were both stunning and disappointing. (This comes roughly at the 53:00 mark.) It looks to me like he was handed (by Scott Gordon, looking somewhat like the actor Noah Emmerich) a list of questions that were written / submitted beforehand--evidently, candid question-asking simply will not do for this Mopologist--and he reads aloud a question asking if he intends to respond to some of the recent Ritner criticism. First, Gee compares Ritner's work to a "non-Catholic" criticizing a Papal Bull. "Why does he care?" Gee asks. He goes on to say that he's not going to respond because Ritner's review was "in poor taste" and "rather weak." His final answer to the question posed to him--i.e., the question of whether he will pen a response or not--is, no, he will not be, because: "As far as I can tell, who cares?" Well, at minimum, the person who asked the question "cares."