Three things

[_Droopy]

I agree that Gee's place of employment doesn't automatically make him "reek" of bias, and it is indeed best to deal with people's arguments. Chris Smith and Brent Metcalf have poked a lot of holes in Gee's theories over the years, and Gee hasn't really responded, other than to demand that they pass his Egyptology quiz, which wasn't helpful at all.

Apparently this is little more than hopeful bluster Runtu, as Will has pointed out that there are several rather striking holes in Metcalf's positions relative to Gee's work.

Perhaps we should wait, as Will has pointed out, for Metcalf to actually produce something to pass judgment on John Gee.

[_William Schryver]

Dissonance:

Will doesn't seem to understand the problem with his experts.

What is needed is a nonLDS Egyptologist, linguist, expert in ancient languages who supports Book of Abraham apologetics.

Skousen, Hauglid, and Gee are LDS, so sorry... they don't count. They are encumbered by a burden they cannot throw off: bias. Try again, Will. And this time find some experts who aren't so heavily encumbered by testimony.

No, dissonance, what you don’t seem to understand is that professional academics follow established academic procedures.

I am not aware of how textual criticism and forensic document analysis can be subject to the bias you suggest. These disciplines are based in strict rules; personal opinion seldom enters into the picture. Ineptitude? Sure. But that is easily exposed.

In terms of Gee’s claims of the length of the scroll of Hor, he has simply employed the universally-accepted calculation. It does no good for anyone to call Gee “biased”. The calculation was formulated by Gee. It was formulated by Hoffman, and is used by Egyptologists irrespective of their religious persuasions. Gee applies it and it returns a scroll length of 1200cm. It’s rather academic, but then that’s the problem. For the most part, you people have no understanding of what even means.

When it comes to Skousen, or Hauglid, or the forensic document laboratory that has tested the KEP, we’re not talking about movie critics. These things aren’t subject to personal opinion. Skousen examined the evidence and was able to confirm, authoritatively, based on the actual data, that my observations concerning a dittograph were correct. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with the laws and principles of textual criticism. It’s not Skousen’s fault that he applies them and you ignore them. Same with the lab results that confirmed my other claims. Argue with the experts if you’d like, but don’t expect anyone to take you very seriously. I know I don’t.

You people are so predictably illogical when it comes right down to it.

Therefore I will leave you to your abject ignorance again.

You can carry on your daily group sessions of ritual self-gratification without me.

[_Runtu]

Apparently this is little more than hopeful bluster Runtu, as Will has pointed out that there are several rather striking holes in Metcalf's positions relative to Gee's work.

Perhaps we should wait, as Will has pointed out, for Metcalf to actually produce something to pass judgment on John Gee.

Bluster? Hardly. If you think Brent's comments haven't dented Gee's arguments, that's fine. Chris has done a nice job over the years (his blog is quite good, you know).

That said, since the debate has never really taken place, given Gee's reluctance to respond publicly to anyone and Brent's lack of a formal treatment, I will, as you say, wait to pass judgment on Gee's work (not Gee himself, that's the Savior's job) as a whole. But I can judge what I have seen of Gee's work that has had holes poked into it.

[_harmony]

I agree that Gee's place of employment doesn't automatically make him "reek" of bias, and it is indeed best to deal with people's arguments. Chris Smith and Brent Metcalf have poked a lot of holes in Gee's theories over the years, and Gee hasn't really responded, other than to demand that they pass his Egyptology quiz, which wasn't helpful at all.

Employment at BYU requires a temple recommend. There is no other way to approach any of Gee's arguments due to that employment requirement. It's impossible to give him the benefit of doubt that he might have any healthy skeptism regarding the Book of Abraham because of his employment requirements.

Gee approaches everything about the Book of Abraham from the perspective of believer. He has no objectivity, because he can't have any. That's why I asked for a short list of nonLDS Egyptologists who supported Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics. I was told there are none. That alone tells me his bias interferes with any objective study of the Book of Abraham.

[_harmony]

Dissonance:

Will doesn't seem to understand the problem with his experts.

What is needed is a nonLDS Egyptologist, linguist, expert in ancient languages who supports Book of Abraham apologetics.

Skousen, Hauglid, and Gee are LDS, so sorry... they don't count. They are encumbered by a burden they cannot throw off: bias. Try again, Will. And this time find some experts who aren't so heavily encumbered by testimony.

No, dissonance, what you don’t seem to understand is that professional academics follow established academic procedures.

I am not aware of how textual criticism and forensic document analysis can be subject to the bias you suggest. These disciplines are based in strict rules; personal opinion seldom enters into the picture. Ineptitude? Sure. But that is easily exposed.

In terms of Gee’s claims of the length of the scroll of Hor, he has simply employed the universally-accepted calculation. It does no good for anyone to call Gee “biased”. The calculation was formulated by Gee. It was formulated by Hoffman, and is used by Egyptologists irrespective of their religious persuasions. Gee applies it and it returns a scroll length of 1200cm. It’s rather academic, but then that’s the problem. For the most part, you people have no understanding of what even means.

When it comes to Skousen, or Hauglid, or the forensic document laboratory that has tested the KEP, we’re not talking about movie critics. These things aren’t subject to personal opinion. Skousen examined the evidence and was able to confirm, authoritatively, based on the actual data, that my observations concerning a dittograph were correct. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with the laws and principles of textual criticism. It’s not Skousen’s fault that he applies them and you ignore them. Same with the lab results that confirmed my other claims. Argue with the experts if you’d like, but don’t expect anyone to take you very seriously. I know I don’t.

You people are so predictably illogical when it comes right down to it.

Therefore I will leave you to your abject ignorance again.

You can carry on your daily group sessions of ritual self-gratification without me.

If, as you say, accredited nonLDS experts in these fields supported these gentlemen in their pursuit of widespread acceptance of the Book of Abraham as the genuine article (as in written by Abraham or attached to the current piece of papyrus the LDS church possesses), you'd be trumpeting those aforementioned experts to the skies. I'm not hearing your trumpets; I'm not seeing your list of names of accredited experts who agree with these gentlemen. And the reason you aren't able to do that is because there is no acceptance and support in any of those fields by nonLDS experts.

Admit it, Will. You have no accredited respected nonLDS experts who support Gee and company's Book of Abraham apologetics. All you have is bluster and fuss.

The church keeps the papyrus hidden away from those nonLDS experts. If it was what the church claims, they'd have it out in a museum, available for all experts to examine. That the Brethren keep it hidden is really unfortunate for your argument.

[_Droopy]

Apparently this is little more than hopeful bluster Runtu, as Will has pointed out that there are several rather striking holes in Metcalf's positions relative to Gee's work.

Perhaps we should wait, as Will has pointed out, for Metcalf to actually produce something to pass judgment on John Gee.

Bluster? Hardly. If you think Brent's comments haven't dented Gee's arguments, that's fine. Chris has done a nice job over the years (his blog is quite good, you know).

That said, since the debate has never really taken place, given Gee's reluctance to respond publicly to anyone and Brent's lack of a formal treatment, I will, as you say, wait to pass judgment on Gee's work (not Gee himself, that's the Savior's job) as a whole. But I can judge what I have seen of Gee's work that has had holes poked into it.

I understand how much you need - desperately need - to believe Gee will eventually be discredited, and Metcalf crowned with the garland of the conquerer. I understand the degree to which your present self concept and worldview demand that this be the case.

But desperation in justifying apostasy from the truth is a thin reed upon which to hang one's hopes, and a poor substitute for a love and thirst for truth itself.

[_Runtu]

I understand how much you need - desperately need - to believe Gee will eventually be discredited, and Metcalf crowned with the garland of the conquerer. I understand the degree to which you present self concept and worldview demand that this be the case.

You are an odd little man, Loran. I don't need anything of the sort. I don't care whether Gee or Brent or anyone else comes out on top here. I don't even know Brent (except having met him once or twice in a business setting about 15 years ago). Since when does my saying that I too reserve judgment mean that I'm hoping and praying for Brent to come off the conqueror? Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem, or you just choose to read your own personal animus into everything. Very strange.

But desperation in justifying apostasy from the truth is a thin reed upon which to hang one's hopes, and a poor substitute for a love and thirst for truth itself.

Why would I need to "justify" my apostasy? I'm quite comfortable with the decisions I have made, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it was my love and thirst for truth itself that led me out of the church in the first place.

[_harmony]

I understand how much you need - desperately need - to believe Gee will eventually be discredited ...

First, it seems necessary that Gee's work would have to be credited in order for it to next be discredited. And I think it's pretty clear that nonLDS experts in the various fields don't even think of it as credited.

[_Droopy]

Why would I need to "justify" my apostasy? I'm quite comfortable with the decisions I have made, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it was my love and thirst for truth itself that led me out of the church in the first place.

The problem, epistemological, philosophical, and certainly psychological, you have here of course, are with the many Latter Day Saints who have grappled with precisely the same doctrinal/historical problems you have, on very much the same terms, and with the very same stakes in view, who's love and thirst for truth itself have precluded the very thought of leaving the Church.

You are either trapped in a miasma of Postmodern subjectivsm, or you must be prepared to grapple with the very real possibility that what led you out of the Church was not a love of the truth, but internal conflicts within yourself between the truth and other priorities and imperatives internal and unique to you alone. I do not condemn you for this, as this struggle comes to many, but simply point it out, and point out a fair account of one's struggle with "the truth" involves a deep and nuanced wrestle with all of the relevant dynamics.

You must also be prepared to grapple with the very real possibility that the cock sure certainty with which you approach Book of Abraham issues, or other issues within the Church are really a defense mechanism (as it is with Brent Metcalf and so many others) disguising the fact that the overwhelming body of these issues are almost wholly hypothetical or theoretical in nature and have no real resolution possible through purely scholarly means.

You must be willing to admit that you have jumped the starting gate with the evidence because it suited the above mentioned personal priorities and imperatives to do so.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why would I need to "justify" my apostasy? I'm quite comfortable with the decisions I have made, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it was my love and thirst for truth itself that led me out of the church in the first place.

The problem, epistemological, philosophical, and certainly psychological, you have here of course, are with the many Latter Day Saints who have grappled with precisely the same doctrinal/historical problems you have, on very much the same terms, and with the very same stakes in view, who's love and thirst for truth itself have precluded the very thought of leaving the Church.

You are either trapped in a miasma of Postmodern subjectivsm, or you must be prepared to grapple with the very real possibility that what led you out of the Church was not a love of the truth, but internal conflicts within yourself between the truth and other priorities and imperatives internal and unique to you alone. I do not condemn you for this, as this struggle comes to many, but simply point it out, and point out a fair account of one's struggle with "the truth" involves a deep and nuanced wrestle with all of the relevant dynamics.

And which "relevant dynamics" did you "wrestle" with, Droopy? I'm curious to know which facets of "truth itself"--pertaining to the Church--you actually had to "wrestle" with, and which you did not simply and automatically assume to be "truth itself."