Dear John Gee

[_harmony]

What does Dr Gee's professional vitae have to do with his Book of Abraham apologetics? I was under the impression he keeps his apologetics separate from his professional life?

And your impression is based on . . . what, exactly?

On the idea that his professional peers haven't laughed him out of his profession?

Maybe they have, and I missed it. I have been a bit busier that normal lately.

You didn't answer my first question (not that I expect you to. I was just pointing out that you avoided it is all.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

That's not what I said, which only proves my point: No read, no likely have worthwhile opinion. I object to your continual misrepresentation of what I write. I'm sure that, if you actually put in the time to read my in-depth post, you might actually understand my position. You would think that this would be common sense, but, for whatever reason, you insist on casting judgment on writings which you have not even read, and which you clearly don't understand. Your summary of my position is so stunningly off the mark that it is transparently clear that you either have not read the posts, or that some bias of yours caused you to horribly misread them.

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.

Given your grossly inaccurate misrepresentation here, I have no choice but to conclude that you either A) did not read the posts, or B) that you totally misunderstood them. Perhaps my comments were too subtle and nuanced for you?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps. I don't actually care.

[_solomarineris]

John Larsen"]Educate me. Has he relied on any of the Smith translations in any of his non-LDS work? Well, has he?
-DCP
Sophistry, JL.
Me
Where is the sophistry here, DCP? JL asked you a very simple queastion

DCP
Obviously, you haven't been reading his publications for non-LDS audiences, so your confident pronouncements about his compartmentalized double life rest on . . . perhaps middling familiarity with only one of those alleged two lives.
Me
What are you saying exactly? Did Mr. Gee publish some work and non LDS audience applauded it?

harmony"]What does Dr Gee's professional vitae have to do with his Book of Abraham apologetics? I was under the impression he keeps his apologetics separate from his professional life?
DCP
And your impression is based on . . . what, exactly?

Ahem, hmm...Do you really think this is hard to figure out? Even If you lay out this story to a highschool kid with reasonable intelligence, he'd have a solid impression.
Gadianton Plumber"]IF it is his LDS ideas that have been published in a non-Mormon real world journal of repute.
DCP
Since I'm apparently the only person here who's read any of the things he's published in non-Mormon venues, it seems that I'm the only person here who's qualified to comment on this matter.
Me
Are you actually claiming that Gee published some Book of Abraham papers for non LDS critics?

[_Henry Jacobs]

Are you actually claiming that Gee published some Book of Abraham papers for non LDS critics?

No. He's trying to imply it and when faced with having to back it up, will simply drop the subject and claim that he's far to busy a scholar to devote his life to these boards.

You've worn out your Beta-max tape of this movie Dan. Your Mormon credential fetish is on full display here. "We've published stuff in non-mormon journals! We have PhD's from non-mormon schools! Therefore you'd be crazy not to believe us when we explain any and all things Mormon to you!"

Does it fool enough people that it's worth repeating all the time?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you actually claiming that Gee published some Book of Abraham papers for non LDS critics?

No. He's trying to imply it and when faced with having to back it up, will simply drop the subject and claim that he's far to busy a scholar to devote his life to these boards.

Quite the contrary. I'm claiming that Professor Gee has published papers in non-LDS venues that are clearly related to the Book of Abraham. Those who want to read them are entirely free to do so.

You've worn out your Beta-max tape of this movie Dan.

Perhaps you should take a break from watching videos and do some reading?

[_Henry Jacobs]

[quote="Daniel Peterson"]Quite the contrary. I'm claiming that Professor Gee has published papers in non-LDS venues that are clearly related to the Book of Abraham. Those who want to read them are entirely free to do so.

Then reference them already! Why are you playing coy about the specifics, Dan? Or are we entirely free to read them after paying a registration fee?

What's the deal?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then reference them already!

I've provided references for them before. I've mentioned specific journals and books right here on this thread.

Nobody, so far as I can tell, has ever so much as looked at a single one of them.

I don't see it as my responsibility -- and certainly don't see it as my responsibility when nobody here has ever shown any actual interest -- to serve as the unpaid research assistant, reference librarian, and bibliographer for folks on this board.

Why are you playing coy about the specifics, Dan?

Because I haven't already compiled an unrequested register of Dr. Gee's academic publications for you, you imagine that I'm being "coy"?

Good grief.

Here's at least a partial list -- carefully hidden from the masses, at a site that has been revealed only at great expense of labor and money, and impossible for non-experts to access -- of his publications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gee

Do you need me to extract from it the ones that appear in non-LDS publications?

Or are we entirely free to read them after paying a registration fee?

I haven't the faintest idea. Maybe. Maybe not.

I really don't think that I have any moral obligation to pay for books and journal subscriptions for you, nor to guarantee to you that everything I mention is available for free, nor to cite only items that you can access on line.

[Guest]

I don't see a paper about the Book of Abraham in a non LDS publication. I see 99 percent are associated with FARMS.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gee

[_cinepro]

This conversation reminds me of a curious habit of LDS scholars: they hide the information from those who would be most eager to hear it.

With both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, we have records that claim to be from the ancient peoples that lived in ancient America and Egypt. Both of those societies have numerous modern researchers and scholars who spend their lives looking for a minute detail of overlooked information and studying ancient texts trying to divine some new understanding.

If there is even a remote chance that the Book of Mormon is an actual account of ancient America, or the Book of Abraham is an actual account of ancient events from ancient Egypt, LDS scholars should be standing in conferences devoted to the study of these ancient peoples and shouting from the rooftops that there is this new, heretofore unknown information! Detailed stories of warfare, and societies, and religion, with actual names of the people involved, and detailed records that even contain dialogue of actual conversations. It's all there. Almost more than they've ever had before.

Sure, we could understand if the stories presented in the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham weren't embraced by gentile researchers, but if you really believe that the stories are "true", what could stop you from trying to convince them otherwise? Yes, they have a strong religious component, but like the Bible, they would also be extremely important records even if we don't take their theological claims at face value.

And who could want these scriptures to be true more than these researchers? Isn't it the nature of researchers to yearn for new information, detail, a data? To a mesoamerican researcher, a book like the Book of Mormon would be a gold mine. To an Egyptologist, the Book of Abraham would be worth more than decades of digging in the sand and squinting at worn hieroglyphs.

If Gee really believes the Book of Abraham is telling literally true stories from Ancient Egypt, what could stop him from standing before his peers in Egyptology and saying "Hey guys! This is an important record, and even if you aren't Mormon, you can learn much about ancient Egypt from it!"