Dear John Gee

[_karl61]

Will wrote:

"I have become convinced that the Pearl of Great Price was always intended to be a collection of essentially "gnostic" texts. Their value is properly appreciated by those whose faith and spiritual preparation has positioned them to receive the "greater light and knowledge" contained therein, and conversely, those who lack such faith and spiritual preparation cannot help but see these things as preposterous."

What is your definition of a "gnostic" text?

[_William Schryver]

Would they throw him out? Would they shake their heads in dismay? Would they pity him? Or would they simply ignore it?

They haven't thrown him out, shaken their heads in dismay, ignored him, or (so far as I'm aware) pitied him.

I did hear that the British Museum forced him to clean each letter of the Rosetta Stone with a toothbrush a few weeks back. All his peers stood and jeered him, but he took it like a man.

[_William Schryver]

Will wrote:

"I have become convinced that the Pearl of Great Price was always intended to be a collection of essentially "gnostic" texts. Their value is properly appreciated by those whose faith and spiritual preparation has positioned them to receive the "greater light and knowledge" contained therein, and conversely, those who lack such faith and spiritual preparation cannot help but see these things as preposterous."

What is your definition of a "gnostic" text?

One that I understand, but you don't.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I do, however, think that some critics are very, very naïve about the nature of academic discourse.

Are you referring to the fact that academic discourse tends to prefer evidence to testimonies? Or, that controversial and new ideas need to be subjected to real peer review?

I've tried, several times, to explain why notions like cinepro's (expressed above) are, based on my experience, utterly wrong headed. Wholly in vain.

Where? I'm going to have to call your bluff here, I'm afraid. I'm interested in hearing about how "the nature of academic discourse" would prevent people like Clark, Gee, and etc. from putting forth scholarly theories about the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you referring to the fact that academic discourse tends to prefer evidence to testimonies? Or, that controversial and new ideas need to be subjected to real peer review?

No, and no.

I'm going to have to call your bluff here, I'm afraid. I'm interested in hearing about how "the nature of academic discourse" would prevent people like Clark, Gee, and etc. from putting forth scholarly theories about the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon.

That's not what I said, of course.

Scratchy, you don't do substance well. Not at all. Stick to malignant gossip and spin. It's your forté.

[_John Larsen]

I have also readily perceived that John is taking a long view of these things, and is methodically building a body of work towards a definite end.

That's my plan also.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Are you referring to the fact that academic discourse tends to prefer evidence to testimonies? Or, that controversial and new ideas need to be subjected to real peer review?

No, and no.

Well, then, what? No need to dodge, my dear friend.

I'm going to have to call your bluff here, I'm afraid. I'm interested in hearing about how "the nature of academic discourse" would prevent people like Clark, Gee, and etc. from putting forth scholarly theories about the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon.

That's not what I said, of course.

Scratchy, you don't do substance well. Not at all. Stick to malignant gossip and spin. It's your forté.

"Malignant spin and gossip"? What, you mean like your comments about Steve Benson, Tal Bachman, Mike Quinn, and Eric? Well, I really prefer not to engage in that sort of stuff..... Would you really like me to "stick to" that sort of thing?

And you still have not explained what it is about academic discourse that would prevent Prof. Gee from presenting the "real truth" about the Book of Abraham to his Egyptology colleagues.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not your "dear friend," Scratchy.

You want serious conversation about substance? You might try to practice having such conversations -- I commend the idea to you enthusiastically -- but you'll need to find a tutor and coach whom you haven't sought unceasingly and at every opportunity to malign for the past three years.

I'm not interested.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm not your "dear friend," Scratchy.

What are you, then? A hate-filled enemy who wants to see me suffer?

You want serious conversation about substance? You might try to practice having such conversations -- I commend the idea to you enthusiastically -- but you'll need to find a tutor and coach whom you haven't sought unceasingly and at every opportunity to malign for the past three years.

That's a mischaracterization---a gross, unfair, and mean-spirited mischaracterization---of me and my posting. Either you are so obsessed with destroying critics that every single post is magically transmogrified into an attack on you, or you are deliberately being deceptive here. And no, my dear old friend: turning around and saying, "Where's your sense of humor?" isn't going to bail you out.

Frankly, I don't care whether you attempt "serious conversations about substance." The most "substantive" things I've ever seen you write pertaining to Mopologetic issues have uniformly been hate mongering assaults on critics. All of your writings on these matters has been designed to inflict harm on people---to exact revenge for all the thousands of imagined little slights against your "precious Church".

So, no, you don't have to answer, old friend, as you perfectly well know. But I hope you realize that it will look like you are chickening out and dodging what is a reasonable question about a serious matter.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Announcement: I hereby chicken out and dodge Scratchy's inquiry.