DiscussMormonism.com

Jersey Girl wrote:I saw this post earlier and I understand what you're getting at, but I still don't understand what was accomplished by these recent events. Can you fill in the blanks for me? Dumb it down if you need to in order to get it through my thick head.

Mister Scratch answered in general terms; allow me to be a little more specific:

• The Book of Abraham is an embarrassing thorn in the side of the LDS church. Many critics consider it a "slam-dunk" against Mormonism.
• John Gee, a Mormon professor of Egyptology--a very, very rare breed--has found ways of defending it, providing Mormons with the following excuse: "If a professor of Egyptology can still retain faith in the Book of Abraham, then the critics must be wrong about it!"
• Robert Ritner, Gee's mentor, has utterly denounced Gee's apologetics and reasoning, stripping Mormons of the excuse listed directly above.
• In order to salvage Gee, apologists need to nullify Ritner. So the rumor went about that Gee had Ritner kicked off Gee's Ph.D. dissertation committe. This gave the apologists the following counter-excuse: "Ritner's denunciations amount to nothing, since he's such a rabid Mormon-hater that Gee had to have him expelled from the committee! So we can go back to trusting Gee's apologetics again!"
• Kevin Graham e-mailed Ritner directly, who informed him that the anti-Ritner, Gee-salvaging rumor was and is false. This has made the apologists extremely angry, since now the Mormons have been stripped of the "If a professor of Egyptology can still retain faith in the Book of Abraham, then the critics must be wrong about it!" excuse a second time.

OR, IN OTHER WORDS:

What has been accomplished is that the apologists have once again lost their only excuse to rely on Gee, and the Book of Abraham has once again been flushed down the toilet.

I never knew what it was to be hated, until I left apologetics.

dartagnan wrote:I never knew what it was to be hated, until I left apologetics.

I had the same experience. When I was an apologist, I was kind and evenhanded. When I "switched teams," I was a "board nanny" and full of anger and hate.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:I saw this post earlier and I understand what you're getting at, but I still don't understand what was accomplished by these recent events. Can you fill in the blanks for me? Dumb it down if you need to in order to get it through my thick head.

Mister Scratch answered in general terms; allow me to be a little more specific:

• The Book of Abraham is an embarrassing thorn in the side of the LDS church. Many critics consider it a "slam-dunk" against Mormonism.
• John Gee, a Mormon professor of Egyptology--a very, very rare breed--has found ways of defending it, providing Mormons with the following excuse: "If a professor of Egyptology can still retain faith in the Book of Abraham, then the critics must be wrong about it!"
• Robert Ritner, Gee's mentor, has utterly denounced Gee's apologetics and reasoning, stripping Mormons of the excuse listed directly above.
• In order to salvage Gee, apologists need to nullify Ritner. So the rumor went about that Gee had Ritner kicked off Gee's Ph.D. dissertation committe. This gave the apologists the following counter-excuse: "Ritner's denunciations amount to nothing, since he's such a rabid Mormon-hater that Gee had to have him expelled from the committee! So we can go back to trusting Gee's apologetics again!"
• Kevin Graham e-mailed Ritner directly, who informed him that the anti-Ritner, Gee-salvaging rumor was and is false. This has made the apologists extremely angry, since now the Mormons have been stripped of the "If a professor of Egyptology can still retain faith in the Book of Abraham, then the critics must be wrong about it!" excuse a second time.

OR, IN OTHER WORDS:

What has been accomplished is that the apologists have once again lost their only excuse to rely on Gee, and the Book of Abraham has once again been flushed down the toilet.

Shades,
Have you read Nibleys book Abraham in Egypt. If so, what are your thoughts on it. If not, are you aware of any online articles that discuss it?

Gaz

I think negative responses to those who do their research is systemic within Mormon culture. Your incident you described shades is somewhat different from that because you reacted to another's due diligence.

dartagnan wrote:Further, this idea of being hated has never really been an issue for me until I became a "turncoat." I was never hated by the critics but it is clear I am hated by the apologists. There were plenty of critics in the past who thought I was a jackass of jackasses while posting as an apologist (I went by "Kevinator" because Barry Bickmore called me that as a compliment) but they never accused me of the things I have been accused of recently.

Kevin, You are much more of a threat to DCP and his friends now than you ever were to critics like myself. Note the crud they toss at the Tanners. Folks like DCP cannot criticize you for not understanding LDS teachings. And they can't attack you for making money off it like they did the Tanners. The remaining alternatives are to either answer your arguments or attack your character, honesty, etc. It's much easier to do the latter than the former. One wonders if the apologist are uncomfortable about the cogency of their arguments and take the easy route.

Religious groups are generally uncomfortable with dissidents. The LDS seem to be worse than average in this regard.

Richard

I don't know. In some Islamic countries they slaughter dissidents. Jehovah's Witnesses cut you off from everyone you know, including your family, who are still faithful. Scientologists declare you "fair game" and try to ruin your life any way they can. In contrast, the Mormon apologists just try to infer that you are influenced by the Devil, or that you're just an angry exmo with an axe to grind, or dismiss your experiences as a made-up atrocity tale, or whatever.

dartagnan wrote:I never knew what it was to be hated, until I left apologetics.

You aren't hated, you are being punished, with banning, ad hominems to shift focus onto you or other issues rather than issues you bring up. And for the Madd board, it works as a deterrant to any other individuals who intend to be outspoken and critical against the church or some of the people on the board. As you know the Madd board is not a debate board, it's an apologetics discussion board. So anytime you stop being so critical, and start praising the apologists and promote Mormonism, you'd be welcome back. Look at Ray as an example.

Shades,

Thank you for spelling out the significance of these events. I see better where Kevin was coming from now.

Jersey Girl

Gazelam wrote:Shades,
Have you read Nibleys book Abraham in Egypt. If so, what are your thoughts on it. If not, are you aware of any online articles that discuss it?

I haven't read it, and I'm unaware of any online articles that discuss it.

Mercury wrote:I think negative responses to those who do their research is systemic within Mormon culture. Your incident you described shades is somewhat different from that because you reacted to another's due diligence.

Forgive me, but I'm a little confused. Are you saying that my reaction was different because I was no longer a part of Mormon culture?

If that's indeed what you mean, then I still think the mopologists' hypocritical stance (in light of recent Gee/Ritner events) is worth mentioning.