DiscussMormonism.com

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:

Chris Smith wrote:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:I read just the other day, on another board, that John Gee is an international academic joke, and that he does no real Egyptology but is paid solely and entirely (and lavishly) to churn out popular-level Mormon propaganda about the Book of Abraham . . .

Where was this?

Oh, I don't remember. And I don't care enough to try to find it.

I've seen the same claim, or very similar ones, more times than I can count. And I'm sure that I'm not alone in that.

Obviously Daniel is prone to exaggeration. But in this particular case Daniel's thread is designed to show that Gee does do real Egyptology and gets cited by respectable scholars in the field. So the "John Gee is an international academic joke, and that he does no real Egyptology" part would appear to be a pretty necessary component of the claim he's refuting.

So: is Daniel fibbing? Has he invented this strawman more or less out of whole cloth? Or did he really read this claim somewhere? Consult your Urim, and bear your testimony in the poll!

Wait a minute, did you just CFR Dr. Peterson?

Do I think Dr. Peterson is lying? No. Could he be mistaken? Possibly. Do I care if he's right or merely mistaken? Nope.

I voted for more or less invented it. In reality, someone probably made some criticism about Gee being hand picked to be a Mormon apologist and being put on the fast track to do so, and DCP distorted it to come up with this strawman. It reminds me of the MADdites who insist critics say "all the discovering has been done" in Mesoamerica. It's such a stupid distortion that it counts as a complete invention.

I wonder if Dr. Peterson is merely displaying his genius by tapping into the collective unconscious of all the poster on MAD and MD?
His genius allows him to know that this thought is out there buried in all of us and has the awareness to type it up.

I think it might be based in part on Kevin Graham's posts about how a certain egyptologist's thesis advisor removed himself from the process somehow.

Maybe then, Dr. Peterson didn't want to mention Kevin because he was afraid Kevin would come back to MADB.

Dr. Peterson doesn't need to actually view any apostate infested forums to know what's on them, silly! That's why he's not sure from what forum he gleaned the quote--he never reads them. Instead, he uses his Krispy Kreme seer stone.

He puts the KK seer stone in a hat and it gives him a translation--not of EXACTLY what was said on any given anti-Mormon forum--but instead, it reveals what was really meant by the remarks of apostate posters. Almost like the Book of Abraham catalyst theory and the translation method of the Book of Mormon all rolled into one!

For example, via the Krispy Kreme seer stone, (I hear he uses one with sprinkles), a remark such as, "John Gee is mistaken re: the Book of Abraham", is translated to reveal it's true meaning, which might just be, "...John Gee is an international academic joke, and that he does no real Egyptology but is paid solely and entirely (and lavishly) to churn out popular-level Mormon propaganda about the Book of Abraham...."

See how it works? It's revelation!

Falsify THAT! ;)

KA



PS. I voted option #2.

KimberlyAnn wrote:For example, via the Krispy Kreme seer stone, (I hear he uses one with sprinkles), a remark such as, "John Gee is mistaken re: the Book of Abraham", is translated to reveal it's true meaning, which might just be, "...John Gee is an international academic joke, and that he does no real Egyptology but is paid solely and entirely (and lavishly) to churn out popular-level Mormon propaganda about the Book of Abraham...."

See how it works? It's revelation!

lol!

I see the inevitable has occurred: Dr. Peterson has taken note of this thread. He writes,

Heh heh. Over on the Mormon Disparagement Board, where my Malevolent Stalker holds court, our own Chris Smith has started a poll regarding my statement, above, from the opening post of this thread.

As of now, it's a real cliffhanger:

Daniel has more or less completely invented this. Can you say "strawman"? gets 62% of the vote, while Somebody made a claim like this, but Daniel has exaggerated it a bit follows closely behind with 37%. Two options allowing that I might be telling the truth are tied just slightly after that, with a robust 0% each. (What a nail-biter!)

Of course, it's simply inconceivable that any critic of the Church, anywhere at all in the vast world of internet anti-Mormonism, could possibly make an irresponsible claim. It's much more reasonable to assume -- in fact, it's almost self-evidently true -- that I'm a fantasist at best but, far more probably, simply a brazen liar.

Who could possibly have predicted how this vote would go? I know I couldn't have!

lol! Oh, Dr. Peterson. Not only have you asserted that a critic of the Church made this irresponsible claim, but you've also asserted that you've "seen the same claim, or very similar ones, more times than I can count." And not only have you made this assertion, but you've apparently convinced the MADB community that it's true, without citing a single example! What a truly remarkable achievement, worthy of your credentials no doubt!

Don't let me ruin your fun. But if you should ever feel inclined to have a real discussion about John Gee's false missing papyrus theory, I'd be happy to oblige.

Best,

-Chris

I'm probably voting 'made it up'.

Oddly enough, in my intercontinental peregrinations I met an Egyptologist the other day who had met John Gee.

It came up because in a discussion of a certain issue I referred to the difficulties experienced by those who had a strong commitment to a certain interpretation of a given text for religious or political reasons. I said something like 'for instance, in Mormonism there is this thing called the Book of Abraham which is said to be based on a hieroglyphic text', at which my interlocutor chuckled and said something like 'Oh, you mean John Gee?'. The person to whom I spoke indicated that he/she had tried to open a discussion with Jersey Girl about a technical issue (not the Book of Abraham), but that Jersey Girl had cut him/her off rather abruptly, and seemed to be a somewhat defensive person.

Make of that what you will. Of course it may be that my interlocutor was clearly unqualified to participate in a discussion with a colleague as eminent as Jersey Girl, and that the brush-off was well deserved. He/she may have made it all up in an attempt to look academically well-connected. I may be suffering from false memory syndrome. This may not have been the real John Gee. And so on.

(The option of believing my statements above to be a cowardly anonymous lie is of course also freely available. Be my guest.)

You know, it's very funny. DCP likes to claim that I and others "exaggerate" or "spin," etc., but it seems pretty clear that he's been caught with his pants down on this one. Further, I am fairly certain that it was Gadianton who asserted that Gee had been hired primarily for Mopologetics. All of this is complicated by the fact that Dr. Robert Ritner, formerly the chair of Gee's dissertation committee, resigned. So, what is Gee's job at BYU, exactly? Does he teach Egyptology? Or does he do apologetics for the Book of Abraham?

by the way: I find The Good Professor's claims vis-a-vis his "unwillingness" to go and find this supposed remark on Gee to be rather disingenuous. It was just within the last week that DCP was sneaking around on the board, logging in and playing puppet master via PMs in order to try and curry favor with certain board participants.

Mister Scratch wrote:by the way: I find The Good Professor's claims vis-a-vis his "unwillingness" to go and find this supposed remark on Gee to be rather disingenuous. It was just within the last week that DCP was sneaking around on the board, logging in and playing puppet master via PMs in order to try and curry favor with certain board participants.

Details?