From the Archives: The Burden of Being Gee
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:25 am
For some time now, I have found myself increasingly fascinated by the very difficult mantle which is presently being shouldered by Professor John Gee. As most of us know, the controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham is perhaps the most damning apologetic issue that LDS defenders have ever had to reckon with. The Book of Abraham makes a rather chilling commentary on the prophethood of Joseph Smith, and, as even TBMs are sometimes willing to point out, it could be the final straw for any number of LDS with wavering testimonies. Indeed, it is probably not going too far to state that the Book of Abraham, more than any other issue, is one which should be avoided by struggling Mormons.
With so much at stake, then, it was clear, post-Nibley, that the world of Mormon apologetics was sorely in need of someone with both the superficial credentials and the chutzpah needed to address all these Book of Abraham problems. Enter John Gee--the Yale-educated Egyptologist who, apologists hoped, would be their Great White Hope. But Gee entered the fray with a troubled past. The Chair of his dissertation committee, Dr. Robert Ritner, abruptly resigned on account of some shadowy conflict---one which may have had to do with Gee's heavy involvement with Book of Abraham apologetics. (On the other hand, LDS apologists such as DCP have insinuated that the resignation came about because Ritner is "bigoted" against Mormons.)
What is interesting---and sympathetic---about Gee, is that he has become a Sisyphean figure in Mopologetics. He, practically by himself, has been left alone to try and shoulder the over-bearing boulder of the Book of Abraham. And, following the very embarrassing "Two Inks" scandal, Gee was left in a tailspin. Indeed, in his most recent FARMS Review piece, he lamented his lot in life, complaining that those involved with Book of Abraham apologetics "will never be left alone."
This brings us to one of the great, classic moments in recent online Mopologetics:
Professor Gee's Book of Abraham 'Qualifications' Test
Approximately a year ago, following an inquiry by CaliforniaKid, the following was posted to the aptly named MADboard. It is important to note that Gee himself was apparently too timid to post the material himself; instead, he had juliann/Chaos do it. I will intersperse my comments within:
A couple of points here. 1) Apologists frequently trot out the argument that there is not such things as a "Mormon Studies" degree. Thus, why is Gee trying to "out" people with no "college education"? (This seems a veiled insult towards B. Metcalfe, in any event.) Further, he complains about folks "hiding behind a pseudonym." Well, might it be the case that the reason he "never see[s] the critics....at these events" lie in the fact that they were pseudonymous?
Anyways, Gee goes on:
Wow! That's quite a test. A few things are worth observing. For one thing, it seems that Gee took the trouble to create a whole, spanking new BYU email account for the sole purpose of administering this silly Egyptology test to the MAD board. Secondly, why does he want the person's contact information? Is he hoping to "out" the anonymous critics, or to submit their names to the SCMC?
What followed were a series of questions aimed at determining whether or not the answeree was "legit" in terms of being able to criticize Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics. Interestingly, the following was added to the message by the MAD moderating team:
What this says to me is that Gee is completely and utterly overwhelmed and terrified by the multitude of problems he's facing vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham. He certainly seems to *want* to address the critics, but he is afraid to do so himself on the MADboard, and further, he apparently feels the need to control every tiny, conversation-related piece of minutia as far as the debate is concerned. Thus, it's rather difficult to see how Chaos's (i.e., juliann's) use of the word "interaction" is even remotely applicable in this situation.
It should be noted that this thread originally appeared in the main MAD forum, "LDS Dialog & Discussion," but later, for whatever reason, it was squirreled away to the seldom-viewed "Pundits Forum," where it now resides. Of further interest is the fact that the MADmods trimmed away the "Peanut Gallery" commentary which was originally part of the thread. In other words, juliann and Co. went to pains to separate the embarrassing criticism from Gee's embarrassing "test." What do I mean by "embarrassing"? Observe:
Next: if there was any doubt that Chaos=juliann, prepare to kiss those doubts goodbye:
Here is a very observant post from Runtu:
Yes, of course. We *know* what the Egyptian portion of the Book of Abraham says.
Later, with Chaos evidently not being enough, juliann decides to post under her "normal" moniker:
And what, pray tell, are juliann's credentials? Does she possess a graduate degree? Is she an expert in sociology of religion? I don't think so. It's worth noting that she attempted to utilize this same Mopologetic gambit with Brent Metcalfe and handwriting analysis.
Perhaps the most level-headed and damning post came from Dan Vogel:
D'oh! Perhaps that would make for a better "discussion": What were Hugh Nibley's Egyptology credentials? Would he have been able to ace all the technical items on Gee's list?
Later, we get another pathetic cry from juliann/Chaos:
And this:
Later, The Dude tries to get the discussion back on track:
So, what is this debate really about then? Is it a question of who can translate Egyptian? (Despite the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't?) Or is it a question of who is failing to respond to whose criticisms?
Later, we find out that it was really just a lame and desperate attempt to score points against critics:
If it is Gee's thread, then where is the Good Doctor? Answer: hiding. Trying to not deal with the criticism, which, it seems, is eating him up from the inside out. Later, the mods added a final piece of text from Gee:
Wow! Was it really all that bad? Further, it seems a tactical mistake for him to admit that his students dislike him so strenuously. (And how did he know they were bad-mouthing him behind his back? Darn those BYU spies!)
Anyways, the post goes on:
A pity they didn't delete it.
Wha...? Why, if one does not think the Book of Abraham is the result of actual translation, would one need to know Egyptian? It doesn't make sense. If you are a chiropractor, do you really need to know acupuncture in order to treat someone's sore back?
A "diagnostic of several skills"? What, such as the ability to smooch Gee's butt?
Especially LDS apologists!
This, of course, is complete and utter bull, and it is embarrassing to see Gee relying on this very cheap rhetorical card. If people have lost "trust" in him it may have more to do with such things as the "two inks" theory, or his gossiping about Robert Ritner.
Ah, good: When in doubt, bear thy testimony!
And so, that was that. Gee retreated into the shadows once again. This "performance," though, points us to how many cracks exist in Gee's Mopologetic foundation. I have no doubt that Gee is a terrific Egyptologist. As an LDS apologist, though, he positively sucks, and this set of posts is a case study why.
Perhaps most poignantly, though, is that Gee, perhaps alone amongst contemporary apologists, seems genuinely wounded by the criticism he's endured. He doesn't take it on the chin and use it as fodder for further Mopologetic endeavors, as do DCP and Hamblin; nor does he seem to view the criticism as evidence of his own divine apologetic calling, as do folks like Tvedtness and Midgley. Instead, Gee seems almost to have fallen into this position of Chief Book of Abraham apologist, and he seems to resent it very much.
The poster named Helix summed all of this up nicely:
Yes; indeed. The problems relating to the Book of Abraham are never going to go away. One can only wonder how long Gee will continue to weather the storm.
With so much at stake, then, it was clear, post-Nibley, that the world of Mormon apologetics was sorely in need of someone with both the superficial credentials and the chutzpah needed to address all these Book of Abraham problems. Enter John Gee--the Yale-educated Egyptologist who, apologists hoped, would be their Great White Hope. But Gee entered the fray with a troubled past. The Chair of his dissertation committee, Dr. Robert Ritner, abruptly resigned on account of some shadowy conflict---one which may have had to do with Gee's heavy involvement with Book of Abraham apologetics. (On the other hand, LDS apologists such as DCP have insinuated that the resignation came about because Ritner is "bigoted" against Mormons.)
What is interesting---and sympathetic---about Gee, is that he has become a Sisyphean figure in Mopologetics. He, practically by himself, has been left alone to try and shoulder the over-bearing boulder of the Book of Abraham. And, following the very embarrassing "Two Inks" scandal, Gee was left in a tailspin. Indeed, in his most recent FARMS Review piece, he lamented his lot in life, complaining that those involved with Book of Abraham apologetics "will never be left alone."
This brings us to one of the great, classic moments in recent online Mopologetics:
Professor Gee's Book of Abraham 'Qualifications' Test
Approximately a year ago, following an inquiry by CaliforniaKid, the following was posted to the aptly named MADboard. It is important to note that Gee himself was apparently too timid to post the material himself; instead, he had juliann/Chaos do it. I will intersperse my comments within:
(emphasis added)Chaos wrote:Dear Moderators,
It has been more than a quarter of a century since I first started
studying ancient Egypt. I spent years in graduate school learning the
basic skills to do research in the area. I teach the subject now and
regularly publish and participate in professional conferences in my
field. Occasionally, I have friends who direct my attention to this and
other message boards where I am regularly vilified as incompetent by
people who in some cases have not attended college, and usually
masquerade behind pseudonyms. Yet, when I read their responses, I
wonder about the competence of these critics. They remind me of
something Nibley wrote long ago: "As if to prove that they have no
intention of pursuing serious investigations, these people have
conspicuously neglected to prepare themselves for any but the most
localized research; they are like a man setting out to explore a
wonderful cavern without bothering to equip himself with either lights
or ropes. We respect our local Gelehrten for the knowledge and
proficiency which they have demonstrated to the world, but when they go
out of bounds and attack the Church with specious learning they invite
legitimate censure. They are like dentists who insist on performing
delicate brain surgery, because that is more interesting than filling
teeth. Nice for them--but what about their patients?" I demonstrate my
knowledge and proficiency on a regular basis, but [b]I never see the
critics on the message boards at these events and thus see no
demonstration of knowledge or proficiency from them.[b]
A couple of points here. 1) Apologists frequently trot out the argument that there is not such things as a "Mormon Studies" degree. Thus, why is Gee trying to "out" people with no "college education"? (This seems a veiled insult towards B. Metcalfe, in any event.) Further, he complains about folks "hiding behind a pseudonym." Well, might it be the case that the reason he "never see[s] the critics....at these events" lie in the fact that they were pseudonymous?
Anyways, Gee goes on:
So I am willing for the next month to conduct a little test of the
basic Egyptological skills needed for an intelligent discussion of the
Joseph Smith Papyri. I do not participate on these message boards and
rarely even look at them. I will pose the questions through you, the
moderators, requesting that you pin them for a month. Any who wish to
demonstrate their skills may send their answers to the following to me
at egyptiantest at BYU.edu. All emails must include the person's real
name, daytime phone number, and pseudonym under which they post to this
board. All persons should submit a statement truthfully stating that
their submission is their own work. I will evaluate the results and send to the moderators, the pseudonym and the test results in the form of a score. My answers coincide with the standard published
Egyptological versions of these texts and images, so I am not introducing anything that is idiosyncratic.
Wow! That's quite a test. A few things are worth observing. For one thing, it seems that Gee took the trouble to create a whole, spanking new BYU email account for the sole purpose of administering this silly Egyptology test to the MAD board. Secondly, why does he want the person's contact information? Is he hoping to "out" the anonymous critics, or to submit their names to the SCMC?
What followed were a series of questions aimed at determining whether or not the answeree was "legit" in terms of being able to criticize Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics. Interestingly, the following was added to the message by the MAD moderating team:
This post has been made with the permission of John Gee for the use on http://www.mormonapologetics.org site solely. This is a good opportunity for our posters to have some interaction with Gee concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri.
Chaos
What this says to me is that Gee is completely and utterly overwhelmed and terrified by the multitude of problems he's facing vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham. He certainly seems to *want* to address the critics, but he is afraid to do so himself on the MADboard, and further, he apparently feels the need to control every tiny, conversation-related piece of minutia as far as the debate is concerned. Thus, it's rather difficult to see how Chaos's (i.e., juliann's) use of the word "interaction" is even remotely applicable in this situation.
It should be noted that this thread originally appeared in the main MAD forum, "LDS Dialog & Discussion," but later, for whatever reason, it was squirreled away to the seldom-viewed "Pundits Forum," where it now resides. Of further interest is the fact that the MADmods trimmed away the "Peanut Gallery" commentary which was originally part of the thread. In other words, juliann and Co. went to pains to separate the embarrassing criticism from Gee's embarrassing "test." What do I mean by "embarrassing"? Observe:
Tarski wrote:I think it quite likely that there are plenty of people (often mentioned here- Ritner etc) who could rise to Dr. Gee's challenge and yet have the same criticisms of Dr. Gee's writings anyway. So, one is left wondering about the point of the challenge.
The Dude wrote:The point? To question the competence of a critic and put off engaging that person's specific criticism.
Next: if there was any doubt that Chaos=juliann, prepare to kiss those doubts goodbye:
Chaos wrote:The point is self-evident and I don't think there is one poster here who doesn't see what it is. Put up or shut up as the saying goes. It is time to stop blustering and start some serious analysis for those who think their opinion about obscure academic topics should make a difference to anybody. Apparently, a few bluffs have been called. Step up to the plate or get out of the debate. Calling trained scholars liars isn't a substitute for the real thing on this board.
Here is a very observant post from Runtu:
Runtu wrote:I asked this in another thread, but I don't understand why it's necessary to read Egyptian to discuss the Book of Abraham. It's been my understanding that there's general agreement among everyone as to the translation of the Egyptian text. The interesting questions are not what the Egyptian says but how Joseph Smith arrived at an alternative translation.
Anyway, I don't know much about this subject, so I'll leave it to the experts.
Yes, of course. We *know* what the Egyptian portion of the Book of Abraham says.
Later, with Chaos evidently not being enough, juliann decides to post under her "normal" moniker:
juliann wrote:cksalmon wrote:I would not necessarily expect MB critics of the missing scroll hypothesis to be able to translate Egyptian. And discussing non-translational aspects of JSP/Book of Abraham does not require that one be able to translate Egyptian.
I wouldn't expect that either. But that isn't what happens on message boards. What we have been treated to is a shameful exhibition of slander, mockery and just plain meanness. Maybe if a discussion ever got on its feet it would be different. So let the mockers and savagers present their credentials and get on with it. It's not an unreasonable request.
And what, pray tell, are juliann's credentials? Does she possess a graduate degree? Is she an expert in sociology of religion? I don't think so. It's worth noting that she attempted to utilize this same Mopologetic gambit with Brent Metcalfe and handwriting analysis.
Perhaps the most level-headed and damning post came from Dan Vogel:
Dan Vogel wrote:Professor Gee,
Of what relevance could translating Egyptian be to the study of early Mormon history? Joseph Smith didn't translate Egyptian. You have proposed that the text he translated is missing. So no matter how good you are at translating Egyptian, it won't help you. You don't even dispute that the characters in the left margins of the translation papers are incorrectly translated, although you question the relationship between the two. And for that theory your knowledge of Egyptian is useless. What about Joseph Smith's translation or interpretation of the characters on the facsimiles? Does your expertise in Egyptian help you explain your way out of that? Hardly. No one (not even Noel, I believe) has questioned your ability to translate Egyptian. What is at issue is your theories about how the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri connect with the Book of Abraham. Basically, your idea that the missing papyri contain the missing text of Abraham is wishful thinking, the fallacy of possible proof, and downright silly, according to your mentor. The question I have for you is: are you an Egyptologist who happens to be interested in the Book of Abraham, or are you an apologist who became an Egyptologist so that you could browbeat your opponents with irrelevant feats of erudition?
If there has been ad hominal attacks, I don't approve of it; but most of the points made by the critics involve the non-technical aspects of the debate. I hope you realize that your test, if taken seriously, would apply to many of your defenders as well, some of whom go into vast detail on things Egyptian. You quote Nibley, but how bright was his light and long his rope when he tried to explore the Egyptian caverns? And was his wild theories about Joseph Smith's scribes trying to learn Egyptian by working backwards from Joseph Smith's translation beyond criticism from all except the Egyptologist?
D'oh! Perhaps that would make for a better "discussion": What were Hugh Nibley's Egyptology credentials? Would he have been able to ace all the technical items on Gee's list?
Later, we get another pathetic cry from juliann/Chaos:
Chaos wrote:It looks like to me that this is the level of response we will have to be satisfied with when those who rely on badmouthing instead of demonstrating their knowledge can't put out what they demand from others. It is unfortunate that posters with no background in what they are criticizing resort to this instead of facing the problems with their approach with the same honesty they claim is lacking in others. Claiming that a critic doesn't need to know what an Egytologist knows to determine if that Egyptologist is lying or interpreting obscure translations correctly is laughable and pathetic. I don't know how to say what needs to be said about what we have seen nicely and we have been given no reason to try to. Dr. Gee has been a poster here and the scoffers will talk about what he says instead of throwing out schoolyard taunts when they are in our house. Critics can use all the phoney baloney justifications they can muster but the challenge stands unanswered and that tells us what we need to know.
And this:
Chaos wrote:cksalmon wrote:It appears to be an attempt to silence criticisms, rather than respond to them.
And how will a challenge like this silence discussion? Will the name callers start caring about what they know as compared to what Dr. Gee knows and disappear into the shadows in shame? I have seen no indication of that. If a call out silences the school yard criticism then bully for us, respectful posters will finally be able to have a discussion. The truth is this challenge is doing what it needs to do. It is an embarrassment to those who can't do anything but parrot what somebody else says. The only thing that comes from them is the scurrilous insults they use to convince everybody they know best. So just keep bringing on those excuses and see who falls for them while the challenge stands unanswered. Complaining that Dr. Gee hasn't answered your questions when you won't even get near theh questions he asked first is the weakest response of all.
Later, The Dude tries to get the discussion back on track:
The Dude wrote:Chaos wrote:I agree so let's begin with Dr. Gee's carefully thought out questions. We have to start somewhere, he did ask them first, and I think those who have slandered Dr. Gee should be responsible for restarting the debate in a nondefensive way.
We all know it's CaliforniaKid we're talking about.
What if CKid tries to answer the test and gets an "F" grade? Then will Gee post a response to CKid's criticism (...which was asked first, by the way)? There's a pundit folder for this kind of thing, right? Maybe we can get that moderator formerly known as Oreos to set it up. He/she did a pretty fair job when I debated David Stewart.
So, what is this debate really about then? Is it a question of who can translate Egyptian? (Despite the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't?) Or is it a question of who is failing to respond to whose criticisms?
Later, we find out that it was really just a lame and desperate attempt to score points against critics:
Orpheus wrote:Dan Vogel wrote:The existence of unique texts doesn't answer the problem of constructing a probable, rather than a merely possible argument.
Enough of the vague and indirect responses. Your original post needs clarifying. You said:
What exactly are you talking about? Rather than the critics trying to guess what you mean and more or less causing problems that may not exist, please outline what accusations you are addressing with this test.
This is Dr. Gee's thread and no one else get's to control the topic. Sorry but the topic is his questions and nobody elses.
If it is Gee's thread, then where is the Good Doctor? Answer: hiding. Trying to not deal with the criticism, which, it seems, is eating him up from the inside out. Later, the mods added a final piece of text from Gee:
Chaos wrote:The final post from Dr. Gee:
At the end of a class I taught a few years ago one of the students told
me that the class had the worst whining of any class she had ever
attended. The class did whine about the textbooks, the subject matter,
the essays, and the tests; I also know that they whined a great deal
about me behind my back. This message board beats them hands down. As
Elder Holland said this past conference: "no misfortune is so bad that
whining about it won't make it worse."
Wow! Was it really all that bad? Further, it seems a tactical mistake for him to admit that his students dislike him so strenuously. (And how did he know they were bad-mouthing him behind his back? Darn those BYU spies!)
Anyways, the post goes on:
I am withdrawing the test; my workload has increased and I no longer
have time for it. I have asked the moderators to delete it from the
thread and close the thread. I am certain you can start another one to
grouse in.
A pity they didn't delete it.
Many construed the test to mean that if you did not know Egyptian you
could not discuss the Book of Abraham. This is utter nonsense, as they
all immediately went on to argue. Egyptian, however, is necessary if you
wish to discuss the Book of Abraham as a translation of Egyptian
(whether you think it was or wasn’t). If you wish to argue with those
who espouse the view that the Bible was originally written in Syriac,
you need to have some Syriac even if you take the contrary view.
Wha...? Why, if one does not think the Book of Abraham is the result of actual translation, would one need to know Egyptian? It doesn't make sense. If you are a chiropractor, do you really need to know acupuncture in order to treat someone's sore back?
Chaos as J. Gee wrote:Three things are interesting about the test:
(1) Few people seem to have read it all. For example, Mr. Vogel
complains that Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the Facsimiles should
have been addressed, but it was, in question 5.
(2) CaliforniaKid has taken the test. He and I have discussed his
results and I will not post them. No one else seems to have thought
about answering any of the questions. That is too bad, as the answers to
those questions might have taught them something about the debate and my
positions in it. Instead they merely spouted their opinions and claimed,
without basis, that I had done nothing to engage their positions. If
they had bothered to respond to the questions, even the bibliographic
ones, they would have realized how hard it is to answer certain
questions. The test was diagnostic of several skills, not just in
Egyptian, that are directly relevant to the debate. The test was an
invitation to a serious discussion, but no one is actually interested in
such. I put forth a riddle for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
A "diagnostic of several skills"? What, such as the ability to smooch Gee's butt?
(3) Most importantly, no one seems to have any interest in what the
texts actually say.
Especially LDS apologists!
This has been the irony of the whole debate as no
one else seems to care what either the Book of Abraham or the Letter of
Fellowship Made by Isis actually says and yet the debate rests on a
comparison between the two. The texts in the test were important too,
but no one seems to have realized it.
In the end, the test should have taught those who took it something
about faith. Who do we put our faith in, that is, who do we trust? Most
critics put no trust in me, whatever argument I might make on whatever
subject, because I am Mormon.
This, of course, is complete and utter bull, and it is embarrassing to see Gee relying on this very cheap rhetorical card. If people have lost "trust" in him it may have more to do with such things as the "two inks" theory, or his gossiping about Robert Ritner.
They are willing to put their trust in
some surprisingly dubious sources because those sources tell them what
they want to hear (compare Helaman 13:25-28). In the end, it does not
matter whether anyone trusts me because they should trust God more than
me. I have found God trustworthy. I have also found his prophets
trustworthy--imperfect though they may be. If you trust God, you do not
need to have the answer to every little question; certainly not now and
perhaps not ever. If this or that sophistry seems persuasive or this or
that little thing bothers you and makes you doubt God, then you do not
have enough faith in him.
Ah, good: When in doubt, bear thy testimony!
My test asked you not to trust me, but trust the texts; but they are not
important, at least not to you. That is why I find discussion on these
boards generally not to be worth my time.
--
John Gee
William (Bill) Gay Associate Research Professor of Egyptology
Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
Brigham Young University
And so, that was that. Gee retreated into the shadows once again. This "performance," though, points us to how many cracks exist in Gee's Mopologetic foundation. I have no doubt that Gee is a terrific Egyptologist. As an LDS apologist, though, he positively sucks, and this set of posts is a case study why.
Perhaps most poignantly, though, is that Gee, perhaps alone amongst contemporary apologists, seems genuinely wounded by the criticism he's endured. He doesn't take it on the chin and use it as fodder for further Mopologetic endeavors, as do DCP and Hamblin; nor does he seem to view the criticism as evidence of his own divine apologetic calling, as do folks like Tvedtness and Midgley. Instead, Gee seems almost to have fallen into this position of Chief Book of Abraham apologist, and he seems to resent it very much.
The poster named Helix summed all of this up nicely:
helix wrote:That being said, I do understand some of John Gee's motivations (he does seem to be the favorite punching bag of critics, and it looks like it finally brought him to the point of responding).
Yes; indeed. The problems relating to the Book of Abraham are never going to go away. One can only wonder how long Gee will continue to weather the storm.