DiscussMormonism.com

I saw something on Facebook feed where they were discussing issues involving the Book of Abraham. One commentator said that often some LDS apologists when responding to the work of Dr Ritner mentioned that he was gay. This had nothing to do with his abilities as a Egyptologist. I was wondering if that issue was why Gee wanted him off his Phd panel. This seems an issue some LDS do not want to go there.I has a conversation with a long time Mormon friend and when I mentioned the work of Simon Southerton he immediately mentioned something about Simon's personal life. The same kinds issues of were raised about Dr Bennett and the guy involved with Mormonism Unveiled. Even if Bennett was a scoundrel what he was writing about polygamy could still be true. Charles Dicksons had a mistress and President Eisenhower had a relationship with his female driver and yet both held in high regard, one with his books and the other with his military leadership and exposure of the military industrial complex. Do personal flaws negate their work?

Funny how some stories evolve. More revisionist history in the making by those for whom actual history is a hard truth.

When asked to comment about the accusations from apologist (including Gee himself) here is how Dr Ritner himself responded:

My response to Gee’s relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent [Metcalfe]. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know [one of his critics], nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee’s dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee’s work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If [said critic] continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.
Sincerely, Robert Ritner

For a fuller treatment of this see Runtu's blog on this very subject from 2012 here,

Yeah, I’ve encountered something similar - probably many times but one comes to mind. I was explaining in sunday school that forensic anthropologists put together what a typical man in Israel the time of Jesus would look like. He had dark skin, short curly hair, a beard & brown eyes. Someone asked where I read or heard this and when I told them “Popular Mechanics” many laughed and dismissed the entire argument - going back to their beloved Middle Eastern WHITE Jesus.

Obviously, they are not logically considering the facts but are getting distracted by the source presenting the facts... like a mix of logical fallacies... ad hominem, red herring and (reverse) appeal to authority.

I have to admit I have done this to some extent with my kids. When it is someone they admire for sports or music, etc but make bad decisions in some ways, I’m careful to point out their bad decisions so they don’t copy them. And at times I’ve decided not to enjoy their art etc, after learning of some of their messages in them. I guess it depends if the source’s perceived flaw creates bias or if they maintain objectivity and have a record of being credible.

aussieguy55 wrote:One commentator said that often some LDS apologists when responding to the work of Dr. Ritner mentioned that he was gay.

Could this possibly have been an effort to portray LDS apologists (and by extension all LDS) as haters with a bag of empty arguments?

IMHO many LDS apologists do have empty arguments.

You can read more about the Ritner-Gee-Peterson stuff here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2109

It's well-known that apologists take assiduous notes on any "dirt" they can dig up on perceived critics, including stuff from their personal lives, and will look for excuses to bring it up. Examples of this include:

- The attacks on the late Grant Palmer over his CES pension
- Pahoran bringing up Darth J's law license surrender
- The aforementioned Ritner stuff

A few years ago, when I finished both my MA and an HR certificate as a single mother, I was surprised when an apologist I'd never interacted with before descended on the thread and began tossing out "dirt" on me that was 4-9 years old: that I'd had bad credit in my 20s, that I used to play World of Warcraft, that I'd made an insensitive "short bus" comment on my blog in 2007-2008, etc. His comments were clearly meant to undercut my good achievements in finishing my degrees.

I've had godly credit for years, haven't played Warcraft since 2012, and apologized for / retracted the "short bus" comment within a year of making it, but yeah, sure. That sounds like super relevant stuff to bring up when someone critiques Mormon theology.

Playing WoW is some kind of problem?

Kishkumen wrote:Playing WoW is some kind of problem?

Only if you're an old guy who can only play a retro-pally and has Raider IO of about 200.


But then I wouldn't know anything about that.