NEW!!! RFM Decimates John Gee and Daniel C. Peterson

[_Kishkumen]

Sigh.

[_consiglieri]

This seems to be the MO of Gee and Muhlestein; to sneak LDS themes into their academic writings so they can later be referenced by them in LDS apologetics.

In fact, this seems to be the driving force in what subjects they pursue for academic publications.

[_Kevin Graham]

It has been a while, but this episode was posted in detail about 10 years ago but I'm unable to find it on the Mormondialogue.org forum, so I assume they deleted it.

I was in communication with Robert Ritner at the time and decided to ask him about something that was gnawing at me for years. Up to that point Dan Peterson had been spreading a rumor that he consistently regurgitated over the span of seven years whenever someone would mention Ritner's name. The rumor basically said that Robert Ritner was a biased anti-Mormon, and as he tells it, this was the reason why John Gee successfully had him thrown off his dissertation committee.

Ritner was livid when he heard this and said he may need to consider legal action if this they did not desist from telling this lie. Dan Peterson and his little cult following were livid with me for having the audacity to ask Ritner his side of the story. Dan wouldn't repeat the rumor again because he feared legal action (by his own admission) but refused to retract his previous statements which were documented on the forums and I believe in a couple of his FARMS publications.

Ritner said Gee got good grades so he had nothing against him at the time, but insisted that what he produced wasn't up to snuff for him to sign off on his doctorate, and so Gee whined about it to other people claiming religious persecution or what not.

Is DCP back to spreading this lie again? Ritner at the time said he could produce emails proving that he was the one who removed himself and he thought it was very unprofessional for someone like Dan to be speaking on a matter he wasn't involved with.

[_Kevin Graham]

I found a copy of my post dated August 2010:

Most of you who have kept up with the Book of Abraham debate over the past few years know how Robert Ritner has criticized his former student, John Gee. The only real response by the likes of Dan Peterson is to tell the story about how Ritner was thrown off Gee's dissertation committee after Gee made some kind of complaint about him. Here are just a few examples from DCP on the MAD board (There are others on the ZLMB board, but I didn't want to go looking for them).

The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee. (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies? (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale. (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make. (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Peterson provided an email from John Gee which included the following:

"I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell." (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

So Dan has been propagating this notion for YEARS. He said he wishes the details would be brought out in the open. His wish just might come true, but it is doubtful it will be a good thing for LDS apologetics. If what Gee and Peterson have been saying for years is in fact false, then just think of the credibility blow this would be.

I recently emailed Robert Ritner about this subject. To my astonishment, he seemed oblivious that these kinds of comments had been floating around in Mormon apologetics. I would have thought that someone would have emailed him about this over the years. His response to me is as follows.

Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, 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 Mr. Peterson 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

Wow. So Ritner says he has proof that what Dan and Gee are saying is false? Gee maintains that he was the reason Ritner left and Ritner says this is not true. Just think if Ritner decides to present his proof!

Ritner sent me a very long and detailed email this morning and I share the pertinent points with his permission:

1 - Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."

2- "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal."

3- "I probably shall post on-line my correspondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale." [emphasis mine: If true, then this is huge, as it would prove that Ritner was the one who suggested Gee find another advisor!]

4- "Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated the suggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction."

5- "It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic." [Wow. This makes sense, because Gee did get a job at BYU almost instantly]

6- "Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion." [contra Peterson]

7- "I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded" ["removed" according to Peterson]

8- "I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged." [It was Gee's idea, not Ritner's, according to Peterson]

9- "To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note."

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

11- "It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume."

12- "...if my writings have been of assistance to you or others in seeing the reasonable problems with the Abraham text and the actual content of the papyri, then any personal attacks are a minor issue, easily forgotten and forgiven."