Page 1 of 1
BYU Studies' Roger Terry Disavows Gee's Book
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:03 am
by _Doctor Scratch
Quite an interesting comment posted to the "Faith Promoting Rumor" article on Gee's latest book. Check it out, it's from Roger Terry (apparently) the editorial director at BYU Studies:
Roger Terry wrote:I am the editorial director at BYU Studies and want to make a clarification. You are trying to make a connection between BYU Studies and Religious Ed that is, in actuality, quite tenuous. Steven Harper is a part-time faculty member in Religious Ed, but his other half-time appointment is as editor in chief of BYU Studies. In this second role, he reports directly to the academic vice president’s office. I have worked at BYU Studies for 14 years, and I can attest that RelEd has no input at all in our publishing decisions. Because BYU Studies Quarterly is a multidisciplinary journal, we publish on topics as varied as physics, music, history, engineering, economics, law, and art. Consequently, we rely on double-blind peer reviews from experts in a number of disciplines. The decision on whether to publish an article hinges on the quality of the scholarship and current needs of the journal (right now we are turning away some quality articles because we have a surplus of material we have committed to publish). So, whatever political or other issues may exist in RelEd, they have no bearing (unless coincidentally) on what BYU Studies does or does not publish. We publish articles now and then by RelEd faculty, but their scholarship must pass the same peer review process as every other article.
Wow--this is remarkable. What is the actual deal here? I was under the impression that Religious Ed. published Gee's book, but then reneged such that now you cannot buy the book from them directly. And the fact that Terry has come out in order to try and do damage control is yet more evidence that something intriguing is afoot. I wonder if there is yet more to come on this matter?
Re: BYU Studies' Roger Terry Disavows Gee's Book
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:33 am
by _Everybody Wang Chung
Is it just me or does it seem like everything Gee touches turns to crap? I remember how outraged Gee was when they terminated his Book of Abraham project. I can only imagine how angry Gee is now that his book isn’t getting the respect he feels it deserves.
Re: BYU Studies' Roger Terry Disavows Gee's Book
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:43 am
by _Shulem
Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:33 am
Is it just me or does it seem like everything Gee touches turns to crap?
Gee himself is crap. He's a steamy turd being flushed down the apologetic toilet of Mormonism.
Good riddance, Gee -- you lousy SOB. Take your Book of Abraham apologetics and shove it and wipe up when done. Smith couldn't translate and you know it. There is no long missing roll. Everything you and your cohorts do to defend the Book of Abraham is a sham.
Screw you, Gee, you bastard. And fat DCP too. That fat lard ass.
Re: BYU Studies' Roger Terry Disavows Gee's Book
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:02 am
by _moksha
Together with Hannah Seriac and her Doctrinal-Purity Inquisition, Dr. Gee may yet get a pound of flesh from those so-called "scholars" at BYU who have rejected him.
Re: BYU Studies' Roger Terry Disavows Gee's Book
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:02 am
by _Doctor Scratch
moksha wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:02 am
Together with Hannah Seriac and her Doctrinal-Purity Inquisition, Dr. Gee may yet get a pound of flesh from those so-called "scholars" at BYU who have rejected him.
Moksha:
How certain are you of Seariac's connection to Gee? Has there been any formal confirmation of their connection? Or should we interpret the recent retractions as evidence that the Mopologists have tried to keep Gee and Seariac's Mopologetic mentoring relationship a secret?
Re: BYU Studies' Roger Terry Disavows Gee's Book
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:45 am
by _moksha
Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:02 am
Moksha:
How certain are you of Seariac's connection to Gee? Has there been any formal confirmation of their connection? Or should we interpret the recent retractions as evidence that the Mopologists have tried to keep Gee and Seariac's Mopologetic mentoring relationship a secret?
Can't think of the reason this minute, but after reading several threads and remembering that interview of Gee by Hanna the connection seemed likely.