Well he has written 150 articles so he at least gets a booby prize.Dr. Sunstoned wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:43 amWhat a tragic waist of a professional career. I can't imagine what it would be like to look back on 20 to 30 years and know that your work is based on a con man's fantasies and that none of your collogues respect you.Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:54 pm
For his whole life, Gee has been making an argument remarkably similar to claiming that the events in "Lord of the Rings" actually happened. It must be frustrating to him that non-LDS scholars feel pity on him and don't shred his delusions to ribbons. He seems emotionally injured that non-Mormon scholars don't wish to join him in spending years conjuring up imaginary parallels and hidden parallels from a text that is obviously fraudulent.
Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
-
- God
- Posts: 5017
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
Well, Gee has certainly rounded out a little as the years have passed - don't we all? But let's not make a drama out of it ...
However, I do agree that it would be a good thing for him to belt up.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
-
- Prophet
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:48 am
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
I think Joseph Smith did consider the Book of Abraham to be scriptural in a similar vein to the translational/inspired work he did with the Bible. I also think that Joseph believed many of the teachings and doctrines taught in the Book of Abraham to be important. Premortal existence being possibly the most preeminent.Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:07 amMG 2.0 is going to be very upset, and very disturbed since he doesn't think Joseph Smith ever believed it was scripture, nor important.Alphus and Omegus
I am glad that Gee at least admitted that Book of Abraham is central to Mormonism, as it's presently constituted.
Two balls, no strikes.
Merry Christmas!
Regards,
MG
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:46 pmI think Joseph Smith did consider the Book of Abraham to be scriptural in a similar vein to the translational/inspired work he did with the Bible. I also think that Joseph believed many of the teachings and doctrines taught in the Book of Abraham to be important. Premortal existence being possibly the most preeminent.
Two balls, no strikes.
Merry Christmas!
Regards,
MG
Joseph Smith thought he could provide a doable story of *HOW* and *WHEN* Egypt was founded and his story in chapter one about Egyptus being the founder after the floods subsided leaves no time for the building of the great pyramids and the great predynastic Egyptian epic that predates biblical dating and chronology in which Smith embraced. Smith borrowed dating from the Bible and incorporated it into his story of when Egypt was founded. All that is absolute proof that Smith was simply telling stories and making it all up.
The Facsimiles and the translation issues are a minor quibble compared to Smith's dating and explanation on how and when Egypt was founded. Mormon apologetics is in real trouble because I'm going to take these matters up in the Celestial Forum and tell the world how Smith's story of how Egypt came to be is an absolute farce.
So, what do that you think of that? Philo, where the hell are you?
Merry Christmas to you too, MG
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
Shulem have u seen this paper by Gee
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
hauslern wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:21 amShulem have u seen this paper by Gee
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr
Yep.
I have a fantastic thread up in the Celestial Forum (YOU NEED TO READ IT) about the King's name in Facsimile No. 3 and this particular article by Gee is taken into consideration:
Trick Questions from John Gee
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
I love spotting the apologist shell game. It’s the only thing they know how to do. Category errors, non sequiturs, straight up lies - anything to smokescreen their way out.
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
Tamas Mekis is busy dealing with the bequest of Edith Varga who recently passed away.
I noticed she is listed in Gee's paper.
I noticed she is listed in Gee's paper.
-
- God
- Posts: 5017
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"
I missed this! Has Mekis inherited all her hypocephali? That would be cool! We need more good write up on those from a real point of view concerning the actual Egyptian religion.