Gee: "Critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham"

[Alphus and Omegus]

In his recent FAIR interview, John Gee said the following:

The critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham. They don't read it carefully, and in some cases don't read it at all. And a lot of them just dismiss it as not being historically authentic, so they don't need to test it. And so if you eliminate the text from consideration, then the only sort of discussion point that you get is the translation issue.

Gee says he's upset that LDS critics do not engage with the content of the Book of Abraham. But then in the next breath, he states why this is the case: That critics find the text of the Book of Abraham to be inaccurate and therefore not worth discussion.

It's a clever rhetorical trick if you are not paying careful attention. He's right that critics view the Smith "translation" as pseudepigrapha, but then declines to actually make the case that the text is true. It's a a sleight of hand trick to shift the burden of proof from the side making fantastical and unsupported claims to anyone who would disagree. It's also a form of a "Gish Gallop" in which the apologist claims (truly or falsely) that unaddressed claims are, by default, true.

As Shulem has noted in his Celestial thread regarding the king's name, the content is actually the weakest point in the Book of Abraham apologetic case. I'll add to this thread periodically to look at specific verses.

Edit to add: Needless to say, Gee is actually lying when he says critics have not discussed the content of the Book of Abraham. They have many times, and he knows that they have.

[Shulem]

I replayed several minutes of that podcast with Gee and Scott Gordon and considered doing a critique but in the end I just felt tired and figured people are probably weary of me screaming on this issue so I opted out.

Gee needs to understand that not all critics have ignored the content of the Book of Abraham. As a faithful Mormon most of my life, I spent many years studying that book and prayerfully considering the content of everything in it. I spend years as an apologist on line developing a website and sponsoring the Catalyst theory which I felt was the only possible solution to the problems. I talked with a lot of people about the Book of Abraham and read the content so many times that it made my head spin.

Yes, the thread “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head” in the Celestial Forum has become a masterpiece (isn't that right Philo Sofee?) and is utterly invincible. There is no amount of tricks or gadgets the apologists can employ to explain that thread away or reduce the credibility of its message. That thread is the bomb and I challenge anyone to answer against it.

The biggest problem with the Book of Abraham is the content in and of itself regarding *HOW* and *WHEN* the book claims Egypt came to be when tying it in with false biblical dating and chronology which Smith endorsed through his many public statements and more especially in D&C 77. Egypt was not founded after mythical Noah got off his ark and whereby his child became the forerunner of the Egyptian race. To support the historical claims of chapter one is a farce and no Egyptologist (NOT EVEN GEE OR MUHLESTEIN) will support those things in light of what modern Egyptology and science tells us about *HOW* and *WHEN* Egypt was truly founded.

The Book of Abraham is a travesty -- complete fiction outside the realms of genuine historicity.

[drumdude]

He's speaking to believers who have not read, and won't read, any of the criticism of the book of Abraham.

"Shhhhh. It's ok. It's all refuted, just listen to brother Gee."

[Alphus and Omegus]

I replayed several minutes of that podcast with Gee and Scott Gordon and considered doing a critique but in the end I just felt tired and figured people are probably weary of me screaming on this issue so I opted out.

Gee needs to understand that not all critics have ignored the content of the Book of Abraham. As a faithful Mormon most of my life, I spent many years studying that book and prayerfully considering the content of everything in it. I spend years as an apologist on line developing a website and sponsoring the Catalyst theory which I felt was the only possible solution to the problems. I talked with a lot of people about the Book of Abraham and read the content so many times that it made my head spin.

I am glad that Gee at least admitted that Book of Abraham is central to Mormonism, as it's presently constituted. Of course, what's canonized doesn't have to stay that way, as the Lectures on Faith showed. I wonder if, deep down, Gee fears that this might happen someday, as it did with the RLDS.

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.

[Philo Sofee]

Alphus and Omegus
I am glad that Gee at least admitted that Book of Abraham is central to Mormonism, as it's presently constituted.

MG 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. Wow. M.G 2.0 needs to trot on over and convert Gee to the truth...

[Moksha]

I replayed several minutes of that podcast with Gee and Scott Gordon and considered doing a critique but in the end I just felt tired and figured people are probably weary of me screaming on this issue so I opted out.

The interview was such an artifact of pretense that very little rebuttal was necessary, but the lies were so egregious that commentary from you would be nice.

The question of how Dr. Gee is perceived by non-BYU Egyptologists would make for a fascinating read. My guess is the debacle in that Canadian journal of Egyptology poisoned the waters for Gee.

[Alphus and Omegus]

The question of how Dr. Gee is perceived by non-BYU Egyptologists would make for a fascinating read. My guess is the debacle in that Canadian journal of Egyptology poisoned the waters for Gee.

That must be why they led with the question of why he is such a terrible Egyptologist. Imagine someone starting off an interview with that question in your professional context: "So before we get started, why do you think people think you are awful?"

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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.

What 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.

[Fence Sitter]

The question of how Dr. Gee is perceived by non-BYU Egyptologists would make for a fascinating read. My guess is the debacle in that Canadian journal of Egyptology poisoned the waters for Gee.

The question of how Dr. Gee is perceived by non-Egyptologists professors @ BYU alone would be a fascinating read. I know a professor in Gee's department and their opinion is not good.

[Fence Sitter]

The critics really don't get into the content of the Book of Abraham. They don't read it carefully, and in some cases don't read it at all. And a lot of them just dismiss it as not being historically authentic, so they don't need to test it. And so if you eliminate the text from consideration, then the only sort of discussion point that you get is the translation issue.

This statement might have some weight if it were not for the fact Gee, Muhlestein, Stevie Smoot, Bob Smith and others have done no work at all to eliminate the 19th century as the source for the Book of Abraham. So when you arbitrarily eliminate the information available to Smith in the 19th century from consideration all you have left for historical consideration is pseudepigraphal sources about a mythical character that were recorded thousands of years after his purported lifetime.

The constant refrain of "How could Smith have known?" isn't actually a question they take seriously since they have put zero effort into actually studying Smith's available sources.

Funny that.