Kevin Graham's libel against Ritner?

[_Jersey Girl]

Shoe on the other foot? Are you also this stupid Joseph Smith?

The difference should be obvious. Gee and Peterson have maintained an accusation against Ritner for more than five years. I believed the accusation when I first heard it. I was a brain-dead apologist who trusted Peterson with every ounce of my apologetic spirit. Gee I didn't know that well but Peterson, he was the font of truth for many apologists.

Comparing my agreement with them five years ago with their current views, is hardly putting the shoe on the other foot.

No, Kevin. I'm not stupid at all, are you? Did you read the last line of Nevo's post? You have a propensity for posting excerpts of people's email and a history of biased error based on whatever "side" you choose.

We all do from time to time. I sure have. You can't see it in yourself.

Jersey Girl

[_Enuma Elish]

Let’s see.

Per Kevin Graham’s inquisition, Dan is allegedly guilty of belittling Ritner by publicly stating that Ritner may be biased against Gee and Mormonism as evidenced by the alleged fact that Gee petitioned to have Ritner removed from his dissertation committee.

Kevin however is guilty of belittling Ritner by publicly stating that Ritner is biased against Gee and Mormonism as evidenced by the alleged fact that Ritner may be a homosexual.

In my mind, Kevin is not “just as guilty as the next person.” I’m disgusted by his actions both past and present.

Why do I seriously doubt that Kevin’s apology to Ritner divulged the fact that Kevin attempted to publicly defame Ritner because of his sexual orientation.

Three cheers for Brent Metcalfe for originally calling Kevin to task for his public assassination. Who cares what the man's sexual orientation may be!!

Unbelievable that given his history, Kevin would have the nerve to start this madness in the first place when he himself is in fact much, much more guilty than the next person.

[_harmony]

Unbelievable that given his history, Kevin would have the nerve to start this madness in the first place when he himself is in fact much, much more guilty than the next person.

What I find unbelievable is that anyone takes any of this seriously enough to actually care one way or the other. Why is this such a big deal?

Is John Gee the only Mormon to ever have obtained a PhD in Egyptology with a dissertation in any way connected with the Book of Abraham? Is Dr Ritner the only professor to poke holes in a Mormon PhD candidate's dissertation? How could Dr Ritner not have known about Gee's religious affiliations, if he'd kept his finger on Gee's dissertation like a dissertation chair usually does? Was he really that surprised by Gee's bias that he didn't see it early on in their relationship?

Good grief... does anyone outside the hallowed halls of dubious academia (a.k.a. BYU) actuallycare? If a lawsuit results from this storm in a teacup, it will go down in history as one of the dumbest ever filed.

[_Enuma Elish]

Good grief... does anyone outside the hallowed halls of dubious academia (a.k.a. BYU) actuallycare? If a lawsuit results from this storm in a teacup, it will go down in history as one of the dumbest ever filed.

I agree. Which is why I referred to the whole thing as madness. I couldn’t care less if Ritner is a homosexual and if Gee successfully had Ritner kicked off his committee. This whole thing is simply one more example of Kevin’s attempt to sponsor superfluous turmoil. As evidenced by this thread alone, he did it as an apologist and has continued to employ the tactic as an anti-Mormon.

[_harmony]

Good grief... does anyone outside the hallowed halls of dubious academia (a.k.a. BYU) actuallycare? If a lawsuit results from this storm in a teacup, it will go down in history as one of the dumbest ever filed.

I agree. Which is why I referred to the whole thing as madness. I couldn’t care less if Ritner is a homosexual and if Gee successfully had Ritner kicked off his committee. This whole thing is simply one more example of Kevin’s attempt to sponsor superfluous turmoil. As evidenced by this thread alone, he did it as an apologist and has continued to employ the tactic as an anti-Mormon.

I don't know, EE. Perhaps it's a matter of getting things right.

If Dr Ritner didn't leave because Gee had him kicked off the committee (which kinda assumes an involuntary leavetaking), but rather because he simply didn't want to be associated with either the dissertation or the student, that casts a completely different light on the situation. And if Gee is telling people Ritner was booted, as opposed to leaving quite voluntarily, then that is incorrect and needs to be rectified. Especially if Gee is pulling his friends (Dr Peterson) in on the story, after the fact. Daniel may be uncomfortable with his support of Gee, if it turns out that Ritner wasn't booted, but left voluntarily (not that I'm reading Dan's mind, but it's possible).

Perhaps if we knew a bit more about the circumstances at the time we'd be able to show a more complete picture of what happened.

For example:

1. To be a chair for a PhD committee implies a close enough relationship for outsiders to assume the chair at least knew the candidate's subject matter. Surely regular meetings took place, wherein Gee would have explained his hypothesis and resultant conclusions to Ritner. Surely both parties would have known early on that they did not agree on some very important points. Surely at that point, Dr Ritner would have excused himself.

2. Is there any recourse other than excusing oneself from the committee, to halt a dissertation?

3. If Ritner did not chair Gee's committee through the whole process, who took over and what was his background? Did he agree with Gee's analysis?

4. Did Ritner attend Gee's defense of his dissertation, and publically object to his conclusions? Or did he ignore the whole thing, once he'd removed himself?

On another subject entirely:
1. What does Ritner mean by "Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings." (quoted from his email on the other thread)? What meetings? Visible how? Not respected how?

[_Enuma Elish]

Harmony,

Whether Ritner is or is not a homosexual and whether Ritner was kicked off Gee’s committee or voluntarily left, the two men obviously have a personal history that when all is said and done does little in my mind to establish the validity and/or problematic nature of their claims.

This entire exchange is simply one more example of Kevin Graham trying any means necessary to attack his perceived adversaries. The fact that he did it as an apologist by spreading rumors regarding Ritner’s sexuality speaks volumes, as does his recent email exchange with Ritner regarding Peterson’s on line comments that Kevin has now posted as a critic.

[_harmony]

Harmony,

Whether Ritner is or is not a homosexual and whether Ritner was kicked off Gee’s committee or voluntarily left, the two men obviously have a personal history that when all is said and done does little in my mind to establish the validity and/or problematic nature of their claims.

Well, I agree that sexual orientation is of little use in determining a person's professional worth, which is why I didn't address the charge of homosexuality. It simply doesn't matter to me if he, you, Kevin, or anyone is gay or not. I'm just trying to understand what happened. Surely the sexual orientation of either the chair or the candidate is immaterial to the material presented in the dissertation. Surely that had no bearing on this particular situation at all.

This entire exchange is simply one more example of Kevin Graham trying any means necessary to attack his perceived adversaries. The fact that he did it as an apologist by spreading rumors regarding Ritner’s sexuality speaks volumes, as does his recent email exchange with Ritner regarding Peterson’s on line comments that Kevin has now posted as a critic.

I'm not following you. Pardon my confusion, please. Perhaps I'm not keeping up, but I've always thought Kevin was a friend of the church, not a critic. He has some issues with Islam that put him in opposition to Daniel, but that doesn't necessarily put him in opposition of the church as a whole.

Are you saying that because he has a bee in his bonnet about Daniel, he's a critic of the church?

And are you saying that comments made years ago, when he was much less informed and much more under Daniel's control, are valid, even though he has repudiated those comments and apologized for them? Is no one ever allowed to make a mistake or change their mind?

And lastly, are you saying that Kevin is somehow responsible for Daniel's remarks, remarks which appear on the face of them at least to be giving out incorrect information?

[_dartagnan]

Per Kevin Graham’s inquisition, Dan is allegedly guilty of belittling Ritner by publicly stating that Ritner may be biased against Gee and Mormonism as evidenced by the alleged fact that Gee petitioned to have Ritner removed from his dissertation committee.

An inquisition, you idiot? I sent an email to Ritner out of curiosity. His response claims that Peterson is slander. It isn’t my claim. But according to Bokovy, this is an inquisition! As I stated before, I do not know which side is telling the truth. I was simply reporting that the accused has, for the first time in five years, denied the only version we were privy to.

Kevin however is guilty of belittling Ritner by publicly stating that Ritner is biased against Gee and Mormonism as evidenced by the alleged fact that Ritner may be a homosexual.

Was guilty you idiot. There is a five year gap, for which much has happened and changed since. Everyone knows I have “turned to the dark side” as early as three years ago. I have become friends with Brent Metcalfe, Richard, Shades, and numerous others who were once my sworn enemies. To all I have offended, I have apologized. And yes, I let Ritner know that I was among those who believed and propagated rumor about him, and I also apologized to him. I sense he feels my email was sincere since I did him a favor and brought to his attention the rumors that have been spread about him.

Bad Kevin! How dare you!

In my mind, Kevin is not “just as guilty as the next person.” I’m disgusted by his actions both past and present.

Which actions? All I did was send an email asking for Ritner’s side of the story. You see, this is how LDS apologists react. They only want you to hear their side, and nobody else’s.

Why do I seriously doubt that Kevin’s apology to Ritner divulged the fact that Kevin attempted to publicly defame Ritner because of his sexual orientation.

Because you need to. And for the record, I did not start the rumor. The rumor was alive and well on the FAIR e-list – perhaps if the archive is still available someone on the list can find the source? - and I was the only one to drag it out on the forum. A bad idea, but again, I was a TBM in the spirit of Pacman and William Schryver, who have said far worse about Metcalfe, myself, and others who they choose to malign instead of debating. Sometimes I think the rational side of me did it because I was struggling within myself, and a part of me wanted the public to know just how despicable the rumors on the FAIR e-list were becoming. In fact, I was banned from the e-list shortly afterwards because of a rant I gave against rumors. I was sick of them. I was sick of believing and spreading them. It is like a disease, and the LDS Church is a welcoming host.

Three cheers for Brent Metcalfe for originally calling Kevin to task for his public assassination. Who cares what the man's sexual orientation may be!!

Ask Dan Peterson, who made sure people knew the sexual orientation of Michael Quinn.

Unbelievable that given his history, Kevin would have the nerve to start this madness in the first place when he himself is in fact much, much more guilty than the next person.

How the hell am I much guiltier than anyone else when I am the only person who has repented?

Is Dan backing away from his position? Hardly. He stands by it. I backed away from mine and apologized shortly afterwards. This was several years ago! In fact, it was that period where I decided to take a U-Turn, mainly because I didn’t like the kind of person I was becoming as an apologist. I was resorting to lows that only Schryver and Pacman would appreciate, but lows which no other LDS apologist would argue against. It is easy for you to look back and say you are “disgusted” with what I said, but the fact is I was on that forum with a few dozen apologists, many of whom were conversing in email with me, and none of whom spoke up in protest. I recall several emails as a matter of fact, with comments like “Ha ha, that last comment got on Brent’s nerves! Good one!”

In LDS apologetics, there are no limits. The means justifies the end.

Ad for the record, I had no earthly idea Ritner would threaten lawsuit. All I do is research and report. You and your clan do nothing but sit in on your little chatter groups and rumor-monger. I’m sorry if what I have done lately has dropped a bomb on your tea party. Wait a minute… no I’m not.

Whether Ritner is or is not a homosexual and whether Ritner was kicked off Gee’s committee or voluntarily left, the two men obviously have a personal history that when all is said and done does little in my mind to establish the validity and/or problematic nature of their claims.

You’re full of it. The LDS position relies strictly on the premise that Ritner is a biased anti-Mormon and the number one piece of evidence, aside from the work with IRR, was that he was allegedly thrown off Gee’s dissertation advisory board. Dan Peterson has brought it up virtually EVERY time Ritner is mentioned on the forums. He started the rumor back in 2002 and he hasn’t stopped saying it. He presents it as a matter of fact, and even alludes to unnamed persons who confirm it for him. Obviously this is a very important point for Dan and the rest of the apologetic world. Ritner must be categorized as an anti-Mormon in the worse sense, because something needs to be done on the opposite end of the spectrum to compensate for his impressive credentials.

This entire exchange is simply one more example of Kevin Graham trying any means necessary to attack his perceived adversaries.

Do you have any idea how STUPID you sound David? You and your little circle of BYU “scholars” have been spreading these rumors for years. And you’re all upset now because someone took time out to verify the rumor. Gee, how dare I!

The fact that he did it as an apologist by spreading rumors regarding Ritner’s sexuality speaks volumes, as does his recent email exchange with Ritner regarding Peterson’s on line comments that Kevin has now posted as a critic.

[_Enuma Elish]

Are you saying that because he has a bee in his bonnet about Daniel, he's a critic of the church?

Certainly not. However, Kevin’s attacks directed against Daniel Peterson, FARMS, the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Mormon theology, Utah, etc. are surely a sign for where his allegiances currently lie.

And are you saying that comments made years ago, when he was much less informed and much more under Daniel's control, are valid, even though he has repudiated those comments and apologized for them?

What evidence do you have to suggest that Kevin truly apologized to Ritner for making derogatory comments regarding Ritner’s sexuality in the context of Ritner’s criticisms of the Book of Abraham?

I, for one, have serious doubts that Kevin apologized to Ritner for making these comments. If Ritner was upset enough to mention a lawsuit due to the fact that someone had allegedly attempted to belittle his observations pertaining to Gee and the Book of Abraham because Gee petitioned to have Ritner removed from his committee, how do you suppose Ritner would respond to someone who attempted to belittle Ritner over the charge that Ritner is a homosexual.

Is no one ever allowed to make a mistake or change their mind?

This is more than simply a one time mistake. This is an example of Kevin Graham’s propensity towards trying to publicly assassinate the reputation of others, whether Ritner or Peterson. It was wrong when he did it as an apologist and is wrong now that he’s a critic.

And lastly, are you saying that Kevin is somehow responsible for Daniel's remarks, remarks which appear on the face of them at least to be giving out incorrect information?

I’m not convinced that Gee did not petition to have Ritner removed at the same time Ritner removed himself as chair. None of us knows the true history. Either way, as I’ve suggested, this history means little to me as a believer. The whole thing simply reflects poorly on Kevin Graham.

[_dartagnan]

Certainly not. However, Kevin’s attacks directed against Daniel Peterson, FARMS, the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Mormon theology, Utah, etc. are surely a sign for where his allegiances currently lie.

When you cannot deal with arguments, fall back on the ever trusting “but he isn’t on our side” observation. SO what? If I were an LDS apologist of the FAIR variety, I would never be open to the possibility that Gee and Peterson could be wrong. I certainly would have never emailed Ritner to verify the rumor. You’re just upset because I am no longer a blind follower who knows his place.

What evidence do you have to suggest that Kevin truly apologized to Ritner for making derogatory comments regarding Ritner’s sexuality in the context of Ritner’s criticisms of the Book of Abraham?

How about my say-so? Oh wait a minute, Kevin is no longer a blind apologist, so everything he says cannot be trusted. Why don’t you email Ritner and ask him? You sound like Juliann back during the new year when she kept saying I posted emails without permission. I told the forum I had permission, but she refused to accept it so she emailed them and found out that I did in fact receive permission. But somehow I doubt she felt stupid for making the accusation that I had lied about it.

I, for one, have serious doubts that Kevin apologized to Ritner for making these comments. If Ritner was upset enough to mention a lawsuit due to the fact that someone had allegedly attempted to belittle his observations pertaining to Gee and the Book of Abraham because Gee petitioned to have Ritner removed from his committee, how do you suppose Ritner would respond to someone who attempted to belittle Ritner over the charge that Ritner is a homosexual.

They don’t teach your critical thinking skills at Brandeis? For one, Ritner had no idea that anyone had suggested he might have been gay, until the person who posted it emailed him and apologized. I declared what his sexual orientation was. I said it was a rumor I heard on the e-list. That is a far cry different from Peterson and Gee spreading an accusation as though it were verifiable fact.

This is an example of Kevin Graham’s propensity towards trying to publicly assassinate the reputation of others, whether Ritner or Peterson.

Assassinate!! Yes, I was trying to assassinate pEterson. I was the one who made him spread an accusation, not once, not twice, but at least six times over a five year period. When do BYU scholars ever become accountable for what they say? NEVER!

It was wrong when he did it as an apologist and is wrong now that he’s a critic.

Bull and you know it. Pacman and Schryver have said worse and you pat them on the back because of their “allegiances.” None of the apologists rebuked me then because it was and is the norm in LDS apologia.