John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Trevor]

I am aware of your writing.

I was wondering whether any message board might qualify as a serious venue, and it does not--a judgment I think is sound.

So, I suppose that what goes on at MA&D, here, and elsewhere is trivial entertainment for you. It's good that you have a healthy sense of humor about it all. I would hate to think that you and other online Mormon apologists were taking what you do online as seriously as some of your opponents seem to.

Since it is all in good fun, it makes me wonder why people get banned at all. I mean, why all the fuss?

[_beastie]

certainly serious conversations are less common than noise on message boards. but I have seen many serious conversations on Z, and sometimes even here, and occasionally at FAIR, although moderator interference made it more problematic.

Limiting your serious participation to print means that you're preaching to the choir, and not having to face and deal with serious critiques of your work.

[_Trevor]

I find it refreshing that Dr. Peterson is not being serious about all of this. I suppose it is the case that he considers others' opinions in these fora as trivial, and his responses are thrown out in the same spirit. I like that attitude. It is too bad so many of us have not understood his joke all this time. We might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Daniel,

I don't question John Gee's competence as an Egyptologist, his decency as a human being, or the sincerity of your personal respect and rapport with him. But none of those things means that you should have to accept less-than-mediocre book reviews written by him for publication in your journal. As someone who specializes in seeing through bad arguments, I know you can see through Gee's. He has occasionally written articles in which I am hard-pressed to find even a single valid argument. While that in itself is something of a literary accomplishment requiring, no doubt, many hours of effort on his spinning wheel, it's more the kind of thing that belongs in the quilt contest at the State Fair than in an academic journal. If John Gee is really your friend, I recommend that next time he submits a review you at least challenge him on some of his less-cogent or charitable points and require that he resubmit. In so doing, you may be saving him the heartbreak of getting raked over the coals yet again. You will additionally be saving your journal the embarassment of being known for its use of argumentum crappum.

-CK

[_Bond...James Bond]

argumentum crappum.

Alright.....that's freaking hilarious. Can we get Scratch to add this to his list of Latin phrases (I know he keeps a list somewhere....)?

[_Sethbag]

He's the same idiot, though, who wrote letters of recommendation when John Gee applied successfully to the graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley and then later to Yale University, both of which, clearly staffed by idiots of similarly degraded caliber, gave Gee graduate degrees. And he's the same idiot who, serving on Gee's rank advancement committee, solicited and received letters from Egyptologists in North America and Europe who, as it turns out, were likewise idiots and praised Gee to the skies. And he's idiotic enough to observe Gee's quite impressive pace of presentations and publications on three continents and to think that it says something about the quality of Gee's work.

Are any of these presentations that Gee is making, and publications he's printing, to do with Mormon apologetics? Has he had scholarly work peer-reviewed in Egyptological circles supporting the Book of Abraham?

Gee may well be a very smart person, and a good Egyptologist other than where the Book of Abraham is concerned, but I think he really screws himself over making really dumb arguments on behalf of a transparent fraud. You obviously don't agree, but it's pretty obvious to most non-indoctrinated folks who bother to read up about the Book of Abraham that a transparent fraud is exactly what it is, and Gee does himself no favors at all trying to apply his talents and so forth in supporting it.

You ought to go back and read CaliforniaKid's past threads about Gee and Seyffarth, and comprehend just how ridiculous an argument Gee makes there.

edit: oops, I actually cross-posted with CaliforniaKid himself, speaking of the Devil. :-) Way to go CK.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Limiting your serious participation to print means that you're preaching to the choir, and not having to face and deal with serious critiques of your work.

That's right. My printed work is never criticized. I like the safety of publishing that way.

Of course, just last November Dr. Michael Heiser delivered a critique of one of my published papers at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Since I was already due in Washington for another meeting, I went earlier and, at his invitation, was there in the audience while he critiqued my position. We then published his critique in the FARMS Review. (That's my ultra-clever way of evading criticism.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't question John Gee's competence as an Egyptologist, his decency as a human being, or the sincerity of your personal respect and rapport with him. But none of those things means that you should have to accept less-than-mediocre book reviews written by him for publication in your journal. As someone who specializes in seeing through bad arguments, I know you can see through Gee's. He has occasionally written articles in which I am hard-pressed to find even a single valid argument. While that in itself is something of a literary accomplishment requiring, no doubt, many hours of effort on his spinning wheel, it's more the kind of thing that belongs in the quilt contest at the State Fair than in an academic journal. If John Gee is really your friend, I recommend that next time he submits a review you at least challenge him on some of his less-cogent or charitable points and require that he resubmit. In so doing, you may be saving him the heartbreak of getting raked over the coals yet again. You will additionally be saving your journal the embarassment of being known for its use of argumentum crappum.

Speaking of that argument, I find it impossible to take the sort of over-the-top exaggeration on display above with even a smidgin of seriousness.

No serious person is likely to take you seriously when you write so ridiculously.

Speaking of preaching to the choir.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are any of these presentations that Gee is making, and publications he's printing, to do with Mormon apologetics? Has he had scholarly work peer-reviewed in Egyptological circles supporting the Book of Abraham?

Yes, and yes.

You folks don't seem to be aware of the conversation that's going on. You're not part of it, but you think you're central figures in it.

[_harmony]

He's the same idiot, though, who wrote letters of recommendation when John Gee applied successfully to the graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley and then later to Yale University, both of which, clearly staffed by idiots of similarly degraded caliber, gave Gee graduate degrees. And he's the same idiot who, serving on Gee's rank advancement committee, solicited and received letters from Egyptologists in North America and Europe who, as it turns out, were likewise idiots and praised Gee to the skies. And he's idiotic enough to observe Gee's quite impressive pace of presentations and publications on three continents and to think that it says something about the quality of Gee's work.

How many of these "idiots" at USC and Yale support or even know about Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics? How many of these articles and presentations that were praised by non-LDS " idiots" were about his Book of Abraham apologetics? Is it fair to say that these "idiots" at Berkley and Yale were praising Gee's Egyptology, not his apologetics?

So are you saying that the only idiots in academia are the ones who gave Murphy his PhD?