Look at where Dr. Gee has been!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

And about the apologetics line. How can someone who is not an Egyptologist know enough to criticize what an Egyptolgist has to say about any relationship he sees with the Book of Abraham? Kevin isn't an Egyptologist. Neither is Metcalfe. Talk about stepping outside your academic field!



I have not deeply studied the Book of Abraham issue, but my impression is that egyptologists actually agree upon what the papyrii say. Am I incorrect?

Kevin's critique, as far as I've seen, deals with the question of whether or not the papyrii were the source for the Book of Abraham, and the involvement of the KEP. Why would it be necessary to be an egyptologist to comment on either of those issues?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:
I have not deeply studied the Book of Abraham issue, but my impression is that egyptologists actually agree upon what the papyrii say. Am I incorrect?

Kevin's critique, as far as I've seen, deals with the question of whether or not the papyrii were the source for the Book of Abraham, and the involvement of the KEP. Why would it be necessary to be an egyptologist to comment on either of those issues?


Kevin can say all he wants about the KEP or what the translation of the Book of Breathing fragements means. But he takes that imperfect understanding and goes way beyond what that little bit of information means. That's when he gets into tje quicksand of the anti-Mormon polemics.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Kevin can say all he wants about the KEP or what the translation of the Book of Breathing fragements means. But he takes that imperfect understanding and goes way beyond what that little bit of information means. That's when he gets into tje quicksand of the anti-Mormon polemics.


You did not directly address my point. Is or is it not necessary to be an egyptologist in order to comment on whether or not the papryii were the source of the Book of Abraham, and what the origin and role of the KEP was?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Kevin, in his post saying he doesn't contest Dr. Gee's academic proficiciecy still brings up the Ritner thing, and


I brought it up to highlight the fact that if anyone is questioning his expertise it isn't this crowd here. The only criticismremotely similar to that comes from those who are qualified to make that determination. Particularly Ritner and the entire dept at the University of Chicago as well as Brown University.

..refuses to admit that there are big question marks over Ritner's history with Dr. Gee.


When did I ever "refuse" to admit this? I am the one who brought light to this situation after Gee and Peterson had spent three years spreading their questionable version of ths history while "refusing to admit" theirs is just a perspective based assertion without any evidence. You and your ilk at MAD swallowed it hook, line and sinker without question. I emailed Ritner, got educated on the matter, and showed how dubious this claim was.

And about the apologetics line. How can someone who is not an Egyptologist know enough to criticize what an Egyptolgist has to say about any relationship he sees with the Book of Abraham?


Egyptology is irrelevant at this point. Did you get that?

IRRELEVANT.

Why?

Because nobody doubts the fact that the extant Joseph Smith papyri do not translate to the Book of Abraham. John Gee admits this. This doesn't boil down to one Egyptologists translation over another. So the issue is no longer about who can translate Egyptian. The issue is now based on apologetic attempts to recreate history and invoke "plausibility" for Gee's various crock-pot theories. Gee needs to prove desperately that the material we now have couldn't be the material used by Joseph Smith. Complete amateurs like myself and CK have made Gee look absolutely STUPID on this matter, and neither you nor anyone else from MAD have been able to respond to these refutations. All you do is throw up the irrelevant resume from Gee and say "look how smart he is." Might as well start calling him John Yale. It seems like you guys can't even bring up his name without throwing out that irrelevant tid-bit of information.

Nothing you can do or say will free Gee from his own pathetic apologetics. He has lied and we called him on it. None of you can change that.

Kevin isn't an Egyptologist. Neither is Metcalfe. Talk about stepping outside your academic field!


You're an idiot, so we aren't really shocked at your refusal to get it. The issue has never been based on Egyptology ever since the KEP were analyzed by Ashment.

99% of John Gee's apologetic on the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with Egyptology. It has more to do with his dishonest attempts in recreating history, distorting facts, skewing photos, etc.

Your statements on this subject make me laugh because you always pretend to have a decent grasp on the controversy. If you actually think being an Egyptologist means anything at this point, then you're just showing your ignorance.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

edit: oops, wow, I really came in late on this one. Oh well.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

dartagnan wrote: I emailed Ritner, got educated on the matter, and showed how dubious this claim was.


And O.J. told you he didn't do it, either, right? Why should you chose to believe Ritner?

dartagnan wrote: Egyptology is irrelevant at this point. Did you get that?

IRRELEVANT.

Why?

Because nobody doubts the fact that the extant Joseph Smith papyri do not translate to the Book of Abraham. John Gee admits this. This doesn't boil down to one Egyptologists translation over another. So the issue is no longer about who can translate Egyptian. The issue is now based on apologetic attempts to recreate history and invoke "plausibility" for Gee's various crock-pot theories. Gee needs to prove desperately that the material we now have couldn't be the material used by Joseph Smith. Complete amateurs like myself and CK have made Gee look absolutely STUPID on this matter, and neither you nor anyone else from MAD have been able to respond to these refutations. All you do is throw up the irrelevant resume from Gee and say "look how smart he is." Might as well start calling him John Yale. It seems like you guys can't even bring up his name without throwing out that irrelevant tid-bit of information.


What is really sad is that there are some people who will look at your "I made Gee look absolutely stupid" claim, and not look at the material itself to see how whistling in the dark it really is.


dartagnan wrote:Nothing you can do or say will free Gee from his own pathetic apologetics. He has lied and we called him on it. None of you can change that.


Andyour charges of lying because he doesn't agree with you? Little boys throwing rocks and yelling insults isn't academic discussion. Grow up.

dartagnan wrote: You're an idiot, so we aren't really shocked at your refusal to get it. The issue has never been based on Egyptology ever since the KEP were analyzed by Ashment.

99% of John Gee's apologetic on the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with Egyptology. It has more to do with his dishonest attempts in recreating history, distorting facts, skewing photos, etc.

Your statements on this subject make me laugh because you always pretend to have a decent grasp on the controversy. If you actually think being an Egyptologist means anything at this point, then you're just showing your ignorance.


Since the return of the fragments a large part of the argument has been that the facsimilie recovered as translated by Egyptologists doesn't match the translation as it appears in the Book of Abraham. And that the recovered fragments were very common Book of Breathing documentn, the tranlsation of which does not match what is in the Book of Abraham. And your continued "Ashment destroyed it all" argument is cockamamie. Don't you even try keep up?
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

I understand that is what you say. But I also understand that anytime Dr. Gee's name is brought up he is spoken of in the most derogatroy terms.


See Charity... this is the problem. You seem to think that because people think Gee is off the mark and even unscholarly when it comes to his Book of Abraham apologetics, they are claiming he is not an expert in his field. These are not one and the same.

You are arguing something that no one has ever suggested.

People can be experts in one field and totally incompetent when it comes to something else, (especially when it comes to belief). ;-) (I'm not saying Gee is totally incompetent).

BishopRic's example is an excellent one.

Another example.... last week I attended a lecture by a brilliant plasma physicist with all sorts of awards and honors to his name.... and he believes in Edgar Cayce's Atlantis. Now, maybe Atlantis was real and Cayce's readings are truth... I couldn't say but the point is, just because this man is completely brilliant in plasma related science, doesn't mean his apolgetics would stand up to a scholarly review.

People could laugh at his theory regarding Atlantis but still honor him for his amazing contribution to the world of physics. (Actually his ideas were quite remarkable and scientific but that is another thread... lol).

IF Gee's theories and ideas regarding the Book of Abraham were brilliant and scholarly and enlightening to the world, one would think he would share this amazing discovery in reputable journals, at scholarly conferences, and even on the evening news! (smile)Why do YOU think he has not done so? Why do you think he presents material at scholarly conferences that have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham which if it is what it claims to be would certainly be a monumental discovery no?

~dancer~
Last edited by Bing [Bot] on Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Does it make anyone else despair for the future of humanity that a human being can actually assert something like this that so obviously contradicts known reality, and apparently really believe it??




Those of us who have actually done our homework with the relevant scholarship and who are not limited by blind personal hostility to the evidence do not see things this way.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

And O.J. told you he didn't do it, either, right? Why should you chose to believe Ritner?


Because unlike Dan Peterson, Ritner was intimately involved in his alleged "removal."

Because when Ritner threatened to post emails that would prove Peterson and Gee were lying, both Gee and Peterson shut their mouths on the subject.

The better question would be, why should I believe Gee when he has a documented history of deception?

What is really sad is that there are some people who will look at your "I made Gee look absolutely stupid" claim, and not look at the material itself to see how whistling in the dark it really is.


Then prove it. I encourage people to look at the "material itself." You discourage it. You assume that what I say about Gee is verifiably false but neither you nor any other apologist is willing to take that challenge and prove it. What is really sad is that there are plenty of struggling LDS who would look at your claim and not look at the material itself to see how whistling in the dark it really is.

I bumped the Gee thread so you can provide your point by point analysis on why I am wrong and Gee is right.

Andyour charges of lying because he doesn't agree with you?


Not because he doesn't agree with me. He is a liar because he lies. I have proved this. None of you can refute it. It isn't a matter of agreeing... and agreeing with what exactly? You don't even know. You obviously have no grasp on the issue if you are ignorant as to think it can be boiled down to Egyptology and two sides disagreeing.

Little boys throwing rocks and yelling insults isn't academic discussion. Grow up.


Oh so now I'm a little boy? Yet, when Brent metcalfe is called a liar by Gee and the gang, this is considered scholarly investigation? You cannot handle a debate with me any more than your mentors can bear to watch one. Your stupid comments aren't going to hide this fact.

Now can you justify Gee's lies or can't you? It is a simple question. I laid out examples. So explain them or shut up.

Since the return of the fragments a large part of the argument has been that the facsimilie recovered as translated by Egyptologists doesn't match the translation as it appears in the Book of Abraham.


No it isn't. That isn't the argument anymore since both sides already concede the point. It is beyond dispute. It became indisputable shortly after they were discovered thirty years ago.

And that the recovered fragments were very common Book of Breathing documentn


No, that isn't it either. You really are an idiot. You don't even know what the critical argument is, yet you're cock sure that it is refuted!

And your continued "Ashment destroyed it all" argument is cockamamie. Don't you even try keep up?


Continued? Stop pretending to have a clue about the subject charity. All you ever do is wait until serious debate on a subject blows over, before you then attempt to resurrect it by mischaracterizing the debate and focusing on straw man themes in order to make the apologetic position seem somewhat plausible. It isn't plausible, and this is true for anyone with the capacity to grasp the issues beyond a superficial level. Unfortunately, that doesn't, nor has it ever, included you.

Ashment was selected by the Church to analyze these texts. He was the most qualified at the time to do so apparently. Now when he leaves the Church because his analysis proves Joseph Smith was a fraud, suddenly he becomes a nobody whose opinion carries no weight. Calling it cockamamie isn't an argument. You don't even know what the argument is. You represent the norm in the Church, even among apologists. If people knew the full skinny about the Book of Abraham controversy I'd venture to say baptisms would drop by 99%. Even Will Schryver had to admit that as a testimonyless outsider, he would have to conclude Smith was a fraud.

You know it, I know and the Church knows it.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Those of us who have actually done our homework with the relevant scholarship and who are not limited by blind personal hostility to the evidence do not see things this way.


Which describes you to a T.

You guys are entirely hostile towards the evidence.

You guys are not familiar with the relevant scholarship. All you know how to do is to quickly reference a Nibley article, or run over to MAD to beg for help, only to find no help exists.

You and charity are an absolute joke.

You never want to debate anything because you do not have the knowledge base nor the necessary cognitive tools to do so successfully. You can't even get basic facts straight because you're living with your head in the sand as the apologists hum "Spirit of God" and read to you books from Gee and Nibley - two apologists who have been shown to use any deceptive means necessary to retain souls unto the fold.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Post Reply