Look at where Dr. Gee has been!

[_truth dancer]

Kevin,

Has Gee ever given a reason for the various tints on the photographs?

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

Has Gee ever given a reason for the various tints on the photographs?

He has systematically refused to respond to any questions like these.

He lied when he based arguments on color photos that had been manipulated in a way to support his argument. He wasn't counting on samples of Brent Metcalfe's photos being released to the world shortly afterwards.

This alone proves Gee is willing to lie for the cause. It doesn't matter if you deceive people into believing, as long as they believe. The end always justifies the means in LDS apologetics.

[Guest]

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.

When I demonstrated last year on MADB that Gee's use of a nineteenth-century statement from Gustavus Seyffarth was either dishonest or sorely mistaken, and that the statement actually demonstrates the opposite of what Gee has claimed for it, Gee sent the moderators an "Egyptian test" to see who can translate Egyptian characters and interpret vignettes. This was done in direct response to my criticisms and it was explicitly stated that anyone who can't jump through Gee's hoops has no right to participate in the Book of Abraham debate. Even a lot of believers on the board thought the test was pretty silly, since it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. After this absurd test affair was over, I talked with Dr. Gee on the telepone and he admitted that on the Seyffarth issue I had a point.

Tell me, charity, can you defend the following statement?

“While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835.” - Gee, Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 4.

The diary entries Gee is referring to when he mentions "revision" work prior to its publication in 1842 are as follows:

March 8: “Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham for 10 No of the Times and Seasons and was engaged at his office day & evening.”
March 9: "Examining copy for the Times & Seasons, presented by Messrs. Taylor and Bennett, and a variety of other business in the President's office, in the morning; in the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham, called at Bishop Knight’s and Mr. Davis’, with the recorder, and continued translating and revising, and reading letters in the evening, Sister Emma being present in the office."

Now, Gee is clearly aware of these entries, since he mentions revision and this is the only evidence I'm aware of for that. So where does he get off saying that there's no evidence that Joseph Smith worked on translation after 1835? Frankly, Gee needs this evidence to quietly disappear, because it ruins his apologetic.

Best,

-CK

[_charity]

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.

We prefer to debate with people who can think above the level of adolescents who call names, engage in ad hominem attacks and who libel anyone they can't shout down in rational discussion.

I'll meet you on the other side, Kevin, and then with all the facts on the table, where you will have learned not to treat people who disagree with you with disrespect, you can apologize. I think until then, you can consider that nothing I post will be an invitation for you to personally respond to me. I hope you will respond to ideas, but I can certainly do without personal attacks. (And by the way, it makes your mother look bad that she didn't teach you better. You really should treat your mother better than that.)

[_CaliforniaKid]

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.

We prefer to debate with people who can think above the level of adolescents who call names, engage in ad hominem attacks and who libel anyone they can't shout down in rational discussion... (And by the way, it makes your mother look bad that she didn't teach you better...)

Really classy, charity. For rational discussion, see my post above.

[_BishopRic]

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.

We prefer to debate with people who can think above the level of adolescents who call names, engage in ad hominem attacks and who libel anyone they can't shout down in rational discussion.

Like Pahoran, Selek et al? What great examples of Christlike compassion in LDS apologetic debate.

[_Dr. Shades]

So Dr. Gee is not a respected scholar in his field and by his peers? Yeah, right.

I searched the whole program and couldn't find a listing for a Kevin Graham or a Brent Metcalfe. Did I miss something? Or maybe these people who like to take such pot shorts at Dr. Gee don't move in the same august circles as Dr. Gee and these society academicians.

So, let me see if I have this straight:

If a man is an expert chess player, then he is automatically an expert basketball player as well.

Is that right, charity?

I've tried to convince Dan that publishing Gee's historical work is a mistake, but he seems more interested in their friendship than in disseminating accurate apologetic information. Such is life, I suppose.

"Accurate apologetic information" . . . Isn't that an oxymoron?

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.

Since when does running to MA&D in a wild scramble for backup equate to "actually [having] done our homework with the relevant scholarship?"

[_charity]

Tell me, charity, can you defend the following statement?

“While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835.” - Gee, Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 4.

The diary entries Gee is referring to when he mentions "revision" work prior to its publication in 1842 are as follows:

March 8: “Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham for 10 No of the Times and Seasons and was engaged at his office day & evening.”
March 9: "Examining copy for the Times & Seasons, presented by Messrs. Taylor and Bennett, and a variety of other business in the President's office, in the morning; in the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham, called at Bishop Knight’s and Mr. Davis’, with the recorder, and continued translating and revising, and reading letters in the evening, Sister Emma being present in the office."

Now, Gee is clearly aware of these entries, since he mentions revision and this is the only evidence I'm aware of for that. So where does he get off saying that there's no evidence that Joseph Smith worked on translation after 1835? Frankly, Gee needs this evidence to quietly disappear, because it ruins his apologetic.

Best,

-CK

I prefer to let the person defend for him/herself what he/she meant. This is part of the critics' arguments that I always have a problem with. So many times the author/translator/commentator is not asked for a clarification. (Or is no longer around to be asked.) And the critic takes off running with it.

What did Dr. Gee say when you asked him? And what is your justification for saying he is hoping something disappears?

[_Trevor]

I like John Gee. I have had several conversations with him. He is a brilliant person with capacities in areas like language acquisition that I can only dream of.

On the other hand, I have had several people, on both sides of the Mormon question, tell me that Gee is not being forthright in his defense of the Book of Abraham. Everything I have read on the subject leads me to believe that this is the case. I have not seen a single Book of Abraham apologetic that he has presented that I thought ultimately worked.

I am glad that Gee continues to work in mainstream Egyptology. Surely he is far more likely to make a real scholarly contribution in this endeavor. His work on the Book of Abraham has mostly been an elaborate obfuscation of reality.

I am sorry I missed his presentation at the SBL/AAR meeting.

[_beastie]

Charity,

You never directly answered this:

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?