Look at where Dr. Gee has been!

[_charity]

C'mon, Trevor. You sound like you have some knowledge of shclarly matters. Don't pretend that you don't understand the basic difference between the Book of Mormon, and the Books of Abraham and Moses. Any other religious booik has a secular history which can be easily separated from its "religiosity."

Anyone who listens to the anyone speak on any religious material produced by Joseph Smith (however he did it) has to accept angels. It takes the truly mature individual to do that and not feel threatened. Not too many of those around.

The Book of Mormon has a secular history which can be easily separated from its religiosity too. You simply don't accept it. Other do, and these people do take scholarly interest in the Book of Mormon, as I have mentioned before. They do not have to believe in angels to take an interest in the founding documents of Mormonism. To state otherwise is to speak absurdly.

Whatever you meant in your initial statement, which, taken on its own, remains one of the silliest things I have seen posted here, you have not done much to regain ground in this follow-up. One does not have to believe in angels to take scholarly interest in Mormon texts, period.

Without any malice, charity, I encourage you to take a step back and reconsider what you are saying.

Without any malice toward you, either, trevor, you must be very naïve if you think you are going to find any faithful LDS speaking to any group on the basis that the Book of Mormon was written by a farm boy in his 20's. Or discussing in some academic setting how a group of individuals produced a 19th century work of fiction and got an ignorant but charismatic charlatan to market it for them.

A faithful LDS will be discussing a book put forward as the product of angelic visitation and revelations from God. And just where would that be?

charity wrote: "First, the Church does not decide where individuals speak or don't speak."

That depends on who the individuals are. If you don't believe me, ask anyone employed by BYU. They have to watch not only where they speak but what they say... and what they write in letters to the editor. And I believe Dr Gee is employed by BYU. So yes, the church will decide where and what he says.

How many shooters?

(Note to all lurkers, harmony doesn't speak for the Church, for BYU, or even for any other member of the Church but herself when she makes pronouncements on what the Church will or won't do.)

charity wrote:"Second, deathknell to misisonary work? IF such a talk were to occur, IF Gee were laughed out of the building, it would have no effect on missionary work.

Uh huh. And the church's PR department sits around doing nothing all day long. Try again, charity. The church is very careful about what its employees say (see above paragraph). [/quote]

The Church's PR department has more important work to do than watchdog academics who speak before arcane societies.

[_dartagnan]

I guess I'll be the one, again, who says what everyone else is clearly thinking...

Charity, you're a true idiot.

I'm surprised nobody from MAD has managed to lasso you out of this forum. You're clearly doing more damage than good. But I guess they're just happy to see you lowering the intellectual vibe somewhere else besides MAD.

[_harmony]

(Note to all lurkers, harmony doesn't speak for the Church, for BYU, or even for any other member of the Church but herself when she makes pronouncements on what the Church will or won't do.)

Anyone who thinks harmony speaks for anyone but harmony doesn't know harmony. What are you trying to say, charity? And when did I claim to speak for anyone but myself? When did anyone here claim to speak for anyone but themselves? We aren't MAD, remember? We're MDB, a much different group than MAD.

The Church's PR department has more important work to do than watchdog academics who speak before arcane societies.

I'm sure that's a comfort to those professors who lost employment at BYU because of what they said that wasn't approved.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Charity,

Believe it or not, it is perfectly acceptable to speak at these conferences from a faith-based perspective, so long as one is up-front about it. If Dr. Gee wants to prove his apologetics are "respectable", that might be a way to go.

Of course, conferences generally are not considered as respectable or as difficult to get into as are peer-reviewed journals.

-CK

[Guest]

I suspect she is referring to Gee's suggestion that Facsimile 3 is a royal Halloween party, wherein pharaoh and the prince are dressed in drag.

Well, I suspect charity has nothing in mind when saying this, hence my question. She knows virtually nothing about this debate. She throws out worn out straw men arguments that appear in an old Nibley article - clearly her only point of reference - and she thinks that by regurgitating Nibley's stupid straw men, that this some how catches us by the short hairs.

She boldly claims to have read both sides, and says she comes away unimpressed with nobody except Gee and Nibley. But the fact is she hasn't read both sides. Not that this should matter since we're talking about charity here, but it is worth noting her ignorance nonetheless. I have given her every opportunity to provide a reasonably accurate version of the critical argument, but she falls flat every time. She still thinks this is a debate about Egyptology for crying out loud, and her idiot cohorts like coggins think nothing has changed in this debate in the past century (probably basing this claim on nothing more than a skimming of an old Kerry Shirts article).

Charity isn't an idiot because she is simply uninformed. She is an idiot because she pretends to be. I'd have more respect for her if she would just accept her ignorant state and stop trying to engage the issues as if she had a clue.

[_dartagnan]

Incidentally, from what I understand - and I could be wrong - getting accepted as a speaker at these events has much to do with factors irrelevant to academic respectability. For instance, isn't it true that one must be a paid member and they must attend a certain number of conferences? I thought I read that once on their website.

In any event, I can probably think of a couple of outside the box "scholars" who have had no formal training in ancient languages, yet have been invited to speak at these types of conferences, simply because they consistently made themselves visible. Walter R. Mattfeld is one who comes to mind.

[_guy sajer]

The annual joint meeting of the American Academy or Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (and affiliated organizations), just concluded in San Diego.

And lo and behold, look at one of the listings.

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC)
Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55)
John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atrahasis?”

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.

Two responses.

First, let me re-emphasize what others have already said. I do not believe anyone here is disputing Gee's expertise in his chosen field of study. It is his Mormon APOLOGETICS that we are disputing. Honestly, Charity, I do not know how we could make this any more clear to you. If you cannot get it by now, then you are really and truly hopeless.

Second, presenting at academic conferences means very little (with some exceptions) in terms of the actual quality/publishability of one's scholarly work. Almost any academic of even the most marginal abilities can snag a conference presentation. A good percentage of papers presented at conferences are never published. I am not disputing Gee's knowledge and expertise in his field, but I can say from my experience that presenting at an academic conference IS NOT necessarily an indication that someone is accepted and credible. Without knowing more, we cannnot really infer anything about Gee from the information you have presented us. As I've said, lots and lots of third-rate academics present at conferences. The question is whether they are publishing what they are presenting.

OK, Charity, let me try to say this clear enough so that even you can understand. The standard for academic accomplishment is PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS.

There is a reason that conference presentations mean next to nothing in promotion and tenure decisions.

Once again, Charity, you've demonstrated scant understanding of how the academic world works. A master's degree, teaching courses at a Community College, and sitting in on a few Master's theses does not qualify you to make authoritative declarations about the academic world; one you apparently understand only very superficially.

[_harmony]

The annual joint meeting of the American Academy or Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (and affiliated organizations), just concluded in San Diego.

And lo and behold, look at one of the listings.

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC)
Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55)
John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atrahasis?”

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.

Two responses.

First, let me re-emphasize what others have already said. I do not believe anyone here is disputing Gee's expertise in his chosen field of study. It is his Mormon APOLOGETICS that we are disputing. Honestly, Charity, I do not know how we could make this any more clear to you. If you cannot get it by now, then you are really and truly hopeless.

Second, presenting at academic conferences means very little (with some exceptions) in terms of the actual quality/publishability of one's scholarly work. Almost any academic of even the most marginal abilities can snag a conference presentation. A good percentage of papers presented at conferences are never published. I am not disputing Gee's knowledge and expertise in his field, but I can say from my experience that presenting at an academic conference IS NOT necessarily an indication that someone is accepted and credible. Without knowing more, we cannnot really infer anything about Gee from the information you have presented us. As I've said, lots and lots of third-rate academics present at conferences. The question is whether they are publishing what they are presenting.

OK, Charity, let me try to say this clear enough so that even you can understand. The standard for academic accomplishment is PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS.

There is a reason that conference presentations mean next to nothing in promotion and tenure decisions.

Once again, Charity, you've demonstrated scant understanding of how the academic world works. A master's degree, teaching courses at a Community College, and sitting in on a few Master's theses does not qualify you to make authoritative declarations about the academic world; one you apparently understand only very superficially.

What do you think would be the response, were Dr Gee to have presented a paper on the veracity of the Book of Abraham at this conference, Guy? Would there have been a packed room, standing room only, people sitting on the floor to hear it? Or would it have been a deserted room, with only a handful of people listening?

[_Gadianton]

Guy,

thank you for once again bringing in your expertise on the matter of academic goings-on. I've come to the conclusion that neither charity or Dr. Peterson and his apologetic supporters will ever be convinced. This is not a matter of a mere strawman, the apologetic crew have no choice it would seem but to flat out lie, that's right, tell a filthy, dirty little lie (for the Lord no doubt) about the critics' position. The simple fact of the matter has been pointed out for years, yet, the apologists insist on continuning to lie about what the critics are saying.


Have you seen this thread over at MAD, presumably a protected response to Scratch's recent accusation that apologists are scared to pander their religious beliefs in academic venues.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=30067


The thread is subtitled, "Scholars hiding in terrified shame."

But if it was meant to be a response to Scratch, or even generally to the charge that the scholarly world doesn't take Mormon theology and scripture seriously, he swings two strikes. 1) No one has ever disputed the fact that there are Mormons with Phds in fields that are either religious or intersect in some way with religion. 2) No one has ever said that the topic of Mormonism never would come up in an academic setting. Afterall, there are millions of Mormons in the world and the church is pretty wealthy, obviously, at least in the context of contemporary religious society or American history, we'd expect it to come up.

Skimming through the list of Mormon presentations, the presentations by notable Mormon names don't seem to have anything to do with Mormonism, and the topics that mention Mormonism in the broader discussion of American history.

There is only one oddity:

Eric Hansen, “Likenesses of the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth Ritual in the Bible and the Book of Mormon”
I wandered by this one. Hansen, an independent scholar based in Princeton and, I'm guessing, a faithful Mormon, was not there when I came by, and, from his poster materials, I was unable to form a sufficiently detailed notion of his argument to be able to evaluate it adequately.

From what I can see on the list, this would be the only one even coming close to meeting the critics' charges, sadly, Dr. Peterson doesn't know much about it.

But as if it were staged, note the untruthful question and untruthful response, Isaac ventures,

I would be curious how you answer the charge that some (not me) make on this, and other boards that LDS scholars are looked at by others in their respective fields as a bunch of deranged apologists with no credibility.

And Peterson responds, untruthfully,

I'm well aware of the charge often made by our critics that people snicker behind our backs at academic conferences, etc.

I don't have any animosity towards Peterson, most of the time I sorta get him and I think he's pretty human and all. There are two or three issues though I have with the guy, and this is one of them.

Code: Select all

Candidly, I'm wondering whether most of the critics who say such things have ever attended an academic conference, and on what basis they profess to know what scholars generally think

But no critic I'm aware of has ever made the charge Isaac is refering to. So, they are both lying. What else can I say?

[_beastie]

Well, one more reason they need the protected forum.

I'm usually a bit hesitant to conclude someone is out and out lying, not out of generosity, but rather because I've seen how strong confirmation bias can be in "editing" how one processes statements made by others. However, it is hard to draw any other conclusion when it's been so explicitly clarified so many times.