The Eye of Ra Decimates The Fischers

[_JustMe]

Sounds thoroughly like the Gee I know, and I can't see that he was being at all unfair or mean.

I actually think Gad is bent out of shape (or at least pretending to be) over the LDS scholars calling it on shabby Mormon scholarship because the critics want something they can mock and have fun with, and the really well informed Mormons are taking their fun away from them...... so they quarrel against the solid LDS scholars for that. That's my final answer. lol.....

[_JustMe]

Gadianton

I think if you'll consider what I'm saying and try to formulate a substantive objection, you might then hold a greater appreciation for the serious tenor of my post.

Clever here too Gad! Try to now make it seem that you are doing this seriously and you mean it. Not a bad angle to take it from to give this "special effect." I wish I had half the talent you do for doing this. Man it's cool, and I am green with envy you ended up with all the talent for spoofing yet making it seem as if it is to be taken seriously.

[_JustMe]

Gadianton

But, can you seriously explain to me why a well-compensated Egyptologist is consumed with giving the "thumbs down" to Mormon "crafty junk"?

Consumed? Clever choice of words Gad....... a mere 9 page review is being consumed? lol....... Um, I thought the 70 page whopping review of Wright, Larson, Hutchinson, Thomas, and Ashment's contributions in Brent Lee Metcalfe's book New Approaches to the Book of Mormon could more easily be labeled as "consumed." (FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, #1 (1994): 51-121). I even think the masterful 65 page review of Edward Ashment's anti- Book of Abraham materials (FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, #1 (1995): 19-84) could be far better labeled (even though it is still an incorrect assessment of Gee) "consumed," than the mere 9 pager. Crimany man, Gee's 39 page review of D. Michael Quinn's magic hocus pocus update in Early Mormonism (FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 12, #2 (2000) is vastly more "consumed" than a mere 9 page review. Me thinks your hyperbole is out of order, by quite a few pages of magnitude.

[_Gadianton]

Oh, believe me, this is just getting started. The reviews of Metcalfe and Quinn go far beyond being "consumed". It is interesting, however, that a journal self-styled as scholarly prints a nine-page negative review of a book that none of the readership will probably ever hear of let alone see or buy but only devote five pages to a "critical" review of FIVE books by Hugh Nibley. Which, by the way, was even too much given FARMS went into damage control mode and printed scores of pages of raving reviews in volume 2 to counter Compton's modest and sober criticisms in volume 1.

[_Gadianton]

The Dude,

Thanks for your comments. Though i don't expect everyone to agree with every detail of criticism I have of this review, I think the gist of what I said along with reading the review itself surely leaves one with the feeling that Gee is really "off" in one way or another.

My apologies for not linking it.

I'd really like one of the defenders of Gee here to explain how Gee's criticism of the Fischer's supposed lack of international-scale foresight is at all compelling or called for. I mean, come on!

I'm afraid all I'll get are more ad hominems directed toward me.

[_Ray A]

This book really is small bickies.

Amazon: No reader reviews.

Product details
Unknown Binding: 72 pages
Publisher: s.n.] (1988)
ISBN-10: 0842523650
ISBN-13: 978-0842523653
Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

Good reads: No Reviews.

Even selectively reviewing the FARMS Review will be quite a task, given how many volumes have been published.

I think I get Gad's point, why did Gee even bother with this, if for nothing else than to exercise his "unrighteous apologetic dominion". I suppose it's like the USA invading the Cayman Islands. I'd suggest a possible reason: It was only the second volume of the Review and this book was just target practice for Gee (and Gad's "warm-up"?), or maybe he just likes shooting Moonfish. It's definitely not one of the more shining examples of the Review.

[_JustMe]

Gad

I think the gist of what I said along with reading the review itself surely leaves one with the feeling that Gee is really "off" in one way or another.

I truly don't get that feeling at all. I didn't the first time reading through it either. This is merely more subjectivity on your part. And my comment has nothing to do with ad hominim. I just don't think your conclusion is the necessary one.

[_JustMe]

Gadianton

Oh, believe me, this is just getting started. The reviews of Metcalfe and Quinn go far beyond being "consumed".

Oh good! I am really looking forward to it. Yeah Gee shows them where its really at doesn't he!

[_Gadianton]

I suppose it's like the USA invading the Cayman Islands

Ray, brilliant. Seriously, that's exactly what a lot of these "reviews" are like. You put it better than I did, but I tried on another thread to sort of make the point about how apologists have supported criticisms of the likes of Sagan for blasting "sitting ducks". But then they turn around and publish their top scholars taking a sledge hammer to their own countrymen's beliefs which are put forth straightforward without detailed scholarly consideration -- as if Jesus would expect that.

Part of the reason for this is summed up by Tvedtness in a later FARMS article explaining his anger over Brenton Y. If they slaughter their own, they can then claim they are "objective." But only they see it that way, the rest of us just see a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

[_Ray A]

Part of the reason for this is summed up by Tvedtness in a later FARMS article explaining his anger over Brenton Y. If they slaughter their own, they can then claim they are "objective." But only they see it that way, the rest of us just see a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

I think FARMS publications are informative, intimidating, interesting (though not as much now), provocative, balanced, unbalanced, objective, subjective (add whatever you think), and I see no harm in a discussion about them. The extent of their influence (and possible motives), though, is something you may be flat out exploring.

I am kind of amazed though, since I was an original volunteer in 1983, along with Warren Aston, the other Aussie volunteer (who later went on to publish books), and in those days stake presidents were asking us: "Why do we need this? Look at the bungle they made with the Salamander letter. Isn't testimony enough? What is there to defend, it's true, isn't it?"

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer