Three things

[The Stig]

And your seeming willingness to bury John Gee under a heap of uninformed ridicule is simply another example of how you feed your delusions of grandeur here in the isolated confines of the mutually congratulating and wantonly self-gratifying Great and Spacious Trailer Park™. Funny that Gee's colleagues in the world of Egyptology do not share in your opinion. The only people that don't see Gee as a highly-respected scholar in his field are a handful of shameless and ignorant critics of Mormonism.

I had no idea that Gee's Mopologetics on the Book of Abraham were winning accolades in the wider world of Egyptology. What a coup! Please hasten to point us to the Egyptology publications where Gee's Mopologetics are cited, reviewed, used in an argument, etc. I suppose that you might be engaging in the fallacy of argument from authority, wherein you use Gee's other bona fides as the basis to lend his dubious Mopologetic arguments greater weight than they actually merit, but I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.... for now.

I'm quite confident that you would prefer to know nothing whatsoever, since otherwise you would be required to carefully analyze complex issues.

Gee's publications are available to anyone interested in his scholarly pursuits. I try to keep up with what he's doing and where he's doing it. And I will say this: John is a lot more clever than your kind of imbecile is willing to give him credit for. John is building a tower one block at a time, and I'm not about to risk blowing his cover just for the sake of throwing a bone to the mongrels in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™.

[_Kishkumen]

You are, of course, free to waste your time researching and arguing about something that 99.999999% of the world already knows was simply a product of one man's intense imagination. Have at it.

Yes, I really don't have a problem with them debating the geography of the Lost Continent of Mu. It's when they tell me that I need a PhD in geography to understand them that I get irritated.

[_Kishkumen]

Gee's publications are available to anyone interested in his scholarly pursuits. I try to keep up with what he's doing and where he's doing it. And I will say this: John is a lot more clever than your kind of imbecile is willing to give him credit for. John is building a tower one block at a time, and I'm not about to risk blowing his cover just for the sake of throwing a bone to the mongrels in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™.

LOL. In other words, you can't supply me with what I am asking for. Your retreat to empty bluster and childish insults tells me all I need to know.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The real truth is that Gee is laboring under an impossible burden. He is the Sisyphus of Mopologetics, and the strain has begun to wear him down.

Yes, Dr. Scrotch, so we've heard. From you, that is.

And believe me, we give it all the credence it warrants.

No, Will. Gee himself expressed his deep weariness in an issue of the FARMS Review. He also rather foolishly admitted that the Church is hiding materials pertaining to the Book of Abraham.

[_Kishkumen]

No, Will. Gee himself expressed his deep weariness in an issue of the FARMS Review. He also rather foolishly admitted that the Church is hiding materials pertaining to the Book of Abraham.

We owe him a debt of thanks for revealing that.

[_William Schryver]

You are, of course, free to waste your time researching and arguing about something that 99.999999% of the world already knows was simply a product of one man's intense imagination. Have at it.

Yes, I really don't have a problem with them debating the geography of the Lost Continent of Mu. It's when they tell me that I need a PhD in geography to understand them that I get irritated.

As John is wont to say:

"... surely you have better things to do than read drivel put out by some pseudoscholarly hack. After all, someone who merely publishes in academic journals cannot hope to compete with those who can actually get their ideas out on internet message boards."

!

[_William Schryver]

Gee himself expressed his deep weariness in an issue of the FARMS Review. He also rather foolishly admitted that the Church is hiding materials pertaining to the Book of Abraham.

You know, Scrotch, you and your sidekick Kissassman make one hell of an impressive team!

Incidentally, lest any sentient readers believe your spurious claim above has any validity at all, I can assure them it does not. But keep churning it out, Scrotch. As always, you've got a very receptive audience on hand.

[_William Schryver]

Your retreat to empty bluster and childish insults tells me all I need to know.

No. It simply tells you all you are capable of comprehending.

There is a considerable difference.

I tell you what, I'll give you the titles of two papers John has delivered in the last year or so:

Hypocephali as Astronomical Diagrams, Aegyptus et Panonnia Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, 16 October 2008.

Egyptologists’ Fallacies, In Search of Egypt’s Past: Problems and Perspectives of the Historiography of Ancient Egypt, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 23 April 2008.

If you have further interest in the details of what John has to say, those two papers are as good a place to start as any.

[Guest]

As John is wont to say:

"... surely you have better things to do than read drivel put out by some pseudoscholarly hack. After all, someone who merely publishes in academic journals cannot hope to compete with those who can actually get their ideas out on internet message boards."

Never one to get the point, Schryver continues to insist that Gee's publications on other Egyptology subjects lend real weight to his arguments about the Book of Abraham. In fact, Gee's accomplishments in his field may say very little or nothing about the veracity of his Book of Abraham arguments. I know it is a fact you would prefer to ignore, but unfortunately for you it is a fact.

Most of us are very comfortable with the preponderance of evidence that shows the Book of Abraham is a 19th century composition. We don't need the many blind alleys of minutiae that Gee strings together to try to save the fantasy that it is an actual ancient text. Any ancient text in this fiasco is the papyri fragments, which do not translate into the Book of Abraham. Gee's dream of a lost text has not borne scrutiny. Does this make him an idiot or a bad Egyptologist? No. His bona fides also do not save his Book of Abraham arguments.

Please, go ahead and believe the Book of Abraham is ancient. Knock yourself out. But do realize that your childish behavior only further convinces all onlookers that you are very insecure in your belief. Have the self respect to drop the bogus class-based insults about the Trailer Park, as though MAD were some kind of seminar room in the halls of Ivy academe. A good deal of what goes on there is little more than boosterism for the home team. The questions that are posed here are no less valid for not being expressed in Aramaic.

[Guest]

No. It simply tells you all you are capable of comprehending.

You're not fooling anyone, Willy. I asked a question. You failed to answer it.

Hypocephali as Astronomical Diagrams, Aegyptus et Panonnia Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, 16 October 2008.

Egyptologists’ Fallacies, In Search of Egypt’s Past: Problems and Perspectives of the Historiography of Ancient Egypt, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 23 April 2008.

Once again, this is not a response to the question I asked. You could have simply said, "I don't know of any", but you refuse to acknowledge the simplest facts. Whatever his credentials and accomplishments in Egyptology, he has not made a convincing case for the antiquity of Smith's narrative in the Book of Abraham. No one in Egyptological circles supports the antiquity of this narrative, and Gee has brought them no closer to doing so. Is that so difficult for you?