Dear John Gee

[_John Larsen]

Have you read his articles for non-LDS audiences? Any of them?

Do you know what he's arguing? Are you sure he leads a double life? How can you be sure, if you haven't examined the supposed "other" life?

Educate me. Has he relied on any of the Smith translations in any of his non-LDS work? Well, has he?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Great point, John.

An LDS scholar should only play the peer review card in the context of a Mormon debate IF it is his LDS ideas that have been published in a non-Mormon real world journal of repute. Retarded Mormon "peer" review does not count.

So DCP, have you published anything Mormon related in a non-papier mache journal?

[_harmony]

What does Dr Gee's professional vitae have to do with his Book of Abraham apologetics? I was under the impression he keeps his apologetics separate from his professional life?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

What does Dr Gee's professional vitae have to do with his Book of Abraham apologetics? I was under the impression he keeps his apologetics separate from his professional life?

Because if he claims that his opinion is more valid based on his scholarship, then it matters. Otherwise, he is on the same level as us mortals.

Or.

There is a very good reason they are kept apart.

[_Trevor]

I respect the fact that Dr. Gee has published peer-reviewed articles in the reputable journals of his discipline. I am waiting to see how his work there connects with his defense of the Book of Abraham. I have been promised by Will that in time Gee's carefully laid plans will come to fruition and that great things are coming. I trust that someday this will all be made clear and that all of the "dots" will be connected.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Educate me. Has he relied on any of the Smith translations in any of his non-LDS work? Well, has he?

Sophistry, JL.

Obviously, you haven't been reading his publications for non-LDS audiences, so your confident pronouncements about his compartmentalized double life rest on . . . perhaps middling familiarity with only one of those alleged two lives.

What does Dr Gee's professional vitae have to do with his Book of Abraham apologetics? I was under the impression he keeps his apologetics separate from his professional life?

And your impression is based on . . . what, exactly?

An LDS scholar should only play the peer review card in the context of a Mormon debate

No LDS scholar "played the peer review card" here. Re-read the opening post.

IF it is his LDS ideas that have been published in a non-Mormon real world journal of repute.

Since I'm apparently the only person here who's read any of the things he's published in non-Mormon venues, it seems that I'm the only person here who's qualified to comment on this matter.

Retarded Mormon "peer" review does not count.

Scratch does Kindergarten.

So DCP, have you published anything Mormon related in a non-papier mache journal?

I've never published anything in a papier mache journal.

Have I published Mormon-related things in non-Mormon venues? Yes.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I've never published anything in a papier mache journal.

Have I published Mormon-related things in non-Mormon venues? Yes.

You have never published in one of those fake "peer" reviewed Mormon rags? I am actually impressed.

Could you expound on what Mormon insight you gave to the greater discussion? Methinks you didn't say much of substance. Prove me wrong, donut boy!

[_Daniel Peterson]

You have never published in one of those fake "peer" reviewed Mormon rags?

I've never so much as heard of one, let alone published in it.

Could you expound on what Mormon insight you gave to the greater discussion? Methinks you didn't say much of substance. Prove me wrong, donut boy!

Don't care to. You're entirely welcome to imagine whatever you like.

No read, no likely have worthwhile opinion.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

You have never published in one of those fake "peer" reviewed Mormon rags?

I've never so much as heard of one, let alone published in it.

Could you expound on what Mormon insight you gave to the greater discussion? Methinks you didn't say much of substance. Prove me wrong, donut boy!

Don't care to. You're entirely welcome to imagine whatever you like.

No read, no likely have worthwhile opinion.

What is this turning up of the nose? Come on, now.

[_Dr. Shades]

Back to Gee's original test:

How would Joseph Smith have answered any of John Gee's questions? Would Smith's answers have satisfied Gee?