Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Simon Belmont]

When you are prepared to share your research notes, let us know.

The issue does not interest me enough to perform formal research. I utilized the resources readily available (read: the Internet).

[_EAllusion]

[quo

Intriguing position. Innuendo, by its very nature, is an indirect implication. It is left largely up to interpretation. The intentions, thoughts, and opinions of the author of the innuendo are therefore not obvious.

That's not true. It can be quite obvious when someone is leading others to think that something negative happened and allows that audience to use their imaginations to fill in whatever that negative thing might be. It also can be obvious from context if this is being done to damage the credibility of the target of said innuendo.

Our inability to read minds no more makes this an insurmountable barrier than when it comes to other communication.

[_Simon Belmont]

[quo

Intriguing position. Innuendo, by its very nature, is an indirect implication. It is left largely up to interpretation. The intentions, thoughts, and opinions of the author of the innuendo are therefore not obvious.

That's not true. It can be quite obvious when someone is leading others to think that something negative happened and allows that audience to use their imaginations to fill in whatever that negative thing might be. It also can be obvious from context if this is being done to damage the credibility of the target of said innuendo.

Our inability to read minds no more makes this an insurmountable barrier than when it comes to other communication.

You are, of course, entitled to formulate your own opinion based on how you perceive the innuendo.

[_Trevor]

The issue does not interest me enough to perform formal research. I utilized the resources readily available (read: the Internet).

OK. Well, thanks for your candor. That facilitates me placing value on your opinion on the matter (hint: little to none). I have done you the service of saving you the trouble of inferring it.

[_Simon Belmont]

So does this mean you have evidence that Ritner had a bias towards Gee? I've asked for it and so has Trev.

I showed evidence that Dr. Ritner has bias towards the religion of Dr. Gee in an earlier post.

[_Trevor]

I showed evidence that Dr. Ritner has bias towards the religion of Dr. Gee in an earlier post.

Well, that's not how I read it. So, consider me unconvinced.

[_dblagent007]

Another biblical scholar's opinion of Gee:

John Gee is one of the most intellectually bankrupt "scholars" the church has. I wouldn't trust him any farther than I could spit him.

I met him at an SBL/ASOR conference in 2007, just as I was leaving (mentally). Some background: biblical scholars do not in any way find any evidence that the Exodus story in the Pentateuch has any degree of historicity to it. It's legend, and unless you're a fundie from Dallas Theological Seminary or some little quasi-accredited Bible school, you're not even going to make the argument that the Pentateuch is history. The Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt. Scientific fact. So I go to Gee's presentation to show some respect, because BYU and CES were recruiting me for when I finished my doctorate, and his presentation he gave about Egyptological clues in the Pentateuch. For one, the presentation was scatty and not well put together. Then at the very end, he raised his voice, and with the feigned conviction you get from Mormons when they try to convince everyone in the room, including themselves, that by increasing their volume they also increase the truthiness of what they're saying, he says "HOW CAN THESE THINGS BE IF THERE WAS NO LITERAL EXODUS?!" Then there was a long pause as everyone in the room sat there with their mouths half open in disbelief, and he said "Are there any questions?" Nobody said a word (which is unusual for SBL/ASOR), and he just went and sat down with a smug look on his face, like he had some special knowledge and they didn't. It was an embarrassment to him, to BYU, and all of us in attendance.

If I had to describe my experience with Gee in one word? Douche. And I thought that even as a TBM who would one day most likely share an office wall with him.

[_Trevor]

Ouch.

[_wenglund]

Let's be real charitable here and assume, for the sake of argument, that Kevin's perceptions are completely accurate and fair about the matter in question, and that this is one of those rare occasions where there aren't two sides to the story, and that Kevin and Ritner know better than Gee what Gee thought and felt at the time.

In other words, let's assume that Gee was hunky dory all along with his advisor, and had no problem what-so-ever regarding how his advisor was growing increasingly more uncomfortable with the alleged apologetic bent of Gee doctoral work, nor did Gee in any way consider Ritner's discomfort as having anything to do with bias.

Yet, even though Gee had absolutely no complaints about his advisor, he nevertheless, while Ritner was his advisor, periodically expressed concerns about Ritner to his former professor and apologist, Dr. Peterson, and this presumably because Gee had the foresight to figure out that this would one day become an issue in an online debate of which he was not a participant, and he wanted to make sure his side was positioned to prevail..

In other words, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that Dr. Gee clairvoyantly lied to Dr. Peterson over the years leading up to the online controversy, about the true nature of his and Ritners advisory relationship and why a change of advisors was made and who really decided on the change. The question, then, in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy, is: "So what?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

You know, wade, I am sick of all of this "what if" and beating around the bush. Either tell us something solid, or just shut the hell up. I am sick of Geepologists hinting at things about Ritner's supposed wrongs to Gee. Who the hell cares?

I have yet to read one credible complaint about Ritner that is backed up by hard evidence. And, frankly, a Dialogue article by Ritner doesn't cut it. If Gee is going to apply his training to the Book of Abraham issue, then it is perfectly legitimate for another Egyptologist to respond using his training.

The simple truth of the matter is that we don't know what really happened between the two, and all of the moaning and recriminations surrounding the failings and wrongdoings of both men means diddly squat. It's like watching two toddlers approach their mommy about who hit whom and who is at fault. At the end of the day, I say send them both to their room or tell them to knock it off.

What a load of garbage.

In other words, let's assume that Gee was hunky dory all along with his advisor, and had no problem what-so-ever regarding how his advisor was growing increasingly more uncomfortable with the alleged apologetic bent of Gee doctoral work, nor did Gee in any way consider Ritner's discomfort as having anything to do with bias.

Yet, even though Gee had absolutely no complaints about his advisor, he nevertheless, while Ritner was his advisor, periodically expressed concerns about Ritner to his former professor and apologist, Dr. Peterson, and this presumably because Gee had the foresight to figure out that this would one day become an issue in an online debate of which he was not a participant, and he wanted to make sure his side was positioned to prevail..

In other words, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that Dr. Gee clairvoyantly lied to Dr. Peterson over the years leading up to the online controversy, about the true nature of his and Ritners advisory relationship and why a change of advisors was made and who really decided on the change. The question, then, in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy, is: "So what?"