Mike Reed Drops Bomb on Metal Plates

[_Kishkumen]

At the Bushman summer seminar, scholar Mike Reed presented what sounds to have been an absolutely fascinating paper in which he used multiple 19th-century sources to demonstrate that the old apologetic claim--that Joseph Smith and others of his time would not have known of ancient records on metal plates--was simply untrue. He did so at the invitation and assignment of the seminar's organizer, Richard Bushman.

Evidently, this sent John Gee and Matthew Roper into an apologetic panic. John Gee seems to have produced a conspiracy theory on the fly in claiming Mike Reed was duped by numerous Hoffman forgeries that were written for the purpose of creating the erroneous impression that people knew of ancient records on metal plates in the 19th century. In Gee's bizarre theory, somehow Mark Hoffman was able to plant numerous unrelated texts, time travel, and any other number of highly improbable to impossible things.

This is how attendee Loyd Ericson described what he witnessed:

At the BYU Gold Plates Summer Seminar Conference Michael Reed gave a paper where he presented dozens of early 19th century sources discussing ancient texts and scripture being recorded on metal plates, including popular Bible dictionaries, textbooks, and news paper articles. He was largely responding to the claim of some apologists who argue couldn't have known about ancient texts and scriptures being written on metal plates.

In the Q&A, John Gee basically asked Michael if he knew if he was unknowingly using Hoffman forgeries for all of his sources, implying both that Mike was a terrible scholar who was simply ripping off someone else's work (who supposedly used some Hoffman forgeries) and that Hoffman somehow actually managed to go back in time and forge dozens of whole books that became popular back then.

All I can say is, "Wow." I would also add that I think that once again Kevin Graham has been vindicated. While it is not nice to call anyone a liar, it would help Gee out, and shut Kevin down, if Gee would stop making up implausible nonsense in defense of apologetic arguments of yore.

[_gramps]

Hi,

Did Lloyd write more on this, and, if so, is there a link to those writings?

[_Kishkumen]

Hi,

Did Lloyd write more on this, and, if so, is there a link to those writings?

Thus far Loyd has not written any more on this. Mike Reed has not written about it in detail either. Some apologists who were present and commented on Loyd's Facebook thread, however, simply spoke of the situation being "awkward," and so forth. They did not challenge Loyd's depiction of the exchange.

As soon as I see something more detailed written up about it, I'll be sure to link it.

[_Buffalo]

Ruh roh.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh boy.

John, get a grip.

[_KimberlyAnn]

In the Q&A, John Gee basically asked Michael if he knew if he was unknowingly using Hoffman forgeries for all of his sources, implying both that Mike was a terrible scholar who was simply ripping off someone else's work (who supposedly used some Hoffman forgeries) and that Hoffman somehow actually managed to go back in time and forge dozens of whole books that became popular back then.

Well, at least Gee has finally explained the real origin of the Book of Mormon.

KA

[_harmony]

At the Bushman summer seminar, scholar Mike Reed presented what sounds to have been an absolutely fascinating paper in which he used multiple 19th-century sources to demonstrate that the old apologetic claim--that Joseph Smith and others of his time would not have known of ancient records on metal plates--was simply untrue. He did so at the invitation and assignment of the seminar's organizer, Richard Bushman.

Evidently, this sent John Gee and Matthew Roper into an apologetic panic. John Gee seems to have produced a conspiracy theory on the fly in claiming Mike Reed was duped by numerous Hoffman forgeries that were written for the purpose of creating the erroneous impression that people knew of ancient records on metal plates in the 19th century. In Gee's bizarre theory, somehow Mark Hoffman was able to plant numerous unrelated texts, time travel, and any other number of highly improbable to impossible things.

This is how attendee Loyd Ericson described what he witnessed:

At the BYU Gold Plates Summer Seminar Conference Michael Reed gave a paper where he presented dozens of early 19th century sources discussing ancient texts and scripture being recorded on metal plates, including popular Bible dictionaries, textbooks, and news paper articles. He was largely responding to the claim of some apologists who argue couldn't have known about ancient texts and scriptures being written on metal plates.

In the Q&A, John Gee basically asked Michael if he knew if he was unknowingly using Hoffman forgeries for all of his sources, implying both that Mike was a terrible scholar who was simply ripping off someone else's work (who supposedly used some Hoffman forgeries) and that Hoffman somehow actually managed to go back in time and forge dozens of whole books that became popular back then.

All I can say is, "Wow." I would also add that I think that once again Kevin Graham has been vindicated. While it is not nice to call anyone a liar, it would help Gee out, and shut Kevin down, if Gee would stop making up implausible nonsense in defense of apologetic arguments of yore.

Gee and Roper knew this presentation was coming. Bushman basically set it up at least a week ago. Why were they not prepared? This is just so embarrassing.

Good job, Mike!

[_Chap]

I once met a young Egyptologist at a conference (not specifically on Egyptology). We had talked about such matters as the Book of Abraham (he had heard of it), and I asked him if he had ever met John Gee at any international gathering. He answered that he had once, and when I asked what impression he had gathered of the man, he said words to the effect that Gee seemed to be a rather angry kind of person.

Frankly, given the strain that Jersey Girl's position puts him under as a professional Egyptologist holding a faith-based position that he must know that his colleagues can only find bizarre, it is not surprising if he feels a bit tense. This latest incident can only feed into the general impression of apologetic desperation.

(NB: since I am anonymous, readers who wish to may assume I am making all this up without risking any resentment on my part.)

[_stemelbow]

Congrats to Mike Reed.

Now we can at least be sure that the idea that ancient text written on metal plates is an absurdity is itself an absurdity, since not only do we know now that it was a practice in various parts of this world, but they also knew it in Joseph Smith' time.

Those rascally critics who got after Joseph Smith for text on metal plates from the get go didn't do their homework.

[Guest]

Mike presented many, many sources published in New York prior to 1828 which discuss the notion of ancient metal records. He also showed that critics found the "Gold Bible" problematic because of the fantastic or treasure-seeking dimensions of the story rather than because of any objection to the notion of ancient metal records. The one contemporary critic who did object to the medium on which the Book of Mormon was written-- LeRoy Sunderland-- did so on very specific grounds. It was not that the ancients never wrote on metal plates, but rather that Jews in 600 B.C. didn't write on plates of brass. Joseph's narrative of finding ancient inscribed gold plates had resonance with his contemporaries precisely because ancient metal records fit their expectations.

Throughout the session, the FARMS section of the audience (particularly Midgley, Mitchell, and Roper) were whispering to each other and shaking their heads in consternation. In the Q&A, Matt Roper challenged Mike's research, claiming Mike had overlooked a number of sources where early Mormon missionaries reported critics attacking the idea of ancient metal records. Mike (somewhat undiplomatically) expressed skepticism that Roper is interpreting his sources correctly. Roper claimed he had the source(s) with him, and would show or email them to Mike afterward. Roper disappeared immediately after the session, and hasn't yet sent Mike the sources in question. (Mike later told me he thinks Roper is referring to a pamphlet by one of the Pratts, in which Pratt is responding to Sunderland.)

Following Roper's question, Gee tried to discredit Mike's findings through guilt-by-association. Early in his paper, Mike had quoted Dan Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon. Gee's question was something like, "Dan Vogel's work relies heavily on the Hoffman forgeries, so in your reliance on Vogel, have you unknowingly brought the Hoffmann forgeries into your work as well?" Gee was asking if the 19th century publications cited in Mike's paper might be Hoffmann forgeries, but unfortunately Mike thought Gee was saying Hoffmann had forged some metal plates. He asked Gee to clarify the question, at which point Gee merely repeated the question several times in a louder, more agitated voice. Other audience members, frustrated by the exchange, unfortunately contributed to the chaos by attempting to clarify the questions in an equally agitated tone. It was an awkward exchange for everyone. Finally Mike told Gee that he had only quoted Vogel once, and his paper was almost entirely original research. Like Roper, Gee disappeared immediately after the session was over.