John Gee responds

[_Kishkumen]

So why does he go after you?

Well, I did call John Gee a "jerk." That would get the best of any saint.

[_Kishkumen]

I doubt he would prank call you, though. Remember that he doesn't like confrontation.

Maybe he'll wait until I am away from home and call my kids. Shudder.

I can just hear his voice, whispering about what a jerk I am to my innocent children.

[_Kevin Graham]

I apologize to Chris for sharing that information with the forum. But it was a knee-jerk response and I wanted to make two points perfectly clear in light of Gee's swipe.

1. Chris is a gentleman and a scholar.
2. John Gee is neither.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't understand Gee's hostility towards you, CK. Why is he so angry and upset? It's just bizarre.

Years ago Chris said Gee was dishonest when he deliberately misused a source. The MAD forum went completely apeshit and Chris immediately apologized.

But Gee is all about grudges and so is DCP.

[_Drifting]

John Gee: "(1) For a number of years, I have been gathering information not only about the Joseph Smith Papryi, but their ancient owners and the owners’ extended families. I have pursued dead ends in New York, Connecticut, Washington, Atlanta and elsewhere."

Why would one pursue a 'dead end'?

I think, given Mr Gee's wanderings are paid for out of charitable donations made by members that it would be perfectly reasonable for him to give an accounting of how he has spent those funds.

Courtesy of Mormon Scholars (mostly living but some dead) Testify.

What if the Church of Jesus Christ is not true?... then Egyptology is a waste of time. (From John Gee's testimony)

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, but why would that translate into Gee being angry at Hauglid?

I'm not sure he was angry at Hauglid. Hauglid was the one who went with Chris to see Gee and from what I understand, Gee wasn't expecting it.

Incidentally, I suspect there is some tension between the more reasonable LDS scholars and the die-hard apologists at BYU. For example, Hauglid published his Textual History of the Book of Abraham, and insisted that it not be apologetic in any sense. But Gee apparently had some authority over him on that matter and made sure there were things inserted that Hauglid didn't want. For example, Abraham Manuscript 0, which presumes an original dictated manuscript that isn't among the extant manuscripts. This is an apologetic statement and there was zero evidence to support it. But Gee insisted it be put in the book, and so it was.

Hauglid had also told Brent Metcalfe that he would acknowledge his valuable input when the book was published, but Metcalfe was nowhere mentioned in the acknowledgments section. Instead, thanks was given to the guy he has been trying to distancing himself from - Will Schryver!

In any event, I think there is much more to the story. Hauglid has informed me that his upcoming publication will not be published through Maxwell. He doesn't explain why, but I think I can probably guess that it has something to do with the amount of control he should have over his own publication.

Oh, and I don't think it is a coincidence that David Bokovoy is leaving BYU while at the same time saying he no longer wishes to engage in apologetics. I think he knows that it is virtually impossible to work at BYU and not be expected to do apologetics. Bokovoy and Hauglid are extremely nice guys who want to build bridges. Most of the other folks at BYU are more interested in this war mentality against the evil apostates.

[_Kevin Graham]

A friend of mine recently told me a story about his first experience with John Gee. I think it was at a conference for the Mormon History Association. It must have taken place about ten years ago. Anyway, during a conference break he was having a cordial conversation with Bill Hamblin, when all of the sudden this short, squirrely guy runs up between them and starts yapping at him nervously, "Yah-Yah-Yahweh is an Egyptian word. Ya-Ya-Yahweh is an Egyptian word." And then walks off as quickly as he came. He said Bill Hamblin just rolled his eyes as if to say, ignore that guy.

Later during the conference he found out that this weirdo was John Gee.

[_EAllusion]

Of note, Gee has been dishonest and has misused sources. It might be easy to forgive someone, with time, for falsely accusing you of mendacious behavior. It's another thing entirely to deal with someone who has the knowledge and courage to call you out on your continuing mendacious behavior.

[_Buffalo]

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't want that sort of stuff posted, and I'm confident that he knows that, which means he's deliberately trying to upset you, or that he thinks it's funny/amusing to behave in creepy ways.

Next thing you know he'll be prank calling my house! Sifting through my garbage! What's next? I shudder to think.

Who would have thought that Daniel Peterson, of all people, would resort to becoming your malevolent stalker?

[_Kevin Graham]

Of note, Gee has been dishonest and has misused sources. It might be easy to forgive someone, with time, for falsely accusing you of mendacious behavior. It's another thing entirely to deal with someone who has the knowledge and courage to call you out on your continuing mendacious behavior.

And this is why Dan will always lose this debate.

John Gee is a proven liar. Not just once. Not just twice. His record is nothing but a "tragedy of errors", many of which cannot be reasonably explained any other way except by intentional deception. From his manipulation of KEP photos to his blatant misuse of sources, he expects his audience to be as ignorant as possible on these matters so he thinks it will be easy for him to fool them. I mean really, none of these apologists have dared take a stand to his polemics and say, "let me check on that source before I accept that." No, they just accept it and trust that he is honest enough to be responsible with the evidence. I've shown on multiple occasions that John Gee has a love hate relationship with telling the truth. He hates the truth and loves to show it.

But supporting Gee blindly to the death isn't going to be the thing that harms Dan Peterson's credibility the most. By far it will be his support of William Schryver, who he claims has been "unjustly demonized" as a misogynist. Even after reading all the evidence against Schryver, Peterson says he sees nothing wrong with his comments, which is nothing short of amazing. This will also damage the reputation and credibility of others who have tried to defend Will's misogyny. People like Pahoran.