John Gee responds

[_gramps]

My ten year old son, after reading one of Red's posts about me, asked me why I was such a liar.

Liar.

[_Kevin Graham]

My ten year old son, after reading one of Red's posts about me, asked me why I was such a liar.

Liar.

Yes, that was funny. How would he know I was talking about his father? Is "Yahoo bot" the name he goes by at home?

[_Kishkumen]

From what I've heard, Gee is quite the breeder too. I heard he has 8 kids under the age of 9! His poor wife! Literally barefoot and pregnant her entire adult life.

Why is it that some folks always have to cross over the line?

I may disagree with Gee and think little of his attitude toward Chris, but why on earth do people impugn his learning and comment on the size of his family?

Gee is a brilliant guy. Extremely intelligent.

Yes, I disagree with his approach to Book of Abraham apologetics. I have real problems with what I perceive is his philosophy on defending the Church.

But all of this ragging on him for being paid by the Church to travel to conferences and to do research--something completely unremarkable, dismissing his intelligence and learning, and teasing him because he has a large family, it's precisely the kind of garbage that breeds mutual antipathy and continuing hostility.

I have no doubt that Gee is brilliant, learned, and genuine in his belief. He has done things anyone can justifiably question or disagree with, but this additional piling on is something I can't condone. Just like I don't condone Daniel Peterson's cheap acts of retaliation against me as a convenient and vulnerable target. Both his childish behavior and these swipes stink. Neither I, nor Gee, deserve it. I should hope that Daniel would know better, but he evidently does not.

[_Kishkumen]

My ten year old son, after reading one of Red's posts about me, asked me why I was such a liar.

Liar.

Bot can't help himself. Gratuitous dishonesty on this board is one of his pastimes.

[_Morley]

But all of this ragging on him for being paid by the Church to travel to conferences and to do research--something completely unremarkable, dismissing his intelligence and learning, and teasing him because he has a large family, it's precisely the kind of garbage that breeds mutual antipathy and continuing hostility.

I have no doubt that Gee is brilliant, learned, and genuine in his belief. He has done things anyone can justifiably question or disagree with, but this additional piling on is something I can't condone. Just like I don't condone Daniel Peterson's cheap acts of retaliation against me as a convenient and vulnerable target. Both his childish behavior and these swipes stink. Neither I, nor Gee, deserve it. I should hope that Daniel would know better, but he evidently does not.

I completely agree. It should also be noted that attacking dumb ass, inconsequential trivia dilutes the credibility of any other, real arguments you make.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Bot can't help himself. Gratuitous dishonesty on this board is one of his pastimes.

Great times, had by all, today.

[_Carton]

From what I've heard, Gee is quite the breeder too. I heard he has 8 kids under the age of 9! His poor wife! Literally barefoot and pregnant her entire adult life.

Why is it that some folks always have to cross over the line?

I may disagree with Gee and think little of his attitude toward Chris, but why on earth do people impugn his learning and comment on the size of his family?

Gee is a brilliant guy. Extremely intelligent.

Yes, I disagree with his approach to Book of Abraham apologetics. I have real problems with what I perceive is his philosophy on defending the Church.

But all of this ragging on him for being paid by the Church to travel to conferences and to do research--something completely unremarkable, dismissing his intelligence and learning, and teasing him because he has a large family, it's precisely the kind of garbage that breeds mutual antipathy and continuing hostility.

I have no doubt that Gee is brilliant, learned, and genuine in his belief. He has done things anyone can justifiably question or disagree with, but this additional piling on is something I can't condone. Just like I don't condone Daniel Peterson's cheap acts of retaliation against me as a convenient and vulnerable target. Both his childish behavior and these swipes stink. Neither I, nor Gee, deserve it. I should hope that Daniel would know better, but he evidently does not.

Ah, come on! I didn't mean to "impugn" the guy for being a prodigious father. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I really did mean it as a light-hearted joke about his big family. I've learned in the meantime that he only has 6 kids, so I was wrong about that. 6 kids under 10 is quite unusual in today's world, but more power to him and his wife if they want a bunch of kids. I hope they are good parents. I really meant no offense to the man, although I am sure that having so many kids in such a short period of time is quite a challenge for his wife.

For the record, I don't agree at all with the criticism about Gee's travels. From what I've seen, that's a big part of the life of professors who publish papers.

[_Kishkumen]

Ah, come on! I didn't mean to "impugn" the guy for being a prodigious father. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I really did mean it as a light-hearted joke about his big family. I've learned in the meantime that he only has 6 kids, so I was wrong about that. 6 kids under 10 is quite unusual in today's world, but more power to him and his wife if they want a bunch of kids. I hope they are good parents. I really meant no offense to the man, although I am sure that having so many kids in such a short period of time is quite a challenge for his wife.

For the record, I don't agree at all with the criticism about Gee's travels. From what I've seen, that's a big part of the life of professors who publish papers.

I really don't care for comments about his family in the present context. Just sayin'.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin would you provide a little more information on what "Abraham Manuscript 0" entails? Is that a extant manuscript based on a non-extant manuscript or is it the non-extant manuscript itself?

It is an imaginary manuscript for which there is zero evidence. It is a bold apologetic statement that was forced into Hauglid's book by Gee. The gist of it is that Gee and Schryver have been arguing that none of the extant KEP manuscripts can be the original dictated manuscripts, because that would prove Joseph Smith was a fraud. And since they begin with the bedrock principle that Joseph Smith couldn't have been a fraud, their delusion about an missing Manuscript "0" will always be found in their rhetoric.

Presumably, such a manuscript would have no characters attached to it; characters linking the Book of Abraham to the papyri that have nothing to do with Abraham. You see, everything Joseph Smith had that pertained to the Book of Abraham is really missing in their minds. All this extant material is just part of some irrelevant project that happened to have the signature of all his scribes, and even some portions with his own handwriting on them.

[_Kevin Graham]

I think this ought to be immortalized here:

You Need to Pay More Taxes


Jeff Neely, a commissioner with the federal General Services Administration,
shown in a hot tub high in a Las Vegas hotel during an advance reconnaissance trip to that city
that was devoted to planning a major subsequent tax-payer-funded GSA training event there featuring
endlessly flowing alcohol, lavish meals, a clown, a mind reader, and a comedian.

You are selfish, and you need to pony up for the common good. Federal employees are working hard for you, and yet you think to deny them their meager reward. Shame on you.


Over at a predominantly agnostic/atheist message board devoted to criticizing, lampooning, mocking, and denigrating Mormons, there is talk right now of how a certain Brigham Young University professor whom they hate -- no, actually it isn't yours truly, or at least, it wasn't, though now my colleague Bill Hamblin and I have been dragged into the discussion as further illustrations of the same sordid type -- has traveled to various places, including Paris, at the expense of faithful Mormon tithepayers. He and Bill and I feel that we're entitled to this, these impartial mind-readers reveal, because, humiliated virtually daily by our being revealed as lying incompetents, we view such sybaritic globetrotting as our soothing, compensatory, and well-deserved reward.

Anybody who actually knows anything about academia, of course, understands that this is just how the academic game is played. Professors in all disciplines at major colleges and universities jet off, at least once and sometimes several times a year, to conferences from San Francisco to Boston, from New York to San Diego, in London, Chicago, Paris, Rome, and so forth. Those who don't present papers at academic gatherings tend not to get tenure, promotion, or salary increases. Schools want visibility, enhanced recognition, and prestige, and presentations at conferences are among the means by which those goals are achieved.

So, plainly, there must be nobody on that particular message board who understands academia. If there were, that person would surely step forward and say that, on this score, at least, the three supposedly epicurean BYU professors aren't doing anything even remotely atypical when they attend and participate in academic congresses and conferences.

So you would think.

But you would be wrong.

There is at least one participant on that very thread who teaches at a state university in the American Southeast. At least a portion of this person's academic record is readily accessible on line, and one sees immediately that s/he has presented papers in such places as....[in real life information removed by poster]

Presumably, these trips (and probably others like them; only a partial record is visible) were undertaken at the expense of this person's university, which is, as noted above, a taxpayer-supported state school.



No actual photographs of this tax-supported bon vivant enjoying his or her travels
at the expense of the housewives, mechanics, farmers, factory hands, children, and day laborers of his or her state
have been released to the public, but this still photo of a colleague,
taken from an important 1978 documentary film,
gives the general idea.

Now, while tithes are voluntary, taxes are not. In other words, whereas the three purportedly hedonistic BYU professors being criticized have sometimes traveled (in luxurious economy class) to exotic climes -- being specialists on the Middle East, this was always likely to be the case -- wholly or in part on funds contributed voluntarily by faithful Latter-day Saints, this person has almost certainly traveled around the United States, to Europe, and to South Africa on monies coercively extracted (ultimately, in effect, at gunpoint) by the state.

Whether out of indifference to justice, however, or because it's just too darned fun to watch one's enemies being publicly pilloried, or because s/he is a coward, this pampered and tax-supported servant of the state has remained completely silent.

And s/he's* vocally of the political inclination, by the way, that demands that you pay more taxes. Go figure.

*In an earlier version, he slipped and had "he's" at this point. Now he has gone back to correct his error.

Here we see Dan doing what he loves to do, and that is lecture from a pulpit unchallenged while completely misrepresenting his target apostates. Sure, there was "talk" of Gee going to Europe on the tithe payer's dime, but none of us for a second believed it was to go to present a paper at an academic conference, which Dan thinks he needs to inform us is customary for academians. His entire rant is just another straw man. The point of the comment by me and others was that if the rumor is true, then Gee would be going around the globe looking for a relic that had nothing to do with BYU's Egyptology dept's exposure in academia, and everything to do with John Gee's personal infatuation with making his numerous apologetic "crooked roads" straight again, He has invested so much time and effort into his JSP papyri theories that it is embarrassing.

This is just one more example of Dan Peterson's despicable cowardice. And now I see he has started a blog trying to get Romney elected, spouting the usual crap you hear from Sean Hannity about the evil Obama and his wife. What an idiot.

Taxes are collected by at gunpoint? That's an idiotic talking point that originated with radio talk show host Neal Boortz. Tithes are no more or less "voluntary" than taxes. You have your free agency and can choose to pay either. Of course, as it is with taxes there are repercussions for failure to pay your tithing, but the repercussions for refusing to pay your tithes are much harsher, especially in a system where you can actually get away without paying any taxes if you're smart enough. But on tithing, who can fool God?

Notice also Dan's photo, pulled from some Right Wing blogger, where the Buffett Rule is supposed to be a distraction from all the REAL problems in the world that he gratuitously attributes to Obama. Apparently, Dan thinks it is wrong for people to complain that his presidential candidate pays a far lower tax rate than those who actually work for a living. I had no idea Dan had lowered himself this far. During the Bush administration he stated emphatically that he strongly supported Bush's policy in the Middle-East. What does he say now, after we know tens of thousands of people were needlessly slaughtered based on Bush's lie? Some Christian! He had nary a criticism of the Bush administration, but he is so anxious to support his Mormon candidate that he is even willing to start a blog so he can post his politico-religious rants that attack both Liberals and former Mormons.