John Gee's FAIR Presentation

[_Equality]

Religious zeal Trump's scholarly ethics.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Religious zeal Trump's scholarly ethics.

Yup. He faked the "two inks" photos so why should anyone trust him about the scroll length?

[_Kishkumen]

Religious zeal Trump's scholarly ethics.

Yup. He faked the "two inks" photos so why should anyone trust him about the scroll length?

Yes, this is part of a pattern of behavior. It is not just one fishy photo or one reliance on a statistical outlier to make one's case; it is the repeated use of such sleights of hand in order to manipulate the impressions of his readers to reach a certain predetermined conclusion. What makes it worse is that it is all so unnecessary.

[_Cicero]

What makes it worse is that it is all so unnecessary.

What makes you say that? I understand the motivation behind their tactics. The Book of Abraham is arguably the most difficult issue for apologists to deal with.

[_Kevin Graham]

Thanks for explaining this so well Andrew/Chap.

This is going down as yet another example of these two buffoons tripping over themselves while pretending to have the faintest clue what they're talking about.

Of course, don't expect their mistakes to be in any way acknowledged by FAIR and the blind sheep over at MAD. They'll continue to listen to the dismissive rhetoric from escape artists Russel McGregor and Bill Hamblin, who are equally incompetent on this subject.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, this is my cue to exit the thread. Dr. Gee strikes me as a good man who doesn't deserve this sort of abuse.

Andrew or Chris, if you have any other questions or comments feel free to pm me.

Regards

Oh really Green?

Then what, pray tell, does one need to do to deserve this level of criticism, which you choose to classify as "abuse"?

He has lied repeatedly to numerous people about this issue for more than a decade now. So at what point does a liar need to be called out for lying? In my view, the fact that he is supposed to be a scholar means he should be held to much higher standards. He clearly has no problems throwing out the "deception" card when it comes to his broad brushed criticism of "apostates." And this he does with not even a fraction of the evidence for lying that exists against him. He constantly accuses us of deception with no evidence. Even in his latest FAIR presentation he reiterates this rhetoric. Critics cannot be trusted because we're helpers of Satan, pretty much. John Gee is the last person who needs to be preaching about trustworthiness.

[_Shulem]

I think everyone agrees that Facsimile 1 was "at the commencement" of the scroll, and thus there is no additional papyrus missing from the outside of the scroll.

The apologists will argue with you until the cows jump over the moon. They will simply state that we don't have all the original papyrus in it's original form and have no way of knowing for sure all of the content Joseph Smith was using.

Mormons are not going to adhere to reason. But, if you shove the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 down their throats hard enough they will eventually cave in. There is some amount of intelligence even in the most brainwashed Mormon mind. Drop the measurement attacks and go for the throat -- FACSIMILE NO. 3 is the key. I know for a fact that it is eating John Gee up! Kerry Shirts is a goner. The house of cards will fall based on the simple understanding of Facsimile No. 3 and how Joseph Smith abused his so-called powers and made a total mockery of another religion, their culture, language, and things sacred to others.

Paul O

The Book of Abraham is true The Book of Abraham is true The Book of Abraham is true

[Guest]

What makes you say that? I understand the motivation behind their tactics. The Book of Abraham is arguably the most difficult issue for apologists to deal with.

Because I think there are better ways of dealing with those issues. Furthermore, so many faithful LDS scholars have already conceded that Joseph Smith was unable to translate Egyptian in the way that John Gee learned in graduate school. Gee is, in fact, something of a hold out on these allegedly difficult points.

Here is the way you deal with some of the difficulties:

1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, not an Egyptologist
2) a. He received ancient works via revelation; b. not with a grammar and lexicon
3) the word "translation" (translatio-removing from one place to another) has a theological significance that is more akin to the passing of something through the veil than #2b
4) the papyri were a catalyst for a revelation on Abraham
5) the catalyst theory is much like the use of the seer stone, which at one point was abandoned because it was no longer needed

Instead, people stubbornly insist on ignoring the evidence and force Joseph Smith's activities into their preconceived notions about translation, etc. If only they would stop publishing those damn paintings showing Joseph perusing the plates as though he were reading the King James Bible, and the apologists would discontinue needless obfuscation about Joseph's process....

The simple fact of the matter could be that Joseph Smith had as little idea of what he was doing as any one of us does. He was not a scholar. He did not study foreign languages until after the "translation" of the Book of Mormon. So, what is he to make of the process of "translation"? Why do we take for granted the idea that he understood this in the same sense that you and I do? Even if one cannot plead Joseph Smith's ignorance as an excuse, the use of the interpreters or the seer stones to "translate" should be clue enough that something quite different than consulting Budge was going on there. And yet the apologetics are stuck in the same decades-old obtuseness. If it weren't for Ostler and Gardner, I would scream insanely, but then some hardcore nuts like Schryver repudiate a theory as sensible as Ostler's. It is enough to make one want to bang one's head into a brick wall.

[_Shulem]

I'm sure that John Gee doesn't believe that he is lying (or "fudging") at all. We've talked about probability versus possibility many times before, but the game for an apologist is always to enlarge the circle of "what's possible" as much as they credibly can in order to counter any critic. With respect to the Book of Abraham, the circle of what's possible is pretty small given what he have so Gee and others are really straining the limits of credibility to increase the bounds of possibility as much as they can (or to simply blow it wide open with something like the catalyst theory).

As the OJ Simpson defense team showed, anyone clever enough at obfuscation can throw up all kinds of smoke screens to help a predisposed audience ignore fairly simple, basic facts.

Oh sorry, I forgot, there are no facts.

I agree with you. But when it comes to the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 the apologists are really up a creek without a paddle. It was Hugh Nibley's hardest matter to take on and he failed miserably. Ever wondered why John Gee won't take it on? He can't. He knows it.

Joseph Smith did a lot of lying for the Lord when he invented the silly Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 but it gets really hard for the apologists to lie for Joseph Smith's obvious blunders.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are nothing more than a handy stake to drive in the Mormon vampire's heart -- kill him with a good pounding right in the chest. There isn't a damn thing the Mormon vampire can do but die. The prophets and apostles lie in their coffins.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Yes, this is part of a pattern of behavior. It is not just one fishy photo or one reliance on a statistical outlier to make one's case; it is the repeated use of such sleights of hand in order to manipulate the impressions of his readers to reach a certain predetermined conclusion. What makes it worse is that it is all so unnecessary.

Joseph Smith, Hugh Nibley, and John Gee are liars for the Lord.



Paul O