John Gee's FAIR Presentation

[_SteelHead]

Gee Paul.... Hamblin is basically saying you have no credentials as an Egyptologist..............

[_Kishkumen]

I find it hard to believe that Gee can be dishonest and ignorant with his Book of Abraham apologetics, but then be a top scholar in Egyptology. I think it is more likely that he does shoddy work in both.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. First of all, he is not invested in what the ancient Egyptians were up to in the same way he is invested in his faith. With his faith, there is a predetermined conclusion that must be reached. With his Egyptology, there is no particular orthodoxy that calls for him to defend it as an apologist. His Egyptological work is submitted to the review of peers who are interested in good scholarship, not the "Eternal Truth of Almighty God."

These are quite different situations, with quite different standards and expectations. Gee may be a fine Egyptologist and a dreadful apologist at the same time. My guess is that being a good Egyptologist may actually make his apologetics worse.

[_Fence Sitter]

Bill Hamblin has responded via his blog.

Why not at least attribute those posts to their authors and provide a link? I don't think that's too much to ask.

Actually it probably works out better for forum traffic that he hasn't. Those that actually come here to look are forced to read the whole thread just to find his quotes. I would expect his blog actually increases the traffic here and draws more attention to why people are criticizing Gee for his Fair presentation.

[_dblagent007]

I don't find it hard to believe at all. First of all, he is not invested in what the ancient Egyptians were up to in the same way he is invested in his faith. With his faith, there is a predetermined conclusion that must be reached. With his Egyptology, there is no particular orthodoxy that calls for him to defend it as an apologist. His Egyptological work is submitted to the review of peers who are interested in good scholarship, not the "Eternal Truth of Almighty God."

These are quite different situations, with quite different standards and expectations. Gee may be a fine Egyptologist and a dreadful apologist at the same time. My guess is that being a good Egyptologist may actually make his apologetics worse.

I would agree with you about most apologists, but not Gee. His work takes shoddy apologetics to new levels and I can't believe it is just because he has to reach a predetermined conclusion. All apologists have to reach the same predetermined conlusions, but none (or very few) with credentials like Gee's come close to his level of incompetence and/or willful deceit. Besides, Ritner, an expert in Egyptology, has confirmed that Gee's work isn't up to snuff.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, Hamblin is singling out Kevin, Paul, and Bob Loblaw? I guess I'm missing his point. Is he just trying to indicate that these people don't have PhDs in Egyptology? Or is he holding them up as examples because he has no real answer to the more topical criticism posted by Mortal Man?

[_Kishkumen]

I would agree with you about most apologists, but not Gee. His work takes shoddy apologetics to new levels and I can't believe it is just because he has to reach a predetermined conclusion. All apologists have to reach the same predetermined conlusions, but none (or very few) with credentials like Gee's come close to his level of incompetence and/or willful deceit. Besides, Ritner, an expert in Egyptology, has confirmed that Gee's work isn't up to snuff.

So, you would contend that all of the other reviewers of Gee's Egyptological work had no idea what they were talking about when they judged Gee's work worthy of publication?

[_Cicero]

So, Hamblin is singling out Kevin, Paul, and Bob Loblaw? I guess I'm missing his point. Is he just trying to indicate that these people don't have PhDs in Egyptology? Or is he holding them up as examples because he has no real answer to the more topical criticism posted by Mortal Man?

I think he begrudgingly issued the "clarification" because Mortal Man pushed him to clarify what he was referring to, and perhaps in response to Kish and others noting that some of us on this thread were actually NOT criticizing John Gee's work in Egyptology. Kevin and Paul, however, did criticize Gee's Egyptology:

If it weren’t for your testimony getting you all these favors at your Church’s University, you’d never be able to get a job anywhere else because you have no credibility outside the small herd of sheep you keep lying to

You make me sick, Gee. You are the worst Egyptologist on the planet and will be remembered as such

If Bill had been clearer in his OP as to who he was referring to, then I wouldn't have called him out for it here because I agree with Kish on this. I certainly don't have the expertise to evaluate John Gee's work in Egyptology sufficiently to claim that he is the world's "worst Egyptologist" or that no one would hire him outside of BYU.

ETA: But thanks Bill for referring to me as "rabble" in your clarification. Every time people try to tell me that I formed the wrong impression of you 15 years ago, you go right ahead and do something classless like that again to reinforce my initial impression.

[_Darth J]

Hamblin, just like his pal DCP, is too afraid to actually refer readers to this board. He's even got one of his toadies--Stephen "Pimple-Popper" Smoot--kissing his butt and following suit. Smoot is probably making his move right about now, hoping to be amongst the "freshly anointed" Mopologetic hit squad, right alongside Bryce Haymond.

Hamblin and Smoot are trying to restrict free exchange with this board? Maybe we should call this the Hamblin-Smoot Tariff.

[_Shulem]

Hamblin, just like his pal DCP, is too afraid to actually refer readers to this board. He's even got one of his toadies--Stephen "Pimple-Popper" Smoot--kissing his butt and following suit. Smoot is probably making his move right about now, hoping to be amongst the "freshly anointed" Mopologetic hit squad, right alongside Bryce Haymond.

Anything John Gee wishes to publish concerning an apologetic approach to the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 will certainly be peer-reviewed and Gee would get his ass kicked by scholars who safeguard the truths of modern Egyptology.

I'll say it again: You guys are wasting your time messing around with papyri formulas which plays right into the hands of the apologists. They want you to do that! All efforts should go into exposing and reminding everyone about the false Explanations of the Facsimiles, wherein, Facsimile No. 3 has all the neccessary ingredients to stir up a lot of people to anger against the church and shake many testimonies. Shaking testimonies is what this board needs to do, not pissing around with formulas that do not discredit Joseph Smith's revelations.

Go for the throat! Facsimile No. 3. Get your knifes out and start slashing the apologists and watch them mourn, suffer, and chew their tongues in pain.

Paul O

PS Hamblin -- you're nothing but a cheap school teacher living off the church. I hope you get run over by a truck. Go die in a fire.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Even though Hamblin is singling out Kevin and Paul for attack, I'm willing to bet that each of them knows far more about the Book of Abraham issues that Hamblin does. In fact, it occurs to me that Bill and Dan really aren't very good Mopologetic friends to Gee at all. They've been content all these years to just let him get torn to shreds by Metcalfe, Mortal Man, CK, and others--and they do virtually nothing to help him. Why doesn't Dan or Bill try to publicly defend the KEP or the Book of Abraham? I don't think I've ever seen either of them wade into the debate. Instead, they rely on people like Gee, Schryver, and Hauglid to act as cannon fodder. I'm sure that one of their responses would be, "Well, we don't have the relevant degrees," etc., but this is cast into a problematic light given their support of Schryver.