Tom wrote:Video of Gee’s rather weak and distasteful address is posted
here.
Y'all should listen from about 38 min to 47 minute. I tried to transcribe as I listened but probably butchered it a bit. Enjoy.
John Gee (transcribed) wrote:Now, if Moroni was not an actual historical person, who really lived and wrote these words, then he would not appear at the bar of god, and the writer of the words was lying. The Book of Mormon is either ancient and historical, or it is a lie. It does not leave the possibility of being pious, inspired, or inspiring fiction, open for itself.
What happens when you bracket, or consistently bracket or reject or refuse to deal with historical authenticity? Then you are bracketing or rejecting an issue that President Oaks has said is fundamental. This demonstrates a lack of integrity. Research indicates that a lack of integrity is one of the two major causes of cynicism. The other is lack of competence. We have scriptural examples for each of these.
For lack of integrity, think of Alma's rebuke of his son. "Behold, oh my son how great iniquity you brought upon the Zoramites. For when they saw your conduct, they would not believe in my words."
For competence, think of Solomon's son Rehoboam. People came to Rehoboam and asked for relief on an oppressive tax burden. The older men advised Rehoboam to cut the taxes. Rehoboam, the entitled brat that he was, asked his fellow entitled brats their opinion, and they responded he should ask for more. This I believe is referred to as the Art of the Deal. And it is typically a negotiating maneuver used by unions. Rehoboam followed this advice with predictable consequences. The ten tribes rebelled, and Rehoboam ended up with less money to spend than if he had cut taxes in the first place. This demonstrates gross incompetence, not only of Rehoboam, but his advisers. So that's competence.
Now we can see in the church, sometimes, the results of local leaders or other individuals who are either incompetent or lack of integrity. The results can be a disillusionment, resulting from a failure of specific institutions to meet high expectations. When people trust, and that trust is exploited, they become more cynical. Common to most definitions of cynicism, is the belief that others lacks integrity and cannot be trusted.
The observation of self-interested behavior on the part of leaders, leads to a sense of betrayal, and is also caused when someone perceives that the organization has failed to meet its obligation. Such as the violation of organizational procedures, which reads to reactions such as anger, outrage, distrust, and resentment. It can also be caused when an individual holds unrealistically high expectations which are subsequently unmet. Those who have lost trust, often accuse the church of failing to communicate important information.
Honest and frequent communication generates perceptions of fairness, and trust. Failure to communicate important information, in contrast, particularly during times of organizational unrest, violates the contract, resulting in unmet expectations, fear, distrust, and ultimately cynicism. Moreover, attempts by management to deny well crafted rumors serve only to exacerbate individuals contempt and distrust towards management. Although individuals may feel that the church has been hiding something, in most cases, it is not a matter of the church failing to communicate, but the individual's failing to pay attention. This is general, not specific.
More prominent in members of the church, than loss of trust, is taking offense. Individuals consider the nature of their treatment as a criterion for fairness.
[more victim blaming, those who opposite historicity are a bunch of offended babies]
.....
Now I understand being offended by failures of integrity and competence. A number of church members I have run across over the years have, through lack of integrity or competence, done a lot of things to offend me. But I do not have to shut myself out of heaven just because they want to go to hell.
Although I find their actions extremely offensive, I refuse to allow their offensive behavior to interfere with my keeping my covenants. Covenants, after all, are not something that gets in the way of what we are trying to do. They are what we are trying to do.
If the records of the covenants given to Abraham are not historically authentic, or the records of the keeping of covenants, or God's fulfillment of the covenants, what basis do we have for assuming that God will fulfill his promises to us? If those who deny the historical authenticity of the scriptures really believe that, why on earth would they expect God to keep his promises to them?
This issue, as President Oaks has pointed out, is fundamental. If we consistently bracket, reject, or refuse to deal with historical authenticity in order to appeal to those in The Great and Spacious Building, we legitimately invite the cynicism which will surely greet such efforts.
In doing so, we sell our birthright, scriptures that are historically authentic, for a mess of plaudits.
Elder Packer addressed this directly, "Do not yield your faith in payment for an advanced degree or for the recognition and acclaim of the world. For what profiteth it a man if he to gain his degree and lose his soul?"
Above all we should defend historical authenticity because events in scripture actually took place. These are records of real people, who really spoke with God, and really saw God, and really made covenants with God, and really kept covenants with God, and really received the promises of God. We should defend the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham, because it is defending the truth. Why would we want to bracket the truth?
During Q&A he's asked about whether he has ever received a spiritual witness of the Book of Abraham. He says No. Then continues,
John Gee (transcribed) wrote:...I don't think that you particularly need one... the other thing is, I am a scholar, I am an Egyptologist, I work in ancient history all the time. The Lord expects me to do a lot more homework on this than he does you. So, um, but the Book of Abraham is true. You don't need to worry about that.
Ok. I don't want to be a jerk. I want to be polite, mostly because several of you seem to be friends with Bokovoy and like him. I'm not impressed. I'll try putting it like this. I don't know Bokovoy. I've observed him a little over the years, though, examples such as
THIS and
THIS. A few interactions online. He seems like a nice guy. Very intelligent. And he also seems really soft.
This spectacle is interesting to witness because it tells me what I need to know about apologetics. I wasn't around to witness all the FARMS wars. I get it. This is dirty. John Gee, wow, this is a "scholar?" The truth of the church is resting, in part, on this guy's shoulders? Wew.
It's also classic Mormonism. I've never witnessed an academic at a conference pop off like this, but I've witnessed plenty of calls to repent in other settings, during sacrament or priesthood. This is so Mormony the way it's confrontational, yet passive aggressive. What an ass. #NotACult Throwing shade, clearly at Bokovoy, crapping all over him in public like this.
At the same time, I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for Bokovoy. Boy, he sure has
let himself be taken for quite a ride, hasn't he? From the sounds of it, he's
still in the church? If the youtube comments are to be trusted, just months ago he was apparently teaching seminary and bearing witness to the historicity of the Book of Mormon to young impressionable minds. SMH. He's an Uncle Tom. After all this, they still own him. He helps them spread the disease and enslave others.