Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

[_Gadianton]

Perhaps the silver lining in the Dales' recent Bayesian paper is that it has highlighted a basic flaw in the "Smith couldn't have known" argument. The flaw is the assumption that the document in question must either have been based on accurate knowledge of whatever the target was (whether Mayan culture, late Egyptian Abraham legends, or something else) or else there must have been some fantastically lucky guessing by Smith.

A really good question that I'm going to keep in the back of my mind, and maybe revisit some interpreter articles.

[_Doctor Scratch]

DS wrote...You can see some of this in the "Comments" thread of the "Sic et Non" post, where Dr. Peterson is practically frothing at the mouth over getting to trash people he doesn't like.

Hey Doc...

I'm not sure which is more important to him.. trashing folks he does not care for, or exchanges like those in the comment section allowing him to play out his need to be a victim. But either way it has got to be hard for him to not be able to be the DCP he once was, leading his "army of apologists against the enemy."

Looking back over the years at Mopology, specifically FARM's, NMI, and all the "board wars"...what were the "victories" for them? Honestly the only one that I can think of, that I said to myself..."okay, I'll give you that one" is "adieu" being a french word only, and even then their work unwittingly proved it was a word that gave support to the Book of Mormon being a American 19th century work.

If you were to be objective, and you were hired to write DCP's resume, what would you list as his greatest accomplishments in regards to LDS apologenticts? I would love to read how his resume would read from your (or anyone else's) point of view, being as objective as you can? If this interests you maybe it deserves it's own thread.

That's a provocative and interesting request, Mark. First and foremost, it raises the question: What *at all* have the Mopologists accomplished? They published some stuff, held quite a few conferences, posted thousands of things on the Internet, and they've hosted a decent number of conferences. Have they produced any ideas or theories? Sort of. There is the LGT. There was Welch's stuff on chiasmus. There is--for better or worse--Gee's material on the Book of Abraham. There is also Skousen's ghost committee thing. So, yes: they were drumming up things like that.

As for DCP himself? I would argue that his greatest "accomplishment" is simply providing leadership for the movement. He's the one who always gives the keynotes at the FAIR Conference. He was the editor of FROB for a long time, and so on. Is that an "accomplishment"? I would say so. Managing to get elected president is a pretty big accomplishment, even if we acknowledge that there is a huge gulf between, e.g., Abraham Lincoln and Chester A. Arthur. What I'm saying is that he's been an influential leader--a figurehead.

Apart from that, I would argue that he's had a profound influence on the direction and tone of the movement. The snarkiness and sort of gossipy quality that a lot of Mopologetic writing has? I think that stems primarily from him: you can find hundreds (if not thousands) of pieces of evidence from him that illustrate what I'm talking about. (I recently linked to his old--1994, IIRC--FARMS essay called "Questions to Legal Answers," which is a good example, as are any number of email exchanges posted to SHIELDS.) I don't think that most people would label this an "accomplishment," but I nonetheless think there is something to be said about a person who was able to execute a vision in this way, even if the vision itself is pretty juvenile and evil. And I hasten to add that the entirety of the blame cannot be laid at his feet. As we know, there is really a whole coterie of people that have pitched in on this "vision," including Midgley, Greg Smith, Allen Wyatt, and lots of others.

I noticde, by the way, that you asked him about his accomplishments over in the comments on "Sic et Non," and I see that he's refusing to answer, and that he isn't doing so out of modesty--a trait he seems to have been born without. As Symmachus and others have pointed out, he doesn't seem to have any of the traditional academic accomplishments. You may remember several years back, during the Brian David Mitchell trial, when DCP's 80+ pg. CV was posted on the Trib's website, and the bulk of it was either FARMS publications, or service for the Church. So, there's nothing he can point to in that sense. Still, I'm disappointed that he's not willing to stand behind his Mopologetic work. I'd be curious to know if any of his FARMS articles stand out as a personal favorite.

For what it's worth, I think you should pose the same question to Midgley. To my mind, Midgley's primary contribution was his aggressive push to accuse EV ministries of being in it for the money. You see those same kinds of accusations to this day being leveled at, e.g., John Dehlin and the FIRM people. (Will the Mormon Transhumanists be next?). I think it also helps to explain why the Mopologists themselves--especially DCP--are so touchy on the subject. It's pure hypocrisy, but, hey: human nature is what it is.

[_Markk]

Hey Doc,

He certainly was the leader of a short lived "movement", we have to give him credit for that.

What history has shown however, is that DCP, and by default FARM's/NMI, moved forward defending a preconceived doctrine and history, that in simple terms was a mess when exposed. As the truth about the church objectively came forth, contradicting the accepted truth...Mopology had no other real option but to turn to a ad hom SOP.

I agree with you that he set the tone, and the "clones" soon followed with Dan as their leader. But again, as the truth unraveled, and those objecting were not the EV's and Tanner's...but the tithe paying membership, like the John Dehlin's. Something had to be done, and they made a smart move by getting rid of the leader of it all.

The vision went from an "Neal Maxwell purpose driven" organized defense, to an embarrassing liability...and Dan being Dan, as the leader, could in no way see that. In fact, he still does not understand how much of a embarrassment he was, and more importantly how much attention he brought to the problems of the church. I bet Dan unwittingly encouraged more anti Mormon books and websites/blogs than anyone. My guess is besides the Tanners, he alone has fueled and brought more attention to LDS problems than anyone else.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Any true student of Mopologetics would ask: How long will the Mopologists be able to lay off with the gratuitous "Gotcha!"-style gloating and merry-making? I wonder: does this count?

[_sunstoned]

So Gee has spent 15 years of his life/career doing research funded by a member of the seventy which resulted in a Book Of Abraham apologetic that is now being completely refuted by the Church....do I have that right?

Wow, when you look at it this way, it is a wasted career.

[_moksha]

I wish John Gee all the best in his quest to further advance the science of Egyptology on a conventional level. His career in this field is wide open and he can do whatever he sets his mind to do. I wish him every success in this venture.

I don't know about you, but I miss those in-house BYU musical productions from when KBYU was a PBS affiliate. Wonder if Dr. Gee could coordinate a production set in the CougarEat of BYU students spontaneously performing the Bangle's hit "Dance like an Egyptian" while garbed in Reformed Egyptian garments? At the very least he could be the technical coordinator making sure to pronounce words like Raukeeyang and Mahmackrah correctly during the performance.

[_Dr Exiled]

He could follow his intellectual father Nibley and wear Egyptian clothing around the house, too. The sky is truly the limit.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, it seems that we haven't been on our toes as much as we ought to have been, since we overlooked this valuable nugget from a few months ago:

http://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2020/ ... ntent.html

This article is about a month old but tells an interesting story about what happened when Sherlock Hibbs tried to pass on what he learned to the rising generation (another report here, the other side here). Hibbs set up an endowment at his alma mater, the University of Missouri, to teach the Ludwig von Mises Austrian School of Economics that helped him become so successful. Von Mises advocated for free markets and the role of the entrepreneur. Apparently, the University of Missouri was happy to accept Hibbs's millions but was not so enamored with von Mises and his economics and so was using the money for other purposes. Many academics follow economic theories along the following lines: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.

Hibbs, however, was wiser than many philanthropists and gave an outside organization power to police the use of the funds. When that outside organization discovered that the University of Missouri was not following the donor intent, they sued the University of Missouri. The court ruled that the University of Missouri was not following donor intent and must surrender the funds. There is probably a lesson in here somewhere.

I'm sure there are lots of "lessons" here! One is that this is a classic case of a Mopologist fantasizing about using legal means to "stick it" to critics. Another is passive-aggressive "hinting" at "lessons" in order to prove a point, and to nurse a years-long grudge. But perhaps the most salient "lesson" is that cases like this really only hold up if there is actual evidence, and Gee hasn't provided a single shred.

[_moksha]

Despite his competency, you have to wonder how employable he is outside of Provo.

The aforesaid Gay Professorship would work at Utah Valley University or San Francisco State, but there would be unfortunate incidents at the University of Alabama.

[_Gadianton]

Pretty funny that Gee is essentially revealing that like Droopy, he too is a member of the "Austrian School". You can't get much of an economics course let alone have an entire program built on the teachings of Von Mises. What a joke. The "Austrian school" is essentially junk science. I imagine for someone who believes the Book of Abraham is real, that Austrian economics could make sense as a real subject. And no, knowing about Austrian economics or any other kind doesn't get people rich or successful.

The school probably misunderstood something somewhere and thought the common cause of freedom in conservative-taught economics and Von Mises' concerns in his book, the Road to Serfdom, which is generally highly regarded, was a good enough commonality. But wow, that donors can force a school to pursue junk science? That's just fantastic.