"2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Project

[_Shulem]

Lindsay published a scathing review of the editors a few weeks ago.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-precious-resource-with-some-gaps/

Hey, Jeffy-boy, what's the king's name in Facsimile No. 3?



Come to me, boy. Just answer that one question.

[_Philo Sofee]

Of serious humorous interest, Lindsay laments in the italicized introduction or Preface to his review that Hugh Nibley wasn't consulted at all, and then he opens his review with this:
Debates on the meaning and origins of the Book of Abraham often resort to appeals to authority
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... some-gaps/

So if they had used Nibley would Lindsay have worried at all about this issue?

[_Physics Guy]

I don't actually know what's in the volume Gee reviewed but this does sound like the decisive point:

So, perhaps none of the editors for this volume was an Egyptologist, but the reality is that the Egyptological questions surrounding the Joseph Smith Egyptians artifacts are pretty much settled. We do not need anyone to translate any of the extant documents, Ritner has done that while pointing out how bad previous attempts by hacks like Nibley and others were, we don't need an Egyptologist to tell us how long the missing scroll is since that is a mathematical question anyways, and we don't need an Egyptologist to tell us what the KEP represents, since that is by and large a historical question.

So, okay, good point. If Gee is only complaining that they messed up some Egyptology then this is irrelevant carping because Egyptology has little to do with the works of Joseph Smith.

[_Fence Sitter]

If a faithful Egyptologist is an important factor in any Church related publication, why was Robert Ritner the first to produce a full translation of all the extant Church owned Egyptian artifacts?

Or, what Egyptological questions concerning the papyri itself are still being debated by these faithful Egyptologist in the public field of Egyptology? Where are these papers being published in prestigious journals in which Gee or Muhlestein are showing other Egyptologist how Joseph Smith got it right?

The reality is that this is sour grapes on the part of Gee because his pet theories failed to make it into a church publication, sour grapes that are being repeated by Jeff Lindsey in Interpreter's review of the JSP book on Abraham here.

Jeff concludes with:

There is much more to the story and significantly different approaches in dealing with these documents that should have been considered in the name of fairness and open scholarship that recognizes the related work of others.

In what is a bit of unintended irony in a review focusing on the lack of faithful scholarship, Lindsay includes a paragraph and a link to the very decidedly unscholarly You Tube presentation by Schryver's which even the Interpreter has not seen fit to publish. Also Lindsay mentions Gee's newest book on the subject, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham as a scholarly reference when in fact Gee himself in the same book states it is not.

[_Bret Ripley]

Gee ... Muhlestein ... Lindsey ...

Ray Bradbury's short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" describes the automatic operation of a futuristic house that continues to follow its programming after a nuclear disaster. From Wikipedia: "... the daily routine continues ... without any knowledge of [the residents'] current state as burnt silhouettes on one of the walls ... the house's systems zealously uphold its sanctity, frightening off surviving birds by closing the window shutters. One afternoon, a dog is allowed into the house when it is recognized as the family pet, but it dies soon after."

Here endeth the lesson.

[_moksha]

Zub Zool Ahmehstrahans, Shulem. Zaphter xixhitorpus ditters Lindsey comodon Gee, mogdurama Je-je-oc-to-phon?

[_kairos]

If the church has no confidence that the Book of Abraham "derived " from the papyri by Joseph Smith is "correct", what better way to avoid more prolonged criticism than already exists than to confuse the situation even more by putting together an official commentary that no one, scholar or otherwise can get their heads around , so any reasonable discussion can take place.

i believe the church is so ashamed and embarrassed by the "scholarship" from Nibley to Gee and beyond that the editors were directed to "F#@k this up beyond all recognition so recovery of any semblence of accuracy would not be possible. They have succeeded so that chapel Mormons will not delve into the Book of Abraham ,and simply accept the words in the Pearl of Great Price and move on. There was bound to be blow back from guys like Gee but they can control him and tell him to shut the F*#K up if he blows back to hard and wants t keep his job.

So the Joseph Smith papers will be result in putting the sordid mess of the Book of Abraham on the shelf rather than the alternative which is to try to explain that the Book of Abraham was a Joseph Smith alone non-inspirational rambling s*it show!

Let's see what happens!!

just musin in between martinis- i know it's early but with a good steak grilling up what would be a better drink?

k

[_Dr LOD]

Two words:

Brian Hauglid.

And,

Matthew C. Godfrey, Managing Historian
Robin Scott Jensen, Associate Managing Historian
Riley M. Lorimer, Associate Editorial Manager
Brent M. Rogers, Associate Managing Historian
Nathan N. Waite, Associate Editorial Manager

Surely the staff of those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project prayed and sought guidance from the Lord on who to consult and how to proceed? Surely the Lord answered their prayers? Did he not?

Doesn't John Gee believe in the power of prayer? It seems he doesn't. This is a red flag. This is a sign that he's losing faith in the institution in which he serves.

You forgot the former church historian Marlin K. Jensen, this was one of his major projects. The monologists also quietly blame him for some of the changes at Maxwell in 2012.

[_Shulem]

Shulem
When God translated Egyptian texts through Joseph Smith's eyes the direction or orientation of the text had no bearing whatsoever because what got translated got translated by God. It didn't matter if the text was right-side up or upside down because God translated Egyptian according to his own will.

God doesn't have a Ph.d in Egyptology from any credible university, so his translation may not reflect current scholarship with "real" Ph.d's. Better to stick to the real scholars...

I'm afraid that I have to agree with you on this 100%. Joseph Smith's translations of Egyptian language and iconography is totally horrendous and it goes to show that Mormon god really doesn't know what he's talking about. Mormon god can't translate Egyptian nor can he read it. The whole thing is a total disaster for the church. And yet, the church just keeps on ticking and ignores the whole thing. Pretty amazing.

[_Shulem]

You forgot the former church historian Marlin K. Jensen, this was one of his major projects. The monologists also quietly blame him for some of the changes at Maxwell in 2012.

Correct. I'm grateful for the effort he made in improving a bad situation.



"He's out, he can stay."