Connecting Some Apologetic Dots

[_huckelberry]

Symmachus, those are helpful and interesting clarifications you just posted, each of them

[_Aristotle Smith]

Symmachus,

Thank you for the time you spent on the original post. I think it's very thought provoking and well written. I have had some similar ideas, though very vague and not well-formed. Your presentation of them is cogent and explains so much of current Mormonism and Mormon Apologetics.

[_Kishkumen]

I am listening to the final installment of the three-part MS/RFM interview with Robert Ritner, and I am not celebrating. I am incredibly sad. Prof. Ritner's description of Prof. Gee's and Prof. Peterson's actions against Prof. Ritner is absolutely awful. I had always left open the possibility that there had been some misunderstanding between Ritner and Gee that Gee and/or Peterson had misinterpreted and maybe made a little too much out of. Now I see that this was completely wrong. Gee and Peterson unjustly attacked Ritner and falsely accused him. Gee has shamefully attacked Ritner by doing a hatchet job review of one of his scholarly books (not related to the Book of Abraham) and abusing his position as the editor of a struggling journal. That hatchet-job review had to be retracted by the journal and the learned society that publishes it. This has all gone off the rails. This is so blatantly wrong, and it is a stain on BYU.

Really there is little left to be said. How sad. Seriously. Very depressing. How could it possibly made clearer that this particular apologetic enterprise is bankrupt and that it destroys the people who take it up? The LDS Church needs to put a stop to this. They need to embrace a different vision of these texts. This one is shaming the LDS Church, and it is destroying the character and reputation of the people who are called upon to misrepresent the truth in order to protect the claim.

[_Stem]

Kish,

I don't know if you'v gotten to it, or where exactly it was explained, but it's not just Gee and Peterson demonstrating shameful behavior towards Ritner. It was Michael Rhodes too and the Church itself. It is very depressing.

[_Dr Moore]

Imaginary "war" and truth is the first casualty.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think the move toward identity is what is left when the church leaves historical moorings and drifts out to sea. It seems to work in politics on the surface, as far as winning elections, but kills enthusiasm. I think there needs to be some reality, some practical ideas where Mormons can land and drop anchor even if the historical claims turn out to be mush. Otherwise, identity will be a mirage.

[_Kishkumen]

Let me be crystal clear for my readers. If something is amiss with what Professor Ritner brought forward in his MS/RFM interview, it is for those who have been accused to show that they, contrary to Prof. Ritner's evidence, acted honorably in accusing Prof. Ritner of being dragged off of Prof. Gee's dissertation committee on account of something Ritner allegedly did wrong. I remember the insinuations that were made at the time, among which was the suggestion that maybe Ritner had made a homosexual advance and was rebuffed by Gee, and a lot of other nonsense. I will not bother to call out by name the identities of those who were trafficking in this shameful nonsense. It is part of the playbook we have seen for decades. Those who argue against certain apologetic claims will be defamed and justifications about something the person said or did, never spelled out in specifics, will be mumbled, conveying the message that said opponent is a bad person that others need not listen to. Nothing in that playbook has changed. Smear the opponent, save the Church.

Unfortunately, what it does is damage the Church and BYU. BYU is hurt every time its apologists behave in an unprofessional manner. What we see in the Book of Abraham is a travesty of failed scholarship throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

The facts are the facts, nonsense and chicanery aside. Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. I say, "So what?" But evidently others are willing to sacrifice their reputations in order to cling to faulty assumptions about scripture and prophethood. It is one thing to say Joseph Smith was a prophet; it is another thing to insist he was a prophet in accordance with certain inflexible assumptions that have been proven wrong many times over.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Here is an interesting account from Mormon Curtain about Peterson, Gee and Ritner.
http://mormoncurtain.infymus.com/topic_ ... erson.html



Peterson And Gee's Libel Against Ritner?
↑
Most of you who have kept up with the Book of Abraham debate over the past few years know how Robert Ritner has criticized his former student, John Gee. The only real response by the likes of Dan Peterson is to tell the story about how Ritner was thrown off Gee's dissertation committee after Gee made some kind of complaint about him. Here are just a few examples from DCP on the MAD board (There are others on the ZLMB board, but I didn't want to go looking for them).

The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee. (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies? (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale. (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make. (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Peterson provided an email from John Gee which included the following:

"I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell." (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...
So Dan has been propagating this notion for YEARS. He said he wishes the details would be brought out in the open. His wish just might come true, but it is doubtful it will be a good thing for LDS apologetics. If what Gee and Peterson have been saying for years is in fact false, then just think of the credibility blow this would be.

I recently emailed Robert Ritner about this subject. To my astonishment, he seemed oblivious that these kinds of comments had been floating around in Mormon apologetics. I would have thought that someone would have emailed him about this over the years. His response to me is as follows.
Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If Mr. Peterson continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.

Sincerely, Robert Ritner

Wow. So Ritner says he has proof that what Dan and Gee are saying is false? Gee maintains that he was the reason Ritner left and Ritner says this is not true. Just think if Ritner decides to present his proof!

Ritner sent me a very long and detailed email this morning.

In it he accepted my apology, didn't seem concerned at all about the gay rumor, and further explained his position. I will provide a few points he made, but it should be perfectly clear to those who read it that his concern is on Peterson's alleged slander and not on anything I have done to offend him. Sorry David, Juliann and everyone else who wished to dictate the terms of Ritner's concerns. He disagrees with you:

1 - Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."

2- "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal."

3- "I probably shall post on-line mycorrespondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale." [emphasis mine: If true, then this is huge, as it would prove that Ritner was the one who suggested Gee find another advisor!]

4- "Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated thesuggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction."

5- "It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic." [Wow. This makes sense, because Gee did get a job at BYU almost instantly]

6- "Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion." [contra Peterson]

7- "I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded" ["removed" according to Peterson]

8- "I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged." [It was Gee's idea, not Ritner's, according to Peterson]

9- "To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note."

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

11- "It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume."

12- "...if my writings have been of assistance to you or others in seeing the reasonable problems with the Abraham text and the actual content of the papyri, then any personal attacks are a minor issue, easily forgotten and forgiven."

[_Kishkumen]

I should add in support of Professor Ritner's contention that it is not at all unusual for a dissertating student to switch directors when the current director has moved to another university that the very same question came up in my dissertation committee when my director moved from my institution to another university. The structure of these programs is ordinarily designed to ensure that students graduating with a PhD from University A will have been mentored by professors on University A's faculty, not the faculty of University B. I clung to my dissertation director, but it was not without some institutional pressure to take on a new hire to my university as my new dissertation director. It all worked out, but the gentle suggestion was made that it would be a good idea to switch.

I can see no good coming out of claiming any other reason for Ritner's departure from the committee, even if there were other complicating issues. It was extremely unwise to the point of reckless to proffer some other, more nefarious reason behind Ritner's departure from the committee, when all Ritner needed to do was say, "Oh, I just moved to a new school." Anything else anyone had to say late at night at the bar or in confidence, even if true, should have been left private. To pull such an accusation out without a scintilla of evidence as a further, gratuitous factor in the switch is, at best, weak. Worse is the likely conclusion that the person with an axe to grind was not Ritner but his accuser. And I think that very many of us who have been on the receiving end of Gee's venom and withering glance have an excellent case to make in Ritner's defense.

[_malkie]

...
Unfortunately, what it does is damage the Church and BYU. BYU is hurt every time its apologists behave in an unprofessional manner. What we see in the Book of Abraham is a travesty of failed scholarship throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
...

Some of our contributors are former Book of Abraham apologists who, for one reason or another, get out of that business.

It would be interesting to know to what extent their departure from apologetics was due to disconfirming facts, and how much was as a result of the unprofessional manner in which they felt that they were expected or required to behave.

Off the top of my head:

• Philo
• KevinG
• Shulem