John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Daniel Peterson]

How it is still considered a "university" is beyond me.

It's not the only thing that's far beyond you, I'm sure.

[_guy sajer]

asshole . . . Danny-Boy . . . Danny Boy . . . s***h***

The illustrious Guy Sajer, author of several souped-up magazine articles -- tremble before the majesty of his eminence, puny mortals! -- demonstrates the scholarly approach that carried him to unexcelled academic heights.

And Beastie wonders why I don't think this message board is a very intellectually serious place . . .

Souped up magazine aticles. . . hmmm. Are you referring to my publication in American Political Science Review, or perhaps Public Administration Review, or perhaps Journal of Development Studies, or perhaps International Review of Economics and Finance, or perhaps Administration & Society, or perhaps Contemporary Economic Policy, or perhaps American Review of Public Administration, or perhaps American Behavioral Scientist, or perhaps . . . which one precisely?

I find it interesting that someone criticizes someone else for doing what he has never done in his entire life. You're like the perpetual minor leaguer who justifies himself by criticizing those who actually make it to the bigs.

Hey Dan, I'm still waiting to see your list of peer-reviewed pubs. What of it?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

How it is still considered a "university" is beyond me.

It's not the only thing that's far beyond you, I'm sure.

You're right. Another thing that boggles the mind is your apologetics, which grow weaker by the day. by the way, you're perfect for BYU, Bishop Dan.

P.S. Hey, everyone, be very careful not to ask Bishop Dan for the back-up to his more absurd statements -- he's liable to storm off.

[Guest]

A friend of mine (not in this case Dan Peterson), sent an email encouraging me to break my public vow of never posting on this sight again and consider responding to Kevin Graham’s most recent slander.

I’ve chosen to do so, not for his benefit, but for anyone else who may encounter the thread.

Suffice it to say that Kevin Graham is mistaken on several accounts.

My forthcoming JBL publication deals with the invocation of the divine council as witnesses via undefined masculine plural imperatives in Amos 3. It has nothing to do with the biblical God’s sexuality.

I have not yet finished the article I am currently preparing concerning sexuality and the biblical God. Though I anticipate no problem in publishing the piece, when finished, I will not initially send the article to JBL (I would like to pick up another periodical on my academic resume).

As a general response to Mr. Graham, I will simply state that he is certainly correct in assuming that my own theological background has influenced the questions I consider when analyzing a text. As a critical scholar, however, though I freely admit that my own beliefs have sparked my initial interests, I attempt to approach the text and the issues I choose to raise objectively.

To illustrate, my work on the biblical god’s sexuality relies heavily upon interpreting the story of Eden as a myth that carries a strong sexual undertone. My approach to the text runs in direct contrast to an important article published by my friend and mentor, David P. Wright.

Throughout my studies, Dr. Wright has always encouraged me to approach the text critically while allowing my own religious background to direct my interests. As many on this board will know, David Wright is himself not only a renowned Biblicist, but also a former BYU professor and an excommunicated member of the LDS church.

I have discussed my views concerning the biblical God’s sexuality with Dr. Wright at some length. He has responded with high praise and encouragement, stating that in his assessment that I really need to publish the work. Dr. Wright has specifically stated that he likes my views and would really like to see me prove his position wrong regarding sex in Eden.

I believe that I have and will (I anticipate in the near future) have the opportunity of sharing my ideas on the topic with a larger academic sphere.

Of course whether most biblical authors viewed God as a sexual being (and I believe that they did) does little to prove the actual validity of the theological position.

Best.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Souped up magazine aticles. . . hmmm. Are you referring to my publication in American Political Science Review, or perhaps Public Administration Review, or perhaps Journal of Development Studies, or perhaps International Review of Economics and Finance, or perhaps Administration & Society, or perhaps Contemporary Economic Policy, or perhaps American Review of Public Administration, or perhaps American Behavioral Scientist, or perhaps . . . which one precisely?

He was talking about your publication in the International Review of Economics and Finance....they've just steadily going downhill for the past few years, I'm sure they're only a breath away from admitting defeat and giving up scholarly articles in favor of more Mad Magazine-esque material and nude pics of girls on stacks of money.


(PS: This is a joke!!!!! I'm sure the IRoEaF is a fine publisher of articles and whatnot.......just couldn't resist making a joke.)

[Tator]

First of all, Paul may or may not be correct that some greater or lesser proportion of Egyptologists regard John Gee's work on the Book of Abraham as ridiculous. (Presumably at least some don't think about it at all, one way or the other.) I'm inclined to believe that this is because they're skeptical of Joseph Smith and of Mormon claims generally, rather than because they have closely studied his specifically Mormon work and rejected it (let alone because they find his implicitly Mormon-related Egyptological work poor, which, if they did, they could simply exclude from their conferences and publications). In any event, Paul should not imagine that they would view his own position on the Book of Abraham with anything approaching reverent awe.

Yes, of course, the only reason nonLDS scholars don’t welcome the Book of Abraham as an ancient Abrahamic text with open arms is due to their bias and prejudice that prevents them from even considering it.

This is nothing but empty hubris.

The best apologia can hope for is to give believers enough reason to cling to their faith despite the contrary evidence. (see my sig line, thanks to seth) To pretend that apologia does such a bang-up job that nonLDS would be convinced by it if only they weren’t so danged religiously prejudiced is absurd. John Clark knows better, and said, in the Q/A portion of his BYU devotional:

Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.
[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.
[Mp3 Time: c. 41 mins.]
[John Clark:] Well, for example, you had this flap about DNA recently. ... The DNA question is never going to be a problem. It only works one way, and in our favor. But the only reason that it looked like a flap or a problem is because they say: Well, Mormons believe (first of all they tell us what we believe) Mormons believe that all Indians in North and South America descended from these people who came over that are described in the Book of Mormon. I grew up believing that—but that's false, that's absolutely wrong.
And so once you say there were other people here, you say: OK, where were the Nephites, and how many more people were here. We have all kinds of other DNA signatures to worry about all of a sudden. It may be that we never find any Hebrew DNA (whatever that looks like) in the New World. ... But if we do find some, that's fine; if we don't find some, that's fine too. There's no way that negative evidence on that hurts the Book of Mormon whatsoever once you believe in a limited geography. If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over.

He couldn’t have been more clear, particularly with this sentence:

And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

Yes, he was discussing the Book of Mormon, but the case is even more dire for the Book of Abraham. The only way to ever see the evidence is to already believe in the book for religious reasons.

The same is true for the Book of Abraham. It’s not religious prejudice that would keep scholars from accepting the Book of Abraham as a genuine ancient Abrahamic text – it’s the fact that they cannot “see” the evidence, because only people who already believe can see the evidence.

This isn’t science. This isn’t logic. It’s pure religion – which is fine, except when that pure religion intrudes into subjects that are science and logic.

Whether or not the Book of Abraham is an ancient Abrahamic text or the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican text is a question that should be able to be evaluated through science and logic, because the claims are in the realm of science and logic. It’s not a religious claim. It’s a scientific, logical, archaeological and anthropological claim.

And pre-existing belief should not be a prerequisite for “seeing” genuine, solid evidence.

What?!?!?!??!?!

I said that his "apologia" and his professional work are not identical. I also said that there is significant overlap.

You know as well as I do, and every other person reading this board, that the portion that is not “overlapped” is the crucial bit, in regards to this particular question. Gee is not getting up in front of his peers and talking about the Book of Abraham. We know he’s not and you know he’s not. You already admitted as much in the first paragraph of your response.

It is the crucial bits that are under attack. So quit pretending that people are saying his “real” work is equally lousy as his apologia. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. But that’s not the point of this thread, is it?

How odd it is on your part to assume, simply because the set of John Gee's Egyptological work is not completely identical to the set of John Gee's apologetic work (Some X is not A) that John Gee's Egyptological work is wholly separate from John Gee's Egyptological work (No X is A). The fact that some mammals are not giraffes doesn't mean that giraffes are not mammals.

See above. You are being coy.

I don't accept the protasis of your conditional sentence, so its apodosis is irrelevant to anything I believe or have said.

So then you do believe that critics can be qualified to critique apologia without a certain degree?

If so, there are several people critics who have studied this issue quite extensively, some right here on this thread. Why do you disregard them as not “qualified”? Why do you regard their arguments as unworthy of response?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Souped up magazine aticles. . . hmmm. Are you referring to my publication in American Political Science Review, or perhaps Public Administration Review, or perhaps Journal of Development Studies, or perhaps International Review of Economics and Finance, or perhaps Administration & Society, or perhaps Contemporary Economic Policy, or perhaps American Review of Public Administration, or perhaps American Behavioral Scientist, or perhaps . . . which one precisely?

Any and all of them. ("Harumph!" responds the illustrious Guy Sajer, mightily offended at an unprecedented act of lèse majesté from one of the peasantry.) You've trumpeted them as if they ranked right up there with Newton's Principia or Darwin's Origin of Species -- or, at least, with Thorstein Veblen or Peter Drucker -- but you're really just talking about some pieces in periodicals that relatively few people read back when they were published and that even fewer people know or remember now. Pebbles tossed into a big pond. The ripples stopped a long time ago.

Big deal. No genuflection required.

I just thought you might want to keep your titanic achievements in a bit of perspective next time you're hurling lightning bolts from Olympus.

They might have been fine, and they were evidently enough to get you tenure, but . . . umm, well, we're hardly talking about epochal publications.

I find it interesting that someone criticizes someone else for doing what he has never done in his entire life. You're like the perpetual minor leaguer who justifies himself by criticizing those who actually make it to the bigs.

Illustrious Guy Sajer? Meet Babe Ruth. Kneel, Babe! This is the illustrious Guy Sajer!

Actually, you started this stupid little affair with your ignorant comments about a field of which you know nothing. You can't even read al-nusuus al-asliyya, a laysa ka-dhaalika? I've never actually said anything about your stellar academic career, because I don't know enough about you or about your field to be able to judge it with any degree of significance. And, believe me, mawadi‘ mithla al-falsafa al-islamiyya min al-madhab al-aflatuuni al-jadiid are more technical and inaccessible to the uninitiated than anything that's ever likely to appear in Administration & Society, or even in The American Pigeon Breeder.

Hey Dan, I'm still waiting to see your list of peer-reviewed pubs. What of it?

Do you mean to say -- what a hilarious scream you are, O illustrious one! -- that you've already delivered your Olympian judgment upon my career without even having a list of my peer-reviewed publications? Now, really, Guy Smiley, what does that reveal about your intellectual seriousness?

And Beastie wonders why I don't think this place is a place for serious discussion . . .

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You can't even read al-nusuus al-asliyya, a laysa ka-dhaalika? ... And, believe me, mawadi‘ mithla al-falsafa al-islamiyya min al-madhab al-aflatuuni al-jadiid are more technical and inaccessible to the uninitiated than anything ....

Gee, Joseph Smith sure could have used you when he was translating the papyri. ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, of course, the only reason nonLDS scholars don’t welcome the Book of Abraham as an ancient Abrahamic text with open arms is due to the bias and prejudice.

This is nothing but empty hubris.

It would be, if I had actually said or thought anything of the kind.

You really don't need me to participate here, since you're entirely willing to make things up and put them in my mouth.

Gosh! Why don't I realize that this is the place for serious discussion?

To pretend that apologia does such a bang-up job that nonLDS would be convinced by it if only they weren’t so danged religiously prejudiced is absurd. John Clark knows better

And so do I.

What is "absurd" is that you pretend that you're responding to me and to a position that I hold.

The only way to ever see the evidence is to already believe in the book for religious reasons.

You seem to be under the impression that you're summarizing Professor Clark's position.

I doubt that, very much.

You bore me.

[_beastie]

You seem to be under the impression that you're summarizing Professor Clark's position.

I quoted his exact words.

And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

Just as I quoted you:

I'm inclined to believe that this is because they're skeptical of Joseph Smith and of Mormon claims generally, rather than because they have closely studied his specifically Mormon work and rejected it

You bore me.

Of course I do. And don't forget I talk too much.

You, on the other hand, are very entertaining.