Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, I remember Lou Midgley or maybe it was John Gee referring to Ed Ashment as an insurance salesman, suggesting he had failed as an intellectual. This is something I heard on the FAIR e-list.

[_Yahoo Bot]

To me, it doesn't really matter. I have never been impressed with the quotes around "Doctor" when one refers to Walter Martin, nor have I been impressed with the challenge to James White's degree at some mail correspondence school.

A friend of mine, many of whom you know but who is not active on the internet, often hosted White on his radio show and remarked that White was, at the time, the most formidable opponent of LDS doctrine and history who lived. Of course, that was 15 years ago. But the point is that a degree in something as esoteric as religion or some ancient language isn't all that compelling to me when it comes to a discussion of the Book of Mormon.

It is a common practice in religious apologia -- Mormonism or otherwise -- to challenge one's credentials -- particularly if one is an academic. But, in Mormonism, every priesthood holder (and woman) thinks he's a prophet and a theolgian. With no formal school teaching Mormon clergymen anything, they're entitled to think that.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, you didn't answer the question. "What 'point' Peterson was trying to get across if not that Ritner has a bias towards Gee and so therefore his critiques of Gee cannot be trusted, as evidenced by his 'removal' from his advisory committee?"

I mean why mention this at all, let alone five times over the course of three years? Peterson's rumors always come in response to something someone says that cites Ritner as a source. Every time. So what do you think Peterson was trying to accomplish here?

The short answer, Kevin Graham is that I do not know "what point Peterson was trying to get across;" I do not speak for Dr. Peterson, I cannot read his mind, and I do not know his intentions. It seems clear to me, however, that Dr. Ritner would not have recommended that Dr. Gee obtain a new doctoral advisor had he not had a bias towards Dr. Gee.

I don't agree because there is no evidence that Ritner was "biased towards Gee."

I maintain my opinion that they were biased toward each other, respectively. Dr. Ritner probably did not agree with some, or all of Dr. Gee's dissertation, and Dr. Gee probably didn't agree with Dr. Ritner's assessment of his dissertation. It was simply best for them to part ways.

This is clearly the picture the apologists are trying to paint (obviously, for apologists anyone outside of Mormonism who says something critical of Mormon related issues, must be acting on some preexistent anti-Mormon bias). In fact, Ritner refutes that assertion when he said his grades didn't suffer under his wing. And according to Trev's input, it seems that advising him to choose another advisor is quite common, and is about the nicest thing someone could do.

I agree. I have no qualms with what I've read about Dr. Ritner. He's probably a genial person, as is Dr. Gee. Ad turpia virum bonum nulla spes invitat.

Two things. First, I never said I wanted him to destroy Gee, I simply said he could have if he were truly that biased towards him.

Being biased, and wishing to do harm are often two different things. I do not believe that Dr. Ritner wanted to harm Dr. Gee's career, but that he was simply in disagreement, and therefore biased toward him.

Secondly, I am biased towards Gee because I know first hand that he is a liar who cannot be trusted. From his deceptive usage of "color" KEP clips, to the blatant misuse of Gustav Seyffarth, to his ludicrous 700 meter scroll theory that was just blown out of the water by a couple of talented kids... nothing in Gee's apologetics carries an ounce of credibility.

These are punitive words, Kevin Graham. Do you believe that Dr. Gee intentionally lies? And if so, to what end?

But that is beside the point since I am not the one starting rumors. Dan Peterson did. If it weren't for Dan Peterson, I suspect nobody on the web would even be aware of the Gee/Ritner incident. It doesn't really respond to anything Ritner has presented contradicting Gee, but since it showed promise as an apologetic red herring, Dan decided to bring it up for years, every time someone cited Ritner's work to contradict Gee's.

And I would not have been aware of it if you hadn't "bumped" this three-year-old thread.

But it matters no longer, because Dr. John Gee has more than vindicated whatever sinister and malicious acts you accuse him of. He has a Ph.D., granted to him by a private, Ivy League university which is one of the most well known universities in the world. A university does not grant doctoral degrees to just anyone, and it certainly does not grant such degrees just to "get them out of the university" as harmony suggested. Dr. Gee is currently the only Egyptologist from North America affiliated with the Totenbuch-Projekt of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. He is an accomplished Egyptology scholar, a true Ph.D., and "one hell of a model American." I imagine Dr. Ritner has an impressive curriculum vitae as well.

[_wenglund]

Typically, I steer clear of these kinds of petty "he said"/"she said" squabble, but since Kevin seems determined to use it illegitimately as a weapon to a assassinate people's character, I have decided to plug my nose and thoroughly investigate the matter, using the evidence made available on this threa, in as unbiased a manner as possible. (This is prompted by Trevor and Simon Belmont's level-headed approach above)

My intent is to determine if this is simply a reasonable difference of opinion, or the Greek tragedy, wth villians and victims, that Kevin, with his obvious axe to grind and flare for biased over-statements, has imaginatively whipped it into.

Since it is evident from Kevin's last post to me that he has no intention of directly answering my investigative questions, then I will explore them with other participants here.

To start, I would like to ask anyone on this thread who has gone partially or all the way through a doctoral program (I have only worked towards a Masters Degree), or better yet, who has been a doctoral advisor and/or sat on a doctoral committee, to explain what they understand to be the process for changing advisors--including: typical reasons that may warrant a change, who can or cannot petition for change, to whom the petition is submitted, and who ultimately has the authority to make the change.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't agree because there is no evidence that Ritner was "biased towards Gee."

I maintain my opinion that they were biased toward each other, respectively. Dr. Ritner probably did not agree with some, or all of Dr. Gee's dissertation, and Dr. Gee probably didn't agree with Dr. Ritner's assessment of his dissertation. It was simply best for them to part ways.

All right. I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread, but this is too much to ignore.

"biased toward each other"? What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying (or suggesting) that Ritner was "biased" towards Gee as a person, and vice versa? Or that Ritner was "biased" against certain aspects of Gee's scholarship?

If it's the latter, and if you mean that Ritner was "biased" against Gee trying to pawn off LDS apologetics as legitimate scholarship, then I doubt that anyone would disagree---except the apologists. But your use of the language "biased toward each other" suggests something more personal---as if you're implying that Ritner harbors some kind of anti-Mormon bigotry against Gee and his work. And there's just no evidence of that.

Two things. First, I never said I wanted him to destroy Gee, I simply said he could have if he were truly that biased towards him.

Being biased, and wishing to do harm are often two different things. I do not believe that Dr. Ritner wanted to harm Dr. Gee's career, but that he was simply in disagreement, and therefore biased toward him.

"Disagreement" is very different from being "biased." A Lakers fan might be "biased" against the Celtics for obvious reasons. That's a lot different from disagreeing on who is the greatest power forward of all-time. The former suggests an unbending and emotionally-influenced attitude; the latter implies a difference of opinion or point-of-view. You can be biased against the Celtics and yet be able to agree that Larry Bird was a great player. Bias and disagreement aren't (as you suggest) really the same thing.

I think you can see the problem: claiming "bias" leaves the door wide, wide open for the characterization of Ritner as an "anti-Mormon." "Disagreement" is probably the more accurate descriptor here.

But it matters no longer, because Dr. John Gee has more than vindicated whatever sinister and malicious acts you accuse him of.

So he's publicly apologized and admitted to error? A retraction was published in the FARMS Review? That's news to me.

[_Kevin Graham]

Typically, I steer clear of these kinds of petty "he said"/"she said" squabble, but since Kevin seems determined to use it illegitimately as a weapon to a assassinate people's character

It takes a true moral deficiency to willfully ignore the history here. For years it was Dan Peterson using his version of an incident that was no one's business, as a "weapon to assassinate the character" of Gee's professor. But for years Wade had no problem with this. Why? Because it became apologetically expedient to dismiss Ritner any way possible, so that was the standard he accepted.

Now, after years of simply taking Dan's version for granted, I decided to email Ritner. Ritner responded in a way that surprised even myself. He denied Dan's version and made it clear that he disowned Gee due to lackluster scholarship. Now I am not complaining about Gee's subpar scholarship, I am criticizing his and Peterson's exploitation of a private incident they expected everyone to just take for granted.

Although Wade had no problem with using this as a weapon to illigitimately assassinate the character of Ritner, his double standard rears its ugly head as soon as the tables have turned and suddenly it is Dan Peterson in the hotseat with first hand testimony working against him.
Wade has a problem with this, not because he is interested in defending the character of innocent bystanders (as he hilariously likes to suggest!) but because the person who started this assassination has suddenly become the target. Peterson has no one to blame but himself here; nobody forced Dan to start this false rumor years ago and reiterate it every time Ritner was mentioned. He told the tale over and over, with increasing satisfaction as he repeated it. That was all fine with Wade though.

[_Kevin Graham]

The short answer, Kevin Graham is that I do not know "what point Peterson was trying to get across;" I do not speak for Dr. Peterson, I cannot read his mind, and I do not know his intentions. It seems clear to me, however, that Dr. Ritner would not have recommended that Dr. Gee obtain a new doctoral advisor had he not had a bias towards Dr. Gee

So wait a minute. You refuse to induce from Dan's repeated comments (which I document in teh first post of this thread) what he was trying to get across, but you have no problem assuming Robert Ritner, a man you know virtually nothing about, had a "bias towards" Gee? How do you explain this? And I prefer the long answer, if there is one.

I maintain my opinion that they were biased toward each other, respectively.

Based on what evidence? It seems like an assumption out of preference more than anything else.

Dr. Ritner probably did not agree with some, or all of Dr. Gee's dissertation, and Dr. Gee probably didn't agree with Dr. Ritner's assessment of his dissertation. It was simply best for them to part ways.

But that's what Professor's do. They judge their student's work because they are paid to. How does this reveal a "bias towardss Gee"?

I agree. I have no qualms with what I've read about Dr. Ritner. He's probably a genial person, as is Dr. Gee. Ad turpia virum bonum nulla spes invitat.

Oh this has to be William Schryver. Nobody uses Latin phrases to appear intelligent more than this guy.

Being biased, and wishing to do harm are often two different things. I do not believe that Dr. Ritner wanted to harm Dr. Gee's career, but that he was simply in disagreement, and therefore biased toward him.

That does not establish a bias. Again, what do you think college professor's are paid to do? They are paid to educate, but they are also paiod to grade and judge the quality of a student's work. By this logic, everyone who ever failed a class is just a victim of bias. This is ludicrous, and I don't mean the rapper.

These are punitive words, Kevin Graham. Do you believe that Dr. Gee intentionally lies? And if so, to what end?

Yes I do, and the evidence is overwhelming. I mean when the evidence is so heavy that it compells someone like Christopher Smith to agree that a lie has been told, then that pretty much makes my case.

But it matters no longer, because Dr. John Gee has more than vindicated whatever sinister and malicious acts you accuse him of.

Exactly, you say "whatever" because you do not know the specifics, which means you're speaking in ignorance. This makes you especially foolish for declaring with bombastic certitude that he has vindicated himself. What a hoot! How would you even know? Please, just as an example, go ahead and explain to us how he "vindicated" himself from lying about the KEP in his 2001 "Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri." He manipulated the coloring of the photos to make his "two ink" argument hold water, and then when we all saw what the coloring really was, the "single" ink leapt from the pages. But at the time he didn't know the accurate photos would be released, so he felt safe in misrepresenting the data. There are other examples, but go ahead and show us where he "vindicated" himself here.

He has a Ph.D., granted to him by a private, Ivy League university which is one of the most well known universities in the world.

Never in dispute. Is this the part where you start bragging about his intelligence as if this has any bearing on his character?

A university does not grant doctoral degrees to just anyone, and it certainly does not grant such degrees just to "get them out of the university" as harmony suggested.

That was never the argument. The argument was as Trevor elucidated. Right now Robert Ritner is to Egyptology what President Monson is to Mormonism, and this was true when Gee was his student. If you don't believe BYU had any connections working in Gee's favor then you're deluded. BYU routinely does this with its prospective professors. Gee was the gem in their eye. A Mormon about to get his PhD from Yale! Ritner said there was pressure to get him through without fail, and I see no reason to doubt him since it dovetails perfectly well with what others have said of the BYU hiring process.

Dr. Gee is currently the only Egyptologist from North America affiliated with the Totenbuch-Projekt of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. He is an accomplished Egyptology scholar, a true Ph.D., and "one hell of a model American." I imagine Dr. Ritner has an impressive curriculum vitae as well.

You don't even want to go there. Gee will never be a Ritner. As Ritner said, Gee is desperately trying to pad his curriculum by showing up to as many conferences as he can, increasing his presence among others in the field, but failing to increase in respectability. I mean he couldn;t even get a doctorate from the world's authority! That matters, whether you want to believe it or not. Gee will suffer the same fate Nibley did. An apologist dressed up in a lot of scholarly garb.

[_Trevor]

"Disagreement" is very different from being "biased." A Lakers fan might be "biased" against the Celtics for obvious reasons. That's a lot different from disagreeing on who is the greatest power forward of all-time. The former suggests an unbending and emotionally-influenced attitude; the latter implies a difference of opinion or point-of-view. You can be biased against the Celtics and yet be able to agree that Larry Bird was a great player. Bias and disagreement aren't (as you suggest) really the same thing.

I agree, and I thought that was unusual wording.

[_Yahoo Bot]

As Ritner said, Gee is desperately trying to pad his curriculum by showing up to as many conferences as he can, increasing his presence among others in the field,

Shameful. Er, uh, that's what most ambitious academics do.

[_Simon Belmont]

"biased toward each other"? What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying (or suggesting) that Ritner was "biased" towards Gee as a person, and vice versa? Or that Ritner was "biased" against certain aspects of Gee's scholarship?

Doctor Scratch,

I am suggesting that Dr. Ritner was/is biased towards Dr. Gee's religious affiliation. I doubt it was/is anything of a personal nature.

If it's the latter, and if you mean that Ritner was "biased" against Gee trying to pawn off LDS apologetics as legitimate scholarship, then I doubt that anyone would disagree---except the apologists.

I do not disagree that Dr. Ritner was biased against Dr. Gee for what he and you perceived as "LDS apologetics."

But your use of the language "biased toward each other" suggests something more personal---as if you're implying that Ritner harbors some kind of anti-Mormon bigotry against Gee and his work. And there's just no evidence of that.

I meant to imply no such thing. I do not hold that view.

"Disagreement" is very different from being "biased."

Being biased means that one has cause to favor a certain position. I maintain that Dr. Ritner had cause to maintain his position (stated above) because of his disagreement with aspects of Dr. Gee's scholarship.

I think you can see the problem: claiming "bias" leaves the door wide, wide open for the characterization of Ritner as an "anti-Mormon." "Disagreement" is probably the more accurate descriptor here.

Manus manum lavat.

So he's publicly apologized and admitted to error? A retraction was published in the FARMS Review? That's news to me.

He did not. He is vindicated by his scholarship.