Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Kishkumen]

There are a couple of things to note here:

Many academics have a very low regard for religion, especially unusual sects like the Mormons. Thus it is not surprising to me that a fellow Egyptologist would call Gee a joke. And, Gee has certainly done unusual things, given unusual papers at professional conferences.

It would not surprise me if Gee was able to publish something based on the concern not to appear anti-religious, but I would be deeply surprised if that occurred in a journal with a double-blind peer-review process. If so, that would be a terrible breach of professional ethics.

If he has published in such journals, I will assume it is because his work was judged by his peers to be sufficiently competent to represent that journal well and contribute something worthwhile to the scholarship.

Moreover, I am concerned about an attack on Gee that undermines all aspects of his professional reputation. As an academic myself, I refuse to participate in such an exercise. I defend the integrity of Egyptology as a discipline. I must assume that peer review in Egyptology is rigorous on the whole and that though some Mormon-friendly papers may get published for the sake of such political correctness, this does not happen in the peer-review journals of solid reputation.

I recommend moderating these attacks. I don't think taking things to this level is healthy for anyone.

[_Kevin Graham]

It wasn't just one Egyptologist. In fact, I can think of at least a half dozen from at least four different universities who have noted the same kinds of things.

The benefit of exposing Gee for what he is is quite simple actually. Too many people remain deceived into thinking there is evidence supporting the Book of Abraham, hence the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's prophet status. And you'd be surprised how many of them are basing this belief on the credibility of Mormonism's hand selected, testimony-bearing Egyptologists. For a lot of people the evidence against the Book of Abraham is enough to disabuse them of their delusions that Joseph Smith could be what he claimed. But the outright lies and deception by Gee and Muhlstein give them room for faith, based on "plausibility" which they'd never accept if they knew the truth.

You see it all the time. Hamblin on his blog wrote up a piece that did nothing but brag about Gee's credibility and reputation and his only evidence was the 30 articles he had published. I'm saying these articles mean nothing when you consider how his peers really view him. They "tolerate" his "stupid papers" for the same reason some employers tolerate poorly qualified employees, simply because they're a minority and don't want to be accused of racism. Besides, these same folks who whine about the poor mistreated Gee is, have no problems bashing other Egyptologists for simply disagrees with him. They've done everything they've could to black-ball folks like Stephen Thompson, Ed Ashment and Robert Ritner. Now Cooney is on their hit list over at MAD.

[_Kishkumen]

Kevin, I like a lot of your excellent work on the Book of Abraham, but I don't trust your take on Gee as you are reporting it. You have no adequate response to the point I have made about double-blind peer review. Instead, you appear to be relying on the understandable dislike of many academics towards a PhD who trades on his credentials to lend bogus authority to bad apologetics.

We already knew that, but you aren't satisfied with this conclusion. You want everyone to view Gee as an idiot and a liar without any nuance or mitigation. And I think you are wrong when you imagine the prophetic claims of Smith to stand or fall on Smith's ability to translate Egyptian. This is another woefully simplistic perspective. You are being unrealistic.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin, I like a lot of your excellent work on the Book of Abraham, but I don't trust your take on Gee as you are reporting it.

I don't "report," I demonstrate. You make it sound like I'm just asserting things for no good reason. Do you really want to argue that the numerous examples of Gee lying, are really just evidence of ... something else? How much evidence is required for you to believe someone is lying?

You have no adequate response to the point I have made about double-blind peer review.

Your point is irrelevant unless you want to sit there and argue that good scholarship can be judged by nothing more than a quantity of publications. And you don't know how many, if any, of his publications were "double-blind" peer reviewed. Now, I have no doubt Gee learned all the things required of him at Yale. I'm sure he knows Egyptian well. I'm sure he could translate documents. To you this must mean he's a great scholar. To me, he isn't a great scholar unless he uses that knowledge honestly. Gee is not interested in what's true. He uses his credentials as leverage for those who too often get intimidated by people with letters after their name. What surprises me here is that you of all people would buy into this nonsense and complain about my criticisms just because I'm unpublished!

Oh, and you have absolutely no evidence that his critics in academia are biased because they don't like religious people in general. What the hell kind of comment was that anyway? You sound like so many people at FAIR who insist that if anyone criticizes one of their scholars, then it is because they're biased in some way. For them, it can never be a simple matter of their scholarship warranting such criticism.

The fact is, and I have demonstrated this time and time again, John Gee feels he can swindle people into accepting his apologetic conclusions by either hiding or manipulating the evidence, while dressing it all up as "scholarship" from a Yale guy. Now you think this crap he practices on a regular basis, is the hallmark of good scholarship? This is the kind of stuff you'd expect from a college freshman, not a Yale graduate. Gee is an embarrassment to scholarship in general because he doesn't employ the standards of evidence and proof which he learned in school. This is one of the things Ritner complained about.

We already knew that, but you aren't satisfied with this conclusion. You want everyone to view Gee as an idiot and a liar without any nuance or mitigation

Feel free to add nuance, Kish. This should be interesting.

Do I want to help prevent people from being deceived by LDS apologetics and Mormons who used their doctorates as tools of persuasion? Absolutely. What the hell are you so worried about here? If I am right (and I think you know I am) then what's the problem? They're the ones who keep producing more and more videos and apologetic presentations that essentially say those who leave the faith over the Book of Abraham were foolish dimwits who didn't have the patience to wait for Gee and Muhlstein to refute all criticisms. And I have to hear this crap from family and friends who just accept this horse crap because.. (drum roll) ... "that guy went to Yale!"

And I never said Gee is an idiot, though you continue to put those words in my mouth. I've said he has to be either an idiot or a liar, and I think he is a liar because I don't think it is likely that he's an idiot for all the reasons you love to bring to our attention.

And I think you are wrong when you imagine the prophetic claims of Smith to stand or fall on Smith's ability to translate Egyptian. This is another woefully simplistic perspective. You are being unrealistic.

Care to make an argument? Can you explain how a man who started a religion on the fundamental premise that he could translate ancient texts (without that we have no Book of Mormon, no Inspired Bible, no Book of Abraham) be legit when it is proven that he couldn't produce valid translations of ancient texts? This is like catching the Wizard of Oz behind his curtain and then insisting that maybe he really is a Wizard after all. WTF?

For people who actually give a damn about what's true, the Book of Abraham issue is the coffin nail for Mormonism. For those who don't really care about what's true, and only care about how useful it is to be Mormon (socially, economically, emotionally, etc), then the point is moot. For those who care about truth, it is merely a matter of getting more people informed about this issue. I'd bet a thousand dollars right now that no one with a full understanding of this issue, would ever convert to Mormonism. And they know this, which is why they're so interested in keeping critical perspectives as far away as possible.

And those who leave the faith for actually using their brains, they try to make them feel stupid for ever doing so. And that frustrates me, especially when they try to use intellectual frauds like Rhodes, Gee and Muhlstein to intimidate. I mean you really have to have some low self esteem with no familiarity with real scholarship to think these guys are telling the truth.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, Kevin:

Double-blind peer review is when people in the field you are writing in look at your work, without knowing who wrote it, and judge whether it is sufficiently competent and adds something to the scholarly discussion. You don't know them; they don't know you. If the scholars judge your work to be good enough to merit publication, they tell the editor of the journal in question that it ought to be published. If Gee has been through this process in some of his publications, then other Egyptologists judged that work to be worthwhile.

I don't see that this is really something either one of us can take issue with. Gee publishes articles that have been through the double-blind peer review process=Gee has the chops to do regular old Egyptological scholarship regardless of his religious views or bad Book of Abraham apologetics.

You are welcome to your opinion or, rather, prediction that the fact Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian spells the end of his credibility as a prophet, but it is clear to me that a large portion of the Mormon Studies community has moved beyond this point. Those who continue to insist it is a crucial issue, be they apologists or critics, will simply be left behind to argue points that no longer matter to the scholarship, and will be less and less problematic for the membership.

History shows that religious belief is far too tenacious to be fatally compromised by this kind of thing.

p.s.: So, tell me, Kevin, in what sense do you use the word "truth"? You seem to assume that this is just self-evident, and that if we had real integrity, like you, then we would be forced to agree with you.

[_Sammy Jankins]

History shows that religious belief is far too tenacious to be fatally compromised by this kind of thing.

For better or worse indeed it has

[_Dr. Shades]

You want everyone to view Gee as an idiot and a liar without any nuance or mitigation.

Hi Kishkumen,

With respect, what nuance or mitigation can we add that will make Gee look better? Plus, is the question of whether Gee looks good or bad of relevance to Kevin's point about the legitimacy of Gee's apologetics?

And I think you are wrong when you imagine the prophetic claims of Smith to stand or fall on Smith's ability to translate Egyptian. This is another woefully simplistic perspective. You are being unrealistic.

It probably stands or falls on a host of other issues as well. But to address your above points, A) what is a non-simplistic perspective on the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith, and B) what would Kevin have to say in order to become "realistic?"

[Guest]

Now, I have no doubt Gee learned all the things required of him at Yale. I'm sure he knows Egyptian well. I'm sure he could translate documents. To you this must mean he's a great scholar. To me, he isn't a great scholar unless he uses that knowledge honestly. Gee is not interested in what's true. He uses his credentials as leverage for those who too often get intimidated by people with letters after their name. What surprises me here is that you of all people would buy into this nonsense and complain about my criticisms just because I'm unpublished!

Observe here what Kevin is doing. This is a terrible distortion of my perspective. All I have said is that double-blind peer review is a reliable standard for determining competent work in the academic world, and that Gee's ability to publish a number of pieces in journals that use this mechanism shows an appropriate level of competence to be deemed a scholar of that subject.

But Kevin is saying that my position is this: Kish is saying that because Gee graduated with a PhD from Yale and knows Egyptian, then Kish judges him to be a "great scholar."

You're big on honesty, Kevin. Does this seem like an accurate or honest representation of my position?

You also say that Gee is not interested in what is true. Gee believes that Mormonism is true and that is the standard that he applies to everything else. So, it is not that Gee is not interested in what is true by his definition. He is not interested in what is true by your definition. Now, I do not share his view, so I am sympathetic to what you are saying. But you do yourself a disservice when you make these sweeping statements that omit much of what is going on.

[_Tobin]

Yes. The more Kevin Graham hyperventilates about this, the more rabid he appears.

Now pay attention Kevin. I don't believe Joseph Smith could read or understand ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs at all. However, that has no bearing on my belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. And I really can't see most Mormons caring in the slightest about it either. When most Mormons think about Joseph Smith's translation abilities, they believe it was done through the gift and power of God. He had no ability to read or understand Egyptian himself. What this does is opens the door on a number of reasonable ways he could have produced the Book of Abraham without being able to read or even use the papyrus that he had.

[_Kishkumen]

With respect, what nuance or mitigation can we add that will make Gee look better? Plus, is the question of whether Gee looks good or bad of relevance to Kevin's point about the legitimacy of Gee's apologetics?

Hey, Shades-

I don't think Kevin and I disagree at all about the legitimacy of Gee's apologetics. I think Gee's apologetics are dreadful. What I am saying is that his dreadful apologetics are not necessarily motivated by a malicious intent to deceive others or a lack of scholarly competency on his part. I think they are motivated by a fundamentalist religious perspective wherein he will compromise on the facts in order to protect the LDS faith. I have repeatedly said that this is a self-defeating strategy, and that I do not agree with it, but this is quite different from simply calling Gee a "liar" and a scholarly "joke."

It probably stands or falls on a host of other issues as well. But to address your above points, A) what is a non-simplistic perspective on the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith, and B) what would Kevin have to say in order to become "realistic?"

We have already witnessed, I think you will agree, the nuancing of the understanding of the word "translate" in Mormon Studies. Joseph Smith had an interesting and complex view of the significance of that word, and it was very theological. So, to say that Smith could not translate the ancient Egyptian language is not really saying a whole lot that is interesting or compromises the religious significance of what Smith was doing. As more people come to understand the complexity of Smith's theology, particularly where it touches on the concept of translation, they will probably not be all that concerned that Smith was not literally translating the Egyptian on the papyri.

So, knowing this, I think it is unrealistic of critics to expect that the "smoking gun" of Smith not translating ancient Egyptian is some kind of big deal for the future of the LDS faith.

Think of it this way: many people in Smith's day believed Egyptian was a mystical, symbolic language with all kinds of hidden, esoteric meanings. So, Smith would probably not have placed Egyptian in the same category as Greek or German anyways. Therefore, to say Smith was "lying" when he said he could translate this stuff by the gift and power of God is just ignorant. It is the result of others assuming that Smith meant "translate the hieroglyphs" like we would say "translate my German homework."

Rather it was closer to this: "reveal the hidden meanings of the mystical characters in order to uncover the lost esoteric doctrines."