Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin was questioning Gee's competency within the field of Egyptology.

Are you ever going to back this up? I'm pretty sure I've explained my position on this, several times no less. The issue is Gee's refusal to tell the truth when he knows very well that the truth would undermine whatever crazy apologetic conclusion he's driving at. That makes him a poor scholar. Not because he is "incompetent," but because he is dishonest and has low regard for actual truth. You can't just say it makes him only a poor apologist though he is a good scholar, because he and his followers have equated the two.

Kish of all people should know that being a good scholar entails far more than having an expert's knowledge on a given subject.

[_Kishkumen]

You apparently haven't even read anything Gee has published "double-blind," but just seem to take for granted the assumption that it somehow matters anyway.

Besides, what do you really know about publishing in the field of Egyptology? Are you certain it is the same with publishing in the Natural sciences, or Classics for that matter?

Um, yes, different fields in the humanities adhere to comparable standards, and this is helpful in assessing tenure cases. The fact that Gee published in peer review journals matters because other Egyptologists who don't give a crap about Mormonism judged his work and found it worthy of publication. Period.

Well, you're the one who brought it up.

You are the one who, being dissatisfied with identifying Gee's apologetics as problematic, insists on pressing forward to the position that he must be entirely dismissed as an Egyptologist as well.

Frankly, I find this to be as pointless and stupid as the test he administered to CaliforniaKid, but if you insist on adopting his wrongheaded standard, I guess I can't stop you.

But there is nothing "regular old" about his publications, anyway. You're making that assumption without even reading the stuff he prints.

So, you insist that all of the readers and editors that found his work worthy of publication only did so because they didn't want to appear prejudiced against Mormonism? Even those who had no idea who he was?

So no, I don't think it is realistic to expect people who think like this to be persuaded by evidence that challenges their religious presuppositions.

My intention is to make sure more people they try to deceive come to the table with more information. That they make educated decisions on the subject of Mormonism. The fact is the vast majority of people who join the Church end up abandoning it, and there is a reason for that which has nothing to do with desire to sin, follow Satan, etc.

So we are in agreement that many of the old school apologists have a bad approach. You want to make sure that someone (you) is out there to repeat why this is wrong. That's probably useful to a point. I get it. Meanwhile, historians are coming to understand that Joseph Smith may not have been doing what the old apologists and critics thought he was doing. I am interested in this, because it meshes well with my own understanding of the Western esoteric tradition, of which I have long viewed Smith to be a part, like Brooke argued in Refiner's Fire.

Kish, in the past thirty years the Church's primary apologists and experts on this subject, aside from Nibley and Gee, have left the faith over this matter. Since 1999 who do you think the apologetic community relied upon for information on this subject? It was Paul Osborne, the guy with the record number of posts at the FAIR boards over a six year period. Then there is Kerry Shirts who spent years writing up apologetic articles on the subject. Then there is me, of course. We all left the Church after being more informed on this subject than the rest. Is that just a crazy coincidence? Adding to that list is Ed Ashment, who left the Church after he was given permission to analyze the KEP. Then there is the Egyptologist, Stephen Thompson.

So if you want to believe this issue doesn't threaten the Church in any way, then you're welcome to that opinion. I'd be willing to be money that missionaries couldn't convert a prospective convert, especially those who are more educated, if they were also given equal time with someone like me to explain the things the missionaries didn't. For the Church, this is a cat and mouse game. They run from the truth like scared mice and their job is to keep the truth away from those they try to convert; at least long enough so that at some future point they do encounter the truth, well, Mormonism has already sunk its teeth in too deeply and the person feels guilty as all get out for leaving the Lord's Church.

I am not saying that it has not taken a toll on the LDS Church. What I am saying is that it will become less problematic over time, as people come to understand what Joseph Smith was actually doing, as opposed to what they had assumed to be the case.

Feel free to point out where I called him incompetent. You brought this up as did Darth, and I asked both of you to show me where I said this, and you couldn't do it. Now you're still beating that straw man while ironically, complaining that I've misrepresented your position.

So if this was your purpose for bringing up "double-blind" then it was for nothing.

Nice try, Kevin. Your purpose was implicit in discussing all of the Egyptologists you know who think Gee is a "joke." Now you are simply moving the goalposts.

How does this change the fact that he habitually lies and misrepresents the evidence when making apologetic claims? The issue here is Gee's credibility and reliability as a scholar, and most of his "scholarship" is on the Book of Abraham or related to it in some way. His horrendous work as an apologist shows us just how lousy he really is when it comes to standards of proof. He can only get this stuff published peer-review by toning down the Mormon stuff to such a degree that it is not noticeable to anyone unfamiliar with it. That's the only reason he gets away with it.

What this shows is that he is good at compartmentalizing. You want to attribute it to the fact that he is a "joke."

Kish, again, feel free to clarify or elaborate, but that is essentially what I got from your various posts.

I did clarify. You misrepresented my position. I never said that Gee was a "great scholar" or that he was one because he got a PhD at Yale and could read Egyptian. It was you who falsely attributed that conclusion and standard to me.

And this makes him a horrible scholar, because truth claims of Mormonism he uses as a litmus test for all else.

Not necessarily. He may be capable at compartmentalizing very well.

Holy crap, are you serious Kish? Do I really need to go through all the examples of his lies? These are lies by any objective standard. These aren't lies "according to my definition."

Kevin, for crying out loud. You throw around terms like "truth" and "lies" as though everyone assumed the same backwoods standard for what you are talking about. Gee's hierarchy of "truth" (which I do not share) places his fundamentalist reading of Mormonism above the need to be factually correct and clear in his apologetics. I was talking about his apparent understanding of truth, and how he privileges Gospel truth over worldly honesty. Come on, you know what I am talking about here. Why are you getting so worked up about it?

What's "going on" that changes anything I've said? You don't say. You just keep alluding to important nuance, suggesting that I'm omitting it intentionally. Well, I'm calling your bluff Kish. If you want to defend Gee of charges of dishonesty while accusing me of applying some unfair standard to him, then you need to finally deal with the evidence I've presented. And trust me, the two examples I just gave is just the beginning.

No, Kevin. I have been quite clear. A Mormon who believes in the big "T" truth of Mormonism may privilege the salvation of others over his own honesty regarding facts in the mortal sphere. You call it lying, but obviously it is more than simply lying. Your view on things does not define his perspective or many others'. I am not saying that they are right, that their apologetics are good, or what have you, but your simplistic explanation is really rather laughable.

But I get it. You believe Mormonism is false, and you want others to come to that same position, so the important thing for you is that others share your moral outrage about Gee's lies. You believe that if everyone sees what a liar Gee is, they will then conclude that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. They will see that there is no defending Joseph Smith's ignorance regarding ancient Egyptian while he claimed he could "translate" it. Then, they will leave Mormonism and be free of this "lying" religion.

If I am wrong on any of this, feel free to correct me. I don't feel hostile toward you over this. I just don't find explaining the obvious to show up people who are increasingly irrelevant to be much of a challenge or very interesting.

[_Kishkumen]

Are you ever going to back this up? I'm pretty sure I've explained my position on this, several times no less. The issue is Gee's refusal to tell the truth when he knows very well that the truth would undermine whatever crazy apologetic conclusion he's driving at. That makes him a poor scholar. Not because he is "incompetent," but because he is dishonest and has low regard for actual truth. You can't just say it makes him only a poor apologist though he is a good scholar, because he and his followers have equated the two.

Kish of all people should know that being a good scholar entails far more than having an expert's knowledge on a given subject.

Kevin, I am not going to play rhetorical games with you. If you want me to believe that reporting these unflattering comments about Gee from other Egyptologists was all about showing that he is dishonest and not about suggesting that he is an incompetent scholar, you have failed.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I suppose my position on this issue is somewhere in between that of Rev. Kishkumen and Kevin. If Gee's articles were peer-reviewed via the double-blind method, then I think we can all agree that they met the standards of that process. I think we can all agree, too, that there are big-time problems with Gee's Mopologetics. The gray area, for me, are the claims you sometimes hear from the apologists that apologetic arguments have made it through the double-blind peer review. In other words, that Gee has deliberately included LDS apologetic points and arguments in his peer-reviewed Egyptology articles. Of course, these arguments are so subtle that the peer-reviewers would notice them as being LDS-friendly, but, per the Mopologists, the fact that this stuff made it through the process is validation as to its truthfulness.

I don't know--perhaps that's what Kevin is driving at? If it's really true that Gee is "sneaking" Mopologetics into these articles, then I do indeed think that's problematic and arguably an abuse of the process, but it may be that I'm mistaken here.

[_Kishkumen]

IThe gray area, for me, are the claims you sometimes hear from the apologists that apologetic arguments have made it through the double-blind peer review. In other words, that Gee has deliberately included LDS apologetic points and arguments in his peer-reviewed Egyptology articles. Of course, these arguments are so subtle that the peer-reviewers would notice them as being LDS-friendly, but, per the Mopologists, the fact that this stuff made it through the process is validation as to its truthfulness.

I don't know--perhaps that's what Kevin is driving at? If it's really true that Gee is "sneaking" Mopologetics into these articles, then I do indeed think that's problematic and arguably an abuse of the process, but it may be that I'm mistaken here.

Greetings, Doctor:

I have no interest in arguing the merits of Mopologetic peer review. We were given an insider's view of that from Greg Smith's various offerings on John Dehlin. My reading of that led me to view this peer review to be something more akin to "the comments my buddies gave me." My comments are intended to apply only to those pieces Gee has published in reputable academic journals with a double-blind peer review process.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin, I am not going to play rhetorical games with you. If you want me to believe that reporting these unflattering comments about Gee from other Egyptologists was all about showing that he is dishonest and not about suggesting that he is an incompetent scholar, you have failed.

Hey, you came after me on this issue. If you refuse to accept what I say, then I guess feel free to keep misrepresenting my position. The fact is my problem with Gee has always been his dishonesty. The purpose of this thread deals with Ritner's decimation of Mormon Egyptology, but mostly from Nibley, Muhlstein and Rhodes.

I'm guessing you can't defend Gee's blatant dishonesty in just the two examples (from a large pool) I presented? You seem to indicate that you were confident in your position on this.

And I'm guessing you won't be defending your weird claim that Gee can only be dishonest, according to the definition of Kevin Graham?

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, you came after me on this issue. If you refuse to accept what I say, then I guess feel free to keep misrepresenting my position. The fact is my problem with Gee has always been his dishonesty. The purpose of this thread deals with Ritner's decimation of Mormon Egyptology, but mostly from Nibley, Muhlstein and Rhodes.

I'm guessing you can't defend Gee's blatant dishonesty in just the two examples (from a large pool) I presented? You seem to indicate that you were confident in your position on this.

And I'm guessing you won't be defending your weird claim that Gee can only be dishonest, according to the definition of Kevin Graham?

I am not "coming after you" regarding this issue. I think you are sloppy in how you express yourself, and that you are not good at maintaining the distinctions between your alleged aim, which is to say that Ritner and others judge the Mopologetic arguments regarding the Book of Abraham to be risible, misleading, and questionable in regards to standards of scholarly ethics, and going over the line to imply that Gee is simply a bad scholar altogether. If you maintain that this is all about Mopologetic pieces, that's fine, but if it is you might have simply said so and not engaged me on the peer review process in academic journals. I do not believe that standard applies to the apologetic materials.

It seems to me that you compromise your own position when you aren't clear about what it is you are doing or when you heat things up excessively, but I should have realized that after all these years you would not likely listen to me about this.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't know--perhaps that's what Kevin is driving at? If it's really true that Gee is "sneaking" Mopologetics into these articles, then I do indeed think that's problematic and arguably an abuse of the process, but it may be that I'm mistaken here.

Well, this is clearly a concern for Egyptologists who have caught on to his game. And they're worried about it, for good reason. Cooney said it herself, "it is good to know who these people are." Kish dismisses their criticisms because he thinks, based on no evidence whatsoever, that they made a conscious decision to start hating on religious people. This makes Gee immune from all criticism. If you criticize as a novice, well you're opinion doesn't matter because you're a novice. If you criticize as a scholar, well your opinion doesn't matter because you hate Mormons. It is essentially what apologists argue whenever anyone in their camp is criticized.

My point is let's focus on the evidence. Let's stop psychoanalyzing motives or bias and just deal with the evidence and make a decision based on that! Kish doesn't want to debate the evidence. He doesn't even want to acknowledge it. He just wants to keep harping on about my so-called bias as a critic, as if my bias isn't a bi-product of Gee's dishonesty and the fact that I found out Joseph Smith was a fraud.

[_Doctor Scratch]

IThe gray area, for me, are the claims you sometimes hear from the apologists that apologetic arguments have made it through the double-blind peer review. In other words, that Gee has deliberately included LDS apologetic points and arguments in his peer-reviewed Egyptology articles. Of course, these arguments are so subtle that the peer-reviewers would notice them as being LDS-friendly, but, per the Mopologists, the fact that this stuff made it through the process is validation as to its truthfulness.

I don't know--perhaps that's what Kevin is driving at? If it's really true that Gee is "sneaking" Mopologetics into these articles, then I do indeed think that's problematic and arguably an abuse of the process, but it may be that I'm mistaken here.

Greetings, Doctor:

I have no interest in arguing the merits of Mopologetic peer review. We were given an insider's view of that from Greg Smith's various offerings on John Dehlin. My reading of that led me to view this peer review to be something more akin to "the comments my buddies gave me." My comments are intended to apply only to those pieces Gee has published in reputable academic journals with a double-blind peer review process.

No, no--I wasn't meaning to refer to "Mopologetic peer review." I was talking about the "reputable academic journals with a double-blind peer review process." Some of the Mopologists have suggested at times that Gee has managed to weave LDS apologetic arguments into the articles he's published in these "reputable academic journals." In other words, that he's surreptitiously putting, say, pro-Book of Abraham material into these articles such that the double-blind reviewers don't realize what he's doing.

If he's "sneaking" things like that into the articles, then it strikes me as being on a par with "Metcalfe is Butthead."

[Guest]

Well, this is clearly a concern for Egyptologists who have caught on to his game.

I am also concerned about, and disagree with, the use of PhD credentials to lend spurious authority to questionable Mopologetics.

Kish dismisses their criticisms because he thinks, based on no evidence whatsoever, that they made a conscious decision to start hating on religious people. This makes Gee immune from all criticism. If you criticize as a novice, well you're opinion doesn't matter because you're a novice. If you criticize as a scholar, well your opinion doesn't matter because you hate Mormons. It is essentially what apologists argue whenever anyone in their camp is criticized.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying. I do believe that a large number of academics are prejudiced against religion, but I don't in any way believe that this should protect religiously motivated arguments from the usual scrutiny given to all arguments. My reference to double-blind peer review was offered to show that there are circumstances in which pieces are reviewed on their merits, thus minimizing the impact that bias based on religious views and other factors may have on the assessment of scholarship.

My point is let's focus on the evidence. Let's stop psychoanalyzing motives or bias and just deal with the evidence and make a decision based on that! Kish doesn't want to debate the evidence. He doesn't even want to acknowledge it. He just wants to keep harping on about my so-called bias as a critic, as if my bias isn't a bi-product of Gee's dishonesty and the fact that I found out Joseph Smith was a fraud.

Obviously you don't understand what I want at all. You blindly assert and falsely attribute, but you don't seem to understand what I am saying. I thought the initial posts which consisted of quotes did a fine job of showing that Ritner has raised serious questions regarding the scholarly ethics of some apologetic publications on the Book of Abraham. I thank you for bringing that to our attention.

That said, when you go beyond that to paper over the significance of Gee's having published numerous articles in reputable journals, I think you are going too far in your attack on Gee. I stand by my judgment on that.