A Message From John Gee

[Olavarria]

Hi everyone,

I shot John Gee an email and this is what he said:

Gentlemen,

I usually do not check my email on weekends and I am out of the office busy with this (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~anthro/giza_web/index.html) with only sporadic internet service. Let me say the following about the rumors flying:

(1) For a number of years, I have been gathering information not only about the Joseph Smith Papryi, but their ancient owners and the owners’ extended families. I have pursued dead ends in New York, Connecticut, Washington, Atlanta and elsewhere. This is an ongoing project. From time to time, I run across objects that might possibly be connected with these extended families. As that connection can be demonstrated, I publish that fact in an appropriate Egyptological venue. I have done so in the past, and will continue to do so if and when more information becomes available. For example, a few years ago I found a graffito mentioning the owner of Joseph Smith Papyrus I and published an article on the subject.

(2) The rumors on the internet that I have seen are not true. I have not yet found any piece once in the possession of Joseph Smith.

(3) The first I heard of any of these rumors was late Friday afternoon (20 April 2012), when one of the receptionists at the Maxwell Institute told me that Chris Smith had contacted her asking if they were true. This is the same Chris Smith who has been publishing arguments saying: a papyrus, a papyrus, we have got a papyrus and there cannot be any more papyrus. That he would give credence to these rumors suggests to me that he does not really believe the arguments he has been publishing.

(4) I do not know where these rumors are coming from. One would hope that individuals would not spread gossip on the internet, but the internet is the biggest gossip mill I know of. As I have been trying to figure out where such rumors might come from, I can think of the following possibilities:

.

(5) A couple of years ago, I did discover an account in Egyptian of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham, his deliverance by an angel, and his subsequent teaching the court about God using astronomy. I have already published this and it has been in print for some months.

(6) I have discovered an ostracon relating to the family of the owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri. This ostracon has been previously published twice but its connection with the family has not been noted. I have an article accepted for publication in an Egyptological venue where I argue that the ostracon in question does not mentionthe owner of Joseph Smith Papyrus I but rather his great-great-great-grandson. I do not know when the article will appear.

You may feel free to post this.

John Gee

Senior Research Fellow

William (Bill) Gay Professor of Egyptology

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

Brigham Young University

I'm really interested in article 5.

[David T]

Thanks for this, Olavarria. I do wish Gee felt he could have presented that information without the swipe at Chris Smith, though.

[BCSpace]

I'm really interested in article 5.

Me too.

[DavidC]

Maybe a piece by John Gee in this new book is what article 5 is referring to:

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/B/bo13468577.html

[cinepro]

(3) The first I heard of any of these rumors was late Friday afternoon (20 April 2012), when one of the receptionists at the Maxwell Institute told me that Chris Smith had contacted her asking if they were true. This is the same Chris Smith who has been publishing arguments saying: a papyrus, a papyrus, we have got a papyrus and there cannot be any more papyrus. That he would give credence to these rumors suggests to me that he does not really believe the arguments he has been publishing.

That is a great example of two different approaches to "belief" and "evidence."

Whether Chris's openness to even the slightest possibility of the rumors being true is a good thing or bad thing, we'll each have to decide.

[Chris Smith]

This is the same Chris Smith who has been publishing arguments saying: a papyrus, a papyrus, we have got a papyrus and there cannot be any more papyrus. That he would give credence to these rumors suggests to me that he does not really believe the arguments he has been publishing.

FWIW, my articles do not say that there is no missing papyrus. They simply say that the amount of papyrus missing is relatively small-- i.e. less than 50% of the original collection owned by Joseph Smith. The rumor I heard, if true, would have confirmed my hypothesis. Furthermore, it's not as if I was spreading the rumor around the Internet, stating it as a fact. Rather, I was stating it as a rumor and asking if anyone knew whether or not there was any truth to it.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

Thanks for this, Olavarria. I do wish Gee felt he could have presented that information without the swipe at Chris Smith, though.

A "swipe?"

Geez! It was just a little tongue in cheek play on words. I thought it was pretty funny. John actually has a sense of humor. Apparently yours has gone missing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A "swipe?"

Geez! It was just a little tongue in cheek play on words. I thought it was pretty funny. John actually has a sense of humor. Apparently yours has gone missing.

Some people.

[LDSToronto]

(3) The first I heard of any of these rumors was late Friday afternoon (20 April 2012), when one of the receptionists at the Maxwell Institute told me that Chris Smith had contacted her asking if they were true. This is the same Chris Smith who has been publishing arguments saying: a papyrus, a papyrus, we have got a papyrus and there cannot be any more papyrus. That he would give credence to these rumors suggests to me that he does not really believe the arguments he has been publishing.

Wait - Chris does the ethical thing and contacts Gee's department to validate or refute a rumour, and this somehow calls into question Chris's faith in his own research?

Brother...

H.

[David T]

A "swipe?"

Geez! It was just a little tongue in cheek play on words. I thought it was pretty funny. John actually has a sense of humor. Apparently yours has gone missing.

"That he would give credence to these rumors suggests to me that he does not really believe the arguments he has been publishing." Goes beyond the play on words, Will, and calls into question his integrity. Not my kind of humor.

Edited April 23, 2012 by David T

[Hyrum Page]

Wait - Chris does the ethical thing and contacts Gee's department to validate or refute a rumour, and this somehow calls into question Chris's faith in his own research?

Brother...

H.

That's what I thought. I have to shake my head when professors poke fun at people for verifying information. Bizarre. Makes one wonder.

[William Schryver]

"That he would give credence to these rumors suggests to me that he does not really believe the arguments he has been publishing." Goes beyond the play on words, Will, and calls into question his integrity. Not my kind of humor.

"Calls into question his integrity ...?"

Whatever.

The "John Gee lacks moral fiber" talking point is an apostate evangelist staple whose introduction into every discussion related to him is an evangelical imperative.

Even so, it has been my observation that dry humor consistently eludes those of the apostate evangelist persuasion.

I found Professor Gee's little quip rather clever and amusing.

[LDSToronto]

"Calls into question his integrity ...?"

Whatever.

The "John Gee lacks moral fiber" talking point is an apostate evangelist staple whose introduction into every discussion related to him is an evangelical imperative.

Even so, it has been my observation that dry humor consistently eludes those of the apostate evangelist persuasion.

I found Professor Gee's little quip rather clever and amusing.

Maybe - but this time, Gee is his own worst enemy. And it has been my observation that apologists resort to, "Oh, that's just <insert name here> using dry humour, and you are too lowbrow to pick up on it" when there is no other defensible position. Perhaps we all need some more exposure to dry humour, here's a good, clean example from an American comedian:

And here, from the land of deadpan:

Enjoy.

H.

Edited April 23, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Daniel Peterson]

It was a vicious attack by John Gee on Chris Smith. It should never be forgiven or forgotten, and probably deserves several pages of condemnation here alone, not to mention on other websites.

John Gee is vicious, almost beyond belief.

So am I, so I recognize viciousness when I see it. "The Willy Loman of Mopologetics," I'm motivated almost entirely by "pride, anger, and," rather redundantly, "ego." (I know this because I just read it on another message board.) This has ruined my career, which is very sad.

The unspeakably nasty things that some critics routinely say about Dr. Gee, though, are just good clean fun, expressions of rich humor and a spirit of responsible skepticism.

Incidentally, John, I'm not the source of these rumors.

[LDSToronto]

It was a vicious attack by John Gee on Chris Smith. It should never be forgiven or forgotten, and probably deserves several pages of condemnation here alone, not to mention on other websites.

John Gee is vicious, almost beyond belief.

So am I, so I recognize viciousness when I see it. "The Willy Loman of Mopologetics," I'm motivated almost entirely by "pride, anger, and," rather redundantly, "ego." (I know this because I just read it on another message board.) This has ruined my career, which is very sad.

The unspeakably nasty things that some critics routinely say about Dr. Gee, though, are just good clean fun, expressions of rich humor and a spirit of responsible skepticism.

Incidentally, John, I'm not the source of these rumors.

Ah, so Gee was simply lashing out at Chris because Chris had said some nasty things about Gee in the past?

H.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

How 'bout this: questioning the sincerity of another person's scholarship is wrong when anti-Mormons do it, and it's wrong when Mormons do it, too.

Everybody wins!

[why me]

Ah, so Gee was simply lashing out at Chris because Chris had said some nasty things about Gee in the past?

H.

I think that the board that you also post on does a lot of lashing out and it is not in the gentle spirit of John Gee. My gosh, you need to see just how the critics treat apologists on that other board. And when you take these critics to task, I may just see your post as balanced.

[Xander]

The fact is this rumor was started by faithful Mormons. I laughed when I first heard it and told Chris I strongly doubted it. I don't think Chris really believed it either, but he probably assumed it was based on something else Gee had discovered, and he given his established interest in this subject, naturally he would want to get to the bottom of what all the hoopla was really about. Rumors usually aren't born in a vacuum.

That Gee would take this opportunity to take pot-shots at Chris from a safe distance while using a proxy to do his dirty work for him, completely misrepresenting what Chris has said, is really the kind of thing that annoys us about Gee.

A real class act!

[Xander]

That folks like Schryver love the way Gee took a swipe at his arch nemesis, is hardly surprising. I'm glad there are several LDS apologists who can see this for what it is. This is nearly as ridiculous as Gee's "Egyptian Test" he posted years ago.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

The main reason why I didn't believe the rumor was because it made no sense that Gee would be looking for something he already believed to be lost. The only papyrus fragments the apologists want to see connected to Joseph Smith, are those that are missing.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Xander

[Skylla]

Thread closed.

Skylla

(and several pointless gosslpy rumor laden posts removed.)