Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

John Gee: "The Joseph Smith Papers Project Stumbles"

Recommended Posts

So it looks like John Gee isn't impressed with the Joseph Smith Papers volume on The Book of Abraham:

Quote

Abstract: Volume 4 of the Revelations and Translations series of the Joseph Smith Papers does not live up to the standards set in previous volumes. While the production values are still top notch, the actual content is substandard. Errors fill the volume, including upside-down photographs and numerous transcription errors beyond the more than two hundred places where the editors admitted they could not read the documents. For this particular volume, producing it incorrectly is arguably worse than not producing it at all.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-joseph-smith-papers-project-stumbles/

If Gee's criticisms are true, it is unfortunate that more care wasn't taken.  But it's also possible his approach was affected by the differences in attitude between him and the editors of the volume regarding The Book of Abraham. 

It will be interesting to see how this develops...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

So it looks like John Gee isn't impressed with the Joseph Smith Papers volume on The Book of Abraham:

If Gee's criticisms are true, it is unfortunate that more care wasn't taken.  But it's also possible his approach was affected by the differences in attitude between him and the editors of the volume regarding The Book of Abraham. 

It will be interesting to see how this develops...

We already have the lengthy and devastating critique of that volume by Jeff Lindsay, “A Precious Resource with Some Gaps,” Interpreter, 33 (2019):13-104, online at https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-precious-resource-with-some-gaps/ .  Much more than mere attitude is entailed.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We already have the lengthy and devastating critique of that volume by Jeff Lindsay, “A Precious Resource with Some Gaps,” Interpreter, 33 (2019):13-104, online at https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-precious-resource-with-some-gaps/ .  Much more than mere attitude is entailed.

What an unfortunate essay from the otherwise faithful Jeff Lindsay.

The JSP are an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, they are to be considered authoritative statements on history and doctrine.  It troubles me to see Jeff so willingly criticize works that were published under the auspices of the First Presidency.  Simply because the official Church position doesn't match a personal view, does not give one license to openly criticize official works of the Church.

I'm very disappointed to see this. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

What an unfortunate essay from the otherwise faithful Jeff Lindsay.

The JSP are an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, they are to be considered authoritative statements on history and doctrine.  It troubles me to see Jeff so willingly criticize works that were published under the auspices of the First Presidency.  Simply because the official Church position doesn't match a personal view, does not give one license to openly criticize official works of the Church.

I'm very disappointed to see this. 

Anything produced and then placed in the public domain is open to criticism. Oaks once ignorantly stated to the effect that it is wrong to criticize leadership or the church even if that criticism is true.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Anything produced and then placed in the public domain is open to criticism. Oaks once ignorantly stated to the effect that it is wrong to criticize leadership or the church even if that criticism is true.

Weren’t the Journal of Discourees produced by church?

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post

I have a couple of books that are poorly edited, it's amazing... but it is what it is

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

What an unfortunate essay from the otherwise faithful Jeff Lindsay.

The JSP are an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, they are to be considered authoritative statements on history and doctrine.  It troubles me to see Jeff so willingly criticize works that were published under the auspices of the First Presidency.  Simply because the official Church position doesn't match a personal view, does not give one license to openly criticize official works of the Church.

I'm very disappointed to see this. 

Of course, you meant all that tongue-in-cheek, right?  8)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Anything produced and then placed in the public domain is open to criticism. Oaks once ignorantly stated to the effect that it is wrong to criticize leadership or the church even if that criticism is true.

Yeh, isn't that a violation of a temple covenant not to find fault with the Brethren?  Dr Lavina Fielding Anderson was exed for writing a professional analysis for Dialogue which showed factually that the Brethren had made a particular series of decisions.  Of course, no one exed Elder Bruce McConkie when he faulted Brother Brigham and other Church leaders for speaking without light and knowledge on race (1978).  Pres Dieter Uchtdorf even openly stated that mistakes had been made.  How can that be if the Brethren are infallible -- which is a foundational article of LDS faith, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The JSP are an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, they are to be considered authoritative statements on history and doctrine.

CFR please (ignore if you were being sarcastic)

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

What an unfortunate essay from the otherwise faithful Jeff Lindsay.

The JSP are an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, they are to be considered authoritative statements on history and doctrine.  It troubles me to see Jeff so willingly criticize works that were published under the auspices of the First Presidency.  Simply because the official Church position doesn't match a personal view, does not give one license to openly criticize official works of the Church.

I'm very disappointed to see this. 

Your post pegged my sarcasm meter.  

Ha ha.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Your post pegged my sarcasm meter.  

Ha ha.

It is a sad day when @Scott Lloyd and I are the one's standing up for the authority of the First Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It is a sad day when @Scott Lloyd and I are the one's standing up for the authority of the First Presidency.

That’s a pretty bold statement to make I’d say. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

That’s a pretty bold statement to make I’d say. 

the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center

-- Nephi

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center

-- Nephi

I mean I support the authority of the first presidency, so I’m not sure what you’re intending by that. I’m just saying it’s a bold statement saying it’s ONLY you two who were standing up for their authority. Especially when no one on this thread seemingly challenged their authority. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, juliann said:

If they really didn't use Egyptologists for a major component in this, that is inexplicable. Given the persistent ugly rhetoric about Gee that goes beyond criticizing his work, this apparent level of error by his critics is more than ironic. 

Yes, and even if they just didn't like Professor Gee, there are a number of other highly qualified LDS Egyptologists around, including John Thompson (PhD), Michael Rhodes, and Val Sederholm (PhD).  There are others whom they might have brought in just to avoid embarrassment.  A consultant like Jeff Lindsay could have pointed out the places where the emperor wore no clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2019 at 10:16 AM, SettingDogStar said:

Weren’t the Journal of Discourees produced by church?

Not really. They were produced by George D. Watt who was one of the scribes that recorded the speeches of Brigham Young, et al. He received permission to compile those speeches and publish them to augment the meager salary he received for his transcription services. Recent scholarship has shown that, while adhering to the tone and intent of the speeches, evidence of significant edit has taken place, such as additions and deletions in the text.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It is a sad day when @Scott Lloyd and I are the one's standing up for the authority of the First Presidency.

 

Quote

The project is staffed by scholars, archivists, and editors employed by the Church History Library of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. The publisher of the project’s print and web publications is The Church Historian’s Press, an imprint of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Is there any reason to assume The Church Historian’s Press is correlated or otherwise  considered to be authoritative doctrinal instruction such as the manuals, main website, and magazines published for church distribution?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Not really. They were produced by George D. Watt who was one of the scribes that recorded the speeches of Brigham Young, et al. He received permission to compile those speeches and publish them to augment the meager salary he received for his transcription services. Recent scholarship has shown that, while adhering to the tone and intent of the speeches, evidence of significant edit has taken place, such as additions and deletions in the text.

Interesting, good to know! I wonder how much was changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

there are a number of other highly qualified LDS Egyptologists around, including John Thompson (PhD), Michael Rhodes, and Val Sederholm (PhD). 

Does Val Sederholm now teach at Salt Lake Community College?  On his blog he is Val Hinckley Sederholm, PhD, Egyptology, 2001, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UCLA.. A prominent Egyptologist at ULCA  is  Dr. Kathlyn (Kara) Cooney is a professor of Egyptian Art and Architecture at UCLA. Specializing in craft production, coffin studies, and economies in the ancient world. When youtuber Brother Jake did his video on KerryMs  videos  he sought advice from her as to the plausibility of Kerry's arguments. She was negative about them. Why is it that LDS Egyptologists  seem to end up teaching in either BYU or in a separate department to their field of study?     https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/cooney-on-muhlestein/

Edited by aussieguy55
fix

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/24/2019 at 3:16 PM, SettingDogStar said:

Weren’t the Journal of Discourees produced by church?

As already indicated there was some cooperation with church authorities (esp. Brigham Young) in the beginning, but it was nevertheless a personal project.  The Church website indicates that it is not an official publication.

"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest."

The August 1978 issue of The Ensign contains the question, How authoritative is the JoD?  The answer contains the following:

"Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication."

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Does Val Sederholm now teach at Salt Lake Community College?  On his blog he is Val Hinckley Sederholm, PhD, Egyptology, 2001, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UCLA.. A prominent Egyptologist at ULCA  is  Dr. Kathlyn (Kara) Cooney is a professor of Egyptian Art and Architecture at UCLA. Specializing in craft production, coffin studies, and economies in the ancient world. When youtuber Brother Jake did his video on KerryMs  videos  he sought advice from her as to the plausibility of Kerry's arguments. She was negative about them. Why is it that LDS Egyptologists  seem to end up teaching in either BYU or in a separate department to their field of study?     https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/cooney-on-muhlestein/

Sederholm and Muhlestein got their PhDs at UCLA before Dr Cooney joined the faculty.  I believe Antonio Loprieno was Dept Chairman then (Loprieno has lectured at BYU).  Muhlestein has been a contributor to the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, and he is the Director of the BYU Egyptian Excavation Project.

One needs to be very careful of emotional anti-Mormon folderol.

My recommendation to all who have questions is to go to a university and study the sources in formal classes, then draw fact-based conclusions.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2019 at 7:48 AM, 6EQUJ5 said:

What an unfortunate essay from the otherwise faithful Jeff Lindsay.

The JSP are an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, they are to be considered authoritative statements on history and doctrine.

I disagree.  Lets not elevate something that is "official publication" with the standard works or General conference talks.  Just because something is published by the Church does not mean its free from error or the best material out there. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I disagree.  Lets not elevate something that is "official publication" with the standard works or General conference talks.  Just because something is published by the Church does not mean its free from error or the best material out there. 

Are you really going to make me link to a 10 yr old press release?

Anything published by the Church represents official Church doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Are you really going to make me link to a 10 yr old press release?

Anything published by the Church represents official Church doctrine.

Yes please

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...