Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[Dale]

Dan-The deception with the papyrus could have been the Lord. Abraham thought for a time that he was truly going to sacrifice Issac. Perhaps the Lord wanted Joseph Smith to continually try and line up one text that couldn't possibly come from another. The Lord may have wanted Joseph Smith and his scribes to keep busy on some hopeless translation project.

Joseph Smith was suggested to have stared at a few Book of Breathings characters and he got a lot of text out of them. That might have been something like a clue left by the Lord that the Book of Abraham couldn't be a translation of the other. D.&C. 9:7-9 talks about the Lord giving a prophet a stupor of thought if the translation was wrong. But since the Lord mixed in true inspiration Joseph Smith ignored his stupor of thought about the grammar, Book of Breathings characters trusting the Lord. Similarly Abraham trusted the Lord so much he came darn close to killing his son.

I am not sure the the Lord couldn't also allow persons to increase their faith in Joseph's revelation if they wished. Was the text an exact revelation, or did Joseph Smith mix in 19th century prophetic expansion and commentary? I tend to like Blake Ostlers idea that in the case of the Book of Mormon it's a mixture of translation, expansion, and commentary.

Facimile 1 being mentioned in the main text might be Joseph's modern editing of his revealed story about Abraham. I am not sure this mentioning indicates pious (religious, devout) deception, but modern inspiring fiction worked into the revealed text. Joseph Smith would have only been guilty of deception (fraud, trick" if he himself didn't believe he was translating.

[William Schryver]

Brent,

Inasmuch as I believe I have a pretty good grasp on what Brian believes vis-a-vis these issues, I wonder if you might be a little more specific about those particular items wherein you now believe that you and Brian (and myself, as well, since I think Brian and I are pretty much in accord) share "common ground." Perhaps in examining the specifics, we might get a better understanding of the degree to which (as Dan suggested) Brian has "backpedaled" and come to agree "in part or in whole" with your interpretations of the manuscripts.

[Dan Vogel]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. It's not dishonest to use those quotes in the way that they are being used. You and Gee are trying to read minds, because what you are asserting goes beyond the quotes. Anyone with half a brain knows the GAs would not have agreed with conclusions of a non-historical 19th century BOM. They are being quoted because of their willingness to look at the BOM through scholarship, which unfortunately many Mormons do not.

As you know, the purpose of quoting those GA's on the cover blurb was exactly the same as every single time an anti-Mormon trots out these prooftexts: it is to lull unsuspecting Latter-day Saints into thinking that the "investigation" contained in the book is something the GA's would approve of.

This is your problem right here. You think everyone is similarly motivated. All anti-Mormons are the same. You are wrong. Gee said the GAs were quoted to make it appear that they would approve of the conclusions. Not so. Only for their willingess of open an investigation. They said such an endeavor had value. Did they mean only by believing scholars. I don't think so. I think their statements emanate from a blind assurance that everything will work out to support the BOM, whether or not the scholars were believers.

Which, of course, is not the case, and neither you nor Brent--the author of the rumour that the FP's vault has an Oliver Cowdery History concealed in it, which rumour is still in circulation--has the slightest reason to suppose that it would be. Roberts, Widtsoe and Richards were very able missionaries and staunch defenders of the faith, and they rightly regarded anti-Mormonism in all its forms as something rather repugnant.

What does the OC History have to do with anything here? So serious scholarship of the BOM that doesn't go the way believers anticipate is repugnant. Ya, that makes sense.

[Dan Vogel]

Let me say up front that I do not have the book so I am relying on the review. I cannot imagine a scholar putting quotes from those who disagree with him on the jacket

The publsiher did that for promotional reasons.

to make it appear as if they were supporting the book.

I don't get that at all. I understand the use of the quotes as to say. OK, well, take you up on that. Or, OK, then you should have no objection in us looking at your sacred scriptures from a purely (not religious) point of view.

That should be self-evident.

It might be from your point of view, granted, but honestly I don't see what you do. No one would quote the GAs for that reason, because it's absurd to think GAs would approve of such a book.

As long as the name calling goes on it is apologetics and the problem the countermopologists have is that Mormons will admit up front that that is exactly what it is. It is the countermos who find that problematic. Until the countermos can clean up their act and take it outside of the circus as the Mormons are able to do, they are engaging in nothing more than in house polemics that almost no one is interested in.

My point was that Gee accusations of dishonesty were trumped up as a means of discrediting the critics and poisoning the well. This is not conducive to serious dialogue. If you don't want serious dialogue, carry on with the polemics and logical fallacies.

[juliann]

My point was that Gee accusations of dishonesty were trumped up as a means of discrediting the critics and poisoning the well. This is not conducive to serious dialogue. If you don't want serious dialogue, carry on with the polemics and logical fallacies.

It looks like we agree. That is exactly what Brent did here. I think Ritner's polemics are the most egregious because he is carrying it into other venues. I think it will bite him in the butt as Mormon Studies programs take off in places like Claremont but it is out of place. As for the dishonesty, from my reading it was Ashment or whatever his name is that Gee had the most to say about. Gee is not writing books like that one and like it or not, we are talking about a book review here. It is a response to some pretty big claims coupled with a lot of inflammatory rhetoric. I do not think that is equivalent to making a hobby out of publishing apologetic books claiming to be "real" scholarship. If so many can defend countermo message boards vulgarity and trash talk as just the way it is I think there is room for book reviews from the other side.

Just scanning the reviews produces multiple quotes that are nothing but out and out insults to the intelligence of believers. Here is another instance of questionable honesty (from Bitton's review) similar to using church leaders on the jacket and this can't be blamed on the publisher.

Sensing the need for support, our editor lines up the following Latter-day Saints as on his side: Leonard J. Arrington, Henry Eyring, Lowell L. Bennion, Raymond T. Matheny, and R. Jan Stout. Question time. Do or did all these really endorse the rejection of the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Are they being fairly quoted? Two I have talked to do not appreciate being so used.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your encouragement. Both Brian and I are very absorbed in our respective projects, so as much as we had hoped for otherwise, time may be our greatest adversary in completing a collaborative project.

Hi Julie,

I encourage your online persona to get a life.

Hi Will,

As successful as you may consider your mind meld with Brian, I hope you wonâ??t be offended if I correspond directly with Brian in lieu of some self-anointed doppelg

[Hawkmoon]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your encouragement. Both Brian and I are very absorbed in our respective projects, so as much as we had hoped for otherwise, time may be our greatest adversary in completing a collaborative project.

Hi Julie,

I encourage your online persona to get a life.

Hi Will,

As successful as you may consider your mind meld with Brian, I hope you wonâ??t be offended if I correspond directly with Brian in lieu of some self-anointed doppelg

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

As successful as you may consider your mind meld with Brian, I hope you wonâ??t be offended if I correspond directly with Brian in lieu of some self-anointed doppelg

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Actually, Brian saw fit to correspond with meâ??he initiated todayâ??s exchange, not me.

To reiterate, the text-critical chasm between me and Brian has shrunk; we now share common ground on several critical issues. But as Iâ??ve also stated, fundamental differences remain. I see no reason to elaborate beyond this.

Ciao,

Brent

[My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

Hi Kerry,

As successful as you may consider your mind meld with Brian, I hope you wonâ??t be offended if I correspond directly with Brian in lieu of some self-anointed doppelg

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Julie,

What is it about that you donâ??t understand?

You never fail to provide such acerbic reminders of what I detest most about Internet boards: they often bring out the worst in us. I think youâ??re a passionate, interesting person, Julie; but your online persona (a.k.a. â??juliannâ?) is to you what Bizarro # 1 is to Superman. It must annoy the grad-school bejeebers out of your online persona that a Mormon scholar may actually value my contribution to scripture exegesis. Such is life.

Goodnight, my friend; I think Iâ??m done with this thread.

Ciao,

Brent

[My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Ray Agostini]

Goodnight, my friend; I think Iâ??m done with this thread.

Ciao,

Brent

Quit the dummy spits, Brent. Don't "think" you're done with this thread, keep going. Interested lurkers want to be informed.

[juliann]

It must annoy the grad-school bejeebers out of your online persona that a Mormon scholar may actually value my contribution to scripture exegesis. Such is life.

That is so last year. I do admit that I never tire of watching you complain about the very thing you do yourself. You really do seem unaware of how condescending and insulting you are online and if it was just me you might have a point...but it is many. I don't understand why you do what you say you detest but but I'll keep trying.

Given the insults, let's revisit the real issue...this was the claim from your self-described "doppleganger", you two "are now much closer together in their views than they were at the time. They've talked about publishing their correspondence."

That needed clarification and I will be the first to admit I am wrong (yes, I really do that on occasion) but when the immediate response is to dish up coy nonresponses something isn't right. And I think it is obvious that this was indeed an overstatement. So now we know..but it should have been explained and trying to make this about me only works if I was the only one asking.

dummy spits,

You are speaking Australian again Ray. What the heck are dummy spits?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Dummy = pacifier

[Ray Agostini]

You are speaking Australian again Ray. What the heck are dummy spits?

It means something like "I'll take my ball and go home if you don't play like I want", Julie.

[Calm]

(juliann @ Jul 2 2007, 06:01 PM) *

You are speaking Australian again Ray. What the heck are dummy spits?

It means something like "I'll take my ball and go home if you don't play like I want", Julie.

What a wonderfully cogent way of putting it.

I'll have to remember that one.

[Dan Vogel]

It looks like we agree. That is exactly what Brent did here.

I don't think Brent has done anything but to celebrate a gradual meeting of the minds. Such is understandable given early attempts to dismiss him as not a serious scholar of the BOA. I think he's allowed to vindicate himself. What I don't understand is why the parties who were involved in putting Brent down want to minimize or keep confidential their concessions to Brent.

I think Ritner's polemics are the most egregious because he is carrying it into other venues. I think it will bite him in the butt as Mormon Studies programs take off in places like Claremont but it is out of place.

I'm glad people like Ritner speak out. It takes lots of courage to go against the PC program of the post-modernists. But Ritner is not in religious studies and probably could care less about what Claremont thinks, especially since most of it's money for it's Mormon program comes from a Mormon source. We can't have seriously compromised institutions telling scholars how to behave. That's antithetical to what the history of intellectualism tells us and why tenure was invented.

As for the dishonesty, from my reading it was Ashment or whatever his name is that Gee had the most to say about. Gee is not writing books like that one and like it or not, we are talking about a book review here. It is a response to some pretty big claims coupled with a lot of inflammatory rhetoric. I do not think that is equivalent to making a hobby out of publishing apologetic books claiming to be "real" scholarship. If so many can defend countermo message boards vulgarity and trash talk as just the way it is I think there is room for book reviews from the other side.

Inflammatory rhetoric? I don't see that in Brent's book at all. But I'm coming from a vantage point of actually having read the book. Anything that questions the BOM's historicity is going to be seen as inflammatory, I guess.

Of course, I don't condone vulgarity and disrespectful posts. I don't think it's productive.

Just scanning the reviews produces multiple quotes that are nothing but out and out insults to the intelligence of believers. Here is another instance of questionable honesty (from Bitton's review) similar to using church leaders on the jacket and this can't be blamed on the publisher.

Bitton is being silly. Brent used the quotes responsibly. Some Mormons might not want to be quoted by critics, but apologists quote me and Brent on a regular basis--most often fairly and accurately, but sometimes not. How can there be dialogue if we are not allowed to quote one another? So such complaints are totally silly. Both Bitton and Gee imply that the quotes are being use improperly, but that simply is not the case. Notice that neither gives an example. It is the mere use of the quotes in an "anti-Mormon" context that bugs them. But that's their problem and certainly no justification for ad hominal attacks and insuations of dishonesty.

[jerryp48]

*sigh*

Congratulations! You have taken your first step towards becoming the intellectually and morally superior being known as the critic. Good luck in your quest.

I havn't completely made my mind up yet. My mind is still open. I'm simply saying that thus far IMO every argument we have put forth to support the BOA translation has been much weaker than those put forth by the critics.

Hopefully the "scholars" Juliann refers to will publish there findings soon so we can move on.

Also, I'm a spectator here. In fact I'm probably the best representation of the type of member for which this forum and FAIR in general was created for. I'm not a critic and will never become a critic.

[juliann]

I don't think Brent has done anything but to celebrate a gradual meeting of the minds. Such is understandable given early attempts to dismiss him as not a serious scholar of the BOA. I think he's allowed to vindicate himself. What I don't understand is why the parties who were involved in putting Brent down want to minimize or keep confidential their concessions to Brent.

This is what Brent did just yesterday:

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

Do you find that an attempt to celebrate meeting of the minds? I find it an astonishing attack for a first post. He not only made a gratuitous and vicious attack on Gee but managed to slip in that FAIR does not produce reliable transcripts. Considering the repeated promises of a forthcoming book I find the "timely" part more odd than mean.

And this was just his first sentence. How do you call for dialogue and then justify that, Dan? You have completely won over just about everyone here because you don't behave like that so you obviously know the difference. I continue to ask...why does he do that and then complain that he is not taken seriously? I am not the one holding myself up as any standard to the world of real scholarship or gentlemanly behavior, Brent does. Again, how do you justify his opening salvo just yesterday?

I have not seen Brent admit to any error in all of the years he has posted so the problem with a broadbrush declaration that anyone is "closer in their views" means the other guy has moved not Brent. I keep asking and this is something that needed to be answered because as Jerry so nicely demonstrates, some members take this stuff very seriously. A lot of countermos don't tolerate a lot of questions and I take a lot of abuse for being the questioner. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

But Ritner is not in religious studies and probably could care less about what Claremont thinks, especially since most of it's money for it's Mormon program comes from a Mormon source. We can't have seriously compromised institutions telling scholars how to behave. That's antithetical to what the history of intellectualism tells us and why tenure was invented.

Again...the example becomes the subject of attack. CGU is just one of several programs. All of the program chairs are funded by believers. Do you think those Catholics have compromised scholarship? Your assessment is naive on two fronts, those Mormons and Catholics don't control the money once it goes into someone else's bank account and there is no tenure for the Chair. All of the programs will be at the mercy of CGU not their ecclesiastical leaders.

As to how insulting the output of a lot of the countermo books are to the intelligence of believers....I don't think that is a point of dispute. I see no reason to deny it and I think it weakens your position to do so. When I am told how mean I am I see no point in arguing. So what? I'm not the one out there holding myself up as an expert and have no reason to be anything at all.

[juliann]

Also, I'm a spectator here. In fact I'm probably the best representation of the type of member for which this forum and FAIR in general was created for.

Having created the FAIR board I can tell you with some assurance that it was created for people like me. It was never intended as a proselyting tool or a place for anyone to develop a testimony. It was to give apologists a chance to interact with antis because FAIR itself does not do that. A lot of stuff was developed by thrashing it out on message boards.

[Jerubaal]

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

This past year, Gee gave a presentation to the Students of the Ancient Near East (SANE) at BYU entitled Everything you Ever Wanted to Know About the Book of Abraham, where the majority of the presentation was set aside for him to field questions from the audience. Both during the presentation, and afterwards, I asked Gee what his responses were to several criticisms of his work that I had heard both on this board and elsewhere. I find that his responses were more than adequate. This was prior to some of the recent debate about Gustavus Seyffarth (among other topics), so I look foward to hearing what he may have to say on that, but I have found his responses to most of the other criticisms of his scholarship to be quite sound.

[Chris Smith]

deleted

[Alf O'Mega]

Brent [is] the author of the rumour that the FP's vault has an Oliver Cowdery History concealed in it, which rumour is still in circulation. . . .

It is apparently true that Brent reported what Mark Hofmann told him about the Oliver Cowdery history, but the rumors of the existence of this history predate the Hofmann affair:

Although no historian, archivist, or Church leader could confirm the existence of the history, neither could any definitively state it did not exist since Joseph Fielding Smith had once referred to similar records written in Cowdery's hand (Smith 1952 [sic], 1:106) (Allen D. Roberts, "'The Truth is the Most Important Thing': The New Mormon History According to Mark Hofmann," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20:4 [winter 1987], 91).

Smith, Joseph Fielding. Church History and Modern Revelation. 2 vols. Salt Lake City, Council of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1953.

Thus Brent was never the author of this rumor. Please try not to start such rumors.

[Dale]

This past year, Gee gave a presentation to the Students of the Ancient Near East (SANE) at BYU entitled Everything you Ever Wanted to Know About the Book of Abraham, where the majority of the presentation was set aside for him to field questions from the audience. Both during the presentation, and afterwards, I asked Gee what his responses were to several criticisms of his work that I had heard both on this board and elsewhere. I find that his responses were more than adequate. This was prior to some of the recent debate about Gustavus Seyffarth (among other topics), so I look foward to hearing what he may have to say on that, but I have found his responses to most of the other criticisms of his scholarship to be quite sound.

That's great if his responses were adequate. Some of us see this stuff and we don't have the luxury of question and answer time with John Gee. I really think we need to be less dependent on John Gee. It's surprising that FAIR hasn't put online answers to criticisms of LDS scholarship on this issue. So much of their current apologetic relies on citing John Gee, and a few other persons. I know of several persons exposed to those criticisms, and we have doubts about John Gee.

Some of these issues are kind of technical and would take time in writing for someone to respond to.

[Calm]

Some of these issues are kind of technical and would take time in writing for someone to respond to.

Exactly. And that is why depending on someone not fully conversant in the issues can be problematic.

I'd rather wait for an answer from someone who knew what they were talking about than settle for an educated guess.