Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[Jan]

QUOTE(Brent Metcalfe @ Jun 30 2007, 11:40 PM)

t;line-height:100%">Hi folks,

To reassure my friends Julie and Jan, Brian and I have indeed discussed the prospect of publishing our correspondence on the BoAbr manuscripts and the JSEP. Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences. Our modest hope was to provide believers and nonbelievers with exemplary model of scholarly discourse. Perhaps we were just dreaming.

Fond regards,

Brent

Hi Brent! A nice surprise. No worries - I didn't need reassuring, I was simply asking CK and Dan where they were getting their info from and some of the specifics since they were rather vague.

QUOTE(Brent Metcalfe @ Jun 30 2007, 11:40 PM)

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.

Brent, are you coming to the conference? I'm not sure what your comments about 'reliable' and 'timely' are. FAIR posts the papers as available and as submitted by the presenters. We don't get papers on all of them. A presentation such as Brian's last year wasn't written down (IIFC) and it was really a discussion of the overhead images he had (and not really ammenable to a transcript).

At any rate, I will be filming his presentation. I'll make sure to send you a DVD of it afterwards.

I look forward to seeing you at the FAIR conference.

Will, I think FAIR *sells* the presentations in mp3 format. The transcripts are usually free but become available at a later date. Do you have permission to give or sell a DVD of Gee's presentation to Brent on behalf of FAIR?

(Usually those transactions go through FAIR's online bookstore so I'm a little surprised at this. Admission fees to the conference barely, if at all, cover the cost of putting on the conference. I help with the conference the day before and the day of the conference and I still buy a ticket for two day's admission. The only way that FAIR makes the little money it has is through bookstore sales and donations.)

[William Schryver]

Jan,

Will, I think FAIR *sells* the presentations in mp3 format. The transcripts are usually free but become available at a later date. Do you have permission to give or sell a DVD of Gee's presentation to Brent on behalf of FAIR?

In fact, I do not. And, I've already been apprised of the inappropriate nature of my rash promise. It was rather innocently made at the time, but of course I don't have right to do what I said I would. I have been corrected and acknowledged the same. Brent will have to obtain his .mp3 through the standard channels.

My apologies.

Edit: In my defense, I will only state that my intent was to underscore the fact that, as apologists, we are not inclined to hide our arguments -- and I'm quite sure that Dr. Gee is not shy to stand behind what he says, whether at the FAIR conference or in the FARMS Review of Books. I just got a little rambunctious in my enthusiasm to prove the point.

[Chris Smith]

Pahoran,

If you care to rephrase your post in more civil language, I'd be happy to respond. Until then, I'll be watching Die Hard 3.

-CK

[Dale]

FAIR at one point was aiming to lead in the area of LDS apologetic's. In the area of the Book of Abraham/papyrus issue they arn't leading. They ought to be putting up more to help persons sort through the issues. I came to doubt the content of FAIR's articles because of critic's stuff I was exposed to. Certainly FAIR has no obligation to do anything, but they leave themselves open to allegations they do sloppy apologetics when they do superficial research on the Book of Abraham/papyrus issues. The content of FairWiki doesn't address several basic Book of Abraham/papyrus issues, and critic's do.

[juliann]

FAIR at one point was aiming to lead in the area of LDS apologetic's. In the area of the Book of Abraham/papyrus issue they arn't leading. They ought to be putting up more to help persons sort through the issues.

I think I know what FAIR aimed to do and trust me we had no idea that so many people would be telling a group of volunteers what they are supposed to do and be. What we aimed to do was to provide a clearinghouse for the information that was out there. We certainly never intended that a small group of people would produce on demand. That is what the countermos do...without any training or education and that is what we want to stay away from. Which FAIR member do you think should do this, Dale? I'm going to ask you again, do you want to volunteer to do what you want done?

Certainly FAIR has no obligation to do anything, but they leave themselves open to allegations they do sloppy apologetics when they do superficial research on the Book of Abraham/papyrus issues.

Then I can only imagine what we would "open ourselves up to" if we did more sloppy apologetics. Again, do you want to volunteer?

[juliann]

Edit: In my defense, I will only state that my intent was to underscore the fact that, as apologists, we are not inclined to hide our arguments -- and I'm quite sure that Dr. Gee is not shy to stand behind what he says, whether at the FAIR conference or in the FARMS Review of Books.

I'm still waiting to hear what is "unreliable" about a transcript of his last lecture. From what I understand about what he plans to do...we will be hearing some new things.

[William Schryver]

Pahoran,

If you care to rephrase your post in more civil language, I'd be happy to respond. Until then, I'll be watching Die Hard 3.

-CK

I might also ask you why you are responding to the topic of this thread over in Shadyland?

Well, I will respond to you here:

You insinuate (in Shadyland) that Brian Hauglid has dismissed Nibley's method and material in Abraham in Egypt.

I think Brian would be very surprised to hear that. I don't think you do his opinions on Nibley justice with your comment. Brian (as have I, for that matter) has said clearly that he is uncomfortable with some of Nibley's sources, and the way he used them. However, since Brian (along with John Tvedtnes and John Gee) has invested hundreds of hours in the translation of various ancient texts for use in Traditions of the Early Life of Abraham, I think it is quite evident that Brian believes there is value in identifying valid and solid parallels to the Book of Abraham. And having spent many hours talking about these things with Brian, I can assure you that he regards Traditions as a very important contribution to that effort. As I have already noted, I think it documents some very significant and meaningful parallels between ancient Abrahamic literature and the BoA. And since I was primarily making reference to the Traditions of the Early Life of Abraham book, it is disingenuous for you to attempt to reduce my arguments to nothing more than a defense of Nibley's Ancient in Egypt. I do believe that there is much good material in the Nibley book -- but I have identified more valuable material in the Gee, Hauglid, Tvedtnes book. In any event, I have yet to see anyone actually address the material. Certainly Olson did not. Nor does the Thompson paper in Dialogue. Can you indicate other places where you believe people have actually taken on the material? I've seen people try to dismiss the method -- but they always do so without addressing the material itself. I wonder why that is? Could it be that they want to avoid the strength of the material by simply attacking the methodology -- just like most critical arguments focus on the production of the book rather than upon its content?

[Chris Smith]

Will,

If your approval of Nibley's work earlier in this thread was qualified (the way that Brian's is clearly qualified), I must have missed it. In any case, I think you're blowing my comment in "Shadyland" out of proportion.

Could it be that they want to avoid the strength of the material by simply attacking the methodology

I don't think so, no.

Again, I look forward to our discussion of your Traditions parallels at a later time.

-CK

[e=mc2]

CK:

Applying the same standard to Nibley's parallels, we'd need to find substantive evidence that accurate information about Abraham was transmitted from ~2000 BC to whatever document we find parallels in. In most cases this isn't even plausible, let alone likely. The critics at least go out of their way to establish the plausibility of their parallels.

I will go on record to say I am in disagreement with this assessment. But then again, that's the fun of discussion eh? Nibley's paralels aren't even plausible? Not even the ones about the famous ancient rivalry of Abraham and Pharaoh (in some cases identified with Nimrod?) I seriously will show otherwise at a later time as I am on lunch right now. His parallels with the *types* of literate traditions in ancient lands paralleling the autobiographical aspect of the BofAbr. (something NOT in the Biblical account) is not plausible you say?

Well, I shant ridicule your disagreement, and I shal return with other info from Nibley and his sources (I have them you know, and I will use them just for fun as a check on the supposed "misuse" of Nibley and sources. Sure he wasn't 100% accurate, but back in typerwriter days the mere mass of what he used is absolutely breath taking. In the majority of cases, Nibley was spot on with the sources he used............ it will be my good pleasure to show just this, as well as the a-hem, "plausibility" of said parallels.

[William Schryver]

Will,

If your approval of Nibley's work earlier in this thread was qualified (the way that Brian's is clearly qualified), I must have missed it. In any case, I think you're blowing my comment in "Shadyland" out of proportion.

I don't think so, no.

Again, I look forward to our discussion of your Traditions parallels at a later time.

-CK

I didn't qualify my comments about Abraham in Egypt earlier in this thread. I have elsewhere, at other times, on the board. My point was that I think you have misunderstood Brian's opinions about showing parallels between ancient Abrahamic texts and the Book of Abraham. He certainly doesn't reject the methodology, per se, as evidenced by his work in Traditions. That's all.

Edit: I look forward to further citations of people who have addressed the material, rather than just the methodology. I am unaware of anyone having done that.

[Alf O'Mega]

In any event, I have yet to see anyone actually address the material. Certainly Olson did not. Nor does the Thompson paper in Dialogue. Can you indicate other places where you believe people have actually taken on the material? I've seen people try to dismiss the method -- but they always do so without addressing the material itself. I wonder why that is?

Perhaps it is because questions of methodology are logically prior to questions about arguments made within the methodology. It's like somebody claiming that their calculations based on the Chrysler Building's specs prove that the Empire State Building is structurally sound. Nobody will bother to deal with their actual calculations if they think the prior assumptions are mistaken.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

If you care to rephrase your post in more civil language, I'd be happy to respond. Until then, I'll be watching Die Hard 3.

-CK

So no substantive response then.

What a surprise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

So no substantive response then.

*** for tat, my friend.

Perhaps it is because questions of methodology are logically prior to questions about arguments made within the methodology.

That's true. Nevertheless, some of Nibley's content has been addressed on MADB and MDB, as well as on ZLMB and CTR. For example, we've discussed some of his observations about the facsimiles here, and over on MDB we discussed his identification of the four canopic deities. We've also gotten some good guffaws (shout out to Kerry) from the men-dressing-up-as-women bit (plus some substantive commentary on that subject from Paul Osborne over at CTR). I suppose I could dig up some of these links, if anybody really cares.

[e=mc2]

Just so we are all aware of it, guffaws from our friend Paul Osborne and his rejection of Nibley's materials is not a refutation. Just because he thinks the ancients should behave like we moderns do, does not mean Nibley is wrong.

[Pahoran]

*** for tat, my friend.

Now CK, you know that's not true. As you perfectly well know, I made a number of substantive points. I rather suspect you affect disdain in order to avoid responding to them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[e=mc2]

Pahoran, we all know anyway that you are a conspiracist with FARMS, so nuthin you say, nada, zip, zero, empty set big guy!, means anything to anyone..........ditch FARMS and you'll get respect.

[Chris Smith]

Just so we are all aware of it, guffaws from our friend Paul Osborne and his rejection of Nibley's materials is not a refutation. Just because he thinks the ancients should behave like we moderns do, does not mean Nibley is wrong.

Paul chased down the Nibley footnote, and it's nowhere near as impressive as one might expect:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic...ight=women#3385

Now CK, you know that's not true. As you perfectly well know, I made a number of substantive points. I rather suspect you affect disdain in order to avoid responding to them.

You affect disdain all the time. I disdain disdain.

-CK

[e=mc2]

THE Nibley footnote? Which one, he used DOZENS........... Paul never substantially understood his sources nor his argument.

[Pahoran]

Oh we came to hear Prof. John Gee

My grandfather and me

Around Sandy town we did roam;

Drinking all night....

(Perhaps I'd better leave it there...)

Regards,

Pahoran

[e=mc2]

BEACH BOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I used to skateboard to their songs ALL the lovin time as a teenager....... (I still do sometimes, but SHHHHH!)

[Dan Vogel]

Right. There are no neutral facts about Mormonism in existence according to typical LDS belief.

The fact that Brigham Young was named "Brigham Young" must be seen as faith promoting...or insulting.

Of course, no one is talking about "neutral facts," like JS was born on 23 Dec. 1805, which are clearly excluded by the context. We were talking about interpretations of facts. If a non-Mormon wrote about Mormonism by simply repeating traditional understandings of early history, like Remini, that would also be faith promoting. But an author who doesn't give the traditional account, would be categorized at the church librarly in SLC under "controversal works." The reaction of individual Mormons would, of course, be varried, but negative. The negative word being used -- "insulted" -- was borrowed from Jullian as a cover term. Feel free to substitute whatever negative term suits you.

[Dan Vogel]

This is the kind of belittling haughtiness that lead to the problem demonstrated on this thread... perhaps you should attend one of Brent's Raising Discourse With Mormons: The Exemplary Model seminars? For one who purports to be a "serious scholar" it would probably be a wise decision.

I think you want to see what you want to see in that statement. I didn't understand what you meant by "belittling haughtiness." But then you were so kind to provide an example of what you mean. Thanks.

[Dan Vogel]

I really want a reply to these continued accusations. First, Hauglid's paper isn't even on the website let alone "handled". Second, no organization has a responsibility to put anything on a website. We put on a conference. If people want to hear it they can come or they can buy the audio. There seems to be an increasing expectation that a group of volunteers produce an awful lot of stuff on demand for free. I am astonished to see anyone complain that we are not providing them free online viewing! Where is this sense of entitlement coming from? If anyone wants to pay for online viewing step up!

Brent has made the accusation that FAIR produced an "unreliable" paper by Gee. I would like the details on that. Has Brent transcribed the audio himself and found gross errors? What are they? Why doesn't he inform instead of accuse so it can be corrected if that is the case?

You seem to know more about Brent's complaint than I do.

[Hawkmoon]

I think you want to see what you want to see in that statement. I didn't understand what you meant by "belittling haughtiness." But then you were so kind to provide an example of what you mean. Thanks.

You are welcome... you are an inspiration to us all.

[juliann]

You seem to know more about Brent's complaint than I do.

I'm only repeating what he posted in the very thread you are in. Why is it that so many are jumping in to speak for Brent only to become evasive and coy when asked for further information?