The Cultural History Of The Gold Plates (Bushman/Givens Seminar)

[Xander]

Chris Smith has provided a pretty detailed account elsewhere, and I wish he'd share it here. Mike Reed has shared some interesting information as well, which I wish he'd share here.

In a nutshell, Roper and Gee, in loud and angry voices, accused Reed of engaging in bad scholarship and relying on forgeries. They said they had the sources with them to prove it, but then left the premises immediately after the Q&A.

Or so says those lying anti-Mormons.

[Mortal Man]

Chris Smith has provided a pretty detailed account elsewhere, and I wish he'd share it here. Mike Reed has shared some interesting information as well, which I wish he'd share here.

In a nutshell, Roper and Gee, in loud and angry voices, accused Reed of engaging in bad scholarship and relying on forgeries. They said they had the sources with them to prove it, but then left the premises immediately after the Q&A.

Or so says those lying anti-Mormons.

Well then, let's see these Roper-Gee sources. Since we're not allowed to say "apologist" anymore, I'll ask one of our local crusaders-for-truth-and-justice-from-the-group-formerly-known-as-apologists to post them if/when they are found.

[Xander]

Reed was very polite and asked for the sources. He emailed Roper. But no reply as of yet. It was Midgley, Roper, Mitchell and Gee representing the FARMS corner, and they were whispering and shaking their heads throughout Reed's presentation. Their questions, insinuations and perhaps more importantly their tone, made more than a few people on both sides uncomfortable.

Or so says the lying anti-Mormons.

Whadda ya mean we can't say apologist??

[Chris Smith]

Reed was very polite and asked for the sources.

I wouldn't say Mike was "very polite", but he did mostly manage to keep his cool.

[Mortal Man]

Reed was very polite and asked for the sources. He emailed Roper. But no reply as of yet.

Perhaps Roper is having difficulty fitting all those gigabytes of sources into an email.

It was Midgley, Roper, Mitchell and Gee representing the FARMS corner, and they were whispering and shaking their heads throughout Reed's presentation.

They were probably discussing how best to congratulate Mike for his excellent research.

Their questions, insinuations and perhaps more importantly their tone, made more than a few people on both sides uncomfortable.

Maybe they were angry about all the FARMS people being stuffed into a corner.

Whadda ya mean we can't say apologist??

KEVIN! STOP IT!

[Mortal Man]

I wouldn't say Mike was "very polite", but he did mostly manage to keep his cool.

Chris, where were you in all this? Why were the FARMS people all stuffed in a corner?

Edited August 20, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, why weren't you there to provide leadership and keep things under control?

I'm not on vacation. I was too busy to go.

How can you be on vacation during this crisis?

What vacation? What crisis?

The people need to know what your plan is to fix this mess.

What mess?

In a nutshell, Roper and Gee, in loud and angry voices, accused Reed of engaging in bad scholarship and relying on forgeries.

Reed was very polite. . . . It was Midgley, Roper, Mitchell and Gee representing the FARMS corner, and they were whispering and shaking their heads throughout Reed's presentation. Their questions, insinuations and perhaps more importantly their tone, made more than a few people on both sides uncomfortable.

I wish I'd been there like Xander, to hear those loud and angry voices and to pick up those subtle but important nuances of tone and audience reaction. It must have been a very dramatic scene.

They said they had the sources with them to prove it, but then left the premises immediately after the Q&A.

Cowards.

Or so says those lying anti-Mormons.

Lying? Of course not. As is their wont, they're simply, objectively, recounting the facts without any bias or partisan precommitments, wie es eigentlich gewesen (as Leopold von Ranke somewhat ungrammatically put it).

Reading their reports, I realize that I don't actually need to have been there. I have the facts, free from any tinge of parti pris or team loyalty. Those "FARMS" guys, though . . . Fortunately, we don't have their accounts.

[Xander]

I wouldn't say Mike was "very polite", but he did mostly manage to keep his cool.

See!

I knew they were lying!

[David Bokovoy]

So sorry I missed this. I was really looking forward to hearing the papers. Unfortunately, teaching my Education Week class on top of kids and wife preparing to start school with family in town, etc. made it impossible yesterday to attend. I really wanted to be there. Sorry you guys.

Edited August 19, 2011 by David Bokovoy

[Joseph Antley]

The issue was more the awkwardness that ensued because 1) the question was sort of strange, and 2) Mike didn't understand the question for a while (probably because it was sort of strange). I don't think Dr. Gee was the villain (or that there was one). But I don't think it was "just a question" either.

For my part I just sat in the back row with my head down.

[Chris Smith]

The issue was more the awkwardness that ensued because 1) the question was sort of strange, and 2) Mike didn't understand the question for a while (probably because it was sort of strange). I don't think Dr. Gee was the villain (or that there was one). But I don't think it was "just a question" either.

For my part I just sat in the back row with my head down.

That's basically my assessment as well.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, although it's certainly likely -- they're craven "Mopologists," after all -- that Roper and Gee and others skulked out of the room in terror and utter defeat at the end of the Q&A session, their departure might also have had to do with a Maxwell-Institute-sponsored dinner that they were obliged to attend at a restaurant off campus.

I was the after dinner speaker at that gathering and, standing up and surveying the relatively small group with my very own evil eyes, I saw Roper and Gee there, accompanied by their wives. They were still reeking of sulphur, naturally, and still spitting out their usual impotent invective at passing women and children, but they were definitely seated in the room.

The dinner was held very early, at 5 PM -- because I had to be over in the Wilkinson Center ballroom by 6:45 for my evening presentation on the history of the Middle East from 1798 to the present -- and they had first to pick up or be picked up by their wives.

Both Roper and Gee, I happen to know, were hiding out in distant and undisclosed locations throughout the entire Bushman/Givens seminar -- concealed in their offices, which are, oh, roughly, thirty feet from the room where the seminar was held.

A dramatic tale that should probably be turned into a film someday. Perhaps even a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, or some such nonsense.

[Chris Smith]

Incidentally, although it's certainly likely -- they're craven "Mopologists," after all -- that Roper and Gee and others skulked out of the room in terror and utter defeat at the end of the Q&A session, their departure might also have had to do with a Maxwell-Institute-sponsored dinner that they were obliged to attend at a restaurant off campus.

Mike's presentation ended at 3:15.

I don't think anyone's suggesting they fled in terror. But I wouldn't be surprised if the sheer awkwardness of the situation was a contributing factor in their departure.

[Boris Balkan]

I was also present at the seminar presentations. I didn't notice the whispering part. In fact, Gee was on the opposite side of the room from Midgley and Roper. I will also say that all three attended all of the sessions before Mike's (his was given in the afternoon) and Midgley stayed for the whole thing. In fact, Midgley was one of the relatively few people who stayed all day and actually paid attention and took notes. I say that just to point out that it seemed like sincere interest because the day was quite long, even though most of the papers were quite good, and it seems unlikely that someone would sit through all of them just to sandbag one presenter. It did seem that Roper was poised to ask his questions, but I didn't really sense a lot of anger. It just seemed like these guys had a history and it was a continuation of that. Gee's question struck me as a little bit of a "gotcha" type thing, but Mike could have responded by sticking to his research, which seemed to me quite strong, and rejecting the premise of the question, which was that his argument rested on Vogel who in turn rested his research on Hoffman. Mike didn't do that though. But to tell you the truth, I've seen similar things at other academic conferences--especially when there is a history of conflict between presenter and members of the audience. If you like awkward moments (like one would find on the old Larry Sanders show or on Curb Your Enthusiasm), then you would have found this moment very satisfying because most of the people there had no idea what the h*** was going on. Just my take.

[Chris Smith]

lol. well said.

[Mike Reed]

Gee's question: do you know if you unknowingly did something?

Why the heck would I be confused about a question like? Gee's brilliance was obviously way over my head. FARMS should be proud for stumping me

.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Daniel Peterson]

Mike's presentation ended at 3:15.

Well, since they couldn't possibly have had anything else that they needed to do before they went to get their wives and then proceeded to a dinner beginning at 5 PM off campus, that pretty well seals the deal: Their departure had disreputable motivations.

I didn't notice the whispering part. In fact, Gee was on the opposite side of the room from Midgley and Roper.

No. You can't be right.

Xander, who was not there, has told us that "Midgley, Roper, Mitchell [who is 'Mitchell'?] and Gee" were "representing the FARMS corner, and they were whispering and shaking their heads throughout Reed's presentation."

It did seem that Roper was poised to ask his questions, but I didn't really sense a lot of anger.

Again, you're plainly just wrong.

Xander, who was not in attendance (nor even in the state), has explained to us that "Roper and Gee, in loud and angry voices, accused Reed of engaging in bad scholarship and relying on forgeries."

Please get your facts straight.

This is a legend that's struggling to be born. Don't interfere.

[Xander]

Get a grip Dan, this was all tongue in cheek from the start.

If you want specifics, someone who was there said,

Throughout the session, the FARMS section of the audience (particularly Midgley, Mitchell, and Roper) were whispering to each other and shaking their heads in consternation. In the Q&A, Matt Roper challenged Mike's research, claiming Mike had overlooked a number of sources where early Mormon missionaries reported critics attacking the idea of ancient metal records. Mike (somewhat undiplomatically) expressed skepticism that Roper is interpreting his sources correctly. Roper claimed he had the source(s) with him, and would show or email them to Mike afterward. Roper disappeared immediately after the session, and hasn't yet sent Mike the sources in question. (Mike later told me he thinks Roper is referring to a pamphlet by one of the Pratts, in which Pratt is responding to Sunderland.)

Following Roper's question,Gee tried to discredit Mike's findings through guilt-by-association. Early in his paper, Mike had quoted Dan Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon. Gee's question was something like, "Dan Vogel's work relies heavily on the Hoffman forgeries, so in your reliance on Vogel, have you unknowingly brought the Hoffmann forgeries into your work as well?" Gee was asking if the 19th century publications cited in Mike's paper might be Hoffmann forgeries, but unfortunately Mike thought Gee was saying Hoffmann had forged some metal plates. He asked Gee to clarify the question, at which point Gee merely repeated the question several times in a louder, more agitated voice. Other audience members, frustrated by the exchange, unfortunately contributed to the chaos by attempting to clarify the questions in an equally agitated tone. It was an awkward exchange for everyone. Finally Mike told Gee that he had only quoted Vogel once, and his paper was almost entirely original research. Like Roper, Gee disappeared immediately after the session was over.

Another attendee described it as:

In the Q&A, John Gee basically asked Michael if he knew if he was unknowingly using Hoffman forgeries for all of his sources, implying both that Mike was a terrible scholar who was simply ripping off somone else's work (who supposedly used some Hoffman forgeries) and that Hoffman somehow actually managed to go back in time and forge dozens of whole books that became popular back then.

I find the first account of what happened highly credible. Do you? But I'm sure you could, if you tried really hard, find a way to turn these instigators into victims of some sort, but why would you want to? What do you make of Gee's question? Do you think it made sense? Do you think Gee was trying to discredit Reed in any way? Do you think he could have handled this better, as a gentleman and a scholar?

No I wasn't there. I am basing my comments on what I was told by those who were there. You're doing the same thing.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Was any of this recorded by chance?

[Boris Balkan]

Gee's question, according to my recollection was:

"Your research leans on Vogel, who was known to have relied upon Hoffman forgeries in his book Indian Origins. Can you be sure that no forgeries made it into your research?"

That's honestly how I remember it FWIW.

[Xander]

Why would Roper say he had a source to refute Reed, and then leave without presenting it?

Was he bluffing? If not, why leave?

Gee also said Jared's presentation refuted Reed's thesis, but when asked about this Jared laughed and said that was news to him. So what the heck was Gee talking about? They managed to dish out serious allegations and then leave without backing anything up. Not cool.

[Xander]

Gee's question, according to my recollection was:

"Your research leans on Vogel, who was known to have relied upon Hoffman forgeries in his book Indian Origins. Can you be sure that no forgeries made it into your research?"

That's honestly how I remember it FWIW.

But if Gee had paid any attention at all to Mike's presentation, he would have known that it would have been impossible for Hoffman to have forged the vast majority of the sources Mike used. So why float that out there at all.... to poison the well?

[Daniel Peterson]

Get a grip Dan, this was all tongue in cheek from the start.

Just a joke, then. With only a tangential relationship to what actually happened.

Got it.

If you want specifics, someone who was there said,

Again, who is "Mitchell"?

And are you seriously maintaining that Gee and Roper, who were apparently seated together, were "whispering" to Midgley clear across the room? (I have no idea where the mysterious "Mitchell" was sitting.)

I'm sure you could, if you tried really hard, find a way to turn these instigators into victims of some sort, but why would you want to? What do you make of Gee's question? Do you think it made sense? Do you think Gee was trying to discredit Reed in any way? Do you think he could have handled this better, as a gentleman and a scholar?

I feel far less confident than you plainly do in damning people as "instigators" on the basis of a second-hand account by somebody already disposed to be critical of them, critiquing the formulation of a question that I know only by way of a second-hand paraphrase from that same relatively unfriendly source, attempting to read the mind of somebody on the basis of a second-hand account of something he said, and offering suggestions to that person, again on the basis of a second-hand account from a critic, as to how he can improve his behavior and his scholarship.

It helps to understand that what you're writing on this thread is only tongue-in-cheek.

[Daniel Peterson]

Why would Roper say he had a source to refute Reed, and then leave without presenting it?

Was he bluffing? If not, why leave?

Perhaps because he had somewhere to go?

That's typically my reason for leaving a place.

Gee also said Jared's presentation refuted Reed's thesis, but when asked about this Jared laughed and said that was news to him. So what the heck was Gee talking about? They managed to dish out serious allegations and then leave without backing anything up. Not cool.

For not having been there, you certainly have everybody's movements, statements, and motivations pretty clearly labeled and categorized.

But if Gee had paid any attention at all to Mike's presentation, he would have known that it would have been impossible for Hoffman to have forged the vast majority of the sources Mike used. So why float that out there at all.... to poison the well?

Yeah. That's probably it. Those apologists. Unlike the critics, they're always impugning the motives of people with whom they disagree.

Well, I'm leaving.

But it's because I have someplace to go. Honest. Even though it looks bad, it's not because I'm a coward, or uncool, or bluffing, or trying to flee without backing up any statements you might care to attribute to me at third hand. Really. I have a lecture on campus at 7:10 for Education Week.

[Mike Reed]

To those who attended, did I misrepresent Gee's initial question or not?