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

[Chris Smith]

Gee didn't say the "unkowingly" part in the initial question. That was in one of the attempted clarifications. Which actually probably just added to the confusion.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

Again, who is "Mitchell"?

I believe the gentleman's name was George Mitchell. I could be wrong about that. George, Midgley, and Roper were sitting together. Gee was across the room. Midgley was the one whispering to his neighbors and shaking his head.

Not that any of this actually matters. I honestly don't know why we're still talking about this. It was awkward. Everyone probably could have handled it better, but these things happen. End of story.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

I have to ask why Mike shouldn’t have been confused and frustrated by a question that Gee didn’t understand himself and shouldn’t have asked? He was evidently trying to discredit two "anti-Mormons" with one stone, but he was merely shooting into the dark.

Indian Origins was published in 1986 right before Hoffman’s forgeries were exposed, and I along with some Mormon scholars—dare I say apologists—were fooled by the so-called “salamander letter” supposedly written by Martin Harris in 1827. I quoted it once in chapter one on “The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon” (see p. 14). I also quoted a phrase of a forged Josiah Stowell to JS letter on p. 12. In a footnote to the former letter, I made this statement:

17. Harris to Phelps, 23 Oct. 1830, in Church News, 28 April 1985, 6. The letter is discussed in Hill, 130-33, and in Time, 20 May 1985, 44. I am aware of the recent controversy surrounding this letter, as well as the Joseph Smith, Jr., to Josiah Stowell letter (see note 4). It is beyond the scope of this analysis to deal with either of these documents at great length. The particulars they reveal can be found in other contemporary sources. See, for example, John Phillip Walker, ed., Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), 219-319. Consequently, while they are important to the early years of Joseph Smith and, I believe, are valuable documents that deserve critical scrutiny, they are not essential to my approach to the Book of Mormon. (p. 78)

So, anyone reading the book today should be alerted to what was later discovered about these two documents. Nevertheless, the other sources I use in this chapter and throughout the book are not under any suspicion as Gee seemed to imply.

[Xander]

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

Give us a break Dan, I am only going by what I hear from those who were there, the same as you. The difference is I provided three first hand statements from people who witnessed the incident, whereas you've provided nothing except the usual rhetoric. Now you want to imply that these statements come from people who are "already disposed to be critical" of these instigators, obviously to minimize the significance of their testimony. But you do this based on what evidence? You don't even know who made these comments?

And I'll put my sources up against yours any day of the week as far as credibility is concerned. I know from past experience that you're going to be hyper-defensive when it comes to anyone saying anything less than flattering about your cohorts. I also know that there is virtually nothing they could do wrong to earn your condemnation. But the fact is these guys have a history of going around starting trouble like this (i.e. the Tanner bookstore incident). They knew what Mike's presentation was going to be about and they clearly planned to sandbag him during the Q&A. The question was ridiculous, but typical. I can't imagine Dan Vogel, Mike Reed or Chris Smith ever behaving in such a manner. Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe have been around for quite some time. Do you recall them ever acting this way during the Q&A periods? I certainly don't. And when they claim to have refuting evidence, they actually back up their claims. As Brent stuck around after a FAIR conference to present Michael Rhodes with evidence that his argument was in fact wrong. Mr. Rhodes agreed that he was wrong on that point after viewing Brent's images on his laptop. But Brent was cordial, he didn't make a spectacle of the matter nor was he trying to embarrass him in public.

[Mike Reed]

Dr Gee and Roper. I am still waiting for the sources that disprove my thesis. Gee also said seminar participant Jared's presentation contradicted my argument. Jared says "news to me." So Gee... While we are waiting for Roper's mysterious sources, please explain what you find in Jared's presentation to be contradictory.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Also, Gee, which of the examples specifically do you suspect to be Hoffman forgeries? And what are the reasons for your suspicions?

[Mike Reed]

Dan Vogel: He was evidently trying to discredit two "anti-Mormons" with one stone, but he was merely shooting into the dark.

Precisely.

[Joseph Antley]

For what it's worth I heard that the Bokovoy vs. Gardner showdown was ten tines more intense than Gee vs. Reed.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Joseph Antley

[Calm]

Also, Gee, which of the examples specifically do you suspect to be Hoffman forgeries? And what are the reasons for your suspicions?

Are you expecting Dr. Gee (and Matt Roper for the above questions) to post here or are you expecting someone to pass on these questions or have you emailed him these questions and are merely posting them here to demonstrate the current state of the discussion?....just to be clear about the purpose of the questions.

[Daniel Peterson]

"George Mitchell" is almost certainly George Mitton.

Reed: First of all, Dr. Gee hasn't been on this board for several years, and was only here a handful of times even back then. Secondly, it's rather uncivil, Reed, to address him by his last name in the fashion you do. A small thing, but, I think, a revealing one. You'd be best advised to drop it. I realize that you probably don't care about maintaining my good opinion of you, but persisting in addressing him that way will certainly not help you to do so.

Give us a break Dan,

I will. As you know, I prefer to have no interactions with you.

I'll revert to my usual policy very soon.

I am only going by what I hear from those who were there, the same as you.

I'm not drawing any grand conclusions, though. That's the difference between us.

The difference is I provided three first hand statements from people who witnessed the incident, whereas you've provided nothing except the usual rhetoric.

No, I've provided logic.

Now you want to imply that these statements come from people who are "already disposed to be critical" of these instigators, obviously to minimize the significance of their testimony.

Do you seriously believe that partisan loyalties don't color perceptions and memories of controversial events?

But you do this based on what evidence? You don't even know who made these comments?

You're too confident on that score.

And I'll put my sources up against yours any day of the week as far as credibility is concerned.

We have first-hand sources on this very thread that directly contradict your claims, failing to support your depiction of loud and angry voices, casting doubt upon the notion that people were "whispering" across the room, and so forth.

I know from past experience that you're going to be hyper-defensive when it comes to anyone saying anything less than flattering about your cohorts.

I'm going to try to interfere with the solidifying as fact of criticisms of friends that strike me as tendentious and even, very likely, flat wrong.

I also know that there is virtually nothing they could do wrong to earn your condemnation.

You actually scarcely know me at all. We've hardly met. You're not a friend.

But the fact is these guys have a history of going around starting trouble like this (i.e. the Tanner bookstore incident).

Some of that is pretty much mythological, too.

They knew what Mike's presentation was going to be about and they clearly planned to sandbag him during the Q&A.

Your hostile and speculative attempt at mind-reading doesn't count as actual fact, you know.

The question was ridiculous, but typical.

Mike Reed, people have said on this thread, didn't quite understand the question. (Whether that's true or not, I don't know. Like you, I wasn't there.) Yet you, a person who was not even there but who has a multi-year record of express hostility toward and contempt for John Gee, can understand it fully based on a second-hand paraphrase of it offered up by somebody else who is unsympathetic to John Gee and his position. And we're supposed to take your condemnation of it as something worth paying attention to.

I can't imagine Dan Vogel, Mike Reed or Chris Smith ever behaving in such a manner.

People are individuals. They differ. I can't imagine Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Kevin Barney, Stephen Ricks, Bill Hamblin, David Bokovoy, Greg Smith, or myself behaving quite that way, either. Everybody has a different personality.

That said, I'm not sure that anything happened at that meeting that merits this kind of operatic treatment. I don't buy the depiction of John Gee as a villain.

Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe have been around for quite some time. Do you recall them ever acting this way during the Q&A periods? I certainly don't.

Nor do I, off hand.

They're both pretty quiet people. Especially Dan Vogel.

And when they claim to have refuting evidence, they actually back up their claims.

Do they always do it within ninety minutes? Is that a new requirement? Who announced the rule?

As Brent stuck around after a FAIR conference to present Michael Rhodes with evidence that his argument was in fact wrong. Mr. Rhodes agreed that he was wrong on that point after viewing Brent's images on his laptop. But Brent was cordial, he didn't make a spectacle of the matter nor was he trying to embarrass him in public.

And, from the sound of it, Michael Rhodes was cordial, too.

Are you aware that he has been an officer of FARMS, and has written apologetics? Doesn't his example rather weaken your attempt to make this harmless little episode yet another morality-play illustration of The War of the Wicked Apologists against the Virtuous Critics?

[Mike Reed]

Dan says, "Mike Reed, you, a person who was not even there but who has a multi-year record of express hostility toward and contempt for John Gee"

I do? CFR.

I don't agree that me saying "Gee" or "Roper" shows disrespect. But feel free to think what you like..

Cal,

I would love to have a discussion with Dr Gee and Roper on this forum. And yes... I have emailed Dr Roper asking him for his mysterious source, but have received no response. Neither did Dr Roper stick around after my session (which had a break to follow) to give me the source he said he had.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Hyrum Page]

I think both Richard Bushman and Mike Reed deserve kudos. Richard Bushman deserves kudos for the seminar itself, and for encouraging Mike Reed to pursue the topic. Mike Reed deserves kudos for doing excellent research. Everyone is a winner here. Hopefully he will publish his findings so that more people can see the evidence that shows that some people in Joseph Smith's day were aware of the concept of texts inscribed on metal plates. Of course, I am sure we will all find out various ways to continue fighting over the issue, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mike really accomplished something worthwhile here.

[Mike Reed]

For what it is worth, I did not call out a single FARMS author or apologist in my paper. Instead, I wrote my paper in a way that actually supported a remark made by Apostle Parley P. Pratt.

[Xander]

Reed: First of all, Dr. Gee hasn't been on this board for several years, and was only here a handful of times even back then. Secondly, it's rather uncivil, Reed, to address him by his last name in the fashion you do. A small thing, but, I think, a revealing one. You'd be best advised to drop it. I realize that you probably don't care about maintaining my good opinion of you, but persisting in addressing him that way will certainly not help you to do so.

Unbelievable. Dan wants us to believe Mike has actually done something malicious to warrant him dropping his so-called "good opinion" of him (as if we could ever expect to see Dan express such an opinion in public; Mike is an "apostate" critic, after all). Dan is going to think lowly of anyone who his friends attack, period. I know this from personal experience.

I will. As you know, I prefer to have no interactions with you.

Yes, you are well advised to drop it as soon as possible. This isn't looking good for you at all.

I'm not drawing any grand conclusions, though. That's the difference between us.

My only "grand conclusion" is that these men tried to discredit Reed in a very unprofessional manner. This conclusion is completely supported by the evidence. It is consistent with their history as belligerent apologists. Also consistent is your blind loyalty to them no matter how badly they behave.

No, I've provided logic.

What "logic"? The bald assertion that Reed is disposed to hold them in contempt? He asked for a CFR, and just like Roper, you haven't provided. You're making the instigators the victims, which is typical. But the evidence won't bear that out.

Do you seriously believe that partisan loyalties don't color perceptions and memories of controversial events?

So all these testimonies are just exagerrating because they are biased against Gee? Sorry, but I know these people well enough to know they're not making this stuff up. You're going to believe what you want based on your own predispositions to defend your friends and reject all critical perspectives. I get it.

We have first-hand sources on this very thread that directly contradict your claims, failing to support your depiction of loud and angry voices, casting doubt upon the notion that people were "whispering" across the room, and so forth.

You're not accurately representing the testimonies.

On the contrary, the only other first hand accounts were by LDS apologist Joseph Antley, sat in the "back row" with his head down because it was a very awkward moment for him, and then we have Balkan (LDS?) - who sat at some undisclosed location with an undisclosed view- only says he "didn't notice" the whispering (which isn't a denial) but confirms Chris's testimony that there was obvious friction between Reed and Gee. Balkin threw in his assumption that this must have been because there was a "history" between them, but that isn't clear from the incident itself. Now why would he think there was a "history" when all he had to work from was Gee's question which he agreed was intended as a "gotcha" question? No Dan, there is no "contradiction" here. And the exact description, as I have pointed out twice now, was that Gee's voice became more "agitated" as he was asked to clarify his ridiculous question. You keep bringing up the "loud angry" voice for straw man purposes. He said his voice became agitated as he repeated the question, and I don't see Chris making that up but I do see Gee acting in such a manner because of my own personal experience.

I'm going to try to interfere with the solidifying as fact of criticisms of friends that strike me as tendentious and even, very likely, flat wrong.

But you do this for no reason other than blind loyalty. You jump to defend your buddies even when the evidence clearly shows they were there to create contention. That's it.

[Xander]

You actually scarcely know me at all. We've hardly met. You're not a friend.

I've had dozens and dozens of email exchanges with you dating back to 1999 and there was a time when I opened up to you as a concerned, struggling member who didn't like some of the rumors being spread around by some of your FARMS buddies, and even though I presented evidence that was quite compelling, you wanted nothing to do with it and told me you had to cease communications with me because I was talking bad about your friends. This is a fact. So yes I know from first hand experience that you put loyalty to the FARMS clan above all else. I don't need to be identified as your "friend" or to have lunch with you, or be invited to your family get-togethers, in order to know first hand how strong your loyalties are to these people. From "Metcalfe is Butthead" to the Midgley/Roper ambush at the Tanner Bookstore to Tvetdness' and Midgley's demonstrably false rumors about Metcalfe, you had nothing to say about these matters except to offer a blind defense for your friends and in some cases, attack those who dared complain about these incidents. And now years late the same guys are involved in yet another ambush and all you can think to do is criticize me for interpreting first hand accounts and draw a conclusion that runs consistent with their known history. Color me surprised.

Some of that is pretty much mythological, too

See what I mean? You have no facts to back up anything you say. All you have is dismissive rhetoric.

Your hostile and speculative attempt at mind-reading doesn't count as actual fact, you know.

Oh really Dan? Does it make sense to say it was mind-reading that they knew what Mike's presentation was about when it was already advertised?

Mike Reed, people have said on this thread, didn't quite understand the question. (Whether that's true or not, I don't know. Like you, I wasn't there.) Yet you, a person who was not even there but who has a multi-year record of express hostility toward and contempt for John Gee, can understand it fully based on a second-hand paraphrase of it offered up by somebody else who is unsympathetic to John Gee and his position. And we're supposed to take your condemnation of it as something worth paying attention to.

Every testimony of the account says the same thing. John Gee asked a really stupid question. Even Balkin's account admits that Gee was trying to do a "gotcha" and said it seemed as though there was a history between them based on the way he asked his question. This is perfectly consistent with Chris' description that Gee's voice appeared more agitated as he repeates the question. But how good of you to rush to the defense of the instigators.

That said, I'm not sure that anything happened at that meeting that merits this kind of operatic treatment. I don't buy the depiction of John Gee as a villain.

No one said villain. I said instigator, and he most certainly was that. The reason you're switching to this "villain" straw man is because you know you cannot defend him as an instigator.

Do they always do it within ninety minutes? Is that a new requirement? Who announced the rule?

Unbelievable. So you see no problem whatsoever by throwing out an accusation that someone has just purported to give a scholarly presentation, when in fact it was just based on falsehoods, and saying you have the proof in your lap, and then turn around and leave the premises without backing that allegation. That's perfectly fine Dan? I'll remember that the next time you're presenting on something. How would you like it if someone accused you, in public, of being such a poor scholar, insinuating that you were dumb enough to rely on forgeries to build your case, and then the accuser leaves without validating the charge? The damage to Reed had already been done and Gee knew this. He didn' t have to back up anything, all he had to do was float that negative meme out there, followed by that ridiculous question that was probably designed to make Mike respond in a confused manner. "Did you know you unknowingly..."

And, from the sound of it, Michael Rhodes was cordial, too.

Of course he was. My point is that Brent Metcalfe challenged him after he presented his arguments, but he did so in a very polite manner. He wasn't out to embarrass the guy, despite the fact that what he was saying was very embarrassing. Rhodes was good enough to accept the evidence and admit he was in fact wrong to follow John Gee's and Hugh Nibley's apologetic nonsense. After all, he had never seen the KEP before so he was just going off what those two had previous asserted.

Are you aware that he has been an officer of FARMS, and has written apologetics?

So?

Doesn't his example rather weaken your attempt to make this harmless little episode yet another morality-play illustration of The War of the Wicked Apologists against the Virtuous Critics?

Your problem is your false characterization of what I'm saying. You don't get to absolve Gee, Roper and Midgley just because Rhodes is a decent fellow. I'm saying these guys were instigators at this event. I said nothing about a "War of the Wicked Apologists against the Virtuous Critics." That you would think along these lines helps us better understand your intense and blind devotion to your long-time friends. It must be a "war" to you guys, huh? That explains plenty. I can name plenty of apologists who are decent fellows and I can name more than a few critics who are complete jerks. And I can say this without feeling I have given something up. Can you say the same?

Apparently not. Where and when have you ever criticized anyone from FARMS/MI? You won't even condemn the actions of Will Schryver, whose behavior was so abhorrent that the authorities at the Maxwell Institute threw him off their publication schedule because they wanted nothing to do with him or his antics. But like you, Will has made it perfectly clear he thinks he is involved in a "war" between good and evil; war involving evil critics working for satan, virtuous saints, double-agents and even trojan horses.

For you, all that seems to matter is whether or not a person tries to be a loyal apologist. If so, they can call you friend and count on you to rush to their defense when needed. If a critic, then forget about it. You're going to find an excuse to have a "low opinion" of them, based on that alone.

[Okrahomer]

Dan says, "Mike Reed, you, a person who was not even there but who has a multi-year record of express hostility toward and contempt for John Gee"

I do? CFR.

Please check your quote which somehow omitted the first part of Dr. Peterson’s remarks. Dr. Peterson was not describing you (Mike Reed) as “a person who was not even there…”) rather he was addressing those remarks to Xander. Here is the full quote with emphasis added to the missing portion:

Xander said:

“The question was ridiculous, but typical.”

Dan Peterson replied to Xander:

“Mike Reed, people have said on this thread, didn't quite understand the question. (Whether that's true or not, I don't know. Like you, I wasn't there.) Yet you [Xander], a person who was not even there but who has a multi-year record of express hostility toward and contempt for John Gee, can understand it fully based on a second-hand paraphrase of it offered up by somebody else who is unsympathetic to John Gee and his position. And we're supposed to take your condemnation of it as something worth paying attention to.”

[Senator]

Mole hill, meet Mountain!

Sheez...

[David Bokovoy]

I don't buy the depiction of John Gee as a villain.

Nor do I, for the record. I've interacted with both John and Matt for several years and think very highly of both men. John has always been very kind to me, even when we've held differences of opinions.

Mole hill, meet Mountain!

Sheez...

Indeed!

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan says, "Mike Reed, you, a person who was not even there but who has a multi-year record of express hostility toward and contempt for John Gee"

I do? CFR.

If, by "CFR," you intended to say "Call for Re-Reading," I agree with you.

Your hybridized, manufactured "quote" from me, above," is inaccurate and a misrepresentation. I was addressing Xander, not you. Xander, under his various on-line names, has a long and easily demonstrated history of publicly expressed contempt for John Gee.

I don't agree that me saying "Gee" or "Roper" shows disrespect

In the third person, it doesn't. In the second person, except for certain kinds of discourse with people with whom the speaker has a very particular kind of relationship, it very much does.

But feel free to think what you like..

Thank you. I do and will.

I think both Richard Bushman and Mike Reed deserve kudos. Richard Bushman deserves kudos for the seminar itself, and for encouraging Mike Reed to pursue the topic.

I join in the kudos to Richard Bushman, and I'm certainly happy to look at what Mike Reed has come up with. (Unlike Xander and Hyrum Page, I can't really judge the quality of research from a few sentences of second-hand reports from partisans on a message board. It would certainly make grading papers and sitting on thesis committees much easier if I had that ability!)

Mike Reed deserves kudos for doing excellent research.

Maybe so.

Everyone is a winner here.

Really? But I thought that Midgley and "Mitchell" and Roper and Gee and apologists generally were supposed to be losers here.

Hopefully he will publish his findings so that more people can see the evidence that shows that some people in Joseph Smith's day were aware of the concept of texts inscribed on metal plates.

I agree that he should publish his research.

Of course, I am sure we will all find out various ways to continue fighting over the issue, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mike really accomplished something worthwhile here.

I would like to see precisely what he did before I join the chorus at full volume.

[Daniel Peterson]

Unbelievable. Dan wants us to believe Mike has actually done something malicious to warrant him dropping his so-called "good opinion" of him (as if we could ever expect to see Dan express such an opinion in public; Mike is an "apostate" critic, after all).

Believable.

Please note: Dan suggested that, in his judgment, it was rude, abrupt, and uncivil to address people in a forum such as this by their unadorned last names. That's all. Note, by contrast, the relatively comprehensive character of Xander's counterattack

Dan is going to think lowly of anyone who his friends attack, period. I know this from personal experience.

My low opinion of Xander comes from direct personal experience of his perpetually hyper-aggressive manner. I stopped interacting with him because I rapidly grew tired of it. No friend had to point it out to me.

He's putting that same manner on display here on this thread, yet again -- albeit, so far, in a somewhat subdued way (for him).

My only "grand conclusion" is that these men tried to discredit Reed in a very unprofessional manner. This conclusion is completely supported by the evidence.

It goes considerably beyond the evidence. Others, who were actually there (which Xander was not) and even some who roughly share Xander's partisan position, have downplayed or contradicted several of the "facts" upon which Xander's portrayal rests. Their accounts have denied the loud and angry voices depicted by Xander. They have cast doubts on the loud whispering that, Xander says, connected the whole "FARMS corner." (That Lou Midgley was making comments throughout the presentation I can readily believe. He typically does. But there was no "FARMS corner." They apparently weren't all even sitting together.) And the rest of Xander's melodrama depends upon his long-distance, hostile divination of their unannounced motives.

Silly stuff. There's no "there" there.

It is consistent with their history as belligerent apologists.

It's consistent with Xander's demonization of them, true. But not particularly supported by the facts.

Also consistent is your blind loyalty to them no matter how badly they behave.

Xander evidently hasn't noticed yet that others here -- eyewitnesses, unlike himself, even though in one or two cases more or less on his side -- have declined to join him in his depiction of Gee and Roper and Midgley and "Mitchell" as villains.

You're making the instigators the victims, which is typical.

The "instigators"?

They asked questions after a presentation. That's all. Virtually every academic presentation I've ever heard, when it has been followed by questions, has received questions that were sometimes bad, ill-thought-through, challenging, critical, hostile, emotional. Even if I were to grant, for purposes of discussion, that the questions posed by John Gee and Matt Roper were all of these things, that would scarcely justify calling them "instigators." It's academic give-and-take. That's the way the game is played. It's par for the course. At the very first professional conference that I ever attended, the Middle East Studies Association annual meeting in San Francisco back in about 1984, there was a memorably impassioned exchange about -- and I'm not making this up -- whether spinach consumption was higher in Baghdad or in rural Iraq during the eighteenth century. Nobody was a villain or an "instigator" in that exchange.

So all these testimonies are just exagerrating because they are biased against Gee? Sorry, but I know these people well enough to know they're not making this stuff up. You're going to believe what you want based on your own predispositions to defend your friends and reject all critical perspectives. I get it.

No, you don't.

I'm not talking about anybody making anything up. I'm talking about coloration, or tinge, or even "spin." It's human nature. Not confined either to virtuous critics or wicked apologists.

I've scarcely spoken with or heard from anybody on my "side" regarding this epic confrontation that you're depicting. My sense is that they don't seem to think it was all that important. But can anybody reasonably doubt that their account of it would likely differ from your version?

Anyway, it's not your sources that I mostly suspect. It's you. There's a substantial gap between what the eyewitness sources have said -- even the ones from your "side"; by and large, we haven't heard from the other "side" -- and what you're claiming.

But you do this for no reason other than blind loyalty. You jump to defend your buddies even when the evidence clearly shows they were there to create contention. That's it.

But the evidence doesn't "show they were there to create contention." It's not even clear that they -- all of them? Midgley and "Mitchell" and Gee and Roper? just Midgley and Gee and Roper? just Gee and Roper? just Gee? -- caused contention, let alone that that was their conscious intent, that they spent the whole day there just to cause an uproar (for which there is little or no evidence anyway) during the Q&A session after Mike Reed's presentation.

I've had dozens and dozens of email exchanges with you dating back to 1999 and there was a time when I opened up to you as a concerned, struggling member who didn't like some of the rumors being spread around by some of your FARMS buddies, and even though I presented evidence that was quite compelling, you wanted nothing to do with it and told me you had to cease communications with me because I was talking bad about your friends. This is a fact. So yes I know from first hand experience that you put loyalty to the FARMS clan above all else.

I scarcely remember the episode, but it doesn't ring true.

I don't need to be identified as your "friend" or to have lunch with you, or be invited to your family get-togethers, in order to know first hand how strong your loyalties are to these people. From "Metcalfe is Butthead" to the Midgley/Roper ambush at the Tanner Bookstore to Tvetdness' and Midgley's demonstrably false rumors about Metcalfe, you had nothing to say about these matters except to offer a blind defense for your friends and in some cases, attack those who dared complain about these incidents.

That's a whole litany of misdeeds by wicked apologists -- to a certain degree mythological -- where my opinion differs from yours. But, in my experience with you, differing from you is not legitimate, and calls for total war. Which is why I have chosen, for years now, not to interact with you.

And now years late the same guys are involved in yet another ambush and all you can think to do is criticize me for interpreting first hand accounts and draw a conclusion that runs consistent with their known history. Color me surprised.

An "ambush"?

Ridiculous.

No one said villain. I said instigator, and he most certainly was that. The reason you're switching to this "villain" straw man is because you know you cannot defend him as an instigator.

Joseph Antley used the word on this thread, to deny that John Gee was or behaved like a villain. Chris Smith chimed in to agree.

You may not have used the word, but to call him an "instigator," to depict him as having come to the symposium in order "to create contention," to describe what he did as an "ambush," to accuse him of "designing" to do "damage" to somebody, to recite a long list of his purported past misdeeds and of the supposed past misdeeds of those with whom he was sitting (or, actually, not sitting), and so forth, is to portray him as a villain in your soap opera.

[Daniel Peterson]

Unbelievable. So you see no problem whatsoever by throwing out an accusation that someone has just purported to give a scholarly presentation, when in fact it was just based on falsehoods, and saying you have the proof in your lap, and then turn around and leave the premises without backing that allegation. That's perfectly fine Dan?

Believable.

I wasn't there. Neither were you. I've known John Gee for many, many, many years, and I'm disinclined to condemn him publicly on the basis of a second-hand paraphrase of a question asked during a Q&A session following a paper with which I'm unfamiliar. You, obviously, are fully so inclined. That's the difference between us on this matter.

I'll remember that the next time you're presenting on something. How would you like it if someone accused you, in public, of being such a poor scholar, insinuating that you were dumb enough to rely on forgeries to build your case, and then the accuser leaves without validating the charge?

Much depends upon precise language and exact tone. I wasn't there. Neither were you.

If somebody asked me, following a presentation, whether I was aware that a source on which I had drawn was suspect, I would regard that as a serious question and a legitimate one. I might have a good answer to it. If I did, I would give it. If I didn't, I would seek to find one. This isn't The Battle of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.

I've been asked plenty of hostile questions at various gatherings. You live with it. It goes with the territory.

The damage to Reed had already been done and Gee knew this. He didn' t have to back up anything, all he had to do was float that negative meme out there, followed by that ridiculous question that was probably designed to make Mike respond in a confused manner. "Did you know you unknowingly..."

And yet this supposed purposeful design to damage Mike Reed by public innuendo was not the work of a villain?

I said nothing about a "War of the Wicked Apologists against the Virtuous Critics."

True. That's me, expressing what I think of this silly melodrama that you've ginned up, in which a somewhat hostile and even confrontational question -- perhaps even one that led to awkwardness -- in a post-presentation Q&A, which is a fairly common thing, is transmogrified into an "ambush" reflecting an apologist plot (merely the latest in a long list of horrendous acts by the apologetic cabal, which contrasts with the blessedly wonderful behavior of a named list of saintly critics) "designed" to "create confrontation" and to "damage" Mike Reed.

You won't even condemn the actions of Will Schryver, whose behavior was so abhorrent that the authorities at the Maxwell Institute threw him off their publication schedule because they wanted nothing to do with him or his antics.

I think Will Schryver has been unjustly demonized.

But like you, Will has made it perfectly clear he thinks he is involved in a "war" between good and evil; war involving evil critics working for satan, virtuous saints, double-agents and even trojan horses.

I don't actually think in those terms, and have never written anything demonstrating that I do.

For you, all that seems to matter is whether or not a person tries to be a loyal apologist. If so, they can call you friend and count on you to rush to their defense when needed. If a critic, then forget about it. You're going to find an excuse to have a "low opinion" of them, based on that alone.

I simply object to your attempt to demonize John Gee. (And Matt Roper and Lou Midgley and "Mitchell" and, by extension, the Maxwell Institute.) It doesn't rest on sound evidence. That's all.

You're attempting, as others here have justly observed, to manufacture a mountain out of a mole hill. I object.

[Hyrum Page]

I join in the kudos to Richard Bushman, and I'm certainly happy to look at what Mike Reed has come up with. (Unlike Xander and Hyrum Page, I can't really judge the quality of research from a few sentences of second-hand reports from partisans on a message board. It would certainly make grading papers and sitting on thesis committees much easier if I had that ability!)

Well, unless you are suggesting Mike made up his sources, that Gee's Hoffman insinuation has teeth, or Mike egregiously misrepresented his sources, I would say that at the very least he discovered good evidence to support the contention that not a few people in Joseph Smith's day were familiar with the concept of ancient records on metal plates. Also, I don't look at congratulating friends in exactly the same way I view the responsibility to scrutinize theses and exams. But thanks for the laughs.

Really? But I thought that Midgley and "Mitchell" and Roper and Gee and apologists generally were supposed to be losers here.

If they behaved like losers, then maybe they are. But in the larger view, which was what I was speaking about, it is definitely beneficial to everyone to learn more about the actual evidence of what was going on in Joseph Smith's day, instead of trading on hand-me-down folk stories that may not in fact be correct. My guess is that Mike has done exactly that. I have no reason to think otherwise.

I agree that he should publish his research.

I would like to see precisely what he did before I join the chorus at full volume.

You've hardly joined it at all, but I didn't really expect that you would. At the very least you could congratulate Mike for his hard work and for having presented, but I am not really expecting that either.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, unless you are suggesting Mike made up his sources,

I'm not, of course.

that Gee's Hoffman insinuation has teeth,

I don't know precisely what Dr. Gee's "insinuation," as you call it, was. I'm hearing about it at second (or, with Xander, at third) hand, from people who are, on the whole, not particularly sympathetic to John Gee.

or Mike egregiously misrepresented his sources,

I haven't suggested that, either.

My position on this thread isn't particularly wild. In fact, it's downright biblical: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs 18:13).

I object to Xander's efforts here to demonize John Gee, and Matt Roper, and Lou Midgley, and "Mitchell," and the Maxwell Institute, on the basis of what was, at worst, a somewhat adversarial question following a paper presentation.

I would say that at the very least he discovered good evidence to support the contention that not a few people in Joseph Smith's day were familiar with the concept of ancient records on metal plates.

He may well have.

Of course, Vogel and Metcalfe and others have already long since shown that various published materials mentioned writing on metal plates, which is hardly surprising since it's also mentioned in Josephus and certain classical sources.

How widely was it known among the masses? I don't know. Was the concept of a "Gold Bible" ridiculed in early nineteenth-century America? Absolutely. On precisely what grounds? I don't know. Given my own personal limitations, I would have to look at the sources before I opined. Has Mike Reed dealt with that aspect of the matter? I have no idea. I didn't attend his presentation, and I haven't read his paper.

If they behaved like losers, then maybe they are.

Maybe. But I haven't seen any evidence that they behaved like losers, and I've known them for many years, so I doubt it -- and will say so.

You've hardly joined it at all, but I didn't really expect that you would. At the very least you could congratulate Mike for his hard work and for having presented, but I am not really expecting that either.

Why do you not expect that? Because I'm just not a nice or decent person?

Sigh. I thought we were well past that, but I guess not.

Of course Mike deserves compliments for his efforts and for presenting. (Mike! Congratulations on the work you put into your paper, and on presenting at the recent symposium!) I'm just not yet ready, sight unseen, to provide a full-throated endorsement of his paper and whatever conclusions it may come to. (I don't know, not even very approximately, what they are.)

For Mike Reed: In case it's lost in all the other silliness here, sincere congratulations to you for the work you put into your paper and presentation. I look forward to reading what you've written. I regret that I was unable to attend your presentation. (I had been planning to be there, but I ended up having another meeting that I simply could not fail to attend.)

Edited August 20, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Hyrum Page]

I don't know precisely what Dr. Gee's "insinuation," as you call it, was. I'm hearing about it at second (or, with Xander, at third) hand, from people who are, on the whole, not particularly sympathetic to John Gee.

Please let us know what you find out, when you check up on it. From what I have read in the comments of apologists and critics alike, it seems that the possible taint of Hoffman forgeries, however indirect, was being used to cast doubt on Mike's findings.

My position on this thread isn't particularly wild. In fact, it's downright biblical: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs 18:13).

My position is this: I am supporting a friend whom I have always found to be an excellent researcher. In these circumstances, I have no reason to believe that he did not find the evidence he claimed to find.

I object to Xander's efforts here to demonize John Gee, and Matt Roper, and Lou Midgley, and "Mitchell," and the Maxwell Institute, on the basis of what was, at worst, a somewhat adversarial question following a paper presentation.

Yes, that "adversarial questioning" seems to be the source of the controversy, since evidently, even according to your own reckoning of the metal plates question, there was no apparent need to be adversarial. I guess we'll have to see. I would love to know what prompted John Gee and Matt Roper to take an aggressive approach in their questions. I am having trouble figuring out why that might be.

Maybe. But I haven't seen any evidence that they behaved like losers, and I've known them for many years, so I doubt it -- and will say so.

It was a conditional sentence, Daniel. It was not an assertion that they did act like losers.

Why do you not expect that? Because I'm just not a nice or decent person?

Sigh. I thought we were well past that, but I guess not.

I guess we are back to you reading the worst into my statements, yes. Other than that, I don't know what you think we are back to. I did not expect you to praise Mike's work in advance of reading it, because you are extremely cautious, and one can readily understand why. I did not expect you to congratulate him in general because you don't go out of your way to pat the backs of people you view as hostile to the LDS Church. Is that unfair of me to say?

I'm just not yet ready, sight unseen, to provide a full-throated endorsement of his paper and whatever conclusions it may come to. (I don't know, not even very approximately, what they are.)

Well, thanks for telling us that you are not prepared to provide something that was not asked for. Now everyone knows not to ask. Was anyone going to ask? Everybody? What do you say?

Edited August 20, 2011 by Hyrum Page

[Daniel Peterson]

Please let us know what you find out, when you check up on it. From what I have read in the comments of apologists and critics alike, it seems that the possible taint of Hoffman forgeries, however indirect, was being used to cast doubt on Mike's findings.

Dependence on Hofmann forgeries has tainted more than a few studies on Mormon and American-historical topics, written by more established scholars than Mike Reed. It happens.

I've not heard Mike Reed's presentation nor read his paper. Nor have I heard precisely what John Gee asked. I don't know how salient the question was.

And I'm happy to say so.

My position is this: I am supporting a friend whom I have always found to be an excellent researcher. In these circumstances, I have no reason to believe that he did not find the evidence he claimed to find.

He may well have found the evidence he claimed to find. Whether that adds up to an excellent and praiseworthy paper, though, is something that I, at least, am in no real position to judge. I've had more than a few student papers (in my senior seminar class) that have also found the evidence that they claimed to find. But they were not excellent papers, because they had misframed the issues and/or contributed nothing really new, etc. I cannot pronounce a paper excellent without reading it. That's a personal quirk of mine.

Yes, that "adversarial questioning" seems to be the source of the controversy, since evidently, even according to your own reckoning of the metal plates question, there was no apparent need to be adversarial.

There was no need to be adversarial with regard to spinach consumption in early modern Iraq, either. But these things happen. And their happening doesn't demonstrate conspiracy, malicious intent to harm, design and plotting, instigation of unrest, or any other such operatic nonsense.

I guess we'll have to see. I would love to know what prompted John Gee and Matt Roper to take an aggressive approach in their questions. I am having trouble figuring out why that might be.

Most of what I've heard here has been about the perennially evil John Gee.

I have a fairly difficult time imagining the affable and mild-mannered Matt Roper being as aggressive as the non-eyewitness Xander assures us he was (along with the dark and sinister "Mitchell," of course).

you don't go out of your way to pat the backs of people you view as hostile to the LDS Church. Is that unfair of me to say?

No, that's not.

But I'm not aggressively hostile toward them generally, either.