...or so says John Gee.

In his 'testimony' on Mormon Scholars (mostly living) Testify:

'What if the Church of Jesus Christ is not true?...then Egyptology is a waste of time.'

He also makes, what appear to be, some disparaging remarks about his Non-LDS colleagues:

'Some Egyptologists even imagine that they are engaged in science, even though in theory and substance what we do is not remotely like what science does. We do not think like scientists.'

Do we have any Egyptologists who would like to venture an opinion on John Gee's stated belief about the field of Egyptology?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 07:46AM by Stumbling.

Not an expert but my trip to Egypt was followed by my exit. The BOA is utterly damning for the church. Smith was a FRAUD.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

"Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn't. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ."

To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.

"This is what we as Latter-day Saints care about," he said. "It is what is important."

The critics may regard that as vain superstition, he said, "but they seem to deem it not even worthy of attack. What they attack is simply not important to the Latter-day Saints."

--------------
Thanks for posting is latest outing by Gee. It helps us to remember just how unimportant reality is for the mormons.

I have no degree or education in Egyptology. I'm nobody. So who should I believe? Gee's words or those of his teacher? Gee was a student of Robert K. Ritner. Dr. Ritner said this:

"With regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am constrained to note that unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so that I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings, Gee’s opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or Chicago."

The sources for Dr. Ritner's quote: The "Breathing Permit of Hor" Thirty-four Years Later by Robert K. Ritner.

It was first published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 2000

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_107.pdf
page 103 (pdf page 7)

It was published again in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July 2003

http://www.bookofabraham.com/ritner_article.pdf
page 167 (pdf page 7)

Gee's words seem like a non-scientific attempt at trying to make a pseudo history seem credible. I think I'll believe Dr. Ritner. Gee seems deluded.

One of the first things I discovered as I began to "transition" out of Mormonism was that the BoA was totally bogus. I did not have, at that time, access to all this remarkable information, nevertheless, I was able to see the light.

It's the other way around. With Egyptology the Church is nothing. That's why a Mormon Egyptologist has to attack Egyptology.

Nibley may have doubled down on the BoA but no-one who is not a mormon regards his work as scientific - he only ever published in church publications

Isn't the phrase "Mormon Egyptologist" an oxymoron?


~VOW

What an odd thing to say. Why does anyone EVER study ancient civilizations? I suspect that most people don't do it to prop up their religious beliefs, but because they are actually interested in the past.

I happen to think Egyptology is fascinating, far beyond just debunking JS as a prophet.

When your income is dependent upon proving a certain point, it can affect your professionalism.

Please excuse my stupidity. I don't understand this statement, so I'm hoping you all can carefully, using small single-syllable words, explain it to me.

Gee:
'What if the Church of Jesus Christ is not true?...then Egyptology is a waste of time.'

I'll do my best...

What I believe Gee means is that Egyptology serves only one purpose - to show that the Mormon Church is true.
If the Mormon Church didn't exist, they'd be no point in studying Egyptology.

Stumbling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll do my best...
>
> What I believe Gee means is that Egyptology serves
> only one purpose - to show that the Mormon Church
> is true.
> If the Mormon Church didn't exist, they'd be no
> point in studying Egyptology.


Does this attitude also apply to everything else mormonism touches? such as studies of Mayan, metallurgy, agriculture, family & social dynamics, computer databases, the internet...

I think he has a personal belief system called "moroncentric", which is like geocentric or anthropomorphic tendencies--everything is cast into the likeness of or revolves around a moron.
I'd say mormoncentric, but even my lamest mormon friends aren't this moronic.

Also, a comment on the other quote from Gee:
Some Egyptologists even imagine that they are engaged in science, even though in theory and substance what we do is not remotely like what science does. We do not think like scientists.'

He's psychologically projecting. He's not thinking like a scientist, so he assumes his colleagues aren't either. It's part of Gee's moroncentricism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 04:12PM by Jesus Smith.

I took an Egyptology class about ten years ago, and the U of U professor--a lovely and sharp Polish lady--griped that her reputation was tainted by Utah's connection with BYU... And she's a very credible scholar...

The old MA&D Board made a lot of Gee's claims, but one of his supervisers, Robert Ritner--now of the University of Chicago--asked to be removed from Gee's committee because of the absurdity of his claims.

Cabbie, how do you know Ritner's motivation was the absurdity of Gee's claims?
(This subject is being discussed as we speak on another board)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 04:48PM by Stumbling.

"One of Gee's former Yale professors, Robert K. Ritner, later publicly criticized some of Gee's interpretations of the Joseph Smith Papyri and failure to include Ritner in professional peer reviews of his work, as his other students have."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gee

I can't link this site, but if "Stumbling" doesn't know about its existence, I can't help it...

Quoting a poster who frequents that board and Mormon Dialogue...

>I recently emailed Robert Ritner about this subject. To my astonishment, he seemed oblivious that these kinds of comments had been floating around in Mormon apologetics. I would have thought that someone would have emailed him about this over the years. His response to me is as follows.

>Dear Mr. [redacted],

>Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason.

>Sincerely,
>Robert Ritner

There's no point in provoking new board wars with this material; there are other sites to argue/discuss the BOM; I find the forgeries of Mark Hofmann slightly more interesting because they are less clumsy than the BOA, but they really don't interest me either. Now the people and personalities... Shoot, some of them are friends of mine...

How fucking crazy is this position:

Except for Mormonism there is no purpose to studying ancient Egypt.

What if 'Two and a Half Men' is not true?.....then chiropractic is a waste of time.

http://www.irr.org/mit/book-of-abraham-page.html

Now look at what John Gee has to say about the Book of Abraham...

What I had was admittedly a report from another board on Ritner's motives, but Ritner has gone out of his way to address Gee's apologetic claims...

If you're going to listen to what "defenders of the faith" say about Egyptology, you're going to be listening to a lot of liars. Starting with Hugh Nibley...

All credible Egyptologists will dismiss Mormon claims out of hand, mostly with something like "bunk."

Now check out my "Great Lehi Boatbuilding and Sailing Challenge" on the matter of the sheer impossibility of Lehi's voyage... It didn't happen. No maritime compass, no transoceanic voyage...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 05:06PM by SL Cabbie.

Most everyone else smiles politely and talks about him behind his back - if they pay any attention to him at all.

The greatest Pharoah, a woman, Queen Hapchepshut (not sure ofspelling would have convinced Smith that he was nothing at all. She reigned and huge sophisticated civilization for 60 years. Egypt, dont even touch it Smith, you are not worthy of one grain of sand.

matilda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The greatest Pharoah, a woman, Queen Hapchepshut
> (not sure ofspelling would have convinced Smith
> that he was nothing at all. She reigned and huge
> sophisticated civilization for 60 years. Egypt,
> dont even touch it Smith, you are not worthy of
> one grain of sand.

Hatshepsut was not only Queen of Egypt. She was KING of
Egypt. She was the first known female ruler of a great
nation. Before her females were only powerful by their ability
to influence male rulers (either as wives, or mistresses).
Hatshepsut ruled as King of Egypt, wearing the false beard of
authority etc.

However I wouldn't say she was the "greatest Pharaoh." Either
Tuthmose III (who was her stepson, nephew and coregent), or
Amenhotep III, or Ramesses II, (all from the fabulous 18th
dynasty, as was Hatshepsut) or Seferu from the Old Kingdom
would rate higher.

In my studies of Middle Egyptian I did have the opportunity to
translate Hatshepsut's obelisk at Karnak, and (more
satisfyingly) her record of the Expedition to Punt carved on
the walls of her mortuary temple at Deir Al Bahri.

Shortly after her reign an effort was made to eradicate her
from Egyptian history. Evidently having a female ruler in your
past didn't look good to neighboring powers. A similar attempt
at historical eradication happened with the heretic king
Akhenaten. However we know a TON of stuff about both
Hatshepsut and Akhenaten. To me this shows how difficult it is
to eradicate things from history. So when people tell me that
there's no record of the Israelites in Egypt (over a million
for a few centuries) because the Egyptians eradicated them from
history, I have to smile and say, "yeah, right."

By the way, here's how you spell her name:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/59/158759-004-0230BF7A.jpg

A recent book about Hatshepsut by a respected Egyptologist is
"The Woman who Would Be King" by Kara Cooney

http://www.amazon.com/The-Woman-Who-Would-King/dp/0307956768

Then all this internet porn is a waste of time.

The BOA IS SUCH AN EMBARASSMENT IT WILL NOT BE PRINTED. IT WILL SLOWLY BE BACK TO THE BOM AND TRYING TO BE MAINSTREAM. RED FACES ALL AROUND FOR THE MORMON CHURCH. AFTER TRAVELLING IN EGYPT ALL I COULD THINK WAS HOW AMAZING THE CULTURE. THE FACT THAT THEY CUT OF THE HEAD AND PENIS ON THE ORIGINAL PARCHMENT AND TRIED TO SELL IT AS ORIGINAL IS OUTRAGEOUS. ALSO MAMA SMITH USED TO HAVE A CASH REGISTER AT THE DOOR TO COLLECT A VIEWING FEE FOR SEEING THE MUMMIES. SICKENING. I CANT WAIT TILL MY GRANDCHILDREN WANT TO SEE AN OLD FASHIONED QUAD AND THE SILLY PICTURES AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHAT A FRAUD THEY ARE.