Dan Vogel takes on John Gee and FAIR on Book of Abraham

[jfro18]

Dan Vogel put up a new video this week taking on John Gee and FAIR Mormon's new video on Book of Abraham apologetics. It's absolutely fascinating to watch Gee get picked apart in the most meticulous way by Vogel, and even more entertaining that Gee starts the video comparing criticism of his work to how Jesus and Christians were persecuted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEfSaOvxl7g

I watched it @ 2x in chunks which I'd recommend for time, but it's definitely a good watch if you're interested in Book of Abraham theories.

[Hagoth]

Thanks for pointing this out Jfro. I'm about 2 minutes into it and I already had to come up for air. He calls the criticisms "vague general accusations" that don't have "any details," and are merely a way of "poisoning the well." What? 13 hours of Robert Ritner (Gee's own mentor) specifically dismantling Gee's apologetics point by point is ad hominem and lacks detail? Vogel's book lacks detail?

Is Gee really that dishonest or is he living in a fantasy world?

[blazerb]

Besides Ritner's dismantling of Gee and Vogel's book, there is also the 8 video series by Vogel going into detail about the translation of the BoA. I think Brian Hauglid has been pretty detailed about where he thinks Gee is wrong. I am guessing there are other specific details.

I am not an Egyptologist, so I can't comment on how Gee's professional, peer-reviewed papers are viewed in that community. I did read the apology that the journal he used to edit gave for his review of a book by Ritner. It's clear that there are those in the Egyptological community who have concerns about Gee's professionalism.

I guess the average exmormon Redditor is unlikely to give specifics about Gee's problems, but so what? It's clear that he's carrying water for a bogus narrative. That's all that is important.

[Hagoth]

I am not an Egyptologist, so I can't comment on how Gee's professional, peer-reviewed papers are viewed in that community.

As far as I know Gee does not submit anything about the BoA for peer review except within the Mormon publishing sphere, where the reviewers understand that they are really cheerleaders. He has also disparaged the concept of peer review in general.

[moksha]

As far as I know, Gee does not submit anything about the BoA for peer review except within the Mormon publishing sphere, where the reviewers understand that they are really cheerleaders. He has also disparaged the concept of peer review in general.

Do you think a fantasy writer's literary guild would be willing to review his writings?

[Hagoth]

As far as I know, Gee does not submit anything about the BoA for peer review except within the Mormon publishing sphere, where the reviewers understand that they are really cheerleaders. He has also disparaged the concept of peer review in general.

Do you think a fantasy writer's literary guild would be willing to review his writings?

No, but I think they would tear him a new one if they did.

[2bizE]

One thing John Gee said in his interview that Dan Vogel is critiquing is that there are three different views of the Book of Abraham and how it came to be: 1) The anti-Mormon view, which is that Joseph used the papyri to translate the BoA, 2) the long scroll or lost scroll viewpoint, and 3) the catalyst theory that the scrolls were just a catalyst to open Joseph’s mind to receiving the BoA in a translation.
When I heard number 1 where he clearly called it an anti-Mormon viewpoint my whole mind hit the emergency brake. Since when did the concept of Joseph looking at the papyri and translating it into the BOA become anti-Mormon?
Did I hear and understand that correctly? Wasn’t that what we were always taught growing up?