juliann & DCP Stick it to Yme

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:35 am

Mesoamerican scholars would be absolutely thrilled to have access to an ancient Mesoamerican document of over 500 pages, providing detailed information about life in ancient Mesoamerica.

Post by **_harmony** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:51 am

beastie wrote:Mesoamerican scholars would be absolutely thrilled to have access to an ancient Mesoamerican document of over 500 pages, providing detailed information about life in ancient Mesoamerica.

Exactly! So why have our LDS scholars with expertise in Mesoamerica not given that presentation?

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:15 pm

I think that at some level they know they are not using the same standard in regards to the Book of Mormon as they use in their professional work. In the Q/A portion of his BYU devotional, John Clark said:

Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

He's pretty clear here - one can't even "see" the evidence unless one already has a spiritual testimony of it. That is a red flag of pseudoscience. And while Clark wouldn't agree with my label, I think he does realize that the standard he is using for the Book of Mormon is not his professional standard, otherwise, "reading it like they're reading an archeology book" would work just fine.

We all know that the purpose of apologetics is to reassure believers that it's ok to believe what they believe, despite the apparent lack of evidence for those beliefs. The evidence is there if you look hard enough, leave it to the experts to find it. The problem for those who do not believe is that the evidence is only clear if you believe in the first place.

They're not nuts - they're not going to risk their professional reputations making such assertions in a professional arena.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:28 pm

beastie wrote:They're not nuts - they're not going to risk their professional reputations making such assertions in a professional arena.

Yep. Thus, it is entirely fair and accurate to say that LDS scholars are "academically embarrassed" about certain theories and beliefs.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:41 pm

Yep. Thus, it is entirely fair and accurate to say that LDS scholars are "academically embarrassed" about certain theories and beliefs.

Note to believers: we are not claiming that these same academics are not respected in their professional work. These comments are specific to the apologia of these academics which contains information that is directly related to their field of professional work.

So while Dr. Clark is very respected for his work in Mesoamerica, his professional work does not involve aspects involved in apologia, such as the claim that a powerful Judeo Christian polity existed in Mesoamerica, that conducted warfare in the manner described in the Book of Mormon.

Our point was that if there really was solid evidence behind these claims - and not just spiritual convictions that leads one to see evidence one would not otherwise recognize - they would be sharing those claims in their professional work, as well.