FARMS---a "secular" organization?

[_Coggins7]

the same one in which The Good Professor is making all sorts of nasty insinuations about Quinn)

And more than likely, factual ones.

[_antishock8]

the same one in which The Good Professor is making all sorts of nasty insinuations about Quinn)

And more than likely, factual ones.

Please enumerate.

[_solomarineris]

[quote="Coggins7"

I'D LIKE TO DIMINISH, OR PISS ON THE GLORY OF GOD that CS Lewis quote you're using.
have him send me some Blittzes to extinguish me.
He is POWERLESS.
Thus said the lord SOLOMARINERIS.

[_Mister Scratch]

the same one in which The Good Professor is making all sorts of nasty insinuations about Quinn)

And more than likely, factual ones.

I'd sure be interested in seeing the actual "facts". Instead, DCP and his ilk peddle cheap gossip and use insinuation to score rhetorical points.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's the latest update from the thread. What we have now is a peculiar double-whammy from poulsenll and DCP:

The greatest irony however, in light of the continuous criticism that Mormon scholars do not publish about the Book of Mormon in non-mormon publications, is where Coe chose to publish his criticism of the Book of Mormon. Here is the citation.

Coe, rather than publish it in a Mesoamerican journal, chose to publish it in Dialogue, a Mormon publication.

A very astute observation.

Apparently, by Yme's logic, we should conclude that Professor Coe's article didn't meet minimum scholarly standards and that Professor Coe was embarrrassed by, or lacked confidence in, what he had written.

In order to ensure that Yme doesn't miss this important point, I've sent him a personal message alerting him to it.

Okay, a couple of thoughts. (1) Coe's publishing in Dialogue hardly seems comparable to publishing an article on Book of Mormon historicity in a top mesoamerican journal. All poulsenll is doing here is demonstrating the TBM penchant for misunderstanding what irony is. (2) Can you imaging what would have happened apologetics-wise if Coe had published this in a more secular journal? The thought of it is mind-boggling.

Finally, I see that DCP has finally retired me from his sig line. Now it seems he is back to ridiculing the posters at RfM (which, you know, he scarcely ever reads). Be sure to take note of the date:

Mormonism is really a break off Islam They don't think Jesus is the god , they cover up their women and give them no rights, They hate all other religons and you must convert to their religion or go to hell. They get violent tempers when you question their beliefs. They want to take over the earth. The two groups have too much in common. (fromplanet13, "Recovery" board, 31 October 2006)

[_antishock8]

I would also like Mr. Coggins to enumerate his facts. Those are pretty serious accusations, whatever they may be, and I'd like to see them.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... The Good Professor is really getting creamed by Yme over on this thread. (It could have just faded away, like a good Old Soldier, but instead, DCP and LOAP thought it would be fun to carry on with their taunting of Yme.)

Check out this:

First let me say, Daniel, - with all the baiting you have done, can you ever appreciate that some of us in life have a fraction of a life outside of this board? Perhaps a small difference between you and I (and most certainly LOAP!!). My personal career, family life, and interests do not pay to be on this board as much as it may you! So forgive me for not responding to your countless call sooner, that I now have observed. Also, my ego is obviously not fed by this board as it seems to be for ---- well let's just say for others with thousands of posts here!!!

But let me just suggest a couple of things here. First, why spend your weekends here when you could be doing what I and others enjoy such much as, for example: biking, golfing, skiing, outdoor activities, or even sharing a fine dinner and a great bottle of wine with the one you love. Just a thought, though recognizing the limitations of Provo.

But after looking over this thread since I last posted, there is really nothing of any credible content that would cause, IMHO, anyone to respond to.

And if your really wondering about Coe's response being published in "Dialogue", as opposed to a professional Mayan journal, then I really would be questioning what you profess to be "educational judgment". Why would Coe ever respond in a professional journal where the original work would never be accepted in the first place???? Who there would have ever seen it??? Seriously, you now begin to support that ill-oft used saying: "Those who can do, those who can't teach"! Coe knew that only those who followed, what seems to be, an emotional need to demonstrate the history of the Book of Mormon as proposed by LDS authors, would only see his response in something related to an LDS publication. But if you really thought that Coe's publication in Dialogue, as an expert in Mayan studies of history and archaeology, demonstrates a parallel with Sorenson and Clark for not getting in a major secular publication (on this topic), tell me this: Are Coes works that were published in Dialogue worthy of FARMS standards to be published there???????????? Would Farms publish them today? If not why? (This is where Peterson will never answer as it will ketch him in the catch 22 he was trying to get me in!!!!) I could post : "Daniel ?" for days here as he has done with me, but he will not answer it directly!!

But here is the reality of the LDS scholars works on Book of Mormon historicity: Such works have not and will not convince even BYU that it can be taught as "history" in an accredited history program. Ask Mr. Hamblin!

Carry on with the making of my celebrity, or, with the validation of the reality of such pastimes here!!!!

(bold emphases added)

Yeeouch! What a blistering rejoinder! In particular, this last bit, to my mind, is utterly critical. It seems that even BYU will not teach "history" of the Book of Mormon!!!. But, I'll return to that point in a moment. First, let's take a look at some of Prof. P.'s replies:

Are Coes works that were published in Dialogue worthy of FARMS standards to be published there????????????

In terms of academic standards, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael Coe is a significant scholar, knows his material, and writes well.

But he has plenty of places to publish his thoughts on Mormon matters, including Dialogue. FARMS was created to create a publishing venue for articles and books that, until its founding, had no natural home.

Wha...? Why wouldn't "articles and books" on MesoAmerican History need to have an entirely new "natural home"?

Would Farms publish them today?

Conceivably. We've published articles critical of Mormon belief by Paul Owen, Carl Mosser, Michael Heiser, etc.

But, for the reason alluded to above, there's no pressing need for FARMS to publish them.

Again---wha??? What does this even mean? What "reason alluded to"? Why is he being so dodgy?

Anyways, back to the question of whether or not BYU treats the historicity of the Book of Mormon as "legitimate." Obviously, this is important. In fact, it's so important that it merits this sober and detailed reply:

But here is the reality of the LDS scholars works on Book of Mormon historicity: Such works have not and will not convince even BYU that it can be taught as "history" in an accredited history program. Ask Mr. Hamblin!

That's "Dr. Hamblin," to you.

You make a huge assumption -- as usual without adducing any actual evidence on its behalf. Do you seriously mean to suggest that the faculty and administration at BYU secretly disbelieve in the Book of Mormon?

I find only one history course in the current BYU catalog that could, conceivably, devote much time to pre-Columbian America -- "357. The Indian in Latin American History. (3:3:0)" -- and I can't say whether it discusses the Book of Mormon or not. Can you?

Ouch! That certainly doesn't help the apologists' case! But, the reply goes on:

The relevant courses are, overwhelmingly, taught in the Department of Anthropology. I don't know whether the Book of Mormon is ever discussed in "317. Native Peoples of North America. (3:3:0)" or in "350. Archaeological Cultures of North America. (3:3:0)," "355. Mesoamerican Archaeology. (3:2:Arr.)," "365. South American Archaeology. (3:3:0)," "372. Ancient Mayan Writing 1. (3:3:0)," "374. Ancient Mayan Writing 2. (3:3:0)," "562. Formative Mesoamerica. (3:3:0)," "564. Classic Mayan Civilization. (3:3:0)," "565. Mayan Ceramic Analysis. (3:3:0)," "566. Mayan Ethnohistory. (3:3:0)," "572. Ancient Mayan Writing 1. (3:3:0)," or "574. Ancient Mayan Writing 2. (3:3:0)."

Do you know?

Since I'm familiar with several of the faculty involved and have a sense for the students at BYU, I would be enormously surprised if the Book of Mormon were not discussed in those classes. (John Clark's public lecture last night was mostly a non-Mormon-specific discussion of the rise of New World civilization, with the usual data on ceramics, trade patterns, cultural evolution, and the like, but concluded with a substantial section on the Book of Mormon.) But I can just about guarantee that "[Anthropology] 280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0)" does discuss it: "The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations."

Huh. Very interesting. I wonder why this stuff has been consigned to the Anthropology Department? Is it because anthropology is, as a field, more speculative in nature? Regardless, it seems that Yme is correct to point out that even BYU cannot see fit to schedule a history course dealing with the Book of Mormon.

Later, Yme continues with this mincemeat-making:

And which one of these classes provide the text book that specifically discuss the events of Zarahemla, the argricultural and trade history up and down the river Sidon or the the migration and settlement patterns of the Lamanites, Jaradites, Nephites and their journey from the middle east in settlement here on this continent?

Why keep playing the same ol red herring?

Have the works of any LDS scholars provided enough credible and/or convincing evidence, for the people places and cultures specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that even the BYU History dept would devote an accredited history class to this "history"? Are you aware of any history text book used in any accredited academic history program in any college or university which mentions these places and peoples?

Sheesh. This is devastating stuff! Here's the response:

What classes are you teaching this semester?

Given my responsibility for directing and editing the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (my own current personal editing projects are Ibn Sina's massive Physics, from his encyclopedic multivolume al-Shifaa’, and the Dalaa’il al-Nubuwwa of Abu Hatim al-Razi and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi; our latest volume of the Medical Works of Moses Maimonides should come from the press within a week or two, and others are being edited under my direction), I have a reduced teaching load: This semester, I'm leading the senior seminar for Middle East Studies majors, MESA 495, along with some lecturing in Humanities 242 and some individual Arabic directed readings courses.

Why do you care?

What is the definition of a "natural home" and why wouldn't Coe's article qualify, side be side with that of Sorenson's, to be printed at FARMS? He is a well recognized scholar, printed an article on the claimed ancient setting of the Book of Mormon, has read the Book of Mormon and is an expert in the supposed Mayan civilizations?

Who said it wouldn't "qualify"? I didn't.

Absolutely, for some of them.

Your insinuation requires not merely that "some" at BYU disbelieve in the Book of Mormon, but that a critical decision-making mass of them disbelieve, so strongly as to have had a decisive impact on curriculum design and course construction.

To sustain that casual charge would require -- and I hesitate to mention this, since you consistently show such aversion to the concept -- some actual evidence.

And which one of these classes provide the text book that specifically discuss the events of Zarahemla, the argricultural and trade history up and down the river Sidon or the the migration and settlement patterns of the Lamanites, Jaradites, Nephites and their journey from the middle east in settlement here on this continent?

I don't know. Why don't you look for some facts for a change?

I don't plan to devote my life to tracking such things down on your behalf.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of those courses used works by John Sorenson and perhaps others on precisely those subjects. You're familiar with this work, of course. Aren't you?

Have the works of any LDS scholars provided enough credible and/or convincing evidence, for the people places and cultures specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that even the BYU History dept would devote an accredited history class to this "history"? Are you aware of any history text book used in any accredited academic history program in any college or university which mentions these places and peoples?

Why keep playing the same ol' red herring?

Man, oh, man. It just keeps getting worse and worse. (by the way: why doesn't the Good Professor list the title of the Sorenson "text book"?)