Gadianton wrote:But, given that it's not likely to have its day in an academic conference or peer-reviewed journal, as you acknowledge, the conversation will be with weekend warriors, so to speak. Is that in itself bad? No. But, the problem is that FARMS will claim that its critics aren't qualified to make an assessment. That they are producing scholarship that is no different at all than what they might do in their mainstream day-jobs. So now we come full circle, because obviously, if the stuff was standard fare, then it would be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at academic conferences. So then, Trever, you must see the stimulus for proposing a presentation.
Well, people like Ritner and Price have joined the conversation. They do not spend a great deal of time with it. And, I don't think they will consistently follow it either. Most scholars outside of the LDS world have better things to do than trade barbs with LDS apologists. They make worthwhile contributions and then move on to their main work. It is difficult to make a profession of challenging religious claims, because people generally don't approve of it. They realize that they live in glass houses, and that ultimately religion is about subjective experience of things that from at least one perspective seem ludicrous.
LDS apologia is an armchair endeavor. The notion that one needs to understand Mesoamerican archaeology or Hebrew linguistics in order to understand Mormonism is simply untrue. LDS people who know these fields may feel that their faith is enriched by putting their faith in the context of these fields, or vice versa, but it really is not necessary to the study of Mormonism to know this stuff. In fact, I would say that to pursue one of these fields for the sole purpose of debunking Mormon claims is a royal waste of time. Once a Mormon makes a claim that involves placing the Book of Mormon in an ancient context, he or she has crossed the line from a "naturalist methodology" to a "supernaturalist methodology."
Prudent scholars who operate in a naturalist paradigm will neither follow them there nor waste their time refuting what ultimately relies on untestable claims. Sure, one could comment on the lack of identifiable Nephite remains in the ancient world, but when one has absolutely no reason to suppose the Book of Mormon is ancient in the first place (i.e. the person does not have sufficient evidence
or a testimony to justify supposing its antiquity), why bother?
In saying this I am not trying to insult LDS scholars who do find personal satisfaction in faith-based scholarship. They are certainly not alone in doing so. Frankly, the search for a historical Jesus is just about equally productive from a secular point of view. All I am saying is that the kind of work I value most is conducted in a naturalist paradigm, which I see as best suited for secular academics. Those who think similarly are not likely to waste their time on LDS arguments, because, to them, it would be a waste of time. The only reason I am here is because I was raised LDS and I find the study of Mormonism as a 19th century phenomenon very rewarding.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”