DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Yme wrote:Would you, or any other LDS scholar, be willing to put your academic credibility on the line for the acceptance of the Book of Mormon historicity with our secualr academic community merely on this argument? If not, what is your point???

Daniel Peterson wrote:I would not and do not hesitate to publicly describe the witnesses testimonies as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I would not hesitate to do so in an academic gathering. Not even slightly. And, in fact, I've probably done so on a few occasions. (I'll have to think about it. I've done many academic presentations to non-LDS scholars, mostly on Islamic topics but some on Mormon topics.)
(emphasis added)

Classic DCP! by the way, I notice he's not returned here since the drubbing you gave him a couple of months ago. What a wuss.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Maxrep
_Emeritus
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:29 am

Post by _Maxrep »

The truth of the matter is that the LDS community could not conceal pertinent archaeological data relating to Book of Mormon historicity, even if it was determined to do so.

Solid and credible information in any field, or industry for that matter, will be recognized without the need of a special platform in a press conference.

The Smithsonian took a hard look at the Book of Mormon decades ago. It failed completely at that point.
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Maxrep wrote:The truth of the matter is that the LDS community could not conceal pertinent archaeological data relating to Book of Mormon historicity, even if it was determined to do so.

Solid and credible information in any field, or industry for that matter, will be recognized without the need of a special platform in a press conference.

The Smithsonian took a hard look at the Book of Mormon decades ago. It failed completely at that point.


This old line has been repeated over and over, and it is just as incorrect today as it was when it was first circulated. Let's shine the light on this old falsehood and watch the cockroaches scurry for their little dark corners.

This is the actual form letter that the Smithsonian sends out to inquireres, members and non-members. (The National Geographic has a similar one.)

Your inquiry of [date] concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.
Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated.


Let's take it slowly. Item by item.

1. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. Correct.
2. The Smithsonian has never used it for archeological research. Correct.

Now, for you posters who can read, please show Maxrep that nowhere in this response does it say that the Smithsonian Institution either "took a hard look" or that the Book of Mormon "failed" anything.

In fact, the statement specifically says it didn't look at the Book of Mormon at all. They have NEVER used it. So it could not have failed at anything. It was never tested.
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Can someone explain why DCP would be lecturing on Mormonism to a bunch of people waitign to hear his thoughts on Islam?
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
beastie wrote:Oh, let him run on. It's just one more tired demonstration of many that believers have no decent rebuttal to this problem.

There's another thread on MAD talking about how when someone brings up an antagonistic question, don't answer that question, but rather answer they one you think they should have asked. LOAP clearly can't address the OP, so he's addressing all our many flaws instead.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=29802


Interesting thing about that thread: it was started by our favorite comic book artist CKSalmon, who never answered the dozens of responses to his original idea, once it was pointed out he was being quite the hypocrite.


This is just the sort of thing that keeps me from taking you very seriously, Life. I respond if, when, and to whom I choose (as do we all). I'm haven't seen fit to respond to your diversionary insults, several one-liners, homework assignments, or baiting comments. I'm not interested in doing so.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:
Maxrep wrote:The truth of the matter is that the LDS community could not conceal pertinent archaeological data relating to Book of Mormon historicity, even if it was determined to do so.

Solid and credible information in any field, or industry for that matter, will be recognized without the need of a special platform in a press conference.

The Smithsonian took a hard look at the Book of Mormon decades ago. It failed completely at that point.


This old line has been repeated over and over, and it is just as incorrect today as it was when it was first circulated. Let's shine the light on this old falsehood and watch the cockroaches scurry for their little dark corners.

This is the actual form letter that the Smithsonian sends out to inquireres, members and non-members. (The National Geographic has a similar one.)

Your inquiry of [date] concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.
Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated.


Let's take it slowly. Item by item.

1. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. Correct.
2. The Smithsonian has never used it for archeological research. Correct.

Now, for you posters who can read, please show Maxrep that nowhere in this response does it say that the Smithsonian Institution either "took a hard look" or that the Book of Mormon "failed" anything.

In fact, the statement specifically says it didn't look at the Book of Mormon at all. They have NEVER used it. So it could not have failed at anything. It was never tested.


Actually, Charity, what you are citing is simply a cover letter sent in response to inquiries. The full text of that letter can be found below:

http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

You will also find that in that letter they refer to their own document, "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which is likewise posted in photocopy form at that site.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_A Light in the Darkness
_Emeritus
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Post by _A Light in the Darkness »

Micheal Coe has compared searching for Book of Mormon archeological sites and peoples like looking for the bottomless pit described in Revelations. I think that is his way of calling it a "fairytale." I don't think he'd use such a snide term, but I have no doubt he regards it as a 19th century myth.

However, that doesn't mean what DCP said is wrong. Dr. Coe hasn't seriously engaged Book of Mormon scholarship and his views of it are likely informed by his experiences with relatively naïve understandings of the Book of Mormon as it relates to pre-Columbian times.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Micheal Coe has compared searching for Book of Mormon archeological sites and peoples like looking for the bottomless pit described in Revelations. I think that is his way of calling it a "fairytale." I don't think he'd use such a snide term, but I have no doubt he regards it as a 19th century myth.

However, that doesn't mean what DCP said is wrong. Dr. Coe hasn't seriously engaged Book of Mormon scholarship and his views of it are likely informed by his experiences with relatively naïve understandings of the Book of Mormon as it relates to pre-Columbian times.


And I've already said that such a statement is unwarranted. Clearly, Coe is well-versed in Book of Mormon scholarship. What does it mean that he hasn't "seriously engaged" it? And the idea that his understanding of the Book of Mormon is "naïve" is completely unsupportable.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

the road to hana wrote:
Actually, Charity, what you are citing is simply a cover letter sent in response to inquiries. The full text of that letter can be found below:

http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

You will also find that in that letter they refer to their own document, "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which is likewise posted in photocopy form at that site.


You are refrring to the 1997 version. It was updated in 1998 and what I posted is what is currently being sent. Please don't rely on irr.org as a source of correct information. Their track record is not good.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I would not and do not hesitate to publicly describe the witnesses testimonies as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I would not hesitate to do so in an academic gathering. Not even slightly. And, in fact, I've probably done so on a few occasions. (I'll have to think about it. I've done many academic presentations to non-LDS scholars, mostly on Islamic topics but some on Mormon topics.)
(emphasis added)

Wait a sec... He's "probably done so"??? Or he actually has? Is it---or should it be--striking that he cannot recall the last time he testified of his faith in front of "an academic gathering"? There is something extremely fishy and dodgy about his remarks here. What, after all, would be more damning for Mopologetics, academically speaking, then for the chief Mopologist to admit that he's embarrassed to discuss his views in a mainstream, secular academic setting? Ultimately, what we are seeing here is tantamount to an admission on DCP's part that he fears that his beliefs may compromise his academic standing.


Scratch are you looking for an occasion of DCP testifying his faith (in general) or giving he opinion that the witness testimonies are evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at an academic conference? I'm a bit confused by what you wrote and what you quoted. (I enlarged the bits I though relevant).


I am looking for instances of LDS scholars attempting to present LDS theories in a secular, mainstream academic venue. What I have in mind would be something like, say, DCP attending a history conference and discussing the Nephites use of metal. Or, for another example, Sorenson publishing an article in which he discusses his theories about Zarahemla.

The bottom line is that these sorts of attempts at academic legitimacy do not exist. DCP & Co. want to continue to claims that all of this stuff---BoM historicity and so forth---is viable and feasible from a legit academic standpoint. Well, it is not, and one of the main reasons why this is so is because LDS apologists have never tried (so far as I know) to publish or present this stuff in a serious academic venue.
Post Reply