DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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???

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.

[_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.

[_charity]

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]

Can someone explain why DCP would be lecturing on Mormonism to a bunch of people waitign to hear his thoughts on Islam?

[_cksalmon]

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]

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.

[_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]

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.

[_charity]

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]

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.