BYU's John Clark -- Five year anniversary of being "ignored"

[_Daniel Peterson]

So why are you acting as if it's outrageous to state that Clark's position cannot be "vouched for" by Brant or anyone else?

I don't believe that I've acted "outraged." But it appears to be untrue that "Clark's position cannot be 'vouched for' by Brant" -- that is, if Brant is to be allowed any say as to what his opinions are.

Why are you acting as if runtu's summary was unfair?

I'm sorry. Am I obliged to agree with runtu? I hadn't understood the terms of participation here, it seems.

Professor Clark has set forth a number of claims. Runtu has declared them invalid and discredited. I don't agree. Professor Clark thinks that his work on this topic can be tightened up. I think that's almost always the case, and am happy that he apparently intends to pursue doing so. But I don't think that this proves all of Professor Clark's claims invalid. And Brant Gardner claims that Brant Gardner thinks quite highly of Professor Clark's claims, too. Which, again, doesn't seem to prove that they're all invalid.

Why am I obligated to agree with runtu? Can you please explain this to me?

[_silentkid]

silentkid is certain that I misrepresented you deliberately, for ideological reasons, and I really hesitate to disagree with someone who knows me as intimately as he does.

Nice. You finally got it. It's refreshing to see that you're coming around.

As for professors at BYU refusing to take us seriously, I can only say that many do -- many hundreds of people have written for us and worked with us, including professors from every BYU college (e.g., humanities, religion, biological sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and the like) -- and, in my experience, those who summarily dismiss us (and I've encountered a few) tend to know little to nothing about us at first hand.

I'm LOL at the part I bolded. Or could it be that those professors that dismiss FARMS actually know a lot about FARMS and dismiss it because they don't agree with its positions (in my experience that has been the case)? No, that couldn't be a possibility, especially in your own backyard.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Or could it be that those professors that dismiss FARMS actually know a lot about FARMS and dismiss it because they don't agree with its positions (in my experience that has been the case)? No, that couldn't be a possibility, especially in your own backyard.

That could be the case. (I appreciate your helpful ascription to me of a dogmatic position that I had somehow neglected to adopt on my own.) I simply haven't met anybody like that. I can think of three (or perhaps four) serious conversations that I've had over the years with BYU colleagues who dismissed FARMS rather vehemently. In each case, to my (decreasing) amazement, the professor hadn't read anything we'd published. Not a single page.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Of course you are.

I find it mildly interesting that you seem to think, for some reason, that I shouldn't be more interested in the contents of the Book of Abraham and their relationship, if any, to the ancient world.

Do you have any compelling reasons to support your feeling that your interests should be mine, but that mine shouldn't be yours?

Uh, yeah. The question of whether the Book of Abraham is a translation of an ancient document plays a big role in determining how interesting it ultimately is.

You weren't interested in the scholarship regarding the Brighamite miscegenation penalty either

I wasn't?

You never returned to this thread. My inference is reasonable.

Are you deeply interested in fights that you can't win? Please direct me to some examples.

Because I am not an apologist, I don't feel a need to defend positions that are not supported by good evidence. So, no.

I would ask what "FAIR's Methodology"(TM) might be -- and where that single, monolithic methodology might be written out -- but I'm really not in the mood for silly strawman caricatures. And, even if I were in that curious mood, I'd wonder what the relevance might be to me.

The methodology is simple: don't investigate topics that make the Church look bad unless critics are making so much hay of it that damage control is necessary.

If Scientology could set up something with the same methodology as FAIR, then FAIR's enterprise cannot be of great value.

If baseball were really dogfighting, it would be illegal in most U.S. jurisdictions. If the sky were gold, the price of bullion would probably go down.

Why don't you think that Scientology could set up something with the same methodology as FAIR? It would have to be tailored to the ridiculous precepts specific to Scientology, sure, but the basic structure and purpose of the foundation would be the same.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The methodology is simple: don't investigate topics that make the Church look bad unless critics are making so much hay of it that damage control is necessary.

I'm not sure that I would describe that as a "methodology," even if your bizarre and hostile caricature were accurate.

A useful discussion of the meaning of the term methodology occurs here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

No need yet to get into Gadamer or Popper or Feyerabend. That, I think, would be intellectual overkill.

[_beastie]

That is news to me. I can't imagine what I might have said that could be construed as discrediting what John said. Assuming that you actually converse with those folk (if converse is the right word), please let them know that I consider John Clark one of the more important archaeologists working in Mesoamerica and that his analysis of the fit between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica should always be respected. From what I remember of that talk (and I have read it a couple of times), I do not know of anything on which I disagree. If I did, I think it would be incumbent upon me to bolster a LOT of contrary evidence before I would even dare to suggest that he were mistaken on anything related to Mesoamerica. I would assume first that I was wrong.

Runtu specified that he was referring to what Joseph Smith could have known. This is exactly the area that Dr. Clark admitted needed work. If Brant is willing to vouch for information that Dr. Clark himself later conceded was likely problematic, then that indicates that Dr. Clark's scholarship is far more rigorous than Brant's.

I suspect that Brant's response here specifically related to Dr. Clark's assertions on ancient Mesoamerica, and not what Joseph Smith could or could not have known.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Or could it be that those professors that dismiss FARMS actually know a lot about FARMS and dismiss it because they don't agree with its positions (in my experience that has been the case)? No, that couldn't be a possibility, especially in your own backyard.

That could be the case. (I appreciate your helpful ascription to me of a dogmatic position that I had somehow neglected to adopt on my own.) I simply haven't met anybody like that. I can think of three (or perhaps four) serious conversations that I've had over the years with BYU colleagues who dismissed FARMS rather vehemently. In each case, to my (decreasing) amazement, the professor hadn't read anything we'd published. Not a single page.

You know, this is rather odd. How is it, Dan, that all these people---both the ones you know, plus the ones mentioned by The Dude and silentkid---are dismissive of FARMS, and yet, magically, none of them seem to have read anything FARMS has published? Why is it, do you suppose, that FARMS has got such a lousy reputation (among BYU professors, no less!)?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You know, this is rather odd. How is it, Dan, that all these people---both the ones you know, plus the ones mentioned by The Dude and silentkid---are dismissive of FARMS, and yet, magically, none of them seem to have read anything FARMS has published? Why is it, do you suppose, that FARMS has got such a lousy reputation (among BYU professors, no less!)?

Two or three hundred BYU professors have published with FARMS and/or worked with FARMS in some capacity. I've had negative experiences of the kind mentioned with three or four BYU professors, and I'm guessing that The Dude and silentkid have each had such experiences with a comparable number. Assuming no overlap (which, given what I recall to be the general discipline of The Dude and silentkid, may be too liberal), we're talking about 9-12 members of the BYU faculty who have (or, at least, had) a dismissive attitude toward FARMS and, say, 200-300 who have published with and/or worked with FARMS in some capacity.

Under the circumstances, although I can understand why you, of all people, are smacking your lips at the prospect, it seems premature to speak airily of FARMS's "lousy reputation among BYU professors."

If you were a serious and intellectually honest person, this still might be an interesting topic for discussion. (There's an intriguing dynamic here, I think.) However, since you're not, it's not.

Incidentally, for any newbies who may be looking on: I earn absolutely none of my salary for writing on Mormon topics. Zilch. Zero. I make my living teaching and by directing international research projects.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You know, this is rather odd. How is it, Dan, that all these people---both the ones you know, plus the ones mentioned by The Dude and silentkid---are dismissive of FARMS, and yet, magically, none of them seem to have read anything FARMS has published? Why is it, do you suppose, that FARMS has got such a lousy reputation (among BYU professors, no less!)?

Two or three hundred BYU professors have published with FARMS and/or worked with FARMS in some capacity. I've had negative experiences of the kind mentioned with three or four BYU professors, and I'm guessing that The Dude and silentkid have each had such experiences with a comparable number. Assuming no overlap (which, given what I recall to be the general discipline of The Dude and silentkid, may be too liberal), we're talking about 9-12 members of the BYU faculty who have (or, at least, had) a dismissive attitude toward FARMS and, say, 200-300 who have published with and/or worked with FARMS in some capacity.

Under the circumstances, although I can understand why you, of all people, are smacking your lips at the prospect, it seems premature to speak airily of FARMS's "lousy reputation among BYU professors."

If you were a serious and intellectually honest person, this still might be an interesting topic for discussion. (There's an intriguing dynamic here, I think.)

I agree---it is very interesting! Remarkably so, in fact! You are describing a scenario in which "9-12 members of the BYU faculty"---and let's bear in mind that these BYU faculty will naturally be predisposed to support FARMS and any other Mormon-related endeavors---who, being BYU faculty, will be practically saturated by a TBM atmosphere, including "200-300" faculty "who have published with and/or worked with FARMS in some capacity," and yet, magically, without every having read a single thing published by FARMS, they have come to "vehemently" dislike FARMS.

How, I have to wonder---how on Earth, even!---could such a thing happen? Did they just intuit that FARMS is worth "vehemently" disliking? Or are you going to cough up an "intellectually honest" answer as to what's going on here?

[Guest]

The methodology is simple: don't investigate topics that make the Church look bad unless critics are making so much hay of it that damage control is necessary.

I'm not sure that I would describe that as a "methodology," even if your bizarre and hostile caricature were accurate.

A useful discussion of the meaning of the term methodology occurs here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

No need yet to get into Gadamer or Popper or Feyerabend. That, I think, would be intellectual overkill.

I can't believe you just brought up Popper to defend FAIR. He would be the first person to recognize that FAIR's "Oh, it could have happened this way! Look at all these 'coincidences'!" dance number is not legitimate inquiry.

Again, I ask: why couldn't there exist a FAIR for Scientology?