DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_charity]

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.

Serious academic venue? You don't really mean that. You mean serious secular academic venue. BYU and FARMS have both presented serious academic material respected by non-LDS scholars, and as such are serious academic venues. You just want secularity as a requirement.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Aren't we being a little hard on Daniel? Don't you all remember when you were TBM how embarassing some of the things you believed were? You knew you would be made fun of if you talked to your non-mormon friends about the meat instead of the milk. For Daniel to start talking about Book of Mormon archeology in front of his non-mormon academic peers could only damage his reputation.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Serious academic venue? You don't really mean that. You mean serious secular academic venue. BYU and FARMS have both presented serious academic material respected by non-LDS scholars, and as such are serious academic venues. You just want secularity as a requirement.

No, I mean serious. If LDS scholars want to make claims regarding ancient American history, they should present those claims in a serious academic environment that actually pertains to history. Presenting a paper on Nephite technology at a FARMS conference doesn't mean squat. It is a fluff venue that won't offer proper intellectual challenges. It would be, in effect, preaching to the choir.

[_karl61]

I like Dan Vogel's study of the Book of Mormon where he shows how the anti-mason movement of the upstate New York area influenced Joseph Smith. I like his thoughts where he suggests that people in that time period new exactly where Joseph Smith got his thoughts from -.......

[_the road to hana]

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.

Are you suggesting that the Institute for Religious Research fudged a photocopy in order to make it look like they were actually familiar with the contents of the book?

We are referring to two different things here--the form letter automatically sent by the Smithsonian, and their "Statement on the Book of Mormon," (linked above) which they were still standing by subsequent to 1998.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

Are you suggesting that the Institute for Religious Research fudged a photocopy in order to make it look like they were actually familiar with the contents of the book?

We are referring to two different things here--the form letter automatically sent by the Smithsonian, and their "Statement on the Book of Mormon," (linked above) which they were still standing by subsequent to 1998.

It is true that the Smithsonian toned down their statement on the Book of Mormon. Apparently their original statement offended people because it listed all the stuff the Book of Mormon got wrong, so they created a new generic statement simply stating that they do not consider the Book of Mormon a historic text and leaving it at that. I'm not sure how this new statement helps the church.

[_the road to hana]

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.

Are you suggesting that the Institute for Religious Research fudged a photocopy in order to make it look like they were actually familiar with the contents of the book?

We are referring to two different things here--the form letter automatically sent by the Smithsonian, and their "Statement on the Book of Mormon," (linked above) which they were still standing by subsequent to 1998.

It is true that the Smithsonian toned down their statement on the Book of Mormon. Apparently their original statement offended people because it listed all the stuff the Book of Mormon got wrong, so they created a new generic statement simply stating that they do not consider the Book of Mormon a historic text and leaving it at that. I'm not sure how this new statement helps the church.

They were still standing by their original statement even after the form letter had been revised:

http://www.answeringlds.org/index.html? ... onian.html

[_charity]

Are you suggesting that the Institute for Religious Research fudged a photocopy in order to make it look like they were actually familiar with the contents of the book?

We are referring to two different things here--the form letter automatically sent by the Smithsonian, and their "Statement on the Book of Mormon," (linked above) which they were still standing by subsequent to 1998.

It is true that the Smithsonian toned down their statement on the Book of Mormon. Apparently their original statement offended people because it listed all the stuff the Book of Mormon got wrong, so they created a new generic statement simply stating that they do not consider the Book of Mormon a historic text and leaving it at that. I'm not sure how this new statement helps the church.[/quote]

They were still standing by their original statement even after the form letter had been revised:

http://www.answeringlds.org/index.html? ... onian.html[/quote]

I am saying the IRC gives you only a piece of the information, and by failing to update gives a false impression.

Now let's look at what was asked for in that subsequent letter, and what the Smithsonian really said. The latter is address to the Public Affairs Office of the Dept of Anthropology and asks for some iinformation. And then request to know what precipitated the change form the previous letter, asking specifically for inaccuracies.

The inquirer said they "still stand by our former statement." That the decision was made to "simplify" the response. And the letter was signed by the head of the "outreach office."

I don't see any academics involved here. Outreach office? There is only one reason to withdraw a statement from a prestigious institution. They can't back it up. And the outreach office is pretty unwise to keep putting out something that the academics have taken back.

[_the road to hana]

I am saying the IRC gives you only a piece of the information, and by failing to update gives a false impression.

Now let's look at what was asked for in that subsequent letter, and what the Smithsonian really said. The latter is address to the Public Affairs Office of the Dept of Anthropology and asks for some iinformation. And then request to know what precipitated the change form the previous letter, asking specifically for inaccuracies.

The inquirer said they "still stand by our former statement." That the decision was made to "simplify" the response. And the letter was signed by the head of the "outreach office."

I don't see any academics involved here. Outreach office? There is only one reason to withdraw a statement from a prestigious institution. They can't back it up. And the outreach office is pretty unwise to keep putting out something that the academics have taken back.

According to their original statement, photocopy in evidence, does it appear to you they are unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, or its contents?

[_the road to hana]

Here's your previous statement, Charity:

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.

How do you reconcile that, with the statement (not the cover/form letter itself), and the references provided following?