Prof. P Throws a Feeble Counterpunch

[Physics Guy]

This has been mentioned in rather tangential ways in other threads, but this most definitely merits a thread of its own, in my opinion. As many know, The Good Professor attended the recent American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature conference in San Diego. In a thread on the aptly named MADboard, he has posted a kind of "return and report" sort of thread, apparently in response to my "DCP Admits to LDS Academic Embarrassment" thread. (I suspect this further since he is back to quoting me, for the umpteenth time, in his signature line.)

Anyhow, here is his O.P., with my comments interspersed:

For those who care, here's a partial list of the more-or-less Mormon-related presentations at the annual joint meeting of the American Academy or [sic] Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (and affiliated organizations), which just concluded yesterday afternoon in San Diego -- Mormon-related in the sense that a Mormon gave the presentation, that the presentation was on Mormonism, or whatever. It was compiled by a colleague. I know, however, that it's incomplete: For instance, Brian Birch, who teaches philosophy at Utah Valley State College, presented a paper on something or other on Tuesday morning that I was unable to attend. (As will be seen, I only attended a small proportion of these.)

(emphasis added)

I think it is very important to note the vagueness of what he is saying here. Essentially, he is opening up the definition of "Mormon-related" to such a wide extent that, in theory, a paper on the Exodus could be considered "Mormon," even though, ostensibly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism, and the only folks who would think so are those who are "in the loop" Mopologetics-wise. It should be transparently obvious to anyone who has followed The Good Professor's exploits that this is a very, very sneaky tactic. He knows perfectly well how important it is to use good definitions, and to not play fast-and-loose, as he is doing the in the above portion I bolded.

Here is the list of "Mormon-related presentations" (note: I will highlight in bold the ones which The Good Professor didn't attend, in order to show just how "fast and loose" he is playing in terms of the evidence_:

SATURDAY 11/17, 1pm – 3:30PM (Location: CARLSBAD – MM)
History of Christianity Section (A17-208)
Ariel Bybee Laughton, “Avoiding the Bridegroom: Negotiating Masculinity in Ambrose of Milan’s De Isaac vel Anima”
One paper of several in the session; I didn't attend.

What does this have to do with Mormonism, or with anything which might be construed as academically controversial vis-a-vis Mormonism?

SATURDAY 11/17, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 23 C – CC)
Mormon Studies Consultation (A17-227) Theme: Teaching Mormon Studies: Theory, Topics, & Texts
An entire session devoted to the topic, chaired by Laurie Maffly-Kipp of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and featuring four other panelists (from Holy Cross, UVSC, Carthage College, and Columbia). Pretty well attended, including me.

For me, this doesn't count. This is not what I'm referring to when I mention "LDS Academic Embarrassment". Pedagogical techniques used to teach LDS material hardly count as "controversial" in the manner of, say, the Book of Abraham, or the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

SATURDAY 11/17, 4pm – 6:30pm (Location: Madeleine D – GH)
Space, Place, Lived Experience in Antiquity Consultation (S17-127)
Cory Crawford, “The Generation of Holiness: On the Logic and Production of Tabernacle Space”
One presentation of three or four in the session as a whole. Didn't attend.

SATURDAY 11/17, 7pm – 8:30pm (Location: IRVINE – MM)
BYU and Friends Reception (M17-121)
Didn't attend. Instead attended a discussion of the evidence for Christ's resurrection in which philosophers Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Stephen Davis responded to Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus, and Allison, a prominent New Testament scholar, replied to their responses.

Again, what, if anything, do these have to do with controversies in Mormonism? Where is the evidence that Mopologists are really putting their crucial theories up against the rigors of academic scrutiny? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.

SUNDAY 11/18, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: East Terrace / Upper – CC)
Poster Session (S18-77)
Eric Hansen, “Likenesses of the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth Ritual in the Bible and the Book of Mormon”
I wandered by this one. Hansen, an independent scholar based in Princeton and, I'm guessing, a faithful Mormon, was not there when I came by, and, from his poster materials, I was unable to form a sufficiently detailed notion of his argument to be able to evaluate it adequately.

Ah, so he apparently didn't attend this one either, and in fact is just making a guess based on "poster materials." I'm afraid that this "doesn't count" either, based on the scant evidence, since this really just seems like a comparative analysis of the two texts. I.e., "Hey, look at the similarities between these two texts." Nowhere does this jump into the more controversial claims to which I've been referring. Now, if Hansen was presenting a paper with a title like, "Migration of the Nephites in Upper New York," then DCP might have a point. As it stands, this paper seems little more than a literary text kind of presentation, and it does not fit the bill in terms of suitable academic challenge.

SUNDAY 11/18, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: ATLANTA – MM)
Israelite Religion in Its West Asian Environment Section (S18-69)
Dan Belnap, “What’s For Dinner?: Feasting and the Establishment of Order in the Baal Myth”
One presentation among three or four during the session; I didn't attend.

SUNDAY 11/18, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: LOS ANGELES – MM)
Hebrew Bible and Political Theory Consultation (S18-65)
Taylor Halverson, “Did Northern Israel Collapse because It Failed to Evolve from Charismatic to Bureaucratic Leadership?: Weberian Categories Provide New Views from Old Eyes.”
One presentation among three or four during the session; I didn't attend.

Again, what do these things have to do---in any recognizable, and ostensible way---with Mormonism? These things relate to the controversies of the LDS Church in very tangential ways, at best. DCP is really stretching his argument pretty thinly, it seems.

I somehow missed a session on SUNDAY 11/18, 7pm – 8:30pm (Location: ????) that failed to show up on the list, in which the new book Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, edited by Donald Musser and David Paulsen, was discussed.

http://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Dialogu ... 821&sr=1-2

Incidentally, this book features a stellar cast of non-LDS authors as well as LDS writers, and looks to be a historically important contribution.

I'm note sure what he means by "historically important," but surely it's not what I have in mind. Also, that Mormonism features a somewhat different theology that other Christian Theologies is hardly controversial.

SUNDAY 11/18, 7pm – 8:30pm - 10 pm (Location: Edward B – GH)
Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (AM-127)
I attended this one -- I'm on SMPT's board -- in which Terryl Givens discussed his work-in-progress on the notion of human pre-existence in Western culture, to be published by Oxford University Press under the title of When Souls Had Wings. It will, I think, be an important book.

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC)
Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55)
John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atramhasis?”
One paper among several in the session; I didn't attend (being out with my wife on a bus tour of religiously significant sites in the San Diego area at the time).

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: Emma C – GH)
Cultural History of the Study of Religion Consultation (A19-229)
John-Charles Duffy, “Mormons, Natives, and the Category ‘Religion’ in the Colonization of the American West”
One paper among several in the session; I didn't attend (same bus tour).

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: Warner Center – MM)
Bible Translation Section (S19-58)
Kent Jackson, “The Bible Translation of Noah Webster, Alexander Campbell, and Joseph Smith: Three 19th Century American Bible Translations in Context”
One paper among several in the session; I didn't attend (same bus tour).

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: Windsor – GH)
New Religious Movements Group (A19-220)
Gayle Lasater, “19th Cent. N. American Brethren in Latin America: Brief Comparison of Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnesses”
One paper among several in the session; I didn't attend (same bus tour).

MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: Manchester I – GH)
Latter-day Saints and the Bible Consultation (S19-72); Theme: Pivotal Passages in the Old Testament
Presenters: David Seely, Margaret Barker, Dana Pike, Taylor Halverson, Don Parry, Alden Thompson
An entire session on the topic that, alas, I couldn't attend because I was gawking at the former campus of the Theosophical Society over on Pt. Loma, as well as at the Mission of San Diego de Alcalá and St. George's Serbian Orthodox Church.

Again, where are the presentations that engage in the problematic aspects of Mormonism? None of these presentations address the areas of the Church which critics would like to see addressed. Claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, continue to be buried in "safe" publications like FARMS Review. Gee's troublesome arguments about the Book of Abraham are nowhere to be found. Where, further, is the presentation on Joseph Smith's use of a seer stone, etc? This stuff never gets proper academic scrutiny.

MONDAY 11/19, 8:30pm – 10pm (Location: Betsy A – GH)
PBS Film: “The Mormons.” (A19-402) Viewing of the PBS documentary, followed by a discussion
A very lively discussion involving Sarah Barringer Gordon (University of Pennsylvania, I think), Terryl Givens (University of Richmond), and Jan Shipps (Indiana University/Purdue University emerita), as well as a surprisingly sizeable and diverse audience. (I noticed the famous Harvard New Testament scholar Helmut Koester and his wife, as well as a Buddhist monk, a whole bunch of other non-LDS academics, and even, to my surprise, an Islamic-philosophy-specialist friend of mine, who had no idea that I was in the film and was audibly [and amusingly] shocked when she saw me jibbering away on the screen.)

Ah, okay. He finds time to attend the film in which he is featured. Okey doke.

Several books by Mormon authors were selling fairly well at the conference, including not only the Musser/Paulsen volme (from Mercer University Press) but -- or so the publisher told me -- my Muhammad biography; Terryl Givens's Oxford cultural history of Mormonism, People of Paradox; and Robert Millet's new Brazos Press volume Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, written with Gerald McDermott.

http://www.amazon.com/Claiming-Christ-M ... 764&sr=1-2

So what? What does this prove? How does this address my complaints? The simple answer is: it doesn't. Mormon scholars have failed to present their most controversial theories to the wider academic world. They are embarrassed, and will continue to hide behind the safe cover of FARMS Review.

Some, perhaps out of a genuinely naïve lack of familiarity with academic culture, have demanded to know why, if Mormon scholars really believe what they claim to believe, those scholars don't expressly "bear testimony" at academic gatherings. Those who know their way around academia understand, of course, that overt sectarian apologetics -- let alone such confessional expressions as a Mormon "testimony" -- simply don't fit the academic ethos.

This isn't what I'm asking at all, nor do I think that other genuine critics are asking this. Rather, I would like to see theories regarding, say, Cureloms and Cumoms advanced in the proper academic venues. I am not asking anyone to bear his/her personal testimony regarding his/her faith. Rather, I would just like to see material which crosses over into the secular to be subjected to secular academic scrutiny.

(The field of religious studies -- which is the field covered by AAR/SBL, on the whole -- tends to deal with people who believe rather than with beliefs themselves, which are the proper domain of theology rather than of religious studies.) But it should be clear from the above that Latter-day Saint scholars are not hiding from scrutiny, certainly not in their fields but not even when it comes directly to their Mormon beliefs.

Oh yes they are. Where is the evidence that any of these presenters dealt with a controversial aspect of Mormonism? Besides, DCP, so far as I can tell, did not even attend most of these presentations. Is he just assuming?

(Some may ask, But why didn't Peterson give a paper? Too scared? Answer: I was traveling when the submission deadline for paper-proposals occurred, and simply forgot to submit one. However, I presented a paper last year, on "The Tree of Life in the Qur’an" (for which the Mormon motivation should be obvious), that will appear sometime next year both in a Maxwell Institute publication and, in somewhat different form, in a Festschrift that two non-LDS colleagues are putting together to honor a mutual friend who teaches at a university in Lebanon. And I plan to present a paper next year, too.

(emphasis added)

Okay, hold on a second here. It "should be obvious"? "Obvious" to whom? Most secular scholars? I don't think so. This is another problem with the Mopologists' argumentative line in all of this. They fail to submit their most controversial points to academic scrutiny. Instead, they lob creampuffs out into the scholarly arena---stuff which would never seem "Mormon" in any remotely troublesome way. This is the very height of cowardice.

For a number of years, what is now the Maxwell Institute ran a substantial booth at the vast book exhibit that accompanies the annual AAR/SBL meeting, in which publications from FARMS, my Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, BYU Studies, and etc., were available for inspection and purchase. I regret that we have not done so for the past three years or so, but I have reason to hope that we'll begin to do it again, fairly soon. As it is, several of our METI books and our publications on the Book of Abraham were available at the University of Chicago Press booth, and our Dead Sea Scrolls database was available from E. J. Brill.

Now, this is interesting. I wonder why they stopping running this "substantial booth"? A calculated retreat, perhaps? Anyways, have a "substantial booth" does not involve the same kinds of risks as presenting a very controversial paper amongst one's peers. DCP, as Gad pointed out in the other thread, has really struck out on this one. His post was quite an embarrassment, in which he (perhaps inadvertently) confessed his rather gross ignorance, trying to supply presentations which he did not even attend as evidence, and failing to show how any of these really responds the meat of mine and others' criticism.

I will still be waiting patiently to see real evidence that LDS scholars aren't actually embarrassed about the "sore spots" in LDS truth claims.

[_Trevor]

From what I can tell the Hansen presentation is the one that seems most like FARMS fodder. Its claims seem, on their face, to be the most questionable. I did not choose to attend this session because I had other things to do and it seemed wonky.

[_Mister Scratch]

From what I can tell the Hansen presentation is the one that seems most like FARMS fodder. Its claims seem, on their face, to be the most questionable.

I agree. However, I question DCP's assertion that this constitutes a legitimate "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. Rather, this seems to relate to Mormonism in a very tangential and arcane way.

[_Mister Scratch]

There is some further commentary from The Good Professor which merits discussion:

I would be curious how you answer the charge that some (not me) make on this, and other boards that LDS scholars are looked at by others in their respective fields as a bunch of deranged apologists with no credibility.

I'm well aware of the charge often made by our critics that people snicker behind our backs at academic conferences, etc.

The critics typically don't supply any evidence at all to support their charge, and I've never noticed the snickering. Of course, they'll respond, you wouldn't, because it's behind your backs!

But it would be helpful if they could provide at least some shred of evidence to back up their claim, and they don't.

The first part of his claim is totally bogus. As to his latter request, I say: It would be helpful if the Mopologists "could provide at least some shred of evidence" that controversial LDS claims receive peer review anywhere other than Brethren-sanctioned publications such as FROB.

Candidly, I'm wondering whether most of the critics who say such things have ever attended an academic conference, and on what basis they profess to know what scholars generally think. I've spent almost my entire life among scholars, nationally and internationally, and I think I have a pretty good feel for prevailing attitudes, etc., and I simply haven't noticed what is supposedly so obvious to people who probably don't ever encounter academics in professional situations.

This is just a cheap shot. He is characterizing myself and others as stupid and uninformed. Not very nice, Prof. P.!

I can only say that, so far as I'm able to tell, Latter-day Saint scholars enjoy reasonably good relations with their non-Mormon counterparts, participate in symposia at a reputable rate and level, and are treated with respect by their peers.

Do our academic peers find our religious beliefs unusual? Almost certainly. Our religious beliefs are unusual. They are not shared by the vast majority of those in our fields, and they are far from the religious mainstream.

And are those parts of these beliefs which cross over into the secular put up for scrutiny? Things such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon? No. They are not. By the way, this comment from the Good Professor basically demonstrates what I've been saying all along: he and his ilk are afraid to "put their money where their mouth is." They know that such assertions as historicity of the Book of Mormon, or Lamanite DNA, would be utterly shot down and obliterated by the rigors of normative scholarship. So, instead, he and Hamblin and whomever else choose to hide on the Pundits Forum at MAD, or else behind the "rigged" peer review process at FROB.

So for example, when you attend a conference such as the one you just talked about, how are the papers received by the Non-Mormon academic community in general? Do they appreciate the scholarship or just dismiss it out of hand? Do other scholars respond to the LDS views expressed at such a conference, or perhaps later in private correspondance? I hope I am making sense...

You are. In my experience, we virtually always get a receptive hearing. It's possible, of course, that our non-Mormon colleagues immediately retreat to the bar to mock us and marvel at our idiocy, but I'm aware of no evidence for this.

Since no LDS scholar bothers to present on the more controversial aspects of the faith, it's not really any surprise that they "virtually always get a receptive hearing."

Generally, how is Mormon scholarship in various fields viewed by non-Mormon scholars (not refering to our Anti-Mormon "scholarly" friends, but the real academics out there)? Examples?

Scholarship by Mormons on non-Mormon topics (even in religion) is received the way similar scholarship by non-Mormons would be. Our scholarship on Mormon topics is relatively little noticed by non-Mormons, but we're doing our best to change that (e.g., by marketing our books, presenting papers, and sponsoring sessions at the world's largest gathering of scholars in the relevant fields).

Okay, this last part, which I've bolded, is total BS, as I have belabored to point out. The reason it is "little notices" is because no one bothers to try and advance positions such as that Cureloms once roamed the Great Plains, or that Zelph was an important figure in pre-Columbian American history. The Mopologists are mortified of such stuff, and refuse to present these things in normative academic settings. The embarrassment is transparently obvious.

A bit later, the Good Professor continues:

I am somewhat bemused by any controversy over Mormon involvement in the AAR/SBL or lack thereof. After all, one can find people talking about anything from Scientology and New Age religions to the secular study of Religion and Roman Catholicism at the AAR/SBL. The discussion of a topic is not a measure of its respectability or lack thereof. That people are able to present papers celebrating the tradition of Jewish breadmaking or the sexual ethics of cyberpunk culture is not a vindication of the subject or the speaker's credentials.

I don't argue that presentations by Mormons vindicate Mormonism, although I would certainly contend that the interactions of Mormon scholars with their counterparts consistently demonstrate that their counterparts regard them im Grossen und Ganzen as respectable peers.

My point is simply to counter those critics, largely if not entirely non-academics, who falsely assert that Mormon scholars lack the confidence in their own beliefs to expose those beliefs to scrutiny from scholarly outsiders and/or that Mormon scholars are mocked and derided as buffoons by academia at large.

Sorry, Prof. P., but this is an inadequate counter. Nowhere have I seen any "confidence" in, say, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or a direct presentation by, say, John Gee regarding the Book of Abraham. None of this is done in a direct way. The embarrassment is quite obvious. It is a pity he could not come up with a better example.

Another interesting thing worth pointing out is this: I wonder if the LDS presentations at these conferences feature the same rancor and confrontational tone which is the stock-in-trade of FARMS Review? I wonder if the LDS scholars are bold enough to accuse fellow scholars of "gross tendentiousness" in person, or if they limit these kinds of attacks to the relatively small circulation of FARMS Review? Hmmmm..... Something makes me suspect that this is yet another piece in the massive jigsaw puzzle of evidence against the seriousness and validity of Mopologetic scholarship.

[_Trevor]

I agree. However, I question DCP's assertion that this constitutes a legitimate "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. Rather, this seems to relate to Mormonism in a very tangential and arcane way.

Scratch,

I don't think that DCP would claim that it does constitute a "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. An academic conference on the subject of religion is not dedicated to determining the truth or falseness of a particular religion. It is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of religion or perhaps even the intellectual celebration of various traditions. What the AAR/SBL meetings do not ordinarily do in our age of spiritual pluralism, at least as far as I can tell, is debunk religions. Debunking is for the Skeptics or polemicists. The Academy is generally not interested in debunking.

[_Mister Scratch]

I agree. However, I question DCP's assertion that this constitutes a legitimate "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. Rather, this seems to relate to Mormonism in a very tangential and arcane way.

Scratch,

I don't think that DCP would claim that it does constitute a "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. An academic conference on the subject of religion is not dedicated to determining the truth or falseness of a particular religion. It is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of religion or perhaps even the intellectual celebration of various traditions.

I agree with all of this. The main thrust of my argument vis-a-vis this subject is that certain very important facets of LDS "scholarship" and truth claims---e.g., that Cureloms once roamed North America, or that Zelph was a key historical figure---never get vetted in the academic world. These crucial things, in my opinion, have never, ever been "laid on the line," as it were, nor will they ever be.

What the AAR/SBL meetings do not ordinarily do in our age of spiritual pluralism, at least as far as I can tell, is debunk religions. Debunking is for the Skeptics or polemicists. The Academy is generally not interested in debunking.

I don't really expect the more religious or theological aspects of Mormonism to ever be treated by the academy in this way. Secular claims, on the other hand, such as those which intersect with history, Egyptology, and so forth, ought to be fair game. A conference on religion is really the wrong place to be looking for kinds of legit LDS academic involvement I've been referring to. Rather, one needs to find evidence for involvement at conferences on history, DNA, archaeology, and other secular fields.

[_Trevor]

I agree with all of this. The main thrust of my argument vis-a-vis this subject is that certain very important facets of LDS "scholarship" and truth claims---e.g., that Cureloms once roamed North America, or that Zelph was a key historical figure---never get vetted in the academic world. These crucial things, in my opinion, have never, ever been "laid on the line," as it were, nor will they ever be.

Well, the AAR/SBL meeting is not the place where these particular claims would be tested. So, the appearance of Mormon scholars and topics at the AAR/SBL does not really address the issue you are raising. The only possible exception is Hansen's work on the Egyptian ritual, but I don't know enough about that to say anything.

I don't really expect the more religious or theological aspects of Mormonism to ever be treated by the academy in this way. Secular claims, on the other hand, such as those which intersect with history, Egyptology, and so forth, ought to be fair game. A conference on religion is really the wrong place to be looking for kinds of legit LDS academic involvement I've been referring to. Rather, one needs to find evidence for involvement at conferences on history, DNA, archaeology, and other secular fields.

Sure, every claim of this kind should be fair game, but you will find few people waste their time on disproving these claims. It is generally considered impolite to attack religious claims, no matter how ludicrous they may be.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I agree. However, I question DCP's assertion that this constitutes a legitimate "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. Rather, this seems to relate to Mormonism in a very tangential and arcane way.

Scratch,

I don't think that DCP would claim that it does constitute a "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. An academic conference on the subject of religion is not dedicated to determining the truth or falseness of a particular religion. It is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of religion or perhaps even the intellectual celebration of various traditions. What the AAR/SBL meetings do not ordinarily do in our age of spiritual pluralism, at least as far as I can tell, is debunk religions. Debunking is for the Skeptics or polemicists. The Academy is generally not interested in debunking.

Good response, thanks.

[_Gadianton]

I agree. However, I question DCP's assertion that this constitutes a legitimate "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. Rather, this seems to relate to Mormonism in a very tangential and arcane way.

Scratch,

I don't think that DCP would claim that it does constitute a "laying on the line" of LDS truth claims. An academic conference on the subject of religion is not dedicated to determining the truth or falseness of a particular religion. It is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of religion or perhaps even the intellectual celebration of various traditions. What the AAR/SBL meetings do not ordinarily do in our age of spiritual pluralism, at least as far as I can tell, is debunk religions. Debunking is for the Skeptics or polemicists. The Academy is generally not interested in debunking.

But Trever, FARMS is dedicated to determining the truth of Mormon Scripture. And they link their efforts to mainstream scholarship and appeal to their authority in these other venues. I too would find it odd if universities were concerning themselves with debunking or supporting the supernatural. And this is key, since there is no discussion, no serious discussion, of the Book of Mormon on a textual level without at once drawing in at once its supposed supernatural origins, the two can't be disentangled. Because of that, there's no way for the academic world, even if they were interested, to have a conversation about Book of Mormon origins without at once putting the church's truth on the lines. It will never be a serious topic, for many reasons, for researchers outside of the church and its critics. But all this is additional reason to call for FARMS to lay it on the line. Because, as you've noted, no one would be interested in the subject. It would be embarrassing. Equally it would be embarrassing to submit research debunking UFO's to a serious science journal (I'd wager, I'm guessing here). And let's not forget, equally, then, would it be a risky move for mainstream scholars, like Ritner, to spend too much time refuting FARMS's nonsense. I agree with everything you said, and it's additional reason to not take seriously the output of FARMS as something with serious scholarly credibility.

[_Trevor]

But Trever, FARMS is dedicated to determining the truth of Mormon Scripture. And they link their efforts to mainstream scholarship and appeal to their authority in these other venues. I too would find it odd if universities were concerning themselves with debunking or supporting the supernatural. And this is key, since there is no discussion, no serious discussion, of the Book of Mormon on a textual level without at once drawing in at once its supposed supernatural origins, the two can't be disentangled. Because of that, there's no way for the academic world, even if they were interested, to have a conversation about Book of Mormon origins without at once putting the church's truth on the lines. It will never be a serious topic, for many reasons, for researchers outside of the church and its critics. But all this is additional reason to call for FARMS to lay it on the line. Because, as you've noted, no one would be interested in the subject. It would be embarrassing. Equally it would be embarrassing to submit research debunking UFO's to a serious science journal (I'd wager, I'm guessing here). And let's not forget, equally, then, would it be a risky move for mainstream scholars, like Ritner, to spend too much time refuting FARMS's nonsense. I agree with everything you said, and it's additional reason to not take seriously the output of FARMS as something with serious scholarly credibility.

I disagree, Gadianton. I believe that an academic discussion of the Book of Mormon as a 19th century document can take place regardless of the work of the Maxwell Institute. It is not necessary to prove, against their arguments, that the text is 19th century. There is plenty of evidence that it does belong to that time to discuss it in those terms. I think you will find that LDS arguments concerning the Book of Mormon ultimately rely on the presupposition that the book is ancient, and then proceed to argue on that basis. Should students of the Book of Mormon who do not accept its antiquity wait for LDS folk to agree that it is OK to continue their investigations? One does not need to disapprove one hypothesis in order to pursue the value of another.

As for the Book of Mormon's supernatural origins--these too should be the subject of academic discussion, just as there is discussion of other religious phenomena. One does not have to accept the existence of angels to have an academic discussion about other people's experiences with angels.