DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:34 pm**

Yeeouch! I'm am sure some here have followed the back-and-forth involving the issue of whether LDS apologetic "scholarship" makes a legitimate attempt to present its most controversial theories to the wider academic community. Over on the aptly named MADboard, a rather stalwart poster called "Yme" made a valiant attempt to challenge DCP & et. al. on this, to which The Good Professor responded by citing three Sorenson sources, all of which have been discredited, and two of which are pretty badly dated.

Nevertheless, Yme didn't respond to these Sorenson counterexamples, and so DCP chased him up and down the message board for days, racking up over a dozen posts that consist of nothing more than, "Hey, Yme, are you going to respond? Yoo hoo! Yme! Respond, please!"

Anyways, the coda to this whole shebang appeared recently, with DCP and juliann behaving like a pair of hyenas:

Yme wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Yme has made it quite obvious that he doesn't intend to respond to my questions.

Oh well. Such is life. I'm sure that, if it could, beef would forego the opportunity of being ground into hamburger meat, too.

When he senses that it's safe to come out again, I suspect that Yme will resurface and repeat the same claims that he's made before.

Mr. Peterson,

Forgive me as I do not seem to have the time that you do for posting on these boards. Obvioulsy, as it does appear, my questioning of the lack of acceptance or generation of interest in/for LDS scholarship in providing a credible basis for Book of Mormon historicity acceptance has undoubtedly hit a VERY SENSITIVE nerve. As it was never meant to be, I apologize.

But I think that is only natural for those who desperately seek the recognition of scholarship that seems so waning in every other standard of recognition. I now see how individuals and/or an entire faith based organization can create such non-sensical, self limiting, subjective, and isolating criteria for its evaluation, so that it will be free from any standards of comparison or evaluation for quite some time - at least for those who need it to be that way. Perhaps a good thing for such claimed scholarship and those that need to find spiritual cog-dis in such.

But I suspect you are one who fancies the last word in any conversation as indicated by all the bating done on this thread, so, have at it (of course only if your academic schedule allows!!)!!

And here is juliann's nasty response:

juliann wrote:Be prepared to back up what you blurt and it won't hurt so much next time. And you would have more time to post if you would stop lurking for days on end when you get caught in your own net.

Right. So says the woman who has been repeatedly found to either horribly distort or outright invent sources in order to support her baloney claims.

Here's DCP's final post:

The Good Professor wrote:
Yme wrote:Forgive me as I do not seem to have the time that you do for posting on these boards.

You've been on and off numerous times since you left this conversation. I work at my computer much of the day, and, so, I look in here fairly frequently, and I saw you here on several occasions. And I doubt very much that I just happened to have seen you every time you were here.

Yme wrote:Obvioulsy, as it does appear, my questioning of the lack of acceptance or generation of interest in/for LDS scholarship in providing a credible basis for Book of Mormon historicity acceptance has undoubtedly hit a VERY SENSITIVE nerve. As it was never meant to be, I apologize.

You hit no nerve.

I simply enjoy pointing out baseless and poorly reasoned objections. I like popping balloons. It's a hobby.

Then bring your "needle" over here, Prof. P.

DCP wrote:
Yme wrote:But I think that is only natural for those who desperately seek the recognition of scholarship that seems so waning in every other standard of recognition.

I don't actually understand that incoherent sentence, but I note the word desperately.

Nobody here is "desperate." Certainly not yours truly.

You kept droning on about Mormons being unable to submit their arguments to audiences of non-Mormons, and then -- and it grew increasingly comical the longer the show went on -- repeatedly ignored specific counterexamples that plainly refuted your claim. I asked you very specific questions. You declined to answer them. You ignored them. Not just once, but many times.

Pop!

Ignoring counterexamples and specific questions? Gee, that sounds familiar!

Pop!

DCP wrote:
Yme wrote:I now see how individuals and/or an entire faith based organization can create such non-sensical, self limiting, subjective, and isolating criteria for its evaluation, so that it will be free from any standards of comparison or evaluation for quite some time - at least for those who need it to be that way. Perhaps a good thing for such claimed scholarship and those that need to find spiritual cog-dis in such.

In the avant garde credo of the discredited group, many logia of the fallen veterans were found to be either wholly irremediable or, at the same time, neatly staggered in pyramidal clusters. We didn't know that before, but now we aim at the very highest and sometimes grasp an integer or two.

See? I can write like that, too. You just string together some fairly pompous verbiage without any attempt at actually making an argument or even making sense.

Oh yes, dear Prof. P., we know all too well that you can "write like that."

DCP wrote:
Yme wrote:But I suspect you are one who fancies the last word in any conversation as indicated by all the bating done on this thread, so, have at it (of course only if your academic schedule allows!!)!!

In other words, you want to avoid the issues in perpetuity, but you don't want to admit that you're surrendering.

Got it.

Oh, wait... is DCP referring to himself? Or to Yme? Hmmmm.......

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:52 pm**

Mister Scratch wrote:
DCP wrote:
Yme wrote:But I suspect you are one who fancies the last word in any conversation as indicated by all the bating done on this thread, so, have at it (of course only if your academic schedule allows!!)!!

In other words, you want to avoid the issues in perpetuity, but you don't want to admit that you're surrendering.

Got it.

Oh, wait... is DCP referring to himself? Or to Yme? Hmmmm.......

Yeah....certainly DCP has NEVER left one of my threads hanging when I've cornered him...

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:40 pm**

LOL

Great stuff, Scratch.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:41 pm**

Yme is an interesting fellow; one who has never been satisfied with an answer proffered to his questions in my experience. That could be that all the answers are inadequate, or it could be that some of them are inadequate, others are adequate, and Yme is reticent to accept anything a Mormon tells him.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:19 pm**

I think this guy Yme hit the nail on the head with the following:

"I now see how individuals and/or an entire faith based organization can create such non-sensical, self limiting, subjective, and isolating criteria for its evaluation, so that it will be free from any standards of comparison or evaluation for quite some time - at least for those who need it to be that way. Perhaps a good thing for such claimed scholarship and those that need to find spiritual cog-dis in such."

Peterson has been coming up with the most illogical and bizzare standards for evaluating the works of Clark and Sorenson on Book of Mormon historicity for over 4 years now. I remeber when John Clark gave the infamous speech at BYU in May of 2004 where he said archaeology would be the only way to validate the Book of Mormon. Peterson and this Juliann gal came out with how Clark was really putting his reputation on the line and how this could really cost him. The reality is, now with the benefit of hindsight, that much like their scholarship the expsosure of anything they say and write in this area never makes it out of Provo.

Is Peterson really an active professor? He seems to never be talking about his classes but is always on some trip to somewhere. But he spends a lot of time posting on that board.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:29 pm**

Joey wrote:Peterson has been coming up with the most illogical and bizzare standards for evaluating the works of Clark and Sorenson on Book of Mormon historicity for over 4 years now. I remeber when John Clark gave the infamous speech at BYU in May of 2004 where he said archaeology would be the only way to validate the Book of Mormon. Peterson and this Juliann gal came out with how Clark was really putting his reputation on the line and how this could really cost him. The reality is, now with the benefit of hindsight, that much like their scholarship the expsosure of anything they say and write in this area never makes it out of Provo.

Well said, Joey. I am still waiting for The Good Professor to demonstrate where/how/in what ways the Sorenson texts make absolutely and crystal clear that they are, in fact, dealing with Mormonism. I.e., would a non-LDS understand that these texts offer up proof for the secular claims of Mormonism?

Is Peterson really an active professor? He seems to never be talking about his classes but is always on some trip to somewhere. But he spends a lot of time posting on that board.

It seems pretty clear to me that the Brethren and BYU have sanctioned his role as Chief Apologist. His academic career is really just a kind of "fake beard." His main professional activities in life are Mormon apologetics, plain and simple.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:52 pm**

There is more relevant commentary about all this stuff on the "F A R M S Scholars a Global Joke" thread:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've read, elsewhere, that my making fun of those who say that Mormon scholars are nonentitites and are regarded internationally as buffoons and pseudoscholars is nothing but a straw man argument.

And Runtu's reply:

John W wrote:That would be me who said it was a straw man. I've never heard anyone suggest that LDS scholars are snickered at behind their backs or are considered a global laughingstock. I have heard that scholarly pedigrees do not necessarily count for much in producing sound arguments in apologetics. There seems to be in some circles an odd insistence that the degrees apologists have somehow validate their apologetics.

To which The Good Professor responds:

You say that you haven't seen such comments.

But I have seen them. More times than I can count.

As luck would have it, I do happen to have saved a few specimens. I share them with you here:

"The very public faces of Mormon apologetics, i.e., DCP, are undoubtedly now irrelevant in their respective fields. Academics are unforgiving. FARMs folks are admired only within their very small community. In academics at large, they are a joke." (ziaboy, RFM, 26 August 2006)

"But once you publish in FARMS your tainted for life. Let's face it. . . . And only the weak-minded find the FARMS rag to have any value." Tom Kimball, of Signature Books (11 May 2005)

"Daniel Peterson is not a second rate hack academic. He doesn't rate. In the slightest. Without BYU I wonder what he would be doing? Flipping burgers? No, he would be training people to flip burgers at a burger flipping academy, somewhere..." (Matt, "Recovery from Mormonism" board, 12 January 2007)

"In the terms of academia, DCP is the equivalent of 'trailer trash.'" (Matt, RFM, 15 June 2006)

There are lots and lots of good ones that, unfortunately, I didn't save. (I like to use them as signatures in private e-mails to friends.) And there are, I'm sure, many, many more that I never even see.

This isn't a matter for debate. Unless you have evidence sufficient to demonstrate to me that I've been hallucinating in a very specific way for the past several years and to demonstrate to anybody else that I forged the ones above, I'm not going to doubt the evidence of my eyes simply because you don't recall having seen such comments.

Runtu goes on to say that he "stands corrected." Well, it may be true that some folks on RfM have labeled LDS apologists as a "global joke," but that doesn't change the fact that DCP is, nonetheless, employing a straw man---it's just not for the reason that Runtu initially proffered. The reason DCP's joking is a "straw man" has to do with the fact that he is trying to laugh off the lack of LDS publication of controversial claims in legit, secular journals.

Here is a very insightful post from Uncle Dale:

Uncle Dale wrote:Our friend the Doc is alluding to the Ed Deckers and Mr. Scratches of the anti crowd. They have
some effect within their immediate circles of influence and they are no friends of FARMS
(or Maxwell) contributers.

But there are larger fish to be fried -- and such stuff is not even a strawman -- it is straw in the wind.

The question is not whether these saintly contributors have sufficient vitas and resumes for their
areas of expertise (be they Provo publications, or Oxford Books tomes, or whatever).

The question is whether or not this reporting and critiquing has any special relevance in demonstrating
that things Mormon are worthy of our notice and further consideration.

In some cases I might venture a hesitant "yes," -- but I'm no fan and make little use of these piles
of published scholarship. And those less interested than myself probably are even less impressed.

Dig up Zarahemla -- publish the reports, and open up a wider-than-just-LDS discussion and audience.
Or, lacking that, find some other way to engage the larger academic/scholarly/scientific/religious
communities -- and thus obtain some relevance for the work.

My humble suggestion -- not that anybody is likely to ever take the trouble of listening.

Uncle Dale

(emphasis added)

First of all: Wow! have I at last reached Ed Decker status? Gee, do I get a medal or something?

Second, I could not have said this better myself. It is interesting that The Good Professor didn't go straight for D'Unk's throat, as he did with Yme. But, perhaps this is just evidence of D'Unk's loveable nature.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:59 pm**

Why are you so reticent to give your name online?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:06 pm**

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Why are you so reticent to give your name online?

Why are you? Why is The Nehor? Why is Pahoran? In fact, Pahoran demanded that no one use his name during the course of the Luke Wilson MAD thread.

One reason I don't give it out is because I have received threats from people in the past.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:17 pm**

Joey wrote:
Is Peterson really an active professor? He seems to never be talking about his classes but is always on some trip to somewhere. But he spends a lot of time posting on that board.

First, there is the complaint that the FARMS and BYU shcolars aren't really out in the world. Then you complain because he is invited to attend prestigious seminars and present his material to learned academicians.

DiscussMormonism.com

juliann & DCP Stick it to Yme

juliann & DCP Stick it to Yme

Re: juliann & DCP Stick it to Yme