FARMS---a "secular" organization?

[_Mister Scratch]

On the aptly named MADboard, I recently came across a startling bizarre admission from DCP. In the thread called, "Historicity of Book of Mormon" (the same one in which The Good Professor is making all sorts of nasty insinuations about Quinn), Analytics put up this extremely insightful post:

If the secular evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon were strong enough to overcome the evidence against it, a dyed-in-the-wool naturalist would be able to make up some explanation to accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic translation and still dismiss or ignore the supernatural implications. Perhaps he’d say some unknown scholar found the record, using secular means translated it, and somehow passed the manuscript to Joseph Smith. And of course he’d dismiss the miraculous events in the record as mere mythology. But he’d still consider it an incredible, superlatively seminal insight into the culture that produced this record.

Let me put it this way. The proposition that the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript. Our hypothetical scholar is intently interested in Mesoamerican anthropology, is professionally qualified to consider the evidence, is open-minded, has excellent judgment, and an appropriate level of skepticism.

Is there now enough secular evidence to cause this hypothetical scholar to accept the proposition?

(italics ibid)

Very well said, in my opinion. What do you suppose the reply is?

Accurate translations of authentic ancient manuscripts are in the realm of secular inquiry, are they not?

They are. Which is the very raison d'etre for FARMS -- an organization designed to foster the use of tools of secular inquiry in the study of the Book of Mormon, as distinct from devotional and/or theological approaches.

(emphasis added)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same DCP who has always maintained that study of the Book of Mormon and other LDS-related subjects is inseparable from faith??? Furthermore, doesn't this open up a problematic can of worms? Citing the religious nature of FARMS always gave apologists an out vis-a-vis peer review. If study of the Book of Mormon is purely about religious faith wedded to "scholarship," then it's much easier to justify a rigged peer review process. If FARMS is strictly "secular," however, then we kind of need to expect that FARMS scholars present their views in a more public academic setting. But, as I've pointed out before, there are virtually no instances of LDS "scholars" presenting their most controversial theories in serious academic settings. I've suggested that this is a result of a very deep kind of embarrassment.

Elsewhere, Yme brings up an old point:

I believe recognized critical thinker Edward DeBono explains it best with his quote describing "experts" :

"An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgments easier through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore."

In other words, experts in history and archaeology have simply ignored the LDS works in the area of attempting to show support for the Book of Mormon historicity. I suspect it will stay this way until such works meet even minimal standards of academic credibility.

He's actually missing the critical point, and DCP makes him/her pay for it:

And nothing qualifies an expert to pronounce judgment on the credibillity of a body of scholarly literature quite so well as unfamiliarity with it, right?

Actually, the key issue here, as I see it, is not so much that the various experts are "ignoring" the stuff coming out of FARMS. Rather, its that DCP, Hamblin, and et. al. only publish their stuff within a very tightly confined circle of "scholars." There have been literally thousands of opportunities for LDS scholars to present these more far-fetched theories to audiences of willing and intelligent academics. But have they done so? No; there is no evidence that they have.

DCP's claim that FARMS is a "secular" operation seems quite a stretch, imho.

[_antishock8]

These liars are especially adept at doublespeak and doublthink which makes it all the more challenging for anyone to get through to them since they're inherently unknowable to themselves because everything they say means nothing at all.

I wish I were joking...

[_beastie]

I do not think DCP is saying FARMS is a secular organization, but rather that it uses secular TOOLS, which it does attempt to do.

Other than that, there's so much BS on that thread it stinks. Perhaps they needed to be reminded what John Clark himself said about trying to convince other archaeologists that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican text in his BYU devotional:

Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.

:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

His words are quite clear. What he says directly and flatly contradicts what the apologists are claiming on that silly thread. Number one, Clark HAS been able to convince his peers to take a look at the Book of Mormon, BUT they read it "like they're reading an archaeology book". In other words - they read it from a completely secular viewpoint. And no, that's certainly not going to "go anywhere". You have to "get the testimony some other way and THEN the evidence will become very clear."

Anyone who posts on MAD is welcome to use this point, it's begging to be made.

[_Mister Scratch]

I do not think DCP is saying FARMS is a secular organization, but rather that it uses secular TOOLS, which it does attempt to do.

I somewhat disagree with this. Perhaps it's fair to say that FARMS "attempts" to use secular tools, though I think that in the final analysis, the chief "tools" they are using are religious faith, sophistry, and spin-doctoring.

Other than that, there's so much BS on that thread it stinks.

Boy! Is that ever true! DCP keeps citing his horribly discredited article "The Witchcraft Paradigm" as solid evidence that Book of Mormon historicity scholarship has been published in peer reviewed journals:

Do you think it would help if these scholarly works (in Book of Mormon historicity) were circulated outside of FARMS? Can they be circulated outside of FARMS?

These works are printed and they are placed on the web. They're accessible to anybody. Heck, even you could read them.

And, as I've pointed out in print, some works by FARMS authors and very much on FARMS topics have in fact been published in mainstream journals.

See my Editor's Introduction entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... 8&number=2

This is a neat little semantic two-step on DCP's part. He really seems to be referring to two separate and distinct sets of texts: (1) "scholarly" works which are expressly about Book of Mormon historicity, and (2) "works by FARMS authors" which are "very much on FARMS topics" which have been published in "mainstream" journals. In other words, he is sneakily avoiding having to admit that articles expressly and candidly dealing Book of Mormon historicity have never met peer review standards in mainstream journals.

Anyways, are you curious about what these mainstream articles are, these articles which are (supposedly) "very much on FARMS topics"? Here's a list, from the DCP article:

Some other pieces with clear Mormon interest that have been published by FARMS-affiliated authors in mainstream non-LDS venues include (but are not limited to):

John Gee. "Notes on Egyptian Marriage: P. BM 10416 Reconsidered." Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2002): 17–25.

John Gee. "Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali." In Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga: "Le lotus qui sort de terre," 325–34. Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2002.

John Gee. "S3 mi nn: A Temporary Conclusion." Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55–58.

John Gee. "Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple." Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31 (2004): 97– 07.

Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen. "Augustine and the Corporeality of God." Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002): 97–118.

David L. Paulsen. "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses." Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–16.

David L. Paulsen. "Reply to Kim Paffenroth's Comment." Harvard Theological Review 86/2 (1993): 235–39.

Daniel C. Peterson. "Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani on Creation." In Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque: Actes du colloque de la SIHSPAI (Société internationale d'histoire des sciences et de la philosophie arabes et islamiques): Paris, 31 mars–3 Avril 1993, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 79, edited by Ahmad Hasnawi, Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal, and Maroun Aouad, 555–67. Louvain: Peeters and Institut du monde arabe, 1997.

Daniel C. Peterson. "Al-Kirmani on the Divine Tawhid." In Proceedings of the Third European Conference in Iranian Studies, Part 2, Mediaeval and Modern Persian Studies, edited by Charles Melville, 179–93. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1999.

John L. Sorenson. "The Significance of an Apparent Relationship between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica." In Man across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts, edited by C. L. Riley, J. C. Kelley, C. W. Pennington, and R. L. Rands, 219–41. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971.

John L. Sorenson. "A Reconsideration of Early Metal in Mesoamerica." Katunob 9 (March 1976): 1–18.

John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen. "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages." In Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, edited by Victor H. Mair, 238–97. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2006).

First of all, so far as I know, all of these Sorenson pieces have be obliterated. Second, how and in what ways do any of these articles expressly deal with the most audacious claims about Book of Mormon historicity? Does anybody know???

Here is the other list of examples, which is buried down in FN 22:

For representative samples, see such items as John E. Clark, ed., Los olmecas en Mesoamérica (Mexico City: Citibank, 1994); John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, eds. Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000 and 2006); John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, eds., Folsom Technology and Lifeways (Tulsa, OK: University of Tulsa, 2002); Douglas Donne Bryant, John E. Clark, and David Cheetham, eds., Ceramic Sequence of the Upper Grijalva Region, Chiapas, Mexico, 2 vols. (Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation, 2005); Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005); Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich, eds., The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (New York: Brill, 1996); Stephen David Ricks, Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989); William J. Hamblin, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History (London: Routledge, 2006). For John Butler's ever-growing professional resumé, see his Web site at www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/butler.htm (accessed 7 December 2006).

Interesting, eh?

[_Mister Scratch]

I'd like to call attention to something problematic in DCP's citations. Check out these three listings, from the main text in "The Witchcraft Paradigm":

Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen. "Augustine and the Corporeality of God." Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002): 97–118.

David L. Paulsen. "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses." Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–16.

David L. Paulsen. "Reply to Kim Paffenroth's Comment." Harvard Theological Review 86/2 (1993): 235–39.

Is it just me, or does it seem like The Good Professor is stretching his references pretty thin? Of further interest is this curious footnote from the "Reply to Kim Paffenroth's Comment":

Two colleagues at Brigham Young University, Professor James Siebach and Dennis Potter, have contributed significantly to the preparation of this reply.

Wha? Why did he need their help? If DCP and his ilk want to dispel the notion of all of them huddled together in a tightly-knit cabal of "yes-men," frank admissions like this certainly aren't going to help.

Perhaps even more significantly, the original Paulsen article, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity" has *zero* to say about the Book of Mormon. Let me be perfectly clear: nowhere, so far as I can see, is the Book of Mormon even mentioned in this article!! So why is DCP linking to it as evidence that LDS scholars are publishing articles in secular journals on the historicity of the Book of Mormon? This has to be hugely embarrassing to DCP, since it is transparently obvious that he has been abusing sources and padding his evidence. Shame, shame on The Good Professor! Perhaps he should go back to his old, cowardly practice of refusing to offer up sources or evidence. 'Cause see, thataway, no one can check!

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... This thread is just a jackpot of juicy nuggets. It seems now that our dear old friend "Yme" is feeding Professor P. his just desserts. Check this:

The vast majority of scholars, and even of those in Mesoamerican archaeology, probably don't even know it exists.

First of all, how can you make such a statement? How would you even know? Didn't you just tell me these articles are posted on the web?

Here is the strange reply:

I don't "know" it. Not in any way that I could demonstrate by means of statistics or polling data. But after decades spent, as a Mormon, in academia at universities across the United States and after decades spent reading academic journals and attending academic meetings, I think I have a pretty good sense of the overall climate in the relevant academic fields. If you have actual evidence that would overturn my sense of academia, I hope you'll share it.

Ah, okay. So he completely understands the dearth of materials being circulated in mainstream circles, and so what is he doing to reverse this? Why, he's providing an insular forum (i.e., FROB) for these academically embarrassing theories to exist! Will author such as Clark and Sorenson submit frank work on Book of Mormon historicity to secular journals? No! Of course not. They are far too embarrassed.

[_antishock8]

God. Mr. Peterson is an embarrassment to watch. It's a disappointment to watch someone shill away for a paycheck. I'm not surprised, many people do it across many different professions, but still... I suppose he does the best he can with what he has which is obfuscation. I am, however, surprised there are adults who rely on his deceit for assurance that their church is "true". C'est la vie...

[_beastie]

Merc, while I agree that DCP is basically a shill, your focus on his death is disgusting. You're going to die, too, one day, so perhaps in my next response to you I'll insert a paragraph dwelling on that, as well.

Aside from that diversion -

I see a new "line" developing over on MAD among the apologists, which is to define the "academic peers" of Book of Mormon/Mesoamerican apologists as "people who study the Book of Mormon", instead of "people who study ancient Mesoamerica". Of course, this completely ignores Analytic's actual point, which is a point I've also repeated made in the past as well. IF the Book of Mormon could really be shown to be an ancient Mesoamerican text, then Mesoamerican scholars would jump at the chance to advance their knowledge base about ancient Mesoamerica by reading it. But the ugly reality is that NO ONE can learn one blessed thing about ancient Mesoamerica by reading the Book of Mormon. Of course, you can learn quite a bit about nineteenth century New England. That's what could be called a 'little clue'.

[_Canucklehead]

Could the above post by Mercury please be removed?

Could people who post garbage like that not be banned?

[_antishock8]

Could the above post by Mercury please be removed?

Could people who post garbage like that not be banned?

Why does his post bother you?