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

[_Joey]

Five years ago this month BYU's and Peterson's highly acclaimed archaeology scholar John Clark came out with, what Peterson and other LDS apologists would have us believe was, earth shatter news that archaeology was the only way to shut up critics and prove the Book of Mormon.

It was, according to the posters at FAIR at the time, a real indication that the Book of Mormon must have credible archaeological support. After all, this was the (supposed) famed John Clark!!!

So monumental of a speech was this that Peterson and Juliann went on and on about how Clark was putting his reputation on the line and taking such a position "could really cost him" supposedly amongst his professional peer group. Oh was this such a big deal back then with Peterson and his pals.

Well five years have now passed and the academic world, Clark's peer group, and apparently even the LDS apologetics continue to ignore Clarks statement and works in this area. No surprise as I told Peterson back then that this outcome was very predictable.

So what is it that is completely lacking here? Clark's recognition and respect from his professional peers? Or the credibility and scholarship of his work in this area of Book of Mormon archaeology.

What did this "really cost him" and who "really paid attention" to him at all?

Another faith promoting event for the ignorant on the campus of BYU it would appear, now, with the benefit of hindsight!!

[_cinepro]

Wow, I can't believe that was five years ago.

Here are some discussions from MA&D about the subject:

Prof Clark - Any Update?

Here is DCP's comment from a few months later in post #2 of that thread:

It's not the kind of thing that would result, most likely, in public statements or denunciations or anything of that sort. (Professor Clark's presentation itself -- which was a speech, not an article -- hasn't yet been published, for that matter, and probably very few non-Mormon archaeologists were sitting in the DeJong Concert Hall or watching it at 11 AM on KBYU-TV.) The repercussions will, if they come at all, come within the small community of Mesoamerican archaeologists, in terms of grant support, invitations to participate in academic symposia, relationships with government ministries of antiquity, dig permits, etc. And such repercussions will materialize over years.

(Emphasis added)

So it would be interesting to see if John Clark felt any of these things had happened over the years.

[_Joey]

It's as clear now as it was then that Clark's speech 5 years ago was nothing more than a campus fireside. There was no archaeological value in it and it could have been given by the campus bishop.

I bring it up now to show how Peterson and other apologists work. Try and sensationalize anything that promote the faith through any deceptive means.

Clark was very sure at the time he gave the speech that no one outside of campus would take notice.-- and they still have not.Book of Mormon historicity will never be taken seriously because it simply never existed. Its only the kind of fiction that FARMS would publish in an attempt to add legitimacy for the ignorant followers in Provo.

[_Runtu]

I'm assuming you're talking about the fireside Clark gave about "archaeological convergence." Last I heard, just about everything he said has been debunked.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm assuming you're talking about the fireside Clark gave about "archaeological convergence."

Never heard of such a fireside.

Last I heard, just about everything he said has been debunked.

Never heard of that, either.

I realize that Clark is just a no-name amateur, unknown outside of Provo, but I'm guessing, for what it's worth, that he would dispute your confident assertion on that point.

[_Runtu]

I'm assuming you're talking about the fireside Clark gave about "archaeological convergence."

Never heard of such a fireside.

Last I heard, just about everything he said has been debunked.

Never heard of that, either.

I realize that Clark is just a no-name amateur, unknown outside of Provo, but I'm guessing, for what it's worth, that he would dispute your confident assertion on that point.

I'm talking about his talk (which If I recall correctly was given at a fireside) whereupon he listed roughly a dozen points of convergence of what we know now with what Joseph Smith had claimed. He said that Joseph's claims were extraordinary but had been vindicated. The talk was posted on the FARMS web site, and I responded to it.

It took me two hours' work to find that none of the supposed "wild claims" (I think those were Clark's words) were exceptional at all but reflected widely held beliefs of Joseph's day. I could look up my little response, but you read it, and even Brant Gardner said that he couldn't vouch for what Clark had said.

If something has changed since I responded to Clark, I would love to hear about it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It would be interesting to hear from Professor Clark on your claim to have debunked his talk.

But it won't happen. I can guarantee you that he doesn't spend time on message boards. I'm not even sure that he's in the United States right now; he's very commonly at his base in Chiapas. And, if you knew Professor Clark, you would easily be able to predict his attitude toward internet critics.

[_JohnStuartMill]

It would be interesting to hear from Professor Clark on your claim to have debunked his talk.

But it won't happen. I can guarantee you that he doesn't spend time on message boards. I'm not even sure that he's in the United States right now; he's very commonly at his base in Chiapas. And, if you knew Professor Clark, you would easily be able to predict his attitude toward internet critics.

Is he a "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" kind of Mopologist, or is he of the "Hrmph. I'm so intelligent that I don't need to justify my childish beliefs to anyone" stripe?

[_Runtu]

It would be interesting to hear from Professor Clark on your claim to have debunked his talk.

But it won't happen. I can guarantee you that he doesn't spend time on message boards. I'm not even sure that he's in the United States right now; he's very commonly at his base in Chiapas. And, if you knew Professor Clark, you would easily be able to predict his attitude toward internet critics.

I've heard Brother Clark is a lovely man. beastie speaks highly of him. I stand by my response to his assertions: they don't hold up very well. I could repost my response to him, but I suspect you wouldn't respond substantively, so what's the point?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suspect you wouldn't respond substantively, so what's the point?

I don't do substance.

Why on earth would I do it here?

Is he a "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" kind of Mopologist, or is he of the "Hrmph. I'm so intelligent that I don't need to justify my childish beliefs to anyone" stripe?

Golly. Heads, you win. Tails, I lose.

Are you a rigidly dogmatic critic, or a completely unreasonable one?