DiscussMormonism.com

Big thread on evidence for Book of Mormon history at other board. Interesting comment from computer salesman Brant Gardner re John Clark.

Gardner makes following statement:

"Is John Clark therefore reasonable or unreasonable? Certainly when he speaks as a Mesoamericanist to other Mesoamericanists, he is not only reasonable but respected.

Does he somehow become unreasonable when he suggests that he believes that archaeology supports the Book of Mormon?

Surely reasonableness is not defined by agreeing with you?"

We see this approach often used by apologists and I like to refer to it as the "coat-tail" advancement of credibility. They are respected in one non-mormon field of study so they should be respected in the Mormon related arguments.

My question to Gardner would be, as it relates to Clark: "Has Clark ever made his arguments suggesting a Book of Mormon history in mesoamerica to his non-lds peer group?

Surely if, as Gardner seems to propose, Clark does not suddenly become "unreasonable" in his Book of Mormon historicity arguments and is the respected mesoamerican archaeologist claimed, drawing an audience of his peers or any secular academic organization would not be problematic.

So, Mr Gardner, has Clark made such a presentation? If so, did his peer group find him reasonable? If he has not drawn the attention of his academic peer group on his Book of Mormon historicty arguments/scholarship, why not?

Would love to hear your thoughts,

Surely if, as Gardner seems to propose, Clark does not suddenly become "unreasonable" in his Book of Mormon historicity arguments and is the respected mesoamerican archaeologist claimed, drawing an audience of his peers or any secular academic organization would not be problematic.

A fantastic point, Joey.

The way I look at it, in the end, I'm not qualified make calls on mesoamerican archeology. If Book of Mormon geography is not being taken seriously by academic peer review, then even if Clark is today's Gregor Mendel, I'm certainly not qualified to say, and neither is the audience Clark is writing his theories for. It's safe to just assume it's bunk without even giving it a second listen.

Interestingly, Mendel didn't hire a fundraiser and peddle his thoery to peasants, using their ignorantly generated funds to campaign and begin his own private press with hand-picked peer review in order to self-promote without any real oversight.

Brant should know this isn't about John Clark's authority as a reasonable person or unreasonable person. It is about the merit of his ideas. When it comes to Book of Mormon historicity, Clark is about as reasonable as Linus Pauling advocating 1000-10,000 milligrams of vitamin C as a cure for everything from cancer to the common cold. Linus Pauling was the only person to ever win two unshared Nobel prizes. Did he suddenly become unreasonable when quacking about vitamin C? Hell yes!

Pauling was quietly ignored by the establishment once his ideas failed to gain ground through real testing. John Clark's Mormonism is also quietly ignored by his archaeology peers. Go figure.

While I find overwhelming logic in the responses above, I would really love to hear from those, like Peterson, Gardner, Hamblin, LifeOnaPlaterson and others from that other board show up and engage in the logical merits of this issue.

I get chided from Peterson for my "only in Provo" tags, but it really points to the isoaltion and insulation that Mormonism and its apologists rely upon. The academic credentials of Clark and Sorenson are used be FARMs and MADB to persuade the isolated and insulated. If, as I did years ago, challenge the logic with reason, I get banned. But if one asked for these same proponents to participate in a discussion where there is no insulation, they go radio silent.

Clark and Sorenson are great for Book of Mormon historicity scholarship, so long as the merits of their works are isolated and logical questions asked are insulated!

Brant, Peterson, Hamblin, any thoughts, arguments, challenges to the above???


I suspect not!

So far as I'm aware, neither Brant Gardner nor Bill Hamblin pays any attention to this place, so challenging them here is pretty silly.

Hey President Obama! I challenge you to a debate, on this board, regarding your health care plan!

Watch. I predict he won't take up my challenge!

As for me, Joey, my interest in you and your issue is at a very low ebb, at least for the moment. It was never very strong in the first place.

I really did enjoy Cavalleria Rusticana and I Pagliacci tonight, though. And Camelot this afternoon. And my two hours with the visiting Muslim leaders from southern California this morning.

There are lots of interesting things in life. For me, you're not necessarily among them.

Daniel Peterson wrote:So far as I'm aware, neither Brant Gardner nor Bill Hamblin pays any attention to this place, so challenging them here is pretty silly.

Hey President Obama! I challenge you to a debate, on this board, regarding your health care plan!

Watch. I predict he won't take up my challenge!

That was a genuinely witty/funny retort. Touche!

Daniel Peterson wrote: And my two hours with the visiting Muslim leaders from southern California this morning.

Aww, and there you had to go ruin it. You simply cannot resist the urge to name drop, can you? Why ruin a perfectly good rejoinder with a compulsive need to impress everyone by how important you really are?

Why do you have to miss the point so completely, and always do so in so consistently jaundiced a fashion?

The point is not that I'm important, but that Joey's obsession isn't.

Hello,

Please excuse my seemingly caustic post, but Dr. Peterson and Brant Gardner are very small fish in very small ponds. Dr. Peterson does well pointing out his insignificance. He is simply an educator and academic, but has no real sway in matters ecclesiastical nor academic. It is refreshing to see someone note publicly his own inconsequentiality. Well done, Sir. Well done.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Daniel Peterson wrote:Why do you have to miss the point so completely, and always do so in so consistently jaundiced a fashion?

The point is not that I'm important, but that Joey's obsession isn't.

Whoops I may indeed miss the point from time to time, but so consistently and so completely??? Now that's just being mean.

You are right, though, nothing that happens here is of any consequence whatsoever. I do not take anything here personally, and reading into your exchanges here, neither do you, so I assume that since you give it with gusto, you don't mind getting it back in return.

All in good fun, Dr.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Hello,

Please excuse my seemingly caustic post, but Dr. Peterson and Brant Gardner are very small fish in very small ponds. Dr. Peterson does well pointing out his insignificance. He is simply an educator and academic, but has no real sway in matters ecclesiastical nor academic. It is refreshing to see someone note publicly his own inconsequentiality. Well done, Sir. Well done.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Is Brant even in the pond? I thought he was a computer geek who enjoys Book of Mormon apologetics, specifically Mesoamerican stuff, as a hobby... which puts him in the peanut gallery on the edge of the pond, doesn't it?