DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_Mister Scratch]

There is an excellent thread underway, started by a posted called "Yme" (actually the polar opposite of our own beloved "Why Me"), in which s/he is asking about the various reasons why Book of Mormon history seems to have been all but ignored by the mainstream academy. Of course, this is an old argument which has been raised by critics time and time again, and yet it nonetheless seems to be one of the most irksome of all points for apologists. All of this seems doubly relevant in lieu of this recent (ahem) 'revelation' about the Book of Mormon intro.

In any case, here is one of Yme's more interesting posts:

If you have survey or other data to indicate that "our academic or scholarly community," or any significant proportion thereof, has seriously engaged the claims of the witnesses or is even particularly familiar with them, please share it. In the meantime, the failure of an individual or a group to be swayed by evidence of which he is unaware, or of which they know nothing, is profoundly insignificant.

I assume you spend a lot of time in academic circles? If so, could you give me your thoughts on why, as my instinct would tell, there is so little (if any) interest in the 1000 year history of the people, places and cultures claimed with the Book of Mormon? Are you aware of any claimed record of history comparable to what is claimed via the Book of Mormon that has ever been ignored more by our academic community. Is the existing LDS scholarship on this topic (Book of Mormon historicity only) not very compelling or is it just ignored? If it is simply ignored, why?

If you don't spend a lot of time in academic circles, do you at least know of any LDS scholarship specifically relating to the Book of Mormon historicity that has been published and been received as credible and convincing to our secular academic community?

These are some excellent questions which have never really been addressed. But, let's not stop here! Let us read on:

I can't think of any major claimed record of history that is comparable to the Book of Mormon, and the reason why the Book of Mormon is unique in this regard is, I suspect, also the principal reason that the Book of Mormon is largely ignored by the academic community.

Is this really the case though? Or does the lack of academic interest have more to do with the fact that so little evidence has turned up substantiating the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Had the text of the Book of Mormon been recovered through normal archaeological means, or even by rather peculiar but wholly natural means (as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library were), it would have been studied in standard ways by the usual people. The story of its recovery, however, is inextricably bound up with angels, miracles, and the supernatural. This constitutes an enormous obstacle to its acceptance, and even to its acceptance for study, by the mainstream academic community.

I question this. If the Book of Mormon had been discovered by archaeologists in Latin America, who then proceeded to dust off the plates and translate them in a "normal" manner, would its historicity be taken any more seriously? Is it really just the "means of recovery" which has, as DCP claims, turned off mainstream academics? I don't think so.

Incidentally, to ward off a comment in advance: I'm not sure that the Lord cares terribly much about whether his method of revealing the Book of Mormon has interfered with full acceptance of it by college tenure committees as a valid area for scholarly research, since his purpose seems to have been to establish a church more than to constitute a new academic subdiscipline.

Ah, okay. Nice little Red Herring there, Prof. P. We *were* discussing the reasons why Book of Mormon historicity is "considered a joke in academia," but if you want to change the subject, go right ahead! None of this supplies any real or persuasive explanation as to why mainstream academics seem totally, thoroughly, and completely uninterested in the Book of Mormon as a historical artifact.

A bit later, Yme forces DCP to lay it on the line:

Would you, or any other LDS scholar, be willing to put your academic credibility on the line for the acceptance of the Book of Mormon historicity with our secualr academic community merely on this argument? If not, what is your point???

I would not and do not hesitate to publicly describe the witnesses testimonies as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I would not hesitate to do so in an academic gathering. Not even slightly. And, in fact, I've probably done so on a few occasions. (I'll have to think about it. I've done many academic presentations to non-LDS scholars, mostly on Islamic topics but some on Mormon topics.)

(emphasis added)

Wait a sec... He's "probably done so"??? Or he actually has? Is it---or should it be--striking that he cannot recall the last time he testified of his faith in front of "an academic gathering"? There is something extremely fishy and dodgy about his remarks here. What, after all, would be more damning for Mopologetics, academically speaking, then for the chief Mopologist to admit that he's embarrassed to discuss his views in a mainstream, secular academic setting? Ultimately, what we are seeing here is tantamount to an admission on DCP's part that he fears that his beliefs may compromise his academic standing.

A bit further on, he delves into this issue some more:

The proposition that such scholarship has generated little interest is rather different from the proposition that it has failed to convince the secular academic world. They must be kept clearly distinct, or they will muddle your thinking. A thoroughly worthy argument may fail to convince because it has not been read.

But why must they "be kept clearly distinct"? In actuality, aren't these two things somewhat related, particularly considering the audacity of TBM claims? After all, The Good Professor himself told us that "I can't think of any major claimed record of history that is comparable to the Book of Mormon". If it really is so utterly singular, why would it be ignored? Now, that doesn't make very much sense at all!

Later, he offers up some silly and distracting personal anecdote, none of which does much to smooth over the wrinkles in his argument:

My own experience in academia doesn't even begin to suggest that the interest of scholars in publications on a topic, or the lack thereof, is a reliable barometer of the quality of that research.

I participate annually in a huge academic conference on religious topics. (I'm headed off to it again on Thursday, as a matter of fact.) The papers presented range from superb pieces on the latest excavations in Syria and deep analyses of medieval Hindu metaphysics to silly stuff on the theological implications of Madonna's music videos. The latter typically draw larger audiences than the former.

The problem with his argument is that all of the above in terms of Book of Mormon stuff has been ignored! Whether it is "quality" or not seems to be utterly beside the point, which is what Yme has been arguing all along---an argument which is endlessly frustrating for the befuddled Good Professor.

Finally, to wrap things up, I don't think we can overlook this howler:

I think you will find if the person is a temple reccommend holder and in good standing with the LDS church they will be adequately qualified.

To do good scholarship?

I'm afraid I have to disagree. And, as anybody can see who looks in the FARMS Review (that will exclude Yme, of course, but others may choose to look), we've long operated on the assumption that scholarship isn't good merely because it comes from a believing Latter-day Saint.

LOL!!!! Right. Well, at least we know that it must automatically be BAD if it comes from an LDS Critic, right? Hilarious!

In any case, what was most stunning to me about the thread was DCP's earlier "confession" that he has never summoned up the courage to nakedly display his beliefs in a secular academic setting---or, at the very least, that he has done it so seldom that he cannot even recall the last time. (And DCP is a guy with a good memory.) It is extremely telling that Mopologists are terrified of expressing their LDS-related academic views in secular academic settings.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere. Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand. Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere. Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand.

Why is that a problem? Yme has asserted, quite correctly, that "academic interest" in the Book of Mormon's historicity is virtually nil---a fact which DCP himself has corroborated elsewhere. And, anyways, Sorenson has been forced to retract, revise, and go back on his various flawed theories many, many times.

Edited to address this point:

Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

No, but I'm willing to cite myself. I have read enough of FARMS Review to know what they are up to. And anyways, you are missing the point. The real point at stake in all of this is whether Book of Mormon studies are taken seriously by mainstream academia, and the answer is, unequivocally, "No." One can debate why this is so, which is what the MAD thread seems to be primarily about. I'm not totally sure just what DCP's actual position is, though he seems to think that it is a combination of:
A) the fact that the Book of Mormon itself, and the story of its coming forth, does not seem credible
B) the fact that Book of Mormon scholarship almost never gets published in non-LDS journals
C) Mainstream academics, for whatever reason, despite the audacity of the Book of Mormon's claims, just plumb aren't interested, perhaps due the problems inherent in "A)."

[_beastie]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere. Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand. Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

Sorenson has been caught, red-handed, seriously distorting his references, or outright using references that simply don't say what he claimed at all.

So why should anyone be required to read his research first?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere. Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand. Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

Sorenson has been caught, red-handed, seriously distorting his references, or outright using references that simply don't say what he claimed at all.

So why should anyone be required to read his research first?

Yes, of course, the funny thing about watching DCP's performance on the thread is that he has tried quite strenuously to maneuver Yme into admitting that he hasn't read much LDS scholarship. (Dare I say that this is a typically Mopologetic tactic??? ) That way, the Good Professor gets to go on claiming that the lack of mainstream interest doesn't have to do with the poor quality of said scholarship, since, after all, this "bonehead anti" hasn't even read it! DCP never met a sophism he didn't like.

Yme can go ahead and read Sorenson, Hamblin, and et. al., and none of this will change the fact that the scholarship is specious, poor quality, tainted by bias, often dishonest, and, at base, a total turn-off for mainstream academia.

[_charity]

Mr. Scratch's arguments here are typical critic head in the sand.

1. Dr. Peterson has made so many presentations before so many groups, I am sure he couldn't remember every single one without going back to a schedule, if he had kept one. Pretty easy to criticize here. How often do you make presentations before academic groups, Mr. Scratch? Or any kind of group? And do you recall every topic of every presentation and which group you gave it to?

2. How many committees or groups have you sat on where possible topics of research were discussed? I have sat in on quite a few, during graduate school. I can tell you that in the case of psycholgoy that there are topoics whch would be career killers. A non-LDS scholar could not possibly take on the Book of Mormon. When he/she reported any confirming evidence of the Book of Mormon, then suddenly the angels, visions, etc. are in play.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
I can't think of any major claimed record of history that is comparable to the Book of Mormon, and the reason why the Book of Mormon is unique in this regard is, I suspect, also the principal reason that the Book of Mormon is largely ignored by the academic community.


Is this really the case though? Or does the lack of academic interest have more to do with the fact that so little evidence has turned up substantiating the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Let me see if I have this argument correct, MS. Nobody will study the Book of Mormon to substantiate its historicity because isn't historicity hasn't been proven? Can you please tell me how you can sustain the illogic of this claim? We won't look for any evidence because we haven't found any evidence.

In any case, what was most stunning to me about the thread was DCP's earlier "confession" that he has never summoned up the courage to nakedly display his beliefs in a secular academic setting---or, at the very least, that he has done it so seldom that he cannot even recall the last time. (And DCP is a guy with a good memory.) It is extremely telling that Mopologists are terrified of expressing their LDS-related academic views in secular academic settings.

You have got to be joking here! So every time a faithful LDS goes into a meeting with non-LDS scholars and academics, he is supposed to bear his testimony? Where is your vaunted separation of faith and science? This has got to be one of the most astounding demands by critics I have seen on any anti-Mormon message board.

[_Trevor]

Had the text of the Book of Mormon been recovered through normal archaeological means, or even by rather peculiar but wholly natural means (as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library were), it would have been studied in standard ways by the usual people. The story of its recovery, however, is inextricably bound up with angels, miracles, and the supernatural. This constitutes an enormous obstacle to its acceptance, and even to its acceptance for study, by the mainstream academic community.

I question this. If the Book of Mormon had been discovered by archaeologists in Latin America, who then proceeded to dust off the plates and translate them in a "normal" manner, would its historicity be taken any more seriously? Is it really just the "means of recovery" which has, as DCP claims, turned off mainstream academics? I don't think so.

Actually, there are more or less serious scholars who are interested in the Book of Mormon... as a 19th century religious document. Elaine Pagels, for example, regularly attends the Book of Mormon Roundtable, which used to meet at BYU until more conservative members of the BYU faculty and people associated with FARMS made a stink about it. Another scholar interested in the Book of Mormon would be Robert Price, a participant in the Jesus Seminar and author of several excellent books of New Testament scholarship. In reality, the Book of Mormon does not lack for any interest, although it could stand to attract more, but as a document of the 19th century, where most scholars interested in Christian Americana would probably place it based on evidence in the text.

[_Mister Scratch]

Had the text of the Book of Mormon been recovered through normal archaeological means, or even by rather peculiar but wholly natural means (as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library were), it would have been studied in standard ways by the usual people. The story of its recovery, however, is inextricably bound up with angels, miracles, and the supernatural. This constitutes an enormous obstacle to its acceptance, and even to its acceptance for study, by the mainstream academic community.

I question this. If the Book of Mormon had been discovered by archaeologists in Latin America, who then proceeded to dust off the plates and translate them in a "normal" manner, would its historicity be taken any more seriously? Is it really just the "means of recovery" which has, as DCP claims, turned off mainstream academics? I don't think so.

Actually, there are more or less serious scholars who are interested in the Book of Mormon... as a 19th century religious document. Elaine Pagels, for example, regularly attends the Book of Mormon Roundtable, which used to meet at BYU until more conservative members of the BYU faculty and people associated with FARMS made a stink about it. Another scholar interested in the Book of Mormon would be Robert Price, a participant in the Jesus Seminar and author of several excellent books of New Testament scholarship. In reality, the Book of Mormon does not lack for any interest, although it could stand to attract more, but as a document of the 19th century, where most scholars interested in Christian Americana would probably place it based on evidence in the text.

Good points, but these are all very different from what DCP & Yme were referring to---i.e., truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record of Pre-Columbian America.

[_Blixa]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere. Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand. Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

Trevor is correct LOAP. I've spent my life in academia and can offer plenty o' experiential (the kind charity endorses) substantiation of Yme's claims. The Book of Mormon is not on anybody's intellectual radar except in the kind of Americana studies that Trevor alludes to. "Academic research" ala Sorenson is not considered impressive or persuasive or even academic outside of BYU firesides. That said, the kind of work that is emerging on the Book of Mormon in terms of tis 19thC production is rather interesting...

[_Mister Scratch]

Mr. Scratch's arguments here are typical critic head in the sand.

1. Dr. Peterson has made so many presentations before so many groups, I am sure he couldn't remember every single one without going back to a schedule, if he had kept one. Pretty easy to criticize here. How often do you make presentations before academic groups, Mr. Scratch? Or any kind of group? And do you recall every topic of every presentation and which group you gave it to?

Certainly I would recall doing something so audacious as announcing that I've found evidence authenticating the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The fact that DCP has never, ever done this in a secular academic setting (at least not to his recollection---I will wait patiently to hear about it from him) is extraordinarily telling.

2. How many committees or groups have you sat on where possible topics of research were discussed? I have sat in on quite a few, during graduate school. I can tell you that in the case of psycholgoy that there are topoics whch would be career killers.

??? Well, I'm glad we agree. DCP is very clearly, and quite reasonably, "academically embarrassed" about Book of Mormon scholarship, and he knows that trying to discuss it seriously in a secular academic setting would be career and reputation suicide.

A non-LDS scholar could not possibly take on the Book of Mormon When he/she reported any confirming evidence of the Book of Mormon, then suddenly the angels, visions, etc. are in play.

Are you saying that LDS subjects are therefore somehow "above" or "beyond" or "too good" for non-LDS scholars? That is your explanation for why, say, Book of Mormon historicity hasn't been taken seriously, and is, as DCP has said, considered "a joke"

Daniel Peterson wrote:
I can't think of any major claimed record of history that is comparable to the Book of Mormon, and the reason why the Book of Mormon is unique in this regard is, I suspect, also the principal reason that the Book of Mormon is largely ignored by the academic community.


Is this really the case though? Or does the lack of academic interest have more to do with the fact that so little evidence has turned up substantiating the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Let me see if I have this argument correct, MS. Nobody will study the Book of Mormon to substantiate its historicity because isn't historicity hasn't been proven? Can you please tell me how you can sustain the illogic of this claim? We won't look for any evidence because we haven't found any evidence.

Cf. DCP's Sorenson references. People---primarily LDS researchers---have been looking for a very, very long time, and have come up empty handed.

In any case, what was most stunning to me about the thread was DCP's earlier "confession" that he has never summoned up the courage to nakedly display his beliefs in a secular academic setting---or, at the very least, that he has done it so seldom that he cannot even recall the last time. (And DCP is a guy with a good memory.) It is extremely telling that Mopologists are terrified of expressing their LDS-related academic views in secular academic settings.

You have got to be joking here! So every time a faithful LDS goes into a meeting with non-LDS scholars and academics, he is supposed to bear his testimony?

Not "every time." Just once would be astounding and extraordinary! DCP cannot recall a single time that he's done this. The best evidence he supplied in this vein were the three Sorenson quotes, and I would defy him, or you, or anyone else to show me where Sorenson is frank and explicit regarding the LDS underpinnings of his arguments. Go ahead, I dare you!

Where is your vaunted separation of faith and science? This has got to be one of the most astounding demands by critics I have seen on any anti-Mormon message board.

Just what do you think I'm "demanding"? All I ask is for you or DCP to identify one place in secular academia where historicity of the Book of Mormon has been frankly and openly asserted as God's Honest Truth. They won't do it. They are too embarrassed. I rest my case.