Mister Scratch wrote: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.
DCP took the same tack with Michael Coe. He quotes Sorenson as saying that Coe's views on the Book of Mormon are born of ignorance because Coe didn't read it carefully and doesn't know the scholarship. If you read Coe's article, you see that he has read extensively in Mormon apologetics.
Mister Scratch wrote: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.
DCP took the same tack with Michael Coe. He quotes Sorenson as saying that Coe's views on the Book of Mormon are born of ignorance because Coe didn't read it carefully and doesn't know the scholarship. If you read Coe's article, you see that he has read extensively in Mormon apologetics.
Yes, it really just seems to be subterfuge on the part of The Good Professor. He is trying very hard to persuade the TBMs at MAD that academic dismissal of Book of Mormon historicity doesn't actually have anything to do with the poor quality of Mopologetic claims. But, of course, it has *everything* to do with that. Add in to the mix the fact that FARMS Review uses a "stacked deck" peer review, and one can see the overwhelming case against the seriousness or persuasiveness of these Book of Mormon historicity arguments.
Mister Scratch wrote:Yes, it really just seems to be subterfuge on the part of The Good Professor. He is trying very hard to persuade the TBMs at MAD that academic dismissal of Book of Mormon historicity doesn't actually have anything to do with the poor quality of Mopologetic claims. But, of course, it has *everything* to do with that. Add in to the mix the fact that FARMS Review uses a "stacked deck" peer review, and one can see the overwhelming case against the seriousness or persuasiveness of these Book of Mormon historicity arguments.
I just don't get it. Michael Coe's article is sympathetic to Mormon archeologists, and he really has bent over backwards to understand where they are coming from. But because he rightly dismisses the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican document, he's guilty of "skimming" and is clearly affected by the bias of having grown up among Mormons in Wyoming.
Runtu wrote:I just don't get it. Michael Coe's article is sympathetic to Mormon archeologists, and he really has bent over backwards to understand where they are coming from. But because he rightly dismisses the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican document, he's guilty of "skimming" and is clearly affected by the bias of having grown up among Mormons in Wyoming.
(emphasis added)
Whoa... Did DCP actually say that? Outrageous.
Either way, I will continue to wait patiently for a citation where Sorenson openly declares the LDS underpinnings of his arguments in these secular journals/books.
Last edited by Physics Guy on Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is like the wart that keeps growing back, no matter how hard LDS apologists try to incise it.
The fact is that if there were any good reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was actually an ancient Mesoamerican text, containing over 500 pages of first person information about the time period, scholars would be all over it, angels or no.
There is no good reason to believe the Book of Mormon is actually an ancient Mesoamerican text, for those who haven't been told first-hand by God that it is just that. To those whom God has not shared such information, the idea that it is an ancient Mesoamerican text is frankly laughable.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Runtu wrote:I just don't get it. Michael Coe's article is sympathetic to Mormon archeologists, and he really has bent over backwards to understand where they are coming from. But because he rightly dismisses the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican document, he's guilty of "skimming" and is clearly affected by the bias of having grown up among Mormons in Wyoming.
(emphasis added)
Whoa... Did DCP actually say that? Outrageous.
Either way, I will continue to wait patiently for a citation where Sorenson openly declares the LDS underpinnings of his arguments in these secular journals/books.
Here it is in context:
(John W @ Nov 14 2007, 02:43 PM) Whether he's "poor" or not, how familiar does one need to be with Book of Mormon scholarship before one can adequately assess the book itself?
As I've tried to explain to the unfortunate Yme, if a comparison is to be made between X and Y, being an expert on X while knowing little or nothing about Y is probably not enough.
Mormons themselves have historically entertained all sorts of folk notions about the Book of Mormon that are not sustainable from the text. (Look at Arnold Friberg's paintings, for example. Try to deduce that cyclopean wall on which Samuel the Lamanite stands from anything in the Book of Mormon itself.) If one compares an expert knowledge of Mayan studies with a hasty reading of the Book of Mormon, coupled with some folk ideas about how to read it -- Mike Coe grew up in Wyoming, knowing Mormons -- one's comparison will suffer to that extent.
This isn't mysterious, and it's not specific to Mormon studies. It would be fatuous, on my part, to attempt a serious comparison of Islamic metaphysics to Buddhist metaphysics. I know the former pretty well, but I'd most likely make an idiot of myself on the latter.
So, despite what Coe says (his interest in Mormon archeology began in grad school) DCP says that he was biased because he absorbed "folk notions about the Book of Mormon" in his formative years in Wyoming.
Last edited by cacheman on Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
beastie wrote:This is like the wart that keeps growing back, no matter how hard LDS apologists try to incise it.
The fact is that if there were any good reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was actually an ancient Mesoamerican text, containing over 500 pages of first person information about the time period, scholars would be all over it, angels or no.
There is no good reason to believe the Book of Mormon is actually an ancient Mesoamerican text, for those who haven't been told first-hand by God that it is just that. To those whom God has not shared such information, the idea that it is an ancient Mesoamerican text is frankly laughable.
Which is precisely why DCP and his ilk are too afraid/embarrassed to frankly and openly advance their views and theories in serious academic venues.
(John W @ Nov 14 2007, 02:43 PM) Whether he's "poor" or not, how familiar does one need to be with Book of Mormon scholarship before one can adequately assess the book itself?
As I've tried to explain to the unfortunate Yme, if a comparison is to be made between X and Y, being an expert on X while knowing little or nothing about Y is probably not enough.
Mormons themselves have historically entertained all sorts of folk notions about the Book of Mormon that are not sustainable from the text. (Look at Arnold Friberg's paintings, for example. Try to deduce that cyclopean wall on which Samuel the Lamanite stands from anything in the Book of Mormon itself.) If one compares an expert knowledge of Mayan studies with a hasty reading of the Book of Mormon, coupled with some folk ideas about how to read it -- Mike Coe grew up in Wyoming, knowing Mormons -- one's comparison will suffer to that extent.
This isn't mysterious, and it's not specific to Mormon studies. It would be fatuous, on my part, to attempt a serious comparison of Islamic metaphysics to Buddhist metaphysics. I know the former pretty well, but I'd most likely make an idiot of myself on the latter.
So, despite what Coe says (his interest in Mormon archeology began in grad school) DCP says that he was biased because he absorbed "folk notions about the Book of Mormon" in his formative years in Wyoming.
Wow... Am I mistaken, or is this yet another example of DCP engaging in character assassination? "Never mind Coe's arguments. It is his character which is flawed. He grew up in Wyoming, after all!" Honestly, what sort of "bogus" assumptions would Coe have "absorbed" from these Wyoming Mormons? I'd really like to hear The Good Professor elaborate on this, though I'd be willing to guess that he won't. A further strange thing about this is the way that DCP is laying part of the blame on the "bonehead" rank-and-file LDS, who are apparently very susceptible to "folk ideas." Hmmm.....
Well, it seems rather obvious (doesn't it?), that launching into a presentation on possible correlations between the Book of Mormon Jaredites and the Mesoamerican Olmec at a conference on the medieval Near East would be just a tad odd. It would be analogous to showing up at a conference on the poetry of William Blake with a paper on stress fractures in rocket engine test-armatures.
(DCP)
This was funny because it illustrates how silly it is for believers to view DCP as an expert to be respected because of his PhD - which is in an area that has nothing to do with any Mormon topic, most especially the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica.
It's like the comment some unwitting Mormon made after the PBS special - what the heck is an expert in Islamic studies pretending to be an expert about Mormonism???? (snicker)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Mormons themselves have historically entertained all sorts of folk notions about the Book of Mormon that are not sustainable from the text. (Look at Arnold Friberg's paintings, for example. Try to deduce that cyclopean wall on which Samuel the Lamanite stands from anything in the Book of Mormon itself.) If one compares an expert knowledge of Mayan studies with a hasty reading of the Book of Mormon, coupled with some folk ideas about how to read it -- Mike Coe grew up in Wyoming, knowing Mormons -- one's comparison will suffer to that extent.
DPC isn't insulting Coe here, he's insulting the simpleton Mormons Coe grew up around... the ones who actually believed the same things about the Book of Mormon that the simpleton Joseph Smith believed.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.