DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_charity]

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.

So when he is in an Islamic studies presentation, he is supposed to suddenly veer from his presentation and announce that he knows the Book of Mormon is true? I guess you don't know how academic presenations are supposed to work. But that certainly isn't it.

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.

I didn't make myself clear. My fault. I was referring to those discussions about what would be possible theses or dissertation topics. There are simply topics you cannot study and have accepted. And the reason why is usually the prejudice of the academic community.

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

You have told me and anyone else who would listen no one takes these people seriously.

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!

What a crock! When a person is making a presentation on some topic, it would be the heigth of presumption to suddenly go off topioc like that. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you know very little about academic protocols.

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.

You have no case. There is no place in secular academia or any other academia where bearing testimony of the Book of Mormon has a place. It isn't a matter of embarrassment. Let any secular academic attend a sacrament meeting and he will hear the testimony bearing. That is the place for testimonies.

[_beastie]

by the way, John Clark, whose field actually has something to do with the topic, admits to trying to get his colleagues to consider the Book of Mormon to be an ancient Mesoamerican document with no success.

[_Runtu]

by the way, John Clark, whose field actually has something to do with the topic, admits to trying to get his colleagues to consider the Book of Mormon to be an ancient Mesoamerican document with no success.

Maybe they all grew up in Wyoming. :)

[_beastie]

[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] 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.

from the Q/A of Clark's BYU devotional claiming archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Why, of course they can't just read it like an archaeological book. They have to believe first:

[Mp3 Time: c. 24 mins.]
[John Clark:] 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.

[_Runtu]

[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] 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.

from the Q/A of Clark's BYU devotional claiming archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Why, of course they can't just read it like an archaeological book. They have to believe first:

If they want archeologists to take it seriously, then they must read it like an archeology book. That they have and find it lacking suggests that there's no archeological merit in the book.

[_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.

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)."

I think my real point is, aside from any argument, you are unhealthily obsessed with the LDS Church.

[_beastie]

Maybe they all grew up in Wyoming. :)

tee hee!

[_beastie]

I think my real point is, aside from any argument, you are unhealthily obsessed with the LDS Church.

Oh, who cares. I consider this an attempt at a diversion.

[_Runtu]

I think my real point is, aside from any argument, you are unhealthily obsessed with the LDS Church.

Why shouldn't church members be "obsessed" with their own church? Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm just waiting for mathematical proof that religion is false.