DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

Post by **_Sethbag** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:44 pm

There's another reason, Charity, why a prestigious institution might withdraw a statement. That would be if it generates a sh*tstorm from some vocal group, and just isn't worth the trouble defending. Their mission statement does not include pointing out problems with the LDS church. That just happened incidentally, and I would propose that they simply felt it wasn't worth the time to get into a knife fight about it with TBM defenders.

Besides, Charity, if we grant the LDS church status as a "prestigious organization", you know, just for the sake of argument, what do you think your statement implies about the LDS church changing the wording of the intro to the Book of Mormon? Would it be fair to say that it was changed because they couldn't back it up?

Post by **_the road to hana** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:57 pm

charity wrote: And the letter was signed by the head of the "outreach office."

I don't see any academics involved here. Outreach office? There is only one reason to withdraw a statement from a prestigious institution. They can't back it up. And the outreach office is pretty unwise to keep putting out something that the academics have taken back.

Anthropology Outreach Office.

They didn't take back the statement, Charity. They simply simplified the form letter that is sent in response.

Post by **_charity** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:37 pm

[quote="the road to hana"]
According to their original statement, photocopy in evidence, does it appear to you they are unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, or its contents?

Yes, it does. Why don't you start a new thread, and we can discuss them point by point. This is really a rabbit trail on the current thread.

Post by **_charity** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:39 pm

Sethbag wrote:There's another reason, Charity, why a prestigious institution might withdraw a statement. That would be if it generates a sh*tstorm from some vocal group, and just isn't worth the trouble defending. Their mission statement does not include pointing out problems with the LDS church. That just happened incidentally, and I would propose that they simply felt it wasn't worth the time to get into a knife fight about it with TBM defenders.

Besides, Charity, if we grant the LDS church status as a "prestigious organization", you know, just for the sake of argument, what do you think your statement implies about the LDS church changing the wording of the intro to the Book of Mormon? Would it be fair to say that it was changed because they couldn't back it up?

Different situation. I think the Church "dumbed down" the introduction for the ignorant and the idiots who couldn't understand that "principle" and "principal" are two differenet words with two different meanings.

P.S. I don't see really serious scholars shying away from a knife fight if they think they have the evidence on their side.

Post by **_the road to hana** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:43 pm

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:According to their original statement, photocopy in evidence, does it appear to you they are unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, or its contents?

Yes, it does. Why don't you start a new thread, and we can discuss them point by point. This is really a rabbit trail on the current thread.

No, it isn't. You made a claim which cannot be substantiated, or defended, although you are trying mightily to do so. The fact is that in trying to "correct error" regarding claims about the Smithsonian statement, you've simply perpetuated error.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:54 pm

charity wrote:
Sethbag wrote:There's another reason, Charity, why a prestigious institution might withdraw a statement. That would be if it generates a sh*tstorm from some vocal group, and just isn't worth the trouble defending. Their mission statement does not include pointing out problems with the LDS church. That just happened incidentally, and I would propose that they simply felt it wasn't worth the time to get into a knife fight about it with TBM defenders.

Besides, Charity, if we grant the LDS church status as a "prestigious organization", you know, just for the sake of argument, what do you think your statement implies about the LDS church changing the wording of the intro to the Book of Mormon? Would it be fair to say that it was changed because they couldn't back it up?

Different situation. I think the Church "dumbed down" the introduction for the ignorant and the idiots who couldn't understand that "principle" and "principal" are two differenet words with two different meanings.

P.S. I don't see really serious scholars shying away from a knife fight if they think they have the evidence on their side.

Well then, I guess this means that DCP and Co. must not "have the evidence on their side," otherwise I'd imagine that we could expect them to be making beaucoup formal presentations on Book of Mormon history, and so forth.

Post by **_charity** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:59 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:
Well then, I guess this means that DCP and Co. must not "have the evidence on their side," otherwise I'd imagine that we could expect them to be making beaucoup formal presentations on Book of Mormon history, and so forth.

We get them all the time. Where are you when they happen?

Post by **_Abinadi's Fire** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:26 pm

charity wrote:P.S. I don't see really serious scholars shying away from a knife fight if they think they have the evidence on their side.

Evidence that there is no such place as Zarahemla? Really? In essence, you're saying prove it isn't there.

This line of reasoning is baffling. To insist that an institution make attempts to prove that something doesn't exist is simply ridiculous.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:51 pm

charity wrote:P.S. I don't see really serious scholars shying away from a knife fight if they think they have the evidence on their side.

Sure they do. When they're dealing with boneheaded idiots, and they know it, it's just not worth the time.

If some bum on the street comes up to you and argues that he has evidence that the Illimunati, and the Bilderbergers, and the New World Order, lead by George W. Bush, are trying to take over the world and turn it over to the UN, are you going to sit there and argue his points one by one? Or are you just going to shrug it off and not be bothered?

I honestly think that the people at the Smithsonian just couldn't give a rat's ass about Mormonism, and they had better things to do with their time. Not to mention they probably wanted to avoid people like Orrin Hatch rattling their cage. Your assumption that their dumbing down their Book of Mormon response is conclusive evidence that they didn't have a leg to stand on, is absurd. There are all kinds of reasons why they may have felt doing that was better than fighting over it.

Post by **_Abinadi's Fire** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:01 pm

It's like they patted the objectors on the head and sent them on their way with a letter to appease them. I suppose it was easier than investing a ton of money into a fruitless project.

I see that letter as performing a function similar to the looks of pity DCP must have gotten during the "probable several times" he bore his witness in Syria and elsewhere...