Prof. P Throws a Feeble Counterpunch

[_Gadianton]

So Trever, what would you think about a presentation from an apologist/scholar that has a posterboard with a picture of the three witnesses being visited by Moroni, and is prepared to rigorously argue the historicity of the Book of Mormon (leaving the truthfulness of the church in brackets), that the three witnesses of the plates establish the Book of Mormon as what it in fact claims to be. Is this something that you can imagine happening at one of these conferences?

[_Ray A]

Trevor is correct in his statement that scholars don't try to determine the truth (or falsity) of religious claims. In 1978 Truman Madsen chaired a conference in which eleven non-Mormon scholars discussed Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. This was later published as a monograph, Reflections on Mormonism (BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978). It was also reviewed in the JSTOR (to which I don't have access). (This is not directly related to what Scratch is looking for, but I post this out of interest):


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8294(198106)20%3A2%3C208%3AROMJP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

The scholars were some of the finest in their fields:

Robert N. Bellah (scientist and sociologist, Professor of Sociology and Comparative Studies, UC)
David Winston (Professor of Hellenic and Judaic Studies) (article: "Preexistence in Hellenic, Judaic and Mormon Sources")
Abraham Kaplan (Professor of Philosophy an Sociology, article: "The Meanings of Ritual: Comparisons")
Jacob Milgrom (Professor of Near East Studies, "The Temple in Biblical Israel: Kingships and Meaning")
David Noel Freedman (Professor of Biblical Studies, "The Ebla Tablets and the Abraham Tradition" as it relates to the Book of Abraham)
W.D.Davies (Professor of Advanced Studies Research in Christian Origins, "Israel, the Mormons and the Land")
James H. Charlesworth (Associate Professor of Christian Origins, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon")
Krister Stendahl (dean of Harvard Divinity School, "The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi")
Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier (chairman of the Religion Department at Trinity College, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism")
John Dillenger (distinguished Reformation theologian, "Grace and Works in Martin Luther and Joseph Smith")
Ernst W. Benz (Professor Emeritus of Church History, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God")

Charlesworth is acknowledged as the authority on the pseudepigrapha. They are not believers in Mormonism, or the Book of Mormon (but Charlesworth's final comments are worth reading, where he suggests that the Bible is not "the last word"). Stendahl is reported to have said that Joseph Smith "showed us how the Bible was written" (paraphrasing).

Scratch says his main point is:

The main thrust of my argument vis-a-vis this subject is that certain very important facets of LDS "scholarship" and truth claims---e.g., that Cureloms once roamed North America, or that Zelph was a key historical figure---never get vetted in the academic world. These crucial things, in my opinion, have never, ever been "laid on the line," as it were, nor will they ever be.

He also notes:

I don't really expect the more religious or theological aspects of Mormonism to ever be treated by the academy in this way. Secular claims, on the other hand, such as those which intersect with history, Egyptology, and so forth, ought to be fair game. A conference on religion is really the wrong place to be looking for kinds of legit LDS academic involvement I've been referring to. Rather, one needs to find evidence for involvement at conferences on history, DNA, archaeology, and other secular fields. (original emphasis)

(The use of "secular" here is inappropriate, too, and muddled.)

You still don't get Trevor's point, which is:

An academic conference on the subject of religion is not dedicated to determining the truth or falseness of a particular religion. It is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of religion or perhaps even the intellectual celebration of various traditions. What the AAR/SBL meetings do not ordinarily do in our age of spiritual pluralism, at least as far as I can tell, is debunk religions. Debunking is for the Skeptics or polemicists. The Academy is generally not interested in debunking. (My emphasis)

In other words, Scratch, it ain't going to happen. Cureloms and Zelph don't rate on the Academic scale, and I doubt they even rate very highly with FARMS.

[_Trevor]

So Trever, what would you think about a presentation from an apologist/scholar that has a posterboard with a picture of the three witnesses being visited by Moroni, and is prepared to rigorously argue the historicity of the Book of Mormon (leaving the truthfulness of the church in brackets), that the three witnesses of the plates establish the Book of Mormon as what it in fact claims to be. Is this something that you can imagine happening at one of these conferences?

I don't think it is my job to judge whether individual scenarios concocted by you, charity, or anyone else are likely to occur at an academic conference. Would I say that it definitely could not happen? No. Is it likely to happen? I doubt it.

It seems to me that the scenario you envision is not real, but rather a kind of parody you have cooked up in your mind.

[_Mister Scratch]

I disagree, Gadianton. I believe that an academic discussion of the Book of Mormon as a 19th century document can take place regardless of the work of the Maxwell Institute. It is not necessary to prove, against their arguments, that the text is 19th century. There is plenty of evidence that it does belong to that time to discuss it in those terms. I think you will find that LDS arguments concerning the Book of Mormon ultimately rely on the presupposition that the book is ancient, and then proceed to argue on that basis.

This is precisely what I have been asking for. Where are the articles from LDS scholars that are openly making such a "presupposition"? Where are the academic presentations? So far as I know, they do not exist. I have not been able to "find" them at all.

[_Mister Scratch]

Trevor is correct in his statement that scholars don't try to determine the truth (or falsity) of religious claims. In 1978 Truman Madsen chaired a conference in which eleven non-Mormon scholars discussed Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. This was later published as a monograph, Reflections on Mormonism (BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978). It was also reviewed in the JSTOR (to which I don't have access). (This is not directly related to what Scratch is looking for, but I post this out of interest):

Yes, you're right, Ray. This is in no way "directly related" to my point.

Scratch says his main point is:

The main thrust of my argument vis-a-vis this subject is that certain very important facets of LDS "scholarship" and truth claims---e.g., that Cureloms once roamed North America, or that Zelph was a key historical figure---never get vetted in the academic world. These crucial things, in my opinion, have never, ever been "laid on the line," as it were, nor will they ever be.

He also notes:

I don't really expect the more religious or theological aspects of Mormonism to ever be treated by the academy in this way. Secular claims, on the other hand, such as those which intersect with history, Egyptology, and so forth, ought to be fair game. A conference on religion is really the wrong place to be looking for kinds of legit LDS academic involvement I've been referring to. Rather, one needs to find evidence for involvement at conferences on history, DNA, archaeology, and other secular fields. (original emphasis)

(The use of "secular" here is inappropriate, too, and muddled.)

You still don't get Trevor's point, which is:

An academic conference on the subject of religion is not dedicated to determining the truth or falseness of a particular religion. It is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of religion or perhaps even the intellectual celebration of various traditions. What the AAR/SBL meetings do not ordinarily do in our age of spiritual pluralism, at least as far as I can tell, is debunk religions. Debunking is for the Skeptics or polemicists. The Academy is generally not interested in debunking. (My emphasis)

I do get Trevor's point; however, you seem not to understand *my* point. I am not asking for the academy to "debunk" Mormonism. I am asking for Mopologists to submit Mormonism's most audacious secular claims to the rigors of scholarly scrutiny. Perhaps the biggest and most significant of these claims in the Book of Mormon's historicity.

In other words, Scratch, it ain't going to happen. Cureloms and Zelph don't rate on the Academic scale, and I doubt they even rate very highly with FARMS.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon rates extremely high, as does the Book of Abraham and Lamanite DNA. And yet where are the secular publications of these things? Where have the scholars frankly presented their LDS theories to their secular peers? So far as I can tell, they haven't. There are certain things which LDS scholars are obviously embarrassed about, things which include:
---The Book of Abraham
---Historicity of the Book of Mormon (and this would include a whole subset of things including history, archaeology, zoology, and so forth.)
---Lamanite DNA
Etc.

Find me the places in secular publications where TBM scholars are frankly and openly forwarding their theories. These things do not exist, or if they do, I haven't heard about them. (And let's face it, if an article of the type I'm referring to managed to make it into a real-life, bonafide, peer reviewed publication, the TBMs over at MAD would be shouting to the heavens.) Certain LDS theories are deliberately kept amongst all the other skeletons in the closet.

[_Mister Scratch]

So Trever, what would you think about a presentation from an apologist/scholar that has a posterboard with a picture of the three witnesses being visited by Moroni, and is prepared to rigorously argue the historicity of the Book of Mormon (leaving the truthfulness of the church in brackets), that the three witnesses of the plates establish the Book of Mormon as what it in fact claims to be. Is this something that you can imagine happening at one of these conferences?

This isn't really what I have in mind, but I, for one, would applaud such courage and audacity. But, of course, as I have been pointing out all along, LDS scholars are far too embarrassed to do anything even remotely like this.

[_Ray A]

Scratch, I sometimes wonder if you're a closet gay, but still a Mormon. I don't mean that with any disrespect. It's covertness I dislike. I seriously wonder about this. And can you blame me? I don't know anything about you, nor does anyone here. Some don't even know whether you're male or female. The lack of information can also work against you, because people will speculate. Maybe that hasn't occurred to you. All of your posts seem, to me anyway, to fit a closet gay Mormon. Again, no disrespect to gays, but plenty of disrespect to gays with an agenda, posing as "informed 'heterosexual' commentators".

Are you affiliated, by any chance, with Gay & Lesbian Mormons?

[_Gadianton]

So Trever, what would you think about a presentation from an apologist/scholar that has a posterboard with a picture of the three witnesses being visited by Moroni, and is prepared to rigorously argue the historicity of the Book of Mormon (leaving the truthfulness of the church in brackets), that the three witnesses of the plates establish the Book of Mormon as what it in fact claims to be. Is this something that you can imagine happening at one of these conferences?

I don't think it is my job to judge whether individual scenarios concocted by you, charity, or anyone else are likely to occur at an academic conference. Would I say that it definitely could not happen? No. Is it likely to happen? I doubt it.

It seems to me that the scenario you envision is not real, but rather a kind of parody you have cooked up in your mind.

well obviously it's half parady, but, though scratch says that this isn't what he was refering to, DCP did say that bringing up the three witnesses was something he'd have no problem doing in an academic conference, so why not?

The reason why it's not likely to happen, is because we all know that it would be a joke, yet, this kind of scholarship, exactly, is what's passed along by the Maxwell institute. Now, is that in itself a problem? Not entirely, who knows, once in a while fringe stuff might prove to be interesting. But, given that it's not likely to have its day in an academic conference or peer-reviewed journal, as you acknowledge, the conversation will be with weekend warriors, so to speak. Is that in itself bad? No. But, the problem is that FARMS will claim that its critics aren't qualified to make an assessment. That they are producing scholarship that is no different at all than what they might do in their mainstream day-jobs. So now we come full circle, because obviously, if the stuff was standard fare, then it would be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at academic conferences. So then, Trever, you must see the stimulus for proposing a presentation.

[_Gadianton]

by the way, for clarification, I do get that the distinction between debunking and methodological naturalism. Though sometimes that distinction is strained, I will admit there is generally a difference. What trever is talking about follows the lines of MN, what I'm talking about in relation to FARMS apologetic work is fairly decisively within 'methodological supernaturalism' and niether that nor the debunking of it is typical for scholarship.

[_Ray A]

Scratch, I sometimes wonder if you're a closet gay, but still a Mormon. I don't mean that with any disrespect. It's covertness I dislike. I seriously wonder about this. And can you blame me? I don't know anything about you, nor does anyone here. Some don't even know whether you're male or female. The lack of information can also work against you, because people will speculate. Maybe that hasn't occurred to you. All of your posts seem, to me anyway, to fit a closet gay Mormon. Again, no disrespect to gays, but plenty of disrespect to gays with an agenda, posing as "informed 'heterosexual' commentators".

Are you affiliated, by any chance, with Gay & Lesbian Mormons?

Bumping for Scratch.