Prof. P Throws a Feeble Counterpunch

[_A Light in the Darkness]

It is extremely easy to have poster up at an academic conference. If you've attended them, you know that all sorts of nonsense makes it through on a fairly frequent basis. If LDS scholars were the crafty crackpots they are made out to be, one would think they would be using this to their advantage. After all, it is not uncommon for agenda driven pseudo-scientists to smuggle in such material in order to later impress upon their faithful that they are seriously engaging the scientific community and are all sciency-looking.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is extremely easy to have poster up at an academic conference. If you've attended them, you know that all sorts of nonsense makes it through on a fairly frequent basis. If LDS scholars were the crafty crackpots they are made out to be, one would think they would be using this to their advantage.

No one here has characterized the apologists as "crafty crackpots." Rather, it seems quite clear to me that they are simply very earnest, yet embarrassed about certain theories.

After all, it is not uncommon for agenda driven pseudo-scientists to smuggle in such material in order to later impress upon their faithful that they are seriously engaging the scientific community and are all sciency-looking.

Frankly, this seems like a kind of reverse straw man. The scholarly patina for LDS scholarship is provided via FARMS Review, and by the fact that Mopologists give these very tangential presentations: it makes it seem, to the uninformed, like LDS scholarship is legitimate. But, of course, if the most controversial claims are not submitted to the wider field of academic scrutiny, can these theories really be characterized as "legitimate"? Methinks not.

[_Mister Scratch]

For those interested, DCP has resumed his commentary on the MAD thread in question. For some odd reason, he continues to cite the well-discredited Sorenson texts, thinking that this somehow proves his case:

However, understanding the conventions and the boundaries, Mormon scholars have, not uncommonly,presented materials to mainstream academic audiences that clearly have apologetic implications but that have, nonetheless, been well received. I'll give you three relevant examples here -- which I have already presented to you, yet whose significance (against your insinuation that Mormon scholars are embarrassed by their faith or afraid to present arguments to secular academics) you don't seem to grasp:

(1) John L. Sorenson, "The Significance of an Apparent Relationship between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica," in Man across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts, ed. C. L. Riley, J. C. Kelley, C. W. Pennington, and R. L. Rands (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971), 219-241.

(2) John L. Sorenson, "A Reconsideration of Early Metal in Mesoamerica," Katunob 9 (March 1976):1-18.

(3) John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen, "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages," in Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, ed. Victor H. Mair (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2006), 238-297.

There are others, but these are sufficient to illustrate my point.

(emphasis added)

Notice how he says, "not uncommonly," and yet these seem to be the only three citations he's aware of. Also notice that two out of these three refs. are from the 1970s. What, did Mopologetic attempts to penetrate the mainstream hit some kind of desperate dry spell?

Next up, The Good Professor gets mighty testy with the critic called "Yme":

Why, Yme, do you consistently ignore these three academic articles, while, now, you seem to be holding out publication of a short, popular essay in a mass-circulation magazine like Smithsonian as the Holy Grail of legitimate scholarship for Mormons?

Why do you think that publishing a relatively brief article in Smithsonian Magazine would somehow confer "legitimacy" on Mormon scholarship and Mormon beliefs while apparently believing that Terryl Givens's By the Hand of Mormon, a book published by probably the foremost academic press in the English-speaking world (Oxford University Press), confers no "legitimacy" on Mormon scholarship and Mormon beliefs?

Can you explain your position?

Some interesting things to note here. One: he is bashing Smithsonian for some reason. Two: does he really think that this Terryl Givens book constitutes the kind of peer-reviewed publication that critics are calling for? (I am curious to know what facets of Mormonism are lent "legitimacy" via By the Hand of Mormon...)

He continues his harangue of Yme in a post that immediately follows his last one:

I'm really curious, Yme, as to your reasons for continuing to claim that Mormons are seeking to hide their scholarship on the Book of Mormon when I've pointed out that we attempt to market such scholarship at the largest relevant gathering of scholars in the world, when I've given three examples to you of John Sorenson making manifestly Book of Mormon related arguments in reputable non-Mormon academic venues, and when I've called your attention to Terryl Givens's publication of a book on precisely that subject with the foremost academic press in the English-speaking world.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge these things? Why do you studiously avoid mentioning them or responding to their mention?

Are you actually even remotely serious?

(emphasis added)

The jury is still out on the part I've bolded, methinks. Would Sorenson's arguments be obviously Mormon to a non-LDS scholar? Does DCP have evidence that this would be so? I think not.

Finally, in a post responding to solomarineris, DCP speaks thusly:

I offered the three articles by John Sorenson as clear specimens of a Mormon scholar indisputably doing precisely that. I've also offered a book published by Oxford University Press, an essay published by Princeton University Press, and a substantial book display at the largest gathering on the planet of scholars in relevant fields.

What do these six items all have in common? I would have thought that they demonstrate that at least some Mormon scholars are not hiding their arguments from non-Mormon scrutiny. It seems, however, that I was wrong. What they have in common, apparently, is invisibility. They evidently don't appear on computers belonging to critics.

The issue is not, nor has it ever been, whether or not "Mormon scholars are hiding their arguments from non-Mormon scrutiny." This problem is that Mormon scholars are hiding certain crucial, controversial arguments from non-Mormon scrutiny. I want to hear about the papers submitted to the requisite journals proclaiming the history of Zarahemla; I want to hear about the presentation on Cureloms at the most recent zoology convention. This stuff never happens, and DCP, as usual, is just blowing smoke.

[_Mister Scratch]

Topping for the benefit of The Good Professor.

[_moksha]

I would have no problem at all if Scratch was homosexual. I have no problem with Quinn, or the other gay Internet friends I have posted with on various boards, who have all been open about their sexuality. I do not have a problem with gay posters on MADB, either, and one is very open about his sexuality, and openly criticises the Church.

Even if you fully embrace one's right to their sexual preference Ray, it still seems strange to ask about it on an open forum. If you really want to know, treat him to dinner and drinks first. Remember to stare only at his eyes.

[_Ray A]

Even if you fully embrace one's right to their sexual preference Ray, it still seems strange to ask about it on an open forum. If you really want to know, treat him to dinner and drinks first. Remember to stare only at his eyes.

LOL!

[_Bond...James Bond]

This is slightly off topic but this post by Yme in response to DCP just made me giggle. My bold:

Mr. Peterson,

Forgive me as I do not seem to have the time that you do for posting on these boards. Obvioulsy, as it does appear, my questioning of the lack of acceptance or generation of interest in/for LDS scholarship in providing a credible basis for Book of Mormon historicity acceptance has undoubtedly hit a VERY SENSITIVE nerve. As it was never meant to be, I apologize.

But I think that is only natural for those who desperately seek the recognition of scholarship that seems so waning in every other standard of recognition. I now see how individuals and/or an entire faith based organization can create such non-sensical, self limiting, subjective, and isolating criteria for its evaluation, so that it will be free from any standards of comparison or evaluation for quite some time - at least for those who need it to be that way. Perhaps a good thing for such claimed scholarship and those that need to find spiritual cog-dis in such.

But I suspect you are one who fancies the last word in any conversation as indicated by all the bating done on this thread, so, have at it (of course only if your academic schedule allows!!)!!

(Yeah I know Yme was supposedly ignoring DCP, but did DCP really have to post God knows how many messages on various threads asking for an answer?)