Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_MAsh]

You seem to want to imply that the transcript I provided of the Q/A is incorrect, as you suspect they were "notes" written by Brent. You are incorrect on both counts. The transcript of the Q/A period is a real transcript, as in the words were transcribed by someone listening to the audio of the talk. It even notes the time stamp on the audio. It can be found here:

http://www.tungate.com/clark.htm

As far as I know, "mel tungate" is not code for "brent metcalfe".

I was there. I know who made the recording-- it was not Brent or Mel. Brent received a copy of the audio recording and either he had it transcribed or he transcribed it himself. Somehow, Mel got a copy of a portion of the transcript (either from Brent or from someone who knows Brent) and posted on his website.

Mike

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

I agree that FARM is likely an incestuous community ...

Where is CK Salmon when you need him?

See this, CK? Beastlie says that LDS apologists are incestuous! They have sex with their mothers, sisters and daughters.

Aren't you outraged?

[_dartagnan]

Will, why is it OK for apologists to lie?

Is that what Jesus would do?

Or is that what Joseph would do?

[Guest]

beastlie:

I agree that FARM is likely an incestuous community ...

Where is CK Salmon when you need him?

Waiting for you to make some sort of substantive comment?

See this, CK? Beastlie says that LDS apologists are incestuous! They have sex with their mothers, sisters and daughters.

Actually, she said "FARM[S] is likely an incestuous community," referring to its collective scholarship.

And? I wouldn't have said that. I don't apply sexual metaphors pejoratively to folks, or groups of folks, who criticize my worldview. (Or, to any other group, for that matter.)

I rather suspect that Beastie meant something more along the lines of "inbred," an assessment with which I would agree, as "incestuous" doesn't, to my mind, get across the meaning she apparently has in mind:

Inbred - 1. Bred, engendered, or produced within; innate, native, inherent by nature. (OED, 2nd ed., s.v., "inbred")

(EDIT: See beastie's apropos corrective directly below.)

Aren't you outraged?

Not in the least. Nor have I been "outraged" at your repetitive, puerile vulgarities intended only to inflame. I just find them radically juvenile and utterly out-of-step with the "Gospel" (I'd suppose) that you claim as your own.

I realize that you follow the Tumbaga Rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you." But, that's hardly a compelling defense of your intentionally inflammatory and derogatory riffs on mutual, homosexual masturbation as applied to critics of the LDS Church.

See your signature line, especially the second sentence, for my summary of how I feel about the LDS Gospel vis-à-vis your personal presentation as one of its (presumed) adherents.

[_beastie]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

See the bolded definition:

in·ces·tu·ous (n-ssch-s)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or suggestive of incest.
2. Having committed incest.
3. Improperly intimate or interconnected: "Press-politics relations are notoriously incestuous" Boston Globe.

I'm assuming, of course, that Will is quite familiar with this definition of the word, and is just being his normal mental 12 year old self.

[_cksalmon]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

See the bolded definition:

in·ces·tu·ous (n-ssch-s)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or suggestive of incest.
2. Having committed incest.
3. Improperly intimate or interconnected: "Press-politics relations are notoriously incestuous" Boston Globe.

I'm assuming, of course, that Will is quite familiar with this definition of the word, and is just being his normal mental 12 year old self.

Yes, (3) was generally my reading of your intent. If I'm not mistaken, Luther used the phrase "incestuous scholarship" to refer to RCC interpretation of the Bible, and didn't have sex in view (though certain Renaissance popes have been accused of sexual incest). At any rate, yours is certainly not an unheard-of observation, and certainly needn't be sexual in nature.

Given your qualification ("due to the fact that they all share the same goal of defending the faith"), I punted to "inbred," which carries the connotation of some thing's being rather determinatively consequent to nature, thus (in this case), making it highly unlikely that significant efforts would be expended in questioning the faith-promoting bottom line.

To clarify, I don't believe that you were applying a sexual descriptor pejoratively. Unquestionably, Will has and does. And is proud of it.

Chris

[_EAllusion]

Beastie was just agreeing with my use of the term. You can see what I was saying quite clearly from the context. I thought Will was joking, probably mocking some instance in which he felt he was unfairly taken out of context, but I guess not.

[_beastie]

To clarify, I don't believe that you were applying a sexual descriptor pejoratively. Unquestionably, Will has and does. And is proud of it.

I was certain you understood, but thanks for clarifying. I knew Will was being his normal 12 year old self.

Beastie was just agreeing with my use of the term. You can see what I was saying quite clearly from the context. I thought Will was joking, probably mocking some instance in which he felt he was unfairly taken out of context, but I guess not.

Yeah, I knew someone had recently used the term, but couldn't remember who or where. And your use of the term was quite appropriate.

[_William Schryver]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

See the bolded definition:

in·ces·tu·ous (n-ssch-s)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or suggestive of incest.
2. Having committed incest.
3. Improperly intimate or interconnected: "Press-politics relations are notoriously incestuous" Boston Globe.

I'm assuming, of course, that Will is quite familiar with this definition of the word, and is just being his normal mental 12 year old self.

You mean you were using the term "incestuous" in a figurative sense?

Imagine that!

Imagine that someone might use a term that, if taken in its more literal sense, would certainly be considered ... well ... vulgar, but which, if viewed in a figurative sense, should rightfully be interpreted in an entirely different light.

What a novel concept!

[_Ray A]

I don't see any contradiction. Professor Clark and I both agree with the proposition that, if the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

That if is the key word.

Neither one of us believes, however, that the claims made by the Book of Mormon have been confirmed through archaeology, though we both believe that they've received some interesting and mounting archaeological (and other) support, and I don't think that either of us expects them to be archaeologically confirmed in the foreseeable future, if ever.

Dr. Clark also said:

Many artifacts and evidence of the Book of Mormon have been found in geographical and archaeological findings. These same artifacts and incidents described in the Book of Mormon line-up correctly in ancient history, he said.[emphasis added]

I'm not aware of any historian/archaeologist who agrees with Dr. Clark on this. Dr. Payson Sheets, quoted by Jeff Lindsay completely out of context, believes it "has nothing to do with reality". Of course, perhaps not having read it he may be prejudiced too, though his statement seems to imply some kind of familiarity with the basic claims. One doesn't need to read the whole Book of Mormon to realise what they are. As Sterling Mc Murrin (the "anti-Christ of Salt Lake City") once said, "I don't need to go to the North Pole to prove that Santa doesn't exist". Mc Murrin himself admitted to having never read the Book of Mormon all the way through, but one could assume he still knew quite a lot about it, enough to make an assessment, especially since he wrote so much on the philosophical and theological foundations of Mormonism.

The point here is that Dr. Clark made no clarification. What he should have said is that "I believe the Book of Mormon line[s] up correctly in ancient history". But his aim was to "reassure" those perhaps having doubts, and to reinforce testimony.

Consider his earlier statement from an LDS apologetics site:

Of the numerous proposed external Book of Mormon geographies, none has been positively and unambiguously confirmed by archaeology. More fundamentally, there is no agreement on whether such positive identification could be made or, if so, what form a "proof" would take; nor is it clear what would constitute "falsification" or "disproof" of various proposed geographies. Until these methodological issues have been resolved, all internal and external geographies—including supposed archaeological tests of them—should, at best, be considered only intelligent conjectures.

Apart from the different stand then, he didn't tell BYU News Net it was an "intelligent conjecture". He said the Book of Mormon "lines up correctly with history", no "I conjecture". That can be misleading.

He also said:

"Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity." [emphasis added]

Given his statements, one would think that he had consulted scientific opinion, and archaeologists who hold those opinions, and he seems to have done this:

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.[Emphasis added]

If they were only reading it as "an archaeology book", and discounting, for example, Moroni 10:4-5, then they appear to be unconvinced. So archaeology per se goes no where near confirming the Book of Mormon:

Hypothetical conversation:

Dr. Clark: Dr...., have you read the Book of Mormon?

Dr....: Yes, I have.

Dr. Clark: And what is your opinion?

Dr.......: It has nothing to do with reality.

The BYU News Net article portrayed Clark as summing up the "LDS view of archaeology":

Clark summed up LDS view of archaeology: If the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

So that was an important distinction.

But from the article:

Students appreciated the new insights Clark had into the Book of Mormon.

"I thought it was really interesting and it helped confirm that the Book of Mormon is a true book

According to non-Mormon archaeologists, it doesn't, unless you believe Dr. Clark.