I will Believe the Book of Mormon as history when...

[_Jersey Girl]

silent kid

I have a difficult enough time trying to convince non-mormons and antis that BYU provides a solid, competitive education regardless of religious affiliation.

I understand the sentiment entirely. I don't even waste my time with their sorry arguments anymore. Why try to convince walruses to sing opera? Why try to convince elephants to tap dance? Why try to covince anti's to even read the LDS research, let alone comprehend it. It is utterly beyond their abilities.

I disagree that anti's are functionally illiterate when it comes to reading LDS research. I suppose that on boards like this, it would be best to argue the issues than make accusations regarding what one reads or does not read. If you have information to share, why not share it instead of dogging critics?

I would encourage you to take a cue from the wisdom of one William Shakespeare:

"And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."

-Taming of the Shrew

I think that's possible.

[_Chap]

BYU History courses at BA level may be inspected here:

http://history.BYU.edu/courses/listing.htm

The only courses I can see with an LDS connection are about Mormonism as an object of historical study; they do not presuppose the truth of what some LDS believe about the history of the American continent:

382 Mormonism in the American Experience
Social, economic, political, intellectual, and religious environment in which Mormonism flourished; contributions of Mormon men and women to American culture and history.

565 Sources and Problems in Latter-day Saint History
Lecture, discussion, readings, and student writing on historians' sources and points of view regarding Latter-day Saint history.

Turning to anthropology. BYU does not seem to give any explicit indication of including "Book of Mormon peoples" on a par with historically acknowledged groups such as the Maya and Olmec in any of the courses offered in anthropology at Master's level:

http://anthropology.BYU.edu/Degrees/MA% ... ourses.htm

The BA courses (see http://anthropology.BYU.edu/Degrees/BA% ... ourses.htm)

include this sole reference to the Book of Mormon:

280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0) Evening Classes only.
The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.

But it is out on a limb in the evening (I wonder who teaches it?), and it is unclear whether it is to be suggested by the teacher that the archaeology proves the historicity of either text.

Sounds as if (at least so far as these two departments are concerned) BYU is a pretty normal kind of university in its ideas about what is to be treated as historical fact and what is not.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, you won't find any of those subjects taught as history on any BYU campus in the system.

Do you not understand the difference between the study of history (actual facts and events) and the study of myth (stories which may have contained a kernal of fact in the beginning but changed radically over time in an effort to explain the unexplainable)?

Please tell me you are not a product of the BYU system. If you are, I'm going to have more ammunition for my "do not use my tithing to support BYU" battle.

harmony, what part of "Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica is typically covered in university anthropology/archaeology departments rather than in history departments" is it that you find so frightfully difficult to grasp?

Don't worry. You don't need to assure me that you're not a graduate of BYU. It's painfully obvious.

[_Chap]

No, you won't find any of those subjects taught as history on any BYU campus in the system.

Do you not understand the difference between the study of history (actual facts and events) and the study of myth (stories which may have contained a kernal of fact in the beginning but changed radically over time in an effort to explain the unexplainable)?

Please tell me you are not a product of the BYU system. If you are, I'm going to have more ammunition for my "do not use my tithing to support BYU" battle.

harmony, what part of "Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica is typically covered in university anthropology/archaeology departments rather than in history departments" is it that you find so frightfully difficult to grasp?

Don't worry. You don't need to assure me that you're not a graduate of BYU. It's painfully obvious.

So - where in the American university system is any part of the Book of Mormon story taught in an anthropology course on the same footing as discussion of the Olmecs, Maya and other uncontroversially historically existing cultures? So far as I can see at a cursory glance (see my post above) they don't even do that at BYU.

The point of DCP harping on at this "anthropology not history" point escapes me. The point that harmony and others are making is that there appear to be NO courses in American universities outside (probably) the religious studies departments of BYU and its affiliates in which Book of Mormon events are treated as having any historical reality.

So far as I can see, DCP does not dispute that. Given that fact I cannot see what he is trying to do in his posts, apart from sneering at people in the hope that they will find the experience unpleasant enough to make them stop posting the kind of material he finds uncongenial.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So - where in the American university system is any part of the Book of Mormon story taught in an anthropology course on the same footing as discussion of the Olmecs, Maya and other uncontroversially historically existing cultures?

Nowhere.

Which nobody has ever thought to deny. We realize that we're a religious minority and that most of our neighbors don't agree with the truth-claims of our faith. We've known that since we were old enough to notice such things.

So far as I can see at a cursory glance (see my post above) they don't even do that at BYU.

There is, as I've pointed out, a course in the Anthropology Department at BYU that treats biblical archaeology and archaeology and the Book of Mormon. But it's true that that is a separate course.

BYU designs its mainstream history, chemistry, anthropology, literature, and accounting courses so that credit for them is transferrable and acceptable to graduate schools.

But this doesn't mean that anthropologists/archaeologists like Wells Jakeman and John Sorenson (past department chairmen) and Joel Janestski (current department chairman) and John Clark and Don Forsyth and Allen Christensen (in another department, but similarly trained) aren't believers. I know them, and they are.

So I'm not sure what the point of mentioning BYU is.

The point of DCP harping on at this "anthropology not history" point escapes me.

I haven't been "harping" on it. Pal Joey was.

He kept demanding a history course -- or "a H-I-S-T-O-R-Y course" -- even at BYU, and, failing to be supplied with a H-I-S-T-O-R-Y course, thought that he had scored some big victory. But history departments typically don't cover Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Not at BYU and not elsewhere. Anthropology/archaeology departments do.

The point that harmony and others are making is that there appear to be NO courses in American universities outside (probably) the religious studies departments of BYU and its affiliates in which Book of Mormon events are treated as having any historical reality.

BYU's anthropology department is not a "religious studies department," and BYU's archaeology program within that department -- which does in fact offer a course in which Book of Mormon events are treated as having historical reality -- is not a "religious studies" program.

This really isn't a difficult concept.

So far as I can see, DCP does not dispute that. Given that fact I cannot see what he is trying to do in his posts, apart from sneering at people in the hope that they will find the experience unpleasant enough to make them stop posting the kind of material he finds uncongenial.

Perhaps you need to read the thread and try to understand it.

[_Joey]

BYU designs its mainstream history, chemistry, anthropology, literature, and accounting courses so that credit for them is transferrable and acceptable to graduate schools.

And obviously, teaching the supposed scholarship of Clark and Sorenson w respect to Book of Mormon historicity, within accredited programs, would not be acceptable for transferring to accredited graduate schools outside of Provo.

Well put, finally, Peterson!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

BYU designs its mainstream history, chemistry, anthropology, literature, and accounting courses so that credit for them is transferrable and acceptable to graduate schools.

And obviously, teaching the supposed scholarship of Clark and Sorenson w respect to Book of Mormon historicity, within accredited programs, would not be acceptable for transferring to accredited graduate schools outside of Provo.

Well put, finally, Peterson!!!

Newsflash: Denomination-specific courses don't travel well to denominationally-other or secular schools, Pal Joey.

What a shocker.

What a . . . Nope. Must be charitable.

[_Joey]

News Flash, Peterson (if news gets through the Provo filter!):

Non credible (supposed) scholarship does not transfer to credible academic institutions. It stays buried, with the case of Clark and Sorenson Book of Mormon historicity works, in the bowls of IGNORED venues.

Give it up. You're only furthering your own self embarrassment on this issue!

[_Daniel Peterson]

News Flash, Peterson (if news gets through the Provo filter!):

I don't live in Provo, but, even here, we almost never get any news out of Dogpatch. So I'm grateful for your notes.

Non credible (supposed) scholarship does not transfer to credible academic institutions. It stays buried, with the case of Clark and Sorenson Book of Mormon historicity works, in the bowls of IGNORED venues.

Give it up. You're only furthering your own self embarrassment on this issue!

You're a fool.

[_harmony]

The point that harmony and others are making is that there appear to be NO courses in American universities outside (probably) the religious studies departments of BYU and its affiliates in which Book of Mormon events are treated as having any historical reality.

BYU's anthropology department is not a "religious studies department," and BYU's archaeology program within that department -- which does in fact offer a course in which Book of Mormon events are treated as having historical reality -- is not a "religious studies" program.

This really isn't a difficult concept.

We concede that the Anthropology Dept of BYU and baby BYU's treat Book of Mormon events as historical reality. They likely also treat the Flood, the Garden of Eden, and the walls of Jericho falling down as historical reality in the same course (since the catalog reads: The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.)

The point is, no one else does. And the successful transfer of that course would likely be problematic to any university outside of the BYU world.

So far as I can see, DCP does not dispute that. Given that fact I cannot see what he is trying to do in his posts, apart from sneering at people in the hope that they will find the experience unpleasant enough to make them stop posting the kind of material he finds uncongenial.

Daniel's been sneering for years. Perhaps it makes him feel so much better about himself.