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

[_Daniel Peterson]

We concede that the Anthropology Dept of BYU and baby BYU's treat Book of Mormon events as historical reality.

If you do, you've just agreed with me that Pal Joey's original formulation of his one point, such as it is, was wrong. He was chortling over the fact, as he saw it, that even BYU's history department doesn't take the Book of Mormon seriously by including it in an academic course. So I pointed out that, in fact, history departments typically don't deal with Pre-Columbian America (the claimed setting of the Book of Mormon), but that anthropology/archaeology departments do -- and that BYU's Department of Anthropology takes the Book of Mormon seriously by including it in an academic course.

Thus, Pal Joey's point, such as it is, falls to the ground.

Of course, like the Cheshire cat's smile, the pointless specter of his chortling lingers on.

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.)

On this board, I suppose it's redundant to remark that -- like you and your judgments of my character and the quality of my Christian discipleship, and, even more so, like the Scartchmeister with Skinny-L and so many here with Massacre at Mountain Meadows -- you have no actual knowledge of the content of the course on which you pronounce your opinion.

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

I don't sneer. But I do tire.

[_JustMe]

Joey

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.

If the accredited programs did teach this, you still wouldn't believe it though. So what is the point?

[_JustMe]

It is interesting that Joey continues to harp on "supposed" scholarship of Sorenson. Michael D. Coe said this of Sorenson - "my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies."

So we have a real Mesoamerican scholar saying Sorenson's materials are really quite good, and we have pal Joey pretending its all a canard. Makes ya wonder don't it?

[_Sethbag]

It is interesting that Joey continues to harp on "supposed" scholarship of Sorenson. Michael D. Coe said this of Sorenson - "my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies."

So we have a real Mesoamerican scholar saying Sorenson's materials are really quite good, and we have pal Joey pretending its all a canard. Makes ya wonder don't it?

He said the diffusion studies are really very good. Sorenson has apparently done good, scholarly Mesoamerican archeology. This isn't the same thing as then trying to use Mesoamerican archeology to explain the Book of Mormon. Do you know what Coe has said about that?

Or are you trying to insinuate that Coe was saying that Sorenson's Book of Mormon specific application of Mesoamerican archeology was "really very good?"

[_JustMe]

Sethbag

He said the diffusion studies are really very good. Sorenson has apparently done good, scholarly Mesoamerican archeology. This isn't the same thing as then trying to use Mesoamerican archeology to explain the Book of Mormon. Do you know what Coe has said about that?

Or are you trying to insinuate that Coe was saying that Sorenson's Book of Mormon specific application of Mesoamerican archeology was "really very good?"

That's exactly what I noted. Coe said Sorenson's scholarship on diffusionist studies is really very good. Pal Joey loves to smirk and dismiss anything by LDS scholars, but others who really are scholars, unlike pal joey, say far different about the quality of LDS scholarship than pal joey says. THAT is significant in my opinion. Those who are well informed are impressed with Sorenson's scholarship in some areas. pal joey loves to insinuate and pretend that nothing by Sorenson is worth spit. pal joey is like wow, totally out to lunch on LDS scholarship. That is the point I made, and will stick to. I am also willing to bet, that like his fellow brother, Mr. Scratch, pal joey isn't any better read in LDS scholarship, let alone Sorenson's materials.

[_Trevor]

I'll believe the Book of Mormon is history when... they tell me what happened to Moroni after he stopped writing.

[_JustMe]

I'll believe the Book of Mormon is history when... they tell me what happened to Moroni after he stopped writing.

He retired, of course!

[_Joey]

That's exactly what I noted. Coe said Sorenson's scholarship on diffusionist studies is really very good. Pal Joey loves to smirk and dismiss anything by LDS scholars, but others who really are scholars, unlike pal joey, say far different about the quality of LDS scholarship than pal joey says. THAT is significant in my opinion. Those who are well informed are impressed with Sorenson's scholarship in some areas. pal joey loves to insinuate and pretend that nothing by Sorenson is worth spit. pal joey is like wow, totally out to lunch on LDS scholarship. That is the point I made, and will stick to. I am also willing to bet, that like his fellow brother, Mr. Scratch, pal joey isn't any better read in LDS scholarship, let alone Sorenson's materials.

Sounds like we got a new lap dog for Peterson. Just when we were getting used to the ultimate poster - LifeOnaPlate.

JM, you have hit the nail on the head. Coe doesn't agree with Clark or Sorenson either on its credibility nor conclusions with respect to the Book of Mormon having any claim to historicity. Peterson has been spouting off for some time now that no qualified archaeologist was familiar enough with the Book of Mormon to evaluate these specific works of CLark and Sorenson as his only lame excuse. Coe puts that nonsensical argument to rest.

But what you have really put into focus, which I have made mention to for over four years, is that if Clark and Sorenson are so well respected in their professional fields, why is it they are, as Peterson himself has admitted, so completely ignored in their works linking a supposed record of a culture and people (the Book of Mormon), to such supposed great scholarship of evidence? While it totally escapes Peterson here, this is what archaeologists, anthropologists historians etc. live for - to discover, investigate and research ancient societies and the history surrounding them. And in the case of the Book of Mormon, we have an incredible restored written record of this history (supposedly, and I say that with an embarrassing grin!) which would make such a find even more fascinating for such peer scholars. Yet nothing, nada, zip, in the form of interest from neither their (Clark and Sorenson) peer scholars and professionals nor from the academic community for these works and claims. Clark stood on the campus of BYU back in the summer of 2004 making such prolific, but rather faith promoting, statements that "archaeology" was the only way to prove the Book of Mormon. Yet not a word from him since to demonstrate where his works and the those of Sorenson, WITH RESPECT TO THE Book of Mormon HISTORICITY CLAIM, have generated any passing interest, let alone support, from his professional peer group or the academic community at large.

It is quite simple, their works in this area have absolutely no credibility outside of Provo and the halls of LDS Church owned BYU. Great fodder for some fireside, but wont ever be taken seriously in the area of scholarship, scholars, and the academic community.

But it looks like you have been handed the torch from LifeOnaPlate, so carry on as the new lap dog.

[_Trevor]

I'll believe the Book of Mormon is history when... they tell me what happened to Moroni after he stopped writing.

He retired, of course!

But where to? And, did he have a pension plan? Did he live off of war spoils? Did he take another wife and bear 'Lamanite' children? Did he outwardly assimilate with the myriad "others" while keeping the fire of his testimony well lit? Do tell!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Peterson has been spouting off for some time now that no qualified archaeologist was familiar enough with the Book of Mormon to evaluate these specific works of CLark and Sorenson as his only lame excuse. Coe puts that nonsensical argument to rest.

Does he?

(Incidentally, you've distorted what I said. Not, of course, that you'll care much.)

I have made mention to for over four years

The Little Drummer Boy.

is that if Clark and Sorenson are so well respected in their professional fields, why is it they are, as Peterson himself has admitted, so completely ignored in their works linking a supposed record of a culture and people (the Book of Mormon), to such supposed great scholarship of evidence?

You've never been able to grasp the nature of the argument that Clark and Sorenson make. That's why you've never been able to frame the issue properly.

Have you ever even actually read most of what they've published? Have you, for example, read Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, or his Images of Ancient America?

I'm guessing that you haven't. But, even if you have, you don't seem to have understood the structure of the argument.

While it totally escapes Peterson here, this is what archaeologists, anthropologists historians etc. live for - to discover, investigate and research ancient societies and the history surrounding them.

It escapes me neither totally nor even partially. That's the world that I live in. I understand it intimately.

Odd, though, that you dismiss my immersion in this world, even my employment in academia, as evidence of my disconnect from reality, my inability to hold a real job and do real work, etc., while, at the same time, you seem to hold other career academics who are immersed in this world in high esteem -- for the simple reason, it appears, that they don't accept the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Your double standard is striking.

It is quite simple, their works in this area have absolutely no credibility outside of Provo and the halls of LDS Church owned BYU.

And how would you know that?

You've consistently blurred the distinction between what I've said and the thesis that you wish to promote, and have disingenuously attempted to use my remarks to endorse your own position. You say that the world of non-Mormon academia rejects the substance of Mormon scholars' advocacy of the Book of Mormon; I've said that the world of non-Mormon academia is, overwhelmingly, unaware of the substance of Mormon scholars' advocacy of the Book of Mormon. These are quite distinct propositions. Perhaps, upon acquaintance, non-Mormon academia would find Mormon scholarly work on the topic wholly unpersuasive, even incompetent. But, so far as I'm aware, that test hasn't yet occurred to any significant degree.

Great fodder for some fireside, but wont ever be taken seriously in the area of scholarship, scholars, and the academic community.

You're plainly more comfortable with prophesying than I am.

Sounds like we got a new lap dog for Peterson. . . . But it looks like you have been handed the torch from LifeOnaPlate, so carry on as the new lap dog.

I see a great deal of sneering and triumphalism from you, Pal Joey, but have never seen much substance.