Apologetics: Why bother?

[Guest]

What academic journals do you think such works could be submitted to?

I'm unaware of any mainstream secular academic journal that publishes denominational apologetics, so, if Pal Joey has some recommendations, I'll be delighted.

[_Jersey Girl]

What academic journals do you think such works could be submitted to?

I'm unaware of any mainstream secular academic journal that publishes denominational apologetics, so, if Pal Joey has some recommendations, I'll be delighted.

Well, that was the reason I asked the question twice on this thread. If Joey would demonstrate how his questions are not one huge strawman, I'd like to see it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Joey,

Give me the names of academic journals that accept the work of religious scholars for publication (and/or peer review), the criteria for submission and a list of religious scholars whose work has been accepted by said academic journals.

Pony it up.

[_Ray A]

Give me the names of academic journals that accept the work of religious scholars for publication (and/or peer review), the criteria for submission and a list of religious scholars whose work has been accepted by said academic journals.

The Journal of Near Eastern Studies is one I can think of, a sub category is religious studies in regard to ancient civilisations.

Devoted to an examination of the civilizations of the Near East, the Journal of Near Eastern Studies has for more than 120 years published contributions from scholars of international reputation on the archaeology, art, history, languages, literatures, and religions of the Near East.

Policy:

We consider sources, style, footnote form, originality of material and interpretation, clarity of thought, and interest of readers.

A contribution on the Book of Abraham:

“The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among The Joseph Smith Papyri", 62 (July 2003):161-80. by Dr. Robert Ritner, Prof. of Egyptology at the University of Chicago.

Ritner is a critic of John Gee.

I think Dan is referring to apologetics. Journals like this don't accept apologetics.

Jeff Lindsay noted on his website:

I'm glad to see that the case for the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text is becoming strong enough to gain the attention of those who disagree with us. I'm also glad that some serious scholars are at least willing to take the Book of Mormon seriously in their own scholarship. A good example is Krister Stendahl, who, while Dean of the Harvard Divinity School, said:

I have applied standard methods of historical criticism, redaction criticism, and genre criticism [to the Book of Mormon]. From such perspectives it seems very clear that the Book of Mormon belongs to and shows many of the typical signs of the Targums and the pseudepigraphic recasting of biblical material. . . . It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon stands within both of these traditions if considered as a phenomenon of religious texts.

[Kister Stendahl, "The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen, Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978, p. 129, as cited by John L. Sorenson, "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Record," in John M. Lundquist and Stephen R. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, Vol. 1. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1990, pp. 483-484.]

Not quite the conclusion Jeff wants, but I suppose it indicates that some non-Mormon scholars have taken Mormonism seriously. Stendhal didn't suggest the Book of Mormon was an "authentic ancient text", in fact he suggested the very opposite.
>
>
>
>
>

[_JustMe]

Joey

Until you and your master (Peterson) can provide evidence otherwise, I thinks it's safe to just pet you and say "good dog"! Here, take this milkbone!!!

John Sorenson co-author with Carl L. Johannessen "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages," in Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, ed. Victor H. Mair, University of Hawaii Press, 2006: 238-297. Their article discusses and documents more than 80 species of plants that had crossed all or part of the ocean to or from America before AD 1500. The list includes amaranth grains, the cashew nut, pineapple, the peanut, hashish, tobacco, coca, two species of chili pepper, the kapok tree, various squashes and pumpkin, at least 6 species of cotton, bananas, prickly pear, the guava, several grasses (human dependent) weeds, corn, and two kinds of marigolds.Carl Johannessen has also shown the connection with the art from one side of the world, yet it is found on the other side, across the oceans. (as found in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2008: 51, 52, 68 footnote #74.)

Peer reviewed book, co-authored with the emeritus professor of geography University of Oregon, and published in a non-Mormon venue. Johannessen also honored Sorenson with a magnificent paper of transoceanic contact evidences in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World, Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, FARMS, 1998. Also in that honorarium of studies were Stephen C. Jett, professor of geography and of textiles and clothing at University of California, Davis, also the founding editor of Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts.

[_Joey]

I doubt that many Mesoamericanists follow Mormon scholarship very closely.

So, Mormon scholars like Clark and Sorenson, who you claim are so well respected by their professional peers, cannot generate even the slightest interest in their works that "attempt" to demonstrate several hebrew/jewish tribes making a transoceanic voyage to settle and grow a culture of sophisticated millions in mesoamerica? And this is simply because they are Mormon scholars? Since when has the religion of the scholars or the historical inhabitants been a barrier to credible evidence?

Is this now your new tactic, to throw some type of prejudicial card of discrimination out as your defense.

Your continued desperation never ceases to amaze me.

But it's also because Mormon scholarship hasn't produced, and hasn't claimed to have produced, a slam-dunk case that would force a skeptical unbeliever to bend the knee.

An unbeliever in what?????? History is history. Credible evidence is credible evidence. Last time I checked, I was never told to "pray" about history to determine whether the scholarship presented was credible or not. It is judged on it's merits without reference to one's personal religious beliefs. You are now beginning to make a case for Iran's president when he says the holocaust never happened because he his an unbeliever in such religious persecution.

Peterson, you really need to take some lessons in commen sense. It cannot be taught in the ivory tower. IF you want to help your students, go out and get some real world experience!

Truly unbelievable!!!

[_Joey]

Joey

Until you and your master (Peterson) can provide evidence otherwise, I thinks it's safe to just pet you and say "good dog"! Here, take this milkbone!!!

John Sorenson co-author with Carl L. Johannessen "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages," in Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, ed. Victor H. Mair, University of Hawaii Press, 2006: 238-297. Their article discusses and documents more than 80 species of plants that had crossed all or part of the ocean to or from America before AD 1500. The list includes amaranth grains, the cashew nut, pineapple, the peanut, hashish, tobacco, coca, two species of chili pepper, the kapok tree, various squashes and pumpkin, at least 6 species of cotton, bananas, prickly pear, the guava, several grasses (human dependent) weeds, corn, and two kinds of marigolds.Carl Johannessen has also shown the connection with the art from one side of the world, yet it is found on the other side, across the oceans. (as found in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2008: 51, 52, 68 footnote #74.)

Peer reviewed book, co-authored with the emeritus professor of geography University of Oregon, and published in a non-Mormon venue. Johannessen also honored Sorenson with a magnificent paper of transoceanic contact evidences in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World, Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, FARMS, 1998. Also in that honorarium of studies were Stephen C. Jett, professor of geography and of textiles and clothing at University of California, Davis, also the founding editor of Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts.

Peterson last (ridiculous) post just made your defense moot of any merit. Not to say that his post demonstrated any merit either!!!

[_Buckeye]

All they can do is publish. It is up to the world to read. So far, most of the world has taken little interest

There is no question that these supposed works of scholarship on Book of Mormon historicity have generated no interest from the professional and academic community. Peterson readily admitted this back in 2004

The obvious question is really "why"?

There are only two possible answers: 1. Awareness (exposure and/or visibility). 2. Quality of scholarship (or lack thereof).

I think there is another answer that is not only possible, but probable - apathy.

[_Buckeye]

Buck, you really have me wondering what the outcome of the process would be if, hypothetically, a jury was to listen to two Mesoamerican scholars present the case against an Ancient American setting as outlined in the Book of Mormon, and two historicity apologists were to present the case for an ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon?

Do you think the latter would really stand a chance? If so, how would this alter the idea of faith? If it was that obvious, would Moroni 10:4-5 become redundant? Or, perhaps, on an equal level as the "obvious" evidences which any jury should be able to see, as presented by the apologists?

Well, first, you changed my example. I said apologetics had done a good job of refuting the traditional LDS hemispheric view, not for proving a specific setting.

But I'll still answer the jury question. I think both scholars supporting and scholars opposing Book of Mormon historicity would have valid points to make. Which would convince a jury would depend on who has the burden of proof and what the required standard of proof is, not to mention the ever-present reality that different juries can reach different results (we use juries not because they yield the truth, but because they are the best way to resolve disputes where the truth is cannot be indisputably shown).

If the burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence or higher (beyond a reasonable doubt), then neither side would be able to meet the burden. If the burden of proof was a perponderance of evidence (ie, more likely than not), then the result would turn on the predisposition of the jurors. Not surprisingly, this is what we find in the real world. Those predisposed to believe tend to latch onto the pro side. Those predisposed to disbelieve tend to latch onto the con side.

As to the Moroni test, I don't recall Moroni ever calling it a proof. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to prove anything if "prove" is understood to mean "compel belief." Even if the historicity were "proven" that would not prove the purpose of the Book of Mormon (the Jesus is the Christ) anymore than the Bible's historicity does. Faith is very much necessary. What the Book of Mormon does, and the apologetics who support it, is to create a scenario in which belief is possible and even plausible, thereby allowing us to choose if we want to believe. But our choice will never impact what the truth really is. The Book of Mormon isn't on trial. We, the jury, are.

[_Daniel Peterson]

(1) JustMe's example of the Sorenson/Johannessen article is an excellent one.

(2) Ray's example of the Journal of Near Eastern Studies doesn't really meet my objection to Pal Joey's incompetent "point." I'm aware of no mainstream secular academic journal that publishes denominational apologetics, and the JNES is certainly no exception to that. The journal's publication of Ritner's critique of Gee was a rather surprising outlier (for various reasons), but it still doesn't represent anything like denominational apologetics -- and it's far, far less surprising to me, even so, to find a critique of its kind in an academic journal than it would be to find an essay in affirmative apologetics (something that I actually regard as essentially unthinkable).

(3) Apparently Pal Joey has no intention of answering Jersey Girl's quite legitimate question. Which, however, hasn't prevented him from posting more monomaniacal gibberish:

So, Mormon scholars like Clark and Sorenson, who you claim are so well respected by their professional peers,

You know, Pal Joey, it just makes you look ridiculous that you can't even bring yourself to concede that Sorenson and (nowadays especially) Clark are respected by their professional peers. If you actually knew anything at all about Mesoamerican archaeology and Mesoamerican studies generally, you would understand this.

cannot generate even the slightest interest in their works that "attempt" to demonstrate several hebrew/jewish tribes making a transoceanic voyage to settle and grow a culture of sophisticated millions in mesoamerica?

And if you actually knew much at all about what Sorenson and Clark actually argue, you would realize that your characterization of their work, above, is deeply wrongheaded.

And this is simply because they are Mormon scholars? Since when has the religion of the scholars or the historical inhabitants been a barrier to credible evidence?

Is this now your new tactic, to throw some type of prejudicial card of discrimination out as your defense.

Your continued desperation never ceases to amaze me.

I've said nothing about prejudice or discrimination.

So your attempt to portray me as alleging prejudice and discrimination because I'm "desperate" is merely silly.

But it's also because Mormon scholarship hasn't produced, and hasn't claimed to have produced, a slam-dunk case that would force a skeptical unbeliever to bend the knee.

An unbeliever in what?????? History is history. Credible evidence is credible evidence. Last time I checked, I was never told to "pray" about history to determine whether the scholarship presented was credible or not. It is judged on it's merits without reference to one's personal religious beliefs. You are now beginning to make a case for Iran's president when he says the holocaust never happened because he his an unbeliever in such religious persecution.

Peterson, you really need to take some lessons in commen sense. It cannot be taught in the ivory tower. IF you want to help your students, go out and get some real world experience!

Truly unbelievable!!!

I've never understood the gratification that some people plainly get out of beating up straw men.

Peterson last (ridiculous) post just made your defense moot of any merit. Not to say that his post demonstrated any merit either!!!

A sneer, Pal Joey, isn't an argument. It's not even necessarily a coherent position.