BYU's John Clark -- Five year anniversary of being "ignored"

[_JohnStuartMill]

Thanks for pointing out the dogmatic/axiomatic quality of your position. You saved me the effort.

Sure. If you don't have any axioms, then you can't have any conclusions.

I'm not sure that they had access to the complete scrolls. (That is disputed, however certain a few here may be on the subject.) And I'm not sure that the Egyptologists of several generations ago were infallible. But I don't even require that the text was present on the scrolls at all. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. I don't much care. I'm open to various possible modes of its deliverance.

Are you open to this mode being "generating spontaneously from the imagination of mortals"? Why not?

I'm much more interested in what the Book of Abraham has to say. And, thus far, although it's never been a major focus of my attention, I've published twice on that topic:

* With John Gee and William Hamblin. “‘And I Saw the Stars’: The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy.” In John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid, eds. Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (Provo: FARMS, 2005), 1-16.

* “News from Antiquity [‘Evidence supporting the book of Abraham continues to turn up in a wide variety of sources’].” The Ensign 24/1 (January 1994): 16-21.

Of course you are. You weren't interested in the scholarship regarding the Brighamite miscegenation penalty either, because apologists aren't interested in fights that they suspect they can't win. That's why FAIR's methodology is so boring: any system, no matter how blatantly false, could use it to its benefit.

If Scientology could set up something with the same methodology as FAIR, then FAIR's enterprise cannot be of great value.

[_Yong Xi]

Thanks for pointing out the dogmatic/axiomatic quality of your position. You saved me the effort.

Hey Dan, what's your theory on why Egyptologists called the Book of Abraham a fraud even when they had access to the complete scrolls?

I'm not sure that they had access to the complete scrolls. (That is disputed, however certain a few here may be on the subject.) And I'm not sure that the Egyptologists of several generations ago were infallible. But I don't even require that the text was present on the scrolls at all. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. I don't much care. I'm open to various possible modes of its deliverance.

Do you require the text of the Book of Mormon to have been on the plates? Or, for that matter, do you require existence of physical plates? Could the plates have been spiritual?

[_beastie]

Clark's problem, in my opinion, in the "convergence" fireside, isn't his grasp of archaeology, which I don't think anyone disputes. Rather, it's his assertions of what was known or believed in Joseph Smith's day that don't hold up. Just about everything he said Joseph couldn't or shouldn't have known turns out to be a pretty commonplace belief of Joseph's day. In that sense, yeah, I would consider his assertions debunked.

I think this is a fair summary of the situation.

Dr. Clark was extremely gracious in his reply to my email, and was not defensive at all. That made a big impression on me, particularly given how internet interactions tend to be quite different. I think that he would agree that he hadn't done quite enough study on what Joseph could or could not have known at the time of the devotional, and pretty much said as much in his response to me, dated 2006. I pointed out just one example regarding fortifications, by the way.

Dr. Clark did give me permission to share his reply, so I'll share this portion that I think supports John's summary of the situation:

As a consequence of this talk and two later ones, I have begun to question the opinions on these matters I received from others and have decided to do the research to evaluate more critically the accuracy of my own statements. I am just starting some of this. All of your questions boil down to the issue of looking at what Joseph Smith could have read in books or heard in gossip by 1829. I am aware of the books you mention and scores of others. I am collecting them and working through them.

and

I am working with a student assistant, and at the moment he has worked through over 100
anti-Mormon sources for the 19th century and has come up with several thousand criticisms. We have a long way to go. Early in the research, it became clear that we were not being specific enough or hard enough on our own position, as represented in the FORUM talk. We intend to hammer all of my claims without mercy to see if they will hold up to the most caustic criticism we can muster.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Of course you are.

I find it mildly interesting that you seem to think, for some reason, that I shouldn't be more interested in the contents of the Book of Abraham and their relationship, if any, to the ancient world.

Do you have any compelling reasons to support your feeling that your interests should be mine, but that mine shouldn't be yours?

You weren't interested in the scholarship regarding the Brighamite miscegenation penalty either

I wasn't?

apologists aren't interested in fights that they suspect they can't win.

Do I detect very broad hostile stereotyping here?

Are you deeply interested in fights that you can't win? Please direct me to some examples. I read fairly frequently here about my alleged refusal ever to admit that I'm mistaken, but this typically comes from people who, in my experience, seem always to believe that they're right and that I'm wrong. There's something ironic about that, if only I could put my finger on it.

That's why FAIR's methodology is so boring: any system, no matter how blatantly false, could use it to its benefit.

I would ask what "FAIR's Methodology"(TM) might be -- and where that single, monolithic methodology might be written out -- but I'm really not in the mood for silly strawman caricatures. And, even if I were in that curious mood, I'd wonder what the relevance might be to me.

If Scientology could set up something with the same methodology as FAIR, then FAIR's enterprise cannot be of great value.

If baseball were really dogfighting, it would be illegal in most U.S. jurisdictions. If the sky were gold, the price of bullion would probably go down.

Do you require the text of the Book of Mormon to have been on the plates?

Not necessarily. It could have been revealed in any number of ways. But I suspect that it was.

Or, for that matter, do you require existence of physical plates?

I don't require it. But the Lord evidently did, for reasons best known to him.

Could the plates have been spiritual?

I suppose they could have been, though that concept makes little sense to me. But I think the evidence strong and persuasive that they were not.

Well, girls, that's enough for now. I won't be sucked back into full involvement in this place. Been there. Done that. Nothing of any value to show for it.

[_silentkid]

...but I'm really not in the mood for silly strawman caricatures.

STRAWMAN ALERT. STRAWMAN ALERT. STRAWMAN ALERT.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Of course you are.

I find it mildly interesting that you seem to think, for some reason, that I shouldn't be more interested in the contents of the Book of Abraham and their relationship, if any, to the ancient world.

Do you have any compelling reasons to support your feeling that your interests should be mine, but that mine shouldn't be yours?

Uh, yeah. The question of whether the Book of Abraham is a translation of an ancient document plays a big role in determining how interesting it ultimately is.

You weren't interested in the scholarship regarding the Brighamite miscegenation penalty either

I wasn't?

You never returned to this thread. My inference is reasonable.

Are you deeply interested in fights that you can't win? Please direct me to some examples.

Because I am not an apologist, I don't feel a need to defend positions that are not supported by good evidence. So, no.

I would ask what "FAIR's Methodology"(TM) might be -- and where that single, monolithic methodology might be written out -- but I'm really not in the mood for silly strawman caricatures. And, even if I were in that curious mood, I'd wonder what the relevance might be to me.

The methodology is simple: don't investigate topics that make the Church look bad unless critics are making so much hay of it that damage control is necessary.

If Scientology could set up something with the same methodology as FAIR, then FAIR's enterprise cannot be of great value.

If baseball were really dogfighting, it would be illegal in most U.S. jurisdictions. If the sky were gold, the price of bullion would probably go down.

Why don't you think that Scientology could set up something with the same methodology as FAIR? It would have to be tailored to the ridiculous precepts specific to Scientology, sure, but the basic structure and purpose of the foundation would be the same.

[_Yong Xi]

Do you require the text of the Book of Mormon to have been on the plates?

Not necessarily. It could have been revealed in any number of ways. But I suspect that it was.

Or, for that matter, do you require existence of physical plates?

I don't require it. But the Lord evidently did, for reasons best known to him.

Could the plates have been spiritual?

I suppose they could have been, though that concept makes little sense to me. But I think the evidence strong and persuasive that they were not.

Well, girls, that's enough for now. I won't be sucked back into full involvement in this place. Been there. Done that. Nothing of any value to show for it.

There you have it, girls. DCP gives a tepid endorsement of Clark, declares his belief in magic and proves it by disappearing.

[_beastie]

There you have it, girls.

You noticed that, too, eh?

Shades of crocket. Wanna insult someone? Call them "Ms." or "girls".

[_Yong Xi]

There you have it, girls.

You noticed that, too, eh?

Shades of crocket. Wanna insult someone? Call them "Ms." or "girls".

Perhaps they suffer from horror feminae.

[_JohnStuartMill]

No, no -- that's Wade.