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

[_Danna]

Does anyone have a link to a transcript?

Here's my response:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... ark#p83101

Thanks John, for the summary and your excellent response to it point by point.

[_Danna]

I'm much more interested in what the Book of Abraham has to say.

Fantastic!

Maybe you would care to contribute to a largely ignored thread concerning the appearance of Chaldeans in the Book of Abraham?

[_Gadianton]

The repercussions will, if they come at all, come within the small community of Mesoamerican archaeologists, in terms of grant support, invitations to participate in academic symposia, relationships with government ministries of antiquity, dig permits, etc. And such repercussions will materialize over years.

(Emphasis added)

So it would be interesting to see if John Clark felt any of these things had happened over the years.

Guys and girls, who was talking in that second quote?

This is kind of fascinating, thanks for bringing it up Joey. I didn't realize that the apologists had let all their credibility ride on Book of Mormon archeology like that.

What I'm wondering now is if the failure of this project has led to increased interest in the project of proving the three witnesses, using similar reasoning as others have to prove the resurrection.

[_Shrill Weaver]

Of course you are.

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.

I really find it odd that you keep coming back to this board, generally following an announcement that you just won't be coming back to this board (for whatever legal or moral reason), only to state that, indeed, you are coming back to this board, albeit not fully.

I suppose to some it plays as cute to make self-deprecating remarks to the faithful about your unhealthy interest in "anti-Mormon" Internet sites, but there is often some amount of truth in jest.

I do wonder why you continue to pursue your valueless (to all parties, I'd assume) participation here while, at the same time, announcing that your participation lacks any value--in contradistinction to those times when you have, almost like clockwork, announced (only to later renege on the promise) that you are not going to pursue your valueless participation here. At those times, to put the most charitable spin on it, you were merely self-deluded. And, again, to put the most charitable spin on it, you will be similarly self-deluded in the near future. (After you announce, again, that you are done with this message board only to return, yet again.)

How many times can a single individual announce his final departure from an Internet message board only to continue posting at said Internet message board? Now, to be sure, I don't think you've broken any records. Surely others have done it far more than you.

But, your very predictable post-final-departure-announcement returns are, of course, the reason why no one who can read takes your final departure notices seriously any longer.

Why not continue to post here (other than the obvious reason that your interaction here lacks any sort of value for anyone)? I can't think of a single compelling reason why you shouldn't (ignoring the obvious, of course). But, why just keep announcing that you're not going to post here any longer only to later post here?

At some point, can't we be done with the self-deluded charade? Can you stop crying "Wolf!?"

Or: we've always not been not posting on MDB.

Weird to me, man. Girls are stupid and they just can't understand me.

~~Southwest

[_Nomomo]

I don't do substance.

Yes, a tactic of yours I have noticed

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't do substance.

Yes, a tactic of yours I have noticed

That line was a slow pitch softball served up for some of the folks here. I hope they enjoyed it.

But, of course, I was talking about my lack of substance on Mormon things, as illustrated by the materials here and in my article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" in the new issue of Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology. No substance at all in such things.

My work on Islam and Islamic philosophy, though, is something else entirely. It actually contains data and analysis.

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

Good grief. You're oddly eager to sense an insult in what I wrote.

Just tonight, I said to two of my sons "Okay girls, it's time for us to do the lawn."

I must really, really hate them.

Are you struggling with some sort of inferiority complex about being female? Why would you assume that to be female is to be inferior? I really don't like pop psychology, but this would seem a patently obvious case of self-loathing.

the apologists . . . let all their credibility ride on Book of Mormon archeology like that.

What on earth does that mean?

How on earth would "the apologists . . . let all their credibility ride" on something or other? And are you really sure that it's all of their credibility, and not, say, 84.5% or 29.2%?

And when did "the apologists" do this? Was it enacted at the annual Apolologists' Congress?

John Clark gave a speech. Not all of "the apologists" were there. "The apologists" didn't issue any kind of corporate statement regarding his speech. They didn't officially endorse it as representing The Final Word.

And, if John Clark's talk were somehow proved completely wrong in every detail, would that somehow discredit everything else he's ever said, and everything he's ever likely to say? Would it discredit Brant Gardner and John Sorenson and Mark Wright, too? How, exactly? Please explain how "the apologists . . . let all their credibility ride on Book of Mormon archeology like that."

What I'm wondering now is if the failure of this project

What failure?

What "project"?

Do you really imagine that all of "the apologists" are somehow connected with this? Do you actually believe in some sort of apologetic hive mind?

has led to increased interest in the project of proving the three witnesses, using similar reasoning as others have to prove the resurrection.

I'm interested in the Three Witnesses. I've written on them, and will do so again. I'm interested in the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. I've spoken on it, will do so again, and will eventually publish something on the topic.

This has no connection whatever with John Clark's efforts relating to Mesoamerican archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Although I've read a bit about Mesoamerica, and have made a few forays into the region, that isn't, and has never been, an area of expertise or major focus for me.

I'm interested in the Three Witnesses, and write about them, because I'm interested in them. Nobody told me to be interested in them. Nobody has ordered me to write about them. I'm interested in the resurrection, and will write about it, because I'm interested in it. Nobody told me to be interested in it. Nobody has ordered me to write about it. There is no Pan-Apologetic Plan in operation here. No conspiracy. No plot. No secret scheme. Nothing for a dedicated Scratchite to feast upon.

I really find it odd that you keep coming back to this board

I agree. It's very odd.

generally following an announcement that you just won't be coming back to this board (for whatever legal or moral reason), only to state that, indeed, you are coming back to this board, albeit not fully.

I expressly said, a few weeks ago, that I would post here as I chose (e.g., to announce things). I said that I was done with certain things, and I am. I didn't say that I was absolutely gone. Sorry if I confused you.

But my participation here has been much reduced over the past month, and it will continue to be much reduced.

You're free to write about this important subject, though, as much you want.

And I'm free to participate here as much, or as little, as I choose. Anytime I want. Or not. And, truly, that is magical.

[_beastie]

Good grief. You're oddly eager to sense an insult in what I wrote.

Just tonight, I said to two of my sons "Okay girls, it's time for us to do the lawn."

I must really, really hate them.

Are you struggling with some sort of inferiority complex about being female? Why would you assume that to be female is to be inferior? I really don't like pop psychology, but this would seem a patently obvious case of self-loathing.

Why, of course the problem is I'm a self-loathing female. There couldn't possibly be a problem in why you think it's funny to call males "girls", could there?

I'm familiar with how some men think this is a funny thing to do. I also understand there is a reason they think it's funny. It's a form of talking smack. It may be a funny or teasing insult, but it's funny because it is an insult.

[Guest]

It's as clear now as it was then that Clark's speech 5 years ago was nothing more than a campus fireside. There was no archaeological value in it and it could have been given by the campus bishop.

I bring it up now to show how Peterson and other apologists work. Try and sensationalize anything that promote the faith through any deceptive means.

Clark was very sure at the time he gave the speech that no one outside of campus would take notice.-- and they still have not.Book of Mormon historicity will never be taken seriously because it simply never existed. Its only the kind of fiction that FARMS would publish in an attempt to add legitimacy for the ignorant followers in Provo.

I sent a transcript to David Freidel five years ago. He responded by thanking me for bringing it to his attention and briefly noting that the address was a reflection of Clark's personal beliefs.

While looking for Freidel's academic webpage a few minutes ago, I came across a webpage for a Fall 2007 SMU course he taught called "Fantastic Archaeology." Interestingly enough, Freidel apparently included the transcript of Clark's address in the course pack reader.

Some interesting powerpoint slides from the course:

Pseudoscience and archaeology : a general introduction to the course (see p. 5)

Lost Tribes, Found Continents, and Faithful Journeys: Pseudoscientific and faith-based views of New World Origins (see pp. 2, 10-28 [the photo of Clark on p. 28 is humorous])

Dissecting the Giants, Fakes, and Early Americans and Moundbuilder Myth (see pp. 96-98)

Psychic and Religious Topics Dissection

[_truth dancer]

Hi Tom,

I sent a transcript to David Freidel a few years ago.

Did you get a reply?

Is David LDS?

I'm guessing most Mesoamerican scholars are aware of his research?

Have you read his work?

~td~

[_Tom]

Hi Tom,

I sent a transcript to David Freidel a few years ago.

Did you get a reply?

Is David LDS?

I'm guessing most Mesoamerican scholars are aware of his research?

Have you read his work?

~td~

Yes, I received a brief email thanking me for sending it and noting that the address was a reflection of Clark's personal beliefs. I've read some work by the well-respected Freidel (A Forest of Kings and Maya Cosmos). He is not LDS.