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

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

Okay. You've read my mind, and announced that I was indulging in a sexist insult.

I've denied any such intent.

You insist that your reading of my intent is correct, and, implicitly, that I'm either self-deceived or attempting, badly, to deceive others.

I deny it again.

There. Done.

It seems that there's little point in going through this cycle more than once.

[_harmony]

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, 10-12, 18-28 [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

Oh great. So now our lame apologetics is part of a class on the relationship between pseudoscience and archeology at SMU, and we're the pseudoscience part? This doesn't exactly support the "but... but... but... we're very respected in our own fields" lament, does it? How embarrassing!

[_harmony]

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.

Okay. You've read my mind, and announced that I was indulging in a sexist insult.

I've denied any such intent.

You insist that your reading of my intent is correct, and, implicitly, that I'm either self-deceived or attempting, badly, to deceive others.

I deny it again.

There. Done.

It seems that there's little point in going through this cycle more than once.

Could you two wait until lunchtime to finish this? I'd like to hear some comments from you both on Dr Friedel's including Dr Clark's comments in his class on Pseudoscience and Archeology.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

So, what was your intent?

I'm aware of only a few men who refer to a group of men, (or men and women) as "girls", in every case of which I know it is done to insult.

~td~

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm done with the "girls" issue. Those who want to consider me a nasty and insulting sexist are likely to continue to do so (because they have already continued to do so) regardless of what I say.

Just as it's boring and humor-draining to explain jokes to those who didn't get them at first iteration, it seems without purpose to attempt solemn explication of a flip term of address. I use girls less frequently in that sense, by far -- probably a couple of times in any given three-year period -- than I use amigos, comrades, and co-conspirators, though probably about as frequently as I use meine Kameraden and pilgrim. You're free to divine (or not to divine) any Deep Incriminating Significance in such practices that you choose.

I think language is fun, and I tend to be playful with it. (I love Shakespeare, perhaps most of all, for the richness of his language, his allusions and his puns.) On the other hand, I realize full well the truth of Senator Thomas Corwin's advice to William McKinley: "Never make people laugh. If you would succeed in life, you must be solemn, solemn as an ass. All great monuments are built over solemn asses." (This principle has come to be called Corwin's Law of American Politics.)

Oh great. So now our lame apologetics is part of a class on the relationship between pseudoscience and archeology at SMU, and we're the pseudoscience part? This doesn't exactly support the "but... but... but... we're very respected in our own fields" lament, does it? How embarrassing!

Before pronouncing final judgment on this, it might be useful to know what Professor Freidel says about Professor Clark's talk, and how he uses it in his course.

Is belief in the Book of Mormon faith-based, a religiously-motivated view of the ancient Americas? Absolutely. For that reason by itself, omitting the Book of Mormon from the course described in Professor Freidel's syllabus would be foolish and damaging.

But including Professor Clark's lecture transcript among his readings by no means entails that Professor Freidel considers Professor Clark the equivalent of Erich von Däniken or a UFO cultist. Perhaps he does, but I doubt it.

Professors Freidel and Clark are scholarly peers, and are, I believe, well acquainted with one another. So far as I'm aware, their relationship is a good and mutually respectful one. Which makes complete sense, because both are very respectable and respected scholars.

[_harmony]

You realize it fits perfectly into Daniel's overall agenda here to have the discussion veer away from Dr Clark and towards his own likely inadvertant passing remark? If he can keep the discussion on himself, maybe no one will notice that Dr Clark's remarks are now part of SMU's curriculum as examples of pseudoscience?

[_harmony]

Oh great. So now our lame apologetics is part of a class on the relationship between pseudoscience and archeology at SMU, and we're the pseudoscience part? This doesn't exactly support the "but... but... but... we're very respected in our own fields" lament, does it? How embarrassing!

Before pronouncing final judgment on this, it might be useful to know what Professor Freidel says about Professor Clark's talk, and how he uses it in his course.

Is belief in the Book of Mormon faith-based, a religiously-motivated view of the ancient Americas? Absolutely. For that reason by itself, omitting the Book of Mormon from the course described in Professor Freidel's syllabus would be foolish and damaging.

But including Professor Clark's lecture transcript among his readings by no means entails that Professor Freidel considers Professor Clark the equivalent of Erich von Däniken or a UFO cultist. Perhaps he does, but I doubt it.

Professors Freidel and Clark are scholarly peers, and are, I believe, well acquainted with one another. So far as I'm aware, their relationship is a good and mutually respectful one. Which makes complete sense, because both are very respectable and respected scholars.

Wow! Substance! I take it all back!

I think the comment was related to inclusion of Dr Clark's remarks in a class on pseudoscience's relationship with archeology. And since it's a stretch to assume the comment is used to support archeology, that only leaves the comment supporting the pseudoscience part.

I suspect Dr Friedel respects Dr Clark a great deal, as long as he confines his comments to archeology and leaves the apologetics behind.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You realize it fits perfectly into Daniel's overall agenda here to have the discussion veer away from Dr Clark and towards his own likely inadvertant passing remark? If he can keep the discussion on himself, maybe no one will notice that Dr Clark's remarks are now part of SMU's curriculum as examples of pseudoscience?

Mwahahahahaha! That's why I cleverly and insidiously announced that I was done with talking about the "girls" issue -- in order to promote further discussion of it!

Incidentally, thanks for keeping the subject of my alleged insult alive, Agent Ratlos. It is, as you realize, a brilliant way of distracting attention from Professor Freidel's inclusion of Professor Clark's speech in his class syllabus. And my fiendishly cunning plan is working! It even distracted you from noticing the fact that, since we apparently have no data as to what Professor Freidel says about them, we actually don't know that "Dr Clark's remarks are now part of SMU's curriculum as examples of pseudoscience."

My perpetual disingenuousness, recognized by virtually every Deep Thinker on this board, is no merely temporary tactic; it's my life. (See Scratch Board Creed, Article One).

[_harmony]

You realize it fits perfectly into Daniel's overall agenda here to have the discussion veer away from Dr Clark and towards his own likely inadvertant passing remark? If he can keep the discussion on himself, maybe no one will notice that Dr Clark's remarks are now part of SMU's curriculum as examples of pseudoscience?

Mwahahahahaha! That's why I cleverly and insidiously announced that I was done with talking about the "girls" issue -- in order to promote further discussion of it!

Incidentally, thanks for keeping the subject of my alleged insult alive, Agent Ratlos. It is, as you realize, a brilliant way of distracting attention from Professor Freidel's inclusion of Professor Clark's speech in his class syllabus. And my fiendishly cunning plan is working! It even distracted you from noticing the fact that, since we apparently have no data as to what Professor Freidel says about them, we actually don't know that "Dr Clark's remarks are now part of SMU's curriculum as examples of pseudoscience."

My perpetual disingenuousness, recognized by virtually every Deep Thinker on this board, is no merely temporary tactic; it's my life. (See Scratch Board Creed, Article One).

I took it all back! Didn't you see?

this is why I love you so much. You're so danged funny!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think the comment was related to inclusion of Dr Clark's remarks in a class on pseudoscience's relationship with archeology. And since it's a stretch to assume the comment is used to support archeology, that only leaves the comment supporting the pseudoscience part.

Such simplistic binary thinking.

Mormon beliefs in ancient Jaredites, Lamanites, and Nephites are definitely not mainstream, and, as such, any course on marginal or non-mainstream views of archaeology would necessarily have to mention them. It would be a serious gap in the course if it didn't.

That said, there is absolutely nothing in what we seem to know about Professor Freidel to suggest that he views Professor Clark's opinions on the Book of Mormon as being on the same level as Erich von Däniken's views about ancient astronauts, or that he believes Professor Clark's position no more respectable than arguments for ancient Mu or Atlantis.

I suspect Dr Friedel respects Dr Clark a great deal, as long as he confines his comments to archeology and leaves the apologetics behind.

You're entirely welcome to suspect anything and everything you like.

Is Professor Freidel a Mormon? No. So, quite plainly, he doesn't agree with Professor Clark on the Book of Mormon. But that should have been obvious without any reference to his course syllabus.

Beyond that, though, you're simply speculating.