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

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Well, I think that Prof. Clark deserves praise for pursuing the so-called "4th Scenario" so vigorously. Sure: Nibley called for apologists to confront critics "on their own ground," but scarcely any of them have done that. Instead, they opt to hold their conferences in high-LDS-density places like Claremont or New England, where their ideas won't possibly face any significant challenges.

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.

I do sense that certain powers-that-be are retreating to safer grounds, to issues such as the 3 Witnesses, or the Resurrection. Certainly, the leaders of this branch of Mopologetics are acting like real cowards when it comes to dealing with the heavy issues.

[_Daniel Peterson]

even Brant Gardner said that he couldn't vouch for what Clark had said.

With the above in mind, I wrote to Brant Gardner, as follows:

As you know, John Clark gave a talk at BYU some time back regarding archaeology and the Book of Mormon. The received wisdom on the Shades board is that his talk has been completely discredited, and you’ve been cited as endorsing that verdict.

I’m wondering whether your view is being accurately stated.

Here is his response, which arrived this morning:

That is news to me. I can't imagine what I might have said that could be construed as discrediting what John said. Assuming that you actually converse with those folk (if converse is the right word), please let them know that I consider John Clark one of the more important archaeologists working in Mesoamerica and that his analysis of the fit between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica should always be respected. From what I remember of that talk (and I have read it a couple of times), I do not know of anything on which I disagree. If I did, I think it would be incumbent upon me to bolster a LOT of contrary evidence before I would even dare to suggest that he were mistaken on anything related to Mesoamerica. I would assume first that I was wrong.

For what it's worth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sure: Nibley called for apologists to confront critics "on their own ground," but scarcely any of them have done that. Instead, they opt to hold their conferences in high-LDS-density places like Claremont or New England, where their ideas won't possibly face any significant challenges.

!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFL!

To avoid significant challenges to their ideas, the cowardly apologists hide out in safe, Mormon-coddling places like Claremont, Harvard, and Yale!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can it possibly get any better than this?

[_rcrocket]

Sure: Nibley called for apologists to confront critics "on their own ground," but scarcely any of them have done that. Instead, they opt to hold their conferences in high-LDS-density places like Claremont or New England, where their ideas won't possibly face any significant challenges.

That is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. In my view, apologists have taken far too long the low road in descending to the level of critics, engaging them in their battlefield, using their language and rhetorical style, to the point where most of what you personally do is criticize their tone and attitude.

[_Doctor Scratch]

With the above in mind, I wrote to Brant Gardner, as follows:
[SNIP!]

Well, nothing that Mr. Gardner said really refutes Runtu's remark. It is very possible (as any Mopologist ought to know) to say, on the one hand, that Clark's work should be "respected" while also refusing to "vouch" for said work.

Sure: Nibley called for apologists to confront critics "on their own ground," but scarcely any of them have done that. Instead, they opt to hold their conferences in high-LDS-density places like Claremont or New England, where their ideas won't possibly face any significant challenges.

!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFL!

To avoid significant challenges to their ideas, the cowardly apologists hide out in safe, Mormon-coddling places like Claremont, Harvard, and Yale!

You yourself admitted on the MADboard that you guys selected those places specifically because they have large contingents of LDS, not because you'd face solid, even-handed criticism. "Mormon-coddling" is your phrase, by the way.

Can it possibly get any better than this?

Yes, it can:

We've actually approached the notion of holding this thing in California with some trepidation and concern, counting on the rather large Mormon population in southern California and the fairly substantial population of Mormon grad students at Claremont to provide an audience. If we venture anywhere else out of Utah in the relatively near term, it's likely to be to the American Northeast, where there are respectable groups of LDS students at Harvard, MIT, Yale, Brown, Princeton, and etc.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=43229

Then again, perhaps you can explain to me how this quote shows a mindset that is ready and willing to head out into the cold, frightening world of powerful secular and/or non-LDS criticism. Instead, it seems to me that you've rather foolishly admitted that you prefer to stick to environments where there are plenty of friendly LDS to back up your views.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You have a positive genius for misreading things in your invariably negative way. One has to marvel, after a fashion.

Any organization sponsoring a conference will tend to go where it thinks a good audience will show up. Conferences on Jewish theology are more common in Jerusalem and New York City, for instance, than they are in Houston, Jakarta, Boise, and New Delhi.

For a Mormon-related organization, that has to mean going where there's a substantial number of people interested in Mormonism -- and Mormons are the most obvious group likely to be so interested.

But non-Mormons are invited to the Claremont conference, just as they were at Harvard and Yale. Presumably there will be non-Mormons in the audience, just as there were at Harvard and Yale. Non-Mormons will definitely be featured speakers at the Claremont conference, just as they were at Harvard and Yale. Non-Mormons will certainly be delivering papers at the Claremont conference, just as they did at Harvard and Yale. Non-Mormons will unquestionably be chairing sessions at the Claremont conference, just as they did at Harvard and Yale.

[_Nomomo]

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.

Dang! Took you a half hour to respond to that. I was begining to think the fish weren't biting or I was using the wrong bait.

[cacheman]

even Brant Gardner said that he couldn't vouch for what Clark had said.

With the above in mind, I wrote to Brant Gardner, as follows:

As you know, John Clark gave a talk at BYU some time back regarding archaeology and the Book of Mormon. The received wisdom on the Shades board is that his talk has been completely discredited, and you’ve been cited as endorsing that verdict.

I’m wondering whether your view is being accurately stated.

Here is his response, which arrived this morning:

That is news to me. I can't imagine what I might have said that could be construed as discrediting what John said. Assuming that you actually converse with those folk (if converse is the right word), please let them know that I consider John Clark one of the more important archaeologists working in Mesoamerica and that his analysis of the fit between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica should always be respected. From what I remember of that talk (and I have read it a couple of times), I do not know of anything on which I disagree. If I did, I think it would be incumbent upon me to bolster a LOT of contrary evidence before I would even dare to suggest that he were mistaken on anything related to Mesoamerica. I would assume first that I was wrong.

For what it's worth.

What you wrote to Brant is a complete mischaracterization of what I said, Dan. I never once said that Brant had agreed that John Clark had been "discredited," and I am more than a little dismayed that you wrote that to him. I'll have to write to Brant to explain. I said that, given the response I gave, Brant said he could not vouch for Clark's assertions that certain things were not known in Joseph's day. I stand by that statement.

Here's what Brant said regarding my response:

I am learning that the most dangerous thing I can do is try to defend someone else's logic or evidences if I haven't done the work to confirm them. John Clark will have to defend his statements that certain things were not known. From my experience, that is an all-too-common shorthand phrase that gets tossed out without sufficient support.

As for "the apologist is dismissing the mound builder parallels as aberrations. . ." I assume you mean me. I still have a hard time wearing the apologist hat because I probably spend as much time poking holes in some apologetic assumptions as I do in dealing iwth the Book of Mormon text.

I don't dismiss the parallels, however. There is quite a bit of evidence that the Book of Mormon fit very well into a popular idea of who the mound builders were. If we were dealing with a novel, it would be clear where the novel got its ideas, because the ideas about the mound builders were popular, but incorrect. That would mean that the Book of Mormon, which would have copied them in this scenario, would also be historically incorrect. That would be pretty easy to demonstrate and the case would be over.

That isn't the case, however. The very kinds of historical evidence that could show that the parallels to the mound builders match text but not history find parallels to Mesoamerica. A very simplistic example is the dating of the text which places the Book of Mormon way earlier than the mound builders, but coincidentally (?) right in the Mesoamerican context.

The thread in question is here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =21200&hl=

Frankly, few things you have ever said have bothered me as much as your mischaracterization of my post to Brant, who I consider a friend. For the life of me, I can't understand why you did that.

[_Dr. Shades]

Non-Mormons will certainly be delivering papers at the Claremont conference, just as they did at Harvard and Yale.

You mean, like D. Michael Quinn did?

[Guest]

Frankly, few things you have ever said have bothered me as much as your mischaracterization of my post to Brant, who I consider a friend. For the life of me, I can't understand why you did that.

Dr. Peterson is so entrenched in his belief system that he will use any tactic to misrepresent (which is ironic considering all his claims of misrepresentation here) an honest critic's assessment.* It's no wonder that the professors I worked with at BYU refused to take FARMS seriously.

*Dr Peterson will claim that I am misrepresenting him here.