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

[_cinepro]

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.

Just curious... do you believe what the Book of Abraham says about the Earth falling from its orbit around Kolob at the time of the Fall of Adam?

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated that in this verse the Lord “revealed to Abraham that Adam was subject to Kolob’s time before his transgression.” 19 According to President Brigham Young, Abraham 5:13 [Abr. 5:13] also means that before the Fall of Adam, the earth was near the very throne of God. But when the Fall occurred, the earth literally fell or moved from the physical presence of God to its present position in our solar system. When all the effects of the Fall of Adam are finally overcome, the earth will literally move back into the presence of God. Here are President Young’s words:

“When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. … But when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system. … This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth.” 20

The Book of Abraham, A Most Remarkable Book

[_The Dude]

It's no wonder that the professors I worked with at BYU refused to take FARMS seriously.

That was my experience as well.

I once worked in the lab of a BYU professor who learned* that I had referred to his research in an online discussion, suggesting that he received some funding from FARMS. He looked me up (it had been about a year since I left BYU) and we had a mostly friendly chat about the issue, because he really wanted to correct me and make sure I didn't associate him with FARMS in the future. I was happy to stand corrected. Academic reputation is a big deal.

*how did he learn this? Someone else at BYU forwarded the discussion to him. Now who would do a thing like that?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Oh, come on now. You should know from having dealt with EV, Baptist, and other kinds of Church critics that there are hundreds of "people interested in Mormonism" throughout the South and the Midwest. The difference here is that you are attempting to "stack the deck" with a favorable, Mormon-friendly audience. The same thing happened at the Yale conference, as Dr. Shades has aptly pointed out.

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.

There are all rather beside the point. You've already established the motives behind why the location was chosen. You've already let slip that Mopologists insist upon "doing their thing" in these strategically chosen "safe zones." To bring things back on topic: Can you point to a presentation of Clark's, dealing with obviously Book of Mormon topics (i.e., obvious to a secular audience, even), which *wasn't* in some way controlled, manipulated, or heavily influenced by the Mormon contingent?

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

silentkid is certain that I misrepresented you deliberately, for ideological reasons, and I really hesitate to disagree with someone who knows me as intimately as he does.

If, however, you feel that I misrepresented you -- I don't recall even mentioning you in my note to Brant -- I apologize. You're entirely welcome to write to him for further explanation, and etc. I appreciate your helpful clarification of what you were claiming.

As for professors at BYU refusing to take us seriously, I can only say that many do -- many hundreds of people have written for us and worked with us, including professors from every BYU college (e.g., humanities, religion, biological sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and the like) -- and, in my experience, those who summarily dismiss us (and I've encountered a few) tend to know little to nothing about us at first hand. For a list of those who have published with FARMS, or the Maxwell Institute, see:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/

Just curious... do you believe what the Book of Abraham says about the Earth falling from its orbit around Kolob at the time of the Fall of Adam?

I can't deduce such a thing from Abraham 5:13, which, I take it, is the verse that is supposed to say what you say the Book of Abraham says on this matter.

You've already let slip that Mopologists insist upon "doing their thing" in these strategically chosen "safe zones."

As usual, I've never said anything of the sort.

Any newbies who might be reading this should be aware that Scratch routinely demands that I defend his absurd misreadings of things I've written as if they represented my own positions. This is a major component of his overall methodology, and it's a significant part of the reason for my lack of interest in attempting conversation with him. The game grew tiresome quite some time back.




.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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?

I don't consider Mike Quinn a non-Mormon.

I had in mind people like Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stephen Davis, and Marilyn Adams, among others.

[_Runtu]

If, however, you feel that I misrepresented you -- I don't recall even mentioning you in my note to Brant -- I apologize. You're entirely welcome to write to him for further explanation, and etc. I appreciate your helpful clarification of what you were claiming.

Maybe your invocation of a quote from me as a preface to your email to Brant made me think you quite possibly were referring to me.

[_Nomomo]

Just curious... do you believe what the Book of Abraham says about the Earth falling from its orbit around Kolob at the time of the Fall of Adam?

I can't deduce such a thing from Abraham 5:13, which, I take it, is the verse that is supposed to say what you say the Book of Abraham says on this matter.

It appears that in this matter your comprehension skills are somewhat less than the Prophets Joseph Feilding Smith and Young.

[_beastie]

I already shared Dr. Clark's response to me, and it appears to have been ignored in this conversation:

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.

What does it matter whether or not Brant is willing to vouch for Dr. Clark's assertions, when Dr. Clark himself admitted that he was just starting this process in 2006, and he had not previously been specific or hard enough on his own position?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Professor Clark's rigorous scholarship is a real credit to him.

It appears that in this matter your comprehension skills are somewhat less than the Prophets Joseph Feilding Smith and Young.

Come on. Make up your mind.

Am I lying, or am I just incompetent?

[_beastie]

Professor Clark's rigorous scholarship is a real credit to him.

Yes, it's a credit to him, as well as his willingness to admit that he hadn't been as thorough as he may have needed to be in the first place.

So why are you acting as if it's outrageous to state that Clark's position cannot be "vouched for" by Brant or anyone else? Why are you acting as if runtu's summary was unfair?