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

[_Doctor Scratch]

Incidentally, for any newbies who may be looking on: I earn absolutely none of my salary for writing on Mormon topics. Zilch. Zero. I make my living teaching and by directing international research projects.

While you're at it, you may as well let them know that, in fact, you *were* paid over $20,000 to serve as "Chair of FARMS," and that, in fact, this money was a part of your salary.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Incidentally, for any newbies who may be looking on: I earn absolutely none of my salary for writing on Mormon topics. Zilch. Zero. I make my living teaching and by directing international research projects.

While you're at it, you may as well let them know that, in fact, you *were* paid over $20,000 to serve as "Chair of FARMS," and that, in fact, this money was a part of your salary.

Darn, Doc, you beat me to the punch!

[_beastie]

Again, I ask: why couldn't there exist a FAIR for Scientology?

I'd bet it already exists. Scientology certainly is proud of the scholars who defend it.

http://www.scientologytoday.org/experts/

[_Daniel Peterson]

Newbies should probably understand that the claim that I made $20,000.00 a year, or in any year, as chairman of the FARMS board is a staple accusation of Scratch and his acolytes that I've consistently denied. It's not true.

There's no point in repeating the accusations and denials any more. They've already been reiterated scores of times on different threads over many months.

I agree---it is very interesting! Remarkably so, in fact!

If this is the kind of thing you're interested in -- and, so far as I can tell, this is the only kind of thing you're interested in -- then you'll be interested in this kind of thing.

these BYU faculty will naturally be predisposed to support FARMS and any other Mormon-related endeavors

You plainly don't get out much. Not, anyway, among Mormon academics. Though the vast majority of the Mormon faculty at BYU appear (to me, at least) to be genuine believers, that doesn't translate simplistically into automatic support for apologetics or even for Mormon studies.

The situation is much more complicated than that.

magically, without every having read a single thing published by FARMS, they have come to "vehemently" dislike FARMS.

Magically?

You sound like a greedy kid in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, drooling in front of mounds of Everlasting Gobsmackers.

Your hatred of FARMS is so intense that you actually think that disliking something of which you know little or nothing is a respectable intellectual/moral stance. Normal thinkers, however, will find something disturbing about the form of judgment that you endorse above, and substituting different nouns in the formulation will make it obvious why they do:

it is very interesting! Remarkably so, in fact! Magically, without ever having actually known a black, they have come to vehemently dislike blacks! Magically, without ever having actually met a Jew, they have come to vehemently dislike Jews! Magically, without ever having actually read anything about evolutionary biology, they have come to vehemently reject evolution! Magically, without ever having actually met a Muslim or an Arab, they have come to vehemently loathe Arabs and Islam! How, I have to wonder---how on Earth, even!---could such a thing happen? Did they just intuit that Jews and Arabs and evolution and Muslims and blacks are worth "vehemently" disliking?

Or are you going to cough up an "intellectually honest" answer as to what's going on here?

You should have reconsidered your course with regard to me years ago, if you were ever thinking of someday trying to engage me in genuine conversation. I have no interest in you, nor in conversing with you.

[_TAK]

DCP
Incidentally, for any newbies who may be looking on: I earn absolutely none of my salary for writing on Mormon topics. Zilch. Zero. I make my living teaching and by directing international research projects.

Which is under the FARMs mandate:

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Mission Statement

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to:
Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship
Provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world
Build bridges of understanding and goodwill to Muslim scholars by providing superior editions of primary texts

So your salary comes in part from FARMS work..


.

[_Runtu]

I'm sorry. Am I obliged to agree with runtu? I hadn't understood the terms of participation here, it seems.

Professor Clark has set forth a number of claims. Runtu has declared them invalid and discredited. I don't agree. Professor Clark thinks that his work on this topic can be tightened up. I think that's almost always the case, and am happy that he apparently intends to pursue doing so. But I don't think that this proves all of Professor Clark's claims invalid. And Brant Gardner claims that Brant Gardner thinks quite highly of Professor Clark's claims, too. Which, again, doesn't seem to prove that they're all invalid.

Why am I obligated to agree with runtu? Can you please explain this to me?

Yes, Dan, you are obliged to agree with me because I happen to be right in this case. Throughout this thread, you have done everything save deal with the actual assertions Clark made and my responses to them.

Specifically, Dr. Clark suggested that Joseph Smith made a lot of claims that he couldn't possibly have known would be vindicated by archaeology. Clark characterized these claims as "wild," "ludicrous," and "outrageous" for someone in Joseph Smith's time to have made. I showed quite clearly (and I documented everything) that every one of these wild claims was in reality a rather common belief associated with mound builder myths popular in Joseph Smith's day.

So, whether Brant or anyone else stands by Clark's assertions (and Brant's statement to me speaks for itself), you haven't shown that my responses were wrong. Unless you or anyone else can do so, I will continue to consider Clark's assertions problematic. Apparently, in his correspondence with beastie, Clark himself agrees that they are problematic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So your salary comes in part from FARMS work..

Which contradicts what I wrote . . . how, exactly? (Please feel free to refer to what I actually wrote.)

Incidentally, there's also a terminological problem with what you seem to be trying to say: FARMS is a department of the Maxwell Institute. My project, the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (or METI), is another department of the Maxwell Institute, separate from FARMS. Chipmunks and whales are both mammals, but it doesn't follow from that fact that chipmunks are whales.

Yes, Dan, you are obliged to agree with me because I happen to be right in this case.

That he's been thoroughly debunked? Sorry. No can do.

Throughout this thread, you have done everything save deal with the actual assertions Clark made and my responses to them.

I'll let Dr. Clark defend his own claims.

In the meantime, I've had to deal with the usual nonsubstantive MDB irrelevancies from Scratch, et al. I didn't bring those matters up.

I will continue to consider Clark's assertions problematic.

I appreciate the more conservative rhetoric that you're beginning to use in this regard.

[_beastie]

I'll let Dr. Clark defend his own claims.

Actually, you seem to ignore what Dr. Clark said himself about these claims. He clearly stated in his letter to me that he needed to do more research on the subject, and, to use his words, had "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'm wondering if FARMS was the source of the opinions of others that he now deems ought to be questioned.

[_Pokatator]

Dr. Dan owes Runtu an apology.

But hey, Newbies, you will never, ever, ever see that happen.

[Guest]

magically, without every having read a single thing published by FARMS, they have come to "vehemently" dislike FARMS.

Magically?

Well, what is *your* explanation for it? You told all of us---including those poor, dear, sweet newbies you keep referring to---that these BYU Profs "vehemently" opposed FARMS, despite the fact that they had (according to you) never read a single page of FARMS publications.

So, what's going on here, Prof. P.?

Your hatred of FARMS is so intense that you actually think that disliking something of which you know little or nothing is a respectable intellectual/moral stance.

First of all, I don't "dislike" FARMS all that much. Mostly, I just dislike the part of it that involves the kind of Mopologetics that you, Hamblin, Midgley & et al. engage in. But, you already knew that.

Normal thinkers, however, will find something disturbing about the form of judgment that you endorse above, and substituting different nouns in the formulation will make it obvious why they do:

it is very interesting! Remarkably so, in fact! Magically, without ever having actually known a black, they have come to vehemently dislike blacks! Magically, without ever having actually met a Jew, they have come to vehemently dislike Jews! Magically, without ever having actually read anything about evolutionary biology, they have come to vehemently reject evolution! Magically, without ever having actually met a Muslim or an Arab, they have come to vehemently loathe Arabs and Islam! How, I have to wonder---how on Earth, even!---could such a thing happen? Did they just intuit that Jews and Arabs and evolution and Muslims and blacks are worth "vehemently" disliking?

Huh? This makes it sound as if you are trying to paint your BYU colleagues as highly prejudiced morons who jump to completely unwarranted conclusions. This was a really unfortunate, and rather racist analogy, Dr. Peterson. How shameful. And it still does not explain why these learned, well-educated, well-placed BYU professors would "vehemently" dislike FARMS without having ever read a page of FARMS material.

Or are you going to cough up an "intellectually honest" answer as to what's going on here?

You should have reconsidered your course with regard to me years ago, if you were ever thinking of someday trying to engage me in genuine conversation. I have no interest in you, nor in conversing with you.

It doesn't really make all that much of a difference to me. The fact that you continuously dodge very simple and straightforward questions is perfectly fine by me. Your silence tells readers pretty much everything that they need to know about your position.