Brant Gardner on Clark and Book of Mormon Historicity

[_The Dude]

Why do you have to miss the point so completely, and always do so in so consistently jaundiced a fashion?

The point is not that I'm important, but that Joey's obsession isn't.

...isn't important in comparison with Daniel Peterson. Got it.

[_Morrissey]

Can't we lay this to rest once and for all and everyone concede the following:

1. FARMS authors (and other Mormon academic apologists) are capable of and often conduct and publish first-rate (or second or third-rate) research in their academic fields?

2. FARMS authors (and other Mormon academic apologists) have not subjected their apologetic arguments, at least related to the Book of Mormon and POGP, to the review of their scholarly peers?

3. Scholars in academic fields related to Mormon apologetics are, with few exceptions, unaware of Mormon apologetic arguments, aware but disinterested, or aware and think it's a bit "out there?"

[_Analytics]

My question to Gardner would be, as it relates to Clark: "Has Clark ever made his arguments suggesting a Book of Mormon history in mesoamerica to his non-lds peer group?

Surely if, as Gardner seems to propose, Clark does not suddenly become "unreasonable" in his Book of Mormon historicity arguments and is the respected mesoamerican archaeologist claimed, drawing an audience of his peers or any secular academic organization would not be problematic.

So, Mr Gardner, has Clark made such a presentation? If so, did his peer group find him reasonable? If he has not drawn the attention of his academic peer group on his Book of Mormon historicty arguments/scholarship, why not?

Would love to hear your thoughts,

I had a discussion about this with Gardner about six months ago. He said something to the effect that the correct way for a layman to assess the scholarly consensus on Book of Mormon archeology is to weigh the opinions of qualified scholars who have studied the issue in depth. He went on to assert that most of the qualified scholars who have studied Book of Mormon archeology in depth have concluded that the sum-total of the secular evidence indicates with a somewhat strong degree of certainty that the Book of Mormon is in fact an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript. Thus, laymen such as myself ought to trust their expert judgment and accept the Book of Mormon as true.

I responded that this group was biased and that the most prudent approach for a layman is to wait for these believers to convince mainstream archeologists.

He responded to the effect that I was a bigoted nut to trust the opinion of mainstream scholars who haven’t studied the issue over the opinion of those that had.

I responded that the people who hold this position should spend their time trying to convince their qualified peers rather than trying to buttress the belief of true-believers.

He responded that their qualified peers just aren’t interested in the Book of Mormon.

I responded that if he really had legitimate and convincing secular evidence that the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript that it would be among the very most important discoveries in the history of the field and that mainstream scholars would be superlatively interested. That being the case, the people who have this crown jewel have the professional responsibility to share this discovery with their peers and publish their research in the appropriate journals.

He responded that because of their religious prejudice, the editors of archeological journals are in a conspiracy to repress legitimate Mesoamerican scholarship if it relates to the Book of Mormon.

I responded that there must be at least one editor somewhere who would be willing to seriously consider superlatively seminal research on the discovery of an accurate 600-page translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript.

His response was no, they just aren’t interested in things like that. Since mainstream Mesoamerican archeologists don’t care about accurate translations of authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscripts and thus refuse to consider whether or not a candidate is legitimate, the appropriate thing for laymen to do is trust the rare archeologists who do care and have studied it, and thus accept the Book of Mormon.

I found it to be fascinating sophistry on his part.

[_beastie]

In the Q/A period after his famous BYU devotional, Dr. Clark made the following statement:

[John Clark:] Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.
[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

I think this statement makes it pretty clear that Dr. Clark was able to convince some of his colleagues to read the Book of Mormon, and he had shared with them his belief that it is a genuine ancient Mesoamerican document. He was not able to persuade them that belief is a reasonable assessment of the text.

One must already have a testimony of the Book of Mormon to be able to "see" the evidence, apparently.

(ps, Analytics, do you happen to have a link to that discussion?)

[_harmony]

Can't we lay this to rest once and for all and everyone concede the following:

1. FARMS authors (and other Mormon academic apologists) are capable of and often conduct and publish first-rate (or second or third-rate) research in their academic fields?

2. FARMS authors (and other Mormon academic apologists) have not subjected their apologetic arguments, at least related to the Book of Mormon and POGP, to the review of their scholarly peers?

3. Scholars in academic fields related to Mormon apologetics are, with few exceptions, unaware of Mormon apologetic arguments, aware but disinterested, or aware and think it's a bit "out there?"

I'll be very surprised if any LDS apologist agrees with this, but I don't see how it can be refuted at this point. Daniel has tried in the past to say that Dr Gee's scholarly publications are linked to Book of Abraham apologetics, but it doesn't look like it, when I read them. (but then, I don't have a PhD in Egyptology, so what do I know?)

[_harmony]

My question to Gardner would be, as it relates to Clark: "Has Clark ever made his arguments suggesting a Book of Mormon history in mesoamerica to his non-lds peer group?

Surely if, as Gardner seems to propose, Clark does not suddenly become "unreasonable" in his Book of Mormon historicity arguments and is the respected mesoamerican archaeologist claimed, drawing an audience of his peers or any secular academic organization would not be problematic.

So, Mr Gardner, has Clark made such a presentation? If so, did his peer group find him reasonable? If he has not drawn the attention of his academic peer group on his Book of Mormon historicty arguments/scholarship, why not?

Would love to hear your thoughts,

I had a discussion about this with Gardner about six months ago. He said something to the effect that the correct way for a layman to assess the scholarly consensus on Book of Mormon archeology is to weigh the opinions of qualified scholars who have studied the issue in depth. He went on to assert that most of the qualified scholars who have studied Book of Mormon archeology in depth have concluded that the sum-total of the secular evidence indicates with a somewhat strong degree of certainty that the Book of Mormon is in fact an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript. Thus, laymen such as myself ought to trust their expert judgment and accept the Book of Mormon as true.

I responded that this group was biased and that the most prudent approach for a layman is to wait for these believers to convince mainstream archeologists.

He responded to the effect that I was a bigoted nut to trust the opinion of mainstream scholars who haven’t studied the issue over the opinion of those that had.

I responded that the people who hold this position should spend their time trying to convince their qualified peers rather than trying to buttress the belief of true-believers.

He responded that their qualified peers just aren’t interested in the Book of Mormon.

I responded that if he really had legitimate and convincing secular evidence that the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript that it would be among the very most important discoveries in the history of the field and that mainstream scholars would be superlatively interested. That being the case, the people who have this crown jewel have the professional responsibility to share this discovery with their peers and publish their research in the appropriate journals.

He responded that because of their religious prejudice, the editors of archeological journals are in a conspiracy to repress legitimate Mesoamerican scholarship if it relates to the Book of Mormon.

I responded that there must be at least one editor somewhere who would be willing to seriously consider superlatively seminal research on the discovery of an accurate 600-page translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript.

His response was no, they just aren’t interested in things like that. Since mainstream Mesoamerican archeologists don’t care about accurate translations of authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscripts and thus refuse to consider whether or not a candidate is legitimate, the appropriate thing for laymen to do is trust the rare archeologists who do care and have studied it, and thus accept the Book of Mormon.

I found it to be fascinating sophistry on his part.

Analytics, this is a masterful example of painting someone into a corner.

You are such a ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ad boy!

[Guest]

I had a discussion about this with Gardner about six months ago. He said something to the effect that the correct way for a layman to assess the scholarly consensus on Book of Mormon archeology is to weigh the opinions of qualified scholars who have studied the issue in depth. He went on to assert that most of the qualified scholars who have studied Book of Mormon archeology in depth have concluded that the sum-total of the secular evidence indicates with a somewhat strong degree of certainty that the Book of Mormon is in fact an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript. Thus, laymen such as myself ought to trust their expert judgment and accept the Book of Mormon as true.

Much in the same way that those academics who have made a career of studying any number of fringe/pseudoscientific ideas are almost invariably subscribers to those ideas. Of course, that's because they have an ideological interest in that subject that motivates them to pursue that avenue of study while everyone else dismisses it while not studying it nearly as in depth. You really can take your pick of a wide variety of dubious fields to toss this argument back at Brant so long as you can find a handful of academics in it. I'd go with Reiki healing. Or I might go for some UFOologist stuff.

[_EAllusion]

I really did enjoy Cavalleria Rusticana and I Pagliacci tonight, though. And Camelot this afternoon.

It's only a matter of time before Ivy starts growing up one side of your body.

On the one other message board I participate on, we have a poster who calls himself Osman who does this. He's kind of a board pariah for it, though. You totally remind me of him. It's that not that he isn't going to see I Pagliacci; it's that he has a compulsive need to mention it in questionable circumstances. In fairness, he's even worse about keeping his artistic references to things that sound important to someone with a real stodgy, dated sense intellectual sophistication. A Camelot reference might be a little two low for him without tossing in a random french or pseudo-french expression in the mentioning of it.

Still, over time this comes across as someone trying very hard to name-drop things that make him sound intellectually thuper-therial. You've got important, intellectual things to do. Like writing posts on message boards talking about important, intellectual things you are doing.

[_Manfred]

Aww, and there you had to go ruin it. You simply cannot resist the urge to name drop, can you? Why ruin a perfectly good rejoinder with a compulsive need to impress everyone by how important you really are?

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[_Daniel Peterson]

If I cared very much what the folks in this small and rather monochrome pond thought of my character and personality, or even thought them, as a rule, worth taking seriously on that front, or qualified by any real measure of insight or perceptiveness or sympathy to judge me, I would be in despair. Fortunately, I don't.

Is Brant even in the pond? I thought he was a computer geek who enjoys Book of Mormon apologetics, specifically Mesoamerican stuff, as a hobby... which puts him in the peanut gallery on the edge of the pond, doesn't it?

He's a Mesoamerican hobbyist with Mesoamerican archaeological field experience and with a master's degree in Mesoamerican studies from a premiere program in the field under his belt, along with study toward a doctoral degree in that same field thereafter.

A little overqualified for the peanut gallery, in my opinion.

Why do you have to miss the point so completely, and always do so in so consistently jaundiced a fashion?

The point is not that I'm important, but that Joey's obsession isn't.

...isn't important in comparison with Daniel Peterson. Got it.

No, you didn't get it.

Notice that I didn't say that Joey was unimportant, either absolutely or comparatively. I kept the focus on his issue, not on him -- something that, on this wonderful board, I'm not at all surprised to see has been largely if not entirely missed. You want to make it personal. That's your choice (and, it seems, the general consensus on this thread). I didn't.