DCP claims no one has refuted LDS archeological evidence in the past 3 decades

[drumdude]

I wonder if they would give the same respectful answer when asked about Xenu putting atomic bombs in volcanoes millions of years ago.

[Moksha]

Dr. Peterson could point to the Nephite exhibit at the Smithsonian as proof for the Book of Mormon claims.

[Gadianton]

Do you have any evidence -- I laugh to myself even as I ask the question! -- of any serious, specific engagement with their writing by any non-LDS anthropologist within, say, the past three decades?

shouldn't that tell him everything he needs to know?

[Dr Moore]

This isn't something to brag about...

[dastardly stem]

I don't think it's a bad point in and of itself to point out that scholars in related fields haven't given Mormon apologist arguments serious consideration. That is there could be some good scholarship work ignored for many reasons in the world of scholarly work.
But there are reasons and scholars who wish to get their work noticed by other need to understand that and work to overcome it, not just complain about it. As Tom's quotation suggests--faith claims aren't something scholars evaluate. There really needs to be more than just guesses and possibilities here.

The burden to get scholars to evaluate Mormon apologetic claims isn't on the scholars. Its on the Mormon apologists. If they can make any case to even get a scholar to pay attention, they may have something to this complaint. Unfortunately even proposing Israelites came to the americas 2600 years ago and starting a civilization requires something more than unlikely possibilities. Why should scholars in genetics for instance pay any attention to something when the very Mormon apologists who complain about not getting attention conclude things like:

As extensively explained herein, there are specific limitations that cannot be ignored when using the available genetic data to infer conclusions regarding the DNA of Book of Mormon people. Such conclusions are not founded on solid science but are the interpretation of a few, as genetic data fails to produce conclusive proof weighing credibly in favor of or against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Meaning there is no evidence supporting the claim. I mean, come on DCP and co, accept the burden you have and make some cases that will get attention from other scholars. As of now, it appears your complaint on this front is nothing more than a complaint offered to hide behind the fact that you have failed to take on the burden.

[PseudoPaul]

Years ago, I asked a prominent non-LDS anthropologist to comment on Clark’s infamous 2005 BYU address. The anthropologist declined, saying he didn’t wish to comment on what he considered to be faith claims.

Clark:

Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are.

Yes, typically that is the reason academics in various fields don't usually comment on these issues - they don't wish to offend someone's faith position. But at the same time, the prima facie case for the Book of Mormon has never been made, and it stands completely at odds with mainstream academic Biblical scholarship.

[drumdude]

Years ago, I asked a prominent non-LDS anthropologist to comment on Clark’s infamous 2005 BYU address. The anthropologist declined, saying he didn’t wish to comment on what he considered to be faith claims.

Clark:

Yes, typically that is the reason academics in various fields don't usually comment on these issues - they don't wish to offend someone's faith position. But at the same time, the prima facie case for the Book of Mormon has never been made, and it stands completely at odds with mainstream academic Biblical scholarship.

Dan argues that mainstream scholars simply haven’t been exposed to enough apologetic arguments to have any informed opinion.

Just like many mainstream scholars haven’t watched enough YouTube videos about flat earth.

[dastardly stem]

Dan argues that mainstream scholars simply haven’t been exposed to enough apologetic arguments to have any informed opinion.

Just like many mainstream scholars haven’t watched enough YouTube videos about flat earth.

That may be true, for the most part. Most likely can't see any reason whatsoever to give Mormon claims any attention. They appear to be nothing more than faith claims. Any arguments any scholars may have been exposed to only appear to be nothing more than faith claims. That's not their fault. That's DCP and co's fault. THey need to make their scholarship, if that's what whatever they are doing is, viable and understandable.

Instead they put out things that basically say "it's possible even if most of scholarship has a whole other story about ancient america". That's not...I mean...that's not even interesting sounding.

[Kishkumen]

Ugh. More nonsense. It does not matter to anyone but a believer that a fellow believer “believes” the Book of Mormon is an ancient American record. In the world of secular scholarship the question is not worth a moment’s time. Nothing places it in the realm of a question one can address with the tools of secular scholarship.

[PseudoPaul]

Yes, typically that is the reason academics in various fields don't usually comment on these issues - they don't wish to offend someone's faith position. But at the same time, the prima facie case for the Book of Mormon has never been made, and it stands completely at odds with mainstream academic Biblical scholarship.

Dan argues that mainstream scholars simply haven’t been exposed to enough apologetic arguments to have any informed opinion.

Just like many mainstream scholars haven’t watched enough YouTube videos about flat earth.

I wonder if Dan understands that mainstream academic scholars don't usually engage with apologetics because it's not academic in nature? Apologetics isn't really scholarship - scholarship has to be critical in order to mean anything.