DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_Mister Scratch]

LOAP, are you just irritated that Scratch appears to enjoy debating Dr. Peterson and is quite skilled at investigating the various claims of apologists?

No, I do find it entertaining to see Scratch's "breaking news updates," wherein he closely monitors the MAD board and scurries over to Mormon Discussions to issue full reports tri-daily. I see Scratch as a rather emphatic detractor, his/her own missionary, a zealot of anti-LDSism.

I really actually do hope that the LDS Church realizes its full potential, LoaP. I believe that it is a flawed institution, and hope that it will correct these things one day. Does this make me an "ark steadyer"? If so, I do not care.

[_beastie]

Interesting thing about that thread: it was started by our favorite comic book artist CKSalmon, who never answered the dozens of responses to his original idea, once it was pointed out he was being quite the hypocrite.

Goodie, another diversion!

Anything to avoid addressing why, for example, John Clark can't convince one of his peers that the Book of Mormon might be an ancient Mesoamerican text, or why it's necessary to have a spiritual testimony before one can see the evidence that believers insist supports the Book of Mormon as an ancient document.

It's ok, LOAP. We all know you can't address those issues, but you sure can go on about the flaws of critics!

Of course, the history of the church fully supports your endeavor.

[_Trevor]

Actually, the Book of Mormon is studied fairly extensively for what it is: a 19th century document. What does not take place is that the Book of Mormon be studied as the document it claims to be: a product of Mesoamerica in ancient times. Scholars are going to study it as what it is, not what it is not. And no amount of testimony bearing is going to change that.

Ever feel like you are howling in a windstorm? I know I sure do. I brought up essentially the same point.

[_Mister Scratch]

So when he is in an Islamic studies presentation, he is supposed to suddenly veer from his presentation and announce that he knows the Book of Mormon is true? I guess you don't know how academic presenations are supposed to work. But that certainly isn't it.

No no no! Did you not read Scratch's DCP quotes? DCP himself said he had given a number of Mormon presentations, presumably, it would be there that he'd bring up the account of three eyewitnesses which DCP maintains would be perfectly appropriate for an academic setting.

This is right on the money. In fact, I think it is Charity who doesn't understand the way information and arguments get disseminated in academia. When you want an argument, theory, idea, etc. to be evaluated in an academic setting, you have to present it to other academics. This is the central flaw in DCP's argument. He claims that secular academics "haven't evaluated the data," but where is the evidence that LDS Scholars have ever actually presented it in a secular academic venue? As is becoming increasingly obvious, they haven't. The best that The Good Professor was able to come up with were these Sorenson references, but where is the indication that these essays were frankly LDS in nature? Was Sorenson claiming, right up front, that his assertions supported the historicity of the Book of Mormon? No. It was, at best, implicit. These guys are hiding from their own claims, and are too frightened to subject them to genuine academic inquiry.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I can't sit on the board all day like the Juliann's and play Molly Moderator. I'm not going to break the posts off.....come on folks, moderate yourselves or something. You're all grownups right? Right?

[_barrelomonkeys]

I can't sit on the board all day like the Juliann's and play Molly Moderator. I'm not going to break the posts off.....come on folks, moderate yourselves or something. You're all grownups right? Right?

Oh, okay Mr. lazy britches.

I'm actually 12 and my other moniker is Mr. Coffee.

Will you break this one off? If I post porn I bet you will!! ;P

[_Mercury]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere. Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand. Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

No. I certainly would not. Him OR Sorenson.

[_Ray A]

In any case, what was most stunning to me about the thread was DCP's earlier "confession" that he has never summoned up the courage to nakedly display his beliefs in a secular academic setting---or, at the very least, that he has done it so seldom that he cannot even recall the last time. (And DCP is a guy with a good memory.) It is extremely telling that Mopologists are terrified of expressing their LDS-related academic views in secular academic settings.

On a purely rhetorical level (I'm not arguing for Book of Mormon historicity), Galileo was also terrified of expressing his views to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It works both ways. A person may withhold views he, or she, firmly believes, not because he/she disbelieves those views, but because they know that sharing those those views with the skeptical may only have limited impact, if any, and will most likely invite unwanted ridicule. That doesn't make something untrue, more so to the one who does believe it to be true.

You seem to be insinuating (though I may be wrong) that, somehow, DCP doesn't really believe the Book of Mormon is historical. DCP has said that if he concluded the Book of Mormon isn't historical, he would no longer believe Mormonism. That surprised even me, as it's a position I don't take, myself. (by the way, I don't have time for exchanges on this at any length. I have real work to do, until Sunday morning.)

[_harmony]

Of course my reply to you was off-topic. I assumed Bond would move it as well. If he didn't I would certainly bring it to his attention. I think it is rather important to keep some threads on topic. I've requested my own posts to be redirected in the past and have no qualms with doing so.

That's what this board needs: tighter moderation in all things.

No, it doesn't.

No, I do find it entertaining to see Scratch's "breaking news updates," wherein he closely monitors the MAD board and scurries over to Mormon Discussions to issue full reports tri-daily. I see Scratch as a rather emphatic detractor, his/her own missionary, a zealot of anti-LDSism.

Scratch remembers that many of us here are unable to access MAD. He brings these nuggets to us who are so evil that we're banned from even reading MAD, in order to assure us that things have not changed over there.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Yme is a man, his daughter and wife are looking into, or already have, joined the Church. I had a conversation with him about temple marriage a few months ago, and it didn't really go anywhere.

Duh? There are obvious reasons your conversation didn't go where you would have liked(that are totally oblivious to your BIC mind). He is an outsider, you were born and breed in the cult and are now trapped in it, your mind will not allow you to see anything that might put you at odds with your family. He has an advantage over you by not being born with a bias.

Yme's main problem is his refusal to look at any of the academic research that has been put forward by Sorenson, et al. while at the same time dismissing it out of hand.

Did I just read that correct? "Academic research" about a fairy tale? You are sh!tting me I hope. Why not do the same "academic research" on the transaltion work of James Strang's into The Book of the Law of the Lord? Why not? Most of Smith's witnesses believed the letter which had Smith's signature on it and written in his hand which stated that Smith wanted Strang to succeed Smith.

Just in case you have not noticed, there has been failed attempts, all of them, to try and tie anything in the Book of Mormon fairy tale to anything factual. ALL HAVE FAILED. Show me one that has not. Read my sig line from your beloved Professor. "Academic research" into the story of the Book of Mormon is the laughing stock of Academia.

by the way, all non biased(outside of LDS/BYU/FARMS) "academic research" into the origins of the Book of Mormon have all proven it to be nothing but a poorly organized fairytale.

Are you willing to cite Yme as a credible critic of Book of Mormon scholarship?

Hell yeah. He has an advantage over members. He does not NEED it to be true. His belief system is not contingent upon it. He wants proof of its claims of being an actual history of the American Indians. If he finds that it is false, it does not rock his world, as it would someone like you who is deep in the sweaty clutches of this cult.

Look at your religion outside of your garments LOAP. I dare you.