FARMS Supposed Scholarship - Book of Mormon Historicity and Clark et al

[_Joey]

Can we get back on topic? Where has anything that John Clark, or anyone at FARMS, published with respect to the historicity of the Book of Mormon [and they have written/published a lot] received even a passing glance from their peer group in the professional community???

I remember that Peterson would go on "profusely" for pages on how "well respected" these guys from the FARMS were in the scholastic and academic world [ specifically Clark and Sorenson in the area of Book of Mormon archaeology], and yet when called on the carpet, Mr. Peterson could not give one professional, academic institution, or professional journal that has given recognition to these supposed great academic works of Clark nor Sorenson in this area.

So is this still the case in Provo? Have the works of either one of these church paid professionals in the are of Book of Mormon historicity travelled outside of Provo academics yet and/or is Peterson still defending them????

[_harmony]

So is this still the case in Provo? Have the works of either one of these church paid professionals in the are of Book of Mormon historicity travelled outside of Provo academics yet and/or is Peterson still defending them????

Joey, did you happen to read the Gee/Ritner thread? That might give you some insight into what happens when Book of Mormon historicity interacts with the outside world of archeology.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Hello Joey,

Seems to me now that since the FARMS proclaimed "well known and respected" BYU archaeologist John Clark came
out with the BYU article in may of 2004: "that only archaeology will prove the Book of Mormon correct" it has been three years. So what has happened since????

Nothing has happened....I really doubt anything ever will. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I had tried to get the ever "self impressed" BYU Prof. Dan Peterson to demonstrate "who" this Peterson claimed "well respected" Mormon archaeologist to name had ever been convinced of his work in "Book of Mormon historicity". Other than I think, John Sorenson or Bill Hamblin, I had yet to recieve a non-mormon scholar that anyone, including Clark, had ever persuaded any least respected academic institution about this incredible 'history" claim that we find in the Book of Mormon.

Yeah...I'm not holding my breath waiting on a non-Mormon archaeologist to come out in favor of the Book of Mormon being historically accurate.

But the question remains: "Who has Clark, Sorenson, or any of the work that FARMS has published convinced in the area of Book of Mormon historicity? Can we find any of the peoples, places, cultures or locations taught in the Book of Mormon discussed in any academic history or geography text anywhere??? How bout BYU or anywhere in Provo????

Uh nowhere that I'm aware of. But those guys have made published on other subjects! That has to count for something when it comes to their defending the Book of Mormon ;/

Is this still the one and only 1000 year history claim on this continent that remains COMPLETELY ignored by the entire academic community (outside of Provo?)???

There's always the Scientologists....

[_beastie]

John Clark admitted in his BYU devotional that he has had no success in convincing his peers to consider that the Book of Mormon may be historical. He explained this by saying you FIRST have to believe, THEN the evidence becomes clear.

Smacks of pseudoscience, doesn't it?

[_Ray A]

John Clark admitted in his BYU devotional that he has had no success in convincing his peers to consider that the Book of Mormon may be historical. He explained this by saying you FIRST have to believe, THEN the evidence becomes clear.

Smacks of pseudoscience, doesn't it?

Not really, I disagree with you on this one. As strange as it may seem to you, Clark is right. I'm not saying he's necessarily right about his take on archaeology, but I've certainly had the experience of my "eyes being opened" to internal evidences in the Book of Mormon that I had not seen when I was in a doubting or questioning frame of mind. That's why my appreciation of the Book of Mormon grew tremendously, over many years. For example, one who is unbelieving cannot grasp the complexity of the Book of Mormon, but when you change your attitude to a more spiritual frame of mind - an amazing understanding opens up. This is what Isaiah 29 talks about:

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

But, I fully understand, beastie, to you this is all "pseudoscience".

[_Sethbag]

Did John Clark give a timetable for when it would be proven?

I think the timetable is expressed in terms of some time-worn cliches. The Book of Mormon will be proven by archeology sometime around when the cows come home or when hell freezes over.

It's interesting to me to read articles that come up having to do with new discoveries pertaining to the ancient Americans and watch, in fascination, how a picture of the ancient Americans is slowly but surely fleshing out and becoming better understood, and that it is a picture entirely devoid of the Book of Mormon events. The apologists (one in particular) keep us all painfully aware that not everything has yet been discovered, and yet isn't it interesting that as more and more things are discovered, none of it happens to support the Book of Mormon? Instead it all goes to add more detail, more knowledge, of how things were, who they were, etc. and yet, as ever, none of it has anything to do with the events recorded in the Book of Mormon.

It's becoming ever more difficult to imagine what kind of discoveries would have to be made now to suddenly make clear that all of the things we know now about the ancient Americas are still true, yet somehow in all of it the Book of Mormon events really did all take place, the people lived, the story unfolded, etc.

[_The Nehor]

Did John Clark give a timetable for when it would be proven?

I think the timetable is expressed in terms of some time-worn cliches. The Book of Mormon will be proven by archeology sometime around when the cows come home or when hell freezes over.

It's interesting to me to read articles that come up having to do with new discoveries pertaining to the ancient Americans and watch, in fascination, how a picture of the ancient Americans is slowly but surely fleshing out and becoming better understood, and that it is a picture entirely devoid of the Book of Mormon events. The apologists (one in particular) keep us all painfully aware that not everything has yet been discovered, and yet isn't it interesting that as more and more things are discovered, none of it happens to support the Book of Mormon? Instead it all goes to add more detail, more knowledge, of how things were, who they were, etc. and yet, as ever, none of it has anything to do with the events recorded in the Book of Mormon.

It's becoming ever more difficult to imagine what kind of discoveries would have to be made now to suddenly make clear that all of the things we know now about the ancient Americas are still true, yet somehow in all of it the Book of Mormon events really did all take place, the people lived, the story unfolded, etc.

I disagree with John Clark. It might be proved that way but I have my doubts. Another scenario would be the return of Christ and him quoting it....that might clinch it. I agree with Nibley who said that proof for the Book of Mormon was not likely to be found one way or the other in the historical record. At most it can make it plausible.

Apparantly God is not overly concerned with proving the Book of Mormon in that way. In the 1800's there was really nothing to go on one way or the other. The Book of Mormon hints that it will be proved at some time and hints at further records. Oh well, I don't know enough about New World discoveries to participate meaningfully on this thread beyond this so I'll bow out.

[_beastie]

But, I fully understand, beastie, to you this is all "pseudoscience".

No, Ray, what you're talking about is in no way, shape, or form "science", pseudo or otherwise.

Book of Mormon apologists like Clark and Gardner use science (more specifically, archaeology and anthropology) to provide support for the origination of one particular text. To claim to use science to do so, but simultaneously claim that you have to believe in it FIRST before the evidence becomes clear, is pseudoscience.

In real science, you don't have to believe in it beforehand to recognize evidence. An example from Mesoamerica is that as the Maya language was decoded, more information was obtained about how frequently these cultures engaged in war. This defied the then popular opinion (popularized in the mid twentieth century) that the Maya were peaceful. No one had to believe in the new evidence to see it. The new evidence changed what they believed, not vice versa.

Nehor:

Apparantly God is not overly concerned with proving the Book of Mormon in that way. In the 1800's there was really nothing to go on one way or the other. The Book of Mormon hints that it will be proved at some time and hints at further records. Oh well, I don't know enough about New World discoveries to participate meaningfully on this thread beyond this so I'll bow out.

One clarification - in the 1800's the majority of people believed exactly what the Book of Mormon would claim - that the ancient Americans were from the House of Israel, and practiced a form of Judeo-Christianity. The Book of Mormon gave people exactly what they already believed. That's not a coincidence.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Did John Clark give a timetable for when it would be proven?

I think the timetable is expressed in terms of some time-worn cliches. The Book of Mormon will be proven by archeology sometime around when the cows come home or when hell freezes over.

It's interesting to me to read articles that come up having to do with new discoveries pertaining to the ancient Americans and watch, in fascination, how a picture of the ancient Americans is slowly but surely fleshing out and becoming better understood, and that it is a picture entirely devoid of the Book of Mormon events. The apologists (one in particular) keep us all painfully aware that not everything has yet been discovered, and yet isn't it interesting that as more and more things are discovered, none of it happens to support the Book of Mormon? Instead it all goes to add more detail, more knowledge, of how things were, who they were, etc. and yet, as ever, none of it has anything to do with the events recorded in the Book of Mormon.

It's becoming ever more difficult to imagine what kind of discoveries would have to be made now to suddenly make clear that all of the things we know now about the ancient Americas are still true, yet somehow in all of it the Book of Mormon events really did all take place, the people lived, the story unfolded, etc.

Yes. The Book of Mormon was more "true" when it was published in 1830 than it is now, after 177 years of scientific discoveries in the new world. Why would apologists think future discovies will provide proof of the Book of Mormon when the opposite has happened for the past 177 years? If history is any guide, future discoveries will simply continue to marginalize the Book of Mormon, and shrink the continually shrinking limited geography. Once the limited geography is shrunk down to nothing, the apologists will develop the "alternate universe" theory. You heard it here first.

[_Sethbag]

Apparently God is not overly concerned with proving the Book of Mormon in that way.

Nehor, this comment begs the question, is God specifically against the Book of Mormon being proven by archeology? Did God specifically hide all of the evidence of Lehite peoples' arrival and the building up of their large society over a thousand year period of time? If God were truly indifferent to the Book of Mormon's being proven, not making it more likely, nor less likely, then I'd guess the likelihood of the Book of Mormon being proven by archeology would be pretty good, since the Book of Mormon story describes a non-trivial group of people, a non-trivial society, and a very long time over which they operated. We've got tons and tons of information about people who really were in the Americas, and there's no reason to suspect that there wouldn't be, just as with people we do know about who lived here, the same kinds of evidence for the Book of Mormon people.

So we're back to the question, is God opposed to the Book of Mormon's being demonstrated to be correct via archeology? Why? Does it make sense to you that the God you believe in allows very big things to happen to large groups of people on the earth and then hides the evidence so that it looks like it didn't happen?

Bottom line is, you pretty much have to believe in a God who fudged around with the evidence so that we'd find massive archeological data about the peoples who lived on the American continent over the last few thousand years, but miraculously none of it would point to Nephites and Lamanites, yet Nephites and Lamanites really did exist. That's starting to sound absurd, like The Dude's "Jackass" theory of a God who wipes out the whole earth with a global catastrophic flood only a few thousand years ago but then erases all of the evidence of it, and plants all sorts of false evidence that seems to show that the Flood specifically didn't happen, just to dick with us.