Mikwut is precisely right.
I've said before that I can understand people who say that the evidence marshaled by advocates of the Book of Mormon is insufficient, or unconvincing, but that I have no patience for people who claim that there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon whatever. Similarly, in this case, even though I wouldn't agree, I could understand someone saying that Greg Smith's tone was obnoxious. But to pretend that Greg Smith's article presents absolutely no evidence or argument, that it offers no substance at all? Ridiculous, and not worth a response. Such a position plainly bespeaks a lack of intellectual seriousness.
Buffalo wrote:Dr. Peterson seems to be avoiding defending the materials he posted, and instead only comes in to defend himself.
True, in a sense.
I have no intention of "defending" the book and the article to which I supplied links. They need no defense. And, if they aren't read, there's no point in discussing them. (I'm fairly sure that there's no real point in discussing them here in any case, since the reactions, above, of two who claimed to have read them were so transparently silly.)
A question was raised, in another thread, about Joseph Smith and early Mormon polygamy. I posted links to two relevant items, in case anybody was actually interested in the topic. Fair-minded readers will understand the arguments they make.
I'm not going to go through the book and the article, though, in order effectively to prepare a Cliff's Notes version for people here. I do that occasionally for my classes (e.g., with regard to al-Ghazali's
Incoherence of the Philosophers) when a text is difficult and I think that the students need some navigational assistance. But this isn't a class, I'm not getting paid for posting here, I have no professional obligations to this thread or board, the texts in question aren't difficult, and, anyhow, I don't approve of students who try to use the Cliff's Notes edition in lieu of reading the actual book itself.
On this thread, Joey entered with his trademark juvenile mockery of my connection with Provo, which had nothing to do with the thread's topic. I responded by mentioning some facts clearly showing that his attempt to portray me as a provincial hick unfamiliar with the world beyond Provo is spectacularly mistargeted. (I grew up in California; don't even live in Provo; am routinely on the road across the United States, in Europe, in the Middle East, and beyond; and am professionally involved in an academic field that is inherently and inescapably international.) Fair-minded readers will instantly understand the point.
As to Joey's effort to denigrate academia . . . well, I suppose that really merits no response, either. We have Joey's assurance that he's a very successful man of enormous significance in national and international finance who lives the good life that small town losers like myself can only dream of, but, frankly, I find it difficult to believe. And I wouldn't care much, either.