Smithsonian Magazine Dec. 2007

[Yme]

I was looking at this months [Dec. 2007] Smithsonian Magazine and found an interesting article on comparing the lands of Ethiopia to various religious texts, claims, stories and perhaps some fables to the land of Ethiopia. It was an interesting article that overlaid various religous claims of the lost ark, Jesus and Mary and some biblical passages to the history and culture of Ethiopia. All in all an interesting article and it can be found on line here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/11155706.html

But it really got me thinking: Why shouldn't some of the articles by the Lds scholars, making arguments for the BOM historicity and the "lost tribes of Israel" overlaid in mesoamerica be submitted to this type of magazine as a way of gaining respectibility, exposure and interest. When I read the above article, I could not help thinking that as interesting as it was, the claim of the BOM should be so much more fascinating in such a magazine as, it would seem, so few know so little about it.

Wouldn't this be a fantastic venue for the Lds scholars such as Clark, Sorenson, Gardner et al, to submitt their works on the link between the BOM and mesoamerica? Have any of these works ever been submitted for publication in a magazine such as above and if not why? If such scholarship is as compelling as many Lds scholars claim, what would be the downside of doing so?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm entirely confident that an article advocating the Book of Mormon or a view of ancient America explicitly based upon the Book of Mormon would be rejected in principle, with no reading necessary, as soon as it was submitted -- for essentially the reasons that I've laid out for you, and patiently repeated for you, on the thread about LDS scholars at the AAR/SBL.

The approach is all important. I'll have to look at your Smithsonian article, but I'm guessing that it is a descriptive, more or less historical article about the texts and claims that it treats. Such a descriptive piece doesn't entail accepting or rejecting theological claims that are considered live by the readership of the Smithsonian. A similarly descriptive essay about LDS views of Book of Mormon geography could be presented at the AAR/SBL and/or, in principle at least (though I have serious doubts about the outcome, for marketing reasons and, given the nature of the Smithsonian Institution, for constitutional ones as well), successfully submitted to the Smithsonian. But such a piece would not, in fact, be what you're asking LDS scholars to submit.

Incidentally, I note with some amusement that you seem to imagine publication in a popular magazine to be legitimately "scholarly" provided that the magazine is non-LDS, while, at least in the past, you've dismissed publication in LDS venues, however scholarly, as inadequate. That is, to say the least of it, rather odd.

On the thread about LDS scholars at the AAR/SBL and on the thread about the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, I've supplied titles and reference information for three articles, manifestly dealing with issues directly relevant to the Book of Mormon, that were published by John Sorenson in very respectable non-Mormon venues. You have consistently ignored these while repeating your mantra that Latter-day Saint scholars don't present their arguments to non-LDS audiences. Why do you continue to ignore these articles? And why does the fact that Mormon scholars haven't yet published any sectarian apologetics in Smithsonian Magazine count as evidence that they lack confidence in their position, while the fact that Terryl Givens has published an entire book on the Book of Mormon and its claims with Oxford University Press (arguably the premiere academic publisher in the English-speaking world) doesn't count as evidence that they don't lack confidence in their position?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'd say it's not so much "odd" as it is clearly biased.

[Yme]

I'm entirely confident that an article advocating the Book of Mormon or a view of ancient America explicitly based upon the Book of Mormon would be rejected in principle, with no reading necessary, as soon as it was submitted -- for essentially the reasons that I've laid out for you, and patiently repeated for you, on the thread about LDS scholars at the AAR/SBL.

I must admit, this sounds like a "losing attitude" before even submitting the "scholarship"! It really shows lack of confidence.

Your point/reason of rejection on the other thread seemed to one of a "denominational" basis. Read the Smithsonian article and tell me what the "denominational" factor was? I suspect it appealed to all Christians without any denominational preference. So if the BOM is true, and the history can be demonstrated by all this great "Lds scholarship" why should any "Christians" not have an interest in reading about it?

Your qualifiers are simply of convenience for this board it would appear!!

The approach is all important.

Perhaps the quality of the scholarship is as well, if not more!

I'll have to look at your Smithsonian article, but I'm guessing that it is a descriptive, more or less historical article about the texts and claims that it treats. Such a descriptive piece doesn't entail accepting or rejecting theological claims that are considered live by the readership of the Smithsonian.

So what is your point. Cant the Lds church scholars put out arguments that can fit the same criteria. If the "Smithsonian" doesnt worry about "theological claims", why the fear from the Lds church/scholars to submit such great works?

A similarly descriptive essay about LDS views of Book of Mormon geography could be presented at the AAR/SBL and/or, in principle at least (though I have serious doubts about the outcome, for marketing reasons and, given the nature of the Smithsonian Institution, for constitutional ones as well), successfully submitted to the Smithsonian. But such a piece would not, in fact, be what you're asking LDS scholars to submit.

Then just do it instead of wasting oxygen telling us all why it would not be appropriate!!!!! Geeezzzz!

Incidentally, I note with some amusement that you seem to imagine publication in a popular magazine to be legitimately "scholarly" provided that the magazine is non-LDS, while, at least in the past, you've dismissed publication in LDS venues, however scholarly, as inadequate.

Well you seem to do so only to amuse your imagination! I indicated no such thing. I only noticed an article of similar parallel to BOM claims that got published in a recognized, respected, non-denominational nor "church-related" magazine addressing religious history and geography. Just wondering why all the scholars for the BOM cant seem to get the same!!

That is, to say the least of it, rather odd.

As do I with all the lack of interest in BOM historicity scholarship. But given what is appearing more and more like an attempt not to bring attention to it, I am beginning to understand!

Do you or the Lds church have any reasons to hold a "grudge" against the Smithsonian or its magazine?? If so, what is it and why?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I must admit, this sounds like a "losing attitude" before even submitting the "scholarship"! It really shows lack of confidence.

Your point/reason of rejection on the other thread seemed to one of a "denominational" basis. Read the Smithsonian article and tell me what the "denominational" factor was? I suspect it appealed to all Christians without any denominational preference. So if the BOM is true, and the history can be demonstrated by all this great "Lds scholarship" why should any "Christians" not have an interest in reading about it?

Your qualifiers are simply of convenience for this board it would appear!!

Perhaps the quality of the scholarship is as well, if not more!

So what is your point. Cant the Lds church scholars put out arguments that can fit the same criteria. If the "Smithsonian" doesnt worry about "theological claims", why the fear from the Lds church/scholars to submit such great works?

Then just do it instead of wasting oxygen telling us all why it would not be appropriate!!!!! Geeezzzz!

Well you seem to do so only to amuse your imagination! I indicated no such thing. I only noticed an article of similar parallel to BOM claims that got published in a recognized, respected, non-denominational nor "church-related" magazine addressing religious history and geography. Just wondering why all the scholars for the BOM cant seem to get the same!!

As do I with all the lack of interest in BOM historicity scholarship. But given what is appearing more and more like an attempt not to bring attention to it, I am beginning to understand!

Do you or the Lds church have any reasons to hold a "grudge" against the Smithsonian or its magazine?? If so, what is it and why?

How many pages of the Book of Mormon would you guess you have read?

[Daniel Peterson]

I must admit, this sounds like a "losing attitude" before even submitting the "scholarship"! It really shows lack of confidence.

Are you really so very clueless, or are you just feigning it?

A proposed article on dental hygiene would be rejected, unread, by a journal of nuclear engineering regardless of its quality, simply because it was wholly inappropriate to the proposed venue. Similarly, an article that presupposed a certain sectarian stance would almost certainly be rejected as inappropriate, whatever its quality, by the Smithsonian Magazine. It would not only be inappropriate, however. It would also be a huge marketing error and, given the nature of the Smithsonian Institution, it would risk violating the constitution (since tax-funding is not permitted to support sectarian claims or interests).

Your point/reason of rejection on the other thread seemed to one of a "denominational" basis. Read the Smithsonian article and tell me what the "denominational" factor was? I suspect it appealed to all Christians without any denominational preference.

Precisely my point.

The Smithsonian article was appropriate because it had no denominational bias and advanced no denominational interest. By contrast, an article advocating the Book of Mormon would do precisely that -- and, consequently, would be inappropriate, a marketing error, and, quite possibly, illegal.

So if the BOM is true, and the history can be demonstrated by all this great "Lds scholarship" why should any "Christians" not have an interest in reading about it?

Are you under the illusion that the Smithsonian is a "Christian" magazine?

It's not. It's a popular magazine published under the aegis of the tax-supported federal operation known as the Smithsonian Institution.

Are you under the illusion that "Christians" who are interested in the Book of Mormon can't read about it now?

If so, you're wrong. There are plenty of things out there about the Book of Mormon -- including, for example, the three Sorenson articles and the Givens book that you so studiously and continuously avoid.

Your qualifiers are simply of convenience for this board it would appear!!

You can't really be so entirely clueless, can you?

Perhaps the quality of the scholarship is as well, if not more!

The quality of the scholarship of a piece on biochemistry won't matter a bit if the article has been submitted to a journal of electrical engineering. A quarterback's ability to throw the football is irrelevant if the game being played is backgammon. If the venue is inappropriate, it's inappropriate.

So what is your point.

Sigh.

Cant the Lds church scholars put out arguments that can fit the same criteria.

Yes, LDS scholars are entirely capable of putting out articles analogous to your Smithsonian article -- an article that (am I wrong?) advocates no theological position, argues for no denominational interests, advances no doctrinal claims, and furthers the interests of no religion. They could write a purely descriptive article about how Mormons have had different ideas about Book of Mormon geography, or some such thing. (I can't imagine that the Smithsonian or its readers would find such an article very interesting, and I can't say that I myself would be very interested in writing one, but you're certainly welcome to make the attempt.)

But that's not the kind of article that you're demanding that Latter-day Saint scholars produce for the Smithsonian in order to attain the academic legitimacy that can apparently only be achieved by publishing in popular magazines edited by non-Mormons. You want them to produce an article that would inescapably imply a theological position, advance LDS denominational interests, support Mormon doctrinal claims, and further the interests of Mormonism.

If the "Smithsonian" doesnt worry about "theological claims", why the fear from the Lds church/scholars to submit such great works?

Unbelievable, really.

My point is precisely that the Smithsonian's magazine does worry about theological claims, as in It doesn't advance them. The Smithsonian is not a venue for advocating, supporting, attacking, or defending theological claims. To do so within its pages would be inappropriate. And, so far as I'm aware, such advocacy has never appeared within its pages -- not only because the magazine's editors have ensured that it does not but, I'm quite confident, because few if any of those who have submitted articles to the Smithsonian have been so utterly and entirely clueless as to suppose otherwise.

Then just do it instead of wasting oxygen telling us all why it would not be appropriate!!!!! Geeezzzz!

I've just said that a more or less bland article neutrally surveying different beliefs about the Book of Mormon would be entirely appropriate. In fact, such articles appear fairly frequently. (Do we have to publish in the popular Smithsonian Magazine, precisely, to attain unto Academic Legitimacy?) My personal favorite, I think, is Hugh Nibley's classic little descriptive essay entitled â??The Mormon View of the Book of Mormon,â? which was published in Europe in Concilium: An International Review of Theology 10 (December 1967): 82-83; also printed in the United States under the same title in Concilium: Theology in the Age of Renewal 30 (1968): 170-73, and in foreign-language editions of this Catholic journal in French, pp. 151-53; Portuguese, pp. 144-47; German, pp. 855-56.) And such presentations are given fairly frequently, too.

The problem with your position is that you want an article advocating the Book of Mormon -- quite a different thing -- to be published in a magazine that has never, ever, published a work of theological or sectarian advocacy. This is either incoherence on your part, or disingenuousness.

As do I with all the lack of interest in BOM historicity scholarship. But given what is appearing more and more like an attempt not to bring attention to it, I am beginning to understand!

Among the cunning devices that we have employed in order to avoid calling attention to LDS scholarship on the historicity of the Book of Mormon are the three John Sorenson articles that you persistently pretend not to notice, Terryl Givens's Oxford University Press volume entitled By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (which you continue to ignore), and the multiyear FARMS or Maxwell Institute book display at the largest gathering of scholars on religious history and related fields in the entire world (which you persist in overlooking).

Do you or the Lds church have any reasons to hold a "grudge" against the Smithsonian or its magazine??

I think you're faking the cluelessness

You've simply got to be.

If so, what is it and why?

We're also coldly furious when journals of ancient Roman history carry no articles about wildebeests or synthetic polymers, and when we pay good money to watch the Yankees and the Red Sox play football and, instead, they putter around with this little round white thing and a stick.

[Bill Hamblin]

For what it's worth, my book on Solomon's Temple includes a very brief description of LDS beliefs about the BOM and the Solomonic temples in the New World (p. 190). This was published without a hint of an objection by Thames and Hudson, in half a dozen languages no less.

Does that satisfy you?

PS Dan, I condemn you for all your evils. Alas I simply don't know what they are.

[urroner]

Oh Great One, blessed be to you and all yours DCP!!!

You make that possible, yet wild and baseless accusation of YME being clueless and is it not you who are a FARMS hack, screeching section 8, and who exceeds the nuttiness of my fruitcake. Is this simply a case of character projection of your own faults and shortcomings. Surely you must be aware that if any accusation by a critic of the Church is repeated three or more times, then it must be true. YME is a true witness of this non-written law, better known as ""Ed Decker's Law."

[urroner]

For what it's worth, my book on Solomon's Temple includes a very brief description of LDS beliefs about the BOM and the Solomonic temples in the New World (p. 190). This was published without a hint of an objection by Thames and Hudson, in half a dozen languages no less.

Does that satisfy you?

PS Dan, I condemn you for all your evils. Alas I simply don't know what they are.

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, I don't know who is worse, you or the Great One. Once again you are shamelessly plugging that book of yours. I'm embarrassed yet once again.

[Aquilifer]

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, I don't know who is worse, you or the Great One. Once again you are shamelessly plugging that book of yours. I'm embarrassed yet once again.

Seriously! And to think that I was going to use my hard-earned cash to purchase Bill's book from the History Book Club (which has the nerve to offer items authored by hack Mormon "scholars"), but after such shamelessness, I may have to reconsider. Between Peterson and Hamblin, this place is getting insufferable -- Madb might as well collect advertising fees.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yme, you've read how much of the Book of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, I don't know who is worse, you or the Great One. Once again you are shamelessly plugging that book of yours. I'm embarrassed yet once again.

It's not shameless. It's shameful!

[Drewm777]

It's not shameless. It's shameful!

As you know, I bought and read your book. It is, by far, one of the best books I've ever read.

But then again, I'm a Mormon so I don't know what scholarship is.

[fox_goku]

I'm entirely confident that an article advocating the Book of Mormon or a view of ancient America explicitly based upon the Book of Mormon would be rejected in principle, with no reading necessary, as soon as it was submitted -- for essentially the reasons that I've laid out for you, and patiently repeated for you, on the thread about LDS scholars at the AAR/SBL.

This statement, above, by Daniel Peterson provokes me to go into a defense of science and its publication process. I have served as a reviewer for many top-tier science journals (for decades) and I feel assured that a paper written according to professional standards would receive fair consideration, even if the claims were outrageous. My point is that science journals do not have an inherent bias against Mormon-topics or any other topic. What matters ultimately are the data, associated with informed conclusions.

In order for FARMS scholars to be taken seriously, they need to publish at least some of their best religious claims in non-LDS peer-reviewed journals (science or otherwise). I am sure there have been a few, but my impression is that many claims I read in FARMS papers would not survive objective peer-review, not due to Mormon bias but due to the lack of scientific rigor. Too many such papers appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected. Scholarship should put ideas in jeopardy.

I am LDS, and I do not mean to be too harsh. In fact, I wish to promote Mormon scholarship. But, I do think we need to play by the general rules of scholarship set outside of the Church.

MAIN POINT: As good as many FARMS papers may be, their reach will be minimal as long as they stay in-house.

[Drewm777]

This statement, above, by Daniel Peterson provokes me to go into a defense of science and its publication process. I have served as a reviewer for many top-tier science journals (for decades) and I feel assured that a paper written according to professional standards would receive fair consideration, even if the claims were outrageous. My point is that science journals do not have an inherent bias against Mormon-topics or any other topic. What matters ultimately are the data, associated with informed conclusions.

In order for FARMS scholars to be taken seriously, they need to publish at least some of their best religious claims in non-LDS peer-reviewed journals (science or otherwise). I am sure there have been a few, but my impression is that many claims I read in FARMS papers would not survive objective peer-review, not due to Mormon bias but due to the lack of scientific rigor. Too many such papers appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected. Scholarship should put ideas in jeopardy.

I am LDS, and I do not mean to be too harsh. In fact, I wish to promote Mormon scholarship. But, I do think we need to play by the general rules of scholarship set outside of the Church.

MAIN POINT: As good as many FARMS papers may be, their reach will be minimal as long as they stay in-house.

*ding* *ding*

Round two!

[Daniel Peterson]

This statement, above, by Daniel Peterson provokes me to go into a defense of science and its publication process.

Who has attacked "science and its publication process" such that it needs a defense?

I have served as a reviewer for many top-tier science journals (for decades) and I feel assured that a paper written according to professional standards would receive fair consideration, even if the claims were outrageous. My point is that science journals do not have an inherent bias against Mormon-topics or any other topic. What matters ultimately are the data, associated with informed conclusions.

When was the last time that any top-tier science journal published a work of sectarian religious apologetics? Can you cite an example?

In order for FARMS scholars to be taken seriously, they need to publish at least some of their best religious claims in non-LDS peer-reviewed journals (science or otherwise).

What part of Sorenson, Sorenson, Sorenson, and Givens is it that seems to create conceptual difficulties out there? I've offered four quite clear examples of such publication -- multiple times, and then again, and then again -- and the discussion, such as it is, proceeds as if no such examples have ever been provided.

I am sure there have been a few, but my impression is that many claims I read in FARMS papers would not survive objective peer-review, not due to Mormon bias but due to the lack of scientific rigor. Too many such papers appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected.

If that's true, it needs to be shown. Mere assertion counts for little or nothing. (We're talking about scholarship, right?)

Scholarship should put ideas in jeopardy.

Sorry, I don't agree. That's one of the functions of scholarship, but it's far from universal. Scholarship can elucidate, defend, flesh out, discover, confirm, and perform many, many other tasks besides critiquing or attacking.

I am LDS, and I do not mean to be too harsh. In fact, I wish to promote Mormon scholarship. But, I do think we need to play by the general rules of scholarship set outside of the Church.

And who is it out there, exactly, who disagrees with you on this?

MAIN POINT: As good as many FARMS papers may be, their reach will be minimal as long as they stay in-house.

We're forming a Danite group that will force non-LDS scholars, at gunpoint, to read and seriously consider our materials. Can we count on you as a volunteer?

Until then, we'll have to confine our efforts to such methods as publishing books and journals; seeking to place them in college and university libraries; putting our materials on the web; distributing them via the University of Chicago Press; exhibiting our publications at the largest relevant scholarly gathering in the world; publishing with the University of Texas Press, the University of Hawai'i Press, Oxford University Press, and the like; and sponsoring conferences at the Library of Congress and elsewhere.

[LifeOnaPlate]

fox highlights a point made by Bushman, I believe I read in On the Road with Joseph Smith (the crucial "epilogue" to Rough Stone Rolling, as I view it.) He said there is a certain mentality today where scholarship must break something apart or be critical in order to be viewed as objective.

[Daniel Peterson]

Another good example of Mormons hiding their claims from the critical scrutiny of non-Mormons -- I happened, just now, to look at this book for another reason, and thought that I would mention it -- occurs in the late Raphael Patai's The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1999). Professor Patai's book includes an appendix, written by FARMS author John M. Lundquist, the Susan and Douglas Dillon Chief Librarian of the Oriental Division of the New York Public Library, on the voyage of the Lehites to the New World as a specimen of ancient Jewish seafaring.

Obviously, Dr. Lundquist is too ashamed, too lacking in confidence, to exhibit his beliefs to the gaze of non-Mormon scholars.

Let's call his article Counterexample Number Six.

Yme can now ignore it, just as he has ignored the previous five counterexamples to his claim.

[John D the First]

I am not familiar enough with the Farms material or the feilds in which they deal to comment on their quality, but I am skeptical of portrayals of the peer review process as pure tribunals of objectivity and rigour that are not at all repelled by the content and conclusions of a piece they find aberrant, or serving the interests of the enemies of modernist paradigms.

fox highlights a point made by Bushman, I believe I read in On the Road with Joseph Smith (the crucial "epilogue" to Rough Stone Rolling, as I view it.) He said there is a certain mentality today where scholarship must break something apart or be critical in order to be viewed as objective.

It must not universally tear down, or universally build up, but rather it must tear down and build up the right things.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It must not universally tear down, or universally build up, but rather it must tear down and build up the right things.

Bushman would likely agree, and his other comments in On the Road are very instructive. I recommend the book to all who have read RSR.

[Gervin]

Scholarship should put ideas in jeopardy.

This is especially relevant for the LDS Church and the claims â?? theological, historical, and geographical â?? that are integral to its existence. I was â??in the fieldâ? this morning checking on some archaeological work being done for me by William & Mary. The field manager and I were reviewing some old aerials and correlating these to some test pits results. We agreed that the preliminary findings matched with what we were seeing on the photos. â??This is good,â? I said. â??Yes,â? she replied, â??but the exciting times are when you find stuff that doesnâ??t match what you see on the photos or maps.â? Her statement made me think about LDS claims of a historic presence in Mesoamerica and the kinds of material cultures that no one would expect to find in that part world (steel, iron, chariots, Hebrew temples, etc.).

I could see the Smithsonian doing a piece about the westward migration of the Mormons, the travails of a people pulling their handcarts and wagons across the inhospitable mountains and terrain; there is data and evidence for this event, there are maps and probably remnants of travel, there are stories and people in writings. I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyle of the Book of Mormon peoples â?¦ as long as the scholarship is valid, i.e. as you say, the papers donâ??t â??appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected.â? Were these not real people building their cities, fighting real battles and wars, and practicing their Jewish and nascent Christian religion? Why wouldnâ??t the Smithsonian (or any scholarly journal) give fair consideration to a paper about the land of the Mormons as long as it was written according to professional standards? Certainly, the people and the stories are there (in the Book of Mormon). Thereâ??s only the data problem.

[cdowis]

Her statement made me think about LDS claims of a historic presence in Mesoamerica and the kinds of material cultures that no one would expect to find in that part world (steel, iron, chariots, Hebrew temples, etc.).

Let me ask you a personal question. What would the field manager say or do if you were making statements and assertions, which had already been addressed in the literature.

Perhaps she would think, "Why doesn't this guy do his homework? Is he lazy, an ignoramus, or just stupid."

Gervin, why do you pretend that these issues have not been addressed? Just curious why you participate here and don't bother to read our posts. It really is insulting to us to read such nonsense.

1. Was steel and iron plentiful around 100AD in the BOM text? What does the BOM tell us?

2. How plentiful were chariots in the BOM text? Did they use chariots extensively, such as in war, normal transportation, or was it only for the rich (like the Porsche).

3. How many temples are mentioned in the BOM? How much of mesoamerican building have been excavated from the BOM time period? Temples were built on top of temples, also cathedrals. How many of these later buildings have been excavated?

Do your homework. Stop insulting us with silly comments.

[Kevin Christensen]

I find it ironic to consider the hoopla at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference in Washington D.C., held at the Library of Congress.

When John Clark and Roger Keller had the audacity to actually believe and assert their faith in public, there was all sorts of flack about some LDS doing apologetics at an academic conference. Their arguments were not criticized as much as the public advocacy in that setting.

Recently the Sunstone correspondent, the agendaless John Charles Duffy, offered another scolding of certain LDS for not having matured enough to keep their believing mouths shut in public view of secular academics.

It is also interesting that though Margaret Barker, a non-LDS scholar, made some wonderfully insightful and directly favorable comments on the Book of Mormon, she was not mentioned in either the complaints about "apologetics" during the conference Q&A sessions, nor in the "objective" report by our fearless Sunstone correspondent, who made no mention of what she said, the historical significance of that moment, nor the profound impact she had on the audience for that session.

All of this reminds me that Thomas Kuhn, at one place in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes scientific paradigms as a "group-licensed way of seeing."

Why, as I asked some years ago, do the LDS need to apply to another group for a license to see what we see? If we need their license, we also declare ourselves as part of that group. Why do we need the blessing from the Great and Spacious pride of the world? It's silly. As I have noted here, the objective PBS special, while it had its virtues, certainly went out of its way to avoid presenting any positive information about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Believers were asked only about problems. And Coe was there specifically to provide innoculation. Yet his own comments would not pass my LDS review, had they asked amateur me.

I say this as one who has an LDS themed essay forthcoming in a book from Oxford University Press, where it seemed to sail quite nicely through non-LDS peer review. I say this to forstall any insinuation of sour grapes.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[fox_goku]

This is especially relevant for the LDS Church and the claims â?? theological, historical, and geographical â?? that are integral to its existence. I was â??in the fieldâ? this morning checking on some archaeological work being done for me by William & Mary. The field manager and I were reviewing some old aerials and correlating these to some test pits results. We agreed that the preliminary findings matched with what we were seeing on the photos. â??This is good,â? I said. â??Yes,â? she replied, â??but the exciting times are when you find stuff that doesnâ??t match what you see on the photos or maps.â? Her statement made me think about LDS claims of a historic presence in Mesoamerica and the kinds of material cultures that no one would expect to find in that part world (steel, iron, chariots, Hebrew temples, etc.).

I could see the Smithsonian doing a piece about the westward migration of the Mormons, the travails of a people pulling their handcarts and wagons across the inhospitable mountains and terrain; there is data and evidence for this event, there are maps and probably remnants of travel, there are stories and people in writings. I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyle of the Book of Mormon peoples â?¦ as long as the scholarship is valid, i.e. as you say, the papers donâ??t â??appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected.â? Were these not real people building their cities, fighting real battles and wars, and practicing their Jewish and nascent Christian religion? Why wouldnâ??t the Smithsonian (or any scholarly journal) give fair consideration to a paper about the land of the Mormons as long as it was written according to professional standards? Certainly, the people and the stories are there (in the Book of Mormon). Thereâ??s only the data problem.

Gervin, our training must be similar as I am in near total agreement.

Science is NOT inherently against apologetics as long as there are data to support the claims. For example, there have been plenty of scientific studies of the Shroud of Turin, some of which have had a apologetic flavor. The main (and perhaps only) artifact of the Book of Mormon is itself.

I would love to see a target article published with LDS & non-LDS peer commentaries on the topic "Internal evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document." I would like to see a venue (even if published by FARMS) similar to the format and quality of the journal "Behavioral & Brain Sciences," which publishes long articles with extensive critiques. Such papers literally put their ideas in jeopardy.

I am NOT saying Mormons cannot be good scholars of their religion. They can be and are. What I am saying is: If the big scholarly ideas behind the Book of Mormon are as strong as some say, then sympathetic scholars should be willing to "let it all hang out" by publishing their strongest claims against published critiques contiguous with the target articles.

If such a paper with commentaries exists on the Book of Mormon, let me know. I want to read it.

[cdowis]

Science is NOT inherently against apologetics as long as there are data to support the claims. For example, there have been plenty of scientific studies of the Shroud of Turin, some of which have had a apologetic flavor. The main (and perhaps only) artifact of the Book of Mormon is itself.

The Shroud of Turin is supposedly an artifact of the entire Christian church, based on a widely accepted document of Christians -- the Bible. So any "apologetic flavor" would favor several billion Christians, not one specific cult.

There were specific scientific tests that could be performed with objective results. Such is not the case for archeology and the BOM. Unlike the Shroud, we have no physical artifact to test (e.g. the plates).

Apples and oranges.