Historicity Of Bom

[John Larsen]

Ah, that lovely myth of objectivity. Perhaps you could explain what objectivity is and how one achieves this noble dream.

Are you trying to suggest there is no such thing as objectivity? If objectivity is a myth then the Church is both true and not true at the same time, depending on your subjective interpretation.

I dare say you believe the Church is objectively true and you are just playing rhetorical games.

[Kevin Christensen]

Or as was expressed regarding one Jesus of Nazareth, "Have any of the rulers, or of the scribes believed on him?" After all, they would know. Wouldn't they?

Kuhn observed that one of the factors in paradigm choice is the prestige of particular teachers. Unlike the criteria of accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise, the appeal to authority and consensus goes around direct consideration of evidence, and defers to a black box (authorities or weight of numbers), and the trust that they know what they are talking about.

What LDS scholars continue to explore, whether the Authorities do or not, is what goes on inside the black box. It is very clear to me that the committed LDS scholars spend far more time and attention on LDS topics, and have more care and patience to give to open issues.

And regarding "minimal standards of academic credibility," I do have an essay coming out through Oxford Univerity Press this year. FWIW.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Daniel Peterson]

No, I disagree with that. I think the majority of scholars would try to read the book objectively. That's what they do with any piece of history.

I don't think they would.

I don't think they could.

I don't think they should.

The notion of historical "objectivity" is incoherent. See Peter Novick's Cambridge University Press book on the subject: That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession. Professor Louis Midgley has written extensively on this topic, too.

And no, John Larsen, this doesn't mean that we're relativists who believe that all is arbitrary. It's a subtle issue, but a really important one. Bumper-sticker sloganeering won't do it justice.

I believe recognized critical thinker Edward DeBono explains it best with his quote describing "experts" :

"An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgments easier through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore."

In other words, experts in history and archaeology have simply ignored the Lds works in the area of attempting to show support for the BOM historicity. I suspect it will stay this way until such works meet even minimal standards of academic credibility.

And nothing qualifies an expert to pronounce judgment on the credibillity of a body of scholarly literature quite so well as unfamiliarity with it, right?

That's why those who ignored the genetic research of Gregor Mendel for decades were precisely correct.

Incidentally, I looked up Recognized Critical Thinker Edward DeBono on Wikipedia and, after skimming through the article, felt a virtually overpowering urge to genuflect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I believe recognized critical thinker Edward DeBono explains it best with his quote describing "experts" :

"An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgments easier through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore."

In other words, experts in history and archaeology have simply ignored the Lds works in the area of attempting to show support for the BOM historicity. I suspect it will stay this way until such works meet even minimal standards of academic credibility.

This presupposes a few fundamentally flawed propositions on the subject of scholarly inquiry, research, and the nature of discovery, etc.

"An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgments easier through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore."

Knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore seems to be very subjective. The issue of selection is right in the center of the notion of "objectivity", what to include and what to exclude. Through the early 20th century it was relatively easy for a person to master most of the scholarship available on any given issue. Beginning around the 50s and 60s, however, the amount of available data exploded. Many areas of scholarship fragmented, specialization became commonplace, and even then, the stuff they had to sift through was immeasurable. Now look at us today with the advent of the internet, etc. we are oversaturated with things to capture our attention.

As Kevin Christensen pointed out, some rather "prestigious" scholars have paid attention to the LDS Church in the past, and the current wind seems to indicate increasing interest of Mormonism outside of the Church (studies of Mormonism, chairs, etc. being established at various universities, etc). Most "experts" who have sounded off on Mormonism have been quick to admit they have not read much of the relevant information available, including the Book of Mormon itself, and this is typical of both critics and just otherwise interested people.

Lack of knowledge and/or interest in and of themselves cast practically no light on the importance, usefulness, accuracy, truthfulness, stupidity or irrelevancy of any given position.

Or was DNA unimportant until around 1953?

I suspect it will stay this way until such works meet even minimal standards of academic credibility.

What are the "minimum standards of academic credibility", and what LDS works do not meet the standards?

Are you trying to suggest there is no such thing as objectivity? If objectivity is a myth then the Church is both true and not true at the same time, depending on your subjective interpretation.

Who said anything about there being "no such thing as objectivity"? Not I. There are many misconceptions regarding the term, however.

I dare say you believe the Church is objectively true and you are just playing rhetorical games.

No rhetorical games here, John Larsen. Not in these few posts, anyway.

[Yme]

And nothing qualifies an expert to pronounce judgment on the credibillity of a body of scholarly literature quite so well as unfamiliarity with it, right?

The real question here is WHY is the Lds scholarly literature supporting the BOM historicity so unfamiliar to these experts and the greater academic/scholarly community as a whole. If Lds scholars like Sorenson and Clark are so well recognized and respected in their professional and scholarly fields, one would rightly conclude that they should easily be able to get their non-lds fellow scholars, peers and professional organizations in the areas of history and archaeology to give even a passing look at their works supporting the existence of such a history.

So you tell me: Are they not well respected and recognized by their non-Lds peers? Or does their work in support of BOM historicity fail so miserably in meeting academic credibility standards of their peers and professional organizations that it continues to be ignored by them?

That's why those who ignored the genetic research of Gregor Mendel for decades were precisely correct.

I believe if we had the speed of access to information that we have today, his research would not have been "ignored" for decades. It's dissemination and ultimate acceptance would have been far wider and faster. That is just common sense that even DeBono would probably support.

But how many more decades do you think it will take for Lds scholarship in the area of supporting BOM historicity, given our speed of information access, to become familiar and accepted by the academic community? Do you think it would help if these scholarly works (in BOM historicity) were circulated outside of FARMS? Can they be circulated outside of FARMS?

Incidentally, I looked up Recognized Critical Thinker Edward DeBono on Wikipedia and, after skimming through the article, felt a virtually overpowering urge to genuflect.

I did the same on Wikipedia for Daniel C. Peterson. Didn't get the same urge you got though.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The real question here is WHY is the Lds scholarly literature supporting the BOM historicity so unfamiliar to these experts and the greater academic/scholarly community as a whole.

I addressed this question in my post above. Again, the fragmentation of history, etc. and the oversaturation of available materials have created smaller "inner groups" or "specializations", who spend much of their time within those specializations, occasionally bumping into other interests.

Another "real question" is WHY is the neo-Marxist literature supporting the effects of capitalism on the rise of the Nazi regime so unfamiliar to "these experts" and the greater academic/scholarly community as a whole.

What is the obvious answer?

If Lds scholars like Sorenson and Clark are so well recognized and respected in their professional and scholarly fields, one would rightly conclude that they should easily be able to get their non-lds fellow scholars, peers and professional organizations in the areas of history and archaeology to give even a passing look at their works supporting the existence of such a history.

There are many people published by FARMS who have been recognized and published outside of LDS journals, etc. Gee, Paulson, Sorenson, Peterson, etc. are among them.

So you tell me: Are they not well respected and recognized by their non-Lds peers? Or does their work in support of BOM historicity fail so miserably in meeting academic credibility standards of their peers and professional organizations that it continues to be ignored by them?

What "credibility standards" have LDS publications failed to meet? Where have you been published? What is your degree? How are Gee, Peterson, Sorenson, etc. "ignored" by their peers? What is the evidence of this ignoring?

I believe if we had the speed of access to information that we have today, his research would not have been "ignored" for decades. It's dissemination and ultimate acceptance would have been far wider and faster. That is just common sense that even DeBono would probably support.

Actually, "common sense" says the more tennis balls you throw at someone the fewer they are likely to catch.

But how many more decades do you think it will take for Lds scholarship in the area of supporting BOM historicity, given our speed of information access, to become familiar and accepted by the academic community?

What community are you talking about?

Do you think it would help if these scholarly works (in BOM historicity) were circulated outside of FARMS? Can they be circulated outside of FARMS?

Do you have any suggestions?

I just googled Yme. Then I put up a funny emoticon.

[Daniel Peterson]

The real question here is WHY is the Lds scholarly literature supporting the BOM historicity so unfamiliar to these experts and the greater academic/scholarly community as a whole.

That's a good question.

I have several ideas on the topic.

The answer doesn't necessarily condemn Mormonism or Mormon scholarship.

So you tell me: Are they not well respected and recognized by their non-Lds peers?

They are.

Or does their work in support of BOM historicity fail so miserably in meeting academic credibility standards of their peers and professional organizations that it continues to be ignored by them?

That's possible.

Feel free to make the case.

But how many more decades do you think it will take for Lds scholarship in the area of supporting BOM historicity, given our speed of information access, to become familiar and accepted by the academic community?

2.3618 decades.

How on earth would I know?

How long did it take Mendel's work on genetics, or Yuri Knorozov's work in deciphering Maya script, or Alfred Wegener's pioneering work on continental drift, to gain general acceptance, and how could one have predicted the time it would take?

Do you think it would help if these scholarly works (in BOM historicity) were circulated outside of FARMS? Can they be circulated outside of FARMS?

These works are printed and they are placed on the web. They're accessible to anybody. Heck, even you could read them.

And, as I've pointed out in print, some works by FARMS authors and very much on FARMS topics have in fact been published in mainstream journals.

See my Editor's Introduction entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...18&number=2

[poulsenll]

The real question here is WHY is the Lds scholarly literature supporting the BOM historicity so unfamiliar to these experts and the greater academic/scholarly community as a whole. If Lds scholars like Sorenson and Clark are so well recognized and respected in their professional and scholarly fields, one would rightly conclude that they should easily be able to get their non-lds fellow scholars, peers and professional organizations in the areas of history and archaeology to give even a passing look at their works supporting the existence of such a history.

So you tell me: Are they not well respected and recognized by their non-Lds peers? Or does their work in support of BOM historicity fail so miserably in meeting academic credibility standards of their peers and professional organizations that it continues to be ignored by them?

I believe if we had the speed of access to information that we have today, his research would not have been "ignored" for decades. It's dissemination and ultimate acceptance would have been far wider and faster. That is just common sense that even DeBono would probably support.

But how many more decades do you think it will take for Lds scholarship in the area of supporting BOM historicity, given our speed of information access, to become familiar and accepted by the academic community? Do you think it would help if these scholarly works (in BOM historicity) were circulated outside of FARMS? Can they be circulated outside of FARMS?

I did the same on Wikipedia for Daniel C. Peterson. Didn't get the same urge you got though.

I just finished attending th Maya Meetings here at the University of Texas where I met and talked with Allen Chistenson (First person to translate the Popul Vu from the original Mayan text) and Mark Wright (Of Journey of Faith The New World fame). There were a number of other Mormon Mayanists in attendance as well. All of these Scholars were well respected and ttheir comments and questions were taken seriously even by Michael Coe who was one of the keynote speakers. They are respected scholars in their fields and their work is considered of the highest academic credibility. They apply this same standard to their research and publications in FARMS as well.

Some of you just can't seem to get it. The academic community as a whole is just not interested in Book of Mormon Historicity with it's connection with religion, angels and divine origin. Book of Mormon Scholars publish at FArms for the same reason that I published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry; This is that the readers of these publications are interested in what we have to say about our areas of expertice. Journals accept aricles that thier readers are interested in. I would never think of publishing an article on biochemistry in the American Journal of Anthropology.

Larry P

[Kevin Christensen]

The real question here is WHY is the Lds scholarly literature supporting the BOM historicity so unfamiliar to these experts and the greater academic/scholarly community as a whole.

And the real answer has to do with angels inextricably tied in to the story.

Look at the respect accorded Nibley by Charlesworth, Patai, Cyrus Gordon, Neusner. Look at the respect accorded the BYU Dead Sea Scrolls projects. Look at the growing list of publications by a wide range of LDS scholars on a wide range of topics, notably from non-LDS publishing houses. Look particularly at By the Hand of Mormon by Terry Givens, coming out through Oxford University Press. Givens has other books coming out through the same publisher. And Rough Stone Rolling. Someone is buying and reading this stuff. I expect some of the up and coming LDS studies programs will ponder Bushman and Givens.

If Lds scholars like Sorenson and Clark are so well recognized and respected in their professional and scholarly fields, one would rightly conclude that they should easily be able to get their non-lds fellow scholars, peers and professional organizations in the areas of history and archaeology to give even a passing look at their works supporting the existence of such a history.

Rather than presuming what an idealized conception of the True Scholar would do, it would help to consider what actual scholars in the real world have done. That is why I talked through the actual behaviors of a sampling of what specific scholars have done in response to the presence of the Book of Mormon. How many of them have behaved as your assumptions would predict?

I can think of one candidate who clearly does. But most do not.

It seems to me a viable theory ought to be based on observation. Your theory about how True scholars would behave has not been offered with observational support. Sort of like the legendary Indian Rope trick. Rather, you use the unsupported theory to make insinuations about the quality of LDS scholarship. Rather than examining specifics, which, in my humble opinion, is what a scholar would do.

SNIPPING redundant repetitions of the line of argument.

A much better model of for how people in general will react to the Book of Mormon comes in the parable of the Sower. Rather than supposing one idealized response, Jesus notes the different ways that different people treat the same information. Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life also notes the different kinds of obstacles that stand between the Ideal Scholar and the Book of Mormon.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

How long did it take Mendel's work on genetics, or Yuri Knorozov's work in deciphering Maya script, or Alfred Wegener's pioneering work on continental drift, to gain general acceptance, and how could one have predicted the time it would take?

Didn't Galileo finally get his last measure of vindication by official Church pronouncement recently?

These works are printed and they are placed on the web. They're accessible to anybody. Heck, even you could read them.

What makes you think he's going to start now?

I would never think of publishing an article on biochemistry in the American Journal of Anthropology.

Larry P

I guess your article just aren't good enough, then, my friend.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems to me a viable theory ought to be based on observation. Your theory about how True scholars would behave has not been offered with observational support. Sort of like the legendary Indian Rope trick. Rather, you use the unsupported theory to make insinuations about the quality of LDS scholarship. Rather than examining specifics, which, in my humble opinion, is what a scholar would do.

Basically, what I'm getting out of this is, Yme is talking about himself. He is his expert, he is his academic community, his group of uninterested scholars, his critical eye that cuts right through the useless partisan garbage manufactured by FARMS, and he has no interest in it.

[Yme]

That's a good question.

I have several ideas on the topic.

Care to share them?

The answer doesn't necessarily condemn Mormonism or Mormon scholarship.

The fact that Sorenson's and Clark's work in attempting to support BOM historicity has not been accepted or even generated a passing interest by the secular academic community should not be perceived as a condemnation of either Mormonism or Mormon scholarship. It should merely be reflective of the strengths of their work and/or arguments on this topic and the obvious lack of acceptance from their academic peer group.

That's possible.

With the passage of time and the continued ignoring by the secular academic community of their works, in this area (BOM historicity), I would conclude that it has passed "possible" and moved on to "probable".

Feel free to make the case.

I don't think I need to. The lack of interest and or acceptance by the secular academic communitiy for these works already makes a very strong and compelling one.

2.3618 decades.

How on earth would I know?

You're an educated man, take an educated guess. Do you see any acceptance or interest, by the secualr academic community, of these works/arguments supporting the history claim in the BOM happening in the next 10 years? If not, why? If so, what do you think will cause the change over the lack thereof today?

These works are printed and they are placed on the web. They're accessible to anybody. Heck, even you could read them.

You obviously missed the point. Many things are posted on the web. It does not mean they will generate interest. Could Sorenson's or Clark's works attempting to validate a BOM history get printed or published in professional peer venues that deal with history and archaeology? Or is FARMS the only place willing to print these works.

And, as I've pointed out in print, some works by FARMS authors and very much on FARMS topics have in fact been published in mainstream journals.

This is the typical lds apologist's red herring when it comes to the topic of BOM historicity. We are discussing a very specific topic and specific works attempting to support the topic: BOM historicity and the works of Sorenson & Clark (and any other relevant Lds works) in support of this "claimed history".

I am quite sure there are many Lds scholars who have been published in mainstream journals. Probably because they met the minimum standards of academic credibility for those journals. The works of Sorenson and Clark, in attempting to support a history claim for the BOM, seem only to have met the minimum standards of FARMS. Hence, thats the only place these works, in the are of substantiating the history claimed in the BOM, get printed.

[Daniel Peterson]

Care to share them?

Been there. Done that. Several times. Tired of it.

I think this is a pseudo-issue.

The fact that Sorenson's and Clark's work in attempting to support BOM historicity has not been accepted or even generated a passing interest by the secular academic community should not be perceived as a condemnation of either Mormonism or Mormon scholarship. It should merely be reflective of the strengths of their work and/or arguments on this topic and the obvious lack of acceptance from their academic peer group.

The vast majority of scholars, and even of those in Mesoamerican archaeology, probably don't even know it exists. And, if that's true, their failure to accept it or find it interesting says nothing at all about its quality.

Could Sorenson's or Clark's works attempting to validate a BOM history get printed or published in professional peer venues that deal with history and archaeology? Or is FARMS the only place willing to print these works.

I've written an article treating this topic. I've cited it here. You're welcome to read it.

This is the typical lds apologist's red herring when it comes to the topic of BOM historicity.

It's not a red herring.

I am quite sure there are many Lds scholars who have been published in mainstream journals. Probably because they met the minimum standards of academic credibility for those journals. The works of Sorenson and Clark, in attempting to support a history claim for the BOM, seem only to have met the minimum standards of FARMS. Hence, thats the only place these works, in the are of substantiating the history claimed in the BOM, get printed.

Make your case.

Don't just assert it. Demonstrate, with specific illustrations, how their FARMS-published works fail to meet "the minimum standards of academic credibility" for mainstream academic journals.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good luck, DCP. I've poked so many holes in Yme's ship in this thread, but he keeps on floating somehow. Apparently my credentials aren't of sufficient merit for the great Yme to recognize.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yme seems to believe that you could establish the low quality of Ibn Sina's Metaphysics by polling professors of philosophy in American colleges and finding that the vast majority of them haven't read it.

[Yme]

The vast majority of scholars, and even of those in Mesoamerican archaeology, probably don't even know it exists.

First of all, how can you make such a statement? How would you even know? Didn't you just tell me these articles are posted on the web?

But if it is true, what you have, in fact, demonstrated with this statement is that FARMS and/or its scholarly publications don't generate interest from the vast majority of scholars.

Hence, the vast majority of scholars would have a better chance of knowing it exists if it could get printed in any one of the numerous peer and professional journals that exist outside of FARMS. But, in fact, these works by Sorenson and Clark, in attempting to support or validate the history claim of the BOM, don't seem to draw interest from their professional peers nor professional journals in their respected fields of study in the areas of history and/or archaeology.

So the only place that will print them is FARMS which, you seem to be arguing, is not a good place to reach the vast majority of scholars. Kind of makes me wonder if Sorenson or Clark really ever wanted their works, in this area of BOM historicity, to get out to a scholarly community or a group of their professional peers in the first place! Sounds like you think that printing them in FARMS would ensure that outcome.

Make your case.

Why? You seem to be doing it for me, and so convincingly at that!

[Yme]

Good luck, DCP. I've poked so many holes in Yme's ship in this thread, but he keeps on floating somehow. Apparently my credentials aren't of sufficient merit for the great Yme to recognize.

Life,

Don't take it so hard. It's just that in following the advice of Edward De Bono it's hard for me to pay any attention to you!

[poulsenll]

But if it is true, what you have, in fact, demonstrated with this statement is that FARMS and/or its scholarly publications don't generate interest from the vast majority of scholars.

Yme

It seems to me that you think that scholars have an obligation to convince others that their work has some validity. Unfortunately that is not true. The only obligation that any scholar has, is to make his work freely available to the public. FARMS was organized for just this purpose. It is the obligation of other scholars to either confirm it or refute it. Rejecting it out of hand is not a scolarly attitude.

Whenever there is a niche area of science, the scholars in that field usually create a Journal as a venue to publish their research. When I was doing research on sulfur containing drugs, it took me forever to find a journal that published this type of research. When I did find one , it was a small journal published by a scientific organization specializing in this type of research. It turned out to be a gold mine of accurate and usable information that was unavailble in mainstream journals.

A casual perusal of the libraray holdings at any University will illustrate the plethora of specialized jounals available in any given field. It is not the obligation of the scholar to advertise his work but it is the obligation of the reader, if interested, to find those journals that specialize in publishing the type of research that interests them.

Larry P

[LifeOnaPlate]

Life,

Don't take it so hard. It's just that in following the advice of Edward De Bono it's hard for me to pay any attention to you!

Yeah. Or you can't approach the argument cogently, which appears from many perspectives to be the ost likely case. It's why you ignore Kevin Christenson too. You don't know him, or his works, and I'm sure it's a nice ego trip to confront the great DCP. But still, he makes you look foolish and it doesn't appear you're aware of that.

It seems to me that you think that scholars have an obligation to convince others that their work has some validity. Unfortunately that is not true.

I don't think our friend Yme knows much about scholarship in general.

Again, he hasn't shown me why it is that most or all "scholars" aren't up to snuff on neo-Marxist perspectives on the contributions capitalism made to the rise of the Nazi regime. And why can't I read about it in, say, US Weekly.

[Yme]

Yeah. Or you can't approach the argument cogently,

I know that I have approached it cogently. I do not need your approval to make that statement.

and I'm sure it's a nice ego trip to confront the great DCP.

Perhaps for him. Certainly not for me. I couldn't name a person I know that would know of or about him. What could possibly create "ego"? Sounds like he's your hero, not mine.

Again, he hasn't shown me why it is that most or all "scholars" aren't up to snuff on neo-Marxist perspectives on the contributions capitalism made to the rise of the Nazi regime. And why can't I read about it in, say, US Weekly.

Demonstrate to me that most scholars aren't "up to snuff".

At least with "neo-Marxist", "capitalism" and the "Nazi regime", we know they actually existed!

And by the way, I'll bet US Weekly has published articles on capitalism, Marxism and the Nazi regime. What they have not published, nor has any other journal or publication for that matter (except FARMS), are the works of Sorenson and Clark attempting to support the existence of the history claimed in the BOM.

[Brant Gardner]

YME

The lack of interest and or acceptance by the secular academic communitiy for these works already makes a very strong and compelling one.

In 1952 Yuri Knorozov published a paper discussing the decipherment of Maya glyphs. The scholarly reaction was swift and strong. It was condemned. The most powerful Mayanist of the day was particularly adamant that it was folly.

The problem was, he was right.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I know that I have approached it cogently. I do not need your approval to make that statement.

Perhaps for him. Certainly not for me. I couldn't name a person I know that would know of or about him. What could possibly create "ego"? Sounds like he's your hero, not mine.

Perhaps you can offer a better reason why you have ignored all but DCP throughout this thread.

Demonstrate to me that most scholars aren't "up to snuff".

How many do you know that are up on the issue? When is the last time you read anything on the subject?

At least with "neo-Marxist", "capitalism" and the "Nazi regime", we know they actually existed!

Same with "Palmyra" "Joseph Smith" and "the Three and Eight Witnesses".

And by the way, I'll bet US Weekly has published articles on capitalism, Marxism and the Nazi regime. What they have not published, nor has any other journal or publication for that matter (except FARMS), are the works of Sorenson and Clark attempting to support the existence of the history claimed in the BOM.

CFR on US Weekly claim. You must have missed the point.

[Daniel Peterson]

First of all, how can you make such a statement? How would you even know?

I don't "know" it. Not in any way that I could demonstrate by means of statistics or polling data. But after decades spent, as a Mormon, in academia at universities across the United States and after decades spent reading academic journals and attending academic meetings, I think I have a pretty good sense of the overall climate in the relevant academic fields. If you have actual evidence that would overturn my sense of academia, I hope you'll share it.

Didn't you just tell me these articles are posted on the web?

Yes. Where even you can read them.

But if it is true, what you have, in fact, demonstrated with this statement is that FARMS and/or its scholarly publications don't generate interest from the vast majority of scholars.

I freely admit that. But then, no journal or academic book or field that I know of "generates interest from the vast majority of scholars."

Hence, the vast majority of scholars would have a better chance of knowing it exists if it could get printed in any one of the numerous peer and professional journals that exist outside of FARMS.

True. I've commented on this topic in my article "The Witchcraft Paradigm," which you're free to read.

But, in fact, these works by Sorenson and Clark, in attempting to support or validate the history claim of the BOM, don't seem to draw interest from their professional peers nor professional journals in their respected fields of study in the areas of history and/or archaeology.

Quite obviously true. For a number of reasons.

So the only place that will print them is FARMS

Ummm, yes and no.

I've commented on this topic in my article "The Witchcraft Paradigm," which you're free to read.

Kind of makes me wonder if Sorenson or Clark really ever wanted their works, in this area of BOM historicity, to get out to a scholarly community or a group of their professional peers in the first place!

I've commented on this topic in my article "The Witchcraft Paradigm," which you're free to read.

You're entirely welcome to try to support your claim that Professors Sorenson, Clark, et al., don't meet the minimum standards of scholarly work in their publications for FARMS. The way to do that is by assembling relevant evidence and subjecting it to substantial analysis.

[Yme]

YME

In 1952 Yuri Knorozov published a paper discussing the decipherment of Maya glyphs. The scholarly reaction was swift and strong. It was condemned. The most powerful Mayanist of the day was particularly adamant that it was folly.

The problem was, he was right.

This is an excellent point, and one I had been trying to make but perhaps not clear enough.

The mere fact that there was a swift and strong scholarly reaction, even without having the ease of access to Knorozov's publication, that we have today via the net, clearly demonstrates he had the ear of his peers and the professional group. There was credibility, there was interest. Whether his work was to be judged right or wrong is secondary to the point I have demonstrated: He was not ignored!!

Clark and Sorenson must not have the ear of their peers or their professional group when it comes to their works attempting to support the history claim in the BOM. It has and will continue to be ignored until it can demonstrate ANYTHING credible enough to generate ANY kind of interest, be it support or condemnation, from the scholarly community. Their works in this area must be so failing to thier peers that there is not even a passing interest or any reaction from either their peers or the scholarly community. Nothing, nada, zippo.

Again, excellent point Brant.

[Doctor Steuss]

I feel like I'm listening to "Number Nine" on the White Album.

It has. Virtually ad nauseam. But I forgive you.

I address this issue, a bit obliquely, in my editor's introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), which is entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist" and which is accessible on line via:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...18&number=2

Such articles have been published.

Some are listed "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist," which is available here:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...18&number=2

See my Editor's Introduction entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...18&number=2

I've commented on this topic in my article "The Witchcraft Paradigm," which you're free to read.