Historicity Of Bom

[Daniel Peterson]

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

You missed the point, of course.

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!!

He wasn't ignored in the small field of Maya linguistics and Maya epigraphy.

He was most certainly ignored in the fields of classics, biblical archaeology, accounting, palaeontology, biochemistry, English literature, geophysics, and metallurgy.

Book of Mormon studies constitute their own field, still relatively small. Neither Sorenson's nor Clark's contributions to Book of Mormon studies have been ignored by people who follow the field of Book of Mormon studies. But that field is distinct from Maya epigraphy, very nearly as much as it is distinct from organic chemistry, botany, and astronomy.

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.

Manifestly.

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.

Just as Gregor Mendel's work on heritable characteristics was ignored until, years after his death, and by means of a magical transformation, it finally, somehow, became credible. Just as Alfred Wegener's work on continental drift was false and without merit until it began to be noticed.

Yme's Principle: The value of a scientific theory, the quality of a scholarly article, is established by means of popularity contests, and not on the basis of evidence and analysis.

A practical application of Yme's Principle: The great fourteenth-century Muslim thinker Ibn Khaldun may have been the first genuine philosopher of history, and has been argued to be the first true sociologist. But his work was not really noticed until western Orientalists rediscovered it in the nineteenth century. For five hundred years, it had been false and without value.

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.

And the most amazing aspect of this is that their peers are able to judge that their work in this area is without merit while never having read it and, most probably, without even knowing of its existence.

Again, excellent point Brant.

Yes, but it wholly eluded you.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

There's no need for Yme to read the article. He knows that it's without merit, because he hasn't read it. If it were any good, he would have read it. Ergo, it is poorly done.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think Yme has ever read a full FARMS article. He did notice, though, that FARMS removed "The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." from its website. Then it was pointed out that it is still on every article posted on the site at the very top of each one. Then Yme disappeared for a while.

[Aquilifer]

Yme -

The solution for demonstrating the paltry offerings of LDS scholarship in view of the (rather vague) standards of the "secular academic community" is quite simple: actually read a range of LDS scholarly writings and present a quality thesis as to why they don't measure up to the academic quality that you and the "secular academic community" demand. Doing so will not only expose the weakness of LDS scholarship, but give you the opportunity to provide us with an example of the rigorous intellectual standards that are so obviously missing on our side of the discussion.

To dispense with the academic niceties, put up or shut up. You've been repeating your mantra for far too long to continue sweeping aside LDS intellectualism with generalities instead engaging the specific components of Mormon thought.

[Yme]

You missed the point, of course.

He wasn't ignored in the small field of Maya linguistics and Maya epigraphy.

He was most certainly ignored in the fields of classics, biblical archaeology, accounting, palaeontology, biochemistry, English literature, geophysics, and metallurgy.

Book of Mormon studies constitute their own field, still relatively small. Neither Sorenson's nor Clark's contributions to Book of Mormon studies have been ignored by people who follow the field of Book of Mormon studies. But that field is distinct from Maya epigraphy, very nearly as much as it is distinct from organic chemistry, botany, and astronomy.

Manifestly.

Just as Gregor Mendel's work on heritable characteristics was ignored until, years after his death, and by means of a magical transformation, it finally, somehow, became credible. Just as Alfred Wegener's work on continental drift was false and without merit until it began to be noticed.

Yme's Principle: The value of a scientific theory, the quality of a scholarly article, is established by means of popularity contests, and not on the basis of evidence and analysis.

A practical application of Yme's Principle: The great fourteenth-century Muslim thinker Ibn Khaldun may have been the first genuine philosopher of history, and has been argued to be the first true sociologist. But his work was not really noticed until western Orientalists rediscovered it in the nineteenth century. For five hundred years, it had been false and without value.

And the most amazing aspect of this is that their peers are able to judge that their work in this area is without merit while never having read it and, most probably, without even knowing of its existence.

Yes, but it wholly eluded you.

You missed the point, of course.

He wasn't ignored in the small field of Maya linguistics and Maya epigraphy.

Precisely. The works of Sorenson and Clark in supporting a claim of history are ignored by their very peer group who should have an interest. Knorozov claim at that time, as Brant demonstrated earlier, was seemingly as ridiculous as those of Sorenson and Clark are now. Yet his peer group of scholars responded and engaged him. Sorenson and Clark seem to be content having it published on a site that you admit scholars will ignore. Knorozov had confidence to challenge his peers. Sorenson and Clark, with their works on BOM historicity, obviously want to avoid theirs.

You really have a hard time grasping this don't you???!!!

He was most certainly ignored in the fields of classics, biblical archaeology, accounting, palaeontology, biochemistry, English literature, geophysics, and metallurgy.

Not to mention nuclear engineering, economics, structural design, and last, but not least, middle eastern studies. Relevance Daniel, relevance.

Book of Mormon studies constitute their own field, still relatively small.

But the field of study relative to the claim of ancient civilizations and the ways to demonstrate the existence thereof is not. Please, I tire of the red herrings.

Neither Sorenson's nor Clark's contributions to Book of Mormon studies have been ignored by people who follow the field of Book of Mormon studies.

And that would be who? Only those that have a testimony in Joseph Smith? Funny, the study of biblical history and archaeology is not limited to those who believe in the existence of Jesus Christ. Probably due to the fact that such history actually took place.

But that field is distinct from Maya epigraphy.......

As it should be. There is not a spec of credible and convincing evidence linking a fictional claim of history in the BOM to anything to do with the Mayan civilizations or Mayan studies. There are definately articles publsihed in lds sources, attempting to make this link, to bolster the testimonies of lds faithful. But as we see, such articles have little merit to do much else or to draw any credible scholarly recognition.

Yme's Principle: The value of a scientific theory, the quality of a scholarly article, is established by means of popularity contests, and not on the basis of evidence and analysis.

Your desperation is showing now. The quality of a scholarly article is the recognition or interest by fellow scholars and the confidence of the author to seek their input. You have now got me believing that printing it at FARMS is akin to stuffing it in a shoebox in ones closet. Which place will more scholars see it?

And the most amazing aspect of this is that their peers are able to judge that their work in this area is without merit while never having read it and, most probably, without even knowing of its existence.

Funny. Wasn't it you who said a couple of years ago, on the ol FAIR board, something to the effect that: "Prof Clark had really put his reputation on the line [via his speech at BYU declaring that archaeology was the only way to prove the BOM] and that it could really cost him with his professional peers"? Then you wanted to convince people that his peers knew of his statements and thoughts regarding the BOM history claim. As if to make it a monumental moment. Now you want to convince us that most don't even know of it's existence. The late great Laker announcer Chick Hern must have been thinking of you when he coined one his trademark phrases: "back and forth like a windshield wiper".

So which was it back then? Were any professional peers really paying Clark any attention over his statements. Did it "cost him" anything. Or was he being ignored as his works on BOM historicity are now?

[Aquilifer]

The quality of a scholarly article is the recognition or interest by fellow scholars and the confidence of the author to seek their input.

I would think that the quality of a scholarly article is based on its intrinsic merits rather than the level of attention it receives. Einstein could have written "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and shoved it in in a box under his bed. The paper would still have been brilliant, even if the larger world remained ignorant of its existence.

[poulsenll]

Precisely. The works of Sorenson and Clark in supporting a claim of history are ignored by their very peer group who should have an interest. Knorozov claim at that time, as Brant demonstrated earlier, was seemingly as ridiculous as those of Sorenson and Clark are now. Yet his peer group of scholars responded and engaged him. Sorenson and Clark seem to be content having it published on a site that you admit scholars will ignore. Knorozov had confidence to challenge his peers. Sorenson and Clark, with their works on BOM historicity, obviously want to avoid theirs.

They did not engage him, they simply dismissed him as a a marxist ideologist. He was treated much as LDS scholars work published at FARMS are treated. He published in a Russian Journal with a mandatory Marxist preface rather than an accepted Journal in England.

See the following from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Knorozov

Upon the publication of this work from a then hardly known scholar, Knorozov and his thesis came under some severe and at times dismissive criticism. J. Eric S. Thompson, the noted British scholar regarded by all as the leading Mayanist of his day, led the attack. Thompson's views at that time were solidly anti-phonetic, and his own large body of detailed research had already fleshed-out a view that the Maya inscriptions did not record their actual history, and that the glyphs were founded on ideographic principles. His view was the prevailing one in the field, and many other scholars followed suit.

The situation was further complicated by Knorozov's paper appearing during the height of the Cold War, and many were able to dismiss his paper as being founded on misguided Marxist-Leninist ideology and polemic. Indeed, in keeping with the mandatory practices of the time, Knorozov's paper was prefaced by a foreword written by the journal's editor which contained digressions and propagandist comments extolling the State-sponsored approach by which Knorozov had succeeded where Western scholarship had failed. However, despite claims to the contrary by several of Knorozov's detractors, Knorozov himself never did include such polemic in his writings.

Knorozov persisted with his publications in spite of the criticism and rejection of many Mayanists of the time. He was perhaps shielded to some extent from the ramifications of peer disputation, since his position and standing at the institute was not adversely influenced by criticism from Western academics.

Note he was not subjected to peer review outside of the institute where he was employed. I see many parallels to the criticisms launched by critics of the Maxwell Institutes publications.

Larry P

[Daniel Peterson]

Precisely. The works of Sorenson and Clark in supporting a claim of history are ignored by their very peer group who should have an interest.

Not true. Those interested in Book of Mormon studies know their work well.

Knorozov had confidence to challenge his peers. Sorenson and Clark, with their works on BOM historicity, obviously want to avoid theirs.

I suppose you resort to mind-reading because ordinary reading of publicly available texts doesn't appeal to you?

Professor Sorenson has published extensively in support of the controversial (but obviously Book-of-Mormon-related) notion of pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts, for example -- in non-Mormon venues. Have you read any of that material?

You really have a hard time grasping this don't you???!!!

Not at all. I simply regard your position as ludicrous.

Please, I tire of the red herrings.

How do you think we feel, when you serve them up month after month after month?

And that would be who? Only those that have a testimony in Joseph Smith?

No. These works are publicly available, and the field of Book of Mormon studies is open to anybody willing to engage it. Heck, even you could actually read something in the area!

The quality of a scholarly article is the recognition or interest by fellow scholars and the confidence of the author to seek their input.

That claim is flatly, absurdly false.

The quality of a scholarly article consists in the adequacy of its evidence, the soundness of its analysis, and the importance of its argument, whether or not anybody ever reads it. Mendel's work on genetics wasn't poorly done because nobody paid any attention to it for decades. It was epochal and deeply significant, even before its importance was recognized by other scientists.

Funny. Wasn't it you who said a couple of years ago, on the ol FAIR board, something to the effect that: "Prof Clark had really put his reputation on the line [via his speech at BYU declaring that archaeology was the only way to prove the BOM] and that it could really cost him with his professional peers"?

Yes. I said that he ran a risk. Fortunately, his professional standing wasn't harmed.

I was not incorrect in what I said. That his speech "could really cost him with his professional peers" was true. That it didn't is fortunate. That he ran a risk was true. That he ended up paying no particular price is good.

If a rope could break, but then doesn't, that doesn't prove that the initial judgment that "the rope could break" was wrong. If there's a risk of death by venturing near a cliff, but the venturer in fact doesn't die, that doesn't prove that the risk wasn't real. The first Apollo landing on the moon was risky, even though the astronauts returned safely.

Then you wanted to convince people that his peers knew of his statements and thoughts regarding the BOM history claim.

Not quite true. By making his public statement, in a speech that has been published in hard copy and on the web, he made it very possible for his peers to learn of his statements. I had no way of knowing whether any did, or how many did, and I still don't.

As if to make it a monumental moment.

I thought it significant that, after many years of public silence on the topic, Professor Clark was willing to make a public statement (and, subsequently, to make a similar statement at the Library of Congress, also now published). It was an important personal step for him to take.

Now you want to convince us that most don't even know of it's existence.

I have no reason to believe that most Mesoamericanists, let alone most scholars, are aware of it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

The late great Laker announcer Chick Hern must have been thinking of you when he coined one his trademark phrases: "back and forth like a windshield wiper".

Chick Hearn (note the spelling) knew that squished insects need to be cleaned off of windshields.

Were any professional peers really paying Clark any attention over his statements.

I don't know.

Did it "cost him" anything.

Not as far as I can tell.

Or was he being ignored as his works on BOM historicity are now?

I look forward to your data on the question.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The quality of a scholarly article is the recognition or interest by fellow scholars and the confidence of the author to seek their input.

This comment is hilariously stupid.

[Daniel Peterson]

This comment is hilariously stupid.

True. There's really little more that needs to be said about it.

And yet the transparently false principle that it expresses has been fundamental to most of Yme's posts on this board over the course of many months.

When you cut to the chase, this is his position.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The quality of a scholarly article is the recognition or interest by me and the "scholars" with which I may be familiar; and the confidence of the author to seek their input in some undefined, arbitrary fashion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I guess Yme is busy playing on other threads and can't come back to admit defeat in this one. Defeat you say? Yes. It seems he feels this is some sort of competition. Who can avoid the real issues the longest? You win first prize, Yme.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, John Sorenson reflects briefly on the case of Yuri Knorozov and its implications toward the end of his article "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Record," in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...&chapid=196

[Chronos]

Need to calm it down in here, the comments about what you find stupid are pushing it. Don't treat someone in a way you wouldn't want to be treated, remember?

~Chronos

[poulsenll]

Incidentally, John Sorenson reflects briefly on the case of Yuri Knorozov and its implications toward the end of his article "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Record," in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...&chapid=196

For those of you who did not look up this reference, here is the text relative to this discussion.

In Breaking the Maya Code, Coe describes how Thompson earlier had "hammered away" at Yuri Knorosov, the Soviet linguist to whom much of the credit eventually has gone for launching the successful decipherment of the Maya hieroglyphics. Knorosov had had the audacity to offer a theory about the glyphs in opposition to Thompson's reigning viewpoint; Thompson considered the Knorosov position completely mistaken and responded with "a contemptuous review," as Coe terms it, labeling the Russian's work "a Marxist hoax." Thompson's stance toward the new codex might be paraphrased as something like, "The Maya canon of books is already full. A codex? A codex? We already have three codices!"222 He reviewed Coe's publication of the Grolier document, writing in his typical slashing style. Coe says of that review that Thompson "ignor[ed] the main argument while concentrating on some detail where he thought the chances of a quick kill were best."223 With justified satisfaction Coe tells the story of the codex's subsequent vindication. The Grolier Codex is now generally acknowledged to be authentic, based on the characteristics of the document itself rather than on its unorthodox discovery. Coe comments on "the irony of the whole business" of the Grolier Codex.224 Had it had a less-prejudiced origin, he says, had it been found "while rummaging around in archives during the mid-nineteenth century, it would [have been] accepted by even the most rock-ribbed scholar as the genuine article."225

It seems only fair to point out the irony in Coe's treatment of the Book of Mormon. In an article in 1973, Coe discussed some of the history of Latter-day Saint concerns with "Book of Mormon archaeology" in a fairly well-informed, nonhostile manner; he had done a respectable amount of homework on that history in preparing his piece.226 He thought nothing written under that heading was worthwhile, and he peremptorily ruled Mormon2's scripture out of scientific court. No serious Mesoamericanist could take seriously such a bit of nineteenth-century folly, he courteously but firmly insisted. Yet nowhere in his discussion did he show that he had more than superficially studied the text of the Book of Mormon as a possible ancient document. The irony is heavy, because Coe did with the Book of Mormon exactly what Thompson did with the Grolier Codex. Both men responded by reflex on the basis of opinions each had long since fixed in intellectual concrete of his own mix. In his 1973 article, Coe dismissed Joseph Smith's "outrageous claims," what Coe deemed "all the . . . nonsense generated by a nineteenth-century American subculture [i.e., Mormonism] intellectually grounded in white supremacy and proexpansionist tendencies."227 This is just as arrogant, mistaken, and irrelevant in judging the text as was Thompson's use of the "Marxist" brush to smear Knorosov's scholarship. By using epithets, each tried for a cheap dismissal of the case, thus avoiding the drudgery of doing that serious, unprejudiced, scholarly investigation that ought to precede a judgment about the authenticity of any potentially ancient text. Thompson found enough "nonsense" to disqualify the Grolier Codex without giving it the examination it deserved; Coe dismissed the Book of Mormon without studying it more than casuallyâ??six of one and half a dozen of the other.

The greatest irony however, in light of the continuous criticism that Mormon scholars do not publish about the Book of Mormon in non-mormon publications, is where Coe chose to publish his criticism of the Book of Mormon. Here is the citation.

226. Michael D. Coe, "Mormons and Archeology: An Outside View," Dialogue 8/2 (1973): 40â??5.

Coe, rather than publish it in a Mesoamerican journal, chose to publish it in Dialogue, a Mormon publication.

Larry P

[Daniel Peterson]

The greatest irony however, in light of the continuous criticism that Mormon scholars do not publish about the Book of Mormon in non-mormon publications, is where Coe chose to publish his criticism of the Book of Mormon. Here is the citation.

Coe, rather than publish it in a Mesoamerican journal, chose to publish it in Dialogue, a Mormon publication.

A very astute observation.

Apparently, by Yme's logic, we should conclude that Professor Coe's article didn't meet minimum scholarly standards and that Professor Coe was embarrrassed by, or lacked confidence in, what he had written.

In order to ensure that Yme doesn't miss this important point, I've sent him a personal message alerting him to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Need to calm it down in here, the comments about what you find stupid are pushing it. Don't treat someone in a way you wouldn't want to be treated, remember?

~Chronos

Yesterday, I characterized "changes to the Book of Mormon" as one of the stupidest arguments in the anti-Mormon catalog, rivaling "adieu" and "Jerusalem, the land of our fathers."

It's my heartfelt opinion. I hope I wasn't out of line in expressing it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Coe, rather than publish it in a Mesoamerican journal, chose to publish it in Dialogue, a Mormon publication.

Larry P

What a pseudo-scholar!

[but seriously, you're trying to tell me people have to publish articles in venues where the articles are appropriate to the theme of the venues? Eureka! Someone alert Yme. Ah, I see Dan Peterson has done it.]

Yesterday, I characterized "changes to the Book of Mormon" as one of the stupidest arguments in the anti-Mormon catalog, rivaling "adieu" and "Jerusalem, the land of our fathers."

It's my heartfelt opinion. I hope I wasn't out of line in expressing it.

Agreed. I didn't call any person stupid in any way, and I assume I was reported by someone for observing that a comment was "stupid". According to wordnet, stupid indicates something "lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity". I honestly feel the comment is best summed up by being called "stupid". FWIW. Next time I'll be specific and just say "that comment lacks, or is marked by a lack of intellectual acuity".

[Scott Lloyd]

According to wordnet, stupid indicates something "lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity". I honestly feel the comment is best summed up by being called "stupid". FWIW. Next time I'll be specific and just say "that comment lacks, or is marked by a lack of intellectual acuity".

Better save it to a macro key sequence in your word processor.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sigh.

I'd like to read Yme's response.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sigh.

I'd like to read Yme's response.

For every post he makes elsewhere he adds to his non-answer here.

[Daniel Peterson]

For every post he makes elsewhere he adds to his non-answer here.

Yes. I see that he's posted on the board today. So he's not away from his computer; he's just avoiding this thread. That's fairly typical Yme behavior, at least in my experience with him.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yme?

[Daniel Peterson]

Yme?

He was on the board today, but didn't see fit to post on this thread.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yme?...

chirpchirp.mp3.mp3