Do Mormon Scholars Ever Debate Secular Scholars?

[Mariner]

selek1,

I certainly do not disagree that Mormons are well represented in the low to middle ranks of scientists and engineers. I happen to have been such an individuals for many years.

However, here is what one does not see:

- One does not see Book of Mormon "scholars" publishing papers about their work in peer reviewed scientific journals.

- One does not see Mormon apologists engaging in public debates or even public discussions with mainstream scientists about the Book of Mormon claims regarding the history of pre-Columbian New World.

- And, sadly, one does not see Mormons in the top echelons of science, There are no Nobel Prize Winners. There are few, if any Mormon members of the National Academy (I could find none.)

[selek1]

selek1,

I certainly do not disagree that Mormons are well represented in the low to middle ranks of scientists and engineers. I happen to have been such an individuals for many years.

However, here is what one does not see:

- One does not see Book of Mormon "scholars" publishing papers about their work in peer reviewed scientific journals.

- And, sadly, one does not see Mormons in the top echelons of science, There are no Nobel Prize Winners. There are few, if any Mormon members of the National Academy (I could find none.)

This argument is so inane as to be asinine.

The National Academy of Scientists does not categorize their membership by religion, so your "inability" to find a Mormon member is irrelevant.

For the record, however, there are eight members of the National Academy of Science in Utah- all of them on the faculty of the University of Utah.

Your argument vis-a-vis the Nobel Prize is equally biased and stuporous.

The United Nations in The State of Science And Technology In The World 1996-1997 guesstimated that there were 5,189,400 "researchers" in the world in 1997.

http://www.uis.unesc...en/pub/pub0.htm

There have been 552 Nobel prizes awarded in chemistry, physics, and medicine through 2011.

That works out to .000106 x 10 ^-4.

1 "researcher" out of every 9401 (using the 1997 numbers) has been awarded a Nobel prize.

The numbers are even worse when one considers that the growth in the number of researchers has radically outpaced the number of awards given and that this applies only to dedicated "researchers". It does not account for the LDS doctors, chemists, physicists, and other scientists actively engaged in more mundane or practical pursuits (such as actually treating patients in a hospital setting).

Based on numbers alone, your comparison is simply petulant and idiotic.

Here is a link chronicalling only a handful of the Mormon scientists who have won awards and broken new ground in their chosen fields.

http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

- One does not see Mormon apologists engaging in public debates or even public discussions with mainstream scientists about the Book of Mormon claims regarding the history of pre-Columbian New World.

And why would they?

Archaeology and theology are two very different disciplines with very different evidentiary standards and very different rules "by which the game is played".

Secular scholars- as a part of the arbitrary discipline of their craft, are required to automagically reject divine or supernatural explanations- no matter how plausible in context.

That is not to say that such explanations may not be true- but they are outside the "rules of the game" by which secular archaeology is played.

As such, the Book of Mormon is automagically disqualified for "serious consideration" NOT because of the evidence, but because of the arbitrary assumptions and rules of the discipline.

Any "meeting of the minds" would be an exercise in futility serving only to compare apples to oranges.

Second, and more crucial to the secular worldview- one cannot proceed on the assumption that the Book of Mormon might be factual, accurate, or useful vis-a-vis New World archaeology without granting some or all of its truth claims and those of the Church.

For that reason alone- the desperate desire to avoid becoming entangled in a religious controversy- the Book of Mormon is "out of bounds" for consideration.

Not because it is demonstrably false.

But because admitting that it might be true opens up too large a can of worms.

Edited March 31, 2012 by selek1

[Bob Oliverio]

Archaeology and theology are two very different disciplines with very different evidentiary standards and very different rules "by which the game is played".

This is very true.

But what do we claim the BOM to be?  A record of theology or a record of history?  

[volgadon]

This is very true.

But what do we claim the BOM to be? A record of theology or a record of history?

An ancient sacred history.

[bcuzbcuz]

What are your thoughts on football?

European or American or Canadian football?

[volgadon]

European or American or Canadian football?

The game that should properly be known as hand-torpedo-shaped-thingy. Bob Olivero sounds suspiciously like a certain DanGB who went on and on about the sport.

[Bob Oliverio]

If the BOM is a record of history, sacred or otherwise, then I do believe asking "why hasn't LDS scholarship, regarding the historical claims of the BOM, generated interest or acceptance from secular peer and professional academic groups?" is an extremely fair and relevant question.  Are we just not far enough along in our standards of "scholarship" yet?

[Bob Oliverio]

Admittedly, even my wife had to give input on this one.  Her comment, understandably, was: "if there was academic acceptance, folks on this board would be quick to point it out"!

[selek1]

"Why hasn't LDS scholarship, regarding the historical claims of the BOM, generated interest or acceptance from secular peer and professional academic groups?"

Asked and answered in Post #23.

The Book of Mormon- specifically because of the divine nature of its revelation and translation- is simply beyond the scope of their discipline (as in profession or avocation).

They are trained to engage in the exploration and assessment of factual evidence within a narrow and finite category.

Anything that exists outside that category, is beyond the scope of their professional judgement and competence.

And the Book of Mormon- even if all of it's historical claims (and our understanding of them) are 100% accurate - exists squarely outside their discipline.

A relevant case in point is the rediscovery of Troy.

It wasn't the "professional archaeologist" who made the discovery, but rather a talented amatuer.

Heinrich Schliemann succeeded where the professionals failed because he was one of the few to take the Homeric epics seriously. The "secular archaeologists" of the day dismissed the epics- and the city itself- as mere legend.

And within the narrow scope and rigor of their discipline, they were correct to do so.

It was only success that vindicated Schliemann's approach. Had he failed, he would be remembered as a sad example of blind dogmatism instead of the brilliant iconoclast.

"Secular peer and academic groups"- a delightfully vague category, by the way- are likewise limited both by the rigid strictures of their various disciplines and their chosen worldview.

The Book of Mormon- which 1) claims to have been preserved, rediscovered, and translated by miraculous means and 2) for which no unambiguous empircal evidence remains- is beyond the scope of their disciplines and outside the confines of their worldview.

One might just as readily demand that a brain surgeon attempt to forecast crop failures.

Either may dabble in the subject matter, but it is beyond the scope of their training and professional competence to assess its claims, let alone to state anything authoritative on the matter.

Edited April 1, 2012 by selek1

[Vex]

Selek, are you reading my mind again? I was reading this thread and thought: But what about Troy?

[selek1]

Selek, are you reading my mind again? I was reading this thread and thought: But what about Troy?

Not necessarily mind-reading, but the imp with cluebat making good time.

[volgadon]

If the BOM is a record of history, sacred or otherwise, then I do believe asking "why hasn't LDS scholarship, regarding the historical claims of the BOM, generated interest or acceptance from secular peer and professional academic groups?" is an extremely fair and relevant question. Are we just not far enough along in our standards of "scholarship" yet?

I'm not entirely sure you realise that ancient sacred histories don't exactly follow modern historiographical standards.

[Mariner]

Selek1,

There are now about 14 million Jews in the world. Jews have been awarded more than 150 Nobel Prizes (I think the number is closer to 180). SLC claims 14 million Mormons. None have won a Nobel Prize - none.

BYU has a student body of some 30,000 and has no members of the National Academy among its faculty. The university I attended has a similar size student body and (last time I looked) had close to a dozen faculty in the National Academy. The National academy has several thousand members. If Mormons were capable of rising to the top echelons of science, you would think that at least one of them would be at BYU, would you not?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Mariner

[selek1]

There are now about 14 million Jews in the world. Jews have been awarded more than 150 Nobel Prizes (I think the number is closer to 180). SLC claims 14 million Mormons. None have won a Nobel Prize - none.

Thank you for continuing what remains an irrelevant digression through the inner workings of your prejudices and assumptions.

As has been noted, neither membership in the National Academy of Sciences nor a Nobel Prize are the deciding qualifier for "the upper echelon of sciences".

While both maintain high standards, both represent a concensus of what their member boards consider the best and brightest in science.

They represent- inescapably and by default- a small, self-selecting sample rather than an objective truth about the whole.

In point of fact, the National Academy of Sciences is a very exclusive organization- there are roughly 2,200 members world-wide- which compares poorly against the 5,189,400 researchers mentioned earlier.

Only one "researcher" in 2,359 is a member of the NAS (again using the fifteen year old number).

The ratio would be worse today, as the number of "researchers" has undoubtedly outstripped the number of Academy memberships awarded.

The following facts should also be taken into consideration:

• A maximum of 84 members are elected to the National Academy annually.
  
• Only Academy members may submit formal nominations.
  
• Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination, followed by an extensive and careful vetting process that results in a final ballot at the Academy's annual meeting in April each year.
  

This process guarantees that despite the merits of their work, many, many otherwise qualified or deserving candidates are turned down each year.

It likewise guarantees that despite the merits of their work, election is also a political process- and "who one knows" is a factor.

As such, your criterion exists only as an arbitrary and elitist benchmark with little or no relevance in the real world.

------------------------------------------

For the sake of argument, however, let's put your argument in perspective by substituting another minority for Mormons.

According to the United State Census Bureau, there were approximately 42,020,743 African Americans living in the United States in 2010.

None of them have been awarded a Nobel prize in any of the Sciences (though 15 have received Nobel PEACE prizes).

Yet only a racist, a bigot, and a fool would contend that African-Americans are not represented "in the top echelons of science".

Your arguments (and motivations) are no better- and every bit as transparent.

Edited April 1, 2012 by selek1

[kolipoki09]

Chris, if I could ever get a pulpit I would be very open to a Mormon/Secular dialogue. I don't know if a fireside would work out, but an academic setting would probably be a better fit. That being said, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds of Latter-day Saints who are much more qualified to do it that I am. Besides, I think we'd agree far too much.

Having met him in real life, that would be something well worth attending.

Having lunch with volgadon and John Dehlin was well worth the two hour drive to Logan. Not to mention a half-hour in one of Utah's largest used bookstores.

[Chris Smith]

Chris, if I could ever get a pulpit I would be very open to a Mormon/Secular dialogue. I don't know if a fireside would work out, but an academic setting would probably be a better fit.

Well, that's why I suggested John Larsen (of the Mormon Expression podcast) as a possible venue provider. I didn't mean an actual, Church-sponsored fireside. I just meant a fireside-like, constructive, friendly atmosphere.

That being said, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds of Latter-day Saints who are much more qualified to do it that I am. Besides, I think we'd agree far too much.

Don't sell yourself short, bro. You're as good a representative of the thoughtful faithful as any I've seen. As for agreeing too much, hey-- if an atheist and a Mormon can agree on a lot of stuff, that sends a way better message than the whole Dawkins vs. Hart melee-to-the-death! Seriously: I think a friendly conversation with a lot of areas of agreement is much more productive than a debate, because instead of getting all pedantic and fighting about terminology, you can really get at the heart of what you believe about the meaning of life and why you believe the things you do. Ideally, discussion should be mind-opening for all parties and help people understand each other better. Debate, however, tends to be mind-closing and divisive. I've seen people change their minds after a discussion, but almost never after a debate. Anyway, we should find the time to have a discussion no matter what you think about the podcast idea. Are you in Utah? I'm living in Provo right now and always looking for excuses to slack off on my work.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Mariner]

For the sake of argument, however, let's put your argument in perspective by substituting another minority for Mormons.

According to the United State Census Bureau, there were approximately 42,020,743 African Americans living in the United States in 2010.

None of them have been awarded a Nobel prize in any of the Sciences (though 15 have received Nobel PEACE prizes).

Yet only a racist, a bigot, and a fool would contend that African-Americans are not represented "in the top echelons of science".

Your arguments (and motivations) are no better- and every bit as transparent.

Selek1,

In the country where I am living right now, those of African descent are not a minority, so your Euro-centric (and I use the term loosely) analogy is weak from the start. However, as you point out, African Americans (and populations of African descent in general) are under represented in the top echelons of science on a per capita basis. There are a number of reasons for this situation, many of them cultural.

The difference is that individuals of African descent (at least those with whom I am friends) do not claim to belong to a religion that is not in conflict with science or that produces scientists and engineers at a rate above what would be expected on a per capita basis.

Folks here are generally not too concerned with science and engineering, anyway. They have plenty of money to hire Indians, Europeans, and the odd American or two to do this stuff for them.

As you also point out those of African descent are well represented among the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Are there any Nobel Prize recipients who are active Mormons? Any at all?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Mariner

[Robert F. Smith]

???? Have no idea where you are going.

My question on academic interest and acceptance was serious and, I really believe, important to the furtherance of Church credibility if we want to have greater success in our missionary efforts. IMO, we can either continue to lower the level on standards of rationalizations or raise our standards of scholarship to a level of interest and acceptance outside of the Church. We may have great great scholarship for internal purposes. But I'm just asking, when do we want it respected within the secular world and what will that take other than rationalizations that haven't moved the needle on interest or acceptance?

You might want to take a look at the transcript of John Tvedtnes' 2001 FAIR lecture on "Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormonism in Scholarship," online at http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-scholarship-in-mormonism-and-mormonism-in-scholarship . He provides a goodly number of examples of non-Mormon scholars taking the Book of Mormon seriously and dealing with it respectfully -- including the several visits to BYU by the late Professor Raphael Patai. There are actually plenty of other such examples which he does not list.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Are there any Nobel Prize recipients who are active Mormons? Any at all?

A tough call when anti-Mormon bigotry prevents recognition of legitimate research which should have received such a prize, e.g., take a look at Wikipedia on Mormon Henry Eyring at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Eyring, which says that "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences apparently did not understand Eyring's theory until it was too late to award him the Nobel; the academy awarded him the Berzelius Medal in 1977 as partial compensation.^[2] Sterling M. McMurrin believed he should have received the Nobel Prize but was not awarded it because of his religion.^[3]"

One might say the same of Tracy Hall; and of Harvey Fletcher (once the head of Bell Labs), whose boss Robert Millikan did get the Nobel, even though Fletcher did the real work.

[Robert F. Smith]

If the BOM is a record of history, sacred or otherwise, then I do believe asking "why hasn't LDS scholarship, regarding the historical claims of the BOM, generated interest or acceptance from secular peer and professional academic groups?" is an extremely fair and relevant question. Are we just not far enough along in our standards of "scholarship" yet?

Admittedly, even my wife had to give input on this one. Her comment, understandably, was: "if there was academic acceptance, folks on this board would be quick to point it out"!

A good point, if it were valid.

Actually, a tremendous volume of substantial research has been done and reported through FARMS, and now through the Maxwell Institute. Most people, including evangelicals have ignored that research rather than grappling with it.

However, maybe you have a special definition of "academic acceptance."

Edited April 1, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I certainly do not disagree that Mormons are well represented in the low to middle ranks of scientists and engineers. I happen to have been such an individuals for many years.

- One does not see Book of Mormon "scholars" publishing papers about their work in peer reviewed scientific journals.

I take it that you are referring to mainstream academic journals which are not edited by Mormons (because some Mormons do edit such journals quite successfully).

If you had in fact been a scientist or engineer in an academic setting, you would know that publishing of that kind in a refereed academic journal is out of the question. Non-Mormon editors would not even consider such publication, and it is clear from your own remarks that you would not permit such publication in any journal you were editing. That would not be because the proposed article lacked any bona fides but due to contempt and a priori judgments (prejudice).on your part.

Mormon scholars regularly publish mainstream research in academic journals, and many of them are at the very top of their profession in all areas of academic endeavor.

Over the years (since the 1960s), open discussions by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars have appeared in Mormon journals such as Dialogue and Sunstone, whether via reply and rejoinder, or via a deliberately crafted theme issue. In addition, I have seen panel discussions at BYU, for example, in which Mormons and famous non-Mormons exchanged frank views.

- One does not see Mormon apologists engaging in public debates or even public discussions with mainstream scientists about the Book of Mormon claims regarding the history of pre-Columbian New World.

- And, sadly, one does not see Mormons in the top echelons of science, There are no Nobel Prize Winners. There are few, if any Mormon members of the National Academy (I could find none.)

The notion that Mormons are not in the top echelons of science is blatantly false. Mormons have been and are among the best out there.

[kolipoki09]

Well, that's why I suggested John Larsen (of the Mormon Expression podcast) as a possible venue provider. I didn't mean an actual, Church-sponsored fireside. I just meant a fireside-like, constructive, friendly atmosphere.

Don't sell yourself short, bro. You're as good a representative of the thoughtful faithful as any I've seen. As for agreeing too much, hey-- if an atheist and a Mormon can agree on a lot of stuff, that sends a way better message than the whole Dawkins vs. Hart melee-to-the-death! Seriously: I think a friendly conversation with a lot of areas of agreement is much more productive than a debate, because instead of getting all pedantic and fighting about terminology, you can really get at the heart of what you believe about the meaning of life and why you believe the things you do. Ideally, discussion should be mind-opening for all parties and help people understand each other better. Debate, however, tends to be mind-closing and divisive. I've seen people change their minds after a discussion, but almost never after a debate. Anyway, we should find the time to have a discussion no matter what you think about the podcast idea. Are you in Utah? I'm living in Provo right now and always looking for excuses to slack off on my work.

Chris, I'm in Pocatello, Idaho, but I'm in Provo several times a year (the most recent being yesterday). But I'll let you know the next time I'm down and we'll have to meet up. I was sorely tempted to submit a paper for the Sunstone Symposium this year (the deadline has been extended to April 15 for those interested), but I have a family reunion in Colorado that has been in the works for a long time. I will, however, make it to the FAIR Conference this year (unless the Zombie Apocalypse begins, or there's a death in the family).

[Chris Smith]

Chris, I'm in Pocatello, Idaho, but I'm in Provo several times a year (the most recent being yesterday). But I'll let you know the next time I'm down and we'll have to meet up.

Sounds like a plan!

I was sorely tempted to submit a paper for the Sunstone Symposium this year (the deadline has been extended to April 15 for those interested), but I have a family reunion in Colorado that has been in the works for a long time.

You should definitely do it next year. Sunstone is fun.

[Xander]

What Robert alludes to is nothing more than professional courtesy. It isn't as if scholars are naturally drawn to Mormon scholarship because it is compelling. They're usually brought into it via invitation. When scholars are invited to speak at BYU or any other institution it is hardly uncommon for them to accept. Is it just a coincidence that the few non-LDS scholars mentioned in Tvetdnes's article are those who have professional relationships with other LDS scholars? Mormon scholars have clearly been active in trying to "recruit" other scholars into their worldview, and perhaps the best example of this is the way Mormons have been treating Margaret Barker. They did the same thing with Jacob Neusner many years ago, who later complained that during his entire stay in Utah, he was constantly annoyed by the way the Mormon academians were constantly trying to convert him.

[kolipoki09]

What Robert alludes to is nothing more than professional courtesy. It isn't as if scholars are naturally drawn to Mormon scholarship because it is compelling. They're usually brought into it via invitation. When scholars are invited to speak at BYU or any other institution it is hardly uncommon for them to accept. Is it just a coincidence that the few non-LDS scholars mentioned in Tvetdnes's article are those who have professional relationships with other LDS scholars? Mormon scholars have clearly been active in trying to "recruit" other scholars into their worldview, and perhaps the best example of this is the way Mormons have been treating Margaret Barker. They did the same thing with Jacob Neusner many years ago, who later complained that during his entire stay in Utah, he was constantly annoyed by the way the Mormon academians were constantly trying to convert him.

I think you're correct in the sense that most non-Mormons have no interest in working with the Maxwell Institute, and that those that do are often doing so out of invitation. As an example, though I have a tremendous academic interest in Judaism, I'm not particularly drawn to read Jewish apologetic literature. But I think that characterization is better suited for the Maxwell Institute, and isn't generally accurate for non-Mormon academics who are involved in Sunstone and who have also published in Dialogue. Lawrence Foster, Jan Shipps, Sarah Barringer Gordon, Douglas Davies, and Jon Butler are just a few I could name off the top of my head that have long been involved in the LDS academic community and have avoided (for the most part) the associations you might consider "friendly" to the LDS apologetic community that Margaret Barker and Jacob Neusner have illustrated. Each of them, as far as I am aware, first engaged the academic study of Mormonism not out of invitation from LDS scholars, but because Mormonism crossed paths with elements of history and religion that they had been pursuing.

And while I think Mormon Studies as a whole will always have a niche audience, it has gained plenty of traction in the past decade. Mormon scholars are more willing to take a transparent look at history and academia is becoming more apt to look at Mormonism from different angles. Not long ago I was invited to write specifically about Mormonism for an upcoming conference exploring gender. Though I had already planned to attend, my professor (knowing that I was LDS) thought it would add some regional/cultural relevance to the conference. Ultimately, though there will always be an audience for apologetic works, Mormon Studies is moving beyond it to explore other facets that have remained largely uncharted. For me, Jaroslav Pelikan's Divine Rhetoric was a fascinating look into how rhetorical theories can shape our reading of the New Testament, and I'd love to explore how such theories might be applied to the Book of Mormon. Academically, I'm much less concerned about the truth claims of Mormonism than I am about gaining a greater understanding of it from a fundamentally different point of view - one that is accessible to believers and nonbelievers alike.