Do Mormon Scholars Ever Debate Secular Scholars?

[jskains]

I think that is a bit like "Do Paraspsychologists debate with psychologists", or "Do Theologists debate with Astrophysicists".

I think both have different goals and different levels of acceptance on particular subjects that make any real debate impossible.

I also think examining LDS claims through a completely scholarly set of lenses is wrong.

JMS

[Jeff K.]

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?

I don't recall Christ winning any prizes given by men. The Romans certainly didn't give him a prize, then neither did the Jews. If you feel legitimacy is established by gifts given by men, then Christ simply cannot be your cup of tea. As for the rest of us, we do not measure the strength of truth by a prize given by men, man has often changed the definition of what is valued. You of course are free to enter into that world, it is your agency. But for the rest of us, we will follow the man who won no Nobel Prizes, no not one. And yet, scholars study him more than any other single individual.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Sounds very worthwhile.

I recall a panel at BYU back in the 60s including Hugh Nibley and William Barrett (the existentialist from NYU) which discussed the existentialist dilemma, perhaps best exemplified in Sartre's play "No Exit." Nibley agreed with Barrett as to the nature of the dilemma, but asserted that the Mormons have an exit, a glorious one. Such friendly exchanges can be very informative, particularly for impressionable undergrads.