Bob Crockett Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) What is "pseudoscholarship" except scholarship which which you don't believe. Not, is it peer reviewed? Does it meet peer standards? Does it appear in professional journals? Or, here, it appears in a faith-based journal and is designed to increase faith, not the understanding of science. Is James Talmage's "House of the Lord" pseudoscholarship? Or is it interpretative history applied to religious faith? Or, even, is John Sorenson's Codex "pseudoscholarship?" I might not like it, but it is very scholarly, draws on secular proofs, had some level of peer review and is published by a university press. I just think, John, "pseudoscholarship" is a word to paint us all as fools, using invented words which really, in the end, mean nothing. MormonPseudo Scholarship. Edited August 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
jkwilliams Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 What is "pseudoscholarship" except scholarship which which you don't believe. Not, is it peer reviewed? Does it meet peer standards? Does it appear in professional journals? Or, here, it appears in a faith-based journal and is designed to increase faith, not the understanding of science. Is James Talmage's "House of the Lord" pseudoscholarship? Or is it interpretative history applied to religious faith? Or, even, is John Sorenson's Codex "pseudoscholarship?" I might not like it, but it is very scholarly, draws on secular proofs, had some level of peer review and is published by a university press. I just think, John, "pseudoscholarship" is a word to paint us all as fools, using invented words which really, in the end, mean nothing. MormonPseudo Scholarship. Not at all, Bob. The problem isn't in trying to bolster faith. It's the conflation of scholarship and faith. As I mentioned, Clark tries to establish a list of points of convergence that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have known about. Unfortunately, a cursory look at what was known in Joseph Smith's time shows that he could have and should have known those things. So, is it OK to make unsupportable assertions and leave out contrary evidence, as long as it's in the service of faith? As much as you'd like to change the subject to my character, this is about how scholarship differs from pseudoscholarship.
canard78 Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 Good point, but one can take it too far, since it is proof that human voyages to the New World took place over an enormously long period and brought many biological items which could not have been brought in any other way. It is only indirect evidence, but bear in mind that hardly anyone even accepted the notion that such voyages ever took place in pre-Columbian times. Even the Vikings were denied their due until archeological proof was discovered. -snip- Do you mean "hardly anyone (in Joseph Smith's day) accepted the notion that such voyages ever took places in pre-Columbian times..."? If not, I'm not really sure what the relevance of that statement. If you did mean that, then perhaps the following might be of interest to you:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/20/2/S00004-500d8c2988222JBMRS20-1-3NationExtinct.pdf Samuel Mitchell, visited by Martin Harris in 1828, was a strong advocate (along with several other people in Joseph's day) of multiple pre-Colombian contacts and migrations. From this broad debate about the origins of the native americans came a diverse suggestion of the origins. In addition to the theories of Jews or other lost tribes there were Malays, Tartars, Australasians, Polynesians, Scandinavians... and even a Welsh Prince. Some of those on the list have even been vindicated. Australasians/polynesian DNA recently found. Scandinavian settlements. I can't say much for the Celts though. 1
Bob Crockett Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Not at all, Bob. The problem isn't in trying to bolster faith. It's the conflation of scholarship and faith. As I mentioned, Clark tries to establish a list of points of convergence that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have known about. Unfortunately, a cursory look at what was known in Joseph Smith's time shows that he could have and should have known those things. So, is it OK to make unsupportable assertions and leave out contrary evidence, as long as it's in the service of faith? As much as you'd like to change the subject to my character, this is about how scholarship differs from pseudoscholarship. I think you're making too much of my mild comment that you're an unbeliever and wasting your time here. Thanks for exaggerating my off-hand comment as a way of demonization. "Unsupportable assertions" and "leave out contrary evidence" don't fairly describe Clark's article, but dispute is in the eye of the beholder. Edited August 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I think you're making too much of my mild comment that you're an unbeliever and wasting your time here. Way to exaggerate my off-hand comment as a way of demonization. "Unsupportable assertions" and "leave out contrary evidence" don't fairly describe Clark's article, but dispute is in the eye of the beholder.Exaggeration is in the eye of the beholder. I have explained exactly how Clark made unsupportable assertions and left out pertinent information. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) ............................................................................... here's a good example of what I would consider Mormon pseudoscholarship. On the surface, it seems like a bunch of "bullseyes," but it depends on ignoring the context within which the Book of Mormon appeared, so it ends up painting the bullseye around the arrow.https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/20079/18639 .Professor John E. Clark (PhD Univ of Michigan 1994) is one of the most experienced Mormon archeologists, having spent most of his career running the BYU NWAF (based in Chiapas, Mexico) and excavating nearly continually in Mesoamerica. He is well respected by this non-Mormon colleagues and certainly has not been accused of "pseudo-scholarship" until now by you -- who knows nothing of him or of archeology. Do you have anything other than knee-jerk reactions to a popular article, when you have never read any of his detailed excavation reports?Edited to add: just saw your subsequent review of Clark's article, and want to thank you for the detail, even though you depend heavily on Vogel. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/vintage-runtu-book-of-mormon-evidence/ . Another good example off the top of my head is The Jesus Mysteries.This 1999 book by non-Mormons Freke & Gandy may indeed be pseudo-scholarship, and has received bad reviews from other pseudo-scholars. I glanced over it years ago but didn't think it worth my time. That said, I'm not sure why you think the stuff I fobbed off on you is sillier than Book of Mormon apologetics. In both cases, you have fantastical claims being bolstered by what passes for scholarship.So Mormon apologetics gets the automatic "pseudo-scholarship" label across the board from a non-scholar, but without any specifics. What else is new? Edited August 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 4
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Professor John E. Clark (PhD Univ of Michigan 1994) is one of the most experienced Mormon archeologists, having spent most of his career running the BYU NWAF (based in Chiapas, Mexico) and excavating nearly continually in Mesoamerica. He is well respected by this non-Mormon colleagues and certainly has not been accused of "pseudo-scholarship" until now by you -- who knows nothing of him or of archeology. Do you have anything other than knee-jerk reactions to a popular article, when you have never read any of his detailed excavation reports? This 1999 book by non-Mormons Freke & Gandy may indeed be pseudo-scholarship, and has received bad reviews from other pseudo-scholars. I glanced over it years ago but didn't think it worth my time. So Mormon apologetics gets the automatic "pseudo-scholarship" label across the board from a non-scholar, but without any specifics. What else is new?I have said nothing about his work or credentials. I explained exactly why that article is pseudoscholarship. Nothing automatic about it.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I should repeat that the problems with Clark's article have nothing to do with ancient America but with his discussion of frontier America circa 1830.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) .............................................................................................................So all you have is evidences that convinces those who already believe it. The evidence doesn't convince a lay-doubter (or "yokel" as you so affectionately name us) and the evidence also doesn't convince non-Mormon scholars who are far more qualified than I am to have an opinion.I did not term you a "yokel." Here is the actual context of my one-time use of that term in this thread:QuoteYou're right that the location sets restrictions and limitations. I get that. I'm not saying there's some cover-up happening. I'm sure that any archaeologist worth his or her salt would be delighted to be the first one to announce to the world that they had excavated the remains of a Jewish settlement in the Americas. When the Viking settlement was discovered there was no attempt to suppress the find. I'm not suggesting anyone is being deceptive whatsoever. I agree that the Americas are relatively unexcavated. They are not, however, entirely unexcavated. Your mention of a crime scene reminded me of an illustrated cartoon book that my parents owned. It was a book about the Book of Mormon being on trial (I think the actual book had a mouth, arms, legs... anyone remember that one?).I replied:Yes, a yokel who knew nothing of archeology or of crime scene investigation (there were no real CSIs in his day) did write such a book. His case was of no value, and he later apostatized. False premises, false conclusions. Does this mean that you are identifying with the Mormon author of that book? Are you defending his case, which was built on pseudo-scholarship? Are you taking issue with my description of his book? You claim to have read it. Edited August 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I have said nothing about his work or credentials. I explained exactly why that article is pseudoscholarship. Nothing automatic about it.Your immediate reply to me was automatic and did not include any detail -- something I have come to expect from you. Only afterward did you include citation of your review, and when I saw it I thanked you for it. That is how a real discussion proceeds. Too bad you don't accept that.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Your immediate reply to me was automatic and did not include any detail -- something I have come to expect from you. Only afterward did you include citation of your review, and when I saw it I thanked you for it. That is how a real discussion proceeds. Too bad you don't accept that. I apologize that I didn't see your edit until just now. I should clarify that I wrote that piece in a couple of hours, and yes, it did rely on Vogel, but no one has ever disputed what Vogel said or how I used the sources. I take it you find Vogel to be suspect, or something. As for my credentials, I'm not bothered that you think my BA makes me unqualified. BYU thought differently.
sunstoned Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) I have said nothing about his work or credentials. I explained exactly why that article is pseudoscholarship. Nothing automatic about it.John Clark is respected archaeologists. However, is BoM writings, including is speculations on BoM locations is not considered part of the archaeology academic and scientific community of work. Most professionals would consider this a hobby at best. To be clear, there is no support for the BoM that has been uncovered in the Americas. None. Apologists and many on this forum are living in a dream world where evidence consists of phrases and coincidences taken from the text of the BoM. This is not evidence in the real world. If you think I am wrong, then show me something that was dug up out of real new world dirt that supports the BoM. This should not be that hard considering the million men armies equipped with bronze/iron age weaponry and the massive support that would be needed. Edited August 4, 2015 by sunstoned
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 John Clark is respected archaeologists. However, is BoM writings, including is speculations on BoM locations is not considered part of the archaeology academic and scientific community of work. Most professionals would consider this a hobby at best. To be clear, there is no support for the BoM that has been uncovered in the Americas. None. Apologists and many on this forum are living in a dream world where evidence consists of phrases and coincidences taken from the text of the BoM. This is not evidence in the real world. If you think I am wrong, then show me something that was dug up out of real new world dirt that supports the BoM. This should not be that hard considering the million men armies equipped with browse/iron age weaponry. That was Jenkins's repeated request, and it went unanswered by Hamblin. Years ago one of my history professors at BYU said that anyone who said there was archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon was lying. Nothing I've seen in the years since then makes me doubt what he said.
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 To be clear, there is no support for the BoM that has been uncovered in the Americas. None. Apologists and many on this forum are living in a dream world where evidence consists of phrases and coincidences taken from the text of the BoM. This is not evidence in the real world. If you think I am wrong, then show me something that was dug up out of real new world dirt that supports the BoM. This should not be that hard considering the million men armies equipped with bronze/iron age weaponry and the massive support that would be needed. Stubbs.
sunstoned Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 That was Jenkins's repeated request, and it went unanswered by Hamblin. Years ago one of my history professors at BYU said that anyone who said there was archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon was lying. Nothing I've seen in the years since then makes me doubt what he said.Your professor was correct. I think it would be better for the church if apologist would just accept the premise that the BoM is a spiritual/religious text. The only problem is all of the past prophets who have proclaimed it to be literal. But given that there is a president set by the essays of throwing past prophets under the bus, this shouldn't be a big problem to overcome.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 ???? Google "uto-aztecan hebrew." Brian Stubbs is the only hit you'll get.
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Google "uto-aztecan hebrew." Brian Stubbs is the only hit you'll get. Or you could read the huge post I wrote about Brian Stubbs' research on the preceding page
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Or you could read the huge post I wrote about Brian Stubbs' research on the preceding page I've read Stubbs's stuff and remain unimpressed. Obviously you feel differently. There's a reason he's the only person claiming a link between uto-aztecan and Hebrew, and it's the same reason he's not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals.
sunstoned Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Google "uto-aztecan hebrew." Brian Stubbs is the only hit you'll get. I just checked. More BoM "text" pseudo-jabberings. No real world, dug up from the ground archaeology evidence. My challenge stands. Show some real world evidence. Something that would pass peer review and would be accepted in a refereed scientific journal.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I just checked. More BoM "text" pseudo-jabberings. No real world, dug up from the ground archaeology evidence. My challenge stands. Show some real world evidence. Something that would pass peer review and would be accepted in a refereed scientific journal. Yep. Hamblin couldn't do it, so I'm not expecting someone else to do so.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I apologize that I didn't see your edit until just now. I should clarify that I wrote that piece in a couple of hours, and yes, it did rely on Vogel, but no one has ever disputed what Vogel said or how I used the sources. I take it you find Vogel to be suspect, or something. As for my credentials, I'm not bothered that you think my BA makes me unqualified. BYU thought differently. I know Vogel personally, and have had a variety of discussions with him over the years, in person and on this board. We both attended California State University at Long Beach at differing times, me studying archeology, him history (in which he received his BA). His tendentious work has been reviewed by several scholars: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/2/1/S00028-5176d3dc1e5fa28Christensen.pdf , and http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/16/1/S00014-5176af6e1d62a14Christensen.pdf , and http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/17/2/S00009-5176aab65b7719Goff.pdf , and http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/ . I also have a BA from BYU, but in political science, which doesn't do me much good in anthropology and archeology -- both of which I studied extensively elsewhere (UCLA, CSULB, Hebrew Univ.). 2
sunstoned Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Yep. Hamblin couldn't do it, so I'm not expecting someone else to do so.I agree, and I think the Q15 are catching on that hard line apologies do not produce positive results. IMO this is why Hamblin, DCP and others of the old guard were dismissed.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I know Vogel personally, and have had a variety of discussions with him over the years, in person and on this board. We both attended California State University at Long Beach at differing times, me studying archeology, him history (in which he received his BA). His tendentious work has been reviewed by several scholars: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/2/1/S00028-5176d3dc1e5fa28Christensen.pdf , and http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/16/1/S00014-5176af6e1d62a14Christensen.pdf , and http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/17/2/S00009-5176aab65b7719Goff.pdf , and http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/ . I also have a BA from BYU, but in political science, which doesn't do me much good in anthropology and archeology -- both of which I studied extensively elsewhere (UCLA, CSULB, Hebrew Univ.). My undergrad degree (well, the Latin American Studies one) required me to take a number of anthropology and history classes regarding ancient America. As for Vogel, slamming his "tendentious work" in general doesn't address the specifics of my response to Clark. As I said, Clark himself has backed off from the "how could Joseph have known?" aspects of his article.
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I've read Stubbs's stuff and remain unimpressed. Obviously you feel differently. There's a reason he's the only person claiming a link between uto-aztecan and Hebrew, and it's the same reason he's not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals. Again, please read what I wrote. If you're referring to the tidbits he's published for FARMS, etc., then you haven't read Stubbs' research. As he indicated early this year, he is going to go to press soon with his 400-page volume which is intended for a professional audience. It's not some feel-good proposal to make us feel better about the Book of Mormon. It's a massive, tremendously-detailed, professionally-presented compilation of very compelling linguistic evidence.
Recommended Posts