What is your opinion of FARMS?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Just like one can predict the opinions of those who've already made up their minds, namely those of the disaffected of SU and Taq Man. Neither of you are any better than they, you're just the opposite side of the coin, that is all.

Blindness in any variety is ugly.

You're spouting a lot of cliches. Nobody but FARMS who takes an empirical approach to Mormonism's claims reaches the conclusions FARMS does. The academic world takes for granted what Taq Man and I believe. The other day I asked for a single example--just one--of a scholar at a reputable university that has even thought the question of whether the Book of Mormon was actually an English translation of an ancient record was even worth asking. Not one name was provided. I renew that challenge. Since you think our minds are closed, Archea, give us the kind of authority we regard as worth spending any time on to consider with an open mind. Come on. See if you can. If you think our minds are closed give us someone other than Nibley and FARMS to weigh.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You're spouting a lot of cliches. Nobody but FARMS who takes an empirical approach to Mormonism's claims reaches the conclusions FARMS does. The academic world takes for granted what Taq Man and I believe. The other day I asked for a single example--just one--of a scholar at a reputable university that has even thought the question of whether the Book of Mormon was actually an English translation of an ancient record was even worth asking. Not one name was provided. I renew that challenge. Since you think our minds are closed, Archea, give us the kind of authority we regard as worth spending any time on to consider with an open mind. Come on. See if you can. If you think our minds are closed give us someone other than Nibley and FARMS to weigh.

Has a single scholarly authority even examined the BoM, who wasn't LDS? The answer is no. So if no nonLDS look at it, you have your answer.

We aren't important enough and your retorts are lower than cliches, that's why cliches demolish subcliches. I use only the most modest of weapons against those unthinking retorts.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Has a single scholarly authority even examined the BoM, who wasn't LDS? The answer is no. So if no nonLDS look at it, you have your answer.

We aren't important enough and your retorts are lower than cliches, that's why cliches demolish subcliches. I use only the most modest of weapons against those unthinking retorts.

They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question. There are plenty of academics specializing in antiquity out there searching for a worthy subject in which to make their name or fame. A real ancient record written in an ancient Middle Eastern language discovered in America would be beyond important; it would be earth shattering. Even laying aside the absence of the original artifiact there's nothing here that would even put a legitimate, objective scholar on inquiry notice that he should be examining the B of M text for evidence that it's an ancient record. That no one has thought this worthwhile to do says it all.

I categorically reject your assertion that LDS who have considered the question are "scholarly authorities" in any sense.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Look a few of the articles have been published in reputable journals. A few have been cited. But you know that, but choose to use the dishonest form of argumentation by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I know no such thing. Give me a citation, Archea. I bet you no FARMS work product has been published in any "reputable journal." Show me where FARMS work has been cited in "reputable journals." I don't believe it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question. There are plenty of academics specializing in antiquity out there searching for a worthy subject in which to make their name or fame. A real ancient record written in an ancient Middle Eastern language discovered in America would be beyond important; it would be earth shattering. Even laying aside the absence of the original artifiact there's nothing here that would even put a legitimate, objective scholar on inquiry notice that he should be examining the B of M text for evidence that it's an ancient record. That no one has thought this worthwhile to do says it all.

I categorically reject your assertion that LDS who have considered the question are "scholarly authorities" in any sense.



I know no such thing. Give me a citation, Archea. I bet you no FARMS work product has been published in any "reputable journal." Show me where FARMS work has been cited in "reputable journals." I don't believe it.

If there is nothing to examine, why do you make such a big deal of it?

The LDS Church isn't for you. We got it the first zillion times you've brought it up and we get it now. Time to move on.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question.

You were building a decent case for your opinion until you hit this. Nice circular argument there, SU.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

You were building a decent case for your opinion until you hit this. Nice circular argument there, SU.

You tell me then. Why hasn't any real scholar cared enough to even formally address whether it comes from an ancient record? To even ask the question. Are you going to tell me it's because Mormonism is such a small sect?

My explanation is self-evidently accurate, it's not circular. My question answers itself. Do universities study astrology? Why not?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You tell me then. Why hasn't any real scholar cared enough to even formally address whether it comes from an ancient record? To even ask the question. Are you going to tell me it's because Mormonism is such a small sect?

My explanation is self-evidently accurate, it's not circular. My question answers itself. Do universities study astrology? Why not?

Charles Anthon said it was ancient record.... that's good enough for me

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You tell me then. Why hasn't any real scholar cared enough to even formally address whether it comes from an ancient record? To even ask the question. Are you going to tell me it's because Mormonism is such a small sect?

My explanation is self-evidently accurate, it's not circular. My question answers itself. Do universities study astrology? Why not?

"Self-evidently accurate"? Heh. I'm going to use that in my next heated debate when someone challenges my assertions.

"Don't question me, sonny. My statements are self-evidently accurate!"

I don't have any idea about which scholars, if any, have studied the Book of Mormon's potential as an ancient record. But if you're going to make such a sweeping statement, you'd better be able to back it up.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't have any idea about which scholars, if any, have studied the Book of Mormon's potential as an ancient record. But if you're going to make such a sweeping statement, you'd better be able to back it up.

That's precisely what I'm doing. I'm aware of none, and am quite convinced there are none, so given the impossbility of proving a negative I am asking the rhetorical question and asking others such as yourselves to prove me wrong. My conclusion that this work has not been undertaken because it has not been thought worthwhile to undertake is a reasoable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Why don't universities study intelligent design? Is it circular to say none do because it's on its face not science?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question. There are plenty of academics specializing in antiquity out there searching for a worthy subject in which to make their name or fame. A real ancient record written in an ancient Middle Eastern language discovered in America would be beyond important; it would be earth shattering. Even laying aside the absence of the original artifiact there's nothing here that would even put a legitimate, objective scholar on inquiry notice that he should be examining the B of M text for evidence that it's an ancient record. That no one has thought this worthwhile to do says it all.

I categorically reject your assertion that LDS who have considered the question are "scholarly authorities" in any sense.



I know no such thing. Give me a citation, Archea. I bet you no FARMS work product has been published in any "reputable journal." Show me where FARMS work has been cited in "reputable journals." I don't believe it.

I will look up some of the FARMS articles on a few issues that have been published in reputable biblical journals.

You categorically rejecting it means nothing.

You are capable, more than capable lawyer. You are a capable Roman historian and a gifted author, but your understanding of LDS principles and its history as well as scholarship surrounding LDS issues is embarrassing naive and simpleton.

I can anticipate your retort when I cite the articles which have been published.