What is your opinion of FARMS?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Are you dismissing the whole idea of apologetics then?

In the sense it's dressed up as scholarship, yes. Just my opinion, but an opinion I consider to be informed. Like any who write apology, FARMS' research is hobbled by the belief that the BoM is "true." It's like a math problem, where they know the right answer and are now trying to "show their work" justifying their response.

I don't condemn individual contributors, since they're all over the place. I personally find Sorenson's work to be nearly ridiculous, but Peterson (who I have met numerous times) is a very good Islamic scholar (not the ancient world, either, I might note). Welch, who I used to know quite well, seemed disenchanted with some of the Foundation's choices of projects, and, IMO, when the program began accepting funding from the BYU it lost whatever possibility it had for acceptance as legitimate scholarship. Regardless of the quality of the work, the association with the BY robs it of any semblance of independent voice.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tell me how my characterization is wrong.

I can't. I haven't read Brodie's book yet.

You didn't answer my question.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The best thing for the Church is Quinn. I've been critical of him and still will, but as I read more of his stuff, his work is better than I thought. He is also free to push the envelope.

I wish he could get a job, because we need that level of professionalism to challenge people. Most of the FARMS guys are lazy and unchallenged.

Quinn almost got a job at Utah after Dean May died. There was a big stink, however, since he carries a lot of social baggage. In the end (so I heard), the official line was that he was penalized (and denied the job) because he had published with Signature Books instead of more "scholarly" publishers. Sounded like bs to me.

[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?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You can relax. It is a very tiny part of the overall research effort at BYU. And FARMS- or BYU Studies-type publications are not counted as peer-reviewed publications in most departments when considering advancement in rank.

I suppose I should clarify that my primary gripe with FARMS stems from its dealings with the BoM.

It's not about advancement or rank (for me, at least), but about people pulling the BoM into the academic ring. IMO, despite the most ardent efforts of FARMS, the BoM would be hard-pressed to withstand attacks from secular, scholarly literary, historical, and archaeological critics. Sure, FARMS finds some interesting tidbits to discuss, but I think the scholarly evidence is overwhelmingly against the BoM being written in the Americas between 600 BC and AD 400.

I'm not saying it's true or untrue - that's a matter of faith and personal opinion - but FARMS' publications on the BoM are picking a fight they can't win. Again, if they want to do it, then they should be able to. But it's disingenuous to their LDS readers who are interested in the ancient world.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I can't. I haven't read Brodie's book yet.

You didn't answer my question.

I haven't read Bushman's book.

But you have, and you and I both know he didn't purport to address whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient record.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

We are making different points. You are arguing that they are useless (or worse) due to lack of publication in scientific journals. I am saying that that is not a fair or necessary metric. Their objective is to publish apologetic literature. Period. They have never claimed otherwise. If that doesn't float your boat, so be it.

This is a telling admission, and I almost completely agree with you here. But some of us don't regard apologetics as morally neutral and just a matter of taste, like science fiction. Some of us are offended in a moral dimension by the whole idea of religious apologetics; we see it as unavoidably nothing more than parlor tricks and consciously so, though sold as passing for truth, not as illusion for entertainment or even philosphical enrichment. Does it matter that people have a real or distorted view of our ancient roots? I suppose a case could be made for it not mattering. tooblue would probably say there's no such as real or distorted; it's all "a game" anyway, a house of mirrors, whether you're doing scholarly, empirical work or apologetics. Whatever floats your boat. In my value system truth matters, is worth seeking, and just because it's truth, though the search never ends.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is a telling admission, and I almost completely agree with you here. But some of us don't regard apologetics as morally neutral and just a matter of taste, like science fiction. Some of us are offended in a moral dimension by the whole idea of religious apologetics; we see it as unavoidably nothing more than parlor tricks and consciously so, though sold as passing for truth, not as illusion for entertainment or even philosphical enrichment. Does it matter that people have a real or distorted view of our ancient roots? I suppose a case could be made for it not mattering. tooblue would probably say there's no such as real or distorted; it's all "a game" anyway, a house of mirrors, whether you're doing scholarly, empirical work or apologetics. Whatever floats your boat. In my value system truth matters, is worth seeking, and just because it's truth, though the search never ends.

Apologetics is as old as religion.

Truth, to quote a tired axiom, is in the eye of the beholder.

Without apologetics, one would not have Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, Ghazali, Avicenna, Averro and many others.

Truth is important, I submit, even to the apologist, it's just a different flavor, not always the pure empirical flavor, you inted to cherish.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If you claim Clark, Eyring, or Bushman has addressed professionally whether the Book of Mormon is an English translation of an ancient record please provide the citation. Bushman is Joseph's Smith's biographer. He did not address whether the Book of Mormon came from an ancient record. He in fact skirted the issue.

Givens is the closest one to being what I'm talking about. But he's really a literature professor and cultural critic. He has no training in ancient texts or languages or exegesis.

All these men admittedly have achieved high status in their respective secular fields. But they have not purported to address professionally whether the Book of Mormon is an English translation of an ancient record.

They are members of the church and donate ten percent of their income based on their belief that the Book of Mormon is an English translation of an ancient text. Are you going to claim they believe otherwise? I'd say the burden's on you to prove it.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They are also LDS and thus are highly motivated for personal reasons to address certain aspects of the Book of Mormon such as its impact on American history or culture.

What I'm really asking is why nobody in the relevant fields who is not LDS with an axe to grind has thought it worthwhile to address the Book of Mormon's purported ancient source.

Aha, now we're on to the next question. Now that we've dismissed the previous list as incredible because Palmer didn't believe the book's claim (and therefore none of the scholars do, apparently), you now require that they not be LDS. Beautiful.

I give you Thomas Finley, an expert in Northwest Semitic languages, specifically Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian; he wrote a chapter in the book, The New Mormon Challenge, arguing that the Book of Mormon cannot be a Near Eastern work. I suppose you will disqualify him because he also wrote articles on the Bible, and is thus not credible?

Any number of articles on the Book of Mormon and DNA should be sufficient for you, too. Start with Ellen Levy-Coffman, "A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence," Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 2005, 1:12-33.

Finally, Coe, Michael D (Summer 1973). "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.

Let me know what the next version of the question is. Maybe I'll still feel like playing your games.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Are you dismissing the whole idea of apologetics then?

Absolutely, it's utter garbage and harmful. See my prior post on this.