What is your opinion of FARMS?

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have not demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the historical underpinnnings of the Old and New Testaments, facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Coptic. You have not demonstrated the inner workings of the Documentary Hypothesis, a knowledge of archaeology, a thorough understanding of Greek philosophy and the outgrowths through the Catholic Church, a working knowledge of the textual criticism, William James, Gadamer, linguistic analysis, professional historian standards, or anything to indicate you are necessarily classically trained in empiricism.

I don't qualify under all those requirement, though I'm trying. Unless you can do that, it is a misrepresentation that you are devoted to logic and order. Your study is as haphazard as the next person, not a logical and thorough canvassing of the field. So spare us with your logical declarations. Other than reciting the rote words of disaffection, demonstrate your eruditiion in academic fields that matter.

Spare me the I'm smarter than you are so shut up routine. I try to read books written by scholars with sound reputations (Quinn and Compton for starters). I take their arguments at face value, I read the footnotes and consider the sources. I also read commentary by people who make well reasoned arguments (Bob McCue for one though I know you think he is a hack Archaea) It was the facts and reason that led me away even though the authors (Quinn and Compton) came to different conclusions than I did. If you can recommend a pro mormon read on these subjects that does not put in the "however, if you really want to know the truth get down on your knees" disclaimer I would be happy to read it.

I have never offered my opinions as a great learned scholar, only as my opinions. I am not swayed by feelings just facts and I let the chips fall where they may.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand but once one lays the intellectual card down, it seems you need some credentials.

I am not an intellectual because I have no mastery of those fields, and probably never will. Yet I intend to continue my discovery of philosophy, theology, archaeology, linguistics and language to aid in my understanding of the ancient world, its workings and impact upon us today.

I just see a lot of pseudo-intellectualism, guys who claim to atomicists or empiricists without credentials or work.

I defined what I meant when I said intellectual. Go back and read it. It was no claim to scholarly superiority which seems to be how you have taken it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

The Dean of the Harvard Business school, Kim Clark, now President of BYU-I.

Richard Bushman, professor at Columbia, certainly a rising star in academia.

Henry Eyring, father of the current member of the twelve. Biography here:
http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/heyring.html

David Bednar, current member of the twelve, comes from a teaching background-- was recognized as the outstanding teacher at the University of Arkansas and received the Burlington Northern Foundation Award for Excellence in Teaching. He has twice been the recipient of the Outstanding Teacher Award in the College of Business Administration.

Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond.

Let me know if you want me to find more.

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 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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

and what was Fawn trained in again? Besides being a kept woman as her husband philandered?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

My understanding was that SU was asking 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." I have given a list of scholars from reputable universities that accept the Book of Mormon as being true. If he's molded his question into something else, as is typical of him, he may ask another question.

This is disingenuous. I most emphatically did not ask for names of LDS people who have succeeded in academic fields and because they happen to be LDS presumably they believe the Book of Mormon to be "true" (whatever that means anymore; for all I know Bushman and Palmer see the Book of Mormon much the same way since they are both purportedly of the "New Mormon History" school of thought, according to Pelagius).

AA, I bet you see your career path leading to FARMS. You do have a gift for sophistry.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

Perhaps because they're not LDS nor do they have an axe to grind?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and what was Fawn trained in again? Besides being a kept woman as her husband philandered?

This of course is beside the point.

Brodie like Bushman is JS's biographer. She did specifically address whether the B of M came from an ancient record but from a circumstantial evidence standpoint. Brodie is actually a good foil to Bushman. He did not address the Book of Mormon's authenticity in the same way that Brodie did, despite that he wrote a competing biography of JS. For various reasons, however, Brodie does not meet my criteria. I will say this, though, she said about all there is to say on the subject from a secular standpoint.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Brodie like Bushman is JS's biographer. She did specifically address whether the B of M came from an ancient record but from a circumstantial evidence standpoint. Brodie is actually a good foil to Bushman. He did not address the Book of Mormon's authenticity in the same way that Brodie did, despite that he wrote a competing biography of JS.

So, are we to understand that you finally got around to reading Bushman's biography?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Perhaps because they're not LDS nor do they have an axe to grind?

I guess so. My point is that if there was something to talk about an objective outside with the relevant qualificaitions would have taken up the question.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So, are we to understand that you finally got around to reading Bushman's biography?

Tell me how my characterization is wrong.