Historicity of The Book of Mormon

[LA Ute]

It's like he can't see that he's being mocked, mercilessly, not just for his beliefs, which seems like how he sees it, but because of the logical fallacies. I spent way too much time reading that, and now I just feel sorry for the man. He makes it sound like all his research does nothing but beg questions.

I have read only Phillip Jenkins' post. He says:

Israel was, incontrovertibly, there. The Nephites, just as incontrovertibly were not, and if you think they were, please start showing evidence. I’m getting tired of pleading.

I'm not a historian and I haven't been nsteeped in the details of the subject at hand, but isn't that bolded part a significant overrreach? It's 100% defensible to say there's no credible evidence of a Nephite/Book of Mormon civilization, but to say it's incontovertible that there were no Nephites seems foolish to me. It makes him look like (1) an Evangelical professor (2) at a Christian college that won't even allow Mormons on its faculty (3) with an agenda. It is incontrovertible that he is the first two, and quite plausible that he is the third also.

[Flystripper]

I have read only Phillip Jenkins' post. He says:



I'm not a historian and I haven't been nsteeped in the details of the subject at hand, but isn't that bolded part a significant overrreach? It's 100% defensible to say there's no credible evidence of a Nephite/Book of Mormon civilization, but to say it's incontovertible that there were no Nephites seems foolish to me. It makes him look like (1) an Evangelical professor (2) at a Christian college that won't even allow Mormons on its faculty (3) with an agenda. It is incontrovertible that he is the first two, and quite plausible that he is the third also.

I typed up a couple of responses because when LA Ute plays word choice police it is kinda funny, but then I reminded myself I don't care about this issue at all. Sometimes being Lloyd Christmas is pretty cool though. Am I right LA Ute?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have read only Phillip Jenkins' post. He says:

I'm not a historian and I haven't been nsteeped in the details of the subject at hand, but isn't that bolded part a significant overrreach? It's 100% defensible to say there's no credible evidence of a Nephite/Book of Mormon civilization, but to say it's incontovertible that there were no Nephites seems foolish to me. It makes him look like (1) an Evangelical professor (2) at a Christian college that won't even allow Mormons on its faculty (3) with an agenda. It is incontrovertible that he is the first two, and quite plausible that he is the third also.

Pull out an isolated statement and try to discredit the author's credibility while ignoring the main point of his essay. A brilliant illustration of a typical apologetic response. Well done!

[Solon]

Pull out an isolated statement and try to discredit the author's credibility while ignoring the main point of his essay. A brilliant illustration of a typical apologetic response. Well done!

C'mon, LA. You've read a Jenkins book. The guy is first-rate scholar; maybe a little introverted, but gracious and nice.
He's not really a Baylor guy - he's a Penn Stater. Nor is he evangelical. The dude is clinical.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post185018

He doesn't have anything against Mormons.

[Topper]

C'mon, LA. You've read a Jenkins book. The guy is first-rate scholar; maybe a little introverted, but gracious and nice.
He's not really a Baylor guy - he's a Penn Stater. Nor is he evangelical. The dude is clinical.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post185018

He doesn't have anything against Mormons.

With bona fides as that, how can LAUte argue further!

[LA Ute]

Pull out an isolated statement and try to discredit the author's credibility while ignoring the main point of his essay. A brilliant illustration of a typical apologetic response. Well done!

I'm just asking an honest question. Writers who make statements like that lose credibility in my mind. Apart from that I am not terribly interested in efforts by BYU religion professors to prove the historicity of the BofM. You BYU alums are right to be embarrassed by them.

[SeattleUte]

Shouldn't this thread and religious nuts be merged?

[SeattleUte]

I guess this is as good a place as any to post this. Bill "William" Hamblin has retired from BYU, which should give him lots of time to develop his hobby-horse riding skills, chief among them bitching and moaning about how unappreciated "Ancient Book of Mormon Studies" was at BYU. The martyr complex is strong with this one.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmat...&st_refQuery=/

While I would like to see a greater curricular place for Mormon Studies in general at BYU, I must say that after reading his screed I came away with greater respect for his dean and other university administrators.

Wow. What a big backhanded compliment he's paying to BYU.

[SeattleUte]

I am not terribly interested in efforts by BYU religion professors to prove the historicity of the BofM. You BYU alums are right to be embarrassed by them.

I think what he is saying is that BYU is against this sort of thing and will crush any professor who tries it. Hamblin has this in common with legitimate academics: he is opposed to lack of academic freedom at BYU!

[Clark Addison]

Shouldn't this thread and religious nuts be merged?

That thread is for personal interactions with religious nuts, by you or your family members!

Also, that is a very general thread, for general topics and experiences; this is a very specific one. Would you go into the Boise State game thread and say "This should be merged with the BYU 2015 season thread."? No, you wouldn't.

[SeattleUte]

I'm just asking an honest question. Writers who make statements like that lose credibility in my mind. Apart from that I am not terribly interested in efforts by BYU religion professors to prove the historicity of the BofM. You BYU alums are right to be embarrassed by them.

LA, did you read Hamblin's disclosures that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is not regarded as legitimate anywhere including BYU (thus, if you want to publish something on Ancient Book of Mormon studies in an academic journal including one sponsored by BYU you can't)? Nobody outside of BOM apologists thinks it's an overreach to say, "Israel was, incontrovertibly, there. The Nephites, just as incontrovertibly were not."

That's all I'm saying about this because as I've said before, Book of Mormon historicity is beneath legitimate topic of debate. Why is Jenkins wasting his time? His very engagement in this subject is what's harming his reputation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm just asking an honest question. Writers who make statements like that lose credibility in my mind. Apart from that I am not terribly interested in efforts by BYU religion professors to prove the historicity of the BofM. You BYU alums are right to be embarrassed by them.

Ha. Knock it off. Nobody's buying that.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm just asking an honest question. Writers who make statements like that lose credibility in my mind. Apart from that I am not terribly interested in efforts by BYU religion professors to prove the historicity of the BofM. You BYU alums are right to be embarrassed by them.

An invitation to a wild goose chase.

[LA Ute]

Nobody outside of BOM apologists thinks it's an overreach to say, "Israel was, incontrovertibly, there. The Nephites, just as incontrovertibly were not."

Hey, your statement looks like an overreach to me.

Seriously, we all learn in Composition 101 to be careful about assuming too great a burden of proof. We are also taught that it's unwise to attempt to prove a negative. Dr. Jenkins did both. I'm not defending the other guy -- Rappleye? -- and haven't even read his stuff. All I know about Hamblin is that he teaches at BYU, he's a friend and/or ally of Dan Peterson's (I think) and he gets lots of derision here. I'm not terribly interested in all that FARMS/Maxwell Institute intrigue and know almost nothing about it, other than that it exists and some people are unhappy with what's going on there.

[pellegrino]

I have read only Phillip Jenkins' post. He says:



I'm not a historian and I haven't been nsteeped in the details of the subject at hand, but isn't that bolded part a significant overrreach? It's 100% defensible to say there's no credible evidence of a Nephite/Book of Mormon civilization, but to say it's incontovertible that there were no Nephites seems foolish to me. It makes him look like (1) an Evangelical professor (2) at a Christian college that won't even allow Mormons on its faculty (3) with an agenda. It is incontrovertible that he is the first two, and quite plausible that he is the third also.

LA, if you're going to make assumptions like that without doing even a cursory internet search, then it appears you're the fool.

Jenkins was raised Catholic and later became Episcopalian (which is like Catholic-lite)
He has a very distinguished academic career spanning decades at Penn State.
He has only been at Baylor for two years as an honorary chair.


Let go of your biases and you'll be better able to see those of others. Jenkins isn't any more biased than the average academic, just brutally honest about facts and the methodology used to interpret those facts. His statement isn't all that outrageous if you leave your own biases at the door and realize that your life has meaning outside of how the BoM is interpreted.