Why Are Lds Scholars Dismissed?

[livy111us]

To be honest, non-LDS look at Mormons as cooks who put their faith in something so unbelievably fantastic that cannot possibly be supported by fact. Everyone has seen this and as an apologist, I try to correct them by giving them real scholarship and answers which support our view. By doing that, they can actually look at our faith more objectively. But, this is hard to do when some LDS give them a reason to believe we have to lie and distort to support our view.

Last week, Non-LDS scholar Alice Kehoe who appeared in the Meldrum influenced video "Lost Civilizations of North America" has wrote a review explaining her experiences with the producers of the video which supposedly supports The Book of Mormon. She stated:

"In an approach familiar to readers of RNCSE, the producers of the DVD, Barry McLerran

and Rick Stout, interviewed researchers with expertise on North American archeology—

Terry Barnhart, Kenneth Feder, Sonya Atalay, Deborah Bolnick, Bradley Lepper, Alice Kehoe,

and Roger Kennedy—at length. Then they skillfully edited the interviews to make it

appear that we agreed with the film’s thesis: that various artifacts shown in the film gave

evidence supporting the Mormon story. The producers sent the scholars a rough version

of the film in March 2010, provoking immediate e-mail demands for rectification of this

misrepresentation. Two of the younger scholars contacted legal counsel at their universities

about possible lawsuits, should the film be released with distortions of their interviews. What especially disturbed the scholars was that the connection to the Mormon legend had not been disclosed; the producers had said the film would be about appreciating First Nations’ achievements."

Why do some LDS feel it necessary to be dishonest in order to find "evidence" for their faith? What good will this do? Anyone who knows anything about the Hopewell, DNA, etc... realize that it is far from the truth and it strengthens their preconceived ideas that we have nothing to back up our faith. How does that benefit missionary work?

She continues:

"The Lost Civilizations of North America DVD can be ignored since it misrepresents reputable

interpretations of Midwest archaeological data—except, perhaps, by those interested

in the persistence of pseudoarcheological claims about the cultures and peoples of North

America before European colonization. It is unfortunate that Glenn Beck did not use his

forum to emphasize the true charge that Manifest Destiny propaganda fed the racist denigration

of America’s past and its First Nations citizens, a story well told in Roger Kennedy’s

Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization (1994).

Readers interested in archaeological controversies, serious or pseudoscientific, will enjoy

my Controversies in Archaeology (2008)."

You can read the entire review here:

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/23/14

Other reviews of the DVD by scholars in the video can be read here:

http://petra-archaeology.com/statement-about-the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-dvd.html

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/12/29/dvd-stirs-up-archaeological-spat.html

Do you believe that lying for the Lord is beneficial to missionary work?

[Bob Crockett]

Do you believe that lying for the Lord is beneficial to missionary work?

I think that Book of Mormon geographical speculation of any sort is disreputable.

[frankenstein]

I would like to know what is being misrepresented.

This could be another instance of where someone gets a statement and only after the fact does the person given the statement recant, just as was done with the statement about the some text but when it was learned it was attributable to Joseph Smith or the LDS the person tore up the statement.

Also, could the "experts" be trusted to provide a non-biased factual knowledge if they had know of the "mormon connection", I would say they would not.

Do I think lying for the Lord is good. No, I do not.

Do I think a person who asks questions is responsible for getting the answer to the question they want answered, yes I do.

And another thing, can we outright dismiss Alice Kehoe, who is published as having an axe to grind against what she does not believe? She is just as biased as though she accuses, so why should anyone listen to her?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't put my faith in archaeology.

[livy111us]

The problem with video is that you can make someone say just about anything by changing the context, which is what happened here. Obviously they were taken out of context so far that they were going to sue the producers. I doubt that anyone would like to be "tricked" into promoting any principle they were not originally aware of, and highly doubt that non-LDS archaeologists would like to conned into seemingly supporting a religion. This is not an isolated instance but many of the scholars who appeared in this video have spoken out against it.

An example of this can be found in a collaborated statement by several of the scholars in the video which reads "We fear that the context of our general remarks as they currently appear in the film might lead viewers to conclude that our words on these subjects provide support for the film’s claims. That would be a mistake. In fact, our remarks, if presented in an unedited form, show clearly that we reject the assertions made in the finished documentary concerning a non-native source for the complex cultures of Native America... As a group, we believe that the final product remains misleading and presents claims that neither we nor our data support."

http://petra-archaeology.com/statement-about-the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-dvd.html

[Bob Crockett]

Should we dismiss LDS archaeologists and anthropologists who try and prove a Book of Mormon connection to either North America or to MesoAmerica?

That's the better question.

And, if not, why is one theory to be derided and another not?

[livy111us]

Should we dismiss LDS archaeologists and anthropologists who try and prove a Book of Mormon connection to either North America or to MesoAmerica?

That's the better question.

And, if not, why is one theory to be derided and another not?

Of course not, that is not the issue. The issue that these scholars had no idea that they were being interviewed for a religious film, and were told it was a video for something entirely different. They do not agree with how they were portrayed in the video or support the claims in the video. In other LDS videos, the scholars know exactly what they are getting into and answer accordingly. No deception was used to support the claims in FAIR or (formerly) FARMS videos. They knowingly and willingly went into it knowing the outcome and agreed to it. I don't know of any scholar who appeared in these videos who regretted doing it or said that they were misrepresented in any way. That is the problem with the video in question. They used deceptive means in an attempt to support their theory. I don't know about anyone else, but I see that as very wrong on many levels and cannot see any benefit from it all, only detriment.

[frankenstein]

The problem with video is that you can make someone say just about anything by changing the context, which is what happened here. Obviously they were taken out of context so far that they were going to sue the producers. I doubt that anyone would like to be "tricked" into promoting any principle they were not originally aware of, and highly doubt that non-LDS archaeologists would like to conned into seemingly supporting a religion. This is not an isolated instance but many of the scholars who appeared in this video have spoken out against it.

An example of this can be found in a collaborated statement by several of the scholars in the video which reads "We fear that the context of our general remarks as they currently appear in the film might lead viewers to conclude that our words on these subjects provide support for the film’s claims. That would be a mistake. In fact, our remarks, if presented in an unedited form, show clearly that we reject the assertions made in the finished documentary concerning a non-native source for the complex cultures of Native America... As a group, we believe that the final product remains misleading and presents claims that neither we nor our data support."

http://petra-archaeo...merica-dvd.html

willingness to go to court over something does not provide evidence that person willing to initiate a suit is right and the other is wrong. Also, "might lead viewers" hardly a conclusion.

But let me be clear, I do not support lieing. My complaint is against the complainers, Alice Kehoe has a axe to grind against religion or religious views of science, she is obviously biased so we can dimiss her complaint just as matter of factly as she says we should dismiss the DVD in question.

I would be intereseted in see this DVD only for to what the hubbub is all about with the "misleading".

[livy111us]

willingness to go to court over something does not provide evidence that person willing to initiate a suit is right and the other is wrong. Also, "might lead viewers" hardly a conclusion.

But let me be clear, I do not support lieing. My complaint is against the complainers, Alice Kehoe has a axe to grind against religion or religious views of science, she is obviously biased so we can dimiss her complaint just as matter of factly as she says we should dismiss the DVD in question.

I would be intereseted in see this DVD only for to what the hubbub is all about with the "misleading".

Even if she does have an axe to grind, there are 5 others in the video who say they were all misrepresented as well. If she is an athiest or anti-religious, that would be all the more reason to be upset. I would hate to be interviewed by a group who said they wanted to know about my specialty, only to learn later that I appeared in an anti-Mormon video. It is the dishonesty that is the problem here.

[Calm]

Do you believe that lying for the Lord is beneficial to missionary work?

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite and if it is done in connection with making money, I suspect there will be a significant accounting taking place at some time in their future.

[frankenstein]

Even if she does have an axe to grind, there are 5 others in the video who say they were all misrepresented as well. If she is an athiest or anti-religious, that would be all the more reason to be upset. I would hate to be interviewed by a group who said they wanted to know about my specialty, only to learn later that I appeared in an anti-Mormon video. It is the dishonesty that is the problem here.

dishonesty with what? In the trailer Alice Kehoe makes statement and she uses the term "first civilizations"... potato or patta

Perhaps you have already provided a link, but IF the scholars were concerned about misrepresentations I am sure they could, on their own, provide point by point correction of the misrepresentations. One of the scholars was able to have himself completely removed from the film, this reinforces my opinion that the scholars would not have provide non-biased opinions without there being some creative description on the part of the producers.

[Brant Gardner]

This conversation is interesting in light of the discussion Rob Bowman is doing of my review of a film. My contention was that the film acheived its goals by manipulating information in the guise of a scholarly production. I think that is not the way to make a film and that its premises are not supported when that kind of evidence is used.

So, now the question should be, is that my opinion because it was a contra-Book of Mormon film? The answer is: no. Although the film under discussion in this thread is pro-Book of Mormon, it participates in the same practices, and should be avoided for the same reasons. Talking about what the scholars may or may not have done to correct it isn't the issue. It is whether the film actually honestly does what it sets out to do.

The answer is no. This film is no better than the other.

[Kenngo1969]

Should we dismiss LDS archaeologists and anthropologists who try and prove a Book of Mormon connection to either North America or to MesoAmerica?

That's the better question.

And, if not, why is one theory to be derided and another not?

Better evidence?

[Franktalk]

I have watched the DVD's. I thought they were great. Who knows if they were factual. I think he made it clear that the DVD's were to show a theory. What is sad is that any interview with an "expert" was not necessary. Excerpts could have been taken from various books or people found that would go on record.

[livy111us]

I think the DVD was very well done, and a lot of time and money was put into it. But think that presenting facts should be on top of the priority list when filming a documentary. If it is fiction, I would much rather watch the Three Stooges, or the Simpsons to be honest. What is the point of a documentary if it is made up?

[bookofmormontruth]

To be honest, non-LDS look at Mormons as cooks who put their faith in something so unbelievably fantastic that cannot possibly be supported by fact. Everyone has seen this and as an apologist, I try to correct them by giving them real scholarship and answers which support our view. By doing that, they can actually look at our faith more objectively. But, this is hard to do when some LDS give them a reason to believe we have to lie and distort to support our view.

Last week, Non-LDS scholar Alice Kehoe who appeared in the Meldrum influenced video "Lost Civilizations of North America" has wrote a review explaining her experiences with the producers of the video which supposedly supports The Book of Mormon. She stated:

"In an approach familiar to readers of RNCSE, the producers of the DVD, Barry McLerran

and Rick Stout, interviewed researchers with expertise on North American archeology—

Terry Barnhart, Kenneth Feder, Sonya Atalay, Deborah Bolnick, Bradley Lepper, Alice Kehoe,

and Roger Kennedy—at length. Then they skillfully edited the interviews to make it

appear that we agreed with the film’s thesis: that various artifacts shown in the film gave

evidence supporting the Mormon story. The producers sent the scholars a rough version

of the film in March 2010, provoking immediate e-mail demands for rectification of this

misrepresentation. Two of the younger scholars contacted legal counsel at their universities

about possible lawsuits, should the film be released with distortions of their interviews. What especially disturbed the scholars was that the connection to the Mormon legend had not been disclosed; the producers had said the film would be about appreciating First Nations’ achievements."

Why do some LDS feel it necessary to be dishonest in order to find "evidence" for their faith? What good will this do? Anyone who knows anything about the Hopewell, DNA, etc... realize that it is far from the truth and it strengthens their preconceived ideas that we have nothing to back up our faith. How does that benefit missionary work?

She continues:

"The Lost Civilizations of North America DVD can be ignored since it misrepresents reputable

interpretations of Midwest archaeological data—except, perhaps, by those interested

in the persistence of pseudoarcheological claims about the cultures and peoples of North

America before European colonization. It is unfortunate that Glenn Beck did not use his

forum to emphasize the true charge that Manifest Destiny propaganda fed the racist denigration

of America’s past and its First Nations citizens, a story well told in Roger Kennedy’s

Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization (1994).

Readers interested in archaeological controversies, serious or pseudoscientific, will enjoy

my Controversies in Archaeology (2008)."

You can read the entire review here:

http://reports.ncse....icle/view/23/14

Other reviews of the DVD by scholars in the video can be read here:

http://petra-archaeo...merica-dvd.html

http://www.dispatch....gical-spat.html

Do you believe that lying for the Lord is beneficial to missionary work?

Very disappointing to hear.

Not that I am a Meldrum fan, but because he is LDS.

I would like to hear Meldrum in what he has to say on the matter and again for the record I am not a fan. I will admit I do like how he is despised for "rocking the boat" per se, but that's because I am temporally lacking entertainment these days.

[Anijen]

... Alice Kehoe, so why should anyone listen to her?

No matter her beliefs, she is a respected anthropologist, and her remarks and criticism concerning the DVD is correct. In my emails between most of these professors they are respectful to me.

What this teaches us is not to dismiss our faith, but one should not twist the science so it fits our faith. This in the long run will be more detrimental than it will be beneficiary, and no I do not believe it is right to lie in order to get followers.

Edited to add; do I get a chocolate moonpie for my 4000 post?

[elguanteloko]

I don't put my faith in archaeology.

Going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is not the best explanation is faith.

[Wendy]

Should we dismiss LDS archaeologists and anthropologists who try and prove a Book of Mormon connection to either North America or to MesoAmerica?

That's the better question.

And, if not, why is one theory to be derided and another not?

If the LDS archaeologists and anthropologists cannot be scientifically objective because to do so would compromise their faith, then their research and conclusions are not to be trusted. By definition, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for apologists to be objective for they've decided that some things are or are not true before they have done the research and those decisions form a filter through which some facts cannot emerge.

[Calm]

I will admit I do like how he is despised for "rocking the boat" per se

If it was only "rocking the boat" I doubt that much would be said about him personally. There are many theorists who 'rock the boat'. Unless you can establish that these are "despised" as well, I think you need to look at another reason, even perhaps actually reading the criticisms being made to see what they say the reason is....

From what I've read the vast majority of the criticism is his misuse of science (taking what he wants and discounting or ignoring the rest even when it directly impacts his 'evidence' such at the time period of DNA discoveries as well as the example given in the OP) as well as his tendency to assign the position of faithlessness or apostasy to those who disagree with him.

[Calm]

And another thing, can we outright dismiss Alice Kehoe, who is published as having an axe to grind against what she does not believe? She is just as biased as though she accuses, so why should anyone listen to her?

Do you think we should "outright dismiss" AK simply based on her biases?

As a side note, if her biases are so important than why should she even be quoted by Meldrum in the first place, why should we depend on anything she says at all even where it was claimed she supported Meldrum's claims (claimed by Meldrum, not by her)?

[rameumptom]

Pretty much all scientists have biases. There are scientists arguing over many issues all the time, each side insisting their theory is correct.

There is nothing wrong with theories, as long as they are viewed as that: a theory. Also, that the theory is not supported upon the back of lies, but both its strengths and weaknesses are made manifest.

I know Bob Crockett hates apologist efforts, however I think more good has occurred by good efforts than nothing at all. The Church attempted to use Bob's method in regards to the Internet for almost a decade. They asked everyone to take down websites, not to discuss the gospel online, etc. Then a couple years ago, Elder Ballard made a 180 degree turn for us. Now everyone is asked to be involved in blogging, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Mormon.org, make "I'm a Mormon" videos, etc. Why? Because we were being clobbered by the thousands of anti-Mormon sites. We had no presence in the place where everyone else was looking for information. Ten years ago, a Yahoo search on Mormonism would have brought up a long list of anti-Mormon sites before you even found one pro-LDS site. Why join the Mormon Church, or even listen to their elders, when all the information regarding the Church on the Internet is negative?

I sat in on some training early yesterday morning with other stake leaders regarding Public Affairs for the Indianapolis temple. Brother Marcus Faust (Pres Faust's son), who is over PA for the Northeast Area gave the training. He spent quite a bit of time talking about the Church's online presence, and presenting ourselves to the world as we really are, in an accurate and positive way. Research had shown that we were known for negative things (polygamy, racist, misogynist, etc). When asked about positive things, the comment would normally be, "While the Mormons are strange, they are (strong family, friendly, etc). The positive was always preceded with a negative. For this, we now have a new focus. And it is working. Search sites now have pro-LDS sites up at the top. We have a lot of quality stuff available, both at official LDS sites and at sites like this one.

To believe we do not need any apologetics is to leave the field, giving the victory to the other side. That said, we can seek a better form of apologetics, where we personally demand quality evidence, are open about different theories and where we lack evidence, and seek to lead the world in quality research. BYU is a leading school for ancient things, with scholars in Dead Sea Scrolls, Arab studies, etc. That didn't come around by accident, but grew out of the FARMS efforts. I remember the initial work BYU did on digitizing the DSS, and having a few emails with Noel Reynolds regarding it. We've come a long way since those days. Our scholarship has improved over the efforts of Hugh Nibley, notwithstanding some who still think they must cheat to get our story across.

And without someone telling our side of the story, we've already lost the battle.

[cinepro]

I'll bet Alice Kehoe totally knows how Charles Anthon felt.

[Bob Crockett]

I know Bob Crockett hates apologist efforts, however I think more good has occurred by good efforts than nothing at all. The Church attempted to use Bob's method in regards to the Internet for almost a decade.

That's not true. Otherwise I wouldn't have my own website up. But, since you've brought my name into it, here is how I feel:

1. If you're anonymous, stay out of apologetics. If you lack the courage to put your own name on your apologia, you're neither credible nor courageous. Because most apologists are anonymous, they should stay out of it.

2. Be polite. Most apologists are not. I think I'm polite but most people don't like what I write, so I must not be able to be self-critical about my tone.

3. Stick to what the consensus view of the Brethren is or has been. For that reason I think MesoAmerican Mormon apologia to be so much speculation, smoke and mirrors.

4. Know the Bible. Most LDS apologists seem not to know it; if they don't they should stay out until they do.

5. Don't be into rules and rules-setting, i.e., don't post silly lists of things not to do.

I should also point out that I don't have a calling that would put me in Area training; thank goodness. Marcus and I were classmates; I'm glad that he's in long Saturday meetings and not me.

Bob Crockett

[morgan.deane]

5. Don't be into rules and rules-setting, i.e., don't post silly lists of things not to do.

Bob Crockett

I hope you said this with a sense of irony. A list of ideal behaviors that includes a rule about not listing seems rather silly.