The DNA Issue again.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this often gets lost in translation for many apologists, especially the old guard. They may say their position on the BoM is grounded in their beliefs as a disclaimer of sorts.  But then they frequently transition into trying to use scholarly tools to prove religious claims in a more academic sense.  

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that. Although I do think a danger with apologetics is that one gets into intellectual battles over particular topics. The relation to the big picture gets lost. I think that happened with FARMS in the early 90's which is why many have such negative views of the big names. However I also think that's ultimately unfair to people like Hamblin, Ricks, or so forth. I just don't see them trying to prove religious claims, although they may think that in a narrow sense their interpretations are best. Again I think you see that in the Signature/FARMS battles of the 90's.

I think what happens is that critics in these narrow claims are implicitly injecting this big picture evidence view. That is there's always a presumption of skepticism because of this big picture. That means they won't ever even concede that in these narrow points the apologists have pretty good arguments. So somewhat ironically I think the reason people think the apologists acknowledge this in name only is because they don't see themselves doing the same thing.  Further, apologists have brought this point up repeatedly via things like discussions of paradigms. It's just hard to accept that apologists think they are proving anything except at best relative to a particular paradigm. They're all just way too conscious of the role of paradigms. Whereas critics seems to simply presume theirs is correct so they don't need to pay attention to the role of these larger meta-theories play in the arguments about narrower issues.

Edited June 22, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Physics Guy]

6 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

[T]he answer to your conundrum is that you are correct that integration with others in the land should show up in the text, even if the first meeting account does not. The second point is that they do, but are camouflaged by the collective name of Lamanite.

Okay; thanks for the clear and straight answer. It sounds as though you have indeed thought this through and reached a reasonable position. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think what happens is that critics in these narrow claims are implicitly injecting this big picture evidence view. That is there's always a presumption of skepticism because of this big picture. That means they won't ever even concede that in these narrow points the apologists have pretty good arguments. So somewhat ironically I think the reason people think the apologists acknowledge this in name only is because they don't see themselves doing the same thing.  Further, apologists have brought this point up repeatedly via things like discussions of paradigms. It's just hard to accept that apologists think they are proving anything except at best relative to a particular paradigm. They're all just way too conscious of the role of paradigms. Whereas critics seems to simply presume theirs is correct so they don't need to pay attention to the role of these larger meta-theories play in the arguments about narrower issues.

I think you make some good points here.  Critics at times might not take the narrow arguments seriously because of big picture perspectives, yet I think this goes both ways as well.  In the OP for another related thread titled "Why not engage the evidence for historicity" the author gives a list of apologetic arguments and makes some assumptions about how the strength of the multiple arguments approach which I've heard many times from other apologists as well.  

The paradigm approach gets into philosophical thought more, and thats definitely not a strength of mine, however, I sometimes see people using this paradigm approach as a defense for illogical arguments that seem dishonest to my sensibilities.  I would prefer upfront acknowledgment of the limitations of certain arguments, but it seems some apologists are trying to do a dance where they construct arguments to support more orthodox truth claims, but at the same time they want to be respected by the broader scholarly world.  The best way to do that is to bracket the supernatural, but some are unwilling to do this, and they end up being criticized or ignored by broader scholarship.  Two different audiences, but some people have a hard time understanding that you can't effectively communicate to both at the same time.  

[champatsch]

18 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The next problem is that we have the text in translation. I am not one of those who holds to the divinely dictated translation method. I think Joseph had a part in the translation, and we shouldn't be surprised to find things in his translation that reference his understanding of certain topics (such as revival language).

Well, it wouldn't have been Joseph translating (in the usual sense) even on the received view that you hold to. It wouldn't have been a case of his turning one language into another. He didn't know the language. The Lord would have translated to an unknowable degree in turning the Nephite record into ideas that he implanted in Joseph's mind. Joseph would have acted as a speaker working from prepared ideas that were not his own. At most, he could have only been a partial translator if he had modified some received ideas. And even if this were so, it could not exclude the possibility that the Lord had modified the ideas before giving them to Joseph. And notice that in the case of hundreds and hundreds of names, the Lord had to send words to Joseph, not ideas.

Also, assertions about revival language don't work anymore in the face of today's databases. People used to get away with this sort of thing. Revival language has deep roots. Less contextual (morpho)syntactic evidence like complex finite causative syntax completely overrules (weak) contextual evidence like revival language.

[aussieguy55]

Was   Ugo Perego   responsible for the sacking of Scott R. Woodward   from his BYU position?. What were the results of Woodward's research  on the origins of the American Indians?. Did he fail to find any Israelite DNA in the 600 Peruvian Indians?  I could not find and mention on his web page at Utah Valley University.

"  Despite Southerton’s continued efforts to discredit the professional integrity of institutions and/or individuals affiliated with the LDS faith, the debate about the origin of Native American populations is still wide open as demonstrated by the great amount of scholarship that scientists from different fields are still producing today.Rather than pick and choose from the scientific literature what fits best with his personal interpretation of the history of the Western Hemisphere, Southerton should attempt his own population genetic study to test the hypothesis for “Lamanite DNA.” He will soon “discover” the limitations with designing such a research project, the difficulties in obtaining and processing the necessary ancient and modern DNA samples (including those for comparison), find “reconciliation” between his conclusions with those from other disciplines (such as linguistic, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, etc.), find a suitable journal with a high impact factor that will publish his work, and be ready to reply to criticisms from other scientists, including geneticists. Through this experiment he might finally realize the complexity of such proposition and understand that others are not actively pursuing a similar objective

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2009/02/06/current-biology-smgf-and-lamanites

Edited June 22, 2018 by aussieguy55
update

[Calm]

Why in the world do you think Ugo got Woodward fired?  Do you mean intentionally or unintentionally?  Because Ugo is top notch nice in my experience.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you make some good points here.  Critics at times might not take the narrow arguments seriously because of big picture perspectives, yet I think this goes both ways as well.  In the OP for another related thread titled "Why not engage the evidence for historicity" the author gives a list of apologetic arguments and makes some assumptions about how the strength of the multiple arguments approach which I've heard many times from other apologists as well.  .  

I think the problem here is twofold. First combining “evidences” and “implausibilities” tends to get done in a less than rigorous way. Second it’s not doing a fair comparison typically since the same charity isn’t done for both sides. Again both critics and defenders do this. I’d throw in an additional muddle in that I think people unfairly lump in amateurs with people better read and educated on the issues. I don’t necessarily mean expert training in the particular field since frankly this is a cross field discipline and likely no one has training in hermeneutics, ancient near east history, 19th century esoteric and religious history, and mesoanerican archaeology. Howerever many people read across fields, have a skeptical mind, and are at least aware of the issues of translations and ancient texts. It’s unfair to lump in pure amateurs who don’t have at least a solid background with people who do. Put an other way I’m loath to credit much significance to someone saying they’re an apologist or critic but has limited knowledge. They may indeed make fallacious arguments but it’d be wrong to judge the group in terms of that. 

So I’m apt to consider carefully say what a critic at Faith Promoting Rumor says because of the breadth of background but not a random blog or poster here - at least until I know they’re at least considering the broader issues.

But you’re definitely right that in this middle ground both sides have sometimes been unfair about what is or isn’t implausible. I don’t think it’s that common though.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The paradigm approach gets into philosophical thought more, and thats definitely not a strength of mine, however, I sometimes see people using this paradigm approach as a defense for illogical arguments that seem dishonest to my sensibilities.  I would prefer upfront acknowledgment of the limitations of certain arguments, but it seems some apologists are trying to do a dance where they construct arguments to support more orthodox truth claims, but at the same time they want to be respected by the broader scholarly world.  The best way to do that is to bracket the supernatural, but some are unwilling to do this, and they end up being criticized or ignored by broader scholarship.  Two different audiences, but some people have a hard time understanding that you can't effectively communicate to both at the same time.  

Paradigm is frequently misused. I actually don’t like the term for various reasons. I think an even worse term is postmodern as it’s really counterproductive. It’s only recently I’ve conceded it’s hard to communicate the issue in a better way than the term paradigm. Saying theories are holistic or context dependent just tends to confuse things.

it gets complex in terms of scholarly respect given how much of academia has moved in that direction at least rhetorically. So the battle over Mormon Studies is in some ways that battle where meanings rather than facts holds sway. The classic FARMS personalities got booted out. Of course their focus on paradigm like issues was much more focused on pluralism and avoiding truth debates except to the degree it relates perhaps to social justice issues. (That’s not a criticism although I wish both approaches could be balanced) 

So when you say scholarly respect I think you have to ask, “in what field?” Some fields or sub disciplines are simply more positivist than others. (Again a loaded term I don’t like but here just mean focused on questions of historic actuality or truth) Those positivistic fields won’t respect apologetics for obvious reasons in that the big questions of positive reasons to believe in historicity aren’t available. I’m not sure that means apologists concerned with truth shouldn’t make their arguments as rigorous as possible.

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

9 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Names don't always mean personal identification. They can be narrative identifications (also well known in biblical studies). The writer gives the "name" of a person that has more to do with their narrative function than what their mama called them. For example, Thomasson talks about the value of an ezrom, and then we have Zeezrom. We have an antion--then Antionum. I have seen it in a lot more cases. Mormon uses two different types of names to designate "bad guys." One is a name with an mlk root (Amlici/Amliki, Amaleki). He also points to Jaredite names as really bad guys. The mlk-names are Nephite apostates and cause trouble by joining with Lamanites and variously causing problems for Nephites. Jaredite names link to secret combinations.

There is a problem with Amlicites/Amalikites in the Book of Mormon. Skousen showed that the spelling difference masks a similar pronunciation. Therefore, he suggested that they were the same people--except that Benjamin ? (forgot his last name) has a very convincing argument that they can't be the same. How can you have two different people with the same name? Probably not in the real world, but definitely in the literary world Mormon was creating. They both fit the bill and were identified as Nephite apostates. We see the same thing with Nehor and the order of the Nehors--which existed before there was a Nehor to name them for.

Just as lbn tends to be a bad guy in scriptural narratives. Gotcha.

[katherine the great]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:50 AM, Brant Gardner said:

There has recently been a find of a mummified remain that was identified as Caucasian rather than Asian. We have the Kennewick man as well as evidence that there was a population that didn't fit the DNA that has survived. 

I'm not aware of an American mummy being identified as Caucasian (I assume that this was a New World ancient mummy ?) Kennewick man, however was shown through DNA analysis to be more closely related to the surrounding native tribes than any other known group of people. There's no doubt that his people were Native American. Morphologically, his skull was not similar to modern Native American. Paleo-Indians looked very different than modern Native Americans, and yet their DNA is showing genetic continuity.

[champatsch]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:31 AM, Brant Gardner said:

There is a problem with Amlicites/Amalikites in the Book of Mormon. Skousen showed that the spelling difference masks a similar pronunciation. Therefore, he suggested that they were the same people--except that Benjamin ? (forgot his last name) has a very convincing argument that they can't be the same. How can you have two different people with the same name? Probably not in the real world, but definitely in the literary world Mormon was creating. They both fit the bill and were identified as Nephite apostates. We see the same thing with Nehor and the order of the Nehors--which existed before there was a Nehor to name them for.

The above statement is quite unreliable. The reasoning of Benjamin McMurtry was supported by a weak understanding of text-critical methods. He knew one-quarter of what he needed to know to write his paper, published a year ago. He failed to give priority to original manuscript readings.  That is an error of textual criticism that has real consequences for any conclusion.  Analysis of tendencies in both O and P was required but not done.  Problematic and speculative chronological and narrative issues were given precedence by the author.  But the manuscript spelling evidence outweighs those issues, and the little evidence from O is paramount.

McMurtry wrote the following: "We should trust the consistent spelling in the printer’s manuscript and printed editions as correct over the inconsistent late occurrences from the original manuscript."  On that basis we should go with Zenock, Kishkumen, Gadianton, etc. McMurtry failed to do sufficient research on Oliver Cowdery's scribal tendencies in O and P.

What Skousen means by "only the intrusive e" — in relation to the O spelling Amelicites — is that the epenthetic e is probably not justified, but it isn't unexpected either from a phonological standpoint.  Amlicites and Amelicites are auditorially similar, akin to athletes and atheletes.  So if Joseph saw Amlicites and said Amlicites, Oliver could have nevertheless interpreted those dictated names as Amelicites.

Also see Val Larson's comments after the paper.

[Brant Gardner]

4 hours ago, champatsch said:

The above statement is quite unreliable.

Unreliable because it didn't mention linguistics? That isn't the issue. I agree with Skousen that the name is the same. I think that is pretty well settled. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the same name describes the same people. That is where McMurtry's paper is important--he is looking at the reasons that they couldn't be the same. I do disagree with him about the spelling--and agree completely with Skousen.

I apologize that I didn't distinguish between the historical data in the text and the issues of spelling. They can be different. In this case, they are.

[aussieguy55]

7 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Unreliable because it didn't mention linguistics? That isn't the issue. I agree with Skousen that the name is the same. I think that is pretty well settled. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the same name describes the same people. That is where McMurtry's paper is important--he is looking at the reasons that they couldn't be the same. I do disagree with him about the spelling--and agree completely with Skousen.

I apologize that I didn't distinguish between the historical data in the text and the issues of spelling. They can be different. In this case, they are.

Where have you published in peer review journals non-church related your arguments for the plausibility of the historical authenticity of  the Book of Mormon?  Have you ever spoken with Michael Coe or Ray Matheny or his wife?

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Where have you published in peer review journals non-church related your arguments for the plausibility of the historical authenticity of  the Book of Mormon?  Have you ever spoken with Michael Coe or Ray Matheny or his wife?

I have not published on the topic in any non-church related venue. I have not spoken with Coe or Matheny, though I have read both and listened to Coe's fairly recent podcast.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Where have you published in peer review journals non-church related your arguments for the plausibility of the historical authenticity of  the Book of Mormon?  Have you ever spoken with Michael Coe or Ray Matheny or his wife?

Do you think that Michael Coe is sufficiently familiar with the Book of Mormon to speak intelligently on whether there is a case "for the plausibility of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon?"  I ask because John Sorenson's "Open Letter" to him suggests that he (Dr. Coe) knows very little about the text.

Thanks,

-Smac

[aussieguy55]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think that Michael Coe is sufficiently familiar with the Book of Mormon to speak intelligently on whether there is a case "for the plausibility of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon?"  I ask because John Sorenson's "Open Letter" to him suggests that he (Dr. Coe) knows very little about the text.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ray Matheny and his wife both with knowledge of both areas have expressed opinions that the evidence in the area of archaeology is a problem..

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Ray Matheny and his wife both with knowledge of both areas have expressed opinions that the evidence in the area of archaeology is a problem..

By the way, are you speaking of Dr. Ray Matheny's Sunstone presentation, and Deanne G. Matheny's chapter in Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon? If those are your sources, they are not as conclusive as you might think. Ray Matheny spoke about how his presentation was presented in a context that did not reflect his ideas. Deanne Matheny similarly gave possible issues upon request (from an email exchange with her).

[aussieguy55]

Wesley Walters told me years ago that Matheny was asked in a threatening way "You like your job at BYU?"

Edited June 26, 2018 by aussieguy55
fix

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Wesley Walters told me years ago that Matheny as asked in a threatening way "You like your ob at BYU?"

I would be more impressed if Matheny had told you.

[aussieguy55]

Deanne G Matheny'  conclusion  ""Does the shoe fit for the current Limited Tehuantepec theory models? Rather than a comfortable "Cinderella" fit it is more like a "step sister" mismatch, requiring considerable remodeling of shoe and foot"  p.322 New Approaches to the Book of Mormon

[aussieguy55]

If  Kaminaljuyu is a great candidate for the City of Nephi  there should be remains of people who have died whose dna could be checked. Just sayin.

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

If  Kaminaljuyu is a great candidate for the City of Nephi  there should be remains of people who have died whose dna could be checked. Just sayin.

Before the Lehites arrived, the Jaredites had kept the land south of the narrow neck of land as a wilderness for hunting wild game 

"And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land. And they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness, to get game. And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants." - Ether 10:20-21

I don't see how this geography qualifies as convergence if the land southward, down to Kaminaljuyu, was inhabited by millions of Maya living in cities that rivaled those in the north. The book of Mormon is clear that the land northward was covered with inhabitants while the land southward was a wilderness. 

The setting for the Book of Mormon should be a peninsula with a narrow neck that was inhabited in the north from after 3000 BC. The south should have been mostly uninhabited, at the very least we should not find large cities like Kaminaljuyu with monumental structures until the 6th century BC.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[mfbukowski]

On 6/12/2018 at 12:39 PM, mfbukowski said:

No, just boring.

The Native Americans were already here when they came. There's 30 people mixed into the population. You're not going to find evidence  of that.

The paradigm is based on faith anyway, Alma 32, Moroni 10

It's just the spiritually irrelevant historicity problem again.

Can I give my own 2 year old post a rep point?

Dang, this is one very smart dude! 

 

[InCognitus]

'aussieguy55 wrote:

Quote

Simon Southerton has a new ebook out on DNA and the Book of Mormon   https://simonsoutherton.com/

He writes "Since publishing my book, Mormon apologists have attacked me personally. They have questioned my intelligence and scientific credentials, my motives and my knowledge of what the Book of Mormon really says. They have exaggerated the limitations of DNA science, obscured the true facts it has revealed and even made false claims of positive evidence. They have also twisted the Book of Mormon narrative into a bizarre story that reduces the Lamanites to a sideshow anywhere you like in the New World. For Pete's sake! Ancestry.com knows Native Americans don't have Jewish DNA."

Can we respond without the personal stuff.

Ad-hominem attacks are pointless, but questioning his knowledge of the contents of the Book of Mormon is extremely relevant to the topic because his arguments are against a specific traditional misunderstanding of the text of the Book of Mormon.  But a careful reading of the text doesn't support the traditional view, and therefore his "knowledge of what the Book of Mormon really says" should be in question since his arguments depend on that traditional misunderstanding.