PacMan

Really? Is that what what you say every time you lose an argument? "Sorry I've offended you?" Generally, introducing made-from-whole-cloth straw man arguments to distract from the merits is not intellectually honest. But then to couch it as a response to "offense?" Welcome to Looneyville, folks. Don't worry. I'm not offended. I'm having fun. #bobcrockettexposed Just calling it like I see it. Can't remember where I last heard that....

What are you talking about? You said: "A major test is, according to Daubert and corresponding state analogues...." As you must know, Daubert is a standard rule of evidence in federal court. And if California adopted Frye, it is clearly not one of the "corresponding state analogues." So why bring it up? More importantly, your articulation of Daubert is flat wrong. You're just wrong. Whether California courts adopt Frey or Daubert has no bearing on the fact that you're just wrong. Daubert does not follow the "test" that you purport. Your attempt to malign LDS scholars based on a fanciful (wrong) Daubert test is misguided. That's not ad hominem. That's just a fact. And before anyone accepts your views of evidence or expert testimony, they are well-served to know that you don't know what you're talking about. You also said: "As they are not real persons I don't think a direct attack upon them is an ad hominen." This is just bizarre. Unless you believe that anonymous posters are robots or aliens, they are most definitely "real persons." Further, even if this was not the case, you should know that ad hominen is a form of argument attacking a person rather than his/her position. The identity of a poster has no bearing on this, and it's not up to you to ordain yourself the heir of Merriam or Webster and start adulterating our poor language for your own perverse purposes. Heaven knows, California has done enough of that already....

Your understanding of Daubert is not correct. Peer review is not a “test.” It is a potential factor in reliability. You’re articulating the Frye standard that was rejected in the 1970s. So much for the crutch. And credibility.

I wasn't including agriculture in the cultural/archaeological buckets. But, yes, evidence is what it is. Even with the sweet potato, the buckets remain small.

Yes. I knew that as soon as I posted. Don’t know how to edit it.

Well, to an extent. There have been a number of papers on the absolute destruction of native cultures by both the Spanish and the English for the past 600 years. Beyond that, there is irrefutable evidence (from another thread) that Polynesians and Native Americans mixed, but we have nothing either culturally or archaeologically to give more context or to explain how that is. So, just because something doesn’t fit doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Yes, some are suspect. Some more than others. Others are dismissed out of lazy bias.

Although familiar with evidence and theories of pre-Colombian Hebrew in the Americas, I do not know enough to echo the claims of hundreds, if not thousands of such examples. Rather than supporting these theories nor trying to refute them, I’d like to identify them with as near original sources as possible. If there is a meaningful study supporting or rejecting the claim, please post it. As I have time, I'll update this post to include examples and resources as they are listed. The Bat Creek Stone https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/batcrk.html http://www.ampetrographic.com/files/BatCreekStone.pdf Los Lunas Decalogue Stone https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/loslunas.html Library of Agüeybaná, or Nazario Collection https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-ancient-trove-may-attest-to-lost-civilization-in-puerto-rico-1.7501553 The Tucson Artifacts The Newark Holy Stones https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/decalog.html https://www.ohiohistory.org/learn/collections/archaeology/archaeology-blog/2014/december-2014/conclusive-proof-that-the-newark-decalogue-stone-i Hanukkiah Earthworks https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/efw.html https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/efw.pdf The Grave Creek Stone https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/grvcrk.html Coins https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/01/discovery/transatlantic-crossings-a-new-look?lang=eng (I'd be interested if there are updates to what is described) Relatedly... DNA https://www.thejc.com/news/world/big-chief-rabbi-why-cherokees-could-be-jewish-1.53565 Linguistics https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=jbms

What’s the Hauglid response to this?

Interesting, but seems like a stretch to have any relation to Lehi.

Would you share the original sources for this?

If you can feasibly both, you do both.

I take another view. If the Area gave counsel on the one hand, they can give it on the other and reverse themselves.

While perhaps inferred, the instruction does not say that the sacrament is part of the worship service. While I would support it, I’d wait for the Area to change its position. Until then, the two can still be read in harmony with one another.

Yes. That was the instruction.