Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[juliann]

Should you not make some more substantive rebuttal rather than just being nasty?

What is a substantive rebuttal to a scientist who took 30 years to figure out that the Smithsonian didn't use the BOM for an archaeological guide?

[Daniel Peterson]

My dear Professor Hamblin:

I'm afraid that I'm unable to help you, because I myself suffer from the same pitiable incapacity. A greater mind than ours will be required to unfold these mysteries. But I doubt very much that we will be able to follow his powerful reasoning.

Your peer in pathetic inability,

Professor Peterson

[exegete]

Hi Daniel,

So you have a corner on self-effacing humor, but when others join in the fun it takes on malicious overtones?

Still, I'll never forget Trent Stephens' grimace as you declared the scientific viability and respectability of Intelligent Design Creationism to an eager FAIR audience a few years back (evidently you're unaware that Trent is an opponent of ID).

And speaking of John Butler, when should we expect his long-forthcoming Ensign article on DNA and the BoMor? (He wrote me a very cordial email indicating that despite your premature announcement, his essay had been put on hold indefinitely. Interesting.)

Hi Julie and Bill,

If nothing else, you make me smile.

All the best,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

So you have a corner on self-effacing humor, but when others join in the fun it takes on malicious overtones?

I don't think anyone sees you as malicious, Brent. Just arrogant and mean. Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Daniel Peterson]

So you have a corner on self-effacing humor, but when others join in the fun it takes on malicious overtones?

Ah, but, mighty one, effacing myself is a somewhat different experience than being effaced by thee.

Still, I'll never forget Trent Stephens' grimace as you declared the scientific viability and respectability of Intelligent Design Creationism to an eager FAIR audience a few years back (evidently you're unaware that Trent is an opponent of ID).

It must truly have been a cosmically unforgettable moment. A grimace, no less! Alas, though, Dr. Stephens and I were not born Siamese twins, and this quite distinct and rather irrelevant issue is probably but one of several topics on which an electroencephalograph might detect different brain-wave patterns.

And speaking of John Butler, when should we expect his long-forthcoming Ensign article on DNA and the BoMor? (He wrote me a very cordial email indicating that despite your premature announcement, his essay had been put on hold indefinitely. Interesting.)

How would I know? And what on earth do you think that a delay or even a decision not to publish his article would prove? Anything at all?

Did you know (neener neener neener!) that your mother wears army boots? Oh yes -- and that she dresses you funny?

Hi Julie and Bill,

If nothing else, you make me smile.

Juliann and Bill, you can rest fulfilled tonight, gratified in the knowledge that you little folk have brought yet another smile to the lips of the great one.

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Owing to my incapacity in such matters, I may be mistaken, but do I sense elements of the fallacy of distraction (colloquially known as a

[Daniel Peterson]

My dear Professor Hamblin:

Surely not! Inconceivable. Exegete would not "dodge" a substantive issue. No no. He is as far above that as he is above us little people.

Professor Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Peterson

DCP

Juliann and Bill, you can rest fulfilled tonight, gratified in the knowledge that you little folk have brought yet another smile to the lips of the great one.

Like the court jester or town fool, I exist for the occasional moment when I can bring a smile to the lips of the Capacitator.

With fondest hopes Fulfilled

Professor Hamblin

[juliann]

He will be back any minute to give us the references. I'm sure he just didn't see the 18 requests for references.

[Daniel Peterson]

He will be back any minute to give us the references.  I'm sure he just didn't see the 18 requests for references.

Faith, Juliann! Faith!

[juliann]

Faith, Juliann! Faith!

Would fasting and prayer speed the process...?

[Pokatator]

So you have a corner on self-effacing humor, but when others join in the fun it takes on malicious overtones?

I don't think anyone sees you as malicious, Brent. Just arrogant and mean. Don't be so hard on yourself.

This is from one of the incapable and of course little people. I won't even dare claim to be able to follow or understand all of this thread. But I can recognize malice, sarcasm, a condescending attitude and just plain meanness.......and YOU AND DAN ARE NOT INNOCENT! That was me yelling, and your 's are childish.

[Daniel Peterson]

You darn right I'm not innocent. I'm EEEEEVIL.

But I've had a fun time.

Good night.

[exegete]

Hi folks,

I hope that my FAIR friends are paying close attention to the contributions of Bill, Julie, and Daniel. As I said: "the frenetic flailing of DNApologists."

Happy holidays to all,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Daniel Peterson]

The light! The light! Please, Master, shut it off! Aieeeee!

(© Daniel C. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

[juliann]

Oh....I mean,

[Dale]

Tom Murphy should not have been published in Mormon Apocrypha on this issue. It will take a second tough essay be him defending him from his harshest critics.

My advice to him is he needs to wisely seperate himself from these anti-Mormon films he keeps on participating in. He looks to me like an embarrassment to Signature Books. They are distorting his DNA information to protect the Bible which has lost somewhat in the face of his DNA research he grabbed for his essay. If I were him I woould be quite concerned they were abusing his research to try & support Biblical innerancy.

I do not think he is smart for looking like he is out to get the Mormons in those films.

[Confidential Informant]

Hi folks,

I hope that my FAIR friends are paying close attention to the contributions of Bill, Julie, and Daniel. As I said: "the frenetic flailing of DNApologists."

Happy holidays to all,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

please stop telling us how it was in the 19th century and instead show us some source that refers to indians as "black". It's a simply requests and for the life of me I can't fathom why you won't address the question.

In all seriousness, I think it is drop dead obvious that describing NAs as "black" was not at all common in the 19th c. I've actually never seen Brent at a loss for words. In fact, I find this rather stunning considering that he has yet to enter a discussion without lecturing everyone on what JS really thought because it was in a 19th c dictionary and such.

I am seeing more and more gaping holes like this that are being filled with ridiculous assertions to keep the counter-Mormon apologetic ship afloat. A scientist claiming that he believed the Smithsonian used the BOM for "30 years" has to be in the top five. (Where the heck were the Signature editors??)

[USU78]

The light! The light! Please, Master, shut it off! Aieeeee!

(

[Brant Gardner]

exegete:

What I'm trying to grasp is in what way you see the "skin" of "blackness"/"darkness" as an external, visible indicator of spiritual dearth.

I don't. From a physiological standpoint there was no difference. Nephites looked just like Lamanites (though I am positive that there were dress distinctions).

I have stated that it was a normal practice for various ancient populations (most notably the area of the Bible) to assume that inner qualities would be demonstrated visibly. There are a number of remnants of this thinking that have long since passed from our modern thinking. However, phrenology was one of them. Another was the assumption that the set of the eyes or the shape of the earlobes might determine criminal tendencies. I remember that one being seriously proposed perhaps 40 years ago.

There are two issues. One is physiology and the other is language. Physiologically there was no difference. Metaphorically, however, there was. The language is describing the metaphorical and not the physiological.

[Log]

I must be a simple-minded fool because I thought the whole point of the skin of blackness was to make the Lamanites less enticing to the Nephites. That function would not be well served by metaphorical polemics.

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

Anything that separates them from us is sufficient - even a supposed distinction. The entire concept of stereotyping is to allow you to make decisions based on gross categories rather than individuals. As long as these particular Lamanites are described in pejorative terms, the exclusion is sufficient. Israel had a number or prohibitions against intermarriage with "others." Those worked (as far as any such prohibitions work) regardless of physiology.

[Log]

But then we have prophets expressly crying against such stereotyping based on their skins, reminding their hearers that the Lamanite's skins would be whiter than theirs in the day of judgement. Again, I must be a simple-minded fool since this stuff seems to me to be speaking of skin color, as opposed to rhetoric.

It seems to me that I lack the imagination necessary to move from a literalistic, primary-meaning-of-words kind of reading to one in which the content of words are divorced from the context that my primary language would attach to them.

[juliann]

I know this is as useless as anything...but here is Malina attempting to demonstrate the problem:

First, however, a note of caution.