Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Greg Smith]

Exegete:

My initial "*sigh!*" stems from the fact I've been down this DNApologetic path more times than I care to count; I apologize if it offended you.

No worries. It didn't offend me in the least. It looked like an attempt to refrain from justifying your claims. I'm delighted to hear that it wasn't.

It just always strikes me as strange when people post things as "food for thought" or "FYI," and then refuse to discuss them because "I've done that before."

If you have a well-formulated written opinion on this topic, then I'd be happy to read the link and respond to that, so you don't feel you have to reinvent the wheel.

David Stewart and I discussed his various opinions over on ZLMB a few years back, and I'll say to you now what I effectively said to David then: I see no reason to defend scientific hypotheses that are fully embraced by both LDS and non-LDS biologists and geneticists simply because you think you have a novel opinion on the matter.

Again, Brent, you're misunderstanding or ignoring my point.

As I keep repeating (to deafening silence) my first question has to do with sampling. How on earth can the Jerusalem group be said to be a

[Greg Smith]

Rollo:

> I think that given BRM's statement of American Indians' "predominant

> [israelitish] blood lineage," he would fully expect to find genetic

> markers consistent with

> this statement.

He might, and you might, but that would be due to being misinformed about how such markers work.

Besides, it doesn

[Rollo Tomasi]

I'm a bit at a loss as to how the "DNA evidence" is "mounting."

My use of the word "mounting" referred to all scientific evidences, DNA just being the latest in a long line. And, so far, science has failed to support BofM historicity.

Just for the record, Professor John Clark, who is reputed to know something about Mesoamerican archaeology, thinks that the overall archaeological picture is trending fairly nicely in the direction of the Book of Mormon.

If you say so ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

The DNA characteristics of Lehi, Zoram, Ishmael and compare those characteristics with the modern amerindians.

Semitic (or, at the very least, Middle Eastern), as has been done with the Lemba in Africa, as opposed to Asiatic.

Show us in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites, in general, refused to intermarry with any other inhabitants in the Americas.

I've never made any claim. Also, perhaps you can show us where in the BofM "other inhabitants" are identified (they aren't, of course) or any Lamanite or ally thereof who gives a lineage not traced back to an Israelite immigrant (again, every lineage discussed in the BofM, whether Nephite, Lamanite or otherwise, all go back to an Israelite immigrant).

I assume that you know that Moroni, and the majority of the Nephites were killed in the last battle, and any comment by Moroni about his lineage and the lineage of the Nephites is totally and completely irrevelant, since he and the vast majority of the Nephites presumably left no children.

But it is relevant to show that for the entire 1,000-year history of the BofM, the Nephites were not subsumed by a vast number of "others" allegedly in the Americas at the time of Lehi's arrival, which has been my point on that evidence all along.

[The Dude]

Just for the record, Professor John Clark, who is reputed to know something about Mesoamerican archaeology, thinks that the overall archaeological picture is trending fairly nicely in the direction of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, it's difficult for a non-expert like me to know what to make of such fringe opinions as John Clark's. Do you expect his ideas ever see peer review by non-LDS Mesoamerican/Book of Mormon experts? No? Because experts with such qualifications do not exist? It must be lonely out there on the borderlands of science and pseudoscience. Well kudos to you for giving him a voice so he doesn't have to self-publish. That really looks bad.

[juliann]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, it's difficult for a non-expert like me to know what to make of such fringe opinions as John Clark's. Do you expect his ideas ever see peer review by non-LDS Mesoamerican/Book of Mormon experts? No? Because experts with such qualifications do not exist? It must be lonely out there on the borderlands of science and pseudoscience. Well kudos to you for giving him a voice so he doesn't have to self-publish. That really looks bad.

What is fringe about the archeaological data he is naming? Be very specific.

[The Dude]

What is fringe about the archeaological data he is naming? Be very specific.

Data is data. It's the conclusions that are fringe.

[Rollo Tomasi]

He might, and you might, but that would be due to being misinformed about how such markers work.

Well, if Bruce and I are misinformed, then it came from the BofM, the Angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith, among others.

Besides, it doesn

[Benjamin McGuire]

A question for The Dude -

Do you think, when John Clark starts discussing LDS issues, that suddenly, he stops being a competent scholar as when he publishes on non-LDS topics in peer reviewed journals? That after he got his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, that somehow all of the scholarship simply leaked out of his brain?

So I spent 5 minutes on the internet and pulled up this list of publications (incomplete of course):

"The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, pp. 217-251. National Gallery of Art, Washington.

"Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative Periods on the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica." In Ancient Mesoamerica 6:161-183.

"Olmecas, olmequismo, y olmequizacion en Mesoamerica." In Arqueolog

[The Dude]

A question for The Dude -

Do you think, when John Clark starts discussing LDS issues, that suddenly, he stops being a competent scholar as when he publishes on non-LDS topics in peer reviewed journals? That after he got his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, that somehow all of the scholarship simply leaked out of his brain?

Certainly not! I believe Dr. Clark is a competent scholar...

...just as I believe Dr. Panos Zavos is a competent fertility researcher, having authored or co-authored more than 400 peer reviewed publications, served on NIH review committees, recieved Honorary Professorships, and has current membership with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Nontheless, as Dr Zavos has decided to embark on reproductive human cloning, a domain that cannot be peer reviewed by other fertility experts because of ethical concerns, his efforts are relegated to the fringe of scholarship. Non-experts cannot be faulted for viewing his work with skepticism.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Dude writes:

Nontheless, as Dr Zavos has decided to embark on reproductive human cloning, a domain that cannot be peer reviewed by other fertility experts because of ethical concerns, his efforts are relegated to the fringe of scholarship. Non-experts cannot be faulted for viewing his work with skepticism.

So, let me ask you a question. Do you think these are similar circumstances? The fact that Zavos receives criticism because of the ethics of what he is doing (and not the science) - is that comparable to Clark's research?

Ben

[The Dude]

The Dude writes:

Nontheless, as Dr Zavos has decided to embark on reproductive human cloning, a domain that cannot be peer reviewed by other fertility experts because of ethical concerns, his efforts are relegated to the fringe of scholarship. Non-experts cannot be faulted for viewing his work with skepticism.

So, let me ask you a question. Do you think these are similar circumstances? The fact that Zavos receives criticism because of the ethics of what he is doing (and not the science) - is that comparable to Clark's research?

Ben

The level of criticism against Zavos is not important for my comparison. There is a similarity to Dr. Clark in that a portion of Zavos'/Clark's work is on the fringe of academia because it is not peer reviewed by the community of experts.

Of course for Zavos the reasons are ethical--the community thinks his undertaking is taboo. For Clark the reasons are...I don't want to say the wrong thing and get you jumping all over me...I'll just say that one reason I have heard on this board is that the community does not know enough about the Book of Mormon to have an informed opinion. If Zavos can convince some fertility researchers that his work is not unethical, and if Clark can find a few non-LDS Mesoamerican archaeologists who know the Book of Mormon as well as he does, then the work in question might move from the fringe (...or it might fail to convince their peers).

Then I, as a non-expert, might know what to think of these claims.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just for the record, Professor John Clark, who is reputed to know something about Mesoamerican archaeology, thinks that the overall archaeological picture is trending fairly nicely in the direction of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, it's difficult for a non-expert like me to know what to make of such fringe opinions as John Clark's.

Actually, the tenor of your remarks suggests that, whether you've so much as glanced at what he's written or not, and whether you're qualified or not, you have decided what you think of Professor Clark's argument. It saves effort, I suppose.

Do you expect his ideas ever see peer review by non-LDS Mesoamerican/Book of Mormon experts?

I have no idea whether the extensive peer review to which his articles have been subjected included non-LDS scholars or not. I was not directly involved.

Diverting the conversation to the matter of non-LDS peer reviewers nicely delivers critics from the obligation to consider Professor Clark's actual evidence and analysis, though. This is known as a red herring technique. If Professor Clark's argument is unsound, peer approval will not save it. If it is solid and sound, even universal peer disdain will not render it false. Peer review is simply a method for helping editors to distinguish manuscripts they probably should publish from manuscripts they probably shouldn't publish. (And, sometimes, it can be used to suggest ways in which an author might improve a piece.) Peer review doesn't make things good or bad, in most cases. Lots of garbage passes peer review and is published. Plenty of great things have either been published without peer review or, in other cases, have failed peer review once or often before finally reaching the light of day.

No?  Because experts with such qualifications do not exist?

Actually, off hand I can't think of a single non-LDS expert on both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. Can you?

It must be lonely out there on the borderlands of science and pseudoscience.

Now there's the authentic voice of genuine neutrality!

Well kudos to you for giving him a voice so he doesn't have to self-publish.  That really looks bad.

Zing! And all this disdain while maintaining a strictly impartial position, and perhaps without having even skimmed Professor Clark's arguments!

[cdowis]

>Once and for all, it doesn't matter that we don't know the DNA characteristics of Lehi et al., since there is no reason to think they carried the Asian characteristics found in modern amerindians.

And please prove that these people did not have "asian characteristics" in their DNA, since that assumption is vital to your logic and argument.

For example, please note that a full blooded amerindian has been found with a common ancestor with a woman from Greece. Are the greek people asiatic -- with "asian characteristics".

This simple fact blows a very large hole in your logic.

>The relevant point is that all are labeled as Israelite whenever lineage is discussed in the BofM.

Please prove that the Lamanites were pure Israelites during the BOM time period.

I anxiously await that citation since my edition of the BOM contains no such reference. But you make that as a bold assertion, and I am asking for your proof.

[The Dude]

Diverting the conversation to the matter of non-LDS peer reviewers nicely delivers critics from the obligation to consider Professor Clark's actual evidence and analysis, though.  This is known as a red herring technique. 

You didn't present Clark's actual evidence and analysis.

You offered an advertisement, and I, pressing fast-forward in my mind, considered the problem faced by critics so many times on this board, where their disagreements with expert so-and-so are dismissed because the critics are not qualified to disagree.

Actually, off hand I can't think of a single non-LDS expert on both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology.  Can you?

No, I can't either, which supports the argument that only the LDS are qualified to agree/disagree with John Clark. This is an important counterpoint to your advertisement.

[Daniel Peterson]

You didn't present Clark's actual evidence and analysis.  

You're right. He did.

You offered an advertisement,

I provided a reference.

This is sometimes done in scholarship. At least in my experience.

Actually, off hand I can't think of a single non-LDS expert on both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology.

[The Dude]

You didn't present Clark's actual evidence and analysis.

[Daniel Peterson]

Somehow I though I was reasponding to you on a message board, not John Clark in a scholarly forum.

You were dismissing John Clark's position without having read it, on the basis of criteria extrinsic and irrelevant to his evidence and analysis.

Not cool.

You are still missing it.

Yes. Completely.

I critiqued your advertisement of a source that I am a priori not qualified to critique.

Do you typically object to book or article references on the grounds that you are not qualified to critique the article or book in question? On what basis, if you don't and can't know whether the referenced item is good, can you reasonably object to someone's mentioning it?

Do you keep the nation's book reviews and academic journals busy with a flurry of objections to all of the things they mention that you're not qualified to evaluate?

[Guest Five to one]

I have to admit, Dr. Peterson, that when you said that things are trending in Mormonism's favor, I thought "Well, that settles it."

Honestly, you make a sweeping and unsupported generalization and then call The Dude on the carpet because he doesn't find it particularly convincing?

If I said, "Scientific research is trending toward support of a flat earth," would you feel obligated to read up on the latest before commenting?

[The Dude]

You were dismissing John Clark's position without having read it, on the basis of criteria extrinsic and irrelevant to his evidence and analysis.

Not cool.

Asked and answered. That's not what I'm doing.

Do you typically object to book or article references on the grounds that you are not qualified to critique the article or book in question?

You can mention a reference. I can offer a counterpoint about its limitations as fringe opinion.

[Daniel Peterson]

You can mention a reference.  I can offer a counterpoint about its limitations as fringe opinion.

It's easier than actually engaging the evidence and analysis. That's for sure. And the observation will, ideally, carry all the weight that such an observation should carry.

Quantum physics, relativity theory, the germ theory of disease, Michael Ventris's decipherment of Minoan Linear B, Darwinism, Freudianism, Schliemann's identification of Troy, the notion that bacteria (not stress) cause ulcers, the idea of physicians washing their hands between surgeries, Copernican heliocentrism, Yuri Knorozov's decipherment of the Maya glyphs -- all of these (and virtually all other theories) began their lives as "fringe opinions" (and, not uncommonly, as "fringe opinions" held in contempt and disdain by the establishment). Fortunately, though, at least a few people in each case realized that that wasn't a particularly salient fact. (Otherwise, as a famous art critic once said, intellectuals tend to be "a herd of independent minds.")

I have to admit, Dr. Peterson, that when you said that things are trending in Mormonism's favor, I thought "Well, that settles it."

Honestly, you make a sweeping and unsupported generalization and then call The Dude on the carpet because he doesn't find it particularly convincing?

If that's what I had said, you would be justified in complaining. What I said was that John Clark says so, and then I gave references to where he lays out his arguments, or will soon lay them out. Those arguments are, or soon will be, available for evaluation.

If I said, "Scientific research is trending toward support of a flat earth," would you feel obligated to read up on the latest before commenting?

If anybody believes that the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be more credible than claims of a flat earth -- if the option isn't open for him or her -- that person should frankly say so and not pretend to be giving purported evidence for either serious consideration. Simply say, "There is not and can never be any evidence that will persuade me to change my mind on this topic." I hadn't realized that such dogmatism was so openly espoused here. If I was wrong, please forgive my error.

[The Dude]

Quantum physics, relativity theory, the germ theory of disease, Michael Ventris's decipherment of Minoan Linear B, Darwinism, Freudianism, Schliemann's identification of Troy, the notion that bacteria (not stress) cause ulcers, the idea of physicians washing their hands between surgeries, Copernican heliocentrism, Yuri Knorozov's decipherment of the Maya glyphs  -- all of these (and virtually all other theories) began their lives as "fringe opinions" (and, not uncommonly, as "fringe opinions" held in contempt and disdain by the establishment).  Fortunately, though, at least a few people in each case realized that that wasn't a particularly salient fact.  (Otherwise, as a famous art critic once said, intellectuals tend to be "a herd of independent minds.")

I welcome those comparisons right alongside Five to One's comparison to a "Flat Earth." But as there are no qualified critics outside of Latter-Day Saintism, each of us is left with our own inexpert, biased assessment (you, me, everyone). This is a difficult, but unavoidable starting point for new theories...and pseudosciences.

Did Dr. Zavos really implant a cloned human embryo in January 2004? As long as it's on the fringe, the jury is still out.

[Greg Smith]

He might, and you might, but that would be due to being misinformed about how such markers work.

Well, if Bruce and I are misinformed, then it came from the BofM, the Angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith, among others. 

Yet, I was talking about loci markers, a subject which I suspect neither Moroni, Joseph, Bruce R. McConkie were very worried about.

All the more reason to correct the Introduction, right?

As I said, it makes very little difference to me one way or the other. But, even if the introduction was changed, this wouldn't seem to alter your expressed opinions on the text itself, so that would seem a rather hollow victory.

Bottom line, regardless of Nephite, Lamanite or other "ite" designation (including the discovered people of Zarahemla), all are described as Israelite.

Yup. And, bottom line, all people belonging to the Nephite polity are described as "Nephite" even though their genes have nothing to do with Nephi. If you cannot understand the analogy, then I cannot help you further on this point.

But the text is clear on this simple point: all lineages discussed trace back to an Israelite immigrant.

Assertion is not evidence. Please address Sorenson. If you won't treat the arguments upon which an alternate reading are based, there's not much point in me saying more.

It is the only preconception allowed by the BofM,

Well, if your reading is the only possible one that could even be "allowed" by the text, then what can I say? No need to address those pesky arguments of those who read it differently.

Despite your claim, many people HAVE read the text differently. They may be in error, but it seems strange to argue that the text cannot be seen in that way, when many people (with no apologetic intent) have seen things differently from you.

I can appreciate why you read the text as you do. It is strange that you cannot at least grant that someone could reasonably see the matter differently, even if you do not find the evidence which persuades them ultimately compelling to adopt their view.

It would help if you summarized Sorenson's arguments, and explained why they aren't cogent.

Actually, I have read that Lemba oral traditions have their ancestors leaving Jerusalem not long after Lehi.

Source?

It counts for doctrine.  Joseph made it very clear what he meant by the

[Hawkmoon]

Then I, as a non-expert, might know what to think of these claims.

In other words, you do not know what you think until there is a peer review by a group of "experts" to tell you? Sounds kind of like the claims by anti

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt Gardner,

The issue is as I stated: are the unhistorical statements the result of making the same kinds of mistakes as some ancient documents, or the result of JS