Mormons:what Are The Top 10 Proofs Of Bom Historicity

[Ref]

Where is this evidence "mounting"? Is it just in the halls of FARMS?

In other words, you really don't know the literature and are simply repeating what you think is the best argument you have seen. You are quite keen on dismissing an entire body of work simply based on the supposed affiliation of those who are producing it.

You again are avoiding the real questions here, which is one of â??peer group validation through acceptanceâ?. Neither you nor Prof Peterson want to specifically address these questions and I think Gervin has articulated some very good reasons quite profoundly.

Look, I am not a physicist and do not pretend to understand Einsteinâ??s theory of relativity with a level of expertise. But I know it merits attention by the body of academic acceptance and teaching. I am not an economist and could not speak to Keynsian model with any expertise, but I know of its academic acceptance through its embracement. I do not have much expertise in Biblical Archaeology, but again, I cannot question its validation via our academic society.

Other than what those, who have religious testimonies in the Lds Church, â??self proclaimâ? about the level of â??scholarshipâ? in supporting the BOM historicity, we have no embracement at the academic level for peer validation as we most commonly see with true scholarship!

This is what, at best, is known as â??scholarship in isolationâ?.

You can hide behind any self serving rationale you need to develop, but none of the Lds apologists on this board want to discuss why such supposed scholarship, in this particular area, is completely ignored by the professional and academic peer group.

Here's my hypothesis: LDS scholarship is ignored because LDS scholars want it to be ignored.

I can assure you that that isn't so in my case, and I have no reason whatever to suppose it to be true of the relevant Latter-day Saint scholars whom I know. (And I know all or most of them.)

I think we need to be very specific to the topic on hand here, BOM historicity. And I think Gervin is right on again.

With respect to the supposed Lds scholarship in the specific area of BOM historicity, I can see no indication either that the Lds scholars really want to submit their works for any peer nor academic validation process either. If there has been attempt, and sign of confidence for these specific works, in submitting such works to a non-Lds professional peer group, let us know.

Again, this goes to the whole claim of â??mounting evidenceâ?. Mounting where???

However, if you're interested in attending the Mormon-scripture-related sessions at this year's annual joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, that meeting will be held this year in Washington DC on the Saturday-Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving. And I will be attending a session of the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting, to be held in Washington DC just prior to the AAR/SBL, in which an essay of mine on the concept of the "divine council" will be critiqued. Feel free to join me there. (For those dying to know: It now turns out that, at his invitation, I will be there as a personal guest of a past president of the ETS.) The AAR/SBL is, by light years, the largest gathering of scholars of religious studies (of all kinds), biblical archaeology, and etc., anywhere in the world. By participating there, we hide ourselves brilliantly, don't you think? (For a number of years, in fact, we had a large booth at the huge AAR/SBL book exhibit, where, under deep cover, we actually sold our materials. We're no longer doing that right now, for various reasons, but it was, I think you'll agree, an exceedingly cunning way of concealing our publications.)

This is what we call â??coat-tailing for dramaticsâ? and to some how validate the Lds supposed scholarship of BOM historicity via the exposure of other Lds scholarship or presentations in less controversial areas or subjects. It simply is not applicable to the specific topic hear and is a most â??obvious red herringâ?.

I have no doubt that Prof Peterson is well read and educated in the topics of middle eastern history and Lds understanding and beliefs with respect to the â??spiritualâ? issues presented in the BOM. But again, such are not the topic of this thread. I have no doubt that Profs. Clark and Sorenson are well respected in their fields of archaeology, anthropology, and/or history.

But such respect is probably limited to the extent they stay within what has been validated and/or accepted by their peer group. Their work and publications with respect to BOM historicity have garnered no passing interest nor acceptance from the very peer group that Prof. Peterson uses as the litmus test for their credibility. Instead, he uses their peer validation in areas of common acceptance in an attempt to â??coat-tailâ? their credentials for buoying their work on BOM historicity to an acceptable level of acceptance. It simply is without any meaningful or credible level of plausibility with respect to this SPECIFIC TOPIC!

But the â??historicityâ? claim is not, and should not be, a â??spiritualâ? issue. Either the history of the people, places, and cultures of the BOM existed, or they did not and the BOM is simply fiction!

So, again, we end up back to the simple question of validating what has been proposed as BOM historicity â??scholarshipâ?. If it is credible scholarship, where would one expect to find it published, supported, talked about , or even referred to outside the â??hallowed halls of FARMSâ?? Again, this is not a â??spiritual subjectâ?, this is a history claim for which our society has seen no parallel with such passing interest!

In the meantime, if you wish to read some of the recent books published by FARMS (on, for example, the Book of Abraham) you can order them from the University of Chicago Press. (That's where we've been hiding them -- in the University of Chicago Press (â??UCP) -- so that non-LDS scholars won't see them.)

Here again we find Prof Peterson attempting to â??coat-tailâ? credibility of a non-Lds organization into the topic of this SPECIFIC thread. But a couple of glaring difficulties and issues need to be brought forward.

First, if I may specifically ask, why isnâ??t the UCP publishing any articles from the scholars supporting the BOM historicity? Where do we find the articles of Clark, Sorenson, Nibley, or perhaps even Gardner and Hamblin, in this SPECIFIC area of BOM historicity being embraced by UCP? Is it not quality scholarship, or does in not generate enough in sales to generate a profit? Please provide your thoughts! Furthermore, and to the point of Gervin and others on this thread, where is it that this supposed BOM historicity scholarship is being pushed to be exposed to the likes of FARMS and the LDS scholars? Is there any confidence in this work to allow its review, by the peer group yet?

Second, I think itâ??s pretty fair to say that the UCP would not publish anything that did not do something for its profit. Probably very true and similar with FARMS in that it would not do anything that did not do something for its Prophet. But at the end of the day, do you believe the UCP would find the scholarship for the articles on BOM historicity â??lacking? If not, why not submit for publication and sales?

[Brant Gardner]

[You again are avoiding the real questions here,

Not at all. I have asked several very specific questions, which you have ignored. Both Dr. Peterson and I have attempted to answer your question. You clearly don't like the answer, but the attempt has been made. In contrast, you have made no attempt to answer my questions. You simply repeat your premise.

Look, I am not a physicist and do not pretend to understand Einsteinâ??s theory of relativity with a level of expertise. But I know it merits attention by the body of academic acceptance and teaching.

Ignoring the fact that you continue to misunderstand the very real boundaries between religious topics and secular studies, your examples all deal with information that is post-discussion. It takes time for theories to become accepted, and suggesting that because some theories have been accepted that any theory that is currently unaccepted by academia must be incorrect simply doesn't understand the process.

It was well understood that Maya hieroglyphs were not phonetic. That hypothesis was strongly supported by the most prominent Mesoamericanists. An upstart Russian had a different idea. It took a long time before his proposal was seriously considered, and even longer before it became doctrine.

Since you don't understand the process, you are sitting in the position of the non-phoneticists proclaiming that the phoneticists can't be correct because no accepted academic supports the theory.

Your position simply doesn't stand up to known history. Is there a reason that you attempt to hide behind science but demonstrate no understanding of it?

I'll make it simple for you - I'll ask more questions that I expect you will not answer:

Are all correct theories accepted immediately?

Has there ever been a theory that turned out to be true that wasn't immediately accepted? (hint - I mentioned one, so the answer to this should be obvious).

Can you seriously maintain your position that silence means more than silence (let's see - is this the third time I have asked this?).

[Daniel Peterson]

Their work and publications with respect to BOM historicity have garnered no passing interest nor acceptance from the very peer group that Prof. Peterson uses as the litmus test for their credibility.

I don't use interest or acceptance from outside scholars as a "litmus test" for the credibility of arguments for the Book of Mormon. I've never claimed that such things are properly judged by means of popularity contests. Quite the contrary. I have repeatedly and explicitly said that arguments are to be judged by the quality of their supporting evidence and the cogency of the logic that they employ, whether they've been read by hundreds of thousands of people or by only one, and whether they've been published in the world-famous and infinitely prestigious Zeitschrift f

[Ref]

Your position simply doesn't stand up to known history. Is there a reason that you attempt to hide behind science but demonstrate no understanding of it?

Actually Brant, outside of the â??homeboyâ? support you may find comforting on this board, your â??claimâ? of â??known historyâ? does not stand up to an even greater problem for you and Prof. Peterson. That is the acceptance of the peer group you want to be part of, but so desperately lack the support or recognition from with respect to all the work youâ??ve done on BOM historicity. If the Provo academic society is all that you seek approval from, consider yourself on the way to â??Pulitzerâ?!!! If you and others are in support of recognition and validation for the works relative to a historicity claim for the BOM, outside of Provo, you may want to seek an objective acceptance by you peer group whoâ??s zip code is outside of Provo. Why not submit your works to the likes of Archaeology Today or, as it fancies Prof. Peterson, the University of Chicago Press. Could either of you express why such would not be appropriate?

I don't use interest or acceptance from outside scholars as a "litmus test" for the credibility of arguments for the Book of Mormon.

Again Mr. Prof., we need to stay focused on the topic. We are not discussing the BOM. We are talking about the acceptance of the historicity claim of the BOM as supposedly demonstrated by the likes of Lds Clark and Sorenson. And you have most frequently lauded the accolades of their works in accepted arrears of scholarship as reasons for accepting them as credible scholars in the area of BOM historicity.

It was suggested that we try to hide our arguments from the attention of non-LDS scholars. I pointed out that we present our arguments at the leading directly-relevant conference of non-LDS scholars; that, for a number of years, we attempted (with some success, I might add) to distribute the publications that contain those arguments to attendees at that very conference (and, I hope, someday soon, will do it yet again); and that some of those publications are featured in the catalog of, and are being distributed by, perhaps the leading academic press in the United States.

Prof. Peterson,

Lotâ??s of things have always been suggested by you â??after the factâ?! Again though, letâ??s stay focused and on topic here. What I , and perhaps Gervin, have been questioning is why such great â??claimed scholarshipâ? by you, Gardner, and perhaps those supporting it at FARMS, with specific respect the articles of Clark, Sorenson, Nibley , Welch and others, to the claimed BOM historicity, has garner no interest at all by those outside of FARMS.

While you are very â??oratoryâ? on where Lds scholars â??are speakingâ? in an effort to demonstrate acceptance, both you and Gardner seem to have a bad case of â??lock Jawâ? when it comes to the verification and/or validation for acceptance of all this â??self proclaimed and great scholarshipâ? in support of the BOM historicity claim.

So for one last time and anniversary question for either you, Hamblin (and/or Watson of course), or Gardner:

When will the scholarship supporting a historicity claim for the BOM be at the level for submitting it to a peer review? If it is already there, when will it be submitted for peer evaluation and who do you see it being submitted to?

If you do not seeing being ready for submittal for professional peer group evaluation, what do you believe it lacks?

I'm sure they want to survive. But I can pretty well guarantee that the University of Chicago Press would not be eager to distribute something that it thought would endanger its reputation for quality.

So then we are in agreement for the reason not to solicit a request from them to publish the works of Clark and Sorenson in the areas of BOM historicity?

[PhilipTraum]

I liked this thread better when it was about the Book of Mormon. What does FARM's credibility have to do with anything?

[Daniel Peterson]

I liked this thread better when it was about the Book of Mormon. What does FARM's credibility have to do with anything?

It's not even a matter of "FARMS credibility." Talking about "FARMS credibility" is a diversion from actual engagement with the Book of Mormon. But going on and on about whether FARMS is or is not drawing sufficiently high scores in some academic popularity contest is a diversion from talking about the questions of evidence and logic that constitute the only legitimate tests of academic credibility. So it's a doubly irrelevant dodge.

Fortunately, I'm headed out of town and won't be paying any more attention.

[Brant Gardner]

Actually Brant, outside of the â??homeboyâ? support you may find comforting on this board, your â??claimâ? of â??known historyâ? does not stand up to an even greater problem for you and Prof. Peterson.

If it wasn't clear before, it certainly is now. You have no intention of actually engaging in any substantive discussion. You refuse to answer questions. You simply repeat yourself but increase the "heat" of the exchange. No evidence, just repeated assertions and new attempts to insult.

Sorry. I don't want to play.

I agree with Philip Traum. We should return to the topic.

[why me]

Actually Brant, outside of the â??homeboyâ? support you may find comforting on this board, your â??claimâ? of â??known historyâ? does not stand up to an even greater problem for you and Prof. Peterson.

If it wasn't clear before, it certainly is now. You have no intention of actually engaging in any substantive discussion. You refuse to answer questions. You simply repeat yourself but increase the "heat" of the exchange. No evidence, just repeated assertions and new attempts to insult.

Sorry. I don't want to play.

I agree with Philip Traum. We should return to the topic.

Relax, Brant, this is what the critics attempt to do. It has to do with contention. And we all know who is the father of contention. For the critic, assertions and speculations, non-engagement are all a part of the game. For the critic, the game centers on sowing doubt. And it can work. But not always. Speculations and assertions do not cause doubt, but people do.

[Pahoran]

Ref,

evidently lacking sufficient backbone to address my rebuttal of your specious argument, you sneered:

And Brant,

One last favor from you if I may ask. Could you please deal with the questions, rebuttals, and especially the standards of reason that Pahoran persists in using? You guys seem to be on the same side. I can't bear to tell that his logic makes no sense. Perhaps you will be more persuasive in diplomatic efforts.

I take this as an admission that my argument is beyond your competence. Which clearly it is.

Since you evidently can't possibly imagine a secular scholar dismissing The Book of Mormon without thorough and careful examination of the text and comparing it to other sources about ancient America--even though you show no sign of having given it any such examination--consider the case of Stirling McMurrin. He is highly regarded in "liberal" and "fringe" Mormon circles as something of an "expert" on LDS history and doctrine. And yet:

One very surprising and noticeable omission in McMurrinâ??s essays on Mormon theology is that there is no sustained discussion of the Book of Mormon or even the foundational events of the restoration of the church. While the Book of Mormon is mentioned here and there, it is never seriously considered in its own right. Now part of this is because McMurrin himself has publicly admitted that he did not take the book seriously and that he had not even read it carefully. Why? Simply put, angels do not bring books written on gold plates. (Ted Vaggalis, "The Gospel and the Captive Woman" in

FARMS Review

18:1, p.281.)

Now, if a highly regarded, even eminent, scholar and "expert" on Mormonism can ignore The Book of Mormon just because "angels do not bring books written on gold plates," then why not other scholars? Particularly since it is patently obvious to everyone--believer and non-believer alike--that The Book of Mormon is central to "Mormonism," while its connection to Mesoamerica is a priori rejected by most people, and certainly by all secular types.

Well?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

The texts don't repeat the story from the dirt and the dirt doesn't reveal the precise stories from the texts. Nevertheless, there are ways to correlate the two. That is what I term a Book of Mormon "discovery."

I asked if a Book of Mormon discovery means archaeological evidence - something tangible. You said yes and then went on to say, above, that it is a correlation; that is, someone else's tangible evidence and then your application of how it fits the Book of Mormon. That isn't tangible evidence. That's an assumed correlation. You don't have a discovery so you take someone else's discovery and make it yours. This is my point. Operating outside of mainstream academics allows you to avoid academic scrutiny while re-defining terms.

There are arguments made. They are based on the best information about Mesoamerica, and to my knowledge, don't distort any of that information.

My point is that if you are not interacting with experts in Mesoamerican studies then "your knowledge" with all due respect is limited. And how are you determining "the best information about Mesoamerica" without making it appear that you are simply picking and choosing aspects of other works simply to bolster your Book of Mormon theories?

I agree that the question is whether or not that information is accurately applied to the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, that requires expertise in the Book of Mormon, not Mesoamerica, because the Mesoamerican evidence is used just as published and understood.

Applying information about Mesoamerica to the Book of Mormon can be done by anyone - LDS, atheist, Catholic - if they are convinced that the connections are credible. Some expertise in the Book of Mormon is required. Some expertise in Mesoamerica is required. My point is that irregardless of what someone thinks about the Book of Mormon, if you want to use Mesoamerican studies to prove your connections you should interested enough in feedback from the academic community to check your application of the data - and brave enough to take some criticism if the academic world questions that application. I'll stand by my theory that folks like you aren't brave enough to let your work stand before anyone but the LDS faithful.

Re your question about Hebrew people and culture perhaps you can point me to some of the work in Mesoamerican studies that you draw from that would help me understand the application of the Law of Moses in Pre-classic mesoamerica. thanks in advance.

[Olavarria]

keep t goin

[Brant Gardner]

My point is that if you are not interacting with experts in Mesoamerican studies then "your knowledge" with all due respect is limited. And how are you determining "the best information about Mesoamerica" without making it appear that you are simply picking and choosing aspects of other works simply to bolster your Book of Mormon theories?

This question is worth answering. The answer is really simple. You take people who have or currently are interacting with the Mesoamerican community. You take someone like John Clark who is extremely well-respected in that community and has a very long publishing record. You take people who have published in the field in respected journals - so that it is evident that they both handle the evidence and the relevant methodologies.

Then you add in an understanding and serious study of the Book of Mormon.

How does that demonstrate the knowledge of what the best information might be? In the case of Clark - he is generated some of it. In the case of others, they are conversant with the field and less published than Clark, but still recognized for understanding and method.

How can one be certain that we aren't cherry picking? The same way that academics avoid that problem in secular research.

That is the reason that you actually have to deal with the arguments and not toss off generalizations that assume that the academic communities disinterest in religion equates to a denial of solid research. It doesn't. In fact, John Clark is very good at figuratively holding LDS author's feet to the fire to make sure that they are using data and techniques that are responsible and do not cherry pick.

In other words, the process is exactly what you keep intimating that it cannot be. That is the problem with saying things when you don't really understand a field. You make mistakes like that.

[Olavarria]

[Ref]

That is the reason that you actually have to deal with the arguments and not toss off generalizations that assume that the academic communities disinterest in religion equates to a denial of solid research.

Unless the claim of the BOM has changed, this is a very misleading statement and one to only find "another excuse" for the lack of interest in Lds scholarship for the BOM historicity claim

Last I heard from the apologists, the BOM is a record of "history". While it may have a spiritual message to some, it does not detract from those who claim it to be a history.

To put it the same plane of academic interest in records of history with religious inferences (but a record of history none the less), lets compare it to the secular academic interest, and ultimately validation of the claimed record of history, which exist in both the Bible and Koran.

The Archaeological Institute of America gives acceptance and credibility to the record of history to both these religious texts:

Bible:

http://www.archaeology.org/9809/abstracts/bible.html

Koran:

http://www.archaeology.org/0005/newsbriefs/koran.html

But go ahead and type in "Book of Mormon" into the sight's "search" function and all one seems to get is an article on the "Mountain Meadow Massacre". And if you do not believe this sight ranks at an acceptable academic credibility level, pick one you think does.

So Brant, there is no "disinterest" generated by a record of history even if it is associtated with a religious text by the secualr academic community unless, as we find in the case with the BOM, there is no credible nor convincing scholarship to demonstate the "historicity" claim to such secular academic group.

If the scholarship by Clark and other Lds scholars with respect to BOM historicity is credible, why not have it submitted to the Archeology Institute of America? As we see, discussing the history associated with other religious texts does not generate the "disinterest" you seem to create as an excuse for the non-acceptance of Lds works in the area of BOM historicity.

Accordingly, the credibility of the schoarship of Clark and other Lds supporting historicty claim for the BOM, MUST be evaluated on the interest and acceptance by those without a purely religious bias and motivation.

[Jerubaal]

To put it the same plane of academic interest in records of history with religious inferences (but a record of history none the less), lets compare it to the secular academic interest, and ultimately validation of the claimed record of history, which exist in both the Bible and Koran.

You are comparing apples and baby wolverines here. The fundamental, glaring, hideous omission in your statement is that one can accept the Koran and Bible as ancient documents woithout accepting their supernatural claims! With the Book of Mormon, it is either true or false. Admitting you accept the Book of Mormon as a true histry means also ccepting modern prophecy and countless other things.

[cksalmon]

I could be reading the exchange incorrectly. But, it seems that Dr. P and BG are suggesting that correlations between Mesoamerica and BoM are best done outside in. In other words, Mesoamerican research is fruitful to BoM's claims to historicity when Mesoamerican discoveries (by competent Mesoamerican researchers of whatever stripe, LDS or non-LDS, or something other) are overlaid on BoM texts.

I haven't seen a defense of the position that BoM claims to historicity are successful when the opposite is the case, i.e., when BoM claims to historicity are overlaid on exsting Mesoamerican scholarship (as carried out by whomever, LDS or non-LDS).

I think this is close to the point that Ref and Gervin have been advocating.

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

When will the scholarship supporting a historicity claim for the BOM be at the level for submitting it to a peer review? If it is already there, when will it be submitted for peer evaluation and who do you see it being submitted to?

By the Hand of Mormon:The American Scripture that launched a new world religion, was published my Oxford University Press. In it the NHM alters are describe as the first archeologoical evidence for boM historicity. Was this peer reviewed?

[cksalmon]

When will the scholarship supporting a historicity claim for the BOM be at the level for submitting it to a peer review? If it is already there, when will it be submitted for peer evaluation and who do you see it being submitted to?

By the Hand of Mormon:The American Scripture that launched a new world religion, was published my Oxford University Press. In it the NHM alters are describe as the first archeologoical evidence for boM historicity. Was this peer reviewed?

Why would you assume that Givens's book had been "peer-reviewed" prior to publication with OUP? Obviously, this is a book that OUP considered worthy of publication, but that, obviously, does not mean that the the arguments presented therein were subjected to the peer review process of specialized academic journals dedicated to the elucidation of their respective areas of expertise.

Perhaps peer review in academic journals figured into this process (I don't know). But, certainly, it did not based simply on the fact that OUP published the book.

Best.

CKS

[Ref]

I could be reading the exchange incorrectly. But, it seems that Dr. P and BG are suggesting that correlations between Mesoamerica and BoM are best done outside in. In other words, Mesoamerican research is fruitful to BoM's claims to historicity when Mesoamerican discoveries (by competent Mesoamerican researchers of whatever stripe, LDS or non-LDS, or something other) are overlaid on BoM texts.

I haven't seen a defense of the position that BoM claims to historicity are successful when the opposite is the case, i.e., when BoM claims to historicity are overlaid on exsting Mesoamerican scholarship (as carried out by whomever, LDS or non-LDS).

I think this is close to the point that Ref and Gervin have been advocating.

This is on the right trak but only partially true.

The issue that Gardner, Peterson, and other apologists will never address is WHY? Why is there not even a passing interest by the entire world wide non-lds scholarly and academic community to even consider the BOM as a record of history? If we have all this "supposed" great scholarly work done by the likes of Clark and Sorenson et. al, why is there not even the least interest in our secular academic community to take the time to read the BOM and see where the claim of this, never before known history, stands with respect to the claim contained within the BOM?

In May of 1994, John Clark made this statement:

"Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity."

See here: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/50535

Immediately and on this board, Dr. Peterson came out with his own dramatic pontification that this statement was almost a "watershead type event" and that it was of such magnanimous stature that Clark "was really putting his reputation on the line and that it could cost him". As if to indicate that Clark, being such a well known respected mesoamerican archaeologist and scholar, would bring attention to such statement about the BOM having an archaeological supported historicity.

Yet after several posters, over the past two years have asked; "What did it ever cost Dr. Clark to make such a statement"? "Did he really go at risk with his reputation"? "Was anyone in his professional peer group even paying any serious attention to his statement" or "Did it merely land on deaf ears as his supposed scholarship on BOM historicity has"?

Dr. Peterson, to my knowledge, has never responded to his original contention about "putting his reputation on the line"!

With the benefit of two and a half years of hindsight now, I think it's pretty fair to say that the statements by Clark and Peterson, with respect to BOM archaeology and "Clark's reputational risk", respectively, were nothing more than a bit of a "faith promoting event"! Clearly neither have drawn any attention from anywhere outside of Provo that can be demonstrated today!

[Olavarria]

Perhaps peer review in academic journals figured into this process (I don't know). But, certainly, it did not based simply on the fact that OUP published the book.

of course.

[Brant Gardner]

The issue that Gardner, Peterson, and other apologists will never address is WHY? Why is there not even a passing interest by the entire world wide non-lds scholarly and academic community to even consider the BOM as a record of history?

Actually, this statement is entirely incorrect. I know I have answered why. I know Dr. Peterson has. Frankly, I can't imagine that anyone familiar with the academic community of anthropologists and archaeologists would seriously ask such a question.

[Gervin]

How can one be certain that we aren't cherry picking? The same way that academics avoid that problem in secular research.

I don't think you can show me where LDS historians take their Book of Mormon "discoveries" (in quotes since you now say this is a correlation not tangible evidence) and research before the Mesoamerican academic community. That's how academics avoid the problem of cherry-picking their findings. All you've done is show how the name John Clarke gets you in the back door: he's published, he's respected, he's LDS. Does he regularly submit papers at academic conferences that describe how he uses Mesoamerican findings to create Book of Mormon correlations? I don't believe he does.

That is the reason that you actually have to deal with the arguments and not toss off generalizations that assume that the academic communities disinterest in religion equates to a denial of solid research. It doesn't. In fact, John Clark is very good at figuratively holding LDS author's feet to the fire to make sure that they are using data and techniques that are responsible and do not cherry pick.

Why is John Clarke the appointed feet-to-the-fire-holder? Why don't you (or he) trust the academic community to agree or disagree with your use of outside findings?

In other words, the process is exactly what you keep intimating that it cannot be. That is the problem with saying things when you don't really understand a field. You make mistakes like that.

The "process" is nothing more than submitting your work for outside scrutiny. You don't do it so you have no credibility with your claims of Mesoamerican correlations. You don't just make mistakes like that, you institutionalize them. Why are you so very afraid of the outside world?

[Jerubaal]

I could be reading the exchange incorrectly. But, it seems that Dr. P and BG are suggesting that correlations between Mesoamerica and BoM are best done outside in. In other words, Mesoamerican research is fruitful to BoM's claims to historicity when Mesoamerican discoveries (by competent Mesoamerican researchers of whatever stripe, LDS or non-LDS, or something other) are overlaid on BoM texts.

I haven't seen a defense of the position that BoM claims to historicity are successful when the opposite is the case, i.e., when BoM claims to historicity are overlaid on exsting Mesoamerican scholarship (as carried out by whomever, LDS or non-LDS).

I think this is close to the point that Ref and Gervin have been advocating.

Best.

CKS

Ah, and that is the point Brant was trying to explain when he said:

Not at all. I simply have a very different perspective. I come at the question from the document side, not the artifact side. Just as I would have to judge the authenticity of the Leyenda de los Soles, or the Histoire du Mechique, there are ways in which documents are judged against artifacts and against history. There is an uneasy juncture between the two because they deal with inherently different stories. The texts don't repeat the story from the dirt and the dirt doesn't reveal the precise stories from the texts. Nevertheless, there are ways to correlate the two. That is what I term a Book of Mormon "discovery."

[Jerubaal]

I don't think you can show me where LDS historians take their Book of Mormon "discoveries" (in quotes since you now say this is a correlation not tangible evidence) and research before the Mesoamerican academic community. That's how academics avoid the problem of cherry-picking their findings. All you've done is show how the name John Clarke gets you in the back door: he's published, he's respected, he's LDS. Does he regularly submit papers at academic conferences that describe how he uses Mesoamerican findings to create Book of Mormon correlations? I don't believe he does.

Do you even bother to read what Dr. Peterson has to say? Or are you still sore over when he crushed your GervinLogic on the last BoM archaeology thread?

Dr. Peterson has specifically adressed this.

[PhilipTraum]

sigh...

Granted, methodology is an important aspect to discuss.