Author of Prophecies and Promises

[Brant Gardner]

Look at the .57minmark of this video. Are they using the kinderhook plates as evidence of ancient writing? I hope not.

I believe those are part of the Michigan artifacts collection. May uses a lot of those in this particular piece. I really wonder if the archaeologists in the film knew how their footage was going to be used.

One of the pieces May shows is the metal "file." That is fascinating because it was one of the specific pieces that was examined and declared absolutely fraudulent. It looks like a file, but is completely non-functional. Most of what I saw that had writing on it or was a metal artifact are part of the Michigan artifacts (which May has promoted for years). He is certainly aware that they have been declared fakes, but he refuses to believe it.

[David Bokovoy]

I believe those are part of the Michigan artifacts collection. May uses a lot of those in this particular piece. I really wonder if the archaeologists in the film knew how their footage was going to be used.

One of the pieces May shows is the metal "file." That is fascinating because it was one of the specific pieces that was examined and declared absolutely fraudulent. It looks like a file, but is completely non-functional. Most of what I saw that had writing on it or was a metal artifact are part of the Michigan artifacts (which May has promoted for years). He is certainly aware that they have been declared fakes, but he refuses to believe it.

Brandt,

I picked up two volumes of your new commentary over Christmas. Unbelievable! I'm soaking up every word.

[Brant Gardner]

Brandt,

I picked up two volumes of your new commentary over Christmas. Unbelievable! I'm soaking up every word.

Thanks for the kind words. We'll see what you think after you have waded through more of it.

[volgadon]

Its bound to prove its worth in a scuffle if David gets pounced upon by meldrumites wearing tapir t-shirts.

[cinepro]

This is one of the major techniques employed by Meldrum and his associates. They actively cast doubt on the motivations of people who make arguments in opposition to them. This is usually done in two ways. First, as seen in the discussion above, they argue that people cannot back down from their positions because it will hurt them financially. Second, they argue that scholars have built their entire careers on a position, and that they cannot reverse their arguments without invalidating their life's work.

FWIW, I've heard LDS propose the exact same things about ministers of other religions: they're paid to promote their false beliefs so they'd be out of a job if they converted, and they're so invested in their beliefs that they just can't admit they're wrong and accept the truths LDS have to offer.

[Greg Smith]

FWIW, I've heard LDS propose the exact same things about ministers of other religions: they're paid to promote their false beliefs so they'd be out of a job if they converted, and they're so invested in their beliefs that they just can't admit they're wrong and accept the truths LDS have to offer.

The irony, though, is that Meldrum DOES make his entire living off his activities (God gave him a sign, remember). Yet, he attacks those who clearly don't make a dime off what they write as being motivated by financial gain. This would be rather like Jim Bakker attacking Mormon missionaries for doing it all "for the money." :-)

Money may motivate people, of course--but Meldrum's situation makes him at least as motivated by money as anyone else he attacks, since it is his job; God supposedly told him to quit his job to do this full time.

Likewise, if Meldrum's "research" doesn't hold up, he's got nothing. Its his sole claim to fame. No one's going to line up and pay money to hear him speak about other things, are they?

Sorenson or PhD geneticists, by contrast, are not going to lose their jobs or income if they suddenly decide that their ideas about DNA and the Book of Mormon were mistaken.

So, if he wants to charge others as being unable to see the truth on these grounds, fine and dandy--but, that means he is accepting that such things matter in assessing someone's argument. And, he stands to lose a lot more from that analysis than anyone he critiques....

It is a fallacious argument, but it condemns him far more than it does anyone else.

GLS

[LifeOnaPlate]

FWIW, I've heard LDS propose the exact same things about ministers of other religions: they're paid to promote their false beliefs so they'd be out of a job if they converted, and they're so invested in their beliefs that they just can't admit they're wrong and accept the truths LDS have to offer.

Tu quoque doesn't excuse Meldrum/Porter. Or do you think it's ok for them?

[jozov]

If Porter is so concerned about scholars making money, why is he selling a book? Why doesn't Porter just post all his research for free on his website? What a hypocrite!

Don't scholars get PHD's so they can write a few books and do a few lectures for money? This is how scholars get paid. They spend a little time teaching at Universities and a little time publishing and lecturing. I am not LDS and do not agree with origins of the BOM, but I see nothing insidious about these guys making some $ off of their research and publications.

I'll bet LDS scholars make a fraction of what secular scholars pull down. My old marketing professor is a millionaire because big companies pay for his advice and most MBA programs use the textbook he wrote. Wow! what an evil scholar for making money from his knowledge.

Porter is delusional

[cinepro]

Tu quoque doesn't excuse Meldrum/Porter. Or do you think it's ok for them?

I believe those who write for the MI, those who publish with Meldrum, and the ministers of the world are all motivated by money and/or unable to admit they are wrong because of their investment in their theories.

[Greg Smith]

I believe those who write for the MI, those who publish with Meldrum, and the ministers of the world are all motivated by money and/or unable to admit they are wrong because of their investment in their theories.

I think you think this because you are unable to admit you are wrong because of your investment in your theories/world-view.

See? Anyone can play. :-)

This is why appeals to motive are a fallacy. Data and arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

GLS

[cinepro]

I think you think this because you are unable to admit you are wrong because of your investment in your theories/world-view.

See? Anyone can play. :-)

This is why appeals to motive are a fallacy. Data and arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

GLS

Well, it's obviously not for money. And just to be clear, are you referring to my current skeptical theories/worldview, or the theories/worldview I had before I gave them up for my newer skeptical ones?

[Greg Smith]

Well, it's obviously not for money. And just to be clear, are you referring to my current skeptical theories/worldview, or the theories/worldview I had before I gave them up for my newer skeptical ones?

I'm not referring to any world-view specifically. It doesn't matter in the least.

The point is that one can play this game all day, and get nowhere. That's why it's a logical fallacy. You can argue that you've shown how strong-minded you are by adopting a new world view; I simply counter that something else made you leave the old worldview, and adopt the new one, that had nothing to do with evidence, which rather supports the old view (and which I just happen to share and maintain).

You counter-charge by complaining that I'm blinkered because of my beliefs; I counter-respond that my beliefs exist because of my evaluation of the evidence, not in spite of it. And round and round we go.

That's why these are logical fallacies--they say nothing of the data, and are a distraction from the real issues.

Which, I suspect, is why Porter and Meldrum use them so often and so vehemently, since they cannot make their case on a simple discussion of the data.

See ad hominem circumstantial ["Well, of course X doesn't agree with me--he's a Mesoamerican theorist, and has made money off it."]

Appeal to motive

See also:

Appeal to flattery ["You good, salt-of-the-earth, spiritual folks won't be taken in by the "intellectuals" or "scholars" trying to dismiss Joseph Smith's plain meaning...."]

GLS