From Idaho State Journal

[Daniel Peterson]

Did it occur to you that someone perhaps might know people in Aberdeen?

And that is a very real possibility. I, for example, know somebody in Aberdeen.

Would you like it if someone you knew was being mocked because he wrote a letter to his local paper?

It would, of course, be absurd to "mock" somebody on the grounds, simply, that "he wrote a letter to his local paper."

I really liked the poster that looked him up on google and posted his address and phone number? What would be the purpose of that? Were we all to call him up, and tell him how wrong his opinion was?

It wasn't I.

Why do you care if I pick a fight with Peterson anyway (Which for what its worth, I am not trying to do)? I'm pretty sure he can handle himself without help.

I think it may have been the fairly desperate straining to find something, anything, to fight about that seemed to merit comment.

[rabanes]

MATT: Here are four theories I think are consistent with (but not proved by) the DNA evidence:

1) The Book of Mormon people were quite small compared to other groups in the Americas.

RA: Unfortunately, this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc. It contradicts what Joseph Smith, the very founder of the LDS faith stated, and other early Mormons believed. Now, this is very interesting, because what we have is modern BYU professors and FAIR-like apologists correcting none other than the likes of Smith, Young, Taylor, et al. Today's Mormons are "restoring" if you will, or re-directing, or re-stating, or re-correcting

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know Norv Brown, so you may be right.  Another, perhaps more gracious, theory that would be consistent with his letter would be that he found their responses unconvincing, or not related enough to the point of his letter, as he saw it.

It's difficult to imagine Mr. Norv Brown finding the scientific responses published by FARMS "not related enough to the point of his letter." They directly contradict the claims of his "experts." It's possible, of course, that he has read, understood, and rejected the work of Drs. McClellan, Whiting, Butler, Meldrum, and Stephens, as well as the related articles by Sorenson, Roper, Tvedtnes, and Stubbs, but I'm inclined to doubt it. He doesn't mention them at all. This is, as I've noted, quite typical of the anti-Mormon response on this issue. "Some, I fear," says Mr. Norval Brown, "would rather ignore the science if it doesn't agree with what they choose to believe."

[pseudogratix]

I really liked the poster that looked him up on google and posted his address and phone number? What would be the purpose of that?

Sigh. That was in response to the question "Anyone know who Norv Brown is?" in the originating post.

[raindancer]

I really liked the poster that looked him up on google and posted his address and phone number? What would be the purpose of that?

Sigh. That was in response to the question "Anyone know who Norv Brown is?" in the originating post.

and is it relevant? Not that it matters, people here often tend to go off on tangents to avoid the real issues in a post.

[pseudogratix]

and is it relevant? Not that it matters, people here often tend to go off on tangents to avoid the real issues in a post.

Sigh. The poster asked a question, which seemed to be the poster's main concern (it was the only question the poster asked after all) and I tried to answer it. The only thing I could find of substance was the link I posted.

As for people going off on tangents...sigh...never mind...sigh

[rabanes]

I really liked the poster that looked him up on google and posted his address and phone number? What would be the purpose of that?

Sigh. That was in response to the question "Anyone know who Norv Brown is?" in the originating post.

and is it relevant? Not that it matters, people here often tend to go off on tangents to avoid the real issues in a post.

I think I was more interested in knowing about his views, background, other writings, etc etc etc, not necessarily his address and phone number. It's usually a poor idea to post personal info link that, or links to it (even if public). This is a really crazy world. Just FYI, probably best to not do this again, for anyone. pro- or anti-.

RA

[pseudogratix]

I think I was more interested in knowing about his views, background, other writings, etc etc etc, not necessarily his address and phone number.

Please forgive me for not reading all that into "Anyone know who Norv Brown is?"

[John Russell]

RA: Again, a good try, but one would imagine that such magnificent battles and scores of dead bodies would leave some hint, some trace, of archaeological evidence

[Guest Just Curious]

We can often find artefacts in locations where we know that battles have occurred, but even where large-scale fighting has occurred, the abundance of artefacts declines steadily with the passage of time. The majority of surviving artefacts are recovered and maintained by cultures or nations that are still in existence.

I totally agree with you and you just absolutely punched a humongous hole right thru the BoM....where are the steel swords, where is the armour, where are the chariots the other cultures recovered and preserved !!

How many native american artefacts do we have from battles fought 1400 or 1500 years ago?

There are sites all across the US dating to, before and after these periods with quite a few artifacts in them..

Further, if one accepts the idea that the Book of Mormon was limited to Mesoamerica, then it is not at all difficult to believe that in the region, with abundant wildlife to decimate remains (not to mention foraging groups of the the non-BOM peoples) and a poor climate for preserving relics not made of stone, that little if any evidence would persist after 1600 years for even a large encounter.

Well according to another thread even the Church doesn't know where the BoM lands were so this hypothesis is simply that...a theory, since the BoM mentions trees, mountains, rivers and seas it could be absolutely anywhere in North, Central or South America...unless of course you can find Zarahemla !!!

Can you point to some good examples of battles leaving abundant artefacts in tropical or subtropical areas?

And exactly what proof do you have that the BoM took place in a tropical or subtropical area? Again nothing more than speculation !!

[Daniel Peterson]

1) The Book of Mormon people were quite small compared to other groups in the Americas.

RA: Unfortunately, this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc.

This is flatly untrue.

Matthew Roper's article "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations" illustrates something of the variety of opinions that have existed on this topic among Church members and leaders since the nineteenth century -- i.e., since not only long before Crick and Watson's discovery of the structure of DNA but considerably before anything that could plausibly be regarded as scientific archaeology in Mesoamerica. It can be found via a link at

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?...ion=dna&cat=dna

Smith himself said that the all American Indians were

[Daniel Peterson]

Mr. Curious, a great deal of careful reading and analysis has gone into current theories of Book of Mormon geography. As of a few days ago, you hadn't read any of the relevant materials. It doesn't seem that you know enough about this topic to be dismissing it all as mere baseless speculation.

[Guest Just Curious]

Mr. Curious, a great deal of careful reading and analysis has gone into current theories of Book of Mormon geography. As of a few days ago, you hadn't read any of the relevant materials. It doesn't seem that you know enough about this topic to be dismissing it all as mere baseless speculation.

Well Mr. Peterson the day we find Zarahemla I will gladly recant my baseless speculation quotation and eat my words for you...until then..sorry they stand !!!

[Daniel Peterson]

Mr. Curious, a great deal of careful reading and analysis has gone into current theories of Book of Mormon geography. As of a few days ago, you hadn't read any of the relevant materials. It doesn't seem that you know enough about this topic to be dismissing it all as mere baseless speculation.

Well Mr. Peterson the day we find Zarahemla I will gladly recant my baseless speculation quotation and eat my words for you...until then..sorry they stand !!!

In other words, you haven't really read any of the relevant scholarly discussions. Yet another illustration of the fact that, for some people, such discussions might as well not exist. Unless you live in Aberdeen, Idaho, you constitute a nifty illustration of the fact that Mr. Norv Brown's world extends far beyond that hyperintellectual metropolitan area.

I wonder, too, if you understand what would be involved in or required in order to have a definitive identification of a Mesoamerican Zarahemla, and how unlikely such an identification is (on purely archaeological grounds). Professor Hamblin's paper on "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1) has plainly not lost its urgent relevance. But, I suspect, it might as well not exist.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbmsvolu...lume=2&number=1

[Guest Just Curious]

I wonder, too, if you understand what would be involved in or required in order to have a definitive identification of a Mesoamerican Zarahemla, and how unlikely such an identification is (on purely archaeological grounds). Professor Hamblin's paper on "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1) has plainly not lost its urgent relevance. But, I suspect, it might as well not exist.

In light of the above statement it certainly must be considered nothing short of miraculous that so many cities, towns, villages etc have been discovered and identified in the Americas...

[John Russell]

JC said:

I totally agree with you and you just absolutely punched a humongous hole right thru the BoM....where are the steel swords, where is the armour, where are the chariots the other cultures recovered and preserved !!

I don't follow your reasoning here. To which continuous cultures in the Americas are you referring? In the Middle East, we have Damascus steel items from ancient times, and some other metal materials, but again, these cultures have been intact for centuries. And despite the extensive use of metal and the preservation by the people (and the rather salubrious climate for preservation) in this region, there is no great abundance of metal artefacts, as one might expect. In the Nearctic and Neotropical regions, preservation os far less assured, and the civilizations in these regions have been highly disrupted. Why would you expect to find abundant relics here?

You also said:

There are sites all across the US dating to, before and after these periods with quite a few artifacts in them..

Would you care to name them? And what sorts of artefacts were found? To put this a bit differently, it has been estimated that when Europeans came ashore in Florida, that approximately 50,000 natives inhabited several restricted areas in the state. There is essentially no trace of them now, and the native population estimate was obtained only about 500 years ago. Were it not for records kept by the Europeans, we would have no idea that so many people lived there.

You continued:

Well according to another thread even the Church doesn't know where the BoM lands were so this hypothesis is simply that...a theory, since the BoM mentions trees, mountains, rivers and seas it could be absolutely anywhere in North, Central or South America...unless of course you can find Zarahemla !!!

Exactly. Given that we don't know where to look (although many of us advocate a limited, Mesoamerican geography), why would you expect to easily find numerous artefacts? Let's pretend that we live in the year AD 3400 and want to locate artefacts of the great Chinese civil war that raged in the 1930's and 1940's and claimed anywhere between 2 and 5 million lives. Let's further pretend that China had since been invaded and conquered several times in the interval, and that the culture had been basically purged and shifted, and that we had no idea where in China we should search for the battlefields of that terrible conflict because detailed records had been lost. Would you expect to be able to re-locate the battlefields easily based on abundant remains? Even today it is nearly impossible to know where many of those battles took place. Many of the people living nearby have absorbed and re-used materials, bodies are gone (due to burial, in some cases, but often lost to animals and decay). In similar manner, I wouldn't know where to start looking in Mesoamerica, but I also would have very little expectation of finding anything.

You concluded:

And exactly what proof do you have that the BoM took place in a tropical or subtropical area? Again nothing more than speculation !!

No particularly overwhelming proof, just my own belief that it all happened somewhere, and I find Dr. Sorensen's model the most compelling for location. Of course, it is speculation, but so is much of what we discuss here, and the presidential election, and economic models, and ....... But it IS fun, isn't it?

[Guest Just Curious]

QUOTE 

I totally agree with you and you just absolutely punched a humongous hole right thru the BoM....where are the steel swords, where is the armour, where are the chariots the other cultures recovered and preserved !!

I don't follow your reasoning here. To which continuous cultures in the Americas are you referring? In the Middle East, we have Damascus steel items from ancient times, and some other metal materials, but again, these cultures have been intact for centuries. And despite the extensive use of metal and the preservation by the people (and the rather salubrious climate for preservation) in this region, there is no great abundance of metal artefacts, as one might expect. In the Nearctic and Neotropical regions, preservation os far less assured, and the civilizations in these regions have been highly disrupted. Why would you expect to find abundant relics here?

Any of the continuous cultures!!!! The Americas obviously have been populated by cultures for over 10,000 years, if the cultures existed that carried away the artifacts and they kept using them the would have survived somewhat...hey you made the statement not me...

[Daniel Peterson]

In light of the above statement it certainly must be considered nothing short of miraculous that so many cities, towns, villages etc have been discovered and identified in the Americas...

No, the miracle is that, in this field, one apparently doesn't actually have to know anything at all in order to know more than enough.

Ever wondered why many of the major archaeological sites have Spanish names (e.g., La Venta, El Mirador, Tres Zapotes, Piedras Negras, etc.)? Ever wondered whether the names of many of the others (e.g, Palenque, Tikal, and Copan) are really ancient? Ever questioned why the "Olmec," a major civilization whose existence was only discovered a few decades ago, are known by a modern name and not their own ancient name? No. Probably not.

It's as if the relevant scholarship simply didn't exist. Who needs it, anyway? All one needs to speak out on Mesoamerican archaeology, it seems, is a mouth.

[Guest Just Curious]

No, the miracle is that, in this field, one apparently doesn't actually have to know anything at all in order to know more than enough.

Ever wondered why many of the major archaeological sites have Spanish names (e.g., La Venta, El Mirador, Tres Zapotes, Piedras Negras, etc.)? Ever wondered whether the names of many of the others (e.g, Palenque, Tikal, and Copan) are really ancient? Ever questioned why the "Olmec," a major civilization whose existence was only discovered a few decades ago, are known by a modern name and not their own ancient name? No. Probably not.

It's as if the relevant scholarship simply didn't exist. Who needs it, anyway? All one needs to speak out on Mesoamerican archaeology, it seems, is a mouth

I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this but I see no other resolution. Let me point out some facts for you Dan that maybe you have not considered. God is all knowing, increasing in knowledge and certainly knows the future...In the BoM we have the English translation of the Reformed Egyptian names. For example...Zarahemla. Now I seriously doubt that the word or name Zarahemla was in use prior to the BoM...ok do you follow me so far? Good !!! Now Zarahemla would have been a totally foreign and unfamiliar word to Joseph Smith. So would Copan, Tikal, Palenque, Piedras Negras...etc...just the exact same as curelom and cumom....I think you are seeing where we are going. Now if God knew Joseph was going to lose the 116 pages and prepared things to take care of that do you not think that God in his infinite wisdom knew that in say 100-200 years the BoM cities would be found and that instead of being named say for example Zarahemla they would be named the names we have today, because the names we have for them today are no more or less foreign to Joseph than the names he named them. So why didn't God just give Joseph the names we have today given the fact that the Reformed Egyptian was translated to English...I know the names are Spanish and other languages but they are no more different than say Zarahemla...why give a name that doesn't exist in place of one that does? Just food for thought...

[Guest johnny_cat]

So why didn't God just give Joseph the names we have today given the fact that the Reformed Egyptian was translated to English...I know the names are Spanish and other languages but they are no more different than say Zarahemla...why give a name that doesn't exist in place of one that does?

My head is spinning, JC. Wouldn't it have been proper to give the names the Nephites gave them (e.g., Zarahemla) rather than superimposing Spanish or other modern names on them? Why, for example, do we no longer refer to Peking but instead call it Beijing?

[Guest Just Curious]

There are sites all across the US dating to, before and after these periods with quite a few artifacts in them..

Would you care to name them? And what sorts of artefacts were found? To put this a bit differently, it has been estimated that when Europeans came ashore in Florida, that approximately 50,000 natives inhabited several restricted areas in the state. There is essentially no trace of them now, and the native population estimate was obtained only about 500 years ago. Were it not for records kept by the Europeans, we would have no idea that so many people lived there.

http://www.crt.state.la.us/crt/parks/marksvil/marksvle.htm

This is a weblink for one in Louisiana, which gets quite warm, stays quite humid and gets over 60 inches of rain per year so I don't think it would be considered tropical or semi tropical but the decompostion rate is quite quick...oh yeah the site is from pre BoM times to post BoM times...there is a museum with the artifacts in them there on the site...there are other sites across Louisiana of mounds too this is one of the biggest.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think you are seeing where we are going.

You're headed down a blind alley, or perhaps off a cliff. I'm not in the car with you.

Now if God knew Joseph was going to lose the 116 pages and prepared things to take care of that do you not think that God in his infinite wisdom knew that in say 100-200 years the BoM cities would be found and that instead of being named say for example Zarahemla they would be named the names we have today, because the names we have for them today are no more or less foreign to Joseph than the names he named them.  So why didn't God just give Joseph the names we have today given the fact that the Reformed Egyptian was translated to English...I know the names are Spanish and other languages but they are no more different than say Zarahemla...why give a name that doesn't exist in place of one that does?  Just food for thought...

A meager diet, I'm afraid.

Imagine that God had given names like La Venta and El Mirador to places in the English Book of Mormon -- names that the ancient Nephites did not use and could not have used. First of all, this would have been grossly inaccurate. More importantly, though, you and many others would now be arguing, since those names absolutely cannot predate the Spanish conquest -- they have to have originated later than 1492 -- that they prove the Book of Mormon false.

The game is rigged.

[Guest Just Curious]

You're headed down a blind alley, or perhaps off a cliff. I'm not in the car with you.

I guess so since your opinion is the only one that is valid, makes sense, and can possibly be correct...

The game is rigged.

Finally something we can agree upon !!!!

[Daniel Peterson]

I guess so since your opinion is the only one that is valid, makes sense, and can possibly be correct...

In a discussion between somebody who knows quite a bit about the topic and someone who hasn't read anything about it, the two sides aren't equal. That's simply the way it is.

If I ventured to challenge you on some elementary and widely understood point of wildlife management, or whatever your specific area of expertise is, and if I openly admitted that I had never read any of the basic materials on the subject, you would, I suspect, be far less patient with me than I have been with you.

[Confidential Informant]

First, let me begin by correcting something from the original letter. In fact, the type of DNA science being discussed the B of M and Amerindian context would not be admitted in any court, civil or ciminal. Thus, that claim is spurious and should be disregarded.

Now, on to some of Richard's thought. BTW, nice to see you back Richard:

It contradicts what Joseph Smith, the very founder of the LDS faith stated, and other early Mormons believed.

I always get a kick out of this type of response. In fact, if Richard truly thought about it, he'd drop this argument because, as a practicing evangelical Christian, he cannot logically maintain it without doing violence to his own position. Just Curious should probably listen up also.

You see, the current DNA evidence also contradicts teachings about the Bible which almost every Christian and Jew, including Peter the Apostle, have believed.

For example, Peter the Apostle obviously believe that the flood of Noah was a universal event which only 8 people survived. (See 1 Pet. 3:18-20). However, DNA evidence proves that the flood could not have been a universal event with only eight survivors.

Nevertheless, Richard turns a blind eye to the damage the facts do to his own position in order to score cheap points against Joseph Smith and Mormons.

C'mon Richard, you can do better than that. Would yhou care to explain how a prophet like Peter got it wrong?

Now, this is very interesting, because what we have is modern BYU professors and FAIR-like apologists correcting none other than the likes of Smith, Young, Taylor, et al.

There are so many problems with this statement who know's where to begin. Richard continue to apply his fundamentalistic ideas and inerrantist thinking to LDS. Mormons are not fundamentalists and the Bible does not support such thinking.

Today's Mormons are "restoring" if you will, or re-directing, or re-stating, or re-correcting—whatever you want to call it—the teachings of the original latter-day restorers.

How Ev's and Catholics will respond to the fact that Peter's belief was incorrect has yet to be seen. It ought to be entertaining though.

LDS professor Jeffrey Meldrum articulated this new mindset rather well during his 2003 FAIR lecture, saying: The necessary experiment simply cannot be designed that would refute the historicity of the Book of Mormon as the record of a small population (small intermingled population) on the basis of DNA studies and population genetics."

What is the new mindset? I forget?

A convenient 21st century spin that not only contradicts Smith and ealry Mormons,

Of course, the Living Hope Ministries video blatently contradicts Peter the Apostle, but why dwell on uncomfortable facts?

but also goes contrary to what the BOM seems to be saying. Mormon 1:7 tells us that the Nephite and Lamanite populations were hardly small: “The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea [about A.D.322].”

LOL, this is so funny! Talk about your fallacy of "presentism." Let's take our modern notions of what these words mean and apply them to something written in a different cultural milieu over 1500 years ago and claim that it should mean the same thing! What a joke. How many biblical verses could I cite and discredit using the exact same approach? BTW, Richard, geographically speaking Utah County where I live is very small. In the overall population of the country, it's insignificant, yet as I look out my window the "face of the whole land" is covered with buildings ( a description which aptly fits what archeologist now believe about mesoamerican at that time) and the people could indeed be described as being as numberous as the sands of the sea. Yet there is, in actuality , less that half a million people in the whole valley. Moreover, does your fundamentalistic thinking no allow for literary imagery or poetic license? Must every description be taken as if it were written as part of a patent application or electronic schematic?

For documentation, further discussion, and places to retrieve resources, see my book "Becoming Gods."

More shameless shilling for a bad book.

It was all wrong. And now 21st Century LDS and FARMS are left to clean up the mess, and salvage the validity/reliability of Smith's religion in light of modern knowledge that just unfortuately has cut straight across long-held LDS beliefs.

Of course, applying the same logic to Richard's own beliefs, the reliability of Peter, Paul, etc., in light of modern knowledge cuts straight across his fundamentalistic beliefs.

How will the Christian apologist rehabilitate Peter?

RA: Again, a good try, but one would imagine that such magnificent battles and scores of dead bodies would leave some hint, some trace, of archaeological evidence—anywhere!!!!!! None has been found.

Of course, if this is true it also means that none of there is no evidence of any of the battles described by the mayans either. Did the mayans not really exist?

No definitive, significant, accepted evidence that such widespread population destruction and wars took place.

Gee, I can't wait until Brant Gardener see this assertion. This is going to be fun.

My goodness, we have material from all over the world where battles took place thousands of years ago. Hmmmm, nothing really found that would point to any of the battles in the BOM. At the very least, that is suspicious, IMHO.

What material do we have from Mesoamerica? In fact, as I understand, modern archeologist believe that post-columbus literally hundreds of millions of amerindians died as a result of disease, war, etc. Yet that figure is just a guess because they can't seem to find any "evidence" of the mass deaths. Of course, no one argues that this proves anything, except, of course, Richard but his narrow focus doesn't allow for the application of his logic to a broader context where the silliness of it would be exposed.

RA: This is where LDS apologists, IMO, must go in order to salvage the faith.

You mean kind of like where Christian apologist have gone with the stories of Genesis?

Poor Peter. He's really taking a beating from modern science.

C.I.