The Olmec-Jaredite Convergence

[Olavarria]

I like the way you carry on a learned conversation with yourself, and the results speak for themselves -- excellent, as usual.

The only problem is that we must assume a continuous line without breaks, and that is when the discordant "descendant" word comes in. Was this a problem in the original Jaredite record itself, in the first translation of the Jaredite record, or a problem in editing? Since both "son" and "descendant" translate the same word, we are pretty much left to our own imaginations.

Hahaha:)

I see the biggest problem with that in the Riplakish-Morianton years. At least Jared and Ether give us a beginning and an end "date".

Edited October 7, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Olavarria]

Ok, so peer reviewed work is the principle in action then? If we rely on that then chalk the Book of Mormon up as fiction- the peer reviwed folks already have the America's figured out and there isn't no place for the book of Mormon as a historical document.

Non Sequiter, people can agree on when the structures on a site like San Lorenzo were built and disagree on whether or not angels deliver metal books to American farm boys.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Rob Osborn]

Non Sequiter, people can agree on when the structures on a site like San Lorenzo were built and disagree on whether or not angels deliver metal books to American farm boys.

So why isn't the Book of Mormon considered at least in part a book of historical value by the so called "peer reviewed" folks?

[shalamabobbi]

So why isn't the Book of Mormon considered at least in part a book of historical value by the so called "peer reviewed" folks?

Where is Mr. Obvious when you need him?

Here's some more material for you in case you ever run out..

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_underground.htm

[cdowis]

So why isn't the Book of Mormon considered at least in part a book of historical value by the so called "peer reviewed" folks?

This question has been addressed multiple times.

Just for starters,

• please give us a list of nonLDS scholars who have personally read the BOM and are competent and knowledgeable of the BOM text to do such a review.
  Please give us a list of journals who are willing to publish such articles -- specifically where you or someone else has an agreement from the editors to publish those articles.

I think you will find that they are unwilling to research a book delivered by an angel, and dismiss it out-of-hand. But let's see what you got.

Let's see if this is a serious question, or whether you are just making noise.

Edited October 7, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

the peer reviwed folks already have the America's figured out and there isn't no place for the book of Mormon as a historical document.

Let's see that list of the "peer review folks" who have actually read the BOM text. Let us ask them some basic questions on that text, e.g. what was the venacular for the Nephites?

[Rob Osborn]

This question has been addressed multiple times.

Just for starters,

Please give us a list of journals who are willing to publish such articles -- specifically where you or someone else has an agreement from the editors to publish those articles.

• 
  please give us a list of nonLDS scholars who have personally read the BOM and are competent and knowledgeable of the BOM text to do such a review.
  

I think you will find that they are unwilling to research a book delivered by an angel, and dismiss it out-of-hand. But let's see what you got.

Let's see if this is a serious question, or whether you are just making noise.

As far as I know, there are no peer reviewed papers or books that accept the BoM as historically accurate.

[Calm]

As far as I know, there are no peer reviewed papers or books that accept the BoM as historically accurate.

Any Maxwell Institute book or paper has been peer reviewed.

[Gervin]

Let's see that list of the "peer review folks" who have actually read the BOM text. Let us ask them some basic questions on that text, e.g. what was the venacular for the Nephites?

Before we ask questions of the peer review folks about Nephite vernacular, can we at least see if the peer review folks were given an opportunity to peer review?

Please provide a list of LDS papers, articles, research, or field work submitted by LDS on the topic of the Book of Mormon and then rejected by groups like Smithsonian, National Geographic, Biblical Archeology Review, Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., Science, Journal of New World Archaeology, American Antiquity, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Latin American Antiquity, various universities, etc., etc., etc.?

You're simply playing games, cdowis. If LDS scholars want their beliefs about a real geographic setting for the Book of Mormon taken seriously, then how are they making their case to the best minds relative to a particular geographic area, culture, and history?? Show us how the institutions and journals (above) are rejecting outright the proposed field work, findings and analysis of the Book of Mormon. My guess is that there is no LDS scholarship being advanced. It's hard to peer-review a paper that isn't written. If it was written and rejected by the blind of ignorance of scholars then I'm sure it found it's way to LDS publication. Please point out these articles and findings ignored by mainstream scholars.

[Olavarria]

So why isn't the Book of Mormon considered at least in part a book of historical value by the so called "peer reviewed" folks?

1)Red Herring, what does that have to do with using good scientific research in conjunction with BoM Studies?

2)Who cares?

3)Michael Coe on Mormon Stories.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[blackstrap]

Pedro,it looks like you are beating a dead tapir.

[cdowis]

Before we ask questions of the peer review folks about Nephite vernacular, can we at least see if the peer review folks were given an opportunity to peer review?

Please provide a list of LDS papers, articles, research, or field work submitted by LDS on the topic of the Book of Mormon and then rejected by groups like Smithsonian,

You should know better than to speak to me like that.

I had an ongoing discussion with the Smithsonian Institute (albeit years ago) requesting that they give LDS scholars an opportunity to discuss the Smithsonain statement regarding the BOM in their magazine. They did not overtly refuse, but did decide to change the statement itself to remove the comments regarding the BOM.

I think the change they made says it all... "The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide."

"We'll let you know when we want to publish an article on a book delivered by an angel."

I remember a statement from the scientific community which quoted that statement in the context of giving grants to BOM research. I quoted that source here in the forum awhile back, but did not keep the source.

In terms of reviewers, we have already discussed the most prominent, Michael Coe, who could claim any knowledge at all. After all, he has read "No Man Knows My History", which, in his eyes, makes him an expert.

Having said that, our scholars have fought the battle of transoceanic migration, which was rejected by the scientific community decades ago, and some still question. No need to mention the BOM, it is is a pivotal assumption of the BOM. While the traditional scientific community may not be interested in NHM, the valley of Lemuel, the land Bountiful, they are interested in various other features in the BOM which were unknown decades ago but are now coming forth as objective scientific discoveries without any need to tie them to the BOM text itself. These discoveries have been made by nonLDS scientists, and reported in LDS magazines within the context of the BOM.

So, I was asked why peer reviewed journals do not publish BOM related research. And my answer is that they are not interested, nor is it necessary. We have no interest in proselytizing in this manner, and the journals themselves are not competent to judge such articles that mention the BOM directly.

Edited October 8, 2011 by cdowis

[Olavarria]

Pedro,it looks like you are beating a dead tapir.

[cdowis]

Here is the bottom line.

I have already done my part with the Smithsonian, and everyone can see the results. They have made a policy statement, basically saying "don't call us, we will call you."

So, if you want that peer review, contact one or two of the journals on your list. Tell them that you are aware of some interesting archeological research on the BOM. Would they be interested in reviewing BOM research for publication in their journals.

Get back with us with the results. Who knows, perhaps we will read about NHM, BOM geography, etc, in some of those journals.

Edited October 8, 2011 by cdowis

[Gervin]

You should know better than to speak to me like that.

Huh?? What in the world does that mean?

I had an ongoing discussion with the Smithsonian Institute (albeit years ago) requesting that they give LDS scholars an opportunity to discuss the Smithsonain statement regarding the BOM in their magazine. They did not overtly refuse, but did decide to change the statement itself to remove the comments regarding the BOM.

I think the change they made says it all... "The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide."

Right. Based on known evidence presented to them by LDS scholars they concluded there is no scientific basis to support the Book of Mormon claims for a New World setting. As I requested earlier, if you know of scientific evidence presented to them and, ultimately, discounted, please share with us the content of this information.

"We'll let you know when we want to publish an article on a book delivered by an angel."

CFR, Who are you quoting here? The Smithsonian?

I remember a statement from the scientific community which quoted that statement in the context of giving grants to BOM research. I quoted that source here in the forum awhile back, but did not keep the source.

This is all a bit sloppy; you "remember" a statement from the "scientific community"?? What statement and which scientific community? Which quoted "that statement"? What statement are you referring to? "Grants to BOM research?" What, dear soul, are you talking about?

In terms of reviewers, we have already discussed the most prominent, Michael Coe, who could claim any knowledge at all. After all, he has read "No Man Knows My History", which, in his eyes, makes him an expert.

??

Having said that, our scholars have fought the battle of transoceanic migration, which was rejected by the scientific community decades ago, and some still question.

CFR. What "battle" are you referring to? Where was this rejected? Do you mean that the scientific community [and a definition of this 'community' would be helpful] has been presented with - and rejected - information about a full-blown Hebrew culture in the New World?

While the traditional scientific community may not be interested in NHM, the valley of Lemuel, the land Bountiful, they are interested in various other features in the BOM which were unknown decades ago but are now coming forth as objective scientific discoveries without any need to tie them to the BOM text itself. These discoveries have been made by nonLDS scientists, and reported in LDS magazines within the context of the BOM.

This is where you lose credibility. Scientists are certainly interested in findings related to Yemen and Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. If these are indeed "features in the BOM" then it is up to LDS scholars to show the larger context, not only for the Middle East but the New World. It hasn't been done.

So, I was asked why peer reviewed journals do not publish BOM related research. And my answer is that they are not interested, nor is it necessary. We have no interest in proselytizing in this manner, and the journals themselves are not competent to judge such articles that mention the BOM directly.

Proselytizing?? What a joke! We're talking about academic credibility. The scientific community [however you define it] has zero interest in proselytizing. Pick up a book by any reputable scholar - Wayne Meeks comes to mind - and learn a thing or two about how scholarship intersects with religious writing.

"[T]he journals themselves are not competent to judge such articles that mention the BOM directly."

Really?? Prove it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Right. Based on known evidence presented to them by LDS scholars they concluded there is no scientific basis to support the Book of Mormon claims for a New World setting. As I requested earlier, if you know of scientific evidence presented to them and, ultimately, discounted, please share with us the content of this information.

CFR, unless this is just sarcasm (the bolded sentence). I know of no evidence presented to the Smithsonian Institution on behalf of the Book of Mormon, and am unaware of anyone on their staff competent to evaluate that book in a dispassionate manner. Please let me know who on their staff is capable of handling such an issue, and whether they have ever done so.

CFR. What "battle" are you referring to? Where was this rejected? Do you mean that the scientific community [and a definition of this 'community' would be helpful] has been presented with - and rejected - information about a full-blown Hebrew culture in the New World?

The transoceanic migration controversy had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, but rather was a matter in which various scholars worldwide asserted that the Americas had extensive contact with the Old World by sea. Scientists at the Smithsonian (such as Betty Meggars and Dennis Stanford), for example, have made a good case that such transoceanic migrations took place based on archeological evidence. Others have more recently based their studies on genetic evidence of plants and other living organisms, and there is no longer any doubt about the fact that such migrations took place.

That does not prove the Book of Mormon to be historical, but it has removed one fundamental objection to it.

This is where you lose credibility. Scientists are certainly interested in findings related to Yemen and Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. If these are indeed "features in the BOM" then it is up to LDS scholars to show the larger context, not only for the Middle East but the New World. It hasn't been done.

What sort of "larger context" do you have in mind?

Pick up a book by any reputable scholar - Wayne Meeks comes to mind - and learn a thing or two about how scholarship intersects with religious writing.

A book by any reputable scholar? Are you certain that you want to subject yourself to the uncertainty inherent in allowing real scholarship be brought to bear on the claims of the Book of Mormon, in the same way that the Journal of Biblical Literature allows open and substantive discussion of issues of biblical scholarship? Of course the SBL (once presided over by Meeks) and JBL cater to those interested in a particular area of scholarship, just as some peer reviewed Mormon journals cater to those who specialize in Book of Mormon studies. That communities of interest exist in these specialized areas is unsurprising. What is surprising is that you don't understand what that means.

"[T]he journals themselves are not competent to judge such articles that mention the BOM directly."

Really?? Prove it.

Why should he have to prove it? What he said is demonstrably true, and Prof. Meeks would agree that the editors of JBL, for example, are not competent to judge an article on Hindu linguistics submitted to Orientalia for publication. Such specialized journals do not often overlap in areas of interest, although it is possible. To ask editors who know nothing of the Book of Mormon to peer review and publish an article on it is as ridiculous as asking Michelle Wie or Gary Player to review an article on New Testament studies for publication in Golf World.

[cdowis]

Right. Based on known evidence presented to them by LDS scholars they concluded there is no scientific basis to support the Book of Mormon claims for a New World setting.

Interesting how you are able to ignore and distort the facts.

They were UNWILLING to hear the evidence from the LDS scholars. They were given the opportunity to listen to and defend their position, but were unwilling to have a discussion in an open forum. They decided to close the issue by a complete change in their statement.

I told you what happened in my discussion with them.

Anyway, we can agree that this is a waste of time.

Edited October 11, 2011 by cdowis

[Calm]

Gervin,

What the BoM relates is the story of an unknown to history family and friends traveling as far as the Old World section is concerned. What part of their journey would you suggest would interest scholars in the area? Does it supply them with any new beyond the possibility that at a certain time certain people of no importance to the region passed through it? So why would scholars from Yemen, etc be interested?

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah