LDS Writers on Amerindian DNA

[Beowulf]

But, but...

Internet Mormons? In 1971?

[cinepro]

Does Dr. Allen Christenson support the theory that the Nephites lived among the Mayans?

And speaking of Mayans and Nephites, does anyone suggest that the Mayans were Nephites, or is it more common to consider the Nephites a small sect among the general population? Kind of like Scientologists are today. Or did they live seperately in the same area, like the Amish do today.

Are there any aspects of Mayan society or culture that point to distinctly Nephite influences? Meaning, something that would be different if the Lehites had never landed.

[Daniel Peterson]

Does Dr. Allen Christenson support the theory that the Nephites lived among the Mayans?

You might read his article from FARMS Review 3/1 (1991) on "Maya Harvest Festivals and the Book of Mormon":

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=54

[Daniel Peterson]

But, but...

Internet Mormons? In 1971?

I was actively posting on the internet in 1971. I'm sure everybody else here was, too. Where were you? Are you one of those benighted souls who just discovered the internet within the past decade or so?

Internet Mormons were pushing the Limited Geography Theory back in the 1920s, and, arguably, in the 1840s. FARMS, the leading association of Internet Mormons, is celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary this year. If I were you, Beowulf, I would be embarassed.

[Dr. Shades]

Internet Mormons were pushing the Limited Geography Theory back in the 1920s, and, arguably, in the 1840s.

If that's the case, will you please point me in the direction of some of their writings? Or, failing that, list a few such adherents of that school of thought?

(BTW, from the website: "I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism--at least in its embryonic form--has been around much longer than the Internet itself has. Again, the name "Internet Mormonism" merely calls attention to the place at which one is most likely to encounter this brand of Mormon thought. It also pays tribute to the fact that the Internet was the catalyst for the recent explosion of this particular brand of Mormonism.")

[Daniel Peterson]

Internet Mormons were pushing the Limited Geography Theory back in the 1920s, and, arguably, in the 1840s.

If that's the case, will you please point me in the direction of some of their writings? Or, failing that, list a few such adherents of that school of thought?

You'll be interested in Matt Roper's article in (I hope) the next issue of the FARMS Review. (If it doesn't appear in the immediately forthcoming number -- I'm editing it right now -- it will be published in the one following.)

[Quinn]

[Peterson:]  Internet Mormons were pushing the Limited Geography Theory back in the 1920s, and, arguably, in the 1840s. 

[shades:]  If that's the case, will you please point me in the direction of some of their writings? Or, failing that, list a few such adherents of that school of thought?

Seems to me that a speaker at a recent FAIR conference (2003?) did just that. Maybe someone here remembers who the speaker was and the name of the presentation and maybe some of the facts. Seems to me that Joseph Smith or some other early figures said things that made this a possibility but my memory is shady here.

Q

[Quinn]

Ah, that was it! Matt Roper. Very interesting presenation, that.

Q

[Daniel Peterson]

On the general theme of the incompetence of FARMS-affiliated scholars and their widely recognized status as buffoons, laughingstocks, and marginalized pariahs on the fringes of legitimate scholarship, it seems appropriate to draw attention to the latest embarrassment committed by Don Parry, a member of the FARMS board of directors, in cahoots with Emanuel Tov, the head of the international Dead Sea Scrolls editorial team:

http://farms.byu.edu/brillbooks.php

[YH8]

On the general theme of the incompetence of FARMS-affiliated scholars and their widely recognized status as buffoons, laughingstocks, and marginalized pariahs on the fringes of legitimate scholarship, it seems appropriate to draw attention to the latest embarrassment committed by Don Parry, a member of the FARMS board of directors, in cahoots with Emanuel Tov, the head of the international Dead Sea Scrolls editorial team:

http://farms.byu.edu/brillbooks.php

So . . . how much did you have to pay Dr. Tov to sign on to this little project? Did he think this was some sort of satire or humor piece or something? Trying to cross-over? Why else would he get involved with you clowns? Is he investigating the Church or something?

BTW, should the LDS Church really be spending untold millions of its tithing money to pay off people like this? Is the general membership aware of this?

[John Russell]

In an issue for 2004 Systematic Entomology some papers were published which dealt with Whitings stick insect article in Nature magazine. Some scientists have challenged his paper and present their reasons. Southerton told me he sees the influence of FARMS in his (Whiting) presentation (arrogant) and says Whiting model is flawed. His tone is that basically those who disagree with him are imbeciles.

I'm sorry to be so late to the dance with this, but I am very familiar with this debate and its participants. Whiting's theory is certainly being challenged (and supported in the same issue of Systematic Entomology, btw), as it should be. He is proposing a major phylogenetic re-arrangement of the insects, which is a challenge that insect systematics has not faced in decades, and one that has far-reaching implications for understanding entomological relationships. To be honest, Mike does tend to come across as arrogant at times, but he certainly has excellent competition in this in the form of many of his challengers. Regardless of Mike's presentation and debate style, I am at a loss to understand how one's arrogance has anything to do with the correctness of one's ideas or the quality of their work. Arrogance may be personally abrasive, but it is not a particularly good indicator of the weakness of one's position.

Finally, I am unclear of how Southerton's opinion in this matter carries any weight at all. His background, as I understand it, is in plant genetics, and not in the complicated and discordant field of insect systematics and phylogenetics. I have yet to see Southerton at any of our entomological meetings. He's certainly welcome, but I don't think that his opinions would carry much weight, beyond perhaps discussing methodology in a limited context. Just doing a quick search on Web of Science, I find that Southerton has 13 professional publications since 1989 that have been cited in the scientific literature. Whiting has 22 professional publications since completing his PhD in 1995, including several in very prominent journals (2 in Nature; his seminal paper in a 1997 issue of Systematic Biology has been cited 107 times, which is A LOT in the scientific literature; Southerton has published in some solid journals, but none of the caliber of Nature, nor has his work been cited nearly as widely). Mike's ideas are being widely evaluated in a very public arena by the best of the field, and many are in his court. Why should we be concerned about Southerton's opinion? Now, if we were discussing lignin production in wheat or genomics of eucalyptus, I would certainly welcome Southerton's opinion. But as a systematic entomologist, I think Mike is better evaluated by his qualified peers.

[ScriptureLover]

What really ticks me off about Dr. Peterson showing the Tov/Witherspoon piece.......er wait, Dan Witherspoon,.......... Witherspoon, sounds familiar..........um, OH! he's the dude at Sunstone ain't he?!

Anyway, the Tov/Parry get together is silly because they didn't show the scrolls as having proof of the Book of Mormon. Obviously Tov's bias got the best of him, and Parry had to smuggle some Church Vault dough his way to ensure he still was allowed to be his partner in crime.........

You anti's need to relax, the church will get its money back.....under the Dead Sea Scroll table, so to speak. Tov will probably demur to the pleadings of Parry to reimburse him for the "loan" from the church..........it assures good public relations you know............

[noel00]

Whats the deal about LDS scholars and the DSS? From Trinty Western University , Abbeg , Flint and Craig Evans being published by the same publishing house, some on the DSS.

[Daniel Peterson]

Whats the deal about LDS scholars and the DSS? From Trinty Western University , Abbeg , Flint and Craig Evans being published by the same publishing house, some on the DSS.

Yes, and they're good scholars.

I'm not obliged, simply because they're evangelicals, to dismiss them as incompetent buffoons and laughingstocks, nor to continue darkly hinting that, say, a group of scholars in Australia is about to demonstrate that an earlier scholarly article published by one of them contains mistakes.

Abegg, by the way, is cooperating with FARMS on the next version of the FARMS Dead Sea Scrolls database.

Your point? (He hissed, nastily.)

[noel00]

John Russell writes "I find that Southerton has 13 professional publications since 1989 that have been cited in the scientific literature. Whiting has 22 professional publications since completing his PhD in 1995, including several in very prominent journals (2 in Nature; his seminal paper in a 1997 issue of Systematic Biology has been cited 107 times, which is A LOT in the scientific literature"

It is so typical of mopologists to go digging around in the citation index. I guess we should all join the church of the person with the highest citation index.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is so typical of mopologists to go digging around in the citation index.

Is this a regular feature of "mopologist" writing? Can you perhaps cite some other examples of it? A half-dozen or so ought to be easy to locate, since it's "so typical."

I guess we should all join the church of the person with the highest citation index.

In the sciences, citation indices are fairly good, albeit rough, indicators of a scientist's position within his field.

I'm sure you're unhappy that your attempt to suggest that Professor Whiting is an incompetent outlier with a questionable scientific reputation has failed. It's time to pretend that you weren't trying any such thing, and to dismiss the very effective rebuttal that ruined your scheme as mere irrelevant showing-off.

Quite amusing.

(Hissed Peterson, nastily.)

[brugsch]

The conclusion does not follow at all. The citaton index can serve as an indication of how seriously other scientists take your work. They might find it helpful; they might find it supportive of their own work; they might agree with it; they may simply take it seriously enough to take issue with it or try to demolish it. I think that you are reading more into this than can possibly be supported.

The argument is that other scientists take these scientists work seriously and so their work on DNA in the Book of Mormon cannot simply be dismissed, but must be read and evaluated.

[John Russell]

Noel said:

John Russell writes "I find that Southerton has 13 professional publications since 1989 that have been cited in the scientific literature. Whiting has 22 professional publications since completing his PhD in 1995, including several in very prominent journals (2 in Nature; his seminal paper in a 1997 issue of Systematic Biology has been cited 107 times, which is A LOT in the scientific literature"

It is so typical of mopologists to go digging around in the citation index. I guess we should all join the church of the person with the highest citation index.

Well, I don't consider myself qualified to be an apologist of any kind. Sorry to disappoint you. In your original posting you cited Southerton's response to Whitings phylogenetic ideas. Here is what you said:

In an issue for 2004 Systematic Entomology some papers were published which dealt with Whitings stick insect article in Nature magazine. Some scientists have challenged his paper and present their reasons. Southerton told me he sees the influence of FARMS in his (Whiting) presentation (arrogant) and says Whiting model is flawed. His tone is that basically those who disagree with him are imbeciles.

My concern, as a colleague of Whiting, is whether or not Southerton is qualified to evaluate Whiting's work. Citations are an imperfect means of assessing the quality of a scientist, and of his/her credibility, but given that I can't sit Southerton down in a room and grill him about his expertise in entomological questions, I looked to see what sorts of things he has published. I did not make any disparaging comments about Southerton's status, unless you construe a comparison with Whiting as disparaging. FWIW, my publication record is not as good as Mike's, either, in terms of citations (I have quite a few more publications, but none in Nature, and none cited as heavily as a few of Mike's). This has nothing to do with Southerton's qualifications in his field (or even his qualifications to challenge the Book of Mormon), but rather with Southerton's expertise in insect phylogeny. Your comments indicated that Southerton had assessed Whiting's work, and found it flawed. My question as an entomologist: What are Southerton's qualifications for making such an assessment? I went to the best source available to me to assess his expertise -- the Web of Science. My conclusion, based on looking at his publication record and who cited his work and where, is that he has no recognized expertise for making judgments on the validity of Mike's work. Of course, he is entitled to his personal opinion; but, given his lack of apparent expertise in the field, why should the rest of us then care when you feel compelled to share that opinion with us? You presented it as an appeal to authority to undermine Whiting's professional standing, did you not? Can't we then evaluate Southerton's to determine his qualifications to do so?

[John Russell]

And btw, I dig in the Web of Science (and now Google Scholar) frequently, in an effort to stay abreast of my field. I've never done so for apologetic purposes. Little did I know I was competing with so many apologists each time I logged in (maybe THAT's why it's so slow!).

[Daniel Peterson]

The chronicle of FARMS incompetence continues, alas.

I just opened the new issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature, the flagship journal of the Society of Biblical Literature (the largest scholarly organization in the field, by far), and there, to my pleasure, was an article by Thomas A. Wayment, of BYU, entitled "Two New Textual Variants from the Freer Pauline Codex (I)."

His short little piece grows directly out of work sponsored by FARMS (aka the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts). In fact, one of our employees, Steven Booras, is given credit (along with the Institute itself) for the imaging work that undergirds Professor Wayment's article, and another article, written by Booras with Gregory Bearman and our current board chairman (Doug Chabries, BYU's dean of engineering) and published in Antiquity, is cited in the notes.

A small thing, really, but, in view of the continuous claim of our critics that we're a laughingstock among real scholars, an object of mirth and derision, I think it worth mentioning. (Of course, it's still possible that the critics are right. Maybe the Journal accepted the article solely for its amusement value.)

[juliann]

(Of course, it's still possible that the critics are right. Maybe the Journal accepted the article solely for its amusement value.)

No....I am afraid this means that the JBL is obviously a laughingstock run by buffoons. What world respected publication will FARMS take down next? The horror....

[Dr. Shades]

A small thing, really, but, in view of the continuous claim of our critics that we're a laughingstock among real scholars, an object of mirth and derision, I think it worth mentioning.  (Of course, it's still possible that the critics are right.  Maybe the Journal accepted the article solely for its amusement value.)

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the critics' position.

I highly doubt that critics dismiss FARMS' legitimate work such as that done at ISPART and in the scholars' individual fields (good FARMS). I believe that critics are dismissive and skeptical of FARMS' lobotomopologetic work, such as that found in the Review of Books and Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (bad FARMS).

Let's face it: Aren't they right? Isn't it true that work produced by/under Good FARMS is indeed accepted by mainstream scholarship, whereas that produced by/under Bad FARMS (a horse is really a deer, North really means West, etc.) is not accepted by mainstream scholarship?

[kolobian]

...entitled "Two New Textual Variants from the Freer Pauline Codex (I)."

Of course, it's still possible that the critics are right. Maybe the Journal accepted the article solely for its amusement value

Sounds pretty funny from the title...

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the critics' position.

I highly doubt that critics dismiss FARMS' legitimate work such as that done at ISPART and in the scholars' individual fields (good FARMS).

[cinepro]

which induces some critics to distinguish "Good FARMS" from "Bad FARMS,"

Does this principle of "homogenous validity" also apply to anti-Mormon writings? Certainly there are very studied, capabable scholars who publish in reputed and scholarly journals, but when it comes to attacking the Church, their writings bend from the standards held in the academic world.

If both the anti-Mormons and apologetic-Mormons have scholars who publish in respected journals, but also publish "polemic" studies that stem from their faith, then is it really valid to argue that one set of writings is valid becuase of the other?