Daniel Peterson Rips It Up

[cognitiveharmony]

Sure.  But did he himself specify C14 dating as his personal explanation or did he say it's one of two out of an unknown number of possible arguments?

 

But I am also curious if you or anyone else know what the 'overwhelming evidence' is that Mike Norton, in the first 40 seconds of the first video listed in the OP, claims to exist that JS was having sex with 14 (about a minute in he switches to 'little girls') year old girls?

And also directly after that question Mike's claim is that JS supposedly married the wives of nine men while those men were on their missions.  What evidence is there for that?

In addition, what about Norton's claim in the second video that science refutes the BoM when it's impossible for science to do so unless there is evidence against and not just an absence of evidence in some cases?

 

I was mainly interested in his comments about horses dated to Book of Mormon times. I can't defend Mike Norton's assertions, he would probably be a better person to do that, as he would be able to clarify just as Dr. Peterson clarified that some of his statements were somewhat sloppy. 

 

I don't have a high opinion of the tactic that was used to illicit this conversation but I'll comment on the points of conversation that you requested.

 

My own opinion is that it's untenable to claim that their is "conclusive" sexual evidence either way apart from the affidavits from some of his wives. These are firsthand accounts by active participants and that's about as conclusive as you can get in a historical setting. I know the arguments of them being forced to lie about it but that opens up another can of worms. 

 

I think the figures regarding polyandry are correct although I'm pretty sure their husbands weren't all away on missions when the marriages occurred. Again, he may have misspoke on this not meaning to infer that they were ALL away.

 

As far as science vs the Book of Mormon. There are areas such as DNA in which science contradicts the Book of Mormon through evidence and not merely absence of evidence. But to say that all of science contradicts the Book of Mormon is simply untenable. If the Book of Mormon is not a historical record, you would expect an absence of evidence. If it is in fact a historical record, you would expect an abundance of evidence. 

[K-2]

Scott, in OD 1 the Church also denied that any plural marriages had been performed in the year prior to 1890. Saying so don't mean it's so.

 

[BCSpace]

I think the figures regarding polyandry are correct although I'm pretty sure their husbands weren't all away on missions when the marriages occurred. Again, he may have misspoke on this not meaning to infer that they were ALL away.

 

As far as I can tell, there was only one away on a mission and the sealing was long after he left so it wasn't like there was a rush.  In addition, considering the absence of marriage relationships in many of these (likely all in the supposed 'polyandrous' cases), it's more accurate in my view to drop the term 'marriage' (to JS) as well as 'polyandrous' as the end result at worst (assuming any of the individuals involved considered it to be worse) is marriage for time to their husbands and eternity to JS.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, in OD 1 the Church also denied that any plural marriages had been performed in the year prior to 1890. Saying so don't mean it's so.

 

So I take it, then, that you have nothing to back up this 39-year-old accusation.

 

I will reiterate my question: How much time has to pass before an accusation that was never substantiated in the first place is rightly left in the past and not dredged up as innuendo?

 

By the way, in life, as in logic and the legal system, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If that proof is not forthcoming, the accusation collapses from its own vacuousness.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

As far as science vs the Book of Mormon. There are areas such as DNA in which science contradicts the Book of Mormon through evidence and not merely absence of evidence. But to say that all of science contradicts the Book of Mormon is simply untenable. If the Book of Mormon is not a historical record, you would expect an absence of evidence. If it is in fact a historical record, you would expect an abundance of evidence. 

 

With regard to DNA:

 

It's not true that science contradicts the Book of Mormon on this point, and it's not true that one would expect an abundance of evidence:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Mormon-DNA-Research/dp/0842527060

[cognitiveharmony]

As far as I can tell, there was only one away on a mission and the sealing was long after he left so it wasn't like there was a rush.  In addition, considering the absence of marriage relationships in many of these (likely all in the supposed 'polyandrous' cases), it's more accurate in my view to drop the term 'marriage' (to JS) as well as 'polyandrous' as the end result at worst (assuming any of the individuals involved considered it to be worse) is marriage for time to their husbands and eternity to JS.

I'm sure that you're making your assumptions based on what Hales has written concerning Joseph Smith's polyandry. However, Michael Quinn offered a pretty devastating rebuttal to Hales assertions in 2012 at the Mormon History Associations's conference of which I don't believe that Hales has replied(at least not that I'm aware of).

[Kevin Christensen]

Meg Stout has also been publishing on the topic at the Millenial Star.

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-apostles-and-their-wives/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMillennialStar+%28Millennial+Star%29

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[frank_jessop]

Meg Stout has also been publishing on the topic at the Millenial Star.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Her reasoning is flawed. The absence of "B", without consideration for other possible explanations for the absence, is not a strong support for assertion "A". This type of reasoning is relied on too heavily. And ignores what Hales has produced.

[cognitiveharmony]

With regard to DNA:

 

It's not true that science contradicts the Book of Mormon on this point, and it's not true that one would expect an abundance of evidence:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Mormon-DNA-Research/dp/0842527060

 

Dr. Peterson, begging your pardon, but with regard to DNA, science does in fact contradict the Book of Mormon. I would refer you specifically to mesoamerican populations as they are most closely related to the ideas posited in your book.

 

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

 

Simon Southerton's blog post is what brought this study to my attention. You can read Simon's blog here:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

 

Also, as to whether or not one would expect an abundance of evidence to support a historical document spanning many centuries would depend on who that one is. I for one, would.

[Craig in Austin]

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think this would apply to someone giving a speech in a public church building. 

 

This doesn't mean the Church can't ask people not to film inside the buildings, or someone can't be asked not to do it by the organizers of a meeting, but it wouldn't be criminal.

 

Here's an interesting discussion on statutes on the use of a "hidden camera".  For these statutes, the definition of a "private place" is one where "a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance."   I think Dr Peterson would have that "reasonable expectation".

 

"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without the permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law. A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.5 - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-recording-state-hidden-camera-statutes#sthash.gnc89pQ1.dpuf"

 

[omni]

As far as I can tell, there was only one away on a mission and the sealing was long after he left so it wasn't like there was a rush. In addition, considering the absence of marriage relationships in many of these (likely all in the supposed 'polyandrous' cases), it's more accurate in my view to drop the term 'marriage' (to JS) as well as 'polyandrous' as the end result at worst (assuming any of the individuals involved considered it to be worse) is marriage for time to their husbands and eternity to JS.

Joseph, the early Saints and scripture referred to it as marriage (Celestial).

[frank_jessop]

 

Here's an interesting discussion on statutes on the use of a "hidden camera". For these statutes, the definition of a "private place" is one where "a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance." I think Dr Peterson would have that "reasonable expectation".

Whether there was as reasonable expectation was brought up in the first few pages of this thread. The question of "reasonable expectation" is one for the trier of fact to issue the final answer on.

You must also consider the cost/benefit of this.

Mike Norton has informed at least one person (maybe 2006 or earlier):

"I DID receive a written warning from them telling me that I couldn't go back inside any temples or I'll be arrested. Some may call that "legal papers". I dunno."

A critic of the Church, many years ago, posted:

"I have a fear of incarceration and legal wrangling that keeps me on a different path. Mike does not seem to fear it and if you've seen a lot of his work, you'll see why."

While there are several attorneys who very likely would handle the case pro-bono for Daniel Peterson (as likely there are attorneys would assists Norton pro-bono) in the end what does Daniel Peterson get from the case, even if successful?

Edited April 14, 2014 by frank_jessop

[frank_jessop]

Sure.But did he himself specify C14 dating as his personal explanation or did he say it's one of two out of an unknown number of possible arguments?

Whether his personal explanation or not, is of no consequence to the statement that horse bones discovered in the Americas that have been C14 dated to the time of Christ?

Are you willing to share what sources you (might) have, which show that horse bones discovered in the Americas have been C14 dated to the time period of Christ?

Edited April 14, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Craig in Austin]

  Whether there was as reasonable expectation was brought up in the first few pages of this thread.  

 

This was in response to cinepro from yesterday, who questioned whether this statute would apply to a "public church building".  It does.  

 

If Mike Norton chooses to flaunt the law, despite risk of criminal prosecution, there are other means of recourse.   Maybe a hit to the pocketbook is more painful than criminal prosecution for him.  As you said, the negative publicity would be a consideration.  But sometimes people of his ilk continue to violate the rights of others unless action is taken.  I suspect we have not heard the last of him.

[Pahoran]

Dr. Peterson, begging your pardon, but with regard to DNA, science does in fact contradict the Book of Mormon. I would refer you specifically to mesoamerican populations as they are most closely related to the ideas posited in your book.

 

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

Does it?

Really?

What does the Book of Mormon actually assert that is contradicted by the DNA science?

 

Simon Southerton's blog post is what brought this study to my attention. You can read Simon's blog here:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

 

Also, as to whether or not one would expect an abundance of evidence to support a historical document spanning many centuries would depend on who that one is. I for one, would.

Would you?

Okay.

Incidentally, are you aware that Southerton admitted that a group the size of the Lehi colony being introduced into the population of Mesoamerica about 2600 years ago would probably not leave detectable DNA traced behind?

Regards,

Pahoran

[3DOP]

Does it?

Really?

What does the Book of Mormon actually assert that is contradicted by the DNA science?

 

Would you?

Okay.

Incidentally, are you aware that Southerton admitted that a group the size of the Lehi colony being introduced into the population of Mesoamerica about 2600 years ago would probably not leave detectable DNA traced behind?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Good to see you Pahoran.

[Pahoran]

Good to see you Pahoran.

10-Q, 10-Q.

Regards,

Pahoran

[3DOP]

10-Q, 10-Q.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

What is that supposed to mean? That is either Aussie or younger people communication...but anyway, I take it in a spirit of good will. I was thinking of you the other day and I am really glad to see you back.

 

Regards to you,

 

3DOP

[Pahoran]

What is that supposed to mean? That is either Aussie or younger people communication...but anyway, I take it in a spirit of good will. I was thinking of you the other day and I am really glad to see you back.

 

Regards to you,

 

3DOP

If you say it out loud, it might come to you...

... Or I could just stop talking in text-speak: Thank you, thank you.

And yes, I'm happy to see you, too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[escott3564]

Here's an interesting discussion on statutes on the use of a "hidden camera".  For these statutes, the definition of a "private place" is one where "a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance."   I think Dr Peterson would have that "reasonable expectation".

 

"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without the permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law. A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.5 - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-recording-state-hidden-camera-statutes#sthash.gnc89pQ1.dpuf"

 

 

I'm glad you brought this up.  Another thing that needs to be taken into consideration is something that a friend of mine caught while viewing the video.  In most states, (if not all, I believe), don't minor children need to have written consent from their parent/guardian before their image can be posted on a public forum like YouTube?  My friend said that there were several places where the camera caught a couple of the kids sitting in the audience on the video.  I didn't look at it closely enough to notice whether or not you could make out the face of anyone, but it is another thing worth considering.  I think that Norton could definitely have a lot of trouble on his plate.

[Okrahomer]

10-Q, 10-Q.Regards,Pahoran

I'm glad to see Pahoran too. Is "10-Q" text-speak for "thank you" by chance?

[Grudunza]

Yes.  As in 10-Q VRE much.

[cognitiveharmony]

 

Incidentally, are you aware that Southerton admitted that a group the size of the Lehi colony being introduced into the population of Mesoamerica about 2600 years ago would probably not leave detectable DNA traced behind?

 

Are you aware that this very specific question was addressed in the blog that I just linked to? Interesting that you would comment on a post without even taking the time to click on the links as to have an understanding of what was even posted. Since you didn't read the blog post, am I to assume you didn't read the study either?

[Pahoran]

Are you aware that this very specific question was addressed in the blog that I just linked to? Interesting that you would comment on a post without even taking the time to click on the links as to have an understanding of what was even posted. Since you didn't read the blog post, am I to assume you didn't read the study either?

Cognitivenewbie, I've probably forgotten more about Southerton and his online grandstanding than you've ever read. So try to assume a little less, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cognitiveharmony]

Cognitivenewbie, I've probably forgotten more about Southerton and his online grandstanding than you've ever read. So try to assume a little less, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

So.....you're saying you read it before posting...yet you still asked me about the first item addressed in the blog?....OK.