thesometimesaint Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Evidence is one thing, proof is quite another.
Gervin Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Evidence is one thing, proof is quite another.I prefer an 80 proof.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Likewise, those who selectively pick and choose their evidence and apply it invidiously to the Book of Mormon can predetermine fully positive conclusions. A predisposition to believe that the Book of Mormon reflects history is the best indicator of such motives and actions. And that is not scholarship."Invidiously" is negatively and viciously, so is improperly used by you here. However, your intention is to make a good point about bias and prejudice. We must always guard against allowing our preconceptions to predetermine our conclusions. Scholars have structured their world so as to be self-correcting, in that confidential peer review is sought before publication of a study in order to discover whether only a narrow spectrum of evidence is allowed to condition that study. Specialists probe to find neglect of relevant evidence in such essays or studies, and suggest ways of improving the study, or even advise that a particular study is so flawed that it cannot pass editorial muster, nor be improved upon. You declare your belief that "a predisposition to believe that the Book of Mormon reflects history is the best indicator of such motives and actions," which is of course false. Everyone carries biases and prejudices. Scholars depend on a diverse community of other scholars to control each others tendencies to do what you seem to fear. Non-scholars are unaware of that community of interest in accuracy and honesty, and so tend not to trust scholars in general. For the non-scholar, it is all just a matter of choosing sides and then rooting for your favorite team. That applies equally to Mormons and non-Mormons. 1
Gervin Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 "Invidiously" is negatively and viciously, so is improperly used by you here. I know what the word means and purposefully kept it in; it's certainly appropriate as believers in the Book of Mormon historicity (read Sorenson) will regularly chide those who don't believe in elephants and silk (read Sorenson) and the making of metal swords (read Sorenson) and Hebrew temples (read Sorenson) or any other innumerable oddities in the Book of Mormon that are out of character with real world scholarship. Read Sorenson. Right. 1
Gervin Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 You declare your belief that "a predisposition to believe that the Book of Mormon reflects history is the best indicator of such motives and actions," which is of course false. If I'm wrong, name the top 5 or so scholars who attest to your version of Book of Mormon history who are also not LDS. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 If I'm wrong, name the top 5 or so scholars who attest to your version of Book of Mormon history who are also not LDS. Argumentum Ad Populum and Appeal to Authority.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) You declare your belief that "a predisposition to believe that the Book of Mormon reflects history is the best indicator of such motives and actions," which is of course false. If I'm wrong, name the top 5 or so scholars who attest to your version of Book of Mormon history who are also not LDS. A predisposition to believe anything is no indicator of motives and actions of scholars. Yokels, yes, but not scholars. That you would say such a thing indicates that you have no idea what scholarship is and do not participate in it. As I said, the internal world of scholarship is structured to reject those who cannot reflect normative data and normative interpretation of that data -- otherwise known as peer review. One reason why the late Hugh Nibley was so sought after by Jewish and Christian editors of mainstream academic journals was simply because was able to reflect both normative data and normative modes of interpretation. This despite his predisposition to believe the Book of Mormon to be true, and the LDS Church to be authentic. Perhaps you would like to explain how that is possible. When I constantly cite Mike Coe (and non-Mormon scholars like him) as providing support for the claims of the Book of Mormon, instead of going to such sources and reading them, you probably think it is a trick. Why? Because you don't like or understand scholarship. You are predisposed to automatic rejection, regardless of evidence. That is not scholarship. Edited December 2, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I know what the word means and purposefully kept it in; it's certainly appropriate as believers in the Book of Mormon historicity (read Sorenson) will regularly chide those who don't believe in elephants and silk (read Sorenson) and the making of metal swords (read Sorenson) and Hebrew temples (read Sorenson) or any other innumerable oddities in the Book of Mormon that are out of character with real world scholarship. Read Sorenson. Right.You clearly do not understand how to use the word "invidiously," and are not responsive to actual citation of real evidence. Again, that isn't scholarly on your part. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk.
Gervin Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 A predisposition to believe anything is no indicator of motives and actions of scholars. Yokels, yes, but not scholars. I think you're getting close to a definition of Mormon pseudo-scholarship. One reason why the late Hugh Nibley was so sought after by Jewish and Christian editors of mainstream academic journals was simply because was able to reflect both normative data and normative modes of interpretation. This despite his predisposition to believe the Book of Mormon to be true, and the LDS Church to be authentic. Perhaps you would like to explain how that is possible. I don't know, but my guess is that he either was smart enough to keep his views about the Book of Mormon separate and apart from mainstream publications or he was asked to present an LDS viewpoint when one was needed. When I constantly cite Mike Coe (and non-Mormon scholars like him) as providing support for the claims of the Book of Mormon, instead of going to such sources and reading them, you probably think it is a trick. Why? Because you don't like or understand scholarship. You are predisposed to automatic rejection, regardless of evidence. That is not scholarship. So, Mike Coe supports the historic claims of the Book of Mormon, or you simply, because you believe the Book of Mormon to be historic, use his research to support your pre-conclusions? 1
Gervin Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 You clearly do not understand how to use the word "invidiously," and are not responsive to actual citation of real evidence. Again, that isn't scholarly on your part. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk.Would a scholar use a phrase like "real evidence?" What, as opposed to unreal evidence? You don't even talk the talk. 1
Rob Osborn Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Sometimes you are spot on, Rob, but here you have me flummoxed. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles and books on the history of Amerinds which are in synch with the Book of Mormon, and LDS scholars like John L. Sorenson use them regularly to show how they support data internal to the Book of Mormon. So I don't understand why you make the above statement, unless you are talking about the unscholarly articles and books written by anti-Mormons which make the false claim that this or that fact of American archeology is in conflict with the Book of Mormon. Of course, among archeologists (and anthropologists generally) there is plenty of variation in interpretation. This will happen in any area of research. Especially on the cutting edge. And those who selectively pick and choose their evidence and apply it invidiously to the Book of Mormon can predetermine fully negative conclusions. However, that is not scholarship, but an example of dirty pool, of cheating. Let me add that this sort of nonsense spills over into mainstream claims about the Book of Mormon. An example I just read is from “Olmec alternative origin speculations,” in Wikipedia, online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations , where this statement is made: “. . . known not to have been part of or present in Olmec culture, including iron, silk, and elephants.” Archeologists working on Olmec culture know that tons of iron artefacts have been recovered at major Olmec sites. Other Mesoamericanists know that plenty of silken fabric was produced in Mesoamerica. As noted by Alan Miner, According to an article by John Sorenson, dictionaries define silk as a "fine, lustrous fiber produced by the larvae of certain insects." It refers especially to the fiber from which an Asian moth, Bombyx mori, spins its cocoon, but also to cloth more generally "something silklike." Silk from cocoons gathered from the wild in Mexico and spun into expensive cloth at the time of the Spanish conquest provides the most literal parallel to Asiatic "silk."Silklike fiber (kapok) from the pod of the Ceiba (or "silk-cotton") tree was gathered in Yucatan and spun; this seems to be what Landa referred to as "silk." Father Clavigero said of this kapok that it was "as soft and delicate, and perhaps more so, than silk." Furthermore, the silky fiber of the wild pineapple plant was prized in tropical America; it yielded a fiber, "finer and perhaps more durable than agave (henequen), derived from the pita floja ('silk-grass,' aecmea magdalenae)."Moreover, a silklike fabric was made by the Aztecs from fine rabbit hair. But even cotton cloth was sometimes woven so fine that specimens excavated at Teotihuacan and dating to the fourth century A.D. have been characterized as "of irreproachable evenness, woven . . . exceedingly fine," and "of gossamer thinness." [John L. Sorenson, "Possible 'Silk' and 'Linen' in the Book of Mormon," in J. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (F.A.R.M.S., 1992), p. 162]Finally, elephants (mammoths & mastodons) probably did not become fully extinct in the Americas until Olmec/ Jaredite times, thus making it possible that the early Jaredites were familiar with them. Well, I dont agree with Sorensons claims either. Thats my whole point of relying on the pitfalls of modern science that dictates or trys to dictate how things are. For instance- if we are bound to let science dictate when elephants went extinct in the Americas, then we have already lost.
Pinecone Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) It's arguments might be compelling if it knew what it was arguing against. The Clovis first theory has been out of favor for some time now--certainly among the archaeological community because numerous pre-Clovis sites have been discovered in the last 20 years. People were here much earlier than 10,000 ya. There is limited evidence (physical--not linguistic) that a small group of people from Australia migrated to the Americas as long ago as 50,000, but that has nothing to do with the primary migration from Asia. None of this even begins to challenge the fact that people migrated across the Bering land bridge when it existed. Linguistic evidence shows the great antiquity of Native Americans, yes. We already know that. My hat is off to Edward Sapir (I'm a fan. Boas, not so much...) I am mystified that so many people think that no scientist ever allows for other preColombian routes to the Americas. When we address the Beringia migration, we are talking about a major migration of peoples who settled the Americas at the end of the Pleistocene--not a theory that excludes possibilities of other, smaller migrations of people at various times. As far as I'm concerned, Native Americans descended from East Asians primarily and that their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait. DNA supports it, their shovel-shaped incisors support it, the mongolian blue spot in their infants support it, archaeology and linguistics support it, heck, even their dogs' DNA supports it! Why people go off on these fringe theories and say that we must now "rethink everything we think we know" is a mystery to me because these fringe things, at best--when well supported, can expand our knowledge--not replace it. These Asian ancestry people were here when Lehi arrived. Lots of them. Millions of them. Lehi and Sariah's DNA were a drop in the bucket. Those are my thoughts anyway. It's nice to know you embrace a science which consider Native Americans similar to horses: You check their teeth, their buttocks for the coveted mongolian blue spot, even their dogs.According to this site: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/medical-information/search-for-medical-conditions/mongolian-blue-spots/mongolian-blue-spots-information/"Mongolian blue spots are rare in children of white European background, but very common in children of African, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean or Asian background. As many as three-quarters of children from these ethnic groups are born with Mongolian blue spots."Did you read where it says "Middle Eastern"?By the way, has science ever asked Native Americans where their ancestors came from? No, science ignores their traditions.Listen to this talk by a former twice serving Mission President who interacted with Native Americans:https://archive.org/details/MurrayRawsonIndianTraditionsYou'll learn that many are offended by the claim their ancestors came across the Bering Strait, despite their incisors and blue spots. Edited December 3, 2014 by Pinecone
katherine the great Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It's nice to know you embrace a science which consider Native Americans similar to horses: You check their teeth, their buttocks for the coveted mongolian blue spot, even their dogs.According to this site: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/medical-information/search-for-medical-conditions/mongolian-blue-spots/mongolian-blue-spots-information/"Mongolian blue spots are rare in children of white European background, but very common in children of African, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean or Asian background. As many as three-quarters of children from these ethnic groups are born with Mongolian blue spots."Did you read where it says "Middle Eastern"?By the way, has science ever asked Native Americans where their ancestors came from? No, science ignores their traditions.Listen to this talk by a former twice serving Mission President who interacted with Native Americans:https://archive.org/details/MurrayRawsonIndianTraditionsYou'll learn that many are offended by the claim their ancestors came across the Bering Strait, despite their incisors and blue spots. It is the body of evidence, not the single pieces. And you may be surprised to know that many are not offended to learn that their ancestors came from Asia. I'm an archaeologist and work with native peoples frequently. Many of our archaeology students are Native American. Do you know where your ancestors from 10,000 years ago lived? I don't. 3
Rob Osborn Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It is the body of evidence, not the single pieces. And you may be surprised to know that many are not offended to learn that their ancestors came from Asia. I'm an archaeologist and work with native peoples frequently. Many of our archaeology students are Native American. Do you know where your ancestors from 10,000 years ago lived? I don't. 10,000 years ago? Where did they live? In heaven...there were not yet people on the earth 10,000 years ago.
katherine the great Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 10,000 years ago? Where did they live? In heaven...there were not yet people on the earth 10,000 years ago.Yes there were.
Thinking Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 10,000 years ago? Where did they live? In heaven...there were not yet people on the earth 10,000 years ago. Yes there were. Nope, no people. I'm just going to sit back and watch this develop. I wish I could sell tickets.
thesometimesaint Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Nope, no people. Yes there were.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC
Rob Osborn Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Yes there were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BCNice. Although, i didnt see where they talked of their time machine to observe such.
katherine the great Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I'm just going to sit back and watch this develop. I wish I could sell tickets.I'm not going to bother. I have better things to do. 1
Thinking Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) Deleted - Accidental Post Edited December 4, 2014 by Thinking
Robert F. Smith Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 .............................there were not yet people on the earth 10,000 years ago.CFR, Rob. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Nice. Although, i didnt see where they talked of their time machine to observe such. We've had time machines for about 5,000 years. They are now called books, and you can find millions of them world wide.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing BTW http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141203142453.htmFor later time frames SEE http://www.livescience.com/48200-oldest-cave-art-indonesia.html
Rob Osborn Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 We've had time machines for about 5,000 years. They are now called books, and you can find millions of them world wide. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing BTW http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141203142453.htm For later time frames SEE http://www.livescience.com/48200-oldest-cave-art-indonesia.html Funny thing is...we have scriptures which contain the entire history of this earth from when it was organized and life placed upon it. Those same scriptures tell us that there was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve roughly 6 thousand years ago. But you dismiss this right off dont you?
Rob Osborn Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 CFR, Rob. 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. (D&C 77:6)
Recommended Posts