Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 John Clark is respected archaeologists. However, is BoM writings, including is speculations on BoM locations is not considered part of the archaeology academic and scientific community of work. Most professionals would consider this a hobby at best. To be clear, there is no support for the BoM that has been uncovered in the Americas. None. Apologists and many on this forum are living in a dream world where evidence consists of phrases and coincidences taken from the text of the BoM. This is not evidence in the real world. If you think I am wrong, then show me something that was dug up out of real new world dirt that supports the BoM. This should not be that hard considering the million men armies equipped with bronze/iron age weaponry and the massive support that would be needed. You may certainly pretend that there is no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. You may substitute fantasy and speculation for hard facts. if you wish, but I would prefer that you deal in specifics. Then we might have an actual discussion.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 ..........................................................................................................................................................As for Vogel, slamming his "tendentious work" in general doesn't address the specifics of my response to Clark. As I said, Clark himself has backed off from the "how could Joseph have known?" aspects of his article.You claimed that no one has ever disputed what Vogel said, which is not true. I often learn a lot from this board, and am grateful for specifics. I often take notes.
morgan.deane Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) I've read Stubbs's stuff and remain unimpressed. Obviously you feel differently. There's a reason he's the only person claiming a link between uto-aztecan and Hebrew, and it's the same reason he's not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals.No peer reviewed journals? Really? I don't think an argument is flawed or faulty if it lacks peer review, but a short perusal of the Uto Aztecan Bibliography here: http://uto-aztecan.org/uanist/?page_id=101 Led me to citations like this: Stubbs, Brian D. 1995. The Labial Labyrinth in Uto-Aztecan. IJAL 61/4: 396-422. IJAL might be crap, so I checked their website, and not only are they peer reviewed, but a review by Stubbs, A Prehistory of Western North America and the Impact of Uto Aztecan, is listed on their page!! http://www.americanlinguistics.org/ Needless to say, I think Stubbs and his research is doing find in academic circles. In fact, I can recall at least one other person (Roger Wescott: "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America" in Across Before Columbus?, ed. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998, pp. 193-197) that suggests a Hebrew influence on North American languages as well. So, I find your reasons for disqualifying his research rather uninformed and unimpressive. Sorry. Now if you have a serious rebuttal and not a hand wave I would love to read it. Edited August 4, 2015 by morgan.deane 1
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 You may certainly pretend that there is no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. You may substitute fantasy and speculation for hard facts. if you wish, but I would prefer that you deal in specifics. Then we might have an actual discussion. Actually, the burden is on you to provide specific evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I'd like to see some.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 You claimed that no one has ever disputed what Vogel said, which is not true. I often learn a lot from this board, and am grateful for specifics. I often take notes. I said that no one has disputed what I cited from Vogel or what I wrote, for that matter. Do you have some information that disputes what I said about what people in Joseph Smith's day believed? I too learn a lot from this and other boards, and if I'm wrong, please show me.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 jkwilliams, on 03 Aug 2015 - 7:58 PM, said:I've read Stubbs's stuff and remain unimpressed. Obviously you feel differently. There's a reason he's the only person claiming a link between uto-aztecan and Hebrew, and it's the same reason he's not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals.Again, please read what I wrote. If you're referring to the tidbits he's published for FARMS, etc., then you haven't read Stubbs' research. As he indicated early this year, he is going to go to press soon with his 400-page volume which is intended for a professional audience. It's not some feel-good proposal to make us feel better about the Book of Mormon. It's a massive, tremendously-detailed, professionally-presented compilation of very compelling linguistic evidence.Yeh, jk, why not take a look at the preview of Stubbs' book? http://www.scribd.com/doc/254510927/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-Jerry-Grover#scribd . Or have the non-Mormon professional of your choice take a look at it.
sunstoned Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) You may certainly pretend that there is no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. You may substitute fantasy and speculation for hard facts. if you wish, but I would prefer that you deal in specifics. Then we might have an actual discussion.It is really simple Robert, you could win this argument by showing me some physical evidence. A rusted sword, a chariot wheel, a engraving of reformed Egyptian or a language resembling it. How about a carving of a horse. Any wide spread smelting evidence would be nice. Can you show any of this? No? With your degrees you know what effect horses and iron have on a culture. There is no (none, nada, zilch, zero) evidence of this in the Americas at all. Edited August 4, 2015 by sunstoned
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Actually, the burden is on you to provide specific evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I'd like to see some. ...um...Stubbs. According to Stubbs' "excerpts" published earlier this year: Roger William Wescott, first in his Princeton class, PhD in linguistics, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, President of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, author of 500 articles and 40 books, called Brian’s work “a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages” David H. Kelley, Harvard PhD who published in anthropology, linguistics, Uto-Aztecan, and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving an earlierdraft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading thewhole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.” Mary Ritchie Key, and two PhD linguists specializing in UA, all spoke well of it. John S. Robertson, a leading Mayanist and Harvard trained PhD in historical linguistics, also speaks highly of the strength of this case. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 No peer reviewed journals? Really? I don't think an argument is flawed or faulty if it lacks peer review, but a short perusal of the Uto Aztecan Bibliography here: http://uto-aztecan.org/uanist/?page_id=101 Led me to citations like this: Stubbs, Brian D. 1995. The Labial Labyrinth in Uto-Aztecan. IJAL 61/4: 396-422. IJAL might be crap, so I checked their website, and not only are they peer reviewed, but a review by Stubbs, A Prehistory of Western North America and the Impact of Uto Aztecan, is listed on their page!! http://www.americanlinguistics.org/ Needless to say, I think Stubbs and his research is doing find in academic circles. In fact, I can recall at least one other person (Roger Wescott: "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America" in Across Before Columbus?, ed. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998, pp. 193-197) that suggests a Hebrew influence on North American languages as well. So, I find your reasons for disqualifying his research rather uninformed and unimpressive. Sorry. Of course, you'll argue that his Book of Mormon connections are crap, but his other impressive research counts, which I still don't buy. Now if you have a serious rebuttal and not a hand wave I would love to read it. No, it's not the Book of Mormon connections, it's that he's not putting his stuff out there where it can be reviewed and critiqued and discussed. He's happy to publish articles about Uto-Aztecan in peer-reviewed journals, but not articles about Hebrew links to Uto-Aztecan. I think Jeff Meldrum's work in biology is just great, but he doesn't publish his Bigfoot work in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Actually, the burden is on you to provide specific evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I'd like to see some.sunstoned made some nonsense claims. I'd like to see him support them. I have plenty of papers out there for evaluation, and more if you'd like. Seems like you require a particularly one-sided burden in this debate. Is that really fair? 2
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 ...um...Stubbs. According to Stubbs' "excerpts" published earlier this year: Roger William Wescott, first in his Princeton class, PhD in linguistics, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, President of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, author of 500 articles and 40 books, called Brian’s work “a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages” David H. Kelley, Harvard PhD who published in anthropology, linguistics, Uto-Aztecan, and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving an earlierdraft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading thewhole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.” Mary Ritchie Key, and two PhD linguists specializing in UA, all spoke well of it. John S. Robertson, a leading Mayanist and Harvard trained PhD in historical linguistics, also speaks highly of the strength of this case. If it's so impressive, why isn't it being published in reputable journals? Prejudice?
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 sunstoned made some nonsense claims. I'd like to see him support them. I have plenty of papers out there for evaluation, and more if you'd like. Seems like you require a particularly one-sided burden in this debate. Is that really fair? I always try to be fair. As far as I can tell, the "nonsense" claim was that there was no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. The easiest way to show that such a claim is nonsense is to provide some evidence. 1
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 No, it's not the Book of Mormon connections, it's that he's not putting his stuff out there where it can be reviewed and critiqued and discussed. He's happy to publish articles about Uto-Aztecan in peer-reviewed journals, but not articles about Hebrew links to Uto-Aztecan. I think Jeff Meldrum's work in biology is just great, but he doesn't publish his Bigfoot work in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Your point sounds valid until you actually see the 400-page volume that he's getting ready for publication. Once you see it you'll realize exactly why. It's a MASSIVE undertaking. It --IS-- intended for peer-review. It lives up to the description he gives: "The book is intended for linguists, Semiticists, and Egyptologists, and therefore includes the linguistic rigor demanded by the comparative method" It is NOT something that I would expect to go flying off the shelves at Deseret Book. It's a formal language proposal and is tremendously thorough. Stay tuned, it's coming. 1
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I just checked... That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I "just checked" into Stubbs' research over a year ago. It took months. It's not on Google. It's being prepared for publication, and even his "excerpts" (here) are a complete understatement of the strength of the case he makes.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Your point sounds valid until you actually see the 400-page volume that he's getting ready for publication. Once you see it you'll realize exactly why. It's a MASSIVE undertaking. It --IS-- intended for peer-review. It lives up to the description he gives: "The book is intended for linguists, Semiticists, and Egyptologists, and therefore includes the linguistic rigor demanded by the comparative method" It is NOT something that I would expect to go flying off the shelves at Deseret Book. It's a formal language proposal and is tremendously thorough. Stay tuned, it's coming. If it's such a rigorous book, why didn't he submit it to a reputable press?
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 If it's such a rigorous book, why didn't he submit it to a reputable press? Something makes you think he's not?
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Something makes you think he's not? Yes, he appears to be self-publishing.
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Yes, he appears to be self-publishing. Just wait. In the meantime, please recognize that he's been engaging his peers for many years as he has been preparing to publish: Roger William Wescott, first in his Princeton class, PhD in linguistics, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, President of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, author of 500 articles and 40 books, called Brian’s work “a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages”David H. Kelley, Harvard PhD who published in anthropology, linguistics, Uto-Aztecan, and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving an earlierdraft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading thewhole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.”Mary Ritchie Key, and two PhD linguists specializing in UA, all spoke well of it. John S. Robertson, a leading Mayanist and Harvard trained PhD in historical linguistics, also speaks highly of the strength of this case. ^Do you have a problem with the qualifications of these professionals?^
Gervin Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) ...um...Stubbs. According to Stubbs' "excerpts" published earlier this year: Roger William Wescott, first in his Princeton class, PhD in linguistics, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, President of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, author of 500 articles and 40 books, called Brian’s work “a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages”He did not call his work a "strong link." The quote is from "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America" (ed. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association), 1998, pp. 193-197: Wescott said: ”Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages." David H. Kelley, Harvard PhD who published in anthropology, linguistics, Uto-Aztecan, and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving an earlierdraft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading thewhole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.CFR - when was this said and in relation to what work? Mary Ritchie Key, and two PhD linguists specializing in UA, all spoke well of it. CFR - when was this said and in relation to what work? Two anonymous PhDs? How is that supposed to be credible? ed: I don't know for "psuedo-scholarship" but sloppy references, tortured connections, and vague endorsements don't lend any credence to your claims. Edited August 4, 2015 by Gervin
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 He did not call his work a "strong link." The quote is from "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America" (ed. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association), 1998, pp. 193-197: Wescott said: ”Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages." I know that's what Jeff Lindsay wrote, but you are incorrect. The quote comes from "Across Before Columbus? Evidence for Transoceanic Contact With the Americas Prior to 1492". I don't have a reference for the David Kelley quote, but I do share one experience in common with him we both “The thick thing came in the mail...". Order the book once it's available, you'll understand David Kelley completely.
bofmmodel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I know that's what Jeff Lindsay wrote, but you are incorrect. The quote comes from "Across Before Columbus? Evidence for Transoceanic Contact With the Americas Prior to 1492". I don't have a reference for the David Kelley quote, but I do share one experience in common with him we both “The thick thing came in the mail...". Order the book once it's available, you'll understand David Kelley completely.My bad, we're both right. You named the paper in the book
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 It is really simple Robert, you could win this argument by showing me some physical evidence. A rusted sword, a chariot wheel, a engraving of reformed Egyptian or a language resembling it. How about a carving of a horse. Any wide spread smelting evidence would be nice. Can you show any of this? No? With your degrees you know what effect horses and iron have on a culture. There is no (none, nada, zilch, zero) evidence of this in the Americas at all. I know the feeling, sunstoned, and I feel it when I read or view fantasy and sci-fi. Yet it really isn't about winning or losing arguments, but on getting your facts right. Also scholarship has nothing to do with degrees, although it is helpful if you have spent a number of years so engaged. In this case, of course, you are flat out wrong, but freedom of speech does give you to the right to say virtually anything, even if it is false. You spoke contemptuously of iron, but seem unaware that tons of it have been found by non-Mormon archeologists in Olmec sites in Veracruz State, Mexico. Richard A. Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization (Thames & Hudson, 2004), 93-94; John B. Carlson, Olmec Concave Iron-ore Mirrors: The Aesthetics of a Lithic Technology and the Lord of the Mirror (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1981), 117; Christopher A. Pool, Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 10. Among the iron objects found was a magnetic compass: Based on his own excavations, Michael Coe suggested that the Olmec may have had "the world's first known compass" (Coe, Snow, and Benson 1986:100)! Did the Olmec use the magnetic compass for site layout and building orientation? Robert Fuson long ago suggested as much for the orientation of Maya sites and buildings, based on Coe's discovery of that magnetite "pointer" at the Early Formative Olmec site of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán (Fuson 1969:508-510, Coe in Sharer & Grove 1989:79; Lowe 1989:44 [fig 4.6 item n],53-54; Coe & Diehl 1980:244-245 figs 251, 255). Coe told Fuson that this pointer was a flattened, oblong piece that is perfectly squared on all faces, and with a longitudinal groove extending along one surface. The object was made with such great care that it appears to be machined (Fuson 1969:508). Coe succesfully tested the pointer on a cork mat in a plastic bowl of water, and also suggested that the Olmec may have suspended magnetite mirrors on string for the same purpose. Fuson notes that the pointer could as easily have been floated on liquid mercury – available and extensively used in ancient Mesoamerica (Fuson 1969:508-510; cf. Baity 1973:443; Carlson 1981:117-147). Who are the Olmec? Most likely the Jaredites. Even though they are post-Book of Mormon, you might also want to consider Dorothy Hosler, Excavations at the Copper Smelting Site of El Manchon,Guerro, Mexico (Chrystal River, FL: FAMSI, 2004), and Blanca E. Maldonado, et al, Tarascan Copper Metallurgy at the Site of Itziparatzico, Michoacan, Mexico (Chrystal River, FL: FAMSI, 2005). 2
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I always try to be fair. As far as I can tell, the "nonsense" claim was that there was no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. The easiest way to show that such a claim is nonsense is to provide some evidence.I have and I do. Would that others would engage me in real discussion. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 If it's such a rigorous book, why didn't he submit it to a reputable press? That begs the question, jk. And that is a fallacy. 1
Gervin Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I know that's what Jeff Lindsay wrote, but you are incorrect. The quote comes from "Across Before Columbus? Evidence for Transoceanic Contact With the Americas Prior to 1492". I don't have a reference for the David Kelley quote, but I do share one experience in common with him we both “The thick thing came in the mail...". Order the book once it's available, you'll understand David Kelley completely.Is the quote correct, or not?
Recommended Posts