So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.  

C'mon, jk, you can be nicer than that.  Mocking a serious scholar is inappropriate.  Stubbs is an acknowledged expert in linguistics, and even taught it at College of Eastern Utah.  I have been through his entire book, providing advice and comments from my own fields.  I put his preview online.  I have even published my own survey of Oaxacan languages as compared to Semitic and Egyptian.  “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2011 version 2, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA . 

[Gervin]

I have and I do.  Would that others would engage me in real discussion.

I believe it was you who said:

 

Brian’s UA works preceding this book have been well received by other UA specialists. While the arrival of this Near-East tie with UA has most wishing to ignore it, a brave few have voiced very positive assessments.

 

Syntax aside, who are the "most" wishing to ignore "it"?  

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe it was you who said:

 

Brian’s UA works preceding this book have been well received by other UA specialists. While the arrival of this Near-East tie with UA has most wishing to ignore it, a brave few have voiced very positive assessments.

 

Syntax aside, who are the "most" wishing to ignore "it"?  

I do not use the term "UA," and that is not me who said that.  Where did you find it?

 

My intro to his book summary is as follows:

 

Building on his massive dictionary of Uto-Aztecan, linguistics expert Brian D. Stubbs herein provides a full-scale comparison of the vocabulary, grammar, and morphology of Semitic and Egyptian languages with the full-range of Uto-Aztecan dialects. He is able to adduce a set of consistent phonological rules which underlie the startling conclusions of his work: That is, at some past time, Uto-Aztecan was heavily influenced by Hebrew and other languages of the broad Afro-Asiatic phylum.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN#scribd .

[Gervin]

I do not use the term "UA," and that is not me who said that.  Where did you find it?

 

My intro to his book summary is as follows:

 

Building on his massive dictionary of Uto-Aztecan, linguistics expert Brian D. Stubbs herein provides a full-scale comparison of the vocabulary, grammar, and morphology of Semitic and Egyptian languages with the full-range of Uto-Aztecan dialects. He is able to adduce a set of consistent phonological rules which underlie the startling conclusions of his work: That is, at some past time, Uto-Aztecan was heavily influenced by Hebrew and other languages of the broad Afro-Asiatic phylum.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN#scribd .

It was the "Background" piece at the end of your summary.  Like the quotes, it just struck me as sloppy writing.  My bad that I attributed it to you.

[Nevo]

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.

 

Westcott and Kelley were both diffusionists, so they were probably more open to the possibility of Egyptian and Semitic influence on Uto-Aztecan than more mainstream anthropologists and linguists. Westcott was also an "unabashed Velikovskian" who "believed that the Earth was once a satellite, not of the Sun, but of a large star-like planet orbiting between Mars and Jupiter" (see Laina Farhat-Holzman, review of Predicting the Past: An Exploration of Myth, Science, and Prehistory by Roger Westcott, Comparative Civilizations Review 50 [2004]: 105–106), but never mind about that. He was first in his class at Princeton. Both men have been dead for some time—Wescott for 15 years—so we'll never know what reservations, if any, they may have had about Stubbs's work. In any case, I expect Stubbs's soon-to-be-published (really!) 400-page tome will get a rougher reception from non-diffusionists.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Nevo

[bofmmodel]

Is the quote correct, or not?

 

That's what I'm trying to be certain about.  Jeff Lindsay quotes from the source at length and assuming that he is giving a complete and accurate quote, it's hard to say that Wescott meant it as any kind of endorsement.  It's possible that there is more to the quote and it's possible that Stubbs was quoting personal correspondence or from some other source, but based on what I can find online tonight I can't say that it's substantiated.

Edited August 4, 2015 by bofmmodel

[Calm]

I do not use the term "UA," and that is not me who said that. Where did you find it?]

http://bmaf.org/sites/bmaf.org/files/image/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-Jerry-Grover.pdf

Last section, perhaps it is Grover providing the backgound info given the url

Edited August 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[bofmmodel]

Well, unless I can substantiate the Wescott quote I'll concede the point and stick to defending the material itself.

 

Fortunately, the proposal has a lot of testable substance to it.  That's the upside.  The downside is that until he publishes, it's inappropriate for me to publicly discuss anything other than what he wrote in his "excerpts" and other papers.  As much as others here are complaining about him taking a while to publish, please understand that I'm even more anxious.  There is a LOT more to discuss, and it's coming.

[sunstoned]

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).

This is very lightweight stuff Robert.  John Carlson talks about a cold worked mirror.  A mirror and a small compass is not evidence of an iron age civilization. In fact it can be argued that the opposite is true. If sifting through all of Olmec sites produces only these small artifacts then one has to wonder where are all the horses, old word literature, swords, helmets and large scale smelting is hidden.  

 

Interesting that you quote professor Michael Coe.  I also have a quote from him:

 

There is an inherent improbability in specific items that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon as having been brought to the New World by Jaredites and/or Nephites. Among these are the horse (extinct in the New World since about 7,000 B.C.), the chariot, wheat, barley, and metallurgy (true metallurgy based upon smelting and casting being no earlier in Mesoamerica than about 800 A.D.). The picture of this hemisphere between 2,000 B.C. and A.D. 421 presented in the book has little to do with the early Indian cultures as we know them, in spite of much wishful thinking.

 

---- Coe, Michael D. (Summer 1973). "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Stanford, CA: Dialogue Foundation) 

Edited August 4, 2015 by sunstoned

[bofmmodel]

That's what I'm trying to be certain about.  Jeff Lindsay quotes from the source at length and assuming that he is giving a complete and accurate quote, it's hard to say that Wescott meant it as any kind of endorsement.  It's possible that there is more to the quote and it's possible that Stubbs was quoting personal correspondence or from some other source, but based on what I can find online tonight I can't say that it's substantiated.

 

The footnote of the "excerpts" article says that Wescott "called Brian’s work “a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages”".  If we have identified the correct source (which I think we did), what he actually said was "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."

 

The actual quote sounds like Wescott is quoting Stubbs' assertion of "a strong link" rather than calling it "a strong link" himself.

 

So the "strong link" quote doesn't seem to represent what Wescott said, but in that same source Wescott does call Stubbs' examples "unexceptionable":

 

Among the many Semitic loan-words in Uto-Aztecan, the following, listed by Stubbs, seems unexceptionable as regards both form and meaning:

 

Hebrew baraq lightning > Papago berok lightning

Aramaic katpa shoulder > Papago kotva shoulder

Hebrew hiskal be prudent > Nahua iskal be prudent

Hebrew yesïväh sitting > Hopi yesiva camp

 

Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan.

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by bofmmodel

[canard78]

I did not term you a "yokel." Here is the actual context of my one-time use of that term in this thread:

Quote

Does this mean that you are identifying with the Mormon author of that book? Are you defending his case, which was built on pseudo-scholarship? Are you taking issue with my description of his book? You claim to have read it.

I was quoting you more generally. You use the term "yokel" quote a lot on this board to describe someone who doesn't know, or isn't qualified to know, what they are talking about. You haveused it for Hans Mattson, Jeremy Runnels and others.

If you go to google and do a site search (site:mormondialogue.org yokel) the majority of the first page of results are you calling people yokels (only one or two exceptions).

If I have somehow qualified in your eyes as not being a yokel then I'm delighted...

[canard78]

I know Vogel personally, and have had a variety of discussions with him over the years, in person and on this board. We both attended California State University at Long Beach at differing times, me studying archeology, him history (in which he received his BA). His tendentious work has been reviewed by several scholars: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/2/1/S00028-5176d3dc1e5fa28Christensen.pdf , and http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/16/1/S00014-5176af6e1d62a14Christensen.pdf , and http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/17/2/S00009-5176aab65b7719Goff.pdf , and http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/ .

I also have a BA from BYU, but in political science, which doesn't do me much good in anthropology and archeology -- both of which I studied extensively elsewhere (UCLA, CSULB, Hebrew Univ.).

I have a BA in History from Cardiff University (ranked in the top 1.5% in the world and top 5% in UK for Research Excellence)... does that make me qualified to play too?

[jkwilliams]

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).

 

Polished iron ore is not the same as smelted steel, as described by Nephi. The high heat used for the latter has broad application through a civilization, and we see none of it in the Americas during the time the Nephites were supposed to have been here.

 

ETA: I see that sunstoned beat me to it.

Edited August 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

I have and I do.  Would that others would engage me in real discussion.

 

I'd love to engage you in real discussion. You asked for examples of pseudo-scholarship, and I provided a few in the belief that you wanted to discuss what constitutes pseudo-scholarship. Instead, you've responded by accusing me of disrespecting an accomplished scholar and by preemptively slamming Dan Vogel, neither of which addressed what I wrote. I don't think that qualifies as real discussion.

[jkwilliams]

That begs the question, jk.  And that is a fallacy.

 

You're right, that was wrong of me. My point, badly made, is that neither you nor I are linguists. I took one linguistics class as an undergrad, and that makes me completely unqualified to have an informed opinion about Stubbs's work. The process of peer review and publication is vital for starting an informed discussion among people who have the background to have such a discussion. When something is self-published, it isn't subject to the same review process, so we have to take the author's word for it that it's rigorous and holds up to scrutiny. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

C'mon, jk, you can be nicer than that.  Mocking a serious scholar is inappropriate.  Stubbs is an acknowledged expert in linguistics, and even taught it at College of Eastern Utah.  I have been through his entire book, providing advice and comments from my own fields.  I put his preview online.  I have even published my own survey of Oaxacan languages as compared to Semitic and Egyptian.  “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2011 version 2, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA . 

 

No mockery here, just an apt analogy. I don't question Jeff Meldrum's expertise in biology. In fact, I've had several cordial conversations with him in the past and have found him to be reasonable and scholarly, but I do question the validity of his work in Bigfoot studies. The point is pretty simple: Scholar A's expertise in X may or may not be relevant to his research in Y. I've given you the example of John Clark, who is unquestionably a respected scholar in the field of Mesoamerican archaeology, but he was out of his element when he ventured into 19th-century frontier American history. 

 

You've suggested that Stubbs's work finding possible cognates in Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan is top-notch scholarship because Stubbs is a respected linguist and scholar in Uto-Azecan. You've even vouched for the book yourself because you have gone through it. That's all fine and good, but you're not an expert in linguists, so your stamp of approval is no more authoritative than mine would be. If Stubbs were to put his work out there in reputable venues, his methodology and conclusions would be thoroughly vetted and challenged. If after that process, Stubbs's work still stands, then he's made a major contribution to Mesoamerican linguistics that has major ramifications for a number of other fields. In the absence of such rigorous review, it's difficult for me or anyone else to opine on the validity of his work. 

[Bob Crockett]

John:  

 

For you, evidence is what you personally like, and pseudoscholarship is what you don't like.  As with the discussion about Stubbs, you pretend to be incapable of acknowledging whether his work is scholarship or not because you are not a linguist, but more likely because it tends to support a Hebrew influence in America.  Isn't that the essence of anti-Mormonism?  A priori rejections of things that support the Church?

 

I don't like Dr. Sorenson's work and think it counterproductive to the mission of the Church.   But, I acknowledge that it is "scholarship" using some secular methods.  I acknowledge that he musters some evidences in support of a MesoAmerican view of the Book of Mormon.  

 

I don't like Will Bagley's book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  But I have acknowledged it as a new watershed in MMM scholarship.

 

I don't like what Kevin C. has to say about the temple, the Josian reforms and the sacred goddess, and think it somewhat pagan and contrary to scripture.  But I read it, respect it and consider it fairly sound scholarship.

 

I have read what you've posted on the nasty board from statements of Dr. Jenkins.  I'm really astounded at his approach; his nastiness and sarcasm.  But he's a qualified fellow and much of what he writes is legitimate research and scholarship. 

 

You, on the other hand, basically reject derisively what seems to have some reasonable basis.  It just isn't scholarship. It is the exact opposite, foolishness from a kindergartner.  Yer not all that convincing or discriminating.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[bofmmodel]

...If Stubbs were to put his work out there in reputable venues, his methodology and conclusions would be thoroughly vetted and challenged...

 

Well, let's see:

• There are no professionally-accepted migration theories that support his conclusions.
• There is no professionally-accepted archaeological evidence to support his conclusions.
• The known DNA evidence works directly against his conclusions.
• Other than himself, there are no professionals that I know of who are experts in the language families/sub-families involved in his proposal:   Semitic languages, Egyptian languages, and Uto-Aztecan languages.

^These things are huge obstacles to getting his proposal peer-reviewed and published^  ...which is EXACTLY why he has waited so long to publish at all.

 

I'm not saying the problems mentioned above are problems that would cause his paper to FAIL the peer review process.  They're problems that he faces trying to get it considered for serious peer review by reputable publishers.  The whole substance of your argument is that you think he is avoiding the peer review process because he doesn't think it will pass, but that's not the current problem.

 

The current problem is getting reputable publishers and professionals to give the proposal serious attention in the first place and if you follow his work you'll see that he is very focused on trying to draw professional, critical attention to his work.  For example, take a look at the "excerpts" article that he published this year and tell me what kind of audience he is publishing to.  The "excerpts" article is a technical presentation giving an overview of the fundamental adherence of his proposal to the tenets of the Comparative Method.  Most people don't even know what that means, but he's not writing to "most people", he's writing to professional linguists and he's speaking their language.

 

It's clear that the "excerpts" are a primer meant to get the attention of linguistic professionals in an effort to get their critical input.

 

Even when he does get the attention of qualified professional linguists, he faces other obstacles to peer-review.  For example, whether or not you think the David H. Kelly quote in Stubbs' article is referenced properly, it is easy to understand the sentiment expressed in it:  "The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it..."

 

^THAT^ is another major problem that Stubbs is clearly facing when it comes to peer review.  Reviewing ANY linguistic proposal (least of all one with no anthropological context) takes a LOT of time.  Tackling one that is orders of magnitude larger than the average-sized proposal is a massive time commitment.

 

Even if a qualified, professional historical linguist does decide that his proposal looks technically-acceptable enough for peer review, they're under no obligation to do it.  They're going to weigh several factors.  The fact that his proposal is so tremendously detailed and thorough that it requires a huge time commitment probably isn't the biggest problem that Stubbs faces as he works to get his peers to give his proposal a critical review.

 

The bigger problem is that even if Stubbs gets the attention of scholars who are qualified to peer review his work, those scholars are facing two major dilemmas:

1. Both the publisher and any professionals who are willing to put their name out in support of his work are clearly saying that they support linguist evidence that flies in the face of the professionally-accepted migration theories postulated by archaeologists, geneticists, and other linguists.
2. It's no secret that Stubbs is LDS and it's no secret that if his work passes peer review that both the publisher and any professionals who are willing to put their name out in support of his work are clearly saying:  "We agree that there is now evidence substantiating the major storylines of the Nephites and Mulekites".

Of course, the textual review itself would not mention Nephites or Mulekites, but any professional would know the consequences of hitching their tapir to Stubbs' wagon.

 

Despite the obstacles, the focus of Stubbs' work is not on making some feel-good piece for Book of Mormon enthusiasts.  His focus is on preparing an overwhelmingly convincing professional case in a situation that requires an overwhelmingly convincing professional case and he is trying to present it to his peers for review.  That's just not as easy as you make it sound when you say:

 

"...If Stubbs were to put his work out there in reputable venues, his methodology and conclusions would be thoroughly vetted and challenged..."

 

 

Your implication that he is attempting to lower the hurdle is incorrect.  He is trying to clear a linguistic hurdle so large that nobody thinks it can be done.

Edited August 4, 2015 by bofmmodel

[jkwilliams]

John:  

 

For you, evidence is what you personally like, and pseudoscholarship is what you don't like.  As with the discussion about Stubbs, you pretend to be incapable of acknowledging whether his work is scholarship or not because you are not a linguist, but more likely because it tends to support a Hebrew influence in America.  Isn't that the essence of anti-Mormonism?  A priori rejections of things that support the Church?

 

I don't like Dr. Sorenson's work and think it counterproductive to the mission of the Church.   But, I acknowledge that it is "scholarship" using some secular methods.  I acknowledge that he musters some evidences in support of a MesoAmerican view of the Book of Mormon.  

 

I don't like Will Bagley's book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  But I have acknowledged it as a new watershed in MMM scholarship.

 

You, on the other hand, basically reject derisively what seems to have some reasonable basis.  I've read what you've written on the other board, your nasty cynicism and attacks on members of this Board.  How can you convince us of anything, really?

 

I've explained why I think Dr. Clark's piece is pseudoscholarship, and it's not because of personal preference. I may well have judged too soon on the Stubbs stuff, but then, as I said, I'm not an expert and will wait for whatever comes of it. 

[Mars]

+1'd for "hitching their tapir to Stubbs' wagon"

[bofmmodel]

+1'd for "hitching their tapir to Stubbs' wagon"

   thx

 

...but there is a point I'm making behind the joke:  No matter the strength of the proposal, professional historical linguists will hesitate to associate themselves to the proposal.  The controversy that a favorable review would generate would not be something to look forward to.

 

I'm not a professional with appropriate qualifications to judge his work, but that doesn't mean I haven't spent considerable time and effort to understand it and the methodology involved in judging it.  I'll give you the same opinion that I gave Brian, which is that his peers will have three choices:

1. They can accept his language proposal as valid.
2. They can respond with attacks against weaknesses in the Comparative Method itself.
3. The can ignore his proposal.

What's not on my list is a choice to say that he doesn't make a convincing case within the methodology of the Comparative Method.  He does.

 

His peers will probably choose #3 as long as they can.  Once they do give it a thorough review the case seems so strong that I won't be at all surprised to see some or even most of his peers eventually choose #1, even in the face of all the implications that come with it.

 

When that happens, non-professional critics will choose #2.

[Nevo]

No matter the strength of the proposal, professional historical linguists will hesitate to associate themselves to the proposal.

 

This is the classic complaint of proponents of pseudo-scholarship. Mainstream scholars won't give our crazy, fringe notions the time of day. It must be because they're afraid of the consequences of admitting the strength of our case. Yeah, that's it!

 

I'm not a professional with appropriate qualifications to judge his work . . .

What's not on my list is a choice to say that he doesn't make a convincing case within the methodology of the Comparative Method.  He does.

 

Hmm.

[bofmmodel]

This is the classic complaint of proponents of pseudo-scholarship. Mainstream scholars won't give our crazy, fringe notions the time of day. It must be because they're afraid of the consequences of admitting the strength of our case. Yeah, that's it!

 

I actually agree with you completely.  If you disregard my opinion of Stubbs' work and look at my other opinions regarding Book of Mormon historicity you will see that I don't think that we should pretend that much of our "evidence" amounts to "evidence" at all.  It doesn't meet professional standards so it doesn't get accepted by non-Mormon professional audiences.

 

I get that the complaint I gave is a classic one and I plead guilty to the charge...but don't lose sight of the fact that the author is actively trying to engage the professional audience.  He is not avoiding them just because this argument is true.  HIs case is professional and strong and he does want it scrutinized by his peers

 

...but none of that changes the problem of peers having to "hitch their tapirs to his wagon".  Don't pretend that problem doesn't exist.  It does, but Stubbs is not trying to excuse himself because of it.

Edited August 4, 2015 by bofmmodel

[jkwilliams]

HIs case is professional and strong and he does want it scrutinized by his peers

 

Didn't you just say you didn't feel qualified to make such a judgment?

[bofmmodel]

Didn't you just say you didn't feel qualified to make such a judgment?

 

Yessir!

 

I don't expect you to quote me as a professional source or simply believe in Stubbs' work just because I said so.

 

What I said was that I'm not qualified to do a professional review that others can really count on.  That's true...but it doesn't mean that I haven't invested enough time and effort learning the methodology through study and through interactions with non-Mormon linguists that I can't have an opinion on the subject.  I have looked into it, and I am able to understand what he and other linguists are saying (usually), and I can see the strengths of other proposals that professionals have accepted and I can see the weakness of other proposals that professionals have rejected and I have simply come to the conclusion that Stubbs' work is strong.

 

The reason I brought it up in this thread is because on pages #24 and #25 people talked about Stubbs' work and disregarded it based on quotes from a professional who was speaking in a different context.  His comments about Stubbs' FARMS paper 11 years ago is accurate, but it is not a comment about Stubbs' more recent publications and it is CERTAINLY not a comment about the book that is about to be published.

 

I'm not expecting you to take my non-professional word for it, but I would like to encourage a few other people out there to learn the methodology and start learning what he is saying from the perspective of historical linguistics.

Edited August 4, 2015 by bofmmodel