ERayR Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: On 1/20/2016 at 6:13 AM, ERayR said: 15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: FAIR ENOUGH...I appreciate your honest answer...that means a lot to me thank you. I'm familiar with Sorenson's work, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. In my humble opinion when you start from the premise that the Book of Mormon is what it claims and then go out from that beginning point to find evidence which support's that premises...you're going about it the wrong way...but thats just me. Sorenson, may he rest in peace, was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Even when he was presented with facts that conflicted with this conclusion he held tightly to his beliefs. Fair enough, but isn't that what one would expect to find with someone who begins at the end rather than beginning at the beginning? It is there but it is recognized by some other name than Nephite. FAIR ENOUGH...I appreciate your honest answer...that means a lot to me thank you. I'm familiar with Sorenson's some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. In my humble opinion when you start from the premise that the Book of Mormon is what it claims and then go out from that beginning point to find evidence which support's that premises...you're going about it the wrong way...but thats just me. Sorenson, may he rest in peace, was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Even when he was presented with facts that conflicted with this conclusion he held tightly to his beliefs. Fair enough, but isn't that what one would expect to find with someone who begins at the end rather than beginning at the beginning? You have to begin at which ever end you are at, sometimes even in the middle. Sorenson is not the only source of evidences, only the most prolific. You are grasping tightly to the concept that the Book of Mormon events and people were separate from the people around them. They were not. They were tied together like the history of the US is tied to subgroups which make up the whole of the history of the US. Two thousand years from now how much evidence of groups like FLDS or maybe the Hutterites or the Campbellites or the Shoshone Indian tribe will there be? Not even a unique pottery shard as they used the same pottery as everyone else around them.
Gray Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: I hope for a day when we are more inclusive, less insular, and less esoteric, to tell the truth. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone not being able to accept the historical story of the BoM, for instance. I mean everyone buys into some version of loving one another, what more do we really need? If we could circumvent our own traditional dogma and the like and get people like Johnny Cake back without having to prove the BoM's historicity, we'd be in a good place, I'd say. But as of now, Johnny Cake isn't alone in his place. There are tons of really good people out there who simply couldn't maintain belief. Some may say it's a problem with them--meaning they sinned. Some may say their expectations are off--which is certainly possible. But I say, maybe our expectations are off...maybe we sin in sending people out the door by our own rhetoric and tradition. I doubt I'll ever believe in historical Nephites (because I doubt the evidence will ever be forthcoming), but that would never keep me out of the pews on Sunday. IMO it's totally irrelevant to the value of the book. Edited January 27, 2016 by Gray 2
Kevin Christensen Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: I sure he's glad to hear that. My sincere apologies. I misread an article which listed his tenure at BYU and retirement, which I misread as the date of his death. I sure he's glad to hear that. My sincere apologies. I misread an article which listed his tenure at BYU and retirement, which I misread as the date of his death. And the misreading of his express statements concerning the Polynesians and Hagoth and the Book of Mormon and Sorenson's approach to evidence as expressly stated in his most famous book? That was my main concern and the point of my direct quotation of Sorenson on the topic from An Ancient American Setting. John Clark has also directly addressed the issue of evidence: "The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1383&index=6 And considering, "How would we know?" regarding Zarahemla, I prefer to consider Alma 32's important contrast between evidence that provides "cause to believe" as against that which coerces absolute "knowing." I think a location dating to the right time period that meets geographic details regarding the Sidon is a reasonable consideration. But supposing that the best place to look for horse bones is the center of the kind of ritual complex and ceremonial center that attracts diggers might be a little unreasonable, especially if I take the time to count how many time the Sidon is mentioned in relation to Zarahemla compared to how many times horses are. Just saying. Jesus pointed out that first step in seeing clearly is to check for beams in our own eyes. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: And the misreading of his express statements concerning the Polynesians and Hagoth and the Book of Mormon and Sorenson's approach to evidence as expressly stated in his most famous book? That was my main concern and the point of my direct quotation of Sorenson on the topic from An Ancient American Setting. John Clark has also directly addressed the issue of evidence: "The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1383&index=6 And considering, "How would we know?" regarding Zarahemla, I prefer to consider Alma 32's important contrast between evidence that provides "cause to believe" as against that which coerces absolute "knowing." I think a location dating to the right time period that meets geographic details regarding the Sidon is a reasonable consideration. But supposing that the best place to look for horse bones is the center of the kind of ritual complex and ceremonial center that attracts diggers might be a little unreasonable, especially if I take the time to count how many time the Sidon is mentioned in relation to Zarahemla compared to how many times horses are. Just saying. Jesus pointed out that first step in seeing clearly is to check for beams in our own eyes. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Fair enough to your first point but I'll stand by what I said regarding Sorenson's view with respect to the Polynesians and with respect to your second...I appreciate you quoting Clark as I believe it captures perfectly the apologetic arguments presented this thread to a T. Thanks for posting that, which I completely disagree with, but it does sum up apologetic thoughts on this subject. Quote "The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology."
Kevin Christensen Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Okay.. you stand by what you said regarding Sorenson's view with respect to Polynesians, and I'll stand by what Sorenson himself said on the topic. It strikes as a bit more rational and scientific to do so. "Sorenson,... was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors.Even when he was presented with facts that conflicted with this conclusion he held tightly to his beliefs." (Johnnie Cake on Sorenson's irrational faith, without citing any source.) "Those who choose to believe that Hagoth reached Polynesia must rely on faith rather than reliable evidence. The Book of Mormon itself, of course, says only that the man and his mates disappeared from the knowledge of the people in Zarahemla. For all they knew he might have died at a ripe old age on the West Mexican coast... And neither do we know." Sorenson on himself, Ancient American Setting, page 269. Stand where you want, but in this case, I would keep my eyes peeled for the arrival of the Irony Police. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
CA Steve Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 31 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Stand where you want, but in this case, I would keep my eyes peeled for the arrival of the Irony Police. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA The irony police are already here, we just don't recognize them for what they are.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Okay.. you stand by what you said regarding Sorenson's view with respect to Polynesians, and I'll stand by what Sorenson himself said on the topic. It strikes as a bit more rational and scientific to do so. "Sorenson,... was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors.Even when he was presented with facts that conflicted with this conclusion he held tightly to his beliefs." (Johnnie Cake on Sorenson's irrational faith, without citing any source.) "Those who choose to believe that Hagoth reached Polynesia must rely on faith rather than reliable evidence. The Book of Mormon itself, of course, says only that the man and his mates disappeared from the knowledge of the people in Zarahemla. For all they knew he might have died at a ripe old age on the West Mexican coast... And neither do we know." Sorenson on himself, Ancient American Setting, page 269. Stand where you want, but in this case, I would keep my eyes peeled for the arrival of the Irony Police. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA The quote you are referencing is from his book Ancient America Setting first published in 1985 and then re-published and updated in 1996. The reference I am referring to is from a paper he wrote for FARMS in the year 2000, 4 years later in which he still held on to the false notion of Polynesian''s being somehow connected to Ancient America. Sorenson, John L. 2000a. “New Light: Genetics Indicates that Polynesians Were Connected to Ancient America,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9:1. and Sorenson, John L. 2000b. “New Light: The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9:2. Where in he claims that Polynesians were connected to Ancient America...He was/is just flat wrong. I stand my by my earlier statement... FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt Lake City, UT PS: Kevin, I'll accept your apology whenever you feel moved upon to offer it... Link to article for those interested: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19895/18461 Edited January 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
mfbukowski Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: And the misreading of his express statements concerning the Polynesians and Hagoth and the Book of Mormon and Sorenson's approach to evidence as expressly stated in his most famous book? That was my main concern and the point of my direct quotation of Sorenson on the topic from An Ancient American Setting. John Clark has also directly addressed the issue of evidence: "The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1383&index=6 And considering, "How would we know?" regarding Zarahemla, I prefer to consider Alma 32's important contrast between evidence that provides "cause to believe" as against that which coerces absolute "knowing." I think a location dating to the right time period that meets geographic details regarding the Sidon is a reasonable consideration. But supposing that the best place to look for horse bones is the center of the kind of ritual complex and ceremonial center that attracts diggers might be a little unreasonable, especially if I take the time to count how many time the Sidon is mentioned in relation to Zarahemla compared to how many times horses are. Just saying. Jesus pointed out that first step in seeing clearly is to check for beams in our own eyes. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Kevin I do not know if you caught this truly amazing piece from Sorenson which I think has yet to be published. I cannot possibly praise it highly enough. If you are not aware of it, you must be 1
volgadon Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: The quote you are referencing is from his book Ancient America Setting first published in 1985 and then re-published and updated in 1996. The reference I am referring to is from a paper he wrote for FARMS in the year 2000, 4 years later in which he still held on to the false notion of Polynesian''s being somehow connected to Ancient America. Sorenson, John L. 2000a. “New Light: Genetics Indicates that Polynesians Were Connected to Ancient America,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9:1. and Sorenson, John L. 2000b. “New Light: The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9:2. Where in he claims that Polynesians were connected to Ancient America...He was/is just flat wrong. I stand my by my earlier statement... FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt Lake City, UT PS: Kevin, I'll accept your apology whenever you feel moved upon to offer it... Link to article for those interested: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19895/18461 Have you bothered to read the article? 1
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 8 minutes ago, volgadon said: Have you bothered to read the article? Yes...have you? Your point?
volgadon Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yes...have you? Your point? Oh not a big point, just that it utterly fails to say what you claimed it says. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, volgadon said: Oh not a big point, just that it utterly fails to say what you claimed it says. You are joking right? Here's what I said: Sorenson, ... was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Direct Quote from his essay: Quote Recent genetic studies indicate that Polynesians were connected to ancient America. Edited January 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Robert F. Smith Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 13 hours ago, Gray said: Cement being used in the new world does nothing to advance the idea that Nephites existed, though. Even finding steel swords wouldn't help. Anthropologists are not so narrow as to imagine that one artifact has anything useful to say. They talk cultural complexes, which you ignore. Are you afraid of real discussion, Gray? Then why do you ignore the anthropological approach? Why do you fail to come to grips with actual, published arguments? One can always find professionals who will advocate for fringe theories. And let's be clear, the existence of a pre-Columbian civilization in the Americas that originated from the near east is a fringe theory, with no real evidence to support it. There are convergences to be found for any theory, certainly, but that really isn't enough. One can find many convergences with the Book of Mormon all over the world, which isn't evidence for Nephites in those places either. So are you saying that convergences (which are not any sort of evidence in your eyes) can always be found for any theory, anywhere in the world? What are these "convergences" which you find so meaningless and quotidian? Which books or articles have you read which contain these meaningless "convergences"? At best one can theorize that Mesoamerica could be a fit for Nephites if we don't take the BOM completely literally. What does this mean? Can you given an example of the nice fit which can only work if we don't take the BofM completely literally? The idea for people interested in advancing these ideas seems to be to create arguments that leave room for faith. As in, "we can't demonstrate that Nephites are historical, but it might be reasonable to say that they could have existed and not left easily identifiable evidence". That's fine, but that still doesn't give us historical Nephites. Who said this? Can you provide a source? Is this an example of the scientific method in action? The idea remains open to theological exploration, but until some real evidence surfaces, the archaeological approach is a non-starter. There is no real support for it. That is, if the goal is to demonstrate that Nephites existed. And you came to that conclusion based on what careful examination of what evidence? Which book or article is an exemplar of your claim? Really, the quest to find historical Nephites is something of a distraction from the real value of the Book of Mormon. Its value is, again, theological and not historical. Can you cite any sources at all for this claim? Has anyone made that case -- you, for example? Where is the background discussion? Or are you substituting assertion for evidence?
volgadon Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 57 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You are joking right? Here's what I said: Sorenson, ... was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Direct Quote from his essay: There is a world of difference between your claim and that quote, not to mention the entire context. I won't turn your mean-spirited jibe at autists on you, but you are definitely not arguing in good faith and that clouds your basic reading-comprehension. 3
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 47 minutes ago, volgadon said: There is a world of difference between your claim and that quote, not to mention the entire context. I won't turn your mean-spirited jibe at autists on you, but you are definitely not arguing in good faith and that clouds your basic reading-comprehension. Tunnel vision. 1
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted January 28, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yes...have you? Your point? My point would be that the articles do not say that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. The two JBMS articles you cite are unsigned essays from when Sorenson was the editor. The essays point to the complexities of ancestry and different theories and different sets of evidence and different interpretations. And saying that the notion that Polynesia is somehow connected to Ancient America, particularly when the evidence cited in the JBMS essays points to regions outside of his Book of Mormon correlation, does not have the specificity that you assigned to Sorenson. They have nothing to say about the Hagoth story. They do not cite any original research by Sorenson, but cite other scientists. You misstate his claims, and assert, without any evidence whatsoever, that his claims are false. When discussing Hagoth in three places in Mormon's Codex, Sorenson sets it against the context of Mesoamerican trade, and how nicely the evidence of that trade fits with the West Coast setting, and lack of timber for building in Oxaca. Mormon's Codex does not have an entry for Polynesia in the index. Mormon's Codex makes claims regarding the Hagoth story consistent with Ancient American Setting. Sorenson stays close to the text and the Mesoamerican evidence for seagoing trade. The notion of possible connections between Polynesia and parts of Ancient America as part of a general theory that accepts the notion of transoceanic contacts going both directions from several different regions is NOT the same thing as arguing for, or even implying that the Polynesians were descended from Nephites, or Lamanites. It has more to do with the plausibility of Lehi's ocean crossing in light of evidence that other people crossed in both directions. This notion of a larger context for plausibility is the plain thrust of a Sorenson article in JBMS that post-dates the two unsigned editorials you cited. See Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean, citing evidence of biological transmissions in both directions. This article, later than the ones you cite, also says nothing about Hagoth or Polynesian ancestry. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=3 FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Edited January 28, 2016 by Kevin Christensen 5
rodheadlee Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/27/2016 at 4:06 PM, Johnnie Cake said: ^^^^^ Direct Quote^^^^^ ERayR You claim that "There is a great deal of evidence" Ok produce it...but then you assume that "you just won't accept it." How the freak do you know what I will or won't accept? If its compelling, if its Nephite, if it exists... dang right I'll accept it... PLEASE, please, pretty please produce the evidence. Please out of this great deal of evidence...just produce a single artifact ... its really a simple request. Then we can all go home to our families and watch the X files Why don't you address the evidence of the Mexican cylinder seal presented by Kevin?
Gervin Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 22 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: John Clark has also directly addressed the issue of evidence: "The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John Clark bases his conclusions on his belief; he has no credibility with regard to "Mormon" artifacts.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: My point would be that the articles do not say that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. The two JBMS articles you cite are unsigned essays from when Sorenson was the editor. The essays point to the complexities of ancestry and different theories and different sets of evidence and different interpretations. And saying that the notion that Polynesia is somehow connected to Ancient America, particularly when the evidence cited in the JBMS essays points to regions outside of his Book of Mormon correlation, does not have the specificity that you assigned to Sorenson. They have nothing to say about the Hagoth story. They do not cite any original research by Sorenson, but cite other scientists. You misstate his claims, and assert, without any evidence whatsoever, that his claims are false. When discussing Hagoth in three places in Mormon's Codex, Sorenson sets it against the context of Mesoamerican trade, and how nicely the evidence of that trade fits with the West Coast setting, and lack of timber for building in Oxaca. Mormon's Codex does not have an entry for Polynesia in the index. Mormon's Codex makes claims regarding the Hagoth story consistent with Ancient American Setting. Sorenson stays close to the text and the Mesoamerican evidence for seagoing trade. The notion of possible connections between Polynesia and parts of Ancient America as part of a general theory that accepts the notion of transoceanic contacts going both directions from several different regions is NOT the same thing as arguing for, or even implying that the Polynesians were descended from Nephites, or Lamanites. It has more to do with the plausibility of Lehi's ocean crossing in light of evidence that other people crossed in both directions. This notion of a larger context for plausibility is the plain thrust of a Sorenson article in JBMS that post-dates the two unsigned editorials you cited. See Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean, citing evidence of biological transmissions in both directions. This article, later than the ones you cite, also says nothing about Hagoth or Polynesian ancestry. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=3 FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Sorry you'll have to forgive my frustration...but it seems that Ancient American civilizations are the Children of Lehi until its no longer convenient for them to be the Children of Lehi...so please clarify something for me cuz I was under the impression that the church considered Polynesians to be the children of Lehi thereby referring to them as Lamanites...has this understanding and past expressions of such by Mormon Prophets been changed recently? Are Polynesians Lamanites or not? When you say that... Quote My point would be that the articles do not say that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors and I say that... Quote ...Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors What exactly am I missing here...I feel as if I've left reality and fallen into crazy town where up is down and down is up so please enlighten me. Could it be that you and Sorenson are talking about plausibility's? FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt Lake City, UT Edited January 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Kevin Christensen Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 49 minutes ago, Gervin said: 50 minutes ago, Gervin said: John Clark bases his conclusions on his belief; he has no credibility with regard to "Mormon" artifacts. John Clark bases his conclusions on his belief; he has no credibility with regard to "Mormon" artifacts. John Clark explains this basis of his own conclusions here. I notice that he has no illusions about his own credibility in the eyes of skeptics, but he also has a far more impressive set of credentials and publications than does Gervin. http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166/john-e-clark And the essay I cited: https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/20079/18639 Credibility is not, apparently, an existential quality, a constant that is the same to all observers, but an inherently subjective judgment applied towards an information source, which judgment depends a great deal what a person decides to select for notice and how a person goes about valuing those selections. And all that leads, of course, to ideology, to one's preferred society, where credibility means 'agrees with our preconceptions.' FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 1 hour ago, rodheadlee said: Why don't you address the evidence of the Mexican cylinder seal presented by Kevin? its an interesting curiosity
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) and how are these two statements demonstrably different? Other than I should have used the term Lamanites rather than Nephite...or children of Lehi Quote Here's what I said: Sorenson, ... was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Direct Quote from his essay: Quote Recent genetic studies indicate that Polynesians were connected to ancient America. Edited January 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/27/2016 at 9:20 AM, ERayR said: You have to begin at which ever end you are at, sometimes even in the middle. Sorenson is not the only source of evidences, only the most prolific. You are grasping tightly to the concept that the Book of Mormon events and people were separate from the people around them. They were not. They were tied together like the history of the US is tied to subgroups which make up the whole of the history of the US. Two thousand years from now how much evidence of groups like FLDS or maybe the Hutterites or the Campbellites or the Shoshone Indian tribe will there be? Not even a unique pottery shard as they used the same pottery as everyone else around them. You are correct...I am struggling to accept the notion of the Nephite nation being some how indistinguishable from the people that they supposedly merged with. To me this concept is in complete and utter conflict with what the Book of Mormon claims...
Gervin Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 22 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: John Clark explains this basis of his own conclusions here. I notice that he has no illusions about his own credibility in the eyes of skeptics, but he also has a far more impressive set of credentials and publications than does Gervin. http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166/john-e-clark And the essay I cited: https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/20079/18639 Credibility is not, apparently, an existential quality, a constant that is the same to all observers, but an inherently subjective judgment applied towards an information source, which judgment depends a great deal what a person decides to select for notice and how a person goes about valuing those selections. And all that leads, of course, to ideology, to one's preferred society, where credibility means 'agrees with our preconceptions.' FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA No, it's not among skeptics that he has no credibility it's among those in his profession, who know how artifacts get "transformed into acceptable facts." Quote My archaeology does not concern the Book of Mormon and never has. I would never attempt to prove the book’s message by science, and I think such efforts are a foolish waste of time—not because there is no evidence, but because the evidence cannot make a difference in the ways imagined. I tell Mormon friends that if I found an artifact that would make a significant difference, such as the golden plates, I would bury it and keep my mouth shut. This is rhetorical exaggeration, of course, to drive home the point that, as a practicing Mormon, I would have no credibility on the matter. I would be the last one in the profession to be believed if Book of Mormon related artifacts were found. In reality, I would not dream of spinning the data found in my archaeology even if confronted with such an artifact. This hypothetical example does make the point that having an object is not the same as having a fact or having a legitimate argument. Those interested in these issues should investigate how artifacts get transformed into acceptable facts. and this, from the article you link: Quote The one requirement for making comparisons between archaeology and the Book of Mormon is to be in the right place.
Gray Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hi Robert, unfortunately your comments aren't coming up when I try to quote you. If there were a case to be made for historical Nephites from an archaeological perspective, that case would be discussed in mainstream archaeological circles. The fact is, the discussion is not being had there, because a rigorous, evidence-based case cannot be made. All of the evidences I've seen from various sources for the historical Nephites has been oblique. As in, "within this space, Nephites could have operated, because of a certain number of convergences" (the most obvious counter-convergences tend to be dismissed). It's always possibilities, never direct evidence. Given the technologies and civilization levels discussed in the BOM, you'll find much stronger convergences in the old world (including steel, horses, wheat) than you find in the new world. So clearly convergences are not enough to establish the case here. Regarding the value of the BOM, theological or historical, that is obviously a subjective value judgement. But we have church leaders on record saying the BOM is not a history book, so my value judgement shouldn't strike any orthodox member as coming out of left field. Thanks Edited January 28, 2016 by Gray
Recommended Posts