M
majick275
Guest
mormon fool:
Fortune and joy to you and yours
- Status
M
mormon_fool
Guest
fool (old): Being a prophet, seer, and revelator doesn’t confer some sort of omniscience on a person. In regards to Book of Mormon sites, the fact that Joseph Smith didn’t “know where to look” becomes evidence that he didn’t write the book. At least that is archaeologist John Clark’s professional opinion.
*
majick: and yet we have JS pronouncing here is the garden of eden, here is the hill cumorah, here are the writings of Abraham in his own hand.
I have a surface impression already. I don’t care to repressent informed mormon thinking on a subject that I don’t have much interest in. But hey, thanks for your encouragement.
later,
fool
*
majick: and yet we have JS pronouncing here is the garden of eden, here is the hill cumorah, here are the writings of Abraham in his own hand.
- fool: My comments (and Clark’s) were specific to Book of Mormon geography. For the Garden of Eden location I am not sure what would constitute a testible archaeological evidence. Archaeological speaking you have already pointed it out as a non-issue. “The hand of Abraham” is text that was later copied over so citing it doesn’t necessarily constitute a claim by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not claim the location of the Book of Mormon’s Cumorah had been revealed to him. *
- fool: There is some healthy on-going debate in Mormon Studies on how much plausibility FARMS has established for the Book of Mormon. Your triumphantalistic assertion notwithstanding.*
I have a surface impression already. I don’t care to repressent informed mormon thinking on a subject that I don’t have much interest in. But hey, thanks for your encouragement.
later,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
said:fool: My comments (and Clark’s) were specific to Book of Mormon geography. For the Garden of Eden location I am not sure what would constitute a testible archaeological evidence. Archaeological speaking you have already pointed it out as a non-issue. “The hand of Abraham” is text that was later copied over so citing it doesn’t necessarily constitute a claim by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not claim the location of the Book of Mormon’s Cumorah had been revealed to him. *
BoM geography - if you want to say we don’t know yet I’m okay with that. I would challenge you to look a little deeper into JS calims (documentary history of the church, teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith, modern day prophets speak are some informative LDS sources) That there could easily be multiple BoM cumorahs I could see as a possibility. What I was mainly trying to show is that JS and others after him have at various times made specific claims that were attributed to revelation. (that significant numbers of individual Mormons chose to “embellish” these claims is of course not an acceptable indictment of the LDS church.)
Hmm… I must have mispoke if you thought this triumphantalistic. What i meant was that skeptics had presented evidence against plausability. (not that their case was proven beyond any shadow of doubt) and thus the burden of proof was back on the LDS side to provide evidence that it was plausible. Please don’t use FARMS. (for scientific evidence at least) they don’t subject any of their findings to the established peer review process or even follow basic scientific method. At best they are an apologist group rather than an academic one. the “healthy debate” against DNA evidence, linguistics, etc. was sad. Better to push forward with the Boyd K Packer strategy of science can’t prove it, just have faith and don’t worry about it. call it a mystery, a miracle whatever but those folks at FARMS might want to read a non-LDS anthropolgy book or two before they venture into those territories. (sorry that was a mean tone, but the FARMS folks really got me steamed…not your fault or an indictment of the LDS church as FARMS is an independent group)
- fool: There is some healthy on-going debate in Mormon Studies on how much plausibility FARMS has established for the Book of Mormon. Your triumphantalistic assertion notwithstanding.*
I have a surface impression already. I don’t care to repressent informed mormon thinking on a subject that I don’t have much interest in. But hey, thanks for your encouragement.
Now this is starting to look like a copout. No interest in JS translating the actual writings of Abraham? a book that provided much of the supporting philosophy for the endowment, the pre-existence, the very nature of God?
*
This scene is easiest for modern egyptologists to completey translate because of its excellent condition and simlpicity. I am not an expert on this but I can easily see that what JS calls Pharoah is a female godess and what JS calls prince of Pharoah is a princess who is with her husband (not a waiter) the cartouches above clearly name these individuals and none of them is abraham. Here is where many “cafeteria” Mormons ignore truth. (yes there are many cafeteria catholics that do the same thing) There are a lot of LDS folks who pretty much ignore the PoGP, whole sections of the D&C and the teachings of every prophet before spencer Kimball with the rationale that it’s not essential to salvation. Okay but what about exaltation? " I don’t know that we teach that…that gets into some very deep theology that we don’t know much about…"
Thus the frustration with many trying first just to establish conclusively what the LDS church beleives as doctrine. The BoM is said to contain the “fullness of the gospel” but never mentions many “plain and precious things” that are practiced by Mormons today. The book “mormon doctrine” written by an apostle has been specifically criticized as “not doctrine”. (see the confusion?)
If/when you attend the temple where and/or to whom can you go there to receive interactive instruction on those “sacred” subjects? there are no “Temple Manuals” to explain these things. The handbook of instructions (used by church priesthood leaders) is NOT available to members for their education or review. yet the glory of god is intelligence?
To try and take this back to the OP, you just can’t expect to proclaim that JS is a true prophet, JS claims that this was the garden of eden and here is the altar where adam offered sacrificed, present no evidence, have a number of seemingly obvious reasons to at least question many of JS claims and expect folks to suddenly to get a burning bosom and accept this as Gods one and only true church.
Perhaps you could indicate an area of LDS doctrine that IS of interest to you and start a new thread. I value your (name removed by moderator)ut… when you chose to share it.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
fool: (old) There is some healthy on-going debate in Mormon Studies on how much plausibility FARMS has established for the Book of Mormon. Your triumphantalistic assertion notwithstanding.
later,
fool
It is my mistake for reading too much into brief claim. Thanks for the clarification.
If FARMS was peer reviewed would you pay more attention to their evidences and arguments? Oh wait FARMS is peer reviewed as Dr. Daniel Peterson, the editor of FARMS review says here. I personally think FARMS has done a good job in the DNA debate, but I respect your ability to think otherwise.
Thanks. I don’t usually start threads but I will definitely feel welcome to post comments on topics that I feel inclined to do so.
later,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
Okay i read the link you posted…it starts with the editor of FARMS says we do too. (peer review) it ends with one of the FARMS supporters basically stating that FARMS is an apologetics group and is held to a higher academic standard than saints alive, utlm, etc.
i agree that FARMS is far superior to frauds like Ed Decker or Dee Jay Nelson. FARMS is better academically than many apologetics groups but it is NOT to the level of real science.
Specific to the DNA argument they have pretty much accepted the conventional view of asian migration via alaska for the majority of the americas, they accept that there is no biological evidence of Hebrew origin in the indigenous peoples tested, yet they grasp at the straw that even though the BoM just failed to mention any of these rather predominant folks already living here, the family of Lehi could have taken wives from them, reproduced through theses lines and thus there would be no scientific evidence to support the BoM story and that proves BoM is true. (???) this is in addition to the multitudes of anchronisms presented with the same rationalizations. (well if there is way that these things could possibly be true but we just haven’t any evidence yet then BoM is true) this of course for the herds, flocks, chariots, silk, swords. etc. throughout the BoM. and oh the misinformation and outright DISINFORMATION on the chachapoyas.
I have no problems debating Hugh Nibbley theories. He was a great scholar and a gentleman. These folks (FARMS) are nowhere near that level. I put them pretty close to the Tanners. (Already have a result and do a lot of research to show that result is correct.) the difference being the Tanners are better historians, social scientists…FARMS has better biologists, chemists although neither seems to do anything other than find other folks results and spin them their way. (and yes I think the FARMS "scientists are about as qualified in their fields as the Tanners are in history) both also like to attack the messenger when they can’t refute the message. Grrrr!!!
Okay rant over civility restored. Thank you for your informative post i hope the Lord will bless you and yours forever.
i agree that FARMS is far superior to frauds like Ed Decker or Dee Jay Nelson. FARMS is better academically than many apologetics groups but it is NOT to the level of real science.
Specific to the DNA argument they have pretty much accepted the conventional view of asian migration via alaska for the majority of the americas, they accept that there is no biological evidence of Hebrew origin in the indigenous peoples tested, yet they grasp at the straw that even though the BoM just failed to mention any of these rather predominant folks already living here, the family of Lehi could have taken wives from them, reproduced through theses lines and thus there would be no scientific evidence to support the BoM story and that proves BoM is true. (???) this is in addition to the multitudes of anchronisms presented with the same rationalizations. (well if there is way that these things could possibly be true but we just haven’t any evidence yet then BoM is true) this of course for the herds, flocks, chariots, silk, swords. etc. throughout the BoM. and oh the misinformation and outright DISINFORMATION on the chachapoyas.
I have no problems debating Hugh Nibbley theories. He was a great scholar and a gentleman. These folks (FARMS) are nowhere near that level. I put them pretty close to the Tanners. (Already have a result and do a lot of research to show that result is correct.) the difference being the Tanners are better historians, social scientists…FARMS has better biologists, chemists although neither seems to do anything other than find other folks results and spin them their way. (and yes I think the FARMS "scientists are about as qualified in their fields as the Tanners are in history) both also like to attack the messenger when they can’t refute the message. Grrrr!!!
Okay rant over civility restored. Thank you for your informative post i hope the Lord will bless you and yours forever.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
Thanks for taking the effort to check out my link. I have lurked and participated on a handful of threads on peer review and FARMS credibility so I am glad I could help clear up some misconceptions.
I agree with your assessment of Decker and Nelson, LOL. I agree that FARMS has an apologetic interest in defending the church. However I do not think is does much good to contrast what they do to “real science” All scientists are apologists when they advocate and justify a particular interpretation of the evidence.
Nice summary of the DNA articles. Although my understanding of the text of the Book of Mormon itself alerts me to the presence of others besides Lehi’s descendents. Sorenson wrote about this way before DNA was even being studied. The others don’t get more of a mention because the Book of Mormon is a lineage history.
Blake Ostler has done a good job of accounting for the presence of anachronisms in his translation model. He views some passages as a modern expansion of the text. The list of stuff that the Book of Mormon mentions that doesn’t have archaeological support yet gets whittled down as time passes. In my eyes, FARMS has a lot of momentum. Still some of the things may have got lost in translation.
I did a a search on chachapoyas on the FARMS website (no hits) so I don’t think they can be accused of disseminationg disinformation. The only items I can find are message board discussions in response to Aug 2004 newspaper articles, in which the mormons for the most part didn’t think had much evidential value. So why do you bring it up to criticize FARMS?
I agree that Hugh is impresive. But there are two ways that he can be improved on. 1) Some of his stuff dates back to the 50’s, old by academic standards. 2) By specializing, the current scholars can gain a level of expertise surpassing Nibley’s in that area. Some of the current FARMS contributors have graduated from top schools and published in the top journals in their fields.
Ouch!
Double Ouch! I am not aware that the Tanners have published in any professional journals in either history or social science. And they are not taken very seriously by non-mormon critics that do.
Those are just my observations as I keep an eye on all the latest developments in Mormon Studies.
hope that helps,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
Just real quick. The Chachapoyas are frequently used (sometimes under other names) as the “great white hope”, “proof” that there were pre-columbian white folks. (nephites) FARMS likes to play the “what if” card too much for my taste. Thus my admitted disdain for what I see as EXTREMELY weak arguments on the anachronims.
I mean this is similar to the fundamentalist argument against science “what if God made the earth old…with dinosaur bones already buried in it” to show that the earth was made in 6 days and is only a few thousand years old.
I have read all of skausens works and God’s convenat race and many others of the “old” LDS scholars. While they were unable to prove anything and in the end advocated a “you must accept on faith” approach, they seemded to have a style (much like nibbley) of at least viewing available facts objectively. This seems to be missing from FARMS and is in my opinion the direct result of Boyd Packer’s academic purges and strong denunciations of historians who “give the adversary equal time by presenting the facts”.
And I guess I was most put off by the FARMS folks rather vicious attacks on the persons who disagreed with them. The old smear the messenger and all will reject the message approach.
I see too much “believe it not! and they believed it not” over there.
The link you listed had THEM claiming status as an apologetics site rather than academic. THEY were asking to be judged by tha same standard as UTLM, Saints alive, etc.
i haven’t seen archeology whittle any anachronisms down yet as far the BoM is concerned. I have seen some extreme reaches along those lines. (prehistoric horse fossils prior to the ice age found…therefore BoM horsedrawn chariots a fact!) perhaps someday someone will find “reformed egyptian” plates somewhere. But in the meantime we have to look at JS handwritten copies of the characters he supposedly translated. Linguists have so far determined that these are as spurious as the Kinderhook plates.
And on another note…one of these days you will have to share your thoughts on fax 3. enquiring minds want to know.
You are good people fool keep sharing your thoughts, it helps us all.
I mean this is similar to the fundamentalist argument against science “what if God made the earth old…with dinosaur bones already buried in it” to show that the earth was made in 6 days and is only a few thousand years old.
I have read all of skausens works and God’s convenat race and many others of the “old” LDS scholars. While they were unable to prove anything and in the end advocated a “you must accept on faith” approach, they seemded to have a style (much like nibbley) of at least viewing available facts objectively. This seems to be missing from FARMS and is in my opinion the direct result of Boyd Packer’s academic purges and strong denunciations of historians who “give the adversary equal time by presenting the facts”.
And I guess I was most put off by the FARMS folks rather vicious attacks on the persons who disagreed with them. The old smear the messenger and all will reject the message approach.
I see too much “believe it not! and they believed it not” over there.
The link you listed had THEM claiming status as an apologetics site rather than academic. THEY were asking to be judged by tha same standard as UTLM, Saints alive, etc.
i haven’t seen archeology whittle any anachronisms down yet as far the BoM is concerned. I have seen some extreme reaches along those lines. (prehistoric horse fossils prior to the ice age found…therefore BoM horsedrawn chariots a fact!) perhaps someday someone will find “reformed egyptian” plates somewhere. But in the meantime we have to look at JS handwritten copies of the characters he supposedly translated. Linguists have so far determined that these are as spurious as the Kinderhook plates.
And on another note…one of these days you will have to share your thoughts on fax 3. enquiring minds want to know.
You are good people fool keep sharing your thoughts, it helps us all.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
OK, just so we are clear that FARMS never played the “what if” card in regards to Chachapoyas and therefore this can’t be used against their credibility. FARMS has many merciless reviews of well-meaning mormons that pre-maturely or erroneously use evidence to try and support the Book of Mormon.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
I had to go back and see what you were referring to. In the quote you must have got that out of the writer is referring to FAIR and not FARMS. “And even assuming FAIR doesn’t employ the same sort of rigorous, academic peer review employed by FARMS, so what?”
FAIR has a peer review process, but it can’t be described as rigorous or academic. I am not sure what processes UTLM or Saints Alive, if any, have. That poster was being flippant anyway. He obviously has much more respect of FAIR than he does opposing apologetic orgs.
FARMS on the other hand is academic and apologetic (which is redundant since all academics are apologetic to some degree as noted earlier.)
I forgot about how much background information (such as who’s who) is needed follow some of the FAIR threads.
M
majick275
Guest
mormon fool:
Okay. I still don’t assign much credibility to FARMS. There are other LDS scholars out there and I would be willing to at least listen to their views.
M
majick275
Guest
mormon fool:
and the rest of the “what if” arguments from FARMS?
M
majick275
Guest
mormon fool:
A land later “discovered” and colonized by …Catholics! (sorry, couldn’t resist)
…and yet, whenever the nephites encountered others (jaredites, mulekites, etc.) they wrote about it in the BoM. Much like the OLd testament example, one would expect at least a mention of the existing folks who were occupying the “promised land”.
A land later
“discovered” and colonized by …Catholics! (sorry, couldn’t resist)
A
amgid
Guest
I would defend it! If it can be supported by LDS scripture (and I believe it can be) then it is true LDS doctrine, and defensible. It is not heresy, and I would certainly not dismiss it.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
Fair enough and a reasonable position for you to take. Do you believe that this can be defended without referring to exclusively LDS sources? (and if so please share your thoughts on how)
A
amgid
Guest
No, religious principles are matter of faith, not sight, or science. They are to be accepted on faith. I accept LDS scripture to be divinely inspired and true, and that is sufficient for me to accept the principle of “American Eden” as correct.
Do you have any evidence from outside of LDS sources that can seriously cast doubt on that belief?
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
As i posted earlier in this thread, I think it irrelevant as well as unprovable. (Bible scripture indicates, to me at least, that it isn’t imossible so I have no reason to disagree)
That you operate from the assumption that all LDS scripture is the actual word of God will certainly affect your analysis of the evidence on any subject. ( I don’t claim that as being a “bad” thing, I just ask that you keep that in mind as we discuss things here that you don’t misunderstand opposing viewpoints)
That you operate from the assumption that all LDS scripture is the actual word of God will certainly affect your analysis of the evidence on any subject. ( I don’t claim that as being a “bad” thing, I just ask that you keep that in mind as we discuss things here that you don’t misunderstand opposing viewpoints)
- Status