Kirk Magelby claims scholars are taking the Book of Mormon Seriously

[Chap]

As has been demonstrated time and time again this multilateral method hugely increases the risk of mistaking chance resemblances for cognates, and makes it possible to prove virtually anything. As Rogers’ points out since any two languages can be expected to have between 1% and 3% chance cognates, if we add additional languages to the comparison the risk rises incrementally as well. This means that once Stubbs is comparing 30 Uto-Aztecan languages with at least three Semitic and Egyptian varieties (actually more, including at least Egyptian, Coptic, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic) the number of expected chance similarities far exceeds the 1528 proposed cognates. ...

What is the Maori word for 'the" ? It's "te"!! Now we have to ask: did ancient Maoris sail to England in their canoes, or was it the other way around??? I mean, it can't its be a coincidence .... ?

[I Have Questions]

As has been demonstrated time and time again this multilateral method hugely increases the risk of mistaking chance resemblances for cognates, and makes it possible to prove virtually anything. As Rogers’ points out since any two languages can be expected to have between 1% and 3% chance cognates, if we add additional languages to the comparison the risk rises incrementally as well. This means that once Stubbs is comparing 30 Uto-Aztecan languages with at least three Semitic and Egyptian varieties (actually more, including at least Egyptian, Coptic, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic) the number of expected chance similarities far exceeds the 1528 proposed cognates. ...

What is the Maori word for 'the" ? It's "te"!! Now we have to ask: did ancient Maoris sail to England in their canoes, or was it the other way around??? I mean, it can't its be a coincidence .... ?

Yes. This. Mormon apologists have an uncanny ability to make anything retrospectively fit their current narratives.

[sock puppet]

I find this humorous because he claims that during his lifetime he has watched the Book of Mormon go from a laughingstock to now a reputable scholarship endeavor. Some of his proof is the fact Universities teach it in graduate level classes. I wonder what he did when it was a laughingstock? https://youtu.be/N0L3Liyx5A4

It was seriously a 19th Century concoction. I think studying the reasons behind Smith making it up, trying to sell it, and then using it as a prop to gain a following--as well as why it was enticing to followers--are legitimate areas for serious research.

That there were "Nephites"?

[Limnor]

I agree with Sock here, but would add a bit of caution for Mormon scholars. Inviting a documentary approach means you won’t get to set limits on where it leads. Be careful what you ask for.

[Rivendale]

I agree with Sock here, but would add a bit of caution for Mormon scholars. Inviting a documentary approach means you won’t get to set limits on where it leads. Be careful what you ask for.

That is why the church will never let any lawsuit get to discovery phase.

[Philo Sofee]

I agree with Sock here, but would add a bit of caution for Mormon scholars. Inviting a documentary approach means you won’t get to set limits on where it leads. Be careful what you ask for.

That is why the church will never let any lawsuit get to discovery phase.

By the way Rivendale. Rivendale is one of my favorite places in Tolkien's legendarium. Just thought I'd let you know. I'm doing some scholarly work with Tolkien now, and it is beyond incredible for me and the discoveries I am making for myself. I am loving every minute of it.

[MG 2.0]

Stubbs claimed he had evidence of trans Atlantic contact but several scholars had scathing critiques of it. Here is one. https://nahuatlstudies.blogspot.com/20 ... html?m=1

From your link...

Rogers points out some serious flaws in the work: Primary of these is that it does not stick to the established bilateral method of comparing languages with languages and proto-languages with proto-languages, but that it frequently cherrypicks so that a form in any Semitic or Egyptian variety can be compared with a form in any Uto-Aztecan language. As has been demonstrated time and time again this multilateral method hugely increases the risk of mistaking chance resemblances for cognates, and makes it possible to prove virtually anything. As Rogers’ points out since any two languages can be expected to have between 1% and 3% chance cognates, if we add additional languages to the comparison the risk rises incrementally as well. This means that once Stubbs is comparing 30 Uto-Aztecan languages with at least three Semitic and Egyptian varieties (actually more, including at least Egyptian, Coptic, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic) the number of expected chance similarities far exceeds the 1528 proposed cognates. He also notes that Stubbs does not adequately explain non-matching segments (in fact no explanation at all is given in most cases), and that he does not adequately account for other potential explanations of the similarity (such as onomatopoeia). These general criticisms seem absolutely valid to me, now on having reviewed Stubbs' work myself.

A.I. cannot be used in this forum. As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs made to the detractors of his working theories.

But to simply call him out as being "dishonest" I think is unfair. Unfortunately on this board a person can easily get away with that because alternate points of dialogue/evidence easily accessible through A.I. are not allowed.

I think that has been done on purpose.

Regards
MG

[Gadianton]

A.I. cannot be used in this forum. As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs

It would be more accurate to say that AI can make points of rebuttal to any claim and in as large of a wall of text as you wish to generate without any need for the AI user to even comprehend the response or the material it's responding to. Valid? You're assuming the sale. It's highly unlikely that AI will be able to do much with pseudoscience and fringe theories. It's even more unlikely that you understand linguistics well enough to confirm that any AI response generated are valid.

[malkie]

A.I. cannot be used in this forum. As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs

It would be more accurate to say that AI can make points of rebuttal to any claim and in as large of a wall of text as you wish to generate without any need for the AI user to even comprehend the response or the material it's responding to. Valid? You're assuming the sale. It's highly unlikely that AI will be able to do much with pseudoscience and fringe theories. It's even more unlikely that you understand linguistics well enough to confirm that any AI response generated are valid.

How (deliberately) unfair to disallow such AI usage. People should complain, over and over, about this kind of persecution /s

[I Have Questions]

From your link...

As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to.

No there are not. If they existed you’d have posted them.

I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs made to the detractors of his working theories.

Lazy? Or no such rebuttals exist? (Spoiler alert: It’s both).

Magelby is deliberately saying misleading things. As far as the Church definition of Honesty goes, he’s lying. Blatantly.