Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Morrissey]

Seriously, though, how would you answer the first question?

Obviously, I really do believe that there were Nephites, etc., and, accordingly, I think that Drs. Hansen and Clark are correct in their view on that subject, and that their views on the subject are both better grounded than conflicting biases and more accurate. But I don't think that their views regarding Book of Mormon historicity are fundamentally different, in terms of real-life function in their scholarship, than other such extraneous views that are brought to this or that subject by scholars, and I see nothing to suggest that their scholarship has been adversely affected by their belief in the Book of Mormon.

I think scholarship is a wonderful thing, and I'm delighted that Catholics and Marxists and Mormons and Freudians and feminists and structuralists and poststructuralists make their contributions. The more, the merrier. I really don't mind that they have preconceptions, as long as they operate openly, on the basis of evidence and analysis. In fact, I think the variety of viewpoints enriches the overall discussion.

You have not really answered the question. But, I see nothing here I disagree with.

This is one reason I find the debate about Sotomayor (sic) so interesting. She at least had the honesty to voice what everyone knows (or should know) is true--people's life experiences and biases affect how they think, act, interpret evidence, process information, etc.

Strict constructionism is itself a biased point of view, mostly likely informed somewhere along the way by how someone was raised, their environment, where they went to school, life experiences, etc.

Sorry for the rambling. Carry on.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You have not really answered the question.

I've tried. What have I left unanswered?

[_William Schryver]

The only question to which I could be accused of making an appeal to authority is whether or not your underlying assumption is correct: that there were never any Nephites, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest there were. The implication woven throughout all your comments in this discussion is that someone like Richard Hansen must necessarily divorce his scientific knowledge from his religious convictions concerning the Book of Mormon.

In the first place, I know you to be wrong. It is evident that both Clark and Hansen do believe there is evidence that supports the plausibility of a Nephite polity in ancient Mesoamerica.

The question is why you are seemingly so certain that there is no such evidence, and how you arrogate to yourself a superior understanding of the current status of Mesoamerican studies to make such an assumption.

It's like Hashbaz and Nomad observed not long ago in a thread on the MAD board: you've collected a handful of books about ancient Mesoamerica and mined them for those elements you believe support your presuppositions concerning the Book of Mormon, while people like Wright, Hansen, and Clark have done serious work both in the classroom and in the field and yet they are not likewise persuaded of the premises of your assumptions.

How can that be?

You say it is clearly due to their ability to separate the realities of their professional studies from the absurdities of their religious delusions. I am simply suggesting that it is possible to perceive valid interpretations and reasonable plausibilities that somehow elude the great beastlie, Mesoamericanist extraordinaire.

It is, quite frankly, somewhat comical to watch you so smugly dismiss these bona fide scholar-scientists and their reasons for believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon--all because you believe you know enough to dismiss it outright.

I maintain that, were the evidence as overwhelmingly definitive as you believe and assert, none of these men could dismiss it as casually as you do their reasons for believing. It is quite apparent to me that they continue to believe because their superior knowledge affords them the informed view of a plausible place for Nephites in the palette of ancient Mesoamerican history.

[_beastie]

Will,

Why have you ignored my provided example of Dr. Clark ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia?

[_Morrissey]

You have not really answered the question.

I've tried. What have I left unanswered?

Ok, what I am trying to get at is whether you believe that the preconceptions/beliefs held by Mormons (related to, say, the veracity of the Book of Mormon) are equally valid or more valid (I doubt you'd say less valid) than the beliefs/preconceptions held by others?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ok, what I am trying to get at is whether you believe that the preconceptions/beliefs held by Mormons (related to, say, the veracity of the Book of Mormon) are equally valid or more valid (I doubt you'd say less valid) than the beliefs/preconceptions held by others.

I thought I'd answered that.

Obviously, I'm a believing Mormon. I'm not, as it happens, a communicant Marxist or Freudian. So, although I believe that Marxists and Freudians can offer some valuable insights, I believe that the Mormon worldview is superior to the Marxist and Freudian worldviews where they conflict.

And, since I do believe in revelation, I believe that revealed "preconceptions" will be at least as valid as any others, possibly more so, never less so.


.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What matters is the strength of the preconception, how it affects (for good or ill; both are possible) the scholarship, and so forth.

And therein lies the problem, no? The LDS "bias" or "preconception" *must* be of a very high strength, right? That is, in essence, what is demanded by the Church. Scholars who have gone the other way, and who have opted to follow the conventions of their fields (e.g., Murphy) have really been raked over the coals by Mopologists. You can claim that all scholars are affected by bias, but I think that even you can admit that the LDS bias, in a case like this, is going to be tremendously problematic, for a variety of reasons.

That is (part of) what's so weird about your defense of Clark & et al. here. Not once have I seen you say here, "Yes, Clark & et al.'s Book of Mormon archaeology scholarship is top notch---so much so that it has revolutionized the field." (You cannot say this, which is essentially Joey's point.) Instead, you've backed up and tried to condemn objective truth writ-large. And I don't get that, Prof. P. Sure, it makes sense to condemn Platonic, objective truth from a *scholarly*, *secular* standpoint, but are you really going to sit there and tell me that you don't believe in the kind of all-encompassing, Absolute-with-a-capital-A, Universal Truth that is taught by the Church? Is the Gospel merely this subjective thing? Or, is it Universally, Objectively True?

You and other apologists have for a long time insisted that there is no such thing as "objectivity," and yet I think we all know that come each Sunday you all reassure one another that, in fact, the Church is teaching doctrine which is "objectively", universally true.

[_William Schryver]

Will,

Why have you ignored my provided example of Dr. Clark ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia?

beastlie dear, isn't it quite apparent that I categorically disagree with your conclusions concerning his "ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia"?

Sometimes you achieve obtuseness with such little apparent effort.

[_William Schryver]

Scrotch Rot:

Scholars who have gone the other way, and who have opted to follow the conventions of their fields (e.g., Murphy) have really been raked over the coals by Mopologists.

No, Scrotch, the problem with Murphy (and Southerton, for that matter) is that he is a “scholar” who has opined on matters far afield of his expertise.

Exactly as you do.

[_beastie]

And, since I do believe in revelation, I believe that revealed "preconceptions" will be at least as valid as any others, possibly more so, never less so.

If you’re like most LDS, the “possibly more so” is the real answer.

If someone, through revelation, has certain “knowledge” that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, and that same person knows that the only region in the time period that had the prerequisite population density to fit the Book of Mormon is Mesoamerica, then that same person will approach the issue with certainty that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document. Knowing that science and archaeology are imperfect human endeavors, that same person may feel perfectly justified ignoring contradictory data from Mesoamerica, feeling certain that eventually evidence will be found supporting the Book of Mormon eventually.

I believe this is not an uncommon occurrence in Book of Mormon apologia.

Perhaps believers can appreciate the concerns of those not as persuaded that revelation is “possibly more so” valid than other preconceptions, who may not view the ignoring of data as justified at all. In fact, those same people may wonder if apologists are being deliberately misleading, when they make assertions about bows and arrows that contradict the accepted conclusions of the vast majority of professional Mesoamericanists, to use just one example.

Here’s another easy example, this one from the Journey of Faith DVD:

Under the special features section, one section is called “The Flora and Fauna of the Book of Mormon Lands”. One of their experts, “Wade E. Miller, Geology and Paleontology” was commenting on the animal life in the Book of Mormon. He said: “They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated. The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World.”

Why did Dr. Miller ignore the well accepted premise that while the EARLIEST horses were in North America, they went extinct approximately 11,000 years ago, and were re-introduced by Europeans many years past the Book of Mormon time period?

Can I assume that Dr. Miller, as an expert in geology and paleontology, was aware of this information? I can only hope so. So it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Miller was aware of this contradictory information, but chose to ignore it. Maybe he believes the data is flawed, or that future findings will reveal the existence of the horse during the Book of Mormon time period. I think that’s the most likely explanation, since there must be some way he justified such an egregious omission.

This is the danger of certain “knowledge”. Once one “knows”, then one can justify ignoring data that contradicts that certain “knowledge”.


Will:

beastlie dear, isn't it quite apparent that I categorically disagree with your conclusions concerning his "ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia"?

Sometimes you achieve obtuseness with such little apparent effort.

Well, by all means, go ahead and provide the sources that demonstrate the existence of the bow and arrow during the Book of Mormon time period, in the specified Mesoamerican region.