DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_beastie]

I think Sorenson's misuse of sources is a good example of the lack of rigorous analysis of these claims, when made within the bubble of other believers. Sorenson abused several references that were extremely important because, under his pen, they seemed to support very controversial claims - that metallurgy existed in the Book of Mormon time frame in Mesoamerica, as did horses. When critics, outside the bubble of other believers/apologists, took the time to analyze those sources, they were found to not say what Sorenson claimed they said at all, without any room for quibbling. These were the type of sourcing abuse that would ensure a student would fail a class.

Yet, for the past decades since Sorenson was so "creative" with his sources, he is STILL cited as the major expert in this field by other apologists, and those sources are STILL used in their own work as well.

This would not happen if peer review were being rigorously applied.

[_Runtu]

I think Sorenson's misuse of sources is a good example of the lack of rigorous analysis of these claims, when made within the bubble of other believers. Sorenson abused several references that were extremely important because, under his pen, they seemed to support very controversial claims - that metallurgy existed in the Book of Mormon time frame in Mesoamerica, as did horses. When critics, outside the bubble of other believers/apologists, took the time to analyze those sources, they were found to not say what Sorenson claimed they said at all, without any room for quibbling. These were the type of sourcing abuse that would ensure a student would fail a class.

Yet, for the past decades since Sorenson was so "creative" with his sources, he is STILL cited as the major expert in this field by other apologists, and those sources are STILL used in their own work as well.

This would not happen if peer review were being rigorously applied.

No kidding. Just the other day I read Sorenson's piece on placing the Book of Mormon in a context of Mesoamerican literature and history, and it was shockingly bad. 228 footnotes to come up with a list of parallels that were so ordinary that by his logic the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere in the world at any time period. You're quite right that, had this piece been subject to real peer review, Sorenson would have been laughed out of academia. It's not so much the angels and gold plates as it is the stunningly uncritical scholarship.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

P.S. I don't see really serious scholars shying away from a knife fight if they think they have the evidence on their side.

Evidence that there is no such place as Zarahemla? Really? In essence, you're saying prove it isn't there.

This line of reasoning is baffling. To insist that an institution make attempts to prove that something doesn't exist is simply ridiculous.

Then are you saying that they can say Zarahemla doesn't exist just because they want to say it without evidence? That isn't the way scientist work.

No, they can say Zarahemla doesn't exist because there is no evidence, outside of the claims based on "translated" gold plates, delivered by an angel, that it did.

Science, it would appear, is a bit stringent in its examination of available evidence.

[_charity]

No, they can say Zarahemla doesn't exist because there is no evidence, outside of the claims based on "translated" gold plates, delivered by an angel, that it did.

Science, it would appear, is a bit stringent in its examination of available evidence.

A scientist will say, "There is no evidence that Zarahemla exists."

A pseudo-scientist will say, "Zarahemla does not exist, because I haven't seen any evidence that it exists."

If you can't tell the difference between the two statements, you can't evalulate anything that puts itself forward as "science."

[_guy sajer]

No, they can say Zarahemla doesn't exist because there is no evidence, outside of the claims based on "translated" gold plates, delivered by an angel, that it did.

Science, it would appear, is a bit stringent in its examination of available evidence.

A scientist will say, "There is no evidence that Zarahemla exists."

A pseudo-scientist will say, "Zarahemla does not exist, because I haven't seen any evidence that it exists."

If you can't tell the difference between the two statements, you can't evalulate anything that puts itself forward as "science."

Again, Charity wants to privilege Zarahemla over other mythical places, such as Shangri-La, or, say, Atlantis, because it's a particular mythical place in which she believes.

A scientist, however, has no reason even to hold open the possibility that Zarahemla exists, no more than she does to hold open the possibility that Shangi-La exists.

Let's see. I know of this place called Yum Yum Town. It's not on any maps, nobody has actually seen it, but I just know it exists and that it's inhabited by men who migrated here from the planet of Yum Yum, which is located somewhere in the Milky Way.

Now, Charity, I demand that you privlege my Yum Yum town and hold open the possibility that it actually exists. You cannot dismiss it out of hand, but you have to concede that there might indeed be evidence of Yum Yum town out there somewhere, it just hasn't been found yet. So, it is incumbent on you that talk about its possible existence in terms of evidence or lack of evidence. Again, you cannot simply say it doesn't exist.

Are you game?

What you completely fail to understand is that to Non-Mormon scientists, Zarahemla is the equivalent of Yum Yum town.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I know of this place called Yum Yum Town. It's not on any maps, nobody has actually seen it, but I just know it exists and that it's inhabited by men who migrated here from the planet of Yum Yum, which is located somewhere in the Milky Way.

Thanks. Now I want candy.

KA

[_Yong Xi]

No, they can say Zarahemla doesn't exist because there is no evidence, outside of the claims based on "translated" gold plates, delivered by an angel, that it did.

Science, it would appear, is a bit stringent in its examination of available evidence.

A scientist will say, "There is no evidence that Zarahemla exists."

A pseudo-scientist will say, "Zarahemla does not exist, because I haven't seen any evidence that it exists."

If you can't tell the difference between the two statements, you can't evalulate anything that puts itself forward as "science."

Again, Charity wants to privilege Zarahemla over other mythical places, such as Shangri-La, or, say, Atlantis, because it's a particular mythical place in which she believes.

A scientist, however, has no reason even to hold open the possibility that Zarahemla exists, no more than she does to hold open the possibility that Shangi-La exists.

Let's see. I know of this place called Yum Yum Town. It's not on any maps, nobody has actually seen it, but I just know it exists and that it's inhabited by men who migrated here from the planet of Yum Yum, which is located somewhere in the Milky Way.

Now, Charity, I demand that you privlege my Yum Yum town and hold open the possibility that it actually exists. You cannot dismiss it out of hand, but you have to concede that there might indeed be evidence of Yum Yum town out there somewhere, it just hasn't been found yet. So, it is incumbent on you that talk about its possible existence in terms of evidence or lack of evidence. Again, you cannot simply say it doesn't exist.

Are you game?

What you completely fail to understand is that to Non-Mormon scientists, Zarahemla is the equivalent of Yum Yum town.

Verily, I know of the place called "Yum Yum" town. For an angel did give unto me a "Yum Yum" sucker and I partook. And the taste was exceedingly pleasing unto me. And whether the "Yum Yum" sucker was enjoyed by my earthly taste buds, or by my spiritual taste buds, I know not. Therefore, I know for a surety of the place "Yum Yum Town".

Woe, unto you who deny "Yum Yum" town.

And I lie not.

[_charity]

Let's see. I know of this place called Yum Yum Town. It's not on any maps, nobody has actually seen it, but I just know it exists and that it's inhabited by men who migrated here from the planet of Yum Yum, which is located somewhere in the Milky Way.

Now, Charity, I demand that you privlege my Yum Yum town and hold open the possibility that it actually exists. You cannot dismiss it out of hand, but you have to concede that there might indeed be evidence of Yum Yum town out there somewhere, it just hasn't been found yet. So, it is incumbent on you that talk about its possible existence in terms of evidence or lack of evidence. Again, you cannot simply say it doesn't exist.

Are you game?

What you completely fail to understand is that to Non-Mormon scientists, Zarahemla is the equivalent of Yum Yum town.

The text which describes your Yum Yum town--does it describe a geography which can be located in a real world location, an area, if not pinpointed to a specific lattitude and longitude? Does it describe flora and fauna which can be identified? Does it describe styles of warfare known to exist in a specific area? Are the names of the inhabitants of Yum Yum town consistent with the cultures the settlers of Yum Yum town originated in? Does this text describe a coherent history of Yum Yum for a thousand years?

Hey, if you have such a text I will read it and then I will consider Yum Yum town.

[_beastie]

The text which describes your Yum Yum town--does it describe a geography which can be located in a real world location, an area, if not pinpointed to a specific lattitude and longitude? Does it describe flora and fauna which can be identified? Does it describe styles of warfare known to exist in a specific area? Are the names of the inhabitants of Yum Yum town consistent with the cultures the settlers of Yum Yum town originated in? Does this text describe a coherent history of Yum Yum for a thousand years?

Hey, if you have such a text I will read it and then I will consider Yum Yum town.

The problem is that no such text exists for Zarahemla, either.

Honestly, Charity. Every single point you made is incorrect in terms of the match between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. Have you read anything other than Mormon apologetics on the subject?

[_Mister Scratch]

Charity---

If it is all fine and good to be on the hunt for evidence of Zarahemla, then I wonder: why haven't any LDS apologists and/or scholars attempted to locate Kolob in the night sky? Why haven't there been any LDS astronomers pushing theories about how Kolob might be affecting the fabric of space-time? Just curious....