I will Believe the Book of Mormon as history when...

[_Joey]

You've never been able to grasp the nature of the argument that Clark and Sorenson make. That's why you've never been able to frame the issue properly.

Obviously NO ONE has been able to "grasp the nature" of these works, hence they rest in isolation at the FARM. Jeez, how long are you going to go with the "we're not understood" pleading. It really is embarrassing.

Have you ever even actually read most of what they've published? Have you, for example, read Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, or his Images of Ancient America?

I can honestly say that I have given it "AT LEAST" as much attention, review, commentary, time and investigation as the academic and professional peer group (non-LDS) of Clark, Sorenson and secular academic community has. Does that allow me enough background to comment?

Odd, though, that you dismiss my immersion in this world, even my employment in academia, as evidence of my disconnect from reality, my inability to hold a real job and do real work, etc., while, at the same time, you seem to hold other career academics who are immersed in this world in high esteem -- for the simple reason, it appears, that they don't accept the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Your double standard is striking.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements you have made yet, and you've had some really ridiculous ones. You seem to presume that all those who make a career in academics are of equal caliber and have equal ability to think "rationally". Many, actually have had a career outside of Provo and bring some practical experience and rational thought to the table.

You've consistently blurred the distinction between what I've said and the thesis that you wish to promote, and have disingenuously attempted to use my remarks to endorse your own position. You say that the world of non-Mormon academia rejects the substance of Mormon scholars' advocacy of the Book of Mormon; I've said that the world of non-Mormon academia is, overwhelmingly, unaware of the substance of Mormon scholars' advocacy of the Book of Mormon.

Talk about a drummer boy. This continues to be your best defense - "nobody give our work a chance"??!!!

Perhaps, upon acquaintance, non-Mormon academia would find Mormon scholarly work on the topic wholly unpersuasive, even incompetent. But, so far as I'm aware, that test hasn't yet occurred to any significant degree.

Because experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore. The mere fact that such work continues to be ignored is about as obvious as it can get! Your attempts to defer the judgement of such work to an infinite future chasm of time is idiotic! We are not living in the 19th century any more. Nor the twentieth century for that matter. Dissemination of quality scholarship for peer review is instantaneous for all practical purposes today. The fact that no one wants to give it any attention is telling enough. Can you get any more looney??!!

[_beastie]

You've never been able to grasp the nature of the argument that Clark and Sorenson make. That's why you've never been able to frame the issue properly.

And just how do you interpret their argument? Was the Nephite polity a powerful force that attracted the attention of Teotihuacan, or was it a minor polity that would not have attracted the attention of such a powerful polity?

[_JustMe]

JOey

Because experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore.

That's not what Einstein (science) ever taught. It certainly is not what Michael D. Coe (Mesoamerica) teaches, nor what James Gleick (Chaos) taught or thinks. I don't see the experts sticking to their guns come hell or high water when new evidence shows up. Absolutely none of the experts worth their salt in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical archaeology or Biblical history take this attitude.

Many experts when they quit ignoring what they thought was worthless begin paying attention to that worthless find absolute gold in what they used to ignore. Say, William G. Dever, Linda Schele, and R. Buckminster Fuller, Stephen Wolfram, and Leonard Susskind, to name only a bare few.
Once again, it appears thatyou are snorting about something you don't know a lot about. But what the heck.... you used the word "expert" so that must mean you are right..... right?

[_Joey]

JOey

Because experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore.

That's not what Einstein (science) ever taught. It certainly is not what Michael D. Coe (Mesoamerica) teaches, nor what James Gleick (Chaos) taught or thinks. I don't see the experts sticking to their guns come hell or high water when new evidence shows up. Absolutely none of the experts worth their salt in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical archaeology or Biblical history take this attitude.

Many experts when they quit ignoring what they thought was worthless begin paying attention to that worthless find absolute gold in what they used to ignore. Say, William G. Dever, Linda Schele, and R. Buckminster Fuller, Stephen Wolfram, and Leonard Susskind, to name only a bare few.
Once again, it appears thatyou are snorting about something you don't know a lot about. But what the heck.... you used the word "expert" so that must mean you are right..... right?

Look JM, I cannot spend the amount of time here that your hero who has "life employment by the LDS church" can. Nor for that matter, a brown nose plebe like you looking for his Provo Priesthood Interview. But the least you could do, so as to not further embarass Peterson, is come up with something a bit more meaningful than one of his previous "cut and paste jobs"!!!

Is Mormonism that isolated and insulated that all thought of individual creative think is as confined as the works of Clark and Sorenson on Book of Mormon historicity apparently are???

Perhaps why your seemingly alliegence to the "gospel doctrine" teaching that; When the Peterson has spoken, the thinking has been done"!!! Well at least in his mind!

Well we recognize your "brown nose" efforts of supposed respect. Just make sure Peterson makes no move to abruptly back up in life!!!


Dan,

Good to do it,,,

[_beastie]

It certainly is not what Michael D. Coe (Mesoamerica) teaches,

What have you read by Coe?

And I'll ask you the same question I asked Dan:

And just how do you interpret their argument? Was the Nephite polity a powerful force that attracted the attention of Teotihuacan, or was it a minor polity that would not have attracted the attention of such a powerful polity?

[_JustMe]

Enough to know that Joey's charicature of what so-called "experts" do and do not do is rather comical, at best.

[_JustMe]

pal joey coos

Look JM, I cannot spend the amount of time here that your hero who has "life employment by the LDS church" can. Nor for that matter, a brown nose plebe like you looking for his Provo Priesthood Interview. But the least you could do, so as to not further embarass Peterson, is come up with something a bit more meaningful than one of his previous "cut and paste jobs"!!!

Yes it is rather blatantly obvious you not only don't have the time to spend hanging out here, anymore than you have the time to really learn and understand much. That is what I see from you and your ilk such as scratch with serious clarity.

[_antishock8]

You've never been able to grasp the nature of the argument that Clark and Sorenson make. That's why you've never been able to frame the issue properly.

There are three non sequiturs in this two sentence statement. Can anyone spot them?? Lol...

[_beastie]

Enough to know that Joey's charicature of what so-called "experts" do and do not do is rather comical, at best.

Since "enough" is hopelessly subjective, how about just listing which works of Dr. Coe you've read?

And while you're at it:

And just how do you interpret Sorenson's and Clark's argument? Was the Nephite polity a powerful force that attracted the attention of Teotihuacan, or was it a minor polity that would not have attracted the attention of such a powerful polity?

[_JustMe]

beastie

Since "enough" is hopelessly subjective

I know, I know! Ain't it fun, I mean ain't it FUN?!