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

[_Daniel Peterson]

Tough luck, Joey.

Not interested in conversing with you.

[_Brackite]

I have a Question for Daniel.
Did You do the hula dance from Your trip in Hawaii?

[_Joey]

Tough luck, Joey.

Not interested in conversing with you.

TRANSLATION;

"There are still no facts supporting any interest from the professional peer group in the works of Clark and Sorenson on the Book of Mormon historicity."

You're good when you don't have to be accountable!

Ever so predictable!

[_Daniel Peterson]

The smug and perpetually sneering victory jig. Yawn.

Golly. Why am I so uninterested in carrying on extensive discussions with such a charming and sincere conversation partner?

[_Joey]

The smug and perpetually sneering victory jig. Yawn.

Golly. Why am I so uninterested in carrying on extensive discussions with such a charming and sincere conversation partner?

You remind of those in the business world who are great with name dropping and colorful powerpoint presentations but have no intentions of being subjected to audited due diligence on their "facts"!!!

Provo sound bites at best.


Let us know "these facts" when they come into existence. Otherwise, looks like your sales will be confined to the Wasatch Front!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Provo sound bites at best.

Let us know "these facts" when they come into existence. Otherwise, looks like your sales will be confined to the Wasatch Front!!!

I have no idea why you're so obsessed with Provo. Don't you find your life in Dogpatch sufficiently fulfilling?

Anyway, the more common meme here is that I boast too much about my national and international lectures, etc. (off the top of my head, just this year, in Arizona, California, Alaska, Florida [twice], Hawai'i, Australia, Israel [twice], Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, potentially [though ever more dubiously] Iran, and probably quite a number that I'm not recalling at the moment), so it's a little discordant -- and, frankly, more than a bit bizarre -- for you to be incessantly sneering "Only in Provo!"

[_Joey]

Provo sound bites at best.

Let us know "these facts" when they come into existence. Otherwise, looks like your sales will be confined to the Wasatch Front!!!

I have no idea why you're so obsessed with Provo. Don't you find your life in Dogpatch sufficiently fulfilling?

Anyway, the more common meme here is that I boast too much about my national and international lectures, etc. (off the top of my head, just this year, in Arizona, California, Alaska, Florida [twice], Hawai'i, Australia, Israel [twice], Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, potentially [though ever more dubiously] Iran, and probably quite a number that I'm not recalling at the moment), so it's a little discordant -- and, frankly, more than a bit bizarre -- for you to be incessantly sneering "Only in Provo!"

The issue here is "facts" you know/have indicating that works of Clark/Sorenson on Book of Mormon historicity are not ignored.

Upon a request of audit on your claim, all we get is another slick, self serving powerpoint show.

Do you care to share facts or just keep with the diffussion?

A very straight-forward question. Can it not be answered with your straight-forward facts?

Your claim, not mine or anyone's else here.

Well?

[_harmony]

Provo sound bites at best.

Let us know "these facts" when they come into existence. Otherwise, looks like your sales will be confined to the Wasatch Front!!!

I have no idea why you're so obsessed with Provo. Don't you find your life in Dogpatch sufficiently fulfilling?

Anyway, the more common meme here is that I boast too much about my national and international lectures, etc. (off the top of my head, just this year, in Arizona, California, Alaska, Florida [twice], Hawai'i, Australia, Israel [twice], Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, potentially [though ever more dubiously] Iran, and probably quite a number that I'm not recalling at the moment), so it's a little discordant -- and, frankly, more than a bit bizarre -- for you to be incessantly sneering "Only in Provo!"

I thought you were vacationing in Hawaii?

[_beastie]

I know for a fact that they haven't been totally ignored.

It’s true that they haven’t been totally ignored. Clark informed us that he has shared his views with his professional peers. Clark is highly respected in his field, so I’m sure they politely listen. But his professional status does not bestow automatic validity to his claims. It is not unheard of for extremely bright, respected professionals to have eccentric beliefs on the side.

Here’s what Clark told us was the result of his sharing his views:

[John Clark:] Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.
[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

[_William Schryver]

I know for a fact that they haven't been totally ignored.

It’s true that they haven’t been totally ignored. Clark informed us that he has shared his views with his professional peers. Clark is highly respected in his field, so I’m sure they politely listen. But his professional status does not bestow automatic validity to his claims. It is not unheard of for extremely bright, respected professionals to have eccentric beliefs on the side.

Here’s what Clark told us was the result of his sharing his views:

[John Clark:] Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.
[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

I'm traveling on business these days, so my time is very limited, but I felt motivated to reply to this post, especially because I watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night for the first time. (Incidentally, it was a visually impressive film, but the script/story was, in my opinion, weak. I don't recommend it.) However, I did enjoy watching the "Making of" documentary on the same DVD. Dr. Richard Hansen figured prominently in it, as the primary consultant on the film. I have very much, over the years, enjoyed listening to/watching various presentations and reading papers by Dr. Hansen. He is certainly one of the most highly respected archaeologists in the world today. His knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica, and of the ancient Maya, is encyclopedic. His ongoing work in the Mirador Basin is a model for all future projects in Mesoamerica.

Oh, and incidentally, Dr. Hansen is, just like John Clark, a devout believer in the Book of Mormon as an ancient record and as inspired scripture.