An evening with Daniel Peterson

[_christopher]

You've mocked the man, now let's see you show a flaw in his dna argument.

I've always felt the same about Dee Jay Nelson and the Book of Abraham. The guy may have been a braggart and diploma milled later on, but I never seen anyone shoot down his actual work, just him personally.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I am tired of trying to prove negatives on stuff like this. Instead, I want substantive reasons why I should take the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient text.

I'd like to see the critics deal with Meldrum's actual arguments instead of making fun of whatever bigfoot thing they are on about.

As far as I am concerned, the standard of evidence has not been met. Find "Israelite DNA", whatever that's supposed to be, and I'll be impressed. Find any other evidence of ancient Christianity in America before the fifth century CE, and I'll take interest.

What sort of DNA will we be looking for? Has anyone an idea? Why did Simon Southerton say that a small group of Israelites mixing it up over time among a larger population, especially if they are said to have been destroyed, would be virtually untraceable? Why was that same comment subsequently deleted from the Signature website?

Further, what sort of "Christianity" should we be looking for? Why wouldn't we expect acculturation on the part of immigrants over an extended period of time in a vastly different location?

Find an artifact that closely resembles Joseph Smith's description of the Gold Plates with their unusual characters, and I'll stop to check into it.

People used to mock the concept of gold plates in general. Archeologists have put that joke to rest, however. Now some critics demand more. Another example of never really being satisfied.

Until then, what's the point in trying to disprove something that has never been proven to have existed in the first place? The standard of evidence is so idiosyncratic for the believers, that it is no wonder that few outside of the LDS and ex-LDS crowd give a toss.

I think the book can be studied on its own merits. In addition, I very much doubt that evidence of locations and records can be said to be as solid evidence as you claim. We know where the Kirtland Temple is. Were there really angels on the roof?

[Guest]

You've mocked the man, now let's see you show a flaw in his dna argument.

I've always felt the same about Dee Jay Nelson and the Book of Abraham. The guy may have been a braggart and diploma milled later on, but I never seen anyone shoot down his actual work, just him personally.

Are you prepared to stand behind Dee Jay Nelson's claims?

Further, the comparison is tenuous at best, seeing as how Meldrum is actually accredited with a degree, didn't pay for his diploma as you note from a diploma mill, didn't drop out of High School, etc. I frankly don't care what he has said about the Egyptian, I'll take an Ed Ashment over a Dee Jay Nelson any day.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You've mocked the man, now let's see you show a flaw in his dna argument.

Is it as good as his Bigfoot argument?

I don't know a thing about his Bigfoot argument (nor, incidentally, do you). Still, it says nothing of his DNA article. Makes for good laughs, apparently.

Harmony, for pete's sake, quit wasting your time loafing around this website all day and read something.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I doubt anyone here has actually read the article in question. Correct me if I am wrong, and then explain where the article goes wrong. Otherwise I am wasting my time.

[_christopher]

I've always felt the same about Dee Jay Nelson and the Book of Abraham. The guy may have been a braggart and diploma milled later on, but I never seen anyone shoot down his actual work, just him personally.

Are you prepared to stand behind Dee Jay Nelson's claims?

Further, the comparison is tenuous at best, seeing as how Meldrum is actually accredited with a degree, didn't pay for his diploma as you note from a diploma mill, didn't drop out of High School, etc. I frankly don't care what he has said about the Egyptian, I'll take an Ed Ashment over a Dee Jay Nelson any day.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You dismissed him. From what I've read, his translations were found reasonable.....but you "mock him". Was his work found wrong?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This is exactly what I was talking about. You dismissed him. From what I've read, his translations were found reasonable.....but you "mock him". Was his work found wrong?

I don't even care. I don't pretend to care. My point is that Dee Jay Nelson does not equal Meldrum. But it would be important to look at his claims and evaluate them on their own merits. However, like I said, I believe there are better critics on the issue out there than Dee Jay Nelson and I'm not interested in what he has to say.

[_Mister Scratch]

I doubt anyone here has actually read the article in question. Correct me if I am wrong, and then explain where the article goes wrong. Otherwise I am wasting my time.

Hi there, LoaP. Would you mind if we took a look at one of your recent MAD posts?

Here is a link to the paper.

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/papbyrecent.dtl

As present, it is subscription access only. I have read it carefully, and while not a scientist, know enough about statistical and scientific methodology to feel that Criddle et al have significantly advanced the state of our understanding of what the Book of Mormon probably is. More will no doubt be learned as a result of the response this work will generate.

And what of the last several wordprint studies? Seems we are getting some conflicting results here. You may argue that wordprint studies that favor multiple authorship (and specifically not that of Smith, Rigdon, Spaulding, or Cowdery) were done by believing Mormons, thus contaminating the results. Criddle is a critic of Mormonism and likewise has an ideology that must be considered if you wish to be consistent.

And:

As noted, the paper is 28 bucks. Frankly, there is no way I would pay that much for a "wordprint analysis." Perhaps for a phrenological examination, but not for a wordprint analysis. (Let's test the KJV and see who really wrote it, by the way, for any Bible readers. Or perhaps we can discover who really wrote Crime and Punishment by sending the Penguin classics translation through the machine!) So I note that I haven't read the study.

I find it interesting that you are blowing off the study, comparing it to a "phrenological examination," bashing Criddle as having an "ideology." Your comments are extremely intriguing when juxtaposed against your line of argument here in this thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is an example of how one-sided what Daniel and other LDS apologists currently do. Presentations with no question time, books and articles with no accompanying rebuttal, pontificating for an audience filled with like-minded folks who simply need reassurance that Daniel and Co have covered the bases... when there is absolutely no presentation of another side, so that people see that it's not quite as cut and dried as Daniel would like to make it seem.

Is this a case of "Daniel has spoken; the thinking is done"?

Smoke and mirrors, again.

But at least now we know why Olivewood, and not Barnes and Noble.

You can relax, harmony. I never expected you to look at the actual book or even listen to the actual lecture.

You've mocked the man, now let's see you show a flaw in his dna argument.

Is it as good as his Bigfoot argument?

You don't need to be so demonstrative, harmony. Relax! I didn't expect you to actually read the DNA argument advanced by Professors Meldrum and Stephens, and I'm reasonably confident that nobody else here expected it, either.

[_Droopy]

So... he didn't tear your skin off about Chapel/Internet Mormons? Perhaps his reputation is undeserved.

Since there is no such bifurcation within the LDS world, but only between the ears of ex-Mormon critics, getting all worked up over it would be fair waste of time.