An evening with Daniel Peterson

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Actually I was making a comparison with other wordprint studies by faithful members (whose ideological considerations may be taken into consideration as well.) I see you missed my point.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel's presentation was a one-way street, him spoon-feeding the audience. This thread is more than that. Here we have more than one point of view, more than one theory.

But is there anybody here besides me who has read the book or heard my lecture?

If not, what value is there, with respect to the book or the lecture, in those multiple points of view and many theories?

This is a good thing, and it's what is sorely missing from Daniel and Company's dogged adherance to books, articles, presentations, firesides. People cannot make an informed choice, unless they hear all sides, not just the church's take on things.

Unless... giving people enough information to make informed choices isn't what Daniel and Co have in mind?

Silly harmony. The DNA book and the DNA lecture are part of a conversation that has involved Tom Murphy and Simon Southerton and various articles and books. This conversation is going on all around you. You're simply oblivious to it. (At least now you're aware of the massive, years-old, and well-known Joseph Smith Papers project, though. That's progress.)

It's ridiculous to pretend that books and articles are hermetically sealed off from one another. Take this Craig Criddle wordprint article, for example. It responds to articles by Hilton and Schaalje and others, which were themselves responses to articles by Holmes and and Croft and others, which were responding to the original studies by Rencher and Larsen. And there will undoubtedly be responses to Criddle's piece. But these are informed and serious exchanges. And they aren't happening on message boards.

[_The Dude]

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.

I have read a lot of the DNA apologetics but I don't know Meldrum's particular DNA argument. It's hard for me to imagine what could be new about it at this point.

However, I noted that the type of argument Meldrum made for Bigfoot mirrors a common approach in Book of Mormon apologetics: a trend built of cherry pickings (the trend is illusory: statistically speaking, more data accumulating over time means more opportunities for vague parallels -- see John Clark's BYU address from a few years back for a glaring example).

People used to mock the concept of gold plates in general. Archeologists have put that joke to rest, however.

John Clark told you that, right?

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?

Did they delete the whole article, which was a response to one of the FARMS review of his book (If I recall correctly)? Or did they just delete that line and leave the rest? Maybe they had a correlation meeting and decided it wasn't necessary for salvation. lol

Seriously, though. It's too bad if they deleted that fundamental concession. It almost makes DCP's new book seem important or necessary if critics cannot admit that a small group of Israelite DNA could disappear into a vast native population over thousands of years. Do the two sides just want to make money by keeping this thing going, or what? Maybe Gadianton and Mr Scratch should look closer at collusion between Signature books and the Maxwell institute. That would be a conspiracy worth blogging about!

[_Droopy]

Religion” is a view of reality based upon cultural traditions, conjecture, superstition, and feelings. Science is a method of using a rigorous analysis of the empirical evidence to ascertain the nature of reality.

Its precisely simplistic, vulgar scientism of this kind that has created, to the extent that much of the religion vs. science debate is artificial, that very artificiality.

A great deal of science is also conjectural, hypothetical, and speculative. And science can be corrupted just as religion can be corrupted, to involve superstition, over reliance on emotion and feelings, and blind cultural tradition. I speak of course, of AGW.

What's sad here is that analytics really has no idea whatsoever what religion, qua religion, really is nor the seat of serious religious perception and commitment.

Science is much, much more that a rigorous empirical analysis of such and such. It is also a very human endeavor with all that entails, and the objectivity and methodology of science are ideals only approximated. Any belief that they are more than that is, for me, the root of scientism-science as a religious or quasi-religious belief system.

[_Trevor]

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.

I'm sure someone will, LOaP. I prefer not to engage in that argument because I do not possess the expertise necessary. I will save my arguments for things I know at least something about.

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?

I think I was taking a similar position to the one implied in your first two questions. I can't speak for Signature. Try asking them.

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?

It's yours to look for, if you care to. I am not saying what it has to look like or not. I am simply commenting that we have not seen anything that can be identified as such.

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.

My standard is one of demanding the evidence I would expect in my own field of expertise, which is Greek and Roman history. It has little to do with what the LDS critics generally do or do not do. I have yet to see the discovery of an artifact in the New World that closely resembles Joseph Smith's description of the Gold Plates. If you have something to bring forward, I will be happy to look at it and admit I am wrong if indeed I am.

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?

Come on, LOaP. You might rethink that statement. How is evidence of the existence of cultural artifacts the same as establishing the atonement or epiphanies via archaeology? You're not serious, I hope.

As for the book, I completely agree. It should be studied on its own merits. But what is there to gain? Evidence of Lamanites? Or denial of the impossibility of them? I am waiting for evidence of their actual existence that does not spring directly from Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. When the preponderance of external evidence independently points to their existence, I'll gladly concede that the book is ancient. Until then, I am happy to let you guys continue to demonstrate that it is not 100% impossible that Nephites and Lamanites once existed somewhere in ancient America. Its no skin off of my nose. I wish you all well and a jolly good time to boot.
.
.
.
.
.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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?

It's yours to look for, if you care to. I am not saying what it has to look like or not. I am simply commenting that we have not seen anything that can be identified as such.

I refer you to Brant Gardner's excellent Second Witness. His commentary is also available in an earlier format online for free.

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.

My standard is one of demanding the evidence I would expect in my own field of expertise, which is Greek and Roman history. It has little to do with what the LDS critics generally do or do not do. I have yet to see the discovery of an artifact in the New World that closely resembles Joseph Smith's description of the Gold Plates. If you have something to bring forward, I will be happy to look at it and admit I am wrong if indeed I am.

I refer you to Bill Hamblin's recent article on metal plates and writing.
http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... cat_id=474
Nothing in the Book of Mormon indicates that writing on metal was widespread among anyone but the Nephites (and Jaredites). The fact is people used to mock the very concept of writing on metal plates. They can no longer do so.

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?

Come on, LOaP. You might rethink that statement. How is evidence of the existence of cultural artifacts the same as establishing the atonement or epiphanies via archaeology? You're not serious, I hope.

You got it. ;)

[_Ray A]

Come on, LOaP. You might rethink that statement. How is evidence of the existence of cultural artifacts the same as establishing the atonement or epiphanies via archaeology? You're not serious, I hope.

You got it. ;)

Which means, boiled down, that when Life loses his faith in archaeology, Jesus and the Book of Mormon will be out the window, and RFM will be getting 171,000 hits per day, instead of 170,000.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

My point is that a sign that says "Zarahemla" wouldn't prove much to many. It would be another lucky guess, or etc.

[_Pokatator]

Jeff Meldrum is a prof in my hometown. He is a running joke here. His bigfoot antics doesn't build him or his partner Stephens any credibility with their DNA arguments.

We also used to have a loco local weather man here named Scott Stevens, he wrote a book about weather patterns and how the Chinese have machines that are affecting the US weather. He left town or was run out not sure which. Many people think that Jeff's partner Stephens and the weather man are brothers.

Maybe this is all an unfair situation but it is the situation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Jeff Meldrum is a prof in my hometown. He is a running joke here.

In what circles, I wonder? Among ex- and anti-Mormons? In cabarets and nightclubs? Among the population of Pocatello generally?

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Here's some information about him:

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staf ... um_j.shtml

His bigfoot antics doesn't build him or his partner Stephens any credibility with their DNA arguments.

Probably not.

But, strictly speaking, his writing about Bigfoot is irrelevant to what he and Professor Stephens have written about the Book of Mormon and DNA.

On Professor Stephens, see

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staf ... ns_t.shtml

Incidentally, has anybody here actually read what Dr. Meldrum has written about Bigfoot? I haven't.

I'm assuming, though, that Pokatator has, since Dr. Meldrum is apparently a topic of universal comment and amusement on the streets and boulevards of Pocatello, and since Pokatator knows his work on the subject well enough to characterize it as "his bigfoot antics."

I would be interested in hearing more about the details of it.