FARMs leaves spoiled produce on shelves to mislead members

[_beastie]

I'm always interested in MAD threads about Book of Mormon evidence, so inevitably I clicked on this thread this morning:

"Validity of the Book of Mormon"

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25767

In it, a poster named rick7475 copied a 1970 FARMS article that claims a connection between the writings on two ancient Mexican seals and the writing on the Anton manuscript.

This article was written before the "rosetta stone" event in Mesoamerican translations, which occurred in the early seventies. Prior to the actual decoding of the Maya writing, scholars made all sorts of erroneous assumptions about the Maya script.

Someone named "Carl Hugh Jones" (I have no idea who this is, or what his specialty was) supposedly demonstrated "that most of the Anthon transcript marks can be seen on these two artifacts." (artifacts from Mexico)

It is accepted by virtually all Mesoamerican scholars of any merit that there is absolutely no connection between ancient Mesoamerican writings and any Old World language.

Here's the article on FARMS, which bemoans the fact that Jone's work has gone neglected:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table= ... chor-12574

It's gone neglected because anyone with even modest background knowledge in ancient Mesoamerica knows that there is no dispute on this point - Mesoamerican scripts bear absolutely no relationship to any Old World Script, be it Egyptian or Hebrew.

And yet FARMS allows this clearly bad produce to stay on its shelves, and encourages naïve, uninformed posters like rick to believe that it is a reliable source of information.

This is one example of many of why I have no respect for FARMs apologia. Sincere people who are interested in the topic ought to be able to trust not to be deliberately misled by people they trust to tell them the truth. Yet, time after time, they are.

[_Blixa]

So what beastie? What about the magic of the number three? Huh? There are groupings of three in the Bible and there are three books of Nephi!!! What about that coincidence! The evidence is building up! The discovering goes on!


(sorry, but I got an eyeful of "evidence" over at MAD today!)

[_Who Knows]

So what beastie? What about the magic of the number three? Huh? There are groupings of three in the Bible and there are three books of Nephi!!! What about that coincidence! The evidence is building up! The discovering goes on!


(sorry, but I got an eyeful of "evidence" over at MAD today!)

I thought there were 4 books of nephi?

[_beastie]

So what beastie? What about the magic of the number three? Huh? There are groupings of three in the Bible and there are three books of Nephi!!! What about that coincidence! The evidence is building up! The discovering goes on!

oh, gosh, in THAT case I have to revise my opinion! Not only is THREE magical, but only an inspired individual would write that the LORD GOD moves water!! The evidence is just too overwhelming!

I thought there were 4 books of nephi?

spoil-sport.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

So what beastie? What about the magic of the number three? Huh? There are groupings of three in the Bible and there are three books of Nephi!!! What about that coincidence! The evidence is building up! The discovering goes on!


(sorry, but I got an eyeful of "evidence" over at MAD today!)

I thought there were 4 books of nephi?

Yes, but 4 is only 1 less than three, so it's still pretty close to being a parallel. Also, in some ancient cultures, 4 means 3 (Don't ask me to provide sources for this because I pulled it out of my ass).

[_harmony]

Yes, but 4 is only 1 less than three, so it's still pretty close to being a parallel. Also, in some ancient cultures, 4 means 3 (Don't ask me to provide sources for this because I pulled it out of my ass).

Kinda like birthing a baby ass?

[_beastie]

Kinda like birthing a baby ass?

ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow

[_KimberlyAnn]

And yet FARMS allows this clearly bad produce to stay on its shelves, and encourages naïve, uninformed posters like rick to believe that it is a reliable source of information.

If the old, out of date FARMS theories were donuts, instead of produce, they'd never be left on the shelf to go bad! At least that's the way it is at my house. A banana may get too dark and be thrown out. A donut left to go bad? Never! (I think Dr. Peterson has a good sense of humor to play up the donut thing like he does. I don't know if he even likes donuts or not, but it's hilarious that he uses them as his avatar on MaDB!)

Beastie, you're right, though. Those old, disproved theories are left to confuse people and it's dishonest, but not surprising.

KA

[_Analytics]

What I find odd is that this FARMS article, published in The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, is that it isn't attributed to an author. Who gets credit for this gem? I looked in the little introduction written by the editors for a clue as to who wrote the unattributed articles, and the names of the editors are missing as well.

Ironically, the editors said in the introduction of this particular issue,

FARMS, Brigham Young University, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are to be held innocent of supporting any particular viewpoints that appear within articles we print, for the authors alone bear responsibility for statements they make.

It's hard to give responsibility to the authors when you don't print their names.


[/url]

[_beastie]

Yes, analytics, I noticed that as well.

If FARMs really believes this ought to be investigated, why not just ask John Clark to do so?

Clark may be willing to stretch the truth, as does Brant at times (see Clark's BYU talk and Brant's "linguistic evidence of metal" claims), but I doubt either one of them would touch this little gem.

wait, I think I hear a still small voice whispering...... peer review...........