This is MAD (Book of Mormon evidences escalate, critics humiliated!)

[_beastie]

This thread is an excellent example of what MAD has become, quite by design:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=28312

"Countermopologists Pet Theories Against the Book of Mormon, How Many Have Bitten the Dust?"

It's a fabulous read. I don't read much at MAD, but this one is great because of all the examples it provides of the MAD mind.

Juliann

Whenever a thread is opened about a new discovery or new interpretations the countermos begin a now very predictable and tired routine. In no particular order, we get the inevitable strawmen. I don't think I have ever seen a countermopologist address the erosion of traditional wisdom that they have used to uphold ridicule of "apologists" and the Book of Mormon. Ironically, this was said in a current thread:

QUOTE
Considering the number of past "evidences" that have fallen flat under scrutiny, I would think it would be the apologists who would be most insistent on reserving judgment until further research can be made.


1. How many countermopologists' "evidences" against the Book of Mormon have quietly been removed from the ridicule list?

2. How many countermos have ever admitted one of their proofs against the Book of Mormon is no longer supportable?

My favorite is the dead silence on the receding timeline on MesoAmerican civilizations. When I started on the internet there was continual ridicule that none of the civilations matched up with the timelines in the Book of Mormon. Will we ever see an acknowledgement? My second favorite is the unacknowledged DNA debacle.

Others?

What is enjoyable about this is how low the bar is for the MADdite. All that must be proven is that there were civilizations in Mesoamerica during the right time frame. They were populated by human beings who walked on four legs, had families, a religion, and fought wars.

BINGO!!

And look how the "countermopologists" react! With strawmen!!

Strawmen like wanting some actual coherence between the cultures and level of civilization described?

And who are the "countermopologists" that apparently denied a civilization existed in Mesoamerica in the specified time frame?

The only thing that I can think of is the Jaredite question, and fitting the Jaredite civilization into the right time frame for the Olmec requires demanding a time frame that earlier apologists scoffed at. (Sorenson refused to accept a later Jaredite time frame due to the "towers" correlation, contrary to what apologists like Brant now insist upon - a later date which, "coincidentally", actually fits Olmec time frame)

What has happened to adjust the Book of Mormon time frame is redefining the story of the Book of Mormon.

But that's a strawman.

Another example of the low bar is the recent "horse" thread. The believers were hooting and hollering over evidence of a horse in California, even though it was dated past the introduction of horses into the New World by the Spaniards.

See, here's how it works. Any new discovery at all, regardless of whether or not it actually provides real support for the Book of Mormon, is celebrated as a victory due to the fact that Juliann has worked diligently to spread the idea that "countermopologists" claim that:

ALL THE DISCOVERY HAS BEEN DONE.

So, see, when ANY discovery is made, no matter what, it's a victory for the apologist!

It's so easy to declare victory when you allow yourself not only to create your own argument, but the argument of your opponent.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Wait a minute. Is Juliann saying that the timeline for Mesoamerican civilization is receding? Does this mean that the timeline now fits the Book of Mormon, or it is just a little different than what it used to be since new evidence came in? Also, what is the DNA debacle she is talking about? Has new DNA evidence come to light that supports the Lehite migration theory of the Book of Mormon?

[_Runtu]

Sometimes I think that board exists so that certain people can make themselves feel better by mocking unbelievers. I mean, good heavens, in the last 3 days I've been told I am intellectually arrogant, have a spiritual sickness, am a binary thinker, and am foolish for following my conscience. Apparently, they think this is a good missionary tactic.

[_beastie]

Wait a minute. Is Juliann saying that the timeline for Mesoamerican civilization is receding? Does this mean that the timeline now fits the Book of Mormon, or it is just a little different than what it used to be since new evidence came in? Also, what is the DNA debacle she is talking about? Has new DNA evidence come to light that supports the Lehite migration theory of the Book of Mormon?

Well, it's always a wild guess when trying to figure out exactly what Juliann is referencing. I've had some very long
"so-called" conversations with her over at MAD, and by the end, wasn't sure she registered a single word I'd said about anything. Sometimes it seems like she gloms onto a couple of "trigger" words, ignores the context, and runs with that. So this is just a guess, but I think she must be talking about the Jaredite issue I mentioned. Of course, maybe she's referring to some really uninformed critics somewhere, but that's the only issue I remember being seriously debated as far as the timeline is concerned. I talked about it here:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... .9D_Period

(I'll come back to shorten the link after I find my instructions on how to do so, I keep losing them)

The problem, in my opinion, originated from the fact that John Sorenson, who really developed the LGT, insisted that the Jaredite culture dated to 3000 BC:

John Sorenson, in his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, proposes that the Jaredite cities of Lib and Mulek were actually, respectively, the Olmec cities of San Lorenzo and La Venta. Dr. Sorenson suggests the early dating of 3000 BC for the beginning of the Jaredite period on page 116 of his aforementioned text:

First, let us spell out the origin of the Jaredites in historical and cultural terms. When did the Jaredites originate as a people? Historical texts and archaeological research on Mesopotamia, their homeland, tell us that big pyramid-shaped temple platforms called ziggurats were being erected well before 3000 BC. Nothing but one of them qualifies as “the great tower” referred to in Ether 1:33. If the departure of the Jaredite party from their original home had been many centuries later than 3000 BC or earlier than 3300 BC, their account about “the great tower” would sound odd in terms of Near Eastern history. (Incidentally, the zero date from which the Mesoamerican calendars were calculated was 3113 BC, which might or might not be a coincidence.) We have already seen that the earliest evidences of some of the basic indicators of civilization – stable agriculture, village life, and ceramics – date to Mesaomerica to about 3000 BC.

There is no sound evidence, by the way, to support the idea from outmoded biblical commentaries that the great tower (“of Babel”) dated to near 2200 BC, as some Latter-day Saints continue to believe. Indeed, contrary data abound.

This is a serious problem, because, as it currently stands, there is no evidence for the socially advanced civilization described in the Book of Mormon during that time period:

It is true that there is evidence of “some of the basic indicators of civilization” as early as 3000 BC in the Olmec region. Richard Diehl, in his book The Olmecs - America’s First Civilization, notes:

Although humans surely inhabited Olman in Paleo-Indian times, the oldest known archaeological remains date to 5100 BC. At about that time farmers occupied the edge of a former lagoon at San Andres, Tabasco, 15 km (10 miles) south of the current shore of the Gulf of Mexico and 5 km (3 miles) northeast of La Venta…

By 2500 BC farmer at San Andres and their neighbors were living around an estuary bordered by channels of the Grijalva river delta and practicing a mixed economy of foraging and farming. In addition to domesticated maize, they cultivated the sunflower for its nutritious, oil-rich seeds, and cotton for fiber. They also utilized the abundant wild resources of the area such as plants of the squash family. Rust maintains that they used pottery vessels for cooking and storage but later investigators suggest that his sherds may be intrusions from more recent occupations higher up in the excavation. The early inhabitants of San Andres must have used canoes, weapons, digging sticks, net baskets, and ritual objects fabricated from wood and other organic materials. (pp 23-24)

This is obviously problematic for Sorenson’s early dating. Archaeologists can’t even guarantee that the Olmecs, or more precisely the pre-Olmecs, had pottery by 2500 BC, much less the advanced social stratification described in the Book of Mormon. Diehl dates the actual origins of the Olmec culture to around 1500 BC. Again, from his book The Olmecs, p. 25:

Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC. During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshipers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art. The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.

Brant Gardner has insisted on the 1500 BC time frame, but he insisted on that after the chronological problem was already evident, so it's a bit convenient.

So the problem isn't that critics have suddenly had to change their tune, but rather that apologists have changed their mind about what the Book of Mormon really says.

I can't answer the DNA issue - I suspect the Dude knows exactly what she is referencing, and can add his two cents about whether or not she has even understood the issue, much less correctly declared victory for the apologists.

[_beastie]

Sometimes I think that board exists so that certain people can make themselves feel better by mocking unbelievers. I mean, good heavens, in the last 3 days I've been told I am intellectually arrogant, have a spiritual sickness, am a binary thinker, and am foolish for following my conscience. Apparently, they think this is a good missionary tactic.

I'm going to engage in psychobabble, so take it with a grain of salt.

I think some apologists have a chip on their shoulders because they know that the academic world would consider Mormonism's basic truth claims quite ludicrous. Certain apologists, more than anything else, want to be viewed as a peer by academics. The grating knowledge that their most basic beliefs will always be viewed as ridiculous by academics, combined with the desire to be a respected academic themselves, creates a state that results in this sort of venting.

All in my layperson, biased, opinion, of course.

[Doctor Steuss]

Also, what is the DNA debacle she is talking about? Has new DNA evidence come to light that supports the Lehite migration theory of the Book of Mormon?

I'd like to think she's talking about her aggressive support for David Stewart, pseudoscientist extrordinaire, who spoke at the FAIR conference in 2006 claiming DNA evidence supports traditional views that Lehites were the principal source of Native American civilization. Now that was a debacle!

Of course that makes no sense in the context of her thread, which is supposed to be about critics not admitting they were wrong. Pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion. Dan Peterson published Stewart's thesis in the FARMS review last year. FAIR still has it available on-line and LDS.org, the official church website, still has a link to it as a source of information about the DNA controversy.

No, she might be referring to Tom Murphy, who sold out to the EVs. If she means Simon Southerton, then she's dead wrong, because he has been pretty clear that DNA cannot disprove the notion that 30 or so Lehite colonists were absorbed into already existing civilizations who derived from Asian.

Who knows. It isn't like she means to have a discussion or anything.

[_silentkid]

Hmmm..."The unacknowledged DNA debacle"...sounds ominous. Maybe she gained access to Area 51 where all precious Lamanite DNA has been stored.

[_karl61]

I'm sort of glad I got kicked from MA&D as their logic and reasoning really did me no good: it's worse than porn. They still let me read but I havn't tried to log in or post since the word "banned" was at the bottom of my post in red. I was reading recently a thread about horses and couldn't understand what they were all happy and giddyabout. I thought to myself that pretty soon these MA&D people or going to cut of their testicles, lay down and listen to the Mormon Tab and wait for the next comet.

[_Runtu]

I'd like to think she's talking about her aggressive support for David Stewart, pseudoscientist extrordinaire, who spoke at the FAIR conference in 2006 claiming DNA evidence supports traditional views that Lehites were the principal source of Native American civilization. Now that was a debacle!

Of course that makes no sense in the context of her thread, which is supposed to be about critics not admitting they were wrong. Pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion. Dan Peterson published Stewart's thesis in the FARMS review last year. FAIR still has it available on-line and LDS.org, the official church website, still has a link to it as a source of information about the DNA controversy.

No, she might be referring to Tom Murphy, who sold out to the EVs. If she means Simon Southerton, then she's dead wrong, because he has been pretty clear that DNA cannot disprove the notion that 30 or so Lehite colonists were absorbed into already existing civilizations who derived from Asian.

Who knows. It isn't like she means to have a discussion or anything.

Or maybe she's talking about John Clark's specious article on Book of Mormon "convergence" with archeology. Even an intellectual lightweight like me could see through that one, and yet it's still on the FARMS website and touted by Dr. Peterson as the latest in scholarship. Heck, not even Brant Gardner would defend Clark's article.

[_The Nehor]

Sometimes I think that board exists so that certain people can make themselves feel better by mocking unbelievers. I mean, good heavens, in the last 3 days I've been told I am intellectually arrogant, have a spiritual sickness, am a binary thinker, and am foolish for following my conscience. Apparently, they think this is a good missionary tactic.

Sounds like here with a role reversal.