TA DA!!! My Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica website

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:20 pm

Sethbag wrote:Nice little zinger there, but it's wasted effort here. Websites, like a lot of thing, need to grab and hold peoples' attention before they can or will digest its contents. If people find a website bothersome to the eyes, often they won't bother reading it and they'll move on and read something else. By way of analogy, you probably don't test drive every car out there and pick solely on which one handles best. You probably only test drive the cars that appeal to you aesthetically, and the ugly cars go undriven. Websites are often the same way.

A website with a very strongly visible wallpaper is a bit of a butterface.

I wasn't trying to zing you. I simply meant that my criteria for what looks good is very likely different than yours. We're of different genders, in different generations, and very likely that which appeals to me won't appeal to you. Just like music or clothing choices, or hairstyles, I doubt we would agree on what looks good for a website.

I gave my opinion. I have no expertise to back it up, just my personal preferences.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:49 am

Dr. Shades wrote:Ray, why do you hold beastie to a standard 1,000,000,000x greater than the standard to which you hold FARMS?

I don't, Shades. I was a FARMS volunteer beginning in 1983. That's how long I've been reading their material. This was only four years after Jack Welch founded FARMS. I was an active and very critical FARMS reader up to the late 1990s. The amount of critical study I put into this is more than most have done. The volume I mentioned, volume 6 of the FARMS Review, I read no less than three times, cover to cover, comparing it to the Metcalfe book New Approaches. I wrote both Brent and Dan Peterson in those '90s years. I particularly asked Dan some searching questions, which I would later follow up on Internet forums. Remember the famous debacle on Z with Dan? So you can't say I have a different standard for beastie. It is true that in the past three years I've eased off on FARMS, but what do you expect after 20 years?
There's not much more sponging to do, and I've formed my most of views based on those 20-plus years of study.

Beastie may not like criticism, but I think it's going to come in truckloads now that she's developed it into a more readable website, and I think that's a good thing, as it will sharpen the edges. I'm not particularly impressed at this stage, but maybe as it develops it will become more interesting, if there's real balance and weight given to the important apologetic issues. I don't see how she can create an effective critical website unless she has read a great deal of Sorenson and others, and demonstrates a good understanding of their viewpoints. This is what Kevin does in regard to the Book of Abraham. He understands the issues better than most informed Mormons do.

After all, aren't scholars, even amateur scholars, supposed to accept and answer criticisms? Or is it just going to be a lecture?

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:59 am

beastie wrote:Yes, I have read many of the FARMs essays that relate directly to the Book of Mormon, and I think the content of my essays demonstrates that I understand their arguments well.

What I hope for, and intend to invite readers to do on the future blog section, is to address the actual content of my essays. Am I mistaken, somewhere, in the assertions I've made about Mesoamerica? Have I misrepresented the Book of Mormon? That sort of thing.

Okay, I look forward to perhaps contributing to the blog when its created.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:54 am

Scottie wrote:Beastie, and anyone else that cares to know, lets have a lesson in CSS.

Something that would make your life MUCH easier is to create a style sheet. So, in frontpage, create a file called Style.css.

Inside this file should look like this...

.mainText { background:white;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;padding:10px; }

Then, in frontpage, you should be able to link this file with each page. If you can't do it in frontpage, look at the HTML and add this line

<link rel="Stylesheet" href="style.css" />

This should go somewhere in your <head> tag. Right under the <title> is a good place.

Once you do that, instead of putting each of these attributes in each div tag, you can replace them so your tag now looks like this...

<div class="mainText">

Ta da!! Now, if you need to change something, you change it in one place and everything in your whole web site changes.

And you can control pretty much everything through this. From text alignment, to text color, background color, spacing, borders, etc...

Scottie, (from one programmer to another)I love it when you talk dirty. LOL

Beastie, I think the site looks great. I'm looking at it as an informational site. If it was a commercial site, I think you may want to change some things, but I think conceptually, you have done a lot of things right. I'll give a few suggestions for more "pop" when I don't have a four year old competing for my attention. Good work!

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:17 am

Ray A wrote:
Beastie isn't going to be taken seriously with dismissals like this. Any critic is going to ask why she didn't study "Hebraic connections". Dismissing this with quoting Why People Believe Weird Things is rather unscholarly. Something like dismissing continental drift by quoting "why people believe weird things". You need to get the facts about the debate on paper, and let the reader decide, not dismiss them by quoting Shermer, who apparently is doing the thinking for them.

More from that entry (my emphasis):

The Hebraic side of the Book of Mormon argument makes certain claims regarding connections in the linguistic structure or background elements of the Book of Mormon story that correlate with what scholars today accept about ancient Israel and its culture and language. The problem for accepting the miracle the Book of Mormon scholars claim is this: these elements can also be demonstrated to be within the bank of nineteenth century knowledge, as well.] The response that Book of Mormon scholars may make in turn is that critics cannot place this actual knowledge or material within Joseph Smith’s hands. While there were maps that contained the toponym NHM, for example, critics cannot prove Joseph Smith ever had access to them. While the structure of chiasmus was known in the nineteenth century, and is a literary form that is found in many texts from different time periods, critics cannot prove that Joseph Smith was aware of chiasmus and made deliberate use of it.

How are you so sure of this, beastie? Have you read any edition of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies? Have you even read Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner, who argues quite the contrary? I'm pointing out what I feel are some weaknesses. How much have you read what non-Mormon scholars have said about the content and structure of the Book of Mormon? And why should this be totally unrelated to the question of historicity?

I've brought this up a few times (italics above) in simple form and Beastie has simply said that pursuing this line of reasoning does not interest her. She then caps it off by saying that Joseph Smith had access to this information... and leaves it at that.

Regards,
MG

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:11 am

mentalgymnast wrote:I've brought this up a few times (italics above) in simple form and Beastie has simply said that pursuing this line of reasoning does not interest her. She then caps it off by saying that Joseph Smith had access to this information... and leaves it at that.

Regards,
MG

I'm nearly finished reading all of beastie's website, and will have a few question for her.

Post by **_harmony** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:26 am

Ray A wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:Ray, why do you hold beastie to a standard 1,000,000,000x greater than the standard to which you hold FARMS?

I don't, Shades. I was a FARMS volunteer beginning in 1983. That's how long I've been reading their material. This was only four years after Jack Welch founded FARMS. I was an active and very critical FARMS reader up to the late 1990s. The amount of critical study I put into this is more than most have done. The volume I mentioned, volume 6 of the FARMS Review, I read no less than three times, cover to cover, comparing it to the Metcalfe book New Approaches. I wrote both Brent and Dan Peterson in those '90s years. I particularly asked Dan some searching questions, which I would later follow up on Internet forums. Remember the famous debacle on Z with Dan? So you can't say I have a different standard for beastie. It is true that in the past three years I've eased off on FARMS, but what do you expect after 20 years?
There's not much more sponging to do, and I've formed my most of views based on those 20-plus years of study.

Beastie may not like criticism, but I think it's going to come in truckloads now that she's developed it into a more readable website, and I think that's a good thing, as it will sharpen the edges. I'm not particularly impressed at this stage, but maybe as it develops it will become more interesting, if there's real balance and weight given to the important apologetic issues. I don't see how she can create an effective critical website unless she has read a great deal of Sorenson and others, and demonstrates a good understanding of their viewpoints. This is what Kevin does in regard to the Book of Abraham. He understands the issues better than most informed Mormons do.

After all, aren't scholars, even amateur scholars, supposed to accept and answer criticisms? Or is it just going to be a lecture?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't recall seeing any critics' viewpoints showing up on FARMS or FAIR's websites; I don't recall any critics' viewpoints on SHIELDS or Jeff Lindseys' websites. I sure as heck don't see any critics' viewpoints on the church's website either.

Why should Beastie put up the apologists' point of view?

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:50 am

harmony wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't recall seeing any critics' viewpoints showing up on FARMS or FAIR's websites; I don't recall any critics' viewpoints on SHIELDS or Jeff Lindseys' websites. I sure as heck don't see any critics' viewpoints on the church's website either.

Why should Beastie put up the apologists' point of view?

You haven't read much FAIR? At least they acknowledge the existence of critics: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai137.html

FARMS is almost entirely devoted to answering critics. When I say viewpoints, I mean at least acknowleging them, and answering them. Beastie went through many of Deanne Matheny's arguments about the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, yet not once acknowledged the replies to Matheny, an author she quotes a lot on the subject of Mesoamerica. Here is her bibliography:

Bibliography

Adams, Richard E. The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas: Volume 2, Mesoamerica, Part 1. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2000.

Blanton, Richard and Gary Feinman, Stephen Kowalewski, Linda Nicholas. Ancient Oaxaca. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Part 3: Warfare. FAIR. <http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/anach3.pdf>

Braswell, Geoffrey. The Maya and Teotihuacan Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2003.

Brown, Kathryn and Travis Stanton. Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare. New York: Altamira Press. 2003.

Carrasco, David. Religions of Mesoamerica Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. 1990.

Coe, Michael. Breaking the Maya Code. New York: Thames & Hudson. 1999.

Coe, Michael. The Maya. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1999.

Demarest, Arthur. Ancient Maya The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999.

Diehl, Richard. The Olmecs America’s First Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson: 2004.

Evans, R. Tripp. Romancing the Maya Mexican Antiquity in the American Imagination 1820-1915. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004.

Feder, Kenneth. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002.

Foster, Lynn. Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002.

Fradich and Thenius. Tapirs. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia, Volume 13, Mammals IV. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1972.

Gardner, Brant. Translated Correctly, Assessing the Evidence for the Translation Method. 1998. <http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/transmeth.htm>

Hodder, Ian and Scott Hutson. Reading The Past Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Horses in the Book of Mormon. Provo, Utah. FARMS. http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?id=129 ... ranscripts

Larson, Stan. Quest for the Gold Plates. Salt Lake City: Freethinker Press. 1996.

Lindsay, Jeffrey. It’s My Turn, Questions for Anti-Mormons. < http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml>

Lohse, Jon C. and Fred Valdez, Jr. Ancient Maya Commoners. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. 2004.

Metcalfe, Brent. New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. 1993.

Olsen, Sandra. Horses Through Time. Lanham, Md. Carnegie Institute. 1996.

Persuitte, David. Joseph Smith and the Origin of the Book of Mormon. London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. 2000.

Roberts, B. H. Studies of the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. 1992.

Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. 2002.

Skousen, Royal. Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text. Provo, Utah: FARMS. 1998. <http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=167>

Smith, Ethan. The View of the Hebrews. Poultney, Vt.: Smith & Shute. 1823.

Smith, Joseph. The Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1975.

Sorenson, John. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 1985.

Spalding, Solomon. The Manuscript Found. < http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm>

Vogel, Dan. Early Mormon Documents,Volume I. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. 1996.

Vogel, Dan. Early Mormon Documents,Volume II. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. 1998.

Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. New York: Continuum. 2001.

There are at least eight references to Matheny on the FARMS website. (Matheny's quotes on her site comes from New Approaches, listed in the bibliography. The most important reply to this was in the FARMS Review, absent from her website.)

Sorenson's reply can be found in PDF format at the FARMS/Maxwell Institute website: http://farms.BYU.edu/

Beastie either doesn't know it exists, or deliberatelly ignored it. Sorenson's extended reply, and many others, can also be found in Volume 6:1 of the FARMS Review: http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... 6&number=1

And: http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=142

Beastie does not acknowledge the existence of these important replies.This is what I pointed out earlier. It's rather one-sided. Apologetic replies don't count for much in her eyes. She selectively quotes some, but not the more important ones.

Maybe these will be added, and answered?

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:37 am

A little "history lesson" for those who don't know much about FARMS. Founder Jack Welch never intended for his "baby" to be a "counter-mo" site. His original intention was to provide scholarly information and studies about the Book of Mormon, and this is why the original FARMS Review was called, and limited to, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. In the late '80s FARMS began broadening its scope, and began focusing on anti-Mormon literature, because of its epidemic proportions. So the RBBM was changed to the FARMS Review, and they extended critical replies to all anti-Mormon literature, and even poor pro-Mormon literature (an insight that escapes most). This was, perhaps ironically, contrary to General Authority advice to ignore anti-Mormons. They took on the Tanners in a move that surprised both Jerald and Sandra. This eventually led to the Tanners publication Answering Mormon Scholars. Bear in mind that the Church left the Tanners unanswered for over 20 years! No informed person can argue about "who started this?". The anti-Mormons started it.

I think criticism is good, and it makes all of us think. But don't blame Mormons for defending their religious beliefs against constant and unrelenting attacks.

Beastie's website is just another in the long list of vociferious anti-Mormon hubris. She says she prefers to call "apologists" "Book of Mormon scholars", adding that she doesn't like the label "anti-Mormon". Here's the truth, beastie, apologists are apologists, and anti-Mormons are anti-Mormons, no matter what other names you call them.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:18 pm

For god's sake, ray, not only did I acknowledge Sorenson's rebuttal, but I quoted from it.

From the metallurgy page:

So when Book of Mormon scholars, like Dr. Sorenson, refer to the linguistic evidence supporting the existence of metals in early Mesoamerica, my response is that it makes sense that they would have words for the substance with which they worked from natural outcrops or meteorites for so long. But did they have words that described a smelting process, or advanced metallurgy? Not to my knowledge. In his rebuttal essay, Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe! Dr. Sorenson claims the following:

“In her treatment of metals (pp. 283-84), she gives no hint of recognition that words for "metal" existed in nearly all the Mesoamerican languages which linguists reconstruct as going back to Book of Mormon times. In An Ancient American Setting I had said, "comparative linguistics shows that metals must have been known, and presumably used, at least as early as 1286 B.C. That date extends back to the time of the Jaredites, for which so far we have not a single specimen of actual metal. Does it not seem likely that specimens are going to be found someday?"45 Instead of acknowledging this significant information, she gets hung up with a narrow view of archaeology, insisting that, "No evidence has been found that metallurgy was practiced by the Olmec civilization" (p. 288). By "evidence" she means physical remains, ignoring the names for metals.

She goes on, "[If metals were used by Book of Mormon peoples in Mesoamerica] somewhere there should be the mining localities and their associated tools, processing localities and the remains of the metal objects that were produced" (p. 288). Indeed there should be. Meanwhile, until archaeologists figure out how to find and identify those remains, there is the undeniable presence of a term for metal in the language widely considered that of the Olmecs, Proto-Mixe-Zoquean,46 as well as in all other major proto-languages of early Mesoamerica. Is linguistic evidence to be excluded from the study of archaeology when it is inconvenient? Shouldn't we be trying to shed maximum light instead of defend status quo interpretations?”

So obviously you're not reading carefully.

In addition, I referenced the apologetic explanations for these things repeatedly. In fact, the entire point of the essays was to rebut certain apologetic responses to the problems of the Book of Mormon. I don't know what essays you're responding to in your mind, Ray, but they don't appear to be mine.

MG -

I never stated categorically Joseph Smith had access to this information. If one is working from the possibility that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century product, then one is forced to concede that the actual authorship is unknown. And it may have had more than one source. Sidney Rigdon is seen, by many, as a viable candidate, and he certainly would have had access to information about ancient Israel. Even if one insists upon Joseph Smith as sole author, there is no way to identify all the information he could have been exposed to during the writing of the Book of Mormon, particularly given the fact that his family was extremely interested in religion, and the area was visited by traveling preachers, sometimes very educated ones. So this is just too open ended to ever provide conclusive evidence that would help one determine if certain information could only be included via supernatural means.

But I've explained this to you many times in the past. You just don't accept my answer as good enough. That's fine, you don't have to, but don't pretend I haven't explained my position.

DiscussMormonism.com

TA DA!!! My Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica website

Re: Mesoamerica

Re: Mesoamerica

Re: Mesoamerica