Credentials

[_charity]

I really do not like these multiple facet respones. It gets too confusing. So my replies in blue.

Sure. Then we are left to examine the quality of your argument, as we are DCP's.

That's my position. You, however, argued that without specific academic expertise, we are at a handicap. You appear to be backing off from that.

We are talking about expertise in the field, for Pete's sake. When Bokovoy says something about the divine counsel based on his knowledge of ancient languages, his credentials Trump everybody else without such expertisein that field. If he is talking about evidences of others in the Book of Mormon, then all that plays in is that he has demonstrated his intelligence and ability to deal with text material. Anyone who wants to argue with him, then only has to demonstrate simiilar intelligence and ability to deal with texts.

I never said that if you had a degree in geology that every single word that came out of your mouth was pure gold.

I don't think the converse is necessarily correct. Anyone who comes to believe the Book of Mormon is of divine origin has considered the non-divine origin theory, and then learned, through personal experience that it is of divine origin.

Just as people like Dan Vogel and me have considered the divine origin theory and then learned through personal experience that it is not of divine origin. You seem to want it both ways: apologists are openminded, whereas critics are not. I call BS.

You can only come to a conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document based on evaluation of informatin. That is not experience. Your conclusion is only as good as your evlaution of information. And that evaluation is not objective. It is already colored by your bias toward it.

See Larry E. Morris' review of Ritners publication on the translation of the Book of Breathings. Clear evidence of bias, with attacks on Church doctrine, deliberately omitted references, etc.

You said he was involved in anti-Mormon statements before he opined on the Book of Abraham. You seem to be changing your tune yet again. Nothing Ritner has ever published on the Book of Abraham conflicts with what we know about it. Even Juliann et al. have said nothing worse than "he used an inappropriate tone." Stephen Thompson, a believing church member, reached the same conclusions as Ritner, but you guys don't go after him. Why is that?

I guess you didn't read the link. There was a statement ignoring a knowledge of the other translation when any scholar would have known about it. And there was a statement about priesthood and the blacks which had no bearing on the translation. So why include it if not to try to demean the Church? Definite show of bias. I don't think anyone argues with his translation, except in small points. It is his application of his translation that shows bias.

Any argument against the Book of Mormon on the grounds of DNA is false.

He's not making any arguments against the Book of Mormon on the grounds of DNA. This is a strawman, pure and simple.

And any geneticist knows it. So, if he continues to make any such argument, hemispheric or LGT, it means he is just trying to sneak one over on people who don't know. And think his argument is valid because he is an "expert."

This is the problem with credibility.

So, going after The Dude with a strawman is acceptable?

- DNA evidence makes a hemispheric model untenable.

This is the strawman. Nobody is saying the hemispheric model is accurate. So why even talk about it?-

[/quote]

[_Who Knows]

- DNA evidence makes a hemispheric model untenable.

This is the strawman. Nobody is saying the hemispheric model is accurate. So why even talk about it?-

Oh puh-leaze! Are you kidding me? Better do some more research on your beloved prophet joseph smith.

[_John Larsen]

This is the strawman. Nobody is saying the hemispheric model is accurate. So why even talk about it?[/color]-

Every single president of the Church has asserted the hemispheric model.

[_dartagnan]

See Larry E. Morris' review of Ritners publication on the translation of the Book of Breathings. Clear evidence of bias, with attacks on Church doctrine, deliberately omitted references, etc.

Morris is reviewing an expert speaking in his own field of expertise. What credentials does he have to speak on this matter? Ritner is a Ph.D'd professor of Egyptology, and arguably one of the most respected in the field. Morris got an M.A. in American literature for crying out loud. He is out of his element. He is acting as an apologist. You talk about the bias factor as if this only works one way. The bias factor immediately discredits any LDS apologist because they are apologists just trying to justify their faith.

When Bokovoy says something about the divine counsel based on his knowledge of ancient languages, his credentials Trump everybody else without such expertisein that field.

Not so fast. You have to accomodate the bias factor remember? Bokovoy sees what he wants to see with regards to the Divine Council and Mormonism. He is an active apologist who has started many discussions trying to bolster the notion that "evidence" from the Ancient Near East points to Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. Therefore his expertise has to be understood in that respect. Nobody in the field is going to buy any of his pro-Mormon arguments, if they understand he is Mormon.

You can only come to a conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document based on evaluation of informatin. That is not experience. Your conclusion is only as good as your evlaution of information. And that evaluation is not objective. It is already colored by your bias toward it.

Mormons begin with the presupposition that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin and they then interpret all teh facts to meet that conclusion. They are in no sense open to the possibility that their presupposition is wrong. Just read Bokovoy's mission statement about changing one's paradigm. When the facts contradict your presuppositions, just change your paradigm so that the facts can be interpreted in another way. But at all costs, never deny your presupposition. This makes the standard Mormon position anti-intellectual. You rely on feelings, not facts. You assume feelings constitute facts, but that is not scientific nor is it intellectual.

Nobody is saying the hemispheric model is accurate.

You cannot possibly be this ignorant of your own faith.

Wait, I forget who I'm talking to. You seem to think reading FARMS apologetics is better than understanding and absorbing 160 years of LDS tradition supported by statements of dozens of general authorities. The hemispheric model only became unacceptable by the apologists, when evidence proved it was no longer tenable.

That is Mormonism in a nutshell. You can completely flip flop on whatever issue you want and excuse it as "continuing revelation." It is not logical, reasonable, nor respectable. It is a religious agenda driven by an ad hoc philosophy. It just amazes me hwo so many people lke you and Juliann, like to pretend all Mormons knew this from the beginning, as if the constant flip flopping wouldn't cause any concern for Mormons, if they were aware of them.

[_charity]

My responses in blue.

See Larry E. Morris' review of Ritners publication on the translation of the Book of Breathings. Clear evidence of bias, with attacks on Church doctrine, deliberately omitted references, etc.

Morris is reviewing an expert speaking in his own field of expertise. What credentials does he have to speak on this matter? Ritner is a Ph.D'd professor of Egyptology, and arguably one of the most respected in the field. Morris got an M.A. in American literature for crying out loud. He is out of his element. He is acting as an apologist. You talk about the bias factor as if this only works one way. The bias factor immediately discredits any LDS apologist because they are apologists just trying to justify their faith.

Have you read the article, Kevin? Morris is saying nothing about Ritner's translations. He is saying that Ritner says there is no other translation out there except his own, several years after another translation is published. Oops. He is saying that Ritner choses to insert an extraneous anti-Mormon argument in the middle of a translation of a document. Oops again. Morris said nothing about the translation itself, but called attention to some pretty pitiful behaviors coming from a supposed scholar.

When Bokovoy says something about the divine counsel based on his knowledge of ancient languages, his credentials Trump everybody else without such expertisein that field.

Not so fast. You have to accomodate the bias factor remember? Bokovoy sees what he wants to see with regards to the Divine Council and Mormonism. He is an active apologist who has started many discussions trying to bolster the notion that "evidence" from the Ancient Near East points to Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. Therefore his expertise has to be understood in that respect. Nobody in the field is going to buy any of his pro-Mormon arguments, if they understand he is Mormon.

I guess you don't that David has been a presenter at an ancient languages symposium sponsored by non-LDS. And this also, despite the fact that he hasn't yet even received his ph. d. That gives him quite a bit of crediblity in his field. You sound jealous.

You can only come to a conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document based on evaluation of informatin. That is not experience. Your conclusion is only as good as your evlaution of information. And that evaluation is not objective. It is already colored by your bias toward it.

Mormons begin with the presupposition that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin and they then interpret all the facts to meet that conclusion. They are in no sense open to the possibility that their presupposition is wrong. Just read Bokovoy's mission statement about changing one's paradigm. When the facts contradict your presuppositions, just change your paradigm so that the facts can be interpreted in another way. But at all costs, never deny your presupposition. This makes the standard Mormon position anti-intellectual. You rely on feelings, not facts. You assume feelings constitute facts, but that is not scientific nor is it intellectual.

No, I did not come to the Book of Mormon assumiing it is of divine origin. I grew to adulthood as non-LDS.

Nobody is saying the hemispheric model is accurate.

You cannot possibly be this ignorant of your own faith.

Wait, I forget who I'm talking to. You seem to think reading FARMS apologetics is better than understanding and absorbing 160 years of LDS tradition supported by statements of dozens of general authorities. The hemispheric model only became unacceptable by the apologists, when evidence proved it was no longer tenable.

Kevin, you know what you are saying is garbage. There was NEVER any revealation, official statement from the First Presidency, no canonized scripture that located the Book of Mormon lands in any specific latittude and longitude. There still isn't. There were opinions of people where those lands could possibly have been. Some of those opinions seemed to favor the hemispheric model. Many of the other opinions did not. Can you tell us why you chose to ignore one set and emphasize the other? Could it possibly be that you select whatyou want to use to try to make your argument?

That is Mormonism in a nutshell. You can completely flip flop on whatever issue you want and excuse it as "continuing revelation." It is not logical, reasonable, nor respectable. It is a religious agenda driven by an ad hoc philosophy. It just amazes me hwo so many people lke you and Juliann, like to pretend all Mormons knew this from the beginning, as if the constant flip flopping wouldn't cause any concern for Mormons, if they were aware of them.

Why does the truth bother you? You come across as being very rigid. Pretty fundamentalist. That's probably what caused you to apostatize. This phenemenon has been noticed in others. People who do this also have difficulty in handling other concepts such as fallible prophets and continuing revelation.

[_Who Knows]

Kevin, you know what you are saying is garbage. There was NEVER any revealation, official statement from the First Presidency, no canonized scripture that located the Book of Mormon lands in any specific latittude and longitude. There still isn't. There were opinions of people where those lands could possibly have been. Some of those opinions seemed to favor the hemispheric model. Many of the other opinions did not. Can you tell us why you chose to ignore one set and emphasize the other? Could it possibly be that you select whatyou want to use to try to make your argument?

Charity, let's make this simple, so you don't get lost again in a long post.

You were the one that claimed 'no one' made the hemispheric argument. That's just flat out false.

Let me ask you a question. Was joseph smith wrong in his belief in the hemispheric model?

[_dartagnan]

Have you read the article, Kevin?

I have, and its crap. Morris is clearly lying or he is out of touch with scholarship if he thinks Ritner is doing anything out of the norm. Again, Ritner is a world class scholar who is more in touch with scholarship than Morris will ever be. I can list several examples of scholarly battles that got far more aggressive than anything ritner said or did. John Gee is hiding behind FROB so he doesn't have to deal with his teacher's refutations.

I guess you don't that David has been a presenter at an ancient languages symposium sponsored by non-LDS

So what? This is hardly abnormal for Brandeis students. Does Bokovoy go on record in his presentations with the apologetic nonsense he presents to his fellow apologists? Of course not. It would be academic suicide and he knows it. Ultimately, a scholars arguments have to be judged on their merits, which is why it is easy for non-scholars to refute scholarly arguments by simply providing scholarship that refutes it. When Bokovoy and I debate, I never rely on my own authority, I rely on the authority of those who Trump him. Oftentimes Bokovoy is left with little more than saying, "Well, he was wrong." Gee, that's compelling.

And this also, despite the fact that he hasn't yet even received his ph. d. That gives him quite a bit of crediblity in his field. You sound jealous.

And you sound stupid. Again, you are out of touch with scholarship if you think this is out of the norm. Presentations are not provided strictly by those holding doctorates. Who told you that? Bokovoy is attending a school with a lot of political sway in the field. He isn't the first student of Marc Brettler to get published before receiving his doctorate, and he won't be the last.

No, I did not come to the Book of Mormon assumiing it is of divine origin. I grew to adulthood as non-LDS.

All Mormons begin with that assumption, which makes all their subsequent commentary biased to the extreme. It is just as valuable and worthless as the critic's. No matter what evidence points the other direction, they either reject it or reinterpret it in a manner that doesn't threaten their faith. Again, Bokovoy's recent paradigm shift manifesto proves how anti-intelectual and fallacious Mormon thought really is.

Kevin, you know what you are saying is garbage. There was NEVER any revealation, official statement from the First Presidency, no canonized scripture that located the Book of Mormon lands in any specific latittude and longitude. There still isn't.

There never needed to be either. The nonsense about how doctrine is only that which is "revealed" or canonized, is a modern invention by apologists. Joseph Smith clearly believed in the Hemispheric model and so did his successors. He never had to canonize something for it to be understood as fact. He claimed to have found the body of a dead Lamanite for crying out loud. These were not just their opinions, these were claims stated as fact that were accepted by the Church as a whole. Only recently do we see people begin to move away from the absolute certainty of the HM. The fact that you would preten nobody argues for it, just goes to show how dishonest Mormons can be. You're lying for your faith and you know it.

Can you tell us why you chose to ignore one set and emphasize the other? Could it possibly be that you select whatyou want to use to try to make your argument?

I'm not talking about the opinions of 20th century theorists. I am talking about the statements of fact by the earliest general authorities, all of whom accepted the HM without question.

Why does the truth bother you? You come across as being very rigid. Pretty fundamentalist. That's probably what caused you to apostatize.

No, being involved with too many anti-critical thinkers and idiots like yourself is what helped push me out of the Church. You have presented no "truth" for me to accept or reject. All you have is what you can dig up at FARMS. You do this all the time.

People who do this also have difficulty in handling other concepts such as fallible prophets and continuing revelation.

Sorry, but people aren't told about how the prophet can make serious mistakes like these when joining the Church. Instead, they're told that the Mormon Church is different because it is led by God through prophets who would never lead the Church astray. Continuing revelation was never understood as an attempt to turn old doctrine completely on its head. You guys are abusing LDS history to suit your own apologetic agenda, which is essentially to try defending the untenable.

[_charity]

You were the one that claimed 'no one' made the hemispheric argument. That's just flat out false.

I should have said no one in the previous century.

Let me ask you a question. Was joseph smith wrong in his belief in the hemispheric model?

If he believed in the hemispheric model, he was probably wrong. (We still don't know for sure where Zarahemla was, and I am willing to take the information when it comes in and go with that.)

I am sure there were lots of things Joseph Smith didn't know, considering his limited educaitonal opportunities. But when he said God revealed something to him, he was never wrong. And he never said that God told him where Zarahemla was.

[_Mercury]

Did we ever resolve the problem that Daniel's apologetics aren't supported by his credentials?

We have settled the fact that your characterization of his credentials and his apologetics is inaccurate. Check out his publications. They fit very well with his degrees in Greek, philsophy, and Near Eastern languages and cultures. Add to that that runtu thinks that experience in general Church callings, which Dr. Peterson has had, and lifelong study of Book of Mormon and Church history also qualifies one for apologetics, and I think the bases are pretty well covered.

You can argue with runtu over his ideas. I think the academic degrees are sufficient.

Dr peterson does not have a degree in speculative fiction, thus making him unqualified to speak about the Book of Mormon.

[_Who Knows]

I should have said no one in the previous century.

I guess you missed the Dave Stewart / The Dude debate.

If he believed in the hemispheric model, he was probably wrong.

You're almost there charity! You can do it. Try this - "he was wrong".

(We still don't know for sure where Zarahemla was, and I am willing to take the information when it comes in and go with that.)

Wait, are you going back now, and saying that the hemispheric theory could be true?