Spencer Lake Horse Skull

[_beastie]

I’m going to share more posts from the aforelinked Dec 2006 MAD thread in which Daniel referred to the C-14 dated Wisconsin finding, because it’s instructive.

Luigi began the thread about horse evidence.

Daniel first replied:

In any event, yes, you've missed a hypothesis: Horse bones have, in fact, been found in the appropriate strata in controlled archaeological digs, but their presence has been attributed to "site contamination" and they have, on the whole, not been C-14 dated. Such C-14 dating as has been done has, in fact, indicated that they date to Book of Mormon or at least pre-Columbian historic times. The hypothesis is that these finds are authentic.

And Luigi then stated:

As I understand it remains of one horse were found in Florida which was thought to potentially be pre-Columbian-but that it is still up in the air.

To which Daniel replied:

There have also been non-C-14-dated finds in Mesoamerican archaeological excavations and a C-14-dated find in Wisconsin.

Is there ANY way to interpret Daniel’ statement OTHER than that the Wisconsin finds – which he refers to as having been dated, not in the process, which we now know is true as it was completed prior to 2004 – date to “Book of Mormon or at least pre-Columbian” times?

Tarski immediately called for references and Luigi linked to the Wisconsin hoax. Jaybear repeated the question about whether or not DCP was referring to the linked hoax bones.

DCP replied:

'm eager to hear about Jaybear's Wisconsin hoax. I haven't heard of it. (This isn't even remotely a subject that I focus on, despite Jaybear's absurd remark that I somehow "certified" the Wisconsin find and its C-14 dating, which is, of course, designed to create a useful straw man that, if he's lucky, he'll be able to exploit against me far into the future.) I'm sure he'll share the details. I don't know whether this one has been proven to be a hoax or not. But, even if it were (which I'm not inclined to grant until it's actually been demonstrated), that would say nothing about the Yucatán finds. Piltdown Man didn't discredit research into human evolution, either. Even if Jaybear did, somewhere, "certify" it, maybe.

So what in the heck were DCP’s above statements even ABOUT? Is there some OTHER Wisconsin horse bones that were tested??? He’s never heard of the Wisconsin hoax??? He wasn’t certifying the Wisconsin find and its C14 dating????

Jaybear replied:

As for certification comment, you offered the following factual statement: "There have also been non-C-14-dated finds in Mesoamerican archaeological excavations and a C-14-dated find in Wisconsin."

That is a pretty bold factual claim. I presumed that you would not have made such a bold, unqualified factual statement if you were not personally satisfied that the factual assertion was true.

Obviously, I was wrong. I guess I owe you an apology.

by the way, I haven't made any factual assertion. I was, and am trying to learn whether the Dan Peterson uncertified C-14 dated horse found in Wisconsin, is the same horse that was the subject of the article regarding the Wisconsin horse.

DCP replied:

I made that "bold, unqualified factual statement" on the basis of materials that I've read. I have not personally "certified" any horse bone find in Wisconsin or anywhere else, and would not be qualified to do so. (I suspect that you wouldn't, either.) By the standard you seem to be suggesting, you have no way of knowing whether Luigi's Wisconsin hoax claim is valid or not, and should not have alluded to it.

OK!!! The buck has been passed. DCP stated earlier that he attained this information from Sorenson’s essay. Which essay?? John Sorenson's 1992 Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography.

Tell me, how could an essay dated to 1992 possibly verify that C-14 dating of these bones?

I’ve been on the fence for a very long time about whether or not apologists, in general, are deliberately deceptive or just being manipulated by their own strong desire to believe. This particular episode has persuaded me that, at least in the case of DCP, deliberate deception is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn. He isn’t openly LYING, but is making ambiguous statements that most people will interpret in a way that would be an outright lie: the Wisconsin C14 dating supports the Book of Mormon. But looking carefully at his words, you see he didn’t exactly say that. He was vague and ambiguous enough to retain deniability (yes, that was the term I was thinking of, thanks!) – and that was a deliberate, calculated act.

I wonder how it makes believers like Zak and CI, who have so eagerly awaited these results, feel to know DCP is willing to deliberately mislead them in a way that is quite deceptive?

[_Pokatator]

Boaz & Lidia Porter, I must say you have totally out done yourself. I have laughed 'til my guts ache. Thanks I needed that.

[_marg]

Boaz & Lidia Porter, I must say you have totally out done yourself. I have laughed 'til my guts ache. Thanks I needed that.

Yes it's extremely well done. I think it is written by Runtu.

[_Pokatator]

Boaz & Lidia Porter, I must say you have totally out done yourself. I have laughed 'til my guts ache. Thanks I needed that.

Yes it's extremely well done. I think it is written by Runtu.

Thanks Marg

My hat is off to whoever did it. Runtu is awesome with parody.

P'tator

[_Chap]

Beastie wrote:

I’ve been on the fence for a very long time about whether or not apologists, in general, are deliberately deceptive or just being manipulated by their own strong desire to believe. This particular episode has persuaded me that, at least in the case of DCP, deliberate deception is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn. He isn’t openly LYING, but is making ambiguous statements that most people will interpret in a way that would be an outright lie: the Wisconsin C14 dating supports the Book of Mormon. But looking carefully at his words, you see he didn’t exactly say that. He was vague and ambiguous enough to retain deniability (yes, that was the term I was thinking of, thanks!) – and that was a deliberate, calculated act.

I think you are right: this is not lying in the simple sense. On the other hand, in the case of someone so intelligent and verbally fluent as DCP we cannot simply put this 'ambiguity' down to his getting a little mixed up. What's going on?

I think the key is to view written or spoken discourse not just as the mere consequence or manifestation of thought, but in part as reciprocally shaping the thought of the person from whom the discourse comes. He who succeeds in speaking ambiguously on a matter where the plain truth directly put would be disturbing to deeply held belief not only succeeds in keeping the disturbing issue from his hearers or readers - but also surrounds it with a protective fog layer inside his own head. I think that is the trick that DCP and some other apologists have learned, and that the need to maintain the protective fog is one of the motivations that drives someone like DCP (who certainly should have better things to do) to spend the vast amount of time and energy he seems to devote to such matters.

There are parallels to this in the history of other religions. As Blaise Pascal pointed out in his Provincial Letters (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... ETTER%20VI) 17th century Jesuit casuists held that many sins could be avoided, not by refraining from the specific action involved (such as lying, stealing, selling church offices), but by performing the action while directing the intention to some other, legitimate, end.. For example, you can still fight a duel without sinning:

"Show me, with all your directing of the intention," returned I,
"that it is allowable to fight a duel."
"Our great Hurtado de Mendoza," said the father, "will satisfy you
on that point in a twinkling. 'If a gentleman,' says he, in a
passage cited by Diana, 'who is challenged to fight a duel, is well
known to have no religion, and if the vices to which he is openly
and unscrupulously addicted are such as would lead people to conclude,
in the event of his refusing to fight, that he is actuated, not by the
fear of God, but by cowardice, and induce them to say of him that he
was a hen, and not a man, gallina, et non vir; in that case he may, to
save his honour, appear at the appointed spot- not, indeed, with the
express intention of fighting a duel, but merely with that of
defending himself, should the person who challenged him come there
unjustly to attack him. His action in this case, viewed by itself,
will be perfectly indifferent; for what moral evil is there in one
stepping into a field, taking a stroll in expectation of meeting a
person, and defending one's self in the event of being attacked? And
thus the gentleman is guilty of no sin whatever; for in fact it cannot
be called accepting a challenge at all, his intention being directed
to other circumstances, and the acceptance of a challenge consisting
in an express intention to fight, which we are supposing the gentleman
never had.'"

An LDS apologist may perhaps be behaving in a similar way: he does not intend to lie by speaking in a misleading or ambiguous way, but merely to help TBMs to avoid damage to their faith and potential loss of testimony - which is in his eyes a perfectly legitimate and laudable intention to have.

Of course, that means you shouldn't trust these people any further than you could throw them - which in the case of DCP is not very far. The only difference between them and outright liars is a highly theoretical one.

[_truth dancer]

I would really like to know what goes through the minds of those who purposely mislead and deceive others, distort and misrepresent truth, and in some cases flat out lie in order to help save testimonies.

What good is a testimony if it is based on lies?

Is not truth more important than a testimony of something based on lies and untruths?

What does it say about God if, in order for many to remain faithful to "his" church, one must believe lies?

What sort of eternal Godly plan requires belief in lies, deceptions, and untruths in order to believe?

I accept the fact that my idea of what is good, decent, moral, holy, loving, and honorable may not be the same as Gods, nevertheless what sort of eternal truth is filled with clear deception, misrepresentations, manipulation, and lies?

Again, I am interested in hearing how this is justified, rationalized or explained away.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

Maybe it's time for me to repost something I wrote a while back about apologetics:

Daniel Midgley-Welch appears on Jeopardy

Hoping to continue the remarkable success of Latter-day Saint Ken Jennings, FARMS has sent its best and brightest, Professor Daniel Midgley-Welch to compete on the long-running game show, Jeopardy. The following is a partial transcript of his appearance.

Alex Trebek: We also welcome to our show Daniel, a food sciences professor from Provo, Utah. It says here that you enjoy archeology in your spare time. Found anything interesting, have you?

DMW: Don't you think it's rather presumptuous to discuss Book of Mormon archeology before you've read some of the scholarship? Honestly! Do your homework, Alex!

AT: Um, OK, let's play Jeopardy.

DMW: I'll take Potent Potables for $100, Alex.

AT: Jesus turned the water into this during the wedding at Cana.

DMW: What is a nonalcoholic grape-juice-like substance completely unrelated to the modern concept of wine?

AT: No, I'm sorry, we were looking for "wine."

DMW: Really, Alex, your ignorance is showing. You seriously believe that Jesus would violate the Word of Wisdom? I'll take The New Testament for $100.

AT: Jesus was born in this small town in Judea.

DMW: What is the land of Jerusalem?

AT: No, I'm sorry, the answer is "Bethlehem."

DMW: Excuse me, but that's just nitpicking. Anyone who knows anything understands that Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem. I thought this was supposed to be a well-researched show.

AT: I'm sorry, the judges inform me that the correct answer is "Bethlehem."

DMW: Well, then, let's try New World Fauna.

AT: This large rodent is found primarily in the jungles of Central and South America.

DMW: What is a horse?

AT: No, the answer is "tapir."

DMW: That's what I said. "Horse" is just a modern equivalent of "tapir." Any idiot knows that.

AT: Whatever.

DMW: I don't like your tone, Alex. Are you one of those vile anti-Mormons, like Robert Ritner? All right, let's go to American Hoaxes.

AT: This one is a visual daily double: These bell-shaped plates, which turned out to be a clumsy hoax, were identified by Joseph Smith as the record of a descendant of this Biblical figure.

DMW: What is "there's no proof that Joseph Smith ever saw the plates, let alone translated them"?

AT: I'm sorry, but that's not a question. Look, can we just stick with the game?

DMW: All right. Let's try 19th Century Politics.

AT: Along with slavery, this practice was called one of the twin relics of barbarism by early Republicans.

DMW: What are loose dynastic familial ties?

AT: Uh, what? Can you be more specific?

DMW: What are nonsexual and wholly spiritual ties through the law of adoption that are unrelated to sex with 14 year olds?

AT: No, the answer we were looking for was "polygamy."

DMW: Why, I am shocked that you would assault the virtue of those pure and lovely women who were merely adopted into the lineage of the prophet. You really have a grudge against Mormons.

AT: Who is this guy? Let's move on to final jeopardy. I'm sorry, Daniel, but given your negative score, you'll have to sit this one out.

DMW: I sure hope you never write a book, Alex, because if you do, I'll make sure we give it a terrible thrashing in our review of books.

AT: Is that supposed to scare me?

DMW: Let me guess, King World Productions is funded by the George D. Smith foundation, am I right? You had better watch out! I'm about to raise my arm to the square and call down fire from heaven on you.

AT: Can someone call security, please?

[_CaliforniaKid]

"Show me, with all your directing of the intention," returned I,
"that it is allowable to fight a duel."
"Our great Hurtado de Mendoza," said the father, "will satisfy you
on that point in a twinkling. 'If a gentleman,' says he, in a
passage cited by Diana, 'who is challenged to fight a duel, is well
known to have no religion, and if the vices to which he is openly
and unscrupulously addicted are such as would lead people to conclude,
in the event of his refusing to fight, that he is actuated, not by the
fear of God, but by cowardice, and induce them to say of him that he
was a hen, and not a man, gallina, et non vir; in that case he may, to
save his honour, appear at the appointed spot- not, indeed, with the
express intention of fighting a duel, but merely with that of
defending himself, should the person who challenged him come there
unjustly to attack him. His action in this case, viewed by itself,
will be perfectly indifferent; for what moral evil is there in one
stepping into a field, taking a stroll in expectation of meeting a
person, and defending one's self in the event of being attacked? And
thus the gentleman is guilty of no sin whatever; for in fact it cannot
be called accepting a challenge at all, his intention being directed
to other circumstances, and the acceptance of a challenge consisting
in an express intention to fight, which we are supposing the gentleman
never had.'"

Is this the one where the inquirer starts making up Bible verses and the Jesuit doesn't know the difference and keeps finding ways to explain them away no matter how unambiguous they are?

[_CaliforniaKid]

lol@Runtu!!!

[_beastie]

It's a form of "lying for the Lord", or rather "speaking in an ambiguous misleading way" for the Lord.

But here's what I never understood about this idea: if a person is going to lose faith once exposed to certain truths - such as the fact that the Wisconsin horse skull was a hoax - then how is that real faith in the first place? It's a fake faith, propped up by lies. How is that doing anyone a favor?

(and yes, the jeopardy was hilarious!)