Daniel Peterson wrote:Chap wrote:Were any of the MesoAmericanists who referred to Book of Mormon persons or places on the DVDs not committed believing testimony-bearing LDS?
Just asking.
No.
But that proves beastie an expert and them incompetent . . . how, exactly?
Did I say that beastie was an expert in Mesoamerican studies and they were incompetent? How could I be so crude!
But now I will say this:
when a proposition, (such as that it is plausible to hold that Mesoamerican archeology can be interpreted in terms of the stories told in the Book of Mormon, or that monkeys once built a bridge between India and Sri Lanka) turns out to be asserted
only by people who were born and brought up in a certain religious group or who have been deeply committed to that group for many years if not born into it, then the weight one gives to their paper qualifications in deciding on the plausibility of the proposition (speaking as a lay person in terms of the relevant area of study) is markedly diminished.
When under such circumstances a person without paper qualifications in the relevant field (such as beastie) advances what do appear to be a large number of reasonable and well-evidenced points against the proposition, one may reasonably diminish one's estimate of its plausibility even further, and it begins to look as though the 'experts' may have allowed their religious commitments to overwhelm their professional judgement.
Of course the thing that would cause a fair-minded lay person to do a volte-face and start treating the assertions of LDS Mesoamericanists about the reality of Book of Mormon events with new respect would be if some Mesoamericanists devoid of LDS commitments were to begin supporting them - by beginning, for instance, to publish articles in reputable journals pointing explicitly to evidence of Judeo-Christian cult practices in Mesoamerican sites, or finding pre-Columbian inscriptions in an undeniably semitic script.
But so far this has not happened, has it?