Journey of Faith DVDs

[_Sethbag]

So basically DCP plays the "they have PhDs and you don't" card on Beastie, and won't actually engage the substance of any of her criticisms - at all.

Getting a dissertation through means you convinced the committee of the merits of that dissertation. It is no guarantee that one won't use one's talents in the future in the dubious pursuit of religious apologetics.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow. I just love the speculation here. He was "selling his DVDs via appearances in LDS chapels"? Really, is that any better or worse than shamelessly plugging Mopologetic DVDs and CDs on the aptly named MADboard?

It's worse. Chapels are not places for commercials.

On what basis do you know that Meldrum is "pushing" his product in chapels? This sounds extremely irregular. You better have evidence to back up this serious accusation.

Do you "push" your product to *your* congregation, Bishop?

No. Never.

Then why do apologetics? If it is not good enough for your "flock," then why do it at all?

Why don't you just reassure people, Prof. Peterson, via a very lengthy, joke-laden thread, that whatever Meldrum has received is a mere pittance, maybe $200 over a period of twenty years, and that to claim that his earnings amount to a "wad of bills" is "idiocy" and "ludicrous"?

Because it wouldn't be true.

What wouldn't be true?

Or why don't you tell people that his money---could it equal 20K, I wonder?---was (thanks to an unscrupulous/incompetent accountant) funneled back into the Church via some clever means? I'm sure that will put everyone at ease.

Because it wouldn't be true.

And how do you know?

(P.s.: I win again.)

[_beastie]

Amusingly enough, in the present context the actual effect of this attempt at irony is to persuade the reader to read it quite literally.

I'm told, by critics and believers alike, that DCP is quite intelligent, so he must realize this. I made several clear criticisms, including the extraordinarily simple one that to simply assert "they would have found horses there" is a lie. Providing the background information about how horses were on the American continent, in terms of evolution, prior to their appearance on the European continent, while omitting the fact that they went extinct on the American continent thousands of years prior to the Lehites was a deliberate act of using the truth to mislead.

I obtained all of these quotes by taking the time to replay the DVD and pausing it after each sentence so I could transcribe it. I am confident that I transcribed it correctly. I am also confident that the scholars I cited to support my points are just as degreed as any of the scholars featured on the DVD, and arguably more so than some.

DCP will not engage in the substance of my criticisms because he cannot refute the simple points I made. So he, instead, builds his case on the fact that the DVD scholars are degreed, and I am not, and I am such an unpleasant person that he will not refute my points, although the implication is he could do so if he desired. It's stunts like this that reveal just how weak the foundation of Mesoamerican/Book of Mormon apologetics is.

But we're not the target audience of this apologia, so, in the end, it doesn't matter that he won't refute my points. The target audience of this DVD, like all apologia, is people like justme - believers who want to be reassured by smart, degreed believers that their beliefs are rational and scientifically sound, but lack the prerequisite background knowledge to truly evaluate the material being offered. They accept that material from the apologists as a matter of faith. The cost of some more informed critics or believers calling foul is worth it. It's quite manipulative.

[_truth dancer]

You win, beastie.

I give up. You're right.

Your reading of the film is meticulously accurate and your analysis spot on.

I surrender.

Hi Dan,

Since you now understand the problems in this video, (thanks to Beastie), will you now share the "misstatements" with the folks at FAIR, FARMS, and others who may be misled after viewing the video?

Perhaps there could be a disclaimer sent along with the video to give the viewing audience a little heads up? Just so people don't get the wrong impression?

;-)

~td~

[_Ray A]

Sin is a distraction isn't it? <g>

I'm curious Ray, what is it about the first DVD that would greatly appeal to you after putting the "spiritual" and "pure viewing pleasure" aspects aside? Specifically what did you think in regards to the botanical, animal, and geological/mineralogical "evidences" found and/or discovered at the purported ship launch site? I think that the site promoted on the DVD as being a possible site for Bountiful is interesting in its possibilities. But yes, the DVD also has its spiritual and pure viewing pleasure aspects also.

Regards,
MG

MG, some parts of the DVD seemed "plausible". Like up to when they get to Bountiful. The sea crossing to America seemed a lot less plausible, especially negotiating all those islands north of Australia, and one wonders why they didn't land in Australia, which would have had an Aboriginal-only population at the time. But Australia wasn't "the Promised Land", only about half-way in this long, ardous and difficult to imagine sea-journey. We know now that the Chinese (possibly) and definitely the Portuguese actually circumnavigated Australia before Captain Cook "discovered" it. This evidence was presented in a book titled Beyond Capricorn, complete with map drawings of the explorers and all, and has now been accepted by many. That is a lot more plausible, and realistic, yet we know this even though these explorers barely touched Australia in comparison to starting a great civilisation, of which there would remain no trace. Aboriginal habitation of various parts of Australia, including Sydney pre-discovery, have also been unearthed by archaeologists. We know where they lived, and how they lived, thousands of years ago. Something like we know about the Mesoamericans. The archaeology of Aboriginal Australia is well-known, yet they never reached the population proportions of the Lehites, nor were their inter-tribal battles as large. BS filters need to be activated for such claims.

The flora and fauna evidences have never really excited me, because my BS filter exploded too early for that. And I've always said that my problems are mainly related to anachronisms and historical (un)likehood, etc, not technicalities such as beastie has attempted to
unravel. I wouldn't have the patience for that. But, like Coe and others, my admiration for the Book of Mormon as a religious text remains intact.

[_beastie]

No further comment, justme?

[_harmony]

No further comment, justme?

Maybe JustMe is at a Meldrum fireside?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So basically DCP plays the "they have PhDs and you don't" card on Beastie, and won't actually engage the substance of any of her criticisms - at all.

No, basically DCP plays the "I'm tired of attempting conversation with beastie" card, and notes, in passing, that her assertion of glaringly obvious errors in the DVD might not play so well if she asserted it in a place where those who made the allegedly obvious errors (and who have solid training and substantial experience in Mesoamerican studies) were aware of it. This latter point seems fairly uncontroversial.

[_harmony]

So basically DCP plays the "they have PhDs and you don't" card on Beastie, and won't actually engage the substance of any of her criticisms - at all.

No, basically DCP plays the "I'm tired of attempting conversation with beastie" card, and notes, in passing, that her assertion of glaringly obvious errors in the DVD might not play so well if she asserted it in a place where those who made the allegedly obvious errors (and who have solid training and substantial experience in Mesoamerican studies) were aware of it. This latter point seems fairly uncontroversial.

Where are you suggesting she make those assertions?

[_Daniel Peterson]

On what basis do you know that Meldrum is "pushing" his product in chapels?

I don't "know" it. Someone asked why some were critical of him. I volunteered that this was one of the criticisms that I had heard.

Whether it's true or not, I have no idea. As I've said, I haven't paid much attention to Rod Meldrum.

This sounds extremely irregular.

If true, it does.

You better have evidence to back up this serious accusation.

I've made no accusation.

Do you "push" your product to *your* congregation, Bishop?

No. Never.

Then why do apologetics? If it is not good enough for your "flock," then why do it at all?

My refusal to sell things during church services or in the chapel has nothing whatever to do with my judgment of what is or isn't "good enough for my flock."

I think fruit and vegetables and oatmeal would be excellent for my flock, as would several savings and investment vehicles, but I don't believe it would be appropriate to set up a produce stand or a cereal aisle or a brokerage in the chapel.