Journey of Faith DVDs

[_truth dancer]

Hey JustMe,

I don't equate beastie's information of her gathering and her interpretation as being peer reviewed until it is actually published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal.

I don't think you understand. :-)

Beastie's website is NOT her opinions and interpretations.

It IS a summary of research by the experts. It IS information that has been peer reviewed and is well accepted.

Think of Beastie as a reporter... reporting on the latest, well substantiated knowledge provided by the scholars in the field.

The pertinent information is not something new that Beastie is randomly coming up with. It is well accepted peer reviewed information that she is sharing for those who are interested.

Again, if anyone has an argument with the information on her site, the argument is not with Beastie, it is with the researchers, experts, and scholars in the field whom Beastie clearly cites.

Even if you do not want to read the website, why not just take a quick gander at it so you can see what it is about?

~td~

[_JustMe]

Yes I understand that. In fact, that is precisely what I myself has said back to the overall general standards raised against Mormon research in general and mine in particular. It's mere excuses not to engage in the substance of the arguments and research simply because it is not peer reviewed and published. But that has been thrown my way enough that I now am in the mood to throw it back, to everyone in general. Publish or perish.

It's more effective if you "throw it back" to the actual people who made this accusation, and not to people who regularly engage with the work of apologists - like me. It just looks silly right now, and like an excuse.

Fair enough.

[_truth dancer]

Back to the point of the thread...

So, for those who do not want to read anything Beastie has written, fine.

Don't read it.

Now, can someone respond to her points?

You don't have to read her website to respond.

Not responding because someone doesn't want to read her website is pretty silly, in my opinion.

~td~

[_JustMe]

TD

Again, if anyone has an argument with the information on her site, the argument is not with Beastie, it is with the researchers, experts, and scholars in the field whom Beastie clearly cites.

Not with her editorial comments? Not with her subjective choice of who to pick and suggest are the significant, important, and valid authors and scholars? Not with her selective quoting of a few selective scholars on the issues? There is no way in viewing her website that it is only the researchers ideas and interpretations which are posted there. Beastie's hand is all over the place, as I have already noted. I have seen her site, and it is well done. But her analysis, comments, ideas, interpretations, etc. are not the only possible ones nor necessarily the most valid. Until she has her views peer reviewed and published is what I am saying. You are equating everything she says, interprets, and understands as what the scholars she quotes means. I don't see the two the same at all in any manner.

[_beastie]

Not with her editorial comments? Not with her subjective choice of who to pick and suggest are the significant, important, and valid authors and scholars? Not with her selective quoting of a few selective scholars on the issues? There is no way in viewing her website that it is only the researchers ideas and interpretations which are posted there. Beastie's hand is all over the place, as I have already noted. I have seen her site, and it is well done. But her analysis, comments, ideas, interpretations, etc. are not the only possible ones nor necessarily the most valid. Until she has her views peer reviewed and published is what I am saying. You are equating everything she says, interprets, and understands as what the scholars she quotes means. I don't see the two the same at all in any manner.

Once again, by all means, demonstrate how I'm in error. Until and unless you do so, this all sounds quite hollow.

[_JustMe]

Not with her editorial comments? Not with her subjective choice of who to pick and suggest are the significant, important, and valid authors and scholars? Not with her selective quoting of a few selective scholars on the issues? There is no way in viewing her website that it is only the researchers ideas and interpretations which are posted there. Beastie's hand is all over the place, as I have already noted. I have seen her site, and it is well done. But her analysis, comments, ideas, interpretations, etc. are not the only possible ones nor necessarily the most valid. Until she has her views peer reviewed and published is what I am saying. You are equating everything she says, interprets, and understands as what the scholars she quotes means. I don't see the two the same at all in any manner.

Beastie

Once again, by all means, demonstrate how I'm in error. Until and unless you do so, this all sounds quite hollow.

I said nothing about being in error. I said your hand is all over the scholars' comments and TD's view that you have added nothing but scholarly comments in an objective manner is simply false. You and what you report scholars saying are simply not the same as what the scholars say at all. It's no biggie. Actually it is hollow isn't it! Thank you for noting that. It is always hollow when the argument about peer review as a weapon against accepting online research is thrown out. I hope we will all remember this for the future, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[_truth dancer]

TD

Again, if anyone has an argument with the information on her site, the argument is not with Beastie, it is with the researchers, experts, and scholars in the field whom Beastie clearly cites.

Not with her editorial comments? Not with her subjective choice of who to pick and suggest are the significant, important, and valid authors and scholars? Not with her selective quoting of a few selective scholars on the issues? There is no way in viewing her website that it is only the researchers ideas and interpretations which are posted there. Beastie's hand is all over the place, as I have already noted. I have seen her site, and it is well done. But her analysis, comments, ideas, interpretations, etc. are not the only possible ones nor necessarily the most valid. Until she has her views peer reviewed and published is what I am saying. You are equating everything she says, interprets, and understands as what the scholars she quotes means. I don't see the two the same at all in any manner.

As I said, if you don't want to use information Beastie has collected, quoted, and summarized on her site, then how about respond to the peer-reviewed information in the literature of the experts and scholars in the field?

I'm not suggesting Beastie's influence is not felt on her site. I'm suggesting that SHE is not the one coming up with the Mesoamerican research. She is sharing the well-respected, peer-reviewed research accepted in the academic world with those of us who are interested in the topic of Mormonism and Mesoamerica.

If you have read her site and see some errors by all means share them with us. If she has misrepresented the research of the scholars I'm sure she would like to know to improve the site.

But again, take Beastie's site out of the equation if you don't want to use her work.

You don't need her site to respond to her points.

OK... so how about respond to what the experts have stated? :-)

Seriously, using Beastie's site as an excuse to not respond to her points is silly.

Really JustMe... just give it a try. ;-)

~td~

[_truth dancer]

Hi Just Me,

You and what you report scholars saying are simply not the same as what the scholars say at all.

You need to support your accusation with examples of where Beastie has misrepresented the "scholars"?


~td~

[_JustMe]

td

You need to support your accusation with examples of where Beastie has misrepresented the "scholars"?

Not really. I don't think I am all that interested in going the rounds with her right now. I personally have no need at all to respond to her materials. I have my own projects to work on. Hers are her priority, mine are mine. I can disagree plenty with her without feeling the need to show al the ins and outs of her scholars ideas.

[_harmony]

td

You need to support your accusation with examples of where Beastie has misrepresented the "scholars"?

Not really. I don't think I am all that interested in going the rounds with her right now. I personally have no need at all to respond to her materials. I have my own projects to work on. Hers are her priority, mine are mine. I can disagree plenty with her without feeling the need to show al the ins and outs of her scholars ideas.

Actually, if you want to be lumped with the likes of Brant, you do have to engage her ideas. You can't just attack her personally. Now if you want to be lumped with the likes of Droopy and Gaz, then by all means, do not attack her ideas. In other words, if you don't address her ideas, you're just fluff, smoke and mirrors, just another idiot with a keyboard. And we'll treat you accordingly. Your decision, your destiny.