Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_beastie]

I'm traveling on business these days, so my time is very limited, but I felt motivated to reply to this post, especially because I watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night for the first time. (Incidentally, it was a visually impressive film, but the script/story was, in my opinion, weak. I don't recommend it.) However, I did enjoy watching the "Making of" documentary on the same DVD. Dr. Richard Hansen figured prominently in it, as the primary consultant on the film. I have very much, over the years, enjoyed listening to/watching various presentations and reading papers by Dr. Hansen. He is certainly one of the most highly respected archaeologists in the world today. His knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica, and of the ancient Maya, is encyclopedic. His ongoing work in the Mirador Basin is a model for all future projects in Mesoamerica.

Oh, and incidentally, Dr. Hansen is, just like John Clark, a devout believer in the Book of Mormon as an ancient record and as inspired scripture.

I was already well aware of Dr. Hansen's participation in the film, as well as the fact that he's a believer.

I fail to see how this refutes the point I made. Perhaps you have evidence that either Dr. Hansen or Dr. Clark have persuaded their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?

[_EAllusion]

I'm glad Dr. Hansen's personal belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon hasn't impacted his ability to do sound archeology.

Of course, this has nothing to do with whether he has been able to persuade any significant number of people in the scientific community of that belief on the basis of the evidence.

[_Morrissey]

I'm traveling on business these days, so my time is very limited, but I felt motivated to reply to this post, especially because I watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night for the first time. (Incidentally, it was a visually impressive film, but the script/story was, in my opinion, weak. I don't recommend it.) However, I did enjoy watching the "Making of" documentary on the same DVD. Dr. Richard Hansen figured prominently in it, as the primary consultant on the film. I have very much, over the years, enjoyed listening to/watching various presentations and reading papers by Dr. Hansen. He is certainly one of the most highly respected archaeologists in the world today. His knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica, and of the ancient Maya, is encyclopedic. His ongoing work in the Mirador Basin is a model for all future projects in Mesoamerica.

Oh, and incidentally, Dr. Hansen is, just like John Clark, a devout believer in the Book of Mormon as an ancient record and as inspired scripture.

I was already well aware of Dr. Hansen's participation in the film, as well as the fact that he's a believer.

I fail to see how this refutes the point I made. Perhaps you have evidence that either Dr. Hansen or Dr. Clark have persuaded their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?

I have it on good authority that Mel Gibson rejected Dr. Hansen's recommendation that the antagonists in the movie attack the protaganists' village with a cavalry charge on tapirs.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I thought you were vacationing in Hawaii?

I'm very, very rarely only on vacation.

[_William Schryver]

I'm traveling on business these days, so my time is very limited, but I felt motivated to reply to this post, especially because I watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night for the first time. (Incidentally, it was a visually impressive film, but the script/story was, in my opinion, weak. I don't recommend it.) However, I did enjoy watching the "Making of" documentary on the same DVD. Dr. Richard Hansen figured prominently in it, as the primary consultant on the film. I have very much, over the years, enjoyed listening to/watching various presentations and reading papers by Dr. Hansen. He is certainly one of the most highly respected archaeologists in the world today. His knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica, and of the ancient Maya, is encyclopedic. His ongoing work in the Mirador Basin is a model for all future projects in Mesoamerica.

Oh, and incidentally, Dr. Hansen is, just like John Clark, a devout believer in the Book of Mormon as an ancient record and as inspired scripture.

I was already well aware of Dr. Hansen's participation in the film, as well as the fact that he's a believer.

I fail to see how this refutes the point I made. Perhaps you have evidence that either Dr. Hansen or Dr. Clark have persuaded their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?

Your "point" is irrelevant, of course. Why should Clark or Hansen even attempt to persuade "their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?" And how do you know, at all, whether or not they have been able to do just that? Obviously, you don't. You simply assume, as per usual.

The only relevant point, as I see it, is that here is a man whose knowledge of the material greatly exceeds your own, or that of almost anyone on the planet, and yet that knowledge has not led to his disbelieving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. To me, this is very telling. Of course, you and your friends here will, with a facile dismissal, attribute it to the amazing capacity of humans to accommodate cognitive dissonance. I see many other possibilities, including the one that (however remote it may seem to you) he knows more than you do about the subject matter.

[The Stig]

LessUsee:

I have it on good authority that Mel Gibson rejected Dr. Hansen's recommendation that the antagonists in the movie attack the protaganists' village with a cavalry charge on tapirs.

Clever.

In any case, the villagers certainly had an inventive means to slay tapirs for dinner, didn't they?

[_beastie]

Your "point" is irrelevant, of course. Why should Clark or Hansen even attempt to persuade "their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?" And how do you know, at all, whether or not they have been able to do just that? Obviously, you don't. You simply assume, as per usual.

The only relevant point, as I see it, is that here is a man whose knowledge of the material greatly exceeds your own, or that of almost anyone on the planet, and yet that knowledge has not led to his disbelieving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. To me, this is very telling. Of course, you and your friends here will, with a facile dismissal, attribute it to the amazing capacity of humans to accommodate cognitive dissonance. I see many other possibilities, including the one that (however remote it may seem to you) he knows more than you do about the subject matter.

Do you actually read the text to which you respond?

Dr. Clark, himself, told us that he has attempted to convince his colleagues, but has failed.

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

Both Dr. Clark and Dr. Hansen first obtained a testimony, and THEN the evidence became clear:

And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

Having a prerequisite of already believing before one can see the evidence that supports belief is problematic.

Most readers here are aware of the fact that one of the most esteemed Mesoamerican scholars, Michael Coe, is very dismissive of the idea that the Book of Mormon could be Mesoamerican in origin. He's the only one I know who addressed it directly, but other highly esteemed scholars, like Arthur Demarest, have made dismissive statements about Mesoamericans being connected to one of the Judaic tribes, as well.

I think even Dr. Clark and Dr. Hansen would concede that Coe and Demarest Trump them in terms of authoritative voices in the field.

[_EAllusion]

Marcus Ross - Ph.D. in paleontology from Rhode Island U

Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard

Both these individuals have a much, much greater education in the geological history of the planet, especially as it relates to life's history than anyone here does.

Both also believe that the earth is a few thousand years old and that global, Noahic, flood happened even more recently.

I find this telling. But what it is telling me is different than what is implied above.

[_Morrissey]

The only relevant point, as I see it, is that here is a man whose knowledge of the material greatly exceeds your own, or that of almost anyone on the planet, and yet that knowledge has not led to his disbelieving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. To me, this is very telling. Of course, you and your friends here will, with a facile dismissal, attribute it to the amazing capacity of humans to accommodate cognitive dissonance. I see many other possibilities, including the one that (however remote it may seem to you) he knows more than you do about the subject matter.

So what? Men as smart as, or even smarter than Hansen, have looked at the same evidence and concluded that the Book of Mormon is bunk, Michael Coe being one prominent example. Other smart, highly credentialed men and women believe in Scientology, the rapture, alien abductions, big foot, crackers turning literally into the body of Christ, and the like. This appeal to authority proves absolutely nothing, other than really smart people can believe really stupid things for whatever reason.

by the way, I liked Apocalypto. Mel might be an anti-Semite and raving hypocrite, but he is, IMHO, a good filmmaker.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Both Dr. Clark and Dr. Hansen first obtained a testimony, and THEN the evidence became clear:

As opposed to other scientists and scholars, whose minds are tabulae rasae, who simply stand before the world of objective facts without any preconceived notions and permit The Truth to speak through them unfiltered?