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

[_JohnStuartMill]

You're wrong, Morrissey. Clearly, the apologists are correct when they self-servingly equate a worldview won by hundreds of years of rigorous experiments and philosophical grappling with one that supports itself by appealing to emotions.

Well now that's a fair and just summary of my views.

How are "the promptings of the Holy Ghost" distinguishable from emotions?

[_Daniel Peterson]

But we must note that the Historicity Theory is still a long way off vindication in professional archaeology.

So was relativity, when it was first proposed. So were lots of theories.

Perhaps he's sort of like Newton speculating on theology but keeping it separately from his science.

Perhaps. Not from what he says to me, though.

I don't see that sharpness when it comes to the Book of Mormon historicity question

That's because you disagree with me on that. There's no difference in the "sharpness," otherwise.

I do realise it's primarily a hope, based on faith, and subjective revelation.

You realize wrong, Ray.

[_Daniel Peterson]

How are "the promptings of the Holy Ghost" distinguishable from emotions?

Thank you for confirming my point. Your summary of my views really contained your views, rather than mine.

How are such promptings distinguishable?

How is vision distinguishable from very realistic hallucination?

I've had experiences in which such promptings have been remarkably clear, and quite distinct from, even opposed to, my emotions.

Believe it or not. Just don't persist in trying to put your opinions in my mouth. (That's beastie's province. She might become jealous.)

[_beastie]

My comment about the history of science had absolutely nothing whatever to do you with the extinction of the horse or evidence for Mesoamerican bows and arrows. It was a more general theoretical point than that, and you missed it completely. I'm fine with that. However, I'm still operating on what I believe to be the reasonable hypothesis that Morrissey is a serious discussion partner.

I addressed your larger point in bullet three.

Dja fergit about Wade Miller, beastie? And the others you've treated in similar fashion?

Now that’s interesting. I speculated that Dr. Miller was willing to ignore a widely accepted assertion – that horses went extinct in the New World 11,000 years ago – because his belief in the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican document, based on a spiritual witness – justified ignoring information that he either feels will be debunked in the future, or is irrelevant for some reason. To you, this equates asserting that he is “a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith.”

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh come on, beastie. Sheesh.

In fact, those same people may wonder if apologists are being deliberately misleading.

Although, of course, you would be very reluctant to wonder such a thing, and would only do so as a last resort.

I actually do try and reserve for a last resort. Sometimes the examples are so egregious that it does seem the only reasonable conclusion. I classify Dr. Miller’s statement as one such example. He had to know that his statement was going to mislead his audience into believing something that the vast majority of scholars in his field reject.

And no, you didn't actually address my point in Bullet #3. What you addressed wasn't my point.

[_Ray A]

That's because you disagree with me on that. There's no difference in the "sharpness," otherwise.

No, it's not because I disagree with you, it's because most disagree with you. We've all had access to the same literature, and I might add, the same "spiritual witness". We almost certainly differ on the interpretation of that witness.

I do realise it's primarily a hope, based on faith, and subjective revelation.

You realize wrong, Ray.

The reason I said this is because in my case it was so (and I believe it is for most). The "hope" of historicity (however small) was there because of my spiritual belief, but there came a point, for me, when it could no longer hold (the "evidence for", however minor). Perhaps you have greater trust in your assessment of "positive evidence", or "confirming evidence" than I do. I just don't see it as confirming at all.

[_beastie]

Oh come on, beastie. Sheesh.

If your point was that I was asserting that Dr. Miller had made a deliberate decision to omit information that contradicted his assertion, then why were you referring to the "history of science"?

There are not many options for why Dr. Miller omitted this information. I invite you to provide an option other than the ones I've provided.

[_Ray A]

I've had experiences in which such promptings have been remarkably clear, and quite distinct from, even opposed to, my emotions.

And stronger than your logical deductions?

[_William Schryver]

Dan,

In the final analysis, and after suffering through so many threads like this I can no longer even come close to keeping count, we are compelled to remind ourselves that this handful of arrogantly self-assured exmormons plying their unique trade on the mormondiscussions.com message board constitutes an almost indiscernible blip on the scope of critical significance. My numerous discussions with beastlie, for example, have done nothing more than to confirm the fact that exmormon “intellectuals” render the term “rigorous analysis” nothing but an endeavor in academic comedy. Mark Wright’s assessment of her has been the most accurate to date: she is an academic poseur whose entire credibility derives from the uninformed applause certain to be found in this small circle of her “peers."

As for myself, it is late where I am, and I have exhausted my capacity for dealing with the perpetual demonstrations of illogic and incognizant ignorance emanating from these people.

I must therefore leave them to you alone for the time being ...

[_JohnStuartMill]

But we must note that the Historicity Theory is still a long way off vindication in professional archaeology.

So was relativity, when it was first proposed. So were lots of theories.

Actually, relativity hit the ground running in terms of the data that it explained. In the late 19th century, scientists were getting observational data that didn't fit with the conventional physics of the time; Einstein's relativity accounted for those observations pretty much immediately. Mormonism is about as old as modern archaeology, and has zero "conundrums solved" to its credit. The analogy between the two is incredibly weak.