DCP claims no one has refuted LDS archeological evidence in the past 3 decades

[drumdude]

There were no angelic plates because there are no such things as gods and angels. Stories of them are not evidence of supernatural beings as much as they're demonstrations human fears, longings and gullibility. There are hundreds of such beings that were once believed in, and while most are out of fashion, the tendency to such belief is alive and well.

That a small handful of mostly related and certainly theologically-minded 18th Century rural townsfolk might believe in them is all but a certainty, considering that sophisticated and educated adults still believe in them in the 21st Century. The "historical" data of ancient cities and tribes described in the Book of Mormon is apparently not taught in History class, because there is no evidence for them. Anthropologists roll their eyes out of their sockets when this "evidence" is brought up. If that's not enough, Mr. Smith was not unknown to various local constabularies, having perpetrated scams of dowsing rods and fake gold mine claims, etc.

That people by the millions in the modern day will believe a charismatic scam artist is being demonstrated at this very moment, on every newscast.

Do they? John Sorenson didn't. John Clark doesn't. Kerry Hull doesn't. Brant Gardner doesn't. Richard Hansen doesn't. Do you have any evidence -- I laugh to myself even as I ask the question! -- of any serious, specific engagement with their writing by any non-LDS anthropologist within, say, the past three decades?

DCP spends hours and hours each day having the same exact arguments with gemli. Even when he's on a vacation with his family. They're usually extremely stupid and embarrassing to scroll through. But every once in a while you see DCP get so worked up, that he makes a claim like this.

Thomas Murphy, Robert Coe, Robert Ritner, and many other academics have wasted so much of their valuable time debunking the ridiculous historical claims of Mormonism. And then they spent dozens of hours meticulously explaining that work in Mormon Stories podcasts. And DCP just digs his head into the sand and says "show me the engagement!"

I just don't get how DCP can consider himself an honest person, or an academic. He's a professional shill and nothing more.

[Moksha]

Dr. Peterson is right. Has anyone come forward to cast doubt on those many pieces of Nephite pottery or the Mesoamerican chariots found in BYU archeology sites? This is the reassurance that members are counting on.

[IHAQ]

There were no angelic plates because there are no such things as gods and angels. Stories of them are not evidence of supernatural beings as much as they're demonstrations human fears, longings and gullibility. There are hundreds of such beings that were once believed in, and while most are out of fashion, the tendency to such belief is alive and well.

That a small handful of mostly related and certainly theologically-minded 18th Century rural townsfolk might believe in them is all but a certainty, considering that sophisticated and educated adults still believe in them in the 21st Century. The "historical" data of ancient cities and tribes described in the Book of Mormon is apparently not taught in History class, because there is no evidence for them. Anthropologists roll their eyes out of their sockets when this "evidence" is brought up. If that's not enough, Mr. Smith was not unknown to various local constabularies, having perpetrated scams of dowsing rods and fake gold mine claims, etc.

That people by the millions in the modern day will believe a charismatic scam artist is being demonstrated at this very moment, on every newscast.

Do they? John Sorenson didn't. John Clark doesn't. Kerry Hull doesn't. Brant Gardner doesn't. Richard Hansen doesn't. Do you have any evidence -- I laugh to myself even as I ask the question! -- of any serious, specific engagement with their writing by any non-LDS anthropologist within, say, the past three decades?

That they aren't taken seriously by non-LDS anthropologists should tell DCP something other than what he thinks it demonstrates...

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DCP and his fellow charlatans are master woozle hunters.



Mormons believe their Book of Mormon artifacts exist, or that indigenous ruins are somehow related to the Book of Mormon characters because DCP and his buddies made the art of deception their jobs. Obviously they enjoy the wordplay and gamesmanship of wriggling out of philosophical and scientific strangleholds, but the long-term damage they do to Mormon reasoning is significant.

- Doc

[Moksha]

Has anyone come forward to cast doubt on those many pieces of Nephite pottery or the Mesoamerican chariots found in BYU archeology sites? This is the reassurance that members are counting on.

I think these points were hammered home in the great Jenkins-Hamblin debates. With sufficient product from the Utah Woolen Mills, vast numbers of members can have their eyes covered.




ByTW, the Woozle Effect can readily be observed at Trump rallies.

[Rivendale]

There were no angelic plates because there are no such things as gods and angels. Stories of them are not evidence of supernatural beings as much as they're demonstrations human fears, longings and gullibility. There are hundreds of such beings that were once believed in, and while most are out of fashion, the tendency to such belief is alive and well.

That a small handful of mostly related and certainly theologically-minded 18th Century rural townsfolk might believe in them is all but a certainty, considering that sophisticated and educated adults still believe in them in the 21st Century. The "historical" data of ancient cities and tribes described in the Book of Mormon is apparently not taught in History class, because there is no evidence for them. Anthropologists roll their eyes out of their sockets when this "evidence" is brought up. If that's not enough, Mr. Smith was not unknown to various local constabularies, having perpetrated scams of dowsing rods and fake gold mine claims, etc.

That people by the millions in the modern day will believe a charismatic scam artist is being demonstrated at this very moment, on every newscast.

Do they? John Sorenson didn't. John Clark doesn't. Kerry Hull doesn't. Brant Gardner doesn't. Richard Hansen doesn't. Do you have any evidence -- I laugh to myself even as I ask the question! -- of any serious, specific engagement with their writing by any non-LDS anthropologist within, say, the past three decades?

DCP spends hours and hours each day having the same exact arguments with gemli. Even when he's on a vacation with his family. They're usually extremely stupid and embarrassing to scroll through. But every once in a while you see DCP get so worked up, that he makes a claim like this.

Thomas Murphy, Robert Coe, Robert Ritner, and many other academics have wasted so much of their valuable time debunking the ridiculous historical claims of Mormonism. And then they spent dozens of hours meticulously explaining that work in Mormon Stories podcasts. And DCP just digs his head into the sand and says "show me the engagement!"

I just don't get how DCP can consider himself an honest person, or an academic. He's a professional shill and nothing more.

He also likes it both ways. He consistently dies on the hill of John Hick's epistemic distance.

[drumdude]

DCP spends hours and hours each day having the same exact arguments with gemli. Even when he's on a vacation with his family. They're usually extremely stupid and embarrassing to scroll through. But every once in a while you see DCP get so worked up, that he makes a claim like this.

Thomas Murphy, Robert Coe, Robert Ritner, and many other academics have wasted so much of their valuable time debunking the ridiculous historical claims of Mormonism. And then they spent dozens of hours meticulously explaining that work in Mormon Stories podcasts. And DCP just digs his head into the sand and says "show me the engagement!"

I just don't get how DCP can consider himself an honest person, or an academic. He's a professional shill and nothing more.

He also likes it both ways. He consistently dies on the hill of John Hick's epistemic distance.

Excellent point.

[dastardly stem]

The problem with DCP's position and his buddies' arguments, which he thinks are untouched, is they actually think they have legitimately flipped the burden of proof. Therefore on their view any possible connection, particularly it seems the less probable ones, helps make a case. Add up all those improbabilities and somehow that means there is a solid case for Book of Mormon historicity. This remains a problem on apologetics as a whole. it's not credible scholarship because it's only purpose, it seems, is to try and make possibility appear to be a probability. And truly, as they know and we all know, all believers need is a possibility--magic takes up the slack.

[Dr Exiled]

This is a silly misleading argument. Anthropologists already refuted the mopologist claims and just like refuting flat earth claims, experts don't need to continually refute the mopologist claims to remain a valid refutation. Where are the Nephite pottery remains? Where are the remains tying Israelites from circa 600 BC to the new world, etc. etc.? You have no case DCP.

[Tom]

Years ago, I asked a prominent non-LDS anthropologist to comment on Clark’s infamous 2005 BYU address. The anthropologist declined, saying he didn’t wish to comment on what he considered to be faith claims.

Clark:

Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are.