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

[doubtingthomas]

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?

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.

Peterson is just playing games here. Notice the careful wording, " of any serious, specific engagement". Translation: No non-LDS scholar has published a peer-reviewed article that conclusively disproves the Interpreter's Book of Mormon theories.

It's very hard to prove a negative, especially when the theories don't have a lot of specific details.

[dastardly stem]

I know you know this, but unfortunately for DCP none of these points suggests the story in the book represents history, or is a writing by ancient people.

He doesn't claim that these are doing anything except shifting the burden of proof off him and on us. He also expects to receive 50 page scholarly rebuttals of every single article that Interpreter publishes like a machine every single week for the last 10 years.

In other words, if there is not a critical scholarly journal working full time to refute everything Interpreter publishes, with equal or greater manpower, then Interpreter wins by default.

This is interestingly the same problem the entire world has today. There are orders of magnitude more people creating disinformation than the number of people who can refute it point by point. And this disinformation, if it appeals to people who already have a bias towards believing it, doesn't even have to have much plausibility at all. You can just keep shotgunning it out, with much less effort than it takes to refute.

It's asymmetrical guerilla information warfare, and DCP loves that. The Kremlin does too.

He is a funny one.

[Marcus]

The evidence DCP offers gemli on a regular basis:

1) Joseph Smith couldn't have known how to insert early modern English (distinct from KJV English) into the Book of Mormon.
2) The Book of Mormon is too complex to have been dictated in the amount of time without a rock in a hat.
3) The plates were inarguably real because so many witnesses saw them.

David Copperfield’s ability to fly is inarguably real because many, many witnesses saw it happen.

As for 1 “early modern English,” the vast majority of that “proof” has now been retracted by non other than Royal Skousen, himself. As far as I know, other than a very quiet blog entry or two (that Peterson admonished readers not to copy), The Interpreter has not amended or notated any of the articles containing those retractions, thus continuing to publish retracted and debunked material. Of course no one has an incentive to refute any of that, as the authors themselves have refuted their work by declaring it to be in error.

[Dr Moore]

The evidence DCP offers gemli on a regular basis:

1) Joseph Smith couldn't have known how to insert early modern English (distinct from KJV English) into the Book of Mormon.
2) The Book of Mormon is too complex to have been dictated in the amount of time without a rock in a hat.
3) The plates were inarguably real because so many witnesses saw them.

David Copperfield’s ability to fly is inarguably real because many, many witnesses saw it happen.

As for 1 “early modern English,” the vast majority of that “proof” has now been retracted by non other than Royal Skousen, himself. As far as I know, other than a very quiet blog entry or two (that Peterson admonished readers not to copy), The Interpreter has not amended or notated any of the articles containing those retractions, thus continuing to publish retracted and debunked material. Of course no one has an incentive to refute any of that, as the authors themselves have refuted their work by declaring it to be in error.

such an odd episode. The ghost translators and all. One of the weirdest self-folded dimensions in all of Mopologetics in my view. And yet, caught up in the euphoria of that super-niche sideshow, Early Modern English remains one of the two highest scoring “evidences” of antiquity in Kyler Rasmussen’s Interpeter math porn project. Quite the indicator of motivated reasoning.

[Marcus]

David Copperfield’s ability to fly is inarguably real because many, many witnesses saw it happen.

As for 1 “early modern English,” the vast majority of that “proof” has now been retracted by non other than Royal Skousen, himself. As far as I know, other than a very quiet blog entry or two (that Peterson admonished readers not to copy), The Interpreter has not amended or notated any of the articles containing those retractions, thus continuing to publish retracted and debunked material. Of course no one has an incentive to refute any of that, as the authors themselves have refuted their work by declaring it to be in error.

such an odd episode. The ghost translators and all. One of the weirdest self-folded dimensions in all of Mopologetics in my view. And yet, caught up in the euphoria of that super-niche sideshow, Early Modern English remains one of the two highest scoring “evidences” of antiquity in Kyler Rasmussen’s Interpeter math porn project. Quite the indicator of motivated reasoning.

One of the funniest parts of Rasmussen’s analysis was when he posted the data he was using and he concluded the KJV was NOT Early Modern English. his main chart showed that the KJV, written in 1611, had 1340 instances of the archaic language Carmack was studying, but…. 4385 instances of NON-ARCHAIC language. (Yes, I went back and confirmed the numbers.)

So, on the basis of Carmack’s conclusion that the Early Modern English version of the 1611 KJV has less than 25% Early Modern English in the syntax he studied, he concluded Smith wasn’t imitating the Bible. But someone was using Early Modern English, and it wasn’t Smith... Or, apparently, the people in the 15th century who translated and published the Early Modern English version of the 1611 KJV.

I know, I know, it is as illogical as it sounds.

[Dr Moore]

such an odd episode. The ghost translators and all. One of the weirdest self-folded dimensions in all of Mopologetics in my view. And yet, caught up in the euphoria of that super-niche sideshow, Early Modern English remains one of the two highest scoring “evidences” of antiquity in Kyler Rasmussen’s Interpeter math porn project. Quite the indicator of motivated reasoning.

One of the funniest parts of Rasmussen’s analysis was when he posted the data he was using and he concluded the KJV was NOT Early Modern English. his main chart showed that the KJV, written in 1611, had 1340 instances of the archaic language Carmack was studying, but…. 4385 instances of NON-ARCHAIC language. (Yes, I went back and confirmed the numbers.)

So, on the basis of Carmack’s conclusion that the Early Modern English version of the 1611 KJV has less than 25% Early Modern English in the syntax he studied, he concluded Smith wasn’t imitating the Bible. But someone was using Early Modern English, and it wasn’t Smith... Or, apparently, the people in the 15th century who translated and published the Early Modern English version of the 1611 KJV.

I know, I know, it is as illogical as it sounds.

It truly does stand out among so many pseudo science efforts performed on the Interpreter stage. There too we find a repository of words, for which I’m sure a lot of heat was generated in production. The academic world couldn’t care less. That isn’t a good thing nor is it a sign of durability. Maybe it’s a journal of faith, but no one outside their circular would call it a journal of scholarship with a straight face.

[Markk]

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.

About ten years ago, I asked multiple Archeologist via _e-amil about LDS archeology, to real archeologists, and pasted the responses here. Here are a few that I found in an old g-mail account. If DCP was honest with this, he could certainly invite counter arguments for debate at the FAIR conference, or a similar stage.


Stuart, David S <davidstuart@austin.utexas.edu>
Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 9:28 AM

to me

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Thank you for your email. To be perfectly honest with you, as a scholar and archaeologist of the ancient Maya, I feel that there is no connection whatsoever between the Book of Mormon and the archaeology of ancient Mesoamerica. All of the evidence points to the ancient cultures of the area standing on their own developmentally, linguistically, historically, etc., without any connection to cultures of the ancient Near East. So, judging the veracity of the Book of Mormon is really comes down to a matter of one's faith -- certainly not my area of expertise or insight. That's really all I can say based on my scientific and historical perspective.

My best, David Stuart


Heather McKillop <hmckill@lsu.edu>
Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 7:54 AM

to me

Hi Mark:
There is no archaeological evidence to support the statements for Mesoamerica. If you are interested in my views of the ancient Maya, I published a book: The Ancient Maya (Norton Publishers) available in local libraries and bookstores.
With best regards,
Heather

Heather McKillop, PhD, RPA
Doris Z. Stone Professor of Latin American Studies
Dept. of Geography and Anthropology
227 Howe-Russell Geoscience Building
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge LA 70803-4105
email: hmckill@lsu.edu
web: www.ga.lsu.edu/mckillop.html
web: www.famsi.org/reports/05032/
web: www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/201 ... echnology/


Nicholas Saunders <Nicholas.Saunders@bristol.ac.uk>
Wed, Jul 10, 2013, 12:12 AM

to Nicholas, me

Dear Mark, thank you for your query. This is an interesting 'anthropology of religion' topic, though I am unaware of any scholarly research having been done on it.

Archaeologically speaking, I am also unaware of any connections in this regard between the Mormons and Mesoamerica - all the evidence points to a range of indigenous Amerindian cultures which developed in Mesoamerica without any influence from the Old World (or any great Asian civilizations for that matter either).

The basics as we know them contradict the various quotations in your email:
they didn't have brass or steel (until Europeans arrived); neither did they have horses or chariots, and there is no evidence for Jesus or any Christian influence before the Spanish Conquest by Cortes in 1519-21. There are lots of stories and myths about Jesus visiting the Americas in general (South America as well as Mesoamerica), but as far as I know all these are reverse-engineered, inasmuch as they are hybrid stories which local indigenous people created under the trauma of European conquest, and/or propaganda accounts by Spanish priests looking for evidence of Christianity before the 15th and 16th centuries.

There is I think a whole industry on these kinds of stories, from the Maya to the Aztecs, Incas, and Amazonian tribes etc - a really intriguing topic for anthropological research - but not based on any hard undisputed archaeological evidence - of which there is zero.

So, I suppose it depends on what kind of research you are doing: the Book of Mormon accounts of Mesoamerica were created for a reason and that offers challenging research from an anthropological perspective; but as for archaeology as far as I am aware there is absolutely nothing.


best regards
N J Saunders


I pasted these and more here in 2013… I even entered into a exchange with a archeologist from UCSD, who was in a dig in mesoamerica at the time that really tore the Mormon story apart from a Jewish perspective, especial in regards to what a Temple is and what a Temple must have. I can’t find it but if anyone has access to 2013 archives I would love to hear DCP respond to it.

[drumdude]

His response will just be “they obviously don’t know enough about Mormonism.”

[Dr Exiled]

Or he would say these responses aren't "serious" engagement with the nonsense mopologist theories, because, obviously, "serious" scholars would take the nonsense theories seriously and not brush them aside as merely faith based, motivated reasoning.

[dastardly stem]

Yep drumdude and Dr Exiled, that’s right and yet it’s not these actual scholars’ fault. It’s still his burden to show them that they are wrong. In Mark’s post a couple of them made their views clear. If they don’t know, then he’d be claiming they are claiming these things in ignorance. He has a burden to prove that out, awaken them if you will and show them what they don’t know. Instead he and the rest of the mopologists are giving these scholars less engagement than they are supposedly wishing to get. I’m thinking these Mormon apologists know this and simply want to hide out pretending their work is accomplishing something in the world of scholarship without having to actually engage with scholars. “Hey, man, our phd’s say it all. We’ve obviously done scholarship. I mean, look at our credentials. Smart people don’t believe in stupid stuff. Of course our work’s credible. No one’s paying us any attention because they are biased against faith.”

Listen to those Mormons they’ve fooled. They actually think since Perego, Gee, Carmack, DCP and the many others are saying something that amounts to serious scholarly engagement proving out their points, that is even if they make points.

In many places where discussions are happening when it comes to religious critique Mormonism is often used as an example of a religion that persists and yet has basically been disproven. Whether that’s true or not isn’t the point. The point is DCP continues to pretend that isn’t the perception or any such perceiving is wrong because they have published junk on the internet, some of which is from actual PhDs. Of course you don’t produce scholarship by publishing stuff on the internet that hasn’t been evaluated by other scholars and is often easily debunked by lay people. As we’ve all been saying for years maintaining a blog is not engaging scholarship. It may be putting stuff out there that can raise to scholarship but we haven’t seen that. Of that which has been published by interpreter what has gone on to be peer reviewed and published in an actual academic journal? Nothing? Oh well that says it all—no attempted engagement with the scholars they are complaining about from a distance… and that distance seems to be intentional. That’s what’s working in their favor. Now they complain scholars don’t pay attention keeping their readership happy. After all once you believe something any old explanation when confronted with criticism will do.