DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_Mister Scratch]

He is clearly talking about peoplew who are asking/stating that the Maya are the Nephites or Atlanteans. Sorenson or Clark or Gardner don't say that. They talk aboiut a contemporary culture. So Demarest is not talking about them.[/quot]

Charity, please. This is so embarrassing to watch. Don't you get it? To the real live experts, Nephites = Atlanteans! They have the same status (none)and are given the same respect (none), because there is the same evidence to support their supposed existence: none.

The top LDS apologists have gone toe to toe with Beastie on this over and over again, and have come out on the losing end over and over again. They run from her now. Your dignity, and your argument such as it was, is in tatters. Return and report your defeat and see if Brant has anything new to throw at Beastie. Because right now, the LDS argument on this is pathetic.

Actually, what I'd be reallly excited to see would be Brant "throwing" his arguments in a real, live, legit academic venue! Now that would be something, and, to boot, it would support the baloney claims of DCP, Hamblin, and etc. that they are not actually "embarrassed" about this stuff.

[_harmony]

Actually, what I'd be reallly excited to see would be Brant "throwing" his arguments in a real, live, legit academic venue! Now that would be something, and, to boot, it would support the baloney claims of DCP, Hamblin, and etc. that they are not actually "embarrassed" about this stuff.

We both know that's not going to happen, Scratch. It would be a suicide move, and I've never seen Brant exhibit that kind of stupidity.

In the here and now, if charity wants to get into an argument with Beastie, she has to have more ammunition than she's got right now.

[_charity]

Heh. Part of what irritates me about this statement is that I spent many hours seriously engaging the text within the terms of LGT, and then wrote lengthy essays on my conclusions. I've linked them several times to Charity, who has not read them to this point, as far as I can tell. While I may not count as a "scholar", I certainly have educated myself and am using the words of scholars to make my points. No one can read my essays and pretend that I don't have adequate background knowledge of either Mesoamerica, the Book of Mormon, or current Book of Mormon apologetics. I constructed the essays based on accepting the basic premises of LGT in the first place (although that is arguable).

Oh well. Such is life.

What I saw in your previous references to what you wrote were blogs. I don't read blogs. Give me a link, and providing it isn't too "lengthy" I will take the time read it.

[_charity]

He is clearly talking about peoplew who are asking/stating that the Maya are the Nephites or Atlanteans. Sorenson or Clark or Gardner don't say that. They talk aboiut a contemporary culture. So Demarest is not talking about them.

Charity, please. This is so embarrassing to watch. Don't you get it? To the real live experts, Nephites = Atlanteans! They have the same status (none)and are given the same respect (none), because there is the same evidence to support their supposed existence: none.

The top LDS apologists have gone toe to toe with Beastie on this over and over again, and have come out on the losing end over and over again. They run from her now. Your dignity, and your argument such as it was, is in tatters. Return and report your defeat and see if Brant has anything new to throw at Beastie. Because right now, the LDS argument on this is pathetic.

If those "real life experts" mistakenly throw the steak in the garbage with the potato peels, it doesn't say much for them.

And when you try to negate what the Book of Mormon SCHOLARS are producing by dismissing them as "apologists" your tactic is obvious to all.

Edit to add: Have you read Larry Poulsen's stuff on directions? Good stuff. You ought to read it.

[_harmony]

If those "real life experts" mistakenly throw the steak in the garbage with the potato peels, it doesn't say much for them.

So all those experts, people who spend their life and career studying Mesoamerica, are throwing out the meat? C'mon,charity. Not even you could believe that.

And when you try to negate what the Book of Mormon SCHOLARS are producing by dismissing them as "apologists" your tactic is obvious to all.

I have no dog in this fight, charity. I'm simply trying to save you some embarrassment, since you're obviously coming into an argument/discussion that's been going on for literally years.

In case you missed it, those Book of Mormon SCHOLARS you're referring to, quoting, and referencing are apologists. Surely you knew this?

[_beastie]

What I saw in your previous references to what you wrote were blogs. I don't read blogs. Give me a link, and providing it isn't too "lengthy" I will take the time read it.

You demand critics deal with text, but only if it's not too lengthy. Ok.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... esoamerica

Scroll down to see the table of contents. I recommend in particular Kingship/Holy Lord and Polities and Power. They deal specifically with what you keep referring to as great matches for the Book of Mormon, such as warfare.

by the way, I've never provided a link to a blog. Obviously you've never even bothered to click on the links I keep providing.

Do you concede you were mistaken to focus on the word "Maya" in Demarest's citation, given Clark's willingness to use the term to describe Nephite and Lamanite artifacts?

For those who are interested, here's Poulsen's website on the topic:

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

He doesn't offer much. He deals mainly with geographic issues, and as far as I know, hasn't dealt with the serious problem of the disconnect between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica in terms of history, culture, and politics. I don't even see him as a serious contender. His map hardly varies from Sorenson, and certainly not enough to offset the problems I have outlined above.

[_Ray A]

I have no dog in this fight, charity.

Yes, you do, and its name is "beastie", so stop kidding yourself.

I'm simply trying to save you some embarrassment, since you're obviously coming into an argument/discussion that's been going on for literally years.

Which you have scrupulously followed, no doubt. Lots of "experts" here, I see.

In case you missed it, those Book of Mormon SCHOLARS you're referring to, quoting, and referencing are apologists. Surely you knew this?

Oh, I see, let's hand it all over to beastie - she's the "expert".

Why not quote some real experts, harmony. Do you even know who they are. Google time!

[_Ray A]

Here's mine. I do not pretend to be an expert on ancient Mesoamerica, but I do have more than a passing interest in the subject. NOTHING I've read supports the assertion you made earlier on this thread, about what a great fit the Book of Mormon is to ancient Mesoamerica, so I'm extremely curious as to what you've read that gives you the impression it is a good fit.

I’m not putting these in any particular order, other than the where they happen to be on my shelf. When more than one author is involved, I’m just listing the first. This does not include past library books I read but do not own. These were easily accessible, I may have more packed away.

1. The Myth of Quetzalcoatl – Enrique Florescano
2. Ancient Maya, Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization – Arthur Demarest
3. Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions – Blanton etc
4. The Aztecs – Richard Townsend
5. The Maya and Teotihuacan – Geoffrey Braswell
6. Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations – Arthur Demarest
7. Romancing the Maya – Mexican Antiquity in the American Imagination 1820-1915 – R. Tripp Evans
8. Ancient Oaxaca – Richard Blanton
9. Breaking the Maya Code – Michael Coe
10. Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World – Lynn Foester
11. Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare – Kathryn Brown
12. Popol Vuh – Dennis Tedlock
13. The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization – Richard Diehl
14. Religions of Mesoamerica: Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers – David Carrasco
15. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs – Michael Coe
16. Lords of Creation: The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship – Virginia Fields
17. Maya Political Science: Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos – Prudence Rice
18. Social Patterns in Pre-classic Mesoamerica – David C. Grove
19. The Code of Kings – Linda Schele
20. Ancient Maya Commoners – Jon C. Lohse
21. A Forest of Kings – Linda Schele
22. Mexican Highland Cultures: Sigvald Linne
23. The Mesoamerican Ballgame – Crenon L. Scarborough
24. The Maya – Michael Coe
25. Maya Cosmos – Linda Schele
26. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica – Ross Hassig (still reading)

Books related to the topic of archaeology and ancient history, but are related to the topic in some way:
27. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology – Kenneth Feder
28. The Past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory – Kenneth Feder
29. The Moundbuilder: Ancient People of Eastern Northern America – George Milner
30. Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley – Susan Woodward (still reading)
31. The History of Chocolate- Michael and Sophie Coe
32. Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed – Jared Diamond (includes Maya section)
33. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation of Archaeology – Ian Hodder
34. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? – William Dever
35. The Political Landscape – Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities – Adam Smith
36. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology & Salvation in the Ancient World – David Ulansey
37. Horses Through Time – Sandra Olsen
38. Guns, Germs, and Steel – Jared Diamond
39. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From – William Dever
40. Out of the Fiery Furnace: The Impact of Metals on the History of Mankind – Robert Raymond
41. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches – Ziony Zevit
42. Final Report: An Archaeologist Excavates His Past – Michael Coe (still reading)

beastie could only get away with this on an Internet board, especially a "scholarly" one like MDB. If she posted this on an academic forum of Mesoamerican archaeologist, whether the posters were for or against Mormonism, she would be laughed to scorn. It's something like Stephen Hawking saying he read 42 books on cosmology, and he got the answers to everything.

[_Calculus Crusader]

This is like the wart that keeps growing back, no matter how hard LDS apologists try to incise it.

The fact is that if there were any good reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was actually an ancient Mesoamerican text, containing over 500 pages of first person information about the time period, scholars would be all over it, angels or no.

There is no good reason to believe the Book of Mormon is actually an ancient Mesoamerican text, for those who haven't been told first-hand by God that it is just that. To those whom God has not shared such information, the idea that it is an ancient Mesoamerican text is frankly laughable.

Right. Skeptics could still accept the text, were it accurate, and dismiss the miraculous claims surrounding its "unearthing" by arguing Smith lied about how it was found and translated.

[_beastie]

beastie could only get away with this on an Internet board, especially a "scholarly" one like MDB. If she posted this on an academic forum of Mesoamerican archaeologist, whether the posters were for or against Mormonism, she would be laughed to scorn. It's something like Stephen Hawking saying he read 42 books on cosmology, and he got the answers to everything.

So you have to be the equivalent of the Mesoamerican Stephen Hawking to make an informed judgment on whether or not the Book of Mormon is coherent with Mesoamerica?

I'm sure that some apologists would like to encourage such a notion, but it's nonsense.