The 'Missing' Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham is a red herring. We already have the Papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated. The Book of Abraham was translated from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text).
We do have all the papyri that Smith used. Gee is fumbling around in the dark. This video is for the faithful and is not really looking at the hard issues. "There could have been" is no argument. Why did the scribes copy the symbols from the BOB rather than that of the BOA papyri which would be still in existance
9/11 was a demolition job blamed on Muslims so that the US could invade and exploit other countries using "War on Terror" as an excuse. Don't let the fearmongers brainwash you.
LOL! Omiolo, I predict it might take you a year to convince him that step one is essential. It always amazes me how critics expect *us* to do *their* homework. We give them sources and they refuse to go to them and learn from them. sheesh!
I won't provide you with spit until you bother to show you comprehend the Book of Mormon's teachings, and are actually trying to live them. If that offends you, I guess you are just going to have to get over it. I don't have to waste my time with doubters if I so choose not to. I am more than sure God will be perfectly happy with me sharing the scriptures on You Tube rather than worryingabout your doubts.
Because individuals who write for FARMS are NOT employed by FARMS, and have the right to think ontheir own. So much for all Mormons being in lock step and not being allowed to speak their piece. I have published 2 pieces in FARMS, and I betchta you won't bother with them either will you. You are fast becoming a waste of time.
"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Nibley already took care of this issue. But, that's right, anotherdumb Mormon so it is safe to ignore his materials also. In fact, ignore everything we publish, including here in these comments! Th3ese aren't peer reviewed, so why waste your time wrangling amongst those of us who are invalid, unscholarly, obviously illogical, and unpublished? Seems to me that you are the one at fault around here for wasting your time amongst ne'er do wells.
Ha! Your spin of the facts is hilarious. If for one moment you thought it prudent to step outside of the standard anti-Mormon spin machine, you would see that the facts don't support your sad little theory. I dare you to read and refute Richard L. Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" as well as his other works. I DARE you.
"Does it cite egyptologists speaking of reformed egyptian?"
Yep. But I guess you'll never know since you'll never watch them. Meh...
""Does it cite egyptologists speaking of reformed egyptian?"
Yep. But I guess you'll never know since you'll never watch them. Meh... "
I bet it's from FARMS or FAIR and not at all accepted by anyone else.
"If for one moment you thought it prudent to step outside of the standard anti-Mormon spin machine, you would see that the facts don't support your sad little theory."
So let me guess, EVERY SINGLE non mormon egyptologist is a part of the vast ANTI-MORMON conspiracy??
Your offensive and abusive smearing aside, that's some whoppin' mind reading abilities you got going on there. Lordy am I impressed. You make Fawn Brodie look like a doofus with your impressive psychoanalytical powers.
John Tvedtness on non-Mormon archeologists who believe the Book of Mormon.
" 1) There are no non-LDS archaeologists who fit this description; the ones who have come to accept the Book of Mormon have joined the Church, so they are no longer non-LDS. 2) I ask them to give me the name of a Buddhist or Hindu archaeologist who accepts the archaeological evidence for the Bible; only believers accept this kind of evidence for their own scriptures."
Not that you care, but that phrase "by his own hand upon papyri" has been elaborated on by Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, pages 4-9 and Kerry Shirts in the FARMS Review 11/1. The short answer is that it neither compromises or contradicts either Joseph Smith's views on the date of the TEXT and moderns scholarly views on the date of the PAPYRI.
"but that phrase "by his own hand upon papyri" has been elaborated on by Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, pages 4-9 and Kerry Shirts in the FARMS Review 11/1."
Sorry, it contradicts Smith's own words. On another occasion, smith pointed to an egyptian hieroglyph and said, "There, ... that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham."
Not to mention the contradictions in History of the Church vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351 or the Chapter Heading itself for the Book of Abraham
Go ahead, don't bother to read any opposing view than your own. Keep living in your shallow, paranoid, biased and sad little fantasy world wherein you are king of Cognitive Dissonance and have your head wedged firmly in the sand.
Your arguments absolutely PROVE to me you haven't yet comprehended the FARMS or FAIR materials. Reading is one thing, comprehending is entirely another.
Lol. Obviously you never read those entries in History of the Church that you cited, because non of them speak of the nature of Joseph Smith's views on the date of the papyri. That's what happens when you let anti-Mormon thinking creep in. You lose all comprehensive critical analytical thinking.
Careful, because people sometimes might call your bluff. I did, and looked at the references, non of which suit your purposes.
Nice try, though. So which website did you copy and paste from?
"Obviously you never read those entries in History of the Church that you cited, because non of them speak of the nature of Joseph Smith's views on the date of the papyri. That's what happens when you let anti-Mormon thinking creep in. You lose all comprehensive critical analytical thinking."
Actually I copied and pasted from scriptures.lds d o t org. Apparently you've never read the chapter heading for the book of abraham. Is lds d o t org, ANTI now?
"There, ... that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham."
Actually, Josiah Quincy in 1883 said that he said that, which contradicts both Charles Francis Adams' account as well as the Prophet's own published views as per Times & Seasons Vol. 3 PG. 704.
As they say, another theory cruelly murdered by the facts.
John Gee brought up a lot of other points than just the photos being published in his refutation of Charles Larson. Some of which are devastating to Larson. And he has published with non-LDS journals on the Book of Abraham. In 2006 he delivered an apologetic lecture on the BoA at an Egyptological conference that was later published in the FARMS Review.
"John Gee brought up a lot of other points than just the photos being published in his refutation of Charles Larson. Some of which are devastating to Larson."
What John Gee's own professor, Ritner, of U. Chic., said about Gee's apologetics is devastating.
And what Larry Morris and Kerry Muhlstein said about Robert Ritner's tactless tirade against the Book of Abraham and his smear tactics against John Gee is astronomically more devastating.
"And what Larry Morris and Kerry Muhlstein said about Robert Ritner's tactless tirade against the Book of Abraham and his smear tactics against John Gee is astronomically more devastating. "
OK, then why didn't they publish it in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal?
YOU won't believe anything they print anyway, so why the pretense that this will make any difference? They published, have you read their arguments and refuted them? Why is it everything published is automatically wrong in your opinion?
So? Professors disagree with each other all the time. And, this is persoal, but I find your handle as PompousS Monson extremely offensive, so I am blocking you for now. Get a new handle and grow up and show some maturity or post elsewhere.
So instead of reading Nibley for yourself, you are just going to let someone else do it for you. That sure is critical thinking! Douglas Salmon was torn apart by William Hamblin in the FARMS Review 13/2. Not that I expect you to read it, but just know that Salmon is substantially wrong on a number of levels, as Hamblin demonstrated. I would also recommend some more LDS material on the subject, particularly John Gee's research, but you don't seem interested, so I won't bother. Have a great day!
"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Are you serious? That is the best you could come up with? LOL! LOL! Yes, a fine rebuttal indeed. Your dazzling intellect and sound logical analysis is resounding! Wow, anything to hide from the facts, huh? One question, though. How is it that you know that FARMS scholarship is not sound or not valid arguments when you don't read their material because of that disclaimer? Your cognitive dissonance must be giving you a headache. Sorry about that.
"One question, though. How is it that you know that FARMS scholarship is not sound or not valid arguments when you don't read their material because of that disclaimer?"
If LDS Inc won't even endorse the maxwell inst.'s scholarship, why should *anyone* take it seriously?
I mean, think of some of the rediculous stuff they've put out there, like horses=tapirs or swords=sharp obsidian on a stick?
"If LDS Inc won't even endorse the maxwell inst.'s scholarship, why should *anyone* take it seriously?"
So it that why the Church, on its official website, has on multiple occasions referenced to FARMS articles when "controversial" issues like DNA have arisen? Or is that why the Church owned University assimilated FARMS in the late 90's?
No plates. No "reformed Egyptian". A "missing" Book of Abraham scroll.
THAT is why there is a disclaimer. And I'm the one with cognitive dissonance?
Physician heal thyself.
You guys want validity so bad it is embarrassing. Guess what, you'll never get it. Why? No plates. No "reformed Egyptian. A "missing" scroll of the Book of Abraham.
Now that is something to beat your head on the keyboard over. Take it up with Joe Smith. He put you in this position, not me.
Nice try, but your not going to pin this on me. If you seriously are trying to use these pathetic arguments (all of them) to avoid reading FARMS material then it is a living testament to your bias and close mindedness. FARMS has effectively answered most, if not all, anti-Mormon allegations, including the ones you brought up, but your Cognitive Dissonance doesn't want your little anti-Mormon bubble to be burst. So what do we do? Do the "scholarly" thing to do and avoid FARMS like the plague.
You desperately want FARMS to be relevant. You act like its garlic to Dracula. Unfortunately, it's just garlic.
You really really really want it to look important. Dan Petersen understands full well the bleak position of Mormon apologists.
"But let us be frank. To most of those (particularly in the very secularized world of contemporary academia) who have even a nodding acquaintance with Mormonism, our claims simply don't merit serious consideration or engagement."
I have yet to see 6you even engage the FARMS information exmoagogo. Can you demonstrate you understand their argument, or are you going to woose out and say they are bias and you already know they are wrong?
"is of the late ptolemaic or early roman period about the time of Christ. joseph smith thought that this papyrus contained the book of abraham"
There is a difference between the date of a text and the date of the medium. If I whip out my KJV, point to Romans and ask you who wrote it, you would say Paul. But did he write the copy in my hands that dates 2000 years after he wrote it? No. Same goes with the BOA. The text can date from Abraham's time but the medium (papyri) from the Ptolemaic era.
Did Henry Eyring submit his work on study of chemical reaction rates and intermediates only to BYU journals, or did he submit it to mainstream journals to be reviewed by other chemists?
Was Henry Eyring's religion even an issue?
Looks like Kerry Shirts is admitting here that Maxwell Inst. "scholars" have no peers in other universities in the fields of archeology, biology, anthropology, etc. That's because they're paid apologetic hacks.
Lol. Are you trying to be deliberately blithe and obtuse? Try reading the page on wikipedia to see just how vast and extensive Henry Eyring's work in Chemistry was. He was even considered once to be a candidate for the Noble Prize. Ever heard of the Eyring Equation? His publications include: Physical Chemistry, an Advanced Treatise, Quantum Chemistry, Electrochemistry, Theoretical Chemistry: Advances and Perspectives.
Your name is quite befitting. You are rather pompous (and ignorant).
Here are some awards Eyring won for his work in Chemistry:
Peter Debye Award, Newcomb Cleveland Prize, Bingham Medal (1949) of the Society of Rheology, Langmuir prize, Member of International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science, Priestley Medal, Linus Pauling medal. Need I go on?
Other books: The Theory of Rate Processes in Biology and Medicine, Theory of Optical Activity (Monographs on Chemistry series), Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, Kinetic Evidence of Phase Structure.
Yes, Eyring was a brilliant chemist. I agree that he was deserving of the nobel prize
Another great mormon scientist was James E Talmage. From what I can tell, he was a genuinely good guy and intellectually honest.
He did a lot of research regarding the michigan relics. The michigan relics had the potential to provide a treasure trove of evidence for the BoM. He examined and tested the relics for authenticity and singlehandedly completely discredited the relics as a fraud.
Yes, we are just ozzing money out of our pockets for our apologetic works. Dan Peterson has a solid gold house while I zoom around in a rocket car that I got from President Monson.
""scholars" have no peers in other universities"
That's news to Raphial Patai, Azziz Atyia, James Charlesworth, Frank Cross, Jan Shipps, Cyrus Gordon, the University of Chicago (which distributes FARMS material) and others. But no, I'm sure that your right.
"That's news to Raphial Patai, Azziz Atyia, James Charlesworth, Frank Cross, Jan Shipps, Cyrus Gordon, the University of Chicago (which distributes FARMS material) and others. But no, I'm sure that your right"
You're being deceptive here. U. Chic. and many of the scholars you mentioned are only invovled in the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, which is not an apologetic venture, nor is it really "mormon" in nature.
I don't remember any instances of critics saying anything about the METI.
Try again. The University of Chicago has distributed the Studies in the Book of Abraham Series, which is decidedly apologetic in its 1st and 3rd volumes. Among other things, these texts argue for an ancient, authentic Book of Abraham! Gasp! Can you believe it? University of Chicago is distributing Mormon apologetic material?
Oh, and the scholars, save Jan Shipps, who published with FARMS, I listed contributed to the Hugh Nibley Festschrift "By Study and Also By Faith" another apologetic work.
"The University of Chicago has distributed the Studies in the Book of Abraham Series, which is decidedly apologetic in its 1st and 3rd volumes."
It depends on what you mean by "distributed." FARMS paid the press to print it and distribute it. There's no academic involvement. There's no U. Chic. peer review. Try again.
Jan Shipps is a non-mormon apologist and like other mormon apologists, omits damaging information to LDS Inc.
D Michael Quinn is a much more of a historian than Jan Shipps.
But if all it is is psuedo-scholarly apologetic drivel, then why would they want to touch it? Some people here avoid FARMS material like poison, but U. of Chicago seems to think that it isn't that bad. What, are you suggesting now that U. of Chicago has sold out to FARMS? Wow, what serious charge. I wonder of U. of Chicago staff must feel about that allegation.
Nibley's views are supplanted by later scholarship so that disqualifies him from being an expert? Well, it is a good thing we don't go off of your standard of scholarship, otherwise nobody would be an expert of anything.
BTW, Klaus Baer, in a letter to Jerald Tanner, no less, PRAISED Nibley's research on the Book of Abraham in his "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price" and said that it was a must read for budding Egyptologists and anyone else who wishes to have a say on this issue.
additionally Baer says of the j.smith and the scroll
"The vignette shows the resurrection of Osiris (who is also the deceased owner of the papyrus) and the conception of Horus. Osiris (2) is represented as a man on a lion-couch (4) attended by Anubis (3), the jackal-headed god who embalmed the dead and thereby assured their resurrection and existence in the afterlife"
note that this is the lack of any of the terms persons or ideas presented by j.smith.
Your proof-texting is lacking in any sort of erudition. The issues of interpreting Egyptian vignettes is not as strait-forward as you seem. Baer understood this, which is why he praised Nibley's research and accosted anti-Mormons like Jerald Tanner, who held to a similarly shallow view such as your own. Maybe if you botherer to actually read some of Nibley's research you would understand, but I am not holding my breath.
"The issues of interpreting Egyptian vignettes is not as strait-forward as you seem. Baer understood this, which is why he praised Nibley's research and accosted anti-Mormons like Jerald Tanner, who held to a similarly shallow view such as your own."
Quote mine much? Klaus was very clear in saying that the BoM is a fraud. Praising some of Nibley's early research isn't an endorsement of all that Nibley did, nor does it rescue the BoA.
What was illegal was the destruction of the type. That I grant. The Prophet went overboard on that. However, he was within his rights, as granted by the State Government, to suppress libelous papers like the Nauvoo Expositor.
Papers "not to his liking"? LOL. So, like I said, I guess you won't mind if I start a paper calling you slanderous epithets, attacking your character and spreading rumors?
Still waiting for your indignation against the Missouri mobs.
"Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council's decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever."
So, who is spinning the history now?
Let me guess your next rebuttal. "Well, of course you Mormons would argue that".
Oh my, isn't that such a coherent and logical argument?
It wasn't illegal, as demonstrated in the Utah Law Review 9 (1965):874
"The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages."
To all those that reflexively push thumbs down in an attempt to silence your opposition, I see you are following the guiding light of j.smith in his illegal destruction of the Navuoo Expositor newspaper. I wonder if you had a private army and the law in your back pocket if you would have those of us that disagree with you arrested and our PC's taken into the street and destroyed.
You won't get Welch's book to read it? You won't get the newest info on Mountain Meadows and read it? No wonder we cannot communicate, you refuse to properly inform yourself.
"Illegal" destruction of the press? Um, yeah, the Illinois State Government, which granted the Nauvoo charter, also granted that the City Council had the power to stop libelous presses. So get mad at the State of Illinois if you have a problem.
And what about the destruction of W. W. Phelp's printing press in Missouri in 1833? Was that "legal"?
Even mormon researchers only claim they could have destroyed the printed pages (still a gross violation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution) even your (then)living prophet j.smith admitted that the destruction of the press was wrong and offered to pay for it (fair).
You might wish to read ART. VIII 22 and 23 of IL Constitution, giving attention to the term JURY.
And no the destruction of press in 1833 was not legal, nor was it done under color of authority.
"still a gross violation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution"
So you wouldn't mind, then, if I started a newspaper spreading rumors around about you and slandering your character? You wouldn't mind if I had a radio show dedicated to trying to make you look like a degenerate and knave?
"And no the destruction of press in 1833 was not legal"
So where is your haughty indignation over those men who destroyed this press, hmmm?
As far as being cogent goes, do a little peer review on your grammar. Your spelling is atrocious. "statment instult arguemnt." You only got the Pratt quote right because you pasted it.
Archaeologically though, Jesus Christ has not been proven yet. In fact, there is exactly NO historical proof, archaeological proof, etc. that Jesus even lived, according to scholarship. So if you think it has a basis of historical and archaeological value, why decry the Book of Mormon, when your New Testament is in exactly the same situation?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But, virutally all the events and places that were are in the New Testemant have been proven, while ZERO (0) events of the bom have been proven by history.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ok excluding Jerusalem, what city mentioned in the bom can you show me on a map, what artifacts are on display from it ?
Since the book is evidence according to your rather "creative" way to thinking lets use that evidence and go find one of the cities that is j.smith author and proprietor of bom wrote about.
Ok excluding Jerusalem, what city mentioned in the bom can you show me on a map, what artifacts are on display from it ?
Since the book is evidence according to your rather "creative" way to thinking lets use that evidence and go find one of the cities that is j.smith author and proprietor of bom wrote about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
j.smith was a bit hard to pin down oh how he "translated" boa in that he both claims at times it was by revelation, but then creates an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer the characters of which coraspond with those of the j.smith papyris found in NY in mid 1960's
The "translation" by j.smith Alpha-Gramar shares no resmblace to workable translation tool, its as fake as a $3 bill.
To all legitimate scholars the j.smith egyptian to english text is a sad joke.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
People that have degrees and have worked in the field of study.
DNA - Chemistry and Genetics
Archeology - Archeology degrees
History - History
language = linguistics
And have been published in journals that have critical peer review, not the editor/fellow believer review of Max. Inst.
I can see how you might think this list a laugh riot, as you have people like Fmr Phys. Prof Dr.s jones using "archaeometry" to to "help" the archaeologists, he also "proved" thermate brought down WTC
O.K., thanks. I find that several of the FARMS scholars fall into these categories. I apreciate you showing me your understanding of this. I am satisfied.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
but.. if they work for the same institution, they are not independent it make the processes a sham.
A maxwell inst staffer reviewing another maxwell inst submitter is not peer review.
Since you have said the being a mormon makes you a peer on other mormons (in the context of scholarly peer review), you have a poor grasp of what peer review is.
Sigh. You're right. I have no comprehension whatsoever. Your logic, your knowledge, your own capability of grasping peer review simply overhelms me, you win.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, writes, "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
a diconcerting number of posts seem to be missing, I have had this happen before on youtube so I will repost.
of the 220+ works on the law lib. welch has but a handfull (appx 10) that are not published by either tan organ of j.smiths church or publishes that work with it to near exclusion of all othrs (bookcraft 26)
the majority are Maxwell/farms and we know thy are not peer reviewed (as per there on statments) so this leaves a very small number that MIGHT have been peer reviewed.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their arguments and evidence. It is on the basis of evidence that a case stands or falls, not on whether something is peer reviewed. I will also ask you, have you yet got John W. Welch's brand new PEER REVIEWED book, "The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon" and read it yet?
"the majority are Maxwell/farms and we know thy are not peer reviewed"
Completely, 100% false. See the enlightening article by Daniel C. Peterson "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to "Second Sight" by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist" in the FARMS Review 18/2
maxwell/farms had admitted that they have other member of maxwell/farms do the "review" this is at best a editor review not what is considered a peer review
d.peterson
"At a minimum, each review is read carefully by the editor (me), my two associate editors (Louis Midgley and George Mitton), our production editor (Shirley Ricks), and the FARMS/Institute director of publications (Alison V. P. Coutts). "
note that is only other members of maxwell/FARMS are required my peterson's own words.
You are very selectively reading the article. He said "at a minimum" but that is by no means the only thing employed. Peterson goes onto the explain the mechanics of peer review and notes that non-Mormon peer reviewers have been used at times. Fact is that FARMS is peer reviewed on the same standard as other academic journals.
as for an provable issue of how poor the review of maxwell /farms
d.peterson has a paper on the cite that claims that no bones of horses have ever been found from the Hun empire, sadly a full and complete tomb of a Hun princes was found with 5 horse skulls and wall paintings of horse drawn carriage with mounted escort, over a decade before he had his paper "reviewed" and published.
Even if there are mistakes in FARMS material, and of course there is, that does not mean that they are not peer reviewed. Your claim was that FARMS is not peer reviewed. I demonstrably showed that that claim is false. Your nihilistic quibbling is a red herring, as the actual content of FARMS material is an entirely different thing. Fact is that FARMS is peer reviewed. Does that guarantee 100% quality of the material? No. But it doesn't change the fact that FARMS is peer reviewed.
No sir you have proved that your definition of peer review is far from the standard set by the academic community.
Your second issue is quite valid, the peer review process as a rule will find errors in research and logic it does not guaranty the the premise or conclusion is correct. It does set a standard, in that it has been read and reviewed by competent members of the academic community in the proper field of study.
The fact that their own people(maxwell) are considered available to do "peer review" casts a long and dark shadow on the farms review process.
"have been used at times" in common parlance would mean that the majority are not reviewed by people outside of j.smiths church but are instead reviewed by co-religionists.
If you wish to have an internal press for you faith now one would have problem, but dont call it a peer reviewed journal.
Well, if you would read the rest of Peterson's essay, you will see why having "co-religionists" peer review sometimes is not only an a practice made throughout all academia but is in some cases preferred. How would you like a Muslim peer reviewing the Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers? Or an atheist reviewing the Evangelical Quarterly: An International Review of Bible and Theology?
Which is why non-LDS historians like Raphial Patai, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Nuesner, Jan Shipps, Peter Nadig, Azziz Attiya and several others have published with the FARMS Review and FARMS, right? But I guess they automatically are wrong because of the bias of the peer review at FARMS. Guess somebody should have sent them the memo that FARMS is a pseudo-scholarly institute that will ruin their reputation if they publish with them, huh?
I would have to read and examine each paper to form an opinion as to its being correct or not, but the process at maxwell/farms would not give the paper the same assumed level of accuracy that a true scholarly peer review would.
Just as an article in time on the law may be correct it would not make the equivalent of a paper in a major law review.
If their articles published in maxwell/farms were printed also in properly reviewed journal the would carry more weight.
"As for a muslim if the paper was based on fact and he an honest reviewer his review would be valid."
So why can't a Mormon do a peer review and have the review be valid regardless of who is doing the publishing? And why is it that Evangelicals can peer review Evangelical journals, Catholic to Catholic or Muslim to Muslim and everyone is okay. But heaven forbid that a Mormon should review a Mormon. It seems that everyone wants to treat the Latter-day Saints as some sort of exception. Weird.
Not as much the religious affiliation, but that the journal is using people in house and others that work for same univ as itself that makes it not a true peer review
Also to be a competent peer review area of expertise must be in the field of study that the paper subject.
I do not hold maxwell to a different standard, if for instance a paper was written and published at smu and all the reviewers were either members of the journal or employed by smu it would not be a proper peer reviewed
Michael Ash claims mistranslation as an excuse for problems like no horses or steel weapons being found in the americas.
But he OMITS the fact that this contradicts Smith and others.
Oliver Cowdery said, "By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected."
It is nothing of the sort. Have you yet understood *why* Sorenson discusses this idea of horses? Have you read his book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon"? He is not advocating that as THE idea, but of a possibility based on real world evidence in Mesoamerica. WHY are you ignoring that?
THE BOOK OF MORMON AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MOR- MON, UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI BY JOSEPH SMITH,JUNIOR. AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR. First page bom 1830 Account - an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative History - a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc The first page of bom claims it to be a history! -Repost-
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
j.smith did, as proved by the title page of the book he authored (bom)
Account = History
I am happy to inform you, that WORDS have Meanings and not every one is willing to just redefine then at a whim like say Deacon as being unmarried boys.
While a Biblical Deacon 1 Timothy 3:12 " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
I have a Bachelor's degree in History, and I have *never* heard it called "a continuous, systematic narrative of past events." No history book onthe planet would qualify if this, indeed, was what history is thought to be. Quote your source for this idea please. Thank you. I call for references.
I was hoping you would find a professional historian to describe the reality of history, not a dictionary definintion that deals with the ideology. Oh well, go with the dictionary definition, we historians know nothing in the presence of your overwhelming intelligence and erudition.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"No history book onthe planet would qualify if this, indeed, was what history is thought to be. Quote your source for this idea please. Thank you. I call for references. " backyardprofessor
I am sorry that you think that Random House, Webster and the OED are poor reference works, but the rest of the English speaking world seems to find them fairly authoritative.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
by wishing that I had quoted a "working historian" in preference to well respected reference works (that evidently were never cited in any of your education) you place any "working historian" as a more vaild source thus by comparison disparaging the cited works.
Still you dodge the issue that author j.smith in his work the bom is a claiming to have written an ACCOUNT of true events. That account having no physical or historical proof.
You asre correct. I have no choice but to dodge the issue in light of the vast superiority of your intellect, evidences, and objectivity. None of we Mormons are scholars, nor can we even read. We are all merely faking it to fool the world, and you in your greatness have caught us in the act. Oh the shame, oh the misery of our subjective pleadings without any evidence whatsoever, and oh your glory for finding us out and exposing us. We bow before thee, oh thy greatness of inellect and knowledge.
by wishing that I had quoted a "working historian" in preference to well respected reference works (that evidently were never cited in any of your education) you place any "working historian" as a more vaild source thus by comparison disparaging the cited works.
Still you dodge the issue that author j.smith in his work the bom is a claiming to have written an ACCOUNT of true events. That account having no physical or historical proof.
Your expert guest has as much trouble keeping the story straight much like the author of j.smith. According to one of the 3 witness the urim and thummim (a term not used till 1833) were taken back due to the transgression of losing the first 116 pages of the manuscript. Thus only had his chocolate coloured peep stone to "translate" boa.
# This "in-group" consists of people who FARMS trusts and who are chosen by FARMS to do its peer reviewing.
# FARMS submits its research and papers to only those it is confident will not challenge the basic assumptions that underlie FARMS papers and research.
# These "in-group" reviewers either belong to FARMS, are professionally related to FARMS or are sympathetic to FARMS.
# FARMS idea of a "peer" review is to submit its works for review to like-minded peers.
Mere hot air on your part. And just how do you KNOW this is their only methodology? You refuse to even read their materials, how on earth would you even get anything else correct about them?
"You refuse to even read their materials, how on earth would you even get anything else correct about them?"
I have read FARMS and FAIR. When I was questioning mormonism, I looked at their material. I found that many times, they outright lie or distort, to defend LDS Inc.
You frankly have admitted to not reading nor intending to read Welch's book. So much for being open minded eh? It is the NEWEST most UPDATE information also. This isn't materials written 122 years ago.
Please duplicate for us the disclaimer that is no doubt in his book.
And, while you're at it report the names of non-Mormon peer reviewers that agree with Mormon research claiming that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are actual histories of real people, places and events.
Non-Mormon historians, archeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc. have almost unanimously discredited Mormon claims about the origin and historicity of the BOM, BOA and other "visions" of J. Smith and his cronies & followers.
Where is the Book of Mormon museum with all or ANY artifacts found to support its claims?
Hint: there is no such thing. No artifacts exist.
"Mormon scholars" (regarding Mormonism) is an oxymoron.
"But let us be frank. To most of those (particularly in the very secularized world of contemporary academia) who have even a nodding acquaintance with Mormonism, our claims simply don't merit serious consideration or engagement."
"Although we think we're doing quite well and that we've found some exceedingly interesting and even powerful evidences in support of Latter-day Saint claims, no one affiliated with FARMS thinks that we've got an evidentiary slam dunk, and we never talk about "proving" Mormonism or "proving" the Book of Mormon true. We certainly don't imagine that we've done so."
So quick to dismiss. Every sigle item here has been discussed and shown your context is not nearly this simple. All of this is secondary to the main point and message and meaning of the Book of Mormon anyway. BY ignoring the LDS scholarship you can come to fast conclusions. My videos are showing that not all these have failed. Of course, why watch them when the facts refuse to conform to your wishes of failing the BofM? You are simply wrong, as my multitudinous vids show.
you make the clame that arceolgists shoud take written word as EVIDIENCE when the FACTS on (and in) the ground are 100 diametricly opposed to what is on the written page.
Even byu/morom arceolgits admdit there is evidence
"The first myth that we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists"
Dr. Dee Green
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), pp. 77-78.
The 'Missing' Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham is a red herring. We already have the Papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated. The Book of Abraham was translated from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text).
Brackite 1 year ago
@Brackite
No it's not the source. That is one stance, and it has been shown to be fundamentally wrong.
TheBackyardProfessor 1 year ago
Besides Prof. Steven Jones, exactly which LDS scholars are working on exposing the fact that 9/11 was staged by US government?
LDS scholars understands the basic physics to show that the official story is a lie, right?
bofors7715 2 years ago
We do have all the papyri that Smith used. Gee is fumbling around in the dark. This video is for the faithful and is not really looking at the hard issues. "There could have been" is no argument. Why did the scribes copy the symbols from the BOB rather than that of the BOA papyri which would be still in existance
aussieguy55 3 years ago 4
9/11 was a demolition job blamed on Muslims so that the US could invade and exploit other countries using "War on Terror" as an excuse. Don't let the fearmongers brainwash you.
buddyfreakinholly 3 years ago
"You got squat. And you want to be taken seriously? "
I have a book that claims that mesoamerica had cement cities around 100 years before they were made known . Among many other things....
omiolo 3 years ago
"Oh! Then why is it not on world maps?"
you have to see the movie. I don't want to ruin it for you!
omiolo 3 years ago
I asked a simple question. You can't answer it. Why should I waste my time with your movie.
Want some credibility? Show me the exact location of Zarahemla. Show me a Nephite coin or other artifact.
Save the hot air for your friends in Joseph Smith's tank.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
"I asked a simple question. You can't answer it"
actually I did, many times. If you choose to stick your head in the sand and say I didn't there is NOT much I can do!
omiolo 3 years ago
You did? Please repeat; Where on the map is Zarahemla?
(Cue the Jeopardy music........) DING! "Time's up. The answer is, there is no Zarahemla."
exmoagogo 3 years ago 3
"You did? Please repeat; Where on the map is Zarahemla? "
I told you the movie will tell you EXACTLY how to get there!
Did you NOT read that part or are you playing DUMB?
omiolo 3 years ago
Give me the Google Earth co-ordinates.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
"Give me the Google Earth co-ordinates."
ONE step at a time
obstinate one!
finish step ONE first!
omiolo 3 years ago 3
LOL! Omiolo, I predict it might take you a year to convince him that step one is essential. It always amazes me how critics expect *us* to do *their* homework. We give them sources and they refuse to go to them and learn from them. sheesh!
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
I expect you to provide proof that is endorsed by the First Presidency.
And, just like the non-forthcoming Google Earth co-ordinates of Never-Zarahemla Land, they will also leave you in the wilderness.
exmoagogo 3 years ago 2
I won't provide you with spit until you bother to show you comprehend the Book of Mormon's teachings, and are actually trying to live them. If that offends you, I guess you are just going to have to get over it. I don't have to waste my time with doubters if I so choose not to. I am more than sure God will be perfectly happy with me sharing the scriptures on You Tube rather than worryingabout your doubts.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"Why should I waste my time with your movie. "
first of all, it is NOT a waste of time for a guy like you, and second it will give you the answers you deserve!
omiolo 3 years ago
He wastes more time arguing against something he knows nothing about, than it would take to watch the movie over 40 times! Odd isn't it.....
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"He wastes more time arguing against something he knows nothing about, than it would take to watch the movie over 40 times!"
to be honest I find it hysterical.
then they wonder why we can't take the ANTImormon movement serious.
to be honest too, when I see this senseless arguing, it becomes obvious to me why they are NO longer LDS.
do you mean I have to take God at His word and pray about the Book of Mormon?
omiolo 3 years ago
"A stable person does not believe in a guy.."
I am not sure you are one who knows what stable really is....
omiolo 3 years ago
Of course you would not be sure what stable really is. You believe in a guy that looks at rocks in his hat.
exmoagogo 3 years ago 2
"So go ahead and tell me where it is. "
you have to watch the movie. It actually the movie explains EXACTLY how to get there.
omiolo 3 years ago
Because individuals who write for FARMS are NOT employed by FARMS, and have the right to think ontheir own. So much for all Mormons being in lock step and not being allowed to speak their piece. I have published 2 pieces in FARMS, and I betchta you won't bother with them either will you. You are fast becoming a waste of time.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Get rid of the disclaimer and I'll read 'em.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Stay in ignorance for all we care. Your choice.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"Stay in ignorance for all we care"
that is probably the ONLY thing he will do =)
omiolo1 3 years ago
omiolo1 said;
"Stay in ignorance for all we care"
that is probably the ONLY thing he will do =)
Hey omiolo, I've been watching chacabenchaca videos. He asked you a question.......
exmoagogo 3 years ago
"chacabenchaca videos. He asked you a question....... "
TYPICAL ANTImormon right? asks a question and blocks me from responding!
I guess that is how you guys ONLY hear what you want to!
Not really the move of a stable person if you ask me!
omiolo 3 years ago
Nibley already took care of this issue. But, that's right, anotherdumb Mormon so it is safe to ignore his materials also. In fact, ignore everything we publish, including here in these comments! Th3ese aren't peer reviewed, so why waste your time wrangling amongst those of us who are invalid, unscholarly, obviously illogical, and unpublished? Seems to me that you are the one at fault around here for wasting your time amongst ne'er do wells.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
Ha! Your spin of the facts is hilarious. If for one moment you thought it prudent to step outside of the standard anti-Mormon spin machine, you would see that the facts don't support your sad little theory. I dare you to read and refute Richard L. Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" as well as his other works. I DARE you.
"Does it cite egyptologists speaking of reformed egyptian?"
Yep. But I guess you'll never know since you'll never watch them. Meh...
Rommelator 3 years ago
""Does it cite egyptologists speaking of reformed egyptian?"
Yep. But I guess you'll never know since you'll never watch them. Meh... "
I bet it's from FARMS or FAIR and not at all accepted by anyone else.
"If for one moment you thought it prudent to step outside of the standard anti-Mormon spin machine, you would see that the facts don't support your sad little theory."
So let me guess, EVERY SINGLE non mormon egyptologist is a part of the vast ANTI-MORMON conspiracy??
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
Your offensive and abusive smearing aside, that's some whoppin' mind reading abilities you got going on there. Lordy am I impressed. You make Fawn Brodie look like a doofus with your impressive psychoanalytical powers.
Rommelator 3 years ago
John Tvedtness on non-Mormon archeologists who believe the Book of Mormon.
" 1) There are no non-LDS archaeologists who fit this description; the ones who have come to accept the Book of Mormon have joined the Church, so they are no longer non-LDS. 2) I ask them to give me the name of a Buddhist or Hindu archaeologist who accepts the archaeological evidence for the Bible; only believers accept this kind of evidence for their own scriptures."
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Not that you care, but that phrase "by his own hand upon papyri" has been elaborated on by Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, pages 4-9 and Kerry Shirts in the FARMS Review 11/1. The short answer is that it neither compromises or contradicts either Joseph Smith's views on the date of the TEXT and moderns scholarly views on the date of the PAPYRI.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"but that phrase "by his own hand upon papyri" has been elaborated on by Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, pages 4-9 and Kerry Shirts in the FARMS Review 11/1."
Sorry, it contradicts Smith's own words. On another occasion, smith pointed to an egyptian hieroglyph and said, "There, ... that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham."
Not to mention the contradictions in History of the Church vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351 or the Chapter Heading itself for the Book of Abraham
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
Go ahead, don't bother to read any opposing view than your own. Keep living in your shallow, paranoid, biased and sad little fantasy world wherein you are king of Cognitive Dissonance and have your head wedged firmly in the sand.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"Go ahead, don't bother to read any opposing view than your own. "
What makes you think I haven't read some of FARMS and FAIR apologetics?
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
Your arguments absolutely PROVE to me you haven't yet comprehended the FARMS or FAIR materials. Reading is one thing, comprehending is entirely another.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
Lol. Obviously you never read those entries in History of the Church that you cited, because non of them speak of the nature of Joseph Smith's views on the date of the papyri. That's what happens when you let anti-Mormon thinking creep in. You lose all comprehensive critical analytical thinking.
Careful, because people sometimes might call your bluff. I did, and looked at the references, non of which suit your purposes.
Nice try, though. So which website did you copy and paste from?
Rommelator 3 years ago
"Obviously you never read those entries in History of the Church that you cited, because non of them speak of the nature of Joseph Smith's views on the date of the papyri. That's what happens when you let anti-Mormon thinking creep in. You lose all comprehensive critical analytical thinking."
Actually I copied and pasted from scriptures.lds d o t org. Apparently you've never read the chapter heading for the book of abraham. Is lds d o t org, ANTI now?
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
"There, ... that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham."
Actually, Josiah Quincy in 1883 said that he said that, which contradicts both Charles Francis Adams' account as well as the Prophet's own published views as per Times & Seasons Vol. 3 PG. 704.
As they say, another theory cruelly murdered by the facts.
Rommelator 3 years ago
John Gee brought up a lot of other points than just the photos being published in his refutation of Charles Larson. Some of which are devastating to Larson. And he has published with non-LDS journals on the Book of Abraham. In 2006 he delivered an apologetic lecture on the BoA at an Egyptological conference that was later published in the FARMS Review.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"John Gee brought up a lot of other points than just the photos being published in his refutation of Charles Larson. Some of which are devastating to Larson."
What John Gee's own professor, Ritner, of U. Chic., said about Gee's apologetics is devastating.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
And what Larry Morris and Kerry Muhlstein said about Robert Ritner's tactless tirade against the Book of Abraham and his smear tactics against John Gee is astronomically more devastating.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"And what Larry Morris and Kerry Muhlstein said about Robert Ritner's tactless tirade against the Book of Abraham and his smear tactics against John Gee is astronomically more devastating. "
OK, then why didn't they publish it in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal?
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
YOU won't believe anything they print anyway, so why the pretense that this will make any difference? They published, have you read their arguments and refuted them? Why is it everything published is automatically wrong in your opinion?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
So? Professors disagree with each other all the time. And, this is persoal, but I find your handle as PompousS Monson extremely offensive, so I am blocking you for now. Get a new handle and grow up and show some maturity or post elsewhere.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
So instead of reading Nibley for yourself, you are just going to let someone else do it for you. That sure is critical thinking! Douglas Salmon was torn apart by William Hamblin in the FARMS Review 13/2. Not that I expect you to read it, but just know that Salmon is substantially wrong on a number of levels, as Hamblin demonstrated. I would also recommend some more LDS material on the subject, particularly John Gee's research, but you don't seem interested, so I won't bother. Have a great day!
Rommelator 3 years ago
"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
No need to read any further.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
*Bangs his head again and again on the keyboard*
Are you serious? That is the best you could come up with? LOL! LOL! Yes, a fine rebuttal indeed. Your dazzling intellect and sound logical analysis is resounding! Wow, anything to hide from the facts, huh? One question, though. How is it that you know that FARMS scholarship is not sound or not valid arguments when you don't read their material because of that disclaimer? Your cognitive dissonance must be giving you a headache. Sorry about that.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"One question, though. How is it that you know that FARMS scholarship is not sound or not valid arguments when you don't read their material because of that disclaimer?"
If LDS Inc won't even endorse the maxwell inst.'s scholarship, why should *anyone* take it seriously?
I mean, think of some of the rediculous stuff they've put out there, like horses=tapirs or swords=sharp obsidian on a stick?
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
"If LDS Inc won't even endorse the maxwell inst.'s scholarship, why should *anyone* take it seriously?"
So it that why the Church, on its official website, has on multiple occasions referenced to FARMS articles when "controversial" issues like DNA have arisen? Or is that why the Church owned University assimilated FARMS in the late 90's?
Rommelator 3 years ago
No plates. No "reformed Egyptian". A "missing" Book of Abraham scroll.
THAT is why there is a disclaimer. And I'm the one with cognitive dissonance?
Physician heal thyself.
You guys want validity so bad it is embarrassing. Guess what, you'll never get it. Why? No plates. No "reformed Egyptian. A "missing" scroll of the Book of Abraham.
Now that is something to beat your head on the keyboard over. Take it up with Joe Smith. He put you in this position, not me.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Nice try, but your not going to pin this on me. If you seriously are trying to use these pathetic arguments (all of them) to avoid reading FARMS material then it is a living testament to your bias and close mindedness. FARMS has effectively answered most, if not all, anti-Mormon allegations, including the ones you brought up, but your Cognitive Dissonance doesn't want your little anti-Mormon bubble to be burst. So what do we do? Do the "scholarly" thing to do and avoid FARMS like the plague.
Rommelator 3 years ago
You desperately want FARMS to be relevant. You act like its garlic to Dracula. Unfortunately, it's just garlic.
You really really really want it to look important. Dan Petersen understands full well the bleak position of Mormon apologists.
"But let us be frank. To most of those (particularly in the very secularized world of contemporary academia) who have even a nodding acquaintance with Mormonism, our claims simply don't merit serious consideration or engagement."
exmoagogo 3 years ago
That's right, you yourself are proof of what Peterson said.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"That's right, you yourself are proof of what Peterson said. "
Sounds like you and Rommelator have Peterson envy.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
No, we have Peterson knowledge, which is far beyond whatyou display, I more than assure you.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
I have yet to see 6you even engage the FARMS information exmoagogo. Can you demonstrate you understand their argument, or are you going to woose out and say they are bias and you already know they are wrong?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
They are biased and I already know they are wrong.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
LOLOL! You are completely ignorant.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"LOLOL! You are completely ignorant. "
Aw come on, you said Dan was not a TOTAL schmuck. Be nice to me or I'll be offended and quit going to Church all over again.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
"No plates"
Tell that to the 11 witnesses.
"No "reformed Egyptian""
See my Youtube videos.
"A "missing" Book of Abraham scroll. "
It is still missing, as John Gee has demonstrated.
Well, that was easy. Got any other brain busters for me?
Rommelator 3 years ago
my apologies hit post by accident
baer in journal of mormon thought :aut '68
p111
The breathing permit belonging to a priest of hor of son of the priest osorwer and the lady tikhebyt..
is of the late ptolemaic or early roman period about the time of Christ. joseph smith thought that this papyrus contained the book of abraham
That does lend any support to smiths "translation"
Bidimus1 3 years ago
"is of the late ptolemaic or early roman period about the time of Christ. joseph smith thought that this papyrus contained the book of abraham"
There is a difference between the date of a text and the date of the medium. If I whip out my KJV, point to Romans and ask you who wrote it, you would say Paul. But did he write the copy in my hands that dates 2000 years after he wrote it? No. Same goes with the BOA. The text can date from Abraham's time but the medium (papyri) from the Ptolemaic era.
Rommelator 3 years ago
Did Henry Eyring submit his work on study of chemical reaction rates and intermediates only to BYU journals, or did he submit it to mainstream journals to be reviewed by other chemists?
Was Henry Eyring's religion even an issue?
Looks like Kerry Shirts is admitting here that Maxwell Inst. "scholars" have no peers in other universities in the fields of archeology, biology, anthropology, etc. That's because they're paid apologetic hacks.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
Lol. Are you trying to be deliberately blithe and obtuse? Try reading the page on wikipedia to see just how vast and extensive Henry Eyring's work in Chemistry was. He was even considered once to be a candidate for the Noble Prize. Ever heard of the Eyring Equation? His publications include: Physical Chemistry, an Advanced Treatise, Quantum Chemistry, Electrochemistry, Theoretical Chemistry: Advances and Perspectives.
Your name is quite befitting. You are rather pompous (and ignorant).
Rommelator 3 years ago
"Try reading the page on wikipedia to see just how vast and extensive Henry Eyring's work in Chemistry was. "
Uh, yeah. I wasn't belittling Henry Erying at all. I was praising Henry Eyring as an example of a REAL mormon scientist.
You need to increase your reading comprehension skills and read the context with what I wrote was in.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
Here are some awards Eyring won for his work in Chemistry:
Peter Debye Award, Newcomb Cleveland Prize, Bingham Medal (1949) of the Society of Rheology, Langmuir prize, Member of International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science, Priestley Medal, Linus Pauling medal. Need I go on?
Other books: The Theory of Rate Processes in Biology and Medicine, Theory of Optical Activity (Monographs on Chemistry series), Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, Kinetic Evidence of Phase Structure.
Rommelator 3 years ago
Yes, Eyring was a brilliant chemist. I agree that he was deserving of the nobel prize
Another great mormon scientist was James E Talmage. From what I can tell, he was a genuinely good guy and intellectually honest.
He did a lot of research regarding the michigan relics. The michigan relics had the potential to provide a treasure trove of evidence for the BoM. He examined and tested the relics for authenticity and singlehandedly completely discredited the relics as a fraud.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
"That's because they're paid apologetic hacks."
Yes, we are just ozzing money out of our pockets for our apologetic works. Dan Peterson has a solid gold house while I zoom around in a rocket car that I got from President Monson.
""scholars" have no peers in other universities"
That's news to Raphial Patai, Azziz Atyia, James Charlesworth, Frank Cross, Jan Shipps, Cyrus Gordon, the University of Chicago (which distributes FARMS material) and others. But no, I'm sure that your right.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"That's news to Raphial Patai, Azziz Atyia, James Charlesworth, Frank Cross, Jan Shipps, Cyrus Gordon, the University of Chicago (which distributes FARMS material) and others. But no, I'm sure that your right"
You're being deceptive here. U. Chic. and many of the scholars you mentioned are only invovled in the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, which is not an apologetic venture, nor is it really "mormon" in nature.
I don't remember any instances of critics saying anything about the METI.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago 2
Try again. The University of Chicago has distributed the Studies in the Book of Abraham Series, which is decidedly apologetic in its 1st and 3rd volumes. Among other things, these texts argue for an ancient, authentic Book of Abraham! Gasp! Can you believe it? University of Chicago is distributing Mormon apologetic material?
Oh, and the scholars, save Jan Shipps, who published with FARMS, I listed contributed to the Hugh Nibley Festschrift "By Study and Also By Faith" another apologetic work.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"The University of Chicago has distributed the Studies in the Book of Abraham Series, which is decidedly apologetic in its 1st and 3rd volumes."
It depends on what you mean by "distributed." FARMS paid the press to print it and distribute it. There's no academic involvement. There's no U. Chic. peer review. Try again.
Jan Shipps is a non-mormon apologist and like other mormon apologists, omits damaging information to LDS Inc.
D Michael Quinn is a much more of a historian than Jan Shipps.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
Example of a true statement that is used to create a false impression
"Brigham Young University - Studies in the Book of Abraham
PUBLISHED BY BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
A series available from the University of Chicago Press"
direct quote uchicago edu
the fact that a U chicago PRESS re prints a work PUBLISHED by byu does not in any way say that u chicago endorses or supports the work.
The also print "Karl Marx on Society and Social Change" does that mean uchicago supports marxism ?
Bidimus1 3 years ago
since youtube sorts slowly. I am responding to a statement that u chicago printed "studies in the book of abraham"
The attempt of the original post was to infer that u-chicgao supported the book, which is fallacious.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
But if all it is is psuedo-scholarly apologetic drivel, then why would they want to touch it? Some people here avoid FARMS material like poison, but U. of Chicago seems to think that it isn't that bad. What, are you suggesting now that U. of Chicago has sold out to FARMS? Wow, what serious charge. I wonder of U. of Chicago staff must feel about that allegation.
Rommelator 3 years ago
Nibley's views are supplanted by later scholarship so that disqualifies him from being an expert? Well, it is a good thing we don't go off of your standard of scholarship, otherwise nobody would be an expert of anything.
BTW, Klaus Baer, in a letter to Jerald Tanner, no less, PRAISED Nibley's research on the Book of Abraham in his "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price" and said that it was a must read for budding Egyptologists and anyone else who wishes to have a say on this issue.
Rommelator 3 years ago
but to what end would that reading be ?
since K.Baer "The Breathing Permit belonging to the priest Hor." when speaking of the sensen scroll that j.smith claimed to be boa.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
additionally Baer says of the j.smith and the scroll
"The vignette shows the resurrection of Osiris (who is also the deceased owner of the papyrus) and the conception of Horus. Osiris (2) is represented as a man on a lion-couch (4) attended by Anubis (3), the jackal-headed god who embalmed the dead and thereby assured their resurrection and existence in the afterlife"
note that this is the lack of any of the terms persons or ideas presented by j.smith.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Your proof-texting is lacking in any sort of erudition. The issues of interpreting Egyptian vignettes is not as strait-forward as you seem. Baer understood this, which is why he praised Nibley's research and accosted anti-Mormons like Jerald Tanner, who held to a similarly shallow view such as your own. Maybe if you botherer to actually read some of Nibley's research you would understand, but I am not holding my breath.
Rommelator 3 years ago
"The issues of interpreting Egyptian vignettes is not as strait-forward as you seem. Baer understood this, which is why he praised Nibley's research and accosted anti-Mormons like Jerald Tanner, who held to a similarly shallow view such as your own."
Quote mine much? Klaus was very clear in saying that the BoM is a fraud. Praising some of Nibley's early research isn't an endorsement of all that Nibley did, nor does it rescue the BoA.
PompousSMonson 3 years ago 2
What was illegal was the destruction of the type. That I grant. The Prophet went overboard on that. However, he was within his rights, as granted by the State Government, to suppress libelous papers like the Nauvoo Expositor.
Papers "not to his liking"? LOL. So, like I said, I guess you won't mind if I start a paper calling you slanderous epithets, attacking your character and spreading rumors?
Still waiting for your indignation against the Missouri mobs.
Rommelator 3 years ago
From the FAIR wiki:
"Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council's decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever."
So, who is spinning the history now?
Let me guess your next rebuttal. "Well, of course you Mormons would argue that".
Oh my, isn't that such a coherent and logical argument?
Rommelator 3 years ago
It wasn't illegal, as demonstrated in the Utah Law Review 9 (1965):874
"The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages."
Rommelator 3 years ago
strike all, 1 non mormon voted against the measuer.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
To all those that reflexively push thumbs down in an attempt to silence your opposition, I see you are following the guiding light of j.smith in his illegal destruction of the Navuoo Expositor newspaper. I wonder if you had a private army and the law in your back pocket if you would have those of us that disagree with you arrested and our PC's taken into the street and destroyed.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Oh sure, sure. Crimany we wouldn't stop it at that, we'd also box yer ears pilgrim! LOL!
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
More like Mountain Meadows......
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Your paranoia is humorous, as it is ill informed.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
You respond to Mountain Meadows but won't provide the disclaimer in Welch's book?
Ill informed? Mountain Meadows is where Mormons murdered innocent people. Now, let's hear the spin......
exmoagogo 3 years ago
You won't get Welch's book to read it? You won't get the newest info on Mountain Meadows and read it? No wonder we cannot communicate, you refuse to properly inform yourself.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"Illegal" destruction of the press? Um, yeah, the Illinois State Government, which granted the Nauvoo charter, also granted that the City Council had the power to stop libelous presses. So get mad at the State of Illinois if you have a problem.
And what about the destruction of W. W. Phelp's printing press in Missouri in 1833? Was that "legal"?
Rommelator 3 years ago
Even mormon researchers only claim they could have destroyed the printed pages (still a gross violation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution) even your (then)living prophet j.smith admitted that the destruction of the press was wrong and offered to pay for it (fair).
You might wish to read ART. VIII 22 and 23 of IL Constitution, giving attention to the term JURY.
And no the destruction of press in 1833 was not legal, nor was it done under color of authority.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
"still a gross violation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution"
So you wouldn't mind, then, if I started a newspaper spreading rumors around about you and slandering your character? You wouldn't mind if I had a radio show dedicated to trying to make you look like a degenerate and knave?
"And no the destruction of press in 1833 was not legal"
So where is your haughty indignation over those men who destroyed this press, hmmm?
Rommelator 3 years ago
You just keep making sure that you repeat your mantra everyday 16 times, and I am more than positive you can help keep yourself brainwashed into it.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
Still waiting for Welch's disclaimer from his "world class" book.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Save the righteous indignation for someone who will buy into that bunk. You made your bed, sleep in it.
canadianbacon007 3 years ago
As far as being cogent goes, do a little peer review on your grammar. Your spelling is atrocious. "statment instult arguemnt." You only got the Pratt quote right because you pasted it.
canadianbacon007 3 years ago
It's so easy to rate these comments, except for the BYP, it's a moron convention.
canadianbacon007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Where is your Welch disclaimer?
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Maxwell Institute have shown all these issues. You are welcome to continue to ignore them as you wish, no problem for me.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sadly for some people the false promises of j.smtih are more aluring than the true promis of the New Testament.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Archaeologically though, Jesus Christ has not been proven yet. In fact, there is exactly NO historical proof, archaeological proof, etc. that Jesus even lived, according to scholarship. So if you think it has a basis of historical and archaeological value, why decry the Book of Mormon, when your New Testament is in exactly the same situation?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But, virutally all the events and places that were are in the New Testemant have been proven, while ZERO (0) events of the bom have been proven by history.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Wrong again.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
We know where Biblical cities are. We can't find ONE Book of Mormon city.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok excluding Jerusalem, what city mentioned in the bom can you show me on a map, what artifacts are on display from it ?
Since the book is evidence according to your rather "creative" way to thinking lets use that evidence and go find one of the cities that is j.smith author and proprietor of bom wrote about.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Ok excluding Jerusalem, what city mentioned in the bom can you show me on a map, what artifacts are on display from it ?
Since the book is evidence according to your rather "creative" way to thinking lets use that evidence and go find one of the cities that is j.smith author and proprietor of bom wrote about.
Bidimus1 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
j.smith was a bit hard to pin down oh how he "translated" boa in that he both claims at times it was by revelation, but then creates an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer the characters of which coraspond with those of the j.smith papyris found in NY in mid 1960's
The "translation" by j.smith Alpha-Gramar shares no resmblace to workable translation tool, its as fake as a $3 bill.
To all legitimate scholars the j.smith egyptian to english text is a sad joke.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Define "legitimate scholars." This ought to be rich!
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People that have degrees and have worked in the field of study.
DNA - Chemistry and Genetics
Archeology - Archeology degrees
History - History
language = linguistics
And have been published in journals that have critical peer review, not the editor/fellow believer review of Max. Inst.
I can see how you might think this list a laugh riot, as you have people like Fmr Phys. Prof Dr.s jones using "archaeometry" to to "help" the archaeologists, he also "proved" thermate brought down WTC
Bidimus1 3 years ago
O.K., thanks. I find that several of the FARMS scholars fall into these categories. I apreciate you showing me your understanding of this. I am satisfied.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
but.. if they work for the same institution, they are not independent it make the processes a sham.
A maxwell inst staffer reviewing another maxwell inst submitter is not peer review.
Since you have said the being a mormon makes you a peer on other mormons (in the context of scholarly peer review), you have a poor grasp of what peer review is.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Sigh. You're right. I have no comprehension whatsoever. Your logic, your knowledge, your own capability of grasping peer review simply overhelms me, you win.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, writes, "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".
PompousSMonson 3 years ago
So... John Gee (PhD, Yale) and Hugh Nibley (PhD, UC Berkley) are not "legitimate scholars"? Who, then, is? People who agree with you?
Rommelator 3 years ago
That would depend on the field in which we are speaking.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Egyptology, for starters. Both have training in these fields and both fail to see how the Book of Abraham is a joke or such similar epithets.
Rommelator 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
a diconcerting number of posts seem to be missing, I have had this happen before on youtube so I will repost.
of the 220+ works on the law lib. welch has but a handfull (appx 10) that are not published by either tan organ of j.smiths church or publishes that work with it to near exclusion of all othrs (bookcraft 26)
the majority are Maxwell/farms and we know thy are not peer reviewed (as per there on statments) so this leaves a very small number that MIGHT have been peer reviewed.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their arguments and evidence. It is on the basis of evidence that a case stands or falls, not on whether something is peer reviewed. I will also ask you, have you yet got John W. Welch's brand new PEER REVIEWED book, "The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon" and read it yet?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"the majority are Maxwell/farms and we know thy are not peer reviewed"
Completely, 100% false. See the enlightening article by Daniel C. Peterson "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to "Second Sight" by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist" in the FARMS Review 18/2
Rommelator 3 years ago
maxwell/farms had admitted that they have other member of maxwell/farms do the "review" this is at best a editor review not what is considered a peer review
d.peterson
"At a minimum, each review is read carefully by the editor (me), my two associate editors (Louis Midgley and George Mitton), our production editor (Shirley Ricks), and the FARMS/Institute director of publications (Alison V. P. Coutts). "
note that is only other members of maxwell/FARMS are required my peterson's own words.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
You are very selectively reading the article. He said "at a minimum" but that is by no means the only thing employed. Peterson goes onto the explain the mechanics of peer review and notes that non-Mormon peer reviewers have been used at times. Fact is that FARMS is peer reviewed on the same standard as other academic journals.
Rommelator 3 years ago
invalidates your 100%
as for an provable issue of how poor the review of maxwell /farms
d.peterson has a paper on the cite that claims that no bones of horses have ever been found from the Hun empire, sadly a full and complete tomb of a Hun princes was found with 5 horse skulls and wall paintings of horse drawn carriage with mounted escort, over a decade before he had his paper "reviewed" and published.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Even if there are mistakes in FARMS material, and of course there is, that does not mean that they are not peer reviewed. Your claim was that FARMS is not peer reviewed. I demonstrably showed that that claim is false. Your nihilistic quibbling is a red herring, as the actual content of FARMS material is an entirely different thing. Fact is that FARMS is peer reviewed. Does that guarantee 100% quality of the material? No. But it doesn't change the fact that FARMS is peer reviewed.
Rommelator 3 years ago
No sir you have proved that your definition of peer review is far from the standard set by the academic community.
Your second issue is quite valid, the peer review process as a rule will find errors in research and logic it does not guaranty the the premise or conclusion is correct. It does set a standard, in that it has been read and reviewed by competent members of the academic community in the proper field of study.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
The fact that their own people(maxwell) are considered available to do "peer review" casts a long and dark shadow on the farms review process.
"have been used at times" in common parlance would mean that the majority are not reviewed by people outside of j.smiths church but are instead reviewed by co-religionists.
If you wish to have an internal press for you faith now one would have problem, but dont call it a peer reviewed journal.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
*Pounds head on table again and again*
Well, if you would read the rest of Peterson's essay, you will see why having "co-religionists" peer review sometimes is not only an a practice made throughout all academia but is in some cases preferred. How would you like a Muslim peer reviewing the Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers? Or an atheist reviewing the Evangelical Quarterly: An International Review of Bible and Theology?
Rommelator 3 years ago
maxwell/farms does not only publish religious texts, but claims science and history also .
The peers of a history paper are not defined by faith but by credentials.
If their papers are so well done, and correct why do they publish in what is nearly a vanity press in the same manner as AE911 and such.
As for a muslim if the paper was based on fact and he an honest reviewer his review would be valid.
but a history prof review a theological paper would not be, and vis versa
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Which is why non-LDS historians like Raphial Patai, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Nuesner, Jan Shipps, Peter Nadig, Azziz Attiya and several others have published with the FARMS Review and FARMS, right? But I guess they automatically are wrong because of the bias of the peer review at FARMS. Guess somebody should have sent them the memo that FARMS is a pseudo-scholarly institute that will ruin their reputation if they publish with them, huh?
Rommelator 3 years ago
I would have to read and examine each paper to form an opinion as to its being correct or not, but the process at maxwell/farms would not give the paper the same assumed level of accuracy that a true scholarly peer review would.
Just as an article in time on the law may be correct it would not make the equivalent of a paper in a major law review.
If their articles published in maxwell/farms were printed also in properly reviewed journal the would carry more weight.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Romm..... don't forget Frank Moore Cross, Jr., actually HELPING to write the article for ancient temples in the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism."
KerryShirts 3 years ago
"As for a muslim if the paper was based on fact and he an honest reviewer his review would be valid."
So why can't a Mormon do a peer review and have the review be valid regardless of who is doing the publishing? And why is it that Evangelicals can peer review Evangelical journals, Catholic to Catholic or Muslim to Muslim and everyone is okay. But heaven forbid that a Mormon should review a Mormon. It seems that everyone wants to treat the Latter-day Saints as some sort of exception. Weird.
Rommelator 3 years ago
Not as much the religious affiliation, but that the journal is using people in house and others that work for same univ as itself that makes it not a true peer review
Also to be a competent peer review area of expertise must be in the field of study that the paper subject.
I do not hold maxwell to a different standard, if for instance a paper was written and published at smu and all the reviewers were either members of the journal or employed by smu it would not be a proper peer reviewed
Bidimus1 3 years ago
True momon hirachy does not officaly agree with FAIR / Maxwell inst / BYU. They just pay for all of it. And quote it as needed.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Michael Ash claims mistranslation as an excuse for problems like no horses or steel weapons being found in the americas.
But he OMITS the fact that this contradicts Smith and others.
Oliver Cowdery said, "By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected."
fubecabr 3 years ago
"The leaders of the Mormon Church NEVER comment on such things. Why? Because they are afraid of the wrath of GOD!!!"
It's called plausible deniability. They need someone to defend LDS Inc, by whatever means necessary, but they want clean hands of it.
The first article I looked at on the FAIR webpage today was an article by Michael Ash on horses.
HE STILL advocates the ridiculous, often-mocked "horses are really tapirs" argument. Not only is it funny, but it's intellectually dishonest.
fubecabr 3 years ago
It is nothing of the sort. Have you yet understood *why* Sorenson discusses this idea of horses? Have you read his book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon"? He is not advocating that as THE idea, but of a possibility based on real world evidence in Mesoamerica. WHY are you ignoring that?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
Bidimus1 3 years ago
The argument that bom should not be judged as a history book is prove fallacious by the first page of bom - authored by j.smith
He claims it as a book of history, it should and will be judged on that basis.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
NO ONE HAS Ever said it should not be judged as history, but that is not the singular importance of it, anymore than it is of the Bible.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
j.smith did, as proved by the title page of the book he authored (bom)
Account = History
I am happy to inform you, that WORDS have Meanings and not every one is willing to just redefine then at a whim like say Deacon as being unmarried boys.
While a Biblical Deacon 1 Timothy 3:12 " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
I have a Bachelor's degree in History, and I have *never* heard it called "a continuous, systematic narrative of past events." No history book onthe planet would qualify if this, indeed, was what history is thought to be. Quote your source for this idea please. Thank you. I call for references.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe I did post source but here, just in case.
"continuous, systematic narrative of past events"
Dictionary . com
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary
if you prefer
"a chronological record of significant events"
Merriam Webster on line
"a continuous record of past events or trends. " Oxford Compact Eng. Dict.
Should I alert the media that on the testimony Baccalaureate Degreed person that there are no history books ?
Where did you get that History degree ?
Bidimus1 3 years ago
I was hoping you would find a professional historian to describe the reality of history, not a dictionary definintion that deals with the ideology. Oh well, go with the dictionary definition, we historians know nothing in the presence of your overwhelming intelligence and erudition.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"No history book onthe planet would qualify if this, indeed, was what history is thought to be. Quote your source for this idea please. Thank you. I call for references. " backyardprofessor
I am sorry that you think that Random House, Webster and the OED are poor reference works, but the rest of the English speaking world seems to find them fairly authoritative.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
I said nothing about them being poor reference works. You are as creative at misreading as any critic I have known.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
by wishing that I had quoted a "working historian" in preference to well respected reference works (that evidently were never cited in any of your education) you place any "working historian" as a more vaild source thus by comparison disparaging the cited works.
Still you dodge the issue that author j.smith in his work the bom is a claiming to have written an ACCOUNT of true events. That account having no physical or historical proof.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
You asre correct. I have no choice but to dodge the issue in light of the vast superiority of your intellect, evidences, and objectivity. None of we Mormons are scholars, nor can we even read. We are all merely faking it to fool the world, and you in your greatness have caught us in the act. Oh the shame, oh the misery of our subjective pleadings without any evidence whatsoever, and oh your glory for finding us out and exposing us. We bow before thee, oh thy greatness of inellect and knowledge.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
by wishing that I had quoted a "working historian" in preference to well respected reference works (that evidently were never cited in any of your education) you place any "working historian" as a more vaild source thus by comparison disparaging the cited works.
Still you dodge the issue that author j.smith in his work the bom is a claiming to have written an ACCOUNT of true events. That account having no physical or historical proof.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
Your expert guest has as much trouble keeping the story straight much like the author of j.smith. According to one of the 3 witness the urim and thummim (a term not used till 1833) were taken back due to the transgression of losing the first 116 pages of the manuscript. Thus only had his chocolate coloured peep stone to "translate" boa.
Bidimus1 3 years ago
# This "in-group" consists of people who FARMS trusts and who are chosen by FARMS to do its peer reviewing.
# FARMS submits its research and papers to only those it is confident will not challenge the basic assumptions that underlie FARMS papers and research.
# These "in-group" reviewers either belong to FARMS, are professionally related to FARMS or are sympathetic to FARMS.
# FARMS idea of a "peer" review is to submit its works for review to like-minded peers.
fubecabr 3 years ago
Mere hot air on your part. And just how do you KNOW this is their only methodology? You refuse to even read their materials, how on earth would you even get anything else correct about them?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"You refuse to even read their materials, how on earth would you even get anything else correct about them?"
I have read FARMS and FAIR. When I was questioning mormonism, I looked at their material. I found that many times, they outright lie or distort, to defend LDS Inc.
fubecabr 3 years ago
You frankly have admitted to not reading nor intending to read Welch's book. So much for being open minded eh? It is the NEWEST most UPDATE information also. This isn't materials written 122 years ago.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
You keep yammering about Welch's book.
Please duplicate for us the disclaimer that is no doubt in his book.
And, while you're at it report the names of non-Mormon peer reviewers that agree with Mormon research claiming that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are actual histories of real people, places and events.
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Non-Mormon historians, archeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc. have almost unanimously discredited Mormon claims about the origin and historicity of the BOM, BOA and other "visions" of J. Smith and his cronies & followers.
Where is the Book of Mormon museum with all or ANY artifacts found to support its claims?
Hint: there is no such thing. No artifacts exist.
"Mormon scholars" (regarding Mormonism) is an oxymoron.
Trillidotia 3 years ago
Dan Peterson,
"But let us be frank. To most of those (particularly in the very secularized world of contemporary academia) who have even a nodding acquaintance with Mormonism, our claims simply don't merit serious consideration or engagement."
exmoagogo 3 years ago
Dan Peterson,
"Although we think we're doing quite well and that we've found some exceedingly interesting and even powerful evidences in support of Latter-day Saint claims, no one affiliated with FARMS thinks that we've got an evidentiary slam dunk, and we never talk about "proving" Mormonism or "proving" the Book of Mormon true. We certainly don't imagine that we've done so."
exmoagogo 3 years ago
When these "strong claims" are put under any type of intellectual rigor how many of them still seem strong ?
Human DNA- Fail "principal ancestors" of American Indian are Asian not Hebrew
Archeology - Fail no Artifacts
Metallurgy - Fail no Steel and others
Linguistics - Fail no connection from old world to new world languages
Botany - Fail no Barley,Figs,Grapes,Wheat
Zoology - Fail no Horse,Swine,Ox,Goat
Geography - stopped looking officially - having already Failed
Bidimus1 3 years ago
So quick to dismiss. Every sigle item here has been discussed and shown your context is not nearly this simple. All of this is secondary to the main point and message and meaning of the Book of Mormon anyway. BY ignoring the LDS scholarship you can come to fast conclusions. My videos are showing that not all these have failed. Of course, why watch them when the facts refuse to conform to your wishes of failing the BofM? You are simply wrong, as my multitudinous vids show.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
have seen more of you "multitudinous vids"
you make the clame that arceolgists shoud take written word as EVIDIENCE when the FACTS on (and in) the ground are 100 diametricly opposed to what is on the written page.
Even byu/morom arceolgits admdit there is evidence
"The first myth that we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists"
Dr. Dee Green
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), pp. 77-78.
Bidimus1 3 years ago