Continued Damage Control!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

So much so that David O. McKay gave the foundation a 1/4 of a million 1950 dollars on his word that Book of Mormon evidences could/would be found.

For factual information about the relationship between the Church and NWAF, see my discussion here.

Also as far as I know Dan does not have degree in theology,

That's true. I don't. The University of California doesn't grant degrees in theology.

Yet my B.A. is in Greek and philosophy, and my dissertation concerned the concept of divine creation in the work of an eleventh-century Shi‘ite Neoplatonist.

yet I doubt his peers debunk his writings and perspectives that go beyond his 'degrees'. Also along this line how can he give critical review of subjects beyond his scholarly pedigree...?

You're buying into the straw man that we're all -- all four or five hundred of us -- obsessed with credentials, and that we criticize people for writing beyond their degrees. This is not true. We criticize articles and books, when it seems to us appropriate to do so, for exceeding the competence of their authors.

Thomas Stewart Ferguson's problem wasn't that he was an amateur. It's that his thinking and writing were amateurish.

What about Brant Gardner, his bio on MST says he's in the computer software business...yet I've never seen a negative review of his work by Dan's group?

In our judgment, his work isn't amateurish. Quite the contrary.

Anyway, he did extensive graduate work in Mesoamerican studies. He simply didn't finish the Ph.D.

[_Markk]

For factual information about the relationship between the Church and NWAF, see my discussion here.

Did he get the 250k from the church for the foundation. Was he lying in his book?

That's true. I don't. The University of California doesn't grant degrees in theology.

Yet my B.A. is in Greek and philosophy, and my dissertation concerned the concept of divine creation in the work of an eleventh-century Shi‘ite Neoplatonist.

And I wrote a paper last month (a one year program for a layman's cert in theology) on " A positive outcome Of Adams Transgression"...so what? I'm sure they have impacted the world equally?

You're buying into the straw man that we're all -- all four or five hundred of us -- obsessed with credentials, and that we criticize people for writing beyond their degrees. This is not true. We criticize articles and books, when it seems to us appropriate to do so, for exceeding the competence of their authors.

Thomas Stewart Ferguson's problem wasn't that he was an amateur. It's that his thinking and writing were amateurish.

Give me a break Dan, you guys disagree with anything or anyone that threatens the current view of the church. In one breath you say TF is amateurish, yet in another it’s OK to agree with a guy who says north isn't really north in the Book of Mormon. This all goes with the given that ‘the church’ must survive and if anything or anyone threatens ‘the church’ it will be dog piled on. It as nothing at all to do with competence Dan, it has to do with what they say or write that might threaten current LDS thought.

Take care.

[Guest]

Did he get the 250k from the church for the foundation. Was he lying in his book?

My article is on line. You can read it for free.

And I wrote a paper last month (a one year program for a layman's cert in theology) on " A positive outcome Of Adams Transgression"...so what? I'm sure they have impacted the world equally?

It doesn't matter how much your paper has influenced the world, or how little my dissertation has.

You said that I held no degree in theology, which is, strictly speaking, true. But it's surely relevant to your declaration to note my background in Greek and philosophy, and to point out that my dissertation was on a central theological subject, the notion of divine action and divine creation, as that issue was approached by the biblical authors, by Philo Judaeus and some of the Church Fathers, by pagan Greek Middle Platonists, and by both pagan Greek and Islamic Neoplatonists.

Give me a break Dan, you guys disagree with anything or anyone that threatens the current view of the church.

You're right. We disagree with people who disagree with us.

In other breaking news: All bachelors are unmarried. And, if X is a sibling of Y, Y is a sibling of X.

In one breath you say TF is amateurish, yet in another it’s OK to agree with a guy who says north isn't really north in the Book of Mormon.

You evidently imagine that all directional terms (and perhaps all descriptors, generally) are isomorphic across cultures, languages, and periods.

This all goes with the given that ‘the church’ must survive and if anything or anyone threatens ‘the church’ it will be dog piled on. It as nothing at all to do with competence Dan, it has to do with what they say or write that might threaten current LDS thought.

Sorry. Don't let me disturb your attempts at mind-reading.

[_Kevin Graham]

FARMS/MI worships titles and degrees, and their "job description" is to demean and discredit anyone who disagrees with them.

This is false, of course.

And then Dan moves, in the same thread, to discredit Thomas Ferguson. He and Hamblin like to tell stories about how Ferguson went on an excavation trip and immediately started questioning the indigenous folk, asking them if they've heard of the word Nephi, Zarahemla, etc. This was Hamblin's proof that Ferguson was not a serious person at all.

But if anyone were to discredit crackpot Mormons like, oh say Wells Jakeman, Dan becomes indignant and leaves in a huff because he cannot handle criticism of those he knows personally, no matter how idiotic their claims are.

Jakeman is the idiot who tried to extract the name "Nephi" from the tree of life stone, by saying there was an image of corn over the head of one figure, and the corn God was called "Nepi." Just doesn't get anymore crackpot than that, but for Dan, this is an example of stellar scholarship and Jakeman doesn't deserve to be called out for his idiocy. Now if he had subsequently "apostasized" like Ferguson,... well that's altogether different.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I didn't know M. Wells Jakeman personally, and, in fact, never met him.

Nor have I and my friends defended everything he ever wrote as "stellar scholarship." (See this, for example.)

But he wasn't a crackpot.

Neither, for that matter, was Thomas Ferguson. We have never said that he was.

Kevin Graham routinely labels everybody with whom he disagrees a crackpot, a liar, an idiot, a coward, and/or a moron.

I don't.

[_Themis]

He was in a better position to evaluate the Book of Mormon evidence than 99.99% of Latter-day Saints.

He is only attacked by the apologetic community simply becuase they know he stopped believing. Had that information never surfaced they would be saying only nice things about him. It's how the apologetic games is played unfortunately.

[_Themis]

I don't think anyone's trying to do that. Your criticism runs up against scientific methodology in which no evidence for is not evidence against and there is absolutely no evidence against. Seems to me that as time goes by, more and more antiBoM arguments fall by the wayside too.

Why don't you learn something about the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you did you would realize that in some situations absence of evidence is evdience of absence. I have seen lists by apologists in which they list what has gone by the way side. Why is it that most really have not, and those that have were stupid arguments to begin with, not unlike most of what I have seen from the apologetic community.

[_Daniel Peterson]

He is only attacked by the apologetic community simply becuase they know he stopped believing. Had that information never surfaced they would be saying only nice things about him. It's how the apologetic games is played unfortunately.

Thomas Stewart Ferguson is only cited and loved by the ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon community because they know he stopped believing. Had that information never surfaced they would be saying only negative things about him (if they paid any attention at all). It's how the critics' games are played, unfortunately.

Had tales of his (perhaps temporary) apostasy never appeared, we would probably be saying about as many nice things about him as we typically say about his frequent co-author, the late Dr. Milton R. Hunter, a member of the Seventy whom we seldom if ever even mention. Ferguson and Hunter meant well, and they did some useful things, but they belong to a much earlier, much more naïve, and much less sophisticated stage of the LDS study of the history and archaeology relevant to Book of Mormon claims. Few if any people read them any more.

Thomas Stewart Ferguson, though, has been and continues to be exploited as a weapon against Latter-day Saint faith. I'm aware of no obligation on our part to be silent in the face of that fact.

[_Markk]

My article is on line. You can read it for free.

You said your article was factual, yet I didn't see anything about the 250K in your article, so either your article is not factual, TF is a liar, or I misread your article...the latter is why I asked you the question I want to be fair.

You said that I held no degree in theology, but, in fact, my dissertation was on a central theological subject: the notion of divine action and divine creation.

So do you have a degree in theology? Does preparing a dissertation somehow make a person relevant or less amateurish? Just a guess but I would bet you would disagree with more theological dissertations than you would agree with, and especially if they are negative towards current LDS theology.

You're right. We disagree with people who disagree with us.

In other news: All bachelors are unmarried.

You disagree with TF because he was an amateur, I said it was because his findings disagree with LDS thought, keep it in context. And by the way, BY was a married bachelor… what some 50 times…kinda…LOL...couldn't resist.

You evidently imagine that all directional terms (and perhaps all descriptors, generally) are isomorphic across cultures, languages, and periods.

No, but I believe that if a document is translated by the power of God the directions would be translated into the language so people could understand. With your logic how do you know repent means repent in the Book of Mormon, or baptize means baptize? This is just another example of LDS scholarship twisting data fit their current thought.

Sorry. Don't let me disturb your attempts at mind-reading.

One doesn't have to read minds to understand this, it is much easier to read FAIR reviews.

Take care Dan

[_Daniel Peterson]

You said your article was factual, yet I didn't see anything about the 250K in your article, so either your article is not factual, TF is a liar, or I misread your article...the latter is why I asked you the question I want to be fair.

You're not getting the point. I don't particularly care whether the Church gave NWAF $250K or $100K or $1.00. That's not the issue. The relevant fact is that, contrary to your claim above, the money wasn't given on the basis of Thomas Ferguson's word (alone), nor was it given in the clear expectation of proof of the Book of Mormon. The situation was quite different from that, as I explained. Extremely prominent non-Mormon archaeologists were involved with NWAF from the beginning, and the organization's goal was never, ever, to "prove" the Book of Mormon true.

So do you have a degree in theology?

Third time: I do not. But my dissertation and my research have focused on what can only be characterized as history of theology and philosophy.

So your attempt to portray me as unqualified to write on theology is misguided.

Does preparing a dissertation somehow make a person relevant or less amateurish?

I'm assuming that you haven't written a dissertation and don't know much about graduate study. The writing of a dissertation is designed to demonstrate that one has expert knowledge in a field and is capable of contributing original work in it.

So, yes, the fact that I wrote a dissertation on a central issue in the history of philosophical theology makes me somewhat more relevant to the field of philosophical theology and somewhat less amateurish in the field.

Just a guess but I would bet you would disagree with more theological dissertations than you would agree with, and especially if they are negative towards current LDS theology.

That may possibly be true, but is of dubious relevance.

You disagree with TF because he was an amateur,

No, I do not. I denied that, above. Please don't continue to try to misrepresent me.

I said it was because his findings disagree with LDS thought,

And I said, yes, that I disagree with him because his "findings" [sic] disagree with what I believe.

That should be rather obvious, shouldn't it?

If x does not equal y, but z does equal y, then z is going to agree with y against x.

keep it in context.

I took nothing out of context.

No, but I believe that if a document is translated by the power of God the directions would be translated into the language so people could understand.

I have no prior experience of divinely-inspired translations on which to base any expectation that God is obliged to make directional indicators in an ancient text more precise than their original-language terms were.

With your logic how do you know repent means repent in the Book of Mormon, or baptize means baptize?

If you can come up with something to show that repent in the Book of Mormon doesn't mean repent, or that baptize in the Book of Mormon doesn't mean baptize, I'll give you a very serious hearing.

This is just another example of LDS scholarship twisting data fit their current thought.

It's an example of fides quarens intellectum. Which, as the language itself suggests, isn't a novel idea.