Book of Mormon Scholarship fireside with Dr. Peterson tonight

[drumdude]

Thank you BYP for the breakdown! Let’s see if DP responds or ignores it. My prediction is he will continue maligning the forum and not address any of it.


https://youtu.be/rodeGihInBA

[Philo Sofee]

Thank you BYP for the breakdown! Let’s see if DP responds or ignores it. My prediction is he will continue maligning the forum and not address any of it.


https://youtu.be/rodeGihInBA

My very good pleasure! Thanks for watching. I am not sure if DCP will ever update, but the rest of us will and do so.

[cacheman]

Peterson just claimed that non-LDS Uto-Aztecan language experts have said they believe the LDS research (on the link between Hebrew and Aztec languages) is credible. It would be interesting to email them (there aren't many) to see if that is actually the case.

In his book, "Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan", Stubbs included a quote by David H Kelley who referring to the draft sent to him said: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.” Unfortunately, Dr. Kelley (a friend and collaborator of John Sorenson) died four years before this was published, so you won't be able to contact him.

Elsewhere, Book of Mormon Central wrote "Although some linguists have voiced reservations, several linguists and other scholars have been impressed with Brian Stubbs’ thorough work." The scholars referred to in the BOMC article were Dr. Kelley, BYU professors Dirk Elzinga and John Robertson, another Mormon, Stephen Jett, and non-LDS Robert Wescott (currently at the University of Tennessee - Chattanooga).

-cacheman

[Symmachus]

Elsewhere, Book of Mormon Central wrote "Although some linguists have voiced reservations, several linguists and other scholars have been impressed with Brian Stubbs’ thorough work[." The scholars referred to in the BOMC article were Dr. Kelley, BYU professors Dirk Elzinga and John Robertson, another Mormon, Stephen Jett, and non-LDS Robert Wescott (currently at the University of Tennessee - Chattanooga).

Yes, well I agree that his work is very impressive. That does not mean it is convincing in the least.

[Marcus]

Peterson just claimed that non-LDS Uto-Aztecan language experts have said they believe the LDS research (on the link between Hebrew and Aztec languages) is credible. It would be interesting to email them (there aren't many) to see if that is actually the case.

In his book, "Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan", Stubbs included a quote by David H Kelley who referring to the draft sent to him said: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.”
Unfortunately, Dr. Kelley (a friend and collaborator of John Sorenson) died four years before this was published, so you won't be able to contact him.

Stubbs repeats this story, including the italicized part, in which he upgrades Kelly's remark about a draft from a thing to a book.

David H. Kelley, a Harvard PhD who has published in anthropology and linguistics and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving a draft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole book. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.”121

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... note121anc

and here is footnote 121:

121. John Sorenson sent David H. Kelley a copy of an early draft of my work, which Kelley read, then asked Sorenson for my phone number. Dr. Kelley called me and over the phone spoke these words to me along with other complimentary details.

So, the "complimentary detail," now about the book, is written by the author being complimented, who says he heard it in a phone conversation.

Whether it happened or not, this kind of anecdote, combined with its source, in my opinion does not constitute a credible positive review by a linguist.

[drumdude]

They’re too afraid to publicly admit that they believe Hebrews sailed to the Americas on a transoceanic vessel in 600BC. Their careers would be ruined. Most scholars actually know it’s true but the atheist conspiracy keeps them quiet.

[Dr Moore]

“Impressive” could also mean anything from sarcasm to insult, depending on context.

And, people say all sorts of things they don’t mean in service of being pleasant.

[cacheman]

In his book, "Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan", Stubbs included a quote by David H Kelley who referring to the draft sent to him said: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.”
Unfortunately, Dr. Kelley (a friend and collaborator of John Sorenson) died four years before this was published, so you won't be able to contact him.

Stubbs repeats this story, including the italicized part, in which he upgrades Kelly's remark about a draft from a thing to a book.

David H. Kelley, a Harvard PhD who has published in anthropology and linguistics and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving a draft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole book. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.”121

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... note121anc

and here is footnote 121:

121. John Sorenson sent David H. Kelley a copy of an early draft of my work, which Kelley read, then asked Sorenson for my phone number. Dr. Kelley called me and over the phone spoke these words to me along with other complimentary details.

So, the "complimentary detail," now about the book, is written by the author being complimented, who says he heard it in a phone conversation.

Whether it happened or not, this kind of anecdote, combined with its source, in my opinion does not constitute a credible positive review by a linguist.

Thanks for the background. I agree. Particularly if the anecdote was published after Dr. Kelley had died and could no longer confirm, deny, or clarify what was said.

[Marcus]

Stubbs repeats this story, including the italicized part, in which he upgrades Kelly's remark about a draft from a thing to a book.



and here is footnote 121:



So, the "complimentary detail," now about the book, is written by the author being complimented, who says he heard it in a phone conversation.

Whether it happened or not, this kind of anecdote, combined with its source, in my opinion does not constitute a credible positive review by a linguist.

Thanks for the background. I agree. Particularly if the anecdote was published after Dr. Kelley had died and could no longer confirm, deny, or clarify what was said.

You're welcome, and.. exactly.

[cacheman]

Thanks for the background. I agree. Particularly if the anecdote was published after Dr. Kelley had died and could no longer confirm, deny, or clarify what was said.

You're welcome, and.. exactly.

It also turns out that I was wrong about Dr Roger Wescott currently being at UT-Chattanooga. He is also deceased (since 2000). So, it appears that the non-LDS scholars said to have been impressed with Stubbs' work are not around to confirm or clarify.

-cacheman