John Sorenson on Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East

[Rosebud]

What Dr Cole thinks of Dr Carter, a source of support of Sorenson's work

"George is a geographer who trained under Karl Sauer and is renowned for
his claims for A/TransPacific contact and biological flow of PreColumbian
traits and species to the New World from the Old and B/his claims for
humans in the Americas "Earlier than You Think" (Title of one of his
books) such as "Texas Street" in San Diego. I have long considered George
a friend and a friendly adversary (and vice versa, I think!); he is a
nice, thoroughly committed guy who must be pushing or passing 90 (haven't
heard from him for several years). And he accepts EVERY cranky claim
(almost) which supports his views, altho I have argued in print and
personally that he hurts his case by doing so. I showed convincing
evidence that one "Early MAn in America" claim was totally bogus, and his
response was to keep using it because, he told me, "The claim was made
honestly, and we can't even get to first base if we subject claims to that
kind of scrutiny." (My response then and now is that amazing claims may
be true, and they especially need gimlet-eyed analyses by
skeptics--otherwise they will never be substantiated!) He was satisfied
with the idea that a lot of possibilities added up to a probability... I
am not. Meanwhile, I respect George Carter but not "Carterfacts" (a term
even HE uses, shaking his head at us beknighted critics).

He is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Anthropology at Texas A&M. Steve
Jett and Carl Johannson are a couple of his more prominent younger
(60-70?) students (from CA days, I think).

--John R. Cole
http://www.andes.missouri.edu/Personal/ ... 00201.html

Carter is cited on a lot of LDS Apologetic sites

David H. Kelley speaks at The Atlantic Conference along with Mormon V Garth Norman. "The Atlantic Conference is a not-for-profit company whose sole aim is to further the study of early trans-Atlantic contact."

[_Daniel Peterson]

You don't think whoever you are slamming may be inclined to take some skin off your nose?

Anybody that I have abused here is entirely justified in responding sharply to me.

Best wishes to all!

[_Inconceivable]

You don't think whoever you are slamming may be inclined to take some skin off your nose?

Anybody that I have abused here is entirely justified in responding sharply to me.

Big words coming from someone insulated within the Celestial forum.

Shall we step outside into the Terrestrial, brother Peterson?

[_Joey]

I think the telling point here is, with all this supposedly great LDS "scholarship" on the claimed history contained in the Book of Mormon, it still hasn't convinced the appropriate academic dean(s) at BYU to offer an accredited HISTORY course describing the people, places and cultures described in the Book of Mormon. A thousand year history!! I suspect if you can't convince your own academic institution as to the merits of your "scholarship", it says something about the level of quality and acceptance.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think the telling point here is, with all this supposedly great LDS "scholarship" on the claimed history contained in the Book of Mormon, it still hasn't convinced the appropriate academic dean(s) at BYU to offer an accredited HISTORY course describing the people, places and cultures described in the Book of Mormon. A thousand year history!! I suspect if you can't convince your own academic institution as to the merits of your "scholarship", it says something about the level of quality and acceptance.

We've discussed this before. (You're welcome to use the search function. The discussion may have been on this board, or, alternatively, on MADB. I know it exists, because I ran across it again, by coincidence, about two weeks ago.)

As you learned then, courses on Mesoamerica -- for which we simply don't possess an overall connected history as we do for ancient Greece, ancient Rome, medieval Baghdad, or Renaissance Italy -- are very commonly if not, indeed, always taught in departments of anthropology/archaeology, not in departments of history. That's true at other universities as well as at BYU.

So far as I can see, not a single course is taught within BYU's Department of History on the Americas before Columbus. The courses on Precolumbian America (from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego) at BYU are, rather, Anthropology 280, 317, 326, 350, 355, 365, 372, 374, 530, 535, 560, 562, 564, 565, 566, 572, and 574. Anthropology 280 ("Archaeology and the Scriptures") carries the following description: "The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations."

And, by the way, BYU's Department of Anthropology falls within the same college (Family, Home, and Social Sciences) as does its Department of History. They have the same academic dean (currently David Magleby).

I think that ought to be enough on this particular assertion for at least a month or two.

Big words coming from someone insulated within the Celestial forum.

Shall we step outside into the Terrestrial, brother Peterson?

If you feel the need to say unkind personal things about me, you're always free to say them in the Terrestrial Forum -- with or without me.

My participation there has never been required for such things to be said about me before, and I don't believe that conditions down there have changed substantially.

You're also perfectly free to report to the moderators all of the abusive things that I post here. They can then take the appropriate actions.

Have a wonderful day!

.

[_Joey]

We've discussed this before. (You're welcome to use the search function. The discussion may have been on this board, or, alternatively, on MADB. I know it exists, because I ran across it again, by coincidence, about two weeks ago.)

Of course you know it exists.  I know it exists as well.  It is a benefit of referring to a history that actually took place and exists!!!

So far as I can see, not a single course is taught within BYU's Department of History on the Americas before Columbus.

And one really has to wonder "Why?"!  Here the Book of Mormon exists with a claimed history, translated from ancient plates from that era, describing in detail people, places and cultures for a thousand year period.  Add to that the testimonies of all the witnesses to this translation.  And top it off with supposed great "scholarship" from BYU professors Clark and Sorenson in support of this history!!!  I can't imagine all this has been ignored by Dean Magleby.  Or does he and the rest of his academic peers at BYU still believe it's not convincing enough to provide a history course on what it probably the only recorded 1000 year history not mentioned in any history book??!!!!  

Again, how convincing is all this LDS "scholarship" among those at BYU?  Not very - obviously.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Implausible as it may sound, I'm not infinitely patient.

But I wish you a great evening!

[_Dr. Shades]

What does China have to do with Plato?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I haven't the foggiest idea, although I could speculate just a bit.

I expect that Professor Mair has explained it somewhere or other.

[_Joey]

Implausible as it may sound, I'm not infinitely patient.

I'm afraid you're being much too modest. You have shown tireless patience in waiting for this claimed LDS "scholarship" to convince, and become accepted by, the professional peer groups and university that Clark and Sorenson are part of! If or when it ever does, please clue us all into the occasion!