Continued Damage Control!!

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think it's probably erroneous to categorically state that Thomas Ferguson was not an archaeologist; the organization he founded seemed to be doing some fairly good archaeological work.

Absolutely it was, and it continues to do so.

On what basis, though, would you consider Thomas Ferguson an archaeologist? How do you use that word?

Did you read this link, which I also provided above?

I think you're splitting hairs, Dr. Peterson. The point here seems to be that Ferguson was closely allied with an organization that was involved very intensely with BoM-related archaeological work, and that Ferguson was, consequently, in a good position to assess the "evidence".

Thomas Ferguson's commitment and enthusiasm and his legal training were indispensable to the founding of the New World Archaeological Foundation. But he was not an archaeologist. He visited the sites, sometimes for extended stays, but he was a booster, a well-informed amateur, and an organizer, not an expert in the field.

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

Professor Sorenson knew Thomas Ferguson for many, many years -- even traveling with him in Mesoamerica on several occasions -- and was intimately involved with the New World Archaeological Foundation from its beginning.

Sorenson's remarks in that article are appalling. It really makes you wonder at what point back-stabbing becomes morally acceptable for a Mopologist.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it's probably erroneous to categorically state that Thomas Ferguson was not an archaeologist; the organization he founded seemed to be doing some fairly good archaeological work.

During the years I was growing up as a really serious baseball fan in southern California, Buzzie Bavasi was an omnipresent and pivotal character with the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres. He made enormous contributions. His teams did well. And, unlike Thomas Ferguson's involvement with archaeology, Buzzie Bavasi even worked at it full time, professionally, as an administrator, setting policy.

He wasn't a professional baseball player, though.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think it's probably erroneous to categorically state that Thomas Ferguson was not an archaeologist; the organization he founded seemed to be doing some fairly good archaeological work.

During the years I was growing up as a really serious baseball fan in southern California, Buzzie Bavasi was an omnipresent and pivotal character with the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres. He made enormous contributions. His teams did well. And, unlike Thomas Ferguson's involvement with archaeology, Buzzie Bavasi even worked at it full time, professionally, as an administrator, setting policy.

He wasn't a professional baseball player, though.

Did he eventually conclude, based on his deep and substantial involvement with baseball, that the sport is false?

[_Tad]

On what basis, though, would you consider Thomas Ferguson an archaeologist? How do you use that word?

Did you read this link, which I also provided above?

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=532

I'm making my way through Stan Larson's Dialogue article and will read your NWAF one next. I really appreciate the recommendation.

I think it's probably erroneous to categorically state that Thomas Ferguson was not an archaeologist; the organization he founded seemed to be doing some fairly good archaeological work.

During the years I was growing up as a really serious baseball fan in southern California, Buzzie Bavasi was an omnipresent and pivotal character with the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres. He made enormous contributions. His teams did well. And, unlike Thomas Ferguson's involvement with archaeology, Buzzie Bavasi even worked at it full time, professionally, as an administrator, setting policy.

He wasn't a professional baseball player, though.

I also grew up in Southern California and attended enough Dodger games to become a fan of the team (Steve Garvey/Tommy Lasorda era) and Dodger Stadium. If I may apply your analogy another way: Vin Scully isn't a professional baseball player, but he sure knows baseball.

From Wikipedia:

Vincent Edward Scully (born November 29, 1927) is an American sportscaster, known primarily as the play-by-play voice of the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team on Prime Ticket, KCAL-TV and KABC radio. His 61 seasons with the Dodgers (1950–present) is the longest of any broadcaster with a single club in professional sports history...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ahhh. Vin Scully. One of the most familiar voices in my memory. I just have to hear it for a few seconds, or even just to think of it, and the pleasant memories come rushing back.

The analogy doesn't work, though. Buzzie Bavasi's full-time managerial duties in the team office were much more closely comparable to Thomas Ferguson's part-time NWAF-related fundraising, PR, negotiating, and legal work than were Vin Scully's duties as a multi-decade commentator on every detail of every actual baseball game.

[_Fence Sitter]

Vin Scully.
The best ever.

[_Tad]

The analogy doesn't work, though. Buzzie Bavasi's full-time managerial duties in the team office were much more closely comparable to Thomas Ferguson's part-time NWAF-related fundraising, PR, negotiating, and legal work than were Vin Scully's duties as a multi-decade commentator on every detail of every actual baseball game.

The point I would draw from the Vin Scully analogy is that there are those who are not actual professional practitioners who can and do have a great knowledge of a professional discipline. After reading Larson's Dialogue article and your reviews, however, I tend to agree that Thomas Ferguson had a naïve view of true archaeology, and projected some unrealistic expectations onto the work he set in motion. Archaeology was not his profession; it was more of a hobby or personal interest, one which he enthusiastically embraced for the sake of obtaining a preconceived end. Because of his travels and exposure to actual archaeologists, he had greater knowledge of it than the average LDS Church member, but he didn't fully honor that knowledge. He may have even betrayed it, in a sense. I agree that it was incredibly naïve of him to think that he could find inscriptions written by Nephi in the mountains of Oman.

A couple salient points I took from your article "Ein Heldenleben":

"The absence of archaeological evidence is not evidence of absence." (Yamauchi)

Simple, succinct and true.

"It is vitally important that those seeking to draw broad conclusions from archaeology (whether regarding the Book of Mormon or with respect to other matters) understand the severe limitations of currently available data and that they realize how much work remains to be done. Tentativeness and humility are very much in order." (Peterson/Roper)

It is gratifying to see this statement in writing from an apologist, and even more gratifying to witness such behavior from one. On the subject of drawing conclusions from archaeology, I wonder how much time will need to pass, and archaeological effort done (at current rates of exploration, discovery and analysis), before we can say with some surety that there either is or isn't any Book of Mormon evidence in the western hemisphere.

Back to one of my first thoughts regarding this post. Are hobby apologists like the ones who write for Mormon Times any better than Thomas Ferguson? Do they jump on the faith promotion bandwagon just as eagerly and "one-sidedly" as Ferguson did his archaeology hobby bandwagon? After they are gone, will we also say, as you and Roper said about Ferguson, "So what?"

[_cambreckenridge]

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19534/True-scholarship-vs-wishful-thinking

Out of all the mopologetic efforts, you have to feel the sorriest for those trying to defend the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. It's like trying establish that there was a real place named Oz, with a real yellow brick road.

I agree with that in a way. I don't dismiss the B of M or B of A, but I do think the effort to 'prove' any of it through archaeology is nearly pointless.

Some Jewish scholars have expressed frustration with Christian folks determined to locate the exact site of Noah's ark's landing spot, evidence of the Moses vs Egyptian magicians miracles, & other examples of taking everything in the Old Testament literally. When someone asks them if the Israelites wandered for 40 years, or could it have been 39 1/2, stuff like that, those Jews say, "What is your problem? You're missing the whole point of the story! Whether 40 is literal or symbolic or some kind of ancient idiom or something isn't the reason the story was written." The same thing could be said of New Testament, and the Book of Mormon.

At the very beginning, doesn't Nephi say he writes in the manner of the Jews? The Jews of his time & in New Testament times combined truths with historic events with allegories with the literal & figurative. Mormon or Moroni says our B of M is a spiritual, sacred record, and a different book that is basically historical is, well, a different book. Besides, a vast multitude of events & people & ideas would have passed across this hemisphere over thousands of years, only a teeny tiny fraction of which mattered enough to put into the B of M, & I'd be more interested in the whole of that history. It seems as if many LDS researchers either try to deny anything outside the scope of the B of M, or they insist on interpreting anything from any time in terms of B of M accounts.

Looking for archaeological evidence or twisting into a pretzel one's analysis of artifacts found seems as pointless as dedicating one's life to locating some old papyri with a first-hand account of the parting of the Red Sea.

It'd be cool if someone dug up an ancient, written, verifiable, translatable record somewhere in the Americas that duplicates some of the accounts found in the B of M, but that wouldn't be 'the point,' no matter what. (critics would only claim that Joseph Smith had access to a similar ancient record that he never told anyone about, & believers believe anyway, right?)

Cam

[_moksha]

Christopher Columbus had no degree in sailing.

[_Markk]

I think you're splitting hairs, Dr. Peterson. The point here seems to be that Ferguson was closely allied with an organization that was involved very intensely with Book of Mormon-related archaeological work, and that Ferguson was, consequently, in a good position to assess the "evidence".

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.

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

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?