After last week trying to persuade us that witnesses are direct, reliable evidence and that DNA is indirect evidence, now Michael Ash is going up the ego ladder a few more steps.

Quote:
"If we forego traditions and folk-assumptions about the Book of Mormon and apply the methods of modern science and scholarship to what the Book of Mormon actually says and does not say, we find that the book paints a picture which is amazingly similar in many ways to the same picture painted by New World experts about the ancient cultures during Book of Mormon times."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705371307/Challenging-Issues--Keeping-the-Faith-The-Book-of-Mormon-and-modern-science.html?pg=2

Translation:
Modern latter-day scholarship (moaps) is reading the between-the-lines, implied picture and fitting it to modern science. The words of joe smith & subsequent profits are folk lore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 07:18AM by Jesus Smith.

This morning Mr. Ash proposes that the BofM is the evidence. It must be proof, because Joseph Smith could not have known what archaeology is finding.

Ash said this: "we find that the book paints a picture which is amazingly similar in many ways to the same picture painted by New World experts about the ancient cultures during Book of Mormon times."

I'm still waiting for iron swords, coins, horse bones, chariots, ... but Ash now claims that instead of evidence to support the BofM, it is the evidence!

Here are three sources from professionals who are speaking up about "archaeological fantasies". They help to bring sanity when reading apologist writings such as today's.

Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=5

Irrationality and Popular Archaeology
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/readings/feder.pdf

Crusading Against Straw Men: An Alternative Viewo of Alternative Archaeologies: Response to Holtorf
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/readings/Fagan_and_Feder.pdf

I like this one... You folks ever catch me unconsciously stealing jokes from these guys or the ones Hoggle cited, please let me know, and I'll promptly edit it to give them credit...

http://www.badarchaeology.net/index.php

>Bad Archaeology is the brainchild of a couple of archaeologists who are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops. We do not appreciate news programmes that talk about ley lines (for example) as if they are real.

Sometimes their posts need updating (since the bullshippers on the fringe never seem to tire), and that's understandable. One can only handle turds so many times and in so many ways before one's friends start to notice and suggest a bath is in order...

My post from April 12th

I predict that the 'evidence' Mr Ash purports to have will be nothing more than the Book of Mormon itself - 'it exists, therefore that is evidence that it's real'.

I love it when I'm right...

He just forgot to mention that those New World "experts" he is referring to are the ones from the 17-1800's whose work did heavily influence this book of scripture which is totally filled with classic 19th century thought.

"If we forego traditions and folk-assumptions about the Book of Mormon"
--plain and precious truths anyone? So we must not take it at face value, and now must read between the lines to discover where it's obvious and straight forward meaning is incorrect?

"...and apply the methods of modern science and scholarship to what the Book of Mormon actually says and does not say'
--how do you apply science to "what it says"--that is a meaningless statement, plus, in his first sentence, he says you don't really know what the BoM says.

"...we find that the book paints a picture which is amazingly similar in many ways to the same picture painted by New World experts about the ancient cultures during Book of Mormon times."
--HUH? the apologists have not clue #1 as to where it happened, or who the BoM people are. What anthropology and archeology is he comparing the text to?

Maybe he means...
--we think the BoM means X
--evidence says Y
--reinterpret the Bom to mean X
--look! there is similarity between the BoM and the evidence
For example
--the BoM very plainly (and preciously) teaches that BoM settlers found an empty continent
--evidence says it was already inhabited
--apologists twist the meaning of the BoM to mean settlers intermingled with existing inhabitants
--now the BoM does not contradict evidence

My question: if you cannot know what the BoM even means until you examine external evidence, why trust it on theological questions?

Holy the Ghost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My question: if you cannot know what the BoM even
> means until you examine external evidence, why
> trust it on theological questions?


Absolutely correct. What the Moaps are telling us now: The plain parts are not very precious, the precious parts are not very plain. (Actually it's closer to "precious" in the same sense Gollum means in LOTR.) The BoM is becoming like kabbalah and gemara in judiasm. There's a verse in the BoM about looking beyond the mark. I think it's time one of the 15 read the moaps that verse.

tells the sheep what conclusion they should make.

Ok, I am totally on board with that! So show us the science that confirms the BoM.

Is Ash really that idiotic or is this just a game for him?

Emmas Flaming Sword Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I am totally on board with that! So show us
> the science that confirms the BoM.
>
> Is Ash really that idiotic or is this just a game
> for him?


It's part of the double speak. At one point, previous article, Ash tried to pose the argument of the BoM as a legal or historical case. He actually stated that DNA evidence is not as strong as that of witnesses, like the three witnesses.

Now he's saying that we should trust the Moaps in their implied fitting of the data to modern science. In my lengthy conversations with them, what I have seen over and over is apologists finding obscure passages that fit modern data, while ignoring overt and obvious passages that don't fit. to them, fitting anything is more important than letting the data speak for itself. Confirmation bias at its funnest.

I think it's apparent to those of us on the outside that it's a "game," but my experience with that one is that "the players" don't realize it was a game until somebody tosses something heavy on to the board and there's a lot of crying and accusations tossed back and forth...

And sometimes they just pick up the pieces and resume play as if nothing has happened...

Google up "Johari Window" for my take on it... This one falls under the "known to others, not self" quandrant of perceptual realities...

In their quest to make the LDS myths fit reality, they often resort to rejecting scripture and the words of the prophet. They claim to have the TRUE interpretation of scripture. "No no no, that's not what the BoM means, even though JS plainly said it was. What it REALLY means is ________________ and JS was speaking only as a man."

Sorry, Bro. Mopologist, you don't have the priesthood keys to make statements like that. That's taking the authority of the brethren for yourself, which is apostasy, the same way it's apostasy when FLDS guys claim to have the true interpretation of scripture.

But they get away with it because their goal is the same as the brethren: keep people attached to the church.

Stray Mutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In their quest to make the LDS myths fit reality,
> they often resort to rejecting scripture and the
> words of the prophet. They claim to have the TRUE
> interpretation of scripture.

I've had lengthy conversations with some of FAIRs fairest now about this very issue: Why they don't feel they are contradicting the brethren/15. Because each of the 15 over the history of LDSinc have said contradictory things. They are clever at finding statements that bend arguments in both/all directions.

In other words, the Moaps are exploiting the stupidity of the 15 in order to keep the doctrine as a moving target.

Somehow I think the 15 are fine with that, because they perfected double-speak and the double-blind to create the BS of cult-think.

Check out the following book: http://books.google.com/books?id=qN8INAAACAAJ&dq=the+mound+builders&hl=en&ei=g6G1TbvJMJD4sAOalYHnCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ

It talks about the outlandish myths people came up with to explain the mound builders. And he covers mormonism.

Here is a link to a paper I wrote on Apologists, apostasy and Book of Mormon Geography...

http://grapenephi.freewebpages.org/docs/Road-to-Apostasy.pdf

Top

Good grief Michael sure loves to make an as(h) of himself, LOL.

I don't even waste my time reading what the stupido mopologists say, especially Daniel Peterson. He's the worst mopologist asshole around and so full of shit.