Responding to my #17
As you say, a parody. Now, as to that evidence you are not producing? You write, “I think we first need to discuss questions of presuppositions, methodology and epistemology in order to understand what would constitute evidence and how it can be interpreted properly.” Um, why would that be? We are both grown ups, we are both published historians, we know these issues extremely well. I have lived with these issues for forty-plus years, and I am guessing that your track record is similar. We are not trying to run a senior history seminar for undergraduates. Bill, I assume and believe that you are thoroughly au fait with the Ancient Book of Mormon literature. You presumably know the nuggets in those books that make you stop and proclaim “Eureka!” So why do we need to go through all this palaver before you give me what I am asking for, which is that one clincher piece of evidence that makes mainstream historians or archaeologists say “Whoa, my Lord! The Book of Mormon is on to something?”
Seriously, why is that not happening?
My suspicion, as I have said on several occasions, is that you have nothing to contribute in that way. Would you care to prove me wrong?