dartagnan wrote:OK, I looked it up, he was talking about something Sorenson had said to him. Here is the citation from the discussion that took place two years ago:Ferguson had very naïve views of what archaeology could prove. It seems, for instance, that he was always looking for the quick pay-off. While, to choose one example, my friend John Sorenson was doing surveys of pre-classic sites in the Chiapas Depression, Ferguson, who was with him, was wandering around asking whether any of the locals had ever seen any representations of a horse. And Ferguson went to southeast Arabia at one point, looking for inscriptions from Nephi. He was a lawyer, not an archaeologist. - Daniel Peterson Jan 26 2006
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=12945
That was when I was still posting as Kevin Graham, before being banned. Funny, that discussion seemed more recent to me for some reason. Two years!!
Thanks. I held my breath, made the sign of the horns, and looked at the thread. What a horrible place MAD is!
But I see that basically I was right in my surmise: poor old apostate Ferguson had to be rubbished because he hoped too openly that archeology would back up the Book of Mormon, and was all too expectedly disappointed after funding 20 years of work by good professional archeologists. That done, it was hinted to us by DCP that 'any day now' the really competent archeologists from BYU would publish exciting stuff that would support the Book of Mormon. Of course that was a couple of years ago ... how long will we have to wait?
Oh yes, and we were told that because it was ever such a long time since Coe had expressed an opinion about the relevance (or rather lack of relevance) of MesoAmerican archeology to the Book of Mormon we could not assume (in effect) that Coe's previous scepticism was representative of his present views ... and yet the interview with Coe referenced in my OP above took place in the May of 2006, four months after the thread in which DCP shared so many of his priceless insights.