The Brant Gardner / Book of Mormon megathread

[_keithb]

Good people:

It seems that this thread is heading into an endless loop. I don't see anything moving forward. Thank you all for your participation.

What would constitute "moving forward"?

Every time I read a statement like this from an apologist, I interpret it to mean that, "The other posters on this thread have backed me into a corner. I have nothing else to say in support of my position, and I am getting tired of repeating the same, silly arguments that I even find it hard to take seriously outside of an LDS model of history."

Also, does this count as an instance of "loose interpretation" in translation?

I'm just messing with ya ;)

[_MCB]

The Mormon studies landscape has changed considerably since 1981.

Exactly the reason why I re-opened Brodie, after having been bogged down by my disagreements with her. She was only working with information available to her at the time, and the research was exhaustive. I noted several times where I had integrated her information without remembering where I originally got it.

Of course, we are talking from opposite ends of the spectrum.

[_keithb]

This is an incredibly interesting assertion that you make, one seemingly unsupported by references or even common sense.

Do you have any evidence that Coe is using 30 year old evidence to formulate his Mayan world view?

I'm not Brant Gardner -- being of sound mind and good judgment, he has bowed out of this discussion --but I suspect that what he means is that Dr. Coe is thirty years behind with regard to Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon. And, from my limited observation of Dr. Coe, I suspect that that might well be true.

Thirty years ago, FARMS had just barely been established and had published virtually nothing. David Palmer's In Search of Cumorah was published that year. John Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was still several years off (to say nothing of his numerous subsequent books and articles). And so forth.

The Mormon studies landscape has changed considerably since 1981.

So, you're basing this statement on his lack of knowledge about LDS scholarship on mesoamerica over the last 30 years, correct?

Are you aware of any reason to believe Coe has missed the last 30 years of secular scholarship on the subject?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, you're basing this statement on his lack of knowledge about LDS scholarship on mesoamerica over the last 30 years, correct?

I believe that that is what Brant Gardner likely intended, and, if so, I'm inclined to believe that he's right.

Are you aware of any reason to believe Coe has missed the last 30 years of secular scholarship on the subject?

On which subject?

I don't think that Michael Coe stays current with LDS scholarship, no. And there isn't much secular scholarship on the Book of Mormon, but I doubt that he's made much effort to keep current on it, either.

I expect that he stays fairly current on Mesoamerican subjects still, although he's been retired for quite a while now and, from what I've heard, is really into fishing and things of that sort.

[_harmony]

As for funding--there is none. Those who are doing the research are doing it for the love of it (certainly not the profit).

Hmmm... Dan, can't you do something about this?

Mesoamerican scholars would not look favorably on anyone using information that was over 30 years old to create a history of the Maya. Too much has happened since then.

Brant isn't talking about the Book of Mormon here, is he? He's talking about Mesoamerica and the Maya. So what's happened in with the Mayan research in the last 30 years?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hmmm... Dan, can't you do something about this?

We can sometimes provide some minimal research support. Mostly, we do editing and publishing. The scholars don't get much, if anything.

We have, in the past, done a tiny bit to support non-Mormon-related Mesoamerican archaeology through BYU.

Mesoamerican scholars would not look favorably on anyone using information that was over 30 years old to create a history of the Maya. Too much has happened since then.

Brant isn't talking about the Book of Mormon here, is he? He's talking about Mesoamerica and the Maya. So what's happened in with the Mayan research in the last 30 years?

I think he was making a comparison. Thirty-year-old data in Mesoamerican studies would be problematic, so why not in Mormon studies -- which, if anything, have been even more thoroughly transformed during the past three decades than Mesoamerican studies have been?

If you want details about the past thirty years in Mesoamerican studies, Brant would be a far better source than I would be. As would Mark Wright.

[_harmony]

Hmmm... Dan, can't you do something about this?

We can sometimes provide some minimal research support. Mostly, we do editing and publishing. The scholars don't get much, if anything.

We have, in the past, done a tiny bit to support non-Mormon-related Mesoamerican archaeology through BYU.

I meant find him/them some funding, not necessarily from your group.

Thirty-year-old data in Mesoamerican studies would be problematic, so why not in Mormon studies -- which, if anything, have been even more thoroughly transformed during the past three decades than Mesoamerican studies have been?

Wait a minute... I thought there was no 30 year old data in Mormon Studies?

Now I'm confused.

If you want details about the past thirty years in Mesoamerican studies, Brant would be a far better source than I would be. As would Mark Wright.

Yes, well... he appears to have exited stage right.

[_keithb]

So, you're basing this statement on his lack of knowledge about LDS scholarship on mesoamerica over the last 30 years, correct?

I believe that that is what Brant Gardner likely intended, and, if so, I'm inclined to believe that he's right.

Are you aware of any reason to believe Coe has missed the last 30 years of secular scholarship on the subject?

On which subject?

I don't think that Michael Coe stays current with LDS scholarship, no. And there isn't much secular scholarship on the Book of Mormon, but I doubt that he's made much effort to keep current on it, either.

I expect that he stays fairly current on Mesoamerican subjects still, although he's been retired for quite a while now and, from what I've heard, is really into fishing and things of that sort.

So, in other words, Coe does stay current on Mesoamerican research (excluding the Book of Mormon specific research done by the LDS church) and has not missed the last 30 years of research? Am I understanding you correctly?

[_Inconceivable]

If you want details about the past thirty years in Mesoamerican studies, Brant would be a far better source than I would be. As would Mark Wright.

If he had any, he would have remained. Thus far he could not make one valid argument, so why would he remain to endure further humiliation?

Dan, why come to the aid of a peer if you offer no substantive claim to bolster his statements? Is it simply because yours is the job of one that is paid from the box wherein is found the widow's mite?

For as sacred as these funds are, you ought to at least demonstrate something in exchange for it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If he had any, he would have remained. Thus far he could not make one valid argument, so why would he remain to endure further humiliation?

There are very good and adequate reasons not to post here. That some apparently can't recognize that fact is, in a sense, an instance of one of those reasons.

Dan, why come to the aid of a peer if you offer no substantive claim to bolster his statements?

I think clarifying what he meant is a useful contribution. If you don't, we'll have to agree to disagree.

That is, though, all I'm willing to contribute on this topic. (See above.)

Is it simply because yours is the job of one that is paid from the box wherein is found the widow's mite?

As I've said many times before, not a dime of my salary is paid to me for apologetic writing of any kind (let alone on message boards). I've often been denounced as a liar for saying it, but it remains the truth.

For as sacred as these funds are, you ought to at least demonstrate something in exchange for it.

I've explained what he meant. And I did it for free. Clarity and accuracy are good things, in my opinion. You're obviously at liberty to disagree.