Hugh Nibley was a fool, come watch

[_Coggins7]

You have to concentrate on things like this because its one of the last remaining problems for Book of Mormon historicity that hasn't yet been solved. Other aspects of Archeology have been much more positive towards Book of Mormon plausibility. But, of course, the truth of the book has nothing to do with present Archaeological knowledge. Nothing yet found or that is likely to be found can in all probability prove or disprove the Book of Mormon, and nobody is saying that any evidence is going to accomplish that task.

The Book is true, both in a historical and spiritual sence, and that can be know directly and with certainty. Any accumulating evidence is an appendage to that, and is not llkely to be confirmatory (any more than it has been for many Biblical historical claims).

My how the smarm, patronization, and smugness just flows from this forum when they do find something to latch onto that an apologist can't defend with water tight empirical certainty.

But that is, of course, how those who are not interested in or searching for the truth, but only to justify themselves and the present cultural milieu of which they are a part conduct themselves, isn't it? The Church cannot be true, for if it were, that would cramp so many styles and limit so many options that many world views and personal edifices would come tumbling down, wouldn't they?

You see, it isn't about the Elephants at all. Its about "the terrible questions" and how we answer them.

[_beastie]

You are simply dodging, Coggs.

You said:

What then, to make of the rather substantial collection of sculpture and art depicting what are appear to be clearly elephant's or elephant-like creatures from Central America?

All I want is to see some of that substantial collection of sculpture and art depicting what are clearly elephants or elephant like creatures.

[_Ray A]

I already said that it's not necessary to immediately discount a claim contrary to the mainstream viewpoint. I said it is necessary to exercise some skepticism in the face of such claims, and make an effort to falsify or validate the contrary claim. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my earlier response.

I'm about three-quarters through your entry on horses. I've been diverted with other discussions, and I'm about to be mainly offline for about four days. I am aware of the dearth of archaeological evidence, but

Now, if you simply want to revert to "discoveries are still being made and one day we will discover evidence of the horse", then you will have lots of company among believers. Of course, you're still left with the lack of contextual evidence for the horse, either, which supposedly one day we'll still find.

I'm not particularly worried about that. And I do believe other discoveries can be made. I'm not closed on this. Roberts' writings have affected me more than archaeological discoveries, or the lack of them, but like him I continue to believe. Experiences, as recorded by Mr. Coffee, can shatter faith at once. Archaeology is not quite so dramatic. So it is also the experiental factor that's important. Faith can come, or it can go, depending on that. It's not "all empirical stuff" that always matters, though archaeology does "do the trick" for some in loss of faith.

If you get a chance, I hope you'll view "Journey of Faith", which explores Old World evidences, and let me know your opinion. I understand the second DVD dealing with the New World is about to be released.

[_Mister Scratch]

You are simply dodging, Coggs.

You said:

What then, to make of the rather substantial collection of sculpture and art depicting what are appear to be clearly elephant's or elephant-like creatures from Central America?

All I want is to see some of that substantial collection of sculpture and art depicting what are clearly elephants or elephant like creatures.

Beastie---

You are wasting your time. Coggins does not produce evidence. He gets whipped, and he retreats. He does not produce any original evidence. Not ever. While he likes to keep up the pretense of appearing "scholarly" (which, let's face it, is not that difficult to do in the world of online Mormonism), the fact remains that, by his own admission, he is little more than a dilettante. My dear friend Beastie, if Coggins had anything useful to offer, he would have been swooped up by DCP & et. al. years ago.

But, no dice.

[_beastie]

I'm not particularly worried about that. And I do believe other discoveries can be made. I'm not closed on this. Roberts' writings have affected me more than archaeological discoveries, or the lack of them, but like him I continue to believe. Experiences, as recorded by Mr. Coffee, can shatter faith at once. Archaeology is not quite so dramatic. So it is also the experiental factor that's important. Faith can come, or it can go, depending on that. It's not "all empirical stuff" that always matters, though archaeology does "do the trick" for some in loss of faith.

If you get a chance, I hope you'll view "Journey of Faith", which explores Old World evidences, and let me know your opinion. I understand the second DVD dealing with the New World is about to be released.

Of course discoveries continue to be made. The idea that critics claim otherwise is a popular, and extremely silly, straw-man argument on MAD. The question is how likely it is that any of these future evidences will support the current anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Sure, maybe one day our knowledge will be turned on its head by a sudden discovery of verified horse bones from the time period. But it is extraordinarily unlikely due to the fact that so many bones and representations of other animals have already been found, and no horse among them.

I have repeatedly stated that I really don't care if people view the Book of Mormon as some inspired revelatory text. What I care about is the integrity of the representation of a group of people we KNOW actually existed, and had a remarkable history of their own. I think it is simply wrong for LDS believers to distort the history of this people, and insisting the Book of Mormon is a reasonable representation of that period is a severe distortion in many ways.

At this point in my life, I have zero interest in the Old World connections. Much was known about the Biblical area and history in the nineteenth century. While it may be an interesting exercise in ascertaining influence over the Book of Mormon text, I do not believe it has relevance in regards to determining whether or not the Book of Mormon was an ancient text.

[_beastie]

Beastie---

You are wasting your time. Coggins does not produce evidence. He gets whipped, and he retreats. He does not produce any original evidence. Not ever. While he likes to keep up the pretense of appearing "scholarly" (which, let's face it, is not that difficult to do in the world of online Mormonism), the fact remains that, by his own admission, he is little more than a dilettante. My dear friend Beastie, if Coggins had anything useful to offer, he would have been swooped up by DCP & et. al. years ago.

But, no dice.

Oh, I realize that Coggs will likely never produce any evidence and will, instead, continue to bluster and bluff in an attempt to divert attention from his lack of evidence. I just continue to ask to make sure he understands that the diversionary tactics aren't working.