One thing is for certain, when it comes to theatrics Kerry wins hands down. It's almost worth watching his videos solely for that.
Anyway, in this video he refers to Michael Coe's sixth edition of The Maya, which, according to him is "astonishing", in that it claims that transoceanic crossings of the Pacific in the settling of America is now accepted by scholars like Coe, in contrast to the once "dogmatically held" Bering Strait view.
In this article Coe's views and the sixth edition (and infomation contained in the seventh edition) of his book are discussed (I've highlighted relevant portions):
THE PACIFIC CROSSING HYPOTHESIS
If the Africa-origins thinkers traced the beginning of their theory to the fiery demise of Atlantis, so do the Asian-origins speculators find their own lost continent had a hand in shaping the rise of Mesoamerican civilization. Writing after the demise of Donnelly's Atlantis theories, Col. James Churchward declared in 1930 the fabulous land of Mu was a Pacific continent greater than Atlantis, and that Central America was but a colony of this great land. While Tompkins (1976:372) believes that the Mu myth could explain the origins of Mesoamerican civilization, Churward's "word can only be taken by those who wish to believe him." Without evidence to back up his claims, Churchward's theory of a lost continent fell to the dustbin of history, though the idea of trans-Pacific voyages did not.
Michael Coe (2001a:57) mentions that "the possibility of some trans-Pacific influence on Mesoamerican cultures cannot, however, be so easily dismissed." The Asian-influence hypothesis has a stronger basis in fact than its African competitor, though there is still precious little to go on.
The strongest, and indeed only hard piece of evidence for trans-Pacific contact is the use of a particular technique for the manufacture of bark paper, common to China, Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Mesoamerica. Coe (2001a:58) says that knowledge of this paper-making method "was diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a very early date." He further argues that since bark paper was used to make books, information may have been exchanged between Pacific and Mesoamerican peoples. This seems to accord with Tompkin's (1976:353) version of ancient Chinese records, which he claims document a transoceanic voyage between China and Mesoamerica in the fifth century A.D. Yet even if true, this would provide no evidence for Asian influence, since Olmec civilization sprang into being around 1500 B.C. (Soustelle 1985:31) and Maya civilization was well into its Classic Period greatness centuries before the supposed voyage (Coe 2001b: 82). However, Tompkins (1976:353) claimed earlier connection between China and Mesoamerica around the twenty-third century B.C. He was forced to concede, however, that since "there are no known historical records for such early periods... these stories float in a limbo between fact and fiction [Tompkins 1976:354]."
Another attempt to relate Mesoamerican cosmology to the Chinese involved the calendar system. Coe states (2001a:57) that the 260-day Mesoamerican calendar cycle, with its animal symbolism, is a near-perfect analog to the Southeast Asian lunar calendar: "Furthermore, Asian and Mesoamerican cosmological systems, which emphasize a quadripartite universe of four cardinal points associated with specific colors, plants, animals, and even gods, are amazingly similar [Coe 2001a:57]." Balaji Mundkur (1978:541) challenged this idea decades ago, arguing that the comparison was faulty: "These comparisons seem feeble not only because they are superficial and intrinsically contradictory, but also because they are opposed by a vast body of [Asian] religious symbolism. Furthermore, they are chronologically incompatible with historical events." For Mundkur (1978:542), the differences between Asian and Mesoamerican art far outweigh the superficial resemblances, and art analysis can only provide a subjective connection between the Old and New Worlds, especially since so much of the Asian culture supposedly borrowed by Mesoamericans actually arose hundreds of years after the rise of the Maya and Mexican civilizations.
But the superficial similarity in artistic styles has given rise to another line of argument. Among the most common arguments for trans-Pacific contact with Mesoamerica is a shared cult of the serpent, based on the presumed similarity of Chinese, Hindu and Mayan depictions. Both Asia and Mesoamerica dedicated shrines to serpents, and the cult of the serpent is seen in the most ancient civilized sites of Mesoamerica, including the Olmec occupation of Chalcatzingo (Coe 2001b:77) and La Venta (Hancock 1995:131f) as well as in ancient China and India (Mundkur 1976:429). However, the similarities appear to stop there. Mundkur (1976:429) successfully casts doubt on diffusionist claims when he notes that "the characteristics of the serpent cult in pre-Columbian civilized Mesoamerica... differ fundamentally from the serpent lore of India and Southeast Asia." Further, he notes that serpent worship is common not just to Asia and America but to nearly every known ancient culture and survived hunter-gatherers, from North America to Australia (Mundkur 1976:429). Something so universal cannot be taken to indicate common origin in historical times, though could conceivably point still further back to the Jungian archetypes that Victor Mansfield (1981) identified in the Mesoamerican pecked circles.
Both Asia and America seemed to share a penchant for making mandalas, the drawn or carved circles of divine meditation favored by Hindus and Buddhists. Victor Mansfield (1981:274) says that the Mesoamerican mandalas were of Teotihuacan origin and shared a similar shape and placement in temples to their Asian counterparts. He offers an explanation for the superficial similarity of Mesoamerican "pecked circles" to Asian mandalas: "the pecked circles may serve as calendars [1981:274]" because they have a cross within the circle whose arms tend to point to the direction of solstices and equinoxes. While Mansfield (1981: 274-275) goes on to offer an Jungian interpretation of the way universal psychic forces influenced mandala (and Christian labyrinth) designs, the calendar representation is the most likely, especially when one remembers that the Mesoamericans envisioned the universe in four parts, thus the cross divides the pecked circle into four sections. Of course, to the Asian-origin hypothesis's credit, Asian (especially Chinese) cosmology emphasized a quadripartite universe.
Yet, despite the stories and rumors surrounding Asian influence in Central America, there is very little hard evidence beyond the bark paper manufacturing technique. Coe (2001a:57) makes the point more succinctly: "[I]t should be categorically emphasized that no objects manufactured in the Old World have been identified in any Maya site." However, Coe (2001a:58) did agree that the Maya may have received Asian ideas "at a few times in their early history," though in no sense are they "derivative from Old World prototypes."
So how does the probability of transoceanic crossings make the Book of Mormon more plausible as a historical record? The answer is it doesn't. It doesn't make it any more plausible than the theory that Africans were the first settlers of America.
On African origins:
Some writers claim the Olmec were related to peoples of Africa based primarily on their interpretation of facial features of Olmec statues. They additionally contend that epigraphical, genetic, and osteological evidence supports their claims. The idea that the Olmecs were related to Africans was first suggested by José Melgar, who discovered the first colossal head at Hueyapan (now Tres Zapotes) in 1862 and subsequently published two papers that attributed this head to a "Negro race".[1] The view was espoused in the early 20th century by Leo Wiener and others.[2] They additionally contend that epigraphical, genetic, and osteological evidence supports their claims. Some modern proponents such as Ivan van Sertima and Clyde Ahmad Winters have identified the Olmecs with the Mandé people of West Africa.[3]
On Jaredite origins:
Conventional Mesoamerican scholarship does not support any proposal that allows for the presence or influence of Old World cultures in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. No accepted material evidence has been found that would indicate contact between Mesoamerica and Old World cultures had ever taken place.[30] Among other criticisms levelled against the belief that the Olmec had Jaredite origins or identity, Mesoamerican archaeologists note that many of the things described in the Book of Mormon are known not to have been part of or present in Olmec culture, including iron, silk, and elephants.
Writing in the Mormon studies journal Dialogue, Yale University anthropology professor and eminent Mesoamericanist archaeologist Michael D. Coe lays out the mainstream archaeological assessment of material claims found in the Book of Mormon, as they relate to the known archaeological record of the New World. Specifically addressing the case for any ancient New World presence of the peoples and technologies described in the Book of Mormon, and whether the Olmec and other ancient Mesoamerican resemble these or bear traces of such external influences, Coe states:
There is an inherent improbability in specific items that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon as having been brought to the New World by Jaredites and/or Nephites. Among these are the horse (extinct in the New World since about 7,000 B.C.), the chariot, wheat, barley, and metallurgy (true metallurgy based upon smelting and casting being no earlier in Mesoamerica than about 800 A.D.). The picture of this hemisphere between 2,000 B.C. and A.D. 421 presented in the book has little to do with the early Indian cultures as we know them, in spite of much wishful thinking.[31]
Wiki.
Coe (1973):
"As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".
The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere.
Michael Coe in 2007 report:
Non-Mormon archaeologists take the whole thing "as a complete fantasy, that this is a big waste of time," said Michael Coe, an emeritus professor of Mesoamerican studies at Yale, in last spring's PBS documentary "The Mormons."
"Nothing can ever come out of it because it's just impossible that this could have happened, because we know what happened to these people. We can read their writings: They're not in reformed Egyptian; they're in Maya."
Link.
Pro-history apologetics can aptly be described as theatrics, but you still have lots of entertainment value, Kerry. It's just a pity that so many uninformed Mormons will take all of this so seriously.
Trust me, it's a lost cause, not only because there's no evidence, and lots of contrary evidence, but Book of Mormon anachronisms alone should disabuse anyone of the notion that it's "an ancient book", or "historical".
>
>
>