DiscussMormonism.com

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Inconceivable wrote: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.

Apparently you are referring to me as one of those less cognizant. ok. But perhaps with that accusation you ought to come down to the Terrestrial and play.

But we both understand why apologists post and then bail here. Moderators here don't delete posts contrary to your bent on reality and it's humiliating effects on your life's work (like we frequently witness occurring on the milktoast board you participate in). A child can understand this.

And honestly, with support like yours, who needs colleagues? Brant had/has no substantive argument. You give your support to him simply by saying that he has one. Where? Not here. If he had one, don't you think he's intelligent enough boy to bring it? If not, why support him?
This guy took his flat ball and went home even before you showed up. Some support, you missed the game. You didn't even bring a ball.

The waaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance left, Dan.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Inconceivable wrote: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).

You are an outspoken member of the Maxwell Institute/FARMS, the apologetic arm of the church. Most people looking from the outside in can see through your distinction between your tithing subsidized professorship at BYU and your attempts at church preservation in another building built by tithing on the same campus. You're a man with one bag wandering around real estate owned by the same boss.

Neither you, nor Brant have presented one valid argument regarding evidence of Book of Mormon peoples inhabiting Mesoamerica or anywhere else (save an amazing amount of conjecture).

Just think, if you had spent the same efforts searching for Sasquatch, most likely you would have his head mounted above your mantel, a nice rug and plenty of meat in the freezer.

keithb wrote:

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

I answered someone else on this--must have been a different thread. Dr. Peterson is correct. The intent is to say that Coe is basing his conclusions about the Book of Mormon on information about the Book of Mormon that is over 30 years old. That is very clear from the nature of the arguments and objections he raised.

I understand that Coe is no longer as current as he was prior to his retirement, but his understanding of Mesoamerica is still far better than mine. However, my information about how the Book of Mormon fits into that context is more recent than his.

Both Gardner and Peterson must present Coe as one foot from assisted living in their defense for his comments.  Neither have actually provided any meaningful evidence for this "needed"' 30 year void in his knowledge.  But they just need to create some kind of lack of knowledge by Coe to avoid actually dealing with his comments or expertise.  No, instead Peterson's best response is "he's gone fishing"!  Both Gardner and Peterson are now doing a tag-team on Coe's age, knowledge and memory, indirectly, because they need to neutralize both his worldwide respected expertise in mesoamerican knowledge,  as well as his investigation, reading, and study of the Book of Mormon claims.  

He simply presents the scholar and academic that is most fearful to the claims being presented by lessor LDS "scholars"!!!  Frankly I find this characterization of Coe by the two of them extremely shameful.  Imagine if Nibley was treated this way!!! 

All one needs to do is read the PBS interview and see that Coe is very honest about his current knowledge "his friend Sorenson's work",  his knowledge of FARMS, and his investigation into the Book of Mormon and history of Joseph Smith.  

Here is the transcript to the interview of four years ago:

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/coe.html

After reading this lengthy interview I think everyone will see the real reason why Gardner and Peterson must attempt to take down faculties of a superb scholar, very much aware of LDS scholarship in this area (from a credentialed PHD as opposed to "fireside hobbyists")

I am simply amazed by the level that Peterson and Gardner will go to tag-team such a character assassination of such a respected scholar who has spent the time reading the works of supposed Mormon "scholars", simply because they find it the easiest way to dismiss him!!

This claim of a 30 year void in knowledge is completely without merit!! It's laughable after reading the interview!

Peterson, Gardner, could you at least show the respectful professionalism to apologize???

This is really unbelievable !!!

Joey wrote:one foot from assisted living . . . doing a tag-team on Coe's age, knowledge and memory . . . extremely shameful . . . attempt to take down faculties of a superb scholar . . . character assassination . . . could you at least show the respectful professionalism to apologize??? . . . unbelievable !!!

All we're saying is that Professor Coe, who is indeed retired, doesn't appear to have devoted himself very much to keeping up with the books and articles and journals and films that have poured forth from Latter-day Saints regarding the Book of Mormon over the past thirty years or so. (We're talking tens of thousands of pages.)

That doesn't mean that he's old, that's he's ignorant overall, that he's losing his memory, that his faculties are declining, or that his character is poor. We made no such allegations. It just means that he's apparently chosen to focus his attention mostly elsewhere.

Big deal. We all pick and choose. I devote essentially no time or energy to thousands of no doubt worthy subjects (e.g., Korean history, accounting, Pentecostal theology, stamp collecting, organic chemistry, Bolivian customs law, the flora and fauna of the Canadian Maritimes, Sanskrit drama, knitting, major league batting averages, Appalachian folk dance, etc., etc.).

If you have actual evidence to demonstrate that Professor Coe has kept himself current with all of this material, or even with a substantial portion of it, please feel free to share your evidence.

Joey wrote:from a credentialed PHD as opposed to "fireside hobbyists"

Dang. Busted. My Ph.D. is bogus, from one of the campuses of the notorious, unaccredited " 'University' of California."

Which makes my little coup in 1990 even more of an achievement. Of course, I didn't actually quite win, which proves that I'm a pathetic loser. LOL.

Daniel Peterson wrote:All we're saying is that Professor Coe, who is indeed retired, doesn't appear to have devoted himself very much to keeping up with the books and articles and journals and films that have poured forth from Latter-day Saints regarding the Book of Mormon over the past thirty years or so. (We're talking tens of thousands of pages.)

And none of these books and articles have made it into reputable journals on Mesoamerican archaeology?

Would you like to offer an explanation?

Imagine, just imagine, if they did make it, how that would influence all people every where to take the Book of Mormon more seriously as history.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Joey wrote:one foot from assisted living . . . doing a tag-team on Coe's age, knowledge and memory . . . extremely shameful . . . attempt to take down faculties of a superb scholar . . . character assassination . . . could you at least show the respectful professionalism to apologize??? . . . unbelievable !!!

All we're saying is that Professor Coe, who is indeed retired, doesn't appear to have devoted himself very much to keeping up with the books and articles and journals and films that have poured forth from Latter-day Saints regarding the Book of Mormon over the past thirty years or so. (We're talking tens of thousands of pages.)

That doesn't mean that he's old, that's he's ignorant overall, that he's losing his memory, that his faculties are declining, or that his character is poor. We made no such allegations. It just means that he's apparently chosen to focus his attention mostly elsewhere.

Big deal. We all pick and choose. I devote essentially no time or energy to thousands of no doubt worthy subjects (e.g., Korean history, accounting, Pentecostal theology, stamp collecting, organic chemistry, Bolivian customs law, the flora and fauna of the Canadian Maritimes, Sanskrit drama, knitting, major league batting averages, Appalachian folk dance, etc., etc.).

If you have actual evidence to demonstrate that Professor Coe has kept himself current with all of this material, or even with a substantial portion of it, please feel free to share your evidence.

Joey wrote:from a credentialed PHD as opposed to "fireside hobbyists"

Dang. Busted. My Ph.D. is bogus, from one of the campuses of the notorious, unaccredited " 'University' of California."

Which makes my little coup in 1990 even more of an achievement. Of course, I didn't actually quite win, which proves that I'm a pathetic loser. LOL.

This is the problem that I have with your line of logic here, Dr. Peterson. Dr. Coe is an acknowledged expert on Mesoamerican studies. Out of all the people that PBS could have chosen for this interview, they picked him. Why did they pick him out of all the people they could have picked for the interview? Well, because he knows a lot about the subject. It's taken as a given. Hence, the burden of proof lies on you, not on me, to show that this expert in the field has missed the last 30 years of research on the Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican setting. If he has missed research, what research has he missed? Why do you believe that he has missed this research? What FARMS paper specifically do you think that you could introduce to him to make him change his mind on the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon? Why is this paper then not published in a secular journal (with Coe as an obvious choice for one of your reviewers)?

You see Dr. Peterson, I just have a hard time taking the FARMS research too seriously. The research that you are doing would be truly revolutionary, earth shattering, if it were true. If there was any merit to it at all, the secular world would be shoving each other out of the way to publish it. It would literally change the world's understanding of Mesoamerica, maybe the entire ancient world, forever. The only reason that I can give for the secular world not taking more notice of this research is that they don't buy it. I know that the scholars at FARMS can (and do) keep putting different spins on the subject, but this is what I think the core issue comes down to.

If any group of scholars could prove that a large group (numbering in the hundreds of thousands) of ancient Jews had lived ANYWHERE on the American continent, do you realize how famous they would become in the academic world, in the history books? Literally, it would be the "Smith-Gardner-Peterson model of Mesoamerica". Imagine the amount of prestige and converts this would bring to the LDS church.

If you have this evidence, you should publish it in every scholarly journal in existence. Don't you want to bring converts to the church?

keithb wrote:This is the problem that I have with your line of logic here, Dr. Peterson. Dr. Coe is an acknowledged expert on Mesoamerican studies. Out of all the people that PBS could have chosen for this interview, they picked him. Why did they pick him out of all the people they could have picked for the interview? Well, because he knows a lot about the subject. It's taken as a given. Hence, the burden of proof lies on you, not on me, to show that this expert in the field has missed the last 30 years of research on the Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican setting. If he has missed research, what research has he missed? Why do you believe that he has missed this research? What FARMS paper specifically do you think that you could introduce to him to make him change his mind on the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon? Why is this paper then not published in a secular journal (with Coe as an obvious choice for one of your reviewers)?

You see Dr. Peterson, I just have a hard time taking the FARMS research too seriously. The research that you are doing would be truly revolutionary, earth shattering, if it were true. If there was any merit to it at all, the secular world would be shoving each other out of the way to publish it. It would literally change the world's understanding of Mesoamerica, maybe the entire ancient world, forever. The only reason that I can give for the secular world not taking more notice of this research is that they don't buy it. I know that the scholars at FARMS can (and do) keep putting different spins on the subject, but this is what I think the core issue comes down to.

If any group of scholars could prove that a large group (numbering in the hundreds of thousands) of ancient Jews had lived ANYWHERE on the American continent, do you realize how famous they would become in the academic world, in the history books? Literally, it would be the "Smith-Gardner-Peterson model of Mesoamerica". Imagine the amount of prestige and converts this would bring to the LDS church.

If you have this evidence, you should publish it in every scholarly journal in existence. Don't you want to bring converts to the church?

Stellar comments.

However, I think you missed something really important here:

SATAN is the real reason why nobody takes FARMS seriously.

Remember, this is true religeon we're talking about. Anti-Satan stuff (at least the Mormon Satan). We did the math when I was on the mission about how many of SATAN's ANGELS were assigned just to the full time missionaries. It was staggering! Can you imagine how many of SATAN's MINIONS follow around poor Dan and Brant considering how much more important their work of Ark Steadying is?

You know, FARMS ought to do a study that demonstrates how SATAN makes things so very difficult for the righteous intellectual to prove anything that the average person considers rediculous. Maybe then they might get the respect they so rightly deserve.

damn that SATAN. uh, nevermind. I guess he already is.

keithb wrote:This is the problem that I have with your line of logic here, Dr. Peterson. Dr. Coe is an acknowledged expert on Mesoamerican studies. Out of all the people that PBS could have chosen for this interview, they picked him. Why did they pick him out of all the people they could have picked for the interview? Well, because he knows a lot about the subject. It's taken as a given.

I think it's overwhelmingly likely that they chose Michael Coe because of his famous article in Dialogue, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," published back in 1973 (thirty-eight years ago), and because he has been occasionally willing, at very wide intervals since that time, to say something on the subject. He wasn't chosen merely because he's an expert on the Maya; there are several others who are just as prominent in that field, and he's been retired for a long time now. (He'll be eighty-two in March.) He was also, no doubt, distinguished from the pack by the fact that he has written several successful popular books on Mayan studies, so that he's something of a "household name" (to the very limited extent that that's possible for a Mayanist).

keithb wrote:Hence, the burden of proof lies on you, not on me, to show that this expert in the field has missed the last 30 years of research on the Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican setting.

I'm not quite sure how you make the jump from the fact that Michael Coe is a well-known Mayanist to the assumption that he is an expert on the explosion of Mormon scholarship that has occurred over the past thirty years, let alone why you imagine that the burden is on me to disprove that assumption. Do you make the same assumption with regard to, say, Karl Taube, David Webster, and Joyce Marcus? They are eminent Mayanists, too.

keithb wrote:You see Dr. Peterson, I just have a hard time taking the FARMS research too seriously.

That's your prerogative.

I, by contrast, think that a lot of it is pretty good, and that some of it is very good.

keithb wrote:The research that you are doing would be truly revolutionary, earth shattering, if it were true. If there was any merit to it at all, the secular world would be shoving each other out of the way to publish it. It would literally change the world's understanding of Mesoamerica, maybe the entire ancient world, forever. The only reason that I can give for the secular world not taking more notice of this research is that they don't buy it. I know that the scholars at FARMS can (and do) keep putting different spins on the subject, but this is what I think the core issue comes down to.

If any group of scholars could prove that a large group (numbering in the hundreds of thousands) of ancient Jews had lived ANYWHERE on the American continent, do you realize how famous they would become in the academic world, in the history books? Literally, it would be the "Smith-Gardner-Peterson model of Mesoamerica". Imagine the amount of prestige and converts this would bring to the LDS church.

If you have this evidence, you should publish it in every scholarly journal in existence. Don't you want to bring converts to the church?

I don't believe that we have the kind of evidence that you imagine we're claiming. We've never claimed to have it.

We have enough evidence to gratify believers, to reassure many (though not all) questioners, and to pique the interest of many (but not all) open-minded investigators -- enough evidence that a believer need not toss reason out the window, enough to make the case that faith is largely though not perfectly consistent with the current overall factual picture (and in some cases, particularly in the Near East, remarkably so), but not enough to compel the assent of all unbelievers.

And, putting on my theological hat for a moment, I suspect that that is just about where things are supposed to be.

Incidentally, you will be able to read a statement from a very prominent LDS Mesoamericanist that accords with my sentiments when John Clark's entry goes up, shortly, on Mormon Scholars Testify.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
And, putting on my theological hat for a moment, I suspect that that is just about where things are supposed to be.

You seem to be saying that only the faithful can see the evidence. If the intent of the restoration was/is to spread the gospel throughout the world, this sort of test would seem counterproductive to the goal.