DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_harmony]

I have no dog in this fight, charity.

Yes, you do, and its name is "beastie", so stop kidding yourself.

Goes to show what you know about Beastie. And about me.

In case you missed it, those Book of Mormon SCHOLARS you're referring to, quoting, and referencing are apologists. Surely you knew this?

Oh, I see, let's hand it all over to beastie - she's the "expert".

Your comment doesn't make sense, Ray. And I, for one, would be delighted to see Beastie take on Brant again. It keeps her sharp, and can only help his argument.

Why not quote some real experts, harmony. Do you even know who they are. Google time!

Because I don't have a dog in this fight, Ray. I just watch both sides present their arguments, and keep my uninformed opinions to myself. Too bad charity doesn't do the same.

[_Mister Scratch]

He is clearly talking about peoplew who are asking/stating that the Maya are the Nephites or Atlanteans. Sorenson or Clark or Gardner don't say that. They talk aboiut a contemporary culture. So Demarest is not talking about them.

Charity, please. This is so embarrassing to watch. Don't you get it? To the real live experts, Nephites = Atlanteans! They have the same status (none)and are given the same respect (none), because there is the same evidence to support their supposed existence: none.

The top LDS apologists have gone toe to toe with Beastie on this over and over again, and have come out on the losing end over and over again. They run from her now. Your dignity, and your argument such as it was, is in tatters. Return and report your defeat and see if Brant has anything new to throw at Beastie. Because right now, the LDS argument on this is pathetic.

If those "real life experts" mistakenly throw the steak in the garbage with the potato peels, it doesn't say much for them.

And when you try to negate what the Book of Mormon SCHOLARS are producing by dismissing them as "apologists" your tactic is obvious to all.

Tell me, Charity: In which legit, mainstream journal can I read the work of these Book of Mormon SCHOLARS? I'd love to find out!

[_Ray A]

So you have to be the equivalent of the Mesoamerican Stephen Hawking to make an informed judgment on whether or not the Book of Mormon is coherent with Mesoamerica?

I'm sure that some apologists would like to encourage such a notion, but it's nonsense.

I think you should put your "expertise" in some perspective. Coe:

"Nonetheless, our knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (as though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)."

This is not an argument from the "absence of evidence", on my part. I quote this for some perspective. No matter how "expert" you become on the writings of the experts, you still only know a fraction.

I also notice in your bibliography that you don't cite LDS apologetic writings. How extensively have you studied them? Can you produce a bibliography of which LDS apologetic books you have read on this subject?

[_Ray A]

I read the link you provided, Ray. Is that somehow not enough? I can read hundred of links that you provide. Really, the only link I am interested in is the one that shows that Mopologists have tried to advance their theories in legit venues.

I don't know what you picture in your mind, but I suspect it's something like DCP giving a lecture to a committee of Mesoamerican archaeologists. This is what Coe wrote in Dialogue in 1973:

"There can be no question that the BYU sponsored New World Archaeological Foundation's program has been an unqualified success. Its twenty years of excavations and exploration in Chiapas have put that state on the archaeological map and have established one of the longest and best archaeological sequences for any part of the New World. Credit for this goes to the foresight of [Thomas Stewart] Ferguson and the original directors, but especially to the first-class [LDS] archaeologists who have carried out the program. First and foremost among them, I would name Gareth W. Lowe, who has been field director for a number of years and who has established himself as the outstanding expert in the field of Formative Mesoamerica. And full praise must be given to the generosity and wisdom of the [LDS] Church leadership in providing financial backing for the foundation. 'Mormon archaeology' is no longer something that brings chuckles in Gentile circles." (Coe, Michael D (Summer 1973). "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought: 41-46.)

"Mormon archaeology" may be a joke here, but it's not, even to specialists like Coe. In his PBS interview, Coe said:

To make Book of Mormon archaeology at all kind of believable, my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies. He's tried to build a reasonable picture that these two civilizations weren't all that different from each other. Well, this is true of all civilizations, actually; there's nothing new under the sun.

So he has built up what he hopes is a convincing background in which you can put Book of Mormon archaeology, and he's a very serious, bright guy. But I'm sorry to say that I don't really buy more than a part of this. I don't really think you can argue, no matter how bright you are, that what's said in the Book of Mormon applies to the peoples that we study in Mexico and Central America. That's one way of doing it -- to build up a kind of convincing background, a kind of stage set to this -- but there's no actors. That's the problem. ...

This is how "Mormon archaeology" has been presented to non-Mormon specialists. They are aware of what Mormons are saying, and writing, and don't engage in the kind of mockery you see here. You can pick quotes from Coe which appear to legitimise your position, and I can do the same. In spite of the opinions Coe has offered, I think he has not completely shut the door. If he did, that would not be very objective. I think any reasonable person should never entirely shut the door. More from his PBS interview, which also reveals his assumptions about how Joseph Smith "wrote the Book of Mormon":

He convinced a small number of people at the beginning, the witnesses -- not all of them, but he did. This man had an incredible memory. He made it up and dictated it nonstop. It's very long, the Book of Mormon. I mean, it's an incredible feat of the mind. Even if it is all made up, to do something like that is really extraordinary. And how literate was he? He knew the Bible very well, because it comes out in the language of the King James Bible, which I was raised on. But to be able to carry this through to its logical end, that's amazing. Really, it is. I mean, if it's a work of fiction, nobody has ever done anything like this before. And I think it is fiction, but he really carried it through, and my respect for him is unbounded.

"I THINK it is fiction".

When you read the mockery of posters here towards the Book of Mormon, you get the feeling that fools are going where angels fear to tread.

[_harmony]

...if it's a work of fiction, nobody has ever done anything like this before.

Of course it's been done before. The whole Old Testament is fiction. Hasn't he read the Old Testament?

Good grief.

[_Ray A]

The whole Old Testament is fiction. Hasn't he read the Old Testament?

Really? How many Old Testament scholars have you read? Not even the very skeptical Isaac Asimov would have conceded that point.

[_harmony]

The whole Old Testament is fiction. Hasn't he read the Old Testament?

Really? How many Old Testament scholars have you read? Not even the very skeptical Isaac Asimov would have conceded that point.

Start a different thread, Ray.

[_Mister Scratch]

I read the link you provided, Ray. Is that somehow not enough? I can read hundred of links that you provide. Really, the only link I am interested in is the one that shows that Mopologists have tried to advance their theories in legit venues.

I don't know what you picture in your mind, but I suspect it's something like DCP giving a lecture to a committee of Mesoamerican archaeologists. This is what Coe wrote in Dialogue in 1973:

"There can be no question that the BYU sponsored New World Archaeological Foundation's program has been an unqualified success. Its twenty years of excavations and exploration in Chiapas have put that state on the archaeological map and have established one of the longest and best archaeological sequences for any part of the New World. Credit for this goes to the foresight of [Thomas Stewart] Ferguson and the original directors, but especially to the first-class [LDS] archaeologists who have carried out the program. First and foremost among them, I would name Gareth W. Lowe, who has been field director for a number of years and who has established himself as the outstanding expert in the field of Formative Mesoamerica. And full praise must be given to the generosity and wisdom of the [LDS] Church leadership in providing financial backing for the foundation. 'Mormon archaeology' is no longer something that brings chuckles in Gentile circles." (Coe, Michael D (Summer 1973). "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought: 41-46.)

Hey, terrific, Ray. I'm sure Coe has appreciated the smears which have been directed at him from DCP & his ilk on MAD and elsewhere in the Mopologetic universe. And no: This does not cut it. Mopologists setting things up at a BYU-sponsored event does not count as a "legit venue" in my book. This still doesn't erase the fundamental embarrassment which is very obviously at the heart and soul of contemporary LDS apologetics on this subject.

"Mormon archaeology" may be a joke here, but it's not, even to specialists like Coe. In his PBS interview, Coe said:

Coe has said that he doesn't think it is believable at all, and further, that Mopologists such as Sorenson have to labor indefatigably just to establish a partially "convincing background".

To make Book of Mormon archaeology at all kind of believable, my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies. He's tried to build a reasonable picture that these two civilizations weren't all that different from each other. Well, this is true of all civilizations, actually; there's nothing new under the sun.

So he has built up what he hopes is a convincing background in which you can put Book of Mormon archaeology, and he's a very serious, bright guy. But I'm sorry to say that I don't really buy more than a part of this. I don't really think you can argue, no matter how bright you are, that what's said in the Book of Mormon applies to the peoples that we study in Mexico and Central America. That's one way of doing it -- to build up a kind of convincing background, a kind of stage set to this -- but there's no actors. That's the problem. ...

This is how "Mormon archaeology" has been presented to non-Mormon specialists.

How again, Ray? By holding a BYU-sponsored conference? That just doesn't cut it, mate.

They are aware of what Mormons are saying, and writing, and don't engage in the kind of mockery you see here.

Wait a second... Are I reading you correctly? You are saying that they are aware? Then what do you make of the many claims by DCP, Charity, and others than secular scholars are totally oblivious to what "Mormons are saying, and writing"? Which is it, Ray? You are beginning to sound as schizophrenic and confused as the Mopologists.

You can pick quotes from Coe which appear to legitimise your position, and I can do the same.

My "position" is that the LDS apologists have failed to try and present their "Book of Mormon History" arguments in legit academic venues. The fact that they've failed to do so indicates embarrassment and shame on their part. I'm not sure why you think me citing Coe would have anything to do with that basic thesis.

[_Ray A]

Wait a second... Are I reading you correctly? You are saying that they are aware? Then what do you make of the many claims by DCP, Charity, and others than secular scholars are totally oblivious to what "Mormons are saying, and writing"? Which is it, Ray? You are beginning to sound as schizophrenic and confused as the Mopologists.

It's very simple. Even Coe said that professionals have not studied "Mormon archaeology" in the depth that he has. Being "aware" of it, and actually going through all of Sorenson's writings, for example, is something they don't do, with some minor exceptions, like Coe himself. And one even wonders just how much Coe has read. I doubt, for example, he subscribes to Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

[_Calculus Crusader]

The whole Old Testament is fiction.

In a parallel universe, mayhap, but not in this one.