E=mc2 wrote:I honestly can't think of any other way to approach the archaeological enterprise in Mesoamerica than what MAsh has done. It *is* important to make lists of things that are in the Book of Mormon but NOT found archaeologically. Equally as important is to do what MAsh has done, list those items which *have* been found and is now understood as being in Mesoamerican contexts and interpretations. Is there any other or better way?
(I'm not aware that MAsh listed things NOT found archaeologically... am I misinformed?)
MAsh wrote:This is exactly right. On another message board some are complaining about my comment (both in my book & here) on the Book of Mormon & Mesoamerican archaeology. In context of my book's chapter, however, I stand by my comment.
Yes, because in the context of the book's chapter... the standards must be different.
This reminds me of an interview with "comedian" David Sedaris that I heard on the radio yesterday. There was some kind of controversy about his latest book. Apparently some people thought the book was supposed to be non-fiction, and they were upset to read the book and see how the tales were jazzed up with fictional bits and ridiculous exagerrations to make them funnier. In the context of humor writing, readers should understand that real events will not be presented factually, because that wouldn't be very funny.
Is that what Mike means about "context"? In the context of apologetics, facts will be massaged, qualifications dropped, and speculations over extended, because otherwise it wouldn't be very faith promoting. If readers take Mike's words about Mesoamerica as factual, they are simply being obtuse about what it takes to fashion good apologetic material. Factual representations do not make good apologetics, just as they don't make good humor.