Journey of Faith DVDs

[Guest]

beastie

we do know quite a bit about ancient Mesoamerica.

If you pick and choose who to quote. I have also shown how the AAAS (Academy for the Advancement of Sciences) has shown that all we thought we knew of Mesoamerica is wrong. So what do we do with that? Ignore it? Mesoamerica is still a fledgling study in every way. I have Michael D. Coe in his magnificent book Breaking the Maya Code , where he notes clearly the modern scholarly biases that cause serious problems with our understanding about the Maya right now today. What we know today certainly will be overturned by next few decades of research, or at least changed significantly that we will not be able to say we know a whole heckuva lot. This is the obvious theme of William Sullivan's The Secret of the Incas , which shows us just how very little we know about them either! For what it's worth, in Biblical studies, the exact same situation is occurring, not to mention science - gasp! Yes that subject also! There is no finality yet. Conclusions are always going to be tentative. Why on earth do you think Coe keeps updating and upgrading his classic book on the Maya, now in its 6th edition? Linda Schele blew the doors off our supposed knowledge about the Maya with her book Maya Cosmos. It turned our knowledge of the Maya on its head. I could go on, if I am forced into it.

[_harmony]

There is no finality yet. Conclusions are always going to be tentative.

Then you cannot conclude that she is wrong.

[_JustMe]

There is no finality yet. Conclusions are always going to be tentative.

Then you cannot conclude that she is wrong.

Not anymore than she can conclude her research is correct, and hence wipes out LDS scholarly studies on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. That is my point all right.

[_JustMe]

beastie

you really need to stop insinuating that bias automatically equates suspicious work.

Why? That is what is thrown at LDS scholarly studies about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. If that is the basis against the LDS scholarly materials, why shouldn't it be for all across the board?

[_JustMe]

Ray A

The problem is when unsubstantiated claims are made.

A worse problem comes when substantiated claims are overturned with new evidence, and the old claims are still used against us. The AAAS has shown that the Americas were populated through numerous maritime crossings over the oceans, BOTH of them. Yet that is still dismissed and the Bering Strait only theory is thrown out. That has changed, but who among us acknowledge it, and are grateful for the new light and knowledge of even more extensive cultural contacts than we have supposed? The reaction has been one of horror. Why? Because some dopey Mormon Apologists such as Kerry A. Shirts will capitalize on that! And you are correct. I certainly will, and have.
Here is the link. It's the second bullet. Actually the entire page is interesting....... This was the link that John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon Is This the Place?, Communications Company, 2007: 239-240, 285, footnote 316, led me to. He also has disscussions about the AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) in Feb 1998 by the archaeologist Stuart Fiedel said "We're in a state of turmoil. Everything we knew is now supposed to be wrong." [So much for beastie's theory that we know so much about the Maya and Meosamerica.....] (p. 226 of Lund). Anyway here is the link:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p10.htm

[_harmony]

There is no finality yet. Conclusions are always going to be tentative.

Then you cannot conclude that she is wrong.

Not anymore than she can conclude her research is correct, and hence wipes out LDS scholarly studies on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. That is my point all right.

Her scholarly studies are not tainted by religious bias, JM. Yours are.

[_JustMe]

beastie

it would require a new discovery that would overturn just about everything that scholars today accept about ancient Mesoamerica. That was more of a possibility before the glyphs were decoded, but subsequent the decoding of the glyphs, it is a very unlikely possibility.

John E. Clark has shown the defect of this type of thinking.

I also think, just for the record that Coe's observation in his Breaking the Maya Code (p. 271) is worth repeating. "You might reasonably tink that the decipherment of the Maya script would have been greeted with open arms by the archaeologists. Not a bit of it! The reaction of the digging fraternity (and sorority) to the most exciting development in New World archaeology this century has been.... rejection."

In light of thatcomment, what makes you even pretend to know that any new discovery will be accepted, learned about, and understood? Coe has shown in many, many places the sheer bias, the utter inept stupidity of the very scientists who are supposed to be teaching us about the Maya. And your claiming we know a whole lot about them. Now who am I going tobelieve here? You even claim his credentials are "impeccible." O.K. I can accept that. Why do you presume to lecture me about Mesoamerica, when it is obvious from my reading of Coe that the very experts you think teach us all about Mesoamerica are the most bias ones on earth?

[_harmony]

Why do you presume to lecture me about Mesoamerica, when it is obvious from my reading of Coe that the very experts you think teach us all about Mesoamerica are the most bias ones on earth?

Religious bias?

[_Ray A]

A worse problem comes when substantiated claims are overturned with new evidence, and the old claims are still used against us. The AAAS has shown that the Americas were populated through numerous maritime crossings over the oceans, BOTH of them. Yet that is still dismissed and the Bering Strait only theory is thrown out. That has changed, but who among us acknowledge it, and are grateful for the new light and knowledge of even more extensive cultural contacts than we have supposed? The reaction has been one of horror. Why? Because some dopey Mormon Apologists such as Kerry A. Shirts will capitalize on that! And you are correct. I certainly will, and have.

Kerry, first of all let me say, sit, boy, and stay here!! Your participation is most very welcomed, by me at least. I have not only read, but often made those arguments too. I'll go through the links you gave soon and comment later. I don't think diffusionism is as categortically dismissed as much as you suggest. I certainly don't dismiss it at all. You mentioned this point in one of your videos, but I'll get to that a bit later. No, there's no "horror" on my part, so in that sense you have nothing to prove to me.

[_Ray A]

Coe has shown in many, many places the sheer bias, the utter inept stupidity of the very scientists who are supposed to be teaching us about the Maya.

So you accept Coe's statements that there is nothing to support any connection between ancient Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon?