Journey of Faith DVDs

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

Okay, I'm probably totally and completely out to lunch here, but isn't Coe the person who made the statement in favor of mariner journey's to the America's and that this allows for something other than the Bering Strait theory?

Pay me no mind. I'm trying to use what I've learned.

[_JustMe]

I think it is also worth noting that Linda Schele and David Freidel said "And know that this time of discovery is not over yet, for the decipherment of the Maya Writing System, the study of their religion and politics, the excavations and analyses of the remains of their lives are not yet finished. In truth, they are barely begun." (my emphasis - A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya, William Morrow, 1990: 14)

I am willing to sit it out, keep reading, and not worrying about whether one thinks Mesoamerica refutes the Book of Mormon or not. There is not enough fiality for either side to come to firm hard or final coclusions.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

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

Nope. His bias is as bad as that of the archaeologists. Granted his credentials are good, they don't override his bias. It's O.K., things change with time. The Maya used to be thought of as peaceful, they weren't. The Bering Strait used to be the only viable way of population movements, it's not now. So, Coe's dismissal of anything by Sorenson is too bad, but I understand. I can be patient. Just keep watching, things will change. John E. Clark the LDS Mesoamerican archaeologist is beginning to find some interesting new ties with the Book of Mormon.

[_JustMe]

Jersey Girl

Okay, I'm probably totally and completely out to lunch here, but isn't Coe the person who made the statement in favor of mariner journey's to the America's and that this allows for something other than the Bering Strait theory?

Yes that's him. Along with the about face ofthe Smithsonian as well as the AAAS, it is an amazing situation we have on our hands.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl

Okay, I'm probably totally and completely out to lunch here, but isn't Coe the person who made the statement in favor of mariner journey's to the America's and that this allows for something other than the Bering Strait theory?

Yes that's him. Along with the about face ofthe Smithsonian as well as the AAAS, it is an amazing situation we have on our hands.

Oh. My. Gosh.

I got something right for a change.

[_Ray A]

Nope. His bias is as bad as that of the archaeologists. Granted his credentials are good, they don't override his bias. It's O.K., things change with time. The Maya used to be thought of as peaceful, they weren't. The Bering Strait used to be the only viable way of population movements, it's not now. So, Coe's dismissal of anything by Sorenson is too bad, but I understand. I can be patient. Just keep watching, things will change. John E. Clark the LDS Mesoamerican archaeologist is beginning to find some interesting new ties with the Book of Mormon.

Okay, I realise that, it's a matter of hoping for "real evidence" to come, which has not yet come, or Coe and Company would have been rushing to publish all of this. You've made this point clear. That Coe accepts diffusionism does not = "more evidence for the Book of Mormon". That's a tenuous connection you make in your video. It's not even close to a "proof", especially since you left out the fuller context of Coe's remarks about the Book of Mormon - since 1973! You're giving people the impression that this has Coe's blessing, when it doesn't, because they don't realise the fuller context of Coe's statements.

I am willing to sit it out, keep reading, and not worrying about whether one thinks Mesoamerica refutes the Book of Mormon or not. There is not enough fiality for either side to come to firm hard or final coclusions.

That wasn't the point I initially made. I'm willing to sit out whatever comes around, including a Nephite inscription. The point I made is that we're not getting all of the facts from apologists. (See my comments on Mike Ash's claim that there is "some evidence" for the horse in Book of Mormon times, yet put into a fuller context by beastie.)

[_beastie]

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.

You ignored my earlier question to you when you brought up Thompson’s errors. How did Michael Coe prove he was wrong? I’ll answer for you, although you know the answer if you’ve read Breaking the Maya Code. Coe – and others – proved that Thompson was incorrect about the “peaceful Maya” through breaking the Maya code.

As you said earlier, writing does provide invaluable information in regards to the abstract ideas and beliefs that people hold.

Are you seriously suggesting that now – after the Maya code has been broken – it is feasible to believe that some new discovery will completely overturn what scholars have learned and universally accept about the ancient Mesoamerican’s abstract beliefs??

Absolutely new discoveries continue to be made in Mesoamerica, and that is exciting. Recent discoveries reveal that the late preclassic period was actually very similar to the classic period in terms of social complexity. But these new discoveries aren’t opening the way to the discovery of a significant Judeo-Christian culture, for the reason I outline carefully in my previously linked essays. The earliest significant polities were the ones that directed, so to speak, the cultural and religious evolution of ancient Mesoamerica. If the polity described in the Book of Mormon existed – both the Jaredite and later Nephite/Lamanite polities – the polity would have been one of the most powerful in the region. Using the geography Sorenson suggests, it would have been roughly the size of the later massive Aztec empire. You, and other believers who insist the Book of Mormon happened in Mesoamerica, are actually suggesting that a Judeo-Christian polity the size of the Aztecs could have reasonably disappeared without a trace – a trace that would not only be manifested in the site itself, but more importantly manifest in the cultural evolution of the other polities surrounding it, and impacted by it.

[_Ray A]

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

It looks like you're really only now catching up on this, Kerry. I posted links about this and articles in Scientific American on FAIR years ago, so that there could be some debate about it. I'll repost the SA link soon, if I can find it. This isn't new information, and I said at the time that the debates will go on.

From the link:

D. Stanford, Smithsonian curator of archeology, opined that there were probably several waves of prehistoric immigration into the Americas across the Arctic, the Pacific Ocean (!), and possibly even the Atlantic (!!). [This is heresy no longer.] Supporting early Atlantic crossings are several dozen artifacts found in the eastern U.S. that closely resemble some found in France and Iberia. Stanford said, "We don't know yet what that means." (Emphasis mine)

And it hasn't been heresy for a while. Undoubtedly John Sorenson contributed to this barrier being broken down. That aspect of his scholarly studies has been taken seriously. Now for the big challenge - to convince scholars like Coe that there's a real connection between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica.

[_beastie]

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.

It’s not my research; it is the research of the experts in the field. I will note, once again, that you are relying in the errors made in the field prior to the ability to read the Maya glyphs to build a case that the entire field of Maya studies could be overturned in the future and support the existence of a significant Judeo-christian culture. I doubt that any Mesoamerican scholar would agree with that assertion – and that includes Mormon Mesoamerican scholars. How can I make such a wild assertion? Simple. Mormon Mesoamerican scholars, like Brant and Clark, make their case not by suggesting that one day a significant Judeo-Christian polity will be discovered, but rather they make their case by arguing that the Nephite polity was not significant enough to impact the larger culture, anyway, so we should not expect to find the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, and instead have to look for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon.

This is why the dvd was obviously made for people who really don’t have enough – or any- background knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica to fairly evaluate its claims. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have dared include blanket statements such as “they would have found horses there” and the assertion that Teotihuacan noticed and possibly targeted the Nephite polity. I feel pretty comfortable guessing that neither Clark nor Gardner would have ever made such statements in front of folks who’ve actually studied ancient Mesoamerica.

[_beastie]

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?

Oh, for heaven’s sake. If you’ve been compiling a list of grievances based on all the things that critics have said about your work that you found unjustified, and want to return tit for tat, would you kindly do it on another thread, perhaps designed just for that purpose?

I have seriously engaged the work of LDS scholars, like Sorenson and Gardner. I have not dismissed their work due to their admitted religious bias. I have engaged the substance of their claims, even playing on the silly “loose translation” field to do so. So please, save your fantasies of revenge for the folks that actually engaged in the behavior on your list, and stop wasting my time with it.