The Maddest of MAD

[_truth dancer]

The reality is, Beastie's assertions regarding Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon reflect those of the true experts in the field.

Beastie has done an enormous amount of research on this topic and shares the opinions of the real experts, the experts around the world who do have PhDs in archaeology, anthropology, and ancient American studies.

I have yet to see even one assertion (concerning Book of Mormon Archaeology) by Beastie that is not solidly backed by accepted research and expert opinion/theory.

The argument is not really between Beastie and Brant, it is between the real Mesoamerican experts and Brant.

~td~

[_Runtu]

The reality is, Beastie's assertions regarding Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon reflect those of the true experts in the field.

Beastie has done an enormous amount of research on this topic and shares the opinions of the real experts, the experts around the world who do have PhDs in archaeology, anthropology, and ancient American studies.

I have yet to see even one assertion (concerning Book of Mormon Archaeology) by Beastie that is not solidly backed by accepted research and expert opinion/theory.

The argument is not really between Beastie and Brant, it is between the real Mesoamerican experts and Brant.

~td~

Agreed, TD. I don't agree with most of Brant's conclusions, but I respect his scholarly achievements and abilities.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Runtu,

I respect Brant for receiving his Masters, and I respect Beastie for receiving hers.

They are both smart and articulate.

But again, Beastie, not Brant, is the one arguing with the knowledge and facts of true experts in the field.

~td~

[_Runtu]

Hi Runtu,

I respect Brant for receiving his Masters, and I respect Beastie for receiving hers.

They are both smart and articulate.

But again, Beastie, not Brant, is the one arguing with the knowledge and facts of true experts in the field.

~td~

I know. I thought I was agreeing with you. :)

[_Ray A]

Michael Coe made a very interesting distinction:

As someone who has moved in and out of the Mormon culture, you've had numerous friends who are Mormons, not just archaeologists. As an outside observer, what do you feel are the special difficulties of being a Mormon intellectual?

Coe: I think that being a Mormon archaeologist, you have to be two people. You have to be, one, an archaeologist that happens to be a Mormon, and also, you have to believe in the Mormon religion. Mormon archaeology can be the Book of Mormon archaeology, where you're actually going right from the beginning, trying to find the evidence that the Book of Mormon is correct.

Doing archaeology as a scientist who happens to be a Mormon is another dish of tea completely, and this is what most of my friends who are archaeologists are doing right now. They're extremely good archaeologists, and they have made wonderful discoveries in what we call the Formative Period in southern Mexico and Guatemala and amazing stuff that's being discovered right now. But they are quick to tell me that they are archaeologists who are also Mormon, like you can be an archaeologist and you can be a Catholic or a Muslim or Buddhist or nothing, as I am. You can do this.

But again, still it must bother them, because there are many people in the Mormon Church who want them to be doing Book of Mormon archaeology, and this they don't want to do. And the people who do Book of Mormon archaeology are no longer in the ascendancy. In major educational places like Brigham Young University, which has an absolutely marvelous anthropology/archaeology department, most people are archaeologists and anthropologists who are also Mormons, and that's a different thing. ...

How would you describe the attitude of most professional historians to orthodox Mormon archaeology? ...

Coe: One might wonder how my profession in general, the profession of archaeology, has used Book of Mormon archaeology -- or let's say archaeology done by Mormons; I always separate these two things out. I think that for the Book of Mormon, even though they don't know much about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism, they take the whole thing as a complete fantasy, that this is a big waste of time. Nothing can ever come out of it because it's just impossible that this could have happened, because we know what happened to these people. We can read their writings: They're not in reformed Egyptian; they're in Maya.

On the other hand, there are the archaeologists who are Mormons, and I think there's a huge amount of respect among my colleagues -- there certainly is with myself -- for the work that they have done and the work they're continuing to do. They're really great, whether they're from BYU or other institutions. They're doing a wonderful job; they're telling us about the American Indian past, the past of Native American civilizations. And they've made a unique contribution, I think, to the study of New World cultures. ...

PBS Interview.

I'd say Brant is an apologist first, an anthropologist second (with an MA in Anthropology).

[_harmony]

Quite honestly, I was unaware that he had any university training on these subjects. If I am mistaken, then I whole-heartedly retract my criticism on that count. Especially if his only lack is a failure to finish a dissertation.

Are you sure about this? Is there some online reference, perhaps, to his training in Mesoamerican studies?

See cinepro's link. Brant has an MA in Anthropology and did coursework and fieldwork in a PhD program at SUNY.

My question would be: why didn't he finish? Because the head of his committee quit when he saw that all Brant wanted to do was prove the Book of Mormons, ala Ridnor/Gee?

I have several courses in law. That doesn't qualify me as a lawyer or even the paralegal I was studying to become.

I also have several courses in education; I'm not qualified to be a teacher.

I also have several courses in sociology. That doesn't qualify me for much of anything. (Although it's certainly coming in more and more handy as I get older)

[_Ray A]

Someone should email this piece to Michael Coe for his opinion.

Access to the Ancients.

I fear to do it lest I get a similar curt reply to the one I got from Payson Sheets: "The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with reality."

[_Daniel Peterson]

My question would be: why didn't he finish? Because the head of his committee quit when he saw that all Brant wanted to do was prove the Book of Mormons, ala Ridnor/Gee?

I don't know why Brant didn't finish, but I know that uncompleted dissertations are very, very common. Graduate students run out of money, become discouraged over job prospects, etc., etc. It happens, sadly, all the time.

Don't presume, incidentally, that you know the full truth about the Ritner/Gee situation. Gee did, in fact, finish a Yale Ph.D. in Egyptology. Do you know the subject of his dissertation? Was it an apologetic for the Book of Abraham?

[_Yoda]

in my opinion, The MD Message Board is the best Message Board out there to discuss Mormonism. This Message Board Here is My Home Message Board.

We're glad this is your home, Brackite!

You're definitely part of the MDB family here.

[_harmony]

I don't know why Brant didn't finish, but I know that uncompleted dissertations are very, very common. Graduate students run out of money, become discouraged over job prospects, etc., etc. It happens, sadly, all the time.

My point was... many people have graduate level classes and no degree in their subject. Thus many of us are not experts... but instead are hobbyists (and there's nothing wrong with being a hobbyist, unless, of course, one is posing as an expert).

Don't presume, incidentally, that you know the full truth about the Ritner/Gee situation. Gee did, in fact, finish a Yale Ph.D. in Egyptology. Do you know the subject of his dissertation? Was it an apologetic for the Book of Abraham?

You can't get around the fact that the committee he started with was not the committee he ended with, and the issue that precipitated the change was connected to Gee's religion. So I was just positing that perhaps the reason why Brant didn't finish his PhD was a similiar situation, with a different outcome (maybe no one else would serve on his committee, if his committee chair quit over a pro-BoM agenda?)

As it is, he's a hobbyist, just like Trix. And their "discussions" are legendary.