Daniel Peterson wrote:I think it's overwhelmingly likely that they chose Michael Coe because of his famous article in Dialogue, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," published back in 1973 (thirty-eight years ago), and because he has been occasionally willing, at very wide intervals since that time, to say something on the subject. He wasn't chosen merely because he's an expert on the Maya; there are several others who are just as prominent in that field, and he's been retired for a long time now. (He'll be eighty-two in March.) He was also, no doubt, distinguished from the pack by the fact that he has written several successful popular books on Mayan studies, so that he's something of a "household name" (to the very limited extent that that's possible for a Mayanist).
I'm not quite sure how you make the jump from the fact that Michael Coe is a well-known Mayanist to the assumption that he is an expert on the explosion of Mormon scholarship that has occurred over the past thirty years, let alone why you imagine that the burden is on me to disprove that assumption. Do you make the same assumption with regard to, say, Karl Taube, David Webster, and Joyce Marcus? They are eminent Mayanists, too.
Do you take the position that the gentlemen you just listed DON'T know enough about Mayan research to make an informed decision as to the validity of the FARMS research and the probability that the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations actually existed? Are you going to tell them your opinion of their expertise on the topic the next time you see them at a conference about Mayan research? That should make for some lively conversation.
I, by contrast, think that a lot of it is pretty good, and that some of it is very good.
I should have phrased this differently. I should have said, "I, and the Mesoamerican academic community, don't take the FARMS research very seriously." Would that make my opinion on the subject carry any more weight?
Consequently, I also don't take research by the flat earth society very seriously either. As you would say, this is my prerogative; however, it's not an unreasonable position to take, given the level of research currently in existence against the earth being flat, no?
I don't believe that we have the kind of evidence that you imagine we're claiming. We've never claimed to have it.
You could have just stated your last sentence at the beginning and left all the rest of this silliness out of the conversation. To respond: Dr. Peterson, I know that you don't have the type of evidence that I'm claiming and have never claimed to have it. This is one of the main points of my previous posts.
I am glad that we finally agree.
We have enough evidence to gratify believers, to reassure many (though not all) questioners, and to pique the interest of many (but not all) open-minded investigators -- enough evidence that a believer need not toss reason out the window, enough to make the case that faith is largely though not perfectly consistent with the current overall factual picture (and in some cases, particularly in the Near East, remarkably so), but not enough to compel the assent of all unbelievers.
It's not very hard to reassure the believers on any particular subject, especially when those believers have a lot of time, money, and energy already invested into their belief system. The History Channel and programs like Ghost Hunters, etc. feed this kind of very thin evidence to their audiences all of the time. Those who are viewing the programs who want to believe in Big Foot or poltergeists eat programs like this up; the rest of us end up with a smirk on our faces.
And, putting on my theological hat for a moment, I suspect that that is just about where things are supposed to be.
This has to be one of the most irrational arguments out there for God posited by all religions (the LDS one not excluded). Here we have an all powerful, all knowing God in the universe that wants us to do certain truths and follow certain laws that he (or she or they) has set up. However, instead of making these widely known to people around the world (by revealing himself in the middle of Rome, like you said), God decided that he was going to reveal himself to a 14 year old boy in the middle of a forest and then make THAT BOY go spread the word to everyone else. Furthermore, even when someone does decide to swallow their common sense and believe this magical story, God STILL doesn't give them any sort of a proof that the story is true other than a warm feeling in their heart. To me, this smacks of mass insanity.
To juxtapose a similar situation, suppose that I had a 14 year old neighbor that said he was abducted by space aliens. Further suppose that, when I asked the boy for proof of what had happened, he stated to me that he had no other proof than his word (because he was alone at the time) but that I could confirm the truth of this story by pondering it and then asking the space aliens (by thinking to them in my head or talking to myself aloud when I was alone) if what he was telling me was true. Further, he would assure me, I would eventually receive evidence from those aliens -- not from them coming down and blowing up some mountains or picking 30 winning lottery numbers in a row or a similar "miraculous" incident that could be similarly verified by a large group, but by sending a transitory "warm feeling" to my heart that only I could experience or verify. Should I also believe the story of my hypothetical neighbor?
Incidentally, you will be able to read a statement from a very prominent LDS Mesoamericanist that accords with my sentiments when John Clark's entry goes up, shortly, on
Mormon Scholars Testify.