Smith vs. Dehlin: The Latest Salvo

[_Kishkumen]

True to their word, the apologists are continuing their assault on Mormon Stories, this time over at FAIR. Greg Smith introduces Dr. Sorenson's rebuttal of Michael Coe in this interview with John Dehlin.

Greg Smith is up to his usual shenanigans as he introduces us to his subject. First he quotes John Dehlin's introduction of Coe:

This is . . . a tough thing for believing Mormons to hear, but I think it’s important if we are going to live in a world of reality, if we are going to benefit from all that science has provided us, I don’t think that we as Mormons can just conveniently dismiss what science and history and linguistics and anthropology and archaeology and genetics all tell us about the Book of Mormon.

Which he characterizes thusly:

Thus the interview with Coe is intended to demonstrate that those who believe in the Book of Mormon as an ancient text are not living in “a world of reality” since doing so requires either ignorance or rejection of vast amounts of scientific data. This is done not out of any animus (we are repeatedly assured) but only out of a tough-love need to “speak the truth.”

I am left to ask Greg how the existing evidence of ancient Mesoamerican civilizations does not represent a vast amount of information that would, if not tend to disconfirm, at least not apparently support Book of Mormon claims. What is it about the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica that appear to line up so well that it doesn't require a Brant Gardner to write many volumes to make a dubious case?

[_DrW]

When confronted by a choice between the historical narrative of Mesoamerica as described by someone like Michael Coe as opposed to that of Joseph Smith, one only need to evaluate the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis #1: The history, culture and religious practices of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican populations starting approximately 2,500 BC are best described by the body of peer reviewed scientific evidence published by professional archeologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, linguists, geneticists, historians, biologists, geologists and other scientists who have conducted research on the ground in the area over the last century.

Hypothesis #2: The history, culture and religious practices of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican populations starting approximately 2,500 BC are best described by an uneducated farmer in i9th century America who was well known as a scam artist, falsely claimed the ability to translate ancient languages, lied about his practice of adultery, polygamy and polyandry, and never set foot in Mesoamerica.

[_bcspace]

This is . . . a tough thing for believing Mormons to hear, but I think it’s important if we are going to live in a world of reality, if we are going to benefit from all that science has provided us, I don’t think that we as Mormons can just conveniently dismiss what science and history and linguistics and anthropology and archaeology and genetics all tell us about the Book of Mormon.

Isn't tough for this believing Mormon to hear. LDS doctrine and history is not in conflict with science.

[Guest]

Here is the imaginative way in which the FAIR blog describes Sorenson's rebuttal of Coe:

Instead of being a record that can be lightly dismissed, the Book of Mormon deserves to be studied with an open mind as a primary, if unconventional, source from an early Mesoamerican setting.

To imply, as this passage clearly does, that the Book of Mormon is a "primary source text" of the kind that secular Mesoamerican scholars should avail themselves of as they seek to reconstruct the history of ancient Mesoamerica is incredibly optimistic, if not plain deluded.

As one LDS scholar of ancient Mesoamerica said of Sorenson's rebuttal, and I paraphrase, "it is the kind of thing he wrote thirty years ago." How such a document could be expected to push the Book of Mormon to the status of credible primary source on ancient Mesoamerica is beyond comprehension.

Think about it. If all that existed of Tacitus' Annals was Moses Hadas' English translation, would Roman historians fall all over themselves to accept it as a primary source text for Roman history? Now, suppose you were given an English text that purported to be situated in ancient Roman civilization, but actually apparently contradicted much of the picture of ancient Rome that widely accepted ancient evidence had helped to form.

Would most scholars operate from the assumption that such a text is a useful primary source document?

Primary source status is not granted "just because." The case must be persuasively made that the text is indeed ancient. FAIR ought to rewrite that ludicrous blog entry, because it just makes everyone connected to the rebuttal look silly.

[_Tarski]

Isn't tough for this believing Mormon to hear. LDS doctrine and history is not in conflict with science.

Sounds nice but those of us that have been here long enough to watch you know the truth. Your mental gymnastics aren't even athletic. All you do is make your own unnatural gerrymandered redefinitions of ordinary words and common idioms and then declare victory. Who are you fooling but yourself?

[_DrW]

Instead of being a record that can be lightly dismissed, the Book of Mormon deserves to be studied with an open mind as a primary, if unconventional, source from an early Mesoamerican setting.

This kind of claim is especially ridiculous when one considers that none of the authors of the Book of Mormon (proven or probable) imagined the setting of this fictional work to be other than North America.

Thus we have the Hill Cumorah, Zelph, and all of Ron Meldrum's claimed evidence for the North American setting. Joseph Smith never claimed that the setting would be Mesoamerica until someone suggested to him that this might be a good idea since there was no evidence for a North American setting.

[_zeezrom]

Maybe Greg might consider riding in a closed vessel with Deseret?

[Guest]

This is . . . a tough thing for believing Mormons to hear, but I think it’s important if we are going to live in a world of reality, if we are going to benefit from all that science has provided us, I don’t think that we as Mormons can just conveniently dismiss what science and history and linguistics and anthropology and archaeology and genetics all tell us about the Book of Mormon.

Isn't tough for this believing Mormon to hear. LDS doctrine and history is not in conflict with science.

BC,

Just saying it, no matter how many times you do so (even if you do believe it) does not make it so.

In order to even reasonably claim that Mormonism and science are not in conflict, one would need to find at least a few scientists who are not Mormons, and a few Mormons who are not scientists, to agree that this is the case. They would then need to provide objective evidence to back up this claim.

I doubt that you could find the requisite few individuals described in either category. I am very certain that, even if you could, those individual would not even agree on what evidence might be needed to support their claims, let alone produce such evidence.

It would probably be better for you, and for LDS apologetics in general, if you just stopped making these borderline delusional and wholly unsupportable claims about Mormonism and science not being in conflict.

It really does just make you look silly and pretty much destroys what little credibility you may have with your audience here. Better that you stick to your self appointed roll of defining and explaining LDS Church doctrine. LDS Doctrine os such an ill-defined mishmash that you should always be able to find sufficient wiggle room when you make a mistake.

[_Cicero]

Primary source status is not granted "just because." The case must be persuasively made that the text is indeed ancient.

Of course, and that's precisely the point. Sorenson is clearly dreaming, because once you clear away all the obfuscation and insults, all they really have left is "it is ancient because God told me it was ancient." Non-Mormon scholars will never accept that justification, and will likely continue to see all attempts to get them to do so as pseudo-science.

[_Cicero]

Isn't tough for this believing Mormon to hear. LDS doctrine and history is not in conflict with science.

I am more inclined to agree with Joseph Fielding McConkie on this one:

true science and true religion are incompatible by their very definition.