Michael Coe On The Book Of Mormon And Mesoamerica

[ozemc]

ozemc:

We have no revelation as to exactly where the main events of the BoM took place. But a good case can be made for what is now called Mesoamerica.

I always heard that it was in North America. Like the Hill Cumorah being where JS found the plates, etc.

OK, if you say so.

[The Dude]

I just watched it this morning. His name is Simon Worral(l). He is an author.

You mean the British-sounding guy with white hair?

[Jaybear]

You have an unshakeable belief in a portion of JS's supernatural claims: First Vision, golden plates, etc.

But at the same time JS made another set of supernatural claims and was well-known for leading treasure hunting adventures.

"I don't know" ... okay, that's fine. But what do you think?

"I don't care" ... Coming from a Mormon who believes one set of JS's supernatural claims, how do you explain not caring about another set of his claims? And how in the world can you label this a "direct answer?" Glib dismissal is more like it.

You realize that you are in the world of apologetics.

He gave you a "direct" answer, just not to the question you posed.

Now I expect he will find a way to take offense that you even asked the question. Afterall, its an anti-Mormon question.

[Johnny Rotten]

As for taxonomy:who said that the nephites used the same taxonomical system as we do? Take modern chinese for instance,

dolphin=海豚hai3tun1, sea piglet.

seal=海豹hai3 bao4, sea leopard.

giraffe=長頸鹿changjinglu, "long neck deer"

crocodile=鱷魚e-yu, "fish like fish"

panda=熊貓 xiong mao, bear cat

I think the same kinds of linguistic shinanigands was taking place among the nephites. Remember, ancients texts dont use modern taxonomy. Also, does the BoM say they brought horses and cattle from the old world? That must have escaped me.

Her Anum,

This is not a fair description of the â??translationâ? process.

The process of translation went like this- Joseph would place his head in the hat, through the power of the seer stone and God the words would appear, then Joseph would read them off and when they were correctly read back to him the words would disappear and new words would appear and so on.

I would assume you already knew thisâ?¦so quit pretending that this was some kind of an academic experience with the Golden Plates on the table and Joseph carefully looking at the words and â??translatingâ? in a traditional way. Unless you can point to eye witness accounts that support that version then please don't mislead people about the process.

Nothing in the translation process was traditionalâ?¦it was a supernatural process.

Therefore, if the process was properly followed then the supernatural-spiritual means should have delivered from God a Book without the transcription errors you described.

Best,

Johnny Rotten

[William Schryver]

One aspect of Coeâ??s interview that I found particularly interesting was his explicit acknowledgment that the Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon; the location of â??Zarahemlaâ? in Guatemala, does in fact originate with Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo era, something that those who defend the LGT have long maintained against concerted contramo opposition:

In 1841 -- after the Book of Mormon, actually -- there was a publication in New York and London of a wonderful two-volume work called Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan by John Lloyd Stephens, an American diplomat, and his artist-companion, the British topographical artist Frederick Catherwood, with wonderful illustrations by Catherwood of the Maya ruins. This was the beginning of Maya archaeology, ... and we who worked with the Maya civilization consider Stephens and Catherwood the kind of patron saints of the whole thing.

Well, Joseph Smith read these two volumes, and he was flabbergasted, because what he had dictated about the ancient cities in his mind, these were the ancient cities that he was talking about. They weren't in South America, as he originally thought; they were in Central America and neighboring Mexico. ...

The land that Joseph Smith talks about in the Book of Mormon is Zarahemla. And of course there's a whole history of Book of Mormon geography: Where was or where is Zarahemla? It's a land that is said to be right near a kind of an isthmus, which has waters on both sides. Very quickly Smith, after he had read the account of Stephens and Catherwood of the Maya cities, said it must be what he called Guatemala in those days, which comprised also the southeastern part of Mexico, the present state of Chiapas. ... So Zarahemla, in Book of Mormon geography, is the Maya area and what's right next to it.

[thesometimesaint]

ozemc:

Technically Mesoamerica is part of North America.

[cdowis]

You have an unshakeable belief in a portion of JS's supernatural claims: First Vision, golden plates, etc.

But at the same time JS made another set of supernatural claims and was well-known for leading treasure hunting adventures.

"I don't know" ... okay, that's fine. But what do you think?

"I don't care" ... Coming from a Mormon who believes one set of JS's supernatural claims, how do you explain not caring about another set of his claims? And how in the world can you label this a "direct answer?" Glib dismissal is more like it.

You are confused. You think that I read JS' statements and came to the conclusion, became convinced, that he was a prophet.

I have a factual knowledge independent of anything he said. When I came to read his story, I was in school, learning, rather than a critical reader trying to decide whether he was telling the truth.

An example, if someone brought me a truckload of evidence that the world was flat, I am not "glib" in showing a lack of interest in whatever they may produce. I have a factual, personal knowledge that the earth is round.

[The Dude]

I have a factual knowledge independent of anything he said.

LOL

cowis,

Since you're so gifted in this area, why don't you do me a favor and acquire some factual knowledge about the treasure hunting part. Thanks.

Your buddy,

The Dude

[Sethbag]

dolphin=海豚，hai3tun1, sea piglet.

seal=海豹，hai3 bao4, sea leopard.

giraffe=長頸鹿，changjinglu, "long neck deer"

crocodile=鱷魚，e-yu, "fish like fish"

panda=熊貓， xiong mao, bear cat

I think the same kinds of linguistic shinanigands was taking place among the nephites. Remember, ancients texts dont use modern taxonomy. Also, does the BoM say they brought horses and cattle from the old world? That must have escaped me.

Her Amun, when one is translating a book written in Chinese which includes these animals, does one translating dolphin as "sea piglet"?

So, a Chinese character in a book written in Chinese is translated, in English, like this? "Li Chow looked out from his boat happily, gazing on the sea piglets that followed along by the side, accompanying him on his journey..."

So, when I'm translating into English from German, do I write the the homemaker pulled out the dust sucker and cleaned the floor? Do I translate some bike riders in a German novel into english as "wheel drivers"? Come on. Yeah, we know that different languages use various words to describe things. We're talking, however, about a translation from these languages into English. And good practice, in such conditions, is to translate from whatever word or words a source language uses to describe something, and render that in English using the English equivelant, if such exists. There are clearly dolphins in English, and giraffes, and crocodiles, and seals, and I would challeng you to come up with real, serious works translated from Chinese that don't use these English terms for these animals.

What you offer here, with these Chinese words for things there are English words for, is called a red herring.

[Olavarria]

Her Amun, when one is translating a book written in Chinese which includes these animals, does one translating dolphin as "sea piglet"?

So, a Chinese character in a book written in Chinese is translated, in English, like this? "Li Chow looked out from his boat happily, gazing on the sea piglets that followed along by the side, accompanying him on his journey..."

So, when I'm translating into English from German, do I write the the homemaker pulled out the dust sucker and cleaned the floor? Do I translate some bike riders in a German novel into english as "wheel drivers"? Come on. Yeah, we know that different languages use various words to describe things. We're talking, however, about a translation from these languages into English. And good practice, in such conditions, is to translate from whatever word or words a source language uses to describe something, and render that in English using the English equivelant, if such exists. There are clearly dolphins in English, and giraffes, and crocodiles, and seals, and I would challeng you to come up with real, serious works translated from Chinese that don't use these English terms for these animals.

What you offer here, with these Chinese words for things there are English words for, is called a red herring.

No, we translate long necked deer into giraffe, sea piglet into dolphine,and bear cat into panda because we have actual, mortal, red blooded chinese people to point these animals out to us as they name them. However, if I had never seen a panda, giraffe or dolphine, and the chinese had been extinct for 1600 years and I only have one 600 page chinese text which mentions these animals in a very limited context and assuming I didnt have those words in my vocabulary thus being unable to corralate the two, then I would use the most literal translation.

If I spoke greek and had never seen a hippopatumus, I would be tempted to think that Africa did have a species of semi aquatic horse, and would thus not leave "river horse" untranslated. But we do leave hippopatumus untranslated for in our minds their is nothing equs about a hippo.

Did Joseph know what a tapir was? was the word tapir even in his vocabulary? Did Joseph know what a peckary was? Was the word even in his vocabulary? If they werent then he wouldnt have been able to use those words in the translation for he had to "study it out" in his mind and ask God "if it be right".

Then again, maybe the Bible isnt an ancient near eastern text for everyone knows that unicorns and satyrs never existed in the middle east.

I suppose every frontier journal ever written is also fraudulent because I know of know species of canis in the world which burrows holes in the earth(prairie dog).

[grego]

Sethbag,

I think Her Amun's "red herring" will be found to be a little bit more. Search "hippopotamus" here on the boards...

-=-=-=

JS made another set of supernatural claims and was well-known for leading treasure hunting adventures.

How "well-known" is that?

-=-=-=

Until the very recent publication of Bushman's and Vogel's massive tomes (neither of which an archaeologist of Mesoamerica like Dr. Coe can be expected to have found time to read since their publication), "Brodie's psychobiography" was the single most important book on Joseph Smith on the face of the earth.

Bushman who?

-=-=-=

Is anyone else bothered by Coe "sharing knowledge" about topics he's not knowledgeable about?

[Olavarria]

....and if your looking for "a home where the buffalo roam", you'll need to go to africa and not the americas.

[William Schryver]

The Dude:

... do you think JS could really see treasure in his stone?

I do.

And it is quite apparent that those who participated in treasure hunts with him also were quite confident that he possessed this ability. That's part of the reason they wanted a cut of the proceeds when they heard he had finally been able to not only find a treasure, but to also retrieve it -- previously they could apparently locate, but were not able, for various reasons, to actually lay their hands on the treasures.

You should know by now that I'm a believer in many things that, in our empiricist culture, would be characterized as "supernatural." I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

[Ray Agostini]

..you are again giving JS way too much credit. He didn't turn it into a major world religion -- BY and the saints in Utah did that.

Dude, I did write that Joseph Smith laid the foundations of Mormonism.

So what? I don't take "reliance on Brodie" as a discredit to Coe.

Brodie was all speculation. I find it surprising that Coe has no one else to rely on.

Richard Bushman says some similar things about JS and his early treasure seeking abilities. It always makes me wonder... do LDS actually believe JS could see treasure? I've never encountered a direct answer to this activity.

Well there is this piece about treasure hunting:

“Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet's knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, ‘Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.’ Martin then confessed that he wished to ‘stop the mouths of fools’ who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them”

http://www.mormonfortress.com/seer2.html

[The Dude]

The Dude:

I do.

And it is quite apparent that those who participated in treasure hunts with him also were quite confident that he possessed this ability. That's part of the reason they wanted a cut of the proceeds when they heard he had finally been able to not only find a treasure, but to also retrieve it -- previously they could apparently locate, but were not able, for various reasons, to actually lay their hands on the treasures.

You should know by now that I'm a believer in many things that, in our empiricist culture, would be characterized as "supernatural." I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

...sigh...

Will, I'm not surprised that you say this. I'm pleased that someone is giving a direct answer and even a profound reasoning for why they say so (in your case, romanticism). Also, I think it logically follows from the belief that Joseph Smith was a natural-born prophet. Magic must work and he must have been good at it.

Never mind the empirical failure of peep stone and divining rod technology, at least by our modern standards.

[The Dude]

Ray,

Well there is this piece about treasure hunting:

â??Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet's knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, â??Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.â?? Martin then confessed that he wished to â??stop the mouths of foolsâ?? who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated themâ?

The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith noticed the rock was physically different. Wouldn't you bet that Joseph Smith was a lot smarter than old Martin Harris? I would.

I thought this part of MAsh's article (your link) was interesting, right at the end:

Josephâ??s early cultural beliefs, however, probably gave him an edge (over twenty-first century Americans) in receiving the Restored Gospel. Joseph believed in visions and revelation-- he had not yet been indoctrinated by the narrower view of secularism and skepticism. He was in a perfect position to receive a revelation from on high-- he had the faith to receive such a manifestation. The early Mormons, including Joseph Smith â??could have incorporated the pre-existing [magic] views into their particular understanding of [revealed] Mormonismâ? (Quinn, xviii). Joseph was more open-minded to miracles, visions, speaking with tongues etc. and was a perfect candidate for receiving the restoration of the gospel and eventually the obtaining and translating of the Book of Mormon.

My contrasting view is that Joseph's cultural contemporaries believed in visions and revelations and had not been indoctrinated with skepticism. They were in a perfect position to be bamboozled. They were in a perfect position to follow a charismatic leader who satisfied their expectations about miracles, visions, speaking in tongues.

Why not this view?

[William Schryver]

...sigh...

Will, I'm not surprised that you say this. I'm pleased that someone is giving a direct answer and even a profound reasoning for why they say so (in your case, romanticism). Also, I think it logically follows from the belief that Joseph Smith was a natural-born prophet. Magic must work and he must have been good at it.

Never mind the empirical failure of peep stone and divining rod technology, at least by our modern standards.

I'm just sorry that you've completely lost your ability to believe in "magic" -- or anything like it. I really am.

As I stated on another thread today: I am a dyed-in-the-wool supernaturalist. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. That said, I can honestly empathize with you hardened skeptics. Had I not experienced the things that I have, I would not have believed it myself.

And when you and I are standing side by side in our resurrected bodies, and you're telling me how you really didn't expect it would ever happen, I'll just smile and say:

Sometimes there's a man ...

Sometimes, there's a man ...

Well, I lost my train of thought here.

[cdowis]

LOL

cowis,

Since you're so gifted in this area, why don't you do me a favor and acquire some factual knowledge about the treasure hunting part. Thanks.

Your buddy,

The Dude

I am interested.

Is there a credible source on the web? If I have to look in a book, it just won't happen.

[Dan Vogel]

Where does the BoM say they brought a compass? I know about the Liahona, but is a device that works on faith, points you toward wild game, and leaves cryptic messages from the divine really a compass?

There were two spindles; one pointed the direction to travel, but what did the other one do?

As for taxonomy:who said that the nephites used the same taxonomical system as we do? Take modern chinese for instance,

dolphin=海豚，hai3tun1, sea piglet.

seal=海豹，hai3 bao4, sea leopard.

giraffe=長頸鹿，changjinglu, "long neck deer"

crocodile=鱷魚，e-yu, "fish like fish"

panda=熊貓， xiong mao, bear cat

I think the same kinds of linguistic shinanigands was taking place among the nephites. Remember, ancients texts dont use modern taxonomy. Also, does the BoM say they brought horses and cattle from the old world? That must have escaped me.

I think Coe was going by what the BOM DOES say, not by what apologists think it should say.

[Dan Vogel]

I read No Man knows My History twice. And I know one person who was converted to Mormonism by reading it. But it is still psychobiography and speculative. She reads motives into Joseph Smith, and this is why it has been called "psychobiography". Refer to Dale Morgan, who often told Brodie that she needed to do some more "work" on her "subjective" interpretations of Joseph Smith, and needed to let go of her biases. Morgan was also an unbeliever, but he was also Brodie's mentor, and could see that her writings were not always objective. See Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism for all of his commentary. He said Brodie had "not got Mormonism out of her system". She has placed interpretations on Joseph Smith which have been accepted willy nilly by some, yet are all speculative.

All biography has an element of psychology, especially if one deals with motive. Even Bushman uses his knowledge of psychoanalysis, which he learned from Eric Erickson; he just hides it better. For those who believe JS's accounts, psychology plays a lesser role, because there is less to understand about him and explain. For those who do not believe JS's version of events, psychology necessarily comes to the forefront, because this under this dynamic he becomes an extremely complex and conflicted person. If the latter is true, then how do you explain him without getting into psychology? One way is to follow the route of the RFMers: JS was simply a charlatan after wealth, power, and sex. End of story. That's certainly an easier route, but one I don't think does justic to JS or to the complexity of human behavior.

[Dan Vogel]

The Dude:

I do.

If JS saw the treasures in the stone, did he also the spirits and bleeding ghosts guarding them? Did he really see them slipping through the earth? What explanation do you have for his never getting any of them?

And it is quite apparent that those who participated in treasure hunts with him also were quite confident that he possessed this ability. That's part of the reason they wanted a cut of the proceeds when they heard he had finally been able to not only find a treasure, but to also retrieve it -- previously they could apparently locate, but were not able, for various reasons, to actually lay their hands on the treasures.

They either believed he had a gift and had found something, or they were trying to force him to hand it over in order to expose him. Regardless, there are ways of building a reputation as a treasure seer besides really being able to do it. Palmyra Presbyterian minister Jesse Townsend said JS found lost objects "a little too well"--meaning he suspected JS stole the objects and hid them and then pretended to find them. This kind of thing went on in the 19th century. This would build his reputation, especially if other seers, such as Sally Chase had tried and failed first.

You should know by now that I'm a believer in many things that, in our empiricist culture, would be characterized as "supernatural." I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

The debate isn't necessarily divided between those who believe in the supernatural and those who don't. Even if you believe in such things, I would hope you were not so gullible as to believe every claim to the supernatural is real. So, tell me, how do you separate legitimate claims from fraudulent ones?

[grego]

There were two spindles; one pointed the direction to travel, but what did the other one do?

Wait--this means it WAS a compass?

For those who believe JS's accounts, psychology plays a lesser role, because there is less to understand about him and explain.

Why?

[cdowis]

There were two spindles; one pointed the direction to travel, but what did the other one do?

"Yes, I am working -- No, I am not working."

I think Coe was going by what the BOM DOES say, not by what apologists think it should say.

Coe is an expert on the BOM text? and we know litttle or nothing. I guess reading the BOM over 35 times counts for nothing compare to his reading it.... how many times, how much has he studied it, he has done an extensive analysis on this book. Or is he simply following what the antimormons tell him about the text.

I assume, by your statement, that you can tell us how much Coe has studied the BOM text, and we are a bunch of clumsy clydes.

[grego]

Coe is an expert on the BOM text? and we know litttle or nothing. I guess reading the BOM over 35 times counts for nothing compare to his reading it.... how many times, how much has he studied it, he has done an extensive analysis on this book. Or is he simply following what the antimormons tell him about the text.

Like I said, since when is Coe an expert on text interpretation, anthropology, psychology, religion, etc.?

[Dan Vogel]

Ray,

Sorry that I keep budding in here.

Brodie was all speculation. I find it surprising that Coe has no one else to rely on.

I'm not sure, but Coe mentions the mixture of sincerity and fraudulence among shamans, which I also mentioned in the intro to my book:

While most magicians make no religious or supernatural claims about their sleight-of hand tricks and illusions, the roots of what is called â??manipulative magicâ? extend back to the origins of shamanism. If ancient shamans were anything like their counterparts in the world today, they were by definition magicians. Today, tribal shamans may be seen using rudimentary sleight-of-hand, fire handling, and other techniques to reinforce their spiritual messages.31 Despite their use of trickery, they sincerely believe they possess special gifts of healing and divination. Similar commingling of deception and sincere belief is practiced in the West by some faith healers.

-------------------------------

13. Late nineteenth-century Russian anthropologist V. M. Mikhailovskii describes the use of sleight-of-hand and other manipulations among the shamans of Siberia (V. M. Mikhailovskii, â??Shamanism in Siberia and European Russia,â? Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 24 [1894]: 68, 69, 97, 136-38). Similar use of trickery has been observed among Native American shamans (Robert H. Lowie, â??Shamans and Priests among the Plains Indians,â? in W. A. Lessa and E. Z. Vogt, eds., Reader in Comparative Religion [Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Co., 1958], 411-13; and Milbourne Christopher, The Illustrated History of Magic [New York: Crowell, 1973], esp. â??American Indian Conjuringâ?), African shamans (E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azande [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976]), and the fakirs of India (see Milbourne Christopher, ESP, Seers, and Psychics [New York: Crowell, 1970], 233, and Mediums, Mystics and the Occult [New York: Crowell, 1975], esp. â??Mystics from the Eastâ?).

But this aspect of shamanism is well known, but not always discussed in print because anthropologists don't want to be perceived as debunkers.

â??â??Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet's knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, â??â??Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.â??â?? Martin then confessed that he wished to â??â??stop the mouths of foolsâ??â?? who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated themâ?â?

On the surface, this seems like evidence for JS's gift. But think about this for a moment. How certain are you that Martin found a rock down by the river that would fool JS? By all accounts, JS's stone was singular in appearance; he has carried this stone in his pocket since 1822, which is 6 years; he has stared at it, displayed it, and made sure he didn't lose it. What Harris did was akin to substituting one of your children for one that looked similar. Was JS fooled? No way. So, then, what did happen? I think it's clear that he took advantage of the situation. He could either say, "Martin, why did you switch the stone? You should not tempt God." That's what an honest person would have done. Instead, he played along and gave Martin what he wanted. Taking advantage of opportunities is what confidence men do.