Michael Coe On The Book Of Mormon And Mesoamerica

[Dan Vogel]

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

Wait--this means it WAS a compass?

You didn't quite answer the question, did you?

How can you following the one pointer without a reference point?

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

Why?

I thought this was obvious, why don't you?

[Tarski]

Ray,

Sorry that I keep budding in here.

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:

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

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.

Good observation! I also think it is implausible in the extreme that another rock could have been similar enough to fool him given his intimacy with the stone. Your explanation is simple and rings true.

[YH8]

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

Your lack of respect and utter disdain for things LDS, expressed on an "LDS message board," speaks volumes about you. Particularly when you chastise believers for not haivng an opinion about Joseph Smith's treasure seeking when they do have opinions about his spirituality - some sort of reasoning about if we have an opinion about one of his supernatural claims we should have an opinion about all of them (so-called).

So, using your logic, when you behave badly in one area, as seeped out above, what should we think about your interpretations of data that you have some level of expertise in (biomedical science)? The logic seems a little less removed and more directly applicable to you and your behavior.

You are quite transparent. It is quite clear that you are not anybody's "buddy" on these boards (believers, that is). Oh yeah, lest we forget, the anti-Mormon industry thought enough of you to recruit your services. You lead us to believe you turned them down.

[YH8]

The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith noticed the rock was physically different.

So, you go with the simplest explanations for all things? You don't pursue complicated explanations of anything? Simple explanation = most accurate explanation?

[Olavarria]

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

Not denying that at all. Im just pointing out that language isnt alaways as cut and dry as we would like it to be and that other cultures, especially ancient ones do not share our taxonomical system. Why would the Nephites be any different?

[cdowis]

Your lack of respect and utter disdain for things LDS expressed on an "LDS message board" speaks volumes about you. Particularly when you chastise believers for not haivng an opinion about Joseph Smith's treasure seeking

It is interesting that you find it necessary to put words in my mouth.

when they do have opinions about his spirituality - some sort of reasoning about if we have an opinion about one of his supernatural claims we should have an opinion about all of them (so-called).

I do not have enough information to have an opinion. An example of a potentially hasty decision is the Salamander Letter. I understand some left the church over this issue, but I decided to wait for more information.

That was a very wise decision.

So, using your logic, when you behave badly in one area, as seeped out above, what should we think about your interpretations of data that you have some level of expertise in (biomedical science)? The logic seems a little less removed and more directly applicable to you and your behavior.

You can simply put me on ignore mode if you do not want to read my posts.

You are quite transparent. It is quite clear that you are not anybody's "buddy" on these boards (believers, that is). Oh yeah, lest we forget, the anti-Mormon industry thought enough of you to recruit your services. You lead us to believe you turned them down.

Yawn.

[cdowis]

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?

Like anything else, you conduct an "experiment on my words". Alma 32, starting with verse 17 goes into that experiment.

[YH8]

cdowis,

Unless you are a sock puppet for The Dude, that post was not meant for you.

[The Dude]

cdowis,

Thanks for replying to YH8 for me. I invite you to make this one of your regular spam buster-duties.

Curiously, the things you said are pretty much what I would have said -- maybe a little different on the "Salamander Letter" but close enough.

[cdowis]

cdowis,

Unless you are a sock puppet for The Dude, that post was not meant for you.

This is an open forum, so, unless you have become a moderator, I can and will post in any thread and respond to any post as I wish.

thankyouverymuch

[YH8]

This is an open forum, so, unless you have become a moderator, I can and will post in any thread and respond to any post as I wish.

thankyouverymuch

[YH8]

Curiously, the things you said are pretty much what I would have said --

You actually say things? Oh yeah, you never imply anything. Silly me.

[TOmNossor]

I really enjoyed reading Coeâ??s interview. Many parts of it made me happy to be a LDS (others perhaps less so).

It would seem that Coe has a tremendous respect for Mormonism and Joseph Smith. In fact in light of his critical comments on how Biblical Archeology does not support Biblical claims, one might believe that he is more sympathetic to Mormon claims than non-Mormon claims. This conclusion can be attacked due to the importance of Biblical truth in Mormonism too, but it has been my opinion for a while that the difficulty in explaining the coming forth of the BOM makes LDS truth claims in many ways more compelling than non-LDS truth claims.

Previously, I had thought that Coe only dealt with the hemispheric geography model. It seems clear that he has read Sorenson on diffusion theories. I initially inferred from this that he would have at least minimally engaged Sorensonâ??s LGM, but perhaps not since this would be total BOM discussion and the diffusion theories are archeology (I read a recent archeology article on the Maya and Coe was included in the old group who strictly denied diffusion. There were folks who engaged this group with diffusion theories, but the article spoke most positively of those who didnâ??t side strongly but looked at other aspects of archeology).

I would most enjoy hearing Coeâ??s thoughts on a few common apologetic responses to the issues that he and others have offered.

Hamblinâ??s recent discussion about the lack of texts and how this affects understandings associated with place names and importantly subcultures within other groups. What would the Jesus fish in Mesoamerica be?

Brant Gardnerâ??s ideas on Ethno history and how one would gauge if a book in translation was associated with an ancient text. To my mind this includes an allowance for anachronisms and such are found in other texts that only exist as later translations. For example a text like Histoire du Mechique (which if I understand is available only in translation but is considered a translation of an ancient text despite issues with it).

And of course Sorenson and Clarkâ??s work on LGM and dirt evidence.

At the end of the day, I am largely unable to believe that Coeâ??s view simply must be preferred to Clarkâ??s so I could side with Clark even if Coe evidenced an awareness of these issues. So do we know if Coe is familiar with these issues?

More exciting than this, I would like to hear these issues engaged by Coe so that I might understand whose position is stronger as best as a non-expert can. This would be even more interesting.

Charity, TOm

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

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.

Obviously not, since Iâ??ve never for a minute believed you had the ability to read Joseph Smithâ??s mind.

So, tell me, how do you separate legitimate claims from fraudulent ones?

Havenâ??t I made that perfectly clear?

I use my amazing powers of observation coupled with my refined sense of discernment â?? and, on occasion, a still, small voice whispers things in my ear.

Iâ??m sorry you and The Dude donâ??t have these gifts anymore â?? assuming, of course, that you ever did. I find them quite useful.

[Confidential Informant]

Coe also wonders how Mormon archaeologists deal with the state of non-evidence for the BOM:

And yet John Clark, who is every bit as credentialed and respected as Mr. Coe, seems to have no problems.

I'm sure he's just deluding himself.

C.I.

[cdowis]

And yet John Clark, who is every bit as credentialed and respected as Mr. Coe, seems to have no problems.

I'm sure he's just deluding himself.

C.I.

Coe made several statements which have been addressed right here on this forum. I assume he is simply living on his own planet regarding the BOM, with little communication with the outside world.

[Asaph]

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?

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.

Your comment is very interesting - I assume all of the Nephites were Hebrew speakers, yes. If I am correct, are there any examples of this kind of description in the ancient or modern Hebrew? I would love to know.

I find the chinese comparision pretty neat, too, since the use in the BOM of an Egyptian-inspired script implies a ideogram-like system as found in some Egyptian alphabets as well as Chinese. Thought provoking, indeed.

Thanks

Asaph

[grego]

How can you following the one pointer without a reference point?

Dan, if I point, can you follow my finger?

[Dan Vogel]

And yet John Clark, who is every bit as credentialed and respected as Mr. Coe, seems to have no problems.

I'm sure he's just deluding himself.

C.I.

Thanks for answering your own post!

[Dan Vogel]

Dan, if I point, can you follow my finger?

If you are pointing in two different directions at the same time, which do I follow? Why are there two pointers like a compass?

[William Schryver]

Asaph:

I assume all of the Nephites were Hebrew speakers …

Why would you assume that?

I would bet that few, if any, ancient Nephites and Lamanites were Hebrew speakers. And I’m also inclined to believe that only a handful of Nephites ever even knew how to read and write Hebrew.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray,

Sorry that I keep budding in here.

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:

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

Dan,

I'm familiar with Shamanism, though I've not studied it at length. I've read I.M. Lewis and noted that Shamans do have a lot of power over people, and that this is an old and worldwide phenomenon. It's one context in which Joseph Smith could be viewed. Again, what distinguishes Joseph Smith, IMO, is, you'll be surprised to hear, the Book of Mormon. I don't have time to go into detail since I'm only putting in some short commentary before work. Do shamans produce books like this?

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.

I had thought of that. Actually, and I'm not being flippant, I have on many occasions confused others walking in the street with my own children. It's easily done, but upon closer inspection they turned out not to be. My third son has blond hair and blue eyes and looks like a "typical Aussie", and I swear that I have geniune trouble recognising him sometimes from a distance. He could be one of any thousand. But how about we turn the table, and give Joseph the benefit of the doubt (just for the sake of fairness)? We are talking about a stone, not something with eyes, ears, a complex body, a voice and a personality. A stone is a fairly rudimentary, simple piece of matter. Could it not easily be mistaken for another? I think Joseph may have been prone to exaggeration, but I don't believe he was a "confidence man". I find the story about Martin believable, especially when you consider that Martin may have already placed the stone into a darkened hat.

[Marvelous]

Asaph:

Why would you assume that?

I would bet that few, if any, ancient Nephites and Lamanites were Hebrew speakers. And Iâ??m also inclined to believe that only a handful of Nephites ever even knew how to read and write Hebrew.

What language did they speak?

[cdowis]

Your comment is very interesting - I assume all of the Nephites were Hebrew speakers

I assume the Nephites spoke Hebrew the same way that Polish Jews speak Hebrew -- they were familiar with the language in a scriptural sense.

"What language did they speak?"

Mormon 9 [34] But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language;

There is no evidence in the BOM text that their venacular was Hebrew.

[Dan Vogel]

Asaph:

Why would you assume that?

I would bet that few, if any, ancient Nephites and Lamanites were Hebrew speakers. And Iâ??m also inclined to believe that only a handful of Nephites ever even knew how to read and write Hebrew.

Why would you assume that? Could it be that there is no evidence of it? Do you imagine they spoke and wrote a Mesoamerican language like Mayan? Why should it matter how many knew how to read and write Hebrew. How many in Mesoamerica do you suppose could read and write Mayan? Yet we find evidence for it.