mormonstories Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Several listeners have asked me to see if FAIR/FARMS would be willing to provide a response to my interview w/ Dr. Michael Coe.http://mormonstories.org/?p=1880Please let me know if anyone is interested. As always, the door is always open to FAIR/FARMS participants on my podcast.
cinepro Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Several listeners have asked me to see if FAIR/FARMS would be willing to provide a response to my interview w/ Dr. Michael Coe.http://mormonstories.org/?p=1880Please let me know if anyone is interested. As always, the door is always open to FAIR/FARMS participants on my podcast.If no one else will do it, I will. 2
kolipoki09 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 The two scholars that are probably most qualified/apt to make a response are John Sorenson and Brant Gardner. William Hamblin and Mark Wright might be good options as well. If you're really having to scrape to the bottom of the barrel, and I mean that in the most literal sense, try Dan Peterson.
mormonstories Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) I'd love it if FAIR/FARMS could just provide the most appropriate person they could...and let me know. mormonstories@gmail.com Edited August 16, 2011 by mormonstories
volgadon Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Don't you think that the best option would be to contact the MI directly?
Chris Smith Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 The two scholars that are probably most qualified/apt to make a response are John Sorenson and Brant Gardner. Seconded.
Rivers Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 How about Kerry Shirts, the Backyard Professor? 2
mormonstories Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 I have limited time right now, so whoever would be willing to help me set this up....I (and my listeners) would be very grateful.
Craig Paxton Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Several listeners have asked me to see if FAIR/FARMS would be willing to provide a response to my interview w/ Dr. Michael Coe.http://mormonstories.org/?p=1880Please let me know if anyone is interested. As always, the door is always open to FAIR/FARMS participants on my podcast.Add Dr Coe to the list of those that agree with the conclusions I made in the linked post (below)...Mormonism is only believable if nuanced...for certainly there is no evidence that an unbiased third party would accept as evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations having ever existed.While I seriously doubt there is anyone who would believe me...I sincerely wish there was more support for the reality of the Book of Mormon than a few (little barley) grass seeds and some native current species some have massaged into full blown wine making grapes.I apologize to the faithful believers that I can not do this any more. I can't keep banging my head trying to make Mormonism claims believable. Its not healthy. I just need to find a way to let go and move on. Edited August 16, 2011 by Craig Paxton 3
Curtis Weber Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 John Clark has addressed the topic publicly here: http://speeches.byu.edu/download.php/Clark_John_052004.mp3I've spoken with him in person and by phone, and he wasn't hard to contact (I think I just looked up his info on byu.edu).
Kevin Christensen Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Add Dr Coe to the list of those that agree with the conclusions I made in the linked post (below)...Mormonism is only believable if nuanced...for certainly there is no evidence that an unbiased third party would accept as evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations having ever existed.While I seriously doubt there is anyone who would believe me...I sincerely wish there was more support for the reality of the Book of Mormon than a few (little barley) grass seeds and some native current species some have massaged into full blown wine making grapes.I apologize to the faithful believers that I can not do this any more. I can't keep banging my head trying to make Mormonism claims believable. Its not healthy. I just need to find a way to let go and move on.Good luck finding an unbiased third party. Dr. Coe is not one. In the PBS interviews, he quite openly described himself as an atheist, which strikes me as defining a very clear bias.Alma 32 made an important distinction between between those who seek to "know" a thing with final certainty, to have the need for faith forced from their life by a God who uses skeptical human authority to make his most important theological points, and those who are willing to settle for "cause to believe" which accumulates over time for those who choose to nourish the seed of faith.The way I've been doing it, I've never had to bang my head. I just keep my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my assumptions now and then.FWIW, I did include a response to Coe's PBS interview in my essay in FR 16/2.Kevin ChristensenOn Vacation in Utah
kolipoki09 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Add Dr Coe to the list of those that agree with the conclusions I made in the linked post (below)...Mormonism is only believable if nuanced...for certainly there is no evidence that an unbiased third party would accept as evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations having ever existed.While I seriously doubt there is anyone who would believe me...I sincerely wish there was more support for the reality of the Book of Mormon than a few (little barley) grass seeds and some native current species some have massaged into full blown wine making grapes.I apologize to the faithful believers that I can not do this any more. I can't keep banging my head trying to make Mormonism claims believable. Its not healthy. I just need to find a way to let go and move on.I think you're doing fine. I'm not going to criticize your position, but I think there's plenty of evidence for and against the most of us tend to overlook, simply because we get comfortable where we are and don't feel like moving.It will be interesting to see, if ever, whether Mormonism ever comes to fully-embrace members who for one reason or another, feel the Book of Mormon is not historical but is inspiring nonetheless (calling all you Van Hale fans). Until I see a non-Mormon archaeologist seriously examine the Book of Mormon and weigh it against the archaeology and anthropology of the ancient world, I can't pass much judgment on the issue. As much as I've read of Coe's work, I don't know that he has taken much of what FARMS has published into consideration, partly because it may hurt his credibility in the field, and second because he'd already decided decades ago as a now irreligious and formerly "perfectly good Episcopalian Christian" that the Book of Mormon was not what it claimed to be.
Craig Paxton Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I think you're doing fine. I'm not going to criticize your position, but I think there's plenty of evidence for and against the most of us tend to overlook, simply because we get comfortable where we are and don't feel like moving.It will be interesting to see, if ever, whether Mormonism ever comes to fully-embrace members who for one reason or another, feel the Book of Mormon is not historical but is inspiring nonetheless (calling all you Van Hale fans). Until I see a non-Mormon archaeologist seriously examine the Book of Mormon and weigh it against the archaeology and anthropology of the ancient world, I can't pass much judgment on the issue. As much as I've read of Coe's work, I don't know that he has taken much of what FARMS has published into consideration, partly because it may hurt his credibility in the field, and second because he'd already decided decades ago as a now irreligious and formerly "perfectly good Episcopalian Christian" that the Book of Mormon was not what it claimed to be.Really? cuz I don't feel like I'm doing fine. I've tried to come into this forum with a semi open mind, willing to back off positions and conclusions I had reach over a decade of study and research. What I've found is a forum filled with many individuals who seem more interested in winning an argument than in building a bridge of understanding. Posters more interested in defending undefencible positions than seeking an honest persuite of the truth. I've yet to find a single poster(am I exagerating?) who has backed away from a position or given an inch...while I have backed off many of my preconcieved positions.Now granted on many positions I was wrong...and needed to change my position...but the dogmatistic nature of many posters here...is untenable for me. I just don't see the point of continuing the discussion...if I am always wrong and you (you know who you are) are always right. Whats the point.I know how invested everyone here is in the church...heck I was once where you are...now look at me...but I just need to find a more pragmatic forum...this place is driving me crazy.
Chris Smith Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Good luck finding an unbiased third party. Dr. Coe is not one. In the PBS interviews, he quite openly described himself as an atheist, which strikes me as defining a very clear bias.While I recognize that no one is unbiased, you seem to be saying that anyone who would self-identify as an atheist must be more biased than average. Am I misreading you?
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Egad. I'm about halfway through the first podcast, and it's already utterly clear that Coe has simply not kept up with LDS scholarship since, like, the '70s. He seems like a really cool guy, and I've enjoyed some of his writing, but he is very underinformed about the intersection of Book of Mormon claims and Mesoamerican archaeology. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 It will be interesting to see, if ever, whether Mormonism ever comes to fully-embrace members who for one reason or another, feel the Book of Mormon is not historical but is inspiring nonetheless (calling all you Van Hale fans). I don't recall any questions about that on the Temple recommend interview....
Bob Crockett Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Why is a response necessary? I've read closely his life's major production, Breaking the Maya Code. The halls of academia are not polite places to be, at least how Coe describes his relationships with people who disagree with him. He's a polemicist, and a good one. He revels in his role as being the pot-stirrer. To that extent, people like him take extreme positions. He'd never give any credit to matters of faith or religion.
kolipoki09 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 FWIW, I did include a response to Coe's PBS interview in my essay in FR 16/2.Kevin ChristensenOn Vacation in UtahI think it was 22/2. No worries, I've got your back.Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique
Glenn101 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Really? cuz I don't feel like I'm doing fine. I've tried to come into this forum with a semi open mind, willing to back off positions and conclusions I had reach over a decade of study and research. What I've found is a forum filled with many individuals who seem more interested in winning an argument than in building a bridge of understanding. Posters more interested in defending undefencible positions than seeking an honest persuite of the truth. I've yet to find a single poster(am I exagerating?) who has backed away from a position or given an inch...while I have backed off many of my preconcieved positions.Now granted on many positions I was wrong...and needed to change my position...but the dogmatistic nature of many posters here...is untenable for me. I just don't see the point of continuing the discussion...if I am always wrong and you (you know who you are) are always right. Whats the point.I know how invested everyone here is in the church...heck I was once where you are...now look at me...but I just need to find a more pragmatic forum...this place is driving me crazy.Craig, I don't really know what you mean by indefensible position. I have had my assumptions changed several times over the years as I understood more about what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself as opposed to what maybe a majority of people believe or have believed. I don't hang my faith on anything that has not been found yet or any discrepancies between what the Book of Mormon says and what we think we know. The first part is my faith, and I always put it first. The spiritual experiences that I have had are as real to me as the earth beneath my feet. I remember all of the things that were part of early Book of Mormon criticisms but have been discovered, such as the use of cement. Also, the internal evidences of the Book of Mormon itself. I like to read the articles put out by the Maxwell Institute, but they are not the bread and butter of my faith. If you are seeking absolute proof, or even convincing evidence for the Book of Mormon, you will not find it. Nor will you find absolute proof for the divinity of Jesus. There are things that you are going to have to take on faith. That is where many people lose it because they see their reason overcoming their faith. As for unbiased, objective people, there are none. As for pragmatic boards, I don't know of any. But maybe you can try the ex-mormon board to see a different type of not giving an inch.Glenn
mfbukowski Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Really? cuz I don't feel like I'm doing fine. I've tried to come into this forum with a semi open mind, willing to back off positions and conclusions I had reach over a decade of study and research. What I've found is a forum filled with many individuals who seem more interested in winning an argument than in building a bridge of understanding. Posters more interested in defending undefencible positions than seeking an honest persuite of the truth. I've yet to find a single poster(am I exagerating?) who has backed away from a position or given an inch...while I have backed off many of my preconcieved positions.Now granted on many positions I was wrong...and needed to change my position...but the dogmatistic nature of many posters here...is untenable for me. I just don't see the point of continuing the discussion...if I am always wrong and you (you know who you are) are always right. Whats the point.I know how invested everyone here is in the church...heck I was once where you are...now look at me...but I just need to find a more pragmatic forum...this place is driving me crazy.Well on a personal note, I just pegged you for a standard anti-Mormon straight out of the trailer park, here to stir up trouble, so I never made any real effort to communicate, and I am sorry I was wrong about that.One can get rather calloused around here. I need to work on that.
kolipoki09 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I don't recall any questions about that on the Temple recommend interview....I'm not disputing that. However, anyone claiming the Book of Mormon wasn't historical would likely turn plenty of heads and raise a few eyebrows in just about any (U.S.) Mormon congregation. Of course, Shawn McCraney has alleged that this is happening among the General Authorities of the Church too.
phaedrus ut Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 It was interesting in the podcast that even though he was very critical of the historicity of the Book of Mormon he held LDS Mesoamerican scholars like Sorenson and Clark in such high regard. I believe he even referred to both of them as friends. With that in mind maybe a "non-friend" might be the best choice for the apologetic response.Phaedrus
Daniel Peterson Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I apologize to the faithful believers that I can not do this any more. I can't keep banging my head trying to make Mormonism claims believable. Its not healthy. I just need to find a way to let go and move on.I don't doubt your sincerity. But your experience is so fundamentally dissimilar to mine that it leaves me scratching my head.I've tried to come up with a coherent, comprehensive counterexplanation for the claims of Mormonism, and I just can't do it.Odd.
Recommended Posts