Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[Daniel Peterson]

When, exactly, does one become a scholar? Jonathan Adjimani converted to the Church after he had earned a degree in biochemistry and taken a position in Switzerland.

Wendy Warren Austin is a convert. Does she give the age at which she converted? If so, I missed it.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I see the relevance of such matters to the merits or lack thereof in Mike Coe's attitude toward the Book of Mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

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?

Yes. You are misreading me.

How does one measure "average" bias? It's not a matter of greater or lesser but of a specific, publically known, influential perspective.

In Myths, Models, and Paradigms, Ian Barbour comments that a belief in God does make a difference in what a person will notice and value. What is clear in comparing Coe's published comments on the Book of Mormon is that despite his expertise in things Mayan, there is a great deal of LDS scholarship and Book of Mormon information that he has not bothered to notice, and therefore does not value.

And, I will add, what is more important is not how "unbiased" or "objective" a person is, or claims to be, but how perceptive they are, given their perspective.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 18, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Kevin Christensen]

I think it was 22/2. No worries, I've got your back.

Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique

It was indeed. Such is a consequence of posting in haste away from my books.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

double post.... my first... how cool is that?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Xander]

When, exactly, does one become a scholar? Jonathan Adjimani converted to the Church after he had earned a degree in biochemistry and taken a position in Switzerland.

Wendy Warren Austin is a convert. Does she give the age at which she converted? If so, I missed it.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I see the relevance of such matters to the merits or lack thereof in Mike Coe's attitude toward the Book of Mormon.

When does one become a scholar? Good question, but since it seems to be an important point for you, I think you should answer it. To me it doesn't matter if one is a scholar when joining the Church, as this in and of itself says nothing about one's education on the essential matters that would weigh on an informed decision. Take Jonathan Adjimani as a perfect example. He came across missionaries 30 years ago, and he admittedly had no idea who they were and had never heard of the LDS Church. In short, he was entirely ignorant. So what does having a degree in biochemistry matter? It doesn't make his decision to join the LDS faith become an informed decision, as the principles of Mormonism aren't related to the principles of biochemistry.I'm guessing the LDS missionaries told him nothing about the history of the Church in Africa, or about how priesthood would not have been an option for him just a few years earlier. Had he known this, his chances of joining drop dramatically - I believe he never would have joined. The Church knows this too, which is why it is important for them to control the environments and prevent exposure to critical information which, in any other context, would be considered honest and the right thing to do. When making any kind of life-changing decision, a person should be informed of the cons along with the pros.

Coming from Ghana, where he received his education, his ignorance is hardly surprising. But it pretty much goes along with what I said. Those inclined to convert are those who know the least. The Church does whatever it can to make sure prospective converts are exposed to only one side of the story - their side. I suspect that most scholars who converted after becoming a scholar, converted awhile ago, long before the internet and exposure to critical information was readily available. I have yet to hear of a single middle-aged scholar who converted to the LDS faith in recent years. Not saying they don't exist, only saying that if they do, they are rare exceptions. I've seen people join the faith for no reason other than the fact that they just lost their family to a tragic accident, and they wanted so badly to believe the Mormon promise that they would be reunited as a family unit in the hereafter.Other's I've seen join because that is the only way the person they fell in love with would marry them. Some are scholars, some are not, but each case needs to be examined critically before one can conclude that "advanced education" had any role in their decision. I know enough LDS scholars to know they don't automatically have more knowledge about the things that would affect one's decision to convert, simply because they teach Arabic, Linguistics, Greek, English, Art, or whatever.

The Church uses the same tactics used by corporations seeking to expand their consumer base. And this makes sense because the LDS Church is essentially a corporation run by business people who employ the same types of marketing and PR strategists who were educated in the art of public persuasion, taught to engineer effective propaganda, psychological manipulation, etc. The same folks who sit in board rooms trying to design the next Super Bowl commercial that will use psychological techniques to sell a product, are the same kinds of experts who design Church videos or commercials, making sure they hit the right emotional themes, using just the right kind of tear-jerking music, etc. It is an art of manipulation.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Xander

[Craig Paxton]

Would very much disagree. I think the only reason you are able to come up with such an explanation counter to Mormonism is by ignoring a great many important details as well as misrepresenting Mormonism by in many important respects.

As someone who wasn't raised in any particular religion, but in several and none, seeing how none actually fit the Bible, and then coming upon Mormonism and seeing how it did fully so, and how it matches life and history etc., it makes total sense with the world we live in.

The fact that Mormons the "smarter" we get, we tend to remain and become stronger believers, and that the sciences supports Mormonism on many fronts, and the fact that most of other religions the smarter they become the more likely they tend to leave their faith, and that science tends not to support their claims, tells me that Mormonism fits very well with both scripture and the world we live in.

I'm sure it is reassuring for you to conclude that the only way I am …”able to come up with such an explanation counter to Mormonism is by ignoring a great many important details as well as misrepresenting Mormonism in many important respects”...and who knows perhaps you are right.

Mormonism is a religion. It makes claims regarding its reality. Those claims are either true or false. Throughout our lives, each of us take what we are taught through our various contacts with the church and interpret the information, accepting, rejecting, molding, sifting and filtering what we learn and eventually come to an understanding of what we believe Mormonism to actually be. In a way we each form our own brand of Mormonism base on our own individual experience within Mormonism. ( I think that point is an obvious conclusion based on the wide degree of variation in beliefs demonstrated on this board alone) Weekly, as we attend church, seminary, institute etc, we are able to compare what we believe Mormonism to be with what we are taught through correlated lessons what the church wants us to believe Mormonism to be.

So yes, my understanding of what Mormonism is although influenced by what I was taught ultimately was interpreted by myself… to form “My Religion”.

But isn’t this what we all do in order to make the Mormon dogma both acceptable and believable? But then we discover something new that does not conform with our understanding of what Mormonism is. What then? Some choose to ignore, other redefine, some successfully resolve…while some (like me) cannot successfully reconcile this new information and must reinvent their understanding of their religion. When I did this…the only way to make sense of my reality was to come to the realization…sadly I might add…that Mormonism was not what it claimed to be.

So what exactly have I misrepresented? What important details have I ignored?

[KevinG]

Forgive me if I don't take anecdotal experience as evidence of your biased assertions.

Even if people are born into the church they must be converted/convinced. Curently in my ward there are businessmen, professors, IT professionals and a nuclear physicist thrown in for good measure.

Time and time again I have seen people leave the church, not because of that peskly little historical factoid that they couldn't reconcile or because they suddenly had the blinders torn off as in the standard anti-mormon rationalizeamony. Usually it is because they were struggling with personal issues or had dysfunctional relationships with family who were LDS.

I'm not buying what is being sold here.

[Zakuska]

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.

Sounds to me like you need to visit the fellowship forum. This portion of the forum is designated for "Debate".

[Zakuska]

<dbl>

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

Forgive me if I don't take anecdotal experience as evidence of your biased assertions.

Even if people are born into the church they must be converted/convinced. Curently in my ward there are businessmen, professors, IT professionals and a nuclear physicist thrown in for good measure.

Time and time again I have seen people leave the church, not because of that peskly little historical factoid that they couldn't reconcile or because they suddenly had the blinders torn off as in the standard anti-mormon rationalizeamony. Usually it is because they were struggling with personal issues or had dysfunctional relationships with family who were LDS.

I'm not buying what is being sold here.

But, but, but, you are a Mormon (and therefore gullible) so you should be buying it.

[Jaybear]

I listened to most of it. I was extremely unimpressed. For example he says that John Gee is a BoM archeologist for FARMS. So he doesn't even know the extreme basics about scholars that publish with FARMS (such as the fields about which they are publishing) but we are supposed to trust his opinion on them anyway? I've often said that most criticism of the BoM results from a combination of shallow reading of the text, straw men interpretations of it, or ignorance of current scholarship. His podcast is a prime example of that. While I respect Coe on archeological matters the strength of his opinion is severely weakened when I can easily tell that he doesn't know much about the scholarship upon which he is commenting.

P.S.(Does anybody else think that the host sounds like the talking half of Penn and Teller?)

And I just heard the part where neither Coe nor the host knows what Chiasmus is!!!!!! They literally googled it during the interview so he could comment on it. (about 27 minutes in the third podcast) But somehow his opinion is supposed to matter to people who have read and researched on the subject extensively?

That's the example you lead with to back up your blowhard criticism? Coe is not, and does not profess to be a book of mormon scholar. I would not expect him to know about Chiasmus. Don't know why he was asked.

Coe is a Meso american scholar. What facts about meso america did he get wrong?

Stop the insults or leave the thread.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Minos

[cinepro]

I think Coe's biggest mistake was thinking the Book of Mormon means what it says.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Coe's mistake was thinking that his interpretation of the Book of Mormon (and the related issue of the method of translation) is identical with what the text actually says.

It is a not uncommon problem among Mormons as well.

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

From what I can tell, the Church doesn't convert a lot people who already have advanced degrees. Most of the scholars on Mormonscholarstestify, for example, were raised in the church from birth or at a very young age. This means they were not joining the Church based on an educated view of the world, or of anything else for that matter. The correlation - causation fallacy is immediately employed by apologists, as we're expected to believe that these folks are in Mormonism because of their advanced education, when the reality may very well be they're devout Mormons despite their advanced educations.

SNIP

A relevant post from Mark Wright (aka Hashbaz) from a few years ago (Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:12 PM, the Historicity of the Bon thread in the archive):

I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.

As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding).

As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ariarates]

The entire question is not, for me, a question of if it is "real" or not- the question for me is what kind of evidence would it take to somehow "prove" that these events actually happened.

Hi mfbukowski,

I really appreciate the time and thought you put in your reply. Maybe " real" wasn't the best choice of words on my part. Actually, I've been thinking a while now about what it means when we say something is real, particularly in matters of religion. Is God real? Well, he is real enough in people's minds to make them live their lives in a certain way and not another. That's pretty real. It's like love. My love for my wife is very real and makes me behave in certain ways and not in others. Observers can probably see this love, and I know my children do. In time, maybe my grandchildren will too, but further down the road, in 5 or 6 generations, that love will have vanished from the face of the earth. Does that make it any less real? Not to me...

[cinepro]

Coe's mistake was thinking that his interpretation of the Book of Mormon (and the related issue of the method of translation) is identical with what the text actually says.

It is a not uncommon problem among Mormons as well.

My original reaction to the podcast was similar to the other reactions posted here. "Boy, he hasn't kept up with the latest research!" I thought.

But my next thought was "Why should he?" Or how could he? Is he supposed to address every apologetic theory put forth to defend the Book of Mormon? Apologetic theories are like whack-a-moles, and even if he were able to debunk every single one, fifty others would spring up in their places. The only (relatively) stable factor in this is the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

For example, let's take "horses". There are two apologetic lines of thought on this:

1. The word "horse" in the BoM usually refers to another creature like a Tapir or Llama

2. The word "horse" in the BoM is referring to a horse; there were horses here and we just haven't found them yet (or we have found them but the discovery isn't well known, but it will soon be...)

How would the interview with Coe go?

Dehlin: Dr. Coe, what do you think about the Book of Mormon and horses?

Coe: The Book of Mormon says there were "horses" here, and according to what we know, there weren't.

Dehlin: But what if the Book of Mormon was actually talking about "tapirs" or "deer" instead of "horses"?

Coe:Ummm...if the Book of Mormon were actually talking about tapirs or deer instead of horses when it says "horse", then it would be referring an animal that was at that time and place as best we know.

Dehlin: Ok, and what if there were horses here but we just don't know about them?

Coe: Ummm...if there were horses here and we just don't know about them, then that would be another case in which the Book of Mormon would be accurately describing something that we currently don't know about.

What does an interview like that mean? It makes perfect sense to an apologist or LDS scholar who believes in the Book of Mormon, but how do those theories help a renowned non-LDS Mayan scholar understand the Book of Mormon?

Ultimately, Coe doesn't represent critics, atheists, or anti-mormons on the Book of Mormon. He represents people with common sense.

Suppose you were an expert on ancient China. You had studied it for 50 years, and even read and wrote ancient dialects of Chinese. One day, someone brings you a book that purports to be a history of some people in ancient China over a period of 1,000 years. The book is in English, and the original is no longer available to inspect. You only have the English translation to go off of.

You read through the book and find many, many things that don't coincide with what you know about ancient China, and many things that do. Is that enough to form an opinion?

Suppose upon presenting your results to the book's owner, he argues that he has enlisted the help of several experts on ancient China (as well as a UPS truck driver, a beet farmer, and a solar panel installer) who all strongly believe in the book's authenticity, and they have all created theories that explain that all those problems that you found in the book are actually because the English words in the book don't actually mean what they say, and they actually refer to things that you say were in ancient China. And therefore, because of the things that do coincide with what you know about ancient China, all the evidence supports the book's authenticity.

How does this change your appraisal of the book? To what degree must you investigate all these other theories put forth by believers before you present your appraisal of the book?

Edited August 18, 2011 by cinepro

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Dehlin was obviously interviewing Coe as an authority on the intersection between Book of Mormon claims and secular archaeology. Coe repeatedly stated that he had spent a lot of time talking with his LDS friends about their beliefs, had done much research when he was writing his piece for Dialogue, and was therefore qualified to speak about the relationship with his own work. Yet it is blindingly apparent that he has not paid the slightest attention to LDS scholarship for decades. His authority in his area of expertise is as irrelevant as the proverbial beet farmer you cite when he is addressing claims he has clearly not bothered to examine fully.

I specifically stated earlier that Coe was not an anti-Mormon. But your analogy rather blithely ignores the complexities of the translation process and how the book relates to Precolumbian studies, thereby functioning as a useless non sequitur. I'm bemused at the thought that open prejudice and a refusal to keep up with scholarly developments could be considered representative of "common sense."

[Zakuska]

My original reaction to the podcast was similar to the other reactions posted here. "Boy, he hasn't kept up with the latest research!" I thought.

But my next thought was "Why should he?" Or how could he? Is he supposed to address every apologetic theory put forth to defend the Book of Mormon? Apologetic theories are like whack-a-moles, and even if he were able to debunk every single one, fifty others would spring up in their places. The only (relatively) stable factor in this is the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

Enjoyed what Ive listned to so far.

I had the same reaction... Heres my example.

Silk

We know the Conquitadors reported silk already being produced by the locals and not from worms being fed Mulberry bushes. But worms eating cactus plants.

Then theres the mummies found wearing silk clothing. Of course... maybe this wasn't "Meso-America".

[cinepro]

Enjoyed what Ive listned to so far.

I had the same reaction... Heres my example.

Silk

We know the Conquitadors reported silk already being produced by the locals and not from worms being fed Mulberry bushes. But worms eating cactus plants.

Then theres the mummies found wearing silk clothing. Of course... maybe this wasn't "Meso-America".

Fair enough. But issues like this aren't a "Book of Mormon" issue per se. You can have a meaningful discussion of whether or not there was pre-columbian silk production without ever mentioning the Book of Mormon. So if there is evidence for it, I would be curious how Coe has missed it.

[Kevin Christensen]

My original reaction to the podcast was similar to the other reactions posted here. "Boy, he hasn't kept up with the latest research!" I thought.

That was my reaction to the PBS Interview of Coe for The Mormons a few years ago. He was brought in dismiss the book so as to immunize the audience from the possibility of being contaminated by LDS believers. And for good measure, they didn't bother to ask LDS scholars what they found persuasive in Book of Mormon research. That's called being fair and balanced.

SNIP

Ultimately, Coe doesn't represent critics, atheists, or anti-mormons on the Book of Mormon. He represents people with common sense.

Of course, common sense is what people depend on when they haven't done science on a topic. That is what made the world flat, and is what put the earth at the center of the universe. Common sense can be so powerful an inhibitor to perception that it takes a particularly determined effort of both imagination and perception to get past it. Quantum Physics, for instance, is notorious for violating common sense.

SNIP

Suppose you were an expert on ancient China. You had studied it for 50 years, and even read and wrote ancient dialects of Chinese. One day, someone brings you a book that purports to be a history of some people in ancient China over a period of 1,000 years.

Or suppose I'm reasonably well informed on Book of Mormon scholarship, having studied it for fifty years. Then someone who knew Mormons in Wyoming when he was a teenager, and read No Man Knows my History, and later actually met Thomas Ferguson, comes along, and on the basis of his reputation as an expert knowledge of Classic Mayan cultures that post-date the Book of Mormon account, he quite cheerfully dismisses the Book of Mormon using arguments that derive from Brodie, and are directed at the paradigm Tom Ferguson used between 1950 and 1975, surely the Golden Age of Book of Mormon New World scholarship. He praises the work of LDS archeologists, while brushing aside the work of LDS apologists, without seriously engaging any recent work, or demonstrating any noticeable expertise or insight into the Book of Mormon text. (Of course, Sorenson's recent work on evidence for biological transmissions got him to admit to the reality of pre-Columbian oceanic influence, whereas he had been able to brush of cultural evidence as "coincidence" and parallel invention.)

And drop the "suppose" because for me, this is not a hypothetical situation.

The book is in English, and the original is no longer available to inspect. You only have the English translation to go off of.

You read through the book and find many, many things that don't coincide with what you know about ancient China, and many things that do. Is that enough to form an opinion?

How much information and imagination is required to form an opinion about anything? Not much. Nibley identified the "Gas-law of Learning: Any amount of knowledge will expand to fit any intellectual void, no matter how large."

The real issue ought to be, how good is the opinion? How can it be tested, and what are the results?

Do we read in cultural context? as commended by any serious anthropologist, or 2 Nephi 25:1-5, do we insist that words mean what they mean, and if a text says "A chip off the old block," we ought to look for chips and blocks, preferably under a convenient lamp post where the light is good.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 18, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Kenngo1969]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I came to the conclusion that the BoM is not actual history about a year and a half ago. Since then I have been inclined to take mfbukowski's view that historicity isn't necessary for the BoM to be scriptural. But right at the beginning of this journey, my wife asked: but if the BoM is not actual history, then Mormoni didn't exist and the entire foundational story of the church cannot be real. If so, what else is not real?

So this is what I'm chewing on at the moment, and it's very tough to swallow. People who go down this path are often derided for a lack of faith and trusting in the arm of the flesh and not praying enough and what not, but whatever you lack in faith, you must make up in courage because man, this is hard.

If one looks at the seeming paucity of archaeological, geological and other such forms of evidence for the Book of Mormon and stops there, I can see how s/he might reach that conclusion. But if the Book of Mormon is not actual history, then we’re left to contend with a holographic Angel Moroni, holographic plates, other holographic records, a holographic sword of Laban, and other actual physical artifacts and manifestations that have been experienced by a whole host of seemingly rational, sane people. Concluding that the Book of Mormon is not history, then, actually raises more questions than it answers. Or, if not, then dismissing the Book of Mormon as ahistorical merely trades one set of questions (why the seeming lack of the sort of evidence mentioned above [archaeological, geological, etc.]?) for another (why so many artifacts and manifestations created seemingly ad hoc as part of the foundation story of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

[Kenngo1969]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I came to the conclusion that the BoM is not actual history about a year and a half ago. Since then I have been inclined to take mfbukowski's view that historicity isn't necessary for the BoM to be scriptural. But right at the beginning of this journey, my wife asked: but if the BoM is not actual history, then Mormoni didn't exist and the entire foundational story of the church cannot be real. If so, what else is not real?

So this is what I'm chewing on at the moment, and it's very tough to swallow. People who go down this path are often derided for a lack of faith and trusting in the arm of the flesh and not praying enough and what not, but whatever you lack in faith, you must make up in courage because man, this is hard.

If one looks at the seeming paucity of archaeological, geological and other such forms of evidence for the Book of Mormon and stops there, I can see how s/he might reach that conclusion. But if the Book of Mormon is not actual history, then we’re left to contend with a holographic Angel Moroni, holographic plates, other holographic records, a holographic sword of Laban, and other actual physical artifacts and manifestations that have been experienced by a whole host of seemingly rational, sane people. Concluding that the Book of Mormon is not history, then, actually raises more questions than it answers. Or, if not, then dismissing the Book of Mormon as ahistorical merely trades one set of questions (why the seeming lack of the sort of evidence mentioned above [archaeological, geological, etc.]?) for another (why so many artifacts and manifestations created seemingly ad hoc as part of the foundation story of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

[Zakuska]

Another thing:

Metals

With all the Metals of various types the Conquistadores recycling and melting down into bullian, why would we expect to find any?

[mfbukowski]

Emphasis added

Ok, I just read through the first fifty testimonies on Mormon Scholars Testify, in alphabetical order going through all names beginning with A and B. Not a single scholar in that group joined the Church after becoming a scholar. Most grew up in the Church, others joined at a very young age.Of course there might be an exception somewhere on that website. But so far I haven't seen one.

...To me it doesn't matter if one is a scholar when joining the Church, as this in and of itself says nothing about one's education on the essential matters that would weigh on an informed decision.

All I am ever looking for from you is a consistent, cohesive argument, but you never make any. In all our interactions, it is always the same story. Make some drive-by assertions, contradict yourself a few posts later, disappear for awhile, and then pop back with another drive-by.

This does not do much for your credibility.

Take Jonathan Adjimani as a perfect example. He came across missionaries 30 years ago, and he admittedly had no idea who they were and had never heard of the LDS Church. In short, he was entirely ignorant. So what does having a degree in biochemistry matter? It doesn't make his decision to join the LDS faith become an informed decision, as the principles of Mormonism aren't related to the principles of biochemistry.

This after our long discussion about testimony experiences being "only biochemical"? Remember that whole thread in which you were misrepresenting Nagel's position, quoted still in my signature?

No, I'm sure you don't remember. That's ok its all there to search out if anybody feels like it.

Same old stuff, different day.

[mfbukowski]

If one looks at the seeming paucity of archaeological, geological and other such forms of evidence for the Book of Mormon and stops there, I can see how s/he might reach that conclusion. But if the Book of Mormon is not actual history, then we’re left to contend with a holographic Angel Moroni, holographic plates, other holographic records, a holographic sword of Laban, and other actual physical artifacts and manifestations that have been experienced by a whole host of seemingly rational, sane people. Concluding that the Book of Mormon is not history, then, actually raises more questions than it answers. Or, if not, then dismissing the Book of Mormon as ahistorical merely trades one set of questions (why the seeming lack of the sort of evidence mentioned above [archaeological, geological, etc.]?) for another (why so many artifacts and manifestations created seemingly ad hoc as part of the foundation story of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

FWIW I just want to make it clear that I do in fact believe in a "historical" Book of Mormon- that it is "actual history".

This was not part of your post, but something else was implied by the post you quoted. Whether or not such "actual history" can be proven scientifically or how important it is, was what I was discussing.