Michael Coe Interview On Mormonstories

[robuchan]

Having listened to the whole Michael Coe interview and having read his book "The Maya" I was impressed to see him take on this subject. I felt it was obvious in listening to that podcast that his knowledge of the Book of Mormon was extremely limited to say the very, very least. For a TBM to hear him speak of his opinions on the subjectes that correlated to the Book of Mormon actually lost validity to some degree because he was very knowledgable on the Maya and ignorant as could be on the Book of Mormon. Here was a man that was not qualified to make this comparison. I felt that John D. was making this interview too easy for him by almost spoon feeding him loaded questions and not rebuttaling obviously uneducated answers or complete misses on LDS perspective.

The problem was shortly there after in listening to the Brant Gardner podcast I saw the exact opposite. I saw a man who was very qualified to speak on the parallels and he only was given limited time to cover that subject. It was as if John wanted him to give one to two word answers to any of those questions and not go into explaination. He also questions almost everything Brant offered and he did it over and over again. I found my self utterly disappointed (like usual) in the Mormon Stories podcasts and John D's style of bias interviewing....very unprofessional.

Aside from the JD/MoSto issue, does it say anything that non-LDS Mesoamerica scholars won't even give the BOM the time of day? I kind of had a similar reaction to you at the interview. I wanted Coe to be more specific with his criticism, but he couldn't, because he clearly didn't even know the BOM well enough to do that. But if the Nephi, Alma, and Mormon were real people living in Mesoamerica, the BOM is all of a sudden the most important history book in the world. The reward would be so high to prove it is true, shouldn't it be worth a little work for non-LDS to put a little work in understanding it?

[Brant Gardner]

The only really relevant literature on the topic can be found on the Church's website, not someone's hobby horse theories published outside the official channels of the church.

Perhaps if you are speaking of official doctrine we can easily agree. However, if you are interested in discussions of the Book of Mormon as it is placed in history, you will only find official statements that it is, but nothing about how.

If you are going to discuss the kinds of things Coe was talking about, you will find the Church's website quite unhelpful (by design, and I believe correctly so).

[Brant Gardner]

. . .does it say anything that non-LDS Mesoamerica scholars won't even give the BOM the time of day?

It is the same phenomenon that Thomas O'Dea noted a long time ago: "The Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it."

For the vast majority, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a religious text is sufficient reason. Since so few have read it, and fewer read anything about it, it is hardly surprising that it is ignored among non-LDS archaeologists.

I wanted Coe to be more specific with his criticism, but he couldn't, because he clearly didn't even know the BOM well enough to do that.

And yet Coe is more conversant with the Book of Mormon than most. He as actually read it (or at least some of it--though it may have been 40 years since he did).

But if the Nephi, Alma, and Mormon were real people living in Mesoamerica, the BOM is all of a sudden the most important history book in the world.

I have never understood this idea, though I have seen it repeated any number of times on boards over the last decade. The Book of Mormon wouldn't change most of the history we understand. It could push some developments a little earlier than monumental evidence supplies, but that would not be earth-shaking as ideas should begin earlier than they become heralded in stone.

It would certainly improve its standing as a religious text, but not history.

The reward would be so high to prove it is true, shouldn't it be worth a little work for non-LDS to put a little work in understanding it?

I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of how the Book of Mormon fits into history and what needs to be known about New World history. I can respect that this is your opinion, but I cannot see that it has any basis in an understanding of the actual issues involved.

[robuchan]

It is the same phenomenon that Thomas O'Dea noted a long time ago: "The Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it."

For the vast majority, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a religious text is sufficient reason. Since so few have read it, and fewer read anything about it, it is hardly surprising that it is ignored among non-LDS archaeologists.

And yet Coe is more conversant with the Book of Mormon than most. He as actually read it (or at least some of it--though it may have been 40 years since he did).

I have never understood this idea, though I have seen it repeated any number of times on boards over the last decade. The Book of Mormon wouldn't change most of the history we understand. It could push some developments a little earlier than monumental evidence supplies, but that would not be earth-shaking as ideas should begin earlier than they become heralded in stone.

It would certainly improve its standing as a religious text, but not history.

I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of how the Book of Mormon fits into history and what needs to be known about New World history. I can respect that this is your opinion, but I cannot see that it has any basis in an understanding of the actual issues involved.

You think none of the following would be interesting to historians:

--proof of multiple migrations from Near East to America

--detailed description of civilizations in Mesoamerica

--descriptions of animals and crops we never knew existed in America before

--detailed description of war and strategy

--description of kingships, government and politics in Mesoamerica

--Mos 29, a checks and balance system of government independently developed in America in 100 BC, equally advanced as the Greeks

--first hand account of the city of Jerusalem in 600 BC

--description of money

--description of size and growth of cities

--description of a huge (largest ever in world history?) battle with two million people dying

--detailed description of the fall of the Olmec society

--logic of why cement was used

--rich, detailed description of city names, king names, people names

--first known, detailed Christianity in the world

You know this better than me. You could write a list three times longer than this, and every single bullet point would be absolutely huge in the academic world.

[livy111us]

Cursor,

I have read that article and a portion is puzzling to me. Could you ask your father why he believes the Prophet Joseph Smith learned, two years before the Prophet's death, the geographical location of the Book of Mormon from a popular travel book? (I believe the Prophet received this book two years before his martyrdom.)

Probably the same reason he was "learning" geography, as you put it, from Josiah Priests book containing information on the Hopewell.

[selek1]

You could write a list three times longer than this, and every single bullet point would be absolutely huge in the academic world.

I agree- but the problem is (as Brant has pointed out), "the academic world" is preconditioned and predisposed to dismiss the Book of Mormon out of hand because of its miraculous origin story.

If Smith had turned up the Book of Mormon with a plow and translated it by "secular" means, the scientific world would be beating a path to his door.

Because it was preserved by the wisdom of God, delivered by angelic means, and translated by the power of the Holy Spirit, they won't touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.

They cannot even consider the possibility without irrevocably questioning the fundamental "truths" of their discipline and endangering their own credibility.

That isn't a flaw of the Book of Mormon, but of a rigid ideology that brooks no questioning of its sacred dogmas.

500 years after Galileo, the "learned elite" are still exiling and burning (at least figuratively) heretics who fail to toe the party line.

The "party line" has changed- but the elitist mindset and need for ruthless quashing of dissentors has not.

Edited July 5, 2012 by selek1

[robuchan]

I agree- but the problem is (as Brant has pointed out), "the academic world" is preconditioned and predisposed to dismiss the Book of Mormon out of hand because of its miraculous origin story.

If Smith had turned up the Book of Mormon with a plow and translated it by "secular" means, the scientific world would be beating a path to his door.

Because it was preserved by the wisdom of God, delivered by angelic means, and translated by the power of the Holy Spirit, they won't touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.

They cannot even consider the possibility without irrevocably questioning the fundamental "truths" of their discipline and endangering their own credibility.

That isn't a flaw of the Book of Mormon, but of a rigid ideology that brooks no questioning of its sacred dogmas.

500 years after Galileo, the "learned elite" are still exiling and burning (at least figuratively) heretics who fail to toe the party line.

The "party line" has changed- but the elitist mindset and need for ruthless quashing of dissentors has not.

That's not the point. Brant says the BOM would not be very noteworthy for historians even if it were proven true. He sees nothing in it from a secular or historical aspect that would be interesting for modern scholars.

[Brant Gardner]

Part 1 because there are two many quotations in my response.

You think none of the following would be interesting to historians:

I stand by my original statements. As for your assumptions, since I disagree with many of them, they don't represent what any historian would find in the Book of Mormon.

--proof of multiple migrations from Near East to America

They would be surprised to learn that, of course. However, there are fewer who would be totally surprised. There will be, I believe, a greater acquiescence that there were migrations. I think that lots of people made it to the Americas. However, that isn't really the actual issue. The issue is the development of culture, and there is currently no indication that Western hemispheric civilizations were seeded from other locations. So, people came, but didn't impact the cultural development. That is precisely the point I have made for Book of Mormon immigrations, so it wouldn't be much of a bump in the road for historians.

--detailed description of civilizations in Mesoamerica

You have read the Book of Mormon, haven't you? Detailed descriptions of civilizations? I would love to see those. It would make my job so much easier. Give me a description of a typical house. A few ideas about cooking utensils. Something about the way clothing was constructed. The Book of Mormon doesn't describe civilization. Of course, very, very few ancient documents do. No one thought it interesting to document the ordinary. If the book did have such descriptions it would be easier to show as a fiction (see "Manuscript Found" for example).

--descriptions of animals and crops we never knew existed in America before

This is an issue that has generated a lot of discussion. However, I see it as a translation issue and not relevant.

--detailed description of war and strategy

From which they would learn virtually nothing new. What is interesting is that it parallels tactics known for the area, but there isn't anything surprising or new.

--description of kingships, government and politics in Mesoamerica

Not a lot different here. It might clarify some of the earlier dates for kingship, but not the fact of kingship (which really appears derivative in the Book of Mormon rather than contributory). Even the change to judges parallels known changes and processes. Really very little new here.

--Mos 29, a checks and balance system of government independently developed in America in 100 BC, equally advanced as the Greeks

A rather unique reading of the text. I disagree that it is represented in the text (based on careful analysis).

--first hand account of the city of Jerusalem in 600 BC

Right. And the new information is?

--description of money

I don't know of any serious LDS scholar who believes that there was money in the Book of Mormon.

[Brant Gardner]

Part 2

--description of size and growth of cities

There is less information in the text than you might think, and none of it is any different that expectations.

--description of a huge (largest ever in world history?) battle with two million people dying

How familiar are you with the issue of numbers in ancient documents?

--detailed description of the fall of the Olmec society

There isn't a lot of militarism found in monumental Olmec art, but that hasn't suggested that there was no warfare. It is expected. So, finding that there were major wars is not a surprise. Assuming that the book of Ether describes all Olmec civilization is equally egregious to assuming that there was such a thing as a monolithic Olmec civilization.

--logic of why cement was used

I don't believe the text's logic either, though the combination of visual data is accurate. Cement and lack of trees went together, but with a different causation. However, having an ancient document get causation wrong is not surprising either.

--rich, detailed description of city names, king names, people names

Which will be much more interesting when they can be tied to a specific site. There are suggestions, but nothing solid and certainly nothing that can be demonstrated beyond question. Since the Book of Mormon appears to have taken place in a region that wasn't very interesting to the greater movements in Mesoamerica, this information really won't add much.

--first known, detailed Christianity in the world

That is a misleading statement, as we assume Christianity has a particular form created post-Christ. Iconography and much theology resulted from the particular conditions of the Old World and were never part of the New. Pre-advent in the New World we have a different flavor of Judaism that still fits into a historical context that doesn't require the use of the misapplied term Christianity.

I agree, however, that this would be of interest to religious historians, but not to Mesoamericanists.

You could write a list three times longer than this, and every single bullet point would be absolutely huge in the academic world.

Thank you for the encouragement, except I am the one that said it wouldn't be huge in the academic world in the first place. It still isn't.

[selek1]

That's not the point. Brant says the BOM would not be very noteworthy for historians even if it were proven true. He sees nothing in it from a secular or historical aspect that would be interesting for modern scholars.

Ironically, that was not Brant's position- but a strawman of your own devising.

Here are Brant's exact words:

The Book of Mormon wouldn't change most of the history we understand. It could push some developments a little earlier than monumental evidence supplies, but that would not be earth-shaking as ideas should begin earlier than they become heralded in stone.

Brant said nothing about "noteworthy"- he pointed out (correctly) that it would not "change most of the history [as] we understand it".

This is true.

Serious scholars already accept the ideas of mass migrations, multiple civilizations, and histories or war, barbarism, and tribalism.

As such, a "secular" Book of Mormon narrative fits comfortably within the very broad tableau of "accepted" general MesoAmerican history.

It is not the content of the Book of Mormon that disqualifies it from serious consideration, but the miraculous nature of its provenance.

[morgan.deane]

Part 1 because there are two many quotations in my response.

I stand by my original statements. As for your assumptions, since I disagree with many of them, they don't represent what any historian would find in the Book of Mormon.

They would be surprised to learn that, of course. However, there are fewer who would be totally surprised. There will be, I believe, a greater acquiescence that there were migrations. I think that lots of people made it to the Americas. However, that isn't really the actual issue. The issue is the development of culture, and there is currently no indication that Western hemispheric civilizations were seeded from other locations. So, people came, but didn't impact the cultural development. That is precisely the point I have made for Book of Mormon immigrations, so it wouldn't be much of a bump in the road for historians.

You have read the Book of Mormon, haven't you? Detailed descriptions of civilizations? I would love to see those. It would make my job so much easier. Give me a description of a typical house. A few ideas about cooking utensils. Something about the way clothing was constructed. The Book of Mormon doesn't describe civilization. Of course, very, very few ancient documents do. No one thought it interesting to document the ordinary. If the book did have such descriptions it would be easier to show as a fiction (see "Manuscript Found" for example).

This is an issue that has generated a lot of discussion. However, I see it as a translation issue and not relevant.

From which they would learn virtually nothing new. What is interesting is that it parallels tactics known for the area, but there isn't anything surprising or new.

Not a lot different here. It might clarify some of the earlier dates for kingship, but not the fact of kingship (which really appears derivative in the Book of Mormon rather than contributory). Even the change to judges parallels known changes and processes. Really very little new here.

A rather unique reading of the text. I disagree that it is represented in the text (based on careful analysis).

Right. And the new information is?

I don't know of any serious LDS scholar who believes that there was money in the Book of Mormon.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in about warfare in the BoM. (I might be a one trick pony but I do the trick well.) What is surprising is how the detailed accounts of warfare match up so well with ancient tactics and methods. In my research into Mesoamerican warfare most of the scholars sidestep detailed accounts of tactics and strategy. Most of the discussion details the anthropological aspects of war. For example, they usual discuss overcrowding in an area and competition for resources as a leading factor that causes war. They then move on to walls as evidence of increasing warfare, and burial grounds that show death by blunt objects, or ritual sacrifice. The actual conduct of war, such as detailed strategy, theory, tactics, and composition of armies, from my research, is still largely absent. Ross Hassig has some good material on Aztec warfare. And David Friedel has some good stuff on Mayan warfare and there are a few good articles about it, but most of them don't get that specific or move beyond the above categories. (Even Sorenson only talks about fortifications and seasonal warfare.)

So I think the BoM can help reveal more detail about the practice of Mesoamerican warfare. You've discussed how academic subjects can help inform our knowldege of the BoM; I hope to do the opposite and have the BoM help inform our knowledge of Mesoamerica. I have a chapter in my book which describes how it can do so concerning the conduct of battles and I hope to see your comments when it comes out. I still don't think the average Mesoamericanist will care a great deal, so your larger point remains the same, but I hope to expand on the "virtually" part of your statement.

Edited July 5, 2012 by morgan.deane

[robuchan]

Part 2

There is less information in the text than you might think, and none of it is any different that expectations.

How familiar are you with the issue of numbers in ancient documents?

There isn't a lot of militarism found in monumental Olmec art, but that hasn't suggested that there was no warfare. It is expected. So, finding that there were major wars is not a surprise. Assuming that the book of Ether describes all Olmec civilization is equally egregious to assuming that there was such a thing as a monolithic Olmec civilization.

I don't believe the text's logic either, though the combination of visual data is accurate. Cement and lack of trees went together, but with a different causation. However, having an ancient document get causation wrong is not surprising either.

Which will be much more interesting when they can be tied to a specific site. There are suggestions, but nothing solid and certainly nothing that can be demonstrated beyond question. Since the Book of Mormon appears to have taken place in a region that wasn't very interesting to the greater movements in Mesoamerica, this information really won't add much.

That is a misleading statement, as we assume Christianity has a particular form created post-Christ. Iconography and much theology resulted from the particular conditions of the Old World and were never part of the New. Pre-advent in the New World we have a different flavor of Judaism that still fits into a historical context that doesn't require the use of the misapplied term Christianity.

I agree, however, that this would be of interest to religious historians, but not to Mesoamericanists.

Thank you for the encouragement, except I am the one that said it wouldn't be huge in the academic world in the first place. It still isn't.

Neither of us are non-LDS Mesoamarica scholars, so neither of us can speak for that group as it relates to the significance and value of the BOM as a historical text, if it were proven to be true. I understand your position. I think it's preposterous. But thanks for explaining.

[cinepro]

Ironically, that was not Brant's position- but a strawman of your own devising.

Here are Brant's exact words:

Brant said nothing about "noteworthy"- he pointed out (correctly) that it would not "change most of the history [as] we understand it".

This is true.

Serious scholars already accept the ideas of mass migrations, multiple civilizations, and histories or war, barbarism, and tribalism.

As such, a "secular" Book of Mormon narrative fits comfortably within the very broad tableau of "accepted" general MesoAmerican history.

It is not the content of the Book of Mormon that disqualifies it from serious consideration, but the miraculous nature of its provenance.

It baffles my mind to see such an argument being made.

Ultimately, the new defenders of the Book of Mormon won't succeed by making it plausible or believable in a historical context.

They will succeed by making it invisible.

And once it has disappeared, there will be nothing left for attackers to attack.

Edited July 5, 2012 by cinepro

[Brant Gardner]

Neither of us are non-LDS Mesoamarica scholars, so neither of us can speak for that group as it relates to the significance and value of the BOM as a historical text, if it were proven to be true.

But I have studied with them, spoken with several with whom I didn't directly study, and have had conversations with students who have studied under others. Why would you assume that your ignorance of the field must mean that I am equally ignorant?

[Brant Gardner]

What is surprising is how the detailed accounts of warfare match up so well with ancient tactics and methods.

I quite agree though confess that I have to rely on you and a few others for my confidence.

In my research into Mesoamerican warfare most of the scholars sidestep detailed accounts of tactics and strategy.

I suspect that you are correct, and likely because there are few texts that describe tactics. If your evidence is archaeological, there are only certain things you can speak about.

I have a chapter in my book which describes how it can do so concerning the conduct of battles and I hope to see your comments when it comes out.

I am certain that I am not the only one waiting anxiously for it to come out. Good luck!

[Brant Gardner]

Ultimately, the new defenders of the Book of Mormon won't succeed by making it plausible or believable in a historical context.

They will succeed by making it invisible.

I don't see it that way at all. I do see the task as establishing a plausible context (given the inability to actually prove a context). What that should do for believers is create a more visual (playing on your "invisible") text in that there will be a context in which it is seen instead of the everything and nothing context of the way it is typically portrayed. It should make it much more real and alive for the believer.

Of course, I have little hope that the same would happen with those not disposed to believe. For them, I don't know how it might be less visible. I suspect even that will change as the press about Mormons and the Book of Mormon increases. They won't believe it any more than they do, but they will be more aware of something that they don't believe in.

[robuchan]

But I have studied with them, spoken with several with whom I didn't directly study, and have had conversations with students who have studied under others. Why would you assume that your ignorance of the field must mean that I am equally ignorant?

No. But I think your view of the value of the text is tainted by a lot of unnecessary/stretched assumptions.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't have time to cover all of these, but here are my comments on a few selected ones:

1) Geospatial convergences

a) Internal geography corresponds to a specific region in Mesoamerica

b) Book of Mormon has over 400 geographic references which are consistent in their interrelationships, both spatial and topological.

c) Sorenson’s correlation is best known. Poulsen’s is an important alternative using the same basic area, but resolving directional issues.

d) One set of references in Helaman may combine to point specifically to Teotihuacán

2) Geospatial convergences

a) Relative relationships of Jaredite, Nephite and Lamanite territories.

b) The meeting of Mulekites and Nephites in the Grijalva River Valley is convergent with archaeological evidence of the movement of Zoquean speakers up the Grijalva and meeting with Maya influences.

These are based on a subjective view by apologists that things "correspond," and the presumption that Maya = Lehite, Olmec = Jaredite. Of course apologists will believe there is a correspondence, because they have invented the geographical map expressly to (sorta) correspond. Ask any non-Mormon scholar (or any non- or pre-LGM Mormon) if they agree with the correspondence. If I had the resources of the old FARMS, I could probably create a map of Tolkien's Middle Earth that corresponds to Mesoamerica, too. And other apologists have created Book of Mormon maps for the United States, the Malay peninsula, Baja California, etc. All these maps are equally vague and contrived.

3) Chronological convergences

a) Geography and ethnic chronology

i) Time depth convergence between Jaredite and Olmec civilizations and some Maya and the Nephites.

Do you know of any Olmec sites dating from the 3rd millennium B.C.? That's when the Book of Mormon dates the beginnings of the Jaredites. Reference to the mythical tower of Babel as a historical event is, itself, pretty convincing proof the Book of Mormon is (inspired) mythology rather than history.

iii) Book of Mormon reflects preexilic, pre-Josian-reform Israelite religion appropriate to 600 B.C.

How so? It is much more consistent with Methodism than it is with ancient Hebrew religion, which was, quite frankly, polytheistic. There is no polytheism in the Book of Mormon.

iv)Emphasis on an atoning Messiah

v) Conceptual relationship between Yahweh and the Most High God.

The KJV bible reflects these things too.

[Cobalt-70]

None of that explains the historical content that fits times and contexts that were unknown both during his day, and understood better only in the last 50 years. It is difficult to understand how this natural genius could have absorbed all of the obscure hints available to him and embedded them in the text so that over 150 years later people would discover them and use them to indicate the historicity of the plate text. One would think that if they were that interesting and important, a Joseph who put them there for that reason might have pointed them out. He didn't. There is no indication that he knew that they were there and so we had to wait a century and a half to discover those clever subtle clues.

There is a reason the hints are so "obscure." It's because seeing them is, in most cases, acts of wishful thinking and confirmation bias, unlike all the blatantly obvious 19th century Protestant dialogues that anyone of Smith's era would have recognized.

[William Schryver]

Actually since the former Maxwell Institute has refused to publish those articles, in normal practice that means it's rejected them. Having rejected them, ownership thereof reverts to the authors, who are free to publish them anywhere else that they please.

In a new journal, for example.

Regards,

Pahoran

Unfortunately, this is not the case with my scroll-length article. You see, on account of my extensive use of high-resolution images of the Joseph Smith Papyri, my article had to be approved by the Church Historian's Office and their supervisors in the Q12--per the researcher contract I signed with the Church when I was given the digital collection of images of the papyri and the KEP. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that I "own" my article, its publication was specifically approved for The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture. When I decide on a new publishing venue for this article (as well as two new articles on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that were slated for publication in the Mormon Studies Review) I must go through a new approval process. I am therefore anxious to see what Professor Peterson et al. plan to do vis-à-vis a new publishing platform for Mormon Studies now that the Maxwell Institute and BYU are no longer involved in such things.

My scroll-length article, The Interminable Roll - Determining the Original Length of the Scroll of Hor constitutes a direct reply to both Robert Ritner and the Cook/Smith article that appeared in Dialogue.

Incidentally, I was recently apprised of the fact that Christopher Smith has pronounced this controversial topic a closed issue, so perhaps this all just a waste of time for everyone involved.

Edited July 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

i was commenting on Michael Coe's take on Joseph Smith in part three of the podcast. He found him to be a genius with wonderful writing abilities. Coe also claimed that Joseph was America's greatest religious leader. So, he put him a pretty high pedestal. However, when we look at Joseph's letters to emma written from prison etc, we see a guy with limited writing ability. His letters to his wife do not match the wonderful writer Michael spoke of. That was my point. There is a disconnect from Joseph's actual ability.

But Smith did not actually write the Book of Mormon by his own hand. He used scribes, which is also how he produced the other very good prose that I was referring to, one example of which was dated to 1830, and was in Smith's own voice, rather than the voice of revelation.

[Hamilton Porter]

How so? It is much more consistent with Methodism than it is with ancient Hebrew religion, which was, quite frankly, polytheistic. There is no polytheism in the Book of Mormon.

Methodism was about throne theophanies, with the Sukkot/Yom Kippur/Jubilee/Sabbatical years rolled into one festival complex as it was in pre-exilic Israel?

Edited July 5, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

There is a reason the hints are so "obscure." It's because seeing them is, in most cases, acts of wishful thinking and confirmation bias, unlike all the blatantly obvious 19th century Protestant dialogues that anyone of Smith's era would have recognized.

I don't think you've been reading closely enough. During his time the hints were obscure. One hundred and fifty years later, they've been consolidated.

[Brant Gardner]

I don't have time to cover all of these, but here are my comments on a few selected ones:

Glad for whatever level of interaction.

These are based on a subjective view by apologists that things "correspond,"

I am amazed that you can come to that conclusion without seeing any of the supporting evidence. Of course, it is always easier to dismiss something when you don't actually engage it.

There is a reason why lists are not evidence. Please don't assume that this is all there is (which is why I tried to point that out.

and the presumption that Maya = Lehite, Olmec = Jaredite.

This part of your sentence is certainly incorrect in my case. I have tried very hard to remove those simple correspondences from any discussion of how the Book of Mormon fits into Mesoamerica. The time periods overlap and the regions overlap, so there are legitimate reasons to use what is known of those peoples (in general) as the cultural background that might inform the Book of Mormon--but that does not mean that I see them as equivalent. I don't even see "Olmec" as equivalent with the various peoples that are covered by that generic (and modern) label.

Of course apologists will believe there is a correspondence, because they have invented the geographical map expressly to (sorta) correspond.

Please don't suggest that you are going to engage in a discussion if the best you have to offer is a rejection of all previous information in ways that tell me that you don't understand it. Nothing in this sentence reflects the actual state of LDS thinking on Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon.

Ask any non-Mormon scholar (or any non- or pre-LGM Mormon) if they agree with the correspondence.

Please explain why you feel that this is any kind of argument at all, and particular a reason to not engage in actual issues. If they haven't engaged in the specifics and don't understand the issues, why is their opinion of any value?

If I had the resources of the old FARMS, I could probably create a map of Tolkien's Middle Earth that corresponds to Mesoamerica, too.

OK. Now I understand that you are not serious in the least. I'll return to the question if you ever are seriously interested in the topic.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think the obvious 19th century dialogues are translation artifacts; that is, Smith could hardly have translated the plates into any idiom other than the one of his day which he was familiar with, and if he could have, he would not have been understood. But since the 19th century dialogues were based on particular readings of particular translations of the Bible, those dialogues are themselves still preserving fragments of ancient understanding. Parallels to 19th century idiom are therefore explained by the translator; the underlying deep structure has passed through numerous filters to get to what we have today.

The odd thing is, I think the structural parallels to the ancient context are more compelling than the linguistic veneer of the 19th century; as Nibley showed long ago, people have found everything from Methodism and Catholicism to Atheism in the book, and the reason for that is because the theology which confused the sects of Smith's day is clearly not analogous to the post-exilic edit that we have in the Old Testament and is instead "anachronistically" Christian -- yet "Christian" in a way which preserves the Tree of Life/Wisdom tradition (Nephi, Alma, etc.), the Council in Heaven (Alma, Ether, etc.), and an embodied plurality of Gods (Ether, etc.).

In that sense, I might apply Smith's view of Creeds to the various linguistic expressions of the sects of his time; there were "some things in them [he] cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth." That is, if a Methodist expressed a concept which fit a concept in the Book of Mormon, that'd be a handy way to translate it for what was then the modern audience, and yet the same would go for any other contemporary denomination (or non-religious author, even), and therefore none would be the source of the information, though their particular idiom would be found within the translation.

[Edit: Or, what Gardner said.]

Edited July 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith