Mesoamerican Theory Predictions

[Calm]

They went the Pacific route and likely had frequent stops.

[Helen47]

 Bit of a ad hoc hypothesis  don't you think?

[ERayR]

I understand it took Columbus around 66 days to get to America. The Jaradites blown by a strong wind take 344 days. Why the large discrepancy?

 

They took a different route.  They didn't have the same maps as Columbus nor the same starting point.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ERayR

[Calm]

Bit of a ad hoc hypothesis don't you think?

No, there has been quite a bit written up on it, I believe.

For example:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/The_World_of_the_Jaredites.html

Edited August 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[MormonFreeThinker]

To truly reach a secular conclusion that the Book of Mormon's text relates well to some existing geography, one might need a geographer who specializes in ancient texts.

 

Not proven, but plausible. 

I think that Great Lake and Peru geographies are not plausible. 

 

"But making sense of encounters between faith and reason — no matter the religious tradition — is part of the human religious experience. Latter-day Saints believe that men and women bear the divine gifts of intellectual reasoning" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-and-modern

Edited August 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cdowis]

I understand it took Columbus around 66 days to get to America. The Jaradites blown by a strong wind take 344 days. Why the large discrepancy?

 

They made extended stops on the way.   (Are you certain they came over the Atlanti like Columbus)?  

 

Perhaps some of them actually settled on the Polynesian islands.  That may explain some of the DNA results.

Edited August 18, 2014 by cdowis

[Sevenbak]

There is nothing in the text to support the Jaredites making any stops along the way.  However we do know that their boats didn't have conventional sails like Columbus, so the wind that did blow them acted on the ship surface only.

 

Look how long it took for the Japan tsunami debris to reach America.  The Jaredite barges did it in a fraction of that time frame. 

 

Nothing to see here, move on.

[Brant Gardner]

That is strange don't you think? Go to all the trouble to have it published along with a number of apostates and Mormon critic and then be sorry. Her crediblity would be enhanced if she wrote something about where she might be wrong. On page 322 (NABOM) she writes "Does the shoe fit for the current Limited Tehuantepec theory models? Rather than a comfortable "Cinderalla" fit, it is more like a "step sister' mismatch. requiring considerable remodelling of shoe and foot" Very strange.

I don't think it strange at all. As I said, I exchanged emails with her. I didn't hear the story behind that article, but I am certainly familiar with the contents. As with any article discussion a hypothesis, the particulars are (and should be) open to debate. Her article is hardly the last word on any of the topics raised. 

[Helen47]

Brant, don't give up your day job.

[Helen47]

Brant, have you responded to Beastie at length in any forum    http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/polities-and-power.html

 

I understand she has pointed out some errors in  Sorenson's use of sources

Edited August 19, 2014 by Helen47

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, don't give up your day job.

Why thank you for the kind sentiment. As with most, I fear that independent wealth was neither left to me nor appeared along the way--so you are right that I must continue in my day job.

 

I hope, however, that you don't suggest that because I must work for a living that I know nothing about the topic at hand. 

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, have you responded to Beastie at length in any forum    http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/polities-and-power.html

 

I understand she has pointed out some errors in  Sorenson's use of sources

She and I have had lots of conversations. I was one the ones encouraging her to continue reading. We still differ in both the ways we read the Book of Mormon and in the ways we apply some of the source materials. I give her great props for what she has learned.

[Calm]

You are and have always been a gentleman, Brant.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Helen47]

It's rather sad that otherwise nice people believe in such stuff. It must be lonly believing something that I imagine nonlds scholars would just shake their heads over. Coe does not seem to be impressed with the LDS arguments.  Do you in your heart of hearts really believe this stuff? Many LDS leave over these issues. They risk family conflict, breakup of marriages. It must be a lonly path for them. If Ray Matheny does not believe what he wrote I still think his arguments are rather good.I rememeber Wes Walters sents me a letter where he said Matheny had basically been told he would lose his job at BYU. Can't imagine there were lots of openings  in the field.

[guerreiro9]

It's rather sad that otherwise nice people believe in such stuff. It must be lonly believing something that I imagine nonlds scholars would just shake their heads over. Coe does not seem to be impressed with the LDS arguments. Do you in your heart of hearts really believe this stuff? Many LDS leave over these issues. They risk family conflict, breakup of marriages. It must be a lonly path for them. If Ray Matheny does not believe what he wrote I still think his arguments are rather good.I rememeber Wes Walters sents me a letter where he said Matheny had basically been told he would lose his job at BYU. Can't imagine there were lots of openings in the field.

Has Coe ever addressed any of the LDS arguments? Is there any record anywhere of a dialogue between Coe and LDS Anthropologists/Archaeologists? Everything I have seen from Coe demonstrates someone who is extremely knowledgeable about Mesoamerica, but that has only a cursory knowledge of the Book of Mormon. Do you have anything you could point to in this area?

-guerreiro9

[MormonFreeThinker]

 Coe does not seem to be impressed with the LDS arguments. 

 

Because the arguments are not about proof, they are just plausible, and Coe is not an expert on the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon studies.

Richard D Hansen is impressed. 

 

Question, Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the Bible? 

Edited August 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Helen47]

I am a Christian. Like Peter Enns on Patheos I understand the Bible has problems. I do not accept the Bible has no mistakes like many Reformed do.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I am a Christian. Like Peter Enns on Patheos I understand the Bible has problems. I do not accept the Bible has no mistakes like many Reformed do.

 

Thanks for clarifying, the Bible has big unsolved problems, for example the Book of Exodus. Dr. James Hoffmeier is probably the best Christian apologist for the Book of Exodus in the world, he is an Egyptologist. James Hoffmeier admitted that there is no direct archaeological evidence for Book of Exodus in a lecture in Lubbock Christian University.

 

Here in an interesting video 

 

 

There are many other significant unsolved problems, please solve them before coming here to say "It's rather sad that otherwise nice people believe in such stuff. It must be lonly believing something that I imagine nonlds scholars would just shake their heads over" 

Edited August 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Helen47]

I feel the problems with say for example the Book of Abraham are far worse than that of the Bible.From Baer to Ritner all accept Smith did not know what he was talking about.

[MormonFreeThinker]

From Baer to Ritner all accept Smith did not know what he was talking about.

 

Most Egyptologists don't care about the Book of Abraham, and have never read it.  

Modern Egyptologists agree that there are no direct archaeological evidences for the Book of Exodus 

 

"But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html

 

 

 

I feel the problems with say for example the Book of Abraham are far worse than that of the Bible.

 

Solve the problems for the Bible first,  no hypocrisy please. 

You can feel, but the big unsolved problems remain. 

Edited August 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

Has Coe ever addressed any of the LDS arguments? Is there any record anywhere of a dialogue between Coe and LDS Anthropologists/Archaeologists? Everything I have seen from Coe demonstrates someone who is extremely knowledgeable about Mesoamerica, but that has only a cursory knowledge of the Book of Mormon. Do you have anything you could point to in this area?

-guerreiro9

Coe is extremely knowledgeable of LDS positions.   See this 1973 article by Michael Coe:  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N02_42.pdf, which predates Sorenson's main works.  However, I've read some of his other works on non-LDS topics.  He likes going out on limbs and offending people with contrary views.  But he is highly qualified.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

Coe is extremely knowledgeable of LDS positions.  

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe

[guerreiro9]

Coe is extremely knowledgeable of LDS positions.   See this 1973 article by Michael Coe:  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N02_42.pdf, which predates Sorenson's main works.  However, I've read some of his other works on non-LDS topics.  He likes going out on limbs and offending people with contrary views.  But he is highly qualified.

 

I am sure you have read the article you linked, but if you are presenting this article as an example of Michael Coe engaging LDS scholars on the Book of Mormon I think you need to read the article again.  The vast majority of the article (as in 90 - 95%) is dedicated to laying out a history of Mormon archaeological endeavors, and does not attempt to address any scholarly issues.  A few sentences are briefly placed at various points throughout the article mentioning (by name only) problems Coe sees with the Book of Mormon (many of these problems no longer exist scientifically by the way).  These "problems" are not discussed.  What the Book of Mormon actually says on these issues is not mentioned.  Dr. Coe's explanation of the issue is not given or defended from his work.

 

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did actually read the complete Book of Mormon (if only once), but there is nothing in this article to indicate more than a cursory knowledge of its contents.

 

Certainly there must be more from Dr. Coe than this article (which was written 41 years ago I might add), that would justify his exalted status by Book of Mormon critics.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 20, 2014 by guerreiro9

[cdowis]

Coe is extremely knowledgeable of LDS positions.   See this 1973 article by Michael Coe:  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N02_42.pdf, which predates Sorenson's main works.  However, I've read some of his other works on non-LDS topics.  He likes going out on limbs and offending people with contrary views.  But he is highly qualified.

 

Are you going to respond to Sorenson's open letter?

 

I seem to remember that he admitted that he had never actually read the BOM -- his understanding of the BOM text is sparse at best.  After all, it IS a book delivered by an angel to a man claiming to have translated it with a stone and the plates are missing.  

Edited August 20, 2014 by cdowis