Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Michael D. Coe, Mesoamericanist and Book of Mormon skeptic, recently died


tkv

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, tkv said:

Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican scholar and a well-known skeptic of the Book of Mormon, recently died in New Haven (September 25, 2019, aged 90).......................

Coe was a great scholar, and one can mine his considerable oeuvre for many strong evidences for the Book of Mormon.  Would that Coe had bothered to compare his own published work with the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coe was a great scholar, and one can mine his considerable oeuvre for many strong evidences for the Book of Mormon.  Would that Coe had bothered to compare his own published work with the Book of Mormon.

Given that BOM mesoamerican proponents have not even convinced Church leadership to endorse their position, and a strong portion of Church membership vehemently disagrees with the meso-american model, what makes you think Coe would have found anything convincing?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given that BOM mesoamerican proponents can't convince Church leadership to endorse their position, and a strong portion of Church membership vehemently disagrees with the meso-american model, what makes you think Coe would have found anything convincing?

I have read his books and articles, and have gotten considerable mileage from them.  I only lament that he failed to do the same elementary exercise.  Of course, it would have cost him his academic standing.  As to which of several LDS geography correlations may or may not seem convincing to the hoi polloi, you may want to consider the singular appearance in the 1984 Ensign of John Sorenson's two-part article on that very subject:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng .

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Before or after someone does his temple work for him?

I think Sorenson should step in and take care of that for him.  😉

Link to comment
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given that BOM mesoamerican proponents can't convince Church leadership to endorse their position, and a strong portion of Church membership vehemently disagrees with the meso-american model, what makes you think Coe would have found anything convincing?

Are “Book of Mormon meso-American  proponents” trying to “convince Church leadership to endorse their position”? Not insofar as I can tell. Can you document your “given” assumption that they have this intent?

And just for laughs, we’ll call this a CFR. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coe was a great scholar, and one can mine his considerable oeuvre for many strong evidences for the Book of Mormon.  Would that Coe had bothered to compare his own published work with the Book of Mormon.

I would imagine he would have compared the BoM to his published work. My guess is he new a lot about his own work as well. Likely he was more familiar with it then you.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I would imagine he would have compared the BoM to his published work. My guess is he new a lot about his own work as well. Likely he was more familiar with it then you.

The Sorensen response, linked to above, indicates that Coe's comparative work wasn't well-researched or reliable.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are “Book of Mormon meso-American  proponents” trying to “convince Church leadership to endorse their position”? Not insofar as I can tell. Can you document your “given” assumption that they have this intent?

And just for laughs, we’ll call this a CFR. 

Good catch. Consider this a retraction of the claim can’t. I’ve updated the wording of my post from can’t to “have not”

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I would imagine he would have compared the BoM to his published work. My guess is he new a lot about his own work as well. Likely he was more familiar with it then you.

It is clear as a matter of direct fact that Coe never bothered to compare his work with the Book of Mormon.  Had he done so, it would have been impossible for him to have missed all the normative archeological correlations -- which John L. Sorenson pointed out in detail:   https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe .  I have myself found many other such mistakes in Coe's shallow comments on the Book of Mormon.  He had only to directly compare his own factual publications with the detailed claims of the Book of Mormon.  My opinion is that he did that out of fear of the consequences of doing a real comparison.  His internal psychology may have been, "what you don't know can't hurt you," a notion which many religious believers also engage in.  Much easier to dismiss the BofM out of hand and avoid damaging his academic standing.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given that BOM mesoamerican proponents have not even convinced Church leadership to endorse their position, 

I'm not sure I understand what this means.  Are "BOM mesoamerican proponents" even attempting to "convince Church leadership to endorse their position?"

The particular location(s) of the New World events described in The Book of Mormon have not been revealed.  In the absence of such revealed light and knowledge, I'm not sure it is appropriate for members to lobby the Church to one "position" or another.  

The Church's position, enunciated here, is wise:

Quote

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon —with the exception of the events in the Near East —occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.
...
The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.
...
Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

Yep.

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and a strong portion of Church membership vehemently disagrees with the meso-american model, what makes you think Coe would have found anything convincing?

Coe never seemed particularly informed about the text of The Book of Mormon, as evidenced by his 2011 remarks to John Dehlin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

....................  This was back when most Mormon apologetics were still claiming the BoA was actually written by Abraham.............................

There may have been some yokels who made such a claim, but I can't think of their names.  Anyone knowing anything at all about the Kirtland Egyptian papyri knew then that all of them dated to around two millennia after Abraham.  Hugh Nibley and all the Egyptologists publishing on KEP at that time agreed on that.  So the idea that we had an autograph from Abe could only be silly and even childish.  Whatever we had, if it had originally come from Abraham, would have been passed on for two thousand years through the hands of Jewish scribes -- who would have edited and updated it same as they did for all biblical and intertestamental literature.  It certainly fit exactly what we see in Jewish pseudepigrapha from that period.

I wrote a major study on the BofA at that time (1975) and put it into the hands of several people (including Jerald & Sandra Tanner), and none were willing or able to find fault with it.  Since I was employing standard Egyptology in my comments, to have found fault with it would have left them with egg on their face.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, tkv said:
Quote

Much easier to dismiss the BofM out of hand and avoid damaging his academic standing.

Exactly.  There's an unavoidable bias built in to all unserious dismissals of various Book of Mormon evidence.

Yep.  Brant Gardner made a similar point some years ago (see here😞

Quote

Smac97: Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

Gardner: That is a major difference in the issue of archaeology and text. The Book of Mormon is more dangerous than the Bible. If the Bible is historical and deals with religion, it can be seen as no different from any other historical text (they usually incorporate the dominant religion in the older traditions). The Book of Mormon, however, is a problem. If it is historical it becomes harder to dismiss. It is much easier to dismiss it at every turn, and therefore the level of archaeological support required by its critics is much different than that required for any other text of similar purported age.

Smac97: So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discovery persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

Gardner: Yes. Dangerous.

Smac97: The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Gardner: Precisely. That is the reason that you won't see many non-believers giving any quarter here. Evidence that would be sufficient for Homer, for instance, is not sufficient for the Book of Mormon (actually - it wouldn't be for me either - I would want more -). Still, there is a point at which more should be sufficient.

The Book of Mormon is "dangerous" to the career of someone like Michael Coe.

That is not to say, however, that he could not have had legitimate and informed and well-reasoned reasons for rejecting The Book of Mormon.  He just never presented any to the general public.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am sure a strong majority have not even looked into the the various models to form an opinion let alone taking a strong opinion  disagreeing with it.  Perhaps 5-10% do.

I didn't say a strong majority. Of those that take an interest in BOM geography, I would say a significant percentage (well over 5-10%) disagree with the mesoamerican model. One only need to point to the success of Rod Meldrum here. He certainly convinced my parents.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand what this means.  Are "BOM mesoamerican proponents" even attempting to "convince Church leadership to endorse their position?"

Robert Smith implied that if only Coe had studied the Book of Mormon as a serious academic exercise he would have seen the parallels and been convinced. I'm saying that this is just his confirmation bias at work. If the evidence were compelling enough to convince someone like Coe, certainly it must be convincing enough to convince Church leadership. Do you disagree? 

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have read his books and articles, and have gotten considerable mileage from them.  I only lament that he failed to do the same elementary exercise.  

No doubt you have. You have also no doubt heard of confirmation bias. There are people on this board that think the BOM can't be fit anywhere in the America's and point to the Malay peninsula. The particular poster I have in mind seems very intelligent and articulate. Many other faithful members point to the heartland as the appropriate place. So people that take the Book of Mormon very seriously, read it closely, and have examined the evidence cannot come to any consensus, yet you think the evidence is compelling enough to convince a non-member meso-american scholar? 

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Book_of_Mormon_geographical_setting

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

I'm not sure I understand what this means.  Are "BOM mesoamerican proponents" even attempting to "convince Church leadership to endorse their position?"

Robert Smith implied that if only Coe had studied the Book of Mormon as a serious academic exercise he would have seen the parallels and been convinced.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.  Robert subscribes to the LGT/Mesoamerican model, probably because that is the best fit for the text of The Book of Mormon.

Quote

I'm saying that this is just his confirmation bias at work. If the evidence were compelling enough to convince someone like Coe, certainly it must be convincing enough to convince Church leadership. Do you disagree? 

With respect, yes, I disagree.  I don't think the Church wants to commit itself to a position on the specifics of BOM geography because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to confirm any particular theory, and because the Church wants us to focus on the spiritual content of the book.

I think most members of the Church are fairly indifferent to the particulars as to the location of the BOM events.  Of those who have given the matter substantial thought and study, I would say most subscribe to a generalized Mesoamerican setting.  I think the hemispheric model is not held by many, and Meldrum's theories do not seem to be holding much sway, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...