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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I understand that. My point is that Robert in his post that I responded to implies that the evidence linking the bom to Mesoamerican is so compelling that it would have convinced Coe if he ever gave it an honest look. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

So the church leaders lack light and knowledge, but the evidence is compelling enough to convince an honest non-believing skeptic? I’m not sure how both of these can be true. It is this fact that I am pointing out.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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? 

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

Yes, there certainly are a lot of opinions out there among those not trained in anthropology or archeology.  You are correct about that.  I am less interested in convincing "a non-member meso-american scholar" than I am in having a meaningful and intelligent discussion.  The notion that everything must be missionary-oriented may make sense to non-scholars, but that is not at all what concerns me:  No one is required to seriously address the Book of Mormon question.  I am not bothered at all by those who just thumb their noses at it and get on with their lives.  However, for phonies who pretend to address it seriously by making a few confirmation-bias statements based on their academic reputation, without ever in fact addressing it seriously, I am left disappointed.

I once had a debate online with someone calling himself RT.  It was an intelligent back and forth, with him conceding some major points, even though he left still unconvinced.  At least he brought a solid knowledge-base to the discussion, and at least he carried on a meaningful, honest debate.  I very much appreciated his lack of hypocrisy.  Coe could have done likewise, but perhaps losing a major part of his eminent reputation in the process.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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

Yes.  The BofM is so preposterous that, if it can be shown to be historically authentic, it is all the more dangerous.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I understand that. My point is that Robert in his post that I responded to implies that the evidence linking the bom to Mesoamerican is so compelling that it would have convinced Coe if he ever gave it an honest look. 

Which is much more a secular argument than a religious/spiritual one.

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So the church leaders lack light and knowledge,

About the particulars of BOM geography, yes.

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but the evidence is compelling enough to convince an honest non-believing skeptic?

Here's what Robert said:

Quote

It is clear as a matter of direct fact that Coe never bothered to compare his work with the Book of Mormon. 

I think this is rather clear, given Coe's remarks to Dehlin.  

Quote

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 . 

Robert is positing that if Coe had done his homework, he would not have "missed all the normative archeological correlations."  That's a far cry from Robert claiming that the extant evidence is "compelling enough to convince an honest non-believing skeptic."

Quote

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. 

Again, Robert is noting Coe's obvious unfamiliarity with the text of The Book of Mormon.

Quote

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.

Robert is noting what Gardner has noted previously (as have I).  The text of The Book of Mormon is, in this sense, "dangerous."

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not sure how both of these can be true. It is this fact that I am pointing out.

I think you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding Robert.  

My take: Reasonable minds can disagree about the provenance of The Book of Mormon.  There is competent evidence sufficient to support both sides.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I understand that. My point is that Robert in his post that I responded to implies that the evidence linking the bom to Mesoamerican is so compelling that it would have convinced Coe if he ever gave it an honest look. 

There are two issues here:  (1) It is a fact that only one place in the Americas has anything like the high civilization, literacy, chronology, population, artifacts, etc., required by the BofM narrative, and that is Meso-America.  The illiterate, paleolithic (stone-age) peoples in the remainder of the Americas are not even in the running.

(2)  What I have actually maintained for decades now is that, if Coe did compare his own published knowledge-base to an actual study of the Book of Mormon, he would have been far more respectful -- in the same way that Margaret Barker (biblical scholar and Methodist preacher) is very respectful of the BofM.  Dr Barker has not converted and I wouldn't have expected Coe to do so either.

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So the church leaders lack light and knowledge, but the evidence is compelling enough to convince an honest non-believing skeptic? I’m not sure how both of these can be true. It is this fact that I am pointing out.

Neither LDS General Authorities nor the late Mike Coe were/are professionally qualified to pass judgment on that question:  Unless by some revelatory means, which none of them have claimed, and which is not a professional qualification.  Coe was not being asked to pray about the BofM in line with Moroni 10:4-5, but only to bring to bear his professional knowledge.  He was not required to do any of that, of course, but only to bring to bear his actually knowledge to the question.  That he did not deign to do.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

So you are the expert on Coe's work and what Coe did and did not do. I think you come to this conclusion and a fine example of confirmation bias.

I will admit however I am not an expert on this topic. Quite frankly I find it an exercise in futility and rather boring. I have no need to spend time proving one fictitious account of a people that clearly did not really exist  over another. But from what I have read about Sorenson and his responses it seems they were pretty weak and I heard a podcast where Coe addressed them.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Teancum

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you are the expert on Coe's work and what Coe did and did not do.  I think you come to this conclusion and a fine example of confirmation bias.

Have you read John Sorenson's open letter to Coe?

Coe was obviously oblivious to the text.  He makes some embarrassing gaffes that anyone with meaningful familiarity with the text (and scholarship about it) would not have made.  A sampling:

• The Jaredites “didn’t really survive terribly long.” [Part 1, 18:30]
• “They had the compass to navigate by.” [Part 1, 19:00]
• “Let’s do the coins. . . . If there were coins they would be chocolate beans. Why aren’t chocolate beans mentioned in the Book of Mormon?” [Part 1, 24:45]
• “Silk. Nothing.” [Part 1, 31:50]
• “Pig. Zero. Not one pig bone has ever shown up in pre-Columbian excavations.” [Part 1, 38:00]

To be sure, I don't really fault Coe for not investing time and effort to study The Book of Mormon.  That, in and of itself, is utterly benign.  Life is short, after all.  However, as soon as he chose to speak publicly on the subject, and to do so in fairly obvious ignorance, he opened himself up for fair criticism.

Quote

I will admit however I am not an expert on this topic. Quite frankly I find it an exercise in futility and rather boring.

I quite understand that perspective.  But surely you can appreciate that others do find "this topic" to be interesting.

Quote

I have no need to spend time proving one fictitious account of a people that clearly did not really exist over another.

What was it you were just saying about "confirmation bias?"

Quote

But from what I have read about Sorenson and his responses it seems they were pretty weak and I heard a podcast where Coe addressed them.

Could you provide a link?

Edit to Add: I assume you are referencing this 2018 MormonStories podcast.  Correct?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 30, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meldrum's theories do not seem to be holding much sway, either.

They seem to attract those studying for different reasons than purely interest in where it happened, imo (it is not an academic effort, but serves a purpose/agenda).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

(2)  What I have actually maintained for decades now is that, if Coe did compare his own published knowledge-base to an actual study of the Book of Mormon, he would have been far more respectful -- in the same way that Margaret Barker (biblical scholar and Methodist preacher) is very respectful of the BofM. 

This makes much more sense to me. I apologize for imputing meaning into your words and I should have asked for clarification. 

Edited September 30, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I think you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding Robert.  

 

I see that now. I should have read more closely and asked for clarification rather than jump to conclusions. I have apologized to Robert for the misreading and will alter the original post to note that it is a misreading of Robert.

Edit: At least I tried to edit, unfortunately, the edit button on that post is missing, Maybe the time lapsed has been too great.

Edited September 30, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So you are the expert on Coe's work and what Coe did and did not do. I think you come to this conclusion and a fine example of confirmation bias.

Coe was the expert on Coe, not me.  I loved reading his work so much that I was very disappointed to find him ignoring all that when he addressed the BofM.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I will admit however I am not an expert on this topic. Quite frankly I find it an exercise in futility and rather boring. I have no need to spend time proving one fictitious account of a people that clearly did not really exist  ...............................

Coe probably felt the same as you do here, and you have every right to ignore the BofM or to prejudge it in any way you like.  I have no problem with that.  What I do not abide is the hyprocrisy of pretending to do a professional evaluation and then to not deliver.  That is just blatant dishonesty.  By all means, denounce the BofM as inauthentic, but at least provide a substantive rationale -- with citations.  Is that unreasonable?

[Tacenda]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/michael-coe-influential-archaeologist-and-maya-scholar-dies-at-90/2019/09/30/e5d458b0-e2c3-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0IPmh60AWIiPAm-ZtgIKmSv-ccUat96fozDO2AHGFQpDUR1CEOWlm7ugg

[Teancum]

On 9/30/2019 at 3:45 PM, smac97 said:

Have you read John Sorenson's open letter to Coe?

Coe was obviously oblivious to the text.  He makes some embarrassing gaffes that anyone with meaningful familiarity with the text (and scholarship about it) would not have made.  A sampling:

• The Jaredites “didn’t really survive terribly long.” [Part 1, 18:30]
• “They had the compass to navigate by.” [Part 1, 19:00]
• “Let’s do the coins. . . . If there were coins they would be chocolate beans. Why aren’t chocolate beans mentioned in the Book of Mormon?” [Part 1, 24:45]
• “Silk. Nothing.” [Part 1, 31:50]
• “Pig. Zero. Not one pig bone has ever shown up in pre-Columbian excavations.” [Part 1, 38:00]

To be sure, I don't really fault Coe for not investing time and effort to study The Book of Mormon.  That, in and of itself, is utterly benign.  Life is short, after all.  However, as soon as he chose to speak publicly on the subject, and to do so in fairly obvious ignorance, he opened himself up for fair criticism.

I quite understand that perspective.  But surely you can appreciate that others do find "this topic" to be interesting.

What was it you were just saying about "confirmation bias?"

Could you provide a link?

Edit to Add: I assume you are referencing this 2018 MormonStories podcast.  Correct?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes I believe that was the interview. I am basing it on memory so I could be mistaken.

 

[Teancum]

On 9/30/2019 at 4:36 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Coe was the expert on Coe, not me.  I loved reading his work so much that I was very disappointed to find him ignoring all that when he addressed the BofM.

Coe probably felt the same as you do here, and you have every right to ignore the BofM or to prejudge it in any way you like.  I have no problem with that.  What I do not abide is the hyprocrisy of pretending to do a professional evaluation and then to not deliver.  That is just blatant dishonesty.  By all means, denounce the BofM as inauthentic, but at least provide a substantive rationale -- with citations.  Is that unreasonable?

I think you may recall there was a time I believed the BoM to be the word of God and authentic and historical but I no longer do. I probably should have avoided this thread because I don't have the time, energy or interest in delving into at least this topic. My apologies for jumping in and not delivering.

[Jake Starkey]

George Q. Cannon, in the JI in 1891 stated it best: the BoM is not a history or geography book, or in words to that extent.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Meadowchik]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:45 PM, smac97 said:

Have you read John Sorenson's open letter to Coe?

Coe was obviously oblivious to the text.  He makes some embarrassing gaffes that anyone with meaningful familiarity with the text (and scholarship about it) would not have made.  A sampling:

• The Jaredites “didn’t really survive terribly long.” [Part 1, 18:30]
• “They had the compass to navigate by.” [Part 1, 19:00]
• “Let’s do the coins. . . . If there were coins they would be chocolate beans. Why aren’t chocolate beans mentioned in the Book of Mormon?” [Part 1, 24:45]
• “Silk. Nothing.” [Part 1, 31:50]
• “Pig. Zero. Not one pig bone has ever shown up in pre-Columbian excavations.” [Part 1, 38:00]

To be sure, I don't really fault Coe for not investing time and effort to study The Book of Mormon.  That, in and of itself, is utterly benign.  Life is short, after all.  However, as soon as he chose to speak publicly on the subject, and to do so in fairly obvious ignorance, he opened himself up for fair criticism.

I think that Coe need not be faulted for showing no academic interest in the current BOM geography apologetics while also standing by his scientific opinion that the BOM is not supported by archaeological research. I can also see why such a position might be frustrating for the BOM apologist, but those who are generating alternative modern theories for BOM historicity are inherently asking Coe to make non-scientific assumptions. It seems to me that Coe is going by the known provenance of the Book of Mormon and the contemporaneous historical claims of Joseph Smith. One could argue that this is the most intellectually-faithful approach: a scholar would compare Joseph Smith's claims and the BOM's information to the peoples and regions identified by Smith as being the subject of the Book of Mormon. Coe just wasn't playing the shifting goalposts approach that apologists understandably pursue. Once they do this, they leave the realm of archaeological rigor. So, barring a large body of new evidence that resurrects the plausibility of Smith's original claims, they really musn't expect non-LDS archaeologists to be interested. 

In the MS Interviews, I really appreciated Coe's emphasis on the misguided Colonial belief that the impressive artifacts of Native American civilisation must have been made by white people. This may arguably be the single biggest motivator of the entire Book of Mormon narrative. And I agree with Coe that the actual stories being uncovered by the research are already interesting enough! Atleast, it is best to allow the data to reveal history's stories the best it can instead of claiming the Book of Mormon is telling people their ancestors' histories.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you may recall there was a time I believed the BoM to be the word of God and authentic and historical but I no longer do. I probably should have avoided this thread because I don't have the time, energy or interest in delving into at least this topic. My apologies for jumping in and not delivering.

No worries.  My comments were directed at Coe, RIP.  In the big scheme of things, it really makes very little difference what you or I say or think -- as though anyone is going to notice.  

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No worries.  My comments were directed at Coe, RIP.  In the big scheme of things, it really makes very little difference what you or I say or think -- as though anyone is going to notice.  

I was hoping you would see this, too:

I think that Coe need not be faulted for showing no academic interest in the current BOM geography apologetics while also standing by his scientific opinion that the BOM is not supported by archaeological research. I can also see why such a position might be frustrating for the BOM apologist, but those who are generating alternative modern theories for BOM historicity are inherently asking Coe to make non-scientific assumptions. It seems to me that Coe is going by the known provenance of the Book of Mormon and the contemporaneous historical claims of Joseph Smith. One could argue that this is the most intellectually-faithful approach: a scholar would compare Joseph Smith's claims and the BOM's information to the peoples and regions identified by Smith as being the subject of the Book of Mormon. Coe just wasn't playing the shifting goalposts approach that apologists understandably pursue. Once they do this, they leave the realm of archaeological rigor. So, barring a large body of new evidence that resurrects the plausibility of Smith's original claims, those who want to advance alternative speculations really musn't expect non-LDS archaeologists to consider their speculations as obstacles to scientific conclusions about the BOM claims. 

In the MS Interviews, I really appreciated Coe's emphasis on the misguided Colonial belief that the impressive artifacts of Native American civilisation must have been made by white people. This may arguably be the single biggest motivator of the entire Book of Mormon narrative. And I agree with Coe that the actual stories being uncovered by the research are already interesting enough! Atleast, it is best to allow the data to reveal history's stories the best it can instead of claiming the Book of Mormon is telling people their ancestors' histories.

 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that Coe need not be faulted for showing no academic interest in the current BOM geography apologetics while also standing by his scientific opinion that the BOM is not supported by archaeological research.

I do.  I think that because I don't think Coe's opinion on the Book of Mormon was "scientific."  It was, instead, largely uninformed and facile.

As an attorney, I try to be careful not to misuse or abuse that credential to unduly bolster my opinions.  For example, I feel I can speak fairly intelligently as to legal issues arising from statutory interpretation, contracts, consumer finance disputes, torts, evidentiary issues, generalized litigation issues, and so on.  I am somewhat less confident in speaking as to the particulars of constitutional law, family law, criminal law, healthcare, and intellectual property.  I have very little to say about patent law, admiralty/maritime, immigration, or military law.

So if and when you ever see me publicly speaking about patent law, and assuring my listeners with something like "Hey, I'm a lawyer, so you can trust that this credential means I can speak intelligently about patent law, and you should therefore accept my opinion as informed and meaningful," then I hope you call me on it.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I can also see why such a position might be frustrating for the BOM apologist, but those who are generating alternative modern theories for BOM historicity are inherently asking Coe to make non-scientific assumptions.

Nobody is asking for that.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It seems to me that Coe is going by the known provenance of the Book of Mormon and the contemporaneous historical claims of Joseph Smith. One could argue that this is the most intellectually-faithful approach: a scholar would compare Joseph Smith's claims and the BOM's information to the peoples and regions identified by Smith as being the subject of the Book of Mormon. Coe just wasn't playing the shifting goalposts approach that apologists understandably pursue. Once they do this, they leave the realm of archaeological rigor. So, barring a large body of new evidence that resurrects the plausibility of Smith's original claims, they really musn't expect non-LDS archaeologists to be interested. 

There are plenty of ways scholarly rigor can be applied to The Book of Mormon without first adopting a skip-to-the-end conclusion that it is fraudulent.  Margaret Barker is a good example of this.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In the MS Interviews, I really appreciated Coe's emphasis on the misguided Colonial belief that the impressive artifacts of Native American civilisation must have been made by white people.

How does Coe's expertise in Mesoamerican issues make him an expert in speculation about "misguided Colonial belief{s}" that "must have been made by white people"?

Why should I privilege Coe's opinion on such matters, seeing as they are outside of his expertise?  And given that he demonstrated very little familiarity with the actual text of the Book of Mormon?  And given the "danger" involved in, and therefore a "bias" against, legitimate scholarly inquiry about the Book of Mormon by non-LDS scholars (see here)?

I will again quote Brant Gardner: 

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.

Do you disagree?

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This may arguably be the single biggest motivator of the entire Book of Mormon narrative.

But it's just guesswork.  And outside Coe's area of expertise.  And Coe was obviously very limited in his familiarity with the text of the Book of Mormon, and with scholarly treatment of it.

Given such considerations, why should I lend significance and meaning to Coe's opinions?  Your position seems like an Appeal to Authority fallacy (emphasis added):

Quote

The appeal to (false or irrelevant) authority is a fallacy in which a rhetor (public speaker or writer) seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous.

...

As W.L. Reese puts it in "Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion," though, "not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy." Essentially, what he means here is that although not all appeals to authority are fallacies, most are — especially by rhetors with no authority on the topic of discussion.

Thoughts?

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And I agree with Coe that the actual stories being uncovered by the research are already interesting enough!

Well, yes.  But that does not diminish the interest I have in The Book of Mormon.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

At least, it is best to allow the data to reveal history's stories the best it can instead of claiming the Book of Mormon is telling people their ancestors' histories.

Coe didn't "allow the data" to do much of anything.  He wasn't familiar with "the data" (pertaining to The Book of Mormon).

But again, The Book of Mormon is "dangerous" to scholars like Coe.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Coe chose to get involved as an interviewed 'expert', etc.  There was nothing in his career that required this (as evidenced by the vast majority of professionals who say nothing).  If he wanted to be seen as a BoM expert, he should have imo put in the effort to be one instead of relying on a very superficial understanding of what the text said. (And I think the reverse should be followed as well; any apologist who claims to be an expert in relating archaeological, etc. findings should be putting in the effort as well, I don't think believers should get a pass on superficial treatments.)

Edited October 3, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

Hello.  My name is Nephi and this is my father Lehi.  We've been told you doubt the truth of the Book of Mormon.  Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?

I wonder about what kinds of conversations people have with each other on the other side of the veil.  Who they meet.  What they see.  How they continue to learn.

I hope he is in a better place now where he can get more of his questions answered.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was hoping you would see this, too:

I think that Coe need not be faulted for showing no academic interest in the current BOM geography apologetics while also standing by his scientific opinion that the BOM is not supported by archaeological research. I can also see why such a position might be frustrating for the BOM apologist, but those who are generating alternative modern theories for BOM historicity are inherently asking Coe to make non-scientific assumptions. It seems to me that Coe is going by the known provenance of the Book of Mormon and the contemporaneous historical claims of Joseph Smith. One could argue that this is the most intellectually-faithful approach: a scholar would compare Joseph Smith's claims and the BOM's information to the peoples and regions identified by Smith as being the subject of the Book of Mormon. Coe just wasn't playing the shifting goalposts approach that apologists understandably pursue. Once they do this, they leave the realm of archaeological rigor. So, barring a large body of new evidence that resurrects the plausibility of Smith's original claims, those who want to advance alternative speculations really musn't expect non-LDS archaeologists to consider their speculations as obstacles to scientific conclusions about the BOM claims. 

I'm glad to see the admission here that the admittedly preposterous origins of the BofM justify non-LDS scholars in ignoring science in their discussions about it.  At the same time, I have no patience for those BofM apologists who likewise ignore science.  They are playing the same game Coe played in simply confirming their pre-existing bias.  Where does that get us?  It certainly doesn't advance the discussion.

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In the MS Interviews, I really appreciated Coe's emphasis on the misguided Colonial belief that the impressive artifacts of Native American civilisation must have been made by white people. This may arguably be the single biggest motivator of the entire Book of Mormon narrative. And I agree with Coe that the actual stories being uncovered by the research are already interesting enough! Atleast, it is best to allow the data to reveal history's stories the best it can instead of claiming the Book of Mormon is telling people their ancestors' histories.

Part of the problem may be the automatic assumption that Jews (Israelites) are "white people," which they are not.  That is a common misconception, and you can see it in the art of Arnold Friberg and in virtually all the depictions of Jesus Christ.

At the same time, your notion about Coe (and other anthropologists) is correct:  They love the work of uncovering the reality about ancient civilizations for their own sake alone -- such studies are worthwhile for themselves as they disclose the grandeur of ancient peoples and cultures.  Coe must have had a deep-seated fear of comparing those civilizations to those of the BofM.  His career could so easily have been destroyed by opprobrium from his colleagues.

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm glad to see the admission here that the admittedly preposterous origins of the BofM justify non-LDS scholars in ignoring science in their discussions about it.  At the same time, I have no patience for those BofM apologists who likewise ignore science.  They are playing the same game Coe played in simply confirming their pre-existing bias.  Where does that get us?  It certainly doesn't advance the discussion.

No, I didn't say Coe is ignoring science. He would be justfied to ignore unscientific assumptions. For example, he would be justified to ignore speculations of how some people think the Lamanite story might fit into current evidence. 

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Part of the problem may be the automatic assumption that Jews (Israelites) are "white people," which they are not.  That is a common misconception, and you can see it in the art of Arnold Friberg and in virtually all the depictions of Jesus Christ.

It was a prevailing belief for centuries in Colonial America. Newcomers saw the mounds and others evidence of ancient civilizations and they resisted the idea that these could have been built by the indigenous peoples they saw. The popular theory sprung up that a Lost Tribe of Israel was responsible. The Book of Mormon echoed that prevailing belief with explanations of cursed skin and wickedness, and then the church used the Book of Mormon to make claims about peoples' personal histories.

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coe must have had a deep-seated fear of comparing those civilizations to those of the BofM.  His career could so easily have been destroyed by opprobrium from his colleagues.

I don't see any indication of that in his interviews. If, for example, he had been able to examine inscribed plates, then compare them to an authentic translation, then there might be the beginnings of earnest scientific reasoning for seeking out the origins of the inscriptions and perhaps trying to match them that information to existing and emerging archaelogical data.  On the other hand, if the provenance of a translation alone has no other backing except a fantastic story, there's no reason to try to seek out a real-life match to its descriptions. And especially without any other extraordinary claims on scientific attention, like perhaps being able to predict emergent data, for example, the Book of Mormon scientifically merits nothing more than what Coe gave it. A relatively shallow look is generous enough.

The strong feelings of Mormon archaeologists and the desire to vindicate their religion are not enough to merit scientific work. From the interactions I've learned about, Michael Coe very politely and gently responded to that enthusiasm in a kind and professional manner. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I didn't say Coe is ignoring science. He would be justfied to ignore unscientific assumptions. For example, he would be justified to ignore speculations of how some people think the Lamanite story might fit into current evidence. ........................................

........................, if the provenance of a translation alone has no other backing except a fantastic story, there's no reason to try to seek out a real-life match to its descriptions. And especially without any other extraordinary claims on scientific attention, like perhaps being able to predict emergent data, for example, the Book of Mormon scientifically merits nothing more than what Coe gave it. A relatively shallow look is generous enough.

The strong feelings of Mormon archaeologists and the desire to vindicate their religion are not enough to merit scientific work. From the interactions I've learned about, Michael Coe very politely and gently responded to that enthusiasm in a kind and professional manner. 

You are here echoing everything I just said about the preposterous nature of the origins of the BofM, and the consequent reason for Coe never taking it seriously enough to use his own knowledge-base to analyze it.  I bolded your own admission of that.  That is the point I have repeatedly made.  Indeed, I am not insisting that Coe had to actually do a real, scientific analysis.  He was free not to do so, but it is unacceptable for him to try to pass off "a relatively shallow look" (as you put it) as the real thing.  That is not science, but just bias, pure and simple.

You can contrast Coe's diffident response to that of the late David Noel Freedman, the great Near Eastern scholar when discussing the Book of Mormon with me in early 1984:   https://www.quora.com/What-story-in-the-Bible-proves-the-validity-of-the-Book-of-Mormon/answer/Bob-Smith-3106.  He was not afraid to fully utilize his knowledge-base.

[doug1957]

The Tower of Babel Story.

I'm a temple recommend holding member of the Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter Day Saints and I am something of a skeptic on the Tower of Babel story. I think this is relevant to this topic because the timeline for this even is established in the Bible, not the Book of Mormon (BOM). So, relying on the Biblical timeline and applying it to the BOM sets us up for failure against modern science. I put it to you that the Tower of Babel story is 15,000 years old and was told around camp fires while roasting mammoth meat to the background sound of saber toothed tigers growling in the dark. This would explain why the same story or one that is eerily similar existed in the New World when Columbus arrived.