Yale Academic Looks at Book of Mormon Archeology

[_Themis]

Something resembling inoculation for the hard issues

I think inoculation is a good idea. What it really means is that the church starts being more honest with it's history. The church went down the dishonest path long before the internet becuase they knew at that time they could successfully hide it's history from most members(hide not meaning cannot be found for some of the dimmer apologists). If they started being more honest today they would lose more members in the short term, and have a major shift in beliefs for much of the active population. In the end the church would eventually become a place for people like Coe who can disbelieve the religious claims while still be a part of the religious community.

[_DrW]

What do you believe would constitute "help" for your TBM family once they headed "down the rabbit hole?" What do you think any apologist could say that would save them from the trip or at least help keep a few more heavy items off of their respective "*shelves of pure faith", shelves of doubt, or simply "their shelf".

Something resembling inoculation for the hard issues (this wouldn't have to be comprehensive and massively detailed). I would just like the church to change the manuals and conference talks, (and everything else, seminary, etc) to reflect a more nuanced and human view of prophets, leadership, and authority. This should be done in such a way that the average member (i.e. doesn't like to read history) comes away with that reality based viewpoint.

They seem to have made the decision to pass this responsibility to non-official sources so that when individuals have their crisis of faith they hopefully will stumble onto apologetic websites. As everyone knows, the variety of sources pro/con/in-between is growing by the day. It seems to me that the younger members are almost certain to find a website or a podcast that could cause them to question everything at some point in their lives.

If those members of my family come to that bridge of doubt and decide to leave the church, that's okay. But I know how difficult/painful/complicated the process was for me to navigate on my own, and I wish they weren't building their lives on a foundation that can be shaken with such little effort using google.

"Inoculation" and "nuance" are term that are used a lot more today with regard to the "Gospel" than they were when I was growing up. They seem to be code for "spin" and, well "spin". The problem is that in order to be effectively spun, the statements or assertions at issue need to have at least some element of truth - very hard to come by with much that is LDS.

It is very interesting that you cite apologist websites as among the "high risk" destinations on the internet for TBMs. I agree. Why do you think this is the case?

Anyway, I understand your concern about the trauma and damage to families that can result from open acknowledgement of the lies and misrepresentations that are all too common in Mormonism.

Getting back to the Coe podcast, I noted that he commented on this problem. He described how he could leave the Episcopalian faith and keep his family and most of his friends and social and support group intact. Even as an outsider, he was able to accurately describe why this is seldom possible for Mormons.

I see this as one of the tragedies of being "BIC". Even the fundamentalist Amish allow their youth to have a time where they are encouraged to experience life (through "Rumspringa") and then make an informed decision as to whether they wish to to continue in the faith.

Mormon kids get no such chance. When they reach 18, instead of a Rumspringa-like experience, they are sent off on missions where they are used as unpaid door to door salesmen for the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints.

My heart goes out to these kids when I see them out on a hot day in Florida or struggling up a hill in Seattle on their bikes in the rain. my wife and I used to have them over for meals once a month or so. But even this small kindness is now discouraged by the Church.

[_Simon Belmont]

Dr. Peterson,

Not only do you quote the dead, now you are quoting Simon Belmont.

Simon Belmont was and is spot on in regards to the landslide of illogicality which frequently leaves your keyboard. For such an accomplished person, it disturbs me that you aren't able to see it (or, perhaps you are, but insist on "playing dumb"). It makes me wonder how many of the world's scientists, doctors, chemists, physicians, physicists, etc. are unable to grasp such concepts. It makes me wonder: in whose hands do we place our intellectual destiny?

* I have disclosed a great deal of information about myself on this board, and even went so far as to provide the esteemed Dr. Scratch with the Google references to confirm what I have said.

(Of course, I am not as widely known on the internet as you are -42,300 hits to 35,800 hits -. But then, unlike the case for LDS apologists, public attention is not a measure of how well I do my job.)

Dr. Scratch was kind enough to to confirm my identity and background, and say so on this board. When you continue to speculate that I am other than I claim, you are essentially calling both Dr. Scratch and me liars. It was my understanding that this was not to be allowed here in the CK forum.

It baffles me that you consider an anonymous member of a message board "esteemed", and see fit to grant this anonymous member information about your real life. Yet Dr. Peterson, who is not anonymous, does not get the same courtesy. So, while I cannot say whether you or Scratch told or are telling the truth, I will say that many choose not to trust anonymous members of message boards (and, rightly so). For the record, DrW, I don't know or care who you are. I do care that you use illogical means to attack or discredit my faith. You seem like a nice person, but you are severely misguided when it comes to Mormonism.

[_DrW]

It baffles me that you consider an anonymous member of a message board "esteemed", and see fit to grant this anonymous member information about your real life. Yet Dr. Peterson, who is not anonymous, does not get the same courtesy. So, while I cannot say whether you or Scratch told or are telling the truth, I will say that many choose not to trust anonymous members of message boards (and, rightly so). For the record, DrW, I don't know or care who you are. I do care that you use illogical means to attack or discredit my faith. You seem like a nice person, but you are severely misguided when it comes to Mormonism.

Simon,

Like the esteemed Dr. Peterson, you continue to "float like a butterfly" but utterly fail to "sting like a bee".

Now, instead of claiming, without evidence, that I fail to use logic, why not simply listen to the subject podcast and then come back and refute with evidence anything that Prof. Coe said about the Mesoamerican archeology and the very near zero probability of the Book of Mormon being as claimed by the LDS Church.

For that matter, why not simply refute with evidence any statement of fact that I have made regarding the false foundational claims of the LDS Church on this board.

Simon, I get it that you do not agree with me and do not think that I should be "persecuting" the Church. However, in reality, I am only stating facts. This should be great for you if you have the truth on your side. You need only refute my statements with evidence.

The fact that you have not done so (an in all likelihood cannot do so) should tell you something.

[_Daniel Peterson]

now you are quoting Simon Belmont.

Actually, I'm not.

You continually offer up the same textbook illustration of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I don't need to quote Simon Belmont to notice that.

True to form, you have offered an yet another irrelevant opinion as a response rather than engaging the substantive and public repudiation of the Book of Mormon made by a well known and respected academic with the credentials to do so.

I haven't yet listened to Professor Coe's comments.

But what particular purpose would it serve for me to respond to him here? He's a specialist in Mesoamerica; I'm not. It's not as if many here are inclined to credit anything I say.

Rather than speculate about who I am*,

I have a pretty good idea who you are.

I was making a joke. Your dogmatic "no true Scotsman" nonsense is, or ought to be, embarrassing to you. There are actual substantive arguments to be made on both sides of the theistic divide, but "no real academic takes religion seriously" isn't among them.

why not simply tell us why you think that Prof. Coe is wrong in his assessment of the probability (essentially zero) that the Book of Mormon relates a history of a people (any people) who came here from the Middle East on boats starting about 2500 BCE?

There are LDS specialists in Mesoamerica who have written on this very topic, and there's more to come.

I'm perfectly willing to let them make their case regarding Pre-Columbian America.

I myself have already published a fair amount on things that I find persuasive, and there's more to come.

Prof. Coe reflected the view of the professional (Mesoamerican) archeology community when he stated that, based on the evidence, that the probability (there is that pesky word again) that the Book of Mormon being is as claimed by the LSD Church is "as close to zero as one can get".

Professor Coe's opinion about the Book of Mormon has been publicly available for at least thirty-eight years.

As I commented earlier, I doubt that there's much in his podcast that we haven't already known for a very long time.

My friend John Clark -- an eminent Mesoamerican archaeologist in his own right (albeit a brain-dead Mormon) -- routinely and good-naturedly challenges Mike Coe to baptism whenever they meet. So far, though, Professor Coe has declined the invitation.

And, as to my statement about real academics and religious belief, please note (as I have pointed out in the past) that among the top scientists in the US, those whose job it is to discover, assess and evaluate the physical evidence related to our understanding of the the Earth, its life, and the larger universe, only 7% profess any belief in a creator God (and you can safely bet that even that small minority have their doubts).

You seriously misunderestimate me if you expect me to genuflect before an opinion poll.

Perhaps you didn't notice that Prof. Coe essentially named you as a colleague in the podcast.

I didn't.

(Certainly you have taken the time to listen to it by now.)

I have not.

I've scarcely been home or in one place for the past two weeks. I won't be home today, either. Or tonight. Or tomorrow night. Or the next night.

I'm exceptionally busy right now.

As one esteemed as learned in Book of Mormon archeology, surely you can counter with evidence at least one or two of Prof. Coe'e stated reasons as to why the Book of Mormon is a pure fabrication.

Perhaps so.

I have disclosed a great deal of information about myself on this board, and even went so far as to provide the esteemed Dr. Scratch with the Google references to confirm what I have said.

Who esteems Scratch? Have you polled the membership of the National Academy of Sciences about him?

(Of course, I am not as widely known on the internet as you are -42,300 hits to 35,800 hits -. But then, unlike the case for LDS apologists, public attention is not a measure of how well I do my job.)

You must work for the perfect dream company if its success or failure with the public is completely irrelevant to your continued employment with it.

Perhaps I misunderstood: Are you a government employee?

That was a joke. I have a pretty good idea who you are and what the name of your company is.

Dr. Scratch was kind enough to to confirm my identity and background, and say so on this board. When you continue to speculate that I am other than I claim, you are essentially calling both Dr. Scratch and me liars. It was my understanding that this was not to be allowed here in the CK forum.

You may well be possessed of peerless intellect and unparalleled rationality -- who am I to doubt your probably-too-modest self-description? -- but you plainly have little sense of humor.

[Guest]

Dr. Peterson said:

You must work for the perfect dream company if its success or failure with the public is completely irrelevant to your continued employment with it.

Perhaps I misunderstood: Are you a government employee?

Now that thar's funny. (Even for one like me, who you claim does not have a sense of humor, that's funny.)

[_DrW]

Dr. Peterson,

Your latest was one of you more engaging replies. In it you avoided any substantive response to the issues at hand yet again, but it was entertaining to read.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

[_Kevin Graham]

But what particular purpose would it serve for me to respond to him here? He's a specialist in Mesoamerica; I'm not. It's not as if many here are inclined to credit anything I say.

It's not as if you're inclined to credit anything Coe has to say about the Book of Mormon. He's a biased anti-Mormon. Isn't that the standard apologetic response to credentialed critics? Having a Yale education only means something if you're LDS and your last name is Gee.

[_Themis]

It's not as if you're inclined to credit anything Coe has to say about the Book of Mormon. He's a biased anti-Mormon. Isn't that the standard apologetic response to credentialed critics? Having a Yale education only means something if you're LDS and your last name is Gee.

I think this podcast is definitely dangerous for your average member to listen to. He certainly does not come across as anti, but very LDS friendly. He like many of us are not critics of church, but critical of some claims we think the evidence does not support.

[_truth dancer]

Let's see if I am a prophetess.

Within my lifetime, I believe we will see the Book of Mormon move from being understood by TBMs as a true account of real people, to a nice inspired story to teach us some lessons.

There will come a time when apologists claim the Book of Mormon was never intended to be taken as historical or factual, and any suggestion of such is a tactic used by critics to harm the LDS church.

These podcasts are a must listen.

~td~