Yale Academic Looks at Book of Mormon Archeology

[_Simon Belmont]

I am quoting this for posterity and for the sake of the many people who lurk here, especially those who are "on the fence" or "waffling" or "halting between two opinions." Please go listen to the 3-hour podcast with Professor Coe. Then come back and read this response from ldsfaq. Then ask yourself: who has the evidence on his side? Who sounds rational? Who relies on repeated observations of disinterested persons? Who makes the most sense? Who cites facts? If this were a court of law and your heard arguments and assessed the evidence from the two sides, and had to render a verdict, how would you rule? Is it even close? Is this even a contest? Is there any doubt to speak of?

Then read all of these articles and ask yourselves the same questions:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... cat_id=279

[_Equality]

I am quoting this for posterity and for the sake of the many people who lurk here, especially those who are "on the fence" or "waffling" or "halting between two opinions." Please go listen to the 3-hour podcast with Professor Coe. Then come back and read this response from ldsfaq. Then ask yourself: who has the evidence on his side? Who sounds rational? Who relies on repeated observations of disinterested persons? Who makes the most sense? Who cites facts? If this were a court of law and your heard arguments and assessed the evidence from the two sides, and had to render a verdict, how would you rule? Is it even close? Is this even a contest? Is there any doubt to speak of?

Then read all of these articles and ask yourselves the same questions:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... cat_id=279

Indeed. I have no problem with that. Trust me, my book shelf is weighed down with FARMS materials, including one book that was given to me by Jack Welch himself (charitable fellow, he is). I encourage people to read the best the apologists have to offer and also read the critical stuff. Funny thing about that, though, it's not reciprocal. The church tells its members not to read critical stuff but stick to the church-correlated curriculum and approved sources.

[_harmony]

Coe's malarkey is a good 30 years, and way more common anti-mormon chestnuts OLD.....

He's a joke when it comes to modern LDS scholarship. Plus, he clearly never even knew it back when he was half alive, but he especially doesn't now.

He understands and deals with nothing related to Mormonism, and yet he's somehow an "expert" on commenting on how Mormonism relates to Archeology??? Please.

This is like those stupid Christian anti-mormon videos on either the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham which pulls out "experts" who know NOTHING about LDS scholarship and materials, people who are only experts in their fields, but know nothing about how LDS materials relate.

That's bearing false witness at it's core.... tisk tisk... :(

You didn't listen to the podcast, did you?

[_DrW]

Coe's malarkey is a good 30 years, and way more common anti-mormon chestnuts OLD.....

He's a joke when it comes to modern LDS scholarship. Plus, he clearly never even knew it back when he was half alive, but he especially doesn't now.

He understands and deals with nothing related to Mormonism, and yet he's somehow an "expert" on commenting on how Mormonism relates to Archeology??? Please.

This is like those stupid Christian anti-mormon videos on either the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham which pulls out "experts" who know NOTHING about LDS scholarship and materials, people who are only experts in their fields, but know nothing about how LDS materials relate.

That's bearing false witness at it's core.... tisk tisk... :(

ldsfaqs,

Here are a set of instructions you can use to redeem yourself after such a post:

1. Listen to the podcast (as Harmony has suggested).

2. As Equality has suggested, consider what you have heard in the light of what is religious fantasy and what is scientific fact (provided you can tell the difference).

3. Once you have done the above, please demonstrate that what Prof Coe said in the podcast was, in any way, malarkey by refuting (any of ) his statements with documented facts (published research findings, etc.) That is, show with credible physical evidence that he was factually incorrect in his statements.

Until you do the above, well, you just look silly. And I mean really silly.