DiscussMormonism.com

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1880

In this Mormon Stories podcast from Yale Professor who was raised a believer discusses the archeology of the Book of Mormon as a highly credible non-Mormon academic.

In another tread, our friend Simon Belmont claims that Mormonism has not been proven false.

When I heard this podcast, featuring an interview of Professor Michael Coe by John Dehlin, who is Mormon, I thought of Simon and the many others on this board who claim that Mormonism has not been proven false because they chose not to expose themselves to all of the research that shows that it is.

This is a very entertaining interview with a Harvard graduate and a 35 year Yale professor who has decades of experience in Central America as an active archeologist. He reflects very well the view of professional archeologists and states with a great deal of certainty, that the Book of Mormon cannot and does not have any basis in fact - whatsoever.

Simon, please listen to this podcast (all three parts) and then come tell me that the Book of Mormon is what Mormon Church claims.

Was Michael Coe raised as a believing Mormon?

I'll admit that I've never heard that before.

Other than that, though, I doubt that there's much new in this podcast. ((I'll listen to it, but haven't done so yet.) Professor Coe's view of the Book of Mormon has been on public record for decades. He's been to BYU to lecture on several occasions, and people here know him pretty well.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Was Michael Coe raised as a believing Mormon?

I'll admit that I've never heard that before.

Other than that, though, I doubt that there's much new in this podcast. ((I'll listen to it, but haven't done so yet.) Professor Coe's view of the Book of Mormon has been on public record for decades. He's been to BYU to lecture on several occasions, and people here know him pretty well.

Dr. Peterson,

Michael Coe was raised as a believing Episcopalian. I used the term "believer" to distinguish him from a non-believer, which of course (as any good academician who takes the time to think about religion) he is now.

As you describe, Coe mentions in the podcast his great respect and even fondness for some of the academics at BYU.

I encourage you to listen to the podcast, if for no other reason than for the fact that you are mentioned by name.

Oh, and one other reason: Prof. Coe cites physical evidence for his statements about Book of Mormon archeology- something that Mormons cannot do.

Think about that, Dr. Peterson. Would it not be great to be able to cite physical evidence for your position on the Book of Mormon?

Would it not be wonderful if real scientists, using generally accepted scientific methodology, agreed with truth claims made by and about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham?

You might also enjoy the fact that Michael Coe thinks Joseph Smith was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived - and says so more than once during the podcast.

And as an added incentive to listen to the very end, there is a rendition of "Come Come Ye Saints" (a favorite song from my childhood) that made even an arrogant dogmatic atheist like me tear up.

Now, that you shouldn't miss.

DrW wrote:In another tread, our friend Simon Belmont claims that Mormonism has not been proven false.

When I heard this podcast, featuring an interview of Professor Michael Coe by John Dehlin, who is Mormon, I thought of Simon and the many others on this board who claim that Mormonism has not been proven false because they chose not to expose themselves to all of the research that shows that it is.

Mormonism has not been proven false.
Hinduism has not been proven false.
Islam has not been proven false.
Science has not been proven false.

Of course, the exact opposite of each of these statements work the same way.

So, when you claim (as you repeatedly do) that Mormonism is "demonstrably false" but have never and will never demonstrate it to be false, you are being intellectually dishonest.

When you make the absurd assertion that anyone who is a true scientist or critical thinker would never accept the claims of Mormonism, you are making a severe logical error and again being intellectually dishonest.

It isn't a matter of exposure. I have exposed myself to innumerable materials from both sides, and every time I study the "C" history (to borrow a term from Dr. Peterson), I can see God's hand in this marvelous work.

In fact, DrW, I would be willing to bet that I am more well read on critical material than you are.

Simon, please listen to this podcast (all three parts) and then come tell me that the Book of Mormon is what Mormon Church claims.

The Book of Mormon is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims it is. You can find out, too, DrW.

Simon Belmont wrote:

DrW wrote:In another tread, our friend Simon Belmont claims that Mormonism has not been proven false.

When I heard this podcast, featuring an interview of Professor Michael Coe by John Dehlin, who is Mormon, I thought of Simon and the many others on this board who claim that Mormonism has not been proven false because they chose not to expose themselves to all of the research that shows that it is.

Mormonism has not been proven false.
Hinduism has not been proven false.
Islam has not been proven false.
Science has not been proven false.

Of course, the exact opposite of each of these statements work the same way.

So, when you claim (as you repeatedly do) that Mormonism is "demonstrably false" but have never and will never demonstrate it to be false, you are being intellectually dishonest.

When you make the absurd assertion that anyone who is a true scientist or critical thinker would never accept the claims of Mormonism, you are making a severe logical error and again being intellectually dishonest.

It isn't a matter of exposure. I have exposed myself to innumerable materials from both sides, and every time I study the "C" history (to borrow a term from Dr. Peterson), I can see God's hand in this marvelous work.

In fact, DrW, I would be willing to bet that I am more well read on critical material than you are.

Simon, please listen to this podcast (all three parts) and then come tell me that the Book of Mormon is what Mormon Church claims.

The Book of Mormon is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims it is. You can find out, too, DrW.

Simon,

Take your fingers out of your ears.

Quit singing "La La La La La", and listen to the podcast.

One individual on it is a Mormon and the other, as Dr. Peterson has stated, is a friendly guy who likes Mormons. He has great credentials as a Mayan archeologist and can tell you what the facts are.

After you have listened, I would be happy to hear your thoughts and even discuss them with you.
_____________

ETA:

The amount of "critical" material one reads is clearly beside the point. What matters is how much "credible" (factual) material one reads and whether one has the background in the basics to process and understand the meaning and implications of said credible (factual) material

DrW wrote:a non-believer, which of course (as any good academician who takes the time to think about religion) he is now.

LOL.

This is the kind of "no true Scotsman" silliness that keeps me from altogether giving up the notion that you're a satirically-minded believer engaged in a moderately clever campaign to make atheists look ridiculous.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

DrW wrote:a non-believer, which of course (as any good academician who takes the time to think about religion) he is now.

LOL.

This is the kind of "no true Scotsman" silliness that keeps me from altogether giving up the notion that you're a satirically-minded believer engaged in a moderately clever campaign to make atheists look ridiculous.

Dr. Peterson,

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

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.

Rather than speculate about who I am*, 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?

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".

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).

Perhaps you didn't notice that Prof. Coe essentially named you as a colleague in the podcast. (Certainly you have taken the time to listen to it by 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.
____________________________________________________

* 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.

Coe contributes to the variety of fields that produce doubt about any literalistic/simplistic/orthodox belief in the Book of Mormon (or the Bible). I found the interview to be worthwhile, and another illustration of how fragile a testimony can be. If my TBM family members found this podcast they would be on their way down the rabbit hole and I wouldn't know how to help them. At some point these types of issues should be addressed in an official fashion. I feel like an environmentalist talking to "skeptics" about climate change (it's beyond my intellectual ability). A crisis of faith can occur (literally) by typing the word Mormon into iTunes (at least the FAIR cast went up recently, but that doesn't seem sufficient).

deafdumbdone wrote:Coe contributes to the variety of fields that produce doubt about any literalistic/simplistic/orthodox belief in the Book of Mormon (or the Bible). I found the interview to be worthwhile, and another illustration of how fragile a testimony can be. If my TBM family members found this podcast they would be on their way down the rabbit hole and I wouldn't know how to help them. At some point these types of issues should be addressed in an official fashion. I feel like an environmentalist talking to "skeptics" about climate change (it's above my intellectual ability).

Exactly on point. Glad you listened to the podcast. Far from not having the intellectual ability, if you paid attention to what Prof. Coe said, I would venture to say that you now know more about real Book of Mormon archeology than do many LDS apologists.

Just a quick question, if I may:

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".

This is the shelf where TBMs place all of the things they come across about Mormonism that don't make any sense and can't be adequately explained by Church leaders (who have essentially quit trying) or apologists (who are willing to try but usually make things worse).

Once this shelf falls under the weight of all the recognized nonsense, the shelf owner can graduate to full NOM status, or leave the Church completely.

How is your shelf doing?

Mine caved in during college. As a BIC, it took me another decade to get up the courage to leave the Church. I look upon this as one of my significant accomplishments in life.

DrW wrote: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.