DiscussMormonism.com

I have read from both apologists and critics of the church about the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The critics say science has clearly determined that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate citing no evidence of things mentioned in Book of Mormon like horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc.

However apologists claim that non-Mormon scientists ignore evidence that would tend to support the Book of Mormon. Since they already know there weren't horses and chariots in the New World, they don't look for them, etc.

However, we must consider the case of Michael Coe. He is a non-Mormon anthropologist who has studied Mormonism, has read the Book of Mormon, has examined the archeological sites in Mesoamerica that were being studied by Mormons in an attempt to try to find scientific evidence to support the Book of Mormon.

Dr. Coe is certainly not an anti-Mormon. He has many Mormon friends and colleagues, is still invited to speak at BYU and praises the church in many ways. However, as Dr. Coe is an expert in Mesoamerican archeology (where apologists say the Book of Mormon took place), he is very candid in accessing the claims of the apologists.

Dr. Coe was asked to write his first article on Mormon archeology in 1973 by Dialogue Magazine. In the article he states:

"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere."

In the 4 decades after that, he continued to investigate the Book of Mormon claims and is that much further convinced that the Book of Mormon is sheer fiction based on all the archeological, anthropological and linguistic evidence that conflicts with the Book of Mormon.

Dr. Coe did a fascinating 3-part podcast interview with John Dehlin for mormonstories. In this interview, Coe discusses the challenges facing Mormon archaeologists attempting to prove the historical truth of their central scripture and his own views on Joseph Smith. This is the best, most persuasive podcast on Mormonism I have ever listened to. Every believer should listen to this podcast before accepting any of the apologist’s claims regarding the plausibility of the Book of Mormon being a historically correct book. Podcasts available here: http://mormonstories.org/?p=1880

LDS truthseeker,

Thanks for the link on this.

Just a couple of things.

I had always thought that horses were here before Europe came around. Here is a comment from the tar pits people.

"On February 18, 2009, George C. Page Museum formally announced the 2006 discovery of 16 fossil deposits which had been removed from the ground during the construction of an underground parking garage for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art next to the tar pits.[9] Among the finds are remains of a saber-toothed cat, six dire wolves, bison, horses, a giant ground sloth, turtles, snails, clams, millipedes, fish, gophers, and an American lion.[9][10] Also discovered is a near-intact mammoth skeleton, nicknamed Zed; the only pieces missing are a rear leg, a vertebra and the top of his skull, which was shaved off by construction equipment in preparation to build the parking structure.[10][11][12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits

So just who is telling the truth?

Franktalk wrote:Just a couple of things.

I had always thought that horses were here before Europe came around. Here is a comment from the tar pits people.

"On February 18, 2009, George C. Page Museum formally announced the 2006 discovery of 16 fossil deposits which had been removed from the ground during the construction of an underground parking garage for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art next to the tar pits.[9] Among the finds are remains of a saber-toothed cat, six dire wolves, bison, horses, a giant ground sloth, turtles, snails, clams, millipedes, fish, gophers, and an American lion.[9][10] Also discovered is a near-intact mammoth skeleton, nicknamed Zed; the only pieces missing are a rear leg, a vertebra and the top of his skull, which was shaved off by construction equipment in preparation to build the parking structure.[10][11][12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits

So just who is telling the truth?

The rest of the story: Evolution of the horse. Read the portions on Pleistocene extinctions and Return to the Americas.

The critics say science has clearly determined that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate citing no evidence of things mentioned in Book of Mormon like horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc

Anyone who muses no evidence as evidence is not a scientist. But it is not unreasonable for a scientist to merely state that nthere is no evidence which I think many non scientists confuse with a conclusion of fact.

bcspace wrote:Anyone who muses no evidence as evidence is not a scientist. But it is not unreasonable for a scientist to merely state that nthere is no evidence which I think many non scientists confuse with a conclusion of fact.

BC, if you have a credible argument, you’ll make it on this thread, which is devoted to that very topic. Please give your feedback on the paper.

Michael Coe's interview and the statements in it have been well debunked in a thread or two over at MA&DB.....

Coe's judgments are well over 30 years out of date.... and simply the common anti-mormon hashing. He clearly isn't as familiar with Mormonism as you claim.

Anyway, find the threads in question since you all care so much..... He's been well debunked.

This video ALONE debunks Coe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bgHHm_Ubc

ldsfaqs wrote:Michael Coe's interview and the statements in it have been well debunked in a thread or two over at MA&DB.....

Coe's judgments are well over 30 years out of date.... and simply the common anti-mormon hashing. He clearly isn't as familiar with Mormonism as you claim.

Anyway, find the threads in question since you all care so much..... He's been well debunked.

This video ALONE debunks Coe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bgHHm_Ubc

Did you actually watch that video? Please explain how it debunks Coe.

ldsfaqs wrote:Michael Coe's interview and the statements in it have been well debunked in a thread or two over at MA&DB.....

Coe's judgments are well over 30 years out of date.... and simply the common anti-mormon hashing. He clearly isn't as familiar with Mormonism as you claim.

Anyway, find the threads in question since you all care so much..... He's been well debunked.

This video ALONE debunks Coe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bgHHm_Ubc

Can you tell my why this video proves the Book of Mormon to be true?

When you look at the list being shown, it contains things like,

spears
large cities
fortifications
thrones

All of these are probable elements in any past society - the existence of them in any particular location does not prove a BoM-given society.

A couple of the items on the list are downright curious for being included -

narrow neck
east and west seas

How do relatively common geographical features - including one that can be loosely defined in any way that suits one's fancy ('narrow neck' - what constitutes narrow? How many miles? Can Italy qualify?) be used to claim the existence of any particular society?

I'd be much more moved to trust the claims of the Book of Mormon and recent efforts of many LDS to, for example, place Book of Mormon peoples in MesoAmerican (MA) settings (for lack of finding or agreeing upon a suitable North American alternative) if the following could be reconciled -

- Why is there no tangible physical MesoAmerican link to the Book of Mormon, or vice versa?

- Why is the 'temple' link between Book of Mormon society and ancient Middle East sites inaccurately manipulated? Temples in MA are claimed to resemble Nephite temples as some claim (2 Nephi 5:16; Jacob 1:17; Mosiah 1:18; Alma 10:2; 3 Nephi 11:1, see http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#temples). Yet, MA temples do not match Solomon's temple as the claims state. Additionally, comparisons have been being drawn to the wrong time periods in addition to not being supportable by comparison visuals (no archeological evidence of Solomon's temple exists, so contemporary sketches based upon author descriptions vary and cannot be verified, giving modern-day writers a broad canvas upon which to paint 'similarities'.)

- Why do claims of 'cement' found in MA fail to give the difference between 'plaster'-effect finishes as is seen in MA versus 'cement' as a building material as interpreted in the Book of Mormon (again, references are circular within LDS sources only and do not fully explain the difference)?

- Why did the Spaniards find no evidence of a Christian religion, preferring to destroy the MA peoples and their civilization based partly on claims of their idolatry?

- Why does no written record of any MA society or civilization confirm a Christian or Book of Mormon religious outlook (noting that the single 'White God' anecdote is from one weak source, recirculates strictly through circular LDS academic sources/footnotes and does not correlate to the timeline of Quetzalcoatl as is claimed)?

- Why does no written record of any MA society confirm any of the historical figures, times, or reigns of Book of Mormon leaders and Kings, or vice-versa? (Nephites survived until 400 AD according to the Book of Mormon, well past the 'pre-classic' period of Maya civilization which is often given as the preferred Book of Mormon comparative MA period, still no extant evidence exists for a Book of Mormon perspective amidst plenty of existing pre-classic architecture and evidence).

- Why does no written record of any MA society confirm social or agricultural practices as described in the Book of Mormon, or vice versa?

- Why does no written record of any MA society definitively confirm Book of Mormon geography, terrain, plant or animal life, or vice versa?

- Why do all MA systems of time measurement (calendars, year-keeping and notation) completely differ with the Book of Mormon (noting the weak attempt at 400-year periods as the only thing that can begin to approach this, but is still substantially off)?

- Why do all MA systems of writing completely differ from Book of Mormon assumptions, style and structure? ('Reformed Egyptian' bears no resemblance to Egyptian or MA languages, but looks a lot like a bastardized English character set, per the Anthon 'Caractors' (sic) collection)

It would seem that when these sorts of questions can be answered - as opposed to putting things like 'east and west seas' or 'narrow neck (of land) on the list - then a much more convincing argument in favor of a MesoAmerican-BoM peoples link can be made, let alone any other location or scenario.

bcspace wrote:

The critics say science has clearly determined that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate citing no evidence of things mentioned in Book of Mormon like horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc

Anyone who muses no evidence as evidence is not a scientist. But it is not unreasonable for a scientist to merely state that nthere is no evidence which I think many non scientists confuse with a conclusion of fact.

Clearly you are not a scientist, since they actually do use absence of evidence as evidence of absence. There is a thread on this from Stak. This has been brought up before so I wonder why you want to keep saying something so clearly incorrect. Extinctions of animals is a classical example of this. Maybe this is why you want to fight it so badly since this is how we know the horse went extinct from the Americas long before Book of Mormon times.