DiscussMormonism.com

How does everyone feel about New World Research into the Book of Mormon. Personally I have not been very fond of it as it seems so speculative and I much more prefer sticking to correlating 1st and 2nd Nephi with Old World Geography/Theology.

What do you think?

Praiseworthy if done for the benefit of improving our knowledge in that area, but if only to be done to support the Book of Mormon's position...then don't expect too much fruit from the effort.

“In conclusion, an outside observer like myself would make these suggestions. Forget the so-far fruitless quest for the Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful: there is no more chance of finding them than of discovering the ruins of the bottomless pit described in the book of Revelations. It has been Hugh Nibley himself, the Mormon philosopher and historian, who has pointed out the futility of such endeavors (An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957). Continue the praiseworthy excavations in Mexico, remembering that little or nothing pertaining to the Book of Mormon will ever result from them…”
*Coe, Michael, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," (Volume 8, Number 2, Summer 1973): p. 48

Michael Coe's 1973 opinion was published quite a long while before John Sorenson's work appeared, roughly around the time that John Clark graduated from high school, several years before even the humble beginnings of FARMS, etc.

It's thirty-four years old. It may or may not have reflected good information then; it's certainly not the definitive latest word now.

Then, Daniel Peterson responded with this:

Michael Coe's 1973 opinion was published quite a long while before John Sorenson's work appeared, roughly around the time that John Clark graduated from high school, several years before even the humble beginnings of FARMS, etc.

It's thirty-four years old. It may or may not have reflected good information then; it's certainly not the definitive latest word now.

Mainstream archaeologists have scoffed at the church's long and, for the most part, discreet involvement with Mesoamerican archaeology calling the Mormon theories patently absurd, procedurally flawed, even racist. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and the National Geographic Society have been so besieged with inquiries from enthusiastic Mormons over the years that both institutions have had to issue formal disclaimers stating that the Book of Mormon is not a historical text, and that no evidence points to the existence of a Jewish civilization in ancient America. Perhaps the most outspoken critic of Mormon archaeology has been Yale University's Michael D. Coe, one of the world's preeminent scholars of the Olmec and the Maya. The author of the best-selling book Breaking the Maya Code, Coe says there's not "a whit of evidence that the Nephites ever existed. The whole enterprise is complete rot, root and branch. It's so racist it hurts. It fits right into the nineteenth-century American idea that only a white man could have built cities and temples, that American Indians didn't have the brains or the wherewithal to create their own civilization."'

With Sorenson's elastic style of argumentation setting the overall tone, there is about FARMS a dizzying buzz of intellectual energy, with scholars investigating every imaginable cranny of inquiry, from hermeneutics to meteorology, from animal husbandry to the prevailing currents of the oceans. Yale's Michael Coe likes to talk about what he calls "the fallacyof misplaced concreteness," the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics (like tapirs and nuptial beds) while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse," and that all the archaeology in the world is not likely to change the fact that horses as we know them weren't around until the Spaniards arrived on American shores.

"They're always going after the nitty-gritty things," Coe told me. "Let's look at this specific hill. Let's look at that specific tree. It's exhausting to follow all these mind-numbing leads. It keeps the focus off the fact that it's all in the service of a completely phony history. Where are the languages? Where are the cities? Where are the artifacts? Look here, they'll say. Here's an elephant. Well, that's fine, but elephants were wiped out in the New World around 8,000 B.C. by hunters. There were no elephants!"

Yale's Michael Coe worked with Gareth Lowe and other NWAF scholars in the fifties, sixties, and seventies, and says he has "nothing but absolute admiration" for their work. "They did the first really long-term, large-scale work on the preclassic in Mesoamerica, and they published it all. And by and large, their Mormonism never came through. Occasionally they'd get these dopes out of Utah who'd arrive with metal detectors and earphones and march around their sites trying to find the plates of gold. But the foundation's scholars always made sure they got on the plane and went back home. What's amazing is that they were able to do this kind of scholarship within the context of what is essentially a totalitarian organization. There isn't much of a difference between the old Red Square and Temple Square. But as in the Soviet Union, even given the terrible theoretical framework that they had to operate under, the foundation managed to do excellent work in spite of it."

beastie wrote:Gramps,

Here is a link to a 1999 article called "This is NOT the Place" that cites Coe's comments about the Book of Mormon, which have not changed.

*Coe's 1999 remarks*

Mainstream archaeologists have scoffed at the church's long and, for the most part, discreet involvement with Mesoamerican archaeology calling the Mormon theories patently absurd, procedurally flawed, even racist. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and the National Geographic Society have been so besieged with inquiries from enthusiastic Mormons over the years that both institutions have had to issue formal disclaimers stating that the Book of Mormon is not a historical text, and that no evidence points to the existence of a Jewish civilization in ancient America. Perhaps the most outspoken critic of Mormon archaeology has been Yale University's Michael D. Coe, one of the world's preeminent scholars of the Olmec and the Maya. The author of the best-selling book Breaking the Maya Code, Coe says there's not "a whit of evidence that the Nephites ever existed. The whole enterprise is complete rot, root and branch. It's so racist it hurts. It fits right into the nineteenth-century American idea that only a white man could have built cities and temples, that American Indians didn't have the brains or the wherewithal to create their own civilization."'

Later in the article he makes a statement that, in my opinion, clearly shows he is aware of the current trend in Book of Mormon apologetics:

With Sorenson's elastic style of argumentation setting the overall tone, there is about FARMS a dizzying buzz of intellectual energy, with scholars investigating every imaginable cranny of inquiry, from hermeneutics to meteorology, from animal husbandry to the prevailing currents of the oceans. Yale's Michael Coe likes to talk about what he calls "the fallacyof misplaced concreteness," the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics (like tapirs and nuptial beds) while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse," and that all the archaeology in the world is not likely to change the fact that horses as we know them weren't around until the Spaniards arrived on American shores.

"They're always going after the nitty-gritty things," Coe told me. "Let's look at this specific hill. Let's look at that specific tree. It's exhausting to follow all these mind-numbing leads. It keeps the focus off the fact that it's all in the service of a completely phony history. Where are the languages? Where are the cities? Where are the artifacts? Look here, they'll say. Here's an elephant. Well, that's fine, but elephants were wiped out in the New World around 8,000 B.C. by hunters. There were no elephants!"

But he continues to compliment Mormon archaeologists on the "real" work they do:

Yale's Michael Coe worked with Gareth Lowe and other NWAF scholars in the fifties, sixties, and seventies, and says he has "nothing but absolute admiration" for their work. "They did the first really long-term, large-scale work on the preclassic in Mesoamerica, and they published it all. And by and large, their Mormonism never came through. Occasionally they'd get these dopes out of Utah who'd arrive with metal detectors and earphones and march around their sites trying to find the plates of gold. But the foundation's scholars always made sure they got on the plane and went back home. What's amazing is that they were able to do this kind of scholarship within the context of what is essentially a totalitarian organization. There isn't much of a difference between the old Red Square and Temple Square. But as in the Soviet Union, even given the terrible theoretical framework that they had to operate under, the foundation managed to do excellent work in spite of it."

In short, there is zero support for Peterson's oft repeated assertion that Coe's earlier statement can be disregarded because he hasn't kept current with new Book of Mormon apologetics.

Once again, a plug for my essays that demonstrate that, even if one accepts LGT there remain fundamental problems that, short of a revolutionary alteration of just about everything known about Mesoamerica, disqualify Mesoamerica as the setting for the Book of Mormon.

*BoMinMeso*

DCP wrote:

gitxsanartist wrote:We are First Nations, we were here for many millenia even before the supposed occurances of the Book of Mormon. Our many languages and dialects demonstrate the antiquity of our societies. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon account does not reconcile with any of this.

Some of us think otherwise.

And, for example, on the matter of DNA (which you mention), there are some very fine geneticists who think otherwise.

DCP wrote:Oh well. Idiots all, I suppose.

My personal judgment -- and I'm not alone on this -- is that the evidentiary status of the Book of Mormon has improved considerably since Michael Coe's article was published thirty-four years ago, in general and with respect to Mesoamerica in particular. Whether or not Coe's mind has changed on the matter (or whether he pays significant attention to Book of Mormon studies, which I have no reason to believe that he does) is irrelevant to the state of the question.

beastie wrote:What amuses me about this is that I know DCP is familiar with Coe's later reaffirmation and comments that reveal he is familiar with the current apologia, because I was the one who exposed him to it. I remember the thread clearly because DCP wondered about the nuptial bed reference.

I suppose it's possible his mind helpfully deleted the information. I'll go ahead and assume that, knowing the power of confirmation bias, so I don't have to assume he is being deliberately misleading.

beastie wrote:...since I can no longer sign in as a MAD member and use the search function.