Several commenters (whose comments I have not posted due to the “Rules of Engagement”) have taken me to task for not addressing whatever topic they think I should be addressing according to their time table.
I suppose I need to remind them that this is my blog. And, believe it or not, I have a life outside this blog. In fact, I’m working on all sorts of projects which I actually find more interesting. So I limit the amount of time I spend blogging.
During years of debating the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I’ve found that the real problems have to do with assumptions, presupposition, methodologies, and epistemological questions. Until we can achieve common ground on those issues, debating the specific implications of a particular inscription is pointless. So far, professor Jenkins and I have not arrived at that common ground; far from it. It has been difficult to convince him even that ancient Book of Mormon studies is field of study, and that the evidence should be examined with an open mind. He stubbornly refuses to take seriously either ancient Book of Mormon studies as a field, or the scholars who engage in it. If we can’t arrive at at least a working agreement on that, how can we hope to have a fruitful discussion of the evidentiary significance of Preclassic Mesoamerican pottery?
So, if you want to hear what I have to say on some of these topics, you’ll just have to wait. There are a number of issues that have to be worked through before we can get to actually engaging the evidentiary questions.