Horses and Chariots -

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

These citations are quite typical and representative of what I've read, and demonstrate how integral . . .

Which is why you keep reading. It does not represent the Chamula method, or a couple others that are recorded for Mesoamerica. It represents the general, but not the whole.

Still, if you are interested in how that Mesoamerican quadripartite concept fits into the basic geographic region that Sorenson proposes, see Larry Poulsen's geography. Larry places the action in virtually the same areas, but sees the correlation to directions differently. One of the reasons is that Sorenson "translates" to the more modern + style, while Poulsen uses the more Mesoamerican X style (and notes that the "corners" are related to solstices and not the square into which it is later regularized in artistic representations).

[beastie]

Which is why you keep reading. It does not represent the Chamula method, or a couple others that are recorded for Mesoamerica. It represents the general, but not the whole.

Still, if you are interested in how that Mesoamerican quadripartite concept fits into the basic geographic region that Sorenson proposes, see Larry Poulsen's geography. Larry places the action in virtually the same areas, but sees the correlation to directions differently. One of the reasons is that Sorenson "translates" to the more modern + style, while Poulsen uses the more Mesoamerican X style (and notes that the "corners" are related to solstices and not the square into which it is later regularized in artistic representations).

I've never been particularly interested in the directionality problem. The only reason I responded was due to Greg's criticism, which I still think is exaggerated - I don't recall Matheny stating directionality "had" to be a certain way, but rather, she was listing the problems associated with Sorenson's theory.

I haven't been interested in it because I don't see how it could be proven or disproven. If a small group of elites kept records in a different language, then I suppose they could also use a different formula for directions, based on the mother country, so to speak, even if they didn't use it in a common, daily basis.

I'm far more interested in other issues, but I do keep an eye out for statements related to it, and will continue to.

[Dan Vogel]

Beastie,

I have not read the specific sources Sorenson cites. If I had the time and money I would love to hunt down every single one of his references, because I don't trust him to report them accurately. Just on my own, untrained, investigation, I discovered two of his most important metallurgy references were fatally flawed. There are others who have uncovered problems with other references.

It doesn

[grego]

beastie wrote:

Just as today, there were disparate opinions on the authorship of the Bom during his time period. Some thought the text was so poorly written that he HAD to write it, because it had to be written by someone without any education or training. Others thought there was likely another author involved. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, as to the complexity of the BoM and the ability of JS.

Disagree, and plentiful evidence so contrary to this opinion. Time to hit the books...

I think that JS' later achievements, learning, and writings, demonstrate his native intelligence and capacity to learn. His family was concerned about education, he was in the debate club. For me, this is satisfactory evidence that he most likely did have the ability to write the text himself. He did not have to write the text within a couple of months, as believers say. He had four years to work on it.

Native intelligence? Not great. Capacity to learn? Tremendous. Evidence that he could have done it? No. You're putting on a very young man, what 50 year-old PhD's with 30 years can't do! Is this another version of that "savant bumpkin" argument again?

I do not think the section of the BoM that deals with the New World requires any particular training or education, other than exposure to common ideas of the time period. I am not familiar enough, or interested in, the hebraic side of the equation to make a judgment on that part.

Still, I believe the other posts answer this.

But the BoM certainly echoes many of the views he had been supporting long before the arrival of the BoM...

One of the main reasons many of the early converts listened and were converted, was because of this.

beastie wrote:

But am I interested enough to study this seriously? No. Nor do I think it really matters who wrote the BoM. The only thing that matters is whether divine intervention is logically required to explain its existence. That is why the mesoamerican side of the equation is far more interesting to me, because there was very little known about mesoamerican history during JS' period (although misconceptions were rampant). If JS were truly to make direct "hits" with mesoamerican history, it would be a compelling case for divine intervention. So far, the hits I see are either hopelessly generic or based on an interpretation of the BoM text that I simply cannot agree with.

I see clearly from your posts that the only things you ARE interested in, are things that you feel most easily prove the BoM false. I see some flip-flopping between "everyone knew" vs. "all mysterious"; "anyone could have made the direct hits" vs. "If JS were truly to make direct 'hits' with mesoamerican history, it would be a compelling case for divine intervention...hopelessly generic or based on an interpretation of the BoM text that I simply cannot agree with".

Which makes one ask, would there be anything that could be interpeted that you could agree with? So, straight-up--if they find horses, or wheeled chariots--you will believe in the "divine intervention", is that correct?

Granted, I also would have a very hard time accepting everything Sorenson said at face value, too, and it would be nice if others would be as thorough in checking and debating the sources.

[Greg Smith]

I do wish she would have analyzed all his [sorenson's] sources.  I've seen several of his sources turn up to be highly problematic, to put it kindly.

This was my point--she doesn't do this, at least in the areas I have here reviewed. QED.

Sometime, I'll have to sit down and compare her head-to-head with Sorenson in a table form, so people can have a quick view of what she addresses and what she doesn't, and where Sorenson gets it wrong or incomplete.

Here's what she says, from the page you cited:

The most fundamental geographical problem associated with Sorenson's model has to do with issues of directionality.

Yes, I believe I quoted it correctly in my last bit. I apologize for going from memory the first time. Mea culpa.

Now, I ask you:  what is the fundamental difference - a difference so large that you are ready to dismiss Matheny's work as unworthy of publication - between these two statements?

I didn't say it was unworthy of publication. That was, I believe, Dan Vogel's question as to whether I thought it was worth publishing.

You asked for examples of her not engaging Sorenson's evidence, which I provided. We seem to agree now that in the directionality example, at the very least, she did not.

As for whether it should have been published--I don't think it added a great deal to the debate, but it is certainly a darn sight better than some of the things that have come out of Signature. (Palmer's "Golden Pot" nonsense springs to mind, or the rather blasphemous and mean-spirited paraodies of hymns considered sacred by me and others authored by Paul Toscano.) On the other hand, more useful things have come, like Wilford Woodruff's journals, and the biography of him that I read about 10 years ago and keep meaning to re-read.

Whether something is worth publishing is, of course, up to the publisher who is spending time, money, and ink on the process, and who may have his/her own ideologic goals to foster.

You appear to have her essay in front of you.  Please provide the specific quote from her article that says "how directions must be".

I had this phrase in mind. (I put "must" in quotes not meaning citation, but intending to imply a sort of 'quasi' state. That was probably confusing; I should have used italics or single quotes. Mea culpa x 2. )

They [prononents of Sorenson's model] must argue that the directionality system is not what the plain meaning of the terms would suggest because otherwise the model will not work. This does not seem to be sufficient cause to assume the existence of a different system among the Nephites. [278]

She thinks "north, south, east, west" must "plainly" mean modern, Western cardinal directions. But, as I argued elsewhere, would she make the same assumption about "months"? If I read "month" in an ancient document, do I automatically presume 30, 31, 28, or 29 day periods with no rhyme or reason tot hem? Or, do I ask first what the options are for that time period? (Were they solar months? Lunar? Some other artificial construct? Were there more than one type of month?)

She verges here, actually, on understanding why her treatment up to this point in the article has been inadequate, but misses the implication.

To explain what I mean, consider: elsewhere, she writes--

None of those who argue in favor of Sorenson's model have shown any evidence from the Book of Mormon account suggesting that anything other than a standard traditional interpretation of the direction system is called for. [278]

Yet, this is exactly why you need to address how Sorenson forms his model, because that's part of his evidence. How so?

She writes two pages later:

One of the strengths of Hauck's geography is that it does not require elaborate explanations about a Nephite directional system.

So, Hauck assumes a modern "cardinality" directional system. But, look at the evaluation of Hauck's system:

John E. Clark, a Mesoamericanist, has provided one of the most interesting and careful reviews of the Sorenson and Hauck geographies. Based on his own internal model of Book of Mormon geography which he developed to evaluate real life geographical models, Clark lists ten crucial features of Nephite geography which can be used as criteria for evaluating any proposed real-world geographical correlations such as those proposed by Hauck and Sorenson (1989, 67-69)...Clark notes that Hauck's model fails to meet nine of these criteria, and whether it meets  the tenth is unknown. In contrast Sorenson's [p.281] geography passes the test "with flying colors." However, Clark never addresses the problem of directionality in regard to Sorenson's model. [280-281]

This illustrates quite nicely my point as to why Sorenson's process of model formation must be engaged in order to have the most coherent critique of his ideas. These ideas cannot all be considered separately--size of geography independent of orientation, independent of location, etc.

Hauck attempted a model, which reportedly fails on a great number of criteria despite adhering to the "plain sense" of the directions.

Sorenson presents a different model that is extremely consistent with real-world geography and with the text's "internal cartography"--with the proviso that the directionality is not that which "moderns" might presume.

Thus, as I keep insisting, the "case" for Sorenson's directions is tied up in how he builds his model; consistency with the text and the real world requires caution in assuming cardinality, which would seem to be ample justification for at least considering the idea, especially if he is RIGHT when he says that indigenous cultures used, say, a quadrant-type system. (Which is not engaged either, sadly.)

But, by bypassing Sorenson's reason for model formation, she then misses some of the evidence which Sorenson would probably insist is key for evaluating his model. No wonder she thinks none is provided, since she hasn't really addressed that which is part of it!

She is, as I keep saying, free to ignore or gloss that part, but then we shouldn't be surprised when she doesn't find Sorenson as compelling on other matters. The model must be seen, I would think, as an inter-related whole (and, this would be one of its strengths if accurate).

================

[snip your citations, thanks]

These citations are quite typical and representative of what I've read, and demonstrate how integral the cardinal (or near cardinal) directions were in mesoamerica.  Yes, it is true that the solstice was important, as well, but that doesn't alter the above fact.

That may be. And, I'm not arguing that Sorenson must be right. I am simply supporting my assertion that this is an instance in which she does not treat the data he presents, which is what you requested. Mission accomplished.

You criticize her for saying the skewed Nephite diretionality came from the Near East.  (IIRC, I think that's in your follow up post, I'll check to make sure I'm correct in my memory when I'm done here), which makes no sense to me.  Of course this altered diretionality was a remnant of something from their mother culture. 

It just seems a bit of a presumption that it must be from the Near Eastern culture. If one buys Sorenson's model of a small group being subsumed into others, and when one appreciates the fact that the vast majority of the directional stuff mentioned occurs when over half the record is done, and often under the editorial hand of Mormon (who is 1000 years after Lehi, roughly) I see no reason to assume that it must have been Near Eastern at all. It may have been, but this again would require demonstration from the text, and not mere assertion.

As I said, I've lived in real-world situations where everyone "knows" what true north, east, etc. are, and yet for descriptions of the area in which I lived, people deviated from those rules and called substantial deviations from the standard compass points "north, east, west, etc." And, they didn't explain this to people (including hapless newcomers like me!), but simply presumed it when they spoke:

Note highway "25." The river is considered "south." So, head toward the river, and you are going 'south', even though the true direction is obviously anything from southwest to south to southeast. And so one gets told to go "east" on highway 25, when in fact one is headed (eventually) more north than east as one drives toward the upper-right corner of the screen.

(You can here see some directions coming 'east' and 'west' to an area in Montreal-Est (which is actually in the Northeast corner of the island):

Montreal-Est Golf Course

This geographic "model" probably requires more "skew" than Sorenson's model, and it's modern and there are no other typical directions known for the strange North American tribe that lives there, unlike Mesoamerica.

Yet, it is used all the time because it is convenient, and because using a traditional grid on the island would be a royal pain in the tuckus. (Plus, I suspect it is to deceive the unwary anglos....)

So I do think it would be problematic for a group that was supposedly immediately culturally subsumed within the pre-existing population to the point that their existence is not detectable in any way, to not adhere to the diretionality system that was such a fundamental part of the world view of the pre-existing others, the others who, btw, must have constituted the majority of the "Nephites", from the beginning on.

Well, the very point under debate would seem to be exactly what the pre-existing "others" might have used for directions, and how that would have been used/adopted/adapted by the putative Nephites.

You have some quotes which assert "cardinality," and Sorenson has a bunch to assert that cardinality was not the rule by any means.

Having some groups use cardinality would not seem to threaten Sorenson's model terribly; all he needs is at least a few examples of them using other methods. But, even one exception calls into question the presumption that our 21st century "plain meaning" must be what was intended.

[Of course, if one presumes 19th century origin, then the debate is over before it begins.]

As for the temple orientation--I would suspect that temples would be oriented toward the sun at the proper equinox, or whatever symbolic point was chosen. In other words, I don't think they had to be whatever the Mormon et al decided to call "east." They had to be pointed to the proper point. Whatever they named that point (or whether they had a name at all) would be immaterial.

In writing about it, we might well talk about "east" (meaning our east, not Nephite concept of east) because that's more efficient than saying "toward the rising sun on the vernal equinox," or whatever it is.

But nowhere in the text does it say anything about this at all. So, I think efforts to tie discussions of probably/possible Nephite temple orientations to the east and how the Nephites would have used terms like "east" are confusing apples and oranges, and speculation anyway.

Is Sorenson wrong or distoriting his sources? Maybe. That's why a review by an expert would be useful. But, she fumbled the opportunity to do so.

Kind regards,

Greg

[poulsenll]

Granted, I also would have a very hard time accepting everything Sorenson said at face value, too, and it would be nice if others would be as thorough in checking and debating the sources.

I had the same feeling after reading Clark's review of Hauck's book and so over a period of some 20 years have carefully studied the text of the BoM for geographic information as well as spiritual confirmation. One of the things I carefully examined was the possibility of alternate readings of the text when talking about geography rather than accept Sorenson's or traditional readings. I particularly searched for ways of understanding what the text said in relation to other references to geography. I also studied the works and writings of numerous non LDS pre-columbian historians, anthropologists and archeologists. Working at the University of Texas at Austin, I have access to one of the largest collections of Mesoamerican literature outsde of Mexico and Central America. My background as a research scientist and reviewer for peer reviewed journals makes me skepticlal of those who depend on citations from books that have no references and particularly ones to second hand information such as someones recollection of Brigham Young's talk about what he remembeed hearing fom Oliver Cowdery about the location of the hill containing all the records except the plates from which the BoM was translated. Over time, I developed my own conclusions about the geography and location of the Book of Mormon cultures. Although I agree with much of what Sorenson says, I do not agree with his concept of the use of directional terms in the BoM nor to his identificatin of the east and west seas. Based on the BoM text and a study of original documents related to the Mesoameican view of the land in which they lived I have come to the conclusion that the BoM culture used a system of directions similar but not necessarily identical to that used by Mesoamericans since the time of the Olmecs up to at least shortly after the Spanish conquest. This was a system based on sunrise as east and all other directions relative to the sun and not to the oceans.

Larry P

[Dale]

On the issue of horses & chariots they Book of Mormon the text may be read as referring to real horses, and chariots. Just trying to understand in summary form where the discussion of horses & chariots led us as far as interpreting the text.

[Addictio]

Thanks much for your comments, Larry P.

Is your analysis of directionality in the BoM (and/or the specific Mesoamerican location you propose for BoM events) available anywhere, in book/article form, or on the net? (Anyone else know?)

Also, in your view, if you are correct about directionality (east refers to the direction the sun rises, west to where it sets, and so on) how much of a problem do you believe this create for Sorenson's proposed Mesoamerican locations for the Jaredites and Lehites? Would it follow that his model needs to be rejected or completely replaced, or do you think it can merely be adjusted in some way to resolve the directionality problem?

[poulsenll]

Is your analysis of directionality in the BoM (and/or the specific Mesoamerican location you propose for BoM events) available anywhere, in book/article form, or on the net? (Anyone else know?)

Also, in your view, if you are correct about directionality (east refers to the direction the sun rises, west to where it sets, and so on) how much of a problem do you believe this create for Sorenson's proposed Mesoamerican locations for the Jaredites and Lehites?  Would it follow that his model needs to be rejected or completely replaced, or do you think it can merely be adjusted in some way to resolve the directionality problem?

In his last post Brant Gardner was refering to my web page and model.

I agree with Sorenson's model with respect to the location of Zarahemla and some of the surrounding area. However, his choice of the Gulf of Mexico as the east sea is the result of his skewing of the directions and does not jibe with his location of the narrow strip of wilderness which according to Mormon's description in Alma runs from the west sea to the east sea. I personally would not reject his model completely but it does need some modification to get a better fit to the real mesoamerican geography. I had the advantage of the availability of computer generated 3D geography which has only been availaqble in recent years.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

Greg Smith:

Note highway "25." The river is considered "south." So, head toward the river, and you are going 'south', even though the true direction is obviously anything from southwest to south to southeast.

You are describing a ground-based directional concept. This is, in fact, what most people use. The "real" orientation is available, but we regularize it to the land around us. When you move farther back in time to pre-map conventions, there wasn't much that oriented one's world except the local surroundings. The precision expected of ancient texts and orientation is much more the result of modern assumptions than an accurate description of what happens on the ground.

Of course ancient astronomers understood directions. I suspect, however, that even a modern astronomer in Montreal would use the ground-based directionals you describe.

[Analytics]

Greg Smith:

Note highway "25." The river is considered "south." So, head toward the river, and you are going 'south', even though the true direction is obviously anything from southwest to south to southeast.

You are describing a ground-based directional concept. This is, in fact, what most people use. The "real" orientation is available, but we regularize it to the land around us. When you move farther back in time to pre-map conventions, there wasn't much that oriented one's world except the local surroundings. The precision expected of ancient texts and orientation is much more the result of modern assumptions than an accurate description of what happens on the ground.

Of course ancient astronomers understood directions. I suspect, however, that even a modern astronomer in Montreal would use the ground-based directionals you describe.

If we went back to Israel 600 B.C., was anybody familiar enough with "real" orientation to distinguish, say, "nearly" a south-southeast direction from a true south-south east direction?

[beastie]

I see clearly from your posts that the only things you ARE interested in, are things that you feel most easily prove the BoM false. I see some flip-flopping between "everyone knew" vs. "all mysterious"; "anyone could have made the direct hits" vs. "If JS were truly to make direct 'hits' with mesoamerican history, it would be a compelling case for divine intervention...hopelessly generic or based on an interpretation of the BoM text that I simply cannot agree with".

No, I am most interested in things I think are possible to gather enough evidence to build a case of logical likelihood. When conversations are about JS' "native intelligence" and people make statements, as you did, differentiating that from the "ability to learn" (as if his later well demonstrated ability to learn does NOT demonstrate high native intelligence...), it's clear to me this is too murky of an area to be productive. I feel the same way about whether or not JS was the sole author. If he did have help, it was very well hidden, deliberately, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to build a persuasive case - persuasive enough to convince most critics, I mean.

So I focus on things that can, with enough study, be demonstrated to a much higher degree of likelihood.

Sorry, another busy day ahead, don't have much time for this this week.

Oh, and btw, I'm not interested in proving the BoM "False". Even if a very persuasive case can be made against the historicity of the BoM, a good argument can be made that it could be viewed as an example pseudographia. There are already portions of the Bible that most scholars view as pseudographic, yet they are accepted by millions as inspired scripture.

[Greg Smith]

Over time, I developed my own conclusions about the geography and location of the Book of Mormon cultures. Although I agree with much of what Sorenson says, I do not agree with his concept of the use of directional terms in the BoM nor to his identificatin of the east and west seas.

I too find Larry's model the most persuasive I've seen. His use of the quadrant system in a X formation places the north quadrant in the "north,"--no skewing required.

I like Sorenson for his work on the internal geography ("Mormon's Map" probably the best succinct summary.)

If I teach in Church, I tend to rely on that sort of a model, since it relies only on the text without asserting a physical location.

But, for personal use, I'm very hooked on Larry's site.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Chozah]

Over time, I developed my own conclusions about the geography and location of the Book of Mormon cultures. Although I agree with much of what Sorenson says, I do not agree with his concept of the use of directional terms in the BoM nor to his identificatin of the east and west seas.

I too find Larry's model the most persuasive I've seen. His use of the quadrant system in a X formation places the north quadrant in the "north,"--no skewing required.

I like Sorenson for his work on the internal geography ("Mormon's Map" probably the best succinct summary.)

If I teach in Church, I tend to rely on that sort of a model, since it relies only on the text without asserting a physical location.

But, for personal use, I'm very hooked on Larry's site.

Kind regards,

Greg

I confess ignorance about "Larry" and his ideas on this.

Could you enlighten me? I'm sincerely interested.

[Dan Vogel]

Beastie,

Just as today, there were disparate opinions on the authorship of the Bom during his time period. Some thought the text was so poorly written that he HAD to write it, because it had to be written by someone without any education or training. Others thought there was likely another author involved. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, as to the complexity of the BoM and the ability of JS.

The truth is somewhere in between. The BOM is not as complex as made out by apologists who create the complexity, then insist that it is intentionally in the text. Most of the time the complexity is not objectively there, but is interpretive. On the other hand, JS was not as dumb as the apologists try to say. His later writings, including his revelations, compare favorably with the BOM.

However, none of that matters, because it is quite irrelevant. It

[Dan Vogel]

Greg Smith,

Sorenson

[William the Conqueror]

Greg Smith,

Sorenson

[William the Conqueror]

Archon,

If Bob McCue cannot post anymore on FAIR then I hope you will maintain this thread on the Archives Section so that I can read it when I have time. In my view Bob McCue may very well be a genius.

[Greg Smith]

Dan Vogel:

Sorenson

[beastie]

Proving ahistoricity would only prove it was not an ancient document. It doesn't mean that Joseph wrote it. The question would still be Sidney? Spaulding? Joseph? Some other unindicted co-conspirator?

I've never understood why BoM defenders seem to think it is necessary for critics to "prove" in some way, exactly who authored the BoM and how.

I agree with Dan - it's irrelevant. If the BoM can reasonably be shown to NOT be a document from the specified time periods, then someone in the nineteenth century wrote it. Why does it matter who?

BTW, the directionality was an very small part of Matheny's essay. So far you criticized her for not spending time presenting arguments for the LGT in general, which I think is really a petty complaint, given that she built her entire essay around LGT claims.

Second, you criticize her for not dealing more aggressively with the directionality issue.

So far, you have covered about three pages out of a 50+ page essay. One of those two complaints is petty and baseless. The other has a tad more substance, but still not enough to present a convincing argument that Matheny's essay was shallow and didn't really deal with Sorenson's claims. Do you have anything else?

[grego]

Dan Vogel wrote:

The truth is somewhere in between. The BOM is not as complex as made out by apologists who create the complexity, then insist that it is intentionally in the text. Most of the time the complexity is not objectively there, but is interpretive. On the other hand, JS was not as dumb as the apologists try to say. His later writings, including his revelations, compare favorably with the BOM.

However, none of that matters, because it is quite irrelevant. It

[Greg Smith]

Proving ahistoricity would only prove it was not an ancient document. It doesn't mean that Joseph wrote it. The question would still be Sidney? Spaulding? Joseph? Some other unindicted co-conspirator?

I've never understood why BoM defenders seem to think it is necessary for critics to "prove" in some way, exactly who authored the BoM and how.

I agree with Dan - it's irrelevant. If the BoM can reasonably be shown to NOT be a document from the specified time periods, then someone in the nineteenth century wrote it. Why does it matter who?

It depends from what perspective one approaches the matter. From a strictly religious point of view, I don't personally believe it does matter. (But, Signature Books and Dialogue, for example, have provided numerous articles arguing that such things really DON'T matter, and that it can still be 'inspired fiction' and the basis for a religious tradition.)

I'm merely pointing out that you can't presume that Joseph wrote it if it's proven to be ahistorical. I don't think Joseph is a viable candidate in either case.

Why do we insist someone should be able to tell us who wrote it? Well, there's the nagging fact of the Book's existence. It has to be explained somehow. We've gone from "Joseph did it," to "Joseph's too ill-informed to have done it" to "Sidney Rigdon and/or Solomon Spaulding did it," to "Ethan Smith did it (sort of)" to "Joseph did it but in epileptic fits," to "Joseph did it, but he meant well."

Joseph's account of how it came to be is the only consistent feature of all this; everything else is a moving target.

BTW, the directionality was an very small part of Matheny's essay.

[beastie]

Shoe Fits: Discussion of metallurgy from 283-292ish (goes into swords at this point) No quote to give here, since she doesn't treat Sorenson's claim that earlier metal usage is strongly implied by the linguistic evidence--unless I missed it.

She may have presumed too much background knowledge in her audience, because it is very well known that ancient Mesoamericans worked with native metal outcrops since the Olmec period - making little iron mirrors, for example, that were used in religious ceremonies. The linguistic evidence to which sorenson refers has to do with the words for native metals like this, and has nothing to do with the type of advanced metallurgy described and implied in the BoM.

I do think it is misleading for Sorenson to use the linguistic evidence for "metal", ie, iron, to support his cause for early advanced metallurgy, so it wouldn't have been a bad idea to add that criticism.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Sorenson's rebuttal to Matheny? Did he specifically address the issues she raised?

edit on - I don't have time right now to address any other of your specific issues, but I have already noticed this - you seem to expect that Matheny address every single point Sorenson raised in his book. Is this a realistic expectation for an essay, or is it realistic that, instead, she address the more significant aspects of his claims?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

I've never understood why BoM defenders seem to think it is necessary for critics to "prove" in some way, exactly who authored the BoM and how.

I agree with Dan - it's irrelevant. If the BoM can reasonably be shown to NOT be a document from the specified time periods, then someone in the nineteenth century wrote it. Why does it matter who?

Obviously, it matters quite a bit to Dan Vogel who wrote the Book of Mormon - or he wouldn't have devoted so much print to trying to show that it was Joseph Smith. Further, Dan's interpretive approach to the Book of Mormon essentially requires that Joseph Smith was the author. After all, it really doesn't matter if there were similarities between Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream and Lehi's dream if Joseph Smith wasn't the author.

However, it should be quite obvious to everyone (Vogel included) that evidence supporting an authorship by Solomon Spaulding is evidence against an authorship by Joseph Smith. The fact that Vogel is not interested at all in defending his claims against other competing (and exclusive) claims of modern authorship says something, I think, about the purpose of the argument. This isn't about proof, mind you, but about defending your premises against other competing theories.

It suggests to me, of course, that Dan is really less interested in proving Joseph Smith as the author than he is in proving that the text is not ancient. So, he has no real urgency in attacking other theories which promote modern authorship. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak. The challenge in your thinking, Beastie, is that I have yet to see an argument against historicty by Dan, or anyone else, that doesn't deal with issues of modern authorship - with interpretrations of text based on who are possible candidates for authorship. Much of Dan Vogel's argument simply disappears if we start with an assumption that Joseph Smith was not the author. Dan's psychohistory doesn't work with a different author. And from this perspective, I think it is quite reasonable to ask Dan why he doesn't try and defend himself from competing claims, and I think we deserve more than a simple expression of a lack of interest.

Ben

[Greg Smith]

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Sorenson's rebuttal to Matheny?  Did he specifically address the issues she raised?

I haven't read it through in quite a while (though in my first reply on this issue I grabbed a few paragarphs, so I've skimmed the intro a bit in the last couple of days on my FOLIO program).

There were, as I recall, at least a few areas where she seems to have missed data that he pointed to in his reply--her long digression on whether obsidians swords were available for the Nephites, for example, would seem a bit moot if Sorenson is right that there are OLMEC era obsidian blades on stelae.

I also found it interesting that she didn't calibrate the radiocarbon dates in her article's chronology as is standard practice, with 95% confidence intervals and the like. This looks sloppy at least.

I'd have to read his rebuttal again. But, I get the impression that anything I say is going to be met with "but you're being unreasonable to expect her to deal with THAT..."

====

but I have already noticed this - you seem to expect that Matheny address every single point Sorenson raised in his book.

I don't expect this at all. After all, Sorenson spends a great deal of time talking about correlates of cultural development in the approximate time frame, etc., which Matheny doesn't address at all. Ditto seasonal warfare patterns elswhere.

But, if you're gonnna have a section on "plants," then it seems to me that you darn well better respond to what Sorenson says about "plants." You don't get to just say, "there were no old world plants in various archaelogical digs" as if that even began to address his position.

If you're going to talk about directionality, then it seems to me you ought to actually respond to what Sorenson says, and not caricature his argument.

And so on and so forth.

There are, of course, other issues with her article aside from this. I could make comments, for example, on her seeming unfamiliarity with the Book of Mormon text at key points. She presumes, for example, that the text says that Jaredites had steel swords throughout their entire time period, when it does not. (Shades of the supposed New World olive tree!)

More often than not, the critics do not seem to have a very thorough knowledge of the Book of Mormon text, and they get tripped up on this sort of thing. They need either better editing or better peer reviewing.

You asked for examples of her not engaging his evidence. I've given them.

You're free to consider those as trivial or whatever. But, we ought to at least ask--is this REALLY the best response out there on this issue? Ouch, anyway you slice it.

Are there places where she does address his evidence? Yes--the "tent" example is a good treatment, I think; but then in Sorenson's reply he provides examples (not in Ancient American Setting that I know of) of how Mesoamericans did in fact make things (like woven grass mats) which they carried with them to serve as military shelters. This would seem to negate her claim that the "tents" must be anachrnoistic because one doesn't take brush structures along on campaign!

That's a good example of how this should work--she responds to what he says, and then he can come along and say, "Well, yes, but there's also THIS here, which addresses your concern."

As I said, I think she highlights the areas "of concern." But, we already knew those, by and large.

And, as I said, I've only cited the stuff from a quick skim of Ancient American Setting. This doesn't include other FARMS or Ensign stuff which Sorenson produced, or what other participants in the limited model effort she's critiquing have written (the Warfare in the Book of Mormon book is also very relevant, both for articles by Sorenson and others), etc.

Is this a realistic expectation for an essay, model which she is critiquing.

Oh, I think that's part of the problem. She doesn't seem to betray a wholistic awareness of the whole range of the debate. She seems to think she can assert and defend the proposition that the model shoe "doesn't fit" in a few pages.

To attempt to effectively "critique" the theory in such a short space, when it has been spelled out over hundreds of pages of books and articles by a variety of authors is problematic. (In my experience, it is pretty axiomatic that any thorough critique of a position is going to be longer, in general, than the material in the original to which one is responding; e.g. if Sorenson takes 5 pages on plants, it might take 10 pages to reply. I suppose obvious errors or howlers would be the exception--eg rebutting the long "Shoe Fits" discussion on whether the obsidian sword was available in the Nephite period doesn't take much time if the OLMEC already had such swords.)

But, doing a 'short' job on it, as she decides to do, ought to then focus very tightly on a few areas and deal with the evidence brought up in those areas. But, in several, she doesn't. She mentions some areas superficially, breezes by aspects that Sorenson seems to think important for his model, and then we're to take this as 'definitive'?

She also neglects to mention anything positive about the model, which I think ought to be part of any responsible critique of assessing the 'state of the art' of a theory. No theory in real life will ever explain all data; it will be a better or worse fit in various areas. Sometimes excellent "fit" in some areas will outweigh a perceived "problem" in another. This might be especially true in issues where "absence of evidence" is the predominant problem.

(Again, had she picked a different venue and/or different publisher, that sort of thing might have been more in evidence, I suspect.)

But, if one really wants to get into the pros/cons of the issue, I think the debate has moved BEYOND Sorenson's 1985 volume and her proferred rebuttal. It's 20 years later, after all. I think Poulsen's directional scheme is simpler, more elegent, and seems to match Book of Mormon clues better than Sorenson's.

I've provided examples of her ignoring what he says; if those don't persuade you of how I can see it that way, then I suspect we just won't read this issue alike.

Maybe I'll sit down and do some sort of tabular approach. That would be a long project, though, but might be useful. "Shoe Fits" is at least a good guide for what critics/secularists might see as the main problems. Links or refs could then be provided to how well those issues have (or haven't) been addressed by Sorenson and those who came after.

At the very least, you've persuaded me that this might be useful for everyone, regardless of which side of the issue they fall on.

Kind regards,

Greg