New evidence that Joseph Smith taught a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM

[livy111us]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=805

In discussing the Sept and Oct 1842 Times and Seasons, which explains in detail The Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica, new evidence shows that this was Joseph Smith who wrote these articles:

I have recently had the privilege of working with statistician Paul Fields and several of his associates on several projects involving the Book of Mormon. These projects deal with authorship attribution for a number of texts of interest to Latter-day Saints. Authorship attribution attempts to identify the author of a text based on writing style. Using quantitative measures to describe an author's writing style is technically called stylometry but is commonly referred to as wordprint analysis. The premise behind these studies is that an author has a unique style of writing and that his or her written work can be identified if a stylistic "fingerprint" is discernible in a document. One area of interest is the authorship of the Times and Seasons articles on the Book of Mormon that appeared in 1842. Because of the many pressures that Joseph Smith was under during 1842, my assumption has been that the unsigned articles of 15 September and 1 October 1842 were written by John Taylor.140 Professor Fields and I are preparing a detailed treatment of our research that will be published by the Maxwell Institute.

One mathematical tool used in a stylometric investigation is discriminant analysis. This technique finds a linear combination of features that "discriminates" among items in known classes, just as plants or animals are categorized into species based on distinguishing features. The discriminant function provides a formula that quantifiably characterizes items in known groups so that a new item of unknown group membership can be classified into the proper groups based on its features. In authorship attribution, noncontextual words are the features used to describe writing style. Noncontextual words do not convey the author's message, but they are the function words an author uses to construct his or her message. Examples of noncontextual words are and, but, however, on, the, upon. Interestingly, the frequency with which an author uses such words distinctively characterizes his or her writing style and can reveal the author's identity in comparison to other authors.

To investigate the probable authorship of the three small, unsigned editorials in the Times and Seasons that referred to "Zarahemla," we put them into one 1,000-word block so there would be sufficient data to measure word frequencies. Next we took texts from Joseph Smith's signed editorials, the editorials signed "Ed" or "Editor(s)," and the unsigned editorials appearing in the Times and Seasons from April through October 1842. These were segmented into thirty-six 1,000-word blocks to correspond in size with the "Zarahemla" text.

We also took writing samples from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, who were the only two other possible contributors to the editorials. We selected texts that were as close to the editorial genre as were available and encompassed the 1842 time frame. (Thus we did not utilize texts from Woodruff's diaries, since his personal writing style differs from his more public exposition.) We compiled thirty 1,000-word blocks for Taylor and twenty-four 1,000-word blocks for Woodruff, giving a total of ninety texts that we could use to build the discriminant function to test the probable authorship of the "Zarahemla" text. Next we identified seventy noncontextual words in the ninety writing sample blocks that best distinguished the writing styles of Smith, Taylor, and Woodruff. Using these words as the distinctive literary features for the candidate authors, we developed the discriminant function that would classify each writing sample into a group corresponding with the correct author 100 percent of the time. Although this is a seventy-dimensional problem, we can project the relative relationships between the five groups

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think JS had an open mind and was not sure exactly were teh BoM took place.

I find it interesting that the church currently holds no offical stance on the issue. I think that is telling.

[livy111us]

I think JS had an open mind and was not sure exactly were teh BoM took place.

I find it interesting that the church currently holds no offical stance on the issue. I think that is telling.

I believe the evidence supports that position. In the midst of JS claims that the BOM happened in Mesoamerica, he still placed the BOM in North America as well. He did not hold to any modern LGT, but seems to have embraced a hemispheric geography for The Book of Mormon.

[Palerider]

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=805

In discussing the Sept and Oct 1842 Times and Seasons, which explains in detail The Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica, new evidence shows that this was Joseph Smith who wrote these articles:

I have recently had the privilege of working with statistician Paul Fields and several of his associates on several projects involving the Book of Mormon. These projects deal with authorship attribution for a number of texts of interest to Latter-day Saints. Authorship attribution attempts to identify the author of a text based on writing style. Using quantitative measures to describe an author's writing style is technically called stylometry but is commonly referred to as wordprint analysis. The premise behind these studies is that an author has a unique style of writing and that his or her written work can be identified if a stylistic "fingerprint" is discernible in a document. One area of interest is the authorship of the Times and Seasons articles on the Book of Mormon that appeared in 1842. Because of the many pressures that Joseph Smith was under during 1842, my assumption has been that the unsigned articles of 15 September and 1 October 1842 were written by John Taylor.140 Professor Fields and I are preparing a detailed treatment of our research that will be published by the Maxwell Institute.

One mathematical tool used in a stylometric investigation is discriminant analysis. This technique finds a linear combination of features that "discriminates" among items in known classes, just as plants or animals are categorized into species based on distinguishing features. The discriminant function provides a formula that quantifiably characterizes items in known groups so that a new item of unknown group membership can be classified into the proper groups based on its features. In authorship attribution, noncontextual words are the features used to describe writing style. Noncontextual words do not convey the author's message, but they are the function words an author uses to construct his or her message. Examples of noncontextual words are and, but, however, on, the, upon. Interestingly, the frequency with which an author uses such words distinctively characterizes his or her writing style and can reveal the author's identity in comparison to other authors.

To investigate the probable authorship of the three small, unsigned editorials in the Times and Seasons that referred to "Zarahemla," we put them into one 1,000-word block so there would be sufficient data to measure word frequencies. Next we took texts from Joseph Smith's signed editorials, the editorials signed "Ed" or "Editor(s)," and the unsigned editorials appearing in the Times and Seasons from April through October 1842. These were segmented into thirty-six 1,000-word blocks to correspond in size with the "Zarahemla" text.

We also took writing samples from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, who were the only two other possible contributors to the editorials. We selected texts that were as close to the editorial genre as were available and encompassed the 1842 time frame. (Thus we did not utilize texts from Woodruff's diaries, since his personal writing style differs from his more public exposition.) We compiled thirty 1,000-word blocks for Taylor and twenty-four 1,000-word blocks for Woodruff, giving a total of ninety texts that we could use to build the discriminant function to test the probable authorship of the "Zarahemla" text. Next we identified seventy noncontextual words in the ninety writing sample blocks that best distinguished the writing styles of Smith, Taylor, and Woodruff. Using these words as the distinctive literary features for the candidate authors, we developed the discriminant function that would classify each writing sample into a group corresponding with the correct author 100 percent of the time. Although this is a seventy-dimensional problem, we can project the relative relationships between the five groups

[maupayman]

From what I have read of Joseph's writing and statements on the subject, he seems to have thought the events took place throughout North and South America. He placed numerous events in the Eastern United States, but seemed open to the possibility that they spread as far as Central and South America.

[livy111us]

I think this will add to the conversation as well

[Nenahnezad]

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=805

The Conclusion to the article is suspect. It's like listening to a political debate on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN then the newsreader spends the rest of the hour telling you what you should think about what you read.

In the article above, Maxwell/FARMS uses extensive references to the History of The Church (see the article's footnotes) referring to the Prophet receiving a revelation (not being in the scriptures), yet have earlier discounted his having received a revelation over Zelph, also mentioned in the History of The Church, the example:

"If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place." http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=202

The History of The Church is discounted or exalted, depending on the subject. Thus, they're are all over the map (pun intended). (See Artful Dodger: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) And I'm referring to FARMS/Maxwell.

The first article referenced goes into some extensive critique of Porter & Meldrum's use of the word "this" for "this land" - as if the author was a former president stating "that depends on the definition of the word 'is.' "

Then the author turn to FARMS well-learned process - belittle The Prophet: "It is clear from Joseph Smith's own teachings that he received revelations, but it is equally clear that he did not always fully understand them." Then the author, speaking for all, claims he knows what the Prophet should have understood - especially about geography.

If word print analysis, no word count, were used on the article, "North America" is found 19 times, "Central America" is found 36 times. That's telling.

If this is FARMS turning to a hemispheric model, I have yet to discover what FARMS/Maxwell think of the ancient civilizations that existed in the much larger North America during the same BoM timeline in Central America - even though FARMS believes, "The Nephites were not the Maya" in Central America. Hey maybe because, as it's mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Nephite civilization was destroyed and the land was inherited by the Gentiles who took up residence. (see Mormon 5:19)

[livy111us]

Really? That is how you answer the evidence of wordprint studies which show Joseph Smith as the author of articles which place The Book of Mormon in Central America? You did not address it at all, but instead, made broad statements and misused the quote speaking about Zelph. With the wave of your hand you attempt to dismiss actual scholarship, and pretend these facts don't exist.

BTW, are you claiming that Joseph Smith had revelation on BOM Geography? If so, he had a very short memory because he taught a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon several times, and allowed his closest friends to teach and publish a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM.

The Zelph quote is taken out of context. All it is saying is that if we were to use modern standards, the History of the Church would say "Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place." Just as you quote. I am curious, how is this denying that the event happened? How is this wrong in ANY way, other than giving full disclosure? This type of methodology reeks of Meldrum, and if you would like to be taken seriously, you should avoid it at all cost.

Also, a few paragraphs later it says "Still, other data seem to reflect a different view and make it uncertain just what geographical conception, if any single one, prevailed among the early church leaders. Evidently Joseph Smith's views on this matter were open to further knowledge. Thus in 1834, when Zelph was found, Joseph believed that the portion of America over which they had just traveled was "the plains of the Nephite," and that their bones were "proof" of the Book of Mormon's authenticity."

This is why Meldrum and his cohorts cannot be taken seriously. They avoid the facts and side-step the issues.

[David Bokovoy]

Then the author turn to FARMS well-learned process - belittle The Prophet: "It is clear from Joseph Smith's own teachings that he received revelations, but it is equally clear that he did not always fully understand them.Then the author, speaking for all, claims he knows what the Prophet should have understood - especially about geography."

My heavens! In what way is stating the fact that Joseph Smith's knowledge of religious issues grew "precept upon precept; line upon line... here a little, and there a little," belittling the Prophet (see Isaiah 29:10)?!!!

In my opinion, claiming otherwise proves not only problematic for historical issues, but more importantly for religious matters. Recall that the Savior himself "[did] not receive of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first" (D&C 93:12-14).

To suggest that Joseph followed the same course that modern revelation states Jesus himself pursued, i.e. not possessing a fulness of understanding, is not "belittling" the Prophet!!! It's a correct historical and religious observation that has important implications for our own spiritual growth.

[WalkerW]

My heavens! In what way is stating the fact that Joseph Smith's knowledge of religious issues grew "precept upon precept; line upon line... here a little, and there a little," belittling the Prophet (see Isaiah 29:10)?!!!

In my opinion, claiming otherwise proves not only problematic for historical issues, but more importantly for religious matters. Recall that the Savior himself "[did] not receive of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first" (D&C 93:12-14).

To suggest that Joseph followed the same course that modern revelation states Jesus himself pursued, i.e. not possessing a fulness of understanding, is not "belittling" the Prophet!!! It's a correct historical and religious observation that has important implications for our own spiritual growth.

Preach it, brother!

[SkepticTheist]

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=805

In discussing the Sept and Oct 1842 Times and Seasons, which explains in detail The Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica, new evidence shows that this was Joseph Smith who wrote these articles . . .

Tyler, I don't want you to necessarily respond to this.

Just to make sure that people don't forget, it is true that Joseph Smith probably authored those articles, but the Mesoamericanists don't bring up the Land of Desolation statement by Joseph Smith found in the Levi Hancock Journal from Zions Camp. Joseph Smith, without question in the historical record, referred to the area of Illinois where they were as the "Land of Desolation." I will repeat this over and over until it becomes part of people's consciousness. In Joseph Smith's view, the Land Northward extended into the Great Lakes region. this is what the historical record shows. If Mesoamericanists can gain momentum from the Times and Seasons articles, I think it important to point out that they are not pushing this statement by Joseph Smith about the Land of Desolation extending up that far northward. I don't know why they are not, because this establishes that Rod Meldrum is wrong about Joseph Smith's beliefs about where the Land of Zarahemla is. You would think that the Mesoamericanists would use this fact to their advantage. This statement has significance for how far northward the Nephites had extended their domain, and has bearing on the Cumorah issue, at least what it was in Joseph Smith's mind. Methodologically, we must confine ourselves to the Book of Mormon text. But if we are talking about what Joseph Smith believed, we must bring this land of Desolation statement into the consciousness of the discussion. And I would hope the Mesoamericanists would begin to acknowledge this statement's existence and not leave it out of the discussion.

Ed Goble

[Kevin Christensen]

Then the author turn to FARMS well-learned process - belittle The Prophet: "It is clear from Joseph Smith's own teachings that he received revelations, but it is equally clear that he did not always fully understand them."

Interestingly, Nephi similarly belittles the prophet Lehi, for not paying attention to the filthiness of the water in the vision he had from God. Nephi even belittled himself, admitting to the Angel in his own vision that he did not know the meaning of all things. And Jesus belittles his Old World Apostles, pointing out that while they supposed the other sheep to be the gentiles, they did not ask, and therefore did not receive revelation. And Jesus even belittles those listening to him in 3 Nephi, a group that includes prophets Nephi and Lehi, telling they that they can't understand all of his words at once, but need to go home, and ponder things, and prepare their minds to understand.

And of course, the D&C is full of language that encourages Joseph Smith and the early saints to seek wisdom, by learning and by faith. Imagine, Joseph Smith, the seer, belittling himself by learning Hebrew, or even reading the Incidents of Travels book by Stephens and Catherwood.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

In the article above, Maxwell/FARMS uses extensive references to the History of The Church (see the article's footnotes) referring to the Prophet receiving a revelation (not being in the scriptures), yet have earlier discounted his having received a revelation over Zelph, also mentioned in the History of The Church, the example:

The History of The Church is discounted or exalted, depending on the subject. Thus, they're are all over the map (pun intended). (See Artful Dodger: http://redwing.hutma...rtfuldodger.htm) And I'm referring to FARMS/Maxwell.

The first article referenced goes into some extensive critique of Porter & Meldrum's use of the word "this" for "this land" - as if the author was a former president stating "that depends on the definition of the word 'is.' "

Then the author turn to FARMS well-learned process - belittle The Prophet: "It is clear from Joseph Smith's own teachings that he received revelations, but it is equally clear that he did not always fully understand them." Then the author, speaking for all, claims he knows what the Prophet should have understood - especially about geography.

If this is FARMS turning to a hemispheric model, I have yet to discover what FARMS/Maxwell think of the ancient civilizations that existed in the much larger North America during the same BoM timeline in Central America - even though FARMS believes, "The Nephites were not the Maya" in Central America. Hey maybe because, as it's mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Nephite civilization was destroyed and the land was inherited by the Gentiles who took up residence. (see Mormon 5:19)

Anthropomorphizing institutions or organizations is a fallacy. Individual authors (such as Porter & Meldrum) make assertions, which they alone are responsible for. Creating a FARMS/Maxwell boogyman is irresponsible. It is a counterfeit version of valid, logical argumentation.

Your statements here (and in the footer to your statements) indicate that you don't quite understand what the debate is about. You might try having a conversation with those on the Board about matters which perplex you.

[Tango]

Preach it, brother!

And yet Joseph Smith was tutored by Moroni over the course of many days/weeks, countless (21+) visatations from most ALL of the main characters in the Bible, received a book about a peoples called Nephites and Lamanites and the question NEVER came up as to where this actually took place? LMAO- I have many bridges to sell..please step up and email me, I just love the LDS people.

[Ariarates]

It doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith believed the BoM took place in Mexico or in the US - for the BoM to be literal history we have to toss out everything we know about the entire American continent.

[Brant Gardner]

. . . toss out everything we know about the entire American continent.

Which "we" is that? Please don't include me in it. I haven't found anything that I have had to toss out, and there is still quite a bit where the New World context actually makes a better explanation for the actions in the text than anywhere (or any when) else in the world.

[Daniel Peterson]

It doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith believed the BoM took place in Mexico or in the US - for the BoM to be literal history we have to toss out everything we know about the entire American continent.

That "we" doesn't seem to include these folks:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166/john-e-clark

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/114/john-l-sorenson

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2140/brian-d-stubbs

And don't miss tomorrow's new addition to the Mormon Scholars Testify site (Sunday, 13 February).

[Bob Crockett]

Anthropomorphizing institutions or organizations is a fallacy. Individual authors (such as Porter & Meldrum) make assertions, which they alone are responsible for. Creating a FARMS/Maxwell boogyman is irresponsible. It is a counterfeit version of valid, logical argumentation.

Your statements here (and in the footer to your statements) indicate that you don't quite understand what the debate is about. You might try having a conversation with those on the Board about matters which perplex you.

I think those FARMS writers who have written on the subject are consistent in their views that anything but the Sorenson speculation is to be criticized. Today it is Porter and Meldrum; before that it was Paul Hedengren, a BYU professor who believed in some sort of Great Lakes theory and wrote a book on it. By contrast, it appears to me that the contributors to FAIR are split on the issue.

You know, there's a huge amount of room in the writings of the Brethren to be critical of the LGT theory. Both sides should have their say without incivility; if the LGT theorists, at best, argue that the Church has not taken an official stand on the subject then they ought to admit efforts to refute that statement without getting upset.

[Brant Gardner]

I think those FARMS writers who have written on the subject are consistent in their views that anything but the Sorenson speculation is to be criticized.

I believe that your position in this discussion is coloring the way you see what has been written. First, as Robert F. Smith has pointed out, the Maxwell Institute is not a person. There are people who have written in things the Institute has published. Among those who have published, you will find disagreements. In particular, I know that I have written reviews critical of articles or books that have proposed a hemispheric and heartland model. However, I have also written reviews critical of books espousing a Mesoamerican view. The unifying theme, for me, has been whether or not the author meets standards of correlating their idea with evidence and whether the evidence actually supports their view. While I do agree with the overall outlines of Sorenson's geography, I happen to see a much refinement in the way Lawrence Poulsen is approaching the question. I think he has improved Sorenson's geogrpaphical arguments in some cases. As for Sorenson's cultural correlations, I think that they can and should be refined as well. There is no lock-step Maxwell Institute approach. I have never been guided as to what my opinion should be.

You know, there's a huge amount of room in the writings of the Brethren to be critical of the LGT theory. Both sides should have their say without incivility; if the LGT theorists, at best, argue that the Church has not taken an official stand on the subject then they ought to admit efforts to refute that statement without getting upset.

There are certainly men in official opinions who have declared a very strong opinion. That still differs from the official church declaring a position. You will find that same difference in other topics, such as evolution. You will find men in official positions who expressed very strong opinions (and who disagreed with each other). However, the official church statement has been clear. In both evolution and Book of Mormon geography the official position (which I believe is quite wise) is that there is no official church position.

[Bob Crockett]

First, as Robert F. Smith has pointed out, the Maxwell Institute is not a person.

I've never said that it is. My only observation was that any FARMS reviewer who has written on the issue appears to be a Sorenson acolyte.

However, the official church statement has been clear. In both evolution and Book of Mormon geography the official position (which I believe is quite wise) is that there is no official church position.

I don't think such a position exists as you describe it. One the one hand, you have very clear general conference statements in opposition to a two Cumorahs theory, particularly after the Church's acquisition of the Hill Cumorah. On the other hand you have no general conference statement to the contrary and a very dubious fax cover sheet statement from a secretary to the First Presidency. And then, I might add, when John Sorenson published his piece in the Ensign he was careful to skirt the two Cumorahs theory in his piece.

[Brant Gardner]

I've never said that it is. My only observation was that any FARMS reviewer who has written on the issue appears to be a Sorenson acolyte.

You seem to come to interesting conclusions based on the evidence you see. In this case, you see a particular result and assume the cause is some sort of conspiracy. What it is, based on my personal experience and conversations I have had with others, is that it is the result of careful examination of the evidence. I know of now devotion to Sorenson (and such would be highly inappropriate in any case).

It is simply the result of the examination of evidence. The Maxwell Institute attempts to put forth the best evidence available. At the moment, it points to Mesoamerica. It is increasingly pointing in that direction (a trend that can be traced through at least fifty years of scholarship).

I don't think such a position exists as you describe it.

Then we now have the chance to discern where we differ. Clearly it is a question of what we consider to be a church position.

The clearest exposition of which I am aware is from Anthony W. Ivins, during the time when he was the first counselor in the Presidency (and, I would argue, in a position to discuss what the official church taught):

Anthony W. Ivins,

[Bob Crockett]

You seem to come to interesting conclusions based on the evidence you see. In this case, you see a particular result and assume the cause is some sort of conspiracy.

I don't claim a conspiracy. I claim a predetermination by the Maxwell Institute and its past and former editors, at least one of whom I claim as a personal friend and one for whom I served as a researcher, to support a highly speculative theory of John Sorenson. And, the enthusiasm for this position has led to some harsh words for some who don't like Sorenson's views.

Let me quote again from one of your Ivins quotes, the one I rely upon principally:

That it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites fought their great last battles. That it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them.

Now, you quote from the Improvement Era but this statement originated from a General Conference address where many brethren spoke of the reasons the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah. This was an "official" church statement that Ramah/Old Cumorah and New Cumorah were one and the same. Coupled with similar statements in Talmages' Articles of Faith (as close to canonical work as we can get), I'd say there have been "official statements."

Ivins didn't contravene this statement with your more general statement where he talks about Book of Mormon geography as being speculative. There seems to be a difference in the statements of the Brethren between speculative Book of Mormon geography and the Hill Cumorah itself, where the plates were found. An example of this difference may be found in the statements of Elder Mark E Peterson, where he both condemns speculative Book of Mormon geography and those who advocate a two-Cumorahs theory. "I do not believe we should give credence to highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central American to get the gold plates." (CR April 1953.) So you see, when Elder Peterson condemned speculative Book of Mormon geography he was condemning the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory.

It is part of our history that the connection between the New York drumlin and the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah was made and firmly established in tradition.

Traditions reinforced by general conference statements by the Brethren, including one who says "we know positively."

The hill is no mere minor drumlin, a word used to somehow minimize it. "In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the 'hill Cumorah.'" Marion Romney, CR Nov. 1975, p. 35. President Romney then describes a short of vision he sees of the events surrounding that hill, "events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation." President Romney's address was entitled "America's Destiny" and calculated to be participative in the Bicentennial. Yes, the Hill Cumorah has a sacred place in Mormon beliefs and practices as demonstrated by repeated pronouncement by those who would know, as the Hill Cumorah is known by revelation alone and not by science or speculation.

[Daniel Peterson]

That "we" doesn't seem to include these folks:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166/john-e-clark

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/114/john-l-sorenson

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2140/brian-d-stubbs

And don't miss tomorrow's new addition to the Mormon Scholars Testify site (Sunday, 13 February).

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2211/brant-a-gardner

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't claim a conspiracy. I claim a predetermination by the Maxwell Institute and its past and former editors, at least one of whom I claim as a personal friend and one for whom I served as a researcher, to support a highly speculative theory of John Sorenson. And, the enthusiasm for this position has led to some harsh words for some who don't like Sorenson's views.

I know of no "predetermination" or hostility such as you describe at the Maxwell Institute or its predecessors. John Sorenson never ran the organization, and the editors there have long engaged in hard core peer review -- as one should expect from a real academic institution. Sorenson's writings have always been tightly edited by others. He never had carte blanche and had to make his case in the same way as anyone else. His case, as presented for public consumption, was no more speculative than the sort of work which professional archeologists and anthropologists have generally engaged in while attempting to make logical sense of the data from the text, the field, and the lab. If you had actually been involved in research at the Maxwell Institute, you would know that.

Talmages' Articles of Faith (as close to canonical work as we can get), I'd say there have been "official statements."

statements of Elder Mark E Peterson, where he both condemns speculative Book of Mormon geography and those who advocate a two-Cumorahs theory. "I do not believe we should give credence to highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central American to get the gold plates." (CR April 1953.) So you see, when Elder Peterson condemned speculative Book of Mormon geography he was condemning the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory.

general conference statements by the Brethren, including one who says "we know positively."

Yes, the Hill Cumorah has a sacred place in Mormon beliefs and practices as demonstrated by repeated pronouncement by those who would know, as the Hill Cumorah is known by revelation alone and not by science or speculation.

It is true that over the years a few general authorities have identified as the Hill Cumorah the hill which Joseph Smith described only as a hill "convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario County, New York" (JS-H 1:51). Joseph didn't call it "Cumorah." It is also true that there is an annual Hill Cumorah Pageant held there. You are quite right to suggest that there is a long tradition of belief that that drumlin is the only Hill Cumorah. However, such a stand is not now and has never been canonical, just as James Talmage's Articles of Faith is in no sense canonical. I have read that book, and others by Talmage, and I love them. However, they are no more canonical than John Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, or Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. They are useful tools, but they represent the opinions of the authors. Whether they are correct in some particular is a matter for your own prayerful or logical consideration.

The bottom line for those giving serious consideration to Book of Mormon archeology is a true mastery of both archeology and the text, just as was necessary to a serious consideration of biblical archeology. A by gosh and by golly reading of such texts regularly misses crucial matters of interpretation. Such is also true of a serious reading of a text in order to derive doctrinal or historical data.

Are you able to articulate the actual reasons why anyone might adopt a Limited Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon? Or do you assume that it is merely another wild, speculative, off-the-wall notion?

[Ariarates]

http://mormonscholar...brant-a-gardner

OK, that's 4 people who believe the BoM is literal history. I'm sure there are more. Everybody is free to believe what they want, I guess. That doesn't make it real though.