Joseph Smith Papers: The Hill Cumorah

[Kevin Christensen]

The first bit of LDS apologetics I ever read was the cartoon version of Jack West's Trial of the Book of Mormon. Even as a teenager in the late 1960s, I was interested, but wasn't particularly impressed. It had nothing to do with my testimony, which came a few years later. After my mission, when I got a copy of Sorenson's "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Codex," I was blown away. This struck me as a completely different methodology, a far more impressive approach, careful reading, careful contextualization. I'd chased it down because I'd seen where Truman G. Madsen had commented that what Nibley had done for the Old World side of the Book of Mormon, Sorenson was doing for the New World side. It was my reading of Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon while on my mission that turned me towards serious LDS scholarship. It opened my eyes, expanded my mind, and made me hungry for more.

Here is much more of what Nibley thinks about a Mesoamerican setting and Sorenson.

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/hugh_nibley_geography__magleby

And here is the kind of approach that turned me away from the New York Cumorah and towards Mesoamerica. Here, Mormon and Moroni's eyewitness accounts are taken seriously. After reading things like this (Sperry, Sorenson, and others included), I cannot be impressed to any degree by any Authorities or Names, not matter how sincere or well meaning, or absolutely certain, that don't seriously account for what Mormon and Moroni provide on the topic.

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/hill_vigia_cumorah__woolley

And here is the kind of approach to locating the Sidon that impresses me, here building on Larry Poulson's work.

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/sidon_grijalva_or_usumacinta__allen_et_al

I'm also reading through Mormon's Codex. It doesn't remind of me Jack West at all.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 19, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

No one is exercised when they question someones fidelity in the Church because the subscribe to the LGT.

I don't. I apologize for impressions that I do. Merely because I challenge what i think is unharmonious or false doctrine does not mean I label people as unfaithful. I don't even know your identity.

Peace and good cheer.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[strappinglad]

If the events depicted in the Bible and the BoM are as fictitious as those of Tolkien or Lewis , then we are all just spitting in the wind. There must be at least some basis in actual place and happening. The fact that there is an actual Jerusalem and Bethlehem and Damascus and river Jordan does not make the idea that Jesus is the Christ any more true , but it doesn't hurt either. Personally , I would like to the see Brethren make the geography of the BoM a matter of fervent prayer and then God make it a matter of revelation. I won't hold my breath. I recall the notations on some of the figures in the Book of Abraham that state that the meanings are not revealed but that if men discover the meanings then so be it. I suspect the same is true of places in the BoM. So far I find the Mesoamerican setting well reflected in the text of the Book of Mormon. I have ,however, other places that tickle my fancy.

Edited February 19, 2014 by strappinglad

[cdowis]

That's why I don't understand the insistence on it being a literal history. Its value is not derived from its historicity, is it?

 

OK, not literal history so that means ==>>.

 

Mormon did not exist

(angel) Moroni is a fiction,

no Mormon means there are no plates,

JS lied about the angel Moroni, and the translation of those nonexistent plates, etc

the eight witnesses lied about handling the plates.

 

Does that answer your question?

Edited February 19, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

I cannot be impressed to any degree by any Authorities or Names, not matter how sincere or well meaning, or absolutely certain, that don't seriously account for what Mormon and Moroni provide on the topic.

On the one hand, we have the unequivocal statements of the Brethren, identifying revealed fact. A revealed fact is an a priori fact. Either you accept the revelation, or you don't. The resurrection is a revealed fact, and no amount of science will prove or disprove it.

On the other thand, we have inconsistent theories, speculation, absurdities, parallelism, without a single shred of direct evidence. This latter class is wildly inconsistent, be it Rod Meldrum, Dr. Sorenson, Thomas Stuart Ferguson or who knows what johnny-come lately absurd theory arises from the vagaries of geographic elements of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

On the one hand, we have the unequivocal statements of the Brethren, identifying revealed fact. A revealed fact is an a priori fact. Either you accept the revelation, or you don't.

 

"revealed fact"  "accept the revelation"

 

This is a formal CFR.  Please give us the reference to the specific revelation.

 

I have already asked for this, but perhaps I missed your response.

[jkwilliams]

OK, not literal history so that means ==>>.

 

Mormon did not exist

(angel) Moroni is a fiction,

no Mormon means there are no plates,

JS lied about the angel Moroni, and the translation of those nonexistent plates, etc

the eight witnesses lied about handling the plates.

 

Does that answer your question?

I made the same argument a few posts up from here. I know people who believe the Book of Mormon is scripture but don't believe it is a literal history of a real people. I can respect that, but I don't know how to make that work.

[jkwilliams]

On the one hand, we have the unequivocal statements of the Brethren, identifying revealed fact. A revealed fact is an a priori fact. Either you accept the revelation, or you don't. The resurrection is a revealed fact, and no amount of science will prove or disprove it.

On the other thand, we have inconsistent theories, speculation, absurdities, parallelism, without a single shred of direct evidence. This latter class is wildly inconsistent, be it Rod Meldrum, Dr. Sorenson, Thomas Stuart Ferguson or who knows what johnny-come lately absurd theory arises from the vagaries of geographic elements of the Book of Mormon.

IMO, every single theory (Heartland, hemispheric, LGT, and so on) is equally problematic and implausible. Given that, why not just take the statements in the book and from the prophets at face value?

[Bob Crockett]

This is a formal CFR. Please give us the reference to the specific revelation.

I have already asked for this, but perhaps I missed your response.

I have cited and quoted plenty of First Presidency pronouncements in official sources including the official History the Lord directed be kept.

Something about Moses being raised from the dead comes to mind. 

 

I know I can't convince you.  Yet have you cited to me one single shred of evidence to suggest that the church supports the LGT theory?

 

I read where Kieth Merrill has offered his regrets for staging his movie in MesoAmerica.  Good for him.  I see that the turf is being taken back a little. 

Edited February 20, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Palerider]

IMO, every single theory (Heartland, hemispheric, LGT, and so on) is equally problematic and implausible. Given that, why not just take the statements in the book and from the prophets at face value?

 

Too simple. Too straight forward. You're always making trouble being so forthright like that..........

[Kevin Christensen]

On the one hand, we have the unequivocal statements of the Brethren, identifying revealed fact. A revealed fact is an a priori fact. Either you accept the revelation, or you don't. The resurrection is a revealed fact, and no amount of science will prove or disprove it.

D&C 1 reveals helpful facts about "the authority of my servants", including a direct statement that "inasmuch as they have erred, it shall be made known." I accept that revelation. Whole heartedly.

On the other thand, we have inconsistent theories, speculation, absurdities, parallelism, without a single shred of direct evidence. This latter class is wildly inconsistent, be it Rod Meldrum, Dr. Sorenson, Thomas Stuart Ferguson or who knows what johnny-come lately absurd theory arises from the vagaries of geographic elements of the Book of Mormon.

What about the consistent clarity of a great many geographic elements of the Book of Mormon? It is against that set of consistencies and constraints they we have something against which to test and compare the inconsistent theories, etc., proposing specific external correlations. John Clark has been particularly helpful with that, not declaring which theory is correct, but rather, which is most consistent with the Book of Mormon.

Lumping together Meldrum, Sorenson, Ferguson, and "johnny-come-lately absurd theory" is a far more rhetorical approach than Clark's careful, consistent, analytical approach. It also serves to sift and separate those you mix together, and shows very clearly and carefully just how they can be distinguished relative to the consistencies in the Book of Mormon.

In Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, Jack has a very good essay on the kinds of evidence that count.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tiki]

D&C 1 reveals helpful facts about "the authority of my servants", including a direct statement that "inasmuch as they have erred, it shall be made known." I accept that revelation. Whole heartedly.

What about the consistent clarity of a great many geographic elements of the Book of Mormon? It is against that set of consistencies and constraints they we have something against which to test and compare the inconsistent theories, etc., proposing specific external correlations. John Clark has been particularly helpful with that, not declaring which theory is correct, but rather, which is most consistent with the Book of Mormon.

Lumping together Meldrum, Sorenson, Ferguson, and "johnny-come-lately absurd theory" is a far more rhetorical approach than Clark's careful, consistent, analytical approach. It also serves to sift and separate those you mix together, and shows very clearly and carefully just how they can be distinguished relative to the consistencies in the Book of Mormon.

 

[ Portion of quote deleted - TIKI ]

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

John E. Clark - if it's the same John Clark you mentioned - does not have a "careful, consistent, analytical approach."

 

I quote:

"Demographics. There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1396&index=6&keyword=standard%20rhetoric

 

[emphasis in bold]

 

In this simple phrase and agreed by the MI/F.A.R.M.S. which publishied it, John E. Clark has essentially demoted the scriptures, specifically the Book of Mormon, to an unproven Geography Theory - due to some issues of discovering the Izapa Stela 5 is not a depiction of Lehi's dream - as his article contends.

 

The Book of Mormon does not contain "standard rhetoric" all to bolster a Geography Theory.

 

To quote a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder D. Todd Christofferson 

 

"We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority."  http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng&query=scholarship+can+enhance

 

This is the problem with the Two-Hill Cumorah Theory, which is a subset of the LGT - or Limited Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon:

The LGT has to emphasize alleged errors made by the Prophets - whether claiming Joseph Smith was wrong about statements he made for the Geography of the Book of Mormon, or the text of the Book of Mormon contains "standard rhetoric" i.e., some off-hand remark made in error by the Prophets who recorded the words on the Book of Mormon plates.

 

Again, the LGT does not work hand-in-hand with the Prophets. It has an emphasis on alleged errors made by them - as fellow board member Kevin Christensen emphasized and pointed out above.

This is the what the LGT teaches you.

 

I find this absurd, I find it ludicrous.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Tiki

[Bob Crockett]

Lumping together Meldrum, Sorenson, Ferguson, and "johnny-come-lately absurd theory" is a far more rhetorical approach than Clark's careful, consistent, analytical approach. It also serves to sift and separate those you mix together, and shows very clearly and carefully just how they can be distinguished relative to the consistencies in the Book of Mormon.

They have many similarities, and are largely differentiated in the minds of their adherents.

Clark has not been consistent over the years. His methodology is de jour rather than cohérent.

It is true that the last time the Brethen have specifically spoke out about or against Book of Mormon geography theorists is around 2007 or so, but that means that from 1835 or so to 2007 the Church's position has been consistent and in contravention of the LGT. That is, let's not waste our time with geographic theories. (Of course, what makes this entire discussion most interesting is that the Ensign published Dr. Sorenson in 1986, which tends to cut against my argument. But I also note that the article carried a significant disclaimer one doesn't usually see, or ever sees, in Ensign articles.)

 

As President Ivins stated in 1929, after stating that the Church definitely knew the location of the Hill Cumorah:  "There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon.  . . . We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true."

 

Although I spend my time on this board ridiculing the LGT, I would do the same for the Heartland model.  According to the statements of the Brethren, the only geographical pinpoint in the Book of Mormon is, according to Joseph Smith, the Hlll Cumorah (as the same as the ancient hill), and all else has not been revealed and should not be offered as fact.

 

As Ronald O. Barney has stated:  "People are hanging their faith on evidence of Book of Mormon peoples." "I just think that this way of thinking about our religion is such a waste of time." "It almost suggests we don't trust the Holy Ghost. Not only are we worried that he won't reveal to people the truthfulness of the book, but we want to augment it — even if we have to bend and distort — so that there can be no mistake about its truthfulness."   Michael De Groote, The fight over Book of Mormon geography, Deseret News, May 27, 2010.

Thank you for being so polite about the discussion; I always follow your posts with interest because you are not willing to hurl personal attacks. You are a great model.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

John E. Clark - if it's the same John Clark you mentioned - does not have a "careful, consistent, analytical approach."

 

I quote:

"Demographics. There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1396&index=6&keyword=standard%20rhetoric

 

[emphasis in bold]

 

In this simple phrase and agreed by the MI/F.A.R.M.S. which publishied it, John E. Clark has essentially demoted the scriptures, specifically the Book of Mormon, to an unproven Geography Theory - due to some issues of discovering the Izapa Stela 5 is not a depiction of Lehi's dream - as his article contends.

 

The Book of Mormon does not contain "standard rhetoric" all to bolster a Geography Theory.

 

To quote a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder D. Todd Christofferson 

 

"We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority."  http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng&query=scholarship+can+enhance

 

This is the problem with the Two-Hill Cumorah Theory, which is a subset of the LGT - or Limited Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon:

The LGT has to emphasize alleged errors made by the Prophets - whether claiming Joseph Smith was wrong about statements he made for the Geography of the Book of Mormon, or the text of the Book of Mormon contains "standard rhetoric" i.e., some off-hand remark made in error by the Prophets who recorded the words on the Book of Mormon plates.

 

Again, the LGT does not work hand-in-hand with the Prophets. It has an emphasis on alleged errors made by them - as fellow board member Kevin Christensen emphasized and pointed out above.

This is the what the LGT teaches you.

 

I find this absurd, I find it ludicrous.

(sigh)

 

Whatever happened to perspective?  What ever happend to an ability to discern the difference between straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?  Early Nephites "covered" the face of the land.  Which land I might ask?  The earliest Book of Mormon reference using that phrase is Jaron 1:6.  "And they ["the people of Nephi", remembering here that the usage since Jacob 1:14 has become a political rather than lineage desgination] were scattered upon much of th face of the land, and the Lamanites also."  A later use, Helaman 3:8 about the spreading from the land southward to the land northward is the most likely reference, about covering the "face of the whole earth."  Two points here, what makes something "standard rhetoric" is that is, it uses standard phrasing.  Exodus 10:14:15, talks about locusts covering "the face of the whole earth" which "face of the whole earth" the previous verse defines via their coming up from "the land of Egypt" and finally resting in "all the coasts of Egypt", and therefore, a local envirnonment, not necessarily demanding that we imagine the swarm as simultaneously devouring every green thing while occupying at once all continents and isles of the planetary globe.  A single Hebrew word is translated in English as "land" or "earth".  That is part of why Nephi insists that you cannot understand the things of the Jews unless we "are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."  (2 Nephi 25:5)

 

Of course, Larry Poulson has pointed out a location where there are actually seas north, south, east, and west of a particular center.  http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf  See page 16.

 

For those who may not know, John Clark's work has provided something that only a handful of scholars have ever attempted, that is, a systematic analysis of the Book of Mormon's geographic statements.  By handful, I mean the Washburns, Sorenson, Clark, and Randal Spackman, reviewing Mormon's Map, and comparing Clark in FR 15:1.

 

Far from needing to emphasize errors by the prophets, the LGT is based on a close reading of the prophets who happened to have the most detailed eye-witness information.  Mormon and Moroni.  I'm still waiting for any of the denouncers of the LGT to take Mormon and Moroni seriously and comprehensively as eye-witnesses and prophets.  Or for that matter, even advocates of rival readings.  Even President Ivins.  Rather than using his Presidency and certainty as an argument, how about using Mormon's and Moroni's life work to demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the identification?  Is that too much to ask?  Or too faithless and unreasonable?   Should I retreat to Stage 2 of the Perry Scheme?

 

“POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.”

 

For an eye-witness perspective on Clark's approach, you can read his essays yourself.

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/john-e-clark/

 

Especially this one:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1462&index=3

 

Which states his assumptions:

My initial assumptions about the geographic references found in the Book of Mormon are (1) Assume a literal meaning. (2) Assume no scribal errors unless internal evidence indicates otherwise. (3) Assume no duplication of place-names unless the text is unambiguous on the matter. (4) Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled. (5) Assume that uniformitarian rather than catastrophic principles apply to the actual Book of Mormon lands (i.e., that the locality where the Book of Mormon events took place was not unrecognizably altered at the time of the crucifixion, that geographic details in the small plates and in the book of Ether are therefore compatible with those in Mormon's and Moroni's abridgment, and that the principles of natural science that apply to today's environments are also pertinent to Nephite lands). (6) Assume that the best internal reconstruction is one that reconciles all the data in the Book of Mormon with a minimum of additional assumptions.

 

And after detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon, his conclusions:

1. I am convinced that the narrow neck of land was an isthmus flanked by an east sea and a west sea. It separated the land northward from the land southward.

2. The known coastlines of the land southward varied significantly in length. The western sea bordered the land of Zarahemla, the land of Nephi, and the land of the Nephites' first inheritance. The eastern sea, however, is known to have bordered only the land of Zarahemla. This gives us at least three times as much western coastline as eastern coastline known to have been used by the Nephites and Lamanites.

3. As noted, there were also important differences in the wildernesses. The eastern wilderness appears to have been much wider and lower than the western wilderness. The southern wilderness was much wider than the eastern wilderness. The northernmost portion of the southern wilderness was the narrow strip of wilderness. There was also a wilderness to the north of the city of Zarahemla.

4. The cities of Zarahemla and Nephi were in large valleys. Zarahemla was in a large river basin; Nephi was located in a highland valley. The Zarahemla Basin was much larger than the valley of the city of Nephi.

5. The river Sidon drained the Zarahemla Basin; it ran northward from its headwaters in the southern wilderness, just south of Manti. We lack information on the Sidon's course north of Zarahemla. Given the relative elevations of the eastern and western wildernesses, the Sidon most likely drained into the east sea. As noted, the Sidon skirted the western flanks of the eastern wilderness. The Zarahemla Basin was at least several USD wide west of the Sidon.

6. The information for the waters of Mormon suggests that it was a highland lake of significant size. It was also located within a day or two (USD) of Nephi.

7. Zarahemla was located in a large basin drained by a large river. Zarahemla was near the center of the land and was surrounded by Nephite fortifications that protected the center. There were also wilderness or upland areas in all four directions from Zarahemla. Zarahemla was about three weeks' travel from the capital city of Nephi located to the south. The key Nephite fortification of Bountiful lay several days' travel to the north.

8. Nephi was three weeks' travel south of Zarahemla in a highland valley; it was also near a large lake, the waters of Mormon.

9. Bountiful was north of Zarahemla and near the narrow neck of land. It guarded the route to the land northward. Bountiful was only about five days' travel from Moroni.

10. Cumorah was in the land northward near the eastern seashore. It was probably not more than six to eight days' travel from the city of Bountiful and may have been considerably less.

I have argued above that there are two tests for a valid and satisfactory geography—the first test being the more important. This does not mean, however, that a geography that meets this first test is necessarily correct. The second test will be to evaluate it against the backdrop of its proposed ancient American setting. The simple expectation is that the archaeological sites identified as Book of Mormon cities should be in the right place (in relation to all the rest) and date to the right period of time. Moreover, they should have the features mentioned for them in the Book of Mormon, such as walls, ditches, temples, and towers.

 

Or settle for a rhetorical dismissal.  In either case, you do sow what you reap.  Basic law of the harvest.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

(sigh)

 . . .

 

Far from needing to emphasize errors by the prophets, the LGT is based on a close reading of the prophets who happened to have the most detailed eye-witness information.  Mormon and Moroni.  I'm still waiting for any of the denouncers of the LGT to take Mormon and Moroni seriously and comprehensively as eye-witnesses and prophets.  Or for that matter, even advocates of rival readings.  Even President Ivins.  Rather than using his Presidency and certainty as an argument, how about using Mormon's and Moroni's life work to demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the identification?  Is that too much to ask?  Or too faithless and unreasonable?   Should I retreat to Stage 2 of the Perry Scheme?

 

“POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.”

I get wary when somebody hurls a "sigh" my way; I realize that this wasn't to me but to someone else.  

Nonetheless, is it so hard to realize that those who oppose the LGT may be doing so in good faith on the assumption that the arm of the flesh is no basis upon which to pin a belief in the Book of Mormon?

 

I have never heard of "Perry" or "State 2" or "Position 2," but I think it is "too much to ask" for me to reject Joseph Smith, Pres. Ivins, Pres. Romney and many others who have given us guidance about Book of Mormon geography.   It isn't as if Moroni and Mormon are independent authorities; they aren't. They come from one authority, the Book of Mormon, which came by revelation and not from anthropology. Thus, those who are entitled to "reveal" things to the Church, especially its translator, have a super-much higher chance of correctly explaining the Book of Mormon's context than some silly speculative theory whose basis is vagaries.

It would be like dedicating one's entire career to proving that Socrates was a real person by anthropology and parallelism. Shouldn't we instead trust Plato, and if he wasn't a real person, still trust Plato?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

(sigh)

 

Whatever happened to perspective?  What ever happend to an ability to discern the difference between straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?  Early Nephites "covered" the face of the land.  Which land I might ask?  The earliest Book of Mormon reference using that phrase is Jaron 1:6.  "And they ["the people of Nephi", remembering here that the usage since Jacob 1:14 has become a political rather than lineage desgination] were scattered upon much of th face of the land, and the Lamanites also."  A later use, Helaman 3:8 about the spreading from the land southward to the land northward is the most likely reference, about covering the "face of the whole earth."  Two points here, what makes something "standard rhetoric" is that is, it uses standard phrasing.  Exodus 10:14:15, talks about locusts covering "the face of the whole earth" which "face of the whole earth" the previous verse defines via their coming up from "the land of Egypt" and finally resting in "all the coasts of Egypt", and therefore, a local envirnonment, not necessarily demanding that we imagine the swarm as simultaneously devouring every green thing while occupying at once all continents and isles of the planetary globe.  A single Hebrew word is translated in English as "land" or "earth".  That is part of why Nephi insists that you cannot understand the things of the Jews unless we "are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."  (2 Nephi 25:5)

 

Of course, Larry Poulson has pointed out a location where there are actually seas north, south, east, and west of a particular center.  http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf  See page 16.

 

For those who may not know, John Clark's work has provided something that only a handful of scholars have ever attempted, that is, a systematic analysis of the Book of Mormon's geographic statements.  By handful, I mean the Washburns, Sorenson, Clark, and Randal Spackman, reviewing Mormon's Map, and comparing Clark in FR 15:1.

 

Far from needing to emphasize errors by the prophets, the LGT is based on a close reading of the prophets who happened to have the most detailed eye-witness information.  Mormon and Moroni.  I'm still waiting for any of the denouncers of the LGT to take Mormon and Moroni seriously and comprehensively as eye-witnesses and prophets.  Or for that matter, even advocates of rival readings.  Even President Ivins.  Rather than using his Presidency and certainty as an argument, how about using Mormon's and Moroni's life work to demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the identification?  Is that too much to ask?  Or too faithless and unreasonable?   Should I retreat to Stage 2 of the Perry Scheme?

 

“POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.”

 

For an eye-witness perspective on Clark's approach, you can read his essays yourself.

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/john-e-clark/

 

Especially this one:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1462&index=3

 

Which states his assumptions:

 

And after detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon, his conclusions:

 

Or settle for a rhetorical dismissal.  In either case, you do sow what you reap.  Basic law of the harvest.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Some camel your wrote there. Am I suppossed to swallow it? And Dr. Sorensons latest brick "Mormon Codex?" a literal tree trunk. As if Book of Mormon geography is so complicated that it takes numerous scholars over half their lifetimes to come up with its location then spend the other half coming up with excuses for it and call the latter "scholarly" or claimed it the truth and attacked member and non alike who disagreed, through it newsletters and websites. The same are now in hiding or have gone off in promoting other business models such as science and religion.

While you insist that the LGT is based off knowing the mind of Mormon, thus "Mormon's Map," with your alleged mind-reading abilities, the same scholars on knowing the mind of the Prophet Joseph Smith, dismiss his statements as "one who did not understand or was ambiguous" on everything he said or implied about Book of Mormon geography until he read a travel book written by John Lloyd Stephens, to paraphrase the same author.

Such consistency of logic is displayed that one wonders why The First Presidency hasn't endorsed it wholeheartedly, except for the fact by doing so they would agree Joseph Smith was an idiot and made up his religion from reading travel books.

If that's standard rhetoric, I learned it from studying the LGT.

[Kevin Christensen]

Calling a theory "silly" is not evidence that it is silly. It is only an opinion unless accompanied by a careful analysis of the eye-witness descriptions of the Book of Mormon hills and surrounding characteristics. Calling a theory speculative while ignoring the evidence that underlies it (that is, the specific eye-witness statements provided by Mormon and Moroni) is not the same as providing evidence that President Ivins was correct in his certainty about the New York hill. Where is the consistency between the statements of the eye-witnesses (Mormon and Moroni) and the physical features and geographic relationships evidenced by the New York hill? I've walked on the hill myself. I know what it looks like. Where is an attempt to resolve the questions raised by taking the Book of Mormon seriously as a real revelation, translated from an ancient text by a prophet that are the root of the whole problem?

 

The Washburns, Sperry, David Palmer, John Sorenson, and John Clark all have the honestly, courtesy, and humity to show me their work.  I can read the Book of Mormon scriptures for myself, and in their work.  All of them present the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and explain how and why they assembled the pieces in the way that they do.  None of Bob Crockett's authorities ever provides an equally serious and respectful look at the puzzle pieces.  They simply proclaim an answer about Cumorah, denounce the game, and show no courtesy or respect for those whose faith is strengthened by such work.  But the puzzle pieces are provided by Mormon and Moroni who most Book of Mormon believers accept as historical figures who were eye-witnesses of many of the events and locations they describe in their texts.  Mormon and Moroni, living after the destructions in 3 Nephi, had no trouble corrolating overlapping Nephite and Jaredite features.  They knew from experience that the face of the land may have changed, but not the basic shape and relative relationships.

 

Joseph Smith, the translator of the Book of Mormon, famously paused in his translation, questioning the existence of a wall around Jerusalem. Several eye-witnesses reported this incident. Whitmer and Emma included. That tells me that I should not assume that the translator has a special insight into every feature of the text. That is, he could be surprised by what he was reading. A Bible was obtained, the structure confirmed for him, and he went back to the translation. And Joseph might not comprehend it all at once in that operation. After all, how many Book of Mormon discourses do we have from Joseph Smith? How often does he quote it, especially compared to the Bible? How closely and carefully has it been read? Did President Benson have anything to say about how well and often and carefully we read it? What happens if you check conference talks before and after his rebuke of the Saints?

 

To explain the Book of Mormon in a specific context requires (no surprise) a specific context. I've seen myself how a specific context can make a difference in what the text yields. For instance, many years ago, I read the several Book of Mormon stories against the context of modern and Medieval NDE accounts. I saw some things that had not been noticed before. That has happened for me again and again. Stuff, it happens, that I never even heard in General Conference, or read in the Ensign. Stuff, it happens, that came about because I tooks seriously D&C 88 on seeking ouf of the best books wisdom. Nibley, and Welch, and many others had been showing me how it could be done. Specific contexts reveals specific insights. The Aston's work on the Old World Bountiful is rather breathtaking, I think. The FARMS DVD on Lehi's Journey is amazing. The best nurture for the word produces the most impressive yields. That is basic to the parable of the sower. "Know ye not this parable?" Jesus asks. "How then shall ye know all parables?"  Context and nurture can make a hundred fold difference in the yield.

 

For Socrates, I don't have to resort to just anthropology and parallelism. I've got two other witnesses besides Plato. Xenophon and Aristophanes. Plus, particularly from Plato, a lot of text that can be read in a specific context.

Should I just trust Plato for the insights that he offers through the mouth of Socrates if Socrates is fictional, or even, to one degree or another, fictionalized? That depends on the quality and relevance of what Socrates says, doesn't it?  Does it conform to reality?  Does it have relevance and versimilitude?  Another question, more important, is whether it is binding, whether it supports the LDS claims to be a covenant people, with valid priesthood and temple ordinances.  Shakespeare is often inspired, I think.  But not binding in that way.

 

All of the scholars I have named, from the Washburns, to Sorenson, to David Palmer, and including Larrry Poulson and Brant Gardner, and Mark Wright, and many others, do not fit the characterization as people who think that Joseph Smith was an idiot who made up his religion from reading travel books.  Vogel and Brodie and Grant Palmer think that way.  Not Sorenson and Clark and Garner and Poulson and Palmer.  They declare, testify, and proclaim that Joseph was an inspired translator of an authentic record that provides eye-witness accounts, of events as sacred as the appearance of the resurrected Christ, as well as events as ordinary as a buriel at Nahom, a coronation at Zarahemla, a journey from the Waters of Mormon to Zarahemla in 22 days by families with flocks.

 

To misrepresent their sincere efforts is nothing less than slander, from my perspective. 

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 27, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

Calling a theory speculative while ignoring the evidence that underlies it (that is, the specific eye-witness statements provided by Mormon and Moroni) is not the same as providing evidence that President Ivins was correct in his certainty about the New York hill.

 

 I have read the evidence. By now I hope you realize that I don't criticize a theory without fully understanding it.  I have read most of the primary sources.

  

The Washburns, Sperry, David Palmer, John Sorenson, and John Clark all have the honestly, courtesy, and humity to show me their work. 

This is, indeed, a good example of an appeal to authority.  None of them are cartographers or geographers, nor General Authorities.  They presume to draw a map whilst being trained in other disciplines.

 

To misrepresent their sincere efforts is nothing less than slander, from my perspective.

 

This is a troubling accusation.  I think it is entirely probable and possible that a good Latter-day Saint can complain about LGT theorists and their methodology, and label the theory as "silly" and "speculative" and improper from a scientific standpoint (after all, a BYU Studies review criticized Sorenson for not using acceptable geography or cartographic techniques) without become called a slanderer and a misrepresenter.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

I have read the evidence. By now I hope you realize that I don't criticize a theory without fully understanding it.  I have read most of the primary sources.

So how about quoting Mormon and Moroni's descriptions of Cumorah and its environs, and making the argument from there.

This is, indeed, a good example of an appeal to authority.  None of them are cartographers or geographers, nor General Authorities.  They presume to draw a map whilst being trained in other disciplines.

No. What I did was to point out that the Washburns, Sperry, Sorenson, Palmer, and Clark show me there work. In the Improvement Era, in one of the early episodes of the series on Abraham, he provided a side-bar in which he pointed out that some of his readers just wanted a conclusion now, wanting him to say, "I am a mathematician, the answer is zero." Nibley wanted his readers to take the time to understand how and why he got to that answer. In stating that the Washburns, Sperry, Sorenson, Palmer, and Clark show me there work, I am merely pointing towards the work that underlies their arguments and conclusions. Authority is a separate matter.

Is a General Authority, an authority in General? When one of them goes in for heart surgery, do any of them say, "Drop that scalpel and let me do it! After all, I'm a General Authority. For you to operate on my heart when I'm around is nothing short of heresy!"

An argument based on an appeal to authority does not become fallacious unless there is nothing else to it, unless there is no good faith effort to show the work, and to test the results. Unless, as Joseph Smith expressed it, it is used to "set up stakes and bounds to the work of the Almighty" saying, "hitherto thou shalt come and no further."

This is a troubling accusation.

You did notice that I was responding to Tiki there.  

I think it is entirely probable and possible that a good Latter-day Saint can complain about LGT theorists and their methodology, and label the theory as "silly" and "speculative" and improper from a scientific standpoint (after all, a BYU Studies review criticized Sorenson for not using acceptable geography or cartographic techniques) without become called a slanderer and a misrepresenter.

I have noticed Larry Poulson and Brant Gardner differ with Sorenson on this or that point without slandering or misrepresenting him. Tiki's post does not fall into such a category. He says "Such consistency of logic is displayed that one wonders why The First Presidency hasn't endorsed it wholeheartedly, except for the fact by doing so they would agree Joseph Smith was an idiot and made up his religion from reading travel books."

And those who mention a BYU Studies review criticizing Sorenson could also mention just what press publishes his books, and what institution paid for his services. Fair is fair, after all.

That, I submit, is slander.

Also, for the Perry Scheme, you can look it up on Wikipedia, or in the summary I have linked on my profile.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

That, I submit, is slander.

. . . .

Also, for the Perry Scheme, you can look it up on Wikipedia, or in the summary I have linked on my profile.

Slander does not arise merely because one disagrees with a particular point of view, even to the point of calling it baseless, silly, unfounded, a waste of time, without foundation and so forth and so on. Slander attacks the person and on grounds other than related to a belief in a religious point of view.

Further, the appeal to authority doctrine does not apply when the person is an authority in his field.

Sorenson and Clark are got geographers and are not cartographers (as BYU Studies points out in what appears to be the only review of An Ancient American etc.) and are thus not qualified to suggest geographic areas for a Book of Mormon setting. They are about as qualified as an English professor.

The Prophet Joseph Smith, the "author and proprietor" and translator of the Book of Mormon, who had visions about the indiginous peoples in America, is an authority to say where he think the setting of the Book of Mormon might be. Talmage, Ivins, Romney, Peterson, JFieldingSmith and so forth and so on are authorities on revelation for the Church and the meaning of the Book of Mormon and are thus highly qualified to say what the Book of Mormon means.

As to Perry, and "logical fallacies" in general, I urge you to avoid technical jargon out of the context of religious discourse. There is little to no relationship.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

Further, the appeal to authority doctrine does not apply when the person is an authority in his field.

The authority Kevin was speaking about was their professions not a church calling. Clark, Sorenson etc. indeed are authorities on what they speak about. Mormon and Moroni are authorities as far as their prophetic callings, as well as primary sources (you can not get more authoritative than them). President Ivins and Romney are not authorities professionally, but only through their callings in which they expressed their own opinions on the subject. I would place Mormon and Moroni as the top authorities on the subject. And as much as you want to continue being redundant (ad nauseam) it does not change the fact that what they have said is still opinion. 

 

 

 thus not qualified to suggest geographic areas for a Book of Mormon setting.

Per your own logic, then neither is President Ivins, Romney, or Peterson. However from their expertise and skill they [sorenson, Clark etc.] are more qualified to answer from study of the text of the Book of Mormon and comparing those with settings that would fit. Your constant appeal to authority is only from one perspective and that is from President Ivins, Romneys, Petersons own opinions. Because a General Authority said it, does not make it God given revelation, does not make it scripture and was not from direct revelation to the church. The quotes are from righteous men who were not speaking from direct revelation (or it would have been been placed into our scriptures). Remember what President Uchtdorf said?

 

 

 

They are about as qualified as an English professor.

Still they are more qualified than are the General Authorities. Because they speak on what they know. If they were speaking about business or flying airplanes then Elder Hales would be a better expert. If we are talking about nuclear physics then Elder Richard G. Scott would be a better expert. We are speaking of scientific study and not prophetic guided revelation, secular not religious. We are admonished to study out the theories and frankly the General authorities preach this.  

 

 

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith, the "author and proprietor" and translator of the Book of Mormon, who had visions about the indiginous peoples in America, is an authority to say where he think the setting of the Book of Mormon might be.

"might be" is correct and still an opinion.

 

 

Talmage, Ivins, Romney, Peterson, JFieldingSmith and so forth and so on are authorities on revelation for the Church and the meaning of the Book of Mormon and are thus highly qualified to say what the Book of Mormon means.

"what the Book of Mormon means." I agree

 

 

  

 the context of religious discourse. There is little to no relationship.

 Then I would advise stop making it a religious discourse. It is theory and study about the possible setting of a religious book using scientific methods by experts in their field.  Stop tying it to alleged revelation when it is only opinion.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Anijen

[Bob Crockett]

Clark, Sorenson etc. indeed are authorities on what they speak about.

No they are not, as the BYU Studies review points out.  They are not cartographers, and they purport to put the Book of Mormon into a real-world scenario using geography and cartography.  I didn't make this argument up.  BYU Studies did.

 

And as much as you want to continue being redundant (ad nauseam) it does not change the fact that what they have said is still opinion.

When a prophet speaks about a revealed fact, I wouldn't call that an opinion.

 

Remember what President Uchtdorf said?

This statement is no basis to thow out the utterances of the First Presidency in official works (History, as we learn from the JSP) and General Conference, and in Church-sanctioned and published books (Articles of Faith).

 

If they were speaking about business or flying airplanes then Elder Hales would be a better expert.

When the Brethren speak, they aren't speaking as pilots or businessmen.

 

Then I would advise stop making it a religious discourse. It is theory and study about the possible setting of a religious book using scientific methods by experts in their field. Stop tying it to alleged revelation when it is only opinion.

I respect your position.  It isn't personal.  But it is nothing more than educated religious discourse.  Dr. Sorenson's placement of the Book of Mormon in MesoAmerica has about as much validity as him pronouncing the Shroud of Turin as authentic.  It is a matter of religiion, not science.  And if it were science, we'd hear from a cartographer and not an anthroplogist.

 

ad nauseam

I think you'll find that the space taken up by LGT adherents on this board vastly surpasses the voice of those who cry in the wilderness against the arm of the flesh.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Gray]

Making a comment in this thread about dying on hills would be too easy

[Bob Crockett]

Making a comment in this thread about dying on hills would be too easy

Perhaps.

I don't give a hoot which model is correct, LGT or the hemispheric. I do give a hoot when we are subjected to mind-numbing and foundationaless books and articles on either theory, as it sets up the Church to ridicule. We are treated with attacks on the Smithsonian, on Michael Coe, and more.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Gray]

Perhaps.

I don't give a hoot which model is correct, LGT or the hemispheric. I do give a hoot when we are subjected to mind-numbing and foundationaless books and articles on either theory, as it sets up the Church to ridicule. We are treated with attacks on the Smithsonian, on Michael Coe, and more.

 

 

I can't argue with that.