An Open Letter To Rodney Meldrum

[Bob Crockett]

Most FARMS publications are not online, and it is not clear that they ever will be.  The current JBMS is, of course, not a FARMS publication, but is now a Maxwell Institute publication.

I have now reviewed Roper's and Field's article.   There are many parts with which I agree.   For instance, although I think it unlikely that Joseph Smith had anything to do with the 1 Oct 1842 article as the BYU Studies chronology of his life does not mention it nor any of his journals, I think that an official statement by an official organ which lists Joseph Smith as the editor means that he endorsed it one way or the other.  (Of course, there's that pesky Article on Marriage business; I think Joseph Smith endorsed that article and the Church's adoption of it.)  

 

The part with which I have some objections concerns the wordprint analysis.  I deal with stylometry on occasion in my job, dealing with trade secrets and theft of such and copyright violations.  

 

The article says that Dr. Paul J. Fields is an expert in stylometry, yet his Linkedin profile says he is a business consultant and a statistician (in addition to being a BYU prof) without any mention of stylometry.  One doesn't become an expert in stylometry simply by being a college professor of statistics.  There must be substantial foundation in linguistics (courses taken; books and articles written; courses taught, prior projects for clients) and Fields' profile doesn't mention any such foundation.  I can't tell anything about the third author, the doctoral candidate.

 

The analysis contained in Roper/Field's article is sorely lacking in details as to the parameters employed for the statistical analysis, although I can understand why that wouldn't be included in an article directed to lay readers.  (Perhaps a technical report has been deposited with BYU HBLee or is in Roper's files?)  But it looks suspiciously like a simple reduction of the rigorous methodology employed by Larsen and Rencher here http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1130&index=10 (a methodology I might add isn't mentioned in the key literature, but at present I'm not equipped to comment upon what appears to a rather simple analysis of using "non-objective" non-substantive words, like "and," "from", and "the" to compare two texts).  Did Fields apply Morton's methodology?  It seems that Fields should have used a control test as well by running his data set of 1000 against some known and undisputed 1842 text of Joseph Smith's, Taylor's and Woodruff's.  For the life of me I can't grasp why that wasn't done.  

 

I wonder if you have more information on this subject for my article.

 

Bob

Edited July 14, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

So, as I understand the alleged claim, the Prophet Joseph Smith learned from John Lloyd Stephens' books on the Maya (well, his books were more than about the Maya, they were about his travels in Central America to determine for the US Government Pres. Van Buren, which armed thugs were going to rule the emerging Central American nations which had earlier left Mexico; Stephens even pines about an intelligent young lady he meets and other musings of the culture) .... from these two volumes Joseph Smith learns about the Maya ruins, etc, then declares, allegedly, that the Nephite Nation existed solely within Central America.

Yet, it has been admitted that the Maya were not the Nephites by Dr. Sorenson in his "Open Letter to Dr. Coe" and by the consensus at F.A.R.M.S.

Apparently, Joseph Smith's statements were wrong about North America and they were wrong as well as about Stephens' books discovering the Nephites as being the same as the Maya.

So when does the Prophet Joseph Smith have any relevancy for the LGT?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd say in all other subjects Joseph Smith is considered the ex cathedra authority on the claims of the Book of Mormon. He lectured from it, discussed pre-Columbian life as if he were the expert, and interpreted the book. As I have said in the past, an alternate limited geographic theory is simply a means to draw the circle so tight that things like DNA, war implements and horses become less problematic.

That may be the effect, but not the cause.  After all, the limited geography notion came into being pre-DNA.  Then too, the issue of when the horse becomes extinct (if it becomes extinct) seems more problematic in light of the limited area available for it to exist.  It is, however, true that war implements and a whole panoply of cultural characteristics can only be found in Mesoamerica (writing, comparatively advanced technology, chronology of the rise & fall of particular cultures, huge populations, and the like).  That these latter characteristics should dovetail with the Book of Mormon's own self-description (especially distances traveled) is merely indicative that the limited theory is on the right track.  These matters should count for something in your review.

 

When I first became aware of the limited theory, I was quite surprised, having thought in a generic way all along that the hemispheric theory made sense.  However, I had not actually given it much thought.   I think that a lot of people have been in the same boat.  I have no problem at all with any of the various theories being put to detailed and severe tests.  That is the scientific method.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, according to Dr. Sorenson, the Prophet Mormon was an idiot:

 

So you see, "Mormon's Map," the basis for the LGT, was based on Mormon's mind. And according to Dr. Sorenson, the Prophet Mormon "could not have recalled at the time he was writing all the knowledge he had acquired about the lands he personally traversed."

 

So the Limited Geography Theory in Mesoamerica is based on the geographical knowledge Mormon could not have recalled at the time he was writing.

In other words, Dr. Sorenson was more accurate about Book of Mormon Geography than the Prophet Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

ROFL!

Tiki,

Throwing a tantrum is not the same as making a legitimate argument.

Claiming that human's don't have absolute knowledge or total recall is not the same thing as claiming that they are idiots (even if the human race does seem pretty idiotic at times).

How about using systematic, rational argument?  Instead of the ad hominems.  Is that possible?

[Sevenbak]

Distances are too great.

According to some interpretations, yes. Thus the modern theories.  To others who read the text, it's not a problem at all.  

[Sevenbak]

By "N. America" you mean to include Mejico?

Yes.  That would include "this country" and "this continent", both of which were used by Joseph in his descriptions.

[Sevenbak]

"Joseph's view".  Joseph's view seemed to change as he received additional information.

Joseph's view included Mesoamerica as he learned of the discoveries there, and in those same statements, he includes the N. American  ruins within the current US.  His views didn't change to exclude, they included more.

 

Line upon line.

[Sevenbak]

Got me there but I don't Sevenbak will be satisfied with stopping at Mexico

Why should we be forced to stop?  The text is such a small portion if the records of the Nephites.  Plus, we have no record of the Lamanites, but we know they too had them, according to Helaman.  What we do know is that Joseph stated that all of North and South America is the land of promise.  Limiting a people over a thousand years to such a small geographical setting doesn't make any sense to me at all.  This is why Meldurm too, is also on a fools errand, IMHO.

[Sevenbak]

Even Joseph Smith's own statements do not agree in Harmony when you try to make them agree with The BOM and a physical geography. There is no consistency among his own statements as it seemed to evolve as his learning increased, let alone consistency among dozens of other men who threw their hat in the ring as well.

 

If we put our focus on The Book of Mormon itself instead of the opinions of men, we realize that the *majority* of events took place in a rather small area. There are exceptions, but most of The BOM was in a limited area.

I can see nowhere where Joseph ever changed his view while embracing new discoveries.  Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................  Limiting a people over a thousand years to such a small geographical setting doesn't make any sense to me at all.  ....................................................................

Yeh, and Palestine is much too small to be the subject of God's promise to the Jews.  Just doesn't make any sense at all . . .

Edited July 21, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Sevenbak]

Yeh, and Palestine is much too small to be the subject of God's promise to the Jews.  Just doesn't make any sense at all . . .

God promised that the Jews would be scattered all over the world to their lands of promise, and the BoM even states that this land is part the promised land to the House of Israel, so yep, still doesn't make sense to me.

[livy111us]

I can see nowhere where Joseph ever changed his view while embracing new discoveries.  Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

One example is the shift from North American comments to Mesoamerican ones when he came across Stephens and Catherwoods book.

[Sevenbak]

One example is the shift from North American comments to Mesoamerican ones when he came across Stephens and Catherwoods book.

Read his whole statements regarding Stephens and Catherwoods.  He includes Mound Builders remains and ruins in the sentence before he includes Mesoamerica.  This is frequently left out by LGT proponents, and frankly, it's a diservice to honest dialogue.

[livy111us]

Read his whole statements regarding Stephens and Catherwoods.  He includes Mound Builders remains and ruins in the sentence before he includes Mesoamerica.  This is frequently left out by LGT proponents, and frankly, it's a diservice to honest dialogue.

 

You and I have had this same conversation a hundred times by now and am sure you recall that I do not advocate that he ever taught a any specific LGT when you take into account all of his comments. I wrote a paper which outlined this years ago. What I was saying was that as Joseph Smith learned about new cultures, he expanded his view of BOM geography to include those cultures. That is exactly what happened when he read Stephens and Catherwoods book.

[Sevenbak]

Then we don't disagree.  It's the people that attempt to throw out his previous statements, in examples like this,  as if he somehow discarded his N. America teachings, that I have a problem with.

[livy111us]

That is the myth that I've tried to debunk for several years now. It is most prominent among the heartlanders but some Mesoamericanists are propagating it as well and it needs to stop.

[Sevenbak]

I see it just as prevalent in Meso LGT proponents; the discarding of past teachings as irrelevant or defined as merely opinions, in order to fit into a preconceived modernist theory.

[livy111us]

I have yet to find a Meldrumite who accepts that Joseph Smith taught anything outside the heartland theory but it is quite common to find a Mesoamericanist who accepts all the evidence.

[Tiki]

One example is the shift from North American comments to Mesoamerican ones when he came across Stephens and Catherwoods book.

Oh surely.

Then take it up with Dr. Sorenson and his followers. You are one of them, are you not? A member FairMormon who hung on his every word practically reproduced on at Fairmormon.org?

After ignoring the North American comments made by Joseph Smith, the good doctor declared Joseph Smith learned from Stephens' book that the Nephites were in a restricted 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica. Stephens' book had illustrations by Catherwood of Maya ruins dated after 420 A.D. But that doesn't matter. Then after archeological evidence poured in during the past decades, the good doctor later declared the Nephites were not the Maya, thus contradicting his earlier claim of what Joseph Smith learned from Stephens book.

Joseph Smith is always portrayed as the one in error. Hallelujah. And Rejoice.

My pre-CFR:

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas. Even with Stephens's material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon's story to the newly-found ruins."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19&keyword=Startle

"What do popular illustrations have to do with actual history? And even then, how would you know that the illustrator had in mind a “Maya” city instead of merely a Mesoamerican city? There is too much gratuitous “Mayanization” going on throughout this entire discussion. The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part."

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

So you see, Joseph Smith's North American comments are ignored.

Then he was wrong about the Maya in Stephens' books.

Joseph Smith was wrong about everything, now wasn't he?

And Rod Meldrum is skewered?

[Bob Crockett]

I have yet to find a Meldrumite who accepts that Joseph Smith taught anything outside the heartland theory but it is quite common to find a Mesoamericanist who accepts all the evidence.

That really is an extraodinary claim.   Many LDS scholars, such as Grant Hardy, assert that there is no evidence (or the evidence is too marginal) to support an LGT theory of any stripe.   Or, they are critical of Sorenson's claims of evidence.   

 

If there was "evidence" as you assert, you'd find a few consistent things:

 

1.   General Authorities in conference talks pointing to that "evidence" in MesoAmerica of proof of an LGT theory for the Book of Mormon, or for a different location for the Book of Mormon.  There are many subject areas where General Authorities point to secular "evidence" to support the claims of the Church -- such as those pertaining to the strength of the family, or the power of the Word of Wisdom, or moral strength.  And, in the past, there have been many -- dozens perhaps -- of conference statements pertaining to a hemispheric view of the Book of Mormon.  Yet, oddly, not a single one to support any LGT theory.  Not a one.

 

2.  General Authorities quoting approvingly from Sorenson.  Other than one FARMS address from Elder Oaks, I am not aware of any.

 

3.  Stake conference addresses talking about two Cumorahs and an LGT theory, either Heartland or MesoAmerican, as proof of the Book of Mormon.

 

4.  Secular anthropologists or archaeologists saying, hey, maybe there's something to what the Book of Mormon claims for MesoAmerica.  After all, I can see how the directional information corresponds with Guatemala.   Yet there's nothing.   Despite what you read to the contrary here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  At least in a court of law.

[livy111us]

That really is an extraodinary claim.   Many LDS scholars, such as Grant Hardy, assert that there is no evidence (or the evidence is too marginal) to support an LGT theory of any stripe.   Or, they are critical of Sorenson's claims of evidence.   

 

If there was "evidence" as you assert, you'd find a few consistent things:

 

1.   General Authorities in conference talks pointing to that "evidence" in MesoAmerica of proof of an LGT theory for the Book of Mormon, or for a different location for the Book of Mormon.  There are many subject areas where General Authorities point to secular "evidence" to support the claims of the Church -- such as those pertaining to the strength of the family, or the power of the Word of Wisdom, or moral strength.  And, in the past, there have been many -- dozens perhaps -- of conference statements pertaining to a hemispheric view of the Book of Mormon.  Yet, oddly, not a single one to support any LGT theory.  Not a one.

 

2.  General Authorities quoting approvingly from Sorenson.  Other than one FARMS address from Elder Oaks, I am not aware of any.

 

3.  Stake conference addresses talking about two Cumorahs and an LGT theory, either Heartland or MesoAmerican, as proof of the Book of Mormon.

 

4.  Secular anthropologists or archaeologists saying, hey, maybe there's something to what the Book of Mormon claims for MesoAmerica.  After all, I can see how the directional information corresponds with Guatemala.   Yet there's nothing.   Despite what you read to the contrary here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  At least in a court of law.

 

Do you even read my posts?

[ERayR]

Oh surely.

Then take it up with Dr. Sorenson and his followers. You are one of them, are you not? A member FairMormon who hung on his every word practically reproduced on at Fairmormon.org?

After ignoring the North American comments made by Joseph Smith, the good doctor declared Joseph Smith learned from Stephens' book that the Nephites were in a restricted 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica. Stephens' book had illustrations by Catherwood of Maya ruins dated after 420 A.D. But that doesn't matter. Then after archeological evidence poured in during the past decades, the good doctor later declared the Nephites were not the Maya, thus contradicting his earlier claim of what Joseph Smith learned from Stephens book.

Joseph Smith is always portrayed as the one in error. Hallelujah. And Rejoice.

My pre-CFR:

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas. Even with Stephens's material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon's story to the newly-found ruins."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19&keyword=Startle

"What do popular illustrations have to do with actual history? And even then, how would you know that the illustrator had in mind a “Maya” city instead of merely a Mesoamerican city? There is too much gratuitous “Mayanization” going on throughout this entire discussion. The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part."

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

So you see, Joseph Smith's North American comments are ignored.

Then he was wrong about the Maya in Stephens' books.

Joseph Smith was wrong about everything, now wasn't he?

And Rod Meldrum is skewered?

 

And so it goes many becoming quite exercised and combative over an issue that is really irrelevant to the purpose and message of the Book of Mormon.

[Sevenbak]

I have yet to find a Meldrumite who accepts that Joseph Smith taught anything outside the heartland theory but it is quite common to find a Mesoamericanist who accepts all the evidence.

Really? Can you show me a single meso LGT proponent that agrees with Joseph's and the Church History's teachings on upstate New York Nephite history, mound builder peoples, plains of the Nephites, etc... ?? If they believed that they wouldn't be advocating a limited geography in Central America.

The Meso proponents can't have their cake and eat it too.

Even though the heartland proponents also do it, the finger-pointing from both sides is kind of out-of-control.

Edit to add: and there's more than just two sides pointing fingers... here I am doing it as well... :-(

Edited July 21, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Bob Crockett]

Do you even read my posts?

Of course.   Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that you should infer that I ignore your substance.  

Edited July 21, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[livy111us]

Of course.   Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that you should infer that I ignore your substance.  

 

Ummm... we are actually in agreement, hence my question about you reading my posts.