MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 You need to get Dr. Sorenson's book "Mormon's Codex". Thee Mayans are not Nephites but the Nephites are probably Mayan. Finally we agree on something
Calm Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I agree with you. I've never understood the animosity between the two "camps." Attempting to situate Book of Mormon action in a specific location is problematic, and both the LGT and the Heartland theory have their own issues. It's not as if either camp is on firmer ground or has the backing of the church, so why the intensity of feeling?The Meldrumites have the tendency to attack the faithfulness of those who disagree with them. We get letters regularly at FM telling us how horrible we are etc. to deny the spiritual witness and other variations on the theme. Being told one is more or less an apostate/atheist gets old very quickly. Otoh, I haven't seen those of the LGT group question the devotion to the Church of Heartlanders. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 The Meldrumites have the tendency to attack the faithfulness of those who disagree with them. We get letters regularly at FM telling us how horrible we are etc. to deny the spiritual witness and other variations on the theme. Being told one is more or less an apostate/atheist gets old very quickly. Otoh, I haven't seen those of the LGT group question the devotion to the Church of Heartlanders. Yeah, that would get old. I get called all kinds of nasty things on my blog all the time.
omni Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) But I'm not the one saying they care.Honestly, I could understand this happening in any other church that doesn't claim to have ongoing revelation. But when you look at the scope of revelations in the D&C (including an actual Q&A about the Book of Revelation), and modern revelations about things such as the number of earrings LDS should wear (none for men, one in each ear for women), it doesn't seem too much to think that God might be able to also reveal the general location of Book of Mormon events. It would take 30 seconds tops, and allow a bunch of faithful, hard working LDS to stop totally wasting their time on an erroneous geography (as well as other LDS from spending their time and money to tour the places where Book of Mormon events didn't take place.)We always talk about how God is a loving parent, and I can't help but think if one of my children were interested in the geography of WWII and mistakenly thought the D-Day landings occurred in the wrong place (say, Sydney, Australia), and they were spending their time and money arguing with other WWII historians and trying to convince others that D-Day occurred in Australia, as a loving parent I might explain to them that it actually did happen in France.This is the difficult conundrum modern prophets find themselves in. Why did Joseph have an answer for seemingly every question asked of him concerning the church? After Joseph gained his prophetic mantel did he ever utter the phrase, "I don't know"? Show him some bones buried in a mound and he would give a complete history of their former owner. Present to him metal plates with gibberish on them and he'll give you their history and attempt a translation. Now days if you ask a modern prophet about real issues affecting the testimonies of thousands of Saints, you're likely to hear, "we don't know". Edited June 10, 2014 by omni
Anijen Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Dr. Sorenson has a masters in archaeology, and anthropology is a branch of archaeology. Anyways, I will read the Paper later, but most scholars agree that MesoAmerica is the place. The greatest scholar, Richard D. Hansen, agrees, but I don't know if he has published anything about it. I know because a reliable source told me. Clarification; usually one never has a a degree in "Archaeology." Archaeology is a subset of Anthropology. Anthropology is not a branch of Archaeology, but the other way around. And Dr. Sorenson is an Anthropologist and an Archaeologist i.e. his degree is in Anthropology hence he is an Anthropologist his field of expertise in Anthropology is Archaeology hence he is also an Archaeologist. 1
strappinglad Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) On the Shroud of Turin , the last I heard , there were questions raised regarding the radiocarbon dating because it was done on a few threads from an area that was repaired in the past and those threads skewed the results. Unfortunately the gentleman who was most involved with this concern , passed away. The Catholic Church has not given permission to do another test in a different area. With respect to the BoM geography, I think the silence of Lord and His servants is for a wise purpose. If this life is to be a true test of faith then all evidence must be open to interpretation. Edited June 10, 2014 by strappinglad
Bob Crockett Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) The Meldrumites have the tendency to attack the faithfulness of those who disagree with them. We get letters regularly at FM telling us how horrible we are etc. to deny the spiritual witness and other variations on the theme. Being told one is more or less an apostate/atheist gets old very quickly. Otoh, I haven't seen those of the LGT group question the devotion to the Church of Heartlanders.I'm sorry to have to respond to your challenge here as I very much respect these folks. In Dr. Sorenson's 1976 Instant Expertise on the Book of Mormon Archaeology, BYU Studies, vol. 16, no. 3 (1976), he calls Dr. Cheesman's work on Book of Mormon geography, among others, as having "harmful effects on the Church" where "zeal does not improve poor scholarship." (p. 431). I've left out a lot. I would say that this challenge to a beloved BYU professor with a long history of faithful church service wasn't very flattering, and my goodness sakes, it was pertaining to a topic not really meriting a claim that Dr. Cheesman was doing something like that. My friend Dr. Paul Hedengren of BYU authored Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi: Further Evidence for the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Tepran, 1999, originally published 1995). He advocated a Great Lakes theory for geography and criticized no competing theories. His work was reviewed in John E. Clark, "Review of Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi. Provo, Utah: Bradford & Wilson, 1995. iv + 92 pp., with subject index. $12.95," FARMS Review of Books (1996) 8/2. Clark described Dr. Hedengren's work (while at the same time promoting a Mesoamerican theory) with the following words: sophistry, beguiling, naive arguments, flimsy evidence, and unfulfilled and unrealistic expectations, semantic sloppiness and ambiguous, conflated, or sliding referents, Geography hobbyist, promiscuous dialectic, investigative ruse. "To conclude: caveat lector!," he says. I found Dr. Hedengren's work to be rather interesting and on some grounds compelling, to the extent I accept anything having to do with Book of Mormon geography "compelling." I find this sort of dialogue troubling and always have. I don't think it true at all the the Mesoamericanists have the moral high ground in rhetoric. My two cents. Edited June 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett 1
Bob Crockett Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Clarification; usually one never has a a degree in "Archaeology." Archaeology is a subset of Anthropology. Anthropology is not a branch of Archaeology, but the other way around. And Dr. Sorenson is an Anthropologist and an Archaeologist i.e. his degree is in Anthropology hence he is an Anthropologist his field of expertise in Anthropology is Archaeology hence he is also an Archaeologist.Although anthropology and archaeology are usually in the same college division at most universities, they are different disciplines. Dr. Sorenson has experience in archaeology but he taught anthropology. Perhaps it is too fine a distinction, but his secular academic works which have professional respect are not in the field of archaeology. But I'm sure he knows more about Book of Mormon archaeology than any person alive.
Daniel Peterson Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 The Meldrumites have the tendency to attack the faithfulness of those who disagree with them. We get letters regularly at FM telling us how horrible we are etc. to deny the spiritual witness and other variations on the theme. Being told one is more or less an apostate/atheist gets old very quickly. Otoh, I haven't seen those of the LGT group question the devotion to the Church of Heartlanders. Absolutely true. I have literally scores if not hundreds of such notes still on my computer, denouncing me as an unbeliever. (I don't delete enough.) And it simply isn't reciprocal. I have never, ever, heard a limited-geography advocate denounce Meldrumites as apostates. 2
Popular Post Calm Posted June 10, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 10, 2014 I find this sort of dialogue troubling and always have. I don't think it true at all the the Mesoamericanists have the moral high ground in rhetoric. My two cents.addressing the quality of scholarship and recognising the potential harm that may arise when those who see it as a spiritual witness then learn that it is not what it claims (we have unfortunately heard reports from family/ward members of Meldrumites who have discovered his claims do not match the science who have then completely lost their faith due to the way it is pushed as proof, both scientific and spiritual, of the BoM, Joseph Smith's calling and the Church) is not the same as accusing people of not believing or being devoted to the Church. I know of no one who disagrees with Meldrum's findings that has stated he is not a sincere believer.As far as any other personal descriptions, I am not concerned with them in my current comments. 5
frank_jessop Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Fair Use laws apply on this board, please do not copy pages of material.Minor quibble,Fair Use, in the United States, applies to writings and such, for which there is a copyright. I question whether Greg Smith has a copyright on an email response he published. Also Fair Use, allows for use of copyright material without the consent of the copyright holder. Copyright © 2014, Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum Moderator: Administration decides what our policies are, not you. You have been put on Limited because you started a thread to continue your argument with mods. If you continue to misuse our board the next step is banning you. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Clarification; usually one never has a a degree in "Archaeology." Archaeology is a subset of Anthropology. Anthropology is not a branch of Archaeology, but the other way around. And Dr. Sorenson is an Anthropologist and an Archaeologist i.e. his degree is in Anthropology hence he is an Anthropologist his field of expertise in Anthropology is Archaeology hence he is also an Archaeologist. My mistake
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Although anthropology and archaeology are usually in the same college division at most universities, they are different disciplines. Dr. Sorenson has experience in archaeology but he taught anthropology. Perhaps it is too fine a distinction, but his secular academic works which have professional respect are not in the field of archaeology. But I'm sure he knows more about Book of Mormon archaeology than any person alive. I still think that Mesoamerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon makes sense. How does the book of Mormon fit in other regions? USA and Canada - No advance civilizations, no writing systemPeru - Ruins don't date to Book of Mormon times, no writing system. http://www.bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamerica 2
Bob Crockett Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I still think that Mesoamerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon makes sense. How does the book of Mormon fit in other regions? USA and Canada - No advance civilizations, no writing systemPeru - Ruins don't date to Book of Mormon times, no writing system. http://www.bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamericaI don' t think your comment responds to mine at all. I have never been on record advocating one geographic theory over another.
frank_jessop Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 With respect, John, since you reject the authenticity of the Book of Mormon outright in any case, why do you care whether a believer subscribes to this or that theory and how intense his or her feeling is?I am curious why he wouldn't or couldn't? Is John, incapable of recognizing the childishness of the battle and thinking it is a sad state of affairs? You treat him as though his only purpose in life is to destroy the Church.
Bob Crockett Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I am curious why he wouldn't or couldn't?Is John, incapable of recognizing the childishness of the battle and thinking it is a sad state of affairs?You treat him as though his only purpose in life is to destroy the Church.I happen to agree with Scott Lloyd. I think antagonists of the Church, and John is obviously one, can't resist needling the Church over seeming inconsistencies for which the antagonists could not care one whit except that they are a means to needle. That's all John is doing. 1
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I happen to agree with Scott Lloyd. I think antagonists of the Church, and John is obviously one, can't resist needling the Church over seeming inconsistencies for which the antagonists could not care one whit except that they are a means to needle. That's all John is doing. What is accomplished when we ascribe motives to others like this? Walls are put up, lines are drawn and some endless and petty battle ensues. You can have it, if that's what you want. In place of promoting charity enmity is created. I say, strip yourself of prejudices and appreciate other's contributions no matter what you suspect their motives to be. Ignore your assumptions. We'll all be better off. But if you insist... Edited June 10, 2014 by stemelbow
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) a Edited June 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I don' t think your comment responds to mine at all. I have never been on record advocating one geographic theory over another. Back to your original comment you said, "Utterly ridiculous. No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation. It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion" I said that geographic speculations are not the problem, the problem is that Meldrum rejects the evidence that contradicts his theories, and he doesn't understand science. Meldrum got mad when the Church published the DNA essay, the DNA essay made good arguments and debunked bad conclusions. So my point is that it is okay to debunk bad science, bad assumptions, bad evidence, and bad geography theories. and it is okay to say that Mesoamerica is the only region where the Book of Mormon makes sense. Edited June 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker 1
Bart Burk Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I still think that Mesoamerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon makes sense. How does the book of Mormon fit in other regions? USA and Canada - No advance civilizations, no writing systemPeru - Ruins don't date to Book of Mormon times, no writing system. http://www.bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamericaNo writing systems which have been found yet. "Advanced civilization" (whatever that means) isn't required for the Book of Mormon. 1
Bob Crockett Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Back to your original comment you said, "Utterly ridiculous. No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation. It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion" I said that geographic speculations are not the problem, the problem is that Meldrum rejects the evidence that contradicts his theories, and he doesn't understand science. Meldrum got mad when the Church published the DNA essay, the DNA essay made good arguments and debunked bad conclusions. So my point is that it is okay to debunk bad science, bad assumptions, bad evidence, and bad geography theories. and it is okay to say that Mesoamerica is the only region where the Book of Mormon makes sense. If I were to suggest that Dr. Sorenson's view is based upon bad science, bad assumptions, bad evidence, and bad geography, would you think I would be justified in challenging his faithfulness to the Church or claiming that he has a bad effect upon the Church? I just don't see it is justified or right no matter what theory one wishes to promote. However, Joseph Fielding Smith would disagree with me. Edited June 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett
frank_jessop Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I happen to agree with Scott Lloyd. I think antagonists of the Church, and John is obviously one, can't resist needling the Church over seeming inconsistencies for which the antagonists could not care one whit except that they are a means to needle. That's all John is doing. How is John needling the Church when he agreed with your statement? And, hopefully, you see the irony in accusing John needling the when he agreed with you. I would be interested in you identifying in John's post - in which he quoted you and agreed with your summation - where he needled the Church; perhaps I am missing something and I ask for your assistance to understand.
Bob Crockett Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) John isn't alone. Critics like John like to browbeat the Church and its believers with its own standards. The Church no longer teaches that Adam is God? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe Adam is God). The Church once limited the Aaronic Priesthood to adults and now does not ? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe the Aaronic Priesthood has any meaning.) The Brethren have stated in general conference several times that Book of Mormon geographical studies ought not to be pursued, and yet the Church published an Ensign article by Dr. Sorenson? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe that there is any geography that would ever apply.) That is quintessential needling by somebody using a needle one despises. Does that sound like good faith, or an admirable expenditure of effort? At least John uses his own name and doesn't hide behind an anonymous one. I don't think when Jesus told the apostles to preach the Gospel to the world he intended that they do so anonymously. Edited June 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I happen to agree with Scott Lloyd. I think antagonists of the Church, and John is obviously one, can't resist needling the Church over seeming inconsistencies for which the antagonists could not care one whit except that they are a means to needle. That's all John is doing. Not that it matters, but I wasn't needling the church or anyone else. I agreed with you that the church hasn't said much of anything about geography and that I honestly do not understand the animosity between the two camps. Do I think the LGT has its own very difficult set of problems? Of course, but I thought that 25 years ago when I was taking courses in the history and anthropology of Mesoamerica at BYU. My belief then didn't depend on any theory of location, and neither does my lack thereof now. But, as you note, this isn't my fight, and I'll bow out (unless I can think of another way to needle you guys).
Recommended Posts