An Open Letter To Rodney Meldrum

[Bob Crockett]

In case you are unaware, I really try to pay more attention to the facts rather than a consensus opinion.  I suspect from your post that this will greatly annoy you, but I make an attempt to make up my own mind on such things based on the evidence at hand.

 

I understand the difference between fact and opinion.  If I am speaking of LGT, I am speaking of my version of that theory.  I can live with the idea that Sorenson and I draw different boundaries.

 

Is that now clear?

 

 

Nope.  Not annoyed.  You are certainly entitled to your own view of LGT which I now recall thinking is just another hemispheric theory.   I'm happy for your speculation.  It is as valuable as any other.

 

I do think that Dr. Sorenson is the high priest of the Mesoamerican LGT and states it 10 times better than anybody else, but my opinion is no more valuable than yours.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[livy111us]

Sorenson limits the "land northward" in his limited model to southern states of Mexico.  Thus, it is quite delimited.  Your recitation of the limited geography theory is not Sorenson's but more approaches Joseph Smith's hemispheric view. 

 

Have not we had this discussion before?  You've refused to acknowledge that Sorenson's model has this limit, as I recall.

 

I am fairly certain that he believes that Nephites traveled up to North America as well. It has been a few years since I spoke to him about this but believe that is his belief. I'm positive that John Tvedtnes believes this.

[livy111us]

First off, are you Jake Hilton?  If so, may I recommend not emulating the criminal Kent Hovind in your seminar lectures and YouTube videos.

 

Anyway, are you suggesting that the Prophet Joseph Smith was always correct in anything and everything he ever spoke/wrote?  This appears to be the position you are advocating but I wanted to clarify.

 

I don't believe it is. I don't know if I'm allowed to speculate my naming him (at least he is using the same wording and arguments as this ex'd MDDB member) but I do not think it is Hilton. Could be wrong, though.

[Anijen]

Bob Crockett

I don't think your "simply not true" statement is true.

Bob this is what Tiki said;

 

Joseph Smith's statements contradict with the Mesoamerica Theory.

To which I replied "Simply not true."

 

 

Here is the evidence that it is simply not true that Josephs statements do not contradict a Mesoamerican theory n which I will quote the relevant part;

 

supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumnes  with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that  of all histories that have been written pertaining to  the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.—

 

Joseph is writing about Stevens and Calderwood's book Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán, first published in 1841.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob this is what Tiki said;

 

To which I replied "Simply not true."

 

 

Here is the evidence that it is simply not true that Josephs statements do not contradict a Mesoamerican theory n which I will quote the relevant part;

 

supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumnes  with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that  of all histories that have been written pertaining to  the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.—

 

Joseph is writing about Stevens and Calderwood's book Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán, first published in 1841.

 

I think you did not read my post to you.  Sorenson and Roper say that Joseph's view of Mesoamerica is inconsistent with a limited Mesoamerican model.  Do you see where my post says that, or would you like me to quote from Sorenson and Roper again?

Edited June 12, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[livy111us]

Bob, no need to get snippy. It is quite possible he just mis-read you post. Perhaps if you quoted the reference may help. I'd like to see it as well.

[Bob Crockett]

Do I come across as snippy?  I apologize.   

 

Both Sorenson and Matt Roper have been on record to say that notwithstanding interest in Stephens' and Catherwood's exploration in Chiapas, Yucatan and Honduras (which only served to show extensive building structures south of the extensive building structures discovered three hundred years preivously by Cortez), Joseph Smith did not appear to endorse any sort of limited geography theory.

 

Sorenson has written:  “[W]hen Smith-as-mere Joseph later commented on geography, the picture he communicated is that all South and North America were involved.”[57]  “[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.”[58]  Roper agrees that Joseph Smith “seems to have adopted the wording of fellow Latter-day Saints who thought of the Book of Mormon in broad terms inclusive of all the Americas.[59]  “It would appear that Joseph Smith and his close associates had not personally grasped the geographical scheme that the book itself consistently reveals.”[60]

 

Thus, it seems to me that Joseph Smith's views contradict the "Mesoamerican theory" to the extent it is offered as a limited geography theory. 

[Calm]

Maybe I have lost track of the conversation but why is it a problem that Sorenson, etc tecognize that Joseph didn't see things all their way? Seems a much better approach than to claim that he does prophesy completely in agreement with an LGT such as the Meldrumites do.

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I don't see it as a problem. I am neutral about it all. But when posters say that Joseph Smith implicitly endorsed a limited view because of the enthusiasm for the Stephens article I see that as quite contrary to the evidence and what Sorenson and Roper say.

But posters continue to say it and I keep challenging it, which causes some to think I am pro hemispheric or a Meldrumite, and I am not.

[ERayR]

I don't see it as a problem. I am neutral about it all. But when posters say that Joseph Smith implicitly endorsed a limited view because of the enthusiasm for the Stephens article I see that as quite contrary to the evidence and what Sorenson and Roper say.

But posters continue to say it and I keep challenging it, which causes some to think I am pro hemispheric or a Meldrumite, and I am not.

 

Again an example of ones perspective influencing ones view.

[Bob Crockett]

Truer words never were spoken.  There is no such thing as a neutral historian or student of history.  I look back on my published pieces and have problems with them.

[cursor]

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.

 

John L. Sorenson is pretty much an omniologist. He owns a PhD in anthropology (which includes archaeology, and has been an active archaeologist in Mesoamerican digs (particularly in the year that I was born ... 1952), he is a respected political scientist, and even a degreed meteorologist. He has 70 years of professional and practical experience under his belt, that spans a very wide subject range. He's serious, he's focused, and he's extremely methodical. For you to suggest that his word on archaeology (or cartography) is not to be respected, or is substandard, is absolute nonsense [very frankly]. 

Edited June 30, 2014 by cursor

[teddyaware]

John L. Sorenson is pretty much an omniologist. He owns a PhD in anthropology (which includes archaeology, and has been an active archaeologist in Mesoamerican digs (particularly in the year that I was born ... 1952), he is a respected political scientist, and even a degreed meteorologist. He has 70 years of professional and practical experience under his belt, that spans a very wide subject range. He's serious, he's focused, and he's extremely methodical. For you to suggest that his word on archaeology (or cartography) is not to be respected, or is substandard, is absolute nonsense [very frankly].

I would imagine with all that higher learning and all those impressive degrees Dr. Sorensen puts uneducated country bumpkins like the founders of our religion and an ignoramus like Rodney Meldrum to shame.

[Calm]

Just people who are insistently ignorant like Meldrum, not Joseph Smith who went out of his way to pick up learning whenever he could.

[Bob Crockett]

 For you to suggest that his word on archaeology (or cartography) is not to be respected, or is substandard, is absolute nonsense [very frankly]. 

My position is simply that it seems to me that his position conflicts with Joseph Smith's, and he does not bring to bear the tools that cartography or geography offer to make his case.   In the article referenced in my signature I challenge Dr. Sorenson's citation to evidence that Joseph Smith "became convinced" of the Mesoamerican theory.

 

He is respected, as you say, but only in Latter-day Saint circles about his Book of Mormon theories.   He is respected, apparently with some reservation because his Book of Mormon avocation, for his secular diffisionism work (I need to find the cite for this; somewhere in my library), which is a minority anthropological position and burdened with its own limitations respect-wise.  I believe it was Gavin Menzies (a popular diffusionist writer) who said that Dr. Sorenson's diffusionism publications should be viewed with suspicion because of the obvious agenda.  (An agenda I endorse, but I am just reporting the facts regarding your last sentence.)

Edited June 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ELF1024]

My position is simply that it seems to me that his position conflicts with Joseph Smith's, and he does not bring to bear the tools that cartography or geography offer to make his case.   In the article referenced in my signature I challenge Dr. Sorenson's citation to evidence that Joseph Smith "became convinced" of the Mesoamerican theory.

 

I am not sure why Joseph Smith's position on Book of Mormon Geography would be worth more than the paper it is printed upon. He's been dead a rather long time, and we've learned a great deal about the subject since then. I do not base my opinion solely on what Joseph Smith may or may not have believed some 100 years ago.

 

Having looked over Meldrum's theory, I do not find it convincing from my own ignorant point of view, however I have found a Limited Geography Theory... and specifically the one around Guatemala to be well supported by facts as well as textual clues from the Book of Mormon.

 

However, I am about as dumb as a post on the subject.

Edited June 30, 2014 by ELF1024

[cinepro]

I am not sure why Joseph Smith's position on Book of Mormon Geography would be worth more than the paper it is printed upon. He's been dead a rather long time, and we've learned a great deal about the subject since then. I do not base my opinion solely on what Joseph Smith may or may not have believed some 100 years ago.

 

Not to open the can of worms anew, but the answer is that some people consider Joseph Smith's position on BoM geography to be of greater value than a piece of paper because it's possible that knowledge came via revelation or communication with a heavenly messenger. 

 

It being Joseph Smith and all.

[ERayR]

I would imagine with all that higher learning and all those impressive degrees Dr. Sorensen puts uneducated country bumpkins like the founders of our religion and an ignoramus like Rodney Meldrum to shame.

 

I didn't see where that was mentioned.  I do see that, IMO, you have hit on the right answer, your imagination.

[ELF1024]

Not to open the can of worms anew, but the answer is that some people consider Joseph Smith's position on BoM geography to be of greater value than a piece of paper because it's possible that knowledge came via revelation or communication with a heavenly messenger. 

 

It being Joseph Smith and all.

 

Meh... don't really see that it was relevant to his mission here on Earth.

 

Nor was it really relevant to salvation. It's a fun trivial kind of pursuit, but not something to base a testimony on.

[ERayR]

My position is simply that it seems to me that his position conflicts with Joseph Smith's, and he does not bring to bear the tools that cartography or geography offer to make his case.   In the article referenced in my signature I challenge Dr. Sorenson's citation to evidence that Joseph Smith "became convinced" of the Mesoamerican theory.

 

He is respected, as you say, but only in Latter-day Saint circles about his Book of Mormon theories.   He is respected, apparently with some reservation because his Book of Mormon avocation, for his secular diffisionism work (I need to find the cite for this; somewhere in my library), which is a minority anthropological position and burdened with its own limitations respect-wise.  I believe it was Gavin Menzies (a popular diffusionist writer) who said that Dr. Sorenson's diffusionism publications should be viewed with suspicion because of the obvious agenda.  (An agenda I endorse, but I am just reporting the facts regarding your last sentence.)

 

It is my observation that Joseph Smith was not at all adamant or even settled on a location.  If you have had recent conversations with him then by all means say so.

 

I think that Dr. Sorenson is respected well beyond the Latter-Day-Saint community but fail to see what significance or bearing that has on the topic at hand.  Book of Mormon geography has little interest beyond Latter-Day-Saint circles.

[cursor]

I would imagine with all that higher learning and all those impressive degrees Dr. Sorensen puts uneducated country bumpkins like the founders of our religion and an ignoramus like Rodney Meldrum to shame.

Bob Crockett's emphasis was on scholastic qualification. That's what I addressed.

[cinepro]

Meh... don't really see that it was relevant to his mission here on Earth.

 

Nor was it really relevant to salvation. It's a fun trivial kind of pursuit, but not something to base a testimony on.

 

If you ever take time to read the Doctrine and Covenants, you might be surprised at the scope and breadth of the subjects upon which Joseph received revelation.  It's possible your standard is quite a bit higher than his when it comes to what will or won't be revealed.

[ERayR]

Not to open the can of worms anew, but the answer is that some people consider Joseph Smith's position on BoM geography to be of greater value than a piece of paper because it's possible that knowledge came via revelation or communication with a heavenly messenger. 

 

It being Joseph Smith and all.

 

Without a direct statement from Joseph himself we can not know but only suppose so that makes any speculation worth very little.

[omni]

Without a direct statement from Joseph himself we can not know but only suppose so that makes any speculation worth very little.

Joseph didn't live in a vacuum. Don't you think if he had a different belief he would have put an end to the errant belief which has persisted to this day?

[USU78]

Joseph didn't live in a vacuum. Don't you think if he had a different belief he would have put an end to the errant belief which has persisted to this day?

 

You mean . . . in between running for his life, founding a handful of cities, running essentially a state-within-a-state, directing international missionary efforts, running for president, and dealing with scores and scores of lawsuits and criminal charges . . . he's supposed to keep track of every nonsensical, nonscriptural theory that comes up in seminary classes?  Like that?