Sorenson's Mormon Codex Survived.

[strappinglad]

OK , I have finally finished the entire book. I found it fascinating and well researched. Some might try to wave the 60 years of study away with " it's just parallelomania ". Bro Sorenson outlines ' correspondences ' from many fields, some stark, some more hazy. It is a major tome and should provide a great resource for others to build upon. I thank him for his efforts in this aspect of the BoM. It was well worth the price ,for him and for me. For those of you who have actually read all of this book , please offer any opinions about your experience. For those who have not, may I recommend doing so before ... sorry, I forgot, of course you may opine without having read more than the title. Such is the terrain of internet commentary.

I will offer one suggestion. It would be great to have a companion DVD with pics of all the areas spoken of in the book. Satellite or high level photos of the narrow neck etc. could aid in visualization of the topic. The book currently has just a few such photos and I realize that publishing photos is very expensive.

I also wish to remark that I await someone producing a similar book with the detailed scholarship this has on Mesoamerica , but on another BoM geography theory .

Edited April 28, 2014 by strappinglad

[readstoomuch]

You should say that you survived reading it. Haven't read it all, but I think he does a great job with the diffusionist concept and I'll give him a 7 on the horse issue.

[Bikeemikey]

I own it... It is both thick and heavy!

In the middle of house renovations so no time to read it yet. Looking forward to being able to though.

Did I mention how heavy it is? Once I start reading it i will be able to replace my normal weight training with simply moving that thing from my bookshelf to a table!

Edited April 28, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[strappinglad]

Yes, it is not ' light reading' in any sense . After my experience with the sleeping potion that was Nibley's " The Joseph Smith Papyrus " ,however, this book was Disneyesque.

[canard78]

I own it and have got through the first couple of chapters.

 

I thought the chapter on the pure historical narrative of the BoM was very good. It's often easy to get so focused on the "how to live" teachings of the BoM that we forget to notice "how they lived" (as societies).

 

I've not got all the way through yet. It's a detailed book. I've flicked through some of the topics and skim-read some sections, with the intention of returning to it later in detail. I thought the paintings of different ethnicities in (I think?) 500-200BC Guatemala were interesting.

[Alan]

Can I assume this book postulates a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon?

[nosmelone]

I finished it a while ago and absolutley loved it.  I have used many of his insights on my blog and actually will use many more.  I find this to be the best work to date on BOM geography.  Having read his previous works I found Mormons Codex easier to read than those of the past (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in particular).   This may be because I have become much more familiar with the Mesoamerican setting since I read "An Ancient American Setting" either way I would suggest reading Mormons Codex to anyone who may be interested.

[nosmelone]

Can I assume this book postulates a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon?

 

your correct 

[Kevin Christensen]

I've got it, finished it a few weeks ago. It is essential reading for anyone wanting to be informed on Book of Mormon scholarship. I don't think of it as being as radical an update to LDS thinking as Ancient American Setting was back in 1985, but is more like going from standard definition 25" tube to 70" 1080p flatscreen. Maybe not quite up to 3D yet. I think in terms of high resolution because of the way he ties specific archeological evidence regarding, say, the depopulation of the Grijalva valley to the Book of Mormon depiction of depopulation in the corresponding area at the same time. It's not about coercive proof, but of inviting correlations. Mostly the same general picture, but with many more more specific details that fit Book of Mormon cultural movements. And these kinds of details are things that the "sponge theory" would be completely incompetent to explain. So we can expect the brush off and dismissal, rather than serious response.

I like the maps, but I think they should have used the quadrant conception of directions that Brant and Larry have advocated at FAIR, rather than the modern vector directions. But that's just a tweak. Highly recommended.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited April 29, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[morgan.deane]

I enjoyed the book a great deal. I've actually read it twice now, and the reviewer that said it is the high water mark of BoM scholarship is entirely correct. It summarizes a lot of the research Sorenson has done in other places into one volume. I wrote a brief review focusing on the warfare chapter here: http//:mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-review-Mormons-codex.html

Edited April 28, 2014 by morgan.deane

[David T]

It's helpful to use the material in Brant Gardner's Second Witness 6-Volume Commentary on the Book of Mormon (and likely distilled in his forthcoming book from Kofford) as a refiner and expansion of Sorenson's work. Gardner refines and goes beyond Sorenson, and Sorenson makes clear in the introduction to his book that his newest does not take Gardner's work into consideration, and one should consult Gardner for the additional information.

 

For example, one key point of departure is that Gardner puts some substantial work into debunking the false parallels between Quetzalcoatl and a visit of Christ in the Americas. Gardner's commentary is massive and excellent, and went a long way of bringing me to a point where I would accept an authentic historical Mesoamerican setting as plausible, but I look forward to a good one-volume book with his research to make it more accessible and known. Here's hoping his Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History accomplishes a little of that.

[Rivers]

I am still working through this book. It is striking to me how convinced Sorensen is that he has this whole business of locating Book of Mormon lands figured out. It is fascinating to see how Mormon's map correlates with the Mesoamerican map. The most interesting part for me so far is the evidence he presents to argue against an isolationist paradigm. I like the photographs of the different statues with diverse facial features. He goes up against a lot of orthodox assumptions about ancient America.

I am still eager to get to the part where he attempts to correlate the Nephite religion with what we know about Mesoamerican religion.

As far I can tell so far he doesn't weigh in on any translation issues. I assume he is tight translation guy.

[ERayR]

I have and am about half way through.  To me it is an essential companion to Book of Mormon study. 

[Bob Crockett]

"We do not offer any definite solution [about Book of Mormon geography]. 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." (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1929, 15-16, retrieved from GospeLink 2001, CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000.) The proof he is talking about is revealed proof. Pres. Ivins was in the First Presidency at the time of this statement.

Food for thought for serious Book of Mormon students, and those less so serious. The text is the message, not messages about anthropology or geography. However, I did enjoy Codex and have it as a main reference book.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[strappinglad]

I don't think Bro. Sorenson wrote the book without being personally quite convinced he was on solid ground with his ideas. However, he does admit to changing his thinking on the Jaredites somewhat, and he leaves a lot of doors open for further research and investigation. I don't recall him ever declaring his ideas as doctrine.

Until the brethren declare that the Lord commands that we not pursue learning in these areas , I suggest we can look for further light and knowledge on the subject.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think Bro. Sorenson wrote the book without being personally quite convinced he was on solid ground with his ideas. However, he does admit to changing his thinking on the Jaredites somewhat, and he leaves a lot of doors open for further research and investigation. I don't recall him ever declaring his ideas as doctrine.Until the brethren declare that the Lord commands that we not pursue learning in these areas , I suggest we can look for further light and knowledge on the subject.

I don't see the statements of the Brethren drawing distinctions about doctrine and non-doctrine when it comes to geography. They just say don't do it. It just leads to dispute and bad feelings.

[strappinglad]

I've yet to see an academic topic that doesn't lead to disputes. Bad feelings are optional.

[Bob Crockett]

The fact that bad feelings exist (which the Brethren predicted would occur in disputes over geography) is a reason not to pursue these studies, and not the inverse as you suggest. 

 

I get a lot of criticism here for pointing out the official Church position that these types of studies should not be pursued.  I don't really have a dog in the race; there is no theory that I believe is better than another.  

 

I recall my visits to the poor saints in Brasil and Mexico when I went to pick up missionary children; the RS President living in a hut with a mud floor.   I wonder if her faith depends upon her studying Book of Mormon geography or signing on to some sort of documentary hypothesis of the Old Testament.  Or, instead, should her faith in the scriptures depend upon what they say on their face, as Elder Oaks urges us to use instead of commentary or academic gloss.

 

To me, the pursuit of academic gloss for scriptural matters is Freudian.  Academics have to justify their existence.  When it comes to revealed matter, not much of it is that helpful, really.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

Keep hoping somebody will get the hint . . . no luck at Christmas . . . no luck on my birthday . . . Father's Day's coming . . .

 

[strappinglad]

Keep hoping somebody will get the hint . . . no luck at Christmas . . . no luck on my birthday . . . Father's Day's coming . . .

 

If you have no luck on Father's day, let me know and I will send you my copy for a small rental fee.

[Calm]

The fact that bad feelings exist (which the Brethren predicted would occur in disputes over geography) is a reason not to pursue these studies, and not the inverse as you suggest. 

 

I get a lot of criticism here for pointing out the official Church position that these types of studies should not be pursued.

I have my doubts that the Church's position is as strong as you claim.

Some members get upset over studies in science and attack others' faithfulness, generally those doing the science but on rare occasion the reverse. I have seen members who attack the faithfulness of those who won't live the WoW to the extreme they present it, genealogy and disaster preparation as well.

That there are those who have their personal gospel hobby with which they test the faithfulness of others seems an awkward reason to desist from the study itself because that just might cover all areas of study, even the scriptures.

[ERayR]

The fact that bad feelings exist (which the Brethren predicted would occur in disputes over geography) is a reason not to pursue these studies, and not the inverse as you suggest. 

 

I get a lot of criticism here for pointing out the official Church position that these types of studies should not be pursued.  I don't really have a dog in the race; there is no theory that I believe is better than another.  

 

I recall my visits to the poor saints in Brasil and Mexico when I went to pick up missionary children; the RS President living in a hut with a mud floor.   I wonder if her faith depends upon her studying Book of Mormon geography or signing on to some sort of documentary hypothesis of the Old Testament.  Or, instead, should her faith in the scriptures depend upon what they say on their face, as Elder Oaks urges us to use instead of commentary or academic gloss.

 

To me, the pursuit of academic gloss for scriptural matters is Freudian.  Academics have to justify their existence.  When it comes to revealed matter, not much of it is that helpful, really.

 

I kind of like D & C 88:

 

78 Teach ye diligently and my ^agrace shall attend you, that you may be ^binstructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

 79 Of things both in ^aheaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must ^bshortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the ^cnations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a ^dknowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

 80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to ^amagnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the ^bmission with which I have commissioned you.

[Bob Crockett]

I have my doubts that the Church's position is as strong as you claim.

Some members get upset over studies in science and attack others' faithfulness, generally those doing the science but on rare occasion the reverse. I have seen members who attack the faithfulness of those who won't live the WoW to the extreme they present it, genealogy and disaster preparation as well.

That there are those who have their personal gospel hobby with which they test the faithfulness of others seems an awkward reason to desist from the study itself because that just might cover all areas of study, even the scriptures.

It is quite strong.   I guess one person's gospel hobby is another person's basis to condemn, a sort of inverse gospel hobby.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

How absolutely interestering to read these varied/contrasting perspectives. And, since several of the views are clearly contrasting, it's interesting to read the interchange. At times ... with substantial humor.

[Tiki]

How absolutely interestering to read these varied/contrasting perspectives. And, since several of the views are clearly contrasting, it's interesting to read the interchange. At times ... with substantial humor.

Do you find Alma 48:2 to be humorous? I haven't read Mormon Codex, but I have read The Book of Mormon.