Sorenson's Mormon Codex Survived.

[strappinglad]

Good to see you back cursor, please convey my thanks to your father for his great work.

[Gervin]

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.

 

(my bold)

I wonder if "inviting correlations" really merit serious response. They certainly do not merit scholarly response until there is some kind of consensus, even if only in the Mormon community, about what the known artifacts of the Maya (or Olmec or take your pick) tell us about the Nephites or Lamanites or other Book of Mormon people.

[strappinglad]

(my bold)

. They certainly do not merit scholarly response until there is some kind of consensus,

This part jumped out as being oxymoronic but I'll wait until everyone agrees with me.

[USU78]

This part jumped out as being oxymoronic but I'll wait until everyone agrees with me.

:-P

[Bob Crockett]

It's not about coercive proof, but of inviting correlations. . . . So we can expect the brush off and dismissal, rather than serious response.A

My critique is hardly a brush off and dismissal.

As the BYU Studies review of Ancient America pointed out, why is an anthropologist qualified in cartography?

Edited April 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[strappinglad]

It's called multitasking.

The criticism about an apparent lack of academic qualifications smells of typical turf protecting snobbery . If one spends decades studying one small area of the world, one could be just as qualified on that small area as any person fresh out of map school.

[Bob Crockett]

According to the BYU Studies reviewer, who is a geographer, he points out that the Book of Mormon contains too few internal points from which to draw real world conclusions, and that Dr. Sorenson did not use modern cartographic means from which to draw his conclusions.

Far from "snobbery" it is a legitimate statement that (1) Dr. Sorenson was not qualified to reach his conclusions and (2) Dr. Sorenson did not have enough data points from which to draw his conclusions and (3) Dr. Sorenson did not use the sort of means cartographers and geographers use.

You'll have to read Warren's review. (See my blog link below.) Warren is much less direct than I am above, but his review caused me to look a little at the cartographic profession to see what Warren was talking about. I fully concede I am swimming against the current here. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

According to the BYU Studies reviewer, who is a geographer, he points out that the Book of Mormon contains too few internal points from which to draw real world conclusions, and that Dr. Sorenson did not use modern cartographic means from which to draw his conclusions.

Far from "snobbery" it is a legitimate statement that (1) Dr. Sorenson was not qualified to reach his conclusions and (2) Dr. Sorenson did not have enough data points from which to draw his conclusions and (3) Dr. Sorenson did not use the sort of means cartographers and geographers use.

You'll have to read Warren's review. (See my blog link below.) Warren is much less direct than I am above, but his review caused me to look a little at the cartographic profession to see what Warren was talking about. I fully concede I am swimming against the current here. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

Then ignore it.  Don't read it.  Nobody has told you you have to read it.  The loss is yours.  I still say it is essential in Book of Mormon study.

[ERayR]

My critique is hardly a brush off and dismissal.

As the BYU Studies review of Ancient America pointed out, why is an anthropologist qualified in cartography?

 

One might ask why are you qualified to comment on it at all. 

[Bob Crockett]

Then ignore it.  Don't read it.  Nobody has told you you have to read it.  The loss is yours.  I still say it is essential in Book of Mormon study.

As I have pointed out above, I own it, read it and use it for my study.

Are you suggesting that if somebody disagrees with the LGT theory as formulated by Dr. Sorenson, that one should keep one's oopinion to one's self? Again, I don't disagree with it because there is a better theory.

 

One might ask why are you qualified to comment on it at all.

 

I'd be pleased to answer your question.  (The short answer is:  I am qualified as much as the next fan to critque Peyton Manning's performance.  I don't have to play professional football.)

 

Dr. Sorenson's two books on Mormon geograpy are written for a lay audience.  As a diffusionist, he has written academic works (I have one of them), and they are written for scholars.  As a lay person, I feel I can express disagreement as a critic and not have to have the same credentials as Dr. Sorenson.

 

Furthermore, the essential thesis of objection is that the Brethren have overwhelmingly criticized the pursuit of Book of Mormon geography as contrary to direction and likely to lead to strife.   It doesn't take an anthropologist or cartographer to point out that argument.  Nor are there theologians available to make such a critique, as none really exist in the Church. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

As I have pointed out above, I own it, read it and use it for my study.

Are you suggesting that if somebody disagrees with the LGT theory as formulated by Dr. Sorenson, that one should keep one's oopinion to one's self? Again, I don't disagree with it because there is a better theory.

 

Not in the least but they way you were denigrating it and Dr. Sorenson I thought that you were advocating that course of action for him.

 

I'd be pleased to answer your question.  (The short answer is:  I am qualified as much as the next fan to critque Peyton Manning's performance.  I don't have to play professional football.)

 

After a few decades studying this area I would thing that Dr. Sorenson would be more than a little bit qualified in this area.

 

Dr. Sorenson's two books on Mormon geograpy are written for a lay audience.  As a diffusionist, he has written academic works (I have one of them), and they are written for scholars.  As a lay person, I feel I can express disagreement as a critic and not have to have the same credentials as Dr. Sorenson.

 

Criticize away.  I have a couple of small issues with his work myself.  It just seems a bit much to criticize his expertise when yours seems a bit more lacking than his.

 

Furthermore, the essential thesis of objection is that the Brethren have overwhelmingly criticized the pursuit of Book of Mormon geography as contrary to direction and likely to lead to strife.   It doesn't take an anthropologist or cartographer to point out that argument.  Nor are there theologians available to make such a critique, as none really exist in the Church. 

 

I think that D & C 88 especially verses 78 thru 80 tells us to study these things.  It is my understanding that all things were open to study unless they caused us problems and if they did then it was probably wise th shelve them for awhile.  If this causes you problems then shelve it for a while.  I have a few things on the shelf waiting for further light and knowlege.

[Bob Crockett]

 It just seems a bit much to criticize his expertise when yours seems a bit more lacking than his.

 

I am not an anthropologist.  But I can point out that a BYU Studies reviewer who is a geographer pointed out some significant weaknesses in Dr. Sorenson's work, one of which is that he did not deploy modern cartographic measures and that there isn't enough in the Book of Mormon to go on.   Plus, I am as qualified as Dr. Sorenson to read the proscriptions the Brethren have laid against geographic speculation.  I would just caution against personal attacks against me and just read my words for what they are and say.  I think it a compelling, very compelling, argument that Dr. Sorenson's major works don't have enough data points to support modern cartographic conclusions.

 

I think that D & C 88 especially verses 78 thru 80 tells us to study these things.  

 

A generalized quote like that could be used, I guess, to override just about any proscription the Brethren have uttered about certain indefensible positions.  Let's study the occult, or pornography, or Wicca, or spend our days reading J. K. Rowling, and introduce them into our seminary classes and priesthood lessons.  That would also seem to satisfy D&C 88.

Not in the least but they way you were denigrating it and Dr. Sorenson I thought that you were advocating that course of action for him.

 

Of course, I am saying that geographic speculation about the Book of Mormon is a frivolous and detrimental waste of time.   I'm a big believer in the Book of Mormon and in its divine source, but I also respect the overwhelming and many statements of the Church cautioning against Book of Mormon geographic speculation.  My blog quote, for instance, cites to the current seminary manual on that topic. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Stargazer]

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

 

 

I kept telling everyone that I wanted the Band of Brothers disk set.  I talked about it at opportune times for about three years.  No luck.

 

Finally, I bought myself the set, wrapped it for Christmas, and put it under the tree..  From "Santa" of course.  Nobody believed I hadn't bought it my own self.

 

So just go buy the darned thing.

[J Green]

If you're arguing that the substance of Codex is tied to cartography — or even geography — then I simply don't buy that you have read the book or even own it. [Cue music] Don't know much about Cartography . . .

The "overwhelming" quotes against speculation simply don't exist. True, there are a few, but 1) they are almost entirely pre-correlation and haven't come back through the authoritative vetting process, 2) they should be read in the context of the time and setting from whence they arise, and 3) even in the case where the modern Church may not want public discussion or speculation on sensitive topics — say the status of the Church in the Middle East, for example — they will still ask for input and publication from the experts in those fields. In other words, even if those quotes represented the current teaching of the Church ( which they don't) it may just be that they apply to Bob but not to John. With the publication of his Ensign articles, I'll leave you to guess if the Church really thinks it's wrong for Dr. Sorenson to write on the topic of field of study.

Look, for those who take "by study and by faith" seriously, this is any easy proposition. In fact we make serious covenants in the temple to consecrate our time and our talents to the kingdom, when our talents often lie in the secular fields. And when I send my kids to the Y I want my kids studying with professors who will allow an approach to secular subjects from a faith-based perspective. Study and Faith. We expect Sorenson to be a faithful Latter-day Saint renowned anthropologist and NOT combine his area of study with his faith? Odd. And in fulfillment of covenants made in the temple Sorenson has sacrificed a considerable amount of time and talent to building the kingdom in his corner of the vineyard and this is a problem? Maybe for the types of critics in Alma 11. So maybe we should just discuss the pros and cons of his book without attempting to speak for the Church. They have an authoritative mechanism to speak for themselves. And after thirty years of Sorenson's exploration at their university with their full knowledge, articles in the Ensign and BYU publications, and books published by Deseret Book, I think they have had sufficient time to assess both his ideas and his expertise and ask him to stop if they wanted him to.

[J Green]

Aside from the many correlations presented in Codex, what I really liked about Sorenson's approach was his honesty about where the mainstream experts stand in relation to some of his views. He quite often would detail a theory with supporting evidence and then admit how the majority view was different and that he hoped the types of evidence he and others were gathering would help scholars reassess the issue at some point. Refreshing.

[Bob Crockett]

It's come down to the charge that I don't really have the book? My goodness, isn't fair discussion possible?

[Tiki]

Yes, you need the book. A Limited Geography Theory needs more and more books to explain in detail how limited it is.

[cdowis]

Too bad the Heartland theory does not have a work of such quality scholarship.  

 

So far the only argument I have seen from that camp is "BOM geography is doctrine, so follow the prophet."  That makes for a very small book, in the same category of the world's smallest book, bin Laden's "My Jewish Heritage."  :<}

Edited May 1, 2014 by cdowis

[J Green]

It's come down to the charge that I don't really have the book? My goodness, isn't fair discussion possible?

 

Yes to both questions. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read the book would think of cartography before anything else or that any lack of expertise in cartography on Sorenson's part would somehow invalidate the book's thesis. (Perhaps you could articulate what you think the thesis of the entire book is.) Because the cartographic angle plays less of a role in Codex than it does in his previous books (especially Mormon's Map). So when your repeated criticisms of the book on several boards almost entirely reference the one tangential cartographic assessment from someone else's review, then for me it raises the question of whether or not you have read the book or are simply relying on that one review. If an English Lit professor receives a paper from a student on Pride and Prejudice that essentially only quotes one review over and over (and the review in question is about a minor element like the role of the Militia in Meryton), then the professor may reasonably question whether or not the student has actually read Pride and Prejudice or has simply read the one review and used that as the substance for his or her paper. Do you see the point?

 

And yes, fair discussion is possible. But preferably when we simply discuss the merits of the book as friends without one of us trying to speak officially for Church leadership, which thankfully neither of us are.

[Bob Crockett]

Personal attacks don't work with me. I give you credit for the good faith in your beliefs in Dr. Sorenson's model. Hopefully you can give me the same credit. Those who know me personally, I hope, can vouch for the fact that I read and possess books upon which I comment.

My opinion is what it is. To sum up, Dr. Sorenson's geographic theories, trying to pinpoint Book of Mormon locations to specific places anywhere, is unsupportable from the standpoint of modern geographic analysis. To advance that theory over others is to lead to unhappy strife and dispute. Witness the bad things said about Porter and Meldrum and vice versa.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[J Green]

_{Personal attacks don't work with me.}

My opinion is what it is. To sum up, Dr. Sorenson's geographic theories, trying to pinpoint Book of Mormon locations to specific places anywhere, is unsupportable from the standpoint of modern geographic analysis. To advance that theory over others is to lead to unhappy strife and dispute. Witness the bad things said about Porter and Meldrum and vice versa.

 

_{No attack intended, Bob. I simply gave my assessment that you haven't read the work, and I offered my reasons for that assessment.}

 

_{But I like how you shared your opinion just now. I disagree with it, but I like how you shared it. You own the opinion and you haven't tried to claim that you're speaking for anyone else. Kudos.}

 

 

_{Edited to fix font size.}

Edited May 1, 2014 by J Green

[cursor]

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

 

Yes ... there is no alternative setting, frankly.

[cursor]

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.

 

I needed that. Thanks ERayR.

[cursor]

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

I said nothing about the content of the Book of Mormon to be humorous. 

I have read the Book of Mormon very multilple times.

I have read "Mormon's Codex" multiple times (I authored the illustrations).

Not sure at all why the emotional attack, Tiki.

[cursor]

Personal attacks don't work with me. I give you credit for the good faith in your beliefs in Dr. Sorenson's model. Hopefully you can give me the same credit. Those who know me personally, I hope, can vouch for the fact that I read and possess books upon which I comment.

My opinion is what it is. To sum up, Dr. Sorenson's geographic theories, trying to pinpoint Book of Mormon locations to specific places anywhere, is unsupportable from the standpoint of modern geographic analysis. To advance that theory over others is to lead to unhappy strife and dispute. Witness the bad things said about Porter and Meldrum and vice versa.

 

So to scientifically narrow in on a viable geographic reality for Book of Mormon codex events is taboo? 

Perhaps, instead of seriously searching for truth, we should be content to live in "never-never land" and hang out with Tinkerbell and the Lost Boys.