Sorenson's Mormon Codex Survived.

[canard78]

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

On the subject if maps, can anyone shed any light on "map 1" in the following link:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-fourth-nephi-through-moroni-zion-destruction/18-moroni-last-nephite-prophets

Claimed to have been drawn by Joseph Smith and showing Bountiful in Central America.

 

ETA:

New thread to avoid a derail: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63462-is-this-an-original-book-of-mormon-map-by-joseph-smith/

 

I think it's not genuine after all.

Edited May 1, 2014 by canard78

[Calm]

Witness the bad things said about Porter and Meldrum and vice versa.

There are likely some bad things said by supporters of other theories about Porter and Meldrum simply because of disagreement, but the majority of criticism I've seen is based on two things that have nothing to do with their location choice...it could be anywhere and that is Melrum's and his fans tendency to question the faithfulness to the Church and Joseph Smith of those who disagree with him as well as a misuse of science (such as ignoring the timelines of the data or use of forgeries) which would be criticised even if he was supporting an identical theory. The only personal criticism of his group based on location of his theory that I remember is the limiting of it to a certain area in the US requiring him to exclude prophetic prayers/temple dedications among things.

He could be arguing for anything in the Church and would be criticised appropriately for that methodology.

Edited May 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[USU78]

On the subject if maps, can anyone shed any light on "map 1" in the following link:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-fourth-nephi-through-moroni-zion-destruction/18-moroni-last-nephite-prophets

Claimed to have been drawn by Joseph Smith and showing Bountiful in Central America.

 

Nice find!

[canard78]

Nice find!

If genuine it's pretty groundbreaking stuff. Even if it's not JS but can be shown to be from early/mid-1800s it's still impressive.

Does the hand-writing match the stuff on JSP?

ETA: I'll open a new thread to avoid a derail here

 

ETA (2): It appears to not be genuine. Having 'Utah' in a later version is surely anachronistic?

Edited May 1, 2014 by canard78

[Anijen]

Personal attacks don't work with me. 

Yet almost every post of lately of yours is against Sorenson and his book. It makes me wonder if you have a grudge or something against him that you just can't let go.

 

 

 

"Let it go, the cold never bothered me anyway"

[Senator]

Yet almost every post of lately of yours is against Sorenson and his book. It makes me wonder if you have a grudge or something against him that you just can't let go.

 

 

 

"Let it go, the cold never bothered me anyway"

 

What does gay propaganda have to do with this thread?

[Bob Crockett]

Yet almost every post of lately of yours is against Sorenson and his book. It makes me wonder if you have a grudge or something against him that you just can't let go.

 

Not at all.   I am critical of the MesoAmerican theory, and he is quite frankly the modern author of it.  

 

I am also critical of the LDS veneration of Asherah, and point to the early writings on the subject (Dr. Peterson and Barney), but that does not mean I hold a grudge against them.  Far from it.   I'd be careful imputing to me some personal vendetta just because I disagree with the theory.   

[Anijen]

What does gay propaganda have to do with this thread?

What? How do you jump to that with my post?

[canard78]

What? How do you jump to that with my post?

 

It was on the board a few weeks ago.

 

http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/movie-frozen-gay-homosexual-agenda.html

[Calm]

What? How do you jump to that with my post?

""Let it go, the cold never bothered me anyway""

If you have not encountered the claim that this movie promotes the "gay agenda", feel blessed.

[Anijen]

Not at all.   I am critical of the MesoAmerican theory, and he is quite frankly the modern author of it.  

 

I am also critical of the LDS veneration of Asherah, and point to the early writings on the subject (Dr. Peterson and Barney), but that does not mean I hold a grudge against them.  Far from it.   I'd be careful imputing to me some personal vendetta just because I disagree with the theory.   

Okay, I have just noticed that your post specially the more current ones tend to be against Sorenson. I haven't seen any focus on other theories such as Asherah, or other Mesoamericanist. 

 

Personally even if the LGT is wrong or heartland, or_______(insert favorite theory), I take an opposite view as you do and see value in researching, studying and exploring the theories as D&C 88:78 and D&C 97:14 suggest.

[Anijen]

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that about the movie and I am usually selective on the threads I open up and read. I majored in History and Anthropology so it is threads connected to those fields that I find an interest and the ones I choose to read.

 

I still like the song and movie.

[Senator]

What? How do you jump to that with my post?

 

Sorry, bad joke....

[poulsenll]

See new thread.

[ERayR]

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

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.

 

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. 

 

You forgot Star Wars, Star Trek and Lord of the Rings..

 

How ironic that one who wastes his time posting and blogging on internet boards would worry about someone wasting their time on Book of Mormon geography. 

[ERayR]

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.

 

Why?  Wasn't your behavior good enough to warrant a gift from Santa?

[Bob Crockett]

You forgot Star Wars, Star Trek and Lord of the Rings..

 

How ironic that one who wastes his time posting and blogging on internet boards would worry about someone wasting their time on Book of Mormon geography. 

Again, I don't think a personal attack is warranted here.   I write papers on Church topics and occasionally publish them.  One paper I'm developing concerns the declaration of martial law in the days leading to Carthage and how Governor Ford reneged on his promises and why.  Another is a modern recitation of geographic studies of the Book of Mormon.  By engaging in discussions on that latter topic on this board I want to see the very best proofs and arguments that can be made by MesoAmericanists (other than a cartographic explanation, which doesn't really interest me).  Too bad much of it is just another personal attack against me.  Please don't take offense at my matter-of-fact questions and challenges.  We're all friends and brothers/sisters in the Gospel.  We have more in common that you might think.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

Again, I don't think a personal attack is warranted here.   I write papers on Church topics and occasionally publish them.  One paper I'm developing concerns the declaration of martial law in the days leading to Carthage and how Governor Ford reneged on his promises and why.  Another is a modern recitation of geographic studies of the Book of Mormon.  By engaging in discussions on that latter topic on this board I want to see the very best proofs and arguments that can be made by MesoAmericanists (other than a cartographic explanation, which doesn't really interest me).  Too bad much of it is just another personal attack against me.  Please don't take offense at my matter-of-fact questions and challenges.  We're all friends and brothers/sisters in the Gospel.  We have more in common that you might think.

 

You hold up the personal attack mantra like a shield to deflect legitimate criticisms.  You posted a red herring post about teaching pornography and (by implication) witchcraft in church meetings.  I just pointed out that you had forgotten science fiction and fantasy in your list.  I, and as far as I can see,nobody else attacked you personally.  We take issue of your interpretation of certain subjects, not the way you dress.

 

You also offered the opinion that one ought not waste their time on the issues in which you see no value.  I was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning in that many would consider your posting on the net as a colossal waste of time.  In fact some might consider your current project on martial law as frivolous and divisive.

 

If you were to use your logic almost any topic you choose to approach could be put on the taboo list.

[Bob Crockett]

Le't focus on what is important.   Do you think that there is any basis to the BYU Studies criticism (Warren) that Dr. Sorenson did not have enough data points for his geographic conclusions?  I'd be interested in your views.  Don't focus on what kind of person I am.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[J Green]

Bob,

 

I don't understand the relevance of a review of Ancient American Setting in a discussion on Codex. Unless someone assumes that they're the same book. But that aside, I think you need to read the review again.

 

1. Bruce Warren was not a professional cartographer or geographer (as you have represented him in various posts); he was an archaeologist with the same background as Sorenson.

 

2. The concern about lack of data points in a cultural geography model (the Spencer and Thomas model is used) is reserved for Hauck and not Sorenson. (He is reviewing two books in this review.) Sorenson is noted for his engagement on the majority of the data points.

 

3. The value-neutral comment that Sorenson doesn't use any of the current mathematical or statistical approaches (bottom of p. 134) is a lead in to a comment about Hauck's use of those statistics that Warren claims are "premature because they are designed for use in cases where extensive information is available for processing. At the present time such information is inadequate for statistical procedures of a sophisticated nature" (top of p. 135). Thus, Warren says that the use of this very statistical approach is premature. He notes that Sorenson doesn't these approaches in leading into his criticism of Hauck for using them. He is not criticizing Sorenson for not using them.

 

4. Even had Warren been criticizing Sorenson for not using the statistical method (he's not), this would have been a tangential tag to the entire thrust of the article that has occurred to this point, which is that Mesoamerica is the only plausible location for a BOM setting and that he has a clear preference for the breadth and depth of Sorenson's engagement in opposition to Hauck, who merely tries to map locations without attempting a holistic approach to intersecting lines of technology, population, etc. All of this makes it seem as if you're trying to pin Warren's criticisms of Hauck onto Sorenson. Hauck is the one whose data points aren't specific enough for the mapping excercise.

 

5. Warren's investment in the Mesoamerican limited model is evident if you perform a search on his name on the NAMIRS site. Three pages populate with Warren giving presentations and insights that link the text of the BoM to specific sites. By 1997 he is using the model to be specific enough to claim that Stela 5 cannot be real because it would have been found in a Lamanite city by the geographic model. I don't think he is the hero you are looking for to say that we cannot know where the geography is or that there is not enough data to postulate models.

 

I hope that clears up any confusion about "data points." Here is the link to the review if you need to look at it again:

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8779

 

 

But all that aside, I fail to see its relevance. For those who have read both Setting and Codex, it is hard not to see how different a kind of book Codex is. It is not simply a rehash of Setting. It assumes much of its content but simply moves on to engage at a different level. I'm still struggling to see evidence that you have read Codex. And simply mis-remembering an early (and complimentary) review of Setting doesn't seem to really do much for the discussion. How about giving us some areas from Codex that you either like or don't like and we and continue from there?

 

Regards

[Bikeemikey]

Le't focus on what is important. Do you think that there is any basis to the BYU Studies criticism (Warren) that Dr. Sorenson did not have enough data points for his geographic conclusions? I'd be interested in your views. Don't focus on what kind of person I am.

Read J Green's response to this post.

Your insistence on critiquing codex with dubious claims that the church is opposed to Sorensens research in this area and some book review that doesn't say what you think it says is bewildering.

Either engage with the material in Codex or get out of the thread...

[Bob Crockett]

Bob,

 

I don't understand the relevance of a review of Ancient American Setting in a discussion on Codex. Unless someone assumes that they're the same book. But that aside, I think you need to read the review again.

 

1. Bruce Warren was not a professional cartographer or geographer (as you have represented him in various posts); he was an archaeologist with the same background as Sorenson.

 

2. The concern about lack of data points in a cultural geography model (the Spencer and Thomas model is used) is reserved for Hauck and not Sorenson. (He is reviewing two books in this review.) Sorenson is noted for his engagement on the majority of the data points.

 

3. The value-neutral comment that Sorenson doesn't use any of the current mathematical or statistical approaches (bottom of p. 134) is a lead in to a comment about Hauck's use of those statistics that Warren claims are "premature because they are designed for use in cases where extensive information is available for processing. At the present time such information is inadequate for statistical procedures of a sophisticated nature" (top of p. 135). Thus, Warren says that the use of this very statistical approach is premature. He notes that Sorenson doesn't these approaches in leading into his criticism of Hauck for using them. He is not criticizing Sorenson for not using them.

 

4. Even had Warren been criticizing Sorenson for not using the statistical method (he's not), this would have been a tangential tag to the entire thrust of the article that has occurred to this point, which is that Mesoamerica is the only plausible location for a BOM setting and that he has a clear preference for the breadth and depth of Sorenson's engagement in opposition to Hauck, who merely tries to map locations without attempting a holistic approach to intersecting lines of technology, population, etc. All of this makes it seem as if you're trying to pin Warren's criticisms of Hauck onto Sorenson. Hauck is the one whose data points aren't specific enough for the mapping excercise.

 

5. Warren's investment in the Mesoamerican limited model is evident if you perform a search on his name on the NAMIRS site. Three pages populate with Warren giving presentations and insights that link the text of the BoM to specific sites. By 1997 he is using the model to be specific enough to claim that Stela 5 cannot be real because it would have been found in a Lamanite city by the geographic model. I don't think he is the hero you are looking for to say that we cannot know where the geography is or that there is not enough data to postulate models.

 

I hope that clears up any confusion about "data points." Here is the link to the review if you need to look at it again:

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8779

 

 

But all that aside, I fail to see its relevance. For those who have read both Setting and Codex, it is hard not to see how different a kind of book Codex is. It is not simply a rehash of Setting. It assumes much of its content but simply moves on to engage at a different level. I'm still struggling to see evidence that you have read Codex. And simply mis-remembering an early (and complimentary) review of Setting doesn't seem to really do much for the discussion. How about giving us some areas from Codex that you either like or don't like and we and continue from there?

 

Regards

 1. I assumed that Warren was a geographer based upon his comments.  But, as an archaeologist his observations about Dr. Sorenson's weaknesses are all the more convincing. 

 

2.  The lack of data points is directed to Dr. Sorenson's work. As Warren says:  "At the present time, most of the evidence for or against these two differing models of Book of Mormon geography would be classified as circumstantial. What is imperative for eventually producing a provable model of Book of Mormon geography is to find place names in languages, codices, written documents, emblem glyphs, or art symbolism from Mesoamerica that parallels in meaning and pattern the place names in the Book of Mormon. No one would object to a revelation on the matter."    Please contemplate what this means; there isn't much there upon which to base a Mesoamerican geography.

 

Indeed, when Warren says that Hauck's attempt at statistical methodology (where Sorenson attempts none) falls short because "such information is inadequate for statistical procedures of a sophisticated nature," he is saying that it is impossible for Hauck or anybody else for that matter to use modern cartographic means to reach conclusions about Book of Mormon geography.

 

3 & 4   Warren does criticize Sorenson for not using modern geographical techniques:  "Sorenson’s book has a good historical and cultural geographical approach to the problem. He does not use any of the current mathematical or statistical approaches of contemporary geography."  Whether or not that is a criticism or pointing out a shortcoming, I leave that to the reader.

 

5.   Your comments about Warren's career are irrelevant, nor do I prop him up as a hero.  I simply observe that BYU Studies issued a review of Ancient America that pointed out some flaws.

 

As to why I concern myself with these observations about Codex when they seem they are directed to Ancient America, it seems to me that my critique is rather obvious.  Any attempt to confine Book of Mormon events to a particular geographic area, be it with maps or diffusionistic parallelomania, is going to lead to disappointment.   I hope that we can continue to discuss this with good humor, instead of demands that I leave this thread.  

 

Your insistence on critiquing codex with dubious claims that the church is opposed to Sorensens research in this area and some book review that doesn't say what you think it says is bewildering.

Either engage with the material in Codex or get out of the thread... 

 

I haven't said that the "Church" is opposed to "Sorensons [sic] research."   I've said that the Church officially takes no position on geography, and that the First Presidency has said that people shouldn't be speculating about it until there is more revealed on the subject, meaning, revelation.  Arm of the flesh and all that.

 

I mean, see what all this has spawned?  There's been all sorts of claims of misdeeds surrounding the so-called Watson letter and follow-up letters.  Why should this be necessary to impugn somebody over something as unimportant as that.  And, anonymously to boot!

Edited May 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[strappinglad]

Thanks for playing folks. As instigator of this thread I hereby request mods to close it. Again ,I recommend that posters take the time to seriously read Sorenson's book, if for nothing more that to familiarize themselves with the latest on Mesoamerican theory.

 

Done.

[J Green]

I won't quibble with Bob. I invite all who are interested to read the review and see if it makes the claims that Bob makes for it.

 

Regards

[Bob Crockett]

I also quote from Earl Wunderli's Dialogue critique of Ancient America:

 

Sorenson and other LDS scholars have recognized that the traditional hemispheric model no longer works, but their solution of a limited geographic model does not work either.  Sorenson’s model requires contorting terminology and text to make a case riven by esoteric complication.  His model wanders far afield from what the Book of Mormon straightforwardly describes.  It solves many problems with the hemispheric model but only at great cost to the Book of Mormon’s internal reliability as scripture, a book that presumably means what it says.

 

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_169.pdf.  

 

Too bad Wunderli seems, after this 1994 review, to have lost his faith in the Book of Mormon.  One wonders what geographic speculation played in the departure of Ferguson, as well.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett