Sorenson's Mormon Codex Survived.

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

Wunderli? Seriously? I was invited to be a peer reviewer for that Dialogue essay, presumably because I happened to be a respondent on a Wunderli Sunstone presentation a few years before. When I expressed my serious reservations about Wundeli's approach, I was informed that preparation for publication was far advanced. That, is, all they wanted was a rubber stamp approval for what they had already decided. Not a critique.

See Brant Gardner's response to Wunderli.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=11

For instance,

Wunderli suggests, rather, that the case may be made entirely on internal data. The idea that the text should be a significant player in the discovery of its meaning is unquestionable. However, the supposition that "this internal evidence is fixed, readily available, and easily verifiable" would appear to be contradicted by the fact that he and Sorenson are both reading the same text with very different results. We are therefore left with the same issue he has when two archaeological specialists argue data. Although we certainly have the text readily available, if two presumably competent readers can read the same text differently, who is reading it correctly? Unfortunately, he has placed himself in the precise position he hoped to avoid by discussing the text alone without an external context.

Wunderli's statement that one should examine the text may imply to some that Sorenson somehow missed this vital step. But Wunderli understands that he did not. In fact, Wunderli is quite generous in his praise of at least the breadth of Sorenson's textual examination: "[sorenson] thus starts over with the basics by identifying every statement in the Book of Mormon that bears on its geography and proceeds to construct a geography that meets all the requirements of the Book of Mormon" (pp. 165-66). Not only did Sorenson examine those verses, he displays them with commentary in his Source Book, with which Wunderli is familiar.10 Since it is clearly not what Sorenson and Wunderli are reading that is at issue, their differences must stem from how they interpret what they read.

For the record, my own prepublication response to Dialogue zeroed in on the same presumptive phrase in Wunderli, the rock (or is it a sandy beach?) upon which he builds that "this internal evidence is fixed, readily available, and easily verifiable." Jesus offered his opinion that the same words can yield a completely different harvest, depending on soil and nurture. Jesus, is, in this case, far more realistic than Wunderli. Gardner gives an excellent appraisal, showing how context matters.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bob Crockett]

Wunderli? Seriously? 

 

I'm not sure what this means.  That I was so foolish to cite to Wunderli, or that I noted that he has lost his faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?  If your comment is to the former, I'd say that a citation to a FARMS critique by Brant isn't all that compelling, as FARMS has long been a staunch supporter of Dr. Sorenson.  I used to be a research assistant for Jack Welch, and his comment to me when I visit him on this topic is, "show me where there's concrete north of the Pecos."   What would be more compelling about support for Dr. Sorenson would be reference to his work in LDS instructional manuals.  Or in conference talks.  (I realize there's that Ensign article, and that is one hole for which cannot account.)

 

If your comment is to the latter, i.e. loss of  Wunderli's faith, I don't want to characterize his faith improperly, but he does have a webpage up where he discusses all of this.

 

But, thanks for pointing me to the critique of a critique.  I'll add that to my inventory for an upcoming article, if I ever have the time. 

 

BTW I have always been a particular fan of Brant and agree with most of what he has to say (although too bad his books are so long).

Edited May 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

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." :<}

Enjoying your stinky Red Herring? Scholarship equals accuracy? You're attracted to bling?

What else would you believe for a Klondike Bar?

I believe there's a logical fallacy named similar to throwing at your opponent too much information then claiming your oponent's position is wrong when your opponent cannot respond to all of it. Apparently, if one cant respond to the Mormon Codex tome, then of course, Dr. Sorenson has won the arguement.

 

Following this highly inappropriate exchange, the thread is closed.