Mesoamerican Theory Predictions

[Grudunza]

Perhaps some relevant new information will be found here?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/mexico-mayan-cities-found_n_5700527.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
 

Archaeologists have found two ancient Mayan cities hidden in the jungle of southeastern Mexico, and the lead researcher says he believes there are "dozens" more to be found in the region.

 

[Bob Crockett]

Yet you questioned the faith of those that would do so.

Never.  I take no position on that except to cite the General Authorities who say that a two-Cumorah LGT is based on doubt.  I'm merely interested in an academic paper on the subject, and don't take a position.  Or at least try not to do so.  I think that Sorenson's model and Meldrum's model have an insufficient basis for legitimacy, but that doesn't mean to say that either one is right or wrong in the end.  I also think that Joseph Smith spoke only to a hemispheric model, but the evidence to suggest that is based on revelation is there, but thin.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

Perhaps some relevant new information will be found here?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/mexico-mayan-cities-found_n_5700527.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

 

Quote

Archaeologists have found two ancient Mayan cities hidden in the jungle of southeastern Mexico, and the lead researcher says he believes there are "dozens" more to be found in the region.

 

Finding archeological sites in Meso-America is not the problem.  Getting the resources to excavate and examine them is.

[Grudunza]

 

Quote

 

Finding archeological sites in Meso-America is not the problem.  Getting the resources to excavate and examine them is.

 

 

Right.  Per the article: His team has not yet excavated the sites. "There are dozens of sites that I already have seen on the aerial photographs," he added, noting that additional discoveries depend on further funding.

[ERayR]

Never.  I take no position on that except to cite the General Authorities who say that a two-Cumorah LGT is based on doubt.  I'm merely interested in an academic paper on the subject, and don't take a position.  Or at least try not to do so.  I think that Sorenson's model and Meldrum's model have an insufficient basis for legitimacy, but that doesn't mean to say that either one is right or wrong in the end.  I also think that Joseph Smith spoke only to a hemispheric model, but the evidence to suggest that is based on revelation is there, but thin.

 

IMNSHO if Joseph Smith spoke only to a hemispheric model he erred in the internal content of the Book of Mormon and I obviously do not think he erred in BoM content.  I agree that evidence to suggest that the hemispheric model or any other model is based on revelation is indeed thin.

[ERayR]

Right.  Per the article: His team has not yet excavated the sites. "There are dozens of sites that I already have seen on the aerial photographs," he added, noting that additional discoveries depend on further funding.

 

If they get any excavation done in your lifetime it will surprise me.

[JDave]

Never.  I take no position on that except to cite the General Authorities who say that a two-Cumorah LGT is based on doubt.  I'm merely interested in an academic paper on the subject, and don't take a position.  Or at least try not to do so.  I think that Sorenson's model and Meldrum's model have an insufficient basis for legitimacy, but that doesn't mean to say that either one is right or wrong in the end.  I also think that Joseph Smith spoke only to a hemispheric model, but the evidence to suggest that is based on revelation is there, but thin.

Are the statements then saying that a hemispheric model is based on faith?  Could you link you where you cited those statements?

[Bob Crockett]

Are the statements then saying that a hemispheric model is based on faith?  Could you link you where you cited those statements?

I take no position about "faith;" I'm just looking to render an academic analysis.  My draft paper is linked in my signature and has the statements cited.  Note that I cite to Sorenson for the propositon that Joseph Smith advanced an hemispheric model only..

[MormonFreeThinker]

No I don't think it is like the doctrine of the Trinity.  My position remains the same.  It is contrary to Church guidance to teach openly a particular view of Book of Mormon geography without further revelation on the subject, as the Book of Mormon was a revelatory act, not one derived from scientific means.

 

The church already concluded that "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

That conclusion was made because of the science, not because of revelation. 

 

Members can create a model based on the available evidence, they just cannot teach it in sacrament meeting as a doctrine. See the difference? The Mesoamerican model is not about proof, it is just a reasonable possibility. I think the Mesoamerican model helps the members understand ancient America.  

Edited August 22, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

Never.  I take no position on that except to cite the General Authorities who say that a two-Cumorah LGT is based on doubt.

 

 

And yet none of these General Authorities you cite even hinted that there was revelation on the subject.  As I read some of the statements what stands out is the statement "I believe".  I found none that expressed the sentiment that any position was based on doubt.

[Bob Crockett]

Unfortunately, what is and what is a revelation is not all that apparent.  The fundamentalists (as well as the pro-gay movement) basically demand a "thus saith the Lord" document.  In the many conference addresses defending OD1, that qualification was denounced by the Brethren.

 

In the case of the one Cumorah position, the First Presidency has said that "we know positively" that Ramah/old Cumorah and New Cumorah are one and the same.  And in General Conference.   I must conclude that for large parts of the Church's history the singularity of the hill was considered a revelation.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

Unfortunately, what is and what is a revelation is not all that apparent.  The fundamentalists (as well as the pro-gay movement) basically demand a "thus saith the Lord" document.  In the many conference addresses defending OD1, that qualification was denounced by the Brethren.

 

In the case of the one Cumorah position, the First Presidency has said that "we know positively" that Ramah/old Cumorah and New Cumorah are one and the same.  And in General Conference.   I must conclude that for large parts of the Church's history the singularity of the hill was considered a revelation.

 

Since you brought it up is being an LGT advocate more detrimental than being a pro-gay marriage advocate or an OW advocate

[JDave]

I take no position about "faith;" I'm just looking to render an academic analysis.  My draft paper is linked in my signature and has the statements cited.  Note that I cite to Sorenson for the propositon that Joseph Smith advanced an hemispheric model only..

I was talking about the position of those you cited.  I read through your linked paper but didn't see any quote that said two-Cumorah models were "based on doubt".  Which were the particular quotes you interpreted in that manner?

[Bob Crockett]

I was talking about the position of those you cited.  I read through your linked paper but didn't see any quote that said two-Cumorah models were "based on doubt".  Which were the particular quotes you interpreted in that manner?

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation.

[Bob Crockett]

Since you brought it up is being an LGT advocate more detrimental than being a pro-gay marriage advocate or an OW advocate

I have never thought about it one way or the other.

[ERayR]

I have never thought about it one way or the other.

 

You seemed to have thought about the sin of Book of Mormon geography.

[JDave]

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation.

There is only one quote fitting that description, and that quote says nothing of the sort.   He makes an assumption about what Joseph Smith would have done, and states that reasonable people could believe otherwise but he felt that it was difficult to do so.

 

Given the evidence you brought up, Joseph Smith may well have done so (made statements about potential two Cumorahs) towards the end.  He certainly seemed open to new ideas on the matter.  What you present shows a much more fluid environment surrounding the Book of Mormon geography than that quote you had from Anthony Ivins.  It is odd that the quote from Anthony Ivins says that he relies on statements from B.H. Roberts to prove that there is only one Cumorah, but you go on to say that B.H. Roberts came to prefer a Mesoamerica setting.  So what was positive proof to Anthony Ivins was more transitory to B.H. Roberts.

Edited August 22, 2014 by JDave

[MormonFreeThinker]

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation.

 

Not official doctrine, and not even a church publication. 

[Robert F. Smith]

If this were true, Dr. Sorenson would not have attempted in Codex the absurd efforts to tie Joseph Smith to a Mesoamerican LGT.  Nor would Roper and Fields, claiming to be linguists when they were not, offered a wordprint analysis (their version was not statistical) to do the same thing.

I am glad that you at least apologized hereafter for suggesting that this is somehow tied in with faith (I gave you rep point for that). These are academic matters and should be debated as such. I'll look forward to you making your case in this paper you have been talking about. I consider it a welcome contribution to the debate, regardless of which academic position it might take.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

I have consistently tried to say, over and over again, that my interest in the subject does not lead to my questioning somebody's faith.   It never has.  My study is purely academic.  I'm interested in seeing the conflicts between what the Brethren have said, what Dr. Sorenson says, and the subtle shifts in his direction in recent years.  Those brethren originally opposed to an LGT theory offered their opinion that it was based in doubt.  This is not the first time somebody has demanded an apology as they take offense where none was given on this "foundation of doubt" evidence, one that I am very glad to give.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Not official doctrine, and not even a church publication. 

I find it interesting how we can disavow a church publication when we need to do so, but embrace the most tenuous evidence when we also need to do so.

 

Doctrines of Salvation is listed on the Deseret Books website as "authoritative."   At one time I looked, and it was used by General Authorities in their sermons more than any other work except possibly Mormon Doctrine.  It was published when President Smith was President of the Church.   It is now published by a company owned by the Church.  

 

You can read the DoS excerpt at this BYUI site:  http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Cumorah-JFeS-DofS3.pdf.  " Because of this

theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon."

 

On the other hand, Dr. Sorenson's Codex claim to Joseph Smith's endorsement of an LGT looks to three or four sources.  Two of them are diary entries, where the official biographer of one of the diarists claims that the diary was corrupted after the fact, a point Dr. Sorenson does not note.  (He doesn't quote from the actual diary.)  The diary entries are recollections of men not born until decades after the martyrdom, but who heard others recall Joseph Smith talking about "Mexico."  (It is evident from the two diary entries that their recollections related to Mexico as a haven for polygmany and not as the center and whole of Nepite civilization.)

 

So, in my quest I'm looking for authoritative pronouncements, provenance for such, and how LGT theorists rely on them to pin their theories to the Brethren.  You'll see my interest in how the Carla Ogden fax is treated in the LGT theorists' literature, or mistreated as the case may be.

 

Another terrible misuse of "evidence" is reference to temple dedication prayers in Mexico, without acknowledging that the same things about the land of the Lamanites have been said in temple dedication prayers in South America, northern Mexico, Arizona and Cardston.  That stuff interests me; I don't care if the prayers are accurate or not; I'm interested to see how LGT theorists use the evidence fairly or unfairly.

 

I ramble on here to point out that the strength of evidence for a particular geographic theory is usually weak and contradictory. 

Edited August 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

I find it interesting how we can disavow a church publication when we need to do so, but embrace the most tenuous evidence when we also need to do so.

 

On this point we can agree.

[JDave]

I have consistently tried to say, over and over again, that my interest in the subject does not lead to my questioning somebody's faith.   It never has.  My study is purely academic.

I haven't really followed this in the past, so I can't say much to your forum posts. Reading your paper I see quite a bit of bias. It's almost impossible to avoid completely, even in academic papers, but I'll just say that it is very noticeable. I thought there was a lot of detail and I appreciated that. Including terms like "crackpot", even tangentially, when referring to opposing viewpoints just seems out of place in a purely academic piece. And bolstering the strength of your supporting evidence by referring the to marketing description on Deseret Book's website seems odd. If a book is written by a former prophet, that is strong enough to stand on its own. Just because the book doesn't have the imprimatur of the Church and the statements were never made in General Conference doesn't mean it can't be taken for its own value.

Repeatedly pointing out that church leaders said something was "based in doubt", but you personally aren't questioning anybody's faith, makes me wonder what point you are trying to make.

I'm interested in seeing the conflicts between what the Brethren have said, what Dr. Sorenson says, and the subtle shifts in his direction in recent years.  Those brethren originally opposed to an LGT theory offered their opinion that it was based in doubt.  This is not the first time somebody has demanded an apology as they take offense where none was given on this "foundation of doubt" evidence, one that I am very glad to give.

CFR. Is there some other quote beyond the erroneous one you pointed to before? "Brethren" seems to indicate a multiplicity of statements.

[Bob Crockett]

Atlantean theorists are crackpots.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Doctrines of Salvation is listed on the Deseret Books website as "authoritative."   At one time I looked, and it was used by General Authorities in their sermons more than any other work except possibly Mormon Doctrine.  It was published when President Smith was President of the Church.   

 

But it is not published directly by the church and it is not official doctrine.  Jesus the Christ book is an example of an official church publication, you can find it here. 

https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng

 

and not everything in Jesus the Christ book is official doctrine. 

 

You can read the DoS excerpt at this BYUI site:  http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Cumorah-JFeS-DofS3.pdf.  " 

 

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

You wrote, "It is now published by a company owned by the Church"

 

The Mormon's Codex is published by the Maxwell Institute. The Maxwell Institute is owned by BYU, and BYU is owned by the church, so what is your point? 

 

 

On the other hand, Dr. Sorenson's Codex claim to Joseph Smith's endorsement of an LGT looks to three or four sources.  

 

It doesn't matter if the prophet Joseph Smith believed in the LGT or not, the prophet was a human too with opinions. It doesn't matter because the Church does not have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.  

 

If Sorenson is right or wrong on that point, it doesn't matter. 

 

However, if you study ancient America (the church encourages secular studies), you will realize that Mesoamerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon fits. The Mesoamerica LGT is the only plausible theory. 

 

The church is now giving secular answers, read the Gospel Topic essays. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Edited August 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker