Mesoamerican Theory Predictions

[ERayR]

Ugo A. Perego has said that the Book of Mormon “contains only marginal information about . . . the geography of the land occupied by the people it describes.”  Daniel Ludlow has said that “[c]ertainly the Book of Mormon contains some historical elements and geographic references, but not in the number or in the detail that some have hoped or others have claimed. . . .[G]eographic [references] are incidental . . . .”  “t is not a history book.”  As Grant Hardy has said, to “read it looking for . . . possible correlations with ancient Mesoamerican cultures, to insistently assess its veracity or meaning in light of academic sources of knowledge . . .  is to wrench it out of its own framework and consequently miss what Mormon is trying to accomplish.”

 

I can't agree to this assessment at all and do not see that this has been done at all, at least in Sorenson's work.  I have not noticed that Sorenson advocates that the veracity or meaning of the Book of Mormon is at all dependent upon its geography.  This seems to come from your own interpretation and bias.

Edited August 22, 2014 by ERayR

[Bob Crockett]

Of course Dr. Sorenson seeks to buttress the Book of Mormon's veracity by his geographic theory. I'm surprised to think that you believe otherwise.  One only needs to read the Introduction to Ancient to see that obvious effort.  For all true believers, the attempt to buttress the Book of Mormon's historical claims demonstrates a lack of faith.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

In terms of what authority you'd accept, it is very much in the nature of the LGT. Draw the box so small you avoid pesky problems. Precedent and authoritative pronouncements then lose their significance.

 

You just don't understand the LGT.  It does not preclude North America, it does not preclude South America, it does not preclude the Pacific Islands.  

 

It identifies the geographic location and context of the BOM narrative == the "land northward" was Nephite territory, but the BOM specifically excludes the records and history of that area.  Therefore LGT also excludes a detailed description of this area as well.  JS' statement on Zelph is not inconsistent with the LGT.

[cdowis]

  Interestingly, this article admits that the Bernhisal letter is not in Joseph Smith's handwriting.

 

You're kidding, right?  Is this a joke.  Surely you are aware that JS personally wrote very little, but dictated his letters.  It would be surprising if the letter were in his handwriting.

 

Your implication is clear, to place suspicion on the authenticity of the letter.  What utter nonsense.

Edited August 22, 2014 by cdowis

[ERayR]

For all true believers, the attempt to buttress the Book of Mormon's historical claims demonstrates a lack of faith.

 

Talk about judgmental.  I resent your pompously calling my faith into question.  If that is where you stand perhaps you should examine your own faith. I find that if I can place the scriptures (Bible, BoM) in a setting I can visualize it much better.  It has nothing to do with belief or faith.

[Bob Crockett]

You just don't understand the LGT.  It does not preclude North America, it does not preclude South America, it does not preclude the Pacific Islands.  

 

It identifies the geographic location and context of the BOM narrative == the "land northward" was Nephite territory, but the BOM specifically excludes the records and history of that area.  Therefore LGT also excludes a detailed description of this area as well.  JS' statement on Zelph is not inconsistent with the LGT.

We've had this discussion before and you're just plain wrong.  The Mesoamerican LGT is basically as Dr. Sorenson teaches it, and he limits the land northword to the southern Mexcian states.  I've cited chapter and verse to you and you don't care.  Your view of the LGT is basically a hemispheric view.  You've sort of flipped things around by resolving inconsistencies by drawing the box bigger.  If that works for you, I applaud you but you shouldn't claim that I don't have a clue about what Dr. Sorenson teaches.  It is pretty plain; he is a solid writer and researcher and his conclusions are well-stated.   And I do understand the Mesoamerican LGT.  

 

You're kidding, right?  Is this a joke.  Surely you are aware that JS personally wrote very little, but dictated his letters.  It would be surprising if the letter were in his handwriting.

 

Your implication is clear, to place suspicion on the authenticity of the letter.  What utter nonsense.

 

 

No I'm not kidding.  I just note the fact.   And, it is more likely than not that Joseph Smith authorized the sending of the letter.

 

FROM ELRay:  Talk about judgmental.  I resent your pompously calling my faith into question.  If that is where you stand perhaps you should examine your own faith. I find that if I can place the scriptures (Bible, BoM) in a setting I can visualize it much better.  It has nothing to do with belief or faith.

 

 

I'm just quoting and citing the Brethren who have made that observation as well.    I don't have a particular view of your beliefs.  I just agree with, for example, President Joseph Fielding Smith that the LGT has as its foundation doubt.  (You can see that in BH Roberts' observations.)   But, it has taken on a life of its own to the point that it has become a sub-religion with strong believers who don't care about the original genesis.  When Dr. Sorenson dedicated his book proceeds to FARMS the die was cast for an institutional support for the Mesoamerican LGT.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course Dr. Sorenson seeks to buttress the Book of Mormon's veracity by his geographic theory. I'm surprised to think that you believe otherwise.  One only needs to read the Introduction to Ancient to see that obvious effort.  For all true believers, the attempt to buttress the Book of Mormon's historical claims demonstrates a lack of faith.

Or, contrariwise, it could be that those who deny even the possibility of demonstrating the historicity of the Book of Mormon may lack faith.  I presented my views on that question recently at the 2014 FAIRMORMON Annual Conference in Provo, Utah: “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

 

Ironically, Eric Hoffer's The True Believer (1951), tends to throw cold water on your silly effort at boundary maintenance.  You might want to leave that job to the Brethren -- who thought that John Sorenson's views deserved publication in the Ensign, and for the many years of Hugh Nibley's publications in the Improvement Era and Ensign to that same end.  And why were Elders Oaks and Maxwell (and Pres. Hinckley) so adamant in their effusive praise for the work of FARMS?  Were you off somewhere in Middle Earth at that time, Bob?

[Bob Crockett]

No, my pending paper accurately notes a slight shift among some of the Brethren to support Dr. Sorenson's views in rather limited ways.  But I think the "no slam dunk" aspect of FARMS didn't really include the Mesoamerican LGT, although there is that address by Elder Oaks where he waxes enthusiastically about an LGT.  

 

But, in reality, the unanimity of published authoritative discourse from the Brethren on the topic of Book of Mormon geography has swayed me to the position that LGT theorists are no better than Shroud of Turin theorists.  The "off the record" comments by one or two general authorities along with a rather ambiguous publication in the Ensign (wherein Dr. Sorenson was asked to remove references to two Cumorahs; see the deleted "Firm Wobbles" thread on this board where an editor came forward and admitted that) are very slender reeds indeed to build an entirely new sub-religion.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

........................

........................................................................... it has taken on a life of its own to the point that it has become a sub-religion with strong believers who don't care about the original genesis.  When Dr. Sorenson dedicated his book proceeds to FARMS the die was cast for an institutional support for the Mesoamerican LGT.

That is nonsense.  I know of no one who takes on or preaches John Sorenson's views with any sort of religious or sub-religious fervor.  Though I have seen and heard some who oppose his anthropological and geographical views do so with religious fervor, even calling into question the faith of those who share his views.  How absurd.

 

As to allowing the proceeds of that and other books to be plowed back into FARMS research, that was a pattern established by many FARMS participants -- whose real jobs were in academic pursuits, and who were simply not overwhelmed by the greed of the world.  You have the tail wagging the dog, Bob.

[Robert F. Smith]

No, my pending paper accurately notes a slight shift among some of the Brethren to support Dr. Sorenson's views in rather limited ways.  But I think the "no slam dunk" aspect of FARMS didn't really include the Mesoamerican LGT, although there is that address by Elder Oaks where he waxes enthusiastically about an LGT.  

 

But, in reality, the unanimity of published authoritative discourse from the Brethren on the topic of Book of Mormon geography has swayed me to the position that LGT theorists are no better than Shroud of Turin theorists.  The "off the record" comments by one or two general authorities along with a rather ambiguous publication in the Ensign (wherein Dr. Sorenson was asked to remove references to two Cumorahs; see the deleted "Firm Wobbles" thread on this board where an editor came forward and admitted that) are very slender reeds indeed to build an entirely new sub-religion.

Your "off the record" stuff is very convenient and off the wall, but worthless as real evidence.

 

I hope that your review doesn't stand on such slender reeds, and that you opt instead of substance.

[Bob Crockett]

That is nonsense.  I know of no one who takes on or preaches John Sorenson's views with any sort of religious or sub-religious fervor.  Though I have seen and heard some who oppose his anthropological and geographical views do so with religious fervor, even calling into question the faith of those who share his views.  How absurd.

 

As to allowing the proceeds of that and other books to be plowed back into FARMS research, that was a pattern established by many FARMS participants -- whose real jobs were in academic pursuits, and who were simply not overwhelmed by the greed of the world.  You have the tail wagging the dog, Bob.

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.

[Bob Crockett]

Your "off the record" stuff is very convenient and off the wall, but worthless as real evidence.

 

 

Indeed, and I have made that point many times on this board.   The off-the-record statements by two or three of the Brethren offering support  for a Sorenson model should be contrasted with decades of on-the-record lack of support by the Brethren.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Are you supporting this concept of the trinity?

 

no

[MormonFreeThinker]

 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.

 

 I agree the Book of Mormon is not a history book, but it does give enough details to think that it happened in Mesoamerica. Members can search for a reasonable theory,  that church is not against that. We just cannot talk about it in sacrament meeting, and a church leader cannot teach it as official church doctrine. See the difference?

 

again, not scientific proof, but a plausible theory. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Calm]

"The "off the record" comments by one or two general authorities along with a rather ambiguous publication in the Ensign (wherein Dr. Sorenson was asked to remove references to two Cumorahs; see the deleted "Firm Wobbles" thread on this board where an editor came forward and admitted that)"

This did not happen, no editor appeared on the board or elsewhere. You have created a narrative and even though those involved told you it was wrong---Brant and Brother Coe---you persist in spreading this misinformation....even after you said you were going to withdraw the claim because of lack of evidence in another thread.

Edited August 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Some FYI stuff:

From John L. Sorenson, in response to a personal email that I sent to him yesterday

Regarding “Cumorah,” no statement has ever been made in regard to its geography by other than individual general authorities with no standing to speak for the Church as a whole. The Church magazine published my two-article series in 1985 at the explicit invitation of a committee consisting of several of the Twelve and of the Seventy. It implied acquiescence for a Mesoamerican geography viewpoint, although the editor’s introduction, as I recall, said the magazine took no position on the content of my articles but thought it would “be of interest” to readers.

A statement by Elder Dallin H. Oaks [originally published in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001, 237-48), republished in Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21 (1): 66-72, 2012]. There he recalled

“the first class I took on the Book of Mormon at BYU.... Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

“In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. ...The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.”

Elder Oaks (and others) continue to hold the same position today. They would not do so if the Church were officially committed to the illogical Cumorah-is-in-New-York-and-the-whole-New-World-was-the-Book-of-Mormon-scene position. Recognition by the committee I referred to of the merit of the argument Elder Oaks outlines led to their request to me to prepare my articles for The Ensign.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/page-10#entry1209149999

[Calm]

From cursor:

(thanks for that clarifying post, ERayR)

I wrote JLS:

I just read your Ensign articles again. Nice stuff! =)

I note that there is not one mention of the hill Cumorah/Ramah by name. You do say, however, that

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land” 11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light.

'Bob Crockett' insists that as your "Digging into the Book of Mormon" article-set was being prepared for publication, you were required to remove specific mention that the hill Cumorah in NY might not be the final battleground of the Jaredites and the Nephites. He hints that his source is Brant Gardner or Kevin Christensen. While those two are not participating in this particular thread/topic, they are both active members of MormonDialogue.com.

Do you remember how things developed leading up to 1984? Sounds kinda Orwellian, doesn't it?

My father replied:

Pooh! There is no truth whatever in this supposed account of what took place. I was never asked by anyone at The Ensign to make any change at all to what I submitted to them. Neither of the men mentioned had anything to do with the editing process, and I cannot imagine where either of them (both are scholars I respect), or any other person, came up with this cockamamy idea.

That sounds pretty darn clear and decisive to me.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1

[Bob Crockett]

I stand by what was revealed in the FIRM Wobbles thread, which no longer exists on this board. I'm sorry that I may have said I won't bring this subject up again, and I have forgotten saying such, but my views have become fixed once learning of the deletion of that thread. I don't ascribe any pernicious motive for doing so as I imagine not every thread is archived or retained.

Had a two Cumorahs theory been viable it would have been mentioned in the Ensign article. It wasn't. That deletion transforms the Sorenson LGT model into just another hemispheric model which includes MesoAmerica and which is consistent with Joseph Smith's statements.

I do intend to edit my paper to say that the Encyclopedia tends to suggest that the New York Cumorah location might be an assumption. That conflicts with prior statements but it is nonetheless notable.

You'll note that my pending paper, referenced in the signature block,accounts for Elder Oaks' address.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

I'm just quoting and citing the Brethren who have made that observation as well.    I don't have a particular view of your beliefs.  I just agree with, for example, President Joseph Fielding Smith that the LGT has as its foundation doubt.  (You can see that in BH Roberts' observations.)   But, it has taken on a life of its own to the point that it has become a sub-religion with strong believers who don't care about the original genesis.  When Dr. Sorenson dedicated his book proceeds to FARMS the die was cast for an institutional support for the Mesoamerican LGT.

 

You quoted or cited nothing.  You flat out stated it with no quotes and no cites.

Your post #202 "Of course Dr. Sorenson seeks to buttress the Book of Mormon's veracity by his geographic theory. I'm surprised to think that you believe otherwise.  One only needs to read the Introduction to Ancient to see that obvious effort.  For all true believers, the attempt to buttress the Book of Mormon's historical claims demonstrates a lack of faith".

 

Your questioning of my and others faith deserves an apology.

[Bob Crockett]

You have my apologies.

[cdowis]

We've had this discussion before and you're just plain wrong.  The Mesoamerican LGT is basically as Dr. Sorenson teaches it, and he limits the land northword to the southern Mexcian states.  I've cited chapter and verse to you and you don't care. 

 

Yes, I remember your assertion that Sorenson owns the LGT, and speaks ex cathedra.  You reject the concept that LGT is in the public domain. 

But I notice that you give your evidence of his ownership later in this post.

 

No I'm not kidding.  I just note the fact.   And, it is more likely than not that Joseph Smith authorized the sending of the letter.

 

OK, so you simply forgot to mention the fact that it was normal practice that JS correspondence was written by his scribes.

 

 

I'm just quoting and citing the Brethren who have made that observation as well.    I don't have a particular view of your beliefs.  I just agree with, for example, President Joseph Fielding Smith that the LGT has as its foundation doubt.  (You can see that in BH Roberts' observations.)   But, it has taken on a life of its own to the point that it has become a sub-religion with strong believers who don't care about the original genesis.  When Dr. Sorenson dedicated his book proceeds to FARMS the die was cast for an institutional support for the Mesoamerican LGT.

 

It's remarkable that they would sell their good name and reputation so cheaply.  And, of course, they gave sole ownership of LGT to one so generous.  

 

Just curious what Sorenson have to say about your stunning discovery.

 

My friend ==>>

 

This is beyond silly.  You now have the very last word. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think my views about the Sorenson LGT theory are silly.  Although I don't agree with Meldrum's LGT theory, I note that his books vastly outsell Dr. Sorenson's, so it seems the Saints are more interested in rejecting a Mesoamerican theory in support of something else.   

 

As well, Dr. Sorenson has admitted in Codex that Joseph Smith's views of Mesoamerican finds are more consistent with a hemispheric model than an LGT model (although Dr. Sorenson continues to appeal to Joseph Smith for support on an LGT model).

 

So, silly?  No.   Researched well?  I think so and I'm doing more to become better informed.  I am interested in your views and the views of others on this board, no matter how denigrating, as I am looking for possible flaws in my views.  My pending paper does concede that there seems to be a slight shift amongst some of the Brethren to the possiblity of two Cumorahs and, hence, a LGT Mesoamerican model.  Whatever happens, I just want my pending paper to be as accurate as possible and not reflective of any bias towards any particular geographic view.   I have no particular belief in any geographic view; I'm just interested in weighing the precedential statements of the Brethren against particular LGT theories, and in particular, Dr. Sorenson's.

 

I don't assert that Dr. Sorenson "owns" the Mesoamerican LGT model.  I assert that your view that the Mesoamerican LGT model could also include all of north and south America seems to reject Sorenson's view and is more consistent with my view of what Joseph Smith has said.  (Again, just because Joseph Smith endorsed a hemispheric model does not mean that that is what I think is the truth; I'm somewhat open to the suggestion that Book of Mormon geography has never been revealed and is open to secular study.)

Edited August 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

I think this particular criticism of Dr. Coe is unjustified.   The Book of Mormon takes a lifetime of study; one can't be familiar with it with one reading.  Somebody like Dr. Coe, who is not LDS, should not be expected to know every little detail of the book.  His 1973 paper does demonstrate that he knows most of the essentials of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.  He doesn't get some of it right.  But rather than focus upon the fact that he gets some details wrong about the First Vision we ought to focus on some of the valid points he raises about the Book of Mormon, which Dr. Sorenson attempts to do.

 

I have issues with Dr. Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code."   But I don't think you would demand that I be a Mayaologist to point out some of his flaws.

 

If one is going to present themselves as an expert critic they should be able to get, at the very least, the first vision correctly.  Also if one is to be a critic of the Book of Mormon they ought to have more than rudimentary understanding.

[ERayR]

You have my apologies.

 

For my part apology accepted.

[ERayR]

I'm somewhat open to the suggestion that Book of Mormon geography has never been revealed and is open to secular study.)

 

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

Edited August 22, 2014 by ERayR