Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[JDave]

Bob Crockett is way off base in suggesting that such secular endeavors are in any way inappropriate.

Especially since President Ivins, whose 1928 General Conference talk is quoted quite favorably by Bob, actually supports using the text of the Book of Mormon and secular arguments/methods.

[Robert F. Smith]

Any theory should be discredited if it can't meet 100% of the necessary geographic references in the BoM. Using that assumption, Mesoamerica doesn't work because the climate is all wrong to take mediterranean seeds and have them grow in a tropical climate. Not to mention all the missing ore cited in the BoM. Great Lakes can't work because snow was never mentioned in the BoM. Anyone who has lived anywhere close to the Great Lakes will have a tough time reconciling that. So, I think you're left with my favorite flavor of the day: the Baja.

 

www.achoiceland.com

 

Incidentally, the first theory put forth by a real geographer.

The call to perfection is a classic fallacy.  No scholar requires 100% agreement on anything.

 

However, even if we allowed the 100% necessity, where do you get the climate problem?  Aren't you aware of the actual geography of Mesoamerica?  Sure, some of it is tropical rain forest, but there are also temperate highlands in Mexico and Guatemala where wheat and barley can be grown.  You made a snap judgment, without bothering to consult a topographical map.  I suggest a look at the map of "Climate and Vegetation of Mesoamerica" in Mike Coe, Dean Snow, and Elizabeth Benson, eds., Atlas of Ancient America (Facts on File/Equinox, 1986), page 84, to start.  A little reality therapy, if you will.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

2. Point to a church manual which supposes there might be two Hill Cumorahs.

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

Maybe "two hills Cumorah"?  As in "courts martial," and "attorneys general"?

[MormonFreeThinker]

General Authorities on the other hand which say that the Hill Cumorah (ancient and modern) is in New York and that it is wrong to use secular means to try and reconstruct a Book of Mormon geography. 

 

CFR Please quote official church publications.

 

Notice that The Guide to the Scriptures doesn't say that the Hill is where Mormon (father) hid the other plates or where the final battle happened.  

 

"A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations" 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/cumorah-hill

[Bob Crockett]

Maybe "two hills Cumorah"?  As in "courts martial," and "attorneys general"?

I think the name of the hill is Hill Cumorah not the hill that is Cumorah.  So if there are two of me it would be two Bob Crocketts, not two Bobs Crockett.

 

  JDave sayeth:  Especially since President Ivins, whose 1928 General Conference talk is quoted quite favorably by Bob, actually supports using the text of the Book of Mormon and secular arguments/methods.

 

 

I'm not really that much opposed to a secular study of the Book of Mormon, as I think that secular study of the Old and New Testaments is invaluable.  I like what has been done by Royal Skousen, for instance, on textual studies.  I like the discussion of Hebraisms, although I have now been converted to Brant Gardner's point of view on that (but I don't think he adequately deals with chiasms).  But the Book of Mormon as a geographic text?  Naahhh.  No way.  Not close.

 

I am opposed to what passes as the scientific method in Dr. Sorenson's work.  It probably is the best effort thus far, as he is at least a credentialed anthropologist and the dozens of books on the subject sitting in HBLee Library are from persons who are not.   Palmer's a chemical engineer, for crying out out.  Hedegren's a philosophy professor.  Ferguson a lawyer.   Hunter a general authority.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

CFR Please quote official church publications.

 

Notice that The Guide to the Scriptures doesn't say that the Hill is where Mormon (father) hid the other plates or where the final battle happened.  

 

"A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations" 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/cumorah-hill

Please see my paper; I have what I have there. In my sig line.  More than enough.  I usually do not respond to CFR demands from anonymous folks; if that gets me into trouble here, I'm sorry.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

I am opposed to what passes as the scientific method in Dr. Sorenson's work.  It probably is the best effort thus far, as he is at least a credentialed anthropologist and the dozens of books on the subject sitting in HBLee Library are from persons who are not.   Palmer's a chemical engineer, for crying out out.  Hedegren's a philosophy professor.  Ferguson a lawyer.   Hunter a general authority.

Emphasis mine.

 

To me this is a little hypocritical. Yourself a non-scientist, but you have definite opinions that you have no problem sharing, yet you scoff at others for sharing their opinions for not being experts in the field.

 

I do give you some kudos because this is one of the firsts posts I have seen you make that is semi-positive about Dr. Sorenson.

 

Last point, I know of a story where a non-expert in fishing tells fishing experts where to cast their nets and they catch a lot of fish.

 

Just saying...

Edited September 23, 2014 by Anijen

[Robert F. Smith]

Please see my paper; I have what I have there. In my sig line.  More than enough.  I usually do not respond to CFR demands from anonymous folks; if that gets me into trouble here, I'm sorry.

Thanks for making your paper available, Bob, even if only in tentative form (David Palmer needed in n. 145?).

And Sept 22nd was a good day for it!!

 

P.S.  Looks like an adequate CFR reply to me.

 

P.P.S.  Do I have the citation right?  Bob Crockett, “Book of Mormon Geography: Subtle Shifts to Possible Ecclesiastical Endorsement for the Mesoamerican Model,” Bob’s Blog (Hard Times in Newhall), Sept 22, 2014, online at http://bobcrockettlaw.com/1359-2/ .

Edited September 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[JDave]

So Bob, are you going to update your paper to reflect that President Ivins' "positively know" statement was established upon analysis of statements within the Book of Mormon, as well as secular geographic arguments made by B.H. Roberts?

[Bob Crockett]

Thanks for making your paper available, Bob, even if only in tentative form (David Palmer needed in n. 145?).

And Sept 22nd was a good day for it!!

 

P.S.  Looks like an adequate CFR reply to me.

 

P.P.S.  Do I have the citation right?  Bob Crockett, “Book of Mormon Geography: Subtle Shifts to Possible Ecclesiastical Endorsement for the Mesoamerican Model,” Bob’s Blog (Hard Times in Newhall), Sept 22, 2014, online at http://bobcrockettlaw.com/1359-2/ .

I've never cited from a blog before so I don't know.

[Brian 2.0]

"And they get their science wrong. Genetics, meteorology, geology, anthropology—you name it, and the Heartland group of pseudo scholars shows an amateurish tendency to cherry pick data out of context"

I'd say that quote nicely applies to all geographic models on the Book of Mormon.

[Bob Crockett]

Emphasis mine.

 

To me this is a little hypocritical. Yourself a non-scientist, but you have definite opinions that you have no problem sharing, yet you scoff at others for sharing their opinions for not being experts in the field.

 

I do give you some kudos because this is one of the firsts posts I have seen you make that is semi-positive about Dr. Sorenson.

 

Last point, I know of a story where a non-expert in fishing tells fishing experts where to cast their nets and they catch a lot of fish.

 

Just saying...

It is not hypocritical for a book reviewer not to have the same training as the book author.  Most reviews are that way.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've never cited from a blog before so I don't know.

I was mainly worried about where to put the "Hard Times in Newhall."  Thought maybe you intended it as a blog title or subtitle.  Just don't want to do violence to your screed.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd say that quote nicely applies to all geographic models on the Book of Mormon.

Whack em all, Brian!!

[MormonFreeThinker]

Please see my paper; I have what I have there. In my sig line.  More than enough.  

 

I will read your paper when I have the time

 

You wrote, "it is wrong to use secular means to try and reconstruct a Book of Mormon geography" 

 

What about Book of Mormon geography in Arabia? Why is the Lehi's trail map so successful? 

Edited September 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

I was mainly worried about where to put the "Hard Times in Newhall."  Thought maybe you intended it as a blog title or subtitle.  Just don't want to do violence to your screed.

Please take it easy on me.  I'm a fragile person and my paper is hardly near completion.   One man's screed is another's beloved child.

[JDave]

Bob, any comment on how President Ivins' conference declaration of "positively know" was not based on revelation, rather it was established upon a textual analysis of Book of Mormon passages and the secular exposition done by B.H. Roberts?

[KorbenDallas]

Thomas Kuhn explains that "no theory solves all of the problems it defines." Kuhn says that if failure to fit 100% of the time is the standard, all theories should be rejected at all times.

Sources in my essay in the Review here:

...

And little things like Gardner's Second Witness and Sorenson's little Mormon's Codex. To make a case that "better" than what they have done, I want to see an actual comparison with what they have done. Any case for "better" requires a real comparison, and set of standards for making that comparison. And it is best when those standards are not completely paradigm dependent, assuming the very case they try to argue. Kuhn and Alma 32 provide the same solution. Define testable puzzles, perform experiments, check out the results, the comprehensiveness and coherence, the fruitfulness, and the future promise.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

OK fair point, my hyperbolic rhetoric won't get me anywhere on this site. I was just curious as to whether anyone could come up with any serious criticisms of the Baja theory. So far I haven't seen any.

[Brian 2.0]

Whack em all, Brian!!

Some are just so tempting to wack!

This thread did make me see the different methodology of revelation/textual/geographic etc.

Most papers I've seen (and I'm not super well read on this admittedly) don't dive into the statements made by Joseph Smith and others as a basis for a model. It seem true that a lot of models kind of dismiss those quotes as speculation because they don't fit

Into their model.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Bob Crockett]

Some are just so tempting to wack!

This thread did make me see the different methodology of revelation/textual/geographic etc.

Most papers I've seen (and I'm not super well read on this admittedly) don't dive into the statements made by Joseph Smith and others as a basis for a model. It seem true that a lot of models kind of dismiss those quotes as speculation because they don't fit

Into their model.

However, I note in my paper that Dr. Sorenson attempts to enlist Joseph Smith to his cause. Other than the 1 Oct 1842 Times and Seasons article the other attempts are poor.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, any comment on how President Ivins' conference declaration of "positively know" was not based on revelation, rather it was established upon a textual analysis of Book of Mormon passages and the secular exposition done by B.H. Roberts?

I have addressed your comments. My paper addresses them and has the quote in full. My views are as stated in my paper, which doesn't take hard views on the subject.

I do lack at present the Deseret News article, and that might change my views.

[JDave]

I have addressed your comments. My paper addresses them and has the quote in full. My views are as stated in my paper, which doesn't take hard views on the subject.

I do lack at present the Deseret News article, and that might change my views.

Here on this forum, however, you have had a pretty hard view that Book of Mormon geography is strictly an area for revelation, and not for secular studies.  President Ivins seemed to disagree.   Why do you have such a hard view here?

 

In your paper you say that President Ivins' statement is "critical of Book of Mormon geographic studies".  That cannot be since his remarks state clearly that he is using textual analysis of the Book of Mormon and the secular exposition done by B.H. Roberts.

 

You also state in your paper that Mark E. Petersen was critical of Book of Mormon geography studies in is Conference address.  Yet the text of his address shows that he is concerned what what is preached from the pulpits and taught in classrooms, not what people study on their own time using their "fair amount of intelligence".

 

The text of B.H. Roberts article can be found at http://stepbystep.alancminer.com/node/2257

[Bob Crockett]

I think you are misreading Ivins.   As I have said, the purchase of the Hill Cumorah was a major event for the Church, based upon inspiration and prayer and the understanding based upon revelation that it was the site of ancient happenings.  As Ivins said.  To parse a member of a First Presidency's statement on such a matter as Book of Mormon events, when he says "we positively know", by concluding he wasn't inspired at the time, I suppose that might work if there are countervailing statements by the inspired First Presidency or Apostles in General Conference.  But there aren't and, instead, the statements unilaterally and without exception are in support of the New York Hill Cumorah.   You would have disabused me of that view by now, otherwise.

 

I don't necessarily rule out secular studies to come up with a geography of the Book of Mormon.  But what I have seen thus far borders on the frivolous:  angels on the head of a pin, arguing over a sliver of the True Cross, the whereabouts of the femur of St. Peter, and the like.  A subculture driven by a desire for prestige and money, however small:  Books, tours, tour groups, seminars, firesides -- all outside the priesthood structure of the church and nowhere heard over the pulpit or found in any manual.  And if it were stated over the pulpit, that Ramah and old Cumorah are not in present-day New York, you'd be looking at censure if it became your gospel hobby.

 

So, no matter how many times you ask me the question, my answer is:  No, I do not believe and I don't think there is any justification for the view that Ivin's address was uninspired or that when he uttered it he thought he was speaking from secular opinion.  There's no foundation or justification for that view, and I don't think that Roberts' or any other apostle's argument which is based upon prior statements of the First Presidency or the scriptures is considered a "secular" analysis.  A layman's argument for Book of Mormon geography published generally to the Church, I think, is the sort of thing that has in the past been discouraged.  But, as my paper points out, there has been a slight and subtle shift to endorse the writings of Dr. Sorenson.  But, his Ensign article does not place Cumorah in MesoAmerica.  I wonder why?  No, I don't wonder why.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

 But, his Ensign article does not place Cumorah in MesoAmerica.  I wonder why?  No, I don't wonder why.

 

The Only One Cumorah theory contradicts logic, it is not plausible.

 

"making sense of encounters between faith and reason — no matter the religious tradition — is part of the human religious experience. Latter-day Saints believe that men and women bear the divine gifts of intellectual reasoning" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-and-modern

Edited September 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

The Only One Cumorah theory contradicts logic, it is not plausible.

 

"making sense of encounters between faith and reason — no matter the religious tradition — is part of the human religious experience. Latter-day Saints believe that men and women bear the divine gifts of intellectual reasoning" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-and-modern

And yet, a two Cumorah theory has never seen the light of day in any conference address, any book written by a General Authority, or any manual of the Church -- all three of which categories have said at various times that there is only one.  Nor has the Ensigh, when Dr. Sorenson could have said it.  Your sense of "plausibility" is the same one rheorticians use to prove that the resurrection is impossible, that God does not exist, that Moses did not really cross the Red Sea, and such.  Because some might perceive there are Book of Mormon problems with implements of war, steel, horses, battle areas and DNA, if you draw the box small enough you can just explain it all away.  That is what the Sorenson model does.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett