John L. Sorenson's "sourcebook"

[cursor]

John L. Sorenson's The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book is now available in PDF format at the Maxwell Institute website. It is a 415 page study of Book of Mormon geographic issues and concerns.

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-geography-of-book-of-mormon-events-a-sourcebook/

 

Introduction

 

The subject of "Book of Mormon geography" has stimulated three different responses among Latter-day Saints over the years. On the part of Church authorities caution, if not anxiety, has prevailed. For a minority of members the reaction has been persistent curiosity. Meanwhile a large majority have been satisfied to ignore the matter.

 

The leaders' position probably stems from mixed concerns all classed under the heading of the threat of change:

1. fear of embarrassment to the Church from premature, non-revelatory settling of popular opinion on one solution to the question that might later have to be changed;

2. fear of divisiveness among members over competing correlations;

3. the challenge to traditional views about geography that is posed by scholarly study which might shake the faith of lay members who have not distinguished mere tradition from revelation; and,

4. generalized mistrust of intellectuals and hobbyists in religious matters.

 

But whatever the concerns of the leaders, a portion of the membership of the Church goes right on thinking their own thoughts about the geography of Book of Mormon events just as on many other subjects. Between these two unfocused interests or concerns, Mormon students of the scripture have produced a remarkably large body of writings that displays in its variety, if not its quality, the vigor of LDS thought.

 

The expressed motivation for much of this literature seems to have been little more than intellectual gymnastics—working on the equivalent of a complex crossword puzzle where all the Ammonihahs and Mantis mus interrelate. Another motive for writing has been apologetic, for some have assumed that an accurate geography could lead to a correlation with archaeological remains or traditions that would support "the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" against scoffers. Serious discussion of the benefits for the individual reader of the scripture that could come from a solution to the geography conundrum has been surprisingly rare. Among obvious point that could be made are: (1) a heightened sense of concreteness or believability conferred on readers by their having specific, detailed knowledge of the setting of reported events; and (2) likelihood that giving the scriptural account definite spatial, historical and cultural dimensions will make its lessons-for-living clearer. The matter of geography may also be seen as a challenge: if Latter-day Saints have so far failed to examine "the keystone of our [LDS] religion" with sufficient care to set it into a definite place and concrete scene, does that not mean that we are treating a sacred matter superficially? That there are many hundreds of geographical statements and facts included in the record can be taken to indicate that we ought to pay attention to them. So while I do not consider the topic crucial, I believe it is significant. And for me personally it is interesting.

 

This volume aims to review the entire subject. The first thing to do is to examine what has been done previously with what has been called "Book of Mormon geography."

 

The literature reveals confusion. A great amount of effort has gone into the work. Most of it, probably, has been wasted. One reason is that devotees of the topic have been loners, mainly, hence they have not had the benefit of criticism. In this volume, at least, the means will be laid out to allow future workers to see what others have done and to set out on a more productive course. I would like to see this volume lead toward a meeting of minds rather than more of the arm-waving so common in the past. By a willingness to correct past errors, we may move toward helpful sharing of knowledge and even a text-based consensus.

 

Because of a negative attitude of some Church leaders, the expression of "Book of Mormon geography" has taken on a bad connotation. Another problem with the expression is its ambiguity. The label could cover topics as diverse as where copies of the Nephite scripture are being printed and distributed or where Church members in which areas own and use copies. In addition, there are students of the scriptural text who deal only with events and their locations in the Old World—where the events took place that were reported by Nephi in the first eighteen chapters of his record. But here I am concerned with only one aspect. I have chosen an unambiguous name for the topic to distinguish it: "the geography of (American) Book of Mormon events." Since 99% of the text's reflections of geography concern the American promised land scene, I shall drop the parenthetical label and simply that hereafter "the geography of Book of Mormon events" will be taken as referring to the question of what locations in the New World constituted the scene of the events reported in the Book of Mormon after Lehi's arrival in the American promised land. (The Jaredite record is impossible to deal with except where it connects with the Nephite account; thus I ignore those geographical statements and hints in the book of Ether which I cannot connect to Mormon's account.)

 

The first task I have set is to examine everything substantive that has been written by Latter-day Saints on the subject. There is no use "re-inventing the wheel." If answers to questions of the geography of Book of Mormon events already have been found, we might as well acknowledge and take advantage of them. If reliable answers have not come forth, we at least need to know what ground has been plowed. Of course some of the work done has been inconsequential, and certain writings are inaccessible to me, yet I have learned so much more that anyone hitherto about who did and said what that my findings to this point may be useful to others.

 

To avoid others having to look up the sources, which are often obscure, I give summaries of them below. Part 2 includes sketches of all schemes encountered (some unpublished) according to a paradigmatic format that will simplify comparisons. Copies of available maps are included. I consider this a working edition, so no doubt I will have missed some sources and possibly misread others. Corrections and additions will be appreciated.

 

Each distinctive body of geographic interpretation—each scheme which identifies particular Book of Mormon lands and features with a particular set of places on the western hemisphere map—I term a model. Closer examination probably will no doubt allow identifying certain of those models as sufficiently close to others that the total number (70, so far) ought to be reduced by lumping very similar, derivative schemes together in families-with-variants. Initially, here, I have chosen not to suppose that models which look a good deal alike are necessarily related to each other historically; the similarities may be coincidences following separate discoveries or invention of ideas.

 

Part 1 consists of a historical interpretation of the course of LDS (and RLDS) thought on the topic from the appearance of the Book of Mormon in 1830 to the present. My interpretation is based on the summaries in Part 2 plus some other minor literature. I am attempting in this treatment to place the sequence of discoveries and statements about the geography of Book of Mormon events in context. It becomes apparent that certain notions continued from writer to writer (often without acknowledgment and perhaps even unrealized). Yet overall there has been a historical cumulation of data and interpretations that can be appreciated best in the format of the "history of ideas."

 

To anticipate my conclusion, the upshot is that the existing literature goes in so many directions that no solution stands out as sufficiently persuasive to rally consensus behind it. As a consequence I conclude (in Part 3) that the task must start over with the basics. The following parts then present a set of tools to move students toward a consensus. The logic for them will be explained in Part 3.

Edited October 10, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

He really attributes negative characteristics and motivation to "leaders" who don't engage in the geography issue? His list of four characteristics of leaders are all derisive.

I'm really suprised that he isn't the focus of more criticism. I see the refusal to engage more the result of geography as irrelevant and potentially devisive. Wouldn't you say? Can't one have a good faith belief that an advocacy of BoM geography is discouraged?

[cursor]

Well, Bob ... clearly you and I are not on the same page. Hell ... not even in the same book. Why at all bother to post here?

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not trying to offend, really.   I realize I'm sort of challenging some of the cultural establishment, but it seems that folks ought to know there are some in Church who question whether we ought to waste our efforts with Book of Mormon geographic studies.

 

Do you think that it is legitimate to have a good faith belief that the study of Book of Mormon geography is not important or irrelevant?

 

I have tremendous admiration for Dr. Sorenson.  

 

But I think that it isn't error to teach that we should not waste resources speculating about Book of Mormon geography.   In the quote above, Dr. Sorenson seems to say that church leaders who do not accept Book of Mormon geographic studies suffer from one delusion or another.   I say that Book of Mormon geographic studies are neutral; it doesn't matter whether really what we pursue on that front but there ought not be, for instance, church curricula endorsement for it or BYU Education Week endorsement of it.  (Is there endorsement for the latter?  Is the LGT permitted to be taught at BYU Education Week?  I understand that Meldrum has been disinvited.)

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

Do you think that it is legitimate to have a good faith belief that the study of Book of Mormon geography is not important or irrelevant?

 

No. I believe that to fully understand the religious text, a proper understanding of historical siting and culture are necessary. How can you NOT see that?

 

This thread is not about what you see (or don't see as important). It is offered to all those who have any interest in supplementing or expanding their views of the Book of Mormon peoples. If you have any level of disinterist on the topic, feel free to bow out. You know ... don't post.

 

Edited October 10, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

I am very interested in the topic.  I am planning to publish a paper on the sociological implications and history of the topic.  I am a board member of the Claremont Mormon Studies Council so I do have some interest in LDS history and sociology.

 

I do accept the proposition that there is an acceptable culture in the Church to study the Book of Mormon in an ancient historical framework.  I have worked with Jack Welch in the past and I have been a witness to his efforts.

 

But I very much see it as reasonable and likely that the Church will not permit a discussion of Book of Mormon geography in its curriculum.   One only has to read the Ensign and the study manuals to see that, and it does not appear that except for one article in the Ensign that Dr. Sorenson has had any influence over church curricula.  

 

But, and I very much appreciate it, you did answer my question.  Most followers of Dr. Sorenson refuse to answer my questions.  You have forthrightly said that it is not legitimate to have a good faith belief that Book of Mormon geography is not important or irrelevant.   And thank you for pointing me to that quote above.   I have not read sourcebook yet. 

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Freedom]

Thanks for posting this Cursor. I know there are a few haters out there for the direction the Maxwell Institute is going but I have been very pleased with who they have pulled together. 

[erdoch]

Thanks for posting! I'm saving this to my computer, even if it takes me a while to get around to reading it... 

 

I enjoyed Mormon's Codex very much and look forward to Brant Gardner picking up the pall with his new book hopefully coming out sometime next year.

 

It strikes me that a lot of "faith crisis"-mode Mormons on the Internet need to know a lot more about this kind of stuff... that there is an actual good case to be made for Book of Mormon historicity, in spite of misguided traditional viewpoints (continental setting, "primary ancestors", etc.). I admire John L. Sorensen for laying the foundation of Book of Mormon Mesoamerican studies - while I think he is a bit too diffusionist in his perspective, he has done so much to move us into an actual text-based, anthropological approach of the book that I am sure will continue to bear fruit in the future. 

[cursor]

I'm currently in the process of creating a downloadable version that will be completely textually searchable. I'm also trying to imagine ways to make add various levels of user interactivity ... either by enhancing the existing illustrations, or by creating newer graphics and tables that should add clarity to the subject of Book of Mormon geography.

[Brant Gardner]

Do you think that it is legitimate to have a good faith belief that the study of Book of Mormon geography is not important or irrelevant?

Of course one may have a legitimate belief that the study of Book of Mormon geography is unimportant. I doubt it would take much to demonstrate that the majority of Book of Mormon believers read the book for spiritual reasons and rarely even think about geography or related issues.

 

Of course, I think that it is also legitimate to believe that Book of Mormon geography is important. Of course, it is important to different people and for very different reasons. Nevertheless, there is a place--just as there is a place for understanding the background of the Bible even though most people read it for very different reasons.

 

 

But I think that it isn't error to teach that we should not waste resources speculating about Book of Mormon geography.

Believing that one can get tremendous value from the Book of Mormon without any understanding of geography or history does not equate to wasting resources when we do look at geography and history. They are both valuable for different reasons. Even faith may be strengthened by such studies, and textual understanding can be richer. Nonessential for salvation surely, but not a waste at all.

 

 

 

I say that Book of Mormon geographic studies are neutral; it doesn't matter whether really what we pursue on that front but there ought not be, for instance, church curricula endorsement for it or BYU Education Week endorsement of it.  (Is there endorsement for the latter?  Is the LGT permitted to be taught at BYU Education Week?)

 

I haven't seen anything at BYU Education Week. However, Mark Wright was hired in the Religion Department and asked to bring a Mesoamerican perspective to the teaching of the Book of Mormon. That is quite a departure from the past in that department. It has been bolstered by another recent hire. I would say that the evidence is that BYU's religion department has declared that it is not only not a waste to teach the Book of Mormon with a particular geographical/historical context, but that it is actually one that is valuable enough to become a consideration when hiring those who might teach the Book of Mormon.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Brant Gardner

[mfbukowski]

Of course one may have a legitimate belief that the study of Book of Mormon geography is unimportant. I doubt it would take much to demonstrate that the majority of Book of Mormon believers read the book for spiritual reasons and rarely even think about geography or related issues.

 

Of course, I think that it is also legitimate to believe that Book of Mormon geography is important. Of course, it is important to different people and for very different reasons. Nevertheless, there is a place--just as there is a place for understanding the background of the Bible even though most people read it for very different reasons.

 

 

Believing that one can get tremendous value from the Book of Mormon without any understanding of geography or history does not equate to wasting resources when we do look at geography and history. They are both valuable for different reasons. Even faith may be strengthened by such studies, and textual understanding can be richer. Nonessential for salvation surely, but not a waste at all.

 

 

 

 

I haven't seen anything at BYU Education Week. However, Mark Wright was hired in the Religion Department and asked to bring a Mesoamerican perspective to the teaching of the Book of Mormon. That is quite a departure from the past in that department. It has been bolstered by another recent hire. I would say that the evidence is that BYU's religion department has declared that it is not only not a waste to teach the Book of Mormon with a particular geographical/historical context, but that it is actually one that is valuable enough to become a consideration when hiring those who might teach the Book of Mormon.

Agreed.

Even if we had perfect geographic understanding of the bible, that knowledge could never "verify" the reality of the atonement or make belief more "reasonable".  

 

Not even all those who were first person witnesses to the crucifixion became believers in the atonement.

 

On the other hand adding evidence to help support belief in the historicity of spiritual events is very valuable, but it is an illusion to think that "proving historicity" can somehow prove spiritual truth.

 

I personally believe, based on faith, in the historicity of the book of Mormon, but I personally have no interest whatsoever in BOM geography, because it ultimately doesn't matter to me one bit.  I am interested in philosophy and spiritual beliefs and the philosophical basis for religious belief, but the history is not relevant for that way of seeing the world.

 

I believe that Plato and Aristotle "really existed", but that fact is irrelevant to the validity of their arguments or whether or not their systems are "true", depending on what theory of truth one wants to employ.  Perhaps the character Socrates existed, perhaps not.  There are some theories about that.  But were these men prophets instead of philosophers, their revelations would be judged as "from God" based only on testimony, not the fact that their ideas were old and uttered on a precise date in a specific location.  As philosophers, their arguments are judged on their merits, not their historicity.

 

Dates and locations of spiritual or philosophical utterances have nothing to do with how well the truths they contain are justified or how we decide if indeed they ARE "truths" at all.

[Darren10]

Mfbulowski;

I very much enjoy your philosophical posts and I say that as one who very much enjoys geographical aspects of the Book of mormon. Knowing history, content, nuances, etc. helps me fit the story better and I am better able to apply its teachings to myself.

Thanks for your post.

[Darren10]

Brandt Gardner;

Erdoch in post #8 mentioned a book you were working on. What is it? I like what you say regarding Book of Mormon geography. Particularly I like "The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy" and "From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of Mormon" both found on Mormon Interpreter.

[Brant Gardner]

Brandt Gardner;

Erdoch in post #8 mentioned a book you were working on. What is it? I like what you say regarding Book of Mormon geography. Particularly I like "The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy" and "From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of Mormon" both found on Mormon Interpreter.

The book will be from Kofford Books some time before August of 2015. The title is Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History. Both of the articles you mentioned appear as chapters in the book.

[Robert F. Smith]

Agreed.

Even if we had perfect geographic understanding of the bible, that knowledge could never "verify" the reality of the atonement or make belief more "reasonable".  

 

Not even all those who were first person witnesses to the crucifixion became believers in the atonement.

That reminds me of all the wrangling and infighting over where the real birthplace of Jesus, the Garden of Gethsemane, or Tomb of Jesus, or Calvary are actually located, as though it actually made a difference.  Even some LDS Brethren have voiced a preference for the Garden Tomb, and Protestant and LDS tour groups seem to prefer it -- even though there is no evidence in support of that preference, except that it is indeed lovely and evocative.

 

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

Dates and locations of spiritual or philosophical utterances have nothing to do with how well the truths they contain are justified or how we decide if indeed they ARE "truths" at all.

The only justification might be to systematize the sequential place of various philosophical schools in order to make the study of them easier for students.  Everything makes more sense in cultural context.  Many of us have a hard time with pure abstraction.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for posting this Cursor. I know there are a few haters out there for the direction the Maxwell Institute is going but I have been very pleased with who they have pulled together. 

Perhaps you could name some of those imaginary haters for us.

The Maxwell Institute generally did abandon ancient studies, but the modern Mormon Studies direction seems to have been emphasized with excellent support.

I should think that you would be more concerned with the haters of the work of FARMS.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

I do accept the proposition that there is an acceptable culture in the Church to study the Book of Mormon in an ancient historical framework.  I have worked with Jack Welch in the past and I have been a witness to his efforts.

 

But I very much see it as reasonable and likely that the Church will not permit a discussion of Book of Mormon geography in its curriculum.   One only has to read the Ensign and the study manuals to see that, and it does not appear that except for one article in the Ensign that Dr. Sorenson has had any influence over church curricula.

I thought that was two articles by Sorenson in the Ensign.  Hugh Nibley published many articles in the Improvement Era with a multitude of geographical claims and maps.  That the Brethren and their hired curriculum staff and advisors should be chary about wholesale adoption of just any geographical claim seems quite reasonable to me, and they seem more disposed to let speculative matters be debated outside official manuals.  That you should make that out to be a negative seems outlandish and self-indulgent, Bob.  Aside from being fair-minded, you should be more circumspect.

 

But, and I very much appreciate it, you did answer my question.  Most followers of Dr. Sorenson refuse to answer my questions. ..................................

Sorenson is a senior scholar, not a guru.  He has colleagues and associates of many years standing who have answered all your questions, impertinent and otherwise.  Among those scholars are those who differ with him on particular aspects of the case he makes, which is entirely normal within the scholarly community, just as there are several different (around 5) suggested locations for Bountiful on the South Arabian coast.  An embarrassment of riches is not necessarily a negative.

[Bob Crockett]

I have posed many questions on this board to MesoAmerican adherents; good ones -- Kevin Christiansen, you, Brant, others.  Most of my lists of questions are simply ignored.  But the questions tend to focus upon the precedential nature of doctrine and authoritative statements of the Brethren, or absence thereof, rather than how many days distant the narrow neck of land is supposed to be from the land northward.  As perhaps you have gathered by now, I am inured to your personal attacks.

 

Again, I'm looking to write a short, academic piece on the subject.  Perhaps some of my posts have appeared to have taken views, but I really don't have a view on who is right and who is wrong.  But I am interested in documenting the historical treatment of the MesoAmerican LGT theory.

 

But, back to the opening post.  I quote from what I find interesting:

 

The leaders' position probably stems from mixed concerns all classed under the heading of the threat of change:

1. fear of embarrassment to the Church from premature, non-revelatory settling of popular opinion on one solution to the question that might later have to be changed;

2. fear of divisiveness among members over competing correlations;

3. the challenge to traditional views about geography that is posed by scholarly study which might shake the faith of lay members who have not distinguished mere tradition from revelation; and,

4. generalized mistrust of intellectuals and hobbyists in religious matters.

 

 

Basically, we are informed, "leaders" have it wrong on the study of Book of Mormon geography for a number of reasons that make the leaders foolish -- such as, for instance, the "mistrust of intellectuals."  I do have a fundamental disagreement with how "intellectuals" view the Church's curriculum.  I've had a debate with Makelan over the that issue, and I guess he says he works for the Church as an exegete, perhaps.  I thought those guys worked only in Israel or at the Vatican.  He thinks it is de rigueur to turn one's nose up at the manuals' treatement of the scriptures.  I have had enough of Sunday School teachers who, instead of teaching from the manuals, fill the hour with barely tangental personal experiences when the manuals should govern the instruction of the Saints.   I couldn't imagine being in a ward having a Church intellectual jettison a manual to inform us that the "leaders" and "manuals" are uninformed.  And so it is with Dr. Sorenson's views.  

Edited October 13, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

That reminds me of all the wrangling and infighting over where the real birthplace of Jesus, the Garden of Gethsemane, or Tomb of Jesus, or Calvary are actually located, as though it actually made a difference.  Even some LDS Brethren have voiced a preference for the Garden Tomb, and Protestant and LDS tour groups seem to prefer it -- even though there is no evidence in support of that preference, except that it is indeed lovely and evocative.

 

The only justification might be to systematize the sequential place of various philosophical schools in order to make the study of them easier for students.  Everything makes more sense in cultural context.  Many of us have a hard time with pure abstraction.

Good point and thanks for that.  I will need to work up my version of the history of philos. including cultural contexts to show the evolution of truth theories.  I can see that if you are not familiar with that, this could be very hard to comprehend much less evaluate.

[Brant Gardner]

I have posed many questions on this board to MesoAmerican adherents; good ones -- Kevin Christiansen, you, Brant, others.  Most of my lists of questions are simply ignored.  But the questions tend to focus upon the precedential nature of doctrine and authoritative statements of the Brethren, or absence thereof, rather than how many days distant the narrow neck of land is supposed to be from the land northward.  

Just in case you consider that I haven't answered, I'll provide my opinion. Questions of Book of Mormon geography have been fluid from the beginning. I see no evidence that there has been any revelation. There is unquestionably established tradition, and many General Authorities have firmly believed in that established tradition. However, there is no evidence that the established tradition was built upon more than speculation.

 

The least fluid aspect of the geography has been the idea that the NY hill was the very Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. There have been really strong statements to that effect. However, they all appear to be based on the tradition rather than any kind of revelation. Joseph didn't use that term for the hill until after others had (from the best available evidence). 

 

So, I do understand that there have been a lot of excellent authorities giving some pretty strong statements, I do not consider them to have doctrinal force. I also see evidence that there has been a shift in the way Book of Mormon geography has been approached by both General Authorities and by the pretty conservative BYU Department of Religion. In both cases, it appears that the recent developments would support the suggestion that the past statements were built on tradition rather than revelation or essential doctrine.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Just in case you consider that I haven't answered, I'll provide my opinion. Questions of Book of Mormon geography have been fluid from the beginning. I see no evidence that there has been any revelation. There is unquestionably established tradition, and many General Authorities have firmly believed in that established tradition. However, there is no evidence that the established tradition was built upon more than speculation.

 

and Gospel Topics essays say that church leaders do believe in traditions that are not necessarily true.

 

"Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[cursor]

Basically, we are informed, "leaders" have it wrong on the study of Book of Mormon geography for a number of reasons that make the leaders foolish—such as, for instance, the "mistrust of intellectuals."  I do have a fundamental disagreement with how "intellectuals" view the Church's curriculum ....  and so it is with Dr. Sorenson's views.  

 

Bro/Dr. Sorenson has taught Gospel Doctrine classes for 30+ years, and has never mentioned Book of Mormon geography. 

 

Have leaders of the Church made verbal claims that conflict with reality? Um, yeah (that's written with just a bit of personal attitude). So, if JLS suggests that some of the Brethren might not see the whole picture ... how wrong might he be? How absolutely studied can THEY be— in absolutely everything. Modern-day revelation is one thing, to NOT understand might be related to an historical inability to understand it—a lack of scholarship, a lack of detail, a lack a real world historical understanding. It's clear is that Joseph Fielding Smith was a bit lacking on the subject of dinosaurs ... and on on human space travel.

 

Dad is an intellectual – on very many levels. His ability to evaluate, to responsibly understand, to hang back and think about the consequences of his vocal/written delivery is uncanny. I don't own that, sorry to say. Perhaps that's a good thing ... who knows. Somewhere down the line. Mark E. Peterson probably posed the single greatest barricade to the publishing the the two-part (and I'll emphasize the TWO-part, Mr. Crockett) Ensign set of articles. MEP was unique. But, my Dad is supremely uniquely special in that he has done a great deal more (do date ... invitation is implied) than any living person in sharing the very significant cultural understandings that serve to frame the real meaning of Book of Mormon message.

Edited October 13, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

Without the deepest cultural understanding of any peoples can scriptural writings be meaningful to us. Certainly, the more we understand about who they were, the better we understand what they are trying to tell us. With that, combined with the most in-depth understanding of ourselves, are we able to best understand what their lessons might be.

 

Live, think, read, understand ... then deliver (to future generations)). Dig in, then pass on.

Edited October 13, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

Just in case you consider that I haven't answered, I'll provide my opinion. Questions of Book of Mormon geography have been fluid from the beginning. I see no evidence that there has been any revelation. There is unquestionably established tradition, and many General Authorities have firmly believed in that established tradition. However, there is no evidence that the established tradition was built upon more than speculation.

 

The least fluid aspect of the geography has been the idea that the NY hill was the very Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. There have been really strong statements to that effect. However, they all appear to be based on the tradition rather than any kind of revelation. Joseph didn't use that term for the hill until after others had (from the best available evidence). 

 

So, I do understand that there have been a lot of excellent authorities giving some pretty strong statements, I do not consider them to have doctrinal force. I also see evidence that there has been a shift in the way Book of Mormon geography has been approached by both General Authorities and by the pretty conservative BYU Department of Religion. In both cases, it appears that the recent developments would support the suggestion that the past statements were built on tradition rather than revelation or essential doctrine.

 

Given the Encyclopedia's statement about the Hill Cumorah (which is duplicated in the Carla Ogden fax, which provenance I challenge as inadequate, but because the contents of her fax is merely from the Encyclopedia,* my objections are rather immaterial), I would agree that that the Hill Cumorah location is now not doctrinal and, given that fact, neither is any other geographic element of the Book of Mormon.

 

However, and this goes to the deeper question which interests me more as a source for academic treatment, it appears to me that the Brethren, in the past, collectively have viewed the Hill Cumorah location as doctrinal and the hemispheric model doctrinal.  I'm interested in the reasons for the shift.  So therein we disagree.    I view "doctrine" as something not necessarily revealed from on high but something the Church has directed to be taught the Saints.   So, for instance, for a long period of time the Article on Marriage was doctrine although the Church later disavowed it.  I view doctrine as something lesser than "eternal truth."    Doctrine is something that the Church can get wrong, just as Nephi asserts that not all he writes may be accurate.  It is an eternal truth that the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni; maybe not all therein is an eternal truth.  For instance, the Book of Mormon for many years stated that Lehi landed off the coast of Chili but that reference was removed with the Talmage rework.

 

I note with keen interest cursor's statement below that Elder Mark E Peterson opposed the Sorenson Ensign articles, a fact I hadn't previously known.   He's certainly a credible enough source although citing to a internet board where the thread may disappear isn't all that credible.   The fact that the articles were published over Elder Peterson's objection yields a number of interesting and likely conclusions.   

 

What also interests me in this analysis is the manner in which the competing geographic advocates stake out their respective positions.   We've seen how Meldrum can get quite nasty and accusatory in his views, but even in this thread we see similar treatment from a frequent poster and defender of the Sorenson model.   (He keeps confusing me as somehow being an advocate of a position other than the Sorenson model).  I'm interested in contrasting that behavior against the relative and non-relative indifference amongst the Brethren in geographic studies.  (But I do need to spend time in the Improvement Era chasing Niblely's writings on the subject.)

 

* The Encyclopedia is not perfect, nor has the Church ever held it out to be a real statement of doctrine.   For instance, it gets very wrong the date of Brigham Young's declaration of martial law in connection with the Utah War.   There were two declarations circulating; the earlier one was never published or released, apparently, because no media outlet covered it.  But I digress . . . .  But I know the Encyclopedia was closely vetted; more so than most Ensigns.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

I have posed many questions on this board to MesoAmerican adherents; good ones -- Kevin Christiansen, you, Brant, others.  Most of my lists of questions are simply ignored.  But the questions tend to focus upon the precedential nature of doctrine and authoritative statements of the Brethren, or absence thereof, rather than how many days distant the narrow neck of land is supposed to be from the land northward.  As perhaps you have gathered by now, I am inured to your personal attacks.

Is it that you can dish it out, but can't take it?  I recall Bob Dylan responding to a catcall of "Judas!" from the audience when he went electric.  Said Dylan into the mike:  "Liar!  I don't believe you."  Very strange.

 

Again, I'm looking to write a short, academic piece on the subject.  Perhaps some of my posts have appeared to have taken views, but I really don't have a view on who is right and who is wrong.  But I am interested in documenting the historical treatment of the MesoAmerican LGT theory.

As I have repeatedly said, I think that a substantive treatment by you would be quite useful, and I think that I could learn something from it.  However, you in the same breath here express contempt for the horrible LDS intellectuals who supposedly jettison everything holy and good in Church manuals, or in teachings of the Brethren.  How do you reconcile those Jekyll-Hyde tendencies within yourself?  I know one thing about you, Bob:  You love straw men.

 

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

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

Basically, we are informed, "leaders" have it wrong on the study of Book of Mormon geography for a number of reasons that make the leaders foolish -- such as, for instance, the "mistrust of intellectuals."  I do have a fundamental disagreement with how "intellectuals" view the Church's curriculum.  I've had a debate with Makelan over the that issue, and I guess he says he works for the Church as an exegete, perhaps.  I thought those guys worked only in Israel or at the Vatican.  He thinks it is de rigueur to turn one's nose up at the manuals' treatement of the scriptures.  I have had enough of Sunday School teachers who, instead of teaching from the manuals, fill the hour with barely tangental personal experiences when the manuals should govern the instruction of the Saints.   I couldn't imagine being in a ward having a Church intellectual jettison a manual to inform us that the "leaders" and "manuals" are uninformed.  And so it is with Dr. Sorenson's views.

You tend to recast the views of those with whom you disagree in the most negative possible light, that they may be discredited (and slimed) thereby.