John L. Sorenson's "sourcebook"

[Calm]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705387187/A-journey-across-the-narrow-neck.html?pg=all

 

According to most versions of the Mesoamerican model for Book of Mormon geography theory, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (the narrow strip of land separating the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean) constitutes the “narrow neck” of land described in the Book of Mormon (Alma 22:32).

While this strip of terra firma certainly reflects a narrow neck of land between two larger bodies of land, some may question how this section could be traversed in a day and a half by a Nephite when the narrowest point is still 137 miles across.

The Book of Mormon’s narrow neck was obviously not extremely narrow because in Mosiah 8, we read that the Limhi explorers unknowingly passed through it and thought they were still around the land of Zarahemla.

There are several possible explanations for the travel-distance dilemma. John Sorenson explains that travel distance for “a Nephite” might refer to someone accustomed to traveling long distances in short periods (as opposed to someone who was not “a Nephite”). Sorenson cites the example of some Mexican Indian foot runners who have been known to run up to 500 miles in six days, pausing one day for rest before running back again. Sorenson also cites the example of a man who, in 1973, walked 500 miles in six days as well as a man who traveled 161 miles in a single 24-hour period.

There may be a simpler answer, however. Our initial inclination when reading Alma 22:32 is to envision the narrow neck’s distance as a day and a half’s journey from ocean to ocean, but the verse actually says that a Nephite could make the roughly 36-hour journey from “the east” to the west sea (not the east sea to the west sea). It’s possible that “the east” referred to some other delineator other than the east sea — perhaps something much further inland (which could have greatly reduced the travel distance to the west sea).

 

[Bob Crockett]

Thanks.  But I seriously doubt that under any reasonable standard, 137 miles can be traversed in a day and a half.

 

I run 100 mile races.   Very rare individuals, on level ground and hard unobstructed paths, fully supported with no time to stop, can do 100 miles in 16 hours.  I can do it in 25 hours, with a chase crew carrying everything for me, and without stopping, and so long as the temps are below 65.

 

The area of the world we're talking about has nearly impenetrable malarial swamps.  

 

When ancient journals and military accounts talk about a "day's" travel, they are talking about covering the ground with provisions.  With no beasts of burden likely and swampy conditions, a day's journey is likely only 10 mlles.  I'm rather amazed that Dr. Sorenson would rely upon an account of an extremely rare event where one person covered 500 miles in six days or a man who covered 161 miles in 24 hours.   The world record for 24 hours is 188 miles, a man I've competed against, Yiannis Kouros, who is called the "Running God."  That record was made on a track.  

 

Really now, is this reasonable analysis?  This analysis is yet another example of where Dr. Sorenson's thinking breaks down; he strings together a long list of nearly improbable stretches and flights of fantasy to reach a final conclusion.

 

The Church and the truthfulness of the Gospel is not be found in spectacular secular speculation that contravenes common sense.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

I don't mean to offend.  I merely am working on a sociological analysis of trends in geographic studies, and my tentative finding is that there isn't enough there to pin Joseph Smith to the crime of a MesoAmerican theory.

I don't think you can make him an exclusive Mesoamericanist, but certainly a willing participant in Book of Mormon related speculation about it. He certainly had a different opinion before Stephens and Catherwood's book appeared. I think Joseph was a Book of Mormon geographic opportunist, and his opinions varied based on when you look, at them and what the circumstances were.

[Brant Gardner]

Thanks.  But I seriously doubt that under any reasonable standard, 137 miles can be traversed in a day and a half.

Of course this brings up a problem with how all of us approach Book of Mormon geography. We have to decide what is literal and what isn't. For example, I see no evidence that there was a body of water corresponding to a north and south sea--those appear to be conceptual indications, not geographical ones. Similarly, we have the problem of a day and a half, and then absolute distances. The problem is that we assume that an ithsmus must be completely traversed. The text talks of the fortified line, which might be shorter. Given difficult-to-traverse swamps, that defensive line could be even shorter in actual distance.

 

None of those are items that are crystal clear in the text. We have to make our arguments based on our readings, and the way that all evidence fits into those readings. Although there might be a narrow neck near the Hill Cumorah, the narrow neck should be south of it. Somewhere to the north, probably at some distance, there should be a place where there as a large population near many waters who built houses of cement because there were no trees. To meet that last requirement north of Niagara places us in territory where no one lived during Book of Mormon times.

 

Simple readings are easy to argue. Finding something that actually works with all of the requirements of the text is much more difficult and therefore susceptible to differences in specific readings (such as those who look for a real north and south sea as a geographic requirement).

[Bob Crockett]

Well, as Jack Welch likes to remind me, you have me on the cement issue.  

 

But it could be that "cement" is just another word for oak.  

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks.  But I seriously doubt that under any reasonable standard, 137 miles can be traversed in a day and a half.

 

I run 100 mile races.   Very rare individuals, on level ground and hard unobstructed paths, fully supported with no time to stop, can do 100 miles in 16 hours.  I can do it in 25 hours, with a chase crew carrying everything for me, and without stopping, and so long as the temps are below 65.

You do great injustice to Sorenson's attempt to cover a broad range of possibilities, which you automatically reject without discussion of the best alternatives.

 

The area of the world we're talking about has nearly impenetrable malarial swamps.

Only partly true, but which does not explain how it could be that the major Olmec civilization was centered in those very estuaries and swamps, which were not only not impenetrable, but included major rivers, and provided efficient transport and communication during flood season (tons of rock being brought in on barges from the Tuxtlas Mountains for monumental construction of major Olmec cities).  Had you shown any interest at all in how this may have contributed to a rational understanding of the day-and-a-half journey question, these major waterways might have been useful in formulating a reasonable explanation.  A reading of Mike Coe on the Olmec culture would help you see that.

 

When ancient journals and military accounts talk about a "day's" travel, they are talking about covering the ground with provisions.  With no beasts of burden likely and swampy conditions, a day's journey is likely only 10 mlles.  I'm rather amazed that Dr. Sorenson would rely upon an account of an extremely rare event where one person covered 500 miles in six days or a man who covered 161 miles in 24 hours.   The world record for 24 hours is 188 miles, a man I've competed against, Yiannis Kouros, who is called the "Running God."  That record was made on a track. 

 

Really now, is this reasonable analysis?  This analysis is yet another example of where Dr. Sorenson's thinking breaks down; he strings together a long list of nearly improbable stretches and flights of fantasy to reach a final conclusion.

More of the same distraction from reality and creation of straw men, despite the availability of a reasonable explanation. 

 

The Church and the truthfulness of the Gospel is not be found in spectacular secular speculation that contravenes common sense.

Common sense would be very helpful here, but must be based on hard anthropological reality, which you have carefully excluded herewith.  What you say and how you formulate it would do honor to the best in anti-Book of Mormon writing.

 

Your astonishing error is your failure to explain how the great Olmec civilization could have flourished for over a thousand years right there in the midst of your "impenetrable malarial swamp.," and your simultaneous failure to take into account their tight parallels with the Jaredite civilization -- the like of which has no other legitimate parallel in the New World.

[Bob Crockett]

Really now. I make an astonishing error by refusing to concede the impossible task of a day and a half journey through this area?

You're tenacious.

Laughing up my sleeve. LUMS.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

Well, as Jack Welch likes to remind me, you have me on the cement issue.  

 

But it could be that "cement" is just another word for oak.  

I'd laugh as that possibility, but I'm infamous for thinking that the English of the translation might represent something slightly different. Maybe fire-hardened oak? 

[moi]

Really now. I make an astonishing error by refusing to concede the impossible task of a day and a half journey through this area?

You're tenacious.

Laughing up my sleeve. LUMS.

 

YTBTLU

You're tenacious but totally lacking understanding.

 

What a funny fellow you are.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Cursor: thanks for posting. I just added this book to the Institute website this week. To my knowledge it's never been available online before. The site has a low and a high resolution scan. If you'd like to borrow a print version to help complete your project (in the event you don't have one) please let me know. We'd love to host a text-searchable file on the Institute website if you complete one. My email is BlairHodges at BYU dot edu.

Also, I'm gearing up to release a whole bunch of classic FARMS material never before published online. This is to celebrate the thirty-five year anniversary of the founding of FARMS, which has since been absorbed by the Maxwell Instirute's Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. The Institute has a new book coming out in the series of "Reexploring the Book of Mormon" and "Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon," which were collections of FARMS Updates usually published in the old newsletter Insights. Brian Hauglid and I just compiled the Updates of the 2000s for the new book "According to Our Knowledge." The classic FARMS material will appear on our website in tandem with the release of the new book. More news to follow.

[LifeOnaPlate]

PS--forgive typos, I'm on my phone.

[Calm]

Good news, Blair.  Thanks for posting it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No prob. Looks like this message board doesn't have too many FARMS fans? I haven't been around much so I don't know the tenor of the place anymore.

[mfbukowski]

No prob. Looks like this message board doesn't have too many FARMS fans? I haven't been around much so I don't know the tenor of the place anymore.

Me!  Me!

 

But you are right, we only have one tenor.  We're mostly altos or baritones.

 

Bada- bing. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Cursor: thanks for posting. I just added this book to the Institute website this week. To my knowledge it's never been available online before. The site has a low and a high resolution scan. If you'd like to borrow a print version to help complete your project (in the event you don't have one) please let me know. We'd love to host a text-searchable file on the Institute website if you complete one. My email is BlairHodges at BYU dot edu.

Also, I'm gearing up to release a whole bunch of classic FARMS material never before published online. This is to celebrate the thirty-five year anniversary of the founding of FARMS, which has since been absorbed by the Maxwell Instirute's Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. The Institute has a new book coming out in the series of "Reexploring the Book of Mormon" and "Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon," which were collections of FARMS Updates usually published in the old newsletter Insights. Brian Hauglid and I just compiled the Updates of the 2000s for the new book "According to Our Knowledge." The classic FARMS material will appear on our website in tandem with the release of the new book. More news to follow.

Wonderful to hear that, Blair.

[cursor]

Cursor: thanks for posting. I just added this book to the Institute website this week. To my knowledge it's never been available online before. The site has a low and a high resolution scan. If you'd like to borrow a print version to help complete your project (in the event you don't have one) please let me know. We'd love to host a text-searchable file on the Institute website if you complete one. My email is BlairHodges at BYU dot edu.

Also, I'm gearing up to release a whole bunch of classic FARMS material never before published online. This is to celebrate the thirty-five year anniversary of the founding of FARMS, which has since been absorbed by the Maxwell Instirute's Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. The Institute has a new book coming out in the series of "Reexploring the Book of Mormon" and "Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon," which were collections of FARMS Updates usually published in the old newsletter Insights. Brian Hauglid and I just compiled the Updates of the 2000s for the new book "According to Our Knowledge." The classic FARMS material will appear on our website in tandem with the release of the new book. More news to follow.

 

A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Blair (albeit only textually). I have what I need, thanks. Mostly it's a matter of responsible formatting (particularly tables).

 

My plan, in case you're not aware, is to populate JohnLSorenson.com with his entire 90+ year life works (both published and unpublished ... (I doubt that love letters will be included, sorry). I hope for this to be an eternal project ... added upon "line upon line, precept upon precept " beyond Dad, and well beyond my efforts.

 

I'm happy to share and collaborate, however reasonable, towards the projection of serious and realistic Book of Mormon truths.

 

While I have your ear, Blair, (I hope that I've not lost it in my previous statements ... it would be REALLY smart to include graphical maps in Maxwell Institute's [textual] representation of Dad's Mormon's Map. How might anyone have seriously neglected to include any and all maps from the original text of Mormon's Map?

 

Hey, whatever you can do ... whatever you see as important, in the long run.

 

Pleasure to textually-meet you Blair. Look forward to any and all future interface.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Robert F. Smith happens to have several pieces in the collection, by the way!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Double post.

Edited October 21, 2014 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Blair (albeit only textually). I have what I need, thanks. Mostly it's a matter of responsible formatting (particularly tables).

My plan, in case you're not aware, is to populate JohnLSorenson.com with his entire 90+ year life works (both published and unpublished ... (I doubt that love letters will be included, sorry). I hope for this to be an eternal project ... added upon "line upon line, precept upon precept " beyond Dad, and well beyond my efforts.

I'm happy to share and collaborate, however reasonable, towards the projection of serious and realistic Book of Mormon truths.

While I have your ear, Blair, (I hope that I've not lost it in my previous statements ... it would be REALLY smart to include graphical maps in Maxwell Institute's [textual] representation of Dad's Mormon's Map. How might anyone have seriously neglected to include any and all maps from the original text of Mormon's Map?

Hey, whatever you can do ... whatever you see as important, in the long run.

Pleasure to textually-meet you Blair. Look forward to any and all future interface.

I'll see what we can do for M's M.

[Bob Crockett]

I'd laugh as that possibility, but I'm infamous for thinking that the English of the translation might represent something slightly different. Maybe fire-hardened oak?

I do very much endorse your last 2 volume book on the translation process. Very convincing. I wish all here would read it. But you didn't convince me with the chiasmus analysis.

[cursor]

I'll see what we can do for M's M.

 

Thanks. That would be a really smart move. Without the graphic maps, Mormon's Map is unnecessarily abbreviated in its serious value.

[cursor]

Right. I guess I've forgotten that fact as I focused on the narrowest isthmus.  Once again, I've demonstrated that although I have read Dr. Sorenson's books many times, I have not focused on these types of details.

 

Focus Daniel-san.

Not all things are as they might seem to the uninformed.

 

The smart combination of complex sets of [what seem to be] simple elements can result in real solutions. The unfruitful focus on singular elements (without consideration for the whole) is worthless.

Edited October 21, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think I am uninformed. I am forgetful.

 

I believe the number of archeologists and anthropologists with doctorates with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and MesoAmerica who have agreed publicly in a peer-reviewed professional or academic journal with Dr. Sorenson's essential Codex conclusions number probably two or less. 

 

I am willing to be educated to the contrary; point me to their work.

 

I believe that the number of archeologists and anthropologists with doctorates with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and MesoAmerica who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God but refuse to get drawn in to the MesoAmerican swamp number in the dozens. 

Edited October 21, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think I am uninformed. I am forgetful.

 

I believe the number of archeologists and anthropologists with doctorates with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and MesoAmerica who have agreed publicly in a peer-reviewed professional or academic journal with Dr. Sorenson's essential Codex conclusions number probably two or less. 

 

I am willing to be educated to the contrary; point me to their work.

 

I believe that the number of archeologists and anthropologists with doctorates with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and MesoAmerica who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God but refuse to get drawn in to the MesoAmerican swamp number in the dozens. 

I am intrigued by the suggestion that there are dozens of anthropologists (including those specializing in archeology) of doctoral rank with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica, quite aside from what they may believe about the matter.  I have a very hard time believing that there are that many anthropologists with PhDs anywhere in the world who are expert in both BofM and Mesoamerica.  However, perhaps you could enlighten me with a list of at least a dozen.  Maybe a half-dozen?

 

We're talking here of the same sort of expertise one expects among biblical archeologists in understanding both the Bible and the ancient Near East.  There are surely dozens in that case.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith happens to have several pieces in the collection, by the way!

Thanks, Blair.

I'll send you a list of those I have online, just in case they have fallen through the cracks.

Bob