John L. Sorenson's "sourcebook"

[cursor]

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. 

 

You suggest that there might be dozens of archaeologists/anthropologists, with doctorates, and with expertise in 1) the Book of Mormon, and 2) Mesoamerica ... AND who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God .... and YET "they refuse to get drawn into (not "in to") the Mesoamerican swamp."

 

To bolster your credibility, you might want to offer a list of those who might satisfy all of the above criteria. Seriously.

[Bob Crockett]

You suggest that there might be dozens of archaeologists/anthropologists, with doctorates, and with expertise in 1) the Book of Mormon, and 2) Mesoamerica ... AND who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God .... and YET "they refuse to get drawn into (not "in to") the Mesoamerican swamp."

 

To bolster your credibility, you might want to offer a list of those who might satisfy all of the above criteria. Seriously.

Let's try responding to my question.  As I said;  "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."

 

To bolster your credibility, you might want to offer a list of those who might satisfy all of the above criteria. Seriously.

 

I don't claim to have credibility.  I abhor the quest for credibility; I think it is Freudian.  

Edited October 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

You've posed a number of questions and observations regarding the idea that Mesoamerica could not  possibly be the location of Book of Mormon events. I personal find them to be shallow and misinformed ... and not at all comprehensive in terms of serious consideration.

 

You said:

"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."

 

[that's archaeologists, by the way]

What are the chances that any/many "archaeologist and/or anthropologists with doctorates, with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica" even exist?

 

Michael D. Coe, an expert in his field of Mesoamerican history, is hardly well-versed on the intricacies of the Book of Mormon. Even HE admitted that he was intimidated by Dr. John L. Sorenson's knowledge of Mesoamerica.

 

So, who exactly is there to "peer-review" JLS's work regarding the codex, that is the Book of Mormon? Who has a clue? Who cares? Who is willing to risk their professional career by siding with JLS? Seriously.

 

Months ago Dad told me that he'd snail-mailed a personal copy of his latest publication, Mormon's Codex, to his professional colleague Michael D. Coe. I asked him if he thought Dr. Coe might actually read it. His response was ... and I quote: "He may read it, but there is no way that he'll say anything about it at all. His professional reputation simply couldn't withstand the subsequent criticism. No doubt it will sit, quietly, on his bookshelf."

 

Now, Mr. Bob, please answer my question. Thanks so much.

You suggest that there might be dozens of archaeologists/anthropologists, with doctorates, and with expertise in 1) the Book of Mormon, and 2) Mesoamerica ... AND who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God .... and YET "they refuse to get drawn into (not "in to") the Mesoamerican swamp."

 

So ... who are they ... those who are a) formally educated about Mesoamerican history (how many are there?), b) are super-knowledgeable regarding the Book of Mormon (again, how many are there?),  c) who BELIEVE the Book of Mormon to be the word of God (crap ... how many folk can satisfy all three criteria?) ... "and yet they refuse to get drawn into the Mesoamerican swamp." 

 

I'm looking for a serious list of names here, Bob. If you can't deliver, then that clearly affects any and all of your contributions to this thread. Alternatively, I'm interested in any constructive response that you might have to offer.

Edited October 22, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

I'm looking for a serious list of names here, Bob. If you can't deliver, then that clearly affects any and all of your contributions to this thread. Alternatively, I'm interested in any constructive response that you might have to offer.

I really don't know other than Ray and Deanne Matheny.   My post didn't really say that I knew of any.

 

But, really now, isn't the burden Dr. Sorenson's, yours and Bob Smith's?   Do you know of anybody who has published in a peer-reviewed journal, or even a BYU academic journal -- like BYU Studies -- who is a MesoAmericanist who subscribes to Dr. Sorenson's two-Cumorahs theory of an LGT?  I'm not really persuaded by cites to professors who work in the Department of Religion.  I am not saying there aren't any.

 

I know that Dr. John E. Clark is sympathetic to Dr. Sorenson's views.  Has he ever published in a professional journal his views?   Or BYU studies?  I ask because I need that kind of information for my paper and you'd likely know.  I notice that on his website in BYU's Department of Anthropology he doesn't list any.  Nor does any other full-time faculty member at BYU, according to the Department's Website.  [Note:  Dr. David Johnson has published in Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, regarding Oman, but I looked on a map and couldn't find Oman in the New World.]

 

Dr. John Hawkins is a particularly well-qualified MesoAmericanists.  Nothing.

 

What about Dr. Mark Alan Wright, who teaches in the Department of Religious Education?  He's interesting because he's actually working in the Department and his background is as a MesoAmericanist.  This certainly demonstrates some institutional sympathy for the the location of Book of Mormon events in MesoAmerica, but that isn't all that convincing to me of endorsement of the LGT because hemispherists maintain that Lehi's children fill the two Americas.  What has he published in support of the Dr. Sorenson's two-Cumorahs view?  I am aware of his FAIR presentation. 

 

Dr. Wright, along with Dr. Clark, appear to me to be two LDS archeologists who are sympathetic to Dr. Sorenson's views but I don't see any evidence where they've stepped into secular society to maintain those views, and Dr. Wright doesn't even teach in the Department of Anthropology.

 

My point, rambling away I suppose, is that Dr. Sorenson emphasizes the secular nature of his conclusions, how the cartography matches the text and how many cultural items match the text.  Such secularism would demand, wouldn't you say, a peer-reviewed analysis of those conclusions by qualified MesoAmericanists (and I also assume, cartographists and experts in ancient text).  But I am not aware of any such.  I keep asking the questions but, instead, I get counter questions (which I answer).  Instead, it appears that conservative LDS intelligentsia seems to be against Dr. Sorenson's conclusions:  Hugh Nibley (although, he seems to be all over the "map" on this); Grant Hardy, Bruce Warren, Daniel Ludlow, Ugo Perego (a FARMS author, as am I).   As well, it also seems that the overwhelming view amongst General Authorities is against Dr. Sorenson's view, although I concede in my draft paper that he may have some interested followers in that group.  But, what is compelling to me, is that the Church curriculum does not support Dr. Sorenson's views in the slightest and, indeed, supports a one-Cumorah view (although, as I have pointed out, the Encyclopedia doesn't take a stand).

 

You've posed a number of questions and observations regarding the idea that Mesoamerica could possibly be the location of Book of Mormon events. I personal find them to be shallow and misinformed ... not at all comprehensive in terms of serious consideration.

 Well, on the one hand, I apologize for the offense I've given.   I don't deny that perhaps some of that offense was intended, as I'd like to tease out a more spirited defense of Dr. Sorenson's views than what I've been getting, which largely consists of attacks not going to the merits.  But I appreciate what I've been getting as some of it has been helpful for my analysis.

 

But, on the other hand, I deny being shallow and misinformed although for the life of my I can't find Codex in my library.  Somebody swiped it and I don't want to go out another $50.  I'm going to have to go down to the local library while I'm looking for Oman; perhaps it will be there. 

Edited October 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

Prior to your Mormon's Codex loss, did your read it, Bob?

 

My dad once insisted that his sole in-print copy of Man Across the Sea had somehow disappeared (someone had "lifted" it). I kindly reminded him that he had given the text to me three years prior, so that it would not be lost (along with many other books and unpublished texts). Might that not be true of your experience with the Mormon's Codex text. Bob?

[cursor]

cursor wrote:

What are the chances that any/many "archaeologist and/or anthropologists with doctorates, [AND] with expertise in both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica" even exist?

 

The question remains ... who exactly is the foremost authority on 1) the Book of Mormon content, 2) the archaeology of the Americas, and 3) the significant anthropological perspective on how the american continents became populated, and their subsequent history?

 

Why not pay respectable attention, afterall?

[Bob Crockett]

Prior to your Mormon's Codex loss, did your read it, Bob?

 

My dad once insisted that his sole in-print copy of Man Across the Sea had somehow disappeared (someone had "lifted" it). I kindly reminded him that he had given the text to me three years prior, so that it would not be lost (along with many other books and unpublished texts). Might that not be true of your experience with the Mormon's Codex text. Bob?

Yes.   I read it.  I cite it in my draft paper.  

 

No response to my points or question?  Do you know of anybody who has published in a peer-reviewed journal, or even a BYU academic journal -- like BYU Studies -- who is a MesoAmericanist who subscribes to Dr. Sorenson's two-Cumorahs theory of an LGT?  I honestly want to know, for if you identify such a person I'd like to read what he/she has published.

 

The question remains ... who exactly is the foremost authority on 1) the Book of Mormon content, 2) the archaeology of the Americas, and 3) the significant anthropological perspective on how the american continents became populated, and their subsequent history?

I do not dispute that Dr. Sorenson is a great and respected authority on the Book of Mormon, if not the greatest after Hugh Nibley. But, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith are three of the greatest economists who ever lived.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

I don't claim to have credibility. 

 

Serious question:  why should anyone bother reading your posts then?

[KevinG]

Because they are in-credible.

Ba-da-bump. Crash!

[Bob Crockett]

Serious question:  why should anyone bother reading your posts then?

Don't!

Look to the quality of the argument, not the quest for credibility. Who has the better argument?

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[JDave]

Don't!

Look to the quality of the argument, not the quest for credibility. Who has the better argument?

This really flies in the face of your policy of dismissing anyone anonymous.

[Bob Crockett]

This really flies in the face of your policy of dismissing anyone anonymous.

Yes.  I like to be consistent when it suits me.  

 

Be that as it may, I note once again that my essential questions about Dr. Sorenson's theories go unanswered.  

 

If you've got one lone wolf engineer out there who has published a non-peer reviewed book documenting the claim that there were explosive charges preset in the Twin Towners on 9/11, one might naturally ask if the theory has found scientific acceptance among his peers.  

 

In the case of Dr. Sorenson and his supporters, the cry is "science, science and more science" to support the claims of the Book of Mormon.  In that case, you'd want to see if "science" was properly applied -- cartographic statistical studies, peer-reviewing by other anthrolopologists, experts in mapping ancient texts, and so forth and so on.  The essence of my question to cursor, Bob Smith and others, is where might I find such published acceptance.  Surely, if it was extant, we'd see it in LDS academia.  Some place other than the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies -- a quite valuable source for my personal study but not for the application of statistical methodology.  

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

I know that Dr. John E. Clark is sympathetic to Dr. Sorenson's views.  Has he ever published in a professional journal his views?   Or BYU studies?  

It depends upon what kind of article you are looking at. Clark's article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies was reprinted in the FARMS Review because it was an important second methodological discussion of Book of Mormon geography. In it, he comes out in favor of Sorenson's model over other options. Clark was noticeably silent in public fora as have most professional archaeologists--due to the sad fact that it is close to academic suicide to promote any opinion of the Book of Mormon publicly. Clark's presentation at the Joseph Smith Conference (published by BYU Studies) is certainly his most public "coming out," and Mark Wright (who was at Riverside at the time) reported the very negative comments from Mesoamericanists about Clark's public statements. Clark is close enough to the end of an important career (and teaches at BYU where such view certainly won't get him fired), so he could finally afford the public statements. Most are not in that position, but clearly understand the problem.

 

What about Dr. Mark Alan Wright, who teaches in the Department of Religious Education?  He's interesting because he's actually working in the Department and his background is as a MesoAmericanist.

I'm not sure what kind of question you are asking about Mark. He is a Mesoamericanist and places the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Interestingly, the Religion Department asked him to teach that perspective in his classes at BYU, which is (to me) an amazing shift in pseudo-official acceptance in that department. Mark isn't adamant about a specific Mesoamerican geography, meaning that he doesn't support Sorenson more than other hypotheses. For example, he doesn't particularly care whether the Grijalva or the Usumacinta was the Sidon. He is interested in different topics (and I have the same interests, though I am much more firm in following Sorenson's basic geography). If you are asking if Mark has published anything that specifically supports the two-Cumorah hypothesis, I am not aware of it. However, I know that he does. I suspect that you aren't going to find a lot of people defending it because it was accepted by a certain set of scholars a long time ago and isn't an interesting topic. We've moved on to other (to us) more important and interesting topics.

 

Dr. Wright, along with Dr. Clark, appear to me to be two LDS archeologists who are sympathetic to Dr. Sorenson's views but I don't see any evidence where they've stepped into secular society to maintain those views.

As I noted, Clark was pretty public in Washington, DC at the Joseph Smith Conference. The problem with stepping into secular publishing is that secular publishing doesn't want anything to do with the topic. It isn't even that polite. You are seeing more Book of Mormon books from mainstream publishers (see Givens and Handy), but you won't see in from archaeologists or anthropologists. Those fields are controlled by those who will keep such things out of print. Perhaps that will change, but not for a long time.

 

My point, rambling away I suppose, is that Dr. Sorenson emphasizes the secular nature of his conclusions, how the cartography matches the text and how many cultural items match the text.  Such secularism would demand, wouldn't you say, a peer-reviewed analysis of those conclusions by qualified MesoAmericanists (and I also assume, cartographists and experts in ancient text).  But I am not aware of any such.

You do realize that the situation with the Book of Mormon is rather unique? With most texts there is some hint at the connection between the culture producing the text and the location of that culture. The idea of using only the text to determine geography is pretty unique to the Book of Mormon (and the difficulties are the reason that we have so many competing geographies). 

 

 I keep asking the questions but, instead, I get counter questions (which I answer).  Instead, it appears that conservative LDS intelligentsia seems to be against Dr. Sorenson's conclusions:

Where there is a sentence I didn't expect. I'm baffled at how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

 Hugh Nibley (although, he seems to be all over the "map" on this);

Nibley was so completely an Old World scholar that he pretty much ignored the New World. I don't know that "against" would be the right term but rather "disinterested."

 

Grant Hardy, Bruce Warren, Daniel Ludlow, Ugo Perego (a FARMS author, as am I).

I don't really known Hardy's position. Warren was part of the group working on coming up with a Mesoamerican geography and had proposed one of his own. He differed in specifics with Sorenson, but not in general outlines. I don't know that Ludlow said much about location. What I have read of him suggests that he worked outside of the need for a location. Ugo favors Mesoamerica, at least to my knowledge. That would be personal experience rather than print experience. Still, I don't know what you might have read of his that places him against Sorenson.

 

As well, it also seems that the overwhelming view amongst General Authorities is against Dr. Sorenson's view.

One of the reasons is certainly that the overwhelming number of General Authorities preceded him, and many of those contemporary and up to the 1985 publication had formed their very strong opinions prior to Sorenson's work. The overwhelming number of scholars living before Copernicus did not accept Copernicus's conclusions. It is a true statement, but not much of a condemnation of Copernicus.

 

(although, as I have pointed out, the Encyclopedia doesn't take a stand).

You must be speaking of the two Cumorah issue only. Otherwise you comment doesn't match the very obvious acceptance of a Mesoamerican geography in the Encyclopedia. The evidence of such support is subtle, but obvious. I strongly suspect that the need to be subtle rather than explicit is a rather simple explanation for the absence of a stand on what is obviously a controversial issue in the Church. Geography is still not one the list of things that are official, so officially explicit statements ought to be absent.

[Bob Crockett]

 

You must be speaking of the two Cumorah issue only. Otherwise you comment doesn't match the very obvious acceptance of a Mesoamerican geography in the Encyclopedia.

 

 

Many helpful insights in the above post.

 

As to what I've highlighted from your post, it seems quite apparent that the Brethren (esp. Milton R. Hunter; B.H. Roberts) have enthusiastically pointed to MesoAmerica as a place for possible Nephite civilization.  But, always in the context of a greater hemispheric model.  

 

The mistake Dr. Sorenson makes, even though he specifically acknowledges the view that Joseph Smith more likely had a hemispheric view of Nephite indignionism (is that a word?), is that he persists in cherrypicking from possible Joseph Smith statements about Mesoamerica to offer his, Dr. Sorenson's, limited view.   (There are other mistakes, I believe; the science isn't there; his work isn't a faithful application of ancient text to actual cartography, and the argument for "most plausible" does not elevate the argument above speculation.)  

 

It seems to me, although few realize it or acknowledge it, that a true Sorenson LGT is an attempt to explain away, by narrowing the field, the perceived anachronisms of the Book of Mormon.  

 

Meldrum's LGT basis, interestingly, is not that.  He wants to narrow the field to the outlines of the American flag.   I think the whole dust-up with George P. Lee demonstrates the view that the Lamanites are really found throughout the Americas, and that they include the children of the Consquitadors, thus discrediting Meldrum's view.  

 

Another error I see in the LGT theorists' analysis is the inability of most to discuss their differences civilly in light of what appears to be Church indifference or, even, mild intolerance of advancing particular views.  Present company excepted. 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

Look to the quality of the argument, not the quest for credibility. Who has the better argument?

 

The "quality of the argument."

The "quest for credibility."

"Who has the better argument."

 

In the minute set of phrases, that's the total sum of what you have to offer.

 

You speak of peer reviewed (or the lack of) papers as being an important point for credibility on this (or any) subject ... yet you totally fail to comprehend that there are virtually no folk who satisfy your three-tiered criteria for credibility:

1. expertise in the Book of Mormon

2. expertise in Mesoamerican history/geography/cartography

3. actual belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

 

Quantify for me, please ... how many people alive can possibly satisfy those three criteria? Certainly not dozens ... probably not even a handful. Do you even fit in there, Bob?

 

I consider myself to be a common, yet meticulously logical guy. I don't really care about peer reviews. And, frankly, I don't care so much about scholarly credentials, although my Dad owns (has earned) a ton of them. Me ... I'm a high school graduate, like many of you out there. I can say, at least, that during my last two years of high school I earned straight A's. I was direct, dedicated, and I was focused. At nearly 62 years old now, I'm still focused, dedicated, and direct. I'm certain that at least a subset of you out there can identify with that.

 

The fact that I don't have a degree in law, or the fact that I don't have a degree in anything at all ... hardly means that I cannot think, reason, logically argue (and be respected), seriously imagine ... etc.

 

Exactly how may peer-reviewed papers did Joseph Smith write?

 

Exactly how many advanced degrees did Joseph Smith own?

 

JLS (that's "Dad" to me) has "stood on the shoulders of giants" ... most of whom had no formal degrees (he adopted his selected set of honorable folk, as we all do, and then built upon them). Based on that selected base of human/historical value he has shared his constantly developing view with all of us (without much concern about vocational reactions/consequences). The delivery of his developed discoveries is focused on Truth, without selfish concern for vocational security.

 

You suggest that there might be dozens of archaeologists/anthropologists, with doctorates, and with expertise in 1) the Book of Mormon, and 2) Mesoamerica ... AND who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God .... and YET "they refuse to get drawn into (not "in to") the Mesoamerican swamp." You you can't identify them. Such an argument could not possibly muster credibility in my senior year Humanities class at San Marcos High School, in 1971.

Edited October 24, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

The quest for peer acceptance of what is being passed off as a theory based in science should not be seen as denigrating somebody who lacks a college degree.

I think it is apples and oranges. Just because the FDA requires statistical clinical trials does not mean it makes fun of high school grads.

At this point I just want to be pointed to any peer in Dr Sorenson's professional area, and to what they have published on Book of Mormon archeology.

I'm just doing research. I take no position. I appreciate the info you have provided.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

I suspect that you have no idea what FDA clinical trials involve (despite your vary casual reference to them), any more than you have a clue about about possible Book of Mormon geography, Bob. My wife, by the way, is a [high-level-degreed] biomedical engineer (with no less than six patents under her belt), who is intimately aware of current FDA clinical trial requirements. If you want some serious feeback ... just ask.

 

Hey, just do your research.

Edited October 24, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

I suspect that you have no idea what FDA clinical trials involve (despite your vary casual reference to them), any more than you have a clue about about possible Book of Mormon geography, Bob. My wife, by the way, is a [high-level-degreed] biomedical engineer (with no less than six patents under her belt), who is intimately aware of current FDA clinical trial requirements. If you want some serious feeback ... just ask.

 

Hey, just do your research.

Hopefully it isn't about me, but about Dr. Sorenson's views.  

 

Rather, peer review and statistical support are means to support a scientific theory, even a minority theory.  Those who advocate a MesoAmerican LGT view based upon "science" ought to know what that means. 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

Actually, it's about your views, or your lack of view/true-perspective, Bob.

 

You claim some pseudo-level of expertise on archaeology, anthropology, FDA procedural systems, Book of Mormon geography, cartography, yet continue to drive on with flat tires ... one in the front, and  one at the right rear.

 

I have a spare tire iron that I'm willing to lend ... hell, even give you.

I don't however have a pressure gauge to lend to you. I'm afraid that you'll have to do that on your own.

 

Again, was Joseph Smith ever "peer" reviewed? 

 

The fact that he was NOT must mean that his input was worth zilch, nada, etc.

 

What exactly might be the worth of John L. Sorenson's professional perspectives some 170 years later?  By 1936 he'd adopted some respectable  (intellectual/spiritual) giants  ... he then stood on their shoulders. And since that view seemed initially productive, and since the view was very clearly enlightening, he subsequently continued for the next 78 years digging for additional truths that might seriously support the former subset.

Edited October 24, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

Actually, it's about your views, or you lack of view/true-perspective, Bob.

 

You claim some pseudo-level of expertise, yet continue to drive on with flat tires ... one in the front, and  one at the right rear.

 

Again, was Joseph Smith ever "peer" reviewed? 

 

I have a spare tire iron that I'm willing to lend ... hell, even give you.

Well, I think you raise a point that deserves mention. Does the argument of peer reviewing apply to Joseph Smith? I think the answer is "no," as it is for Meldrum's view of a nativist LGT theory limited to the confines of the United States. Rod Meldrum bases his tortured view of Book of Mormon archaeology upon the statements of the Brethren and of Joseph Smith, to a large degree. To the extent that he ties the text of the Book of Mormon to North American geography, it appears to be basically eyeballing that anybody can do.

Dr. Sorenson, on the other hand, brings a multidisciplinary argument to the Book of Mormon, based upon a secular, scientific analysis. He uses cultural similarities, the Book of Mormon text, the oddities or peculiarities of culture combined with localized geographies, to reach a decision based upon scientific principles. As he says in Ancient, "So the rest of this book presents a consistent, plausible system for interpreting the Book of Mormon in specific geographical, historical and cultural terms." (Ancient xx).

If a professional, such as Dr. Sorenson, invokes the study of science to assess an ancient text, then the question becomes whether he has used legitimate secular means to get there. I don't think there is support for the argument that he has. 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 . . . .” That doesn't mean that Dr. Sorenson's theory is wrong; it means only that he has failed to bridge the gap between his theory and the demands of scientific rigor. If he had, there'd be at the very minimum LDS anthropologists who are willing to cite to him with regularity. There aren't. The two possible candidates are above, but they've not risked their professional necks in professional publications or even BYU Studies.

I am personally not aware of any anthropologist with a doctorate who teaches anthropology who publicly agrees with Dr. Sorenson, except Dr. Clark. I've seen the comments of BYU professors who do not -- the Mathenys. My detached conclusion remains that Dr. Sorenson's views have immense popularity with the laity but remain a doctrinal, cultural and scientific outlier to the point of being nothing more than implausible (but possible true) speculation. My purpose for engaging with you and others on this board is to tease out views, professional please, that conflict with my research conclusion. I am getting a little that is helpful. Brant's post above and some of Bob Smith's stuff has been very helpful to round out my research.

I don't claim any level of expertise, by the way, and have none. I'm just a researcher and publisher of articles dealing with the strength of evidence in claims made by historians. If I have expertise, it is in understanding the principles of evidence. (One of my favorite examples is where John Whitmore told Theodore Turley that he recanted his witness of the plates, because when he turned the leaves he could not read the language. There is so much pregnant in terms of evidentiary value with this assertion.)

Edited October 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

I'll tell you what, Bob ... rather than try to resolve issues here, I'll supply you with direct access to my Dad. 

 

JLS@JohnLSorenson.com

 

Good luck at getting any interested response, however. Dad is now 90+ ... sharp as can be, but very much less willing to put up with bullshit. Additionally spelling errors will not be tolerated. Good luck with that, Bob.

Edited October 24, 2014 by cursor

[Gervin]

 The problem with stepping into secular publishing is that secular publishing doesn't want anything to do with the topic. It isn't even that polite. You are seeing more Book of Mormon books from mainstream publishers (see Givens and Handy), but you won't see in from archaeologists or anthropologists. Those fields are controlled by those who will keep such things out of print. Perhaps that will change, but not for a long time.

 

This is ridiculous - not so humbly - and a weird accusation in this day and age.  LDS archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, or anyone in academia who wants to achieve or maintain tenure knows that the bar is set high to publish in peer-reviewed journals, periodicals, and books. These fields are controlled?  LDS professionals are in these fields and know fully that the rigors of quality (that is, a conformance to standards that have themselves withstood time, etc.) help maintain the validity of their chosen professions.  

 

Your assumption is that no one wants anything to do with the topic.  If the topic is the Book of Mormon, you are probably right.  But if the topic is the intersection of Hebrew and Mesoamerican cultures, show me what you got and keep your religious book, thank you.  

 

 

 

You do realize that the situation with the Book of Mormon is rather unique? With most texts there is some hint at the connection between the culture producing the text and the location of that culture.

 

 

 

It would be part and parcel of their writings - a hint or a really big clue.

 

The idea of using only the text to determine geography is pretty unique to the Book of Mormon (and the difficulties are the reason that we have so many competing geographies). 

 

 

It's certainly not uncommon to the Bible.  When the text says 'going up to Jerusalem' you know it's literal.  Same with 'down to Nazareth' Valleys, Mountains, rural / urban geography. etc etc.  The Bible has its own competing geographies, for sure, but there is an impressive number of benchmarks - and growing.

[Bob Crockett]

I'll tell you what, Bob ... rather than try to resolve issues here, I'll supply you with direct access to my Dad.

JLS@JohnLSorenson.com

Good luck at getting any interested response, however. Dad is now 90+ ... sharp as can be, but very much less willing to put up with bullshit. Additionally spelling errors will not be tolerated. Good luck with that, Bob.

You are a good man. Thanks but I'm just writing history. I'm not a likely convert.

I love the Book of Mormon but believe all this stuff is a distraction.

[Hestia]

Too many personal comments. Looks like the subject matter has been exhausted.