Fly Fisherman Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 NWAF - I know little about them. A critic I have been having discussions with claims they distance themselves from John Sorenson's work on purpose because they disagree with his views on the Book of Mormon connections to ancient America. Can this be verified? Do some members of that group disagree with Sorenson, or is this just a faulty claim with no substance?
Rob Osborn Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Off topic but I did a quick pitstop over there to the NWAF and as soon as i saw they were focused on Meso-America I didnt read anymore. Not fond of close minded folks.
ksfisher Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Off topic but I did a quick pitstop over there to the NWAF and as soon as i saw they were focused on Meso-America I didnt read anymore. Not fond of close minded folks. Sounds like the proverbial pots and kettles. 1
Kevin Christensen Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 See Daniel Peterson's 2004 essay on the NWAF: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=12 FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Brant Gardner Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The New World Archaeological Foundation was quite active for a while. I don't think much goes on under that name now. They did archaeological work on pre-Classic Mesoamerican civilizations. Although affiliated with BYU, it never did work explicitly connected to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was never part of the publications, which were pretty straightforward archaeological reports. 4
ERayR Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Off topic but I did a quick pitstop over there to the NWAF and as soon as i saw they were focused on Meso-America I didnt read anymore. Not fond of close minded folks. Do you also have trouble with mirrors? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Off topic but I did a quick pitstop over there to the NWAF and as soon as i saw they were focused on Meso-America I didnt read anymore. Not fond of close minded folks.The New World Archaeological Foundation, which has existed since the 1950s, is a professional archeological research organization focused on study of the extraordinary civilizations of Mesoamerica. The best non-Mormon experts have staffed most of their excavations, and their reports are considered among the best and most thorough by all professionals. They do not do any Book of Mormon research. On their website, at https://nwaf.byu.edu/Pages/RSCenter.aspx, they state their purpose: The New World Archaeological Foundation Research and Study Center in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, is an archaeological and teaching entity whose principal objective is the study of the earliest origins and subsequent trajectory of civilization (complex societies) in the New World. The main focus area concentrates on, but is not limited to, the State of Chiapas. The NWAF Research and Study Center exists to enrich the BYU student experience through mentoring/internship opportunities, and to further enhance these experiences by providing possibilities for working side-by-side with Mexican and other international students and researchers. The resulting findings will be disseminated in the form of NWAF Papers, theses, and other professional outlets. I don't know of any closed-minded people at NWAF. 3
Gervin Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 While not conducting Book of Mormon research, per se, I assume that their open-mindedness doesn't preclude professionals and/or students from drawing conclusions, writing reports, or presenting professional papers that support a theory that a Book of Mormon society once existed in meso America?
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The New World Archaeological Foundation, which has existed since the 1950s, is a professional archeological research organization focused on study of the extraordinary civilizations of Mesoamerica. The best non-Mormon experts have staffed most of their excavations, and their reports are considered among the best and most thorough by all professionals. They do not do any Book of Mormon research. On their website, at https://nwaf.byu.edu/Pages/RSCenter.aspx, they state their purpose: The New World Archaeological Foundation Research and Study Center in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, is an archaeological and teaching entity whose principal objective is the study of the earliest origins and subsequent trajectory of civilization (complex societies) in the New World. The main focus area concentrates on, but is not limited to, the State of Chiapas. The NWAF Research and Study Center exists to enrich the BYU student experience through mentoring/internship opportunities, and to further enhance these experiences by providing possibilities for working side-by-side with Mexican and other international students and researchers. The resulting findings will be disseminated in the form of NWAF Papers, theses, and other professional outlets. I don't know of any closed-minded people at NWAF.They wouldnt even be doing it if they werent looking for evidence for the BoM. They have narrowed their search so much that they have become close minded to any other evidences in other geographical areas that may indeed add credible evidence for the BoM.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) While not conducting Book of Mormon research, per se, I assume that their open-mindedness doesn't preclude professionals and/or students from drawing conclusions, writing reports, or presenting professional papers that support a theory that a Book of Mormon society once existed in meso America?Correct. However, they don't do that at NWAF, but only outside that venue. In addition, since the NWAF has done more archeology in Mesoamerica than any other organization (including the Smithsonian, National Geographic, or INAH), their reports form a major part of any serious Book of Mormon research. John Sorenson has certainly utilized their published data in his publications, and former head of the NWAF, John E. Clark, has also publicly supported Book of Mormon antquity in a variety of lectures and papers. See, for example, the following: John E. Clark, “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005): 38-49.John E. Clark, “Archaeological Trends and the Book of Mormon Origins,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress, John W. Welch, ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2006), 83-104: Edited February 12, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 They wouldnt even be doing it if they werent looking for evidence for the BoM. They have narrowed their search so much that they have become close minded to any other evidences in other geographical areas that may indeed add credible evidence for the BoM.You might want to take that up with all the non-Mormon archeologists who work for the NWAF. It may seem odd to you, but anthropologists actually enjoy doing ethnology and archeology. They enjoy each other's company and the enjoy throwing light on the astonishing cultures which once existed in Mesoamerica. Book of Mormon or no Book of Mormon. And they feel the same way in throwing light on the ancient cultures of Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. It is exciting and fascinating work. If all that research happens to generate data for use in Book of Mormon research, so much the better, but it is never guaranteed. That is what basic research is all about, and, until you have spent some time excavating at a site somewhere, you will not understand that. So, Rob, wherever you live, plan to spend a few weeks at an archeological site this summer, finding out what it is really all about. Unless you are closed-minded. 3
Brant Gardner Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 While not conducting Book of Mormon research, per se, I assume that their open-mindedness doesn't preclude professionals and/or students from drawing conclusions, writing reports, or presenting professional papers that support a theory that a Book of Mormon society once existed in meso America?I took a quick look through the monographs and only one has an author who ever later did something on the book of Mormon. The small caveat to that statement is that I am listed as a co-author on one chapter in one of the monographs. 1
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted February 12, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2015 They wouldnt even be doing it if they werent looking for evidence for the BoM. They have narrowed their search so much that they have become close minded to any other evidences in other geographical areas that may indeed add credible evidence for the BoM.Preferring a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon does not equate with close mindedness any more than preferring my favorite restaurant means that I haven't or don't eat at others. I can't tell what is on other people's minds, but I can tell you that I try to keep an open mind about any and all possible geographies and I give them all an equal chance to be correct. I do have some guidelines that I use. The geography has to fit with all of the information in the text rather than only certain major similarities. The geography has to be capable of explaining the destruction in 3 Nephi. The geography has to fit if we apply it to human populations in questions of distance, time depth, and cultural clues. So far I have only found Mesoamerica to fit that although I have looked hard at all other geographies I know about. 6
phaedrus ut Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The NWAF was started by Thomas Stuart Ferguson and has a fascinating history. Stan Larson wrote a good piece about Ferguson and the NWAF in Dialogue. Phaedrus
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Preferring a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon does not equate with close mindedness any more than preferring my favorite restaurant means that I haven't or don't eat at others. I can't tell what is on other people's minds, but I can tell you that I try to keep an open mind about any and all possible geographies and I give them all an equal chance to be correct. I do have some guidelines that I use. The geography has to fit with all of the information in the text rather than only certain major similarities. The geography has to be capable of explaining the destruction in 3 Nephi. The geography has to fit if we apply it to human populations in questions of distance, time depth, and cultural clues. So far I have only found Mesoamerica to fit that although I have looked hard at all other geographies I know about.I set out years ago on a quest to find the geographical locations spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Me and my sister made all these different kinds of worksheets, maps, etc. After reading the book and marking on our special sheets we came to the conclusion that based on the evidence from the Book of Mormon, it was impossible to make any conclusive decision. And so, I started a new quest to keep my scope of both the entire North and South American continents in frame and look at all evidences. Over the years I have gathered a myriad of information from both continents that has led me to a greater knowledge. So where did the BoM events take place? Somewhere in the Americas. That is all the conclusive evidence we have. Having a narrow range such as "just mesoAmerica" limits one
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 You might want to take that up with all the non-Mormon archeologists who work for the NWAF. It may seem odd to you, but anthropologists actually enjoy doing ethnology and archeology. They enjoy each other's company and the enjoy throwing light on the astonishing cultures which once existed in Mesoamerica. Book of Mormon or no Book of Mormon. And they feel the same way in throwing light on the ancient cultures of Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. It is exciting and fascinating work. If all that research happens to generate data for use in Book of Mormon research, so much the better, but it is never guaranteed. That is what basic research is all about, and, until you have spent some time excavating at a site somewhere, you will not understand that. So, Rob, wherever you live, plan to spend a few weeks at an archeological site this summer, finding out what it is really all about. Unless you are closed-minded.I am completely open minded and that is why I believe my theories on BoM lands is more correct. But, I could never convince those close minded folks of such things- too hard to pry the blinders off their narrow views.
cursor Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 There are certainly many types/levels/adoptions of "blinders" and "unwillingness," don't you think?
ERayR Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I am completely open minded and that is why I believe my theories on BoM lands is more correct. But, I could never convince those close minded folks of such things- too hard to pry the blinders off their narrow views. Nice to see you are so open minded. 3
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 There are certainly many types/levels/adoptions of "blinders" and "unwillingness," don't you think?Everyone has blinders I suppose. The common mistake meso-american believers make is that they place limits to the type of society concerning distances, technologies, capacities, etc. I am against placing such limits on when the text doesnt support such.
ERayR Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Everyone has blinders I suppose. The common mistake meso-american believers make is that they place limits to the type of society concerning distances, technologies, capacities, etc. I am against placing such limits on when the text doesnt support such. And you don't consider that as blinders?
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 And you don't consider that as blinders?I will spell it out for you-The Book of Mormon does not specifiy any certain distance in miles. The closest it comes is when discussing the distance of the narrow neck in width at some point. Beyond this, it is rather vague as to how many miles it was between geographical areas such as the distance between the land northward beyond the narrow neck and the land of Zarahemla. This being the case, one cannot place a limit as to how far those distances were. It could be a hundred miles or a thousand or more miles. One places blinders upon themselves the moment they place a limit of miles it was and confine it to one small geographical location choice.
ERayR Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) I will spell it out for you-The Book of Mormon does not specifiy any certain distance in miles. The closest it comes is when discussing the distance of the narrow neck in width at some point. Beyond this, it is rather vague as to how many miles it was between geographical areas such as the distance between the land northward beyond the narrow neck and the land of Zarahemla. This being the case, one cannot place a limit as to how far those distances were. It could be a hundred miles or a thousand or more miles. One places blinders upon themselves the moment they place a limit of miles it was and confine it to one small geographical location choice. Let me spell it out for you. Once one rejects the possibility that the boundaries are limited is a viable possibility they have put on blinders and have willingly become blind. Edited February 12, 2015 by ERayR 4
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Let me spell it out for you. Once one rejects the possibility that the boundaries are limited is a viable possibility they have put on blinders and have willingly become blind.We must take all possibilites though. Those possibilities are that theywere 1. in a small geographical area. 2. in a large geographical area. 3. in both small geographical and large geographical areas. I understand without any blinders that it could be any of the three. Meso-american theorists are strictly in "1" and as such have placed blinders upon themselves by automatically rejecting 2 and 3 when the text doesnt justify such. Thus they have the blinders on. That is my point.
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted February 12, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2015 We must take all possibilites though. Those possibilities are that theywere 1. in a small geographical area. 2. in a large geographical area. 3. in both small geographical and large geographical areas. I understand without any blinders that it could be any of the three. Meso-american theorists are strictly in "1" and as such have placed blinders upon themselves by automatically rejecting 2 and 3 when the text doesnt justify such. Thus they have the blinders on. That is my point.I am mystified, Rob, that you assume that all of those who look at a Mesoamerican location have never seriously considered a larger geography before becoming convinced by the data that it was a smaller region. Clearly your experience was different, but you assumption that I look at a Mesoamerican location only because I ignore everything else is incorrect. 5
Rob Osborn Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I am mystified, Rob, that you assume that all of those who look at a Mesoamerican location have never seriously considered a larger geography before becoming convinced by the data that it was a smaller region. Clearly your experience was different, but you assumption that I look at a Mesoamerican location only because I ignore everything else is incorrect.Its the part about "becoming convinced by the data" that raises flags for me over and over again. The "data" doesnt imply a small location neither does it rule out a larger location. Its kind of no mans land. And so, when one adopts the small location only then it is putting blinders on because the text doesnt support that "only". Its the process of logic and deduction from logic that is flawed by many of those who believe only a small meso-american location. Much of the problem is because one is trying to make the shoe fit around a preconceived idea and forcing the data to fit their preconceived ideas. Logic and truth cant work that way.
Recommended Posts