New World Archaelogical Foundation

[Bob Crockett]

There is only one Cumorah, even though silly folklore posits two.

Thanks so much for finally acknowledging the bogusicity of Dr. Sorenson's position that the Cumorah where the plates are found is not the same as the final battle Cumorah in Mexico.  (I sarcastically offer the foregoing sentence to show how disengenuity can be met with disingenuity.) 

[Rob Osborn]

I don't expect it would to an ordinary Idahoan, or Utahn, who brought to the text the belief that all ancient peoples have the same culture that modern people do, that everything is always the same.  Makes sense, right?  Wrong.  

 

Of course the narrow neck of land being at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec makes no logical sense, unless you know how to use logic.

Logic already tells me your isthmus is not the narrow neck. Besides the obvious direction problems, the BoM describes the narrow neck as an actual piece of elongated real estate- a land that connected two other lands and was identified as a narrow land that leads into another land .

[Robert F. Smith]

Logic already tells me your isthmus is not the narrow neck. Besides the obvious direction problems, the BoM describes the narrow neck as an actual piece of elongated real estate- a land that connected two other lands and was identified as a narrow land that leads into another land .

What I said . . .

Of course logic tells you that, and of course your knowledge of modern directions is all you need to know what you need to know, etc.  No one need consider what Mesoamericans thought of such matters.  Anthroplogical reality doesn't exist for you, just as it doesn't for the anti-Mormons.  You and your opposing buddies live in the same fever swamp, never caring that their version of rational and logical thought might be very illogical and irrational.  Blissfully unaware of the facts . . .

[Rob Osborn]

What I said . . .

Of course logic tells you that, and of course your knowledge of modern directions is all you need to know what you need to know, etc.  No one need consider what Mesoamericans thought of such matters.  Anthroplogical reality doesn't exist for you, just as it doesn't for the anti-Mormons.  You and your opposing buddies live in the same fever swamp, never caring that their version of rational and logical thought might be very illogical and irrational.  Blissfully unaware of the facts . . .

Well, lest loo at the text-

5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. (Alma 63:5)

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward. (Alma 22:32)

29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward. (Mormon 2:29)

The neck, as described in the BoM is not described as a point where the land was narrowest. It is described almost separately as a place where one traveled through to get between the land northward and the land southward. Note in Mormon 2:29 that the Nephites got two lands essentially- the land northward and the narrow neck of land that connected it to the land southward. The isthmus of Tehuantepec cannot be described this way because there is no elongated narrow neck, its just a narrow point. When one looks at the meso-American model with the isthmus of Tehuantepec as the narrow neck one wonders why this isthmus is a narrow neck when in fact the whole area of Central America and southern Mexico is on this same shape of being narrow. For example- the Yucatan peninsula is how wide? A little less than 200 miles. How about the width of Guatemala from ocean to ocean? Again- less than 200 miles. In essence, this whole area can be described as a narrow neck. Besides that, the land southward connects to South America which goes against what the BoM states with the land southward being completely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck in the northern part of its land. On top of that one cannot really argue that a Nephite could travel across the 120 mile wide isthmus in a day and a half.

Nothing adds up. Logic says so.

[Anijen]

There are many LDS Mesoamerican scholars. The number who subscribe to an LGT with two Cumorahs is quite few, and the number willing to publish in peer reviewed journals their secular and scientific findings advocating cartographic ordinance points that tie to either geography or social anthropology is zero.

The quote above is a classic example of how Bob argues.

 

(1) There are many LDS Mesoamerican scholars.  When you see something like this it usually means I am too lazy to find a statistic.

(2)  The number who subscribe to an LGT with two Cumorahs is quite few. Only one Cumorah where the final battle was fought. The mesoamerican/LDS scholars know this. 

(3)  the number willing to publish in peer reviewed journals their secular and scientific findings advocating cartographic ordinance points that tie to either geography or social anthropology is zero. Because the number of non-LDS scientific journals that would want a paper on an LDS-LGT-hypo is zero. That is like arguing how many NASCAR race drivers are inviting Chinese banking accountants who specialize in cartography to write in the NASCAR  journal. 

Edited March 3, 2015 by Anijen

[Nofear]

Because the number of non-LDS scientific journals that would want a paper on an LDS-LGT-hypo is zero. That is like arguing how many NASCAR race drivers are inviting Chinese banking accountants who specialize in cartography to write in the NASCAR  journal. 

 

I was curious. Here is the requested hypothetical article.

[Bob Crockett]

(2)  The number who subscribe to an LGT with two Cumorahs is quite few. Only one Cumorah where the final battle was fought. The mesoamerican/LDS scholars know this. 

 

The "two Cumorah" theory is a theory advanced by Book of Mormon MesoAmericanists who follow Dr. Soreson's two major books. Sorenson writes that the hill named Cumorah in New York is different than a proposed location for the Hill Cumorah in Mexico. Kevin Christensen and Brant Gardner explain the two Cumorah theory in the thread "Two Cumorahs" on this board. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58124-two-cumorahs/.  Kevin does not attempt the argument that there is only one Hill Cumorah, an argument you have Bob Smith have made.

In particular, Kevin says: "The Book of Mormon also has two Jerusalems, two lands Bountiful, several Nephis, and two Moronis. No one is confused because the descriptions in the text make it clear that each one is distinctive. " So, if one googles "Two Cumorahs", one sees that has common currency in Sorenson-related literature. I didn't make up the concept, and certain don't use the term in bad faith as you and Robert charge.

Andrew Hedges discusses the Sorenson two Cumorah theory in Andrew H. Hedges, “Cumorah and the Limited Mesoamerican Theory,” in Religious Educator 10, no. 2 (2009): 111–134, republished at BYU at http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-10-number-2-2009/cumorah-and-limited-mesoamerican-theory. Hedges, of course, attempts to salvage a New York location of the final battle from much of what Sorenson teaches.

I don't care one way or the other as to whether there is one or two Cumorahs, but I only note as a sociological and historical matter that two different First Presidencies, one in the official history of the Church and one in General Conference, have declared the New York Cumorah as the final battle sites of ancient Cumorah and Ramah.

 

As to your charge that I am too lazy to find a statistic about LDS Mesoamericanists, it isn't about being lazy. I think the burden of proof and persuasion of a Mesoamerican location, limited, is upon LGT theorists. I think it goes without much saying that there are many qualified LDS anthropologists who are Mesoamericanists and I don't need to provide chapter and verse to establish my good faith in asserting that.

 

Because the number of non-LDS scientific journals that would want a paper on an LDS-LGT-hypo is zero. That is like arguing how many NASCAR race drivers are inviting Chinese banking accountants who specialize in cartography to write in the NASCAR journal.

 

Isn't this just an appeal to ignorance?  (Meaning, one asserts the truth of something by saying it hasn't been disproved.)   How valuable an argument is it that Dr. Sorenson's cartographic and anthropological theories have not been submitted to secular review because it would be ridiculed?   Why go to all the effort to write two big books and publish several articles assessing cartography, geography, anthropology, archaeology and to a limited extent DNA and linguistics and yet be fearful to have these conclusions challenged in a secular way?  

 

[i think for me, I wonder how valuable it is to come within inches of accusing me of being an apostate because I have the temerity to challenge a sacred cow.   Book of Mormon geography is worthy of discussion and debate, but someone's commitment to the Gospel shouldn't necessarily be made a part of it.  See, for example, Dr. Sorenson's criticism of competing theories in his 1976 article at https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/4910/4560 and what he says about the BYU Profs who advance them.]

 

You, Dr. Sorenson and many others on this board argue that Dr. Sorenson and his supporters have adequately established an LGT for Mesoamerica for the Book of Mormon.   The argument, according to Dr. Sorenson's book, is based in science, cartography, and the plotting of ordinal points alongside with a detailed explication of secular knowledge of Mesoamerican anthropology.  When I have in the past challenged Dr. Sorenson's credentials, I have received lots of information about his archaeological credentials.  

 

But, if science and the scientific method is asserted, than shouldn't it be followed?   Meaning, shouldn't Dr. Sorenson use established methods of cartography and geography in the linking of ancient texts to modern or past geography?  Shouldn't his findings have acceptance in at least the scientific LDS community of credentialed anthropologists?  Why should somebody like BYU Professor Ray Matheny, a well-established Mesoamerican anthropologist, say that Dr. Sorenson's views are unscientific and speculative?

 

I know I'm just repeating my positions, and I'm sorry to offend, but the time has come for thinking and believing Latter-day Saints (and I'm not speaking to apostates and unbelievers) to use critical thinking skills to assess the legitimacy of what has been passing for truth.  The Sorenson LGT may indeed be "the truth" but let's avoid the nonsensical appeals that work with proving the facts behind aliens, the Shroud of Turin, ancient astronauts and the like.

 

we get clever put downs

I have never put down or insulted Bob Smith. Or Tom Holt. A book criticism should not be a criticism of the person.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

I was curious. Here is the requested hypothetical article.

Ha... it cites this one; here

[Kevin Christensen]

CFR for Ray Matheny's dismissal of Sorenson. I've seen many references to his 1984 Sunstone talk, where he was asked to give

the anti-Mormon view, which view has been exploited by anti's ever since. And I know about his letter to Bill Hamblin, giving more context. And I'm aware that a lot has changed

1984.

I'm curious why John Clark, who was the head of the New World Archeological Foundation for several years, does not count here. Or Mark Wright.

While not endorsing any particular geographic correlation, he has publically observed that Sorenson's model fits the requirements of

the text far better than competitors.

The Sorenson geography meets the first test with flying colors. This does not mean, however, that the Sorenson geography is necessarily correct.

The second test will be to evaluate it against the backdrop of its proposed ancient American setting. The simple expectation is that the archaeological sites identified as Book of Mormon cities should be in the right place (in relation to all the rest) and date to the right period of time. Moreover, they should have the features mentioned for them in the Book of Mormon, such as walls, ditches, temples, towers, and so on. Sorenson outlines succinctly the archaeological criteria for the second test of a Book of Mormon geography,16 and they need not detain us here. The basic point of Table 1 is that Sorenson's geography proceeds on to the second test; one need not worry about the archaeological details in Hauck. Evaluation of the Sorenson

geography in the light of archaeological evidence will require many years and perhaps several books.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/john-e-clark/

How valuable an argument is it that Dr. Sorenson's cartographic and anthropological theories have not been submitted to

secular review because it would be ridiculed? Why go to all the effort to write two big books and publish several articles

assessing cartography, geography, anthropology, archaeology and to a limited extent DNA and linguistics and yet be

fearful to have these conclusions challenged in a secular way?

In responding to Coe's interview with Dehlin in Interpreter, he said he'd send Coe a copy of Mormon's Codex, and invited Coe to comment.

Sorenson has published many many times in secular journals. And anyone who wants to could review Sorenson's work. Anyone who

wants to can dismiss Sorenson's work without reviewing it simply on the grounds that "If it was correct, it would always confirm

what I and my preferred authorities think."

Dismissing though, it not the same as seriously considering. After all, McMurrin famously dismissed the Book of Mormon without ever

reading it through on grounds that "you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation."

And for the record, I don't think the Book of Mormon itself puts Cumorah in two locations, in the same way that it puts Bountiful

in two locations, or that either one of them could ever be mistaken for the Bountiful in Utah where I grew up. Names get reused.

It's a people thing. Nothing to get wound up about as though God would never permit such a thing. As though, for instance,

a Joseph Smith would ever name a son Joseph. Or that a church would ever have to figure out a way to distinguish one or more

Joseph Smith's from others, say by adding Sr. or Jr. or Fielding, or simply F.

And Sorenson seems to be able to get scientific papers relevant to Book of Mormon claims published in Secular Journals.

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

Were they hoodwinked by a pretender, who had really only been to clown school, if that?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Bob Crockett]

CFR for Ray Matheny's dismissal of Sorenson. I've seen many references to his 1984 Sunstone talk, where he was asked to give

the anti-Mormon view, which view has been exploited by anti's ever since. And I know about his letter to Bill Hamblin, giving more context. And I'm aware that a lot has changed

1984.

Once again, I am not one of the "anti's" [sic]. There are people who know me on this board, and know that I am not.

The Sunstone talk is my reference. I realize he recanted somewhat by claiming he didn't know it was a Sunstone grilling session. I don't admire how Dr. Matheny went to a Sunstone presentation in the first place, said the things he said in the second place, and then did a partial recantation later. But the lawyer in me says that in circumstances like that the truth tends to come out. It's like when one of the Whitmers told my ancestor, Theordore Turley, he recanted his 8 witness statement because he, Whitmer, couldn't read the plates put in front of him.

 

I'm curious why John Clark, who was the head of the New World Archeological Foundation for several years, does not count here.

He counts. He's one. But never in a secular journal.

 

Or Mark Wright.

He's chosen to affiliate himself with the Department of Religion. He is not thus a professional anthropologist when he makes his statements.

 

In responding to Coe's interview with Dehlin in Interpreter, he said he'd send Coe a copy of Mormon's Codex, and invited Coe to comment.

That isn't very compelling, that Coe didn't comment. A refusal to comment is not the same as peer-review. I realize that peer-review does not require that the peer accept the conclusions of the article, but it does mean that the article has undergone peer criticism before publication.

 

Sorenson has published many many times in secular journals.

I haven't read all of Dr. Sorenson's work, but I would suggest to you that he's never published in any anthropological venue his conclusions about the Book of Mormon. I mean, there's plenty of good work arguing the location of ancient Troy from Homer; why not Dr. Sorenson?

 

And anyone who wants to could review Sorenson's work. Anyone who wants to can dismiss Sorenson's work without reviewing it simply on the grounds that "If it was correct, it would always confirm what I and my preferred authorities think."

Once again, I suppose, I have been accused of not reviewing Dr. Sorenson's major Book of Mormon publications. I see no reason to dignify that with a response.

 

Dismissing though, it not the same as seriously considering. After all, McMurrin famously dismissed the Book of Mormon without ever

reading it through on grounds that "you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation."

Just as Dan Quayle is not John F. Kennedy, so is John Sorenson not Joseph Smith.

 

And for the record, I don't think the Book of Mormon itself puts Cumorah in two locations, in the same way that it puts Bountiful in two locations, or that either one of them could ever be mistaken for the Bountiful in Utah where I grew up.

No, Dr. Sorenson does. I don't give a hoot whether the ancient Hill Cumorah is in Mexico or New York. I think this attempt to claim "one Cumorah" for Dr. Sorenson is rather disingenuous. Nonetheless, I think it is massively compelling that in his Ensign articles Dr. Sorenson did not wheel out his two Cumorahs, or Mexican Cumorah, theory.

 

And Sorenson seems to be able to get scientific papers relevant to Book of Mormon claims published in Secular Journals.

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

I don't think an article that not once mentions the word Mormon or Cumorah or Zarahemla has much to do with your argument today.

 

Were they hoodwinked by a pretender, who had really only been to clown school, if that?

I put James Strang in the category of a clown school graduate, a pretender. I think that Dr. Sorenson's output is not that. But I don't think it a particularly compelling argument to say that one must accept the written arguments of a person merely because he is a good guy and not a clown.

Once again, I'd like to state my position. I believe that MesoAmerica is a reasonable place to site some or many of the Book of Mormon events, on the basis of technology alone. I believe that Joseph Smith never had in his mind any LGT theory of any kind, and instead adopted a hemispheric model. I believe that the foundation for most or all LGT theories is a fear that there are anachronisms in the text that might discredit the Book of Mormon, and that an LGT could draw the box so small as to minimize that fear. But I don't think that is a legitimate approach to buttress the Book of Mormon.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

I believe that Joseph Smith never had in his mind any LGT theory of any kind, and instead adopted a hemispheric model. 

 

That is nice to know, but the opinions of Joseph Smith are not important, his opinions are not evidence for a hemispheric model. 

[Bob Crockett]

That is nice to know, but the opinions of Joseph Smith are not important, his opinions are not evidence for a hemispheric model.

I think the founder of the Church who received revelation about an ancient American work, and who had visions of ancient Americans, and had ancient Americans appear to him is entitled to be accorded the greatest of weight in terms of his opinion about whether the Book of Mormon's promised land and events were the entire hemisphere.

I also think it significant that the Times and Seasons would spend some ink claiming that Native American finds from New England to South America supported the Book of Mormon story.

I don't think that opinions of secular scientists who choose not to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals should be accorded much more weight than entertainment value. On basically any topic.

I think that we all ought to get along on this topic, and it isn't worth claiming unworthiness of somebody who has a different geographic theory than yours.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

I think the founder of the Church who received revelation about an ancient American work, and who had visions of ancient Americans, and had ancient Americans appear to him is entitled to be accorded the greatest of weight in terms of his opinion about whether the Book of Mormon's promised land and events were the entire hemisphere.

I also think it significant that the Times and Seasons would spend some ink claiming that Native American finds from New England to South America supported the Book of Mormon story.

I don't think that opinions of secular scientists who choose not to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals should be accorded much more weight than entertainment value. On basically any topic.

I think that we all ought to get along on this topic, and it isn't worth claiming unworthiness of somebody who has a different geographic theory than yours.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed but have you seen Dan Vogel's newest You Tube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ7Pbn4pTlE, he goes over this.  Almost made me think that the BoM's use of metals were needed to build the mounds, ditches etc. It was interesting to see the literature that was put out in JS's day and age.  I don't know if he used this information to write the BoM, or he was actually translating the record of these Mound Builders, warriors etc.  It sure looks like a lot of people putting out the literature believed that the mounds held buildings of all kinds, including temples that resemble Solomon's Temple.  I was fascinated at what Dan put forth.  In my mind's eye it looks like it most definitely was hemispheric.  Not only in the lands near Palmyra, NY but also the Mesoamerica lands.  According to literature, they travel from one place to another.  Wouldn't this explain how the plates traveled to New York? 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I think the founder of the Church who received revelation about an ancient American work, and who had visions of ancient Americans, and had ancient Americans appear to him is entitled to be accorded the greatest of weight in terms of his opinion about whether the Book of Mormon's promised land and events were the entire hemisphere.

 

Joseph Smith didn't see the entire continent, I don't see how that proves that Hemispheric model.  

[Bob Crockett]

Joseph Smith didn't see the entire continent, I don't see how that proves that Hemispheric model.

While editor of the Times and Seasons he pointed to finds in New England, the Midwest and South America as evidence of the Nephite nation.

Even today, temple prayers from Brazil to Alberta point to the temple being in the land of the Lamanites.

My point isn't that there is "proof" of a hemispheric model. My point is that Joseph Smith taught a hemispheric model and no other. My interest is not in demonstrating who is right and who is wrong, and what is truth and what is not, but to show the sociological phenomenon of creating a model contrary to Joseph Smith's statements as well as the consequential motivation to somehow reconcile Dr. Sorenson's views with Joseph Smith (a complete sub-sub culture).

I quote from Dr. Sorenson: "[W]hen Smith-as-mere Joseph later commented on geography, the picture he communicated is that all South and North America were involved.” “[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.” John L. Sorenson, "How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?" in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002)

Of course, you can see from the above quote that Dr. Sorenson didn't think much of Joseph Smith's opinion as "mere Joseph." I think few people realize the extent to which he went to minimize the Prophet's teachings on this point.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

While editor of the Times and Seasons he pointed to finds in New England, the Midwest and South America as evidence of the Nephite nation.

 

Joseph Smith had opinions, he was a human. 

[Bob Crockett]

Joseph Smith had opinions, he was a human.

 

So say the Mesoamerican theorists.   Certainly, so says William Hamblin in one of his articles.

I believe that most Latter-day Saints would not go on record to say that Joseph Smith's statements about Book of Mormon locales were opinions of less value that modern MesoAmerican theorists.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

 

..........................................................................   
Of course, you can see from the above quote that Dr. Sorenson didn't think much of Joseph Smith's opinion as "mere Joseph." I think few people realize the extent to which he went to minimize the Prophet's teachings on this point.

 

 
So say the Mesoamerican theorists.   Certainly, so says William Hamblin in one of his articles.

I believe that most Latter-day Saints would not go on record to say that Joseph Smith's statements about Book of Mormon locales were opinions of less value that modern MesoAmerican theorists.

Not only do you misread Sorenson as negatively as possible, and then go on to assert your subjective poll of all Mormons as most acceptable, but then you ignore the fact that most Mormons in the past (including me, and perhaps you) have at one time or another held the entire hemispheric theory.  As though that means something substantive -- like most people thinking that such-and-such is guilty of whatever accusation, without a jury having been empaneled to hear the evidence.

 

Might most people (including Mormons) in America think it improper to make serious decisions without having first heard the evidence?  I think Joseph himself would be astonished to find that some Mormons think that virtually anything he said had doctrinal status.  However, I haven't taken a poll, so should refrain from suggesting what percentage would say one thing or another, and with what conditions obtaining.  Should we only privilege Joseph's remarks on certain subjects?  Such as Book of Mormon geography?  What would Joseph now say of this folderol?

[Bob Crockett]

I don't read Dr. Sorenson "as negatively as possible."  I don't know if he conclusions are accurate are not.  I simply observe that he's wrong in claiming he has "science" to support his conclusions when his methodology doesn't come close to meeting the scientific method for his discipline.   When I first started studying his books and publications I was troubled by them, their speculative nature and lack of support.  I've resolved that by going on record to say that his method lacks scientific rigor. 

 

Also, I don't get it why you call my opinions a "poll" or should be a "poll."  I have opinions like you do.   But, I recognize several ways to minimize criticism:   They're a troll. They pretend to read minds.  They offer an opinion about general consensus without taking a poll.  Can be effective even though they're just insults.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

Dr. Sorenson and many others on this board argue that Dr. Sorenson and his supporters have adequately established an LGT for Mesoamerica for the Book of Mormon.   The argument, according to Dr. Sorenson's book, is based in science, cartography, and the plotting of ordinal points alongside with a detailed explication of secular knowledge of Mesoamerican anthropology.  

 

Dr. Sorenson is a pioneer in Book of Mormon research, so I am not surprised there are some flaws in his book.  

There are few LDS Mesoamerican scholars that are actively doing Book of Mormon research, we need more of them, not more LDS near east scholars. LGT for Mesoamerica is still in it's infancy. 

 

Two LDS scholars critique the Mormon's codex here, but I applaud Dr. Sorenson for pioneering LGT research. 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/john-l-sorensons-complete-legacy-reviewing-mormons-codex/

Edited March 20, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker