Bobbieaware Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 :rofl: Read further and you'll see he's already corrected himself.
Rajah Manchou Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) No what I'm saying is the research that I have cited is all done by non LDS researchers. In the case of mesoamerica not everybody agrees that a tapir can be a Book of Mormon horse or that metallurgy in mesoamerica lines up with Book of Mormon timelines etc.I did enjoy reading your research, but I'm still uncertain how it answers the problems that trouble every New World geography. If a Book of Mormon horse is not a tapir, than what is it? I know you've addressed this in your model but it isn't clear how equus protein on 10,000 year arrowhead in Alberta is evidence of domesticated Nephite horses and chariots.Also, Mexico is about the same distance from Alberta as Michigan, so wouldn't the horse protein be just as valid for the meso model as it would for your model? Edited November 3, 2015 by Rajah Manchou 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted November 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 3, 2015 Let me rephrase that non LDS researchers do not have a bias to prove the Book of Mormon. And if one of these non LDS researchers were to prove the Book of Mormon and remain disinterested after doing so I would be very impressed. I would think the person was insane but also be very impressed. Of course what I think you really mean is that you and those who believe as you do use information gathered by non-LDS researchers and use it to prove a Book of Mormon geography theory that said researchers probably think is (at best) pointless or silly and (at worst) believe is an abuse of their research. This is exactly what the other geography theories do as well so I am still not seeing this exclusivity thing you think you have going here. 5
rodheadlee Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Every time I tell a mesoamerican apologist that I working on the North American model. They always reply with that same question have I read Mormon codex. The answe is no and I think the reason why is because all the claims made by sorenson are not corroborated by non LDS colleagues. I'm familiar with some of sorenson's most basic claims and how non LDS researchers do not agree.On the other hand all research and historical accounts that are sited Are given by no LDS researchers. Historical accounts are also non LDS or even hundreds of years before the church was even restored.I have proposed some very controversial theories but I believe I give enough supporting evidence to back up those theories.If you see evidence that you think mesoamerican has a better answer for let me know we can discuss and compare.Sorenson cites plenty of non Mormon scholars, That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard as a reason not to investigate a competitor's work. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 And if one of these non LDS researchers were to prove the Book of Mormon and remain disinterested after doing so I would be very impressed. I would think the person was insane but also be very impressed..........................................................................Most people are pretty good at compartmentalization, Nehor, so that even strong evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon would not necessarily cause a scholar to convert. Speaking of "proof" is silly in a scholarly context, and scholars generally maintain a laconic attitude about such matters. After all, how many scholars are going to adopt a complete lifestyle change, which might entail loss of respectability, marriage, and children? -- his intellectual community would be aghast and quick to consign him to the funny farm (you consider him crazy for not doing so). More, I consider Judaism to be fully authentic, but I do not convert to Judaism. Are you "very impressed"? There are a number of non-Mormon scholars who have said some remarkably positive things about the Book of Mormon and about Mormon theology, but choose not to convert. Are they crazy? 1
The Nehor Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Most people are pretty good at compartmentalization, Nehor, so that even strong evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon would not necessarily cause a scholar to convert. Speaking of "proof" is silly in a scholarly context, and scholars generally maintain a laconic attitude about such matters. After all, how many scholars are going to adopt a complete lifestyle change, which might entail loss of respectability, marriage, and children? -- his intellectual community would be aghast and quick to consign him to the funny farm (you consider him crazy for not doing so). More, I consider Judaism to be fully authentic, but I do not convert to Judaism. Are you "very impressed"? There are a number of non-Mormon scholars who have said some remarkably positive things about the Book of Mormon and about Mormon theology, but choose not to convert. Are they crazy?Not sure what you mean by Judaism being authentic. I see it as the true gospel corrupted but it has been in apostasy for over two millennia now.I say positive things about lots of people but that is not what I am talking about. If one found convincing proof of the Book of Mormon lands and it meant nothing to the person then yes, they are on some level crazy. I would look forward to the anti explanations for it. I suspect we will have aged Indian oral historians visiting Joseph Smith in secret and passing on their ancient knowledge of an old civilization that only they knew about so he could pass it on and that scoundrel used it to form a religion exploiting the poor natives. That Joseph, what a monster.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I did enjoy reading your research, but I'm still uncertain how it answers the problems that trouble every New World geography. If a Book of Mormon horse is not a tapir, than what is it? I know you've addressed this in your model but it isn't clear how equus protein on 10,000 year arrowhead in Alberta is evidence of domesticated Nephite horses and chariots.Also, Mexico is about the same distance from Alberta as Michigan, so wouldn't the horse protein be just as valid for the meso model as it would for your model?We ought to be clear about what the DNA evidence actually shows: One "team . . . developed a statistical model to show that mammoth and horse populations would have dwindled to a few hundred individuals by 8,000 years ago," which means by about 6,000 B.C. That's based on sedimentary DNA (sedaDNA) samples taken near Stevens Village along the Yukon River, and the full range estimate is from about 5,600 - 8,500 B.C. It isn't that horse only survived until a late period on the Yukon flats, but rather that the area is particularly good for preserving the DNA (in permafrost).* Indeed, although it is controversial, horse bones have been dated to the Book of Mormon period (in USA and Canada), though none for that period from Mesoamerica.** We may reasonably conclude that pre-Spanish horses lived in North America down until relatively recent times. * “Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm ; James Haile, et al., “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska,” PNAS, Dec 17, 2009, online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352.full .** Steven E. Jones, “Were There Horses in the Americas Before Columbus?” Ancient American, 16 #95 (June 2012), 2-3, online at http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/index.php?i=115319&m=&l=&p=2&pre=&ver=swf . 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Not sure what you mean by Judaism being authentic. I see it as the true gospel corrupted but it has been in apostasy for over two millennia now.Two millennia, yes, but Joseph Smith apparently thought that was nearly at an end, and that they remain the authentic, chosen people of God. St Paul certainly thought so (Romans 11; cf. Jacob 5-6). Even official LDS doctrine recognizes the authenticity of their lineal priesthood. The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. I say positive things about lots of people but that is not what I am talking about. If one found convincing proof of the Book of Mormon lands and it meant nothing to the person then yes, they are on some level crazy.You may be comfortable speaking so loosely of "proof." I am not, and the scholarly community doesn't even think in such terms. Just as Dan Peterson prefers to speak of striking evidence, so I would prefer that we maintain scholarly decorum in such matters. I would look forward to the anti explanations for it. I suspect we will have aged Indian oral historians visiting Joseph Smith in secret and passing on their ancient knowledge of an old civilization that only they knew about so he could pass it on and that scoundrel used it to form a religion exploiting the poor natives. That Joseph, what a monster.Actually Ake V. Ström suggested that Joseph had a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware-Algonquian) nanny as a child.* Prof. John A. Price, an anthropologist at York University in Downsview, Canada (and an erstwhile Mormon), has argued that Joseph Jr used local Indian lore in putting together the substratum of the Book of Mormon story, concluding that the Iroquois were the Lamanites, while the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) were the Nephites whom they destroyed – at least as far as young Joseph's creative imagination was concerned.** * V. Ström, "Red Indian Elements in Early Mormonism," Temenos, V (1969), 120-168.** Price, Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974), 35-40; cf. Price's Native Studies: American and Canadian Indians (1978).
The Nehor Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Two millennia, yes, but Joseph Smith apparently thought that was nearly at an end, and that they remain the authentic, chosen people of God. St Paul certainly thought so (Romans 11; cf. Jacob 5-6). Even official LDS doctrine recognizes the authenticity of their lineal priesthood. The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. You may be comfortable speaking so loosely of "proof." I am not, and the scholarly community doesn't even think in such terms. Just as Dan Peterson prefers to speak of striking evidence, so I would prefer that we maintain scholarly decorum in such matters. Actually Ake V. Ström suggested that Joseph had a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware-Algonquian) nanny as a child.* Prof. John A. Price, an anthropologist at York University in Downsview, Canada (and an erstwhile Mormon), has argued that Joseph Jr used local Indian lore in putting together the substratum of the Book of Mormon story, concluding that the Iroquois were the Lamanites, while the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) were the Nephites whom they destroyed – at least as far as young Joseph's creative imagination was concerned.** * V. Ström, "Red Indian Elements in Early Mormonism," Temenos, V (1969), 120-168.** Price, Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974), 35-40; cf. Price's Native Studies: American and Canadian Indians (1978).As an authentic chosen person of God myself: hooray for them. So were the Nephites and it did not turn out well for them. I am also not convinced that if it is a genetic thing that the followers of Judaism today are mostly the descendants of the ancient Jews in any case.The scholarly community and their decorum are both very overrated.
Rajah Manchou Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 If one found convincing proof of the Book of Mormon lands and it meant nothing to the person then yes, they are on some level crazy.But how much does it take to convince that a Book of Mormon geography is legit? Even a BOM model that meets the requirements of Book of Mormon scholars might still be rejected and ignored by Book of Mormon scholars. Case in point is the Malay model. Despite being almost a near perfect match, it is still fringe, and probably always will be because it doesn't agree with non-textual external statements about the promised land being in the Americas.What proof is required to convince even Book of Mormon scholars or any scholar for that matter?
The Nehor Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 What proof is required to convince even Book of Mormon scholars or any scholar for that matter? That would vary by individual. I have seen people convinced by what I would consider insufficient evidence. I have seen people convinced by what I am convinced is utterly bad evidence. I have seen some people turn it into an idol or a cash cow and dislike both. I am not convinced of anything yet. In truth I find the subject getting more and more dull as time goes on.
Bob Crockett Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Sorenson cites plenty of non Mormon scholars, That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard as a reason not to investigate a competitor's work. Bomgeography's post said "claims made by sorenson are not corroborated by non LDS colleagues," and he did not say that Dr. Sorenson has not cited non-Mormon scholars. I would push Bomgeography's statement even further to say that Dr. Sorenson's claims about a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon are not corroborated by any LDS colleague in a peer-reviewed journal, plus I doubt that a single LDS scholar has agreed with Dr. Sorenson's claims for a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon in any professional archaeological or anthropology journal. So other than a less than a handful of BYU professors who occasionally make non-professional statements in apologetic or faith-promoting materials, I don't think a single LDS scholar agrees professionally with Dr. Sorenson. Moreover, Dr. Sorenson's two major works on the subject, which were "Ancient" and "Codex," were not peer-reviewed in the professional sense. And, as a final point, Meldrum's publications vastly outperform Dr. Sorenson's on the Amazon list, which would suggest that Meldrum's works are "truer" than Dr. Sorenson's, although I think the whole subject matter is about as valuable as writing works on the Shroud of Turin. Edited November 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
hagoth7 Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 ...although I think the whole subject matter is about as valuable as writing works on the Shroud of Turin.? OK. Why?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) As an authentic chosen person of God myself: hooray for them. So were the Nephites and it did not turn out well for them.Didn't turn out well for the Ten Northern Tribes either, but we still have the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and their associated priests of the tribe of Levi. In like manner, the Lamanites certainly still represent the children of Lehi (Manassites). I am also not convinced that if it is a genetic thing that the followers of Judaism today are mostly the descendants of the ancient Jews in any case.A lot of people (including Jewish people) used to say that before modern genetic testing got underway. Today, even Jewish researchers at Harvard (David Reich*) are astonished to discover that the Jewish people are by and large direct descendants of the people whom we call "Jews" from the ancient Kingdom of Judah, and their priests show a like direct descent from an ancient line of priests known as kohens (possessing the Cohen modal haplotype).** The scholarly community and their decorum are both very overrated.Probably, but it is what it is, and we need to reflect that. * Priya Moorjani, Nick Patterson, Joel N. Hirschhorn, Alon Keinan, Li Hao, Gil Atzmon, Edward Burns, Harry Ostrer, Alkes L. Price, and David Reich, “The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews.” PLoS Genetics, 7/4 (21 Apr 2011), 1371-1373, online at http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2011Moorjani_PLOS.pdf ; Gil Atzmon, Li Hao, Itsik Pe'er, Christopher Velez, Alexander Pearlman, Pier Francesco Palamara, Bernice Morrow, Eitan Friedman, Carole Oddoux, Edward Burns, and Harry Ostrer, “Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 (June 2010), 1016; “Common genetic threads link thousands of years of Jewish ancestry,” ScienceDaily, June 4, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603123707.htm ; “New study defines the genetic map of the Jewish diasporas,” ScienceDaily, August 6, 2012, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806151137.htm .** Yaakov Kleiman, DNA & Tradition: The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews (Devorah Publ, 2004); Eric Hakiman, “Jewish Genes,” at http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html (citing Nature, 385/6611 [Jan 2, 1997], 32-33); Tudor Parfitt, "Place, Priestly Status and Purity: The Impact of Genetic Research on an Indian Jewish Community,” Developing World Bioethics, 3/2 (Dec 2003), 178-185; Mark G. Thomas, et al., “Y Chromosomes Traveling South: The Cohen Modal Haplotype and the Origins of the Lemba – the ‘Black Jews of Southern Africa’,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 66 (2000), 674-686; “Lost Tribes of Israel,” PBS-TV Nova program first broadcast Feb 22, 2000 (Boston: WGBH, 2000), online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ transcripts/2706israel.html . Edited November 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Yes, and since the Aeneid was modeled very much on Homeric Epic, maybe the Jaredites were Mycenean, and ancient heroic Greece the actual locus for the great Book of Mormon geography and story. See now http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-warriors-tomb-huge-treasure-hoard-found-greece-193420700.html .
rodheadlee Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Bomgeography's post said "claims made by sorenson are not corroborated by non LDS colleagues," and he did not say that Dr. Sorenson has not cited non-Mormon scholars. I would push Bomgeography's statement even further to say that Dr. Sorenson's claims about a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon are not corroborated by any LDS colleague in a peer-reviewed journal, plus I doubt that a single LDS scholar has agreed with Dr. Sorenson's claims for a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon in any professional archaeological or anthropology journal. So other than a less than a handful of BYU professors who occasionally make non-professional statements in apologetic or faith-promoting materials, I don't think a single LDS scholar agrees professionally with Dr. Sorenson. Moreover, Dr. Sorenson's two major works on the subject, which were "Ancient" and "Codex," were not peer-reviewed in the professional sense. And, as a final point, Meldrum's publications vastly outperform Dr. Sorenson's on the Amazon list, which would suggest that Meldrum's works are "truer" than Dr. Sorenson's, although I think the whole subject matter is about as valuable as writing works on the Shroud of Turin.My point is you can't know Sorenson's works without reading them.first.
Bob Crockett Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 I certainly have. Name one LDS anthropologist who has gone on record in a professional setting agreeing with Codex.
Kyle Kenley Kopitke Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 2015 was the 12th year in a row that I have read the entire Book of Mormon; it is now something I do each year. Of course, more important than reading pages, is pausing and pondering it as it applies to our lives. This brings in The Spirit more. I, like other posters, live in Michigan. Go Flint! So having Michigan as the Land of Bountiful is pretty neat. Back in 1977, when I received a spiritual witness of the divine nature of the Book of Mormon, it did not matter where it occured that much to me. It only matters that it did occur. Someday soon, I feel, it will be His time to help members a bit by bringing forth some more physical evidences, but that still will not help many, as they have now their own ways. But many will be helped.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I certainly have.Name one LDS anthropologist who has gone on record in a professional setting agreeing with Codex.Might be a bit difficult for any anthropologist to publish any sort of approving comments in a secular academic journal which agrees with something John Sorenson has said in Mormon's Codex or Ancient America Setting. Such an anthropologist would be drummed out of the academy at worst and treated like a pariah at best -- without ever considering whether what he said was valid. I suggest that you ask more reasonable questions about LDS scholarship, and maybe even make rational suggestions for improvement where you see problems. For example, have you read Brant Gardner's Traditions of the Fathers yet? What shortcomings do you notice? What positive qualities? Does he make any useful comments or insights via secular scholarship? Or is it a wash? Edited November 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
Bob Crockett Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I don't have a particular issue with enthusiasts who beat the drum for an LGT theory. But when they invoke "science" without using the scientific method, then I see enthusiasm which should be subject to hearty criticism. Just like ethusiasts who invoke "science" to prove the claims of the Shroud of Turin. I don't buy your explanation. I would suspect the number of doctoral level anthropologists who agree with Codex even at the "fireside" level is about two.
rodheadlee Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I certainly have.Name one LDS anthropologist who has gone on record in a professional setting agreeing with Codex.Yes Bob you have made it abundantly clear on how you feel about Codex. My curiosity was if any of the people putting out theories for BoM geography read the other theories. Since you have not put out a theory, that I know of, I'm not really interested in what you have to say about it. I want to know if they read each others works.
rodheadlee Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 What do you guys think of the new Book of Mormon geography model. I'm proposing there are six seas not four Sea East, East Sea, West Sea, Sea West, North Sea and a South Sea. Also I think the narrow neck and the narrow passage are different geographic features. I think the Land Bountiful is what would be in present day Michigan. See link below.https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Here is evidence for native american practicing hebrew beliefs and practiceshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Here is evidence for Nephite metalurgy and animals listed in the Book of mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/Here is dna proof for the Book of Mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/I've been reading some of your work and I have a comment on this statement. "There are two places that we know for sure were the Book of Mormon took place that would be the Hill Cumorah and Zarahemla found across from Nauvoo (D&C 125:3)." It doesn't say Zarahemla was the site of the Nephite's Zarahemla it says " Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of aZarahemla be named upon it." There can be more than one Zarahemla. There are many cities through out the world with the same names. When I search for weather for San Pedro I get 27 of them and 10 are in Mexico. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I don't have a particular issue with enthusiasts who beat the drum for an LGT theory. But when they invoke "science" without using the scientific method, then I see enthusiasm which should be subject to hearty criticism. Just like ethusiasts who invoke "science" to prove the claims of the Shroud of Turin.I don't buy your explanation. I would suspect the number of doctoral level anthropologists who agree with Codex even at the "fireside" level is about two.Again, you are dodging the relevant questions, as well as changing the goal posts.
Bob Crockett Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Again, you are dodging the relevant questions, as well as changing the goal posts.Well, perhaps you could humor me and answer my question anyway. 1
Bob Crockett Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Yes Bob you have made it abundantly clear on how you feel about Codex. My curiosity was if any of the people putting out theories for BoM geography read the other theories. Since you have not put out a theory, that I know of, I'm not really interested in what you have to say about it. I want to know if they read each others works.I have read the others' works; probably read more than anybody on this board as I have a paper pending on the subject. BYU's library has hundreds of books on Book of Mormon geography. Typed manuscripts as well as published books. I've read many. Dr. Sorenson's views might indeed be right. But Codex isn't science, even though Dr. Sorenson says it is. Edited November 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
Recommended Posts