New Book Of Mormon Geography Model

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't believe that LDS scholars have made an academic argument for the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside of their own religious publications, but if I'm wrong, feel free to share.

I'm not sure what you are really saying here.  Are you claiming that a publication by Kofford Books, or Deseret Book, or Signature Books, and the like, are to be denounced because they are based in Salt Lake City?  Or are you concerned with the substantive content of those books?  What do you mean by "religious publications"?  Is any publication dealing with the Bible or Book of Mormon automatically a "religious publication"?  Based on your previous remarks (in praise of BAR), I would have thought not.  But  maybe I'm not understanding you.

[Gervin]

I agree, and have enjoyed publications and symposia held by BAS, ASOR, SBL, etc., for many years.  I have also spent many years in major universities in secular classes taught on that material.  Brant had the same experience in his graduate program at the State University of New York.  Indeed, Brant's massive 6-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon, and his more recent Traditions of the Fathers (Kofford, 2015), show just how thoroughly and successfully one can apply secular learning to the Book of Mormon.  What's not to like?

For faith-promoting commentary, I'm sure there's much to like, but it shouldn't be passed off as scholarly in the sense that professionals in the field have peer-reviewed assumptions, conclusions, or methodology.

[Robert F. Smith]

For faith-promoting commentary, I'm sure there's much to like, but it shouldn't be passed off as scholarly in the sense that professionals in the field have peer-reviewed assumptions, conclusions, or methodology.

So you have not read the material I cited.  Otherwise you would realize that it is not "faith-promoting commentary," but hard secular commentary -- such as found in BAS, ASOR, SBL, and similar scholarly publication sources.  You need to do two things: (1) actually read the material, (2) and judge it by its substantive content and logic-- if you are capable.  By all means, write a review for a secular journal.

[Gervin]

So you have not read the material I cited.  Otherwise you would realize that it is not "faith-promoting commentary," but hard secular commentary -- such as found in BAS, ASOR, SBL, and similar scholarly publication sources.  You need to do two things: (1) actually read the material, (2) and judge it by its substantive content and logic-- if you are capable.  By all means, write a review for a secular journal.

Are there any examples of secular professionals engaging Brant Gardner's work?  Did he, for example, request a peer-review of his work by experts in the field?  If not, why should I waste my time reading what he himself does not want scrutinized by (his?) professional peers?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Gervin

[Bomgeography]

I was going to say something rude about meso American worship on the forum but that would probably be to rude.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Bomgeography

[Robert F. Smith]

Are there any examples of secular professionals engaging Brant Gardner's work?  Did he, for example, request a peer-review of his work by experts in the field?

Brant discusses who assisted him in preparation of his latest book, Traditions of the Fathers, in his prefatory remarks.  A number of professionals read his book while it was in preparation, and one of them (Mark Alan Wright, PhD) even coauthored chapter 10.  He frequently cites and quote non-Mormon specialists, leaving the onus on you to decide whether he has made his secualr case effectively.  I am currently writing a review of the book, which helps me focus on both the strengths and weaknesses.  That is how the scholarly enterprise proceeds.

 

If not, why should I waste my time reading what he himself does not want scrutinized by (his?) professional peers?

You are not obligated to read anything on the subject, but I find it amazing that you have so much to say on the subject when you actually know so little about it.  Such a book might help you enter the discussion in a meaningful way.

[Robert F. Smith]

I was going to say something rude about meso American worship on the forum but that would probably be to rude.

Were you going to discuss the practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism by both the Lamanites and the Mesoamericans?  It might be rude, but it would be accurate.

[Bob Crockett]

I am not going to comment upon Brant's book without reading it.

What category is it in with the Library of Congress? Anthropology?

 

Edited to Add:  It appears not to have been categorized yet by the Library of Congress, BYU or UofU.  Although I very much like Brant's books and buy them, I don't see them, if coming from Kofford, as anything more than a Mormon Studies book.  Thus, any peer-reviewing would likely be done by faculty members in the Department of Religion rather than in the Department of Anthropology in any university in Utah.  Faith promoting works, yes.  Insightful, yes.  Anything else I need to read it first.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not going to comment upon Brant's book without reading it.

What category is it in with the Library of Congress? Anthropology?

 

Edited to Add:  It appears not to have been categorized yet by the Library of Congress, BYU or UofU.  Although I very much like Brant's books and buy them, I don't see them, if coming from Kofford, as anything more than a Mormon Studies book.  Thus, any peer-reviewing would likely be done by faculty members in the Department of Religion rather than in the Department of Anthropology in any university in Utah.  Faith promoting works, yes.  Insightful, yes.  Anything else I need to read it first.

Can't ask much more than that.  Will be interesting to see the Library of Congress classification.  Here is the classification of something Brant worked on earlier:

 

Lyle Campbell, The Linguistics of Southeast Chiapas, Mexico, NWAF 50 (Provo: BYU NWAF, 1988), with contributions by Walter Randolph Adams and Brant Gardner.

F1219 .N475 no. 50

[RevTestament]

Were you going to discuss the practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism by both the Lamanites and the Mesoamericans?  It might be rude, but it would be accurate.

Also practiced among some NE Indians, particularly noted were the Iroquois, which I believe were so named as a French interpretation of an Algonquian pejorative referring to adders or black snakes, and probably their practice of war cannibalism.

[PeterPear]

Also practiced among some NE Indians, particularly noted were the Iroquois, which I believe were so named as a French interpretation of an Algonquian pejorative referring to adders or black snakes, and probably their practice of war cannibalism.

American Southwest as well:

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news128.htm

But since it's not about Mesoamerica, please ignore it.

[PeterPear]

What's really awesome in Book of Mormon geography models is "Mormon's Map."

This is the "mental map" of the Prophet Mormon from the mind of a latter-day saint scholar, derived from decades of dedicated study of the Book of Mormon. The mental map has a narrow neck of land separating a north and south land - exactly as stated in the Book of Mormon - an hour glass shape, didn't you know?

And without any pre-knowledge of American geography it conveniently fits Mesoamerica - but only if you rotate Mormon's Map some 45° counter-clockwise; then it's a perfect fit.

What's even more amazing is that in both Mormon's Map and the map of Mesoamerica, the River Sidon flows north. That River Sidon is a versatile river, it continues to flow north now matter how one twists Mormon's Map.

If this isn't scholarly, what is?

[Robert F. Smith]

What's really awesome in Book of Mormon geography models is "Mormon's Map."

This is the "mental map" of the Prophet Mormon from the mind of a latter-day saint scholar, derived from decades of dedicated study of the Book of Mormon. The mental map has a narrow neck of land separating a north and south land - exactly as stated in the Book of Mormon - an hour glass shape, didn't you know?

And without any pre-knowledge of American geography it conveniently fits Mesoamerica - but only if you rotate Mormon's Map some 45° counter-clockwise; then it's a perfect fit.

What's even more amazing is that in both Mormon's Map and the map of Mesoamerica, the River Sidon flows north. That River Sidon is a versatile river, it continues to flow north now matter how one twists Mormon's Map.

If this isn't scholarly, what is?image.jpegimage.jpg

In the midst of your sarcasm, you might try reading Brant Gardner's chapter on Book of Mormon geography in his new book, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (SLC: Kofford, 2015), 119-150. It is always helpful to apply secular anthropological reaiity to our debates about the Book of Mormon, which is what Gardner does so well.

 

In other words, it is helpful to ask what sort of orientation the local peoples in fact used -- what types of directions did they apply -- instead of bringing utter ignorance of ethnology to the discussion.  It is not helpful to merely apply modern compass readings and mapping to the ancient world, and to declare that the ancients must of have done everything the same way we do today.  That is called "presentism," and it guarantees the writing of inaccurate history.

[Robert F. Smith]

American Southwest as well:

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news128.htm

But since it's not about Mesoamerica, please ignore it.

Actually, had you read the article carefully (instead of your instant sarcasm), you would have noted that scholars have already postulated that Mesoamericans had long ago entered the Southwest and may have been responsible for the cannibalism there.  This coonection is not only true for the Anasazi, but also for the Hohokam -- whose Casa Grande in Arizona is proof of that Mesoamerican connection.

 

Also, in your comment on RevTestament, you forgot to note his use of "probably" in his sentence on "probably their practice of war cannibalism."

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not sure what you are really saying here.  Are you claiming that a publication by Kofford Books, or Deseret Book, or Signature Books, and the like, are to be denounced because they are based in Salt Lake City? 

Kofford and Deseret are not peer reviewed in the secular sense, either for scientific works or "Mormon Studies" works.   Signature Books's works might be considered peer reviewed but only for "Mormon Studies" subjects.  In any event, the type of scientific analysis used to locate Troy from Homer's works is absent from anything published by a BoM geology hobbyist.

[strappinglad]

Another person who is enamored with peer review. I suggest a simple google of " peer review problems "  and take note of the first 6 articles that show up. While peer review can and does provide a filter for much research, it can be and, in some cases is ,   flawed. If one restricts one's reading to only peer reviewed work , then much of Einstein's original work is off limits. Skepticism is a prized virtue in science, but beware, lest one's ' emperor ' has moth eaten clothes.

[hagoth7]

What's really awesome in Book of Mormon geography models is "Mormon's Map."

This is the "mental map" of the Prophet Mormon from the mind of a latter-day saint scholar, derived from decades of dedicated study of the Book of Mormon. The mental map has a narrow neck of land separating a north and south land - exactly as stated in the Book of Mormon - an hour glass shape, didn't you know?

And without any pre-knowledge of American geography it conveniently fits Mesoamerica - but only if you rotate Mormon's Map some 45° counter-clockwise; then it's a perfect fit.

What's even more amazing is that in both Mormon's Map and the map of Mesoamerica, the River Sidon flows north. That River Sidon is a versatile river, it continues to flow north now matter how one twists Mormon's Map.

If this isn't scholarly, what is?image.jpegimage.jpg

Thank you for some very refreshing humor. I enjoy your wit.   

 

On a more serious note, I want to read that book in the near future.

[Rajah Manchou]

In other words, it is helpful to ask what sort of orientation the local peoples in fact used -- what types of directions did they apply -- instead of bringing utter ignorance of ethnology to the discussion.  It is not helpful to merely apply modern compass readings and mapping to the ancient world, and to declare that the ancients must of have done everything the same way we do today.  That is called "presentism," and it guarantees the writing of inaccurate history.

The problem is that the Meso model relies on conventional north-south for the River Sidon and an unconventional north-south for everything else. If you turn the map 45° counter-clockwise, other things fall out of line. North-south isn't consistent. 

 

There is probably some explanation for this that I haven't yet read, so maybe someone can explain how this problem is resolved?

[ksfisher]

The problem is that the Meso model relies on conventional north-south for the River Sidon and an unconventional north-south for everything else. If you turn the map 45° counter-clockwise, other things fall out of line. North-south isn't consistent. 

 

There is probably some explanation for this that I haven't yet read, so maybe someone can explain how this problem is resolved?

 

See post #213.

 

Also http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

Edited November 23, 2015 by ksfisher

[RevTestament]

Actually, had you read the article carefully (instead of your instant sarcasm), you would have noted that scholars have already postulated that Mesoamericans had long ago entered the Southwest and may have been responsible for the cannibalism there.  This coonection is not only true for the Anasazi, but also for the Hohokam -- whose Casa Grande in Arizona is proof of that Mesoamerican connection.

 

Also, in your comment on RevTestament, you forgot to note his use of "probably" in his sentence on "probably their practice of war cannibalism."

The "probably" referred to the origins of the Iroquois name - not the practice itself. There is little doubt they practiced war cannibalism. That is widely known by the other tribes around them, and I believe one of the sources of their disdain and hence snake name for the Iroquois.

[Bob Crockett]

Another person who is enamored with peer review. I suggest a simple google of " peer review problems "  and take note of the first 6 articles that show up. While peer review can and does provide a filter for much research, it can be and, in some cases is ,   flawed. If one restricts one's reading to only peer reviewed work , then much of Einstein's original work is off limits. Skepticism is a prized virtue in science, but beware, lest one's ' emperor ' has moth eaten clothes.

 

Well, that is kind of a Luddite response.  Perhaps you could point me to any major anthropological finding or discovery in the past 40 years which lacks peer review support. 

 

The reasons why I think peer review is important are:

 

1.  The U.S. Supreme Court prizes "peer review" highly in distinguishing between junk science and real science for courtroom evidence.

 

2.  BYU professors on tenure track (as well as professors at other research institutions and teaching institutions) are required to publish, and when they publish, they publish in peer reviewed publications.

 

The reason I think Dr. Sorenson's "Ancient" and "Codex" are worse than junk science is:

 

1.  No BYU anthropologist or archaeologist agrees with him in a professional setting.   

 

2.   BYU's Ray Matheny has publicly stated that he thinks Sorenson's work is unsupported.  

 

3.   Dr. Sorenson has chosen not to publish his findings in a professional journal -- not even those dedicated to ancient texts, or cartography.  (Indeed, he has no expertise in comparing ancient texts to real world maps and did not use any of the tools of that profession).

 

4.  Meldrum's work vastly outsells Sorenson's work on Amazon, and one indicator of scientific proof is whose Amazon rank is higher.

 

So, lack of peer review is indeed a major red flag.  Your argument is really arguing for the exception to the rule, but Dr. Sorenson's published theories began in the mid 1970s.  That's 40 years!  And not a single Mormon PhD type agrees with him in a secular, professional setting.  The current Maxwell Institute has moved to secular studies of scripture and Mormonism.  I am not aware, but could be wrong of any of its work agreeing with Dr. Sorenson.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

4.  Meldrum's work vastly outsells Sorenson's work on Amazon, and one indicator of scientific proof is whose Amazon rank is higher.

 

You are right. I can't imagine a more important peer review than sales figures. I'm just concerned that it measures more about readers than writers.

[Bob Crockett]

Hah hah.  That's why I think Krakauer has faithful history.

[strappinglad]

I am just pointing out that peer review, as valuable as it is, is not immune from problems. Some folks are of the opinion that once an article is peer reviewed , that is the " Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval " . We need to be aware that scientists are not exempt from greed, hypocrisy , fraud, laziness, and all other failings of the rest of humanity. They can be just as influenced by a ' you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours ' syndrome. If you make the effort to read some of the articles I suggested, you could then apply your skepticism to peer review also, and perhaps work to improve the system to fill the loop holes .

[Bob Crockett]

I am just pointing out that peer review, as valuable as it is, is not immune from problems. Some folks are of the opinion that once an article is peer reviewed , that is the " Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval " . We need to be aware that scientists are not exempt from greed, hypocrisy , fraud, laziness, and all other failings of the rest of humanity. They can be just as influenced by a ' you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours ' syndrome. If you make the effort to read some of the articles I suggested, you could then apply your skepticism to peer review also, and perhaps work to improve the system to fill the loop holes .

 

That is purely a Luddite, unscientific view.  

 

Do you have any evidence that the reason Dr. Sorenson has chosen not to publish his works in peer-reviewed venues is that he was concerned about "greed, hypocrisy, fraud, laziness and all the other failings of humanity?"  One reason that I think your comment is ludicrous is that Dr. Sorenson is a recognized diffusionist, a sort of fringe class of American anthropologists who hold that trans-oceanic pre-Columbian contact occurred in the Americas.   I have at least one of his works on the subject, and it is dry as dust but it was peer-reviewed and is cited by other anthropologists.  Even this fringe class publishes works that are peer reviewed.

 

Peer review does not mean that a peer agrees with the conclusions.  They might not.  

 

But, certainly Dr. Sorenson knew how to publish in his field, but he chose not to publish his Book of Mormon findings in his field. And, certainly, a Book of Mormon theme would fit right into a diffusionist model.  

 

Time for faithful Saints to get off the speculative railroad train to destruction and loss of faith named "the MesoAmerican Setting of the Book of Mormon."   Thomas Stuart Ferguson comes to mind..