The LGT is Dead: Official CU announcement

[_sock puppet]

I'm not really concerned with Book of Mormon geography. Why should I be? The Book of Mormon is pretty vague on physical features of lands, and it should be -- the focus is Jesus Christ, not geography.

P.S. Distinguished members of the Cassius Faculty:

I take issue with the (relatively) recent comments and attitude of a certain Professor of Cassius (who does not yet appear on this thread). To whom do I, as a concerned citizen, address this?

Regards

Egads, Simon! stemelbow is rubbing off on you.

[_Simon Belmont]

Egads, Simon! stemelbow is rubbing off on you.

Pep pep!

[_J Green]

Hi, Gad.

Enjoyed the article. Thanks for the link. However, after reading it I'm not sure whether I misunderstood you or Clark. And this problem comes at a good time because I just happen to be finalizing a presentation entitled "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Mormon Discussions Board Thread," which will be delivered at the Wallace Stevens symposium at Cassius next month. A few thoughts here:

1. LGT Dead?

I suspect you meant to say that a Mesoamerican setting--not the LGT theory--is dead. Or to be more precise, the LGT Mesoamerican setting is dead. If you read Clark's internal geography ground rules, he is arguing very strongly for LGT. Nine days from Nephi to Zarahemla? Five days from Bountiful to Moroni? Eleven days to travel the western border of Zarahemla? The hill Cumorah very close to the land northward and the narrow neck? This is classic LGT. His entire article is setting a standard that can only be LGT. I think you are confusing specific applications of an LGT model (e.g., Mesoamerica) with LGT itself. Rather than LGT being dead, I think that Clark is trying to say that "among twenty snowy mountains/the only moving thing/was the [LGT]"

2. Sorenson Dismissed?

The first inkling that you, I, and the blackbird aren't one on Clark's views about Sorenson begins with a simple math problem. Clark starts his article with the following:

This essay abridges my critical evaluation published twenty-two years ago of two Book of Mormon geographies by F. Richard Hauck and John L. Sorenson. I recognized at the time that proposals for real-world (external) settings for Book of Mormon lands and cities come and go with the regularity of LDS general conferences or market forces

To which you commented thusly:

Over twenty years ago, Clark reviewed fellow BYU professor and MI associate John Sorenson rather favorably and criticized U of U professor and FARMS outsider, Richard Hauck, rather harshly. But, here we are twenty-two years later, and he's forced to admit that Book of Mormon geographies come and go, two prime examples being Sorenson's and Hauck's!

You place Clark's obersvation in the present looking back, yet my reading of Clark is that he said he saw the landscape that way (that geographies come and go) "back then،" (i.e., twenty-two years ago.). You have him saying it about it in the present as a type of retrospective. I don't think he meant it that way. I think he was talking about the landscape several decades ago in the context of Jakeman's theories in the 70s, and then Sorenson's and Hauk's published arguments shortly after.

But it goes further. You have juxtaposed Hauk and Sorenson as if in retrospect Clark no longer agrees with his original backing of Sorenson and dismissal of Hauk but rather dismisses all equally. I didn't get that either. Clark is simply reaffirming what he did twenty-two years ago, which is to argue for an internal model against which all external geographies must be evaluated. Note that this has always been Sorenson's main argument as well. Also note that in all the pages that follow, Clark proceeds to lay out an LGT internal model that is fairly similar to Sorenson's. Then note that much of his internal model is based off of Sorenson's calculations and observations. Observe that there are twelve end notes, the first of which merely gives the citations for Sorenson's and Hauk's books. The remaining eleven deal with the substance of his internal model; and of those eleven, only one is not based on Sorenson. Two of them even cite personal corresponsdance between Clark and Sorenson. Is this the MO of someone who has dismissed Sorenson?

In summary, I see Clark's argument as setting out an internal model that is very strongly based on Sorenson's work and which makes a strong case for an LGT setting for the Book of Mormon. Is this the same article you read?

Regards

[_sock puppet]

Finding a geography anywhere in the Americas that 'fits' the Book of Mormon descriptions seems as elusive for the BYU learned as finding Jewish DNA in the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas. Too bad the early Saints did not save Zelph's bones for DNA testing--or did they? Are those bones in Church's vaults?

[_Gadianton]

J Green,

Nice of you to drop in on the thread.

If you read Clark's internal geography ground rules, he is arguing very strongly for LGT...

Sure, and this is a point of confusion that I confess is partly my fault. For convenience, I have long referred to the MI central dogma, their particular Mesoamerican LGT as The LGT. Hauk's geography and even Meldrum's are "limited" I believe.

I think he was talking about the landscape several decades ago in the context of Jakeman's theories in the 70s,

Indeed, yet, his standard must be reiterated today for the purpose of judging future theories. If The LGT is the reigning paradigm, it's a bit dishonest or at best, confusing, to discuss the matter this way. Let's say hypothetically, I were a writer at the time when Gould was promoting his brand of evolution and I were to observe today that back then, I recognized theories of evolution came and went, but amidst the confusion, prepared a list of central points that any successful theory must explain or characteristics it must have. And now several years later, I offer a refined version of the same list. The implication would be that the matter is an open question and there is no current paradigm. Otherwise, let's say I was a disciple of Gould and my list merely outlined his theory, my work would then be a thinly-veiled attempt to beg the question against other proposals.

In summary, I see Clark's argument as setting out an internal model that is very strongly based on Sorenson's work

I think Clark is very much a disciple of Sorenson and I do not believe he "no longer agrees with his original backing of Sorenson", not at all, and I apologize for any confusion on my part here. What I believe he is admitting, is that Sorenson's Mesoamerica theory is not the reigning paradigm and that it's essentially dead. And that these basic points he's come up with, even if many come from Sorenson's work, will arbitrate future theories if they shall ever come.

If you were to invite Clark to join our discussion and clarify, I would be happy to admit that I am wrong, if I am. I would in fact be very interested to learn from you or anyone else, if The LGT is taught in any academic setting with some detail, like in a BYU anthropology class, or if there are any rising young academics doing work on the model. The MI would be ecstatic if there were, they don't want the LGT to be dead, but given it's twenty-two years later and no work has been done on the model and with no rising young scholars studying it, they are extracting some of the elements that they view as uncontroversial and sealing in a time capsule for future generations. They can't live forever, and when they die, the LGT will be tossed to the dustbin of intellectual history. Best now to just let the matter go, change the name of the MI publication, and begin to focus more on issues relevant in the broader landscape of Mormon Studies.

[_DrW]

Dean Robber,

With some effort, one can follow your logic and even agree with your conclusions regarding John Clark's abridgement.

However, I must admit that as a mere post doc from another discipline, I would not have drawn the same conclusions, or seen the same broad implications, that you did upon a first reading of the entire piece.

I frankly see it as another warmed over attempt at generating "standards" where no meaningful objective standards can apply. It is like writing a piece about the standards that could be used to select the best among candidate locations for Narnia by looking at the descriptions and claimed relative locations of Anvard, Bramandin, Clormen, and Mount Pire.

While we are at it, I would say that C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are better literature and convey the Christian message far more effectively (especially to children) than does the Book of Mormon.

Please understand that I say this respectfully as one who has never seen a penny of funding from the University for my clearly important work, and as one who has only recently benefitted from your great wisdom in these matters, Sir.

[_Simon Belmont]

Dean Robbers,

Didn't Sorenson recently give a big lecture on the Book of Mormon, sponsored by the MI? How can you speculate that the MI is abandoning him or his theories when he continues to be actively involed in the MI?

Also,

I do hate to derail, but you appear so infrequently that I must get your attention in the limited window available.

Would you please at least comment on my concerns located here?

[_Corpsegrinder]

(Raising my hand from the back the lecture hall.)

What keeps the Maxwell Institute crowd from officially proposing the events of the Book of Mormon occurred on another Earth in a parallel dimension…long long ago in a galaxy far far away?

A Book of Mormon on a parallel earth would explain why we’ve found no archeological evidence: we’re searching in the wrong parallel dimension.

If a science fiction approach can work for the Scientologists, then why not for the Mormons?

[/sarcasm off]

[_DrW]

(Raising my hand from the back the lecture hall.)

What keeps the Maxwell Institute crowd from officially proposing the events of the Book of Mormon occurred on another Earth in a parallel dimension…long long ago in a galaxy far far away?

A Book of Mormon on a parallel earth would explain why we’ve found no archeological evidence: we’re searching in the wrong parallel dimension.

If a science fiction approach can work for the Scientologists, then why not for the Mormons?

[/sarcasm off]

Sarcasm? What?

Do you not realize that this is precisely the apologetic theory that the esteemed and learned apologist bcspace, uses to explain Kolob? Why, if it works for Kolob, why not the entire Nephite and Lamanite civilizations?

Think of all the problems that could be solved by this inspired insight. And now that superluminal motion has been observed and the laws of physics no longer need apply, why the possibilities (not probabilities) and the associated apologetic horizons are endless.

Oh happy day. The Church must (somehow) be true.

[sarcasm off - no really - sarcasm off]

[_Corpsegrinder]

Maybe they’re holding the Limited Parallel Earth Geography Theory in reserve, for use when all the other half-baked theories get shot down.

It’s the theory of last resort, like a Mopologetic atomic bomb.