DiscussMormonism.com

I need all Cassius University staff to pay attention. Effective immediately, all funding of projects examining FARMS's LGT have been frozen. It turns out that the theory for all practical purposes been abandoned by the MI and I have made an executive decision: The LGT is dead. Do not panic, we have plenty of other projects going on so if you don't have something to work on that you can bill your time to, please stop by my office.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=817

From the pages of the ("Mormon Studies") Review, John Clark writes,

Clark wrote: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

Whoah! Holy Cow! I had to read this several times before I caught on to what he's saying here. This statement needs some unpacking. 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! Further, it's twenty-two years later, little is happening, and so what now? All Clark can do is provide a list of facts that any proposed future geography must conform to, since there is presently no paradigm.

Take a look at this:

Clark wrote:I was exposed to M. Wells Jakeman's Book of Mormon geography in three classes while an undergraduate at Brigham Young University in the 1970s,

Indeed. And in how many classes would one be exposed to any Book of Mormon geography today? I'll tell you: Zero. BYU has become a respectable academic institution in many ways, though they require institute classes, they make no pretenses of scholarship. BYU wouldn't dare teach a course on Book of Mormon geography.

The MI has a vast lay following, but they have not created an institution to teach Mopologetic courses at BYU, their prime recruiting ground for professional apologists. Their new editor, Greg Smith, may be a "prodigy", a fine medical doctor, and a reasonable debater, but he's not an antiquarian. And what put the MI into the solid position -- solid in one sense -- that they have been, isn't necessarily the specific output, but that the output has been produced by Phds in related fields.

And I think we've seen this coming. The Phds in fields intersecting with Book of Mormon "scholarship" are all aging. They come from a time when the Lord's university believed in both the gospel and the achievements of men. Today, there just aren't any young graduate students or professors studying Book of Mormon Geography, because no one will teach them anything about it formally. So there you have it, the torch can only be carried forward by laymen, and that's a battle already lost.

It's appropriate that this same edition that marks the name change to jettison the "ancient research" and emphasize the "Mormon studies" of the MI's Review also rather brashly admit that the LGT theory as particularly shaped by Soresnson marking a limited geography in mesoamerica, is a relic of intellectual history. As such, CU will now consider the matter of Book of Mormon geography closed from the Apologists.

Well, from the last I checked, Rodney Meldrum is doing just fine. Perhaps the Church has settled the matter. The apologists are in a tough position when it comes to geography.

Fascinating.

Maybe the Hill Cumorah is in upstate New York after all, and Watson was right.

I can't help but think that beastie's scholarship, and that like it from others, has played a part in MI's retreat on the LGT.

This must have been an agonizingly painful decision for them. I know that Dr. Midgley went out of his way to attack and bully Meldrum into submission, going to far as to harass a number of clerks at DesBook all up and down the Wasatch Front. I guess this means that the Packer Faction has won out, and that my informant was right. I can only wish that I had been there to listen to the grimly humorless discussions of this in the offices of the Maxwell Institute. What did Drs. Midgley and Clark say, I wonder? And who was it who ultimately gave the order to abandon the LGT? Based on new scholarship that has come to light, I have to believe that it was Welch.

In any event, I suppose I ought to butt out of this one, as it has little bearing on my research. Cheers to this, though, Dean Robbers!

sock puppet wrote:I can't help but think that beastie's scholarship, and that like it from others, has played a part in MI's retreat on the LGT.

Indeed, I was there at the FAIR board long ago when a certain Mopologist brought in half of the MI staff if not directly, through emails, to counter a single critic: Beastie. Beastie tore them all a new one, and shortly thereafter, the president of FAIR made an "executive decision" to ban Beastie, because they could not fault her with breaking any of their rules.

But as important as Beastie has been to the LGT's demise, the internal problems I still must argue have been more important. If back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s several hot-shot young Mormon scholars became very interested in Book of Mormon geography and created models for it, and then thirty some odd years later, not a single LDS graduate student has taken a serious interest to pursue these models, what will be the result?

Hugh Nibley said he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten foot pole. And this is the guy who could find parallels for just about anything.

Oh, one last thing. I don't know how much of your work involved the LGT professor Puppet, but I hope you feel comfortable coming to me if you're worried about your job. I know admitting the central dogma of Mopologetics is dead has been a huge change of direction for the Mopologists, and students of Mopologetic studies must be concerned what will become of them in all this. The economy is rough, but we'll find a way out of this mess, together. You have my word.

Doctor Scratch,

you are right that tensions have run hot on this one, and they still will to an extent in the future. I'm sure not everyone representing the old guard can admit that they've lost. But this edition of the Review has settled the matter.

I know it doesn't affect your own research much, but we do need to talk. I know it's the weekend, but I insist you drop by my Rancho Sante Fe office around 1:30 PM tomorrow. And yeah, that's an order, professor.

Gadianton wrote: I'm sure not everyone representing the old guard can admit that they've lost. But this edition of the Review has settled the matter.

The old guard doesn't get much older than Packer.

Which old guard is the real old guard?

Hi Harmony,

The Old Guard of the MI. That definitely doesn't include Packer! LOL!

The development likely bodes a new direction is on its way. Gone is the acronym "FARMS" in the Review's title. Now just the "Mormon Studies Review". Gone is the Foundation (F)--big deal. But also gone is Ancient Research (AR). That is a big deal, particularly in the first issue of the newly titled Review, there is this admission that theories like Sorenson's LGT come and go with the wind.

So, will the new direction be complete abandonment of claims of historicity of the Book of Mormon. Will it be embraced as wise, "God-inspired" stories to illustrate principles, in the pseudopigrapha style? The Book of Mormon as literature--as only literature--not history! The end of the search for horses and chariots in the pre-Columbian period. The end of the DNA search for Jewish ancestry among ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

Un-anchoring Mormonism from its quaint founding tome might be the big payoff.

This might not be a victory by the Packer faction. Indeed, it might be the test balloon being floated by the youngest 5 'Apostles'.

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