The LGT is Dead: Official CU announcement

[_J Green]

Hi, Gadianton.

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.

I'm not sure these are the only options, but if you must "unpackage" the content of Clark's message in so binary a fashion, wouldn't the latter option be a safer bet? I.e., that the Sorenson model (with which Clark has princiapally agreed for two decades) has been the accepted standard and that Meldrum's recent attacks against that standard have caused Clark's rejoinder that at a minimun, Meldrum's theory must adhere to certain textual criteria?

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.

I don't think we can infer that he is saying Sorenson's paradigm is not the reigning one. A perusal of LDS scholarship (including Clark) over the past decade would appear to contradict that inference, leading me to believe that this is not Clark's point. As I said above, if you have to infer anything, you should infer it the other way -- that he hasn't had to reiterate this position in twenty years because there hasn't been much of a challenge to this consensus, so it may, in fact, be a form of warning to those who are doing so only recently. In other words, he could just as well be laying out a defense of what he does see as the reigning paradigm.

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.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that no work has been done on it. Brant Gardner's multi-volume commentary using that model is very good. Hashbaz, from the other board and some of his colleagues bring us another generation who are speaking of it in a religious setting. How far they go in carrying on the torch remains to be seen.

Cheers

[_Doctor Scratch]

It appears that J Green wants to have it both ways (unless I'm misreading him). On the one hand, he says that it's essentially okay to discard the Mesoamerican Model, since this isn't actually what the LGT is all about. On the other hand, he says that the Mesoamerican Model is the "accepted standard" for the LGT. So which is it?

[_J Green]

You are indeed misreading him. J Green did not state what his own views were but was merely commenting on Dean Robbers' analysis of Clark's supposed assessment of Sorenson. But for the record, J Green does hold to a LGT theory and feels that the Mesoamerican version of the LGT is the standard. J Green also likes to refer to himself in the third person--it makes him feel a little like Karl Malone, but without the sharp elbows. And while were on that subject, J Green also thinks that songs that switch back and forth between the second and third person (e.g., "Lady in Red") are excessively awkward.

Cheers

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, no: I don't think I misread you at all, J Green. Even if the Mesoamerican "standard" bites the dust, you still want to be able to say that the LGT is in good shape, and that it's still 100% supported by the MI.

[_J Green]

I want to say or Clark wants to say? Do you understand the difference between LGT as a model and Mesoamerica as an application of that model? Did you read Clark's article? Did you read mine? (Just kidding.) You seem to be confused about the nature of the discussion here.

Also, what do you think about songs that continuously switch point of reference? Take James Blunt's "You're Beautiful," for example. He's singing about her then he's singing to her, then he's singing about her, then he's singing to her. Are there two girls involved? Seriously, this doesn't disturb you?

[_Gadianton]

that the Sorenson model (with which Clark has princiapally agreed for two decades) has been the accepted standard and that Meldrum's recent attacks against that standard have caused Clark's rejoinder that at a minimun, Meldrum's theory must adhere to certain textual criteria?

Well, I don't agree. If that's what he meant, he could have just said that. I think it's quite a bit of interpretation to get what you say out of it; he didn't even mention Meldrum.

...he could just as well be laying out a defense of what he does see as the reigning paradigm.

I think he is very clear that his list focuses on internal consistency, and is neutral with regards to what actual location the Book of Mormon events happened. His points could be used to scrutinize Meldrum, but Meldrum could potentially take all of it under consideration and still provide a North American setting.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that no work has been done on it. Brant Gardner's multi-volume commentary using that model is very good.

True. But Brant is from the same generation. The problem here is that the mantel of research must be passed down.

Hashbaz, from the other board and some of his colleagues bring us another generation who are speaking of it in a religious setting. How far they go in carrying on the torch remains to be seen.

That's interesting, thanks for pointing this out. I will be interested in hearing more about their work. I'll admit that I'm a bit skeptical of the void being filled by them, but who knows? Keep me informed.

Anyway, I think we actually agree more than we disagree here. I appreciate your thoughts, J Green.

[_Gadianton]

Simon,

It's a bit off topic, but I don't get involved with the personal lives of other university members, their opinions are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of myself or the university. Even if I were to involve myself, with so many faculty members and so many thousands and thousands of students, I can't police all the conflicts on campus let alone conflicts on unrelated message boards.

[_J Green]

Anyway, I think we actually agree more than we disagree here. I appreciate your thoughts, J Green.

Back atcha, Dean.

[_Patriarchal gripe]

Clark said that the North and South Seas were "probably used in a metaphorical sense in the Book of Mormon."

If this "minor" detail of geography can be metaphorical, can we also claim other problematic details found "internally" in the Book of Mormon to be metaphorical, like horses, steel, Nephites?

This might help bring Book of Mormon scholarship closer to real world scholarship.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

It's a bit off topic, but I don't get involved with the personal lives of other university members, their opinions are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of myself or the university. Even if I were to involve myself, with so many faculty members and so many thousands and thousands of students, I can't police all the conflicts on campus let alone conflicts on unrelated message boards.

I seem to remember someone booted from Cassius for much much more mild behavior.