The LGT is Dead: Official CU announcement

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have reviewed the article again, and I must say, Dean Robbers, that your observations have been spot-on. The LGT does appear to be dead. What Clark's article amounts to is a colossal wiping-clean of the LGT blackboard. It's as if he has hit the "reset" button by way of this absurdly detailed list of features that must fit with the Book of Mormon text. So of course Sorenson's and Hauck's theories have bitten the dust, along with Meldrum's. Clark has essentially set off a nuclear bomb that has blown the even the possibility of a LGT to smithereens. With this "key," he has made it impossible for anyone to ever find a real-world location for the Book of Mormon.

Prof. Puppet is right: they should just formally announce the death of the LGT.

Which reminds me, Sock: did you notice this?:

I am convinced that the reference to a north sea and a south sea is devoid of any concrete geographical content. All specific references or allusions to Book of Mormon seas are only to the east and west seas. Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, is doomed to fail. But we cannot dismiss the reference to these seas out of hand. If they are metaphorical, what was the metaphor?

This is clearly an instance of the "Gadianton Turn." Now even Clark is showing a willingness to treat the Book of Mormon as pure metaphor!

[Guest]

I don't usually admire that sort of strong rhetoric, but if the evidence he adduces is accurate, then I can't blame him for being troubled by the behavior he documents.

The bold being key, right? And you know, it would be easy to agree with what you said, our gut instincts as humans assures this, I think. But we could say this about anything. Pick your favorite aggressive anti-Mormon book. If what is said there in is true, then the strong words are probably justified, no? I'm pretty sure those knowledgeable and faithful to his work would not easily be persuaded that the adduced evidence here is accurate.

I can't make the ultimate judgement on when it's time to bring out the strong language for a call to arms. But I can tell you that when rhetoric is very strong, it has been my experience that there is usually a correlation with weak evidence. Often, weak evidence is causally connected to strong rhetoric. Also, swaying power to one's position with greater lasting effect will usually happen better without the rhetoric, provided the case being made is strong and well-argued.

From what I've seen, Meldrum is a class act, even if I disagree with any Book of Mormon theory including his. I'm willing to suppose that my judgement is wrong for the sake of argument here and suppose G. Smith is right. Would it be out of the question to disagree with Meldrum, but then reach out a hand in friendship regarding the material that is deemed professionally unsavory? I mean, a sincere hand of friendship? And even if it were the case that the extended hand were rejected, would it be out of the question to try again?

I've observed over the years that folks quickly skim Jesus's recommendations regarding forgiveness, returning spite with love, the beatitudes, and jump right to the temple incident where Jesus passionately drives out the Pharisees because the other stuff just didn't result in a quick and satisfactory payoff. Well, I'm not trying to be preachy here, J Green, or talk down to you. And yeah, I think that I would in many cases also believe "strong rhetoric" is justified by the evidence, but I think that unfortunately, the usual case is that other means would usually be not only more appropriate, but more effective.

[_J Green]

Not much bone to pick with you here, Gad. I generally agree with what you've said. All I can say is that I read the article and feel that the evidence doesn't appear weak. But if we are to discuss this further, perhaps a new thread. Seems to be a derail from your OP, no?

Cheers

[_moksha]

Simon,

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.

What you need Dean Robbers is to copy the look and feel of one of your fellow independent football universities, where every student is an informant. That way you can have much wider coverage and control of both public and private behaviors.

[_Gadianton]

Gad,

Getting back to your thesis, I note that in 2005, Clark publishes an article arguing for a Mesoamerican setting. (See "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," JBMS 14/2 pp 38—49). In 2008 in he gives a presentation at the FAIR conference on parallels between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. (I was in Afghanistan at the time and missed it.) Then in 2010 he provides a testimony to MST that essentially says that Mesoamerica is the best location for Book of Mormon events.

There is more, but this should be good enough (and recent enough) to act as a control group for your thesis. I'm still not seeing a sea change by Clark. Your thoughts?

Cheers

First, regarding how Meldrum should be addressed, sure, you can start a new thread if you like. I would be interested why you think strong rhetoric is the preferable means of dealing with his case over and above the other options I laid out.

....

As I said earlier, I think you and I agree here more than not. Let me repeat that once again, my position is not that Clark has rejected the LGT. My position is that his article implies in a pretty direct way that the LGT as a scientific paradigm, is without much life. By saying this, I happily acknowledge that he may personally believe the Mesoamercan setting is true and that it is justified by the evidence. But I will also point out that bearing testimony of the LGT does not in a powerful way support the thesis that Clark believes the LGT is a scientific paradigm.

Well, you may know Clark and Sorenson for all I know. Maybe you can ask either of them next time you find yourself in a conversation, when the generation of LDS archeologists who built the theory pass, who will carry the torch? As right as Mendel may have been, it wasn't enough for his theories to be correct as they lay buried in a library somewhere, to count as a scientific paradigm.

I could say more, but for now let's see if you're on the same page with me as far as what my position is.

[_sock puppet]

I think it would be a matter of splitting hairs to say that Doctor Scratch's characterization is in any way off the mark here. Now granted, Greg Smith doesn't speak for the entire MI, but he does carry a lot of weight in his new position.

After reading the article, I think I agree with you, Gad. It would indeed be splitting hairs to say that Scratch's characterization is off the mark. You're both correct. Greg does make this kind of claim.

For the record, I've never met Greg. I've heard him present at a FAIR conference or two, but that's it. That being said, however, I have a hard time disagreeing with him. I don't usually admire that sort of strong rhetoric, but if the evidence he adduces is accurate, then I can't blame him for being troubled by the behavior he documents.

Regards

It seems Greg Smith is given to hyperbole. Remember the tectonic plate shifting he gushed pre-Schryver FAIR presentation?

[_sock puppet]

Which reminds me, Sock: did you notice this?:

I am convinced that the reference to a north sea and a south sea is devoid of any concrete geographical content. All specific references or allusions to Book of Mormon seas are only to the east and west seas. Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, is doomed to fail. But we cannot dismiss the reference to these seas out of hand. If they are metaphorical, what was the metaphor?

This is clearly an instance of the "Gadianton Turn." Now even Clark is showing a willingness to treat the Book of Mormon as pure metaphor!

I had not, Dr Scratch. Thank you for pointing it out.

[_J Green]

First, regarding how Meldrum should be addressed, sure, you can start a new thread if you like. I would be interested why you think strong rhetoric is the preferable means of dealing with his case over and above the other options I laid out.

As I've said, I actually don't think that strong rhetoric is the preferable option. But let me ask you this: Did you read the entire article yourself? Do you think Greg's claims are accurate? I.e., is it just the rhetoric to which you object, or do you take issue with the evidence itself? If the terms hadn't been used in a published article but in a backyard conversation instead, would you agree that "snake oil salesman" accurately describes the behavior that Greg documents? I'm trying to assess the scope of your objection. I have a few other questions, but I'll leave it at that for now.

As I said earlier, I think you and I agree here more than not. Let me repeat that once again, my position is not that Clark has rejected the LGT. My position is that his article implies in a pretty direct way that the LGT as a scientific paradigm, is without much life.

I didn't get that from the article, but I'm not disposed to quibble. In any case, unless we range a little wider intertextually, there's not much left to discuss there.

Well, you may know Clark and Sorenson for all I know.

Afraid not. Never met Clark, and I've only interacted with Sorenson briefly by e-mail.

Cheers

[_J Green]

It seems Greg Smith is given to hyperbole. Remember the tectonic plate shifting he gushed pre-Schryver FAIR presentation?

I seem to recall a lot of hyperbole going on at the time.

Cheers, SP.

[_Doctor Scratch]

First, regarding how Meldrum should be addressed, sure, you can start a new thread if you like. I would be interested why you think strong rhetoric is the preferable means of dealing with his case over and above the other options I laid out.

As I've said, I actually don't think that strong rhetoric is the preferable option. But let me ask you this: Did you read the entire article yourself? Do you think Greg's claims are accurate? I.e., is it just the rhetoric to which you object, or do you take issue with the evidence itself? If the terms hadn't been used in a published article but in a backyard conversation instead, would you agree that "snake oil salesman" accurately describes the behavior that Greg documents?

It's bizarre, J Green. You state at the outset here that you "actually don't think that strong rhetoric is the preferable option," and yet look at how much effort you expended in trying to justify Smith's behavior. It would be more tolerable "in a backyard conversation," you say, which suggests that you think backbiting of fellow Latter-day Saints is acceptable. Better to engage in behind-the-scenes gossipmongering than to do it in print, eh?