The LGT is Dead: Official CU announcement

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, my apologies, Scratch. The reference was intended to be a direct response to your post,

Oh, it was? There were "protestations" in my post?

In any case, back to the OP. Dean Robbers accepts a distinction between an LGT paradigm and a mesoamerican application of that theory. He only proclaims the application to be dead, failing to see much of a pass-on, if you will, to another generation of experts who are willing to explore the mesoamerican setting.

Yes; and I largely agree. The only person you've mentioned is "Hashbaz," and as I noted, I've seen no indication--beyond the fact that he studied/studies Mesoamerica--that he's going to do apologetics.

You, on the other hand, have told me that there is no difference between an LGT model and its mesoamerican application and declare LGT to be dead on its face.

Effectively, and in practical terms, and from a Maxwell Institute viewpoint, there is no difference. If there is, then cite for me an MI article that argues for a Book of Mormon location other than Mesoamerica. A "floating" paradigm is pretty useless if it has no practical application.

Maybe you don't get what I'm saying? You are apparently holding the position that the mere framework and set of questions is enough to sustain the LGT as a legitimate theory, and I say it ain't. It would be like having the theory of General Relativity, along with all of Einstein's various thought experiments, with zero applicability in the lived world. Your position is that the theory is still valid, just as a theory. It doesn't matter if it's totally divorced from reality. It doesn't matter if there is no real evidence for it. And bear in mind that the LGT is sutured in to disciplines like history, geography, and archaeology and not conceptual physics, and thus the types of evidence "matter" in a rather different way.

In doing so, you say you agree with the dean's analysis of Clark's opening paragraph. Yet Clark's entire paper argues closely and thoroughly for an LGT model for the Book of Mormon as a baseline for any discussion about geography.

Yes, and in doing so he effectively jettisons the Mesoamerican setting. And as I've already said, the M.I.-sanctioned LGT has pretty much always been a Mesoamerican LGT. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Yes, you're right, one can theoretically argue for a purely theoretical LGT, that merely "exists," but as I've already explained, that's silly for a variety of reasons. We are talking about geography, after all, and not high-level mathematics or quantum physics. (Both of which, if I'm not mistaken, have way more evidence and real-world applicability than the LGT.)

So I can see how Gadianton's careful distinction between the two can still account for the content of Clark's article, but your position . . . not so much.

Clark's article is setting up a series of rules and parameters that make it more or less impossible to ever locate a real-world setting for the Book of Mormon. This means that, for all intents and purposes, the LGT is dead.

Essentially, I see your responses in this thread to contradict both Robbers and Clark (to varying degrees) and misunderstand the article itself. That's why I asked you at one point if you had actually read the article.

I'm confident that I know why you asked me that, Joey. But you are comfortable believing in things for which there's no real evidence beyond personal feeling and intuition, so I don't really know why my assessment would affect you one way or the other.

[_J Green]

Fair enough, Scratch. Good to hear your perspective. I understand where you're coming from more. And I think there is some common ground here that will allow us to focus on just one or two areas of discussion. But let me ask you this question first: Why does James Blunt . . . Sorry wrong question!

So, in 1985, John Sorenson publishes his seminal work (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon) that lays out a case for a mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. He develops the LGT theory as well, but the focus of the text is on the specific application of this theory to a real time and place. Fifteen years later, In 2000, he publishes (with FARMS) a volume entitled Mormon's Map. Like Clark's recent article, this volume is entirely about the internal map, the larger theory, without trying to pin it to a specific time and place. Does the same thesis you propose about the ramifications of Clark's article hold true for Sorenson? By publishing a general model fifteen years later, has Sorenson also sounded the death knell for his own specific model and demonstrated an intent to retrench from that model scientifically? If not, why not?

Regards.


P.S., I made a mistake. I meant to say Protestant, not protestations. I need to retract the whole Borges thing ;)

[_beastie]

Due to limited time, I haven't read closely all the replies on this thread. I've read them, but skimmed a few that seemed to go off-tangent.

While I appreciate the thought that my research may have had an influence, it was probably minimal.

I disagree that Clark's article is sounding the death knoll for LGT. I think it is supporting LGT. The distances he cites are within the LGT framework. (and, by the way, why are figures referenced but nowhere to be found?)

I think he is laying the groundwork to be able to dismiss competitive theories. I do not believe for one instant that Clark has abandoned the Mesoamerican model. I think he knows full well it is the only hope for Book of Mormon historicity, without embracing the full-scale "metaphorical".

I doubt I will have the time, or frankly the interest, to comment more on the topic, but did want to add my paltry two cents.

[_J Green]

What she said. (Thanks, beastie.)

Defense rests, your honor.

[_Doctor Scratch]

While I appreciate the thought that my research may have had an influence, it was probably minimal.

I disagree that Clark's article is sounding the death knoll for LGT. I think it is supporting LGT. The distances he cites are within the LGT framework. (and, by the way, why are figures referenced but nowhere to be found?)

Hi, Beastie. Thanks for chiming in.

There are a few ways to look at this, I think:

1. The LGT is "dead" as far as Cassius is concerned. Due to this latest Clark piece (among many other reasons), there is no longer any reason to regard it as having any life left in it.
2. The LGT is "dead" as far as all the Maxwell Institute apologists are concerned. There is consensus among them that the theory has played out; there are no "up and comers" to fill the ranks of the aging Clark and Sorenson, etc.
3. The LGT is "dead," but the MI apologists don't know or don't think that it is. And there are at least three sub-components to this:

3a.: The MI apologists refuse to acknowledge it's "dead," mainly because they think it will someday match up with real-world geography.
3b.: The MI apologists refuse to acknowledge that it's "dead" in the sense that no "young guns" are willing to carry the torch.
3c." The MI apologists refuse to acknowledge that it's "dead," *AND* they don't realize that Clark's latest article has effectively nuked all the earlier Mopologetic work on the LGT--including Soreonson's.

Now, I'm curious: in which of these scenarios is the LGT undeniably alive and well? Or, rather: in which alternative scenario can it be persuasively argued that the LGT is "alive and well"?

I think he is laying the groundwork to be able to dismiss competitive theories.

Interesting. So you see this as a pre-emptive strike against Rod Meldrum?

I do not believe for one instant that Clark has abandoned the Mesoamerican model. I think he knows full well it is the only hope for Book of Mormon historicity, without embracing the full-scale "metaphorical".

I hope you take a closer look at the bit I cited for Sock Puppet above.

[_beastie]

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!

Scratch,

I bumped this reply of yours to demonstrate what I think is your misreading of Clark. Clark is specifically saying that one CANNOT "dismiss" the references to the seas as purely metaphorical. So I don't understand why you think this shows he's willing to treat the Book of Mormon as pure metaphor.

I do believe that, eventually, apologists will be open to accepting the Book of Mormon as metaphor and allegory. But I think that will not happen in our lifetimes. I think that the evolution will be very gradual, and they are not at that point yet.

Obviously I don't think LGT is "alive and well." I believe the root of the problem for Book of Mormon apologists is that they're trying to make the Book of Mormon something it is not. The Book of Mormon, in my opinion, is a nineteenth century work of fiction. So any attempt to place the events of the Book of Mormon in an actual historical time frame will be beset by problems.

But this is far different than thinking that the apologists, themselves, are anywhere near this point. I think apologists believe LGT has small problems to work out, but overall, it has lasting power. After all, once one has decided to stop looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica (or whatever place) and rather focus on looking for mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, then the possibilities are endless, and fairly unrestrained by the need for hard evidence. Hope and suggestion will suffice. That will do for at least another generation.

We have to remember that the LDS church changes very slowly.

[_Brackite]

The big and main reason why John Sorenson's Mesoamerican theory for the Book of Mormon is basically and virtually dead, is because at least 99% of the indigenous Peoples of Mesoamerica have Eastern Asian Mitochondrial (Maternal) DNA haplogroups. Haplogroup X, which is an European Haplogroup, is virtually absent among the indigenous Peoples of Mesoamerica. Haplogroup X is mostly found within the indigenous Peoples around the Great Lakes Area. This is the big and main reason why many Mormons are ditching John Sorenson's Mesoamerica theory for the Book of Mormon, and switching to the Great Lakes theory for the Book of Mormon.

Haplogroup X and The Druze of Galilee:
http://ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com/2008/05 ... lilee.html

DNA and the Book of Mormon:
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/dna-evidence.html

Haplogroup X Map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA).PNG

Linguistic and maternal genetic diversity are not correlated in Native Mexicans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

[_beastie]

The big and main reason why John Sorenson's Mesoamerican theory for the Book of Mormon is basically and virtually dead, is because at least 99% of the indigenous Peoples of Mesoamerica have Eastern Asian Mitochondrial (Maternal) DNA haplogroups. Haplogroup X, which is an European Haplogroup, is virtually absent among the indigenous Peoples of Mesoamerica. Haplogroup X is mostly found within the indigenous Peoples around the Great Lakes Area. This is the big and main reason why many Mormons are ditching John Sorenson's Mesoamerica theory for the Book of Mormon, and switching to the Great Lakes theory for the Book of Mormon.

Haplogroup X and The Druze of Galilee:
http://ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com/2008/05 ... lilee.html

DNA and the Book of Mormon:
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/dna-evidence.html

Haplogroup X Map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA).PNG

Linguistic and maternal genetic diversity are not correlated in Native Mexicans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

People who switch to the Great Lakes theory have far more serious problems than DNA.

If you all think that pro-Mesoamerican apologists disregard and/or distort what the Book of Mormon says in an attempt to make it "fit", you ain't see nothing yet!!!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch,

I bumped this reply of yours to demonstrate what I think is your misreading of Clark. Clark is specifically saying that one CANNOT "dismiss" the references to the seas as purely metaphorical. So I don't understand why you think this shows he's willing to treat the Book of Mormon as pure metaphor.

I don't think I'm misreading him, Beastie. Here are some more excerpts from that particular section of his essay:

The passage in Helaman may have been meant in a metaphorical rather than a literal way. Explaining away difficult passages as metaphors goes against one of my guiding assumptions for dealing with the text, but in this case I think it is well justified.

And, of course, the portion I already cited:

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?

And finally:

The main point is that the reference to north and south seas fits nicely into the Mesoamerican scene as part of a metaphor for the whole earth and was probably used in a metaphorical sense in the Book of Mormon.

So these are three instances of him conceding that geographical features in the Book of Mormon were meant in a "metaphorical" sense.

I do believe that, eventually, apologists will be open to accepting the Book of Mormon as metaphor and allegory. But I think that will not happen in our lifetimes. I think that the evolution will be very gradual, and they are not at that point yet.

I think there have been clear signs that the "evolution," as it were, is already here. Grant Hardy's book was one of the first clarion calls. I'd have to look through old threads, but I recall seeing other signs, too.

But this is far different than thinking that the apologists, themselves, are anywhere near this point.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that's what Gad was saying in his OP, for what it's worth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

by the way: It's surely worth adding that Dr. Peterson has announced that he is effectively calling the shots in terms of whether or not J. Sorenson, J. Clark, and all the other people get to support or abandon the Mesoamerican LGT:

And, incidentally, just to repeat the point so that it isn't overlooked: There is absolutely nothing to the claim that the Maxwell Institute is backing away from a limited Mesoamerican geographical model for the Book of Mormon.

There is no "argument" about that.

If the Institute were doing so, that would effectively mean that I was doing so. But I'm not.

The Institute could not possibly make such a move without my knowing about it. But I don't know about it.

Gadianton's assertions are just more of the usual conspiracy-theorist nonsense.

It's weird how this post from him manages to combine Orwellian group-think with authoritarian paranoia in such a small block of text. But I don't believe Dr. Peterson for a second. While *he* may believe that the beliefs and theories at the Maxwell Institute are 100% homogeneous and in-line with his own personal vision, I don't think that squares with reality, based on what Michael Coe said in his "Mormon Stories" interview, among other things.