John Sorenson on Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

Happy New Year to you too!

I'm not an expert but it seems to me Sorenson is holding onto the diffusionist theory, that has basically been negated by all reputable experts and scholars in the field.

I did read the article you linked and, again it seems to me Sorenson declares as fact, numerous statements that are not considered accurate or even remotely supported by fact. He makes claims and throws out, "stuff," (without a footnote or source), that is contrary to accepted, historical documentation.

He uses several quotes and resources from the forties, fifties, and sixties... seriously? I'm not an expert but it appears to me that a lot of knowledge has been gained and information has come forth over the last sixty or seventy years no?

Again, Beastie's sites are filled with current research and accepted information by reputable scholars in the field who publish peer reviewed articles in well respected journals.

Just in case anyone is interested!

~td~


And, yes, Beastie doesn't claim to be a Mesoamerican expert, she has collected information, statements, and articles from true EXPERTS!

[_Joey]

I take it, thus, that you, too, are a member of Joey's I-Won't-Read-It Club?

It's not a matter of whether Joey reads it or not.  It's a matter of whether such "scholarship"'has had an impact in generating acceptance or interest from our academic institutions and professional peer groups of these LDS scholars. If, as you have stated, such works are (and continued to be) ignored, what is the value of such works in demonstrating the existence of the history claimed in the Book of Mormon?


Not sure I see the point and significance to an Amazon book listing?  I was trying to find out what you believed the best recognition, from the academic community, existed for LDS scholarship work in supporting the historicity claim for the Book of Mormon.  I trust we can agree that a listing on Amazon does not qualify, even remotely, as an academic standard or acceptance. (I also trust you know for the right listing  or placement fee, almost any author can get listed on Amazon as there is no shelf space issue!)

So once again, do you believe getting a listing on Amazon or Mair's site is the best example of credibility for academic acceptance of LDS scholarship on the historicity of the Book of Mormon claim to date?

If so, can we agree such scholarship is still far from convincing in the academic circles?  If there is a better example of academic acceptance that you know of, would you care to provide and share here?

It's been almost seven years since John Clark made his speech telling us that archaeological evidence will prove the existence of this history.  Has the scholarship moved this assertion any closer to his peer group acceptance or even interest?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's a matter of whether such "scholarship"'

The quotation marks are very cute.

has had an impact in generating acceptance or interest from our academic institutions and professional peer groups of these LDS scholars. If, as you have stated, such works are (and continued to be) ignored, what is the value of such works in demonstrating the existence of the history claimed in the Book of Mormon?

The fundamental value of a scholarly work is intrinsic to it, and does not depend even slightly on the size of its audience or its degree of acceptance. Gregor Mendel's pioneer article on genetics was no more sound when it was noticed by other scientists than it had been during its decades of obscurity. Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift was just as true when he first began to advocate it publicly in 1912 as it was in the 1950s when it finally began to gain general acceptance. (Unfortunately, Wegener died in 1930 during an expedition to Antarctica, when his theory was still generally rejected.)

Not sure I see the point and significance to an Amazon book listing?  I was trying to find out what you believed the best recognition, from the academic community, existed for LDS scholarship work in supporting the historicity claim for the Book of Mormon.

Actually, I'm not interested in discussing this or any other subject with you.

I don't believe that truth is determined by polling or sales figures, and I'm not interested at all in this one-note issue of yours.

The evidence and analysis in an academic work are either good or they're not. Whether they're popular is irrelevant.

I'm not going to be lured into endless nonsensical back-and-forths with you on marginal issues.

So once again, do you believe getting a listing on Amazon or Mair's site is the best example of credibility for academic acceptance of LDS scholarship on the historicity of the Book of Mormon claim to date?

I believe that publications with the University of Texas Press and the University of Hawai'i Press and in Katunob, and apparently high degrees of traffic for a paper on the Sino-Platonic Papers site, cast doubt on your happy dogma that such works are having no impact whatever -- which, in turn, calls into question your certainty that their failure to gain a large audience proves them to be worthless. Here are some of the responses to the two-volume annotated Sorenson/Raish bibilography about transoceanic contacts before Columbus to which I referred above (and which, if I'm not mistaken, also won an award from the American Library Association, or some such group):

"Your great bibliographical project . . . will greatly enhance the quality of discussion in the field." Joseph Needham, history of Asian science, Cambridge University.

"Impressive bibliography and monumental effort." Betty J. Meggers, anthropology, Smithsonian Institution.

"A magnificent contribution . . . amusing, enlightening, and unbelievably useful. I am one of the better-informed people on this subject, but I had not seen ten percent of the papers cited." George F. Carter, geography and anthropology, Texas A&M.

"Nobody can afford to offer an opinion on this subject from now on without having carefully considered this essential volume." David H. Kelley, archaeology, University of Calgary.

"This jewel of a work amazes, awes, and pleases me." Mary Ritchie Key, linguistics, University of California, Irvine.

"Extremely complete." Walter Gardini, anthropology, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

"Monumental accomplishment." Hasso von Winning, archaeology, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

"Incredible. . . . An extremely important compilation." Stephen C. Jett, geography, University of California, Davis.

[_Joseph]

daniel writes: "I'm not going to be lured into endless nonsensical back-and-forths with you on marginal issues."
******************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then why do you continually bring them up?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

From the article,

The evidence seemed to make it “plausible, and perhaps necessary, to interpret the rise of civilization in Mesoamerica as significantly dependent upon [direct] communication from Eurasia” (Sorenson 1971, 223–224).

Do you agree with this statement? Would you elaborate?

Thanks,



~td~

[_Inconceivable]

I'm not an expert but it seems to me Sorenson is holding onto the diffusionist theory, that has basically been negated by all reputable experts and scholars in the field.

From the article:

The prevailing view, so far as anybody thinks about the issue nowadays, is that human beings’ inherent mental powers could lead to the development of parallel cultural traits in
locations that have had no historical connections. It is tacitly assumed that the parallels have
been a result of adaptation to similar social and environmental situations.

A small minority of scholars (labeled “diffusionists”) hold that some cultural
correspondences cannot be explained by duplicate or convergent invention but have to be
accounted for by borrowing through direct contact.

Would this small minority of scholars be comprised mostly of Mormon apologists? It sounds to me that your group is tolerated more than accepted by those that would that take a more objective approach.

[_Inconceivable]

There are, plainly, conflicting opinions out there, from both experts and pretended experts.

"Pretended experts" - who are you specifically discrediting?

Oh well. I'm simply here to announce interesting things. Those who want to look at them are free to do so. Those who don't want to look at them are free to ignore them. No skin off my nose.

You don't think whoever you are slamming may be inclined to take some skin off your nose?

[_Ray A]

So far I've been unable to download Sorenson's article as every time I do my PC freezes up.

[_truth dancer]

Would this small minority of scholars be comprised mostly of Mormon apologists? It sounds to me that your group is tolerated more than accepted by those that would that take a more objective approach.

Hi Inc,

My understanding, (I'm not an expert), is that the diffusionist theory was rather popular in the 1940's. (Which of course is why Sorenson could find and use quotes from half a century ago).

I believe there are few who hold onto this theory in light of more recent and current research.

~td~

[_Ray A]

This is what Michael Coe had to say about Sorenson in a now dated PBS Interview:

To make Book of Mormon archaeology at all kind of believable, my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies. He's tried to build a reasonable picture that these two civilizations weren't all that different from each other. Well, this is true of all civilizations, actually; there's nothing new under the sun.

So he has built up what he hopes is a convincing background in which you can put Book of Mormon archaeology, and he's a very serious, bright guy. But I'm sorry to say that I don't really buy more than a part of this. I don't really think you can argue, no matter how bright you are, that what's said in the Book of Mormon applies to the peoples that we study in Mexico and Central America. That's one way of doing it -- to build up a kind of convincing background, a kind of stage set to this -- but there's no actors. That's the problem. ...

In Coe's 2001 revised edition of The Maya:

"the possibility of some trans-Pacific influence on Mesoamerican cultures cannot, however, be so easily dismissed."

This terribly excited Kerry Shirts, but I think he was claiming victory at half-time.