What is the current status of the scholarship on the BOM limited geography model?

[SoCalCoug]

Sorensen's book came out a little over 20 years ago. Is it still the main scholarly authority on Book of Mormon geography (as far as scholarly authority exists)? What criticisms of Sorensen's theories are there?

I read his book, and it's pretty thorough, but I'm not enough of a scholar to be able to readily identify his faulty premises or make other criticisms.

Buffchazen's idiotic post on CB got me thinking about this.

[TripletDaddy]

I just went and read the post in question. I have been trying to not go over there much for anything other than reading boardmail because I get very annoyed by the level of nonsense over there.

I wonder if buffchazen is doing some sort of online degree or taking actual classes. I recall some of his posts in the past to be almost a sort of "cut and paste my homework assignment" sort of format.

[Solon]

I just went and read the post in question. I have been trying to not go over there much for anything other than reading boardmail because I get very annoyed by the level of nonsense over there.

I wonder if buffchazen is doing some sort of online degree or taking actual classes. I recall some of his posts in the past to be almost a sort of "cut and paste my homework assignment" sort of format.

What did his post say? I can't find my way around cb well enough to do a search, and I don't have an account.

As far as I know, Limited Geography is pretty much accepted. This explains the DNA issue (we haven't found a population with Hebrew descendants yet), as well as the "among" change to the preface of the Book of Mormon. Nobody has yet answered my question on another board about BoM numbers and limited geography.

Here's a decent summary of the history of the historicity debate.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/boo...storicity.html

[TripletDaddy]

What did his post say? I can't find my way around cb well enough to do a search, and I don't have an account.

As far as I know, Limited Geography is pretty much accepted. This explains the DNA issue (we haven't found a population with Hebrew descendants yet), as well as the "among" change to the preface of the Book of Mormon. Nobody has yet answered my question on another board about BoM numbers and limited geography.

Here's a decent summary of the history of the historicity debate.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/boo...storicity.html

here.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=4437487

[Solon]

here.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=4437487

Thanks for the link. If I remember correctly, Sorenson's limited geography is even more limited than the options this guy offers. I'm also surprised he didn't suggest the "narrow neck" as being the little strip between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.

[SeattleUte]

Wow. I'm hooked. What's the right answer?

[Solon]

Wow. I'm hooked. What's the right answer?

I'm gonna go with "none of the above".

Limited geography. Unlimited geography - all the theories are employed when it's convenient. As if at a great smorgasbord, BoM historicists pick and choose the points they want to, and leave the rest for the fat guy in line. This is the biggest problem with Sorenson's book, IMO. It tries to make cultural links over big areas while ignoring or discounting the dominant cultures just adjacent to his proposed BoM site.

I'm trying to be as fair as I can. Most people here know or have guessed my current persuasion on the matter. But I'm here to build bridges, or at least to paint them. Not to burn them.

[SeattleUte]

I'm gonna go with "none of the above".

Limited geography. Unlimited geography - all the theories are employed when it's convenient. As if at a great smorgasbord, BoM historicists pick and choose the points they want to, and leave the rest for the fat guy in line. This is the biggest problem with Sorenson's book, IMO. It tries to make cultural links over big areas while ignoring or discounting the dominant cultures just adjacent to his proposed BoM site.

I'm trying to be as fair as I can. Most people here know or have guessed my current persuasion on the matter. But I'm here to build bridges, or at least to paint them. Not to burn them.

I heard an interview with that Cal professor who wrote the Creationists and is kind of the Seventh Day Adventists' Fawn Brodie. He said that's what Creationists do. Their rationalization is, "We don't need to find a theory to fit science. Let's make science fit ou theoriy." Thus, all the crazy junk science about how Noah's flood is the explanation for millions of year old fossils, etc.

[SoCalCoug]

IThus, all the crazy junk science about how Noah's flood is the explanation for millions of year old fossils, etc.

Oh, yeah, I've heard that one. And the one about how fossils came from other worlds that provided the "unorganized matter" which formed the earth.