© 2023 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
I find it fascinating Brant Gardner is upset at CofC scholar O’Leary for not quoting LDS John L. Sorenson who plagiarized from RLDS Louis E Hills, whose invention of The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican theory in 1917 was used by CofC Scholar O’Leary who Brant Gardner is upset with for not quoting LDS John L Sorenson who plagiarized from RLDS Louis E Hills, whose invention of The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican theory in 1917 was used by CofC Scholar O’Leary who Brant Gardner is upset with for not quoting LDS John L Sorenson who plagiarized from RLDS Louis E Hills, whose invention of The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican theory in 1917 was used by CofC Scholar O’Leary who Brant Gardner is upset with for not quoting LDS John L Sorenson who is a plagiarizer of RLDS scholar L.E. Hills who died from being hit by an automobile in 1925.
While CofC/Restoration Branch Shirley Heater was a contributor at Kirk Magelby’s BMAF which later became BookofMormonCentral which employs plagiarizer Brant Gardner.
Brant Gardner is really intelligent. Increase your intelligence by visiting: https://twocumorahsolution.blogspot.com/
Then Brant Gardner can restore his personally integrity by stop calling Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as Book of Mormon geography idiots.
I really struggled to decide whether to approve this post. If it had been about anyone else, I don’t think I would have. It would have had more merit of “TwoCumorahSolution” had understood that the reason for citing Sorenson was not for geography but for culture.
Brant Gardner’s strugglings are amusing. He’ll embrace a false Two Cumorah Mesoamerican geography theory for The Book of Mormon, without realizing the original owner and copyright holder, RLDS member Louis E. Hills, created his theory using a Rand McNally map and an Ethnology report he ordered from the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. I have Hills’ document stating the same.
Louis E. Hills lived at 201 S. Willis Ave in Independence, MO and his limited Mesoamerican map was meant for the flaws in the earlier Hemispheric map created by the RLDS American Archaeology Committee, not for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But Brant Gardner will waste his education in an upstate New York University trying to prove Hills’ map is true while proclaiming Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery where Book of Mormon geography idiots, then declare “we need to see more Mesoamerica in The Book of Mormon,” then declare anyone who disagrees as “flawed.” Such ridiculous logic will obviously garner you millions of followers.
I have not approved all of TwoCumorahSolution’s posts. They are repetitive on the one point that Hills had a Mesoamerican model. That is not disputed. It is also not relevant to the book reviewed. Future diatribes that continue this singular argument about Hills will likewise not see approval.
Actually Sorenson dedicated 3 pages (87-89) to discussing Hills 1917 model in his 1992 geography Sourcebook. Sorenson’s model is quite different (Grijalva instead of Usumacinta, Kaminaljuyu instead of Copan, Hill Cumorah near Tuxtlas instead of Mexico City). In my personal conversations with Dr. Sorenson he was complementary of C of C persons working on geography.
Yes, it would have been nice if someone would have published something somewhere. The initial knee jerk response by some to this was that it was insulting to Mesoamerican peoples, Michael Coe was especially outspoken which is of course not a scientific response, just a political one. However, near the end of his life Michael Coe himself ndicated in private correspondence that he did see some Asian influence in Mesoamerica (rabbit in the moon, etc). I don’t have any problems with people suggesting some trade influence and parallels but it is not to the level of evidence until there are fairly complex things that are in parallel or some things that are very unique. It is always the jump too far that people make with the BOM in my opinion. Many try to push the narrative that the BOM is the foundation of all civilization in Mesoamerica when realistically it was only of local influence to some groups. Lists of parallels are fine but they are just the first cut of comparing cultural elements. Further detailed research has to be done if possible.
The review would have been much more useful if the reviewer cited the sources used for their arguments. For example, Michal Xu’s work always sounded interesting, as are the supposed refutations. But the rebuttal isn’t cited. The problems with various sources like Ixtlilxochitl and Bancroft sound authoritative, but we are only getting the reviewers position on those sources without the ability to fully assess it. Academics argue about everything, so I assume there are contrary positions on these sources as well, even if they are in the marginalized minority. There are no sources so we don’t have a chance to investigate both sides and assess the reviewer’s evaluation of the author’s use of sources.
Gardner has shown in numerous works that he knows a great deal and is a leader in the field, but a published review without the sources used for key assessments isn’t very useful.
I agree that sources would be good. In the case of Ixtlilxochitl, much is from my personal examination, but corroborated with comments I have seen–but have no way to find. As for Michael Xu’s work, that was on the Aztlan message board years ago. I didn’t keep copies, and should have. I apologize for not having the ability to name the sources, but the information is correct.