Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SkepticTheist

Faith And Book Of Mormon Geography

Recommended Posts

OP deleted--

I'm asking for this thread to be ended or deleted or whatever.....

I regret starting it. I started it in anger, and it should not have been started............

Share this post


Link to post

An interesting twist in another thread has brought this up. Though no offense was intended by some who made the assertion, this is still an important issue.

It is alleged that only the Mesoamerican model is rational because only the Mesoamericanists have divested themselves of beliefs that would lead them to have a faith based geography. Notwithstanding their beliefs are faith based that they place their geography in anyplace in the real world to begin with, and notwithstanding they make huge leaps of faith unjustified in the archaeology for their own views, and twist all kinds of evidence to try to create plausiblity (aka obsidan blades for steel swords, tapirs for horses, lack of chariots, the list goes on and on, and so forth).

New York Cumorah theorists are told that our readings of the text with regard to the land Northward is entirely faith based. Otherwise we would divest ourselves of it. Even though a rational reading of the text calls for an exceedingly great distance from a narrow neck of land with a Cumorah tied to one of the large bodies of water that are an exceedingly great distance from that Narrow Neck of Land. Within this reasonable reading of the text, a New York Cumorah fits comfortably. And other rational interpretations of the text with regard to Cumorah and the criteria for it can similarly be interpreted in the NY Cumorah's favor. Just because a Mesoamericanist says this proposal isn't reasonable in their view doesn't mean jack. Who elected that paradigm the grand arbiter of reasonableness? In other words, just because someone may have a belief in the NY Cumorah for other personal reasons other than the text to begin with, it is alleged, that must mean that somehow this reading of the text is not plausible, and that the archaeology is impossibly incompatible with this reading. I summarily reject this notion, and assert the rationality of my view in spite of personal beliefs, and actually find the notion that only Mesoamericanists can have a rational view a big slap in the face to good thinking Book of Mormon theorists that are not Mesoamericanists. I find it patronizing. I find it to be elitist.

Ed Goble

That's cute. Really.

I suppose the irony that your argument work both ways is lost on you.

Just because a NewYorkist says this proposal isn't reasonable in their view doesn't mean jack. Who elected that paradigm the grand arbiter of reasonableness? In other words, just because someone may have a belief in the MesoAmerican Cumorah for other personal reasons other than the text to begin with, it is alleged, that must mean that somehow this reading of the text is not plausible, and that the archaeology is impossibly incompatible with this reading.

Quite simply we do not have a provable definitive answer at this time. Arguing about which theory is correct is pointless. There is no correct answer.

What is patronizing and elitist is arguing about something that has no correct answer, and trying to blame everyone else when your particular opinion isn't generally accepted by the everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Nice trying to twist my words.

The Mesoamericanist position is perfectly reasonable. I have always said that.

It is you people that think you have the patent on reasonableness. That is the problem.

That's cute. Really.

I suppose the irony that your argument work both ways is lost on you.

Just because a NewYorkist says this proposal isn't reasonable in their view doesn't mean jack. Who elected that paradigm the grand arbiter of reasonableness? In other words, just because someone may have a belief in the MesoAmerican Cumorah for other personal reasons other than the text to begin with, it is alleged, that must mean that somehow this reading of the text is not plausible, and that the archaeology is impossibly incompatible with this reading.

Quite simply we do not have a provable definitive answer at this time. Arguing about which theory is correct is pointless. There is no correct answer.

What is patronizing and elitist is arguing about something that has no correct answer, and trying to blame everyone else when your particular opinion isn't generally accepted by the everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Nice trying to twist my words.

The Mesoamericanist position is perfectly reasonable. I have always said that.

It is you people that think you have the patent on reasonableness. That is the problem.

Oh yes, "us people"... how reasonable of you.

Share this post


Link to post

SkepticTheist:

I wouldn't call idea's about other non Mesoamerican locations for the BoM irrational or illogical. I just don't agree with them.

Ps. I don't put my faith in archaeology.

Share this post


Link to post

So Elf, enlighten me what part of the population of Mormondom you find yourself then, since you consider it "unreasonable" for me to refer to you as part of "you people."

Are you or are you not a Mesoamericanist, or do you not identify with that part of the population?

Then since you don't like the that term, how would you like to be referred to? Let us see if I can refer to you in a way that you will be happy with.

You say that there is no answer to the question with regard to what the OP is about. No kidding. The OP wasn't about the ability to provide a definitive answer.

Its about the Mesoamericanists trying to shut down the dialogue by asserting that others cannot reason or provide reasonableness, or cannot be thoughtful because they believe differently.

Acknowledgement of another argument's reasonableness, or even another persons ability to reason is not much to ask.

It isn't asking for someone to agree with you.

If you more carefully consider that which you are responding to, you will notice that this is not about an answer to a question.

It is a charge about a collective attitude of a certain segment of scholarly Mormondom, that cannot grant to another segment their ability to use reason.

I would ask that if you are "turned off" by the disgruntledness of the OP, which leads you to misinterpret the intent thereof, you should back up and think real hard about what message was actually being conveyed by the OP.

Despite the disgruntledness, it is in plain English.

Oh yes, "us people"... how reasonable of you.

Share this post


Link to post

So Elf, enlighten me what part of the population of Mormondom you find yourself then, since you consider it "unreasonable" for me to refer to you as part of "you people."

Are you or are you not a Mesoamericanist, or do you not identify with that part of the population?

Then since you don't like the that term, how would you like to be referred to? Let us see if I can refer to you in a way that you will be happy with.

You say that there is no answer to the question with regard to what the OP is about. No kidding. The OP wasn't about the ability to provide a definitive answer.

Its about the Mesoamericanists trying to shut down the dialogue by asserting that others cannot reason or provide reasonableness, or cannot be thoughtful because they believe differently.

Acknowledgement of another argument's reasonableness, or even another persons ability to reason is not much to ask.

If you more carefully consider that which you are responding to, you will notice that this is not about an answer to a question.

It is a charge about a collective attitude of a certain segment of scholarly Mormondom, that cannot grant to another segment their ability to use reason.

I would ask that if you are "turned off" by the disgruntledness of the OP, you should back up and think real hard about what message was actually being conveyed by the OP.

Despite the disgruntledness, it is in plain English.

I do not find myself in either camp as I have no dog in the hunt. I am not an archeologist.

I believe that Joseph Smith was given the plates at the NY Hill called Cumorah; and that the NY hill has a right to be called Cumorah because of that fact. However, that doesn't dismiss the evidences that have been found for either theory.

As far as physical evidence is concerned, it seems to me that Mezo-Americanists appear to have the edge; however that could change tomorrow or anytime in the future when new information is made available.

It was quite clear from the Op, that you are unhappy about the behavior from your opposing side. I do not find the behavior on the side of the Traditional NY Cumorah Theory to be any better than the Mezo-American side. I find the term faithless being tossed around like it was some sort of candy or buzzword. I find both sides acting like the Spanish Inquisition and screaming heresy at each other. It's rather disgusting.

I personally don't think it matters one iota which side you fall on; and no I do not think that either side needs to acknowledge the merits of the others argument. It isn't important for salvation; and it is just a historical/archeological puzzle. It's of trivial importance.

What does it matter if you find faith building evidence in North America while someone else finds faith building evidence in Central America?

Sacred Cows make the best Hamburgers and I'm looking forward to the BBQ that will eventually happen when this issue is resolved once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post

I too find it interesting that meso-american theorits feel they are the only voice that matters. It is hard to debate geography of the BoM with strict meso-americanists. I have gone many a round with them and while I do not know for sure where all of the BoM lands took place, I certainly don't close my mind to a vast array of choices. Having studied the text myself, there is absolutely no factual statements one way or another on how far Cumorah was from their main centered lands. I tend to view myself as open-minded on ther issue and see most others as like open-minded, that is until one runs into the strict meso-americanist. They are a hard bunch to try to reason with!

Share this post


Link to post

I think the problem with having two co-existing theories is that one of them must be wrong.

We can't all just get along because if both of them are correct, then neither of them are.

Share this post


Link to post

Im sorry. Please cease to post on this thread. I started this thread in anger, and it was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Im sorry. Please cease to post on this thread. I started this thread in anger, and it was wrong.

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...