Jump to content

Mesoamerican Setting Advocates and Rationality Claims


SkepticTheist

Recommended Posts

I have a simple question. Why is it that Mesoamericanists think that they are the only people that are rational, and that everybody else that disagrees with them must have irrational, unreasonable points of view?

Is it just me, or isn't it so that the Ahistorical Advocates that don't believe in the Book of Mormon think that anybody that believes in the Book of Mormon must have an irrational position.

So yes, there are some rational people who think that same way of the Mesoamericanists.

Why is it then that so many Mesoamericanists think that stone cities make them the most rational out of any other ideology of human beings?

I think these are fair questions. I think Mesoamericanists should have more charity and respect for those who they disagree with, and not be so condescending.

And yes, I believe Mesoamerica was the setting for Zarahemla. And no, I am not a heartlander (though I used to be).

Link to comment

I can't speak for the Mesoamericanists but I do want to clarify, on behalf of the Ahistorical Advocates, your phrase that we "don't believe in the Book of Mormon". It's an inaccurate statement. We don't believe the BoM to be literal history. That's something else than not believing in the BoM at all. At least to me it is. Thank you.

Link to comment

I can't speak for the Mesoamericanists but I do want to clarify, on behalf of the Ahistorical Advocates, your phrase that we "don't believe in the Book of Mormon". It's an inaccurate statement. We don't believe the BoM to be literal history. That's something else than not believing in the BoM at all. At least to me it is. Thank you.

Well, my statement of belief as far as the Ahistorical advocates goes was directed towards the idea of historicity. But anyway, thank you for clarifying.

Link to comment

I can't speak for the Mesoamericanists but I do want to clarify, on behalf of the Ahistorical Advocates, your phrase that we "don't believe in the Book of Mormon". It's an inaccurate statement. We don't believe the BoM to be literal history. That's something else than not believing in the BoM at all. At least to me it is. Thank you.

I'm a little confussed here.

I take it an "ahistorical advocate" doesn't believe the BOM is literal history, but does believe in it's theological inspiration?

But how do you believe it's theological truth was revealed to Joseph Smith?

Do you believe he was visited by an angel?

Were there gold plates?

did he translate them?

Do you believe there was any ancient tran-atlantic connection between Old World and New World cultures?

Link to comment

I have a simple question. Why is it that Mesoamericanists think that they are the only people that are rational, and that everybody else that disagrees with them must have irrational, unreasonable points of view?

Is it just me, or isn't it so that the Ahistorical Advocates that don't believe in the Book of Mormon think that anybody that believes in the Book of Mormon must have an irrational position.

So yes, there are some rational people who think that same way of the Mesoamericanists.

Why is it then that so many Mesoamericanists think that stone cities make them the most rational out of any other ideology of human beings?

I think these are fair questions. I think Mesoamericanists should have more charity and respect for those who they disagree with, and not be so condescending.

And yes, I believe Mesoamerica was the setting for Zarahemla. And no, I am not a heartlander (though I used to be).

Hi Ed, I apologize if I have ever came across condescending. I try to respond carefully to the questions asked. I have felt the opposite mainly that it is the Mesoamericanist who are the target for condescension from heartlanders (usually from those who subscribe to Meldrums PofV). From my experience it seems to me that most who subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting will typically use more archeologically backed sources while many who subscribe to a Great Lakes theory use more of the statements of our church leaders. For example, it has been those who side with the Mesoamerican view who have been labeled apostates or weak in their faith and not the great lake followers. IMO neither side is weak in our faith or are we apostate. I think both sides are passionate and that results in lively dialog and sadly at times some acerbic wording. FWIW I have not sensed any from you.

Link to comment
I can't speak for the Mesoamericanists but I do want to clarify, on behalf of the Ahistorical Advocates, your phrase that we "don't believe in the Book of Mormon". It's an inaccurate statement. We don't believe the BoM to be literal history. That's something else than not believing in the BoM at all. At least to me it is. Thank you.

The truth claims of the LDS Church rises and falls on BoM historicity. It does not have to be 100% accurate or literal, but I think if you drop much below 80-90%, the LDS Church is just another church.

Link to comment

Hi Ed, I apologize if I have ever came across condescending. I try to respond carefully to the questions asked. I have felt the opposite mainly that it is the Mesoamericanist who are the target for condescension from heartlanders (usually from those who subscribe to Meldrums PofV). From my experience it seems to me that most who subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting will typically use more archeologically backed sources while many who subscribe to a Great Lakes theory use more of the statements of our church leaders. For example, it has been those who side with the Mesoamerican view who have been labeled apostates or weak in their faith and not the great lake followers. IMO neither side is weak in our faith or are we apostate. I think both sides are passionate and that results in lively dialog and sadly at times some acerbic wording. FWIW I have not sensed any from you.

I think we can both agree that the Heartlanders have no archaeological basis for their claims. My problem with the Mesoamericanist interpretation of the archaeology of the Great Lakes Region is that they are so against the idea that it is sufficient for the archaeology of the Land Northward, when it most certainly is. And they call that position irrational.

Well, I wasn't specifically referring to you in particular, but more a general theme I have witnessed because I'm a NY Cumorah Theorist with a Mesoamerican Land Southward. I think with my research, I have established my seriousness in supporting my point of view with real evidences from the text and archaeology, based on the strength of Mesoamerica, and as the Hopewell being their northern domain. I think my rational framework that I have established for a NY Cumorah will eventually become another reasonable alternative. I just wish that you guys would stop calling that proposition irrational, and lumping it in with the heartlanders nonsense. Just because it doesn't go along with your favorite setting doesn't make it any more irrational than your own beliefs. Both this position as well as yours are based on the Book of Mormon text and takes for granted that the Book of Mormon is true and historical. Both this position as well as yours do not take the words of prophets as evidence. Both this position as well as yours are not based on people's testimony, but on a particular interpretation of the Book of Mormon text and archaeology.

Ed Goble

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...