Limited Geography Theories

[Nofear]

Actually, the Mesoamerican theory is a paradigm based off of:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

(2) UNBELIEF that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

(3) But having to compensate for #2, by having Moroni travel to NY from Mesoamerica after the Nephite destruction, even though the ultimate burial place of the plates ties the BOM story to New York in the end anyway.

So actually, though it is a "believing" construct in the sense of belief in historicity, it is a reactionary theory that was formulated because of unbelief in something subjectively perceived as unlikely. It was just against the idea of a NY Cumorah to begin with, rather than being for something. It is more easily defendable apologetically. So when you say the NY hill is unnecessary, I counter that the only reason the Mesoamerican theory was invented was apologetic ease, and trying to do away with what Sorenson calls the "philosophical underbrush" that he perceives clutters up the issue. It is reductionism rather than due consideration of multiple options.

(A) You are conflating Mesomerican model with the Limited Geography Theory -- this is technically incorrect. Pragmatically correct today but not how things started, consequently...

(B) I'm willing to be that nobody who subscribes to the Mesoamerican theory would agree with that your historical and motivational characterization as accurate.

Nevertheless, it can be said that among the constraints for the limited geography paradigm are:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

(2) textual denial that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

[SkepticTheist]

It is true that I was technically conflating the LGT with the Mesoamerican theory. A mere technicality.

Your assertion of "textual denial" is once again a dogmatic assertion of the primacy of your favored readings to the detriment of the other equally as plausible reading of the text to which you disagree.

(A) You are conflating Mesomerican model with the Limited Geography Theory -- this is technically incorrect. Pragmatically correct today but not how things started, consequently...

(B) I'm willing to be that nobody who subscribes to the Mesoamerican theory would agree with that your historical and motivational characterization as accurate.

Nevertheless, it can be said that among the constraints for the limited geography paradigm are:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

(2) textual denial that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

[Anijen]

Actually, the Mesoamerican theory is a paradigm based off of:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

I agree

(2) UNBELIEF that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

With respect to you (I am not attacking), although I do not belive the Nephites as a whole group of people "traversed thousands of miles," it is not because of "unbelief" in another theory, it is not because of unbelief of any theory, it is because to me the text suggests a more limited area, it is also because there is no archaeological evidence of any type of a push/pull factor that influenced such a huge migration, and lastly the hill cumorah is a clean hill. If they were in Mesoamerica, which I do believe they were, I cannot see why an agreement to battle 2500+ miles away to battle at this hill;

(3) But having to compensate for #2, by having Moroni travel to NY from Mesoamerica after the Nephite destruction, even though the ultimate burial place of the plates ties the BOM story to New York in the end anyway.

My view is not based on me trying to compensate for #2 or for any other reason. I am a cynic by nature already. I ashamedly am sometimes a doubting Thomas. My belief of the Book of Mormon is based on validation from the Holy Ghost. My choice to believe in a LGT in mesoamerica is based on the text and the evidence. Again I emphasize for me it is not based on trying to undermine, compensation of any other geographical model.

So actually... reactionary theory that was formulated because of unbelief in something

Again I respectfully disagree, this was not for me.

So when you say the NY hill is unnecessary

I have never said that, in fact it is necessary for the location to be where Joseph was so he could retrieve the plates. However I posit that Moroni alone carried them there during his wanderings.

I counter that the only reason the Mesoamerican theory was invented was apologetic ease

I respect your opinion but I believe after very careful study of the text it come about and not as an invention to ease apologetics.

anti-NY-Cumorah theorists such as those Hedges and myself have made are usually dismissed and not taken seriously,

I can not speak for others but for myself this is not true. I take New York hill very seriously and dismiss nothing. I would not devote a lot of my time studying the mound builders nor would I be in the dog house from my wife for purchasing many books on the subject.

You also wrote of burial chambers while this is true in some mounds it was not typical nor common (the chamber itself). Most of the skeletons found in mounds were not inside any type of room at all but they were simply buried.

Again Ed love ya bro I am not attacking you nor Rcrocket, Sevenbak, or even Meldrum, I simply look for it in the text and in the ground.

Anijen

[ksfisher]

One point I believe needs an explanation in accepting Cumorah as being located in New York is why fight there. If the Nephites had indeed retreated thousands, or even hundreds of miles why fight there. If they were so outnumbered why not just keep retreating? Their needs to be a military or political reason for a battle in that location. They weren't taken by surprise, this was a planned battle. With the size of the armies that Mormon decribes does a hill the size of the Cumorah in New York offer any sort of advantage to a heavily outnumbered defender?

Any theory that attempts to locate Cumorah needs to explain why, from both a Lamanite and a Nephite point of view, that it made sense to fight in that location.

[SkepticTheist]

You miss the point. Not speaking of you at all. The LGT started with people in the beginning of the 20th century who disbelieved in the NY Cumorah. It was disbelief, period, because of their PRIVATE interpretations of the text, that contradicted traditional views of the text. The NY Cumorah steadily descended from official doctrine all the way to folklore tradition, based single handedly on LGT theorist pressure on GA's. Not because the nature of the thing changed. But now those who still favor it do not have GA sanction. That is all. Its not like the belief has gone away, just because another theory is popular among intellectual circles. And the belief in the NY cumorah as the place of the destruction will continue to exist among those who already believe in it who see no good reason to give up on it, when a reasonable set of criteria based on a reasonable reading of the text as well as a reasonable set of archaeological data exists that can reasonably be interpreted to uphold it. Notwithstanding you minimize my suggestions and my reasonable conclusions, even though my stuff is based on existence of stuff in the ground and in the text, you are my brother, and I love you as a brother as well my friend.

Oh, and another point, why that hill? because the war had brought them into that territory. It has nothing to do with some pre-determined thing that they all agreed to go all the way from Mesoamerica to NY just to fight there. They were already in the moundbuilder regions before that accord had been made. Its all a matter of chance that they had regrouped in moundbuilder forts and centers trying to hold off the Lamanites, until they saw that they could no longer hold out there.

I agree

With respect to you (I am not attacking), although I do not belive the Nephites as a whole group of people "traversed thousands of miles," it is not because of "unbelief" in another theory, it is not because of unbelief of any theory, it is because to me the text suggests a more limited area, it is also because there is no archaeological evidence of any type of a push/pull factor that influenced such a huge migration, and lastly the hill cumorah is a clean hill. If they were in Mesoamerica, which I do believe they were, I cannot see why an agreement to battle 2500+ miles away to battle at this hill;

My view is not based on me trying to compensate for #2 or for any other reason. I am a cynic by nature already. I ashamedly am sometimes a doubting Thomas. My belief of the Book of Mormon is based on validation from the Holy Ghost. My choice to believe in a LGT in mesoamerica is based on the text and the evidence. Again I emphasize for me it is not based on trying to undermine, compensation of any other geographical model.

Again I respectfully disagree, this was not for me.

I have never said that, in fact it is necessary for the location to be where Joseph was so he could retrieve the plates. However I posit that Moroni alone carried them there during his wanderings.

I respect your opinion but I believe after very careful study of the text it come about and not as an invention to ease apologetics.

I can not speak for others but for myself this is not true. I take New York hill very seriously and dismiss nothing. I would not devote a lot of my time studying the mound builders nor would I be in the dog hose from my wife for purchasing many books on the subject.

You also wrote of burial chambers while this is true in some mounds it was not typical nor common (the chamber itself). Most of the skeletons found in mounds were not inside any type of room at all but they were simply buried.

Again Ed love ya bro I am not attacking you nor Rcrocket, Sevenbak, or even Meldrum, I simply look for it in the text and in the ground.

Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

Because of the natural barrier of the lake so they weren't surrounded on every side, as well as the lake being a fresh water source before the battle had commenced. The hill had nothing to do with the battle. the hill just happened to be there, and served as a natural lookout point.

One point I believe needs an explanation in accepting Cumorah as being located in New York is why fight there. If the Nephites had indeed retreated thousands, or even hundreds of miles why fight there. If they were so outnumbered why not just keep retreating? Their needs to be a military or political reason for a battle in that location. They weren't taken by surprise, this was a planned battle. With the size of the armies that Mormon decribes does a hill the size of the Cumorah in New York offer any sort of advantage to a heavily outnumbered defender?

Any theory that attempts to locate Cumorah needs to explain why, from both a Lamanite and a Nephite point of view, that it made sense to fight in that location.

[ksfisher]

Because of the natural barrier of the lake so they weren't surrounded on every side, as well as the lake being a fresh water source before the battle had commenced. The hill had nothing to do with the battle. the hill just happened to be there, and served as a natural lookout point.

The lake would seem to be a good fifteen to twenty miles north of Cumorah. In light of Mormon's request to gather his people I don't believe that the Lamanite army that Mormon eventually fought had him trapped. If he was trapped against the lake with no room to escape would the Lamanites have allowed more Nephites to pass through their lines to add strength to Mormon's army. And why would Mormon have allowed his army to be trapped in such a manner with no option but to make a last stand.

That the lake was an important fresh water source would be understanable if it were the only source. But the northeastern United States has enough fresh water that an army would not be pinned down to any specific source. Food be a much more pressing problem for any army than water in that area. The lakes would be a natural source of fish for an army, especially is boats are used to bring in a larger catch. The forests would provide ample timber for construction of a fishing fleet. However, if you could build enough boats to feed your army on fish you also have your means of escape across the lake.

Hills, being natural lookout points, have everything to do with where battle are fought. Hills provide one of the means by which an ancient commander could exert command and control. He could only control what he could see. Mormon seems to have been an experienced enough commander that he would pick a battle ground where he felt he could control his army in the best possible manner.

The topography of the Cumorah in New York does not seem to offer any substantial advantages to a commander who was fighting a last stand type of battle against an army that was much more numerous than his own. If Mormon made any improvments to the countryside in the form of walls or forts we should be able to find some trace of them today.

[SkepticTheist]

-deleted-

Na, I'm done for the day. Have a great day.

The lake would seem to be a good fifteen to twenty miles north of Cumorah. In light of Mormon's request to gather his people I don't believe that the Lamanite army that Mormon eventually fought had him trapped. If he was trapped against the lake with no room to escape would the Lamanites have allowed more Nephites to pass through their lines to add strength to Mormon's army. And why would Mormon have allowed his army to be trapped in such a manner with no option but to make a last stand.

That the lake was an important fresh water source would be understanable if it were the only source. But the northeastern United States has enough fresh water that an army would not be pinned down to any specific source. Food be a much more pressing problem for any army than water in that area. The lakes would be a natural source of fish for an army, especially is boats are used to bring in a larger catch. The forests would provide ample timber for construction of a fishing fleet. However, if you could build enough boats to feed your army on fish you also have your means of escape across the lake.

Hills, being natural lookout points, have everything to do with where battle are fought. Hills provide one of the means by which an ancient commander could exert command and control. He could only control what he could see. Mormon seems to have been an experienced enough commander that he would pick a battle ground where he felt he could control his army in the best possible manner.

The topography of the Cumorah in New York does not seem to offer any substantial advantages to a commander who was fighting a last stand type of battle against an army that was much more numerous than his own. If Mormon made any improvments to the countryside in the form of walls or forts we should be able to find some trace of them today.

[ksfisher]

My apologies if you feel as though I'm after blood. I'm not. I'm just making trying to make the point that Mormon's last stand needs to make sense. If you're going to put all your money in the pot you'd better believe that you have the better hand. Otherwise you just fold and wait for the next deal.

During the Civil War the Confederates conducted a series of retreats before the Union Army until they got to Atlanta. Up until that point they had nothing to fight for and everything to loose if they were defeated. When the got to Atlanta they had something to fight for. What did Mormon have to fight for when he got to Cumorah?

I hope I'm not making up my own criteria. I'm just trying to think through the military situation. I admit I have my own biases, but none of us can escape from them.

Any theory which attempts to locate Cumorah needs to explain why Mormon had to fight a battle in that location with an inferior army.

[SkepticTheist]

-deleted-

It ends here. I'll just say stuff I'll regret. forget it.

My apologies if you feel as though I'm after blood. I'm not. I'm just making trying to make the point that Mormon's last stand needs to make sense. If you're going to put all your money in the pot you'd better believe that you have the better hand. Otherwise you just fold and wait for the next deal.

During the Civil War the Confederates conducted a series of retreats before the Union Army until they got to Atlanta. Up until that point they had nothing to fight for and everything to loose if they were defeated. When the got to Atlanta they had something to fight for. What did Mormon have to fight for when he got to Cumorah?

I hope I'm not making up my own criteria. I'm just trying to think through the military situation. I admit I have my own biases, but none of us can escape from them.

Any theory which attempts to locate Cumorah needs to explain why Mormon had to fight a battle in that location with an inferior army.

[ksfisher]

You know what. I've had 15 years and two books on this subject contending with your brethren that think like you and go for the jugular using your same tactics. It never ends, and I'm one guy against you all. There is no point. You have no idea what I've been through in order to come up with what I have already come up with, and THIS is a testament to what I've been through battling your kind:

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0970398514

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1456506455

So if you think you've won because you've gone for the jugular when I'm all tuckered out for the day, I would think that you might actually respond to every point in my book Resurrecting Cumorah before you start getting all overconfident like the rest of your kind.

Ed Goble

No, I don't think I've won anything. I'm not trying to set up a win-loose situation or annoy you or go for the jugular while you're down. And I admire anyone who takes the time to research and publish what they believe. For only $11 I'll take you up on your offer and read your book.

You'll notice that I have not mentioned Mesoamerica. Anyone advancing a Mesoamerican location for the Hill Cumorah would also need to explain why Mormon fought there. I have great admiration for Mormon and believe that all his decisions would have been made in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

[cdowis]

During the Civil War the Confederates conducted a series of retreats before the Union Army until they got to Atlanta. Up until that point they had nothing to fight for and everything to loose if they were defeated. When the got to Atlanta they had something to fight for. What did Mormon have to fight for when he got to Cumorah?

Clearly you have the wrong war.

In this case, the Nephites and Lamanites made an agreement that there would be a final battle. Mormon was allowed to choose the battle site, and the hill cumorah presented the most advantageous site for that final battle -- size, elevation, and location -- near water, and fertile so that they could grow crops.

This selection was not a last minute selection, out of desperation, but after much thought and time for preparation for that final battle.

You need to look at the wars in Great Britain, where they selected the site for battle. They selected the sites, not out of passion, but because it gave them a tactical advantage. I could give you several examples, but you can do the research yourself.

[Nofear]

Your assertion of "textual denial" is once again a dogmatic assertion of the primacy of your favored readings to the detriment of the other equally as plausible reading of the text to which you disagree.

As I understand your position, you already admit that most of the Book of Mormon occurred in a limited geography. Assuming I correctly understand your position (haven't been following you closely at all) than on that we are agreed -- the text does deny travel of thousands of miles between certain points. The question is whether or not the Nephites would travel thousands of miles, harried by the Lamanites, and then have their final battle at a New York drumlin. Even Andrew H. Hedges in his article (which you linked) Cumorah and the Limited Mesoamerican Theory only really attempts that argue that Raham/Cumorah could be farther away from the centers of civilization than a Limited Geography theory suggests but offers precious little that it must be. To which I might reply:

While the text might technically allow the Nephite's to move that far northward during a desperate flight for survival, it also is an entirely unnecessary reading textually, spiritually, and archeologically. The only reason I can think of for one to adopt such an unnecessary model is to unnecessarily vindicate the opinions of some early Brethren. To reiterate, it's all unnecessary. On the other hand, a basic limited geography model arose necessarily out of a careful reading of the text. Currently, the mesoamerican geography is the best-fit match of that necessary model. A better fit may yet arise, but so far none have come forth

Can you persuasively argue that the New York drumlin is a better fit? You haven't yet -- not after 15 years. From my perspective the dogmatism appears to all be on your end.

[Questing Beast]

One point I believe needs an explanation in accepting Cumorah as being located in New York is why fight there. If the Nephites had indeed retreated thousands, or even hundreds of miles why fight there. If they were so outnumbered why not just keep retreating? Their needs to be a military or political reason for a battle in that location. They weren't taken by surprise, this was a planned battle. With the size of the armies that Mormon decribes does a hill the size of the Cumorah in New York offer any sort of advantage to a heavily outnumbered defender?

Any theory that attempts to locate Cumorah needs to explain why, from both a Lamanite and a Nephite point of view, that it made sense to fight in that location.

The text does not say the battle took place ON a hill, only "by a hill which was called Cumorah"; and, "we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah". Mormon chose the place to make a final stand because it was well watered, i.e. an ideal spot to encamp with hundreds of thousands of refugees. There is no logic in assuming that this traveling horde could just "keep retreating". Apparently this was the goal of their journey/retreat in the first place: a strategic spot to make a final defense, one where they could hold out indefinitely, if not actually defeated in battle. The final gathering took place over a period of months or even years....

[Questing Beast]

Cumorah is Ramah. Therefore no matter how you twist and turn, BOTH final battles took place on the very same location. And that is upper NY. Any limited geography theory must take place around the NE United States. The textual demand for limited travel distances totally rules out any interfacing with Mesoamerica....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

. And that is upper NY.

I am sorry, that has not been established.

[SkepticTheist]

Really? You think the dogmatism is all on my end?

Well, this conversation has ended. Think whatever you want. You know nothing about me or my goals or what I have tried to do, so it might as well stay that way.

I owe you nothing.

As I understand your position, you already admit that most of the Book of Mormon occurred in a limited geography. Assuming I correctly understand your position (haven't been following you closely at all) than on that we are agreed -- the text does deny travel of thousands of miles between certain points. The question is whether or not the Nephites would travel thousands of miles, harried by the Lamanites, and then have their final battle at a New York drumlin. Even Andrew H. Hedges in his article (which you linked) Cumorah and the Limited Mesoamerican Theory only really attempts that argue that Raham/Cumorah could be farther away from the centers of civilization than a Limited Geography theory suggests but offers precious little that it must be. To which I might reply:

Can you persuasively argue that the New York drumlin is a better fit? You haven't yet -- not after 15 years. From my perspective the dogmatism appears to all be on your end.

[Anijen]

Cumorah is Ramah.

I agree. this is textual.

Cumorah is Ramah. Therefore ... BOTH final battles took place on the very same location.

I agree to near that hill. this is also in the text.

And that is upper NY. Any limited geography theory must take place around the NE United States.

Here is where you take a giant leap. This is not in the Book of Mormon. This is opinion and not even traditional opinion because the early church leaders held a hemispheric view. And there is no reason from the the text of the Book of Mormon that it "must take place around the NE United States."

The textual demand for limited travel distances totally rules out any interfacing with Mesoamerica....

Hmmm... But according to you (your previous paragraph these same limited travel distances do not rule out NE United States?

[Nofear]

Really? You think the dogmatism is all on my end?

Yeppers, I do. Exhibit A:

The strength of a certain model is on the best evidence it can muster in favor of its plausibility, based on the evidence that does exist.

A case for a certain model is not determined by the lack of evidence for this or that.

You continually parade the nothing has been found argument for the NY Cumorah and so forth.

In other words, you are mistreating a thing of faith that you would be defending rigorously if the tables were turned, when you defend your own thing of faith despite its lack of perfection in the archaeological dataset.

Since the NY Cumorah is not a thing of faith for you, you contemptuously dismiss it and point out its weaknesses, after the same manner that an anti holds the BOM in contempt for its lack of evidence.

Your own lack of this or that is not detrimental to your case for your own thing that is a thing of faith for you that you are trying to apologetically defend, and neither is the lack of good archaeology for the NY Cumorah region for a battle there.

You admit the paucity of your model's evidence and belittle criticisms of it because it is not treated as a "thing of faith" by the critics thereof and even go further and charge your critics, in so many words, with hypocrisy. Admittedly my English is lacking, but I'm pretty sure this kind of approach is like unto dogmatism.

As far as I know, I have always talked in terms of establishing something as a plausible candidate, not that the new york hill *must* be anything. It is people like you that have always tried to deny my candidate as even being the least bit plausible regardless of how far I go, or what arguments I make. I haven't the slightest idea where you come off thinking that I'm saying that the LGT isn't plausible or isn't another good candidate. So if my consistency in granting to the other party plausibility constitutes dogmatism to you, yet the other party has consistently denied plausibility to me, and that constitutes open-mindedness, you don't have a handle on the English language.

My response to you has been "Can you persuasively argue that the New York drumlin is a better fit?" I assert that you have not demonstrated such or even approached reasonable plausibility with your alternative model. Others here are kinder, gentler folk and might pause to give you the benefit of the doubt but based on your comments in this thread (and elsewhere) an ad hominem dismissal would be better time spent until such time as you no longer treat your Book of Mormon geography model as a "thing of faith".

[SkepticTheist]

As I said, I owe you nothing and this conversation is over. I don't view you as a person with whom I can have a productive conversation, and your tauntings are not anything that demands my time, let alone my respect. So have a nice life.

Yeppers, I do. Exhibit A:

You admit the paucity of your model's evidence and belittle criticisms of it because it is not treated as a "thing of faith" by the critics thereof and even go further and charge your critics, in so many words, with hypocrisy. Admittedly my English is lacking, but I'm pretty sure this kind of approach is like unto dogmatism.

My response to you has been "Can you persuasively argue that the New York drumlin is a better fit?" I assert that you have not demonstrated such or even approached reasonable plausibility with your alternative model. Others here are kinder, gentler folk and might pause to give you the benefit of the doubt but based on your comments in this thread (and elsewhere) an ad hominem dismissal would be better time spent until such time as you no longer treat your Book of Mormon geography model as a "thing of faith".

[Bob Crockett]

I am sorry, that has not been established.

Depends upon what you mean by "established."

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

"Can you persuasively argue that the New York drumlin is a better fit?" I assert that you have not demonstrated such or even approached reasonable plausibility with your alternative model. Others here are kinder, gentler folk and might pause to give you the benefit of the doubt but based on your comments in this thread (and elsewhere) an ad hominem dismissal would be better time spent until such time as you no longer treat your Book of Mormon geography model as a "thing of faith".

Using the word "drumlin" is like the Dems repeatedly using the word "gravitas" one weekend several years ago. It was important enough for the Lord to lead Joseph Smith there to recover the plates, as opposed to some other anthill; I imagine it would have been important enough for the things Pres. Ivins attributed to it.

Does the "shoe fit" for the MesoAmerican model? Only if you want to play games with speculation.

[SkepticTheist]

Here is the problem. Your demand for reasonable plausibility is on YOUR terms. There is no mutually agreed upon set of criteria or terms that makes something reasonably plausible. So long as you continue in your demagoguery in your assertions that I have not met your terms, we will continue to get nowhere.

But must religion be entirely rational? Is the physical world rational? Are earthquakes and traffic accidents rational? Is the spiritual world rational? In what sense? What does "rational" mean? Is "rational" just another word for what a given individual happens to think is normal? Is rationality a creation of the observer, a way in which people impose a variety of order on their world? Does rationality mean that God cannot act in a way that is not usual? Or does rationality just mean the ability to supply a reason?

If rationality simply means the ability to supply a reason, then anything can be "reasonable," and, in that sense, the Book of Mormon is rational. One can give many explanations for or against it, enough to satisfy a curious mind or to imagine why God would have done something a certain way. Thus, the real question is not whether a reason can be given, but whether an individual will choose to accept or reject a given reason. Ultimately, this issue probably boils down to choice: "choose ye this day," choose between that which testifies of Christ and that which does not (2 Nephi 2:26-27). (John W. Welch, Approaching new approaches.)

If your thing of faith is somehow REASONABLY PLAUSIBLE, but mine can never be, that is your problem, not mine. It is your choice to make to decide if my ability to deliver meets your subjective criteria. I guarantee you it never will. I didn't agree to your set of tests and critieria that you imposed on me for "reasonableness."

How is the Mesoamerican theory NOT a thing of faith? How is it not based on a measure of hypocrisy that it lacks scientific evidence for even the least bit of the claims it makes, yet it demands specific scientific evidence from its competitor for a very specific thing that it cannot deliver? And that is dogmatism from me? No. That is your subjective definition of reasonableness. So when I make a demand from you for chariots that your model cannot deliver, still yours is reasonable? My criteria for the plausibility of your model at that point has not been met. I guarantee you that the criteria demanded by Anti-Mormons for any BOM geography model for reasonable plausibility has not been met.

Its not that the New York Cumorah cannot muster the scientific evidence of the Hopewell/Adena. Its that your CHOICE that you have made is that it is not enough. That was on your terms, not on mutually agreed upon terms of "reasonableness."

Yeppers, I do. Exhibit A:

You admit the paucity of your model's evidence and belittle criticisms of it because it is not treated as a "thing of faith" by the critics thereof and even go further and charge your critics, in so many words, with hypocrisy. Admittedly my English is lacking, but I'm pretty sure this kind of approach is like unto dogmatism.

My response to you has been "Can you persuasively argue that the New York drumlin is a better fit?" I assert that you have not demonstrated such or even approached reasonable plausibility with your alternative model. Others here are kinder, gentler folk and might pause to give you the benefit of the doubt but based on your comments in this thread (and elsewhere) an ad hominem dismissal would be better time spent until such time as you no longer treat your Book of Mormon geography model as a "thing of faith".

[ksfisher]

Clearly you have the wrong war.

In this case, the Nephites and Lamanites made an agreement that there would be a final battle. Mormon was allowed to choose the battle site, and the hill cumorah presented the most advantageous site for that final battle -- size, elevation, and location -- near water, and fertile so that they could grow crops.

This selection was not a last minute selection, out of desperation, but after much thought and time for preparation for that final battle.

You need to look at the wars in Great Britain, where they selected the site for battle. They selected the sites, not out of passion, but because it gave them a tactical advantage. I could give you several examples, but you can do the research yourself.

I think you may have missed the point of my posts. I'm using an example from the Civil War to illustrate the point that an army can, instead of engaging in a battle it knows it cannot win, it can instead decline battle. That is, until the army finds itself in a situation or at a geographic point where it feels it must fight. Mormon felt that he must fight at Cumorah. Why? Why did he stake everything he had on fighting at that one location? If he felt the tactical advantage was great enough to give him a shot at winning he made a grave miscalculation, because, by his own admission, he got whipped.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Depends upon what you mean by "established."

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

We have been over this already. It does not "establish the following facts" What it does is establish that certain people beleived that it was in New York. Since the church currently holds to a "We don't know were it is" possition why should I put more stock in their words than the church? Oh yeah that is right, because I am faithless? Lol.

[Nofear]

As I said, I owe you nothing and this conversation is over. I don't view you as a person with whom I can have a productive conversation, and your tauntings are not anything that demands my time, let alone my respect. So have a nice life.

Here is the problem. Your demand for reasonable plausibility is on YOUR terms. There is no mutually agreed upon set of criteria or terms that makes something reasonably plausible. So long as you continue in your demagoguery in your assertions that I have not met your terms, we will continue to get nowhere.

But must religion be entirely rational? Is the physical world rational? Are earthquakes and traffic accidents rational? Is the spiritual world rational? In what sense? What does "rational" mean? Is "rational" just another word for what a given individual happens to think is normal? Is rationality a creation of the observer, a way in which people impose a variety of order on their world? Does rationality mean that God cannot act in a way that is not usual? Or does rationality just mean the ability to supply a reason?

If rationality simply means the ability to supply a reason, then anything can be "reasonable," and, in that sense, the Book of Mormon is rational. One can give many explanations for or against it, enough to satisfy a curious mind or to imagine why God would have done something a certain way. Thus, the real question is not whether a reason can be given, but whether an individual will choose to accept or reject a given reason. Ultimately, this issue probably boils down to choice: "choose ye this day," choose between that which testifies of Christ and that which does not (2 Nephi 2:26-27). (John W. Welch, Approaching new approaches.)

If your thing of faith is somehow REASONABLY PLAUSIBLE, but mine can never be, that is your problem, not mine. It is your choice to make to decide if my ability to deliver meets your subjective criteria. I guarantee you it never will. I didn't agree to your set of tests and critieria that you imposed on me for "reasonableness."

How is the Mesoamerican theory NOT a thing of faith? How is it not based on a measure of hypocrisy that it lacks scientific evidence for even the least bit of the claims it makes, yet it demands specific scientific evidence from its competitor for a very specific thing that it cannot deliver? And that is dogmatism from me? No. That is your subjective definition of reasonableness. So when I make a demand from you for chariots that your model cannot deliver, still yours is reasonable? My criteria for the plausibility of your model at that point has not been met. I guarantee you that the criteria demanded by Anti-Mormons for any BOM geography model for reasonable plausibility has not been met.

Its not that the New York Cumorah cannot muster the scientific evidence of the Hopewell/Adena. Its that your CHOICE that you have made is that it is not enough. That was on your terms, not on mutually agreed upon terms of "reasonableness."

"things of faith":

1. The Book of Mormon describes actual historical events and is mostly accurate in its descriptions of them

2. The events of the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in the western hemisphere

3. The final battle took place on a hill in New York

The only "things of faith" that limited geography subscribers accept are points 1 and 2. This is necessary because as of this time those points cannot be reasonably established*. But the limited geography model in-of-itself is not a "thing of faith". It is a model that arises naturally (even necessarily) out of the text. Once it was reasonably established that the text itself demands a limited geography for the majority of the text the question arises whether or not the final battle took place near New York drumlin or somewhere else. Sorenson recognized and argued that point 3. was an unnecessary "thing of faith". Once that was recognized he made a convincing case that the limited geography of the Nephite evens and the final battle took place in Mesoamerica. Again this last part is not a "thing of faith" but rather one that was rationally and reasonably argued.

To rationally and reasonably make your case you will have to do one of two things:

A. Established that the final battle taking place on a New York drumlin is necessarily or at least should be a "thing of faith"

B. Present a convincing case as to why the final battle should be in New York which does not rely on point 3 as a "thing of faith"

with a final result that your model is better or at least just as good (not merely plausible) as the limited geography model.

I have seen neither approach A. or B. effectively made but rather charges of hypocrisy, denial, faithlessness, arrogance, mean-spiritedness***, and group-think from those that simply do not accept point 3. as a "thing of faith" (in the same way anti-Mormons fail to accept points 1. and 2.). Yet, you've given no good reason for point 3. to be accepted as a "thing of faith"**. Clearly, after pages and pages of posts (in multiple threads) this has not worked out for you as I have yet to see one person change their perspective. So sure, you don't owe me anything but if your goal is to persuade others of a more correct way of thinking -- or at least give them the tools to consider your more correct way of thinking -- than I might suggest your approach hitherto has been less than effective. Even my ornery arrogance can't change that fact.

Recap for emphasis: The limited geography model is not a "thing of faith" but to accept the Book of Mormon itself as a text that describes actual historical events. Your charge to the contrary is baseless.

PS: Andrew H. Hedges in his article is very careful to not use point 3 as a "thing of faith" (though it clearly motivates him) and instead takes approach B. Consequently, his article was a mildly interesting read. Not persuasive, in my opinion, but interesting. Your dogmatism on the other hand has a bitter taste and is rather unpleasant.

* Incidentally, anti-Mormons will never accept any geographical model as reasonable. If one was willing to suspend his disbelief then I'm certain some would find the geographical models plausible.

** On the other hand, there are very good arguments why point 3 should not be a "thing of faith".

*** I might give some justification to the mean-spiritedness but I'm only a small, puny, insignificant player