Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Limited Geography Theories


jskains

Recommended Posts

An accusation that is demonstrably false, and merely showcases the ignorance of those making it.

The quote you posted -- good quote, BTW -- actually tells me something different. It tells me that the Church does not have a position on questions of geography, because nothing has been revealed on that subject. As such, it would be improper for the First Presidency to produce any map or other authoritative geographical schema for people to follow.

I do not see him closing the door on further inquiry, though. And I suspect that any attempt to use his statement to that effect might resemble the standard anti-Mormon tactic of trying to pretend that LDS scholars are "contradicting the leaders." Regards, Pahoran/quote]

:acute:

Your mopologistically smug comment is demonstrably false and merely showcases your ignorance in making it. See how that works, Pahoran. President Cannon would not close door on further inquiry as long as it would relate to supporting the BoM. You are engaged in the typical mopologist attack by suggesting that LDS scholars to not contradict LDS leaders. Go talk to Mike Quinn. Go talk to Lavina Fielding Anderson. You remind me of certain far right politicos in Utah who jump the LDS church all the time when it comes down on the wrong side of their favorite hobby horse of the moment (the Utah Compact comes to mind, as well when then state rep Bishop basically told President Hinckley to mind his business. Also pay a visit the Neal A. Maxwell Institute online and do some reading. You will find it very helpful.

Link to comment

As a proponent of the historical Hemispheric model, I believe the Nephites would not have remained isolated for a thousand years to limit themselves to such a small radius, cramped within 3-400 miles.

Please tell us who espouses such a theory. The BOM tells us that the Nephites also lived in the land northward, and we do not know anything about the lands southward of the Lamanites.

The LGT does not say that the Nephites were "limited to such a small radius". This is a phoney argument.

Link to comment
An accusation that is demonstrably false, and merely showcases the ignorance of those making it.

The quote you posted -- good quote, BTW -- actually tells me something different. It tells me that the Church does not have a position on questions of geography, because nothing has been revealed on that subject. As such, it would be improper for the First Presidency to produce any map or other authoritative geographical schema for people to follow.

I do not see him closing the door on further inquiry, though. And I suspect that any attempt to use his statement to that effect might resemble the standard anti-Mormon tactic of trying to pretend that LDS scholars are "contradicting the leaders." Regards, Pahoran

Your mopologistically smug comment is demonstrably false and merely showcases your ignorance in making it. See how that works, Pahoran.

Then feel free to demonstrate what is false about it.

I stand by my long-held position: the accusation that the LGT is some kind of retreat in the face of "scientific progress" or something is a malicious old anti-Mormon canard, repeated exclusively by malicious old anti-Mormons. The very same malicious anti-Mormons who think that merely labelling something "mopologetic" is sufficient to magically render it irrelevant.

The clear fact is that the LGT arose from the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon.

President Cannon would not close door on further inquiry as long as it would relate to supporting the BoM.

My point exactly. Thank you for admitting it so readily.

You are engaged in the typical mopologist attack by suggesting that LDS scholars to not contradict LDS leaders. Go talk to Mike Quinn. Go talk to Lavina Fielding Anderson.

What do the opinions of a couple of apostates have to do with LDS scholars?

You remind me of certain far right politicos in Utah who jump the LDS church all the time when it comes down on the wrong side of their favorite hobby horse of the moment (the Utah Compact comes to mind, as well when then state rep Bishop basically told President Hinckley to mind his business.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Please note:

  1. I don't live in or near Utah.
  2. This is not a discussion about politics.
  3. I am not in fact contradicting any Church leaders, including President Cannon.

Also pay a visit the Neal A. Maxwell Institute online and do some reading. You will find it very helpful.

Thank you, I have.

I find that it agrees with me.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Maxwell Institute online and do some reading. You will find it very helpful.

I find this very un-useful Melvin. A lot of us are well read (some more than others, I readily admit) on the issues. What is most annoying is that you come here a pretend that we are all a bunch of rubes who have no idea about anything. And that you alone hold all of the knowledge on any given subject. I wish that you would add more substance to your posts instead of waving your hand and telling us how uneducated we are. You seem like a really knowledgeable guy. Why don't you help us out? Why not post more source material? When you do that, people might actually give a damn about your opinion.

Link to comment

I've got a problem with some of these approaches.

First... Is it safe to say that President Hinckley built the smaller temples "after the manner of" the others? Besides maybe Provo and Ogden, are there any temples that are pretty much the same design anyway?

Nephi says specifically that it wasn't built with the same kind of ornate materials, as they were "not had upon the land". Nephi never states that his temple was a duplicate of Solomon's.

Second... the text doesn't say it should take months of walking to get from Zarahemla to the land of Nephi. The Land Northward being an "exceedingly great distance", yes, but that's a different animal.

Thirdly, there is ample evidence of ancient mass warfare in Western New York. It has been stated by non-LDS scholars that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York has. See some of the following works:

Memoir on the Antiquities of the Western Parts of the State of New York by Governor De Witt Clinton in 1820

History of the State of New York by John V. N. Yates and Joseph W. Moulton in 1824

The Natural, Statistical and Civil History of the State of New York in Three Volumes by James Macauley in 1829

American Antiquities by Josiah Priest in 1833

A Geographical History of the State of New York: Embracing its History, Government, Physical Features, Climate, Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, Zoology, Education, Internal Improvements, &c. With a Separate Map of Each County. The Whole Forming a Complete History of the State. by J. H. Mather and L. P. Brockett, M. D. in 1848

Documentary History of New York by Christopher Morgan in 1849

Aboriginal monuments of the state of New-York : comprising the results of original surveys and explorations; with an illustrative appendix by E. G. Squier in 1849

Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York by O. Turner in 1850

League of the Iroquois by Lewis Henry Morgan in 1851

Antiquities of the state of New York : being the results of extensive original surveys and explorations, with a supplement on the antiquities of the west by E. G. Squier in 1851, previously published as Aboriginal monuments of the state of New-York : comprising the results of original surveys and explorations; with an illustrative appendix in 1849.

Ancient Man in America Including Works in Western New York and Portions of Other States, by Frederick Larkin, M.D. in 1880

Aboriginal Occupation of New York by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1900

Metallic Implements of the New York Indians by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1902

Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1903

Archeological History of New York vol. 1-2 by Arthur Caswell Parker in 1920

History of New York State, 1523-1927, vol. 1-6 by Dr. James Sullivan in 1927

Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York by William A. Ritchie in 1944

The Archaeology of New York State by William A. Ritchie in 1965

Ephraim George Squier and the Development of American Anthropology by Terry A. Barnhart in 2005

As a proponent of the historical Hemispheric model, I believe the Nephites would not have remained isolated for a thousand years to limit themselves to such a small radius, cramped within 3-400 miles.

Cheers

Also, as we have discussed before, there was significant warfare around the Great Lakes area, but it almost entirely took place after the end of The Book of Mormon and therefore has nothing to do with The Book of Mormon. There is very little evidence for warfare during BOM times. You can argue that the Great Lakes area was part of the land northward and we are uncertain on exactly how much warfare took place, but by using blanket statements which say that there was a lot of warring in that area seems to signify that it is the main stage of the BOM. This, however, does not match up to the text of The Book of Mormon and is misleading.

Link to comment

Hey again Brant. I've been busy with work issues, but I thought I'd chime in. This isn't about faith in the core things of the gospel, including the historicity question of the book of Mormon.

Those that believe in historicity, are not going to settle for a setting in, say Malaysia.

But it is an issue of differences of faith and paradigmatic differences in what should receive the most weight.

For Mesoamericanists, I would say that they are among the most serious to getting to the bottom of the question of geography

I'd say that it is very likely that if it isn't for stone cities dating to the right time period, with a neck of land in the area, they wouldn't bet one cent on that setting.

Therefore, historic words of the prophets are on the chopping block, which they ought to be in the sense that they all conflict anyway and can't be trusted for revelatory status in the realm of geography.

In fact, I think in Geography, it is the only issue where church scholars are the most willing to dismiss words of the prophets on an issue. A necessary sacrifice in this case, or we will be forever held hostage to speculation.

Therefore, the issues that are most important to a mesoamericanist are (1) archaeology and (2) a particular reading of the Book of Mormon text that seems well supported.

I think that the reasoning for this stance is pretty well-based, though I differ on the issue of Cumorah, but not because the prophets said so, but because the text said it wasn't within the limited area near the neck of land. No, I don't want this to turn into another Cumorah thread where we can beat that dead horse again.

To the other extreme, Heartlanders and Hemispherical Geography theorists cling to the words of the prophets despite the fact that archaeology tells a different story.

Something has to give. That much is for sure.

Ed

I certainly don't see it that way. Is there a way we can disagree without your assumption that my faith is qualitatively deficient with respect to yours?

Link to comment

Please tell us who espouses such a theory. The BOM tells us that the Nephites also lived in the land northward, and we do not know anything about the lands southward of the Lamanites.

The LGT does not say that the Nephites were "limited to such a small radius". This is a phoney argument.

The argument is not LGT meaning "limited". The quibbling is what "limited" means? Depending on what the meaning of "is" is? The argument is not phony at all.

Link to comment

Then feel free to demonstrate what is false about it.

I stand by my long-held position: the accusation that the LGT is some kind of retreat in the face of "scientific progress" or something is a malicious old anti-Mormon canard, repeated exclusively by malicious old anti-Mormons. The very same malicious anti-Mormons who think that merely labelling something "mopologetic" is sufficient to magically render it irrelevant.

The clear fact is that the LGT arose from the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon.

My point exactly. Thank you for admitting it so readily.

What do the opinions of a couple of apostates have to do with LDS scholars?

Which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Please note:

  1. I don't live in or near Utah.
  2. This is not a discussion about politics.
  3. I am not in fact contradicting any Church leaders, including President Cannon.

Thank you, I have.

I find that it agrees with me.

Regards,

Pahoran

You have contradicted yourself four different times. You disagree, Pahoran. I get that. You are also wrong.

Link to comment

I speak with her often. What are you expecting her to tell me? I know that one of her requests of you would be to not drag her name into a discussion this way.

I am glad you do. And you do not speak for Lavina. As a public and historical individuals that are examples of this type of situation that someone is existing does not happen, she and Mike Quinn and others are perfectly acceptable for this discussion. I see that we talk about all sorts of people here. And if we are willing to talk publicly about others, Brant, then drop the red herring and stay on track, please.

Link to comment

I am glad you do. And you do not speak for Lavina.

And you do? I am not speaking for her, but I can speak for conversations I have had with her. That means I am speaking for myself. Acceptable?

then drop the red herring and stay on track, please.

Staying on track then, are you assuming that she would not agree that current apostles demonstrate a different opinion about geography than those of 121 years ago, and that they supportive of research on the LGT?

Link to comment

Something is in the air tonight.

I come on this thread and see people think outside of the LGT model and they are basically "hunted" down like the Nephites. (I know big exaggeration). I spoke earlier on another thread that I supported evolution (micro-macro), but didn't believe we came directly from apes, it almost felt like I was attacking someone's sacred religion.

This is definitely no fun when fellow faithful members turn on each other. We already have to deal with antis and the likes. I know I am not the best example, but we can do better, I hope. good.gif

Link to comment

Something is in the air tonight.

I come on this thread and see people think outside of the LGT model and they are basically "hunted" down like the Nephites. (I know big exaggeration). I spoke earlier on another thread that I supported evolution (micro-macro), but didn't believe we came directly from apes, it almost felt like I was attacking someone's sacred religion.

And you weren't 'hunting someone down' by describing evolution of man as "the religion of the faithless"?
Link to comment

Not what I said and not what I feel. You must have taken you nap. acute.gif

Read what I said in context - not the classy "snippets" made by Walker deal?

Knowing calmoriah, I think this has already taken place. What was "classy" was labeling it the "religion of the faithless" and comparing yourself to hunted Nephites.

Dropping the ever-so-faithful, victimized Nephite act might help.

Link to comment

Not what I said and not what I feel. You must have taken you nap. acute.gif

Read what I said in context - not the classy "snippets" made by Walker deal?

Since I stopped reading that thread immediately upon reading your comment that I quote below, I read none of the "snippets" that Walker did. I stopped reading that thread because I had read the comment of yours about 'something in the air' just prior to that one and thought it was somewhat problematic.

This is what you stated:

"apes to humans which is the religion of the faithless"

I rewrote that as "evolution of man is the religion of the faithless", since the last is a direct quote, are you stating that your phrasing "apes to human" is not intended as a description of the "evolution of man" position?

Link to comment

Not what I said and not what I feel. You must have taken you nap. acute.gif

Read what I said in context - not the classy "snippets" made by Walker deal?

Since I stopped reading that thread immediately upon reading your comment that I quote below, I read none of the "snippets" that Walker did until after posting here at which time I went back and finished reading that one. I stopped reading that thread because I had read the comment of yours about 'something in the air' just prior to that one and thought it was somewhat problematic.

This is what you stated:

"apes to humans which is the religion of the faithless"

I rewrote that as "evolution of man is the religion of the faithless", since the last is a direct quote, are you stating that your phrasing "apes to human" is not intended as a description of the "evolution of man" position?

Link to comment
You have contradicted yourself four different times. You disagree, Pahoran. I get that. You are also wrong.

Call For References that I have contradicted myself, either four or any other number of times, in this thread.

Here's a suggestion: if you're going to participate in a discussion -- and especially if you're going to pose as an authority on the subject at hand -- then it's usually a good idea to actually follow what is being discussed.

You're welcome,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Knowing calmoriah, I think this has already taken place. What was "classy" was labeling it the "religion of the faithless" and comparing yourself to hunted Nephites.

Dropping the ever-so-faithful, victimized Nephite act might help.

You just can't stop can you? Of course not.

I would expect anti-Mormons (oh no I said it - please forgive me) to not give me the benefit of the doubt in what I really said and meant or to put words in my mouth, but not fellow LDS members.

I even explained that it is not what I meant or feel - yet you come to a completely different subject thread to point it out again. And then to top it off, you are now making the desperate claim that I am comparing myself to the Nephites. rofl.gif

Scroll up and carefully read what I really said - it was obviously referenced for Sevenbak (he at least understood the joke) that posted earlier on this thread (if you took the time to actually read the entire thread for context). No worries, I will be embarrassed for you.

I obviously touched a sensitive button in you with evolution, so sorry. And I hate to break the devastating news, but this is just the interwebs so you seriously need to get over yourself, you aren't that important.

Link to comment

Since I stopped reading that thread immediately upon reading your comment that I quote below, I read none of the "snippets" that Walker did until after posting here at which time I went back and finished reading that one. I stopped reading that thread because I had read the comment of yours about 'something in the air' just prior to that one and thought it was somewhat problematic.

This is what you stated:

"apes to humans which is the religion of the faithless"

I rewrote that as "evolution of man is the religion of the faithless", since the last is a direct quote, are you stating that your phrasing "apes to human" is not intended as a description of the "evolution of man" position?

*sigh*

Calmoriah, I really like you, I do.

One of my first posts as a newbie you called me out for breaking the rules. But no one on this thread is interested in what I did or didn't say in a different thread - besides that wouldn't be conducive to the rules. It would have been more appropriate to respond in that thread - not just suddenly on another thread. In the least ask me what I said, mean and feel.

If you don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt or read in context what I said, I can't help you, sorry. I know what I said and I know what I feel despite the all of a sudden "concern" that what I say is actually important. After-all it is only the internet.

Link to comment
Something is in the air tonight.

I come on this thread and see people think outside of the LGT model and they are basically "hunted" down like the Nephites. (I know big exaggeration). I spoke earlier on another thread that I supported evolution (micro-macro), but didn't believe we came directly from apes, it almost felt like I was attacking someone's sacred religion.

This is definitely no fun when fellow faithful members turn on each other. We already have to deal with antis and the likes. I know I am not the best example, but we can do better, I hope.

I hope so, too. There's no reason that I can see why this shouldn't be a perfectly amicable discussion amongst fellow Book of Mormon believers. However, I see two factors that militate against that:

  1. Some traditionalists, instead of actually addressing the textual evidence, prefer to introduce irrelevant observations to the effect that LGT advocates are "weak in the faith" or otherwise heterodox; and
  2. Anti-Mormon agents provocateurs who have neither part nor lot in this matter nevertheless love to stir the pot.

Sad, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I come on this thread and see people think outside of the LGT model and they are basically "hunted" down like the Nephites. (I know big exaggeration). I spoke earlier on another thread that I supported evolution (micro-macro), but didn't believe we came directly from apes, it almost felt like I was attacking someone's sacred religion.

This is definitely no fun when fellow faithful members turn on each other. We already have to deal with antis and the likes. I know I am not the best example, but we can do better, I hope. good.gif

it was obviously referenced for Sevenbak
I realize I was a little hard on Sevenbak. The best professors never let their students take a easy way out. I pointed out after researching sources that the sources he used to back up his statements were in fact not the best to support his claim, add the additional faux pas of stating a source but leaving out the page numbers. The reason for sources is to validate a comment and give credit to the author. Why use it if we cant check it out?

Those who are used to my posts realize I do not take their words blindly and for me the learning is in the reading the sources and checking them out. I have not the time to read all the books (though I often do) to find a sentence or two to see his validation. I remember a dialog with Brant Gardner over macaws and elephants over a certain stela in the Yucatan, I took the elephant side he the macaw, after my study I realize he was very much correct. This is why I come to MDDB, because there is some very brilliant people who post here and I enjoy reading and learning. Yes, I actually will read FAIR, FARM papers and other sites when they are referenced (just for the learning).

I will call them how I see them. I have been right a few times and have been wrong too but I am learning all the while. Oh and BTW it is not the LGT that treats other theories like they are victims but reversed. The Hemispheric model has been around practically since 1830s and when a serious study backed by archeology comes along and rocks the boat of a long time held traditional model, critics will naturally be there too.

Anijen

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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