Tunnel Vision

[ERayR]

On another thread Robert F. Smith made this statement in regards to Book of Mormon geography. "Very few scholars are able to synthesize all the data". I firmly believe this. We are in a time when we are able to access seemingly unlimited information an almost any given topic, Indeed we are in a time described in 2Timothy 3:7. "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". It is my observation that most scholars and students, in general, confine themselves to a narrow set of data and seldom consider how data from areas outside of their area of interest impacts their area of interest. This, in my opinion, impacts the sciences but is particularly noticeable in the area of Book of Mormon geography and in origins of life discussions.

With this in mind: Do we place to much trust in the specialists interpretation of data?

[Deborah]

I think it's fun to come up with theories and then try to prove them as long as we don't take our pet ideas so seriously that they override the message of the gospel. Of course critics seem to think that once they get an idea in their head there can be no other explanation and they close their minds to other ideas and stubbornly hold on to what we have often seen is outright false information. In trying to defend against this I think LDS also might fall into the same trap.

[ERayR]

I think it's fun to come up with theories and then try to prove them as long as we don't take our pet ideas so seriously that they override the message of the gospel. Of course critics seem to think that once they get an idea in their head there can be no other explanation and they close their minds to other ideas and stubbornly hold on to what we have often seen is outright false information. In trying to defend against this I think LDS also might fall into the same trap.

Yes but what I would like to address is the information overload and how it affects our ability or willingness to look beyond our narrow specialties.

[Deborah]

But isn't that the point. Everyone is so fixated on their own ideas and therefore gather information that supports only those ideas, missing all the other things that could give a more complete picture. Those who espouse a BOM limited geography have found "evidence" to support that. While those who don't can't see the evidence the same way. It really is in interpretation and the point is not that we don't consider data outside our sphere of interest but we ignore it completely if it doesn't fit the paradigm we've set up. So in answer to the question, yes we put too much trust in the specialists' interpretation of data, which is why the key is to not let such data change what we already know about the gospel message.

I guess I'm really not sure what you are asking as it seems evident that even the most scientific approaches are laden with bias, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Furthermore in this age of instant communication we are bombarded with so much information, with one piece contradicting another, how do we even begin to sift through it all to find the truth, unless of course we have the Holy Ghost to help us discern that truth.

[Judd]

Yes but what I would like to address is the information overload and how it affects our ability or willingness to look beyond our narrow specialties.

In general, I come to these forums and read up on stuff that I'm somewhat mildly familiar with. Lots of people opine very strongly in multiple perspectives, sometimes rather convincingly that they have some familiarity with the issues. Then I occasionally stumble into discussions surrounding my particular area of knowledge and realize people, relative to those discussions, actually know little in comparison with the strength of their opinions. I figure BOM geography fits somewhere in there. While most people may be educated, it's kind of along the same lines as a pediatrician giving a lecture on congestive heart failure. BOM geography is a pretty broad.

[ERayR]

But isn't that the point. Everyone is so fixated on their own ideas and therefore gather information that supports only those ideas, missing all the other things that could give a more complete picture. Those who espouse a BOM limited geography have found "evidence" to support that. While those who don't can't see the evidence the same way. It really is in interpretation and the point is not that we don't consider data outside our sphere of interest but we ignore it completely if it doesn't fit the paradigm we've set up. So in answer to the question, yes we put too much trust in the specialists' interpretation of data, which is why the key is to not let such data change what we already know about the gospel message.

I guess I'm really not sure what you are asking as it seems evident that even the most scientific approaches are laden with bias, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Furthermore in this age of instant communication we are bombarded with so much information, with one piece contradicting another, how do we even begin to sift through it all to find the truth, unless of course we have the Holy Ghost to help us discern that truth.

On reread you are right on.

[ERayR]

. BOM geography is a pretty broad.

It really is but the critics try to narrow it down.

[Storm Rider]

This idea of taking pet projects, ideas, concepts, whatever has become our sacred cow du jour, if it does not edify us, if it does not bring us to a greater understanding of Jesus Christ and his atonement, exactly what is its value?

How often have we seen individuals lose their faith because of these pet ideas? How often have they left the gospel because of their commitment to their own pet idea? I see this quite often on this Board; i see it in my own thinking. The workings of the evil one are cunning and will bring down even the very elect of God; why do we not take this warning seriously? Who among us does not need to consciously pursue out of the best books words of wisdom that edify us? Who among us does not need to surrender our will to our Father in Heaven? When should we forfeit a pursuit of holiness in favor of satisfying only what our minds can understand?

[Grundelwalken]

This idea of taking pet projects, ideas, concepts, whatever has become our sacred cow du jour, if it does not edify us, if it does not bring us to a greater understanding of Jesus Christ and his atonement, exactly what is its value?

How often have we seen individuals lose their faith because of these pet ideas? How often have they left the gospel because of their commitment to their own pet idea? I see this quite often on this Board; i see it in my own thinking. The workings of the evil one are cunning and will bring down even the very elect of God; why do we not take this warning seriously? Who among us does not need to consciously pursue out of the best books words of wisdom that edify us? Who among us does not need to surrender our will to our Father in Heaven? When should we forfeit a pursuit of holiness in favor of satisfying only what our minds can understand?

Good thought. Maybe this is why some of us like to listen but not comment so much. I find that I enjoy many different views but seldom become fervent about most. The exception would be basic doctrines and principles of the gospel. MW

[Freedom]

After I read Sorensons theories on BoM geography I went through the book and created my own. I discovered that much of his arguments are guesses, although very intelligent ones. If you don't look at the original data, you will be ignorantly swept away by theory parading as fact. Not to say Sorenson does this, but it is the scholars duty to provide an educated analysis of the information at hand and the uninformed reader may falsely identify this analysis as being the original data. An example I often give is that of child sacrafices in Central America. The only evidence we have of it outside of the Mayan heartland is two cites with more than one child in each. The conclusion by the experts is that these may have been child sacrifices but two locations over a span of 5000 years hardly constitutes evidence. Some experts, however, give this evidence much more weight than is justified and the uninformed reader gets sucked right in.

[Deborah]

In discussions like these I'm always reminded of the delightful movie "Galaxy Quest."

[thesometimesaint]

You don't prove theories. You disprove them. As much as I love the BoM there will never be, in this life, sufficient evidence to prove it. So far there is insufficient evidence to disprove either.

Edited September 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[MormonMason]

In discussions like these I'm always reminded of the delightful movie "Galaxy Quest."

But, have you really watched the movie until you have watched it in Thermian 2.0?

I understand where you are coming from, however. I would tend to agree.

[Freedom]

You don't prove theories. You disprove them. As much as I love the BoM there will never be, in this life, sufficient evidence to prove it. So far there is insufficient evidence to disprove either.

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to prove a historical event or person. Of course, finding the records hid up by Ether, Mormon and others would force the critics to come up with a whole new line of questioning.