Cumorah ... Has Time Changed Your Mind?

[cdowis]

It seems all you have to respond with is an insult, so I have no reason to take your position seriously.

 

Here is another insult.  You have a problem with "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.  "Everybody but you..." is a seriously flawed argument.

 

I can see why such "insults" are offensive to you, and that you can safely ignore me in the future.

[jkwilliams]

Here is another insult.  You have a problem with "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.  "Everybody but you..." is a seriously flawed argument.

 

I can see why such "insults" are offensive to you, and that you can safely ignore me in the future.

 

It's not an appeal to authority. You claim that the LGT doesn't exclude Nephites in Illinois, but you refuse to provide anything--even from you--that supports your position. Instead, you throw out an insult about my needing to be spoon-fed. "Everybody but you" is just me repeating my request: give me something, anything, that suggests that the LGT allows for Nephites in Illinois. You haven't responded, except with an insult, which is why I don't take your position seriously. If you had a substantive response, I don't know why you haven't given it.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm sorry but Mexico is in North America.

True, but the cites I have provided from Sorenson and Hamblin say that the LGT excludes as the "land northward" anything north of central Mexican states.  

 

 

The whole point of the LGT is to situate the action of the Book of Mormon in a limited geographical area. The LGT is a specific rejection of the hemispheric model and thus a denial that any of the action took place in North America. I've been around apologetics for a long time, but this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that the LGT doesn't preclude a hemispheric/North American setting.

 

We don't agree all that often, Bob, but you're spot on here. BTW, why on earth are you up so early, my friend?

Early morning seminary.

 

Got it.  You stand firmly behind your reasoning by logical fallacy and can "do no better".

 

Not sure I understand your "logical fallacy" business.   But I agree with you completely that the "land northward" in the BoM seems to include most of North America!  This thread is getting moribund.  Would you read some more CFR-responsive cites if I provided them?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

It's not an appeal to authority. You claim that the LGT doesn't exclude Nephites in Illinois, but you refuse to provide anything--even from you--that supports your position. 

 

 

The Zelph (correction) narrative is reconciled to the LGT by a straight forward use of the "land northward" in the BOM text. 

 

I am puzzled ==>> how can I "refuse" something if you never asked me.  Perhaps you would agree that a dialogue between us is no longer possible.

Edited February 27, 2014 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

Zeniff

 

How does the story of Zeniff suggest that Nephites or Lamanites lived in Illinois? Or did you mean Zelph?

[cdowis]

Correction -- Zelph.

[drums12]

Everyone I know who believes in the LGT--except you, apparently--waves off Zelph as some kind of offhand joke by Joseph Smith that is irrelevant to Book of Mormon geography. As I said, the LGT has always been an attempt to reduce the size of the Book of Mormon geographical footprint to one that accords with the descriptions in the text. It's "limited" because it specifically excludes a footprint larger than that relatively small area in the Yucatan and Guatemala. If the LGT allowed for a footprint the size of Central and North America, it would no longer be "limited" in any meaningful sense.

 

It seems all you have to respond with is an insult, so I have no reason to take your position seriously.

I'm really not an expert on either side of this argument.  However, the Zelph story really caused me to wonder "how could this be compatible with the Mesoamerican geography theory?"  The following presentation by Mark Wright really helped me reconcile the two. 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-heartland-as-hinterland-the-mesoamerican-core-and-north-american-periphery-of-book-of-mormon-geography

[jkwilliams]

I'm really not an expert on either side of this argument.  However, the Zelph story really caused me to wonder "how could this be compatible with the Mesoamerican geography theory?"  The following presentation by Mark Wright really helped me reconcile the two. 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-heartland-as-hinterland-the-mesoamerican-core-and-north-american-periphery-of-book-of-mormon-geography

 

It's my understanding that the LGT is based on what we know from the descriptions within the Book of Mormon. An offhand, nonspecific remark by Joseph Smith doesn't change what the text describes. But thank you for that article, as it's exactly what cdowis has been saying: that some people don't restrict the LGT to Mesoamerica. So, I stand corrected.

[Bob Crockett]

But, certainly Dr Sorenson restricts the land northward to central Mexico and so do the FARMS authors employed by BYU. Once there become undulating revisions and rebellions to the LGT, the theory becomes hemispheric. After all, the hemispheric model endorses Nephite presence in MesoAmerica.

[thesometimesaint]

I am talking about where the LGT puts Book of Mormon geography, and that is in the Yucatan and Guatemala. Is Mexico considered to be in North America? Sure, but cdowis is talking about all of North America, at least to the central plains of the US. I'm not sure how straining at a definition supports the idea that the LGT allows for Nephites and Lamanites in Illinois.

 

I'm not religiously tied to any model other than it happened somewhere in the Americas. But I do believe the best candidate is Mesoamerica.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not religiously tied to any model other than it happened somewhere in the Americas. But I do believe the best candidate is Mesoamerica.

And, I'm sorry to repeat myself.   

 

I don't give a hoot which is the better model or where the "shoe fits."  

 

I assert that the MesoAmerican (and Heartland, and Great Lakes and . . . ) studies to support the Book of Mormon are frivolous and contrary to official guidance.

[thesometimesaint]

And, I'm sorry to repeat myself.   

 

I don't give a hoot which is the better model or where the "shoe fits."  

 

I assert that the MesoAmerican (and Heartland, and Great Lakes and . . . ) studies to support the Book of Mormon are frivolous and contrary to official guidance.

 

Why?

 

I've seen nothing that discourages study and research into the reality of Book of Mormon peoples. What is discouraged is stating such and such a place is doctrine.

[Bob Crockett]

Why?

 

I've seen nothing that discourages study and research into the reality of Book of Mormon peoples. What is discouraged is stating such and such a place is doctrine.

You're asking me why I think it is frivolous?  It is about as frivolous as producing a History Channel segment on aliens.

[cdowis]

But, certainly Dr Sorenson restricts the land northward to central Mexico and so do the FARMS authors employed by BYU.

 

I guess you already know that I couldn't care less what they think/opine/speculate/assert on this subject.  Let them come to this forum and discuss their ideas, rather than the hothouse environment of the ivory tower.  I'm afraid that I am a neo-Nibley when it comes to "experts".

[Bob Crockett]

I guess you already know that I couldn't care less what they think/opine/speculate/assert on this subject.  Let them come to this forum and discuss their ideas, rather than the hothouse environment of the ivory tower.  I'm afraid that I am a neo-Nibley when it comes to "experts".

Well, recall that you CFR'd me to provide you an authority that said that the land northward did not include the U.S., which I did.  Seems I satisfied that CRF rather well.  That you don't accept what Dr. Sorenson says on the subject is a credit to you.  

 

You don't really subscribe to the LGT theory.   

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

Well, recall that you CFR'd me to provide you an authority that said that the land northward did not include the U.S., which I did.  Seems I satisfied that CRF rather well.  That you don't accept what Dr. Sorenson says on the subject is a credit to you.  

 

You don't really subscribe to the LGT theory.   

Did you read my response to your post?  You responded with a logical fallacy.  Sorenson said nothing about ****************precluding*********************** the United States from the land northward.

 

You seem to be very attached to logical fallacies in your arguments, when you say that I "don't subscribe to LGT".  I made it  very clear that I do not accept them as ultimate authorities on the subject. LGT is an open theory where anyone can add insights into the theory, and it is not set in concrete == even by "experts" at BYU.

 

Mr. Crockett, it is obvious that our discussion has run its course. I wish you all the best.

Edited February 27, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

Did you read my response to your post?  You responded with a logical fallacy.  Sorenson said nothing about ****************precluding*********************** the United States from the land northward.

I've provided you chapter and verse to Sorenson's Codex book and to Dr. Hamblin where they say that the land northward is limited to central Mexican states. There is no other way to read them. I'm rather surprised that you would argue otherwise; consider the possible fact that you do not subscribe to the LGT.

As I said previously:

. . . . Dr. Sorenson plainly defines the land northward as a heavily populated area in the Mexican states of Veracruz, Oaxaca and Guerrero and "limited adjacent areas." Codex, at 22.

As Dr. Hamblin points out in one of his publications, one of the crucial differences between the LGT and the Hemispheric model is that the former limits the "land northward" to parts of Mexico, and the latter includes North America in the model.

End of my quote.

As well, if you examine the maps contained in Dr. Sorenson's works, you'll see that he limits the land northward to Mexico. He excludes northern Mexico from the land northward.

 

LGT is an open theory where anyone can add insights into the theory, and it is not set in concrete == even by "experts" at BYU.

 

I don't think so.   "Open theory" and "limited geography" are inconsistent.  And as much as I dislike the LGT, I would certainly look to Dr. Sorenson and Dr. Hamblin to best explain it.  I used to be an acolyte.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

Bob, thanks for for your response.

 

And how do they deal with the issue of the Zelph narrative, and JS's statement in the Wentworth letter? 

Edited February 28, 2014 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

Bob, thanks for for your response.

 

And how do they deal with the issue of the Zelph narrative?

 

Since the Zelph narrative has no definite relationship to the text of the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure it's relevant.

[cdowis]

Since the Zelph narrative has no definite relationship to the text of the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure it's relevant.

 

The relationship is that It refers to the land northward, which is included in the text of the BOM.

[jkwilliams]

The relationship is that It refers to the land northward, which is included in the text of the BOM.

 

I don't recall the Zelph account mentioning anything about the land northward. Do you have a reference for that? It seems that people make that conclusion, but it's not an explicit connection at all.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, thanks for for your response.

 

And how do they deal with the issue of the Zelph narrative, and JS's statement in the Wentworth letter?

Now you're turning the discussion around 180 degrees and asking me to defend Dr. Sorenson's description of the LGT.

To me, the Zelph story is completely supportive of a hemispheric model as is the Wentworth letter, and inconsistent with the LGT. I don't really know how they deal with it but with lots of reading it is possible to find out.

[cdowis]

Now you're turning the discussion around 180 degrees and asking me to defend Dr. Sorenson's description of the LGT.

To me, the Zelph story is completely supportive of a hemispheric model as is the Wentworth letter, and inconsistent with the LGT. I don't really know how they deal with it but with lots of reading it is possible to find out.

 

No, I disagree with your interpretation of Sorenson, and I am asking you to defend your interpretation.  He does not *preclude* North America, and you, among other logical fallacies, are using the "argument from silence"..

 

You are speaking for him, and let's hear it from his own voice.  His son posts here in the "Mormon's Codex" thread so ask him.

Edited February 28, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Look, Bob, this is really getting tiresome.  Sorenson has written a major work -- over 800 pages and 1200 footnotes and references--  on the details of the geography of the BOM, he has covered alot of ground, and you grab onto his neglect on some minor footnotes in church history, which are easily incorporated into LGT (CLGT).  I feel that a reasonable person would accept this as sufficient to cover the subject.

 

We can just agree to disagree.  I have no interest in pursuing this discussion any further.

Edited February 28, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

Dr. Sorenseon absolutely precludes North America, at least north of the central Mexican states. All you need to do is read my reference to where he does that in Codex. I've also cited you to his published maps where he does that.

As you can see in Sorenson's published map (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon) as published by Brandt Gardner (see cross publication by BMAF at http://www.bmaf.org/conference/2008/stephen_carr), Sorenson limits the land northward to roughly, Oaxaca.

All I can do is quote from him. I don't defend him, nor speak for him nor agree with him. I think, like you do, that the "land northward" includes the area of the U.S.

"As Sorenson has demonstrated, there have been two major models for the macrogeography of the Book of Mormon. The Hemispheric Geography Model places the "narrow neck of land" at the isthmus of Panama, with the "land northward" being North America and the "land southward" being South America. The Limited Geography Model places the "narrow neck of land" at the isthmus of Teohuantepec, with the "land northward" being central Mexico and the "land southward" being generally Guatemala and southeastern Mexico." WIlliam J. Hamblin, MI, at JBMS (Spring 1993).

One would have to engage in mindnumbing mental cartwheels to read Hamblin as saying the LGT does not preclude the site of the future U.S. from the "land northward."

To reach this conclusion to support the LGT's theories of "north", MesoAmerican apologists have had to do handsprings over what is north and what is west. It is astounding to argue that east or west may be north, since marginally sophisticated cultures on every populated continent in the northern hemisphere figured out where north was.

In other words, they are forced to disagree with the text of the Book of Mormon to get the "land northward" model, and other parts of the model, to work. However, the hemispheric model is consistent with the "land northward" being everything north of the Panama Isthmus, is consistent with the text of the Book of Mormon and consistent with the statements of the Brethren, early and recent. So don't let the MesoAmericans fool you; the LGT conflicts with many things we hold near and dear and the reason for this is the fundamental lack of faith the model presents.

This inability to deal with the points on the compass reveals the inherent weakness of the foundational LGT theorists None of them are trained geographers or cartographers. Such trained persons can read historical texts, use the tools of their profession, some of which include statistical packages, to reach some conclusions about the locale proposed by an ancient text. (I would predict that such a person would say there are insufficient data points in the Book of Mormon to provide reference points for a cartographic exercise, thus proving my points made in the past about Dr. Sorenson's work.)

Instead, LGT theorists are anthropoligists, or professors of history, or accountants or lawyers who have no real training in cartography but are trained, perhaps, in the art of rhetoric and logical fallacies (detecting and denouncing such) and similar skills which are more adept to persuading somebody to give up rather than to establish the truth of a matter.

Again, I don't really care which theory is the right one, but I do think the LGT is stuff and nonsense. That doesn't necessarily mean that I support some other notion. I support the text for what it is, not for what it may become with the help of science.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Bob Crockett