An Open Letter To Rodney Meldrum

[Robert F. Smith]

I am mocking.

The "practical reality" is that the Book of Mormon states otherwise. I and others here have referred to verses in the text which disagree with Sorenson's conclusions. You apparently missed them.

But of course, if appealing to the Book of Mormon as the authority for this, let us know. For I thought the LGT was supposed to agree with the Book of Mormon, not some Near Eastern kings as recorded in the book of Samuel.

Depends on which LGT theory you are espousing:  The Palestinian one, or the Mesoamerican one.  My point is that such practical concerns as the time to go to war is common worldwide.  You show me otherwise, please.  Please, Tiki.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................... I don't give a hoot. I simply point out that any sort of geographic speculation is about the same thing as praying to a mother in heaven.

Sounds like heresy to me, said the wise old owl.

[Pahoran]

That's been removed from the Index in the latest edition of the scriptures:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/sidon-river?lang=eng&letter=s

 

So what?

 

The relevant verses haven't been removed from the Book of Mormon.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It might be helpful to readers here, that the LGT theory is critical of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19&keyword=Geography%20indicates

 

 

Let's see.

 

Some person J makes no claim to be an expert in a given subject.  Some other person S says that person J was not an expert in that subject.

 

And thus, according to you, S is criticising J, is he?

 

That's a remarkably low threshold for "criticism," isn't it?

 

When you've finished genuflecting at Joseph's feet, perhaps you'd like to consider the real implications of Joseph not being an expert in Book of Mormon geography.

 

The Book of Mormon has a thoroughly consistent internal geography.  If in fact Joseph wasn't fully conversant with all the nuances of that geography, then that's pretty solid evidence that he didn't write it, isn't it?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Sounds like heresy to me, said the wise old owl.

I'd like to compare my age and fowl subspecies against you, you old coot.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd like to compare my age and fowl subspecies against you, you old coot.

You've got my number, Bob.

 

By the way, have you noticed Taylor Halvorsen, “Reading the Scriptures Geographically: Some Tools and Insights,” Interpreter, 10 (2014):257ff., online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/reading-the-scriptures-geographically-some-tools-and-insights/ ?  It deals with a new tool for biblical mapping and analysis, but I would like to see someone extrapolate that to the Book of Mormon, say along the lines of the maps used so well by K. C. Kern (at MIT currently, I think) on his website http://bookofmormononline.net/ .

 

Or would you prefer to rain on that parade?

[Bob Crockett]

You've got my number, Bob.

 

By the way, have you noticed Taylor Halvorsen, “Reading the Scriptures Geographically: Some Tools and Insights,” Interpreter, 10 (2014):257ff., online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/reading-the-scriptures-geographically-some-tools-and-insights/ ?  It deals with a new tool for biblical mapping and analysis, but I would like to see someone extrapolate that to the Book of Mormon, say along the lines of the maps used so well by K. C. Kern (at MIT currently, I think) on his website http://bookofmormononline.net/ .

 

Or would you prefer to rain on that parade?

I'm all for pure doctrine, not the speculative sort that would lead people away into disputes, name-calling and other such nonsense.

[Tiki]

Depends on which LGT theory you are espousing:  The Palestinian one, or the Mesoamerican one.  My point is that such practical concerns as the time to go to war is common worldwide.  You show me otherwise, please.  Please, Tiki.

You need to stop changing the goal posts. You clearly used some Far Eastern Kings "customs" as evidence for Book of Mormon warfare. Now I'm starting to wonder if my questioning is tempting you to let go of your personal integrity, so I'll stop the questioning.

I'll only state I provided earlier in this thread, chapters and verses which indicate the Nephites and Lamanite battles destroyed crops and flocks of animals. Whether you want to wrestle with them, and reply or not, that's your decision, not mine.

[Tiki]

Let's see.

 

Some person J makes no claim to be an expert in a given subject.  Some other person S says that person J was not an expert in that subject.

 

And thus, according to you, S is criticising J, is he?

 

That's a remarkably low threshold for "criticism," isn't it?

 

When you've finished genuflecting at Joseph's feet, perhaps you'd like to consider the real implications of Joseph not being an expert in Book of Mormon geography.

 

The Book of Mormon has a thoroughly consistent internal geography.  If in fact Joseph wasn't fully conversant with all the nuances of that geography, then that's pretty solid evidence that he didn't write it, isn't it?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

That's new, that "J" made such a claim. I thought it was "S" who made that claim about "J."

"CFR" that "J" made the claim. Please.

Or maybe you can provide the statements the Prophet Joseph Smith made, which "S" has disavowed in his statement? You know:

"..most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history."

I'm sure if you genuflected before "S" he would be willing to provide those statements made by "J."

[Tiki]

So what?

 

The relevant verses haven't been removed from the Book of Mormon.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Take it up with Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

[livy111us]

Thanks again, Tiki, this gives me something to work with.

 

By making the 4 Great Lakes the seas spoken about in The Book of Mormon, you have just narrowed the majority of events in The Book of Mormon to the area between Lake Ontario and Lake Huron/Michigan. Most of the BOM takes place in between the east and west sea which you say are Huron/Michigan and Erie. Look at a map and try to tell me how that fits (Not to mention that you have to combine two lakes together to make one in order to make it fit, your south sea is east of your west sea and you have to turn your head almost 90 degrees to make the directions right) This ruins your entire geography. By doing this, your narrow neck of land would have to comprise as the area of the entire Book of Mormon without any real land northward or southward.

 

Your placement of Zarahemla would be wrong (across from Nauvoo in Illinois). The Book of Mormon places it East of the sea west. Your sea west doesn't even come into existence until you go north-east almost 300 miles. Your Zarahemla is not east of the west sea, it is 300 miles away to the south-east! Your Zarahemla is not nearly surrounded by water from the seas as The Book of Mormon states because it is nowhere near them. Zarahemla has a seashore to the west. If you believe One of the Great Lakes to be the sea, then again, you’re wrong about it being across from Nauvoo and push the entire BOM into a very small, Canadian area that is *impossible* to make BOM events fit into.

 

The land southward or the Land of Nephi runs “in a straight course from the east sea to the west.” Which would push your geography even further northward, past the narrow neck of land. Now your Zarahemla is south of the Lamanites by hundreds of miles, your Manti is south of the Lamanites by hundreds of miles and the river Sidon doesn’t even run through BOM lands. This also makes their landing point to be around the Great Lakes which was impossible at that time since there was no access to that area prior to the Erie Canal (Niagra falls were a doozy to cross)

 

By placing your geography in between these lakes, you remove your geography from what is now the United States and lose the precious prophesies and promises Meldrumites like so well. You have just moved The Book of Mormon to Canada. This isn't bad if you are Canadian, but I don't think that lines up well with the message you're trying to convey

 

Where did the Jaredites land? The BOM tells us that they were north of the Nephites (which places them further into Canada), so how did they get there? The BOM says they were blown by the winds of the ocean to their landing spot, yet before 1825 when the Erie Canal was built, there was no way a boat could reach the Great Lakes, it was impossible. So there go the Jaredites.

This also applies to Hagoth. He built his ships and travelled where? To Canada? If we want to listen to what the Prophets have said, they taught that he went to the Polynesian Islands. You wouldn’t want to contradict the Prophets would you?

 

You also move Cumorah to be mostly east of Book of Mormon events, not north.

 

The majority of the Hopewell, whom you claim are BOM people, mostly lived south of that. The populations of the Hopewell were already WAY too small to qualify as BOM peoples has been reduced substantially now that only the Hopewell living in that small area. My guess is that every single human being living in that area wouldn’t even comprise 1 BOM city, let alone the entire population of the Lamanites and Nephites.

 

The geography that Meldrum proposes ruins his entire theory, which is why he tends to stay away from maps. The Book of Mormon just doesn’t fit. He can take a point or two and try to argue them but when you try to look at the whole picture it just doesn’t hold any water.

 

There are so many contradictions and inconsistencies when you actually try to place it on a map that it is impossible to do so (even if you’re an expert at mental gymnastics). There are countless problems and have yet to see one of Meldrums claims stand when placed on a physical geography. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by livy111us

[Pahoran]

Take it up with Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

There's nothing for me to take up with them.

The relevant Book of Mormon verses still say that Sidon (1) rises in the south wilderness, near the border between traditional Nephite and Lamanite lands, (2) flows through Nephite lands towards the sea, and (3) its banks are invariably described as "east" and "west."

Join the dots, Tiki. Which direction is it flowing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

That's new, that "J" made such a claim. I thought it was "S" who made that claim about "J."

"CFR" that "J" made the claim. Please.

You really need to sharpen up your reading skills, Tiki.

What I said was:

"Some person J makes no claim to be an expert in a given subject."

I'll do it again. Let's see if you can spot what you missed before:

"Some person J makes no claim to be an expert in a given subject."

And, just in case you still missed it, one more time:

"Some person J makes NO claim to be an expert in a given subject."

So, would you like to try again?

Regards,

Pahoran

[livy111us]

That reminds me, once you accept the Great Lakes as the seas mentioned in The Book of Mormon, you exclude the Mississippi from your geography. Since the events had to take place between the east and west sea you eliminate the Mississippi from even being a candidate since it does not run anywhere near there. It originates about 200 miles west of the sea west and about 350 miles west of the narrow neck of land. By accepting the Great Lakes as the seas mentioned in The Book of Mormon, you destroy the entire heartland theory with one fatal swoop. The problem is, that is Meldrum's best candidate for the seas. Nothing fits together and the entire theory falls to pieces when you try to makes sense of what he's saying.

[Tiki]

You really need to sharpen up your reading skills, Tiki.What I said was:"Some person J makes no claim to be an expert in a given subject."I'll do it again. Let's see if you can spot what you missed before:"Some person J makes no claim to be an expert in a given subject."And, just in case you still missed it, one more time:"Some person J makes NO claim to be an expert in a given subject."So, would you like to try again?Regards,Pahoran

I still didn't quite catch that. Could you repeat that again?

[Tiki]

That reminds me, once you accept the Great Lakes as the seas mentioned in The Book of Mormon, you exclude the Mississippi from your geography. Since the events had to take place between the east and west sea you eliminate the Mississippi from even being a candidate since it does not run anywhere near there. It originates about 200 miles west of the sea west and about 350 miles west of the narrow neck of land. By accepting the Great Lakes as the seas mentioned in The Book of Mormon, you destroy the entire heartland theory with one fatal swoop. The problem is, that is Meldrum's best candidate for the seas. Nothing fits together and the entire theory falls to pieces when you try to makes sense of what he's saying.

"Since the events had to take place between the east and west sea" = false premise

The narrow strip of wilderness wasn't mentioned until Alma 22:27.

The narrow pass isn't mentioned until Alma 50:34.

Helaman ch 3 verses 2-16 mention those who moved to the land northward. Verse 8 mentions the 4 seas in the land northward.

This excludes Zarahemla / River Sidon being in the land northward and between any seas because the author was talking about the land northward.

Sorry, you're wrong. Try again. Your premise is based on a false paradigm = LGT.

[livy111us]

How does that answer anything I brought up? Just because the east and west seas are mentioned as being in the land north doesn't exclude them from being anywhere else. It's like saying because the state of Washington is on the Pacific coast that it is impossible for California to also be on the Pacific coast.The Book of Mormon tells us in several places that these seas were on the east and west of both the Nephites and Lamanites from all the way down south to all the way up north.

 

The BOM peoples lived between the east and west seas which began in the southern most areas in The Book of Mormon. It wasn't just in one area as you imply, but everywhere. In Alma 22:33 it says that the land Bountiful was between these two seas And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea," 

 

The southernmost area in the entire Book of Mormon, the area where they first landed when they reached the Americas, was smack dab in the middle of the East and West sea. In Alma 50:8 it says And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west." 

 

The Lamanite King, who was king over all the area **SOUTH** of the Nephites had the east sea to the east and the west sea to the west. Alma 22:27 says And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore,"

 

Zarahemla, which was north of the Lamanites, had a sea nearby to the west. Alma 22:28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

 

You have the east and west sea from the southern most point of The Book of Mormon reaching to the Northern most point in The Book of Mormon. Again, the entire Book of Mormon took place between the east and west sea and the Great Lakes theory crumbles because it does not remotely fit Book of Mormon requirements.

Edited July 9, 2014 by livy111us

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................   

Here is the quote by Dr. John L. Sorenson. Have you heard of him?

 

When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 (1992): 1–34.

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/19660

There's a .pdf from the link above, at it appears the article no longer resides at the MI site.

 

Bold added below

Notice how Dr. Sorenson uses the argument that animals are not mentioned in the text - to prove his point that there were others, who also are not mentioned in the text. (silly logic)

I don't find that logic silly at all. Many texts, including the Bible, fail to mention items which we later find (through archeology, for example) were present. Often authors see no reason to mention the obvious. They may have other interests and foci.

 

Dr. Nibley, as recorded at the M.I. disagrees with Dr. Sorenson:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1135&index=8

I accept both arguments as reasonable. It is speculation that animals were present on Lehi's desert trek, but very good speculation. Sorenson never denies that Lehi had animals, which justifies my comment.

 

So the later claim by the F.A.R.M.S. LGT Scribes that Lehi sold his camels to be able to afford buying logs from India, etc., for Nephi's ship, it triply ludicrous.

But like I wrote earlier, F.A.R.M.S. and the LGT Scribes are experts at contradicting amongst themselves, with the scriptures, and Jumping the Shark.

The LGT is a house of confusion. It's a fable.

...............................

Hogwash, there never were any so-called "FARMS LGT Scribes," much less any person who could speak for FARMS. Any positions taken were those of individuals making their own speculations. Courtesy and scholarly integrity demand that we speak only of those individuals and their opinions, unconnected with any organization. What you are claiming here is sheer balderdash, Tiki.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't find that logic silly at all. Many texts, including the Bible, fail to mention items which we later find (through archeology, for example) were present. Often authors see no reason to mention the obvious. They may have other interests and foci.

I accept both arguments as reasonable. It is speculation that animals were present on Lehi's desert trek, but very good speculation. Sorenson never denies that Lehi had animals, which justifies my comment.

Hogwash, there never were any so-called "FARMS LGT Scribes," much less any person who could speak for FARMS. Any positions taken were those of individuals making their own speculations. Courtesy and scholarly integrity demand that we speak only of those individuals and their opinions, unconnected with any organization. What you are claiming here is sheer balderdash, Tiki.

There are no FARMS articles complimentary of any model other than Sorenson's. Clark's critique of Hedengren's book was downright abusive.

Sorenson's 1976 BYU Studies article accused other theorists of misleading church members.

A very nasty business from promoters of the impossible.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................................

  Please note that Dr. Sorenson is not an archaeologist.  

Saw this earlier, and forgot to comment (old coots have a hard time with remembering things, which can sometimes be a blessing).

 

False.  John Sorenson did dirt archeology in Mexico in the early 1950s and has kept his hand in that discipline every since then as a synthesist of all Mesoamerican archeological excavation results.  For example, he published his important A Chronological Ordering of the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic, Middle American Research Institute Publication 18 (New Orleans: Tulane Univ., 1955), and has continued to systematically update that MARI study into the present.

 

To put that in context, allow me to paraphrase an archeologist from Cornell (Lauren Monroe), who is associate professor of Near Eastern Studies, heads the Jewish Studies Program there, and who is currently excavating at Tel Abel Beth Maacah.  I paraphrase her words on how to best approach "biblical archeology" and I apply them to Book of Mormon archeology:

 

We must first of all be the best archaeologists we can be, treating the material culture on its own terms, independent of [book of Mormon] representations of [a] site. The archaeology cannot simply be a means of clarifying the textual record; rather our first step, as archaeologists, must be to rigorously interrogate every aspect of the material culture, using all of the tools and methods employed by archaeologists who do not have texts to work with. We must set our research agenda based on what the tell reveals to us—indeed what the tell demands of us—and not what the [book of Mormon] suggests we might find. Once we have a clearer picture of the cultural horizons and phases of occupation at the site, what sorts of activities took place there and what sorts of people occupied its spaces, then we need to consider how the picture of the site that emerges finds echoes in, and correlations with, the [book of Mormon] record. It is in these points of connection between the material and the textual record that we may discern something real about the past at [supposed Book of Mormon sites].

 

Her original comments can be found at http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/digs-2014/abel-beth-maacah-in-the-bible/?mqsc=E3775459&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=E4B709 .  It has been a major part of John Sorenson's life's work to determine "the cultural horizons and phases of occupation of" Mesoamerican sites.  That is a crucial part of archeology, which takes place in the field, the lab, in excavation reports, and in the construction of syntheses.  You can see the popularized results of syntheses of that kind in Mike Coe, et al., Atlas of Ancient America (NY: Facts on File/Oxford: Equinox, 1986), as well as in Sorenson's Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo: FARMS Research Press, 1998).

Edited July 9, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

There are no FARMS articles complimentary of any model other than Sorenson's. Clark's critique of Hedengren's book was downright abusive.

Sorenson's 1976 BYU Studies article accused other theorists of misleading church members.

A very nasty business from promoters of the impossible.

FARMS as an organization never took any particular stance and did publish other configurations of the Mesoamerican model (can't lay my hands on them at the  moment, mainly because of poor memory and the lack of availability online of the entire FARMS oeuvre).

 

However, it is true that many well-intentioned but silly books and articles on Book of Mormon geography have come forth over the years – both pro- and anti-Mormon – and someone really did need to say something about that sort of foolishness, if only because it set up Church members for a big letdown when factual information was presented to them.  No one doubts the sincerity of the authors, and I can recall hesitantly discussing that very problem with Ron Priddis (about his mother’s books, one of which Sorenson reviewed, below).

 

Thus, we had necessary articles such as the following, for which you seem to want to shoot the messenger:

 

Martin Raish, “All That Glitters : Uncovering Fool's Gold in Book of Mormon Archaeology,” Sunstone, 6 (Jan-Feb 1981):10-15, reprinted by FARMS, and available online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/025-10-15.pdf .  Raish said:  “I am discouraged by the poor research, misleading conclusions, and general lack of rigor far too often permeating the majority of commentaries [written by LDS authors about the Book of Mormon].” Basically, this poor scholarship falls into four categories of errors: 1) scientists tell us, 2) scriptural/pictorial juxtaposition, 3) the shopping list, and 4) questionable artifacts.

 

John L. Sorenson, “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture,” parts I & II, Ensign, 14/9-10 (Sept 1984):26-37, and (Oct 1984):12-23, online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng .

 

John L. Sorenson, “Instant Expertise on Book of Mormon Archaeology,” BYU Studies, 16/3 (Spring 1976):429-432, online at http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/john.htm .

 

I see nothing wrong with these articles, certainly nothing abusive or reckless.  Just good scholarship, Bob.

[livy111us]

John Sorenson's son, Curtis, who posts here quite often put the claim to rest that his father is not an archaeologist. He posted what degrees his father actually has and, yes, Sorenson IS an archaeologist.

[Tiki]

John Sorenson's son, Curtis, who posts here quite often put the claim to rest that his father is not an archaeologist. He posted what degrees his father actually has and, yes, Sorenson IS an archaeologist.

I believe he mentioned his advanced degrees on "Mormon Scholars Testify" including a master's degree in Meteorology.

A very intelligent individual. I just think he has the wrong location for the BofM.

[Tiki]

How does that answer anything I brought up? Just because the east and west seas are mentioned as being in the land north doesn't exclude them from being anywhere else. It's like saying because the state of Washington is on the Pacific coast that it is impossible for California to also be on the Pacific coast.The Book of Mormon tells us in several places that these seas were on the east and west of both the Nephites and Lamanites from all the way down south to all the way up north.

 

The BOM peoples lived between the east and west seas which began in the southern most areas in The Book of Mormon. It wasn't just in one area as you imply, but everywhere. In Alma 22:33 it says that the land Bountiful was between these two seas And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea," 

 

The southernmost area in the entire Book of Mormon, the area where they first landed when they reached the Americas, was smack dab in the middle of the East and West sea. In Alma 50:8 it says And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west." 

 

The Lamanite King, who was king over all the area **SOUTH** of the Nephites had the east sea to the east and the west sea to the west. Alma 22:27 says And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore,"

 

Zarahemla, which was north of the Lamanites, had a sea nearby to the west. Alma 22:28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

 

You have the east and west sea from the southern most point of The Book of Mormon reaching to the Northern most point in The Book of Mormon. Again, the entire Book of Mormon took place between the east and west sea and the Great Lakes theory crumbles because it does not remotely fit Book of Mormon requirements.

Since your premise "the events had to take place between the east and west sea" is a false premise, then everything attached to it is wrong. That's why.

The seas were in the North.

The definition of the lands differ in Alma 22 from Alma 50 when Captain Moroni chased the Lamanites from the east wilderness which was north of Zarahemla:

"9 And it came to pass that when Moroni had driven all the Lamanites out of the east wilderness, which was north of the lands of their own possessions, he caused that the inhabitants who were in the land of Zarahemla and in the land round about should go forth into the east wilderness, even to the borders by the seashore, and possess the land."

Then the city of Moroni was built in this location, by the east sea which was NORTH of Zarahemla.

According to the LGT, Moroni should have built the city of Moroni east by the seashore on the Gulf of Mexico and east of Zarahemla.

But the verse states the east sea was in the east wilderness NORTH of Zarahemla, not directly east of Zarahemla. This does not match the LGT.

Verse 9 above also contradicts your statement the Lamanites were also always south of Zarahemla.

[Tiki]

I don't find that logic silly at all. Many texts, including the Bible, fail to mention items which we later find (through archeology, for example) were present. Often authors see no reason to mention the obvious. They may have other interests and foci.

 

I accept both arguments as reasonable. It is speculation that animals were present on Lehi's desert trek, but very good speculation. Sorenson never denies that Lehi had animals, which justifies my comment.

 

Hogwash, there never were any so-called "FARMS LGT Scribes," much less any person who could speak for FARMS. Any positions taken were those of individuals making their own speculations. Courtesy and scholarly integrity demand that we speak only of those individuals and their opinions, unconnected with any organization. What you are claiming here is sheer balderdash, Tiki.

Ok, that's fine. So you agree the LGT consists solely of individuals who were speculating. Thus the LGT was built upon speculation and F.A.R.M.S. publications agreed with and/or attacked member and non-member alike who agreed or disagreed with the speculations published under the name of F.A.R.M.S. ? I thought it was claimed that there was a consensus among scholars (F.A.R.M.S. LGT scribes, as I put it) that Mesoamerica was the correct location. Now this consensus is speculation? I appreciate the clarification.