jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I think what animosity there is has arisen from one camp's calling the faith and spiritual devotion of the other into question because of the position the other group holds. Were it not for that, I think this would be hardly more than an academic disagreement. Heaven help us if our faith depends on accepting a particular theory of geography.
cinepro Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Utterly ridiculous. No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation. It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion. Both Dr. Smith and Meldrum need to abandon the field. If God or the Brethren really cared, I know a quick and easy way they could stop the arguing...
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Heaven help us if our faith depends on accepting a particular theory of geography.Well with that, it would seem you are at odds with at least some of the heartlanders.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 If God or the Brethren really cared, I know a quick and easy way they could stop the arguing...But alas, you have not been appointed God's counselor.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Utterly ridiculous. No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation. It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion. Both Dr. Smith and Meldrum need to abandon the field. No, that is not the problem. The problem is that some people just hate the truth and science, or simply don't understand science. Meldrum got mad when the Church published the DNA essay, how is that any different? Climate Change deniers and skeptics don't like the Ensign article called Earth—A Gift of Gladness - Ensign July 1991https://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/07/earth-a-gift-of-gladness?lang=eng Dr. Smith is right, there is nothing wrong for him to make rational arguments. Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Bob Crockett Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) No, that is not the problem. The problem is that some people just hate the truth and science, or simply don't understand science. Meldrum got mad when the Church published the DNA essay, how is that any different? Saints who argue against geographic speculation are not science-haters. Some time ago, members of the Church from Utah gave a stake fireside on the science behind the Shroud of Turin to argue that the there was a good likelihood that it was legitimate. I see that as little different than applying mistaken notions of science to highly marginal bits of information. Just because science supports the handicapping of horse-racing does not mean that I have to love it or respect it. Edited June 9, 2014 by Bob Crockett
Bob Crockett Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) edit:You said: "Dr. Sorenson is not a cartographer and did not use accepted statistical cartographic means to compare an ancient text to real-world geography" Please clarify whether or not you are a cartographer, and whether or not you know what it means to be a cartographer. Thanks.I am not a cartographer. I know what it means to be a cartographer (or a geographer, for that matter) There are courses of studies, degrees awarded and journals dedicated to the study of cartography and geography. There are subdisciplines for using cartography and geography to trace the routes described in old texts, such as an entire cottage industry to debate the whereabouts of Troy on the basis of Homer's works (and collateral ancient texts; it isn't even accepted among scholars that Homer's accounts were of actual events). Cartographers and geographers also use certain statistical means for their work. At one time I was a social statistician, but today I would not for the life of me understand how that would apply to map-making. Edited June 9, 2014 by Bob Crockett
cinepro Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) But alas, you have not been appointed God's counselor.But I'm not the one saying they care.Honestly, I could understand this happening in any other church that doesn't claim to have ongoing revelation. But when you look at the scope of revelations in the D&C (including an actual Q&A about the Book of Revelation), and modern revelations about things such as the number of earrings LDS should wear (none for men, one in each ear for women), it doesn't seem too much to think that God might be able to also reveal the general location of Book of Mormon events. It would take 30 seconds tops, and allow a bunch of faithful, hard working LDS to stop totally wasting their time on an erroneous geography (as well as other LDS from spending their time and money to tour the places where Book of Mormon events didn't take place.) We always talk about how God is a loving parent, and I can't help but think if one of my children were interested in the geography of WWII and mistakenly thought the D-Day landings occurred in the wrong place (say, Sydney, Australia), and they were spending their time and money arguing with other WWII historians and trying to convince others that D-Day occurred in Australia, as a loving parent I might explain to them that it actually did happen in France. Edited June 9, 2014 by cinepro 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Saints who argue against geographic speculation are not science-haters. Some time ago, members of the Church from Utah gave a stake fireside on the science behind the Shroud of Turin to argue that the there was a good likelihood that it was legitimate. I see that as little different than applying mistaken notions of science to highly marginal bits of information. We do not know where the Book of Mormon events happened, but we do know that MesoAmerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon fits. To come to that conclusion, you have to understand archaeology, science, and ancient America. The idea that the Book of Mormon events happened in the USA goes against what is known about ancient America. Just like the Hemispheric Geography contradicts the DNA evidence. Anyways, my main point is that there is nothing wrong to make rational arguments. Dr. Smith does a good job on that, Meldrum doesn't. I didn't say you were a science hater, I was talking about Meldrum, he doesn't understand science and ancient america. "members of the Church from Utah gave a stake fireside on the science behind the Shroud of Turin to argue that the there was a good likelihood that it was legitimate" Radiocarbon 14 Dating can settle that question, SCIENCE. Meldrum evidences go against science. Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
stemelbow Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 If God or the Brethren really cared, I know a quick and easy way they could stop the arguing... What's this way you know so much about? Revelation? Not sure it would end the arguing. Not sure it would come clearly enough for us to be settled on the matter. If you mean the brethren giving some official statement other than leaving the question open, on that too I think you'll find debate would continue.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 We do not know where the Book of Mormon events happen, but we do know that MesoAmerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon fits. To come to that conclusion, you have to understand archaeology, science, and the evidence. I would disagree with that. It's the place that has the least problems when you're trying to reconcile the text to an actual location. But, no, it doesn't fit very well at all. The idea that the Book of Mormon events happened in the USA goes against what is known about ancient America. Just like the Hemispheric Geography contradicts the DNA evidence. There are definitely more problems with the "Heartland" theory and a hemispheric view, but the LGT doesn't fit what is known about ancient America, either.
Bob Crockett Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) 1. We do not know where the Book of Mormon events happen, but we do know that MesoAmerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon fits. To come to that conclusion, you have to understand archaeology, science, and the evidence. 2. The idea that the Book of Mormon events happened in the USA goes against what is known about ancient America. 3. Just like the Hemispheric Geography contradicts the DNA evidence. 4. Anyways, my main point is that there is nothing wrong to make rational arguments. Dr. Smith does a good job on that, Meldrum doesn't. 1: I have BYU professors who have written very knowledgeable books to the contrary. 2. There are several Times and Seasons articles published when Joseph Smith was editor which link Book of Mormon proofs to finds in Massachussets, New Jersey and other places long distant from MesoAmerica. There are many temple dedicatory prayers, for instance Mesa, which link Book of Mormon activities to their locales. 3. What you're really saying is that if you draw the box small enough, you'll exclude all that annoying proof to the contrary. I'd really respect this argument if you said -- hey, look, there is DNA proof in Chiapas but not elsewhere. 4. Sorenson, you mean. I try to keep an open mind on Dr. Sorenson. At present, I'm not persuaded. I am not persuaded by any other theorist. Dr. Sorenson has the best LDS credentials so far to be opining on the subject, but far less than Dr. Michael Coe. And reading how polemic Coe is with his collegues in Mayan issues, I don't quite trust him either. Edited June 9, 2014 by Bob Crockett 1
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 2. There are several Times and Seasons articles published when Joseph Smith was editor which link Book of Mormon proofs to finds in Massachussets, New Jersey and other places long distant from MesoAmerica. There are many temple dedicatory prayers, for instance Mesa, which link Book of Mormon activities to their locales. When I was a missionary, I was the mission historian, and we kept a huge binder in which was recorded the major events of the mission since it had opened. On the first page was a letter on First Presidency letterhead from Joseph Fielding Smith, who congratulated the mission on its success. He said it was not surprising that we would have such success because Bolivia was one of the "central locations" where the Book of Mormon took place. 1
cinepro Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 When I was a missionary, I was the mission historian, and we kept a huge binder in which was recorded the major events of the mission since it had opened. On the first page was a letter on First Presidency letterhead from Joseph Fielding Smith, who congratulated the mission on its success. He said it was not surprising that we would have such success because Bolivia was one of the "central locations" where the Book of Mormon took place. Wait...what?
ERayR Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 We do not know where the Book of Mormon events happened, but we do know that MesoAmerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon fits. To come to that conclusion, you have to understand archaeology, science, and ancient America. The idea that the Book of Mormon events happened in the USA goes against what is known about ancient America. Just like the Hemispheric Geography contradicts the DNA evidence. Anyways, my main point is that there is nothing wrong to make rational arguments. Dr. Smith does a good job on that, Meldrum doesn't. "members of the Church from Utah gave a stake fireside on the science behind the Shroud of Turin to argue that the there was a good likelihood that it was legitimate" Radiocarbon 14 Dating can settle that question, SCIENCE. Meldrum evidences go against science. And you are the sole arbiter of what that is. Please lay out the specific criteria one must have to make up ones own mind on this subject. Please enlighten as to what one must know about ancient America. Please list how hemispheric geography contradicts DNA evidence. Please compare the arguments so that we can be enlightened. And what conclusions were reached as to the validity of the shroud of Turin? Please elucidate as to what radiocarbon 14 dating to which you are referring Waiting to hearThanks..
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 1: I have BYU professors who have written very knowledgeable books to the contrary. 2. There are several Times and Seasons articles published when Joseph Smith was editor which link Book of Mormon proofs to finds in Massachussets, New Jersey and other places long distant from MesoAmerica. There are many temple dedicatory prayers, for instance Mesa, which link Book of Mormon activities to their locales. 3. What you're really saying is that if you draw the box small enough, you'll exclude all that annoying proof to the contrary. I'd really respect this argument if you said -- hey, look, there is DNA proof in Chiapas but not elsewhere. 4. Sorenson, you mean. I try to keep an open mind on Dr. Sorenson. At present, I'm not persuaded. I am not persuaded by any other theorist. Dr. Sorenson has the best LDS credentials so far to be opining on the subject, but far less than Dr. Michael Coe. 1. Dr. Richard Hansen believes that the Book of Mormon happened in Meso-america, I was told by a reliable source. Dr. Hansen is one of the best Mayan archaeologist. 2. The Prophet was also human 3. DNA doesn't prove of disprove the Book of Mormon, and Meldrum doesn't understand the science why. 4. Okay, but all Mormon archaeologists and anthropologist agree with Sorenson (not on everything, but they agree that Mesoamerica is the best candidate)
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Please enlighten as to what one must know about ancient America. Please list how hemispheric geography contradicts DNA evidence. 1. a) Peru ruins don't date to Book of Mormon Timesb) No writing system in the USA. C) problems with Peru and USA GeographyD) Other problems Simple 2. Read the DNA essay published by the church
Bob Crockett Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) 4. Okay, but all Mormon archaeologists and anthropologist agree with Sorenson (not on everything, but they agree that Mesoamerica is the best candidate) If you'll read the paper which I link at my blog below, Dr. Sorenson has published critiques of LDS collegues who are anthropologists who have competing views. Please note that Dr. Sorenson is not an archaeologist. Edited June 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett
ERayR Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 1. a) Peru ruins don't date to Book of Mormon Timesb) No writing system in the USA. C) problems with Peru and USA GeographyD) Other problems Simple 2. Read the DNA essay published by the church 1 a) CFR 2) Oh you meant that one. Please post a link
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) If you'll read the paper which I link at my blog below, Dr. Sorenson has published critiques of LDS collegues who are anthropologists who have competing views. Please note that Dr. Sorenson is not an archeologist. Dr. Sorenson has a masters in archaeology, and anthropology is a branch of archaeology. Anyways, I will read the Paper later, but most scholars agree that MesoAmerica is the place. The greatest scholar, Richard D. Hansen, agrees, but I don't know if he has published anything about it. I know because a reliable source told me. Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) 1 a) CFR 2) Oh you meant that one. Please post a link 1) For A and B,Any Book about ancient america For C and D http://www.bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamerica 2) https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 1) For A and B,Any Book about ancient america You made the assertion. I ask for references. "Any Book about ancient america" does not answer my CFR.
Bob Crockett Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Dr. Sorenson has a masters in archaeology, and anthropology is a branch of archaeology. Anyways, I will read the Paper later, but most scholars agree that MesoAmerica is the place. The greatest scholar, Richard D. Hansen, agrees, but I don't know if he has published anything about it. I know because a reliable source told me. Hansen is a Mayologist, and the Mayan culture does not fit within the Book of Mormon story. Where has Hansen come out publicly in support of Dr. Sorenson's theories, or even worked with him? I don't say that it hasn't occurred, but I'd like to be educated.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Hansen is a Mayologist, and the Mayan culture does not fit within the Book of Mormon story. Where has Hansen come out publicly in support of Dr. Sorenson's theories, or even worked with him? I don't say that it hasn't occurred, but I'd like to be educated."Hansen is a Mayologist, and the Mayan culture does not fit within the Book of Mormon story" But the Maya are located in Mesoamerica, Hansen is an expert in that area. Yes, the Nephites are not the Maya. "Where has Hansen come out publicly in support of Dr. Sorenson's theories, or even worked with him?"Like I said, I don't know if he has, I doubt it.All I know is that Hansen believes the Book of Mormon events happened in Mesoamerica because a someone that works with Hansen told me. Just forget about Dr. Hansen, you don't have to believe it because I won't cite sources. QuestionsHow could any other place be possible? No advance civilizations and writing systems in the USA and CanadaNo writing system in Peru, and the Pero ruins don't date to Book of Mormon times. Have you read this article? http://www.bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamerica Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 "Hansen is a Mayologist, and the Mayan culture does not fit within the Book of Mormon story" But the Maya are located in Mesoamerica, Hansen is an expert in that area. Yes, the Nephites are not the Maya. You need to get Dr. Sorenson's book "Mormon's Codex". Thee Mayans are not Nephites but the Nephites are probably Mayan.
Recommended Posts