Plea to Meso American Apologist

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Vance said:

That prophecy obviously is past.  So, if it wasn't Columbus, then who?

Depends on where the promised land is

If its in New York than I would say the gentile is someone like Erikson or Cabot. If its Meso than Columbus is the more likely option. If its somewhere in South America than maybe Vespucci?

And not to leave out the alternative models. If its Baja than probably Cortes. And for Malay it'd be T'ien Chu Chan-t'an who was guided by a divine voice to rule over Zhenla in 357 AD.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Vance said:

That prophecy obviously is past.  So, if it wasn't Columbus, then who?

John Smith? or Edward Wingfield? dunno - there were several on the first council of Jamestown.

[cdowis]

13 hours ago, sam said:

That's even more reason to publish pro north American research articles then let the regular person decide for themselves were the Book of Mormon took place.

1.  I believe that Meldrum et al are very active in publishing that viewpoint, including BOM tours.   See http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/products.php  The regular person can decide for himself which is more credible.   Should he include the FARMS  publications in his bookstore as well?

2.  Speaking of money, is this not his primary source of income.  Do you consider this "shameful", or is that  somment only reserved for the other side.

3.  Finally, do you have a vested interest in his enterprises?  Or are you "just a volunteer" here in this discussion. Your enthusiasm seems abit defensive, to the point of personal attacks of those who disagree with you.  This makes me very suspicious regarding your motives, and if we knew your real name......

Edited August 24, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

On 8/21/2016 at 11:44 PM, PeterPear said:

Then after decades of comparing the text to the Maya, Dr.  Sorenson claims the Nephites were not the Maya.

So give LDS Members a break if they believe the Geography occurred in North America. Because Dr. Sorenson himself was the one who didn't understand and was ambiguous.

I don't understand your logic.  Are you assumming that the Maya were the only ones who lived in mesoamerica, that there were no other groups?  Is this your logic -->>
"The Mayans were not related to the Book o Mormon,therefore it did not occur in mesoamerica"

Edited August 24, 2016 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Prejudiced against West Texas and Florida it seems

But good to see Ciudad Rio Bravo made the cut.

Funny you should mention  Florida,. Was there migration by water to Florida from the Yucatan during the correct time period for Hagoth shipping ? It's an easy sail with the Gulfstream at your back the majority of the way.

[rodheadlee]

20 hours ago, sam said:

What makes you think that Nephites were migrating 2000 miles back and forth from Missouri to Guatemala.

I thought we were talking about Lamanites?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/21/2016 at 8:23 PM, Bob Crockett said:

I think you've hit upon the very most important reason why I object to Dr. Sorenson's books, as this is the very methodology he uses.  "But other scenarios or models are possible.  The one elaborated in this book offers an alternative theory for the development of civilization in Mesoamerica.  Whether it or the normative evolutionary model or some other position is to be accepted depends on a prudent assessment of what is most plausible, not on mere popularity."  Codex, 65-66.

The scientific method does not array possible theories and then pick the "most plausible."  It would be akin to arraying the possible theories of aliens visiting Earth and then picking the one "most plausible" as something to spend one's life defending.  

It is hard to explain briefly the scientific method, and certainly the scientific method is no guarantee of establishing the truth, but it is the minimal basis of theorizing permitted in a peer-reviewed sense.  Whether a particular theory is founded in the scientific method relies on such things as reasonably verifiable and reproducible, accepted or at least not objected to by peers (it doesn't have to be a majority view), and set forth as a reasonable conclusion given the evidence.  Dr. Sorenson repeatedly couches his conclusions as "plausible" or "most plausible," meaning that it is better than alternative theories.  That is not a conclusion based in science.  His method is the very method you denounce.......................

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

Nonsense, Bob.  Science quite often advances by dropping one theory, and adopting another which accounts better for observable phenomena -- as it did in the grand shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model -- and such shifts also have further implications and even predictive value.  All of that is true for the Mesamerican model of BofM geography.  It saves the appearances, as we say in logic.

[sam]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Is there one meso American model that shows Missouri as a Lamanite Boundry?

[cdowis]

10 minutes ago, sam said:

Is there one meso American model that shows Missouri as a Lamanite Boundry?

Let me answer your question.  The BOM specifically does not address the history, and geographic features of the land northward.  

Now are you going to answer my question. "Speaking of money, do you have an investment in the Pro-North American model, or are you just "just a volunteer"?"

Edited August 24, 2016 by cdowis

[sam]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

1.  I believe that Meldrum et al are very active in publishing that viewpoint, including BOM tours.   See http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/products.php  The regular person can decide for himself which is more credible.   Should he include the FARMS  publications in his bookstore as well?

2.  Speaking of money, is this not his primary source of income.  Do you consider this "shameful", or is that  somment only reserved for the other side.

3.  Finally, do you have a vested interest in his enterprises?  Or are you "just a volunteer" here in this discussion. Your enthusiasm seems abit defensive, to the point of personal attacks of those who disagree with you.  This makes me very suspicious regarding your motives, and if we knew your real name......

My point is that if you guys to include the Neal A Maxwell Institute believe in the scientific method you should have volunteers research both geography models. I do not think Rod Meldrum is a professional researcher. On the other hand Neal A Maxwell Institute and FAIR have professionals. Members of the church come to you guys for answers about scientific evidence and when they get obscure personal attacks and far fetched one in a million chance conclusions they come away very disappointed. As a institution that informally represents the church it should represent all sides of the evidence. Same for the Neal A Maxwell Institute that formally represents the church.

 

[Calm]

18 hours ago, sam said:

when they get obscure personal attacks

CFR

[Rajah Manchou]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let me answer your question.  The BOM specifically does not address the history, and geographic features of the land northward.  

Interesting point. Got me thinking, what exactly did Moroni mean when he told Joseph that the Book of Mormon gave "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

What is a continent in the eyes of God? Is it the land that we see above the water in 2016? Or is it the continental plate that appears and disappears as sea levels rise and fall. Continents might appear to us today as separate land masses, but are actually connected. For example, the North American continent really includes a good part of East Asia and most of Japan. So from a technical/scientific perspective northern Japan is North America while southern Guatemala is not. 

What does "continent" mean in Moroni's dictionary?

Edited August 24, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What does "continent" mean in Moroni's dictionary?

That's the trouble with words.  They can mean different things to different people.  They can even mean different things to the same person, depending on the context of the conversation.

In the Mesoamerican model both the land northward and the land southward are located on the continent of North American, so Moroni's statement about "this continent" and cdcowis's about the BofM not giving the history of the land northward are not mutually exclusive.

[Rajah Manchou]

42 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In the Mesoamerican model both the land northward and the land southward are located on the continent of North American, so Moroni's statement about "this continent" and cdcowis's about the BofM not giving the history of the land northward are not mutually exclusive.

Don't mean to nitpick but some of the Meso model would be on the Caribbean Plate. It looks like the Narrow Strip of Wilderness is the plate boundary, so everything south of the strip is Caribbean, including the Land of First Inheritance and the Land of Lehi-Nephi. But I'm not suggesting this is anything to be taken seriously, just suggesting that parts of Asia are no less a part of the North American continent than parts of the "New World" might be.

Where does the Land Northward (and North America) begin and end?

Edited August 24, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Don't mean to nitpick but some of the Meso model would be on the Caribbean Plate. It looks like the Narrow Strip of Wilderness is the plate boundary, so everything south of the strip is Caribbean, including the Land of First Inheritance and the Land of Lehi-Nephi. 

Where does the Land Northward (and North America) begin and end?

If we're talking about how the continents have been for the past 5000 or so years then all of Mesoamerica is part of the North American continent, the Caribbean Plate is not a continent. 

North America

South America

Europe

Africa

Asia

Australia

Antarctica

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If we're talking about how the continents have been for the past 5000 or so years then all of Mesoamerica is part of the North American continent, the Caribbean Plate is not a continent. 

North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, Antarctica

Fair enough, I don't want to argue political continents vs. physical continents, just thought it was interesting to look at "North America" from a new perspective. A perspective that could be useful as we learn more about the peopling of the Americas from East Asia via the land bridge and the Pacific sea coast, and how it relates to Nephites/Lamanites.
 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, sam said:

Is there one meso American model that shows Missouri as a Lamanite Boundry?

I happen to believe the Lamanites spread out over a good amount of territory after Christ, and even moreso after the BoM ends. So by the time of Joseph Smith yes, if they were in MesoAmerica, they could potentially have spread to a boundary in Missouri. That is not my model, but it is possible. It is also possible that their mtDNA and Y-DNA got swallowed up in much more abundant Native DNA as they spread and intermarried. There are other DNA tests which show connections to the Middle East.

Edited August 24, 2016 by RevTestament

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I happen to believe the Lamanites spread out over a good amount of territory after Christ, and even moreso after the BoM ends. So by the time of Joseph Smith yes, if they were in MesoAmerica, they could potentially have spread to a boundary in Missouri. That is not my model, but it is possible. It is also possible that their mtDNA and Y-DNA got swallowed up in much more abundant Native DNA as they spread and intermarried. There are other DNA tests which show connections to the Middle East.

Good points, we should look for language migration patterns as well a genetic patterns. I'm no scholar but I know some work has been done, perhaps one of the academics can speak up

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Good points, we should look for language migration patterns as well a genetic patterns. I'm no scholar but I know some work has been done, perhaps one of the academics can speak up

I am afraid I am rather weak on the language migration patterns, and will have to defer to experts on that. I would have to say my forte in all of this is interpretation of the law, and research. I also hope that I am humble enough to be guided by the Lord. I have had to change my thinking more than once from what I thought the evidence should show... but when I do I am pleasantly surprised where the research takes me. Sometimes it is a bit exhilarating.

I have found little in the way of ancient language to support my current thoughts on culture and geography. But perhaps if a talented linguist were to put their mind to it, they would be able to debunk the consensus view. I do find the current studies on the Uto-Aztecan languages to be of interest and probable importance in all this. They definitely don't help S. American models tho.

[Wiki Wonka]

9 hours ago, sam said:

On the other hand Neal A Maxwell Institute and FAIR have professionals.

No...definitely no. Everyone at FairMormon is a volunteer and an amateur. We all have our "day jobs," except those few who are lucky enough to be retired.

FairMormon doesn't make any money off the MesoAmerican geographical model. I'm not even sure how we would make money off of it. Like I said, we are all busy with our "day jobs."

[Cold Steel]

Don't underestimate FAIR. It used to be better than it is now, but it still publishes some good stuff. It's YouTube videos are decent, though the sound is often terrible and too many videos are far too short to be useful. But the speakers and authors are doing superb jobs defending the faith. I've listened to both sides of the Mesoamerican debate and agree with FAIR that the Heartlands Model just doesn't merit serious consideration to be included in its field of study. North America lacked the populations, the climate, cement, geography and poisonous serpents of the Book of Mormon lands. With all the wars there are no crossings of frozen rivers, no casualties due to cold, no ice storms. Looking at church history, we see all those things (and that was only a few decades). We see it in Valley Forge and the Battle of the Bulge in Europe. But there's nothing in the Book of Mormon. Not a word about the single greatest hardship in North America. From a geologic standpoint, there are no active volcanos in North America, and it seems apparent that the events of 3 Nephi 10 are volcanic eruptions. There are examples of cities buried and burned in Mesoamerica, but there is none in the Heartlands. The narrow neck of land was cut off for five years by poisonous serpents, yet how could that be in the winter? Are there poisonous polar serpents that can slither through snow and over ice? These things make it very problematic for the Heartlands advocates. And there is much more. 

 

[Bob Crockett]

On 8/24/2016 at 3:21 AM, cdowis said:

1.  I believe that Meldrum et al are very active in publishing that viewpoint, including BOM tours.   See http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/products.php  The regular person can decide for himself which is more credible.   Should he include the FARMS  publications in his bookstore as well?

2.  Speaking of money, is this not his primary source of income.  Do you consider this "shameful", or is that  somment only reserved for the other side.

3.  Finally, do you have a vested interest in his enterprises?  Or are you "just a volunteer" here in this discussion. Your enthusiasm seems abit defensive, to the point of personal attacks of those who disagree with you.  This makes me very suspicious regarding your motives, and if we knew your real name......

 

I'd opine that this kind of criticism isn't merited.  Book of Mormon Geography is a hobby and some people make money off it.  Elder Milton R. Hunter made money off his very popular book about MesoAmerican archaeology -- probably 60 years old by now.  

If it isn't money that drives people to talk about geography, it is the quest for fame and recognition.  It's all Freudian.  One is no better than the other.

But, in terms of raw book sales, I'd say Sam's Meldrum view of Book of Mormon Geography has far greater acceptance amongst the Saints than a MesoAmerican theory, and I further suspect it has led to a reduced support for the MesoAmerican theory amongst the Brethren. 

 

[Bob Crockett]

On 8/24/2016 at 8:01 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense, Bob.  Science quite often advances by dropping one theory, and adopting another which accounts better for observable phenomena -- as it did in the grand shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model -- and such shifts also have further implications and even predictive value.  All of that is true for the Mesamerican model of BofM geography.  It saves the appearances, as we say in logic.

 

 

I'd have a much less strident opposition to Dr. Sorenson's conclusions if he just didn't support his scientific views with statements attributed to Joseph Smith.  When, in fact, I know that Joseph Smith never even hinted at a MesoAmerican view, but instead advocated a hemispheric view.  A fact Dr. Sorenson concedes and then uses to criticize Joseph Smith about. 

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[ERMD]

I'm amazed this thread is still going.

That is my contribution.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'd have a much less strident opposition to Dr. Sorenson's conclusions if he just didn't support his scientific views with statements attributed to Joseph Smith.  When, in fact, I know that Joseph Smith never even hinted at a MesoAmerican view, but instead advocated a hemispheric view.  A fact Dr. Sorenson concedes and then uses to criticize Joseph Smith about. 

Well, both you and Sorenson can criticize me as well, then, since I once believed in that same hemispheric view.  In fact, if I am not mistaken, that was the most common view back in the day.  All of us hayseeds who had not closely read the text took that view.  Perhaps you had a more enlightened view right out of the gate, Bob.  If so, perhaps your strident views would have some backing.  Er, well, just what are your views on the most correct geography of the Book of Mormon?