http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/565 ... 1209083651
Post 267 :
[/quote]Bob Oliverio wrote:However, if the Ingram story is true, that provides a quite unmiraculous parallel story that demonstrates the plausibility of Moroni's proposed journey.
Many things are plausible given enough "if's". But in my opinion there is very little parallel comparing a journey of two dozen, well seasoned explorers, in the 16th century to that of a single sojourn in the 5th century. To many reasons to elaborate here but I trust most would readily acknowledge the vast differences between the two supposed accounts.A few dozen wouldn't have been enough to have fended off a serious attack by a determined enemy. I don't see such a number as much more viable than one alone -- particularly if he were a trained and experienced and vigorous warrior, determined to be stealthy, and even more so if -- as he might well have had, being on a divinely-ordained errand -- he had Help.
Divine intervention will always Trump facts and reason in any conversation so there's little reason to question your argument or reasons above. But it also can be used equally to defend any argument. And one could just as easily question why Moroni needed to travel at all for the discovery of the plates to occur. Divine intervention could have been used to bring Joseph Smith to the plates in central america, a much easier journey in the 19th century. Every argument is plausible if we claim divine intervention.
And I have no reason to challenge the credentials of Mr Sorenson as I've really never heard of him before. But when it comes to using a questionable "Ingram account", which took place a thousand years later, as a basis for conclusion, I have to be honest, and question whether he found his conclusion based on research or, found his research based on a conclusion.Furthermore, it is possible to sail a canoe up the coast of Mexico, then up the Mississippi River, then up the Ohio River to within less than 100 miles of modern Palmyra. There is simply no reason to think that he walked this entire distance.
How does one go about "sailing" (or paddling) a canoe, in the fifth century, upstream on one of the worlds greatest down stream flow rate rivers on a log(s) to the mouth of the Ohio? I can't help to conclude there is a little more to the plausibility to such theory than simply finding a contiguous water route. Elements, seasons, duration, desire, reason, navigational knowledge and size of biceps come to mind.For all we know Moroni could have settled the Mississippi River Valley, raised a family, become a merchant, slowly migrated northward, or perhaps even gone to bury the plates in his later years with the help of his sons, who could have been in their late twenties by this time. Now, of course, all of this is pure speculation, but nonetheless entirely plausible. Therefore, there's no reason to assume that Moron by made the trek to the Hill Camorra in New York under duress, or in the shortest time possible.
It seems like all this is really stretching for plausibility when we start creating these types of "what if's". Anything is possible of course, but for one who seemed to ensure this history was recorded and preserved to make no mention of this fantastic journey and 30+ years of additional history in the plates just asks for too much in my opinion. Particularly if he went on to raise a family, a settlement and became a merchant! There is just simply too much reason and common sense going against this theory to make it believable for me. Because I find little rationale and factual information to support this journey, I thinks one is better off arguing divine intervention for this claim of a supposed fantastic journey for which we have no evidence to support.