beastie wrote:So the FARMers will force the Book of Mormon to fit Mesoamerica, no matter how much they have to hammer the text in order to do so.
Matt Roper's piece about the Narrow Neck of Land fits the bill. A "Nephite" could do it partly by boat, maybe between military outposts, going faster with the water flowing downhill, swinging from tree to tree on vines (John Sorenson has documented this possibility), there's a great grassy hill you call roll down to pick up speed, and before you know it -- you've crossed the Isthmus of Tehuantepec! Ta da!
Holy Rube Goldberg!
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
beastie wrote:So the FARMers will force the Book of Mormon to fit Mesoamerica, no matter how much they have to hammer the text in order to do so.
Matt Roper's piece about the Narrow Neck of Land fits the bill. A "Nephite" could do it partly by boat, maybe between military outposts, going faster with the water flowing downhill, swinging from tree to tree on vines (John Sorenson has documented this possibility), there's a great grassy hill you call roll down to pick up speed, and before you know it -- you've crossed the Isthmus of Tehuantepec! Ta da!
Holy Rube Goldberg!
The Dude.... simply Priceless!
Paul and Charity why don't you draft a letter together and ask Hinckley?
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
Pokatator wrote: Paul and Charity why don't you draft a letter together and ask Hinckley?
Because it isn't a doctrinal question. And Moksha is half right, which is about normal for most critics. If I had a doctrinal question that affected my salvation, I would go to my bishop. If he couldn't answer the question, it would go to the stake president, who could contact a regional authority, who could contact one of the seventy.
You don't get sent to a disciplinary court for asking a question. That is the part that was wrong.
Thanks Paul. I knew you would have a different take on it than the standard apologetic "empirical" dismissal (the geography is wrong for the Book of Mormon) and yet still posit a believing view. I find your views much like a breeze coming before rains, too, since your ideas always have an internal logic to them and are grounded more in "faith" than in trying to bend the laws of nature or simultaneously use and dismiss science in an effort to some how prove something is "true" or not: the "mainstream" apologetic MO. In fact I seriously wonder why FARMS/FAIR et. al have taken this route and not the course you've charted. It seems that while they hold out for faith as a last ditch catch all, their first line of defense is always an attempt to try to fit things into "scientifistic" or faux academic discourses.
Shouldn't it all be about faith anyway? Not that I would find that an adequate explanation myself, but as I said, at least it has a certain internal consistency and even dignity.
You’re too kind. Well, religion in all its facets and degrees is all about faith. Everything we know and understand about Jesus is based on faith which is rooted by our personal spiritual perspective and inspiration.
I wish FARMS would change the way they do business. They are too busy trying to defend the various hot topics in a worldly way. Indeed, in my view FARMS is just as worldly as the world itself. Within that organization there is a lot of pride and a willingness to defend their views at all costs – using whatever academic methods suit their fancy. Little wonder they upset the critics so much. They upset me too and I’m not even a critic!
Pride within the Church in the last days will have to eventually be overcome before the House of Israel is truly clean. I wonder how many members of the Church are aware of the pride in LDS academics? I think many good LDS people tend to think that this sort of thing is not possible and thus, they put their faith in FARMS. Faith in FARMS!
Pokatator wrote: Paul and Charity why don't you draft a letter together and ask Hinckley?
Because it isn't a doctrinal question. And Moksha is half right, which is about normal for most critics. If I had a doctrinal question that affected my salvation, I would go to my bishop. If he couldn't answer the question, it would go to the stake president, who could contact a regional authority, who could contact one of the seventy.
You don't get sent to a disciplinary court for asking a question. That is the part that was wrong.
Hmmm, wonder if my new designation as a critic is a promotion?
The reason why the Book of Mormon geography remained in the same general areas for over 150 years was because of the stories (and testimony) told by Joseph Smith. He is the source. No one else. He claimed to have seen many things in vision even before receiving the plates to translate via a rock, pair of pants and sombrero.
The same point can be made for the universal Mormon belief that Lamanites make up the majority of the North, Central and South American natives (including Hagoth's children - the Polynesian natives from Hawaii to New Zealand).
Now, Lamanites/DNA issue is quite interrelated with this topic of geography.
The truth of the matter is that there is no viable location for any Lehite culture because Lehite descendants have not been located anywhere in the Americas or upon the isles of the sea - only on nearly all other continents.
The believers will say that this is a test of faith to view truth through the mountain of evidence to the contrary (or the lack thereof). I would say it is a test of pure and child "like" reasoning to determine an imposter.
Paul Osborn wrote: I think it's utterly fascinating how Book of Mormon names and the like are to be found within the borders of our country and up north.. ..could be inspiration in the hearts and minds of those who named the lands. How fitting! I believe God is the author of the Book of Mormon via his prophets and it’s not at all strange to me that he might also find pleasure in spreading the names of this work upon this land as a tribute to those who formerly lived here in ancient days.
Some of the names of the areas/towns still exist on current maps today. If it is agreed that this is not the location of these great citys, rivers and seas of the Lehites, why would we conclude that God inspired men to name the area so distinctly in reference to an area presumeably thousands of miles away?
And CHARITY IS RIGHT about only one thing but only because she thinks it's a dead issue:
Charity wrote: Tee hee. This is a funny post. The reason scholars don't go with Holley is that it doesn't fit the Book of Mormon. And how much would you have to hammer the text of the Book of Mormon to make it fit into an area with the climate of western New York/southern Ontario? A simple word search in the Book of Mormon will show you that the word "snow" only appears once in the Book of Mormon, and that is before they even leave the Old World.
Nothing in the narrative suggests ice or snow or any cold weather military compaigns. None of the water is mentioned as freezing over. You can't hammer your way out of that.
