The LGT is Dead: Official CU announcement

[_J Green]

Hi, Scratch.

I'm not sure which I prefer, the beauty of your inflection or the beauty of your innuendo. No offense, but I have mentioned several times that I would only discuss FARMS Review Rhetoric with you under certain conditions. And despite your cheerful, good-morning-to-you-too analysis here of my post to Gad, I'm not inclined to change my mind. But I'm happy to talk about smoked Gouda, or even the OP itself.

Cheers

[_Buffalo]

The LGT is still solid. They just need increase the L in LGT.

[_J Green]

Nice one, Buffalo.

[_Themis]

The LGT is still solid. They just need increase the L in LGT.

True, that is why Horton could hear a Nephite.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, Scratch.

I'm not sure which I prefer, the beauty of your inflection or the beauty of your innuendo. No offense, but I have mentioned several times that I would only discuss FARMS Review Rhetoric with you under certain conditions.

Yes, and as I recall, your "conditions" were that I accept Dr. Peterson's characterization of me as a mentally ill criminal. Pardon me if I demur on that. (Parenthetically, I can't help but wonder about charges like that from you, DCP and others. If you truly believe that I'm sick and need help, then why use that against me in the course of heated messageboard banter--as opposed to, say, sending a PM? On the other hand, if you guys don't actually think this, then aren't you swinging below the belt? I think you let your own anger get the best of you this time, J Green.) Regardless, you can feel free to announce whatever conversational "conditions" that you like. It's a tactic that's strikingly reminiscent of another poster who constantly insists that he's not going to interact with various posters, only to continue interacting with them, posting about them, lifting quotes from them for siglines, and so on.

Meanwhile, I'm pleased that no one has attempted to address what seems clear: i.e., that Clark's most recent article constitutes a complete obliteration of earlier LGT work. Further, no one has provided any substantive reply to Dr. Robbers's inquiry about "up and coming" LGT apologists. I saw the name Hashbaz (sp?) bandied around, but as far as I know, Elder Hashbaz hasn't published LGT material. (Has he?) I did see that he successfully defended a dissertation having something to do with Mesoamerica, but, of course, this doesn't add up to him automatically being an LDS apologist, let alone a Mopologist.

[_J Green]

Hey, look, yet another DCP reference. And I wasn't even talking about smoked Gouda. Clearly no obesession here.

"Was that a shot? It reminds me of the time . . ."

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, look, yet another DCP reference. And I wasn't even talking about smoked Gouda. Clearly no obesession here.

I'm happy for you to accuse me of having an "obesession," Elder Green. What it means is that you're unwilling to address my criticism of Mopologetics. But, I already knew that.

[_J Green]

Hey, Scratch, do you remember the Borges' short story "La casa de Asterión"? I love how it starts with similar protestations:

Sé que me acusan de soberbia, y tal vez de misantropía, y tal vez de locura. Tales acusaciones (que yo castigaré a su debido tiempo) son irrisorias.

So here you are, running through the labyrinth of cyberspace and the Cassius library, chasing your mopologetic minotaur. Borges would be proud. Just remember that as in the case of Asterión, the minotaur may not turn out to be who you think it is.

Have a nice night, Scratch.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Nice comeback, Joey. It has nothing to do with the OP, nor does it in any way address what I said in my last post, but hey: it's nice that you apparently know Spanish. I bet you picked that up on your mission.

[_J Green]

Well, my apologies, Scratch. The reference was intended to be a direct response to your post, but I had understood from a previous conversation that you were a Borges fan, so I thought the meaning would be transparent. My bad.

In any case, back to the OP. Dean Robbers accepts a distinction between an LGT paradigm and a mesoamerican application of that theory. He only proclaims the application to be dead, failing to see much of a pass-on, if you will, to another generation of experts who are willing to explore the mesoamerican setting. You, on the other hand, have told me that there is no difference between an LGT model and its mesoamerican application and declare LGT to be dead on its face. In doing so, you say you agree with the dean's analysis of Clark's opening paragraph. Yet Clark's entire paper argues closely and thoroughly for an LGT model for the Book of Mormon as a baseline for any discussion about geography. So I can see how Gadianton's careful distinction between the two can still account for the content of Clark's article, but your position . . . not so much. Essentially, I see your responses in this thread to contradict both Robbers and Clark (to varying degrees) and misunderstand the article itself. That's why I asked you at one point if you had actually read the article.

Is this a good starting point to get back to the OP?