"Finger Lakes" Theory of Book of Mormon Geography

[Moksha]

Is there any way LDS apologetics could completely disavow the Book of Abraham and faulty Book of Mormon geography and instead claim that both were planted by Satan to deceive the righteous?

[MG 2.0]

It's interesting that this event is referred to multiple times in the Book of Mormon separated by chapters and other events, etc.

I'll bite. How is it interesting that this event is told several times and separated by chapters?

One thing that has always been of interest to me is the interwoven essence of the Book of Mormon. I suppose that Joseph could have conducted himself in a similar vein as a criminologist and have his blackboard or cork board covered with diagrams of one event/character, etc., leading to this and then that. A flow chart of sorts to keep track of intersecting events from past to future. But the evidence doesn’t seem to point that direction. Emma says that he would leave the translation one day/time and come back to it and continue moving on from where he left off before. All while having no crib notes or mnemonic devices to push him along.

All while putting his head in a hat with a stone in it. I guess if you want to really stretch you could call the stone a mnemonic device.

It’s remarkable no matter how you look at it. Combined with the fact that he spent his early years growing up in the backwoods of New York and Vermont with a scant amount of formal education, I find it unlikely that Joseph accomplished all that he did in his early life even if one makes exception for the help received from Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, and others. They didn’t come along until the Book of Mormon was already a work in process if you account for Moroni, the plates, etc.

Anyway, I know some here will disagree but I found that after I read Grant Hardy’s book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0052 ... tkin_p1_i0

I haven’t looked at the Book of Mormon in the same way I may have before. So when I read of the destruction at the time when Christ comes to the Americas and see that this narrative isn’t a ‘one off’, but it has bits and strands alluding and/or pointing to it throughout the text…I find that interesting…and even remarkable. Because this is just ONE of many times where a coherent series/timeline of events/people is kept in strict order and contextual coherence.

I realize that your mileage may vary on this. And that’s OK. But that’s where I’m coming from.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

> Mormons - “See? A Mormon apologist said something I didn’t read, but they have a degree in something and they used a lot of words that somehow alleviated my headaches.”

> Mormon - doesn’t read thread, offers testimony instead

Cool.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

> Mormons - “See? A Mormon apologist said something I didn’t read, but they have a degree in something and they used a lot of words that somehow alleviated my headaches.”

> Mormon - doesn’t read thread, offers testimony instead

Cool.

- Doc

Morley asked a question. I answered.

Yep. Cool.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I'll bite. How is it interesting that this event is told several times and separated by chapters?

...Anyway, I know some here will disagree but I found that after I read Grant Hardy’s book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0052 ... tkin_p1_i0

I haven’t looked at the Book of Mormon in the same way I may have before.

Seriously? even I've read enough here to recognize this ploy. Here's a response to your exact same tactic from 6 years ago:

MG, I know that this sort of thing is difficult for you because of the LDS mindset that you've had for so long but do you not understand the difference in the situation that you described with the Grant Hardy book and what has happened so far in this thread? The comparison is completely invalid.

First of all, most of us are well versed in LDS apologetic material and have a firm grasp of the subject matter, so peddling yet another apologetic book written from a slightly different angle is bound to be met with skepticism regarding it's value. Whereas, you were ASKING for references to a specific type of apologetic regarding other religions that might fit a predefined scope as a rhetorical ploy to.........peddle Grant Hardy's tired apologetic yet again.

So the only way that these two discussions are even related is that you were simply attempting to peddle an apologetic with no intentions of having any discussion of anything outside of that scope.

You seem to find Hardy's arguments compelling. That's fine. Just put forth his best argument(s) and let's discuss it. There's no need for all the other B.S. like feigning interest in a religion you have no intention of investigating.

Amazing how exactly on target that comment STILL is, almost seven years later.

...after I read Grant Hardy’s book...I haven’t looked at the Book of Mormon in the same way I may have before. So when I read of the destruction at the time when Christ comes to the Americas and see that this narrative isn’t a ‘one off’, but it has bits and strands alluding and/or pointing to it throughout the text…I find that interesting…and even remarkable. Because this is just ONE of many times where a coherent series/timeline of events/people is kept in strict order and contextual coherence.

I realize that your mileage may vary on this. And that’s OK. But that’s where I’m coming from.

Regards,
MG

Then please, start a new thread and, as CH put it, "You seem to find Hardy's arguments compelling. That's fine. Just put forth his best argument(s) and let's discuss it."

Looking forward to you putting forth Hardy's arguments that you were reminded of when you read of "the destruction at the time when Christ comes to the Americas and see that this narrative isn’t a ‘one off’, but it has bits and strands alluding..."
: D

[Morley]

I haven’t looked at the Book of Mormon in the same way I may have before. So when I read of the destruction at the time when Christ comes to the Americas and see that this narrative isn’t a ‘one off’, but it has bits and strands alluding and/or pointing to it throughout the text…I find that interesting…and even remarkable. Because this is just ONE of many times where a coherent series/timeline of events/people is kept in strict order and contextual coherence.

Yes, it's amazing how every novelist who ever lived can do that.

Research is the key, though, don't you think? Otherwise you get the kind of John-Carter-on-Mars mishmash you end up with in the Book of Mormon.

Obviously, you're big on comparative literature. What novel do you think does a worse job at weaving together the disparate threads of its storyline than The Book of Mormon? Note that I've already eliminated Edgar Rice Burroughs' Princess of Mars.

Second question: Which one has more ridiculous anachronisms than The Book of Mormon? I'm going with Clan of the Cave Bear (though like you do, I'll have to just pretend that I actually read it).


edit: Your turn. Though, as Marcus suggests, you should probably start a new thread.

[MG 2.0]

I haven’t looked at the Book of Mormon in the same way I may have before. So when I read of the destruction at the time when Christ comes to the Americas and see that this narrative isn’t a ‘one off’, but it has bits and strands alluding and/or pointing to it throughout the text…I find that interesting…and even remarkable. Because this is just ONE of many times where a coherent series/timeline of events/people is kept in strict order and contextual coherence.

Yes, it's amazing how every novelist who ever lived can do that.

Research is the key, though, don't you think? Otherwise you get the kind of John-Carter-on-Mars mishmash you end up with in the Book of Mormon.

Obviously, you're big on comparative literature. What novel do you think does a worse job at weaving together the disparate threads of its storyline than The Book of Mormon? Note that I've already eliminated Edgar Rice Burroughs' Princess of Mars.

Second question: Which one has more ridiculous anachronisms than The Book of Mormon? I'm going with Clan of the Cave Bear (though like you do, I'll have to just pretend that I actually read it).


edit: Your turn. Though, as Marcus suggests, you should probably start a new thread.

That’s OK. I’m not interested in going this direction. I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say. Clan of the Cave Bear? THAT is a blast from the past. If I’m not mistaken that was part of a series. I read Clan of the Cave Bear but I can’t remember if I read the other books that went along with it.

I realize we’re going to have different views in regards to Hardy’s book relative to the discussion having to do with volcanism in the Book of Mormon. That’s OK. I’m perfectly happy to have you go your way. I’ll go mine.

Sources and their legitimacy/credibility are going to vary from person to person. For example, my guess is that you would generally favor cracking open source material that is in disfavor with the early leaders of the church. Tanner’s,etc. You would be less likely, by default, because of your biases and predisposition/presuppositions, to give much credence to Grant Hardy. He’s a believer. Or Terry’s Given’s “By the Hand of Mormon”. He’s a believer.

And for what it’s worth, I look at issues with the Book of Mormon on a hierarchy of importance. I look at what I consider to be the BIG ‘hits’ and then look at other issues and decide whether or not they cancel out or make those hits meaningless. For example, Chiasmus/multiple authors…BIG. Anachronisms…wait and see. Other issues are in the ‘wait and see’ category also because of the BIG hits.

I realize those big hits may not satisfactorily meat up to the expectations and/or demands of others. Probably no purpose in arguing about that fact. It’s just the way it is.

As has been stated more times than I would like to count, when it comes down to it, a belief or testimony in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon comes through an internal witness of the Spirit in regards to the message and truthfulness of the doctrines taught within the covers of the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon geography and spending an inordinate time looking and relooking at Book of Mormon issues discourages or takes away time which could be spent reading of the Book of Mormon for the purpose for which it was written. That is, to come to Christ.

When was the last time you picked up the Book of Mormon for that purpose? If not recently, do you feel as though you’ve been able to come closer to the Savior as a result of not spending time within its pages for that purpose? Some people say they have. And that’s OK. To each, his or her own. But I think they may be the minority.

Some folks want to continue on with the main thrust of this thread. I’m willing to let it go that direction at this point.

Thanks for your input.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I realize we’re going to have different views in regards to Hardy’s book relative to the discussion having to do with volcanism in the Book of Mormon. That’s OK. I’m perfectly happy to have you go your way. I’ll go mine.

good call, given your repeat performance came with a spoiler this time.

Sources and their legitimacy/credibility are going to vary from person to person. For example, my guess is that you would generally favor cracking open source material that is in disfavor with the early leaders of the church. Tanner’s,etc. You would be less likely, by default, because of your biases and predisposition/presuppositions, to give much credence to Grant Hardy. He’s a believer. Or Terry’s Given’s “By the Hand of Mormon”. He’s a believer.

You would be completely wrong in this assessment. Many here have read the Mormon sources you pretend to read, and have discussed this with you many, many times.

And for what it’s worth, I look at issues with the Book of Mormon on a hierarchy of importance. I look at what I consider to be the BIG ‘hits’ and then look at other issues and decide whether or not they cancel out or make those hits meaningless.

please. you do not. You always promote lds sources, frequently those you've never read.

For example, Chiasmus/multiple authors…BIG. Anachronisms…wait and see.

The Jensen-Hamblin exchanges are helpful with that.

But, let's get back to the topic:

Whatever the case may be, all Joseph Smith did was take narratives from a few sources, created his cersion of a Risk board in his mind, and then hung the story on it. There’s literally no there, there...

- Doc

[Morley]

That’s OK. I’m not interested in going this direction. I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say. Clan of the Cave Bear? THAT is a blast from the past. If I’m not mistaken that was part of a series. I read Clan of the Cave Bear but I can’t remember if I read the other books that went along with it.

I realize we’re going to have different views in regards to Hardy’s book relative to the discussion having to do with volcanism in the Book of Mormon. That’s OK. I’m perfectly happy to have you go your way. I’ll go mine.

Sources and their legitimacy/credibility are going to vary from person to person. For example, my guess is that you would generally favor cracking open source material that is in disfavor with the early leaders of the church. Tanner’s,etc. You would be less likely, by default, because of your biases and predisposition/presuppositions, to give much credence to Grant Hardy. He’s a believer. Or Terry’s Given’s “By the Hand of Mormon”. He’s a believer.

And for what it’s worth, I look at issues with the Book of Mormon on a hierarchy of importance. I look at what I consider to be the BIG ‘hits’ and then look at other issues and decide whether or not they cancel out or make those hits meaningless. For example, Chiasmus/multiple authors…BIG. Anachronisms…wait and see. Other issues are in the ‘wait and see’ category also because of the BIG hits.

I realize those big hits may not satisfactorily meat up to the expectations and/or demands of others. Probably no purpose in arguing about that fact. It’s just the way it is.

As has been stated more times than I would like to count, when it comes down to it, a belief or testimony in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon comes through an internal witness of the Spirit in regards to the message and truthfulness of the doctrines taught within the covers of the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon geography and spending an inordinate time looking and relooking at Book of Mormon issues discourages or takes away time which could be spent reading of the Book of Mormon for the purpose for which it was written. That is, to come to Christ.

When was the last time you picked up the Book of Mormon for that purpose? If not recently, do you feel as though you’ve been able to come closer to the Savior as a result of not spending time within its pages for that purpose? Some people say they have. And that’s OK. To each, his or her own. But I think they may be the minority.

Some folks want to continue on with the main thrust of this thread. I’m willing to let it go that direction at this point.

Thanks for your input.

Regards,
MG

My issue isn't with Hardy or Givens. I've read them, and though I disagree, you've never seen me say anything bad about them. My problem isn't even with The Book of Mormon. My issue is with you and the methods you employ to defend your religion. You seem to think it's okay (and even laudable) to lie and be disingenuous in the defense of your arguments and what you see as your faith. That's pretty low.

[Tator]

The last post of Morley's is perfect.