Had you read J. Theodore Brandley before your Delmarva Theory came into being? What concerns do you have with the criticisms of his work?
Where do you diverge from him?
Regards,
MG
You're the one bringing up this source, mentalgymnast.
Duh. Interesting that Brandley’s theory is now being recycled. He put it out there three years ago. Hasn’t changed the world of Mormonism. Why would one think that this recycled theory published anew on a backwater board such as this one would change the world as some here would like to believe?
You're the one bringing up this source, mentalgymnast.
Duh. Interesting that Brandley’s theory is now being recycled. He put it out there three years ago. Hasn’t changed the world of Mormonism. Why would one think that this recycled theory published anew on a backwater board such as this one would change the world as some here would like to believe?
Mentalgymnast. I have posted multiple excerpts showing Brandley's theory is not the same as Shulem's. You have posted nothing to support your position. Why are you continuing to argue they are the same?
Duh. Interesting that Brandley’s theory is now being recycled. He put it out there three years ago.
Look, I've explained earlier in the other thread that I had been working on Delmarva well over 15 years ago. I put it on the back burner and did not discuss it with anyone. I'm not recycling Brandley. I've not read his work nor care about it. Can you understand that? I don't want to spend my time reading apologetic material. I don't need Brandley! I have JOSEPH SMITH and that's good enough for me.
Duh. Interesting that Brandley’s theory is now being recycled. He put it out there three years ago.
Look, I've explained earlier in the other thread that I had been working on Delmarva well over 15 years ago. I put it on the back burner and did not discuss it with anyone. I'm not recycling Brandley. I've not read his work nor care about it. Can you understand that? I don't want to spend my time reading apologetic material. I don't need Brandley! I have JOSEPH SMITH and that's good enough for me.
I don't want to spend my time reading apologetic material. I don't need Brandley!
I do have a suggestion. It might be beneficial to have a dialogue with Del DowDell over at NephiCode on this topic. He is the one that found weaknesses in Brandley’s arguments/theories. You might find that you can keep things the way they are or readjust this and that in your theoretical propositions.
As I’ve mentioned, you’re not going to receive any critical response on this board. Del DowDell is someone that you might use as a peer reviewer where he has spent a good deal of time researching this stuff.
Report back if you’re able to have a conversation with him. He sounds like a good guy and he may very well be interested in going toe to toe with you as he has with Brandley and his Delmarva theory.
Look, I've explained earlier in the other thread that I had been working on Delmarva well over 15 years ago. I put it on the back burner and did not discuss it with anyone. I'm not recycling Brandley. I've not read his work nor care about it. Can you understand that? I don't want to spend my time reading apologetic material. I don't need Brandley! I have JOSEPH SMITH and that's good enough for me.
Fair enough. Carry on.
since mentalgymnast doesn't have the grace to apologize for his baseless attack, i'll do it for him.
(if he had read the threads he periodically pops in here to attack, he would have seen this:
...TBM J. Theodore Brandley (probably a Meldrumite now) identified the Delmarva Peninsula (with Meldrumite certainty) as the narrow neck of land in his 2008 e-manuscript...
No worries, you're not bursting my bubbly at all, I'm tickled pink to learn that others have conceived these things as well as I. You'll see in my thread that I do credit them as I just learned about those contributions days ago. I first conceived this theory some 15 years ago and spent a lot time thinking about it and on Google Earth going over the entire landscape. At that time, I'd never heard of anyone embracing the Delmarva Peninsula. I rejected all the proposed Book of Mormon geography models available at that time but was spending most of time time in the Book of Abraham. I never embraced any of those ridiculous geography models and relied upon myself to discover the truth and make my own model. But, as it was, I soon left the church and forgot about all that stuff until going through my notes and realizing I need to present this to Discuss Mormonism so they can know too.
And I'm grateful to have had an audience on this board to express all these things. I think everyone can see that I'm not seeking notoriety or credit. You'll notice that my maps I've worked hard to make don't have my name on them but are freely presented as contributions to the cause. I'm not looking for any credit. I'm not looking for glory. I'm spreading the word here on this board because it feels like the right thing to do. Besides, I feel qualified to do this and am not hindered by lack of archeological evidences and those kinds of proofs that testimony bearing members of the church require. I'm in the driver's seat, baby! I got the wheel! And my engine is super charged.
I really am in the best position to reveal these things and I'm doing it right here on Discuss Mormonism, live in front of everyone, including MG. We are making history and having a good time time doing it. Pour yourself a drink....
No worries, you're not bursting my bubbly at all, I'm tickled pink to learn that others have conceived these things as well as I. You'll see in my thread that I do credit them as I just learned about those contributions days ago. I first conceived this theory some 15 years ago and spent a lot time thinking about it and on Google Earth going over the entire landscape. At that time, I'd never heard of anyone embracing the Delmarva Peninsula. I rejected all the proposed Book of Mormon geography models available at that time but was spending most of time time in the Book of Abraham. I never embraced any of those ridiculous geography models and relied upon myself to discover the truth and make my own model. But, as it was, I soon left the church and forgot about all that stuff until going through my notes and realizing I need to present this to Discuss Mormonism so they can know too.
July 2021. Nope, I didn’t see that post from seven months ago. Not sure that an apology for a wrong committed is necessary, but thank you for dredging this up. I suppose I might have been the one to go in the way back machine and find this. But I didn’t.
My point still stands. The Delmarva theory has some issues. At least as proposed by Brandley. It’s been kicked around. It would be of interest if ‘the experts’ might find similar weaknesses in Shulem’s apparently (?) parallel theory. It would be useful to have him go toe to toe with another expert rather than getting a free pass here. Or having his take on this preexisting theory critiqued and receive a peer review of sorts.
That’s not going to happen here, so we are left with things as they are.
July 2021. Nope, I didn’t see that post from seven months ago. Not sure that an apology for a wrong committed is necessary, but thank you for dredging this up. I suppose I might have been the one to go in the way back machine and find this. But I didn’t.
My point still stands. The Delmarva theory has some issues. At least as proposed by Brandley.
Then discuss that with Brantley, whose theories are significantly different from Shulem's points. Especially since your source notes this:
Brandley makes a startling and extremely unjustified comment, saying: “This small neck of land can only refer to the Isthmus of Panama, and the land northward in this verse is North America, and the land southward is South America.
That's nowhere near Shulem's comments. If you want to comment here, READ THE THREADS! But seriously, what's going on here? it has been documented multiple times that your comments about Brantley don't fit. Why do you insist on bringing them up, without addressing this issue?