Shulem Cracks Book of Mormon Geography

[MG 2.0]

Pour yourself a drink....

Dr. Pepper for me.

Thanks for the basic civility between opposing views. Opposition in all things.

But playing nice is always a winner for all.

I think you’ve gotten your “twist” on the Delmarva theory pretty much in place, for what it’s worth. Along with Brandley’s strand of the same, and the critique given on what he wrote, folks can get a better look at possible pros and cons.

That’s as it should be.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I think you’ve gotten your “twist” on the Delmarva theory pretty much in place, for what it’s worth. Along with Brandley’s strand of the same...

Wrong again. Please take a look at your own links, and also. READ. THE.THREAD.

[MG 2.0]

I think you’ve gotten your “twist” on the Delmarva theory pretty much in place, for what it’s worth. Along with Brandley’s strand of the same...

Wrong again. Please take a look at your own links, and also. READ. THE.THREAD.

Thanks for chiming in again Marcus. Your contributions/posts always add some value and ZING.TO.THE.DISCUSSIONS.

Period’s and capitals used together definitely add something, don’t they?

Your self imposed position of board nanny and giving slaps on the back add a bit of flair/liveliness also.

I’m sure it’s appreciated.

Let’s let Shulem respond to my posts though, shall we? He’s barely been able to get a word in in edgewise regards to answering my questions. That’s OK, I suppose. But you really don’t have to do the obvious ‘flak thing’ in order to provide cover for him when he chooses not to respond.

He’s a big boy.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Let’s let Shulem respond to my posts

I much prefer to respond to YOU rather than links about certain people writing on this subject. The beauty of this board is that we can do that freely and at whatever pace we prefer. You also know that I'm going to be respectful to you personally and treat you kindly. So, there are no worries.

You are welcome to express your objections to why Delmarva is not a dead-ringer for Smith's narrative. Bring up mountains or whatever you want. I've got cards in my deck and will play them as needed. May I enquire of what single objection comes to your mind in rejecting Delmarva as the obvious place?

Show me your card, MG.

Lay it on the table and let's see it.

[Marcus]

Wrong again. Please take a look at your own links, and also. READ. THE.THREAD.

...Let’s let Shulem respond to my posts though, shall we? He’s barely been able to get a word in in edgewise regards to answering my questions.

not true, he has agreed with my position--or rather, with my agreement of his position.

Thanks for chiming in again Marcus. Your contributions/posts always add some value and ZING.TO.THE.DISCUSSIONS.

Period’s and capitals used together definitely add something, don’t they?

Rather than comment on the typing, could you respond to some outstanding comments?
For example:

...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?

Present your evidence.

Also,

[You're the one bringing up this source, mentalgymnast. Where do YOU think there is a divergence?

Since I don't think you read your randomly googled source OR this thread, i'll give you a start:

You will not find the Book of Mormon geography described anywhere more accurately than at Delmarva.

And from your source:

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.

And again,

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?

That's three outstanding comments on what you've brought up that you have ignored.

That’s OK, I suppose. But you really don’t have to do the obvious ‘flak thing’ in order to provide cover for him when he chooses not to respond.

I haven't covered for him, and he has fully responded to you.

Now it's your turn, would you please respond to the three comments above about the source you brought up?

[Marcus]

Let’s let Shulem respond to my posts

I much prefer to respond to YOU rather than links about certain people writing on this subject. The beauty of this board is that we can do that freely and at whatever pace we prefer. You also know that I'm going to be respectful to you personally and treat you kindly. So, there are no worries.

You are welcome to express your objections to why Delmarva is not a dead-ringer for Smith's narrative. Bring up mountains or whatever you want. I've got cards in my deck and will play them as needed. May I enquire of what single objection comes to your mind in rejecting Delmarva as the obvious place?

Show me your card, MG.

Lay it on the table and let's see it.

I defer to you, Shulem. I had three outstanding questions mg has avoided, but I would drop that completely if he would just answer your question here, and actually state his objection in his own words.

[Shulem]

I defer to you, Shulem. I had three outstanding questions mg has avoided, but I would drop that completely if he would just answer your question here, and actually state his objection in his own words.

Agreed, I think MG is qualified to represent himself perfectly and he's well read when it comes to apologetic material on Book of Mormon geography. I confess, I'm not so well read in that arena and so he has one over on me. That gives him some muscle and perhaps I should take greater care.

But, I don't want to pressure anyone here. The opportunity is available and MG can make of it what he will. He can tell me what he thinks and why he thinks what he does. Then, I will tell him what I think. And if I run into problems, I will ask Joseph. See, I'm having a great time at this!

[MG 2.0]

Let’s let Shulem respond to my posts

I much prefer to respond to YOU rather than links about certain people writing on this subject. The beauty of this board is that we can do that freely and at whatever pace we prefer. You also know that I'm going to be respectful to you personally and treat you kindly. So, there are no worries.

You are welcome to express your objections to why Delmarva is not a dead-ringer for Smith's narrative. Bring up mountains or whatever you want. I've got cards in my deck and will play them as needed. May I enquire of what single objection comes to your mind in rejecting Delmarva as the obvious place?

Show me your card, MG.

Lay it on the table and let's see it.

Earlier (on the other thread I think?) I brought up volcanism and links that went into specific detail. The eastern seaboard doesn’t fit the narrative in the Book of Mormon. Both you and Brandley have to ignore the internal narrative in order to justify/support your theories in regards to Delmarva. Yes, I know you responded…but your response was dependent on the Book of Mormon being a fictional production. I suppose that this divide between our presuppositions is probably insurmountable. The author of the critique I linked to in regards to Brandley’s theory brings up issues with his Book of Mormon geography. How many of those issues/objections would the correlate with your Delmarva I can’t say. That’s why, earlier, I asked you to simply point out how your Delmarva theory differentiates itself enough from Brandley’s in order to be immune from those same criticisms.

That is the simple question I’m interested in having you answer when all is said and done.

Although, again, it doesn’t really matter because I think both of you, nonbeliever and believer have a problem to deal with in explaining the contradictions within the narrative and the geography of the eastern seaboard of the United States. That’s not an issue for you, I know.

Joseph wasn’t smart enough to know that volcanism and it’s effects (albeit the incomplete understanding of ‘darkness’ used in the narrative by either Mormon or the original author) were an anachronistic entry into the narrative. C’mon. Dumb one minute, a genius the next?

Anyway, that’s my main beef with Brandley and yourself. Delmarva doesn’t fit the COMPLETE description of the events leading up to Christ’s visit to the Americas. Some of the mesoamercan models do, in the main. I had linked you to one example, but you didn’t want anything to do with it because it was the work of an apologist.

Shulem, I think that it is readily apparent that the divide between yourself and believers is insurmountable. But that’s OK. It’s fine to have different view out there in the marketplace for people to choose from. And it’s totally cool that you have a passion for your ‘truth’ and feel a compunction to put it out there.

It might be well to leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

[Tator]

MG's shelf is getting heavier and heavier.

What a display of desperation.

[MG 2.0]

MG's shelf is getting heavier and heavier.

What a display of desperation.

Au contraire mon frère.

It’s discussions such as this that reinvigorate me. There are so many pieces of the ‘truth’ puzzle that critics ignore or twist in such a way as to make it appear as though the puzzle cannot be put together. The primary fault is to disengage from belief in God. This in turn forces nonbelivers to come up with and push ANY rationale to push their atheistic agenda.

The more I engage with folks such as you the more I come to believe in the fundamentals of religious belief. I suppose I can do that because I have never been a fundamentalist sort of thinker to the extent that I couldn’t be flexible and thoughtful about my faith. Faith is much bigger than black and white answers and dogmatic positions. The early School of the Prophets is demonstrative of that.

As I interact with folks like Philo and others I can see the danger in taking absolutist/dogmatic/fundamentalist positions on anything having to do with religion, and Mormonism in particular. And then sticking to it until hell freezes over. Except for the fundamentals of course.

Truth is revealed and learned line upon line and precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little. God works with what he has available. He values and respects our free agency to choose as Priority One.

Anyway, no, I’m fine Tator. My wife and I just had our last child married/sealed in the temple this last week. The power of God is indeed made manifest through the ordinances of salvation/exaltation.

Regards,
MG