The LGT is Dead: Official CU announcement

[_Doctor Scratch]

I want to say or Clark wants to say?

You. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Clark wants to say, too.

Do you understand the difference between LGT as a model and Mesoamerica as an application of that model?

There is no real and/or meaningful difference, J Green. The only thing even remotely resembling a difference is the theory proposed by Meldrum, but you're content to allow your "good friends" at the M.I. to label him a "charlatan," a mountebank, etc. I suppose there is that bizarre model that proposes a Book of Mormon geography in southeast Asia. Would you like to count that as well?

[_J Green]

You. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Clark wants to say, too.

Well, it's very kind of you to focus on me. To answer your line of questioning, I would say that a) contra Gadianton, I don't believe the Mesoamerican model to be dead now or in the future or that Clark is saying that it is dead. And b) if the Mesoamerican model were to die, then no, I don't think it would be any kind of threat to the overarching idea of LGT. (Exhibit A would be Clark's article.) You obviously disagree, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

There is no real and/or meaningful difference, J Green.

Based on Clark's comments, do you think there is a meaningful difference to him? And do you agree with Dean Robbers that Clark is distancing himself from the low lying fields of the specific model and reatreating to the high ground of a generic template? If so, could you explain Pickett's charge to me?

The only thing even remotely resembling a difference is the theory proposed by Meldrum, but you're content to allow your "good friends" at the M.I. to label him a "charlatan," a mountebank, etc.

I guess I haven't seen where my "good friends" have called Meldrum a "charlatan." But now that I've been alerted, I can assure you, good citizen, that I will pick up the red phone on my night stand and call it in. Stand by for action.

I suppose there is that bizarre model that proposes a Book of Mormon geography in southeast Asia. Would you like to count that as well?

Actually, I'm rather partial to Darth J's Italian model. And I'm even more partial to Andrea Bocelli singing "La Habitudine" with Helena.

But now it's your turn. Where do you stand on the whole James Blunt thing? Disturbing, isn't it?

[_why me]

Where the Book of Mormon takes place can only be speculation of men and women. It matters not who said this or who said that. At the end of the day, it is all speculation and it will be debated for some time to come.

[_sock puppet]

For decades now, even more than a century, the LDS learned have tried to fit the physical locations, topographical landmarks and comings and goings described in the Book of Mormon to some feasibility in the geography of the Americas. Sorenson, Clark and their followers come to mind.

Maybe they have, but I've never heard of anyone developing a software program that could take input descriptions and compare them with geographical map data of the Americas. Maybe that is due to limited utility of such software. But it could help perhaps in the location of various lost cities and civilizations for which all that remain is a tale or a record, like the lost city of Troy. Such software could yield the possibilities, for each such locale that has a certain number of hits or 'bull's eyes', there could be given a score, downgrading the score of each location by how many misfires there are for its geography fitting those Book of Mormon descriptors.

In any event, what makes earlier conceived religions more unassailable by critics is that there is less about their formation and founding that is verifiable than there is about Mormonism. And it helps a great deal that the many places mentioned in the Bible actually exist. In the Book of Mormon, one can safely agree that the American continents exist, but that's about it. For the Book of Abraham of the Pearl of Great Price, those damnable papyri fragments, how the characters line up in the order presented in the GAEL, but for which there is no correlation between what those ancient Egyptian hieratics are now known to translate and the purported GAEL explanations in English or the text of the Book of Abraham. No, not a bull's eye, but think of the sound of a bullet fired from a gun and ricocheting off of a piece of metal.

There is also JSJr's misfire about the Greek Psalter presented by Rev. Caswall bearing JSJr's old canard, "reformed Egyptian", actually being Greek letters.

There are those pesky Kinderhook Plates about which JSJr misfired again, even if he was relying on his made up Egyptian alphabet. The plates were not of ancient origin, nor did they contain the story of a descendant of Ham, as claimed by JSJr.

When you consider the LDS learned that have tried as they might to place a location for the Book of Mormon events, and keep coming up either empty handed or with a square peg-round hole fit--or an ever smaller footprint--it probably is time that the Mormon Church unanchor its Book of Mormon from claims it is historically accurate, unhinge it from that limitation and let it float untethered, free of such limitations and doubts--as a book of wisdom. They could claim it is god-inspired wisdom, since after all, that would be an unfalsifiable claim. The MI ought to just try biting the bullet, explaining that the Book of Mormon should merely be read as fiction and then of course, if the blow back is too much, the Mormon Church hierarchy can detach the MI too. Not much of a sacrificial lamb for the Mormon Church to expend if need be, but a tremendous upside if they see defection is minimal as they detach the Book of Mormon from claims of historicity.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The MI ought to just try biting the bullet, explaining that the Book of Mormon should merely be read as fiction and then of course, if the blow back is too much, the Mormon Church hierarchy can detach the MI too. Not much of a sacrificial lamb for the Mormon Church to expend if need be, but a tremendous upside if they see defection is minimal as they detach the Book of Mormon from claims of historicity.

Actually, there is good reason to believe that some folks in the M.I. have been trying to pave the way for a potential declaration that the Book of Mormon is purely allegorical. This particular Mopologetic maneuver has been dubbed "The Gadianton Turn."

[Guest]

I guess I haven't seen where my "good friends" have called Meldrum a "charlatan."

I don't see the MI calling Meldrum a charlatan

I think this the following is relevant to these sentiments:

The Book of Mormon, the Latter-day Saints, and the Church of Jesus Christ deserve far better than Meldrum's pseudoscientific snake oil and strained proof-texting.

Charlatan: A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

I think it would be a matter of splitting hairs to say that Doctor Scratch's characterization is in any way off the mark here. Now granted, Greg Smith doesn't speak for the entire MI, but he does carry a lot of weight in his new position. Further, FAIR has also gone after Meldrum on this with some pretty heated rhetoric.

[_sock puppet]

The MI ought to just try biting the bullet, explaining that the Book of Mormon should merely be read as fiction and then of course, if the blow back is too much, the Mormon Church hierarchy can detach the MI too. Not much of a sacrificial lamb for the Mormon Church to expend if need be, but a tremendous upside if they see defection is minimal as they detach the Book of Mormon from claims of historicity.

Actually, there is good reason to believe that some folks in the M.I. have been trying to pave the way for a potential declaration that the Book of Mormon is purely allegorical. This particular Mopologetic maneuver has been dubbed "The Gadianton Turn."

Yes, life at the MI would be so much easier if they just took the plunge, head-long into those murky, uncertain waters. This lurching, inch by inch, has to be agonizing for them.

[_J Green]

I think it would be a matter of splitting hairs to say that Doctor Scratch's characterization is in any way off the mark here. Now granted, Greg Smith doesn't speak for the entire MI, but he does carry a lot of weight in his new position.

After reading the article, I think I agree with you, Gad. It would indeed be splitting hairs to say that Scratch's characterization is off the mark. You're both correct. Greg does make this kind of claim.

For the record, I've never met Greg. I've heard him present at a FAIR conference or two, but that's it. That being said, however, I have a hard time disagreeing with him. I don't usually admire that sort of strong rhetoric, but if the evidence he adduces is accurate, then I can't blame him for being troubled by the behavior he documents.

Regards

[_hugh jass]

Where the Book of Mormon takes place can only be speculation of men and women. It matters not who said this or who said that. At the end of the day, it is all speculation and it will be debated for some time to come.

Seems it still is not enough for some guys...

[_J Green]

Gad,

Getting back to your thesis, I note that in 2005, Clark publishes an article arguing for a Mesoamerican setting. (See "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," JBMS 14/2 pp 38—49). In 2008 in he gives a presentation at the FAIR conference on parallels between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. (I was in Afghanistan at the time and missed it.) Then in 2010 he provides a testimony to MST that essentially says that Mesoamerica is the best location for Book of Mormon events.

There is more, but this should be good enough (and recent enough) to act as a control group for your thesis. I'm still not seeing a sea change by Clark. Your thoughts?

Cheers