The problem with Limited Geography,

[Indy Coug]

I'm currently reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelatio.../dp/140004006X



While I'm just getting started, one thing is clear: there were millions and millions of inhabitants in the Western Hemisphere and virtually the entire face of the land was covered; particuarly below the Rio Grande prior to the Conquistadors beginning their handiwork. They are clearing land in Bolivia and Brazil that is virtually uninhabited now that turns out to be full of canals, mounds and other infrastructure which was used to support hundreds of thousands of people. Who knows what else has yet to be discovered?

Multiple cities have been comfortably estimated to have had over 100,000 inhabitants.

So theoretically, there could have easily been one or more wars that involved hundreds of thousands of people.

I honestly don't know where I weigh in on the limited geography theory or any other theories.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is a fool's errand. There's no evidence of any of this. None. Not a shred. Tooblue, your entire lengthy post is made up. You made it up. No wonder you give yourself solace believing that all of history is just a myth, a charade.

There's tons of liguistic, archeological, geographic, and documentary evidence to support Homer, Herodotus, Josephus, the authors and editors of the Bible. THe parthenon stands before our eyes, my avatar is a visual testimonial that there is a great deal of factual truth in Josephesus' account, maybe most important that Josephus' account is a genuine ancient record, what it claims to be. We have old manuscripts, Dead Sea scrolls, we have modern people acting just like their forebears did 3,500 years ago in the Middle East. We have Jews, Iranians, Egyptians and Celts.

But there is no more evidence to support anything in this thread than Hobbits. I would not wast my time engaging in a discussion of "limited geography." There's nothing. Nothing. Not even a recognizable place name or geographic formation or structure in the Book of Mormon. I can't believe that when there are so many great things I haven't read or seen people spend time speculating about 230,000 Nephites or limited geography. It's why I abhor the exmo site. Those people continue to talk about nonsense. They should stop. It's ridiculous, and it's sad. It really is. I think that may be the biggest tragedy of Mormonism.

It isn't even good literature except the huge sections copied straight out of the KJV. It's a pale imitation of the KJV.

Seattle, the more you open your mouth to condemn these fools errands, the more your reveal yourself to be a bitter fool. What have archeologist only recently discovered about Stone Henge -go look it up! And how about those Dead Sea Scrolls -how has researchers understanding of what they represent changed in say, the past ten years as compared to when they were first discovered and studied?

The subtle and not so subtle details of all the precious history you cling to so dearly changes so frequently you don’t even bother to keep up. You are lost in an orientalist, classics rapture that has rendered you blind.

Very recently on this message board new information about human development in the regions of the world that holds your imagination have been discussed:

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...v041708a.shtml

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/1410,f...tory-in-turkey

You are a peevish deserter of the faith of your fathers who has no more physical evidence to say the book of Mormon is not true than I have to say it is true. Yet I believe as result of some deeply profound personal experiences that I cannot ignore. Solon asks an interesting question. The numbers presented are curious and the subject is worth discussion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is a fool's errand. There's no evidence of any of this. None. Not a shred. Tooblue, your entire lengthy post is made up. You made it up. No wonder you give yourself solace believing that all of history is just a myth, a charade.

There's tons of liguistic, archeological, geographic, and documentary evidence to support Homer, Herodotus, Josephus, the authors and editors of the Bible. THe parthenon stands before our eyes, my avatar is a visual testimonial that there is a great deal of factual truth in Josephesus' account, maybe most important that Josephus' account is a genuine ancient record, what it claims to be. We have old manuscripts, Dead Sea scrolls, we have modern people acting just like their forebears did 3,500 years ago in the Middle East. We have Jews, Iranians, Egyptians and Celts.

But there is no more evidence to support anything in this thread than Hobbits. I would not wast my time engaging in a discussion of "limited geography." There's nothing. Nothing. Not even a recognizable place name or geographic formation or structure in the Book of Mormon. I can't believe that when there are so many great things I haven't read or seen people spend time speculating about 230,000 Nephites or limited geography. It's why I abhor the exmo site. Those people continue to talk about nonsense. They should stop. It's ridiculous, and it's sad. It really is. I think that may be the biggest tragedy of Mormonism.

It isn't even good literature except the huge sections copied straight out of the KJV. It's a pale imitation of the KJV.

Even though I consider you a friend, rote arguments such as this make me believe you don't understand the arguments such as AA or SEIQ are making. Instead of thinking through the thoughtful arguments you merely mouth the thoughtless attacks of disbelievers. Frankly, I expect more of you.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Sassy in RS

Couldn't we also say "we don't know and Church members have different ideas about it?"

Sure, and in some ways that would be a very "Mormon" way to go about it. But it would still entail a major shift in missionary approach, in CES, in everything. Those who don't put much stock in the BoM as a historical object are tolerated as long as they are fairly circumspect, but the missionaries are out there making historical claims (an actual people on the Amercian continent and so on. Although missionaries are discouraged these days from trotting out the Jack West videos or their contemporary equivalent).

There will always be people at various points on the literal/non-literal continuum, but if the Church, as an institution, takes a "we don't know if it's historical or not" stance, it's moving toward non-literalness (and is therefore within my discussion above).

There are a variety of approaches to Biblical historicity within Christian denominations (although this has sometimes lead to splits), but the issues there are less acute than with the BoM. No one's suggesting that the NT was written in the 19th century and some of the Bible sites have been found. Can you imagine if scholars had verified some BoM sites and the conversation was then left to whether or not the miraculous things said to have happened there really occurred? Mormonism would immediately have a credibility that it does not now have.

Leave it to you to ask a great question!

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm currently reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelatio.../dp/140004006X



While I'm just getting started, one thing is clear: there were millions and millions of inhabitants in the Western Hemisphere and virtually the entire face of the land was covered; particuarly below the Rio Grande prior to the Conquistadors beginning their handiwork. They are clearing land in Bolivia and Brazil that is virtually uninhabited now that turns out to be full of canals, mounds and other infrastructure which was used to support hundreds of thousands of people. Who knows what else has yet to be discovered?

Multiple cities have been comfortably estimated to have had over 100,000 inhabitants.

So theoretically, there could have easily been one or more wars that involved hundreds of thousands of people.

I honestly don't know where I weigh in on the limited geography theory or any other theories.

My Home Teachee is reading that book too. He loves it. Let me know what you think!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Sure, and in some ways that would be a very "Mormon" way to go about it. But it would still entail a major shift in missionary approach, in CES, in everything. Those who don't put much stock in the BoM as a historical object are tolerated as long as they are fairly circumspect, but the missionaries are out there making historical claims (an actual people on the Amercian continent and so on. Although missionaries are discouraged these days from trotting out the Jack West videos or their contemporary equivalent).

There will always be people at various points on the literal/non-literal continuum, but if the Church, as an institution, takes a "we don't know if it's historical or not" stance, it's moving toward non-literalness (and is therefore within my discussion above).

There are a variety of approaches to Biblical historicity within Christian denominations (although this has sometimes lead to splits), but the issues there are less acute than with the BoM. No one's suggesting that the NT was written in the 19th century and some of the Bible sites have been found. Can you imagine if scholars had verified some BoM sites and the conversation was then left to whether or not the miraculous things said to have happened there really occurred? Mormonism would immediately have a credibility that it does not now have.

Leave it to you to ask a great question!

I'm fairly removed from the missionary efforts most of the time. Are they still making historical claims or emphasizing the spiritual truths?

I agree with your arguments for silent modifications of signifiers and signifieds, because over time almost all but a few would ignore the changes.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm fairly removed from the missionary efforts most of the time. Are they still making historical claims or emphasizing the spiritual truths?

I agree with your arguments for silent modifications of signifiers and signifieds, because over time almost all but a few would ignore the changes.

I should check my copy of Preach My Gospel. It might be an interesting exercise to compare the historicity claims in the various missionary discussions over time.

The missionaries do focus on read, ponder, and pray (as they should), but the BoM is presented as the history of an actual people, Lehi leaving around 600 BC, Joseph translating a history and so on.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I should check my copy of Preach My Gospel. It might be an interesting exercise to compare the historicity claims in the various missionary discussions over time.

The missionaries do focus on read, ponder, and pray (as they should), but the BoM is presented as the history of an actual people, Lehi leaving around 600 BC, Joseph translating a history and so on.

That is a conundrum. As far as the historicity, I don't know what to make of it. The one word I wish Joseph Smith had never used was "translate". Whatever JS did, he did NOT meet the modern scholarly definition of translation. He would have been much more accurate to state he revealed or brought forth this work.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The numbers are highly suspect, to say the least.

AA's suggestion isn't crazy (he's saying the "numbers" aren't really numbers), but if one does that sort of thing with every issue that comes up with the historicity of the BoM, one eventually undercuts the literalness of the BoM anyway.

I sometimes wonder if FARMS, and it's "that doesn't mean what it obviously seems to mean, even though Mormons stand up by the thousands and testify of it from the shadowy depths of misunderstanding" and "It's the most perfect book, which is why none of you really get it" approach isn't actually an overt attempt to ease the Church onto less literal grounds. The trajectory of this approach certainly seems more mystical than historical.

Another possibility would be a future edition of the BoM that allows the wording (the signifiers) to be more easily reconciled to more historically reasonable agruments concerning their meaning (the signifieds). You change "his ten thousand" to conform to what AA says it really means and so on, and therein conform the text to a more transparent and accessible historicity. You change the individual words to more accurately reflect what the thousands of pages of scholarship suggest; you condense and take the burden off of the missionary, the member, and the investigator.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to this second approach. You'd be making exactly the kinds of changes critics of the Church want people to imagine when they cite the 4,000 changes in the BoM. But truth be told, in 150 years no one will care and in 300 years only a handful of scholars will know. In Mormonism the wording changes are possible within the context of continuing revelation, could be made incrementally, and actually wouldn't involve all that many wording changes anyway (at least not in English). Moreover, these are the kinds of changes that have been made in the Bible from time to time.

The situation as it is, is unstable. Signifiers (words) need to be reconciled to signifieds (meanings), whether the former are considered in literal terms or not. The mental gymnastics required are already hurting missionary efforts amongst some people and contribute to inactivity too. It doesn't so much contribute to apostasy as it does to people wanting to be able to have a straightforward faith.

Movement in either direction should put the "Mormons are a cult" business to rest for good. There will be no more, "Well, when it says 'chariot' it really means 'Olmec deer sled' or whatever other kind of double think.

I see scholars in the Church pushing both directions, and as I have said before, I'm happy to accept the BoM as a book that teaches spiritual truth without being historical. I have a spiritual witness of it. But the Church will eventually start moving in one direction (the less literal) or the other (the more literal), and in the case of the latter, will actually have to make some wording changes that reflect a tenable historical understanding.

I suspect that FARMS is already subtly moving the Church in the less-literal direction and that some leaders are aware of this (and some approve). There could always be direction changes of course, or even a schism.

Interesting thoughts. I sense the beginnings of a shift away from literalness with the BoM as well, especially with regard to the claims about ancient American civilizations. There are no longer photographs of ancient Mesoamerican sites in the book's prefatory pages that suggest a close connection with actual sites and cultures.

I wonder if there's a larger-scale problem at work here. I, for one, feel an intense disconnect between various levels of authority and practice. There's a scriptural level, a GA level, and then a local-institution level that sometimes don't match up. So, we have scriptures/original revelation that tell us one thing, GA's who give modernized versions of the scripture, and local leaders or cultures who implement their own versions. So, we end up with local practices with no scriptural base (white shirts necessary to pass sacrament), or scriptural teachings that are modified for the sake of cultural correctness (such as the roles of women). It's all very confusing.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

Interesting thoughts. I sense the beginnings of a shift away from literalness with the BoM as well, especially with regard to the claims about ancient American civilizations. There are no longer photographs of ancient Mesoamerican sites in the book's prefatory pages that suggest a close connection with actual sites and cultures.

I wonder if there's a larger-scale problem at work here. I, for one, feel an intense disconnect between various levels of authority and practice. There's a scriptural level, a GA level, and then a local-institution level that sometimes don't match up. So, we have scriptures/original revelation that tell us one thing, GA's who give modernized versions of the scripture, and local leaders or cultures who implement their own versions. So, we end up with local practices with no scriptural base (white shirts necessary to pass sacrament), or scriptural teachings that are modified for the sake of cultural correctness (such as the roles of women). It's all very confusing.

make this its own thread and explain more...