Narrow neck of land

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:56 am

I didn't say you were doing damage. I said that, realizing there's a possibility you may be one of those who is absolutely certain she is right, but is actually wrong, should bestow some caution and humility in you. You normally behave and speak as if you KNOW there is no way you are wrong, but there IS a way you could be wrong. To refuse to allow this reality to modify your world-view smacks of hubris.

Post by **_malkie** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:57 am

charity wrote:
beastie wrote:Maybe this simple question will help.

Is it possible for a human being to be completely, utterly, 100% convinced that God told him/her something - and be wrong?

(I had an answer written, but I had timed out and it went away. So I will start again.)

To answer this question, yes, it is possible for a human being to be completely, utterly, 100% convinced that God told him/her something - and be wrong.

But you have to ask what the source of the conviction is. People can convince themselves of all kinds of things. Some people convince themselves that God has sent them a message through some natural circumstance. "I found a $10 bill, and that was God's way of telling me that I should. . . " Some people's conviction is based only on what others tell them. "Pastor Bill told me God wanted me to give my trust fund to build the church up." They can be convinced without any spiritual experience of their own. They are absolutely convinced without any spiritual experience.

As I remember, Joseph Smith was utterly convinced that God told him to send some of his followers to Toronto to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon.

He later admitted that he was wrong.

The strange thing, to me, was that he discovered that he was wrong by using the stone-in-the-hat method, although that was how he first got the idea of selling the copyright. I cannot help but wonder how he knew that he got the correct answer about his being wrong the first time. Actually, how did he know that he ever got the correct answer after that, and how did anyone else know?

by the way, for anyone who loses posts due to timeouts, you might want to try composing your post in an offline application (Word, Notepad etc), save it in a file, and, when you are satisfied with it, paste it in to the browser.

Post by **_charity** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:06 am

beastie wrote:I didn't say you were doing damage. I said that, realizing there's a possibility you may be one of those who is absolutely certain she is right, but is actually wrong, should bestow some caution and humility in you. You normally behave and speak as if you KNOW there is no way you are wrong, but there IS a way you could be wrong. To refuse to allow this reality to modify your world-view smacks of hubris.

I am not overbearing.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:26 pm

I am not overbearing.

I'm not talking about being overbearing.

Post by **_LCD2YOU** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:01 am

charity wrote:The idea that the "narrow neck of land" is the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) has long been put to rest. Tehuantepec is the much more likely location. You can read more about it here.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... hts&id=132

Nope. That is a 125 mile gap over terrible terrain. you can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmus_of_Tehuantepec

Also, about your quote. It is over 7 years old the sources are interesting to say the least. Also, the author keeps on speaking about "paddles and boats", I thought the Book of Mormon specifically states "Walk in a day and a half".

Even still, boats great when you're going downhill, but not so good when you're going up to on the first half of the journey and you have to drag those things with you.

Post by **_LCD2YOU** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:10 am

charity wrote:Some of the speculating is useless. While there are those who think that the destruction which attended the crucifixion of the Savior did not deform the land beyond recognition (since Mormon could still identify major land featrues), it is not kown how much the features were changed.

And if you read carefully, Alma does not say they actually started with their feet in the water, and ended up with wet feet. I have a friend who lives "on the coast" of Oregon, and it is 20 miles to water.

Moving goalposts eh?

No, 20 miles from the coast is "not on the coast". They reason our world has shrunk and I can say I live "near the Atlantic ocean" is due to mobility. In my car, I am only 2 hours from the coast. On foot, travelling even at a fast and sustained 4 miles (you keep up 4 miles an hour over land off of a road) an hour over an area devoid of roads 12 hours a day, it would take me almost 3 days to go the 135miles.

Sorry, your explaination is grasping at straws that don't exist.

Post by **_charity** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:57 am

LCD2YOU wrote:Also, about your quote. It is over 7 years old the sources are interesting to say the least. Also, the author keeps on speaking about "paddles and boats", I thought the Book of Mormon specifically states "Walk in a day and a half".

LCD2YOU, thank you for demonstrating what oftens happens iwth critics. They don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions.

This is the passage from Alma that you are thinking of. Please note bolded section.

Alma 22: 32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

"Journey" says nothing about the method of travel. It certainly does not limit the method to walking.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:40 am

LCD2YOU, thank you for demonstrating what oftens happens iwth critics. They don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions.

Charity,

Given how frequently you don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions, you probably ought not to so generalize about critics' tendency to do so.

Post by **_charity** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:08 am

So many ad hominems, so little discussion.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:33 am

So many ad hominems, so little discussion.

Charity,

Why is it an ad hom for me to point out you often don't read carefully, but it's not for you to make that generalization about critics?

Look on this thread for two demonstrations of your tendency to read carelessly:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=4203