The Mopologists' War with the Heartlanders is Heating Up

[_Lemmie]

So I think what they're saying is that they've interpreted those ambiguous passages in a way that ensures that none of their checklist items ends up being mutually contradictory with any of the other checklist items.

I agree. The problem remains, however. They are testing if real geography fits their checklist, but only after, on the basis of proper "interpretation," making sure that their checklists are internally consistent, or as you put it, not mutually contradictory.

So they are assuming away, through artificial after-the-fact coordinating, a significant aspect of the inconsistency or consistency that they should be measuring.

[_Physics Guy]

Right, if they're trying to use this as an argument for Book of Mormon historicity, instead of just using it as a tool to help Mormons to guess where it all happened if they assume it was historical. They shouldn't be trying to use their checklist in the former way, but maybe they are. There's that line about having to hurry up and audit lots of places because even BYU professors are starting to doubt Book of Mormon historicity. That does sound as though they think their checklist will help with that.

Maybe the idea is that once they finally pin down exactly where the Book of Mormon took place, they can go there and dig up artifacts to convince those wavering profs along with everyone else? So the checklist will indirectly help prove the Book of Mormon by finally finding the ruins of Zarahemla?

I dunno. The checklist itself seems like a sensible enough idea from a believing Mormon point of view but some of the remarks in the linked post are indeed a bit strange.

[_Lemmie]

Right, if they're trying to use this as an argument for Book of Mormon historicity, instead of just using it as a tool to help Mormons to guess where it all happened if they assume it was historical. They shouldn't be trying to use their checklist in the former way, but maybe they are. There's that line about having to hurry up and audit lots of places because even BYU professors are starting to doubt Book of Mormon historicity. That does sound as though they think their checklist will help with that.

Maybe the idea is that once they finally pin down exactly where the Book of Mormon took place, they can go there and dig up artifacts to convince those wavering profs along with everyone else? So the checklist will indirectly help prove the Book of Mormon by finally finding the ruins of Zarahemla?

I dunno. The checklist itself seems like a sensible enough idea from a believing Mormon point of view but some of the remarks in the linked post are indeed a bit strange.

I see your point. Coming from the inside as a previous Mormon, yes, as a strongly believing Mormon it works and it would be considered a normal approach. Maybe this is an artifact of internet exposure--they speak as though they are communicating with all Mormons but quite obviously there are others listening in!! it will be interesting to see how it evolves.

[_Gadianton]

To PG's point, they can assume it happened and if it's historical, what does that imply from the text and is it consistent, because we can at least imagine that a fabricated history isn't internally consistent and so while internal consistency doesn't prove the Book of Mormon, it counts for something. The apologists say the Book of Mormon is very internally consistent. So they say, I haven't pursued it myself so I don't have any arguments against it, but I wouldn't be sold so easily given the massive confirmation bias we see at work in apologist thinking. There are several maps of Book of Mormon cities out there, and they say that the ability to logically place the many cities in relation to each other is one of those things.

it's a moving target though, because we've also heard the distinction between the Book of Mormon as history and the Book of Mormon as ancient. It could be completely fabricated by Moroni but if Moroni was real and appeared to Joseph Smith, it doesn't really matter.

[_Lemmie]

To PG's point, they can assume it happened and if it's historical, what does that imply from the text and is it consistent, because we can at least imagine that a fabricated history isn't internally consistent and so while internal consistency doesn't prove the Book of Mormon, it counts for something. The apologists say the Book of Mormon is very internally consistent. So they say, I haven't pursued it myself so I don't have any arguments against it, but I wouldn't be sold so easily given the massive confirmation bias we see at work in apologist thinking....

I looked back at the quote, here's the context:

The only a priori assumption the audit procedure makes is that the Nephite text is consistent. Since virtually every scholar who has ever analyzed the text has come to this conclusion, we are on solid ground with a presumption of consistency.

I'm pretty sure your assessment of confirmation bias is spot on, given that "virtually every scholar who has ever analyzed the text" would be virtually only believing LDS scholars.

it would be interesting to call a CFR on whether any of those scholars did NOT have "Book of Mormon historical" as a starting assumption.

it's a moving target though, because we've also heard the distinction between the Book of Mormon as history and the Book of Mormon as ancient. It could be completely fabricated by Moroni but if Moroni was real and appeared to Joseph Smith, it doesn't really matter.

Good point, I sometimes wonder if that is where the Early Modern English hypothesis is ultimately heading.

[_Gadianton]

well yes, I too wonder about the Emod and Inspired fiction theory. ; )

A nearer target might be the problem of population sizes in the Book of Mormon. The apologists would say that the fast growing populations are consistent with *others* not mentioned that intermingled with Lehi's family. Brant Gardner has also said that the epic numbers at the final battle are consistent with the tendency of ancient texts to exaggerate.

So what "consistency" might mean is up for grabs.

[_Lemmie]

well yes, I too wonder about the Emod and Inspired fiction theory. ; )

A nearer target might be the problem of population sizes in the Book of Mormon. The apologists would say that the fast growing populations are consistent with *others* not mentioned that intermingled with Lehi's family. Brant Gardner has also said that the epic numbers at the final battle are consistent with the tendency of ancient texts to exaggerate.

So what "consistency" might mean is up for grabs.

There needs to be a Mopologetic Dictionary. I think Symmachus already indicated entries in another thread, let me see if I can find it.

ETA i found it!

A Lexicon of Mormon Apologetics

[_Physics Guy]

How accurate do ancient descriptions of geography tend to be? On the one hand you'd think they wouldn't be wildly off, if people were describing real places that they and everyone for whom they were writing would have known. On the other hand people do sometimes exaggerate things they know.

From Dava Sobel's book Longitude I learned that Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter let people measure longitude accurately for the first time, by using those moons as a clock against which local solar time on Earth could be compared. Sobel quoted something to the effect that one French king complained that he was losing more territory to his own astronomers than he was to his enemies, because once they finally started producing really accurate maps, they found that traditional distances had all been exaggerated. The size of his kingdom kept getting revised downward with every longitude fix.

How crazy would it be for Nephites to be real ancient people but lousy geographers?

(I ask hoping that one of our local historians will be able to tell me. Apropos of the recent thread about people who insist you read everything before you can criticize them, my own current prime example of the kind of here-you-go best shot that real disciplines can give is Kishkumen informing me about the Res Gestae Divi Augustus, the text by Augustus that has survived until now carved in stone. So my questions about ancient history aren't rhetorical. I figure there's a decent chance that someone here actually knows.)

[_Lemmie]

Dr. Scratch,

I've noticed that Priestcraft Peter$on is blogging about his Peru tour right now. Is Peter$on telling this group that the Book of Mormon events took place in Peru? Peter$on is by no means an expert in Peruvian culture. What is he qualified to do in Peru other than lie to the tour group by telling them Peru was a location for the Book of Mormon? I'm hoping you can provide some insight.

The Mopologists have gone on record that the LGT is for the proposition that the Book of Mormon took place in what is now southern Mexico (Veracruz and Chiapas) and possibly Guatemala. Not Peru.

I have to believe the reason that Peter$on is in Peru is because he is never one to pass up an all expense paid vacation, even if it means throwing the LGT under the bus.

If Rodney Meldrum offered Peter$on an all expense paid vacation to take a Heartland tour group to New York, Peter$on wouldn't hesitate.

Peter$on is the personification of intellectual dishonesty and priestcraft.

Maybe this is what Peterson lectured to his CruiseLady Tour audience in Peru? From his ldsliving column, published June 29, 2019:

"How Peruvian Myths About a God Appearing to the People Echo Events in the Book of Mormon"

http://www.ldsliving.com/How-Peruvian-M ... on/s/91119

[_MonkeyNumber9]

Dr. Scratch,

I've noticed that Priestcraft Peter$on is blogging about his Peru tour right now. Is Peter$on telling this group that the Book of Mormon events took place in Peru? Peter$on is by no means an expert in Peruvian culture. What is he qualified to do in Peru other than lie to the tour group by telling them Peru was a location for the Book of Mormon? I'm hoping you can provide some insight.

The Mopologists have gone on record that the LGT is for the proposition that the Book of Mormon took place in what is now southern Mexico (Veracruz and Chiapas) and possibly Guatemala. Not Peru.

I have to believe the reason that Peter$on is in Peru is because he is never one to pass up an all expense paid vacation, even if it means throwing the LGT under the bus.

If Rodney Meldrum offered Peter$on an all expense paid vacation to take a Heartland tour group to New York, Peter$on wouldn't hesitate.

Peter$on is the personification of intellectual dishonesty and priestcraft.

Maybe this is what Peterson lectured to his CruiseLady Tour audience in Peru? From his ldsliving column, published June 29, 2019:

"How Peruvian Myths About a God Appearing to the People Echo Events in the Book of Mormon"

http://www.ldsliving.com/How-Peruvian-M ... on/s/91119

Is it just me or are these Jesus-type gods in these stories really always white? It seems like that's the "Ah-ha! Look at that! White Jesus/gods in the new world! I knew it!" spark that grabs their attention, with the cherry-picking following. And then if Jesus were really there, all of these other things necessarily follow, often including giving him (instead of the New World people themselves) credit for a wide range of positive cultural attributes and accomplishments.

A fascinating 2015 article by Scott Hoyt commences with a lengthy quotation from a Catholic chronicler of Peru named Pedro de Cieza de Leon. He was writing around the year 1550, fewer than 20 years after the destruction by Spanish conquistadors of the Inca empire. In the passage that I cite here, Cieza describes the appearance of Viracocha:

“There came from a southern direction a white man of great stature, who, by his aspect and presence, called forth great veneration and obedience. This man who thus appeared had great power, insomuch that he could change plains into mountains, and great hills into valleys, and make water flow out of stones. As soon as such power was beheld, the people called him the Maker of created things, the Prince of all things, Father of the Sun. For they say that he performed other wonders, giving life to men and animals, so that by his hand marvelous great benefits were conferred on the people. ... In many places he gave orders to men how they should live, and he spoke lovingly to them ... admonishing them that they should do good ... and that they should be loving and charitable to all. In most parts he is generally called Ticiviracocha. ... (And) that wherever (he) ... came and there were sick, he healed them, and where there were blind he gave them sight by only uttering words.”

Although I cannot claim to have walked the earth in the Near East during bibilical times, I find it very doubtful that Jesus would have been white.

"Jesus probably looked like a typical Judean man of his time. Research on ancient skeletons in Israel suggests that Judeans of the time were biologically closer to Iraqi Jews than any other contemporary population, and thus in terms of physical appearance the average Judean of the time would have likely had dark brown to black hair, olive skin, and brown eyes."