Lack of DNA and archeological evidence did not influence the creation of the limited geography theory

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DCP when he reimagined the God of the Gaps argument as the LGT:

[drumdude]

noel:. "Is Gee's claim that there was a missing manuscript a simple explanation.?

Please don't misunderstand Ockham's Razor as requiring that correct explanations always be simple, or as declaring that the simplest explanation is invariably right. It suggests, merely, that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts should be preferred unless there is reason to choose otherwise.

What is the reason Dan?

The reason is you start with the premise that Mormonism is true and work backwards, regardless of the multiplying complexities you have to invent.

[Marcus]

noel:. "Is Gee's claim that there was a missing manuscript a simple explanation.?

Please don't misunderstand Ockham's Razor as requiring that correct explanations always be simple, or as declaring that the simplest explanation is invariably right. It suggests, merely, that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts should be preferred unless there is reason to choose otherwise.

What is the reason Dan?

The reason is you start with the premise that Mormonism is true and work backwards, regardless of the multiplying complexities you have to invent.

And that's why he doesn't understand. "reason to choose otherwise" doesn't mean multiply the complexities until you end up with the most complicated answer with unreasonable opinions that are insupportable with fact.

[Rivendale]

noel:. "Is Gee's claim that there was a missing manuscript a simple explanation.?

Please don't misunderstand Ockham's Razor as requiring that correct explanations always be simple, or as declaring that the simplest explanation is invariably right. It suggests, merely, that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts should be preferred unless there is reason to choose otherwise.

What is the reason Dan?

The reason is you start with the premise that Mormonism is true and work backwards, regardless of the multiplying complexities you have to invent.

I skimmed through Dan's recommendation to read Matt Roper's limited geography paper and it does exactly that. All the early speculators like Pratt started with the fact it is all true. Angels appeared. Plates were found. Fragments of Smith’s descriptions and Pratt's musings were then press fitted together. I thought the line Revelation is one thing speculation is another was interesting because this is how Muhlestein got in trouble with his cohorts in Egyptology.

[Doctor Scratch]

The LGT has been a total and complete disaster--a hilarious one. No one beyond the Mopologists takes it seriously, and DCP cannot even articulate why it's persuasive. He cannot even explain, in layman's terms, what the actual argument is. Instead, he always reverts to these appeals to authority: "I've read Sorenson and Gardner! You're wrong because I've read them, and you haven't!!!" And yet he cannot even explain what their main points are.

No one outside of Mopologetics takes the LGT seriously, and, of course, there is a big chunk of fellow Latter-day Saints who think the LGT is hogwash--i.e., the Heartlanders. If the Mopologists cannot even convince their own fellow LDS that the LGT is the better theory, then you *know* how bad it is.

[Marcus]

The LGT has been a total and complete disaster--a hilarious one. No one beyond the Mopologists takes it seriously, and DCP cannot even articulate why it's persuasive. He cannot even explain, in layman's terms, what the actual argument is. Instead, he always reverts to these appeals to authority: "I've read Sorenson and Gardner! You're wrong because I've read them, and you haven't!!!" And yet he cannot even explain what their main points are.

No one outside of Mopologetics takes the LGT seriously, and, of course, there is a big chunk of fellow Latter-day Saints who think the LGT is hogwash--i.e., the Heartlanders. If the Mopologists cannot even convince their own fellow LDS that the LGT is the better theory, then you *know* how bad it is.

And, If I recall correctly, he likes to hint that the Brethren secretly back him up. Right.

[drumdude]

"You're wrong because I've read them, and you haven't"

This is why DCP is never going to publish a book. This is the extent of his ability to communicate.

How about a couple sentences to convey what you gleaned from those books, Daniel?

[Tom]

My friend John Sorenson led no tours to Mesoamerica of which I’m aware (and, accordingly, is unlikely to have profited from leading such tours).

That sounds correct. I recall that Professor Sorenson served as a “traveling guest lecturer” for a thirteen-day FARMS “Lands of the Book of Mormon Tour” “into the exciting Book of Mormon areas of Mexico and Guatemala” in June 1984, but I assume he paid his own expenses ($1,475 per person — double occupancy or $1,180 for $1,000 contributors) given that FARMS survived on a shoestring budget at the time. The fee covered airfare from Salt Lake City and all ground transportation; lodging (first-class hotels or best available); meals (two per day); guide service; lecturer speculation (for example, Lake Atitlán is possibly the site of the Waters of Mormon); tips, taxes, and entrance fees; and transfers, baggage handling, and insurance. I cannot confirm whether the Proprietor was one of the “35 F.A.R.M.S. enthusiasts” who joined the tour.

[Doctor Scratch]

An interesting turn of phrase from the Afore. “Unlikely to have profited from *leading* such tours.” What about merely *being present* on such tours?

[Gadianton]

I think the fact that LGT research died long ago speaks for itself as to the seriousness of the LGT.

I think we can appreciate it though to a point, and I think there is some logic to it.

The Book of Mormon is obviously intended as an epic tale. It's supposed to be huge. Lehi shows up on this vast new world, his progeny settles the entire thing, and literally not a single twig anywhere falls outside of Mormonism's claim. Every artifact ever encountered anywhere in the new world could be explained by Joseph Smith and had meaning within Mormonism. Nobody owns anything nor has any identity outside of what the Church says. The Book of Mormon is all-encompassing, totalizing. It must be, and if it isn't, then it's pointless.

Here's the problem. It's hard to tell an epic story. Now that Season 3 is dropping, consider Foundation. The Galactic Empire has 25 million worlds. Does it really feel that big? No. Not even close. You could carefully work through the script and likely make a great case that it's only about a handful of worlds, and not ones with huge populations. The fact that its scale isn't convincing is failed execution from the writers. Same for the Book of Mormon. To have a story where everyone is connected and with a meaningful overarching narrative in 600 pages, it's going to be tough to cover the story of North and South America over a thousand years. You wouldn't expect walking distances, or the distances required to make any given scene sensible, to justify the vast claims the book makes about its scale. Perhaps a more talented writer could do it, but I think it would be quite a challenge.

That Joseph Smith bit off more than he could chew doesn't prove that he wasn't really trying to chew what he bit off.