Why The Book of Mormon couldn't have taken place in North America

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

I have no problem with their scrutiny of Rod, I do however take issue with their lack of scrutiny on issues they agree with. IMHO being 'fair' would mean applying equal scrutiny to both sides.

I'm sure if they used the same tactics as Meldrum has they would have no problem doing so. I don't think they really care about the theory itself more of the shoddy research and appeal to authority. You know nothing says more then hey look at the GA here in the audience. He agrees with me, so should you. That kind of stuff goes along way in LDS culture.

[livy111us]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

Do you think that FAIR would have behaved exactly the same if Rod had used the same methods and made the same unfounded claims about DNA evidence suggesting the BoM happened in Central or South America?

I do. Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth as taught by Joseph Smith, revealed by the Lord, and any other theory is apostate, should be put into check, no matter what the issue, or where the geography. As I said, there are a variety of beliefs at FAIR, including those who accept a North American model, but one thing everyone can agree on, his methods are wrong and the LDS audience should be warned.

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

True. It's OK with me if they were wrong. Such is the human condition.


HiJolly

How do you know they were wrong?

[prisonchaplain]

I went on a brief journey to the link Loudmouth provided, to the Amazon reviews, where our own livy posts, and I've been to the author's site. Once again, I fully admit to being way out of my area of expertise. However, I see a danger for the FAIR group, because this same type of thing has happened at evangelical sites.

Some here are probably aware of the Christian Research Institute, and would likely label it "anti." Thus I won't post any links. But, to give you a brief history, for nearly three decades Walter Martin ran it, and it's focus was a defense of "historic Christianity," against groups, like your church, that opposed the Trinity and salvation by grace/faith alone. Eventually Hank Hannegraff became the leader, and he decided to broaden the mission, by critically reviewing (i.e. attacking) abberrant Christian teachers/teachings WITHIN the realm of traditional Christianity. In particular, he went after several TV preachers, including Kenneth Copeland.

Some would say that CRI's efforts were normal. However, IMHO, Hannegraff cashed in on the respect CRI had amongst evangelicals, and engaged in very polemic attacks--in some cases getting caught doing very shoddy research.

While I do not have statistics, I'd guess that CRI is not half as influential as it used to be. BTW, I'm aware of the irony that CRI may always have not engaged in the most sophisticated research, given that its leaders were more adept at popular debating and entrepenuership than rigorous theological research.

I'm dropping out of the who's right debate, because it seems to center on whether the author transgressed some LDS doctrines and practices that I'm not qualified to assess. Still, I'd encourage FAIR to tread carefully in these matters, and mostly stick to defending your church against direct critics, rather than perceived questionable supporters.

[livy111us]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I went on a brief journey to the link Loudmouth provided, to the Amazon reviews, where our own livy posts, and I've been to the author's site. Once again, I fully admit to being way out of my area of expertise. However, I see a danger for the FAIR group, because this same type of thing has happened at evangelical sites.

Some here are probably aware of the Christian Research Institute, and would likely label it "anti." Thus I won't post any links. But, to give you a brief history, for nearly three decades Walter Martin ran it, and it's focus was a defense of "historic Christianity," against groups, like your church, that opposed the Trinity and salvation by grace/faith alone. Eventually Hank Hannegraff became the leader, and he decided to broaden the mission, by critically reviewing (i.e. attacking) abberrant Christian teachers/teachings WITHIN the realm of traditional Christianity. In particular, he went after several TV preachers, including Kenneth Copeland.

Some would say that CRI's efforts were normal. However, IMHO, Hannegraff cashed in on the respect CRI had amongst evangelicals, and engaged in very polemic attacks--in some cases getting caught doing very shoddy research.

While I do not have statistics, I'd guess that CRI is not half as influential as it used to be. BTW, I'm aware of the irony that CRI may always have not engaged in the most sophisticated research, given that its leaders were more adept at popular debating and entrepenuership than rigorous theological research.

I'm dropping out of the who's right debate, because it seems to center on whether the author transgressed some LDS doctrines and practices that I'm not qualified to assess. Still, I'd encourage FAIR to tread carefully in these matters, and mostly stick to defending your church against direct critics, rather than perceived questionable supporters.

I believe the difference between what Walter Martin did and what FAIR is doing is that FAIR is perfectly OK with other theories. It is the claim to have a divine source for the matter, when the Church has said numerous times that there is no revealed doctrine. Walter Martin wrote against those who disagreed with his views, and was quite relentless in doing so. FAIR wants to keep people from believing in a *doctrine* that is not a doctrine at all, but only the beliefs of a man who put quite a spin on the information.

[livy111us]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

How do you know they were wrong?

We know that the Church has never taken a stance on geography, and said numerous times that it has not been revealed. To say otherwise is incorrect.
The Book of Mormon also tells us that where the plates were found is a different hill than the original place called Cumorah or Ramah. A lot of the comments by past Prophets were based on popular theory. For years it was thought that all of North America was where the Nephites were based, and all of South America was where the Lamanites were based. But if one reads the text of the Book of Mormon, it paints a much different picture. The area is actually much, much smaller.
Our leaders have the right to their opinion and beliefs in areas where there is no revelation. Because of this, we see them placing the Book of Mormon in NUMEROUS places all over the Americas. They went off of the best knowledge they had, which was far from perfect.

[livy111us]

Here is a very interesting discussion going on between FAIR and Rodney Meldrum:

FAIR Blog Blog Archive Examining the Secular Side