In scholarly research, it is customary to rebut someones research by a detailed rebuttal. It is not enough to say: "I think Lund's research concerning trying to prove who wrote the article(s) in The Times and Seasons' is flawed. You have to show why it is flawed, or show the work of someone who has done so.kittycat51 wrote: ↑March 18th, 2017, 11:38 amNo I don't believe that Joseph wrote that Times and Season's article. It goes against many other things he stated to the brethren during Zion's march and what he wrote in letters to Emma. He would be contradicting himself. Have you read this article "The Smoking Gun of Book of Mormon Geography"? http://bookofmormonevidence.org/the-smo ... geography/" I think the link to the actual article is broken, but you can download the article in PDF from the above link. Worth reading especially because I don't think you have. I think Lund's research concerning trying to prove who wrote the article in "The Times and Season's" is flawed.larsenb wrote: ↑March 17th, 2017, 11:17 pmSorry Sandman. The statements in issues of the 1842 Times and Seasons discussing what Lloyd Stephens, et al., found in Mesoamerica and the surmises that these were the likely locations for the Land of Zarahemla, etc., were written by Joseph Smith.sandman45 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2017, 2:52 pmAmen and Amen.. Joseph didn't believe it was.. he knew.. he spent so much time with Moroni and knew their culture, their beliefs, their wars, their landscapes, and the clothes they wore what the houses looked like etc.. . . . .Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 16th, 2017, 5:30 pm Pro: Heartland model is correct.
Con: Mesoamerican model is incorrect.
John Lund did an exhaustive study showing this. I've seen no real rebuttal of his work. Do you have one?? I'd like to see it.
We have gone over this subject, again, and again. Earlier, someone did bring up arguments against Lund, but they really didn't address what he did, and were off the mark in the assertions they made. Now you can go dig up this alleged rebuttal, and I will dig up my arguments as to why the fellow doesn't make even a dent in Lund's work.
Or . . . you can find someone who has actually shown that Lund's work is flawed . . . or, you can look at Lund's research and come up with your own ideas as to why it is flawed. But just saying you think this, or you think that, is no argument whatsoever.