Why You Can’t Convince a Theorist – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding why people who have their mind made up or believe a certain way are almost impossible to have change their mind.
In the last post we were discussing paradigms and why they are difficult to change.

One of the many mounds that have been built in the middle and eastern United States

Take for example people who tell us that the Mound Builders of the south and eastern United States were the Nephites. How that got started is questionable, but that it has become a firm, fixed belief in so many members and theorists that it is beyond belief when comparing it to Aristotle's simple logic, for nothing about mounds can be traced to Nephite origin. Though they are found in most parts of the world, they never existed in Mesopotamia or among the Hebrews or Jews. They are found nowhere in Central or South America, and have been proven without a doubt to be burial by nature—which runs contrary to the Law of Moses dealing with death and internment. But the paradigm continues. Talk to one of the heartland theorists, Great Lakes or eastern U.S. theorists, and you get a flippant but dogged statement of “fact” that mounds prove the Nephite existence.
    Without getting into Plato and Aristotle’s “Essentialism” that things are and must be as they are, to “nonessentialism” suggesting that stereotypes are not factual and that stereotypical thinking is dangerous. Esssentialism that judges people by their appearance without knowing their background and history is not only unpopular today, it is in the extreme of little value and quite possibly extremely negative. On the other hand, the essentialism that God is all powerful and all things of God are good and all things that are not good are of the devil, is also popular today with a much smaller amount of people, it seems, but both valuable, worthwhile, and “essential” for our growth and development in a “morale” and valuable life.
    Stated different, people who hold the high morale ground, with their compass set on God and all things god-like, is in a position to both hold and exercise the high-ground of discussion and knowledge. On the other hand, those who do not rely on all things god-like, cannot hold the morale high ground in a discussion since their argument will not be of God or god-like matters.
    Again, stated differently, those who discuss what the scriptural record holds as true and valid—the words, descriptions, and knowledge of the prophet Mormon and his abridgement of the Book of Mormon, can indeed hold the high ground of discussion and understanding, and it would seem, more likely to receive God-inspired recognition of truth and knowledge for the Lord has told us that “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath” (Matthew 13:12).
    It is a shame that most people who read this passage think in terms of material wealth and the passion of temporal matters when, in reality, the statement is meant to discuss what we “know” and what we “understand” and what we call “knowledge,” those things that cannot be taken from us by death, but that we retain in our minds into the eternities.

An island in the midst of the sea over which Lehi traveled

Thus, when the Lord through Jacob and Nephi tells us that the Land of Promise was an island, then those who accept that are on the morale high ground for that is of God; those who try to find some stereotypical answer in the word “isle” to mean something else than intended, are not following the scriptural record and thus not on the morale high ground of such a discussion.
    In another example, when the Lord through Mormon tells us that the Land of Promise was aligned on a north-south basis, then those who accept that directional alignment are on the morale high-ground that that is of God in his scriptural record. Thus, those who try to realign that north-south alignment to mean something else in order to make a location that does not follow the scriptural record are not on the moral high ground and cannot in a god-like approach support that view.
    As stated earlier, people tend to scoop up information they want to believe and uncritically analyze it, and then are much more skeptical and allocate their skepticism in a biased way. This compounds over time, so that people compile evidence that supports their view and critically dismiss that which doesn't, so that the evidence on their side eventually seems overwhelming.
    We see this in the many theorists views that exist as to the location and models for the land of Promise. Take the case of no mountains in the heartland, Great Lakes and eastern U.S. models, yet Samuel made it very clear that there would be mountains “whose height is great” in the Land of Promise following the crucifixion. You certainly cannot win an argument with a heartland or Great Lakes or Eastern U.S. Theorist over this point for they have simple discarded it as unimportant, compiling a lengthy list of their own “facts.” But the point is, the high ground of discussion is found in the scriptural record as it was original written and maintained, not in someone’s change or different interpretation of its contents.
    What about quinine, the cure of killing fevers, being found only in one place in the entire world (Andean Peru) at the time of the scriptural incurrences discussed in Alma 46:40? Or gold, silver and copper in the amounts discussed found basically in the Peru and Chile corridor of South America, and almost none in Guatemala and Mesoamerica with the majority of Gold and Silver in Mexico not in the Mesoamerican area? And no gold and silver found basically in the heartland, Great Lakes and Eastern U.S., yet these are areas not discussed by these Theorists.
    In Mormon Wars, Keith Melville spent his entire time talking about Letter VII written by Oliver Cowdery, very little in the actual scriptures, and almost nothing about Mormon’s descriptions of the Land of Promise.
    It is not that each Theorists doesn’t have a valid point here or there. But the reality of the scriptural record falls on some 60 to 70 different descriptions, each backed up by scripture, many by multiple scriptures, that most go unmentioned, undiscussed, and unwritten about by these Theorists in the defense of their point of view. As an example, in any logical and reasonable defense of one’s beliefs, if a list of 60 items is shown in the scriptural record can be met in one location but all others have to disregard most, some all, of these scriptures to promote their views, how is it that the promoters (the theorists) can continue to claim the high ground of any discussion regarding the location of the Land of Promise when their ideas are not based on the scriptural record?

As is shown time and again in human behavior or differences of opinion, the more passionate people are, the more morally convinced they are about the issue, the more they care about that in various other ways, the more biased they're likely to be. There is no evidence to indicate that one type of person or theorists is more likely to use bias in selecting evidence. It is that all theorists show a clear bias in their views. Despite having no mountains in the heartland, Great Lakes or Eastern U.S. to match Samuel’s description, these theorists are doggedly passionate about their beliefs and no amount of discussion about mountains or any of the other 60 points that don’t match their view are going to sway their tinking. The same can be said of the Mesoamerianists who regard the north-south alignment that Mormon gives us as unimportant to their set of “facts.” Nor could wheat and barley and other Jerusalem plants grow in any of these other theorists’ areas, etc., etc., etc. However, no true “facts,” Aristotle's “Theat which is is,” and “That which isn’t isn’t,” is going to make a bit of difference to any of them.
    But the fact is, they cannot claim the moral high ground of God’s scriptural record without using that record to show how their model matches all the points discussed in it. Yet all of these theorists are very willing to accept any and all points that match their views, even if they do not match the scriptural record.
    The Lord told Mormon and Moroni that the Lamanites would destroy any of their records they found, so these two prophets hid in the ground the numerous Nephite records. Why, then would we expect to find local writing of a past that was either hidden by the Nephites or destroyed by the Lamanites, yet the Mesoamericanist claims because there is writing in Mesoamerica, that it is the Land of Promise.