Late in June of this year, FAIR posted an initial review of Rodney Meldrum’s DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography. At the time, there were several folks who indicated that they were looking forward to the promised analysis of the DVD’s use of research and scholarship.
I’m pleased to report that FAIR has published the first three reviews, as promised, this morning. (We’re sorry they took so long; we hope you won’t be displeased at the results so far.) Posted on the FAIR website are reviews dealing with DNA Evidence, Geography, and Joseph Smith. All three of these reviews correspond with sections in the DVD DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography. The reviews in various forms–along with an explanation of why these reviews have been done–can be found at this single page.
During the past two months, working with other FAIR volunteers on these reviews, I’ve been quite interested in the responses that some people have made to our introductory review. A good number of people were appreciative; some others took the approach denouncing the review as consisting of “blatant and inflammatory lies,” “conjecture,” “innuendo,” and amounting to little more than “character assassination.”
For those who think it not appropriate to look a the manner in which information is presented (as was done in the introductory review), perhaps you will be more satisfied with the examination of the research and scholarship in these latest reviews.
For my part, regardless of whether you look at the presentation techniques or the content delivered by those techniques, there is little to recommend in DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography.
-Allen
PS: Why did I name this post “Examining the Secular Side?” Because of my belief that some topics tangentially related to the LDS faith (such as DNA, geography, and what Joseph Smith may have known or not known) are essentially secular in nature. They deal with science and history, two disciplines distinct from theology.
My belief is just the opposite, Allen. While science and history are commonly categorized as secular, as you do, they are inextricably bound up with religion and almost indistiguishable from theology, in my view. If you fail to see religion within the context of history and science, you have an empty shell, devoid of the color and tradition it was born, in part, to preserve. Mormonism is all about history … recent and ancient. Joseph Smith sought to preserve those elements in Mormonism that were most sacred to the ancients. Hence, our temples, our scriptures and our gospel are rife with historic and scientific information. We’ve simply been blinded to them by our popular, cultural biases. That is, we’ve allowed the world to dictate our paradigm. In truth, these largely unacknowledged elements are inseperable from events and conditions in Earth’s early history and mankinds career thereon. Pure science actually shares the search for truth with the restored religion. That there is profound divergence between the two in our modern world graphically displays the ignorance and hubris in both religion and science. Much scientific belief today is so badly misguided that it maintains only a semblance of reality. Astronomy is particularly afflicted by this scotoma. The fact that we saints see science and history as separate entities or disciplines reveals a profound flaw in our perception of the gospel. It arises from our ignorance of our roots, and it is extremely difficult to overcome. In my experience, only a small minority of church members are able to recognize this. So, you are in ample company, my friend. But, you are mistaken.
Anthony,
I would be surprised if our beliefs were that different, Anthony. (Nice comment, by the way.) I probably didn’t do a great job in explaining myself, primarily because the “PS” had little to do with the real reason for the post.
Two people, one religious and another non-religious, can look at DNA and see two entirely different things. One sees the handiwork of God, the other sees the culmination of evolutionary forces. Which one is right? Both could argue all day long that their paradigm is right, and neither come to agreement. (Forget for a moment that one who sees the handiwork of God could also believe in evolution, seeing that also as His handiwork.)
Two people could look at historical events and interpret them differently. Does seeing an empty tomb mean that Christ is the Savior? Depends on whether you are a “believer” before you examine the facts.
Two people can go walking somewhere in the western hemisphere and find a sign that says “Welcome to Zarahemla. Please visit our library for a great selection of scriptural records.” Does such a finding engender religious conviction? No, else why are there athiests who already know where the outskirts of Jerusalem are?
The fact is, our paradigms color how we view information, the information does not dictate the paradigm. True that paradigms can shift over time as new information is garnered, but information–by itself–does not a paradigm make.
When I say that the study of DNA, geography, and history is a secular venture, I do not mean that it should be done without faith, for my faith goes with me and colors everything I absorb in my day to day world. (I am no different than any other person in this regard.) What I mean is that such studies are not, indeed cannot, be the basis of faith. Basing one’s faith on such issues is “trusting on the arm of man.” Why should such basis be relied upon in preference to a more sure word?
-Allen
Is FAIR being fair?
Please add your comments to the NEW BLOG site at http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/ and look for my complete responses to these several articles on my website at http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org for a more ‘balanced’ understanding of the FAIR reviews in the next few days.
The apologists at FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) officially launched their reviews of my research presented in the DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography DVD, along with again using a personal and private email to bolster their character assassination attempts to discredit me personally, but overall their reviews have been ‘cleaned up’ considerably, to their credit.
From the FAIR website (quoted below) we gain a proper perspective of the significance of the FAIR review of my research.
“FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.”
As such, their collective opinions are no more, nor less, valid than any general member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
All members of the church are given the power of discernment through the gift of the Holy Ghost at baptism. It is encouraged that members use this God-given power to determine for themselves whether something is true or in error. Members need not assume that all truth must be first filtered through scholars before being able to find and know it for themselves.
“5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:5)
Sadly, here we see the problem, if there was any doubt.
Rod Meldrum wants to claim that revelation will confirm what he is claiming. No evaluation of the evidence needed, nothing to see here….
He wants us to pray about his claims without examining the evidence.
But, as the scriptures teach us, we must first “study it out in our minds.” (see D&C 9:8) How can we study without reliable information? How can we choose if we don’t have the options laid before us?
Meldrum claims that truth need not be filtered through “scholars.” This is true. The truths that matter–whether God lives, whether Jesus is the Christ, whether Joseph was a prophet, whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God, whether Thomas S. Monson is a prophet–need no intermediary.
But, he ignores–or hopes we don’t notice–that what HE is offering people is claims about historical, scientific, and technical matters. And those things are filtering through HIM. He has not mastered the material. He misrepresents it–either through ignorance or intent. And, he is , therefore, repeatedly wrong–as has been demonstrated at great length for those interested in examining the evidence.
This is why your ideas are dangerous to members, Rod. Not because you have a different idea about Book of Mormon geography. Speaking personally, I couldn’t care less, and I don’t know anyone else who does either.
But, what you are doing is dangerous because you choose to drape your claims in revelation, and malign those who disagree as unworthy members who “ignore Joseph Smith” or “reject Joseph’s revelation.” And, the Church has repeatedly insisted that there _IS_ no revelation on this topic.
You don’t seem to WANT people to evaluate your claims with anything but what you give them.
Why do I say that? Well, you’ve tried to poison the well against FARMS by manipulating Pres. Hinckley’s words to condemn them. You’ve admitted you were wrong about that, but you’re still selling unaltered DVDs to unsuspecting members. Why? If it were me, I’d be very anxious not to misrepresent the prophet with his own words to other Latter-day Saints.
You are now trying to poison the well against FAIR, and convince people they don’t need to hear more evidence–they just need to listen to YOU, pray, and follow you. You want them to “take no thought, save…to ask” God (D&C 9:7), without studying the issue. But, you DO want them to listen to you, read YOUR blog, buy your DVDs, and listen to your presentation. Why?
I wonder how this approach works in other areas of life? “Don’t listen to the doctor, just pray about your appendix.” “Don’t listen to that tax attorney, just ask God how to keep yourself out of jail.” “Don’t read a language book written by a scholar to learn a foreign language–just pray to God for the gift of tongues.”
This idea that we can approach factual matters (without examining the facts and opinions on both side) through prayer alone is false doctrine. Publicly teaching such ideas could easily tip into apostasy, especially when some of the ideas you are teaching are about Joseph Smith and your claim that he had revelation.
I very much fear that you will do yourself and others grave harm if you continue down the path you’re on.
That’s right. They’re also no more valid than yours, despite your continued claims that revelation has established and will establish your views. But, we aren’t telling people they don’t need to hear the other side.
I think everyone should read everything Rod says, and everything FAIR and others say. Study it out, weigh the evidence, ask who has been most honest and logical. THEN pray, and make up your minds.
And, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, not all opinions are created equal. Evidence in such matters counts for rather a lot.
I fear it will be necessary to repeat a lot of this in the near future, it seems.
I have requested several times to have these issues resolved in private, rather than a public forum, but FAIR has been adamant about taking this public. FAIR believes that they are protecting the church and the testimonies of its general membership by attacking a fellow brother in the gospel in good standing in the church because he espouses ideas not held by the dominantly Mesoamerican leaning leadership of FAIR.
It is hoped that those who take the time to read the exhaustive reviews will do so with an eye toward what would motivate FAIR to consume so much of its resources to squelch an opposing view on geography? Could it be that they have a commercial interest in doing so?
I didn’t know until a few weeks ago that FAIR has a distinct interest in attempting to discredit this research, you see, they recently released their own DNA DVD titled ‘The Book of Mormon and New World DNA’ which is currently available on their website as well as Deseret Book. See http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1893036073.html to see their commercial offering.
Could this be the motivating factor in their choosing to put so much effort into an obviously biased review of my research, to protect their monetary interests in selling their own competitive DVD?
Did you know that in their DNA video their resident ‘geneticist’ John A. Tvedtnes, comes right out and states about Haplogroup X:
“since it is more closely related to the kind of X that we find, X haplogroup we find, in the middle east, there is no reason to exclude it as being from Book of Mormon peoples.”
yet FAIR spends 18 pages of their DNA review to take issue about that very same conclusion reached in my research! This seems rather disingenuous, don’t you think?
Fair claims to be neutral on the geography of the Book of Mormon, but when I emailed FAIR President Scott Gordon the following:
“Could you please provide me with the names of the members of your board who do not support a Mesoamerican setting,… Also any articles of a positive nature put out by FAIR for any geography other than a Mesoamerican one? I would like to know how you can demonstrate your claimed neutrality.”
…I got no reply. If you go to the FAIR Youtube site at http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg you can watch several clips on multiple subjects. If any geographical representations are a part of the subject matter, you can guarantee that it will be Mesoamerican! In fact, in FAIR’s new DNA DVD out in the bookstores, opening speaker Keith Crandall does not even make it 15 seconds into the video before he is establishing the Mesoamerica theory! It is in the very first sentence and is throughout the entire video. It is clear that FAIR has a strong bias toward Mesoamerica for the geography of the Book of Mormon. Little wonder they would take such extensive issue with a competing theory.
What are they so afraid of about this research getting out that they would go to such great lengths to destroy it? As far as I know their extensive review is unprecedented for any other previous review matter, including anti-Mormon works. Usually opposing theories are relegated to a page or two of review, while these reviews (of which they have posted for a couple of sections so far) are currently more than 66 pages in length! FAIR has certainly out-done itself against a fellow member, when they never (to my knowledge) launched such a full-scale attack on any anti-Mormon critics of the church.
It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Lest anyone misreads the following sentence in Greg’s answer:
“Publicly teaching such ideas could easily tip into apostasy, especially when some of the ideas you are teaching are about Joseph Smith and your claim that he had revelation.”
I don’t know of any member of FAIR who does not believe that Joseph was a true prophet of God. Being a true prophet, he OF COURSE received revelations. This is NOT being debated.
But we know of no revelation that settles questions of Book of Mormon geography. The Church as such therefore has NO opinion (and no doctrine) of where in the Americas the BoM story happened. In official church publications this stance has been repeated again and again, at least for the last 50 years.
To claim that Joseph HAD received such a revelation (when the Church in its official publication supervised by the FP and the Q12 says otherwise) borders on apostasy.
To insinuate that personal revelation and blessings supercede the official position of the church, is repeating the error of Hiram Page recorded in D&C 28.
To ask others to follow this lead is to lead others into apostasy.
At FAIR, we have lots of differing positions on BOM Geography there is place for the HGT and various LGTs. Study the FAIR website, and you will find them.
But there is no place for leading people astray from the position the Church has endorsed, by claiming personal revelation and blessings received.
Rod, this seems to be an assertion without evidence. Could you please indicate which “personal and private e-mail” you are talking about? I know you feel strongly about the contents of your e-mail being used in our introductory review from June 30, but could you point out where such is used “again” in the reviews released September 3?
-Allen
And we tried to resolve it privately, Rod, but you wouldn’t. You had almost two months to review a rough draft of the materials we just started to publish. You entered into an agreement with FAIR as to what you would do during those two months with those materials, but you didn’t do it. And now you behave as if FAIR is somehow mistreating you?
Wrong. Period. The reason for the “attack” (which is a mischaracterization) has been spelled out very clearly in the comments to this blog post. It has been spelled out very clearly in the introductory review on June 30. It has been spelled out very clearly on the website. It has been spelled out very clearly over and over again, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. We, too, are “fellow brother[s] in the gospel in good standing in the church,” and yet you still misrepresent our clearly stated reasons for doing what we are doing. Why is that, Rod?
No, FAIR doesn’t. This is a red herring. Rod doesn’t want to accept (or face) the real reason FAIR is doing what it is doing, so he has to cast about for other conspiratorial reasons.
Again, Rod, you fail to accept the stated reasons. You fail to accept the obvious because doing so would be unthinkable, right?
Not true. Let me help your research, just so you don’t raise this non-sequitur again. FAIR has done several reviews that have been just as extensive. For instance, there was the Mormonism 201 project which took several months to complete. Then there was the response to the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD. There have been others (including several books), but I hope these two specific examples will dissuade you from placing yourself (and our response to your research) at the pinnacle of our efforts.
Yes, it does.
-Allen
Rod, when you accuse FAIR of mistreating a “brother in the gospel” because they critique or criticize your work, are you not returning in kind? (assuming that FAIR is mistreating you, which I don’t believe they are.) What I am saying is the very thing you accuse FAIR of doing, you yourself are doing.
As a member of FAIR I get to observe many of the conversations among other members. While I believe a majority favors a mesoamerican setting for the BoM I know of other members who do not, and they are active in FAIR and they are not ridiculed or shouted down in any way.
To add to BHodges’ comment, every member of FAIR that I know of (and I know them all)–even those who favor a Mesoamerican setting–is open to learning more information, provided the information takes into account the totality of the available evidence and is grounded in good scholarship. Rod’s information fails on both counts, which is made abundantly clear in the reviews released yesterday.
Read the reviews, Rod, and deal with the criticisms of your research and scholarship. That is what happens in academia–people examine and critique each others theories. You said in your DVD that you wanted an exchange about the ideas and that you would welcome it, but here you are rejecting the very thing you asked for.
What’s up with that?
-Allen
I am a member of the FAIR management board. I am stating that so that readers who do not know me will understand the bias from which I write. However, I am not writing on behalf of FAIR, but entirely on my own account as one who has been involved in the FAIR-Meldrum dialogue from the beginning. What follows is a bit long, but it can’t be made shorter and still fully inform readers about what Rod Meldrum is now doing. And readers should be fully informed.
FAIR was going to publish the material that it has just released, in the early summer. As you know, Rod, as a courtesy to you as a latter-day saint, FAIR agreed to enter into a contract with you. The contract provided that FAIR would lock its blog on your material, provide you with its work to date, and withhold publication until September–a date selected at your request. Your part of the contract was to read the FAIR material, and before FAIR’s publication date you would tell FAIR what you believed FAIR had wrong, and why. FAIR would review that, and make any appropriate changes.
FAIR lived up to its contract obligations scrupulously. You, on the other hand, broke your promises. You did not provide FAIR with any list of what you believe to be errors or other grievances. There is available for publication a series of emails between you and officers of FAIR in which you do, as you write, ask for meetings to work things out privately, to which FAIR pointed out that there was a contract in place, to which you not only agreed but for which you effusively thanked FAIR, and that was the way to proceed. A series of emails is also available for publication in which you are reminded of your contractual obligations, and that you have not fulfilled them. Your responses varied from claims of problems correlating page numbers to assertions that you didn’t remember what the contract said about your obligations.
On this blog you are referring people to your site on which you have posted the very things that you were contractually obligated to provide to FAIR well before this. Obviously, you didn’t write the material you have posted since FAIR published, and since the final date on which your communication to FAIR was due. It is therefore clear that you had prepared what, in your view, was a list of things about which FAIR was in error, and notwithstanding your contractual obligations, which are not only legal but, for a latter-day saint, ethical, you chose to break your word, and do it egregiously.
As I have written, there are series of emails between you and FAIR officers–I am not referring to the email that has passed between you and me–documenting all of this, including your clearly expressed gratitude to FAIR for allowing you to do this, and asking for and obtaining from FAIR an extension of time because of the commitments to work and family you described to us. If you differ with me about the contract that you made and your obligations under it, I am sure that publication of the email exchanges will more than adequately address your disagreements.
So, legally, ethically and honorably, you really should, as the first item on your site, acknowledge that you agreed to send what follows to FAIR prior to September 2nd, that you decided not to live up to your obligations and to proceed instead as you have. Readers will then be fully informed about the context of your complaints and also be able to judge your credibility in making them.
To any of you who are reading this and have previously not known of this contract, I am sure that if you send an email to Ask The Apologist from the FAIR website, FAIR may decide to send you, or broadly publish, the contract in full.
Two observations:
Mike,
“The Book of Mormon has some interesting things to say about the subject of priestcraft, BTW”
This reminds me of my favorite hymn: We Thank Thee, Oh God, For a Profit.
Rod,
I am not a FAIR member and am familar with your DVD and FAIR’s work. I have to say that you seem to be missing the point here. While FAIR is reviewing what you present as evidence, much of the beef seems to be the way that you present your theories. I get the impression that you want me to accept your theory because of support from your personal inspiration. I agree with you that we can use the Spirit to discern truth (which LDS doesn’t?), but without studying it out in our minds and considering/pondering the argument first? If you are going to produce something for profit that members will consider as evidence, expect it to come under scrutiny.
Though Hugh Nibley was prolific and highly respected, I would hardly say that all FAIR members agree with all hypotheses. Even some FARMS scholars don’t agree with his methodologies. I doubt he would have called their critiques “character assassination”. Such language is highly inflammatory and ignores the merits of your theory. Nor do I agree with a lot of what Elder McConkie said, especially in the Seven Deadly Heresies. It could easily be argued that he had a problem with his methodology of presenting his opinion as church doctrine. Because I have disagreed with this on my blog, I doubt that he would believe that I am assassinating his character even though I scrutinize his statements and supporting evidence.
Do you not expect similar scrutiny of your for-profit work and advertising methods when it is a source of income (bias)?
Rod writes:
Manyp people have told Rod that there are people who are of multiple views on this issue. He continues to imply that we’re lying.
Let’s deal with the evidence.
Exhibit A
Rod’s presentation quotes a portion of the DNA article that follows:
The Last Glacial Maximum was about 18,000 years ago.
The bold material was omitted by you, Rod as you read it and on your slide. Can you please explain:
a) Whether a claim by the authors that the split we’re talking about happened 18,000 years ago is of any relevance to assessing whether it applies to Lehi leaving 2,600 years ago. Don’t you think your audience has a right to know this information to assess what you’re asking them to believe?
b) Why we should consider this omission to be unintentional, instead of a deliberate attempt to disguise what the paper actually says? It looks pretty deliberate, unless you didn’t understand the words. And, the part snipped out is exactly that part that devastates your theory.
Thanks for your answer.
Then we can move on to Exhibit B. This is pure evidence, doesn’t require anyone to believe anything about any geography or DNA.
Is the use of this quote fair? Why or why not?
Other readers are also invited to answer questions (a) and (b) above.
I would like to see Meldrum stop all his grand standing and stop thinking he is being attacked, when in fact it is his theory that is under scrutiny. From what I have seen not once has Meldrum addressed the issues FAIR has brought forth and he has had all summer to do it. Seems like he would rather claim foul then deal with the facts.
re: Rod writes:
Could you please provide me with the names of the members of your board who do not support a Mesoamerican setting…
As I have told you, I have no idea where the new world events in the Book of Mormon took place. I am competant enough to know that they didn’t occur in the locale for which you argue; but I do not “support” a mesoamerican setting. I have a layman’s reservations, but beyond that I cannot go because I am not competant to evaluate the evidence. The fundamental point is: Joseph Smith did not reveal this to us; his successors have not revealed it to us and have repeatedly said that there is neither revelation nor position from the Church on the subject. You claim you do nevertheless do have a position on the subject, that you have scholarly material in support of your position, and as far as that goes you are on the same playing field as FARMS or any number of other people with theories. But you differentiate yourself by claiming that your position is founded upon revelations through Joseph Smith that you must proclaim anew. In doing that, you differentiate yourself both from other theorists and researchers, and from the uniquivocal statements of the Prophets and Apostles who lead the Church. How can you justify that? Were your stake president to ask you to stop it, would you?
I do want to respond to this one quote from Rodney:
This is true. Rodney sent me this question. I ignored the question and didn’t reply. The question is why I didn’t reply.
We already had an agreement in place. Rodney was supposed to be responding to our research and concerns. It was a written agreement that spelled out the terms. This question came out of “left field” and didn’t have anything to do with what we were working on. While we do have members of FAIR that do not subscribe to the Mesoamerican theory, I have already seen how Rodney feels about people who don’t agree with his theory. I wasn’t about to give a list of names of who might or might not agree with a certain theory. It sounds too much like a litmus test. The last thing we need is a list of names generated to see who gets the scarlet A of Apostate based on belief in a non-revealed pet theory.
In responding to a post I made on Rod Meldrum’s blog, he calls me “Elder White”. I have just posted this on his blog, in response.
In post 8, Rod Meldrum refers to me as “Elder White”. I finished my call as an area seventy two years ago, and have never used the title “Elder” since. I did not sign the post to which he responds as “Elder White”, but rather as “Robert White”. Mr. Meldrum knows all of this. By choosing to distort even my name, and to thereby insinuate that I had applied the sacred title to myself when it is not mine to use, is relevant information for readers to use in evaluating what FAIR is doing, and why.
I am sorry if you feel offended, but I was only doing so out of respect for your past calling and have been refering to you as such many, many times over the past month and you never seemed to mind it then.
I will be happy to refer to you in any way you’d like. Bob, Robert, Brother White, whatever.
It is not uncommon for people to refer to past members of the Seventy as ‘Elder’. I am sorry you are offended so easily.
Please let me know which you would prefer and I’ll respectfully use that. There was no ‘distortion’ intended, only respect.
President Scott Gordon indicates that asking the question about neutrality of FAIR “didn’t have anything to do with what we were working on.” The reason it is relevant is because of the fact that FAIR states that it is neutral as a basis for their being ‘un-biased’ in their review. This makes it relevant and has everything to do with whether or not their review would be an unbias ‘peer review’ (as they want everyone to believe) or a highly biased hostile review.
If FAIR cannot demonstrate that they are not biased, then they should not be claiming so in the opening lines of their reviews.
Please demonstrate for all of us FAIR’s un-biasness by putting links to all the positive reviews of any work on geography NOT in Mesoamerica you have done in any of your symposiums, video’s, written reviews or other media in the past year or so, or even in the past several months. Then please compare it to the number of works that support the Mesoamerican theories and allow us to make some calculations. I am anxious to see the hard evidence for your claimed statement on neutrality.
Rod Meldrum writes:
I think this is missing the point. As I understand it, it’s not FAIR’s purpose to be advocating, supporting, or defending any particular geographical model for the Book of Mormon setting. Even in this case, it seems even from this blog posting that it’s been made abundantly clear that FAIR isn’t taking issue with the geographical claims per se. So this is really a red herring.Since FAIR doesn’t (as far as I can tell) make a point of responding to such theories in general (unless, as is the case here, there are other, more central and important issues at stake around how these ideas are being presented and taught), I wouldn’t expect any reliable data could be calculated, since it would be starting from a faulty premise.
Robert White wrote: “The fundamental point is: Joseph Smith did not reveal this to us; his successors have not revealed it to us and have repeatedly said that there is neither revelation nor position from the Church on the subject. You claim you do nevertheless do have a position on the subject, that you have scholarly material in support of your position, and as far as that goes you are on the same playing field as FARMS or any number of other people with theories. But you differentiate yourself by claiming that your position is founded upon revelations through Joseph Smith that you must proclaim anew. In doing that, you differentiate yourself both from other theorists and researchers, and from the uniquivocal statements of the Prophets and Apostles who lead the Church. How can you justify that? Were your stake president to ask you to stop it, would you?”
Maybe I can help to clear up something that seems to be one of the primary ‘sticking points’ in our understanding of one another.
I have tried to understand better where FAIR is coming from and after pondering on it a while I think I finally realize where our differences are stemming from. Allow me to clarify if I can what I see as the issue.
In my DVD I demonstrate through direct quotes from Joseph Smith himself that HE claimed (not me), in first person english, to have received by revelation on the subject, along with scripture he received by revelation, that leads to my final slide in that section stating “Joseph Knew”.
FAIR is demonstrating that a statement by the First Presidency to the effect that there is no revealed geography is also true and FAIR is assuming that the two are incompatible.
I disagree. While it is true that in the Wentworth letter Joseph states in first person:
“I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they wre, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments…The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” and in the same document he describes the angelic visitation wherein “I was also told where there was deposited some plates…” thereby making it clear that he was shown things by revelation directly pertaining to their entire civilization.
Yet there is another peice to this puzzle. While Joseph himself knew, he did not share all of his knowledge. We can only speculate about why Joseph did not come right out and tell us, but my guess would be that he wanted folks to read and ask the Lord about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon based on faith, rather than his knowledge of the subject. So I do agree that WE have no revealed geography, but I also take Joseph at his word when he states no less than three times in historically unquestioned documents that HE in fact did know. There were a lot of things that Joseph knew that he didn’t share because of their nature.
Still, I believe that Joseph gave us some clues about what he knew.
For example, Where did he send the first missionaries ‘unto the Lamanites’ (D&C 28:8) when commanded by the Lord to do so? He immediately dispatched brethren to New York, Ohio, and Missouri, the latter being declared by the Lord to be “on the border of the Lamanites” (D&C 54:8) and “among the Lamanites” (D&C 32:1-2) I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t think that the Lord is confused about where to find the remnant Lamanites!
So, do WE have definitive revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically NO.
Did Joseph Smith have revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.
Is there a conflict? No, because Joseph did not disseminate that knowledge to us, therefore the statements of modern-day prophets stand as absolutely true.
I hope this can bring us to a clearer understanding of where both FAIR and I (Rod Meldrum) are coming from, and that it can lead to further understanding and reconciliation. That is my hope.
Daniel wrote: “I would like to see Meldrum stop all his grand standing and stop thinking he is being attacked, when in fact it is his theory that is under scrutiny. From what I have seen not once has Meldrum addressed the issues FAIR has brought forth and he has had all summer to do it. Seems like he would rather claim foul then deal with the facts.”
Dear Daniel, I will deal with the facts as soon as I can when they are complete. Mesoamerican theorists have been working on getting their ‘facts’ straight for 30 years now, and yet they can’t agree. Surely you are not supposing that I alone can do what FARMS and FAIR (combined) have not been able to accomplish in 30 years, and do it in less than 30 days. Of the 60 days that FAIR gratiously allowed me to perform, all of the FAIR board knows that I was out of town doing additional research for a month of that time, and that left me with only 23 working days to accomplish the monumental task of addressing every issue brought up by the multiple collaborative authors of FAIR in over 160 pages of documentation. I knew that I could not submit a poorly done paper as I knew that it would be scrutinized to the utmost degree by FAIR, therefore I failed to accomplish the task in the time set forth by FAIR to complete my reply. I thought I could do it, but I simply could not. FAIR did not have anyone demanding that they publish, but they were eager to take this public.
Well brethren, here we are!
Greg Smith writes: “Manyp people have told Rod that there are people who are of multiple views on this issue. He continues to imply that we’re lying.”
Greg, please stop attempting to put words into my mouth that aren’t there. I have never said that I thought you wer lying, only that I was interested in knowing if FAIR can demonstrate their claimed neutrality. Scott Gordon explained his hesitancy, thinking that I would immediately attack someone personally. That is not my way, but I understand how he could think that as FAIR has targeted anyone that seems to have an associating with me. Therefore I accept his premise and will not expect him to name names, but rather to demonstrate it through FAIR’s ‘works’ such as symposium speakers, video’s, materials, articles and any other media.
Greg continues:
“Let’s deal with the evidence.
Exhibit A
Rod’s presentation quotes a portion of the DNA article that follows:
Finally, phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of sub-haplogroup X2, and the associated population dispersal occurred around, or after, the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] when the climate ameliorated [improved]. The presence of a daughter clade [evolutionary group] in northern Native Americans testifies to the range of this population expansion. – M. Reidla, et al., “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” American Journal of Human Genetics 73:5 (2003), 1188.
The Last Glacial Maximum was about 18,000 years ago.
The bold material was omitted by you, Rod as you read it and on your slide. Can you please explain:
a) Whether a claim by the authors that the split we’re talking about happened 18,000 years ago is of any relevance to assessing whether it applies to Lehi leaving 2,600 years ago. Don’t you think your audience has a right to know this information to assess what you’re asking them to believe?”
Greg, may I ask you a question? Do you believe in the scriptures as revealed by God’s prophets? Please explain to me then how you seem to think that these people arrived prior to Adam, who arrived only about 6,000 years ago. Do you believe God when he clearly states in D&C 77: vs 6 and 12 which state:
vs. 6 “Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
vs. 12 “12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.
My advice to you, Greg (who quotes devout aethiests to take issue with my asking people to view new information objectively rather than skeptically or affirmatively) is this:
(Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:8 – 10)
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.
9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand…
Greg Continues: “b) Why we should consider this omission to be unintentional, instead of a deliberate attempt to disguise what the paper actually says? It looks pretty deliberate, unless you didn’t understand the words. And, the part snipped out is exactly that part that devastates your theory.
Thanks for your answer.”
Greg, you really assume too much for someone with so little understanding of the subject material. Your hatred towards me should be evident for everyone to observe. Maybe Rene will bail you out again. This will be addressed in detail in my upcoming DNA report. Please withhold further comments on this subject until you have a chance to review that article. If you don’t, you may need Rene a lot more in the future.
In the meantime be it known that my belief is this:
True science and true religion are completely compatible. If there are inconsistencies between true religion and man’s science, it will be science that will conform to true religion, not the other way around.
When God sayes that the earth’s temporal existance will be 7,000 years and he put Adam on the earth, as the first man, 6,000 years ago, Greg, I believe him. Period.
Therefore I do reject the theoretical phylogenetic dating because it is not compatible with the truths of the gospel through the scriptures and the prophets who have spoken dozens of times on the subject. I do, however understand genetics enough to know the difference between phylogenetic (theoretical) dating and pedigree (empiracle) dating. The question is, do you? I can answer that for you because you give no indication that you have any idea about the raging debate going on right under your nose in the genetic world. No, you don’t understand.
Keep you comments coming Greg.
Rod said: The apologists at FAIR…officially launched their reviews of my research presented in the DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography DVD, along with again using a personal and private email to bolster their character assassination attempts to discredit me personally…
Allen said: “Rod, this seems to be an assertion without evidence. Could you please indicate which “personal and private e-mail” you are talking about? I know you feel strongly about the contents of your e-mail being used in our introductory review from June 30, but could you point out where such is used “again” in the reviews released September 3?”
Hello Allen, Yes, I will be happy to provide this evidence. Before I do, however, I would like to thank you for removing the vast majority of it, as your rough draft was loaded with it and the final reviews are truly much improved. I do mean this in all sincerity. Now if you could just get Greg to stop using it, things would calm down alot.
Since you asked. Take a look at the Section 3: Joseph Smith section (full version), the last sentance before the conclusion. It states “The LNAM does not embrace such a venue, and trying to claim revelatory approval for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance of such is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Who is ‘trying to claim revelatory approval’ here? Could you clear this up for me?
Thanks!
Again, the evidence disagrees with this reading, since it requires us to ignore key pieces of data.
More importantly, the leaders of the Church have not agreed with this either.
For example, Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve:
So, we don’t have Joseph’s revelation, no leader of the Church from Brigham Young to the present has known about the revelation, but you “emphatically” know he had it?
Q.E.D.
Greg Smith
Yup. I just don’t believe in your use/interpretation of them.
Am I to conclude, then, that if I don’t agree with your reading, I don’t believe “the scriptures as revealed by God’s prophets”?
Or, is more than one reading possible?
So, you snipped out the section of the scientific report–the part that disagrees with you. I guess we now know that it wasn’t accidental.
We do, apparently, have a better understanding of what went on. You decided to snip it out even though you understood it, and even though you knew the people writing the articles wouldn’t agree with your view of it. Why? Because it disagreed with your interpretation of scripture–it couldn’t be true (in your view) so it didn’t bear mentioning.
Have I got that right?
I don’t know if you get get any more poison into the well, there Rod, but keep trying. Maybe people won’t notice. 🙂
I’m surprised you think quoting a scientist on how to do science is bad form. I assume you vetted the scientists you (mis)quoted in your presentation? Made sure they were all good Mormons, did you?
I suppose since you’re going to edit them to your taste, that’s less important. 😉
At any rate, I think you’ll find plenty of non-atheists who also think the idea of “objectivity” is nonsense. The ad hominem fallacy is not a pretty thing. In fact, it was the paragons of claims about “objectivity” (see the logical positivists, for example) who tended to die-hard atheism. Most Christians are humble enough to be aware of their own fallibility; it’s not a stance that would appeal to most of them.
If you say so. I suppose I really should go sit at the children’s table, and try not to throw food while the grown-ups eat. 🙂 I’m incorrigible.
Readers can judge for themselves whether you are competent to be passing judgment on anyone’s command of the genetics material.
Incidentally, two professional geneticists in the Church checked our material for accuracy. Would you like me to get permission to quote their letters about your work? Think carefully before you answer. Think carefully too about what you claimed about professional geneticists as “DNATruthseeker” on the MADB message board. Their names are not unknown to you.
Well, your presentation would seem to belie that claim. (For interested readers, the term is “empirical.” The literature often refers to it as a “pedigree rate”.)
Again, I can ask those genetics witnesses if you like.
Ok. I’m certainly finding they produce revealing material, in my simple way. 🙂
I didn’t say you said we were lying, I said you implied we were lying.
Most reasonable people, when told “You all think this and so are picking on me,” and they are then told, ”No, we have have people who believe other theories; you are mistaken,” and who then get the response “Give me the names so I can verify it for myself,” would probably be justified in concluding that the person is implying that they do not trust the message they have been given.
Since we surely know the opinions of our own group, the only reasonable conclusion is that we would have to lie for our statement to be false.
Yet you did not appear to believe us, but did not think we were lying. Got it. And, you then continued to insist (despite what we told you about having multiple views in FAIR) that we were out to defend “our” view of Mesoamerica.
Curious. So, you believed all along that we had people of multiple views, yet you continued (even on this message blog board today) to charge us with favoring a different view because we wouldn’t give you names. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.
However, I’m glad we have allayed your concerns about whether FAIR is out to ‘defend’ a Mesoamerican setting, and trust we’ll hear no more of this particular diversionary tactic.
Sure. Since I’m the one who edited it, I can definitively say that the I could have just as easily have rendered the sentence as “…trying to claim revelatory approval [by Joseph Smith] for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance [by any other modern prophet] is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Does that help? It had nothing to do with revelation you may or may not have received, or any claims you may have made to having received such. It had to do with Joseph and those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.
-Allen
Perhaps you missed the comment in this blog post by Mike Parker where he provided a link to a presentation, at a FAIR Conference several years ago, by David Stewart. He believes in a hemispheric geographical model, and FAIR had no problem with providing the venue for his talk. Does this evidence help with your concerns?
Rod, could you please indicate why you think that someone’s beliefs concerning Book of Mormon geography are of any bearing to whether someone can respond in an “unbiased” manner to your theories? It sounds like you want to do one of two things: (1) try to discredit FAIR using some sort of litmus test of your own devising or (2) paint an academic review of your theories as “biased” because those doing the review may not agree with your theories.
Neither reason makes sense, Rod, because when all is said and done you still haven’t addressed the problems with your theories. You are trying to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the message.
-Allen
White responds: Points 2 and 3 are one of the two cores of your insurmountable problem.
a. How do you know (point 1) that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.”?
b. Why did he not “disseminate that knowledge to us”?
c. Given that the Prophets and Apostles are not disseminating any such revelatory knowledge that you allege, why don’t they?
d. Given:
i) that the Prophets and Apostles do not claim that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.” and
ii) that the Brethren do not disseminate any such knowledge to us or disseminate it,
e) On what basis do you claim to know that Joseph Smith had revelatory knowledge that the Brethren do not acknowledge, and in fact say is not the case? In short, how do you claim knowledge of revelations that are not claimed by the Apostles and Prophets?
f) Finally, given that the Prophets and Apostles do not and will not teach that “Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.” what is the basis of your claim:
i) To be entitled to do so, as you are doing; and
ii) To receive money for doing it?
Rod, you write:
>True science and true religion are completely compatible.
>If there are inconsistencies between true religion and
>man’s science, it will be science that will conform to
>true religion, not the other way around.
>
>When God sayes that the earth’s temporal existance will be
>7,000 years and he put Adam on the earth, as the first
>man, 6,000 years ago, Greg, I believe him. Period.
I, too believe that true religion and true science are compatible. Nevertheless, I really prefer to be on Brigham YOung’s side, than on yours. Writes he:
Science and Religion — I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, “If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.” In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.258)
In this quote, the Prophet Brigham Young clearly states that in a clash between religion and science, it is NOT always science that is “manmade”, and President Young especially talks about the earth being really old.
So, maybe your endorsement of a young earth idea and your rejection of science whenever it clashes with your religious ideas is premature. I’ve studied the issue a lot, especially from the published viewpoints of general authorities, living and deceased, and I’ve started out as a young earth believer, then became, through that study, a young earth agnostic, and now I believe that God’s creation is as old as science thinks it is. Mind you, it was not science that “corrupted” me, but the words of the prophets, in which I know to be true, that made me turn.
Also, you seem to be an inerrantist.
Again, this is not a position I would like to hold. Says the Prophet Brigham Young again:
“I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fullness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capabilities.”
What does this mean? For me, when the LORD sent missionaries to the Lamanites, that is to the descendants of the people described in the BoM, he was not concerned with ancient Book of Mormon geography, but His message was the border between descendants of BoM people and non-descendants of BoM people in the 1830ies.
And I do believe that the Lord correctly calls all native Amerindians, from Alaska to Firelands “Lamanites” (that is, descendants of BoM people), in the very same way that Jesus is called the Son of David. This does not mean anything concerning the geography of the BoM, though, and it does not say anything about other ancestors of Amerindians.
But, of course, this personal opinion of mine is based on the words of the Prophet Brigham Young, and on the literature the Church has published for the last 178 years or so. Unfortunately, most members never got to that material, and they brought in false traditions. False traditions like “inerrancy”.
Mr. Meldrum makes references to the “Lamanites” as found in the D&C, but as seems to be his habit, selects his materials at random, omitting that which doesn’t support his thesis. The Lord, in the D&C, actually tells us who the Lamanites are and how He defines that term:
“D&C 10: 48
48 Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.”
Clearly, one can become a Lamanite via dissension only and without any regard to lineal decent. Thus, because of their apostate state, the plains indians et. al., could very easily be called “Lamanites” though they have no direct lineal connection to the man Laman.
Lance Starr
CC from http://www.bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com and found at: http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/initial-response-to-fairs-reviews-of-this-research/#comment-36#comment-36
White responds: Points 2 and 3 are one of the two cores of your insurmountable problem.
a. How do you know (point 1) that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.”?
Robert, (I hope it’s OK to call you by your given name, as you have not let me know which title you would prefer me to use) I know that you know the answer to this because you read it to me over the phone one evening. But to refresh your memory, I will again lay it out for you. You can find additional information on this here http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n09.htm#706
From the Times and Seasons Joseph wrote the following:
On the evening of the 21st of September, A. D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of scripture on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance, and brightness burst into the room, indeed the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire; the appearance produced a shock that affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God sent to bring the joyful tidings, that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled, that the preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the gospel, in all its fulness [fullness] to be preached in power, unto all nations that a people might be prepared for the millennial reign.
I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of his purposes in this glorious dispensation.
I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me: I was also told where there was deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgement [abridgment] of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things.
Which part of this written historical account do you not understand? It should be clear to anyone that Joseph A. received a heavenly visitation and revelation and B. that it included all the things that he himself said were included (please see above).
So the question to you, Robert, is this…Do you believe Joseph Smith’s written words or don’t you?
If not, please explain away this revelation for us so that we can understand why what he wrote is not what he meant, and explain how it is that you have more knowledge about whether he had the vision or not, that he did.
There are other examples, but this one should suffice to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was shown a tremendous amount of information about the ancient civilization recorded in the Book of Mormon. And yes, he received it by revelation. Read it again, Robert for yourself without trying to ’spin’ it.
Robert White : b. Why did he not “disseminate that knowledge to us”?
I don’t presume to know the mind of Joseph, but if you have somehow received a knowledge of what his thoughts were, please tell us what Joseph was thinking.
Robert White: c. Given that the Prophets and Apostles not not disseminating any such revelatory knowledge that you allege, why don’t they?
I’m not sure your question makes sense, but it appears you are trying to ask why our modern day prophets are not disseminating a revelatory knowledge?
I also don’t presume to know the minds of our prophets either. Your question is obscure.
Robert White: d. Given:
i) that the Prophets and Apostles do not claim that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.” and
Do you have a reference where the Prophets and Apostles specifically claim that Joseph Smith did NOT have a revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? If so, please post it for us. We would like to see the document, if it exists.
Lance Star wrote: “Clearly, one can become a Lamanite via dissension only and without any regard to lineal decent. Thus, because of their apostate state, the plains indians et. al., could very easily be called “Lamanites” though they have no direct lineal connection to the man Laman.”
While that was certainly true towards the end of the Book of Mormon, where the distinction between ‘Nephite’ and ‘Lamanite’ was one of believers vs. non-believers, rather than any genetic tie.
The question then becomes ‘Who are the ‘remnant’ of the Lamanites? By your definition, the ‘Lamanites’ now include every human on earth who are not members of the church. I highly doubt that is what the Lord meant by a ‘remnant’ as he sent those first missionaries out to specific tribes of Native Americans. By your definition Joseph was sending missionaries to the ‘Lamanites’ as he sent brethren to Europe! That does not seem to make much sense. Do you know of a single example where Joseph thought that the term Lamanite meant every non-believer in the world? If you find it, let us all know.
Brigham Young Quote: “Science and Religion — I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, “If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.” In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.258)”
Rene writes: “In this quote, the Prophet Brigham Young clearly states that in a clash between religion and science, it is NOT always science that is “manmade”, and President Young especially talks about the earth being really old.”
Your understanding of what President Young wrote differs considerably with mine. You ignore the fact that I specifically used the term TRUE religion (meaning revealed truths found in the scripturs such as D&C 77), while obviously Brigham was specifically talking of ‘religious teachers of the people’ or in other words, men of faith of other religions without revelation. You are confused about the Brighams meaning of who would change. Of course man-made religion will change, and man-made science will change, to conform to TRUE RELIGION. D&C 77 as I quoted is a revelation from God, not a man-made religion precept, so your arguement is without merit. Besides, are you saying that you would take a non-revelatory quote from Brother Brigham (he didn’t claim revelation on this so far as I know) over God’s statement in scripture.
Even so, for a clearer understanding of the Prophet Brigham Young’s thoughts on the matter of a young earth, what do you think of this quote of his.
President Brigham Young: “After passing over the ages and generations of the children of men FOR ABOUT SIX THOUSAND YEARS (emphasis mine), we will come to the present congregation and say the right of heirship is the same now that it was in the beginning.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.307, Brigham Young, April 8, 1853)
So Rene, do you still think that Brother Brigham was espousing a 4.3 billion year old earth? Let’s see how you ‘wrest’ his words above to show that he does. Maybe you can ‘interpret’ his meaning for us so that we can all understand why he didn’t really mean “six thousand years” but 4.3 billion.
It is always amazing to me how far some will go to keep one foot on the side of the gospel, and the other foot firmly planted in the theories of men, even when the two are completely incompatible and irreconcilable.
Rene, one day that gulf will widen to the point that you will have to choose who’s side you are on, or you will be stretched until you fall.
Rene wrote: “So, maybe your endorsement of a young earth idea and your rejection of science whenever it clashes with your religious ideas is premature. I’ve studied the issue a lot, especially from the published viewpoints of general authorities, living and deceased, and I’ve started out as a young earth believer, then became, through that study, a young earth agnostic, and now I believe that God’s creation is as old as science thinks it is. Mind you, it was not science that “corrupted” me, but the words of the prophets, in which I know to be true, that made me turn.”
We now all know which foot you have planted where. Please tell me which of the prophets was it that claimed by revelation that the earth is 4.3 billion years old (to endorse the scientific view) to support your last statement (and which would be in direct opposition to the MULTIPLE times the scriptures clearly state otherwise). I’d like to see one. And then I’ll show you 15 pages of quotes where nearly EVERY prophet and many apostles has claimed otherwise. You need to study and have faith in the prophets more and the theories of men maybe just a little less. Your selections of prophetic quotes seem to be limited to the ones that you think support your new found ‘views’.
“Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.” Alma 13:20
Good advice from the Book of Mormon indeed!
Rod,
Just curious… Why do you think that BYU teaches evolution and an “old earth” in their courses?
-Allen
From a previous post:
Rod said: Since you asked. Take a look at the Section 3: Joseph Smith section (full version), the last sentance before the conclusion. It states “The LNAM does not embrace such a venue, and trying to claim revelatory approval for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance of such is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Who is ‘trying to claim revelatory approval’ here? Could you clear this up for me?
Allen said: “Sure. Since I’m the one who edited it, I can definitively say that the I could have just as easily have rendered the sentence as “…trying to claim revelatory approval [by Joseph Smith] for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance [by any other modern prophet] is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Does that help? It had nothing to do with revelation you may or may not have received, or any claims you may have made to having received such. It had to do with Joseph and those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.”
Yes Allen, your explanation helps to clear that up, and I retract my statement because of the good faith you have shown in cleaning up the personal attacks in the recent review(s). Again I thank you for doing so.
Kudo’s!
Is there a way that I can ‘edit’ my previous post with that statement?
Elder John A. Widtsoe:
So, if Joseph didn’t say where it was, and Elder Widtsoe doesn’t know about Joseph knowing, how do you what Joseph knew?
We can’t know Joseph knew unless he told us he did. And, Elder Widtsoe says he didn’t. (Unless you can read his mind?)
===
For example, Joseph wrote this (and signed it in the Times and Seasons as editor):
Joseph says the ruins of Guatemala speak of their greatness, and the Book of Mormon speaks of their history. Guatemala is, you may note, not in your claimed revelatory geography.
So, we are left with two options:
1) Joseph says the Book of Mormon is a history of people partly in Guatemala. He knew this by revelation. Your claim fails.
2) Joseph was expressing an informed opinion that the Book of Mormon occurred partly in Guatemala–but, did not know by revelation. Your claim fails again.
Given that #1 does not match some of the other data, #2 has been the conclusion of historians, apostles, and Church statements.
Joseph also wrote to Bernhisel that a book on Central American geography “unfolds and develops many things that have great importance to this generation and corresponds with and supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon….”
But, if Joseph knew the Book of Mormon took place in your model, then Central America can tell us exactly nothing about the Book of Mormon at all. Yet, Joseph disagrees–he says this book supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon. Seems pretty clear.
Rod also told Rene:
Hmmmm. What’s that burning smell?
Mr. Meldrum,
Why is it that you think that the reason people take issue with your stuff is because of Geography? ESPECIALLY Fair? Let me give you the perfect example. It appears that your DVDs are clearly based on my geography theory from 2002 that appeared in my book This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation that I co-authored with Wayne May. I have never heard from you, nor have I heard one peep from anybody about giving credit where credit is due for “your” geography, Mr. Meldrum.
Mr. May was responsible for all of the questionable artifacts in that volume, but the Geography is MINE. While it is true that elements of that geography are from other sources, at least May and I gave credit to where credit was due.
So Mr. Meldrum, I have to question your ethics for this very reason. The idea of a confluence of rivers making up the head of the Sidon is lifted from MY book, Mr. Meldrum. That was MY idea.
Now, just because I RETRACTED that geography because it was WRONG, doesn’t change the fact that it is mine.
And guess what Mr. Meldrum. Just guess what I thought at the time. I thought that I felt REVELATION that my Geography was right. I felt so sure that it was right, and I thought I felt the Holy Ghost telling me it was right.
And guess what, Mr. Meldrum. Guess what FAIR found fault with in my book. It was MAY’S ARTIFACTS! NOT the Geography. Brant Gardner reviewed my book, and didn’t find fault with the GEOGRAPHY. He reviewed the faulty artifacts from Burrows Cave and the Soper Savage frauds! And guess what apparently you are using, Mr. Meldrum, that BYU Studies has shown to be fraudulent! You are using the Soper Savage frauds and Burrows Cave frauds!
Now Mr. Meldrum, I may ask, is Meldrum being FAIR when Meldrum doesn’t even give credit where credit is due when he plagiarizes a geography and claims revelation for it?
Here’s a quote from the prophet Joseph Smith that refutes your geography (Oh thats right. Its MY geography):
“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side, in the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that [were] brought, with a broken arrow. They [were] laid down by our camp. Joseph addressed himself to Sylvester Smith: “This is what I told you, and now I want to tell you, that you may know what I meant. This land was called the Land of Desolation, and Onandagus was the King, and a good man was he. There in that mound did he bury his dead. And [they] did not dig holes as the people do now, but they brought there dirt and covered them until, you see, they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high. The last man buried was Zelph. He was a White Lamanite who fought with the people of Onandagus for freedom.” (Levi Hancock Journal)
Notice, Mr. Meldrum, how the placement of the Land of Zarahemla in my old geography is where Joseph Smith said was Desolation. HMMM. Joseph Smith just refuted all North American Setting geographies! That is, if you believe Joseph Smith knew anything about geography, which you seem to claim he did. Joseph Smith’s own words, push the land of zarahemla and the narrow neck south of the United States. The Cumorah question is entirely a different question altogether.
First off, I am not a member of FAIR. I have attended one of Meldrum’s firesides and have also read FAIR’s posted critique as well as all the posts on this blog to date. I have also looked at Rod’s website a little bit. I wish to add a few of my impressions. So here comes an opinion from a “general member of the church” as Rod referred. I have no position on BoM geography and honestly, I could really care less where it happened. In my opinion, FAIR has done me as a general member of the church a great service in essentially doing much of the leg work that the vast majority of church members would be unwilling or unable to do left to themselves. Most people in the church know next to nothing about DNA and BoM geography. They come to a “fireside” (using this word already creates certain expectations in the church) and to begin, someone is asked to pray. I know Rod that you likely (I hope) don’t plan or know who will pray or what people will say when they pray but when I attended, the sister prayed the same as if we were ready to sit down and listen to an Apostle of God preach to us! To quote her (I took notes) she said “we pray that the spirit will bear witness of the truthfulness of these things as they are presented.” Does anyone see a problem with this besides me? I wanted to crawl under my chair it felt so awkward. Already, this seemed to prime people to suck it all in with no reservations that anything that Rod says or does or puts on his DVDs should be questioned at all! Members of the church by-and-large are very trusting and believing. In such a setting though, this could be a problem. It implies (settle down Rod I’m not putting words in your mouth) that what we are about to be taught is truth, please let me feel the Holy Ghost. While I think this may be a wonderfully appropriate thing to pray for before a missionary discussion and the like, I felt it very inappropriate considering the nature of the material being presented. FAIR’s review I believe allows someone who doesn’t have the background on these topics to have a look at the papers that you quote, the letters you read, the quotes you extract, related research done by other respectable people, and take a step back and ask some valid questions about why you included some things and perhaps intentionally glossed over, ignored or avoided others. Essentially, it allows a general member to “study it out” in his mind. Rod, in your presentation that I attended you mentioned the Bernhisel evidence (by name only) and said something to the effect: ‘I don’t want you to think I’m being one sided but, we don’t have time to go into this so… I’ve covered it.’ (next slide) I am dumbfounded every time I think of that statement. Because in that short statement: (1) you ARE being one-sided and (2) you DID NOT “cover it.” In fact, as I read the Berhisel letter for myself, it is quite devastating to your theory. It seems to have so much more strength than arguing over the definition of one word spoken by an infallible mortal man Joseph Smith in another century, or by extrapolating what Joseph must have known or been taught with your own logic.
Another thing that bothered me is how Rod seems to put his “research” on such a pinnacle. For example, in his presentation, Rod dangled an anti-mormon DVD to his listeners and stated that the reason that the DVD has had so much success, is that until recently (i.e. until Rod’s “research”), it was all found to be true. Yikes! Again, did no one else find a problem with that statement? So if Rod is wrong, I guess the anti-mormon DVD is right after all and I should leave the church! Another example: Rod told the story about the reporter from Germany speaking with Pres. Hinckley at the 2002 games in SLC, and how Pres Hinckley said that the DNA issue has not yet been proven. Then Rod went on to say that in 2002 when Pres Hinckley said that is hadn’t been proven but now with this evidence presented today… (again we should have given him a standing ovation after that grandiose statement regarding his “research.” If “DNA truthseeker” was in attendance I’m sure he would have stood up first.
You may have noticed that I keep putting research in quotations. That is because after examining the scientific papers that Rod has (ab)used, and how he has blatantly and repeatedly used excerpts from while ignoring context and contradictory statements contained in those same papers, I am disgusted. I am in my 8th year of university 4 of which were spent in the sciences and the last 4 in a health science atmosphere. So you see, Rod, I know something about real research and appropriate scientific methodology (and I’m not an atheist…gasp!) and what you are doing/have done fails miserably on both counts. If I did what you have done in paraphrasing and misrepresenting the findings of others’ scientific researchers’ papers to prop up a pet belief of my own, I would be on academic probation. If I persisted and was intentionally doing it, I would likely be dismissed not to mentioned discredited.
So Rod, cut the crap and answer for what you’ve done to manipulate the papers you’ve cited. You keep posting attacks on people that have asked you to answer for your actions.
By the way, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so concerned about going back to change what you said in your previous post and you expressed desire to do. I would be worrying about the people that I have manipulated and the DVDs that you have sold (and are perhaps still selling) that are propagating this philosophy of man mingled with scripture.
Mr. Goble,
Could there be a connection in such a resemblance to your now divested geographical model because your ex-partner has an invested interest in Meldrum money making scheme. If you go to Meldrums website you can see that in his Tour he is providing for the low cost of 2 grand plus air-fare one of the tour guides is Wayne May.
From Meldrums site,
“We are planning to leave the day after October conference, Monday, October 6th, and return on Saturday the 18th.
This is the prime time for the amazingly beautiful autumn leaves in thier full color and it will be the most unforgetable ‘Ultimate’ LDS tour ever.
…,Wayne May, Mary Ellen Elggren along with Rod Meldrum will be the tour directors. New and exciting insights will be discovered and shared by all those in attendence all along the way.”
So the plot thickens. Looks like they are trying to make a buck off plagerizing your theory.
Well, May can’t plagiarize on something that he owns and that he participated in writing. But I am the originator of that part of the book, and May didn’t do any Geography, although in the sequels, May continued on with it.
But if Meldrum has partnered up with May, then the plot thickens in a sense, but if May gave him the go ahead for using the theory, then I guess I can’t say much about it. Perhaps this explains why Meldrum didn’t think he owed anybody like me anything intellectually because he is dealing directly with May in a partnership so it appears. Perhaps May thinks now he owns the idea now. I mean, technically he owns the book… Obviously now the whole thing is a complicated mess now I suppose, but I don’t care much because I’m done with that theory.
Before I begin, I need to note that I am an undergrad student majoring in the sciences. I started out as an anthropology major because I was curious about archaeology and culture. So even though I am no expert and I hold no degree in this subject, I understand what is being presented to a degree.
I watched Mr Meldrum’s dvd because I was asked to by an Institute director who was curious about the claims made in it because he wanted to teach a lesson in one of his mission prep classes on DNA and how to diffuse the subject with antis and investogators alike. He wanted my opinion on the contents as someone who is a science major. Also since Mr Meldrum seems to think that there is a Mesoamerican bias against his work, I would like to point out that I dont buy into the varying Mesoamerican hypotheses. They, like all these other archaeological pursuits to put the Book of Mormon into the context of known amerindian civilizations tend to emphasize little bits and details that “may” be evidences of the Book of Mormon, while throwing important context under the rug making it impossible for much of this stuff to pass any real peer review. I just dont trust the stuff. Do I believe the Book of Mormon happened as it is recorded? Yes. Do I believe we will find substantial archaeological evidence proving that it happened? Probably not. Is that important? Not really. Is the geography of where it occurred really relevant? Not at all. Also, I didnt really look into anyone elses responses to the DVD before watching it so I could be objective in viewing it. So here goes…
If I could go back and do anything differently with how I watched the DVD, I would have watched the DNA segment last. Unfortunately, my issues with this segment made it impossible for me to look at the rest of the DVD objectively. So how does this happen, when the dvd talks about a range of subjects? Cant one segment be iffy while the others great? It depends on what the problem is with the first segment and that problem, as others have stated here, lie in the improper methodology which Mr Meldrum used to present the information. I could go into details but pretty much everything was covered in the fair response to the DNA section and in the comments to this post.
If there is anything I would add, it is that it was clear to me from about 10 minutes into the presentation that Mr Meldrum is not a scientist and did not have anything close to a clear grasp on the underlying concepts of the material he was presenting. He doesnt even have a grasp on how science and the scientific method works. The way he presented Mitochondrial Eve showed me he had no grasp on who she was and how she fits into the theories of modern anthropology as the mtDNA MRCA. How he presented the Czar Nicolas data was also laughable.
So one piece of data is supposed to invalidate an entire set of data? Thats “good science”? The stopclock analogy in the article was perfect in explaining the problems with this kind of thinking, but the fact that he presents it like this shows his complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. You cant throw out an entire set of data because one piece disagrees with the rest of the set, especially when that one piece is clearly an exception and not a rule. Instead, you find out what causes the exception. I never really looked into it to see why the mtDNA mutated so much faster, but here’s an idea I came up with while watching the DVD: Czar Nicolas was a member of the Happsburg royal family. They were well known for their inbreeding. As a scientist I would develop a method for testing this hypothesis and find the rules which dictate the exception.
Maybe I would look at the mtDNA of certain Amish colonies or the FLDS communities and see if they too have an accelerated mutation rate. Maybe inbreeding is the cause of the discrepancy. Maybe not. That is how a scientist would have approached it. They would not have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
His characterization of the Bering land bridge theories as a “pseudotheory” too was laughable. He obviously has no concept of what the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. There is an abundance of evidence showing an asiatic migration into the Americas. Skeletal morphology, dna, dating of artifacts through radiocarbon dating and obsidian hydration all show asiatic origins. This evidence constitutes the theory. The evidence he portrays could barely constitute a hypothesis because so much is untestable. In any case, his conclusions and interpretations of the materials he was dealing with were way off.
I recently read an article in the Religious Educator journal out of BYU that I think is relevant to this DVD. In it, there is a discussion between Richard Holtzapffel (sp?) and a couple other biblical scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Towards the end of the article, Dr Holtzapffel talks about tapes that were widely distributed during the 80s or so claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. These tapes were produced by someone who had no qualifications to make him any kind of authority on the material he was presenting. They were made by someone who did not understand the material he was discussing. They were made with the goal of bringing others into the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if you have read the article, you will know that they ultimately cost us investigators who when finding out that the claims didnt hold up to scrutiny. They dealt a blow to the reputation of the Church in the scholarly community. One scholar in a presentation on the scrolls that Dr Holzapffel attended accused the Church of using them deceptively for conversion. This DVD has the potential to hurt the Church the same way that those tapes did if missionaries go out and use the claims in it as a defense or a proof of the truthfulness of the Church.
Interestingly, while Rod was praising his own work in the 3rd person as “DNA Truthseeker,” he denied a Wayne May connection until later in the process:
This was also the post in which Meldrum mocks the idea of Mesoamericans wearing thick clothing as armor–unaware, it would seem, of their tendency to do just that. Not to be missed.
And, there are Michigan artifacts in the DVD–no pictures that I recall, but they get mentioned and we’re told that adequate scientific studies haven’t been done on them, and they’re then listed in the checklist at the end in the conclusion. So “DNA Truthseeker” is either mistaken or lying about that too.
Mr. Meldrum,
While I think you have a lot to answer for and explain, I’m sorry for flying off the handle and making assumptions. I have no idea who you are or what your connections are exactly. And I have no idea what your basis for using the This Land geography is. But I’m removing myself from this conversation. I should have never entered into it. I’ve been done with this issue for years, and now and again a twinge of anger about it rises up in me, when I should have let it all go. So I’m letting this conversation go. If I were you, I would disassociate myself from the questionable artifacts. Goodbye.
This DVD has the potential to hurt the Church the same way that those tapes did if missionaries go out and use the claims in it as a defense or a proof of the truthfulness of the Church.
Exactly.
You get it exactly.
“This DVD has the potential to hurt the Church the same way that those tapes did if missionaries go out and use the claims in it as a defense or a proof of the truthfulness of the Church.”
Personally, I think that this Meldrum disaster of 2008 (and hopefully no other year) has the potential for being as damaging to the Church and wavering members as the Hoffman escapades of the 1980s. I’ll grant that Meldrum is probably sincere and isn’t trying to derail the work of the Church, but the Meldrum business is of the same type, if not yet the same magnitude, as the Hoffman forgeries.
By the way, has anybody calculated yet whether Meldrum and this cash-cow business of his has made as much as Hoffman?
Rod,
You mention that FAIRs video on DNA “The Book of Mormon and New World DNA” supports your position of the X haplotype. But you fail to mention that it is also said in the explanation of X, that it came into the Americas WAY to early to be used as evidence for The Book of Mormon, but does show that it happened at one time, and could very well happen again.
Also, you say that FAIR did not give you enough time to respond, I am curious, what would have changed if you had more time?
Tyler
Interested on-looker asked:
Without official figures, one can only do back-of-the-envelope calculations.
In May 2008, in response to Rod/DNATruthseeker’s claim that he was doing “free” presentations, one author noted that “the website brags about selling 8,000 of them [DVDs].
Assuming none were sold since then,
8,000 DVDs x $19.95 + $5.00 S&H/DVD (if bought separately) = $24.95 * 8,000 = $199,600 gross. There are other books and the like at the same site.
There’s also this:
I’ve heard cost was about $2,000 per person, but that’s anecdotal.
Note that he’s still pretending to be someone else here. (And, Rod, are you claiming you didn’t have “free access” to equipment from anyone?)
I note, though, that Rod has recently been telling people that he’s shot at least 12 hours of HD footage for a new DVD. Presumably, then, income has been adequate to allow him to undertake another foray into something that is “not an inexpensive venture.”
BTW, to forestall the inevitable attempt at distraction, I will save us all time and point out that FAIR’s DVD is free for all comers on YouTube, and has been for a long time (though I believe this is a newer version now out of beta):
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Template:Video:BoMNewWorldDNA
There’s also quite a few other video projects available that have long been in the works (though I’ve had nothing to do with them, so can’t speak to the details).
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Template:Video:Parr:2005:DNA_and_The_Book_of_Mormon
No member of FAIR makes any money. And it costs us all money to participate.
Personally, I do it so I can get lumped in with atheists. Good, clean fun. 🙂
I was one of the early viewers of Rod Meldrum’s presentation.
When he first started, he utilized the Michigan artifacts as “evidence” of his theory.
I and several others called him on the carpet for this, and a revised version of the presentation did not give them their previous prominent treatment.
I recommended that he drop them altogether, but he can’t seem to completely part ways with them.
Now he claims that they haven’t been adequately researched? Really? Sheesh.
I am no “professional scientific researcher truthseeker” (at least no more than Rod is, anyways) but even as a curious and fairly-well-read layman, I could see that the scientific method was being butchered and abused. The part that hurt the worst was seeing so many naive and good people buy the snake oil readily and enthusiastically.
I hope you are closely reading and heeding all of these posts, Rod. If you can adequately respond to just ONE of the arguments levelled against your theories without appealing to Joseph Smith or the Holy Ghost, I will be duly impressed.
Your entire theory rests upon the perceived infallibility and perceived scriptural importance of any and all utterances made or purportedly made by Joseph Smith. That is the entire sum and substance and keystone of your “scientific research.”
Somehow, you think you know “what Joseph knew,” and that is the end of the matter as far as you are concerned. How dare anyone question YOU with Joseph on your side, right?
I trust that at heart Rod is a decent and well-meaning man, and if that assumption is correct I like to think that he will do his best to reimburse those who have payed hard-earned dollars to support the travelling medicine show.
I don’t want to pick on Rod exclusively here, though.
Rod’s keystone argument deserves more atention.
At what point do we discount Joseph Smith or those who knew and paraphrased him? I think Joseph made it quite clear that he believed that Adam, Eve, and the immediate family lived in or near Jackson County, Missouri. Either they did or they didn’t. Which is it?
Now FAIR: Don’t even begin to try to pull the elephant-naked lady trick you have so readily criticized Brother Meldrum for. In other words: don’t do what you did on your wiki page by starting the discussion by saying that the matter is of no real or crucial relevance and is therefore only being suffered for the sake of answering the question so that we can all get on to more important matters like the Atonement.
It is abundantly clear that those who rubbbed shoulders with Joseph believed that he believed that the Garden of Eden had originally been located in the Missouri area. The question remains: was he just making an uneducated guess, or did he have some sort of deeper insight into the matter? This is a fairly black-or-white issue. Imagination or inspiration. If it was imagination, he certainly took some bold liberties with it. If it was inspiration, that opens another can of worms altogether, that cannot be covered here. Joseph sent missionaries to “the Lamanites,” and I’m fairly certain that he probably meant literal descendants when he said it. He taught these people the history of “their fathers,” did he not? Meldrum makes some errors by putting to much emphasis on Joseph’s words, but FAIR seems to willing to discount those same words as being irrelevant to the matter when they are anything but.
Or am I just an ignorant layman?
Sometimes my fingers fly as I type and I’ll miss a letter here or add an irrelevant letter there. I’m aware of it. I don’t care. Please refrain from using spelling or grammar as a point of argument or as a method (weak as it is) for discrediting anything I have written thus far. I only bring this up because I’ve seen this happen too often when certain parties are involved.
(I, like all others, don’t speak for FAIR, just myself.)
The problem isn’t “any and all statements by Joseph Smith.” It’s excluding those that don’t agree with his theory.
I’m pretty sure he meant literal descendants too. And, they WERE literal descendants. Unfortunately for establishing a geography, every Amerindian in the entire hemisphere would have shared Lehi as an ancestor if he left any descendants (which I’m convinced he did). (You may have overlooked this point in the review; it is made here on page 15-16.
The intriguing thing, to me, is that Joseph often did not seem to have read his own book–which is unsurprising, since he was the translator, not the author. He often didn’t seem to appreciate the import or nuance of what he had produced, especially at the beginning (which enhances my appreciation for what he did.)
It seems pretty clear that Joseph started out with a hemispheric geography of the Book of Mormon that involved North America. The intriguing thing is his willingness to learn new information from secular sources, and decide that this supported the Book of Mormon. His associates did the same thing. This makes no sense if he had some master geographical revelation OR if he was sly author of a con; it makes perfect sense if he was a translator with only a very general sense of the physical geography. And, that is exactly what we see.
===
You also asked:
We have no first-hand statement that I know of from Joseph. But, lots of his associates believed he taught it, and taught he taught it. I think it pretty certain Joseph taught something very like this.
However, the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with Book of Mormon geography, so far as I can see.
FAIR has no “official view,” but one article on this very issue captures a pretty broad consensus, I think. (It was written in response to media interest during the Mitt Romney candidacy.) See here.
In saying that it wasn’t “super important” we were trying to reflect the Church’s official position on the question (which is cited at the beginning of the article.) The article also acknowledges that Joseph almost surely taught this. I’m not clear what your concern is exactly?
Greg
(I, like all others, don’t speak for FAIR, just myself.)
At what point do we discount Joseph Smith or those who knew and paraphrased him? I think Joseph made it quite clear that he believed that Adam, Eve, and the immediate family lived in or near Jackson County, Missouri. Either they did or they didn’t. Which is it?
We have no first-hand statement that I know of from Joseph. But, lots of his associates believed he taught it, and taught he taught it. I think it pretty certain Joseph taught something very like this.
However, the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with Book of Mormon geography, so far as I can see.
FAIR has no “official view,” but the article you mentioned captures a pretty broad consensus, I think. (It was written in response to media interest during the Mitt Romney candidacy.) See here.
In saying that it wasn’t “super important” vis-a-vis the atonement, we were trying to reflect the Church’s official website answer on the question (which is cited at the beginning of the article.) We never knowingly say anything that’s different from something on the Church website.
So, if you consider that an avoidance tactic, you’ll have to take it up with Church Public Affairs. We won’t be altering it. 🙂
The article also acknowledges that Joseph almost surely taught this. I’m not clear what your concern is exactly?
The problem isn’t relying on “any and all statements by Joseph Smith.” It’s excluding those statements and actions that don’t agree with his theory, and misrepresenting others (e.g., Bernhisel letter).
I don’t know where we’ve discounted them.
I’m pretty sure he meant literal descendants too. And, they WERE literal descendants. Unfortunately for establishing a geography, every Amerindian in the entire hemisphere would have shared Lehi as an ancestor if he left any descendants (which I’m convinced he did). (You may have overlooked this point in the review; it is on page 15-16 of the “Joseph Smith” PDF.
The intriguing thing, to me, is that Joseph often did not seem to have read his own book–which is unsurprising, since he was the translator, not the author. [One remembers how astonished he was when he learned Jerusalem had walls.]
He often didn’t seem to appreciate the import or nuance of what he had produced, especially at the beginning (which enhances my appreciation for what he did.)
It seems pretty clear that Joseph started out with a hemispheric geography of the Book of Mormon that involved North America. The intriguing thing is his willingness to learn new information from secular sources, and decide that this supported the Book of Mormon. His associates did the same thing.
This makes no sense if he had some master geographical revelation OR if he was sly author of a con; it makes perfect sense if he was a translator with only a very general sense of the physical geography. And, that is exactly what we see.
The point is not to “ignore Joseph,” which is Rod’s red herring. By all means, listen to Joseph–take EVERYTHING Joseph said and did on the topic, and see where that leads us.
It’s pretty clear where it lead everyone who knew him, and every leader who came afterward–no revelatory geography (else they would have taught and defended it to the death and not kept insisting there wasn’t one), and lots of those who knew him and were supposedly at the binding revelation that Meldrum asserts for his model on Zion’s Camp (e.g., the Pratts and Wilford Woodruff) were very happy to do geographies including Central and even South America.
As Elder Widtsoe noted, the Zelph event isn’t much use for BoM geography, since it came after BoM times. Ditto calling people in the 1800s “Lamanites,” since (while accurate) it doesn’t help us narrow the geography of 1500 years earlier. (Imagine using current demographics of Utah to determine where an account about “white people” should be placed at the time of Christ!)
Greg
On the FIRM foundation blog (Rod Meldrum) posted: “When God sayes that the earth’s temporal existance will be 7,000 years and he put Adam on the earth, as the first man, 6,000 years ago, Greg, I believe him. Period.”
A few posts later “LDS-Man” posts: “FAIR, and FARMS are not the official voice of the LDS church. They are just people expressing their opinion just like everyone else. Please people, take FAIR and FARMS with a grain of salt…very little credibility. My family is un-phased by the spewing of FAIR and FARMS but instead listen to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the successors PERIOD.”
Is it just me or is there a striking similarity between these two quotes? I just hope that Rod learned his lesson after he got busted for defending and praising himself in the 3rd person as the “DNA Truthseeker” ….PERIOD.
Rod Meldrum says to Robert White:
“I am sorry if you feel offended….”
How dare you, Sir!? Why do you imply that the problem is in how Robert White took your comment, rather than in your ill-fated attempt to “drop names” (Before Robert admitted that he was an Area Authority Seventy, how would YOU know that?)?
Frankly, Sir, your statement strikes me as an attempt to bully Brother White in a manner reminiscent of anti-Mormon who insist that they are my friends–in spite of very UNfriendly behaviour!
Steven Danderson Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Rod Meldrum says to Robert White:
“I am sorry if you feel offended….”
How dare you, Sir!? Why do you imply that the problem is in how Robert White took your comment, rather than in your ill-fated attempt to “drop names” (Before Robert admitted that he was an Area Authority Seventy, how would YOU know that?)?
Frankly, Sir, your statement strikes me as an attempt to bully Brother White in a manner reminiscent of anti-Mormon who insist that they are my friends–in spite of very UNfriendly behaviour!
Rod: I knew that Brother White was a former 70 long before any of this happened, as he made it abundantly clear in our first communications together. In our ongoing communications, he would use his given name and after awhile I began to use it as well. Then in a communication with FAIR, I didn’t use his title, for which FAIR took issue that I was not showing proper respect, so I changed back to using ‘Elder’ for the past month or more in all correspondence. Not once did Brother White bring it up as a problem, so I simply continued that respectful title until he attepted to make an issue of it in public, and so now I am not sure how to address him except ‘Brother’ or ‘Robert White’ which I have done ever since he posted his objection.
How is my immediate apology an attempt to ‘bully Brother White’ as you so indicate? It was an honest apology.
May I ask you, who is being UNfriendly here?
Also, how would I gain from ‘dropping names’ in behalf of FAIR? It seems to me that it would be to FAIR’s advantage to show they have a former 70 on their board, it certainly doesn’t help me. It was out of respect, as I have said, and meant. FAIR is trying to create animosity where none exists by posting what they ‘think’ I ‘meant’ to say rather than what I in fact did say. Your case in point.
Michael Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
On the FIRM foundation blog (Rod Meldrum) posted: “When God sayes that the earth’s temporal existance will be 7,000 years and he put Adam on the earth, as the first man, 6,000 years ago, Greg, I believe him. Period.”
A few posts later “LDS-Man” posts: “FAIR, and FARMS are not the official voice of the LDS church. They are just people expressing their opinion just like everyone else. Please people, take FAIR and FARMS with a grain of salt…very little credibility. My family is un-phased by the spewing of FAIR and FARMS but instead listen to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the successors PERIOD.”
Is it just me or is there a striking similarity between these two quotes? I just hope that Rod learned his lesson after he got busted for defending and praising himself in the 3rd person as the “DNA Truthseeker” ….PERIOD.
Michael, sorry, but you are making a wrong assumption and insinuation for which you have no evidence. It was not me.
Rod
For the record. I do not believe Joseph Smith to be inerrant if that definition means that he never made a mistake. However, when it comes to the things he claims to have received by revelation that he wrote down, I believe they were indeed inspired and I stand with Joseph in his revelatory truths, even if they stand counter to the consensus of the Mesoamericanists. As I have stated, I believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet of God, and thus so are his revelatory statements.
No less than three times Joseph Smith wrote that he had a knowledge of things relating to the location of the Book of Mormon saga, their civilization and who the ‘remnant’ Lamanites are/were. He did so by revelation according his documented history. I did not make the statements, he did.
If FAIR does not like the fact that Joseph made these statements, please take it up with the official historians of the church, who’s responsibility it is to verify said documents.
All I am doing is bringing Joseph’s words back into the light after Mesoamerican theorists have done their best to relegate these statements by the prophet into nothing more than his opinions. Their written statements testify to that fact.
See the Mesoamerican leaning FARMS Zelph review http://preview.farmsresearch.com/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=202 and then compare it to the historians Zelph REVISITED article http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/341folder/Zelph%20Revisited%20Cannon.html if you’d like to see the difference serious bias makes.
FARMS review states:
“Exactly what Joseph Smith believed at different times in his life concerning Book of Mormon geography in general is also indeterminable. Only a few clues remain. For example, while the church was headquartered in Nauvoo, Joseph read a best-selling book of his day by John L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan,10 which John Bernhisel had sent to him from the East.”
“Evidently Joseph Smith’s views on this matter were open to further knowledge. Thus in 1834, when Zelph was found, Joseph believed that the portion of America over which they had just traveled was “the plains of the Nephite,” and that their bones were “proof” of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. By 1842 he evidently believed that the events in most of Nephite history took place in Central America.”
Compare this to the historians account which states:
“The journal accounts of Joseph Smith’s activities and his letter indicate that he believed that Book of Mormon history, or at least a part of it, transpired in North America. What does one do with such a prophetic statement? Some have dismissed it as a joke or playful exercise of Joseph’s imagination.19 Others have chosen to emphasize discrepancies and possible contradictions in the source accounts, thereby discrediting what Joseph Smith said.20
It seems to me that either approach carries heavy risks. When one chooses to state that Joseph Smith can’t be taken seriously on [p.109] this issue, the door is opened to question his statements on other issues. Where does it stop? Does the First Vision, with the discrepancies in the primary source accounts, also come under the doubt and skepticism applied here to Zelph? Why can’t we simply take Joseph Smith at his word?”
Amen.
I didn’t say it was you Rod, I really hope that it wasn’t you as it would damage your credibility…further. Sort of like breaking a contract, excluding the middle part of sentences with … to hide something that contradicts your theory (‘I didn’t have time to include EVERYTHING’ you say, give me a break!)
I just wish the the FIRM foundation blog (whoever hides behind THAT name?) didn’t delete my cut and paste musing about LDS-man on their blog so that you could’ve cleared things up on both blogs regarding LDS man. Hopefully my name won’t be blocked from making future posts on your (censored) blog. Then I might have to start making up aliases for myself too.
In a way, I’m sort of glad that LDS man isn’t you Rod, it about doubles your support as I see it 😉
Keep it real.
Tyler Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Rod,
You mention that FAIRs video on DNA “The Book of Mormon and New World DNA” supports your position of the X haplotype. But you fail to mention that it is also said in the explanation of X, that it came into the Americas WAY to early to be used as evidence for The Book of Mormon, but does show that it happened at one time, and could very well happen again.
Also, you say that FAIR did not give you enough time to respond, I am curious, what would have changed if you had more time?
Tyler
Dear Tyler, your curiousity will be satisfied when the my response is posted on my website, when I complete it. Then you can send the un-named FAIR reviewers on another quest to tear it down again. I am confident that it will be fruitless to expect an un-biased FAIR review because of the animosity and contempt held by it’s governing body against me and my information, which should be obvious to those reading this blog.
octium Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Before I begin, I need to note that I am an undergrad student majoring in the sciences. I started out as an anthropology major because I was curious about archaeology and culture. So even though I am no expert and I hold no degree in this subject, I understand what is being presented to a degree.
Dear octium (whoever you are).
Exactly which of the sciences are you majoring in then, you didn’t say. I agree that you are no expert (nor am I) in genetics, but I also disagree that you ‘understand what is being presented’. You are apparently unaware of the raging debate going on right now between the theorists (phylogenetic dating) and the experimentalists (pedigree dating), which don’t match up even in some cases to two orders of magnitude. The scientists are working to add ‘filters’ to the experimental data so that it can be ‘massaged’ to agree with the underlying assumptions of mutation rates by the theorists. Czar Nicholas was but one of many pedigree lineages that do not match the theoretical rate. Maybe you should do more homework before assuming that I do not have a grasp on the subject matter. No, I am not an expert, but I do try to stay informed of the relevant issues. Your statement makes it clear that you do not know of the ongoing controversy, but you can read my reply when completed for further information on the matter.
Allen Wyatt Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Rod,
Just curious… Why do you think that BYU teaches evolution and an “old earth” in their courses?
-Allen
For acceditation compliance. The vast majority of Prophets and apostles who have addressed the subject, along with the scriptures, do not support pre-Adamites or earth’s temporal existence longer than 7,000 years. Do your homework on the matter and you will see. Either the prophets and the scriptures are correct, or the philosophies of men are correct. I do not feel that they can be reconsiled (although I know plenty of others who believe they can), but either way, I am standing with the Prophets and their clear statements to the best of my ability, even if it goes against the concensus.
Allen Wyatt Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Rod,
Just curious… Why do you think that BYU teaches evolution and an “old earth” in their courses?
-Allen
Dear Allen, that is a really good question. Please see the following quote by the founder of the Brigham Young Academy himself, Brigham Young.
“We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall…this course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst.”
(Brigham Young, Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, p. 200.)
Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.
Allen, do you believe the church now endorses evolution and an ‘old earth’? Please let us all know?
Does the fact that BYU is teaching these concepts indicate their acceptance of such? I know that some professors do indeed teach evolution as ‘the firmest fact of science’ but I reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. Are you stating that my belief in the scriptures and the prophets are any less valid than your ideas on Darwin’s evolution or an old earth?
Allen, do you believe evolution and an ‘old earth’ over these witnesses?
Tell us how you are going to reconsile Brigham Young’s statement with your position.
Ed Goble Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Mr. Meldrum,
While I think you have a lot to answer for and explain, I’m sorry for flying off the handle and making assumptions. I have no idea who you are or what your connections are exactly. And I have no idea what your basis for using the This Land geography is. But I’m removing myself from this conversation. I should have never entered into it. I’ve been done with this issue for years, and now and again a twinge of anger about it rises up in me, when I should have let it all go. So I’m letting this conversation go. If I were you, I would disassociate myself from the questionable artifacts. Goodbye.
Dear Brother Gobble,
I think that your advice to leave the FAIR conversation is good. There is nothing of a positive or uplifting nature to this that I can see. I have been drawn into this by FAIR and would prefer not to be embroiled in it. I will address their issues, but within my time constraints and limitations as one vs many.
I have in the past week felt akin to the old saying that goes “It’s been like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat!” Such has been my lot this past week.
To answer a couple of your concerns. This geography was not plagerized from you at all, as you so indicated in your rant. You called ALL of the Great Lakes ‘Sea West’, you claim the ‘Nephite North’ is a highly skewed angle nearly making Lake Ontario and Lake Erie north/south of each other (see p.75 of your book) which completely changes your geographic ideas. I do not espouse either of these arguements. If you had seen the DVD, you would have known that out geographies are substantially different, if not unrelated. Your unsubstantiated claim that I copied your geography is not true. I began to research North American geographies after I had worked on the DNA evidence. I had come to many preliminary conclusions prior to my meeting Wayne May. I found his geographic ideas were the closest to what I had found, and so went to one of his presentations to learn more. Again I am being accused without evidence in fact. I agree with you, your geography doesn’t work and I don’t blame you for abandoning it. The proposed geography of my DVD has many things that need to be addressed as well, and I am hoping for competent help in establishing a more complete understanding. In my DVD I state that “I reserve the right to make changes (to the geography/maps) without notice”. People much more intelligent than I will help in connecting more of the dots. That is my hope. I am exploring one option. FAIR has lead you to believe that I think I have received revelation on the matter. If I had, ask yourself, why would I have made such a statement? Their mis-characterizations have certainly taken their toll by ‘poisoning the well’ of the minds of those seeing their initial review.
Rodney,
FAIR bears no animosity. My concern is your poisoning the well toward LDS scholars. It is also very concerned about your proclaiming anew the revelations of Joseph Smith and your implication that those who don’t accept your position don’t accept the teachings of Joseph Smith. I am concerned about your implication of the Church being led astray. I am very concerned that your responses to these ideas is that we hold animosity and contempt toward you. One more thing–just to preempt you. As we have discussed before, there is no one at FAIR who will gain financially from attacking you or putting down your theory. We are an all volunteer group.
Rod says:
Interestingly, you were far more favorable in your review posted on Mr. May’s website here.
“Wayne May’s book series provides the most comprehensive compilation of Book of Mormon background history, geography, logical research, and artifacts (complete with photographs), of any book on the subject to date….Open your mind and heart to the information contained in these books, and you will gain a renewed love for the prophet and the Book of Mormon itself. Truth will prevail.”
Maybe you ought to get him to change or remove it? 🙂
You haven’t addressed Mr. Goble’s specific area in which he directly asserted plagiarism–the matter of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers acting as the “head” of the river Sidon:
Given that it is a rather strange, counterintuitive idea, it does seem a bit uncanny that you’d have the exact same idea….
Rod made this statement:
Isn’t a sign from God a revelation? Why else would one fast, pray, and consult a patriarchal blessing, save to seek revelation? What else would we call it?
So, you’re claiming God wants you to make this you #1 priority. And, you got a sign to prove it. And, you then provide that sign to persuade others to support your “FIRM Foundation” (the name of which you also claim you got by revelation (see below)
Are we to conclude that God wants you to do this because you’re preaching a false geography and false ideas about Joseph’s purported revelation?
And this statement:
Much prayer still sounds like revelation. And, you’re receiving a name for it–God cares enough about what you’re doing to declare the name from on high? I’m serious–how else are we to read this?
And it’s purportedly a revelation about what Rod ought to do about a group formally associated with BYU, which is under the direction of the board of trustees of BYU, which includes the prophets and apostles.
So, you have a revelation that God wants you to “compete” in the realm of ideas with this group? Really? Does this pass even an elementary sniff test?
And this:
So, you’re claiming you had a blessing given to you to proclaim Joseph “anew,” affecting “millions.” You’re claiming that you and your wife no longer doubt that what you’re doing (already established, we are told, by signs, but apparently there was still some doubt…) has validity because of the blessing.
Sounds like a claim to truth and revelation to me. Or, are we to believe you’re saying God just thinks its a good idea for you to spread a false idea around to “millions”?
What is all this if not revelation?
When asking the Lord for guidance, one of the most difficult things is to be able to discern between our own enthusiasm for our own ideas, and the feelings of confirmation from the Spirit. Some years ago I was asking my seminary class how they could discern the difference? After a long pause one young man brightened up like a light bulb, waved his hand in the air and said, “I know! I know! You ask your mom!”
I told him he was exactly right. It is very easy for one person to be misled by their own enthusiasm but it is less likely that several people in consultation will also be misled. That is why the Church is governed by councils, and I suppose that is why scholars have peer reviews.
In an exchange with Allen about the teaching of evolution and an ancient earth at BYU, Rodney says:
One might initially regret that the subject matter has vered into what appears to be another field until one realizes that Rodney’s response to Allen demonstrates in the context of another subject that were Allen to believe in evolution and an old earth, it is appropriate to require him to justify himself to Brigham Young–or at least to a statement made by Brigham Young. Only slight less clear is Rodney’s apparent willingness to question the teaching of evolution at BYU at all. This sentence by Rodney appears a little earlier in his post:
Given that the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University includes The First Presidency, seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles,and other General Authorities Rodney is truth and essence asking the Brethren themselves why “we are teaching Evolution (sic) and an ‘old earth'” at the University. The question is rhetorical but definite: Rod is questioning the trusteeship of the University by the entire First Presidency and seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles. This demonstrates as cleary as anything could be demonstrated why FAIR became concerned with Rodney’s public teachings–the issue there was a root the same as the issue he demonstrates now.
Rodney, by quoting President Young, and then later writing “”Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.” you are calling the governance of the University by the Brethren into question, and showing disrespect to those Brethren, which I for one consider intolerable.
It is from this mind set that I have implored you to turn. Do you not see where you have gone, and where you are taking yourself? Stop, brother. Stop.
Rodney:
With respect to the evolution matter: In 1992 the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University authorized the publication of a packet of materials on “Evolution And The Origin Of Man”, by a letter dated in June of that year.
Greg must not have gotten the memo about using someone’s personal, private correspondence that FAIR honorably avoided the second round of reviews. Greg’s continued hate posts has earned him ‘banned’ status on my blog, so you will only get it here on the FAIR blog.
Is it so strange to you, Greg, when making a big decision like this was for me that you would consult the Lord through prayer, your patriarchal blessing, and get advice from those you know and respect?
None of these things involved anyone else as far as guidance, and I was not attempting to win anyone over. It was an invitation to participate in a preliminary meeting to a group who are supporters of the research. I was not attempting to persuade anyone, it was an invitation and it was addressed “Hello Dear Friends” which establishes that it was sent only to specific individuals to whom I thought I could trust. Again, one of those betrayed that trust by sending it to others. Every one of these things were my personal spiritual feelings, and never did I attempt to impose them on others, they were for me only. You seem to be taking issue with me (or anyone) for having answers to prayers. I believe in prayer. I do not claim to have had such guidance for anyone else or for the church, but the scriptures are clear that we should all be asking for guidance, and I do. This was and is for me only. You are again attempting to impugn my character. I hope people see it for what it is, personal character assasination. I have not done so with you, why do you have such bitterness and hatred toward me?
What is wrong with competing in the realm of ideas on geography, if there is no offical established geography as you have stated so many times? It is simply a proposed idea, yet you falsely make it out to be a sinister plot. Such stretches of imagination are becoming commonplace within FAIR, and are false.
Dear Robert White,
Are we to understand from the authorization of “a packet of materials on evolution” that you are now claiming to have established the official position of the church on the matter of evolution, thereby taking into your own hands the authority of it’s leadership and claiming that the church has officially sanctioned and embraced evolution and an ‘old earth’?
Given that the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University includes The First Presidency, seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles,and other General Authorities you are, in essence, speaking for the Brethren themselves that “we are teaching Evolution (sic) and an ‘old earth’” at the University. The question is rhetorical but definite: Is Brother White speaking for the trusteeship of the University and the entire First Presidency and seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles in doing so? This demonstrates as cleary as anything could be demonstrated why Rod became concerned with Brother Whites public teachings–the issue there was a root the same as the issue he demonstrates now.
Can you see how you are usurping the authority of the entire church and its leaders by speaking officially for them on the matter of evolution? It seems you are overstepping your bounds and don’t understand proper priesthood lines of authority in making such claims for the church. Stop, brother, stop!
The above is an (almost humorous) example (however poorly done) of the magnitude of the stretches FAIR is willing to make in twisting anything I have said into what it is not.
I will no longer participate in this blog because it has become to contentious. I and Ed Gobble are removing ourselves from this and I highly recommend anyone still reading these posts to do the same. I will no longer be a part of this.
“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 11:29)
“Dear Brother Gobble”
Its not Gobble, Mr. Meldrum. Its Goble.
“FAIR has lead you to believe that I think I have received revelation on the matter. If I had, ask yourself, why would I have made such a statement? Their mis-characterizations have certainly taken their toll by ‘poisoning the well’ of the minds of those seeing their initial review.”
It is abundantly clear, Mr. Meldrum that you bore testimony of the truth of your claims and then asked others to get revelation on what you got revelation on, rather than asking them to get confirmation without bearing your testimony of the truth of your claims. Your bearing of your testimony on your claims is claiming revelation on your claims.
“I and Ed Gobble are removing ourselves from this and I highly recommend anyone still reading these posts to do the same. I will no longer be a part of this.”
Don’t use my name misspelled as if we are a “team” or something leaving the conversation. I guess I haven’t left the conversation like I thought, since you re
This is a little lengthy, but if you will endure that and read it fully it will give you the light and knowledge you can use in evaluating what Rod Meldrum is doing–you may not then even have to read FAIR’s forthcoming 200 pages, as excellent as they are, because the following goes to the root of the matter.
I recently contributed a post addressing Rod’s criticism of the teaching of evolution and ‘old earth’ geology at Brigham Young University, implying that to do so was directly contrary to the views of a Prophet. I pointed out that the Board of Trustees of the University consist of the First Presidency, seven members of the Quorum of the Tweleve Apostles and other General Authorities. Rodney has thus arrayed himself against the Brethren themselves. I noted that this is another clear demonstration of the root problem with his Book of Mormon geography–nothing could make this clearer. I pleaded with him to stop.
At the end of my post, I added as a supplement for the benefit of those who may have been unaware of it, that in June 1992 the University’s Board of Trustees (still the entire First Presidency, seven Apostles, and other General Authorities) published a packet of materials at BYU address the subject of evolution and the origin of man.
Rather than accept my plea to him to stop arraying himself against the trusteeship of the University by the Brethren, or addressing the issue of his doing so, Rodney, in the following, chooses instead to take me to task for informing readers of the Packet authorized by the Brethren for use at BYU. Here is what Rodeny wrote:
The transformation of my heartfelt plea into a parody is saddening. More to the point, however, is that in a regrettably typical avoidance of the substance of this or other examples of his calling into question–in this case, his apparent opposition to the Brethren’s permitting the teaching of evolution and an ancient earth at Brigham Young University, he ignors the tragic position on which he has been called, and tries to deflect readers onto a tangental offering of information. I have a enough respect for those who read here, that Rodney may not, that to believe that you will have noticed that my message and plea have gone unanswered, and drawn your conclusions from that. I am sure you will have also noticed the intellectually dishonest attempt made by Rodney to use my item of information of general interest, to portray me as an apostate, setting myself up as a light to the world. Because this effort by Rodney can inform all readers of his methods and intent, I will first set out my brief item of information, and then Rodney’s assault on it, and me. My purpose is not to defend myself, for I have no need for defence, but to demonstrate how Rodney works.
Here is what I added after my substantive comments:
This is a simple statement of fact: The entire First Presidency, seven Apostles, and other General Authorities issued a letter authorizing the publication of a packet of information on this subject, in June 1992. It will be clear to all that I have only said what the Brethren did.
Here is Rodney’s response. He is addressing the statement of fact I made, about the packet, quoted just above.
In the last three words he mocks my plea for him to stop what he is doing–for his sake, and for those who may listen to him.
The following will be clear to your from his response to my statement of fact about a step taken by the Brethren:
1. I have not spoken official or otherwise for the Brethren or the Church on evolution or anything else. I have merely pointed out to interested readers something the Brethren have done.
2. I not not “usurped the authority of the entire Church and its leaders…” It is clear that the Brethren’s letter of June 1992 explains the purpose and use of the packet. I had nothing to do with it, do not have anything to do with, but as with many other Latter-day Saints I do appreciate the Brethrens’ letter and the packet which it makes available.
3. I have not overstepped my bounds and have not misunderstood “proper priesthood lines of authority” by informing members of something the Brethren have published,
4. Lastly “as far as my “…making such claims for the church,” as Rodney says, I guess I have said that the Brethren have written an open letter making material available for consultation at and by the University, and explaining why. But I haven’t invoked any priesthood that I have, nor spoken for the Church, as will be clear to all.
I have set all this out, not in defence of anything I have written or done, but to illustrate that which must be grasped to understand FAIR’s concerns, and the perils to which it has drawn attention: Rodney ignores or sidesteps actual issues; Rodney distorts what one says when calling his statements into question; and Rodney mocks those who, in charity, plead with him to stop. I dare say that this modest post of mine will explain to any who read it what the real problem is with Rodney’s self-appointed mission and business and, thus informed, will be protected and able to protect others.
At the conclusion of his message to me, Rodney says that he is now forever leaving the FAIR Blog because it has become “to (sic) contentious.” That is welcomed. However, regretably he continues his contention on his own Blog. I’m going to post this there, although I don’t know if it will pass review.
Also, Mr. Meldrum, don’t use my name in connection to yours, especially in the context of the old earth facts. I BELIEVE in an old earth, and I believe in evolution to a large degree. I support what is going on at BYU. I’m in 100% agreement with Mr. White.
Oh yeah, Mr. Meldrum, I directly challenge you once again to explain how Joseph Smith’s statement on the Land of Desolation does not devastate your geography. Address it clearly and plainly. I say you cannot do it, and that it is the monkey wrench that fouls up your whole thing. You are the one that puts Joseph Smith’s statements above anyone else’s. Deal with it then. I’m waiting.
What memo is this, Rod?
You need better legal counsel if you think this has any grounds at all. The law is very well established on this point. You should get them to look up “fair use, for starters.
I’m not sure why you think FAIR would use your e-mail twice. We don’t tend to repeat ourselves (except when speaking directly to you, in this case). It’s still available here. FAIR has not withdrawn its citation or use of it–nor have they any reason to.
If you feel it has been used out of context, you can always demonstrate how.
I didn’t write the letter. I didn’t steal it. I didn’t break into your Dear Diary by snapping the Heart-Shaped Locket(tm). 🙂 You sent that letter to several people. At least one of them forwarded it to a bunch of people. And, one of _those_ people forwarded it to me. I’m at least third a generation recipient. So, how far do you think your claims have spread?
You didn’t label it as “personal and private” (not that this would matter legally). You sent it out to encourage people to come to a meeting to support your ideas.
It is ironic–and telling–that you refuse to deal with the letter’s contents, and want desperately for it to go away. This is not surprising, since any Latter-day Saint who reads it will see what is going on. And, they will be (as I am) concerned.
Tell me, Rod, if I wrote a letter saying that Thomas S. Monson is a fallen prophet, and gave it to ten of my friends, is that any more of a problem than if I tell a thousand people?
You made your views known to others. You’ll have to deal with that.
“Hate posts?” Goodness, and me without my shaved head and SS tattoos. I’m just quoting your own words, Rod. You said you never claimed revelation. I’ve shown with your own words that that claim is not true. That isn’t hate.
I’ve said nothing at all about you personally.
No, Rod. What’s strange to me is that you would seek for signs, admit it to others as a GOOD thing, and then use your personal revelatory experiences as an argument to persuade others (see below).
So, you included them NOT because you thought they might persuade people? You were just including them as an “FYI”?
That is certainly not the impression one gets, especially when one reads such lines as these:
* “I hope you feel as I do that we are all engaged in saving souls….”
* “I have pondered and prayed about a name for this organization and the name that was received is….”
* “So the Lord is watching out for this project!”
* “THANK YOU for all you are doing in forwarding this work. It is hoped that this group will form the nucleus for the organization that will be responsible for turning the tide of anti-Mormon falsehoods and re-establishing Joseph Smith as the preeminent scholar on the subject of Book of Mormon geography and reinforcing it as the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
So, none of this was intended to persuade others, and will not reasonably have that effect? Really?
It is difficult to see these as anything but attempts to persuade others to support what you’re doing. And, most of the e-mail is taken up with signs, promptings from the Lord, etc. You’re asking us to believe that you included all that for no reason whatever, and with no intent that they would sway anyone?
Is that right?
Nonsense. I’m taking issue with you seeking signs (which is forbidden by scripture) and using your own claimed revelatory experiences and signs in a letter whose intent you admit was designed to get other people to help you with your foundation. (Except all the stuff about revelation–that was just filler, not intended to persuade anyone of anything at all.)
That you cannot see the distinction is staggering, but less surprising as time goes on. I can only hope that repetition will help.
You complain someone “betrayed your trust” by sending the letter. Surely if they forwarded it on, they understood what you were doing–as almost any Latter-day Saint would.
If that was true, then why did you speak about it to others? If it was for you, then it was for you–not me, not anyone else, and not for the people who hoped would join the FIRM Foundation. Yet, surely you intended it to go to THEM, at least?
I’m not impugning your character. I have said nothing about your character. I have posted your own words. If they reflect poorly on your character, that is your fault, not mine. You make claims, and I have demonstrated repeatedly that those claims are false.
I think your repeated disparagement of those who do not agree with you on this board probably speaks more loudly on the issue of your character than anything I have said.
Your e-mail merely shows us what is actuating your behavior here, and elsewhere.
I’m not bitter, and I don’t hate you. I’m concerned for you, but I suspect you will never believe that. I’m also concerned for those whom you might mislead.
You’re charging toward a cliff, with some people following you. Many people are yelling “Stop” to you and them. Even if you don’t listen, perhaps some others will not follow you over the cliff.
You really should quit making claims that your own words don’t back up. You’ve repeatedly associated me with “atheists” for merely quoting an atheist, and you’ve now accused me of hate speech. You’ve also implied that if I don’t share your view of a particular scripture interpretation, I’m not sustaining them or the prophets. I’ve asked you to clarify if it is possible to read scripture differently than you and still be right before the Lord. You’ve not answered yet.
I’ve got some other examples from your e-mails to FAIR. Do you want to withdraw this claim, or shall I post them too?
There’s nothing wrong with competing with the ideas, full stop. There is something (a great deal) wrong with claiming to others that your decision came by revelation (“after much prayer”) and then expressing that conviction publicly to those whom you are hoping will help you form a foundation to do just that. (But, lest we forget, you didn’t tell them this decision was given you by heaven to influence them in any way. Right? You were just making conversation?)
But, you have done more than disagree about ideas. You have chosen to slander those who disagree with your ideas as not supporting the prophets and apostles. You’ve done that with FARMS/NAMI, you’ve done that with me, and you’ve done that with others on this very blog post. Again, I’ve got letters. Do you want everyone to see them? Think carefully before you answer.
I haven’t said it’s a sinister plot. I don’t think you plotted with anyone–I think this is all your own error. Your words speak for themselves. If I’ve misrepresented the e-mail, then post it and show how innocent this all is.
I suspect you will not, because you cannot.
Besides, you seem to insist that your FIRM foundation email was to be utterly secret, and no one else has any right to know what was in it. If this is so, then that begins to look quite a big more conspiratorial–“come to my foundation meeting, named by God, confirmed by signs, etc., but don’t let anyone else know about this in any way.”
Which is it? Were your FIRM foundation plans secret, private, not for anyone else to know about–or, they were perfectly innocent gatherings for benign purposes?
If you truly believe the latter–and I think you do–then your continued insistence that your e-mail is somehow privileged, private, and off limits just doesn’t wash.
Your choice.
I suppose this does spare you the difficulty of answering my questions, drawn from your own words.
I guess this claim from your blog doesn’t apply, then:
(I apologize to delicate readers, for whom the posting of Rod’s own words will constitute hate speech, and require you to reach for your smelling salts. 🙂 We’ll pause briefly while you gather yourselves….)
So, can you show me where I’ve made a “crude,” “vulgar,” “abusive,” or “unethical” comment on your blog? Can you show me the first instance of abuse which I’ve committed, which should have been deleted before banning me permanently for a second offense? Can you show me a warning e-mail or comment from you anywhere about my behavior on your blog?
I suspect not. If anyone can, I will correct the matter.
You claim to want a discussion about ideas. But, when you’re offered that–I’ve said nothing about you personally, just about what I find problematic about your claims–you complain about where the ideas come from (your own e-mail and writing) and then prefer to silence me.
Maybe discussion isn’t what you’re looking for?
When we are dealing with a question of whether one’s teachings are in or out of harmony with those of the Brethren, or whether the Brethren are being disrespected, Rodney has made it inevitable that the following must be a long post. It includes everthing that he says I improperly omitted using “slick tactics”, answers each question with which he challenged and criticised my comments, and gives those who are, and should be, interested in this watershed phenomenon, additional material from the First Presidency that Rodney has, perhaps due to the press of time, not included. I am, though, sorry for the necessary length. In fairness to yourself, please do read it all.
The following is in response to Rodney’s comments about my post on his views concerning the teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ at Brigham Young University, given that the trustees of that university are the entire First Presidency and seven Apostles.
The first part of his response is this:
I followed the accustomed practice of keeping entries as brief as possible, and so quoted the relevant parts. However, so that Rodney cannot make that the issue rather than responding to what is the issue,as a first step I am setting out the entirety of Rodney’s post to Allen, now. It is long, but will put an end to this diversion from the issue with the added benefit of demonstrating the problem at length. The sarcasm and innuendo is more fulsome than in the portions I quoted.
And so, Rodney, there it all is. I do not use “slick tactics”, and a comparison of my selections from your entire post will demonstrate that.
Rodney then writes to me:
First, it was not BYU that approved it. Through its Provost, Bruce C. Haffen (now of the Seventy) the Board of Trustees was asked for guidance. That came under cover of their letter of June, 1992, identifying a packet of materials to be made available for faculty and students on the subject of Evolution and The Origin of Man.
Not forbidding the teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ of course does not constitute “official acceptance” of evolution for the Church. That is the point which I made, and you have avoided. You have, in your exchange with Allen, placed belief in and by innuendo teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ against a paragraph in the letter by Brigham Young to one of his sons, and thus made it a test of allegiance to the Prophets this way:
I will put it starkly: Rodney, write to the First Presidency, with a copy to your stake president, and another full copy and evidence of mailing posted here, and tell them that on a public Blog you asked “…why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university [Brigham Young founded] when you “…reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. …”; and that anyone who believes “evolution and an ‘old earth’ over these witnesses” should “…tell us how [they]are going to reconsile Brigham Young’s statement with [their] position.” Please do it and put the minds of all of us at rest.
Rodney then writes to me:
OK, having read it in several locations, several times in the past, and having now looked it up and read it again, I will. The lead-in to the article in the February 2002 Ensign states:
The 1909 letter from the First Presidency is included in the Packet which the Brethren authorized to be made available to faculty and students at Brigham Young University. In addition to the 1909 letter the Brethren included the following: 1) Their June 1992 cover letter; 2) the Context of the 1909 First Presidency Statement–the one set out in the Ensign; 3) An excerpt from a First Presidency Message in 1910; 4) the Context of the First Presidency Statement “Mormon View of Evolution” in 1925; 5) The First Presidency Statement of 1925; 6) the Conext of the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on evolution published in 1992; 7) The article from the encyclopedia.
The Brethren obviously are of the view that all of these documents, and the context in which they were written, are of value.
The article in the Encyclopedia includes this statement: “The scripture tell us why man was created, but they do not tell us how, though the Lord has told us that he will tell us that when he comes again. (Doctrine and Covenants 101:32,22) A fuller version of the article was presented to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, from which the existing article was developed. Final approval was given to it by Gordon B. Hinckley. This information is included in the authorized Packet.
From this it will be clear that any actions taken by the Brethren with respect to these subject, and the teaching of them, are taken with great care, deliberation, moderation and inspiration. It is offensive, and disprespectful to the Brethren, for Rodney to challenge a Latter-day Saint to “…tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university [Brigham Young] founded.”
Now, so any bias of mine is known: 1) I sustain, honor, revere and follow the Brethren without an deviation of which I am aware. 2) I cannot figure out evolution. I do not deny it; but as a layman I do not understand how it can be. I have tried. I find no fault with those who accept it. 3) I believe that the earth is very old. I do not believe that there is any scripture or other doctrine in the Church that precludes or condemns that belief, nor is there any that requires it.
I end with the core issue, which Rodney has not addressed: please read what he wrote to Allen, all of it as Rodney insists–I have set it out in full above–then please read my comments about it. To these last, there has been no answer.
In one of the posts, Mr. Meldrum answers Mr. Wyatt’s question about why BYU allows the teaching of evolution and old earth theories in this way: “For acceditation compliance.”
That might explain the teaching on the subject in the classrooms, though personally I think that the Church leaders would be more willing to shut down the university than allow false teachings to be taught to faithful LDS youth as truth, thus intentionally leading them away from belief in what the prophets and scriptures have taught according to Mr. Meldrum. This intentionally allowed deception (according to Mr. Meldrum) must have the ultimate effect of causing them to doubt the credibility of the prophets and the scriptures and ultimately weaken their faith in the Gospel, which is directly contrary to the stated mission of BYU as clearly stated: “The mission of Brigham Young University–founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life” and includes the observation “[t]o succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God”.
Accreditation is desirable when trying to establish a recognizably high quality university, but in the minds of our Church leadership that takes second place (if not way down on the list) to the Church’s three fold mission that includes perfecting the Saints, though perhaps Mr. Meldrum justifies his disbelief in this proclaimed mission of BYU by believing that the Church leadership are quite comfortable in lying about their actual priorities for the Saints.
BYU has not been reluctant in the past to dismiss professors who have taught socially acceptable theories which happened to be contrary to the teachings of the prophets and scriptures in the field of science and other areas. Why would they be so willing to give in on this one issue of evolution and the old earth when they have not in others?
Mr. Meldrum apparently thinks the First Presidency and other church leaders place more value on the approval of the world than on the Word of the Lord when it comes to educating our youth or so this answer of his would lead me to believe. I don’t see much evidence myself for his claim and a lot of evidence in contradiction in the actual practices of BYU as well as the mission statement (which can be read here: http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/missionstatement.aspx
—–
It should also be obvious that there is nothing in “acceditation compliance” that requires that placement of the packet on evolution whose contents have been detailed above in the HBL Library accessible to all students and anyone else interested.
Therefore I ask the question to Mr. Meldrum why has the Church leadership through BYU made available to the faculty and students of BYU this packet of materials, vetted and approved by the highest members in our leadership, on Evolution and the Origin of Man?
“For acceditation compliance” will not suffice as an logical answer here so I hope you will take the time to explain your reasoning on this as I am very curious as to your position.
Cal
Just thought I’d say that Meldrum over on his blog now finally responded to the issue of Joseph Smith’s Desolation statement in the Levi Hancock journal. He dismisses it as second hand information, yet he accepts the questionable Zarahemla Iowa statement in the D&C 125 as evidence that it was the ancient site of the city of Zarahemla when the Lord only named it Zarahemla, and said nothing about the ancient status of the site. Furthermore, he accepts the Manti in Missouri statements only because they agree with his model, yet there is nothing more distant from the mouth of Joseph Smith than these who knows how many hand statements on Manti. What double standards on what Joseph Smith “knew”. How pathetic. Hey Meldrum, tell me where I got any of this wrong?
Dear Mormons,
Are you guys all in the same church or what?
If it wasn’t so sad, (watching you all denigrate one another) it would be comical.
I do appreciate the insight into Mormon thought, though. I especially like the way you attack the person instead of what he has to say. That is very insightful. Thanks.
As one who has tried to make sense of this BoM geography deal for some time now, I just have to vent a bit and say that these discussions don’t seem to get anyone anywhere as far as actually discussing the geography itself. Does it always have to get to the point where two well-meaning people have to accuse each other of being traitors to the Brethren? Let’s stop fuming at each other, get the egos in check, and discuss some BoM geography.
Rod needs a bit of help here. I know his theory has more howlers in it than a rain forest, but even a dead clock is right twice a day. Smile, Rod. I’m poking a wee bit of fun at some of your evidences, NOT YOU!!! Play along and defend your theory, or go home and pout. Half of the fun in scholastic debate is the ribbing you can dish out now and again.
Just don’t allow yourself to get so personally attached to and invested in what is, after all, just a theory.
If you have a good theory, it will be defendable with sound facts. If you have a bad theory, you have to take your medicine and revise your view. No harm in that. My views are constantly under revision, and I’m not ashamed or embarrassed by that. All most of us are saying is please don’t make the mistake of thinking that God is going to grant you sure revelation on what would most certainly be considered a matter that would be of importance to the entire church. If you feel that you are right through what you perceive to be the Holy Ghost, you remove yourself entirely from the realm of scientific thought and research. You are no longer in a position to discuss and debate. You are aligning yourself with God, and your view can no longer be a theory. That is the problem. You claim on one hand that you are only arguing for a still-evolving theory, while indicating that your theory is backed by revelation on the other. Those two views are incompatible. You may refer to recorded revelaion as a supporting point for your theory, but you don’t seem to grasp the proper use of evidence.
I don’t have much of a background in science. I DO have a fairly substantive background in law enforcement/criminal investigation, especially theft and fraud investigation. The cardinal rule in any GOOD investigation is to refrain from making any encompassing theory until all evidence is in and evaluated. The evidence drives the theory. This is the exact same principle that drives the scientific method. With all due respect to you, Rod, you wouldn’t make a good detective if you were to use your BoM methodology in a criminal investigation. Your approach is NOT scientific. You start with your pet theory (the BoM occured solely in North America) and then try to explain away or completely ignore evidence that doesn’t support that view. To be fair, FAIR does this to a certain extent as well. A proper approach would be to calm down and realize that the investigation is still ongoing and we are nowhere near ready to take our case into the courtroom. We need to look at all the evidence objectively and continue to search for a theory that will hold up beyond a reasonable doubt. Every bit of evidence needs to be carefully evaluated, for not all evidence is equal in value or credibility. What you are experiencing at this point is equivalent to what you experience if you go into a courtroom with a sloppy and incomplete case. The defense shreds you to pieces, and you have insufficient evidence to do anything about it. Your mistake, Rod, was in jumping the gun and going to court WAY too early.
Now, everyone, can we discuss some geography, already?
🙂
To kick off the geography discussion, I want to come to the aid of Rod. I want to explore some of his good arguments/evidences.
The best arrow in Rod’s quiver is his idea of starting at the Hill Cumorah in determining a geography.
The two Cumorahs theory never made a bit of sense to me in light of all the statements and accounts that seem to indicate that the Cumorah where Moroni buried the plates was the same Cumorah and region where the Nephites fought their last battle. You really have to stretch credibility, credulity, and imagination to make a two Cumorah theory work. Why would Moroni lug the plates for thousands upon thousands of miles to a hill in upstate New York, risking death, capture, and subsequent loss of the plates? Why would Joseph Smith indicate that Zelph was killed in the final battles between the Lamanites and Nephites if these battles occured in Central America? All of the contemporary accounts seem to indicate that Joseph believed the Hill Cumorah and the surrounding valley to be the BoM Cumorah. This idea is just as credible, in my view, as the Times & Seasons articles discussing Nephites in Chile and Guatamala, if not more so. If we use Joseph and his contemporaries as key witnesses in our case, we have to accept that a hemispheric model, with all of its inherent difficulties, seems to be the order of the day.
Rod has accurately determined that these witnesses (Smith, Young, etc.) are crucial, because, frankly, we don’t have a lot in the realm of archaeological or anthropological evidence that is of any substantial value to our cause. The closest we get is the mammoth findings in North America. The Jaredites had the elephant, and they inhabited the land northward, no? The Jaredites also met their end in the same lands of Desolation/Cumorah. Just one more boost for the one Cumorah plank.
If we are ever to agree on anything at all in the search for BoM lands, Cumorah seems to be our best hope for a point of consensus. IT seems to be one of the precious few areas of discussion that may approach the “beyond a reasonable doubt” realm. If we can’t agree at this point, let’s just all agree to disagree and drop the whole topic now, becuase any other course makes Joseph and his contemporaries unusable as witnesses, and what are we left with then? Not much. Very not much. At that point, anyone’s theory is just as valid as anyone else’s.
If you don’t agree with me on Cumorah being our best strating point, I would be very open to hearing what you consider to be the best piece of evidence or the best witness to call upon as the most solid to date. credible.
DJ,
Could you give us a scripture from the Book of Mormon that confirms that the plates that Moroni had were buried in the hill Cumorah mentioned in the book? I am aware that the Book of Mormon refers to many records contained in a cave in a hill called Cumorah, however, does the book say that the plates that were in the possession of Moroni were buried in the same hill? One problem that I have with the New York hill Cumorah is that the hill is a drumlin: It is a pile of glacial gravel – there is no cave in it.
DJ,
I have written an article that was going to be featured first in a book that I have written, but it has since been removed. It is going to be published in Dialogue soon if it makes it through their peer review. It is entitled “Resurrecting Cumorah,” meaning, resurrecting the traditional view of Cumorah in New York as the ancient site of the battles. However, now my reasoning is because of the Book of Mormon text, not because of tradition.
Now, if you do not address the objections against Cumorah in New York one by one and soundly defeat them made by David Palmer in In Search of Cumorah as well as the multitude of other charges made against it by the Mesoamericanist crowd, then you simply cannot “begin at Cumorah.” It is discredited, and a lot of work has to be done to establish it as rational AND plausible. Only when something is rational and plausible, can belief exist. Irrational belief doesn’t impress people who want to believe in something rational.
Rod Said:
Dear octium (whoever you are).
Exactly which of the sciences are you majoring in then, you didn’t say. I agree that you are no expert (nor am I) in genetics, but I also disagree that you ‘understand what is being presented’.
Whoever I am? Wow for someone crying about the spirit of contention not being conducive to the spirit you sure are quite the hypocrite. With all of the data I presented, you decide to reply with a simple ad hominem attack on me. For your information, I am a biology major. And the debate between phylogenetic and pedigree dating here is totally irrelevant. The debate you speak of, any way you pute it has nothing to do with the first woman Eve, it has to do with the MRCA (most recent common ancestor). Did you know we have genetic data in our mtDNA from women before her? Maybe thats why shes called the “most recent” common ancestor instead of the “most distant”. Shocker! An even bigger shocker for you I am sure will be the fact that the dates for mitochondrial eve and y chromosomal adam dont correlate! Honestly, you are a sad person. Basically whats going on here is peer review, and you are responding with ad hominem attacks. So this team you have doing your homework, are they as well educated as you? I sure hope you have at least one person on your staff who knows how science works because you sir surely dont. Heck, I hope you find someone who knows how argumentation works for that matter since you cant seem to address any of the issues being brought up and keep presenting this as people attacking your Geography. They have done nothing but questioned your methodolgy which is rife with cherry picked quotes, and deceptive logical fallacies. What is the FAIR has kept their criticism of you well within the bounds of acceptable and cordial from a scholarly viewpoint in dealing with your distortions but I will not. I can not wait for you to do a presentation down here in southern California because I will be there. And you can be sure Mr Meldrum, that I will confront you face to face in front of a crowd. So you had better hope that your crew of clowns you have doing your homework for you know what they are talking about because I will not hold back in my criticism of your unethical and deceptive scholarship at all. It will be a jolly old time. You are an unethical clown and a charlatan. I cant wait to meet you.
RogerN,
The interpretation you bring up of Mormon 6:6 is flawed at a fundamental level, because that scripture only mentions what Mormon did, and what plates he delivered to his son. It doesn’t comment on what Moroni did decades later, and certainly doesn’t prophesy of something to come decades later. It doesn’t say anything about where the plates Moroni had ended up. Therefore, you cannot establish by it that Moroni did not go back to the very same hill decades later, nor can you establish by it that he did either. Therefore, the Book of Mormon itself is silent on where those plates ended up, and is silent on the point of whether that hill is the same one that we know they ended up in New York.
If some dude lived in a house and his journal says he didn’t have a certain book in his house, and then later on, long after he wrote it, some other dude brings the book into the house, you cant use his earlier journal entries as evidence that the book was never brought into the house decades later. That kind of logic is absurd and flawed.
That’s like saying that I never lived in Riverton, Utah since 2001 because my dad’s journal from 1996 says I lived in Magna, Utah. That’s absurd.
RogerN,
I forgot to respond about the drumlin not being able to have a cave in it. Apparently you are not aware of the chambers within Adena mounds dating to the Book of Mormon time period archaeologically, which are also piles of dirt, but the chambers were deliberately constructed of wood. The very same thing could be done to a drumlin by constructing a man-made chamber within it and then burying the chamber back up again. This is not only plausible, but has the archaeological analog to go along with it. Nobody said the cave had to be a natural one.
In my opinion, it is a huge problem to start with ANY physical location. You’re already making assumptions, no matter how hard we try.
First, you need an internal map and geography. Only when you can say that you’ve got the Book of Mormon text figured out, can we start looking for physical locations.
So, I would say–pick a theoretical geography, and start from there. You can build your own, but since Sorenson has done the most work, I don’t understand why people don’t cheat and start with his. Explain what he gets wrong, and why. Then modify his map. Repeat.
Once that’s done, then one can start to think about placing that map with real-world correlates. John Clark’s article(s) on this are required reading. They’re in the FAIR review. 🙂
Here is the link to the John Clark article:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html
Let’s please be civil, or FAIR won’t have any interest in hosting this. As you have indicated, there is much that is problematic. But, as you’ve also indicated, _ad hominem_ serves no one well.
Greg
I’ve created a separate thread for those wishing to discuss the theoretical or actual development of BoM geographies.
See here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/09/book-of-mormon-geography/
Its easy enough to create a transect from Clark’s evaluating the case for nephite geographies up far to the North in an internal geography ahead of time, following the internal geography requirement of an exceedingly great distance, and have your Cumorah be by the large bodies of water on that transect near the east sea. And then you compare that to Mesoamerica, and it flops as far as Cumorah goes. As for the Land Southward, Mesoamerica passes with flying colors. This is why the New York Cumorah works with an internal geography just as easily as the other placements. And this is also why the “clearing your mind” thing is nonsense when it comes to those that are trying to place Cumorah in Mesoamerica. Because, if they truly cleared their mind and got Mesoamerica out of their mind, an exceedingly great distance would mean perecisely that to them. But they cant, because they have to jam it into Mesoamerica contrary to the text of the book of Mormon, unnaturally.
Ed:
Please be the first poster on the new thread here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/09/book-of-mormon-geography/
🙂
Maybe you can start us off with your internal geography?
Greg
Since this thread seems to have nearly run its course for now I would like to offer the following counsel from several of the past general authorities of the Church from which we might all benefit.
In an article written by Elder George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency in 1890 he noted that there was wide disagreement at the time among students of the Book of Mormon as to the locations of Book of Mormon events. “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared to even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to to clear up many points now obscure . . . . Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go, because it is plain to be seen, we think, that evils may result therefrom”(George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor (January 1, 1890); reprinted in The Instructor 73/4 [April 1938]: 159-60).
On May 25, 1903 President Joseph F. Smith attended a convention on the Book of Mormon at BYU Academy in Provo, Utah. After several individuals and expressed and presented their views on the subject, “President Smith spoke briefly and expressed the idea that the question of the situation of the city [of Zarahemla] was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on he question it would not affect the salvation of the people: and he advised against students considering it of such
vital importance as the principles of the Gospel . . . . [He] again cautioned the students against making the union question–the location of the cities and lands–of the equal importance with the doctrines contained in the book . . . . [President Anthony H. Lund] advised those present to study
the Book of Mormon, and be guided by the advice of President Smith in their studies” (Deseret News, 25 May 1903).
“The present associate editor of The Instructor was one day in the office of the late President Joseph F. Smith when some brethren were asking him to approve a map showing the exact landing place of Lehi and his company. President Smith declined to officially approve of the map, saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it, and that if it were officially approved and afterwards found to be in error, it would affect the faith of the people” (The Instructor, April 1938, 160).
“There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where is the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographical matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles the question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles aprt in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do no make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true”
(President Anthony W. Ivins [He was a counselor in the First Presidency at this time], General Conference, April 1929, 15-16).
“I sometimes think we pay a little undue attention to technicalities, and to questions that cannot be fully answered with respect to the Book of Mormon. It matters not to me just where this city or that camp was located. I have met a few of our Book of Mormon students who claim to be
able to put their finger upon the map and indicate every land and city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The fact is, the Book of Mormon does not give us precise and definite information whereby we can locate those places with certainty. I encourage and recommend all possible
investigation, comparison and research in this matter. The more thinkers, investigators, workers we have in the field the better; but our brethren who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must speak with caution and not declare as demonstrated truths points
that are not really proved. There is enough truth in the Book of Mormon to occupy you and me for the rest of our lives, without giving too much time and attention to these debatable matters (James E. Talmage, General Conference, April 1929, 44).
“He that hath an ear to hear . . .”
This thing with Meldrum has gone a lot farther than I wanted it to. But since I have been “banned” from his “open dialogue” blog, I wanted to make one last statement here for the record. He doesn’t address the substance of my claim that my intellectual property has been violated. Nor does he acknowledge that someone who feels such a thing has been done to what they view as their intellectual property would naturally be angry at such a thing. He just accuses me of unchristianlike behavior and unchristianlike language, after he himself provoked me to anger after continually not addressing the substance of what I was saying. He was provoking me to anger by making comments alleging that in other parts of my life I am “anti-authority” and that I was going to have a heart attack and comments like that. I wanted to put this here for the record, that this is how I see it. My anger and my anxiety issues are beside the point.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that if you look on his site, he is selling the very book in question (This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation) that he has not acknowledged, making money off it with Wayne May. You see, when May and I split up, I signed over my interest in the book to May, which was stupid, but it was done in a moment of fear when I thought that May might sue me or something when he was irate at me after he saw what I wrote about the fraudulent artifacts having been tested by BYU and how I retracted what I wrote about them.
But the point is, May has made all the money off it since 2002. And now Meldrum is making money off my work, so it appears, besides not acknowledging the source of most of his geographical information.
The only money I ever made off the book was the one box of copies of the book that May sent to me that I sold to friends and family for cheap, after all those years of work on the book. And Meldrum expects me not to be upset, and accuses me of unchristianlike behavior.
And if there is ever any question about whether proof exists about what parts of the book I’m responsible for, then I can certainly provide an old link from http://www.archive.org that preserves an old web page from my old web site with an old rough draft of the book long before my stuff was merged with Wayne May’s stuff. My rough draft at that point was entitled “Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation”, long before the “This Land” was added to the title, because of May’s desire to have it in the title.
I’m dropping this whole thing. I feel that the geographical claims are too vague in this whole thing. I feel that I was too emotional, and this is all just a bunch of nonsense.