Recently, an old friend had given me a copy of Rod Meldrum’s DVD, DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography. This newer edition is, in some ways, radically different from the one perused by FAIR members when the original came out, roughly one year ago. While I haven’t seen the new version in its entirety, I thought the changes were significant enough to put in front of the people.
First, though, I want to make some things clear:
While most FAIR members accept a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, there is NO official FAIR position on Book of Mormon geography. Greg Smith’s blog entry should make that abundantly clear. Moreover, I know of no FAIR member who is closed-minded to a Anglo-North American setting of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, FAIR member Larry Poulsen, who is an advocate of the Mesoamerican theory, posts Theodore Brandley’s thesis on his web site (and he has eloquently–if unconvincingly–advocated his position in comments on my earlier blog entry!), and I have speculated about a Florida setting for the Land Southward in those same comments.
Here are some of the parts of the revised DVD that I thought noteworthy:
1. There is an explicit statement by Emeritus General Authority Elder Hartman Rector at the beginning of the DVD, that there is no official Church position on Book of Mormon Geography.
2. Meldrum inserts a similar statement into his presentation–early on.
I hope that those who have read the reviews by FAIR personnel–including Robert White’s blog entry–would realise that the greatest issue that FAIR took with Meldrum’s presentation was the implied Church endorsement of his position–with the accompanying implication of the apostasy of those who didn’t agree. I don’t know if Elder Rector wisely advised him to make the insertions, whether the Brethren put pressure to insert those disclaimers, or if Meldrum himself “saw the light” and made the insertions on his own initiative, the fact is, those changes were made–quietly, and without fanfare. [A more cynical person might argue that the quiet with which Meldrum made those changes was an attempt to give a false impression that FAIR lied about his presentation.]
Whatever the motivation, those changes are quite welcome, and I, for one am quite happy that those who are unpersuaded of Meldrum’s position (not just FAIR and FARMS members–whom Meldrum refers to as “the scholars”!) are now free from any taint of being charged with apostasy. For that, Brother Meldrum deserves credit.
Still, there are problems with Meldrum’s presentation:
Firstly, he claims that a thorough search of what “the scholars” had on the DNA issue revealed nothing. I really don’t know how Rod Meldrum could possibly have missed this list of FAIR articles, including those by David Stewart, D. Jeffrey Meldrum, and Scott Woodward–all of them trained in genetics, and all of them written before his DVD. Moreover, how could he have missed this list of DVDs–one of which, The Book of Mormon and New World DNA, was copyrighted in 2007 (I own a copy!)?
Another problem is with the “scientific method” that Meldrum employs. I am trained as what the business world calls a “quant jock.” Thus, even though I CLEPed out on the sciences as an undergrad–and got some training on counteracting nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, it would be presumptuous to claim that I am a scientist–and my looking for better counteragents would NOT be “scientific research.” It would be equally presumptuous for Meldrum, who, as I understand, was a technical writer, to claim that HE engaged in “scientific research.”
Though I am incompetent to comment on genetics, others, such as Ugo Perego, are quite competent in the field–and they take issue not only with Simon Southerton, but with Rod Meldrum and their (at best) naive assumtions and faulty conclusions.
However, I AM competent to comment on geographic issues on his claim, because of my undergraduate and graduate training in the social sciences. To be fair to Meldrum and others who accept a Great Lakes setting for the Book of Mormon, I was wrong when I said that I failed to find a “Land Southward” that was “nearly surrounded by water” [See Alma 22:29-30] in the Great Lakes. Honesty compels me to admit that Southwestern Ontario certainly qualifies as a peninsular “Land Southward,” and the land stretching from the southern tip of the Georgian Bay to the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario is undoubtedly narrow enough to be traversed in a day and a half [See Alma 22:32]. However, even considering that the Nephite first month is the same time of year as the crucifixion [III Nephi 8:5], Ontario–even that part, is much too cold for Lamanites to get away with wearing only skins about their loins [Alma 43:4, 19] about that time. As I write, a perusal of the weather forecast for Toronto at this time of year shows that there will be SNOW on the seventh of April[http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/tenday/CAXX0504?from=36hr_fcst10DayLink_business].
While Brother Meldrum may have graduated from the FAIR hot-seat, he will have to produce far better evidence for him to get some POSITIVE attention.
“A more cynical person might argue that the quiet with which Meldrum made those changes was an attempt to give a false impression that FAIR lied about his presentation.”
They might.
A more professional person however, will simply acknowledge that they were made and MOVE ON without a need for further commentary or attempts “to get one final dig.”
Seriously, time to let go on this.
Hi Seth!
You’re right. It IS easy to be cynical–and we should choose not to be. That was my point.
Apologies for giving the impression of a last dig. That was not my intent.
It’s good to see Meldrum coming around. I, for one, support the Mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon. I also support the Southwest-Canada geography for Oz, and the northern-Europe geography for Middle Earth (although I’ve seen good arguments for the New Zealand geography, and I’m open to it).
A little whimsical, aren’t we, cinepro? 😉
I’ve supported core geography for a hollow earth.
Hi Cowboy!
Well, the earth IS hollow! However, I doubt whether what’s IN the hollow earth is survivable by any mortal Israelite!
😉
Steven,
“Unconvincingly,” perhaps to you (so far 🙂 ), convincingly to many, and compelling to some.
Hi cinepro & Cowboy,
Humor is an acceptable way to deal with things you don’t believe in or don’t understand. However, one must be careful in mocking that which is sacred, even if it is not sacred to you.
The investigation which Steven refers to above was actually quite astounding to me. I started with no theory as to exactly where the events of the Book of Mormon occurred, and followed in exact detail the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Having once established the probability that the River Sidon is in fact the Mississippi River, everything else fell into its rightful place, piece, by piece, by piece. The perfect fit of the text of the Book of Mormon into the continent of North America is for me another testimony that the Book of Mormon is true.
Theodore
Steven, you wrote:
Although I disagree with Rod Meldrum’s limiting the events of the Book of Mormon to the Great Lakes area, and believe that the saga covered the continent from Costa Rica to Cumorah, I question your reasoning about the Lamanites not being able to wear loin cloths in the Great Lakes area in the “commencement of the year” (Alma 43:4).
Assuming, as you have, that the Nephites followed the Hebrew calendar, the commencement of the year is Rosh Hashanah (head of the year), which is the beginning of the seventh Hebrew month, Tishri, which occurs generally in September. Loin cloths would probably be OK in Illinois in September. It is somewhat confusing that the first month (Nisan) does not coincide with the commencement of the year.
However, my studies find that the area referred to in Alma 43 is near the Gulf Coast in Southern Mississippi and Louisiana. Loin cloths would be OK there in either April or September.
Theodore
Theodore:
Fair enough, there was probably a little jest directed matter on my part. It was not intended insulting however, rather just a response to Cinepros comments which I also felt were not insulting. If I came across as otherwise then I am sorry.
Hi Theodore!
True, in the southern Mississippi valley during April, a loin cloth usually would not be out of place. Climatologically speaking, your setting is definitely superior to Rod Meldrum’s.
However, there are topological problems with your setting–aside from the flow of the Mississippi, as we discussed earlier (For me to seriously consider the Mississippi as the Sidon, I need some evidence that either Joseph Smith, Alma, or Mormon understood the head of a river as the mouth, rather than the head.):
1. The land surrounding the southern Mississippi valley doesn’t qualify as “nearly surrounded by water.”
2. There is no “narrow neck” worthy of the name along the river, or its tributaries.
I used to live in Illinois. In September, the average highs and lows are in the 60’s and 40’s, respectively–too cold for only loin cloths. Even normal Labor Day highs are roughly 70 and 50, which is still a littly nippy! 😉
By the by, I don’t think Cowboy’s humour was out of line–at least not more than Jack Weyland (an emeritus professor at BYU-Idaho, and a member in good standing) having the title character in his book, A New Dawn, comparing the Temple Endowment to Dungeons and Dragons. 😉
Steven wrote:
Of course not. But the combination of the Land of Nephi (Central America, Mexico and Texas) and the Land of Zarahemla (in this case, the rest of North America) does qualify as being “nearly surrounded by water.”
The quote of which you speak reads:
“…and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.” (Alma 22:32)
The “small neck of land” mentioned in Alma 22:32 is not the same as the “narrow neck of land” (mentioned in Alma 63:5 and Ether 10:20), which was by the border of Bountiful and Desolation. There is no scripture that puts the River Sidon near the land of Bountiful nor near the “narrow neck of land.” Ether 10:20 is clear that the “narrow neck of land” was where the “sea divides the land,” not where the land divides the sea, such as the Isthmus of Panama. An excellent candidate for the “narrow neck of land” is the Delmarva Peninsula, where Chesapeake Bay “divides the land” for 170 miles. Alma 63:5 states that the border of the Land Bountiful and Desolation was “by” the “narrow neck of land” not that the narrow neck of land “was” the border between the two lands.
The narrow neck of land is also not to be confused with the “narrow pass” (Alma 50:34; 52:9; Mormon 3:5) which is a passage way through mountains or hills.
Theodore
Steven wrote:
In 1792 the New York State Legislature passed a bill creating the town of Riverhead in Suffolk Count, New York, on the north shore of Long Island. The name signifies that the mouth of the Peconic River is in this town. The town of Riverhead is situated where the Peconic River flows from the west into Flanders Bay at the east end of Long Island.
“Riverhead (town), New York,” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverhead_(town),_New_York
“Peconic River,” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peconic_River
The translator of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, was born and raised in New York where the entire state legislature considered the mouth of the river to be the head of the river.
Theodore
Hi Theodore!
I think you’re talking about too much territory for people to note that it is “nearly surrounded by water.” It is easy to tell that a land is “nearly surrounded by water” if it is less than 150 miles wide and only 300 or so long. On the other hand, if you’re talking about 1000 miles wide and double that long, people probably won’t notice that water is all about it! 😉
You’ll need some evidence of that! 😉
The fact that there is no differentiation between the two Alma references indicates that they are the same.
True enough, but largely irrelevant. Nephi and Zarahemla are both in the Land Southward, which is south of the “narrow neck.”
A better candidate is peninsular Florida. 😉
The narrow neck at its north is about 90 miles wide–easily traversible by a Nephite soldier in a day and a half. The peninsula is about 300 miles north-south, and about 150 miles east-west, at its widest part. It can easily contain the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla, and it is easily identifiable as a peninsula! Moreover, it has a northward-flowing river (the Ocklawaha) with hills to its east.
Agreed, but I’m not confusing the two. 😉
I grew up in the Chicago area. It doesn’t follow that I approve of its education policies! 😉
Similarly, just because the NY legislature misunderstood what a river’s head is, it doesn’t follow that NY residents must also misunderstand it!
Actually, Joseph Smith was born near Royalton, Vermont. 😉
Steven, you wrote,
I think it is condescending of us to suggest that the civilization that gave us the Book of Mormon, was too ignorant to notice that they were on a continent surrounded by water.
The Nephites were a ship building and seafaring people (Helaman 3:14). Within 300 years of Columbus’ first voyage the coasts of the continent of North America were well mapped. It was 1,000 years after the arrival of Lehi that Mormon wrote that they were “nearly surrounded by water.” Also, it was even known by Nephi in the beginning, undoubtedly by revelation, that they were living upon and “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).
The Nephites and the Jaredites coexisted on this continent for 400 years without contact. That would be highly improbable in a territory 150 miles by 300 miles. Many statements in the Book of Mormon require a large territory. It took the Nephite Captain, Moroni, the most part of a year to move a portion of his army through friendly territory from Zarahemla to Bountiful (Alma 52:11,15,18). This makes no sense if the distance was only two or three hundred miles. An army could march that in ten days. Later, Helaman, an officer of Moroni’s army, wrote a lengthy epistle from the war theatre near the west sea to Captain Moroni near the east sea. Helaman’s epistle described the battle situation over a period of four years (Alma 56:1, 9). If the distance between them had only been two or three hundred miles, runners could have kept them in regular communication. The fact that these military officers only communicated about the conduct of the war once in those four years is further evidence that there was a great distance between them.
Helaman, son of Helaman, described how a great many people, about fifty years before the birth of Christ, migrated from Zarahemla to the land northward. He states that, “They did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers” (Helaman 3:3-4). To the Nephites, who had a recorded heritage of long-distance travel, “an exceedingly great distance” would surely be more than a few hundred miles.
Mormon wrote that in AD 375, “from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as dew before the sun” (Mormon 4:16-18). This final rout lasted ten years and culminated at Cumorah in AD 385 (Mormon 6:5). A military rout lasting ten years speaks of a vast territory. A similar situation occurred previously amongst the Jaredites. When the armies of Coriantumr and Shiz faced off at Ramah (Cumorah) for their final battle, they paused in their fighting to gather their survivors. It took them four years to gather their people for battle (Ether 15:14), indicating a very large territory from which they were gathered.
It is highly unreasonable to confine these great Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, seafaring civilizations, into a territory of 150 miles by 300 miles.
More later.
Theodore
Hi again Theodore!
People undoubtedly know that INTELLECTUALLY, but, as a practical matter, that is virtually meaningless. EVERY continent is COMPLETELY surrounded by water; not just “nearly.”
See more, below.
And, when you speak of millions of square miles rather than just tens of thousands, that, too, is almost meaningless. The ancient Chinese “were a ship building and seafaring people,” but that was true only on the coast. Those closer to Tibet were no more ship-building or sea faring than the Tartars or Atilla the Hun.
Similarly, the USA is ship-building and sea-faring in that we have a navy and ship-building facilities in Portsmouth, NH. However, those Iowa farmers are decided “land-lubbers!” 😉
But we’re not JUST talking about a 45,000 square-mile territory; that is only one part of the land. More below.
However, the Creek and Seminole tribes lived roughly 200 miles from each other [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trails_of_Tears_en.png]; yet, until the “Trail of Tears,” didn’t deal much with each other.
Agreed, but I’m not claiming a PURELY local geography for the Nephites or Lamanites.
Four hundred years is a LOT of time. It is easy to get “unused” to travelling over that much time! 😉
Until recently, the majority of people–even nomads–don’t travel more than 25 miles from their homes.
One of my ancestors immigrated from Sweden to the USA–a distance of more than 3,000 miles. However, except for the Civil War, he rarely travelled–even to the State capital, which was only about 120 miles from his home (and he was an official in State GOP politics!); it was a “great distance” for him–too great, to travel much.
But I’m NOT confining those entire civilisations to ONLY 45,000 square miles. Most of ancient Greek history occurred in an area of about the same size of Peninsular Florida, but that doesn’t mean that the Greek civilisation didn’t spread beyond the Ionian peninsula–and it CERTAINLY didn’t mean that the Greeks didn’t influence things, even THOUSANDS of miles away! 😉
Theodore, just as I’m not a pure Mesoamerican setting advocate, I am likewise not a pure “Local Geography” advocate! 😉
Steven, you wrote:
To which I replied that the state legislature of the State of New York in 1792 established the town of Riverhead at the mouth of the Peconic River.
To which you replied:
It doesn’t necessarily follow that “all” New York State residents “must” consider the mouth to be the head of the river, but it does point out that the representatives of the people in NY, who would generally have been the most literate speakers or they would not have been elected, did understand the mouth of the river to be the head. Their collective language on the passage of a bill is good evidence that this was the norm in New York at the beginning of the 1800’s. As the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into the common English of his day, as he understood it, it is quite reasonable that he would use the word “head” to refer to the mouth of the Sidon River.
(Thank you for correcting me on the birthplace of Joseph Smith 😉 )
Inasmuch as I have provided you with evidence that Joseph Smith would have “understood the head of a river as the mouth,” I would expect that would follow through on the implication of your above statement and give serious consideration to the Mississippi as the Sidon. 😉
Theodore
More later.
Question:
It would seem to me that the larger we make the geography of The Book of Mormon, the problematic the issue becomes that their really is no conclusive archaeology, nahom excluded given that it is not in the America’s. If the Nephites and Lamanites were as industrious in social infrastructre, ship building, and military, so as to cover most of the American continent(s), shouldn’t there be an abundance of evidence to their existence and culture, and at least a shred. I am certainly no expert on geography and archaeology, but logic tells me that the only real tenable solution would be somewhat of a limited geography since all extrascriptural sources of their existence still seem to be sleeping in the dust.
Theodore said
“The town of Riverhead is situated where the Peconic River flows from the west into Flanders Bay at the east end of Long Island.”
Unfortunately, the 1828 Webster’s dictionary disagres with you. In my opinion, it is a much better indicator of the way words were used in the 1830s than a meaning based on the actions of a state legislature.
Following are the meanings of “head” as it applies to streams, rivers and bays. As you will note, in case of a bay, used in your example, it says the exact opposite of your conclusion that the word head was applied to the mouth of the river but probably referred to the head of the bay.
18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.
30. The part most remote from the mouth or opening into the sea; as the head of a bay, gulf or creek.
HEAD, v.i. hed. To originate; to spring; to have its source, as a river.
A broad river that heads in the great Blue Ridge of mountains.
Larry P
Cowboy wrote:
Excellent question, Cowboy! The short answer is that the eastern half of the United States is covered with such archaeological evidence in the form of mounds.
Constructed earth towers were common among the Nephites. They were used for watchmen, for places of defense and refuge, and for places to build temples. Captain Moroni “caused the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land”( Alma 46:36). These raised towers and defense works were usually constructed with earth and timber (Alma 49:2-4, 50:1-2, 53:4). There is only one reference to building with stone in The Book of Mormon and that was for some stone walls of defense (Alma 48:8.). Ancient defensive rock walls can be seen at Old Stone Fort Archaeological Park, northwest of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and at Fort Mountain State Park, north of Atlanta, Georgia.
Towers, or mounds of dirt, were the Nephites primary defense strategy.
It is the basic military advantage of the “high ground.” From atop or behind the mounds the Nephites could sling stones, spears and shoot arrows down upon their attackers while remaining mostly out of the line of fire from their enemies. In hand to hand combat the man standing on the higher ground had the greater advantage. The slope of the mound had to be steep enough to make it difficult for the attacker to climb, but not too steep for the defender to go down to meet him. The hill Cumorah would have been an ideal natural defense mound for a large army.
The eastern half of North America is covered with ancient mounds. It is a mystery to archaeologists why the ancient inhabitants of America expended so much energy and resources in building these thousands of mounds. Although some mounds were built for religious purposes and some were constructed as burial mounds, The Book of Mormon informs us that the vast majority of them would have been built for defense. In times of war nothing takes precedence over the defense budget. Some of the mounds identified as burial mounds may have been defense mounds covered with the bones of the defeated defenders. They may have been buried where they fell, or left for their bones to be covered with dust over time. It may be that the building of earthen towers for defense also became a tradition of burying their dead in these mounds as inspiration to stand and defend the bones of their ancestors.
There are many archaeological mound cities in America that match the location and description of cities in the Book of Mormon. In my opinion, the Nephites were the first mound-builders in America (There is no record or evidence that the Jaredites were mound-builders).
Theodore
Theodore:
Thanks for the response, I have actually visited many of these mounds throughout southern illinois. I have climbed them, visited the tourist centers which described the theories on construction, and purpose. Suffice it to say, your explanation seems reasonable, just as do many of theories which try and map actual American geography to the descriptions of locations in The Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, nothing in these mounds or the artifacts which surround them provide any type of correlation to support The Book of Mormon directly. In other words there is no tangible evidence.
I am also sure you are aware that historically speaking the midwestern and eastern mounds represent either the chicken or the egg when speaking of The Book of Mormon. Particularly during the early 1800’s there was a great deal of religious, achaelogical, and anthropological speculation surrounding these mounds. Many of these religious mound theories drew parallels to the pyramids in South America and Egypt and dwelt on possibilities that there was a hebrew tie with the mounds and their builders. You will recall a 19th century hoax, which was debunked by none other than LDS geologist & Apostle James E. Talmage, surrounding some curious artifacts discovered at some mounds in Michigan called the “Soaper, Savage Collection”. This hoax seemed tried to capitalize on Mormon claims, as well as buy into many of the Judeo-Christian myths surrounding the American Indians. A key proponent of this collection during the 1980’s, and even now, is Wayne May. He seems to be a regular keynote speaker on the Meldrum circuit, and even still continues to advocate that the “Soaper, Savage collection” is authentic. From what I have read, BYU had the collection tested again in the late 1980’s, and again determined conclusively that the analysis performed by Elder Talmage almost 100 years prior was correct, and the collection was non-authentic. Even prior to the “Soaper, Savage Collection”, a number of religious theories were coming out of Dartmouth speculating that the mounds perhaps represented some type of Hebrew alter, and that the mounds were places of ritual sacrifice. There are many who have argued that these mound myths, including the israelite connection to the American indian provided the ideaological catalyst which the author of The Book of Mormon drew from to write the book.
Hi Larry,
Except that the name of the town is “Riverhead,” not “Bayhead,” and the Wikipedia article specifically states that, “the name signifies that the mouth of the Peconic River is in this town.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverhead_(town),_New_York
I agree with you that you that Webster’s 1828 dictionary does not carry the definition of “head” as meaning the mouth of a river or stream. Is there any evidence that Joseph used Webster’s dictionary during the translation?
Theodore
Cowboy wrote:
Thanks for your comments, Cowboy. I agree with you that there have been many artifact hoaxes coming out some of the mounds and caves that has clouded and thrown much doubt on this issue. As for specific evidence concerning the mounds which support the Book of Mormon, let me share a couple of examples of which no writer in the nineteenth century would have known.
Poverty Point Archaeological Site
On the west side of the Mississippi river, about two hundred miles from the Gulf of Mexico, is a long narrow ridge rising about twenty-five feet above the flood plain, called Maçon Ridge. Anciently, this ridge was four miles west of the main channel of the Mississippi. On top of this ridge are the archaeological remains of a great, unique and marvelous city. This archaeological site is known today as Poverty Point. In addition to this ancient city being in the right place to be the city of Zarahemla the substantiating archaeological evidence is more than would be expected from earthen structures.
The most unusual and interesting feature of Poverty Point is the raised concentric rings that comprises the main residential area of the city. The six rings are constructed of raised earth ridges five to six feet high and about two hundred feet apart. Five streets cut through the ridges towards the center point of the city like the spokes of a wheel leading to the hub. It is the only mound site in America with well defined streets.
From the Book of Mormon we read that following an unsuccessful mission to the land northward, Nephi, son of Helaman, returned to his home in Zarahemla. To his dismay he found that the people of his own city had also deteriorated in iniquity. Discouraged, and in agony, he poured out his soul to God in lament upon the tower in his garden.
Having a tower in one’s garden is very unusual. At Poverty Point, however, most houses had an earthen tower in their garden, or back yard because of the raised concentric rings. There was also a street running past the towers that lead to the chief market. The chief market would have been near the center of town, just up the hill from the port. The plat of Poverty Point city fits very well the physical requirements of the city of Zarahemla as defined in the Book of Mormon.
The largest mound at Poverty Point lies just beyond the middle of the outside ring and is constructed in the shape of a bird. The wingspan of the bird is about two football fields long and the length of the bird is somewhat longer. The flat tail of the bird is about as wide as a football field and would have stood two stories above the rings of the city. The tail of the bird faces east, the direction that the door of the Temple would have faced.
On the west half of the temple mound rises an earthen tower another four stories above the flat tail. Archaeologists have determined that this tower was added at a later time to what was originally a flat topped mound. From the top of this tower one could look over the top of the Temple. The person standing there would also have been visible to anyone surrounding the temple mound.
One cannot imagine a better archaeological verification of King Benjamin’s Address setting than this Sacred Bird shaped temple mound with a fifty foot tower on the west end of it.
There are many more examples of supporting archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon from the mound cities in the United States, which I have detailed in my thesis, “A North American Setting For The Book Of Mormon.” http://brandley.poulsenll.org/
Theodore
You have some interesting research Theodore. Though I am not an expert, I will concede the potential to your observations and the descriptions listed in your comment to me. Potential notwithstanding, I still find that the area of what you are proposing problematic in it’s own right. With Bible studies throughout the middle east no one will ever be able to corroborate the divinity of Jesus. However, the places where he traveled, secondary records (to the Bible), and other artifacts exist which directly relate to the stories taught there. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained, among other things, almost the entire book of Isaiah. Discoveries like this go along way to support the historicity, if not the divinity, of the Bible. The total lack of this type of corroboration for The Book of Mormon makes the task of trying to identify specific locations a questionable endeavor.
Cowboy,
Thirty-seven years ago I sat at the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem and listened to a prophet of God testify of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The words of President Harold B. Lee sank deep into my soul and I knew that where we sat was sacred ground, and that the resurrection was a reality. The empty tomb did not provide the proof to me of the resurrection. Research could provide evidence from some that the ancient apostles had stolen the body of Jesus in the night and just claimed that he was resurrected, or that the tomb was not a tomb at all but was a storage shed for Roman horse stables, etc. Notwithstanding, it was my own studies on the subject of the resurrection and the tomb, combined with the testimony of the prophet, that opened the way for the Holy Ghost to bear witness to me of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As the apostle Paul said, “No man can know that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Corinthians 12:3).
If archaeologists were to unearth a stone tablet at Poverty Point that said in ancient Hebrew, “Welcome to Zarahemla,” it would cause few to believe that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, who did not already believe it. However, it would add tremendous strength to those who had received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that it was true. It is not primarily for the unbelievers in the Book of Mormon that I have done this research, but for the believers. As the Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith, “faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe” (Doctrine & Covenants 63:9).
Best regards,
Theodore
“If archaeologists were to unearth a stone tablet at Poverty Point that said in ancient Hebrew, “Welcome to Zarahemla,” it would cause few to believe that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, who did not already believe it.”
Of course, it wouldn’t serve as absolute proof to the divinity of The Book of Mormon. It would give greater legitimacy to the claims surrounding the book. Particularly given that the only groups right now who believe in the former literal existence of the Nephite culture are the various Mormon groups. Even still Theodore, the emphasis on trying finding these signs that “…follow those that believe”, is to bolster that faith which “…cometh not by signs”. This is why each of the various groups are so passionate, even in their disagreement, about their conclusions, because it is tied directly to what they believe.
Regardless of what I have posted above, perhaps my comments would be better understood in the context of a former topic here, “Investing a Few Chips in Peleg”. The point I was trying to make is that I, a scientifically ignorant but interested skeptic, find it harder to accept a grander scale of Nephite civilization in consequence of no evidence (after all Jesus has the Garden Tomb, Gethsemane, Josephus, etc), than to accept a limited geography. With a limited geography I can still believe that perhaps it is still just buried out in the jungle somewhere. Which a larger geography tends to discourage, and generally requires that we reinterpet the existing evidence through a Mormon lens.
Cowboy,
It is true that we do not have the supporting external evidence to the Book of Mormon as we do to the Bible, but it is not that there is no evidence. The interpretation of evidence is highly subjective in archaeology, and the evidence has not been interpreted by the archaeological community to include the Book of Mormon civilizations, and possibly to exclude them. If the archaeological community was open and unbiased it should reexamine the existing evidence to see if it does in fact correlate with the Book of Mormon, of which much scholarly evidence supports its claim to be an Ancient document. This examination would not necessarily be through a “Mormon lens” but an independent study to see if there is any correlation between the archaeological evidence and the text of the record. My layman’s research just scratches the surface but indicates that there is a definite correlation.
It is just as easy to believe that there is still confirming evidence buried somewhere out there in the vast mounds archipelago as there is in a small jungle somewhere (although it is not as exciting and romantic as Lara Croft or Indiana Jones 😉 ).
Theodore
Theodore:
My comment about finding BOM artifacts buried in a jungle somewhere within a limited geography, had less to do with my expectations surrounding South America, and more to do with limited geography. Though, I cannot deny my wishful thinking that somehow Lara Croft might find herself in a BOM adventure (imagine a yellow smiley face half winking back right here).
Regarding biases:
We all know biases exist, and we each have them. I recognize that there are those in the scientific community who have an axe to grind with religion/God, and therefore have an invested interest in supporting conclusions which call religious beliefs into question. What I would challenge is how representative they are of the whole scientific community. Putting aside their biases for a moment, it is often the case that those who first raise the issue of bias often fail to see the biases in their own cause. Frankly, no group has should have a greater tendency to demonstrate bias than the religious community. Mormons, in the case of BOM studies, have more invested in specific outcomes, than any other faction of the secular science groups. That is why we so quickly begin to build comprehensive theories without reasonable evidence. I am okay with the fact that faith is what ultimately drives belief in this case, but it is really audacious to charge secular science of unwarranted bias when individual faith is our only true evidence.
Questions:
1) If The Book of Mormon is true, and it provides details regarding a race and civilization which are largely unknown to mainstream science, is there any reason why a somewhat religiously neutral scientist (doesn’t believe, but has no axe to grind) would go to lengths to disprove that fact rather than use it to learn and be named to the discovery?
2) If scientific evidence “could” disprove BOM claims, is there any reason why Mormon scholars through BYU, and the Church itself, would be compelled to supress that truth and/or try and challenge it against better judgement?
Please don’t misunderstand, the above prelimanary logic examples above do nothing to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Church, or to demonstrate it’s fallacy. What it does do for me is expose the fact that The Church/Mormons have more reason to exhibit bias than secular science. I would be cautious about following the standard pattern of accusing all of our enemies, real and supposed, of bias given the position we are in.
Cowboy,
Your response is valid and not unexpected. I’ll address your last question first:
The short answer is no. The Church and its members are constantly admonished in honesty and we are not afraid of truth wherever it may lie. Honesty toward our fellow men is a prerequisite for entering the House of the Lord. However, they would probably question the validity of such “scientific evidence,” with their best judgement.
In regards to LDS archaeologists, they have generally been so focused on Mesoamerica that I don’t think many of them are aware of Book of Mormon treasure trove awaiting them in their own back yard.
What I am primarily referring to is the American archaeological community’s analysis of the reason that the ancients in America built these thousands of mounds. You have visited some of them so you know that they mention the possibility of religious purposes, and for burial, but mainly they promote the idea that it is a mystery. Rarely, if ever, do they propose the obvious concept that these thousands of mounds were built for places of refuge and defense when their communities were attacked by their enemies. Why should they consistently avoid the obvious?
Perhaps the main reason the obvious is avoided is because it would add weight and credibility to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon teaches that Nephite civilization was constantly at war with the Lamanite civilization and therefore had to expend tremendous energy and resources building these places of defense. In contrast, generally, American archaeology teaches that the Ancient Mound Builders were pastoral peaceful beings, so the defense concept does not fit the paradigm. The kind of Ancient American history recorded in the Book of Mormon appears to be avoided by the archaeologists.
I don’t need to give you a history lesson on the bias against the Mormon Church since its inception. Most of the archaeological work on these mounds was done in the first two thirds of the past century when there was more bias against the LDS Church than there is now. None of these early archaeologists would have wanted to lend any support to Joe Smith’s golden bible, which was given to him by an angel. If they had it probably would have ended their career. The venerable pioneers in this archaeological work established basic concepts and paradigms which are difficult to change by newer generations in the field.
I must however mention and provide a quotation from an exceptional archaeologist, Jon L. Gibson, preeminent archaeologist at Poverty Point, who wrote these words in his booklet, “Poverty Point: A Terminal Archaic Culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley:”
Jon L. Gibson could not have better summed up the administrations of Kings Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah 2nd, and their people of Zarahemla, had he read The Book of Mormon.
I won’t deny that your information regarding Poverty Point is interesting, I will have to research it more. It certainly isn’t conclusive at this point, but I can understand how you draw your conclusions and based on what you have presented it all seems reasonable.
You raise two points however that I just don’t accept, both related to your response on bias. In response to the question of LDS bias you said:
“The short answer is no. The Church and its members are constantly admonished in honesty and we are not afraid of truth wherever it may lie. Honesty toward our fellow men is a prerequisite for entering the House of the Lord.”
As I am sure you are aware Theodore, the presence of bias is rarely enough to make a person/group considered dishonest. I am sure you are also aware that most people genuinely try to be objective, and yet their biases still persist inspite of their best intentions. Of course the Church expects/encourages honesty among its membership. This does not change the fact that the Church, compared to secular science, has more at stake in the archaeological outcomes in reference to BOM studies. This automatically makes them a greater candidate for bias than secular science. I am not suggesting that this means that Church scholars, yourself included, are therefore incapable of objective research inspite of hoped for conclusions, but you certainly would not try and suggest that members are not guilty of bias because of their participation in a Temple Recommend interview, would you? Even now you suggest that many of the current Church scholars are missing the “treasure trove” of research in their own back yards because they are too entrenched in the long established mesoamerican theories. Doesn’t this imply bias? Do believe that you are capable of bias regarding your innovative theories?
The second point that I am having trouble with is regarding what has been popularly coined the “LDS Persecution Complex”. My limited experience is that disinterested non-LDS anthropologists, for example, are not at all concerned with trying to debunk Mormon claims, and regard them with nothing more than a few jokes – but nothing which suggests that they are taken serious, pro or con. Most of scientific onslaught against The Book of Mormon comes from three groups or circumstances.
1) Anti-Mormon Christian groups which are out for no other cause than to disprove the Church, AKA Lighthouse Ministries.
2) Embittered former members of the Church, who also are out only to disprove the Church on any front. Some in this class may actually have a scientific background which led to their eventual disbelief in The Church. Some are alot like Meldrum, non-scholars who read a few books and then forget that they are not scholars.
3) The disinterested scientific community at large when feeling encroached upon by LDS claims. Eg, Smithsonian researchers utilizing The Book of Mormon in mesoamerican research.
That is it. The groups in the first two scenarios rarely have any credibility in the broader academic communities, so they are only a minor threat to the Church. Point is Theodore, I find it highly doubtful that any legitimate researcher has ever seriously changed a position on research because it may have a positive effect on the LDS Church. Even if you can find an example, I certainly disagree that it happens on any kind of a frequent basis, and I doubt you have an reasonable evidene to support your charge.
Just a side note, I used to have a lot of intrigue in conspiracy theories. I found that many people within the Church are highly opposed to this sub-culture of thought. Who shot Kennedy, NWO, Tri-lateral commission, even 911 theories, etc. I never completely bought into all of the theories, but some of the general concepts, which was largely fueled by The Book of Mormon and Ezra Taft Benson. That of a clandestine group of powerful individuals bent on the total overthrow and corruption of world governments, aka The Gadianton Robbers and Murderers. I even today maintain a small degree of skepticism on some of these topics. My point in mentioning is this. I was very surprised by the reaction I recieved, largely from members of the Church – including my own family. I was often mildly ridiculed, not terribly – I don’t want to make this into more than it was – but mildly. The irony I found was that the same people who ridiculed some of these theories, like you believed that the world was gathered against Mormonism in an almost organized fashion. In order to accept the level of persecution levied against Joseph Smith and the Church throughout time, as taught by the Church, I found would have to make you a bigger conspiracy theorist than I am or ever was.
I would have to agree with you, Cowboy, that we are all subject to bias in one degree or another. However, bias would only become conspiracy when those with similar bias actively conspired to act on their bias. I do not believe this was the case in the archaeological example I gave. I suspect it was more of an unplanned collective bias. I also admit that this is just a suspicion as I have no concrete evidence other than the observations I mentioned.
It is a big leap off topic from there to your accusation that Latter-day Saints are huge conspiracy theorists because they teach the history of persecution against Joseph Smith and the Church. Are you questioning the history of things like the Missouri extermination order, or that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and many others were murdered, or that the Saints were driven out of their city of Nauvoo into the wilderness of the West, etc, etc. Are you claiming that this history is in error and should be re-written?
If that is where you are going with this I have no interest in discussing it with you.
Theodore
“I do not believe this was the case in the archaeological example I gave. I suspect it was more of an unplanned collective bias.”
We will have to just disagree as to whether their exists an unplanned collective bias. Where Mormonism, ie BOM archaeology, I agree that there is probably some bias within the broader community. Given that there is no direct/conclusive archaeological evidence I don’t think that this bias is without some merit. When Mormonism is not the direct issue, I highly doubt any legitimate scientist is tailoring their theories based on the effects they will have on social perceptions of The Book of Mormon, which is why I do not accept the following statement:
“Rarely, if ever, do they propose the obvious concept that these thousands of mounds were built for places of refuge and defense when their communities were attacked by their enemies. Why should they consistently avoid the obvious?
Perhaps the main reason the obvious is avoided is because it would add weight and credibility to the Book of Mormon.”
I recognize that early Church history is riddled with tragedy, and even persecution. I am not convinced that the saints were strictly persecuted based on some type of Satanic influence bent on destroying the Covenant people. Of course I would not question matters of historical record, such as the Extermination Order. I will question it’s intent. The contemporary research, even coming from BYU, is showing that this order was intended to be a marshall expulsion of the saints, and Exterminate was not interpreted as a right to kill, unless the Saints were to resist. Even so, I am sure you are aware that the first lines of extermination rhetoric, particularly the kind which called for the spilling of blood, came not from Boggs but from Sydney Rigdon. I agree that in the carrying out of this order many injustices took place against the Saints which cannot be under emphasized. I will say however that the “persecution” brought against the Saints was not without institutional provocation, which is why I have a hard time with taughting a persecuted history.
I’m sure it was a typo, but Oliver Cowdrey was not murdered, he died of an illness in the home of Martin Harris, in Iowa I think. This of course, doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith and Hyrum, among other Church leaders were murdered as you say. Again, though there is more to the story than is generally told in the persecutionist overtones. There was much more controversy surrounding Joseph Smith, or Parley P. Pratt, than they were simply murdered because they tried to share the gospel. Again, I don’t doubt you are aware of this. Whether you fancy one version of the story, does not change the fact that you should at least acknowledge the others.
Cowboy,
“Oliver Cowdery” was a typo. Hyrum was called to the same calling as Oliver when Oliver was excommunicated (D&C 124:94-96). Otherwise, as second elder of the Church, Oliver would probably have been with Joseph in the Carthage jail.
Cowboy. do you believe that six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazi’s during WWII?
Theodore
Theodore:
Fair enough on Oliver Cowdrey. Regarding the Jews, as I said before I won’t dispute matters of historical fact, though admittedly I have little more than common knowledge surrounding the holocaust. I am not sure where you are going here, but you piqued my interest.
Just a quick follow up, I think I may have picked up on your direction. Are you challenging the usage of the term “extermination” as it relates to the infamous “Extermination Order”?
I understand that nothing surround the Mormon Missouri war is concrete, and that a debate exists as to who instigated the issue. However, seeing as how you like Wikipedia, the following link may be useful to understanding my take on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order
Not exactly where I was going but now that you mention it there is a similarity with the extermination orders. What I was leading to is that I find a similarity between those trying to rewrite the history of the Holocaust and those who want to rewrite the history of Mormon persecution. Both concepts are equally repugnant to me. In my opinion they are mostly an attempt to blame the victims (like the one sided Wikipedia article you cited). It is a slier more insidious form of anti-Semitism and anti-Mormonism which I despise.
Theodore
If you read through the entire article you would notice that it could hardly be considered one sided. Your comparison of me to those who would blame the Jews for the Holocaust is as ridiculous and untenable as your conclusion that there is unplanned bias within the scientific community to support conclusions which disfavor The Book of Mormon (as if most care), or that Mormon scholars are not guilty of bias because they participate in a Temple Reccomend interview.
I have conceded the tragedy of the Mormon Missouri War. Sideny Rigdon is on record, and his words are at least equally matched to the sentiments of persecution you feel coming through the Extermination Order. Even recently BYU broadcasted a history segment where department of Church History experts posited that is time we (Mormons) begin to rethink Governor Boggs role as an enemy to Mormonism. If you feel that there is an unjust re-writing of history, take it up there.
Sorry Cowboy, I didn’t intend for you to take the comparison personally. On this issue we obviously disagree.
Theodore, in the spirit of Brotherhood I accept your apology and owe you one as well. I did take it personally, which you say was not your intention. Blogs are just like email, in that often times the tone which could be conveyed in a personal conversation is missed in the written communication. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Cowboy
Hi guys!
1. I’m glad you resolved your differences peaceably; I would have hated to have to play father and discipline you! 😉
2. Regarding the River Sidon, even though Theodore demonstrated that it is possible for either Alma, Mormon, or Joseph Smith to understand the mouth of a river as its head, I would have to agree with Larry Poulsen that, absent more direct evidence, Joseph Smith, like most people, accepts the dictionary definition of the phrase “head of a river.”
4. Those of us who accept the authenticity of the Book of Mormon realise that it happened SOMEWHERE.
5. Up to now, while I spoke briefly about Book of Mormon geography, I concentrated on Meldrum’s delivery of his theory. I hope to just talk about geography in a later blog entry.
6. What concerns us at FAIR is that Meldrum had so disrupted things, if somebody were to conclusively demonstrate that the Book of Mormon did not happen in Anglo North America, people would lose testimonies of the Book of Mormon and continuing revelation–altogether! That was why FAIR personnel decided to confront Meldrum: his manner of delivery makes people’s testimonies vulnerable!
7. I understand that Meldrum demands an apology from FAIR. Well, if he has a problem with my conclusions about his theory or manner of delivering it, let him come to me personally.
Steven,
I know you are trying to sum up this post but I cannot resist responding to your statement:
It is more reasonable that Joseph Smith understood and used the common meaning of the words in his local area of New York than those of Noah Webster’s newly printed dictionary, which Joseph did not have nor did he use during his translating process. (Saints’ Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290). As the law makers of the State of New York understood the “head” of the river to be the mouth of river it is probable that Joseph Smith did also. This understanding also coincides with other texts of the Book of Mormon, which I presented in a previous post, that demonstrate the river Sidon had to be flowing from north to south. And finally, the greater evidence, is the fact that with the Mississippi as the River Sidon the geographical text of the Book of Mormon fits perfectly into the continent of North America from Costa Rica to Cumorah.
Theodore
Steven and friends,
We’re discussing various theories (including Meldrum’s) at Mormon Matters. Does anyone care to weigh in on the Malay Theory, or any others?
http://mormonmatters.org/2009/04/20/unconventional-book-of-mormon-geography-theories/
Theodore says:
Actually, I think a recent copy of Webster’s Dictionary is more accessible to a normal person–even in this age of the Internet–than the acts of a State legislature more than thirty years previous. Hence, it is more likely that Joseph would understand the term “head of a river” as Webster did than what the legislature did.
But it is not the availability of the records of the State Legislature that is important here. It is the record’s demonstration of the obvious common use of the term “head of the river” in the State of New York in Joseph’s time to mean the mouth of the river.
Theodore protests:
Ah, but such things ARE important. The fact that a majority of New York legislators meant something–in 1792–does NOT mean that Joseph Smith had to use a word in that fashion–in 1830.
Moreover, legislatures are NOT the arbiters of words’ meanings–except in France. 😉 Rather, people turn to dictionaries to find the meaning of a word.
To sum up, it is unlikely that Joseph Smith would be aware of the legislature’s use of the word, but quite likely that he’d had access to Webster’s.
Steven said:
It doesn’t mean that he HAD to use the common meaning of the word in his area but it is an indication that he MAY have.
As to whether Joseph had access to Webster’s dictionary, Emma insisted that her husband did not have a book or manuscript from which to read, and said, “If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald 26 (Oct 1879):289-90.) Also, Webster’s recently published first dictionary only sold 2,500 copies over 12 years from 1828 to 1840, so it is unlikely that Joseph had even heard of it while translating let alone had seen one. His local understanding of the common usage of words would have been the meanings he would have used (unless of course the translation was revealed to him exactly word for word and he had no input into the choice of words he used).
According to “FAIR” to bolster their MesoAmerica theory, Joseph Smith knew nothing of the geography of the Book of Mormon:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place.pdf
“When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography).”
Talk about diminshing faith in Joseph Smith, the Prophet, by FAIR. What other aspects of the gospel should FAIR include? Faith in Christ? The Plan of Salvation? Sure why not, if FAIR decides the Prophet of the Restoration doesn’t know certain aspects about the gospel.
What a lame excuse to bolster their MesoAmerica theory.
FAIR is worse than the claims it has against Meldrum.
Talk about unrealistic expectations of a Prophet!
Have you ever read the History of the Church? He quite clearly corrected the SAME misconception you had; in HC 5:265, telling those who have it that “a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”
So, what status should Joseph Smith’s reputed statements–when NOT acting as a Prophet–have?
Moreover, why should those reputed statements–even if unquestionably from Joseph Smith, and even if he were speaking prophetically–have only the interpretation that YOU decide it does–especially if alternate understandings are possible?
For example, is Lehi’s “promised land” JUST the USA, or could it be the entire western hemisphere? Or is there some other context? Even if Lehi’s promised land is not the USA at all, it doesn’t follow that the USA is not promised–for US.
Should we take reputed statements by Joseph Smith when NOT acting as a Prophet as Gospel? If so, who, then, is the apostate: Joseph Smith, or, say, Heber Grant, who authorised the 1938 Instructor article I cited elsewhere, that said that there IS no official revelation on the location of the Book of Mormon events?
Or maybe it is those fundamentalists (like YOU!) who presumptuously give uncanonised statements a status as Holy Writ that neither God nor Joseph Smith intended, and, like Protestant Fundamentalists, damning those whose understanding differs! 😛
Obviously, you haven’t carefully read FAIR’s disclaimer, “To be clear, FAIR advocates no particular theory of Book of Mormon geography.” You can see it at:
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/MisguidedS.html
Furthermore, you haven’t read my own speculations of a Florida setting for the Book of Mormon, posted above and elsewhere. This is VERY bad form.
Could it be that it is YOU who is SO wedded to a pet theory (Meldrum’s!) that you can neither see its weaknesses, nor give a fair hearing to those with other understandings?
Theodore Brandley Says:
Note that I fixed your comment! 😉
True, Joseph Smith didn’t have access to other references, but doesn’t that make it MORE likely that Joseph Smith used the commonly accepted meaning of the word, rather than some alternate definition in an obscure legislation that is many times harder to access?
Look, Theodore, even in this age of Internet, the odds of my accessing a legislative charter dating from 38 years ago is much closer to zero than the odds that the GOP will retake BOTH houses of Congress in 2010 (The odds that the GOP will retake the House stands at 30%, and the odds that they will retake the Senate is 10%, making the odds that they will retake BOTH houses 3%. See http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/# ). 😉
Steven Danderson says:
Oh my. Now FAIR is concerned people’s testimonies are vulnerable because of Meldrum. Laughable.
Steven Danderson says:
And so you suppose when a prophet ceases to act as a prophet, he becomes a liar? He becomes unknowlegeable? LOL! I suppose when President Monson returns from General Conference and relaxes in his home and acts as a father, but not as a prophet, he teaches his family to dig a pit for their neighbors?
Steven Danderson says:
And what makes your intrepretation of them correct when you question outright the Prophet, as if you know when the Prophet was acting as a prophet or not to bolster your MesoAmerica claim? Because you work for FAIR? Because you’re concerned Meldrum will make people’s testimonies vulnerable? Who annointed you to be overseer of geographic location for the Book of Mormon?
Steven Danderson says:
The scriptures are clear on that matter. You’re clouded judgement is so self-convincing you’ve already answered you’re own question; that it occured in MesoAmerica.
Steven Danderson says:
Then why is FAIR so adamant in attacking Meldrum? It’s not just his approach FAIR is concerned about. You’ve also published point by point criticisms of his “Heartland” model. Of course, your adept at that with your practice on discounting the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith by claiming he wasn’t acting as a prophet when he spoke on things geographical. LOL!
Steven Danderson says:
Meldrum’s is the pet theory? It’s been FAIR’s continual publishing of a MesoAmerica location which has made its theory the one petted – to the point of transgression – claiming Joseph Smith’s statements on geography were from one ignorant of the very book he translated by the Gift and Power of God.
FAIR is full of nothing but excuses to bolster their MesoAmerica theory. From ignoring BoM and D&C scripture about the Promised Land, to discounting the Prophet’s statements, to the ridiculous of trying to appease the criticism of the world by claiming Horses were Tapirs: http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/
FAIR is so concerned about defending the Book of Mormon they water it down and make excuses for it, to the point the World laughs at FAIR:
http://www.salamandersociety.com/media/movies/tapir_whisperer/
Yeah, FAIR is a real testimony builder. Not.
Steven Danderson says:
The other Steve retorts:
Some observations:
1. FAIR’s President and Chairman of the Board have both confirmed to me that FAIR has no official position on Book of Mormon geography–by telephone and by email.
2. The fact that others hold a pet MesoAmerican theory doesn’t make Wayne May and Rod Meldrum’s Great Lakes setting any less of a pet theory.
3. While my understanding is that most FAIR members accept the MesoAmerican setting, it didn’t originate with FAIR. In fact, in September of 1984, John Sorenson of FARMS postulated that theory in the Church’s flagship periodical, The Ensign–fourteen years prior to the founding of FAIR.
4. Since President Gordon Hinckley directed the annexation of FARMS into the Church’s flagship university (BYU), and neither he nor his successor, President Thomas Monson, made any move to discipline any member of FARMS for any such alleged “transgression,” I would suggest that you reconsider such accusations–before you become too much like the accuser par excellence–and/or devolve into a state of apostasy.
5. You claim that we ignore Joseph Smith’s statements about Book of Mormon geography as ignorant, yet you utterly ignore editorial statements in the Times and Seasons by its editor, Joseph Smith and its managing editor, John Taylor (TWO Prophets!!) placing the Book of Mormon in MesoAmerica–not far away from the Isthmus of Darien (Panama). Why?
We have stated elsewhere why we deem the “no kings” and “land of liberty” arguments to be too weak to require a present-day US setting for the Book of Mormon. However, let me briefly restate those reasons:
a. There is no spot in the western hemisphere that has NEVER been ruled by kings.
b. As you yourself point out, the USA is no longer a land of liberty (Liberals would agree while disagreeing with the reasons and timing that this took place.).
Instead of acting like an anti-Mormon by merely claiming that the tapir-horse argument is “ridiculous,” why not tell us your reasons?
While we’re at it, Sir, why do you ignore geographic statements in the Book of Mormon that is consistent with a Florida or MesoAmerica setting, but completely inconsistent with a Great Lakes setting?
We attacked Brother Meldrum because he implied an ecclesiastic endorsement that he did not possess–and a Church position on Book of Mormon geography that did not exist. Brother Meldrum, though, had the strength of character to retreat from that implication. Do you?
Yes, I have published point-by-point criticisms of the “’Heartland’ model” (which is very different from attacks on Meldrum’s implications, above). I was born and raised in that area, and I am rather intimately acquainted with the geography and climate there.
Yet, instead of answering those criticisms, you choose to impugn my character and loyalty to God and His Church. How like the accuser, par excellence!
Why don’t you give yourself some credibility and answer my criticisms? Theodore Brandley does that, and, while I still disagree with him–sometimes very pointedly, we have the utmost esteem for each other. I consider him a cyber-pen-pal.
If we’re so ineffectual, that we (and FARMS!), why does the Church quote us in its official web site–and why haven’t they made any move to shut either FARMS or FAIR down?
Let me summarize to make sure I’m clear.
FAIR has no connection with the Church. Yet you continually refer to the Prophets as endorsing you and FAIR?
FAIR claims that Meldrum “implied he had ecclesiastic endorsement” yet Mr. Steven Danderson implies, with continual references to the Prophets as endorsing FAIR, that FAIR does NOT having that same ecclesiastic endorsement?
FAIR claims they support statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith, but not all of them, despite FAIRS claim of supportive statements and endorsement by the current Prophets?
FAIR claims they have no official position on a Book of Mormon geography, yet they only support statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith that support their MesoAmerica theory?
FAIR can, as noted in Meldrums and Porter’s book “Prophecies and Promises” P. 180, change their mind by recanting a statement made in 2008 about “New World DNA?”
And you’re self-rightous concern over my impuning your character, which is actually your Priest Craft, your setting yourself up as a light, yet you impune my character by comparing me to an anti-Mormon?
So why again, are you concerned with some perceived impuning of your integrity?
Laughable.
I’m a believing Mormon and I don’t need FARMS or FAIR to “loan-shift” the Book of Mormon to defend a Mesoamerica Theory, (horse were tapirs and other stories for children such as “Tennis Shoes among the Nephites”).
Nor do I need to impune the character of the Prophet Joseph Smith by picking apart or ingoring his statements and those of other early Church Leaders, while claiming support for the current Prophets, all for their coveted endorsement to not endorse past Prophets!
Nor to ignore Church History to fit then make up a Tapir theory about the location of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.
All this, despite FAIR not needing to because FAIR doesn’t have an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon. HA! LOL!
FAIR and FARMS are nothing but stumbling blocks for investigators of the Church who should be obtaining a testimony of Christ through the studying of the Book of Mormon. Yet FAIR impunes the integrity of that Book by “loan-shifting” it. FAIR and FARMS “mold and twist” the Book of Mormon and impune the character of the Prophet Joseph Smtih for their own selfish purposes – when of course they don’t need to.
And Mr. Steven Danderson is concerned his and FAIRS integrity has been damaged by my postings.
You are all nothing but blind guides.
Hey Sparky. Read 2Ne 7:11.
Hey Sparky. Put your money where mouth is.
Will FAIR endorse World Tapir Day 2010?
http://www.tapirday.org
Here are some ideas for FAIR:
A fantastic missionary opportunity for FAIR to spread their gospel version of the Book of Mormon by participating in World Tapir Day 2010!
World Tapir Day occurs on April 27 each year. And even better, in 2010 World Tapir Day doesn’t fall on a Sunday. The FAIR “scholars” won’t have to break the Sabbath while promoting altering the words of the Book of Mormon! Wow! Just like the Pharisees!
The TapirDay FAIR booth can explain how an ancient Limited Mesoamerica Society used tapirs as horses while passing out free copies of the Book of Mormon. And you can bear your testimonies about Tapirs!
Promote how the Book of Mormon and 11 Million believing members could possibly lend their financial support to World Tapir Day on an annual basis!
Sell T-shirts, Stuffed Tapir Dolls, Tapir keychains, and other precious possessions!
Imagine how helping World Tapir Day to save the endangered Tapir will help promote FAIR – that’s a Win Win!
FAIR could “Adopt a Tapir” and eventually enter it in the Kentucky Derby in the “Run for the Roses”
So, put your money where mouth is. Encourage FAIR to support World Tapir Day 2010 this April!
You blind guides.
To paraphrase the late Richard Harding Davis, your illogical discourtesy is exceeded only by your illogical discourtesy. 😉
Frankly, Sir, your summary of FAIR’s (and my) position is equivalent quality of J.E. Decker’s summary of Mormonism in his Godmakers series of books. That is, to call it awful would insult the truly awful. 😉
You said:
The Brethren are NOT endorsing us. It is just that they find some of our work useful–and conclude that others might as well.
Look, I think Thomas Sowell’s book, Basic Economics is a great introduction to the subject. It does not follow, though, that I “endorse” him. He is NOT “Steven Danderson’s official economist”!
Oh, do you mean the way you “support” some statements made by Joseph Smith, but utterly ignore other statements made both Joseph Smith AND John Taylor that imply (to put it mildly!) a MesoAmerican setting for the Book of Mormon?
Hello, Pot! Meet Kettle!
Do you mean in the same way you claim to support Joseph Smith, but utterly ignore what he says in support of a MesoAmerican model?
Do you not see changing one’s mind and recalling earlier statements in light of new information constitute evidence of intellectual integrity? Or that Rod Meldrum changing his presentation in light of FAIR’s concerns (for which I praised him, above) is also such evidence?
And you call US blind!
For your information, “priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” [II Nephi 26:29]. Seeing that NONE of us at FAIR are paid for our services, your charge does not apply.
There is a very simple reason that I compared your approach to that of an anti-Mormon: You use the same tactics and logic (or, more accurately, the lack of it) as they do. 😉
I am glad you don’t need them. Other people, however, do use the services of both groups to bolster testimonies–with great effect.
It isn’t FAIR’s theory; it originated (I think) with John Sorenson–who wrote An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon–for FARMS.
Why do you insist that the MesoAmerican model is FAIR’s official position, in light of FAIR’s explict statement to the contrary, and my speculation–on this blog, with the full knowledge and consent of FAIR’s management–about a peninsular Florida setting for the Book of Mormon?
Kindly get off your hobby horse–and God’s Judgment Seat! You’ve ridden both not only into the ground, but about six feet under it.
I am puzzled by your animosity toward FARMS. You say you sustain the Prophets in their official acts, yet you have nothing but disdain toward FARMS, an organisation that President Hinckley himself found useful and saw fit to acquire for incorporation into the Church’s flagship university.
I may be wrong, but your contempt for FARMS implies not support for, but a vigourous opposition to President Hinckley’s choice–ex officio–to acquire that institution.
Do you think that President Gordon B. Hinckley is “a stumbling block” for acquiring FARMS for BYU?
Is your view “A Prophet is always a Prophet, except when he is acquiring FARMS”–or even thinks it useful for Church members?
Why? It isn’t FAIR’s theory–nor mine (For all I know, there were actual horses.), but John Sorenson’s–of FARMS. Even that wasn’t an unqualified declaration.
And not even he is as wedded to Meldrum’s Great Lakes theory as you are.
Look, Mister, if you have good reasons for a Great Lakes theory, present them. Your incessant attacks on FAIR allegedly holding to a MesoAmerican theory is not only discourteous, it is dishonest, and it is illogical.
I may disagree with Theodore Brandley, but I am glad that he has the professionalism to present his case in a courteous manner without resorting to straw men and ad hominem attacks.
I demand that you act in a like manner.
Tomorrow is Fast and Testimony meeting. I would like to see Sparky and his other FAIR friends get up and bear their testimonies about “Book of Mormon Tapirs” based on the “Prophet Joseph Smith was only the Prophet when he was acting as a prophet.”
Laughable.
Laughable, not only to the members of your Ward but to your Wives and Children.
Of course, you’ve already born your similar testimony on these boards. Jokesters you are all.
———
Sigh no more, ladies, sigh nor more;
FAIR were deceivers ever;
One foot in sea and one on shore,
To one thing constant never;
Then sigh not so,
But let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny;
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into. Hey nonny, nonny.
Sing no more ditties, sing no mo,
Or dumps so dull and heavy;
The fraud of FAIR was ever so,
Since summer first was leavy.
Then sigh not so,
But let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny,
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into. Hey, nonny, nonny.
———
You blind guides.
Steve:
I’m sorry, Sir. I’ve completely misjudged you. I mistakenly thought that you were reasonable and clear-thinking. Instead, like a typical anti-Mormon, you assume–and insist–that I believe things which I do not.
Moreover, like an anti-Mormon, you choose to insult those who disagree with you, rather than state why Brother Meldrum’s theorem is true in spite of its contradictions with the Book of Mormon text–and John Taylor’s and Joseph Smith’s statements in the Times and Seasons in 1842.
Have you even read what I wrote about Book of Mormon geography?
I shall avoid making that mistake again….
This illustrates beautifully why Rod Meldrum and Bruce Porter’s efforts to make their ideas normative are so divisive, dangerous, and inappropriate–it leads to the condemnation of others as unworthy or insincere.
Far better to follow the Church and its leaders in asserting that there is no revelatory basis for one Book of Mormon geography over another, save the Book of Mormon text itself.
So true, Greg!
I DON’T have a testimony of tapirs. My testimony is that the Book of Mormon is a true account of God’s dealings people in the western hemisphere.
HOW the Book of Mormon is true is another story. 😉
I think it is less than wise to categorically assert that the Book of Mormon is true ONLY is this manner or to categorically deny that the Book of Mormon can possibly be true in that manner. Some of Rod Meldrum’s backers have done both unwise things in the comments above–by accusing those of questioning that the Book of Mormon could ONLY have taken place in the Great Lakes region of apostasy, and by ridiculing the possibility that tapirs could have be used as horses (Note that I am NOT claiming that it was actually the case–I just don’t know!).
I will be more impressed when those making fun of tapirs can actually explain the concept it in a way that would make someone who believed it say, “Yes, you’ve understood my argument.”
So far, we’ve seen only the anti-Mormon caricature of ridicule.
I don’t really go for the tapir explanation myself (if one has to see something like it loan-shifted, I’d be more inclined to say “ass,” rather than “horse”) but I know a straw-man when I see one.
In one sense, it is hard to blame them, since this is what Meldrum and Porter do repeatedly–those who don’t embrace their read are dismissing Joseph or denying his prophetic gifts. A lie repeated enough times becomes believed.
Ideas and books, sadly in this case, have consequences.
Steve: I do not personally believe the loan-shifting idea regarding tapirs or other animals in the BoM is an argument on which to hang my hat, but I still believe Mesoamerica is a viable and likely location for the events of the BoM. I believe folks can decide for themselves on this somewhat peripheral manner. Indeed, many will make it to celestial glory through Christ who haven’t so much as considered a precise geography for the BoM. I am a volunteer with FAIR. Where do I fit into your song and comments about blind guides and so forth?
Greg Smith says:
Indeed. One has to wonder whether Steve and other Meldrum partisans have more in common with hyper-Fundamentalist Protestant anti-Mormons than they do with their fellow Latter-day Saints. 🙁
Given all the evidence that Steve presented, I would have to say the same thing! 😉
Steve Danderson says:
Greg Smith says:
Over the past couple of years, I’ve been dealing with this anti-Mormon who has been trying to convince me that if I disagreed with any far-out theory that Church members are allegedly to believe, I would be excommunicated. Steve seems determined to prove this anti-Mormon right. I feel sorry for those with Steve or somebody like him as their Bishop or Stake President. 🙁
Fortunately, the Lord has thus far provided for me nothing but loving and wise men for those offices! 😉
BHodges says:
Probably the same place as I do–as his target. Mind you, I’m speculating about a Florida for the Book of Mormon, rather than championing a MesoAmerican theory; yet, he still accuses me of the latter.
Go figure.
Excuse me for interrupting. I was wondering
if anyone here could tell me, where do
the Latter-day Saints blog?
That depends guest….
Are you asking because one or more LDS (Mea maxima culpa!) let insults get under his skin and responded testily?
Or is it that I and others are unconvinced by the US-Great Lakes model, and thus, “denying the Prophets”?
Hey Steve, what is a river horse?
Allen:
Do you mean a “hippopotamus”? 😉
Much as I hate to get Theodore Brandley going again on the meaning of the “head” of a river, I noticed during family scripture study tonight that in 1Nephi 8:14, Nephi describes the river that Lehi saw in his dream. He says, “And I looked to behold from whence it [the river of water] came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off…”. This would seem to indicate that whatever the legislature of NY may have thought in 1792, Nephi understood that the head of a river was “from whence it came”, not where it was going to end up. It seems more likely to me that this sense of the word would prevail throughout the language of the Book of Mormon rather than the unlikely concept that the head of a river is actually its mouth.
Ummm…fun to watch this tempest in a teapot from the sidelines…but if I may be so bold as to state again…if Mormonism can’t provide an actual geographical place where the Book of Mormon stories took place…whose to say they took place anywhere at all…
But purhaps…
Our dear apologist friends at FAIR can give us an example of another civilization that exited in reality that left no “civilizational footprint” of their existance other than the civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
Hint: Middle Earth doesn’t count…that was a fictional civilization….Atlantis was also fictional. Hmmm…maybe the Druids, oh wait…they actually did exist and left evidence of their existance…so yeah FAIR, I’m at a loss and need your help…becasue other then the Book of Mormon civilzations…I can’t think of a single civilization that ever existed that left no evidence of their existance…cough cough…other than those found in the Book of Mormon.
May I suggest another plausible location Meldrum and FAIR may want to look for Book of Mormon locations…Underwater. Yes thats right…I mean we’ve searched on land with no results…so purhaps…those Book of Mormon event took place under water…
Now before I’m rejected out of hand…those of you familor with the lost Colony of Roanoke, which mysterily disappeared off the face of the land, (sound familor) know that this early American migration completely disapeared too…UNTIL they started looking underwater….and low and behold there it was …submerged.
So I kindly suggest that the events claimed in the Book of Mormon all took place underwater. There problem solved…now get diving.