The Truth Will Out At Last

Comments

1. Midnight00 says

   October 7, 2008 at 8:51 am

   I wondered why Rod was so touchy about the email he kept claiming Fair was refering to. Now I know why. Very revealing. There is no doubt, Rod thinks he is God’s messenger. Thanks, Fair.

2. Alison says

   October 7, 2008 at 9:17 am

   The “Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism Foundation”…hmmm…it strikes me as a bit unlikely that any divine revelation would approve such a repetitious title!

3. M. Davis says

   October 7, 2008 at 9:18 am

   FAIR has gone too far. I am deeply disappointed with the way this has been handled. Leave the decision to the ecclesiastical leaders of this Church in terms of this man’s standing with the Church.

   Publish a defense against his DVD presentation and leave it at that. It is not this organizations place to go any further than this. FAIR is not this man’s Bishop, Stake President, or Prophet for that matter.

   It is contentious. It is not edifying. It is past boundaries. It is NOT FAIR’s place.

   Please stop this.

4. austin says

   October 7, 2008 at 10:43 am

   It sounds to me like he believes he got revelation for an organization he founded, not for the whole church…

5. Robert White says

   October 7, 2008 at 11:09 am

   Mr. Davis:

   1. Rodney Meldrum’ standing in the Church is not FAIR’s concern.

   2. People’s theories about the geographical location of Book of Mormon events is only ocassionally FAIR’s concern.

   3. FAIR is concerned with the defence of the Church and the Brethren. When someone claims to be doing somethat that is not being done by those who lead the Church, defending the Brethren is something FAIR will do, and do it in the face of criticisms and accusations. FAIR will not be frightened off.

   4. FAIR will provide factual information necessary to enable people to decide for themeselves whether to believe what is being taught by others.

   5. Rod Meldrum has mis-used a statement by President Hinckly, to lead people who attend his presentations and who watch his DVDs to conclude that President Hinckly criticized scholars at the Maxwell Institute of Religious Studies at BYU, have rejected Joseph Smith. Because of, and only because of FAIR’s work, Rod Meldrum no longer says that in his presentations, has placed a statement to that effect in the second smallest font available at the bottom of his web site, and says he is including written retractions with each DVD he sells. Without FAIR’s work that would not have happened.

   6. Simply: FAIR gives factual information to correct misrepresentions of Church doctrines or practices. You have said that FAIR should publish a response to Rodney’s DVD. FAIR has done that, and you can read it on the FAIR site. Part of that response is factual information that will allow people who watch it to be aware that it has undertones that are disrectful to the Brethren. We do not pick and choose. We have presented relevant facts, for the use of people who want to know what they can know about Rod Meldrum’s project.

   In response, Rod Meldrum has, rather than dealing with the merits of the points made by FAIR about specific claims in the DVD, which are published on FAIR’s web site, rather than address those Rod Meldrum has, among other things, post statements on his blog to the effect that FAIR has made things up, has no evidence for things, and that members who have posted to his blog have lied.

   The opening post in this blog is to put an end to that once and for all.

   Rodney Meldrum has always been angry at the thought of people knowing this information. It allows them to judge the foundation of what he is doing for themselves. That should not anger anyone who, as with FAIR, wishes Latter-day Saints and others to have clear presentations of all facts that will enable them to assess the truth of what others are saying.

   FAIR does this on a regular basis. There are always people who don’t like it when FAIR publishes accurate statements pertaining to what they have said. It will always be so. It will not silence FAIR’s mission to publish those accurate statements.

6. J. Max Wilson says

   October 7, 2008 at 11:11 am

   I am not personally acquainted with Brother Meldrum’s work. In fact, I only have heard about it through FAIR.

   I am puzzled, however, by both the intensity and focus of FAIR’s response to him.

   As long as I can remember, throughout the 80s’, 90s’, and presently there have always been individual members who have established independent foundations, publications, or associations, and attempted to attract support and followers, who have claimed or implied some degree of divine sanction and approval for their efforts to move the work in one direction or another, especially in the realm of Book of Mormon Archaeology.

   I am personally acquainted with a couple of such individuals, who cite patriarchal and priesthood blessings, encouragement from general authorities, answers to personal prayer, and miraculous opportunities against all odds, as evidence that their efforts are inspired.

   While I often disagree with them, I don’t see why FAIR has chosen to single out brother Meldrum among so many. Is it because he has attracted an unusual following and that his views contradict the predominant FAIR view?

   …

   Ok before posting this, I decided to look up Brother Meldrum’s blog and I read most of the September 4th discussion there. I’m disappointed in FAIR. Brother Meldrum may be dead wrong in many of his views. But it is the FAIR Folk (and I’m not talking Tolkien’s Elves here ;p ) that have ganged up on him and who come across as intellectual internet-bullies. Brother Muldrum has done an impressive Job of trying to explain himself, I think, under an impossible, emotionally charged situation.

   You guys need to back down. You may win the argument, but you come off as the losers. My respect for FAIR has gone down more than a few notches. 🙁

7. Robert White says

   October 7, 2008 at 11:13 am

   Austin: Thank you for bringing this impression to our attention. As you reread the email, you will see that he claims revelation for his organization, and revelation that he is to bring forth truths that must be brought forth because no one else is doing it. If these are truths, they would come from the Brethren.

8. Elusive says

   October 7, 2008 at 11:13 am

   Just when I thought FAIR couldn’t get any more tasteless…

   Publishing personal correspondence on this blog, with many personal details… Are you people serious?

   Stop doing this. It just shows how low you are willing to go to “prove yourselves right.” It is childish, immature, tasteless, unethical, and quite frankly… unChristian.

9. Robert White says

   October 7, 2008 at 11:32 am

   I am very sad. I am sadder than I have been for a very long time. Some recent posts assume that the differences between FAIR and Rodney Meldrum are based upon his questionable data, presentation, and theory that Book of Mormon events happened in North America. This illustrates that the fundamental issue is eluding our readers.

   To my everlasting chagrin, on May 8, thinking the same thing, I placed a post on this List questioning the involvement of FAIR with Meldrum’s work, and recommending against it. Shortly thereafter I saw the first of a great deal of compelling evidence of what this really is about.

   The issue is that Rodney Meldrum’s seminars, DVDs, and other materials is an insidious, and more dangerous as a result, fostering of disrespect for the Brethren, and lack of confidence in them. It is something which no Latter-day Saint who sustains the Prophets, Seers and Revelators should tolerate, and about which every such Latter-day Saint should wish to warn the rest.

   The foundation of the seminars and the DVD and all the rest is decidedly not DNA or theories of geographical fit. The foundation is his belief, publically cloaked with increasing effectiveness but documented and otherwise demonstrated beyond doubt to be his belief, that God has inspired him, Rodney Meldrum, not the Brethren, to bring out of obscurity, disuse, and even disrespect, what he presents as revelations through the Prophet on Book of Mormon geography and, to proclaim them “anew” to the L.D.S. people.

   If any revelations of Joseph Smith need to be proclaimed anew, that can only be because the Brethren have not been proclaiming them, and it has fallen to Rodney Meldrum to do what the Brethren aren’t. He demonstrates a satisfaction with results of his proclamations that demean the Brethren and fall just short of accusation of them.

   I simply am not up to making the case again. I, and others, are exhausted by it. The quantity of hours and the deprivation of sleep that have been devoted to this by several is witness to the mounting seriousness of this which, and about this we should make no mistake, is on the way to becoming a movement.

   Not being up to making the case again, I am reproducing below two “testimonials” selected by Rodney Meldrum for display on his web site. They demonstrates in microcosm the results of what he is doing, the Latter-day Saints who are succumbing to it, and that Rod Meldrum is obviously pleased with the effect he is having―or these wouldn’t be a testimonials. One regrets that the following are not extreme or exceptional. One wishes that Rodney Meldrum did not claim as a testimonial to his work the virtue of a Church employee saving his children from the seminary curriculum that is approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. One would think that were Bro. Meldrum to be proclaiming the truth the Brethren would be in the lead, not trailing behind in ignorance or bound to vested interests, and that the Brethren would not have “a long and tedious fight” to get out the truth. That a member of the Church would take comfort in knowing that he is producing this level of disrespect for, and lack of confidence in, the Prophets who lead this Church is appalling. Surely any Latter-day Saint who will see this simple fact will grasp what all the effort has been for.

   It would be difficult to believe that any Latter-day Saints would not be troubled, very troubled, by this.

   The emphasis in these is by me; I have edited the second for relevance and cogency. These and a number of other “testimonials” are, of course available for independent review on Rodney Meldrum’s site.

   04.30.08 “My father-in-law, [name withheld], passed the DVD along to me. I enjoyed it so much that I wanted my own copy, so I purchased one immediately. I just finished the DVD last night and already desire to watch it again. I found it interesting that when speaking with some of my coworkers about these findings, they are set in their ways of the mainstream speculation that many LDS scholars provide. Fortunately, there are others with whom I have spoken that are interested in watching the DVD (I work as a linguist for the Church in Salt Lake, so everyone of my coworkers is a member and has their own take on these things). I believe that all of the data combined with evidence that you provide is the most valid and correct regarding geography of the Book of Mormon. Thank you very much for the efforts that you went to in producing this material. I am already looking forward to teaching my children these things so that when they are in Seminary, they will not be swayed by other speculative ideas (I was given this speculative information while in both Seminary and at BYU). Thank you again.” -JS-UT

   I have been an Institute director and teacher, worked for BYU in the Religion Dept. and in the Religious Study Center, and worked for the church doing specialized scripture research, and now lead LDS scripture tours mostly to the middle east and church history sites. 25 years ago I realized that the statements of Joseph Smith did not jive (sic) with the standard theories about the Book of Mormon lands, and I refused to teach those traditions and theories. In working for the Church I was told to use for research only: 1) the scriptures 2) Joseph Smith and 3) the words of the Prophets, while they were prophets. All else was to be considered opinion. This is why I couldn’t go along with the traditional sites of Book of Mormon Lands, as well as numerous textual evidences within the Book itself. … Like so many other things science has again proved that Joseph Smith is a prophet and did know what he talked about. ; It will be a long and tedious fight to get those who have spent, and earned so much money on the the (sic) Central America theories as well as their reputations and books, to give credit to Joseph Smith and the DNA evidence. The truth will prevail.” -Name Withheld

10. NOYDMB says

    October 7, 2008 at 11:41 am

    JMAx and Elusive,
    Why is it bullying to publish evidence against someone who is saying you are lying about them.

    If person A claims; “Person B lied about an email I sent out”
    And person B says; “I did not.”
    Until evidence is produced no one can prove or learn anything.
    Person B publishes the email and suddenly, “person B is persecuting person A?”

    When church members start building up false-foundations of faith, they do the church a serious disservice. They give Mormon scholarship a bad name, and essentially create more work. By nipping the problem in the bud (so to speak) Fair is setting up from the beginning, “This is wrong and should stop not.” I haven’t seen anything that oversteps the line. FAIR hasn’t called for Rob’s excommunication. In fact, in this digital age, by providing evidence, should we really be accusing others as childish, tasteless, immature, … let the truth be what it is. If you don’t want something revealed to the world, don’t send it in an email. If it’s too sacred for the Fairblog, it is too sacred for an email.

11. Robert White says

    October 7, 2008 at 11:46 am

    NYODB: Bless you, NYODB, for getting it right.

12. Allen Wyatt says

    October 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

    J Max Wilson,

    If you have been to one of Rod’s presentations or watched his DVD, you know that Rod has invited people to review his material and check his sources. How do you propose that such reviewing and checking be done? If one finds severe problems when the reviewing and checking is completed, how should those problems be shared with others who don’t (or won’t) do their own reviewing and checking?

    FAIR has not attacked Rod. He likes to characterize the reviews as attacks, as doing so removes the need to respond to the points documented in the reviews. Such posturing on Rod’s part contrasts starkly with his initial invitations for review and checking.

    -Allen

13. Cassandra says

    October 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    FAIR, and especially Brother White,

    Thanks. I really appreciate you doing all of this, and taking the heat for it. Because of what you’ve done here, the rest of us, upon finding family or friends excited about Meldrum’s ideas, can just kindly say “well, it’s exciting to think about but not really an open-and shut case,” and point out a few of the fallacies you guys have brought up.

    Therefore I think in the long run your work will actually decrease contention. If all I knew about Meldrum was from his site and the DVD, I would have felt the need to argue against it on the grounds of the priestcrafty vibe alone, which, as we’ve seen, provokes a lot of defensiveness. Now I can bring up facts and hopefully everyone can just cordially agree to disagree on where the BoM happened. Thanks again.

14. Edwin says

    October 7, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Looks to me like Rodney actually got exactly what he asked for. I have followed this from the beginning and even met Brother Meldrum once. He seemed a nice enough person.

    But I have seen this problem before. A few members, involved in business that depends upon personal relationships can’t manage to keep Church and business separate. I even had a brother in the Church invite me to their “business” meeting because they were “inspired” to do so. But, I wasn’t interested in the multi-level marketing business.

    I sometimes think we do this a bit out of habit, which is a scarey thought in and of itself.

    Anyway, I do wish Brother Meldrum would just alter his presentation, after all FAIR doesn’t give a fig about where he places his Book of Mormon geography. It seems to me that they’ve given him enough that he should be able to revise his theory, and his presentation, every scholor has errata once in a while, just bite the bullet and make the changes. Do it now before you dig yourself in so deep that Church councils really do have to take notice and act.

    Anyway, thanks for the very informative post, Brother White.

15. Elusive says

    October 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    This is nothing but a pride war.

    Well, it is evident some members of this blog missed conference and are either ignorant about or else clearly dismissing the precious advice of the men they allegedly defend and “sustain” as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

    It is pretentious to justify your vile actions. “It is something which no Latter-day Saint who sustains the Prophets, Seers and Revelators should tolerate” I beg to differ.

    Tolerance, love and turning the other cheek are CORE PRINCIPLES of TRUE CHRISTIANITY. Not that I was expecting to find such things on thir or any blog… but something you should remember when justifying your actions.

    This is nothing but a Pride game that has gone very far and very VERY LOW.

    The discussion could have been maintained in a much more elevated tone.

    I insisit these actions are completely devoid of honor, dignity and integrity.

    Please don’t blame the digital age to justify anything and everything you do here… and please don’t be pretentious to say that you are doing this out of a duty to defend the “respect” to our General Authorities.

    This is about you, this is about this blog’s members being a bit devoid of something very basic: humility. You have to be right, and you don’t care at what cost or how low you must go.

    And… to the person who said “They give Mormon scholarship a bad name…” Huh… you are kidding right? Do you think this blog is excempt of “giving Mormon scholarship a bad name?”

16. Edwin says

    October 7, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Actually Elusive, your comments seem to me to be some of the most inflammatory and name-calling on the entire Blog. Maybe it is you who needs to go review the talk and park your wounded sensibilities elsewhere. FAIR has taken the high ground here. They have never attacked Brother Meldrum, and they offered him their research before going public with it to help him make changes that would make unnecessary all of this “contention”. FAIR hasn’t the right to defend itself when Rod slams them for doing exactly what he encourages all his listeners to do? Look, evaluate, and comment? But he could not accept constructive private criticism, he brought it into the public venue, and now you cry foul when FAIR defends itself against his accusations.

    I know enough about Brother White to know that he would not have ever bothered with Brother Meldrum unless there were cause, and I for one find that I agree with Brother White when I read his inital post above. The implications are very clear, as is the danger.

17. SmallAxe says

    October 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    I’m not sure which approach makes for worse conclusions, this gentlemen’s nut-job BoM geography theory, or this blog’s uncharitable reading of his email.

18. Clark says

    October 7, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    SmallAxe, while I tend to think FAIR has spent way too much time on this – to their own detriment – I’m not sure it’s that uncharitable a reading. Maybe I’m just shell shocked living out here in Utah County but I have to admit that there are lots of people promoting their own views in this manner. It is somewhat distasteful, especially when tied to business or health claims. (The number of pseudo-science alternative medicine folks making similar claims is pretty surprising and scary) The fact is that some impressionable people fall for such claims.

    That said I think that given the already negative connotation FAIR has for some people precisely for getting down and dirty that this is unfortunate. Just review the facts, show the flaws in theories and exegesis and move on. There’s no need for the continual harping. Intelligent people will read and figure things out for themselves. When you go much beyond that you make a martyr out of the person you are attacking and make him more sympathetic to many.

19. Robert White says

    October 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Elusive:

    First, may we please stay on topic. The “core principles of true Christianity” are on the subject. Although, as I can easily anticipate a comment to the effect that FAIR is not interested in those, let us be clear that “Tolerance, love and turning the other cheek” are not the “core principles of true Christianity.” The core principles are that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Savior and Redeemer of the World. He came to earth, part divine and part mortal. He taught fundamental ethical principles, such as those you mention, but his fundamental message was that he was the Son of God, and had come to voluntarily law down his life for all mankind. A core principle is, that having a led a sinless life, he took upon himself the suffering that all mankind would suffer, by reason of their own sins, by reason of the sins of others against them, and their weakness and illness, which caused him, even God, to bleed at every pore and suffer both body and spirit. Nevertheless, he persisted, giving all glory for it to his Heavenly Father, reserving nothing to himself. He then gave up his life by permitting himself to be executed in the most cruel manner imaginable. His body was laid in a tomb. For three days he saw to the ministration to those who had died before him and to whom the gospel had not been preached, and then, having over come death and hell, and the second death for all who would follow him, he was rasied the third day and manifested himself to the apostles and many others. Later, he manifested himself in the flesh to the Nephites and Lamanites at Bountiful, and those people received the testimony of God the Father that he was his Son, the testimony of Jesus about who he was, and the testimony of touch from feeling the wounds in his hands, and feet and side. That, brother, is the core of Christianity.

    We access that atonement by, among other things, being loving, tolerant, and remaining free from the control of others by volunarily turning the other cheek instead of responding as the natural man would do.

    Of these things I solemnly witness.

    As I witness, too, to the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the restoration in its fulness is being made available today through the Prophet Thomas S. Monson, his counselors, and the Twelve Apostles. And I will be neither still nor quiet when, under whatever guise, someone tells the Latter-day Saints and the world, that he is going to proclaim anew what he purports to be revelation to Joseph Smith, with the implication that can be only wilfully ignored, that the Prophet and his predecessors, from President Monson on back, have not been proclaiming all that is to now be proclaimed anew.

    Rodney Meldrum or anyone else can propose that New World events in the Book of Mormon happened near the Great Lakes, or in Mesoamerica (notwithstanding my lack of comfort in that), Alaska, Southern Alberta, Wyoming or the Bermuda Triangle. I, for one, don’t care. But this man, using that cloak, is doing something about which, as a witness of the Lord, I will neither tolerate nor turn to him another cheek and invite him to do it to the Latter-Saints some more.

    Some have an understandable lack of acquaintance with all of the facts because they haven’t been following the matter carefully. Some misunderstand the issue as being about DNA and geography, because that is how Rodney Meldrum markets it. They will may be unaffected because they are not interested in such things. Others will believe what they are being told, and as we well know will bear testimony that Rodney Meldrum is right in the sacrament meetings of the Church, in their talks in those meetings, in Sunday School classes, to friends in and out of the Church–not merely that “here is another interesting theory you might want to look at,” but as a testimony to the truth of what he teaches. His presentations begin with prayer. He ends them “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Think of that: he invokes the name of Jesus Christ in benediction of his theory.

    Others do not understand the real issues because Rodney Meldrum has not laid out his views in their entirety and calls those who know them “blatant liars” without “a shred of evidence”. So, once and for all, I have put before the people some (and only some) of the available evidence of what is behind this–which he invokes the name of our Lord upon.

    Knowing the material that began this blog, Latter-day Saints will be fully informed, and the faithful Saints will understand in a moment that FAIR is not attacking, picking upon, or misrepresenting Rodney Meldrum or his work. They will also understand the reason that volunteer members of the Church have sacrificed hundreds of hours and their own money to bring this to the attention of Latter-day Saints so that they may know this for themselves.

    Many, many members of the Church have seen our work, understood it, and are grateful. Many more will now see why Rodney cannot call someone a liar, without a shred of evidence, for what he posted on Meldrum’s blog.

    There will be only a few who will purport to not understand, or to mischaracterize what we are doing, and to change the issue to “FAIR has sunk” to some low or other as though intelligent Latter-day Saints will be so easily deflected.

    And where is Rodney Meldrum’s clear, unequivocal answer to the five questions; and where is Rodney Meldrum’s reasoned and fact-based answers to FAIR’s published data?

    FAIR and its members do not claim revelation or inspiration for or in our work. We are volunteers, we have no calling, we are not affiliated with the Church. But we are Latter-day Saints and we are not going to stay still in the face of what is being shopped to good Mormons in Rod Meldrum’s movement, and let our brothers and sisters down. And we know we will be insulted; that the topics will be changed; that we will be accused of bad faith; that we will be called bullies; but we love this Church, we respect the Brethren who lead it, we have undertaken as our mission to present factual answers to questions people want answers to, and we are not going to leave our faithful brothers and sisters uninformed whatever abuse I, at least, will have heaped on us.

    So, call me all the names you want to. Abuse me however you like. Try to change the topic if you will. But no Latter-day Saint will ever say: “Members of FAIR, Brother Wyatt, Brother Gordon, Brother Lynch, Brother Smith, Brother White, and dozens of others here unnamed, you knew about these things and you let us down. No, never.

20. Hans says

    October 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Talk about including everything in the email from Rod. Am I the only one that chuckled when the following was included:

    Get Free (PRODUCT) RED™ Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics. Check it out!

    I think that while it has come across as a back and forth that makes FAIR look uncharitable, they point out some serious problems that may build unstable foundations to those who purchase the DVD or listen to the firesides. I actually had a friend who suggested the DVD to me and I declined citing FAIR’s issues. My friend read FAIR’s initial reviews a few months ago and argued that FAIR or others who didn’t agree with Meldrum’s claims were saying that Joseph Smith wasn’t a “prophet” (or “profit” to some who produce DVD’s). For this reason, I appreciate FAIR providing all the background about what has happened.

    Am I the only one who feels a little uncomfortable when someone claims to “declare anew” certain truths via inspiration and a DVD for only $19.95? That said, many of Rod’s statements are in a grey area that I can’t say “Oh, he is claiming revelation!”, but also make me say, “That sure looks like he is claiming that the Lord inspired him to do this, which sounds pretty close to revelation.”

21. J. Max Wilson says

    October 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Brothers White, Wyatt and NYODB,

    The FAIR team needs to take a step back and a deep breath on this topic. I understand how you are feeling, to some extent, but at this point it feels like you are generating more heat than light.

    I have not suggested in any way that brother Meldrum’s claims should not be reviewed and disputed. Contrary to your mischaracterization, I am NOT saying that “publish[ing] evidence against someone who is saying you are lying about them” is a kind of “bullying.” I have no problem with it an encourage you to continue to do so.

    It was reading through the exchange on brother Meldrum’s blog between him and several of you that I found disappointing. The confrontational tone and enmity exhibited by many of you FAIR Folk was distressing and unbecoming. You come across as bullies. And it weakens your case. Can’t you make the case that this is not of God with less railing accusation and enmity?

    Believe me, a trip through the archives of the bloggernacle will show you that I have been ashamedly knee-deep in the same species of arguments more than my share, even recently. And I have been on the receiving end a number of times as well.

    Brother White says that he is trying to nip in the bud what he is sure is “on the way to becoming a movement” within the church. And he is sad and exhausted from fighting against it.

    While it is appropriate for every one who has been warned to warn his neighbor, speaking in these terms does seem to give the impression that some of the people at FAIR think of themselves as lone apologetic Rambos who single handedly stand against the forces that would rip the church apart were it not for their tireless actions to keep the maw of apostasy at bay. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but that is the impression that I get.

    Buck up! The weight of the church is not on your shoulders! It is, however, on those of the Apostles, and I am sure they will, in the Lords time, cut off any false movement within the church as they feel so inspired.

    A movement toward a North American Book of Mormon Geography is not in and of itself something to be overly concerned about.

    If the real concern here is priestcraft, false prophets, and a burgeoning following, as Brother White seems to indicate, then that is a legitimate concern, but you guys are doing a pretty poor job of counteracting such a movement, in my opinion.

    If people are accepting brother Muldrum’s information because they have come to believe that he is inspired, then you cannot easily counteract that with only intellectual argument. Spiritual problems need spiritual solutions.

    Re-read Section 50 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

    The hypocrites will be detected and cut off either in this life or the next, and those who have been deceived by them will be redeemed.

    Pornography use by men and women in the church should keep you up at night more than brother Meldrum’s “movement.” We are more likely to fall under the spell of a false prophet because we are unworthy of the Spirit, than we are because we are ignorant of the facts.

    I welcome your responses. And please go gently; I admire you all and what you do to defend the church; We are not enemies here.

22. KingOfTexas says

    October 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    The first two paragraphs come off as contrived thus making them false. The rest is prideful. Remember all pride is a sin. Any time you do say or write anything; ask yourself why you do this. If the answer isn’t because it is the will of the Father or for His glory it is more than likely a sin.

23. Robert White says

    October 7, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Well, King of Texas, I know why I wrote. How about you? Was it the will of the Father and for His glory? I do not presume to know if what I wrote was the will of the Father, because I do not consider myself to be one who receives revelation on such matters; and as for the thought that I could do anything that would glorify God, well, that’s not likely. I wrote simply because it is true, and somebody needed to say it. It has nothing to do with me.

24. Juliann says

    October 7, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Mr. Wilson, the Brethren are not going to judge every movement as being false or true. Look at the reaction to regular folk objecting to anyone who claims the apostles need to be pointed in the right direction. I can only imagine what would be said if such objections came from higher up. I have not kept up with this but I do notice a consistent behavior from those who think the Brethren should shut down “false movements” but no one else should speak out when members claim revelation our leaders have not validated. There is always a misrepresentation that the objection is about geography no matter how many times that is discredited. Why is that? It makes it impossible to have a discussion.

25. Steven Danderson says

    October 8, 2008 at 12:09 am

    If I may,

    This issue is NOT about geography, or scholarly pride–at least not on FAIR’s part. For my part, I’m a big boy; I can take people telling me that I’m mistaken. If I think I’m right, I’ll produce the evidence in my favour. If not, well, I’ve made mistakes before, and I’ll certainly do it again, sometime in the future. 😉

    If it were about geography, why would FAIR member, Brother Larry Poulsen–who disbelieves in the Great Lakes Model–post a similar theory ON HIS WEB SITE [http://brandley.poulsenll.org/]–saying NOTHING against it?! Moreover, why do I praise the man who wrote that thesis, even though I disagree with his conclusions?

    The answer is that Theodore Brantley, who wrote that paper championing a similar theory to Meldrum’s, PLAYS BY THE RULES. Brother Meldrum uses the fact that an emeritus General Authority is convinced of the theory to imply official Church endorsement. Meldrum charges or at least implies that those who aren’t convinced of his theory denies that Joseph Smith received revelation. Meldrum implies that “the scholars” don’t accept the divine nature of the Church, when they express reservations about his theory. Meldrum places his evidence in personal revelation, effectively avoiding the need to produce evidence, and then gets mad when we don’t accept his theory whole cloth. Meldrum even has that emeritus General Authority’s endorsement “running interference” for him, which effectively places those who diselieve his theory in a position where they appear to be “evil speaking of the Lord’s Anointed,” and in rebellion against legitimate Church authority.

    I have nothing to say about Brother Meldrum’s membership in the Church–or his eternal fate. The former is the job of his local Priesthood leadership, and the Brethren in Salt Lake; the latter is the sole prerogative of the Lord. I refuse in either case to usurp authority that isn’t mine.

    But when a person claims that I am apostate or worse, merely for not believing his theories, that IS my business, and I have a LOT to say about it!

26. Lee says

    October 8, 2008 at 6:45 am

    It really is a shame that you guys are wasting so much precious time nit picking about what Rod said, and what YOU think he meant, when you could be using that time for a better good. You are in the position of defending the gospel, against the very real enemies working to tear it down every day. Yet you continue to try and crucify this brother, simply because … Why? You keep citing your concern that he claims to have received revelation. Is our religion not based on the promise that we can EACH receive revelation in our lives for ourselves and those within our stewardship? HE does not profess to have the answers for the church as a whole. Even if he DID claim to, I think it is insulting for FAIR to assume that we as members of the church cannot think for ourselves in deciding what it true. It is a HUMAN right and the responsibility of each church member to take what we hear and pray about it.(personal revelation) We have our agency and can choose for ourselves. I think your continues harassment of Rod is petty and cheap snd frankly very imature. It shows that you have an agenda somewhere. It is definately a form of bullying. Disagree with his ideas, but leave him personally alone. There is nothing to be gained by anyone here, and a lot to loose as the antimormons watch how you try to crucify your own brother due to paranoia. Not a very good example to the world of being Christlike. Rods intentions are only to inspire and motivate people to read the book of mormon and search for ourselves the truths within. I think too many of us have become casual in our practice of doing that.He is no danger to anyone, but rather is turning people to Christ. And isn’t that what its all about? I implore you to leave him alone, and leave it in the Lords hands. HE is the only one who is ordained to be our judge, not the internet FAIRasies.

27. Allen Wyatt says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:06 am

    Lee,

    It is, always, ultimately in the Lord’s hands.

    That being said, I find it interesting that you say it is not the place of those at FAIR to judge, yet just a few sentences earlier you say that “members of the church [should] think for [themselves] in deciding what is true.”

    FAIR is largely made up of members of the Church who have decided what is true (we’ve made a judgment as you say members should), yet you say that it is not our place to judge. This makes no sense.

    I agree with you that we are all entitled to personal revelation for “ourselves and those within our stewardship.” Rod can receive revelation for himself, but that revelation is used inappropriately when it becomes a data point to rally others to support his definitive theories, particularly when his revealed conclusions are contrary to the position of the Church.

    Quite simply, Rod says there is a divinely revealed answer but the Church says there isn’t. You judge: who is right, Rod or the Church? It cannot be both.

    This isn’t bullying; it is a voice of warning. You (and everyone else) are free to accept it or ignore it as you see fit.

    -Allen

28. Chris Rusch says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:15 am

    I know very little about DNA, but I do know quite about Joseph Smith and his teachings. I find it sad and dishonest that Meldrum clings to certain statements to the expense of others. In Nauvoo, Joseph and others included South and Central America as possible settings for the Book of Mormon along with North America. Ignoring these things to promote a private theory is the height of dishonesty.

    Also, if anyone is to restore Joseph Smith to anything, I would expect it to be under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, not someone with a private theory and agenda.

29. J. Max Wilson says

    October 8, 2008 at 9:00 am

    Juliann,

    (I’m not sure why I have been demoted from Brother Wilson to Mr. Wilson 🙂 )

    I have not claimed that no one other than the Brethren should speak out when members claim revelation our leaders have not validated.

    In fact, by citing Section 50 of the Doctrine and Covenants, I think I was in fact supporting the idea that the members should pray about the spirits that are manifest, and declare “with a loud voice that it is not of God.” (verse 32) However, it is verse 33 that concerns me in regard to FAIR’s response to brother Meldrum. It warns that our loud proclamation should not be made with “railing accusation.”

    If there is a misapprehension that the objection is about geography, it is because a great deal of FAIR’s own rebuttals to Meldrum, and others have been about why his geography is wrong, rather than why his spiritual claims are inappropriate and incorrect. Sometimes a multi-pronged attack can hurt you more than help when it muddles your message.

    I think that the FAIR response has been clumsy, disorganized, and somewhat ineffective, and that in the process they have come across as bullies.

    Look, I am sympathetic to FAIR’s concerns. In fact, they hit closer to home than I suspect most of the other participants here. My father-in-law is a man similar to Meldrum in may ways. He had his own geographic model. He self-published books. At one point he set up his own foundation, his own quarterly magazine discussing Book of Mormon archaeology and geography. He gave firesides everywhere that he could. He felt inspired and guided by the Lord. He had priesthood blessings encouraging his efforts that he felt confirmed his ideas. He had a friendly letter from President Packer encouraging him to continue his efforts, which he interpreted to mean he was right. He apostatized from the church 10 years ago, with a formal announcement at my wedding reception, a week after having attended our temple sealing.

    I have dealt with this kind of thing on a very real, very personal basis. Meldrum may or may not be like my father-in-law. I do see the potential danger.

    Allen Wyatt says that it isn’t bullying, it is a voice of warning. I’m not sure that they are mutually exclusive. It may be appropriate to raise a voice of warning, but it may be raised in ways that are not appropriate.

    Don’t you think?

30. J. Max Wilson says

    October 8, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Steven Danderson said:

    “But when a person claims that I am apostate or worse, merely for not believing his theories, that IS my business, and I have a LOT to say about it!”

    It is this kind of response that I find problematic and that I think ultimately contributes to the appearance of bullying. Is this the proper tone to strike? that of offense or umbrage?

    Since you are confident that you are not an apostate, there should be no reason to get upset over the suggestion that you are. You can raise your ebenezer without raising your dander.

31. Seth R. says

    October 8, 2008 at 9:27 am

    J Max

    The brethren really aren’t in a position to effectively police all the Rod Meldrums out there. It’s kind of like Home Teaching. They rely on the membership to pass concerns along. They can’t personally police every problem of orthodoxy or every popular movement in the Church.

    Neither do local leaders always have the resources to do it.

    So if people on the internet are sitting on enough correlations and leads and facts, why shouldn’t they do something about it.

    That’s not steadying the ark, that’s doing your part and blowing your trumpet around the walls of Jericho.

    So I think your advice to “leave it to the brethren” is a little off the mark.

32. M. Davis says

    October 8, 2008 at 9:43 am

    I posted my comments below your points here. I am not very knowledgable about how to post quotes on this blog, etc.

    Mr. Davis:

    1. Rodney Meldrum’ standing in the Church is not FAIR’s concern.

    FAIR levels a charge which would affect his standing in the Church. The mature thing to have done here would have been to forward any issues about Mr. Meldrum to the local authorities of the Church. By posting this email you are picking up the torch as judges.

    2. People’s theories about the geographical location of Book of Mormon events is only ocassionally FAIR’s concern.

    Good, and I like the articles that come out correcting people’s scholarship, etc. This is very helpful to the Saints. But you go too far here with all this email business.

    3. FAIR is concerned with the defence of the Church and the Brethren. When someone claims to be doing somethat that is not being done by those who lead the Church, defending the Brethren is something FAIR will do, and do it in the face of criticisms and accusations. FAIR will not be frightened off.

    FAIR is not an official extension of the Church nor should FAIR be involved with the personal standing of the Saints. Publish your articles in response to his DvD presentation, but it is not FAIR’s right to be involved with charges that could very well affect this man’s standing in the Church.

    Do you honestly believe that publishing this email will help Mr. Meldrum out? You have in effect set up the cross and are ready to proceed with the crucifixtion! It is not your place to do this.

    The mature thing to have done would have been to publish articles against this man’s research and leave the revelation claims to those who are in authority to judge.

    FAIR is not the judge and this organization is overstepping its bounds.

    4. FAIR will provide factual information necessary to enable people to decide for themeselves whether to believe what is being taught by others.

    Your claims against Mr. Meldrum, in terms of revelation and other claims made through this email, are outside the stewardship of this organization.

    Do you honestly believe you are building up here? Do you believe that you are having a positive effect on Mr. Meldrum and other Saints?

    It most certainly is necessary to defend questionable scholarship, but not when it goes past boundaries.

    5. Rod Meldrum has mis-used a statement by President Hinckly, to lead people who attend his presentations and who watch his DVDs to conclude that President Hinckly criticized scholars at the Maxwell Institute of Religious Studies at BYU, have rejected Joseph Smith. Because of, and only because of FAIR’s work, Rod Meldrum no longer says that in his presentations, has placed a statement to that effect in the second smallest font available at the bottom of his web site, and says he is including written retractions with each DVD he sells. Without FAIR’s work that would not have happened.

    And this is a good example of what FAIR should do. Why? Because it has to do with his presentation and an analysis of it. You have effectively gone beyond these boundaries and have launched a campaign towards his character which should ONLY be handled by the ecclesiastical leadership of where Mr. Meldrum resides.

    6. Simply: FAIR gives factual information to correct misrepresentions of Church doctrines or practices. You have said that FAIR should publish a response to Rodney’s DVD. FAIR has done that, and you can read it on the FAIR site. Part of that response is factual information that will allow people who watch it to be aware that it has undertones that are disrectful to the Brethren. We do not pick and choose. We have presented relevant facts, for the use of people who want to know what they can know about Rod Meldrum’s project.

    And how this organization has done this has not been edifying.

    It is not this organization’s position to question Mr. Meldrum’s questionable behavior as to how this project started, went forth, etc. Any knowledge of this should have been forwarded to any local leader. Instead FAIR has taken the position of judge.

    In response, Rod Meldrum has, rather than dealing with the merits of the points made by FAIR about specific claims in the DVD, which are published on FAIR’s web site, rather than address those Rod Meldrum has, among other things, post statements on his blog to the effect that FAIR has made things up, has no evidence for things, and that members who have posted to his blog have lied.

    (It is not only about the DVD now though. You have meddled in this man’s life in areas where you should not be meddling, nor have the authority to do so!)

    The opening post in this blog is to put an end to that once and for all.

    (You are not his bishop)

    Rodney Meldrum has always been angry at the thought of people knowing this information. It allows them to judge the foundation of what he is doing for themselves. That should not anger anyone who, as with FAIR, wishes Latter-day Saints and others to have clear presentations of all facts that will enable them to assess the truth of what others are saying.

    (I do agree we should know about his DVD presentation, but it is not your position to judge him about supposed revelation etc. That is a judgement of leaders in the Church who have stewardship over this man, not you. You have in effect pronounced judgement on this man when it is not your judgement to make.

    I believe FAIR has done a disservice to the Saints and has shown a completely negative image to others of other faiths.

    There is nothing uplifting about this and I am deeply disappointed.)

    FAIR does this on a regular basis. There are always people who don’t like it when FAIR publishes accurate statements pertaining to what they have said. It will always be so. It will not silence FAIR’s mission to publish those accurate statements.

33. Lee says

    October 8, 2008 at 10:07 am

    Allen, Yes we are individually responsible to decide for ourselves what we believe. But it is not our place to judge what OTHERS believe. So just because the Fair board has “decided” what THEY think is true, doesnt mean it is so and that does not put them in a position to judge others by it. Also, Rods theories are in no way contrary to the position of the church. They claim no position on geography. He has not Rallied others to support his theories. He has simply stated them openly and honestly, and people who have felt “for themselves” that it is true.. have chosen to support him in his ideas. You guys are so concerned that he might lead us poor ignorant saints astray. I think we all deserve more credit than that.There is no need to “warn” anyone about him. He follows and sustains our church leaders, and he testifies that the Book of Mormon is true. That Joseph smith is a prophet, and that we have living prophets today. The only people who are threatened by this, should be those who oppose Christs church on the earth. As for those of us who strive to live it, we have the spirit to guide us. If what he says is true, we are free to believe it, and if it is not, we will decide that as well. I believe Fairs continued “beating of this dead horse”, is really old news. Move on to more important issues.

34. J. Max Wilson says

    October 8, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Seth,

    As in my response to Juliann, I have to re-emphasize that I was not saying that members should not warn their neighbors. I have repeatedly suggested that it is the tone and execution of the rebuttal that I find troubling, not necessarily the motive.

    I am not so naïve as to believe that the Brethren have time to personally police every wayward notion in the church. But if a false movement began to gain traction, I expect that they would take steps to discourage it, either by specific denunciation or by a re-emphasis of generalities and principles that if heeded would lead a good number of members to distance themselves. I envision something like the encouragement to avoid symposia, warnings against alternate voices, or even a few targeted excommunications. Or like the warnings about MLM style businesses being promoted by church members using church rhetoric. If they took the time to make corrections in these matters, they will certainly take action if necessary against anything else they see as a growing problem.

    Some of my own relatives were excommunicated from the church a few of years ago, under direction from the Brethren in Salt Lake, even though they were much less of a threat to the church. If there is a threat, the Brethren don’t need to spend much time themselves. They will simply delegate the appropriate local authorities to take necessary action. That only takes a brief phone call.

35. Tyler says

    October 8, 2008 at 10:16 am

    I think there is nothing wrong at all in publishing the e-mail from Meldrum. As mentioned earlier, FAIR said he was making a claim in a personal email, and Meldrum says he did not. For those that are not intimately involved in either the FAIR or the Meldrum side, has no idea who is telling the truth. So the only way for those who didn’t know what was contained in the email, was to read it themselves. If there wasn’t a call to FAIR to prove their claims about the contents of the email, I am sure it never would have been shared. I don’t know what the fuss is all about. FAIR is just backing up their claims with evidence, otherwise, they would have continued to be called liars.

36. M. Davis says

    October 8, 2008 at 10:56 am

    What I disagree about is the judging that FAIR has done with this email. It is not for them to pronounce judgement. The proper move of FAIR should have been to do an analysis of the DVD content and forward any claims of revelation, etc. to Church leaders.

    Posting the email for all to see has in effect, cut out the ecclesiastical leaders of the Church and has pronounced judgement on Mr. Meldrum.

    To publically make these claims about Mr. Meldrum is to imply that judgement has been passed on him. The only people to make these types of judgements are the Church itself and not FAIR. And the vast majority of issues like these are usually handled in private anyways.

    FAIR goes too far and I am deeply disappointed in this.

37. BHodges says

    October 8, 2008 at 11:17 am

    As NOYDMB said:

    If person A claims; “Person B lied about an email I sent out”

    And person B says; “I did not.”

    Until evidence is produced no one can prove or learn anything.

    Person B publishes the email and suddenly, “person B is persecuting person A?”

    While publishing the email is certainly controversial, this wasn’t an email that said “for your eyes only,” or an email that was intended to be some secret. It was sent to people interested in Meldrum’s presentation. So what is wrong with publishing it here? To me it really is no different from seeing a hypothetical flier handed out by Br. Meldrum. making a copy of it, and putting it up on the web.

    Why is this seen as such a drastic or dirty move? Meldrum put this in the public sphere from what I understand. He then denied he had said these things, and then the email was posted to show otherwise. I see that as what ought to happen if there is a full investigation. Where are the criticisms against Meldrum in his accusations against FAIR? Where are the people who said “FAIR’s analysis of Meldrum’s theory is sound for this reason…” or “FAIR’s analysis is flawed because of this specific reason…”

    Where are the answers to Br. White’s questions about Meldrum deleting comments on his blog, and not allowing his own email to be posted there? Is he ashamed of his email, which he sent to many people? Why? What is the big deal? If it is an accurate reproduction, and Meldrum really believes what he wrote there, and sent it out to people, why is it wrong for the FAIR blog to publish it?

    This entire issue is being sidetracked by accusations of and denials of pride. Let’s just get to the heart of the matter.

38. BHodges says

    October 8, 2008 at 11:20 am

    M. Davis: “What I disagree about is the judging that FAIR has done with this email. It is not for them to pronounce judgement. The proper move of FAIR should have been to do an analysis of the DVD content and forward any claims of revelation, etc. to Church leaders.”

    Why to church leaders? That isn’t FAIR’s business.

    Can you explain why FAIR’s reproduction of an email Meldrum sent to many people, without any mention of privacy, is a violation of privacy?

39. BHodges says

    October 8, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Again, anyone want to explain why Meldrum’s poisoning the well against “scholars” by misusing a quote from Pres. Hinckley is ok?

40. Daniel says

    October 8, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Wow all this running to Meldrums aid yet Meldrum himself hasn’t even dealt with the contents of FAIR’s criticisms. I asked him over a month ago when he was going to stop grand standing and post some kind of rebuttal, so I could see where he is coming from. His DVD is very misleading, however Meldrum is screening his posts on his blog so very few negative reviews are going through. FAIR is the only place where both sides can communicate freely. So far there hasn’t been anything but Meldrum accusing FAIR of making up false allegations about him. Well it’s right here for everyone to see who has been lieing. Why is Meldrum allowed to knock on FARMS scholars and FAIR at his “firesides” and noone seems to be telling him a thing about him stooping to some new low, and he still continues to do it. Why is he still allowed to conduct his meetings as if they were official church meetings with an opening prayer and closing in the name of Jesus Christ as if it were sanctioned by the church.

    “To publically make these claims about Mr. Meldrum is to imply that judgement has been passed on him. The only people to make these types of judgements are the Church itself and not FAIR. And the vast majority of issues like these are usually handled in private anyways.”

    I haven’t seen FAIR do anything of the sort except be forced to respond to allegations by Meldrum. Meldrum has been fighting dirty since day one. Instead of dealing with the facts in the papers FAIR has published he has continued to deflect the source of the problems and make it an attack on him. Maybe it is an attack on him since this could very well hurt him financially. Making over 200k a year in just dvd sells sounds like a very comfortable living worth fighting for. If the truth needed to get out, it wouldn’t be for sale. That’s why we have Prophets anointed by God and they are not ones who would sell their revelations.

    Anyways I continue to wait, because I would like to see what Meldrum has to say about FAIR’s papers and only the papers.

41. Lee says

    October 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    to reiterate a FACT about this e-mail that keeps being ignored: This was sent ONLY to a handful of close friends, family and supporters to share with them some personal experiences pertaining to the project.Personal experiences of a spiritual nature. It was never intended ( nor dreamed) it would be posted on the internet for all to scrutinize, misinterpret and mock. Its a prime example of casting your pearls before swine – Although This was not voluntarily cast, it was done in deception . I am amazed that you would lower your selves to this level. It shows very weak character. ALso, just because Meldrums presentations are opened and closed with a prayer, in no way implies sanctioning by the church. Here in some parts of Utah we open and close almost all gatherings with a prayer. School, family, recreational… it shows unity in Christ.. its not only used for church events. I hear his response to fairs papers is being formulated. But it takes time to be through and accurate.(PLus he still has a life to live on the side.) Or maybe he was the only one listening to Elder Robert D HAles Talk in conference sunday about taking the higher ground in handling criticism… and not being drawn down to wollow in the mud with those who enjoy it. Either way, you can be assured that he will do the right thing. Thats just the kind of person he is.

42. Lee says

    October 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    I dont know where you get the information that Brother Meldrum is earning over 200K a year in DVD sales, but you are so far off its laughable! I know him personally, and he lives on a very meager income. No where even close to your guess. If he is in this for the $.. hes obviously in the wrong business. APparently, he is in this for the right reasons. To do his part in spreading and defending the gospel.

43. Scott Gordon says

    October 8, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Max,

    Thanks for sharing the story about your father-in-law. I am sorry for you and your family. It shows how any of us can get so caught up in our gospel hobby-horse that it leads us right out of the church. Best wishes to you and your family.

44. M. Davis says

    October 8, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    The email was not meant to be sent out to the world. To my knowledge, it was sent to people he knew about the project.

    What should have happened with an email like this? It should be sent to the leadership of the Church in his area. Let them deal with the intent and contents of the email.

    Instead, we have people of this organization who received this email analyzing his intent and contents and therefore pronouncing a verdict to his character.

    That is not FAIRs stewardship.

    Scholarly “attack” the content of the DVD presentation and prepare a formal analysis on the material he presented. But to bring in an email which was definately not to the whole world, and not part of his DVD, is to take the place of our Church leaders.

    If Mr. Meldrum has deceived, misguided anyone, etc. etc. he will have to answer to those charges from a disciplinary council.

    But for FAIR to literally pronounce judgement and have a disciplinary council themselves, in the sense of their accusations against him, is too far.

    No matter how it is worded here, that is really what is happening here.

    FAIR has not been forced to do anything. They stuck their nose in this. They are not the bishop, stake president, or Prophet of Mr. Meldrum. To assert that Mr. Meldrum has to “answer” to FAIR is totally wrong here.

    We are literally talking about two things here. 1) How Mr. Meldrum received the inspiration and guidance to do this project and 2) the scholarship of the material he has presented. FAIR should be focused on the second point and should have forwarded the first point to the people who have the authority to pronounce that judgement.

    In the end, the purpose of disciplinary councils is for the person to repent and come fully back into the Church because we love them. We welcome them with open arms. Repentence in the end, is a positive experience.

    The way FAIR is presenting their judgement, is anything from this. It has brought contention and disunity between two parties (FAIR vs. Meldrum).

    FAIR, please allow the context as to Mr. Meldrum’s character and purposes to our Church Leaders. Please do an analysis of his material without asserting these points. Otherwise, in an ironic way here, just like you assert that Mr. Meldrum has put himself into a position of authority, you do the same by putting your organization as his judge.

    In my opinion you have gone too far.

    Thank you.

45. Scott Gordon says

    October 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Also, Rods theories are in no way contrary to the position of the church. They claim no position on geography.

    I think the position of the church is that no geography has been revealed. But, then Rod seems to say in his presentation that Joseph Smith did reveal the geography. That would be a direct contradiction.

    My objection to Rod’s presentation hinged on how he poisoned the well against the Neal A. Maxwell Institute scholars. It is one thing to disagree. It is something else entirely to say what Rod was saying–that they weren’t accepting the fruits of Joseph Smith.

    We tried to give Rod the opportunity to make some changes to his presentation without us publishing anything. This was prior to our first article.

    Then after we were frustrated in that, we published and gave him an opportunity a second time to make changes. At that point we would have dropped it. Again, he was non responsive and argumentative. He failed to recognize what our concerns were even after multiple communications.

    Frankly, this whole thing has wasted a lot of our time and energy. It could easily have been prevented, and it is unfortunate that it continues to drag on.

    This is not the first time we have commented on scholarship of fellow LDS brethren. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/QArch.pdf

    We have had good communication with one of the authors, Ed Goble, since this article has been written and I believe he has add a lot to the discussion. You can find some of his posts on this blog.

46. Scott Gordon says

    October 8, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    What should have happened with an email like this? It should be sent to the leadership of the Church in his area. Let them deal with the intent and contents of the email.

    Whose to say that it didn’t go there?

    FAIR has not been forced to do anything. They stuck their nose in this. They are not the bishop, stake president, or Prophet of Mr. Meldrum. To assert that Mr. Meldrum has to “answer” to FAIR is totally wrong here.

    FAIR’s mission is to defend the church. Rodney was directly attacking other brothers who are intent on carrying out the mission of BYU, and who even sit on the Sunday School committee and write articles in the Ensign. The attack was uncalled for and unseemly. Why all the fuss for calling him on it?

47. Allen Wyatt says

    October 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Lee said:

    to reiterate a FACT about this e-mail that keeps being ignored: This was sent ONLY to a handful of close friends, family and supporters to share with them some personal experiences pertaining to the project. Personal experiences of a spiritual nature.

    This is Meldrum’s spinning of the e-mail. Fact of the matter is, it was a solicitation on his part for people to join him on the “counsel” of the foundation he was forming. His intent (which should be obvious to those reading the e-mail) was to have them join him in his effort. All you have to do is look at the subject and the closing paragraph:

    It is hoped that this group [those receiving this e-mail] 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.

    You actually see nothing wrong with such a solicitation and assertion that “the subject of Book of Mormon geography” should be reinforced “as the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?”

    I understand that Rod is a nice guy. I understand you know him personally. I understand that Rod feels persecuted. Yet Rod fails to understand the basis of the reception that his theories and presentation have received. It has nothing to do with geography; it has everything to do with claims of divine approbation and (quite honestly) shoddy scholarship passed off to people as comprehensive and balanced.

    Or, Lee, do you think that geography really should be the foundation of the gospel, as Rod says?

    Lee further said:

    It was never intended (nor dreamed) it would be posted on the internet for all to scrutinize, misinterpret and mock. Its a prime example of casting your pearls before swine – Although This was not voluntarily cast, it was done in deception.

    Please document the deception, if you don’t mind. Someone forwarded Rod’s e-mail to FAIR; there was no deception there.

    Lee continues:

    I am amazed that you would lower your selves to this level. It shows very weak character.

    Wow. An e-mail is passed to FAIR, FAIR raises a warning voice about that e-mail, and FAIR thereby shows “weak character.” Wow.

    Lee states:

    I dont know where you get the information that Brother Meldrum is earning over 200K a year in DVD sales, but you are so far off its laughable! I know him personally, and he lives on a very meager income. No where even close to your guess.

    I surmise that Daniel’s estimate of $200,000 is based on statements that Rod has publicly made that he has sold at least 10,000 of his DVDs. Now, understand, that “sold” was Rod’s word. He sells them for $20 each, so simple math indicates that he has made at least $200,000 in sales. Cut it in half if you want, and I’m sure there are people in Utah County who would not see six figures as a “very meager income.”

    Do you have more accurate information than what Rod has publicly provided? If so, would you like to contradict his statements on the matter?

    M. Davis said:

    We are literally talking about two things here. 1) How Mr. Meldrum received the inspiration and guidance to do this project and 2) the scholarship of the material he has presented. FAIR should be focused on the second point and should have forwarded the first point to the people who have the authority to pronounce that judgement.

    Well, you are partially right with your second item. Yet, Rodney and his supporters have been strangely silent when it comes to the critiques of that scholarship. Rod has had access to it for coming up on 3 months, with not even a paragraph of response. That time period is longer than FAIR took to do its analysis.

    As for your first point, this has never been about how Rod received his inspiration and guidance. It is about how he uses that inspiration and guidance to (1) discount the work of equally faithful scholars who disagree with him and (2) provide support for his claim that Joseph revealed a geography for the Book of Mormon even when the Church says he didn’t.

    In other words, it isn’t the inspiration and guidance that is a problem, but the use to which Rod puts that inspiration and guidance to elicit “converts” to his theories. I hope you can see the difference between your assessment and what this is really about. (Trust me–as vice president of FAIR I’m in a better position to know the basis of FAIR’s efforts in this matter than almost anyone else is.)

    FAIR is not placing itself in any position of authority relative to Rod. We have no authority over him and claim none. The only thing we claim the right to do is to analyze and critique his ideas and the way he presents those ideas. We don’t try to stop him from presenting his ideas, nor do we try to stop you from stating your ideas or supporting Rod’s ideas.

    Rod (and his supporters) may not like what they are seeing, but they have yet to deal with the substance of what FAIR has produced. If you want to help Rod–if you believe in his theories–then why not help him focus on and respond to the substance of what FAIR has produced? Instead, all the objections are along the lines of “FAIR is being unfair” or “FAIR shouldn’t do that.”

    That isn’t dialog. I’ll let you draw your conclusions as to what it really is.

    -Allen

48. M. Davis says

    October 8, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    I do not know how to do quotes on this blog site. Please excuse my posts being messy (would love to know how to do this).

    To Mr. Gordon:

    I never said it never went there. My point is it should have went there and stayed there. To do a call of arms after that, in my opinion, should never have happened.

    Well I do not see an attack in this email. I only see this line from him “after much prayer, I know that we are not to attempt to ’convert’ FARMS.” I by no means agree with his wording, especially the word “we”. But I feel you are waging a war outside of his scholarship. You are shifting away from his scholarship and to his character.

    I do not believe FAIR has the authority or right to judge his character in a Gospel sense. What you are saying would literally demand a disciplinary counsel. They are very serious charges.

    To Mr. Wyatt:

    But FAIR does place itself in authority. What you are saying is nothing short of apostasy from Mr. Meldrum. That is not your judgement call to make, it is the Churches. You have made a verdict but the case should never have gone to you is my point.

    You attack his character and motivation in addition to his scholarly work. The scholarly work is public, the email’s intent was not. To attach the two and make a judgement call is where I am frustrated with.

    If someone sent me that email and I knew that person, you best bet I would be calling his Bishop. But I would not attach his email to my critique of his scholarly material.

    As far as I am concerned, I have heard no news of any disciplinary action against Mr. Meldrum. Until I hear anything on that, it is not my place to put judgement on this email or his standing in the Church.

    I do not agree with you that he should answer you back for your review because I believe your review goes beyond boundaries.

    I am glad that you guys defend, but the whole aim should be to lift people up. I do not see how this whole issue is being positive for you, for Mr. Meldrum, or those who read your articles, like me.

49. Juliann says

    October 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Mr. Wilson (or Bro. if you prefer), you have made your point that you don’t like FAIR responding to Mr. Meldrum. That is about all you are saying when the layers of your compaints are analyzed. You have said it repeatedly. I don’t think there is one person here who does not understand you don’t like FAIR responding. I doubt anyone likes to be criticized but that is a large part of what FAIR does and that leaves the reader to decide if they like it or not. You don’t. A lot do. That is just the lay of the land. However, you continue to lean on the “wrong geography” angle. Again, why do you do this? It is impossible to miss from even a cursory reading that it is Meldrum’s methodology that is problematic. Believe what you will but please be prepared to give a strong defense of it. Meldrum does not, he relies on testimony and this is so in your face obvious that the diversions into geography are tired and ineffective. More power to America if that is where this all took place. But for crying out loud produce something besides “buffalo proves the BOM and revelation tells me so” to make a case for it.

50. Allen Wyatt says

    October 8, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    M. Davis said:

    I do not know how to do quotes on this blog site. Please excuse my posts being messy (would love to know how to do this).

    In order to quote items (have them offset from the left), simply surround the items with the “blockquote” tag. At the beginning of the quoted material place <blockquote>. At the end of the quoted material place </blockquote>.

    But FAIR does place itself in authority. What you are saying is nothing short of apostasy from Mr. Meldrum. That is not your judgement call to make, it is the Churches. You have made a verdict but the case should never have gone to you is my point.

    FAIR has never once said that Rod was in apostasy; that is your conclusion. I would not be comfortable saying it in Rod’s case. We have not called upon anyone within the ecclesiastical ranks of the Church to draw that conclusion. You are correct in that it is the Church’s purview, and FAIR would never choose to go there.

    You attack his character and motivation in addition to his scholarly work. The scholarly work is public, the email’s intent was not. To attach the two and make a judgement call is where I am frustrated with.

    I understand you are frustrated.

    If someone sent me that email and I knew that person, you best bet I would be calling his Bishop. But I would not attach his email to my critique of his scholarly material.

    Why? There are numerous instances in Rod’s presentation Rod uses divine approbation as a substitute for scholarly rigor. Did you note that in the full overview review that there were fewer citations to the e-mail in question than there were to his presentation? The e-mail simply reinforces the approach that Rod takes within his presentation. Even if the e-mail were dropped from the review (which I do not believe it should be), then the review stands on its own. Rod and his supporters still fail to come to grips with the substance of the critique; they act as if it all hinges on the e-mail, and it doesn’t.

    As far as I am concerned, I have heard no news of any disciplinary action against Mr. Meldrum. Until I hear anything on that, it is not my place to put judgement on this email or his standing in the Church.

    I partially agree. It is nobody’s place, except Rod’s ecclesiastical leaders, to pass judgment on his standing in the Church. FAIR has not done that, and FAIR has not requested that anyone else do it. It is entirely appropriate for everyone else to pass judgment on the e-mail in question.

    Even you said that if you received it you would pass it on to Rod’s bishop–that act indicates a judgment on your part that the bishop should see the e-mail because it has bearing on Rod’s relationship with the Church. Should FAIR not have the same right to judge that you would reserve to yourself?

    I do not agree with you that he should answer you back for your review because I believe your review goes beyond boundaries.

    Perhaps you don’t understand that FAIR has done a series of reviews on Rod’s presentation. (You can find the published portions on the FAIR Website.) Even if Rod ignores the overview review that is apparently a sticking point for you and a few others, there are currently three other reviews of the scholarship at the link I provided, and more will be forthcoming. It is these that Rod has had for close to 3 months and still not responded with even a paragraph.

    Forget the first review, if you prefer, but please provide information as to how you feel these reviews of Rod’s scholarship go beyond the boundaries you feel should be there.

    -Allen

51. Lee says

    October 8, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Allen, It appears to me he was referring to re-establishing the “Book of mormon” as the foundation of the gospel. not the geography. Which just means to put it in the spotlight and refocus our efforts in its behalf. As far is the amount of Dvds he has sold, I know he has “donated” many of them, plus if you look at his website, you see that they are only $20.00 if you buy 1. If you buy in quantity, then are is low as $10 each. But even then, so what if he was making 200 K. Do you suggest that he is different than anyone else in the free world who has to make a living? He has done nothing dishonest, illegal or immoral. SImply compiled information from other reputible sources and put it in a formatted presentation. Where is that wrong? As for the idea that his e-mail was innocently forwarded to fair, the deception came in the form of someone who he trusted with it, and they betrayed that trust by passing it out to the public. He never meant it for public announcement. In it He shared private, and personal feelings , it just shows a lack of good taste to post it on the web. I still contend that your fears about him and what he is doing are totally unfounded, and that your time spent in “warning” people, is a total waste of time. I for one, am moving on.

52. Greg Smith says

    October 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    SImply compiled information from other reputible sources and put it in a formatted presentation. Where is that wrong?

    Unfortunately, Rod did far more than “compile” information. He selectively quotes from it, and even omits material which does not support his position. And, he admitted to doing so because the parts which he omitted disagreed with his religious ideas.

    Quite simply, it is wrong to make other authors appear to agree with one’s theories when one knows that if all of an author’s words are considered, they do not agree.

    And, it is more problematic when one is claiming that God is behind their efforts.

    Just for example.

    I’m not allowed to post on Rod’s blog, so such matters will get no airing there. 🙂

53. Greg Smith says

    October 8, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Oh, almost forgot. Plagiarism is also more than “simply compiling” material, and is not nice–yet Ed Goble has accused Rod Meldrum of plagiarizing his geographical work without credit.

    Rod is certainly in violation of copyright–he’s currently e-mailing a Journal of Mormon History article and a chapter from Regional Studies in LDS History to all comers on his website.

    He feels these “support” his theory, and says there’s more to come. I look forward to seeing the permission to distribute such materials to the public from JMH and BYU.

    None of these is A Good Thing either, even if you think God is on your side. And, it is part of scholarship to call such things to authors’ and audiences’ attention, with the hopes that they will be corrected.

54. Steven Danderson says

    October 8, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    J. Max Wilson says:
    **It is this kind of response that I find problematic and that I think ultimately contributes to the appearance of bullying. Is this the proper tone to strike? that of offense or umbrage?**

    I don’t know about “proper” (I never went to charm school! 😉 ). What I DO know is that when one’s character is impugned, it is a HUMAN response. Senator Obama doesn’t like being referred to as a Muslim terrorist. Senator McCain dislikes being a member of the “Keating Five” (The counsel for that investigation, a Democrat, cleared him of wrong-doing.). And both men were right in being upset about it, as those false charges could do serious damage to their livelihood.

    **Since you are confident that you are not an apostate, there should be no reason to get upset over the suggestion that you are. You can raise your ebenezer without raising your dander.**

    Except that it takes time and other resources to clear my name, if a Priesthood leader in my Stake were to bring such charges against me. While *I* haven’t been the recipient of such charges yet, I have seen cases (Thank God they were NOT in the Stake where I live!) of Priesthood leaders, with noses to the tail of some “faith promoting fad,” tried people for their membership–for not going along with that fad.

    I had already spoke of my loathing of my character being impugned. My distaste for others’ defamation is only slightly less.

55. Steven Danderson says

    October 8, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    I hope that those who support and defend Mr. Meldrum consider this:

    Along comes a gentleman who claims that–at long last!!–he has solved the mystery of Book of Mormon geography, and that we should get on board and endorse it straight away. When various members of FAIR critique the scholarship and decry the use of evidence that have been demonstrated to be fraudulent (by no less than Elder James Talmage!), we hear words to the effect of: “Why, this geography has been endorsed by an emeritus General Authority! How dare you “speak evil of the Lord’s Anointed”?! And this geography has been confirmed by divine revelation, and using Joseph Smith’s own words! How dare you deny both divine revelation and the Prophet’s calling?!”

    Then when we answer that the Prophet said things that contradicted this thesis, and only the Prophet’s official revelations are binding on us–even if other revelations are true, then we are attacked for allegedly defaming this gentleman–and again accused of “evil speaking of the Lord’s Anointed” and rebelling against legitimate Church authority, because we discount the emeritus General Authority’s endorsement.

    Does anybody see the subtle trap that this gentleman is laying for those who cross him?

    Then, of course, when we point out his trap, we are attacked for allegedly “fighting dirty”. What? Are we supposed to ignore our scholarly integrity and accept this man’s pronouncements whole cloth? Or to accept our damnation like good chumps?

    As John Wayne’s character, Rooster Cogburn (1975), put it, “No man likes to be told he’s high smelling and low down!”

    😉

56. J. Max Wilson says

    October 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    Juliann,

    You said:

    Mr. Wilson (or Bro. if you prefer), you have made your point that you don’t like FAIR responding to Mr. Meldrum. That is about all you are saying when the layers of your compaints are analyzed. You have said it repeatedly. I don’t think there is one person here who does not understand you don’t like FAIR responding.

    But that is not what I have said at all! The fact that despite my repeated attempts to clarify my view you think that what I am saying is that “I don’t like FAIR responding to brother Meldrum” is very, very discouraging, because that is not what I am saying.

    In general I consider myself to be a fairly lucid writer, but I am truly flabbergasted that I have apparently failed to communicate so completely. Would someone please charitably chime in and let me know if I really have accidentally said what Juliann attributes to me? Is that really what you all are seeing in my words? Or is Juliann failing to read carefully?

    I think that my comments above have been quite clear that it is the tone in which some at FAIR have approached this issue, the enmity, and what I think is a somewhat ineffective, muddled presentation to which I am objecting. These objections are more to what I have seen in blog posts and comments, and less to the official papers that were published on the FAIR site. I fully support the critical review and refutation of brother Meldrum’s views by FAIR, I just wish it were sans the enmity and overly emotional, aggressive tone I see in the comments on his blog and somewhat here.

    You said:

    I doubt anyone likes to be criticized but that is a large part of what FAIR does and that leaves the reader to decide if they like it or not. You don’t. A lot do. That is just the lay of the land.

    Again my disagreement is not with critical analysis and refutation, it is with what I consider to be the inappropriate way in which that critical analysis is being rendered in the blogs. I thought that I had made that point clear, but perhaps I am overly confident in my ability to communicate. I am sorry.

    You said

    However, you continue to lean on the “wrong geography” angle. Again, why do you do this? It is impossible to miss from even a cursory reading that it is Meldrum’s methodology that is problematic. Believe what you will but please be prepared to give a strong defense of it. Meldrum does not, he relies on testimony and this is so in your face obvious that the diversions into geography are tired and ineffective. More power to America if that is where this all took place. But for crying out loud produce something besides “buffalo proves the BOM and revelation tells me so” to make a case for it.”

    If I continue to reiterate the “wrong geography” angle it is only because at least some at FAIR have made it part of the argument (see Brother Danderson’s previous blog post). You muddle the message when arguing against the geographic model, and then turning around and saying, but that isn’t really the concern, the concern is that he is inappropriately playing the revelation trump card outside of his stewardship and using selective sources

    I have said repeatedly that I can understand why FAIR would be concerned with brother Meldrum’s views. I have repeatedly said that I believe that he should be responded to. I have even shared a personal part of my own life in which someone whose path bares a similarity to brother Meldrum ended up apostatizing and so on a very personal level, I understand the concern.

    I am no supporter of brother Meldrum.

    You don’t have to convince me.

    And that is why your responses to me have been so frustrating!

    Here is what I would have hoped to see in response to my expressed concerns.

    “Brother Wilson, I can understand why you might be concerned with the tone of some of the response to brother Meldrum. Perhaps some of our responses on the blog or in the comments have been a too emotionally charged and angry. We’ll take that into consideration. Thanks for your support for us and the Church.”

    Even if you disagree, is it really that hard to say “I understand what you are saying and why it concerns you, but I think that in this case the tone of our response is justified because of…X, Y, Z.”?

    Showing that you understand what someone is concerned about, and that you can apprehend why they might be concerned about it, even if you don’t think they should be, will go along way toward improving discourse and edifying all involved.

    If I am completely off base here, would someone explain to me why? And if anyone agrees with me, would they please weigh in and let me know that I am not writing only incoherent blather?

57. Greg Smith says

    October 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm

    Perhaps some of our responses on the blog or in the comments have been a too emotionally charged and angry. We’ll take that into consideration.

    No one speaks for FAIR except the president, or others so authorized. If you want to see what FAIR has said, it is available here.

    Thus far, neither Rod Meldrum or those upset with FAIR have presented any critique of that material, save to complain that his e-mail to supporters was cited.

    Many of those who have spoken on blogs or the like are not even members of FAIR. But, no member of FAIR speaks for the group unless indicated.

    So, you might well take issue with Steve, or Julie, or (heaven forfend!) me. But, that isn’t FAIR.

58. Juliann says

    October 8, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Mr. Wilson, there is a term used on a message board to describe the behavior of monitoring other posters. We call them board nannies. If your objection is someone’s tone then you need to deal with that someone, hopefully privately so the topic is not derailed with scoldings. I have yet to read a blog, and I read several, where there is less than Sunday School behavior. That is the nature of the medium, it brings out different personalities. You can certainly try to police the internet but I doubt you or anyone around you will finds nannying satisfying. It is more efficient to keep to the topic and let people participate in the manner they find appropriate.

59. Robert White says

    October 9, 2008 at 9:30 am

    This is an important matter.

    Rod Meldrum and others are accusing FAIR and some of its members of lying and worse as a result of the publication of an email written by Rod Meldrum. The critical comments, including some by Rodney Meldrum, do not deal with the contents or merits of the matter. The ground has been shifted. Responsibility by Rodney Meldrum for what he is doing is being deflected. Enough. The ground rules are these:

    1.Rodney Meldrum has denied things, called people names, and accused others of lying.

    2. He is wrong.

    3. There is evidence for what has been attributed to him by the alleged liars.

    4. An email that he wrote has been published proves it.

    5. The best possible opinions are that doing so is legal and ethical, and that the person or persons to whom Rodney Meldrum sent the email and who put it into the public domain are the only people about whom Rodney may possibly, and then only possibly, have a point to make.

    6. Had Rodney Meldrum not denied what is known to be true, and had he not accused good people of lying and worse, I would not have published the email. But his protestations of innocents and wounded character, denials of fact, and accusations of lying must be laid bare so that readers cannot be mislead if they do not choose to be.

    7. Accusing FAIR, my colleagues, or me of dirty play, character assassination, sinking to new lows, sitting in ecclesiastical judgment, lying, and all the rest are either based on a lack of understanding of these seven points, or are smoke and mirrors. A significant number are the latter. I am reliably advised, although I do not have independent proof, yet, that one correspondent is Rodney himself―he has posted to blogs defending himself using a false name, before.

    8. This issue is circumscribed by the foregoing seven points. Readers should not be mislead, or choose to be mislead, by diversions, avoidance, mischaracterizations of the evidence, or ad hominum arguments about the motivations of those who have merely published evidence. Rodney Meldrum may not―no, will not―like it that readers see the evidence. The vehemence of the denunciation of those who give you the evidence that what you have been told are lies and fabrications are easily understood. Do not let them point you in a new direction. Require them to stay within this circle of facts, and you won’t go astray.

    I am going to document things published by Rodney Meldrum in which he claims, among other things, that FAIR members have said things because they want to attack him, that they are blatantly lying, that they know they are, and that they do not have a shred of evidence to support what they tell you. Rodney Meldrum has called members of FAIR liars, represented that FAIR’s purpose is to squelch his theory so FAIR can make money selling a DVD, and addressed some in crude language―which is more revealing of him than offensive to us.

    Having read quite enough of Rodney Meldrum’s assertions that people whom I know and respect lie, have no evidence, are motivated by money; and declarations by him that there is no substance to his claims of a spiritual basis for his work, the email was published. Rather than address the question of whether, given what was published, Rodney Meldrum’s assertions that people are lying about him, the subject was changed to whether: 1) It was proper to publish an email he intended to be private? 2) It shouldn’t have been sent to Church leaders? and 3) So what.

    As to the first: FAIR did not intercept, purloin or any other improper way obtain the email. Any complaints about the public use of the email are unfounded legally and ethically; and were they, Rodney Meldrum ought to take them up with whomever in his group put the document into the public domain. Further, aside from repeated complaints that you, the readers, shouldn’t have been allowed to see it, Rodney Meldrum has never addressed what it discloses on its merits, and on his blogs blocked an attempt to let you see it. He has been asked to explain why. He has not.

    As to the second: That isn’t FAIR’s responsibility.

    As to the third: If that is a serious question, then no answer could suffice.

    HERE ARE THE STATEMENTS MADE BY RODNEY MELDRUM WHICH, AMONG OTHERS, REQUIRED THAT YOU, THE READERS, SEE AT LEAST SOME OF WHAT FAIR HAD SEEN, YOURSELVES.

    Interjections in the text, for emphasis and explanation, are in bold. Otherwise, the text is a verbatim copy. Omissions are always marked with an ellipsis. The full text of each of Rodney Meldrum’s posts are available for viewing at the websites indicated.

    On Rodney’s blog at http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/welcome-to-the-dna-evidence-for-book-of-mormon-blog/

    34
    That is precisely the problem. FAIR has claimed that I have said or ‘implied’ that I think I have received revelation from God for the church. Fair has not claimed that he has received revelation for “the church”. By adding that qualifier, Rodney feels enabled to make his denunciation because, as he represents it, he is accurate. However, by seeing at least the email readers can see that when the qualifier “the church” is deleted, his statement is not accurate. All of his denials include qualifiers or shifts in language that can enable him to pass of what he states as true, but which conceal the truth. So, readers should see at least the email for themselves. That is a blatant untruth that they have been propogating without a shred of evidence, because none exists. I have never thought, claimed, nor said that I have ever received revelation for the church. Ever. You will note again the addition of the qualifier, “the church”. They intercepted an email where in I said that I felt that I had had some prayers answered, and they have tried to make that into ‘getting revelation directly from God for the church’. Here, the qualifier is used for the third time. When a reader crosses out “for the church”, and reads the email, the reader will see that he does assert a belief that his work is inspired, and that even the name of his organization was “given” in answer to prayer. It is important for readers to know that this is what lies behind what is ostensibly a work on geography and DNA, but is in reality something which Mr. Meldrum believes is inspired. More of that will be given at the end. That is their FAIRytale. That is the problem with their attacks, they claim things that are absolutely untrue in order to castigate my character.

    On Rodney’s blog at http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/

    Post 93 (Note: Rodney has boldfaced some of his text. I will give interjections and explanations denoted by underlining.)

    Rod: Allen, I would have no problem if you would have actually used by own words in context. But you and FAIR did not use my words, but rather the words you ASSUMED I meant. Allen and other did use his words; and as to whether they were used in context one needs to see at least the email so as to judge for himself. Accordingly, changing the subject into whether you should have been allowed to read the email is egregious. For example, where are my words that I
    1. “asserted revelation” for someone else? You will note that Rodney places “asserted revelation” in quotations. Thus, when you cannot find that quotation in the email or in other material FAIR has, he is able to deny it.
    2. “believe and claim that I am inspired of God”? He has again used the device of the quote marks. However, anyone who reads the email will see that the substance of the statement is true. To again isolate one example, he even claims that the name of his organization was “given” in answer to prayer. Further, an among other things, he relates a “special blessing” in words that will be recognized by every Latter-day Saint as a claim to revelation to him, including a revelation that he will be instrumental in bringing truth to millions etc.
    3. am taking upon by self to “correct the church and its leaders”? In his introduction to this list of questions, Rodney Meldrum deflects the issue by challenging his interlocutor to show that he actually used these words. He does not. However, as will be seen below he does claim to know that Joseph Smith received revelations, that those revelations were not given to the Church but are for individuals to garner for themselves (with Rodney’s help) thus enabling the Brethren to publically tell the Latter-day Saints that there is no revelation to the Church about Book of Mormon geography, and do it with a straight face because they know the revelations are there but rather than tell the Latter-day Saints the entire truth of the matter, the Latter-day Saints are to squirrel out the truth themselves. This is not a correction of the church or its leaders (the quotation marks are again used), but it is an unmistakable implication that the Brethren are not being candid and open with the Latter-day Saints, or that Rodney has discovered revelations that have eluded the Brethren.
    4. have made “public claims to divine guidance and revelation”? The quotation marks are used again, but not as convincingly. He hasn’t used those words―remembering always that he is not asking his interlocutor to show that these are things that he asserts, but that these are words he uses. In the email, for example, he asserts that he quit his job after receiving a sign from God, that the name of his organization was “given” after prayer, that a decision to engage in this work came after prayer, fasting and consulting his patriarchal blessing (which is a recommended and common practice for Latter-day Saints when reaching decisions in their private lives, but not when allegedly finding out whether he is to bring the truth to millions), and a special blessing, troubling parts of which are set out, along with a cryptic insinuation that there is even more, but that he can’t tell his readers. As to “public claims”: Yes. In the email and at the meetings they summon. Rodney Meldrum says that this is not public, that it was private and for the addressees only. Aside from what happens when an addressee puts the document into the public domain, as one or more of them did, he may these assertions to a group of Latter-day Saints and taking refuge behind the neat point of when a group becomes the public is no answer by him to the purpose, meaning, and intent of what he wrote. As for the Latter-day Saint or Latter-day Saints who put the document into the public domain: there is nothing on or about the document to lead them to believe they couldn’t or shouldn’t. Rodney has never told his readers if he asked this group who did it; and if he did what he was told. That is the audience to which he should be addressing his complaint, were he to have one. One suspects he hasn’t asked, because he knows he cannot complain.
    5. “seek to apply” my supposed “revelations” to the “Church as a whole”? This is more of the same obfuscation. However, notwithstanding the tightness of the language, this statement is, for him, perilously close to the truth. Please note items 2 and 3 above. He says that he has been told in a special blessing, that he feels it important to say was given by an emeritus general authority, that he is going to bring the truth to millions.
    6. present my “conclusions as blessed by God”? No, he never says those words. This is more of the same obfuscation.
    7. “claim my ideas are approved by God”? As is this.
    8. “charge church leaders with wasting funds”? Yes he has, and he has put it in writing. FAIR has a collection of communications from him, and this is in one of them. Unless he wishes to retract this statement, perhaps that communication should be published also―in which case he may well claim that it was private.
    9. said that “God told me”? Note the quote marks again. Then find the “sign” portion of the email and ask yourself if this is a candid statement.
    10. said that “God told me by revelation”? Yes, he did. See points 2, 3, and 9 above.
    11. said that my “belief is confirmed by revelation”? Yes he did. Look in the email for the conclusion he reports based on the special blessing.
    Now, Allen, you know full well that I did not ever use any of these terms, not once in anything I have written or said in any presentatin or in the DVD. This is, of course, strictly accurate. And if it hadn’t been for the providential placement of the email into the public domain, it would have not as easy as it was to get to the root of this matter. However, as will be noted below, FAIR has more than the email, which it has not published but has invited Rodney to allow it. These were manufactured by FAIR in an attempt to damage my credibility and character. I defy you to show my one single instance of my words stating the words you used. They don’t exist, It is becoming troublesome by now to point it out, because readers will note the qualifiers: “my words stating the words you used”. Of course, there are no instances of his “words stating the words” used. But there are an abundance of words conveying the meaning. Allen, because they are false. Blatently false. No. If I were actually doing some of the things you are judging me for, I’d be in trouble with my leaders. But Allen, I am not in trouble with my leaders and I support them. This, of course, is a hedged statement “the things you are judging me for”, but it is also unverifiable because of Church confidentiality. A statement obtained by him from his bishop or stake president would carry more weight, and he is invited to either produce one, or allow access to them. This is a serious statement. One notes, for example, that of a sudden his presentations were no longer called “firesides”, and that he changed the venues from Church to non-Church property. So your false statements can be construed as nothing more than FAIR’s trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say, nor intend to say. FAIR has a very vivid imagination when it comes to what was actually said, and what you ‘think’ I meant. This is not Christ-like, it is character assasination, and even though you will probably not admit these were attacks, nearly everyone who is not blinded by the falsehoods pertetrated by FAIR can clearly see that it was a plain and simple attack on my character. The fact that you continue to deny your attack, to me is reprehensible. FAIR should have no credibility whatsoever to anyone who becomes familiar with the story of how FAIR attacked a fellow brother in the church. The entire purpose of publishing the email was to allow anyone interested to become familiar with at least some more of the story.

    86.
    Rodney Meldrum has censored me and will not post anything I send him on either of his emails. His parting comment to me was as follows. I am not offended―not even since I did find out what he meant. I am not even amused. From someone who has cried the tears of a maligned, misquoted, man of integrity whose character has been assaulted by FAIR or its members, it is merely an interesting footnote.

    8
    Thank you Robert White for taking your time to post your thoughts on this blog. I have counted the number of assumptions in your last comment and it comes to about 19. It was more than that in your complete post. Unfortunately for FAIR, that is not a new record.
    Have you ever heard of the old saying about what ASSUME-ing does, Robert? If not, look it up, or maybe someone else will let you know.
    Comment by The FIRM Foundation Blog — September 20, 2008 @ 7:21 am

    DOES RODNEY MELDRUM CLAIM TO HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT REVELATIONS BY JOSEPH SMITH, THAT ARE NOT REVELATIONS “TO THE CHURCH”?

    CONFIDENCES

    I have had many telephone conversations with Rodney Meldrum, and we have exchanged a great deal of email. I made a promise to him that it would be kept by me entirely in confidence, to the point that I would delete all emails to, from or between us, and scrub them from my hard drive, without retaining or forwarding any copy. I have kept my word, and shall continue to. I do, however, have an excellent memory. If Rodney were willing to relieve me of my promise, I would publish the things he said to me on the telephone, and wrote to me by email. It would be complete, in context, and accurate. I wish to be clear, though, no one should expect him to waive a promise of confidentiality―after all, when one speaks under those circumstances, and has doubtless destroyed all records of the communications, also―one says things that otherwise wouldn’t be said. So, nothing should be inferred from any refusal by him to waive the confidence. However, neither should he, or may he, make assertions that he knows are not true even though he knows I will keep my word to him.

    There is a maxim among lawyers: people who tell the truth, and who have good memories, don’t need notes.

60. J. Max Wilson says

    October 9, 2008 at 9:39 am

    Re: Greg Smith

    I would tend to think that those who post on the blog speak for FAIR, and when I see them posting comments elsewhere there is an automatic association.

    Re: Juliann

    My comments here are apparently not welcome. I have made a mistake. I thought that I was entering a forum for faithful LDS members who seek to emulate the Savior. But it is instead apparently just another blog with no ideals significantly better than you average gentile blog or internet forum, where natural human responses are to be indulged instead of bridled, where it is okay to cast aside charity, and where those who want to elevate the discourse are treated with scorn. My mistake.

    This was my first real foray into participating on the FAIR blog. It will likely be my last. How disappointing. Goodbye.

61. M. Davis says

    October 9, 2008 at 9:39 am

    To Mr. Wyatt:

    Forget the first review, if you prefer, but please provide information as to how you feel these reviews of Rod’s scholarship go beyond the boundaries you feel should be there.

    My issue is with this email. For the most part I believe the reviews dealing with the presentation are fine when it comes to disputing facts in there. I just do not think you guys should reference or bring up anything about this email, which I believe your first review does (the one I read a few months ago did).

    The line crosses when it drifts away from a review on a presentation to a review about him. Critique his work, let the Church “critique” him.

    But to post this email is just not productive. It is not doing anything good. It is turning into a pride match in my opinion.

    Do you feel this whole experience is uplifting to all parties? I sure get the impression that Mr. Meldrum has esteemed FAIR to be an enemy.

    I just think things could have been handled with more love and concern for all parties involved.

    To Mr. Danderson:

    I hope that those who support and defend Mr. Meldrum consider this:

    Along comes a gentleman who claims that–at long last!!–he has solved the mystery of Book of Mormon geography, and that we should get on board and endorse it straight away. When various members of FAIR critique the scholarship and decry the use of evidence that have been demonstrated to be fraudulent (by no less than Elder James Talmage!), we hear words to the effect of: “Why, this geography has been endorsed by an emeritus General Authority! How dare you “speak evil of the Lord’s Anointed”?! And this geography has been confirmed by divine revelation, and using Joseph Smith’s own words! How dare you deny both divine revelation and the Prophet’s calling?!”

    Then when we answer that the Prophet said things that contradicted this thesis, and only the Prophet’s official revelations are binding on us–even if other revelations are true, then we are attacked for allegedly defaming this gentleman–and again accused of “evil speaking of the Lord’s Anointed” and rebelling against legitimate Church authority, because we discount the emeritus General Authority’s endorsement.

    Does anybody see the subtle trap that this gentleman is laying for those who cross him?

    Then, of course, when we point out his trap, we are attacked for allegedly “fighting dirty”. What? Are we supposed to ignore our scholarly integrity and accept this man’s pronouncements whole cloth? Or to accept our damnation like good chumps?

    As John Wayne’s character, Rooster Cogburn (1975), put it, “No man likes to be told he’s high smelling and low down!”

    You make him sound like a Korihor. Yes, I believe the language this man uses is alarming, which is why I believe it should be handled by the Church, not FAIR.

    That email should have been sent to his Bishop. A review should have been done on the DVD and that’s it. To knowingly use an email in a review for the DVD, and to allege certain intentions of this man is to usurp the authority of his ecclesiastical leaders. Why is that?

    Because the bottom line, is that it is not FAIR’s job to publically make these claims.

    Mr. Meldrum has the right to explain this to Church leaders and it is up to these men who have the stewardship over him to make that decision. They certainly did with that individual who was making those Missionar Calendars not too long ago.

    So, from my perspective, I see FAIR making these pronouncements and inferences publically. That is my issue.

    Then, to see that the full email is posted on this blog is twisting the knife.

    I would ask that FAIR stick to a review of his material presented in his DVD. We Saints greatly benefit from the hard work that you all do, but please leave out material that was not intended for all to see. Please forward that on and allow the leadership of the Church to take corrective action if needed.

62. BHodges says

    October 9, 2008 at 9:53 am

    M. Davis, will you answer this one point:

    Had Rodney Meldrum not denied what is known to be true, and had he not accused good people of lying and worse, I would not have published the email.

63. M. Davis says

    October 9, 2008 at 10:22 am

    I am not disputing Mr. Meldrum’s responses. I am sure there was anger or frustration.

    The best thing FAIR could have done would have been a review of the DVD presentation and allow the Church to sort out these other issues. It just is not FAIRs place.

    But FAIR decided to pursue this and this is the result. It is drama that could have been avoided.

    Publishing this email is not needed and as a frequent reader of FAIR’s articles, I am deeply disappointed in the route FAIR has taken on this issue.

    In the end, who is edified here? That is my number one criteria when it comes to the Gospel. FAIR has made an enemy, not a friend in this situation.

    And it could very well get worse.

64. Greg Smith says

    October 9, 2008 at 11:10 am

    I would tend to think that those who post on the blog speak for FAIR, and when I see them posting comments elsewhere there is an automatic association.

    If you tend to think that, you would be mistaken. That is why I’m clarifying it for you, since you seem to be under the mistaken impression. If FAIR as a group speaks or wants to say something, either:

    a) the President (Scott Gordon) will say something, and say he’s speaking on behalf of FAIR; or
    b) a document will be published formally on the website.

    Most of us are members of many organizations. For example, I could be:

    * a member of FAIR
    * a member of the AMA
    * a member of the PTA
    * a member of PETA
    * a member of the Church.

    Just because I post doesn’t mean I speak for any of these entities. Many of the people who have posted on the FAIR blog and have been criticizing Rod Meldrum are not even members of FAIR.

    YOU’RE posting here, and you aren’t a member of FAIR.

    If you look at the bottom of each page, you will read: “All opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual authors, and should not be interpreted as official statements of FAIR or the LDS Church.”

    Best,

    Greg

65. Daniel says

    October 9, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    M. Davies, I hope it doesn’t get any worse. However I believe FAIR went out on a limb to try to make Meldrum a friend and help him and show him his errors in his ways. What Meldrum has done is rally a war cry that he is under attack. So cut FAIR some slack. Meldrum has about faced everytime FAIR put out a hand to help him; to refine his theory and clean up misused quotes and so far only while under pressure Meldrum has only fixed one.

    Let’s look at it this way. Meldrum is trying to get people to move their faith from the gospel to his theory. What happens to those people when the theory turns out to be supported by bad science? All those people who didn’t solely have faith in the gospel are now open to a shaken testimony where it wouldn’t be otherwise. I hope that doesn’t happen but the potential is there. I think the major basis of what FAIR is doing is to protect the church by saying no don’t put your faith in what anyone is saying the gospel should be the basis of your faith. Living prophets are who lead us not dead ones. It is the whole premise of the Church that the Heavens are open and we have continuing revelation through the proper keys of the priesthood.

    This can’t just blow over as I’m sure Rodney hopes, and this is probably why FAIR keeps it fresh on our minds.

66. Robert White says

    October 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    M Davis: Today I have posted a collection of denials published by Mr. Meldrum, and compared them to things he has in fact said. That is the issue. The truth will come out. The truth has come out. That’s it. That’s the subject. That’s the point. Anything that does not address the denials made by Rodney Meldrum, compared with what was written by Rodney Meldrum, is not addressing the point.

    One last thing: how did I get the copy of the Email I published? Rodney Meldrum has asserted that he sent it out once only to a small group, to whom it was addressed. That is not so. The copy I puthe Email, allegedly sent by Rodney Meldrum to a select group of addresees whose names were listed in the address bar. That is not so. As a layman, I was initially impressed with his DVD. I wrote him to tell him so. He did not consider that my email to him was a private communication. He posted it on his public web site as a testimonial. Yes: my saga with this began as a posted tesimonial, of an email to Rodney from me.

    What happened next? He sent me a copy of The Email. No confidentiality was requested or implied.

    I was trouble by what I read, and emailed him, asking him questions about it. A while later I agreed with Rodney Meldrum that our correspondence would be in confidence. However, on May 12/08 well before that agreement, I received an from him responding to my questions. Here are Rodney Meldrum’s own words:

    As pertaining to the FIRM email. I sent it out to the primary supporters of this DNA project under the Bcc (blind copy) so that no one gets spammed by any others as all recipients are non-disclosed. That is why is appeared as a ‘broadcast’ email. It wasn’t, it was meant for specific people. I invited you to attend mostly out of courtesy but also out of a sense that in your board position you would know that our group means no ill to either FARMS or FAIR. I fully realized that you would not be able to make it for our meeting, but thought that you might consider looking into our organization should you feel sufficient merit. Certainly it would be advantageous to have someone with your skills, knowledge and experience on our board. I don’t know if FAIR restricts its board members from membership in other (potentially opposing) organizations, but I thought it would not hurt to wave the white flag of peace by allowing you ‘inside’ information about the formation of our foundation.

    I am as concerned as you appear to be in regard to sharing information with each other because of our differing organizational affiliations. My thought would be that we correspond on a ‘superficial’ scale in emails, a little ‘deeper’ scale in phone conversations wherein we swear not to recording them, and save our most profound thoughts for ‘face-to-face’ discussion in a very nice restaurant over a nice Italian meal! Trust is earned, and we both will need some time for that trust to grow. I was completely taken aback by your email response, and I am confident that you were dismayed that I used a quote from your email, so we have some ‘growing together’ to do.

    I do appreciate your candor in attempting to assess the situation and asking direct questions. I have little patience for playing mind games and ‘beating around the bush’. I am an open, honest and rather no-nonsense sort who dislikes flowery talk and prefers getting down to the heart of matters. I appreciate that about your approach.

    The truth will out.

67. Cal Robinson says

    October 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    However, as will be seen below he does claim to know that Joseph Smith received revelations, that those revelations were not given to the Church but are for individuals to garner for themselves (with Rodney’s help)

    ****** thus enabling the Brethren to publically tell the Latter-day Saints that there is no revelation to the Church about Book of Mormon geography, and do it with a straight face because they know the revelations are there *****

    but rather than tell the Latter-day Saints the entire truth of the matter, the Latter-day Saints are to squirrel out the truth themselves. This is not a correction of the church or its leaders (the quotation marks are again used), but it is an unmistakable implication that the Brethren are not being candid and open with the Latter-day Saints, or that Rodney has discovered revelations that have eluded the Brethren.(don’t know how to bold so separated out the relevant comment)

    This seems to be similar to the idea Brother Meldrum possesses about the reason the Brethren allow evolution to be taught at BYU even though this ultimately results in many of the youth of the Church being intentionally led away into false beliefs (according to Brother Meldrum’s belief apparently).

    “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. (posted in http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/ )

    It is strange to me that Brother Meldrum is claiming to stand “with the Prophets” on the one hand and on the other imply that the Brethren are engaging in intentional deception for the purpose of public approval through the accreditation process.

68. Stephen M (Ethesis) says

    October 10, 2008 at 5:09 am

    There is a maxim among lawyers: people who tell the truth, and who have good memories, don’t need notes. — never heard that one before.

    However, in Texas we do have one about wrestling with the pigs … you get dirty and they like it.

69. M. Davis says

    October 10, 2008 at 10:05 am

    I was trouble by what I read, and emailed him, asking him questions about it. A while later I agreed with Rodney Meldrum that our correspondence would be in confidence. However, on May 12/08 well before that agreement, I received an from him responding to my questions. Here are Rodney Meldrum’s own words:

    I am perplexed by this. You state you agreed with Mr. Meldrum that “our correspondence would be in confidence.” Are you not violating that agreement now?

    If he violated that agreement, why would you break your end of the agreement by posting this email for all to see?

    I see this as a snowball effect and very personal. When I go to FAIR’s website, I am interested in the articles, not personal quarrels with individuals.

    Why could FAIR not be more mature in all of this and just post a well thought out article on the DVD presentation without all this email drama? Is that not the point?

    Without all this email stuff, FAIR could have presented a well thought out article that would serve its purpose to me, that is, be aware of this man’s presentation! Do I really need to know all the other details, which quite frankily, should be dealt with on a Church level, and not an organization that is not officially an extension of the Church.

    What good does this do? Seriously? Is it suppose to show me, an observer that Mr. Meldrum is wrong with his DVD presentation, but he is also wrong on sub points A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc. etc. etc.?

    Am I suppose to be happy that the end result of all of this is negative?

    It doesn’t work like this. Please remove this personal agenda out of your review please.

70. Robert White says

    October 10, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Stephen M:

    I have learned that you have a king in Texas, which I didn’t know before. We have a Queen, which is almost as good, especially since she doesn’t send us emails–although if she did, I’m pretty sure she would stay on topic and answer our questions because she is a very good Queen as queens go. (Expensive, though. I hope your king doesn’t cost you as much.)

    Now I am learning that in addition to having a king, you have good sayings in Texas. We might have also had the saying about getting dirty wrestling with pigs, that you quote, but in Canada we don’t wrestle with pigs.

    Other than not wrestling with pigs, the only differences between Alberta, where I live, and Texas is that we’re bigger, have more oil, don’t execute people, and George W. Bush doesn’t come from here. And we don’t have that way cool Texas accent. (Our accent is kind of flat and nondescript and we really should get a Royal Commission to work on a new accent for Alberta English.) Oh, and we don’t have TexMex which I’m told is a good thing. And we have mountains but Texas doesn’t. I think that you have more interesting denominations of baptists and evangelics than we do, but we’re catching up. Texas has rats, and Alberta is the only place in North America that doesn’t have rats–this is true, you can look it up. That’s about all I can think of, except that we don’t pack guns because Albertan’s are not noted for shooting each other, and we have universal health care–which is very good health care and would be even more important than it is if we packed guns and shot at each other. Our banking system is the strongest in the world and we don’t have any sub-prime mortgages or collapsing financial institutions–but that might only be because no body up here thought of it.

    But I’m sure we have a lot in common with Texas, too. Like, oh, coyotes, rattle snakes, illegal immigrants, a lot of people who don’t speak much English, winter (we have a lot of winter, I don’t know if Texas has any winter), long straight highways without enough filling stations, elected representatives that do not appear to be in touch with reality, Mormons–Texas and Alberta both have lots of Mormons–, tornados, dust storms, droughts, tumble weed, oh, and the rest of our country thinks that in Alberta we’re all red-necks. Do Americans think that about Texans, too? We have soldiers fighting alongside your soldiers in Afganistan–in fact we’re your biggest ally. And next only to our feelings about our country, most of us love and respect the United States and I bet most Texans love and respect Canada. That’s about all I can think of–oh, and we have missinaries from Texas in Alberta, and you have missionaries from Alberta in Texas and they all think they’re in the best missions in the world, but, of course, that’s missionaries for you.

    So, aside from the fact that Texans wrestle with pigs and Albertans (and other Candians) don’t, we have lots of interesting differences, and lots in common. If you can think of any that I’ve missed, please let me know. (But we’ve got to be careful that people from places like Rhode Island and North Dakota, and Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, don’t start posts making extravagent claims about their states and provinces because they’re in a different league and should start their own threads.)

    Its wonderful making friends on the Internet.

71. Daniel says

    October 10, 2008 at 11:13 am

    “I am perplexed by this. You state you agreed with Mr. Meldrum that “our correspondence would be in confidence.” Are you not violating that agreement now?”

    He meant from that point forward. Not from previous correspondence. So far I haven’t seen Bro. White breaking that commitment.

    “Please remove this personal agenda out of your review please.”

    Rodney made it personal when he accused individual FAIR members of being liars and apostates. He has even banned most of them from his blog when they have challenged him to produce evidence against the charges. He has been filtering content on his blog where he says that people as supposed to see both sides and the truth, but in reality he is only posting what won’t show his deception.

    “Do I really need to know all the other details, which quite frankily, should be dealt with on a Church level, and not an organization that is not officially an extension of the Church.”

    What has FAIR done that supersedes or has acted in any capacity as having an official connection with the church? FAIR hasn’t called for anything against Meldrum publicly. However Meldrum has called Bro. White, Gordan, Smith, Wyatt apostates. And in my opinion the Church does not need to get its hands dirty over Meldrum’s money-making business, and this is something FAIR is willing to do. We should be proud to have a group within our ranks willing to take the heat for doing what needs to be done to protect the Church and the testimonies of its members.

    “However, in Texas we do have one about wrestling with the pigs … you get dirty and they like it.”

    And what do Texans have to say about snake oil salesmen? Being one I know what we would say but it comes out of a bulls back end.

72. Ed Goble says

    October 10, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    It was said:

    “We have had good communication with one of the authors, Ed Goble, since this article has been written and I believe he has add a lot to the discussion. You can find some of his posts on this blog.”

    Just to clarify, I have long since retracted what I wrote on the Michigan Relics and Burrows Cave stones and other archaeological frauds with the so-called “Mystic Symbol”, things that Rodney and his associates like Wayne May, Shawn Davies, etc. continue to push as authentic, although they have been PROVEN to be frauds.

    FAIR was right to review the book that I authored named This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation, and it was FAIR members such as Brant Gardner that brought me to my senses.

    It was because of these questionable pieces of fraudulent trash that I once defended in the sense that I called for neutrality on them until they were tested that I thoroughly embarrassed myself because they were proven to be frauds before I defended them, and I was unaware of it. But May was aware of the articles in BYU studies and I was stupid not to read more carefully what he wrote in the book that was published that I co-authored.

    Rodney Meldrum is consciously in a partnership with May, and wants to put out the “Milton R. Hunter collection for display”. May I remind you that the Milton R. Hunter collection are the fraudulent Michigan artifacts, but unfortunately Milton R. Hunter fell into the same trap so many others have fallen into in believing these things of recent manufacture to be real. Only James Talmage had the good sense to recognize fraud when he saw it way back a hundred years ago when all this nonsense was happening. And the fraud continues with Russell Burrows and friends that continue to manufacture the frauds that May peddles as genuine.

73. Ed Goble says

    October 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Oh yeah. I forgot to say that James E. Talmage wasn’t just inspired to recognize the fraud in the Michigan frauds, but was also inspired to recognize the fraud in the “Dream Mine” claims as well back around the same time period. And the Bishop that was pushing the dream mine fraud was also claiming the same type of revelation that Rodney Meldrum is claiming.

    Once I was on the phone with Wayne May before that book was published and May told me that he felt that there was influence from “the other side” about the Burrows Cave site. That bothered me, and I called him back, and then he denied that he said that and said that I must have misinterpreted what he said. Then I passed it off as my own misinterpretation of what he said, thinking that I must have not heard him correctly. But now that I think about it, I know I heard him say what he said about Burrows Cave, that he believed he was receiving help and inspiration from the other side in his explorations of the so-called cave that he now calls the “tombs of Embarras”, meaning the Embarras River in Illinois, to try to remove the stigma from the name of Burrows off the cave. Well the whole Burrows Cave fraud thing has been nothing but an embarras-ment to me, pun intended. Since my name was associated with Mays’s stuff, I have done nothing but try to fix the fallout from all of this. But May continues to publish the book as if I agree with it still, which I don’t. I have asked him to remove my name from it on a second edition with a disclaimer saying I no longer agree with it, and he won’t.

74. M. Davis says

    October 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    We should be proud to have a group within our ranks willing to take the heat for doing what needs to be done to protect the Church and the testimonies of its members.

    The Church’s ecclesiastical leadership will determine that, not an organization that is not part of the Church.

    I do not need FAIR to protect me as a member of this Church. I have in the past enjoyed the many great articles to uplift and strengthen my testimony, but I do not NEED FAIR to provide me that, nor do I need FAIR to protect me.

    That is why we have the leadership in our Church. I am afraid lines and boundaries are being crossed here that should not be.

    The email posted above has text bolded and infers serious charges against Mr. Meldrum. Even when people infer charges such as “snake oil salesman” is to infer that this man is going against the Church.

    FAIR portrays this in their article and I do not agree that FAIR has any right to do this.

    The inferences need to be taken out. The right thing to do is to tackle his presentation from a scholarly point of view and let the readership decide for themselves.

    To say we need FAIR to protect us and the Church is to say that the Saints cannot think for themselves and that the leadership in the Church, the ones who DO protect us, are ineffective.

75. Robert White says

    October 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Hello M. Davis:

    TO ALL: M. DAVIS HAS MADE A POST ON OCTOBER 10, 2008 CALLING FOR A HALT TO WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE BLOGS DEALING WITH THIS MATTER.

    I AGREE.

    THIS MUST STOP NOW. WE, OR MOST OF US, ARE LDS AND THIS IS NOT WHAT BEING A LDS STANDS FOR.

    I am going to put the following in capital letters because of its importance:

    PLEASE READ M. DAVIS’ POST OF OCTOBER 10, 2008.

    HIS POINT, IF NOT ALL OF THE DETAILS, IS CORRECT AND I, AS A PRIVATE PERSON AND NOT AS A MEMBER OR REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY ORGANIZATION, JOIN WITH WHAT I UNDERSTAND HIM TO BE SAYING: “THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER.”

    LET US EACH GOVERN OURSELVES AND ANSWER ANY FURTHER POST TO ANY BLOG DEALING IN ANY WAY WITH THIS SUBJECT, WITH THIS RESPONSE, AND ONLY THIS RESPONSE, SO THAT THIS FOREST FIRE WILL BURN OUT:

    “THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER. LET US ASSUME THAT THE BEST OF INTENTIONS PREVAIL. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, OBTAIN AND WATCH RODNEY MELDRUM’S DVD, AND READ FAIR’S REVIEW, AND KEEP OUR OPINIONS TO OURSELVES.”

    In order to wrap this up, explain how we got to where we are, to bring the closure M. Davis advocates and with which I whole heartedly concur, I am now going to give a brief history so that anybody who has not experienced this entire saga will understand what has happened and why they should support M. Davis’ initiative, which I embrace.

    First: Was confidential correspondence posted? This is only important so that there cannot be a linging stain on my integrity or Rodney Meldrum’s integrity on this point:

    M. Davis asks: “You state you agreed with Mr. Meldrum that “our correspondence would be in confidence.” Are you not violating that agreement now?

    “If he violated that agreement, why would you break your end of the agreement by posting this email for all to see?”

    Answer: The first communication was from me to Rodney. In it I said that (and in this I am a complete layman as are the vast majority who watch the DVD) I enjoyed the DVD, that I had learned a lot, and that assuming it was all correct I was glad of it. He posted that email from me to him as a testimonial–which I didn’t intend it to be. However, arising from that Rodney and I spoke on the phone a few times, and emailed each other a few times. After that had gone on for a while, we decided that there was the prospect of a fruitful exhange of ideas and points of view. We did not agree with each other, and so that we could be open and candid, we agreed that from that point on everything said and written was confidential and would not be distributed, quoted, or even kept. I believed this would enable me to offer what I considered help and insight to him, and I blieve that he thought he could do the same for me.

    Any communication I have published pre-dated that agreement.

    That agreement made it possible for us to have a considerablly extensive open and candid exchange of views. They were not hostile, nor argumentative except in the positive use of that term. We communicated very often.

    To this day, as far as I know, Rodney has never violated that agreement, and I have not either.

    There was an important side effect to this. A question arose among FAIR management about whether we would give Rodney all of our research and drafting to date so that he could go through it all and, if he agreed with any of our points he could alter his material accordingly, and if he pointed out errors we had made then, if we agreed, we would change our material. There was a concern by some members of FAIR that by doing so, we could have advantage taken of us. A significant part of the reason that FAIR did make this agreement with Rodney is that I vouched for him by telling my colleagues that in our relationship he had always kept his word. I told my colleagues that to that point, as far as I knew, he had never lied to me. The rest of the Board of Management relied to a large extent on my having vouched for Rodney, and made an agreement to give all we had to Rodney, that he would keep it confidential (which as far as I know he did), and that by a mutually agreed date he would tell us where and why he thought we were wrong or had erred. When the agreement was made, Rodney’s email to our president said, among other things: “God bless you, Scott”.

    A course of action was then in place he result would have been either a modification of the presentation by Rodney, or the review by FAIR, and an agreement to disagree on the rest.

    FAIR did not receive any feedback from Rodney. Starting three days before the date his feedback was due, after which FAIR would publish, without any authorization by FAIR, entirely on my own, based upon my personal relationship with Rodney and at the risk of criticism by some of my colleagues, I started trying to reach Rodney by telephone. Telephone tag went on for a while, but we eventally made contact. I will not repeat anything Rodney said to me, because of our agreement, but the essence of my call was to plead, and that is the correct word, with him to either respond as agreed or, if time had been the problem, to contact FAIR management and ask for more time. I won’t speak for the others at FAIR because they were never asked; but Rodney knew that I would do all I could on his behalf. As far as I know, that request wasn’t made and I won’t discuss that further.

    Question: The communicatins you published were prior to your agreement and so you could publish them. Why did you publish them and why did you wait so long?

    Answer: In posts to blogs, Rodney has replied to some of my collegues’ comments by saying they are blatant lies, and that there is nothing to back them up. That is not correct. I will not have good people called liers and worse when I know the accusations are not truthful. To avoid the “I said” “you said” “no I said” sort of thing that develops, I posted what I was freely entitled to post so that readers could judge the matter for themselves.

    People who I do not know, and whose affiliations I do not know, filled the blogs with criticisms and accusations about the fact of making facts available, rather than thinking about and, if compelled to do so, posting blogs addressing the factual contents of the information. The result has been that the charge that my colleagues are liars remains unrepented, and he who delivered the facts has become a new target for accusations.

    This is not typical human nature. Reasonable people, whether LDS or not, noting that someone has been called a liar, take note of that. When they see facts that show that the accused are not liars, they call into question the veracity of the accuser. What developed here is not typical of reasonable people, nor of people who are interested in grappling with the facts. I cannot explain that; but it is so. My colleagues at FAIR know that I am personally devastated by the fact of so many allowing the cry “liar” to stand, and the cry of “scandle monger” to be the response to the truth. I have never seen anything like it outside of an organized political campaign.

    Question: “Why could FAIR not be more mature in all of this and just post a well thought out article on the DVD presentation without all this email drama? Is that not the point? Without all this email stuff, FAIR could have presented a well thought out article that would serve its purpose to me, that is, be aware of this man’s presentation! Do I really need to know all the other details, which quite frankily, should be dealt with on a Church level, and not an organization that is not officially an extension of the Church.”

    Answer: M. Davis is right. “All this” began with the publication by FAIR of a review of the presentation, with an announcement that the the publication of more data would follow as research was completed and verified.

    FAIR then withheld the further publication for the reasons I noted above. In the absence of any corrections or request for more time from Rodney, FAIR then began to publish its data. FAIR did exactly what M. Davis correctly says proper approach for FAIR to take. The reviews are still on the FAIR website.

    Question: So, then, how did this whirlwind of blog postings come about?

    Answer: To this day, with two exceptions, not one “pro-Meldrum” or “criticise FAIR” post has identified, critiqued, or corrected a single point in FAIR’s research. Few acknowledge its existence. Why that is so is an open question.

    Rodney opened a blog with a post on the same day as the FAIR publication. It may be read in full at http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/ The first two thirds of it are a humble and clear explanation of his work as he sees it, and his testimony to that which we all hold dear. Had it ended there, I don’t know that anything which followed, would have. However, after what I must say was a truly admirable statement, if not a response to the merits of FAIR’s publication,of his position, the tone and content changed to this:

    “I have several times requested to have these issues resolved in private, rather than a public forum, but 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 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 just released a few months ago a new DNA DVD title ‘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 a motivating factor in their choosing to put so much effort into review of my research, to protect their monetary interests?”

    The second post was mine. Its purpose was to explain the effort FAIR had made to give Rodney an opportunity to deal with FAIR’s articles. I identified my bias. I reviewed the history of the FAIR-Meldrum contract, the result, and an inviation to anyone interesed to ask for a copy of the whole contract.

    In my post I made a misstatement of fact: “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.”

    In fact, he had not yet (and never has) posted his responses. What Rodney actually posted was: “Please add your comments 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 as they are completed.”

    Then the floodgates opened.

    The topics were many (including one in which I requested Rodney to not refer to me as “Elder” White, because I didn’t want anyone to think that it was me who was using that title, which would have been improper. To my surprise, several of those who frequent these blogs chose not to understand me as I believed LDS would and instead mocked and made fun of me for it.)

    This irrelevancy is illustrative, though, of the broader point: FAIR is castigated or misunderstood for taking a position and defending its decision to do so, members of FAIR are accused of hating Rodney, attacking him personally, and lying about him. FAIR and others respond in defence of their decision to publish, to point out that nothing has been said by FAIR by way of attack on Rodney, and that statements made are not lies.

    Along the way a gentlemen joined in claiming that Rodney had plagerized (sp?) his work, and a heated debate between him and Rodney went on for some time. It became so personal that FAIR directed them to leave the blog and go to another one where they could battle each other while leaving the rest of us out of it.

    When it is all distilled it reduces to this: FAIR should not have published its analysis of Rodney’s work or its underpinnings; in doing so FAIR has attacked Rodney; in defending its position FAIR is just attacking Rodney again; FAIR members are lying; publication of documents showing that FAIR members are not lying is sinking to a new low; that Rodney’s retraction of his use of a statement by President Hinckley is in the smallest font available vs. no, its only the second smallest font; and variations on these themes. The merits of Rodney’s work, the merits of his reasons for it, the merits or lack thereof of FAIR’s articles, are missing from all three blogs (Rodney’s two and FAIR’s one). Rodney’s DVD is available for purchase and review. FAIR’s articles are on its web site. People who are interested can access each and think what they like.

    Now, questions from me–not to solicit posts on blogs, but just to think about quietly, yourselves, :

    1. Is it not reasonable that if people believe that Rodney’s work is correct or incorrect, they should at least purchase and watch his DVD and read his web site?
    2. Is it not reasonable that if people believe that FAIR’s articles are correct or incorrect, they should go to the FAIR web site and read them?
    3. Is it not reasonable to expect that until a person has watched Rodney’s DVD or attendeed one of his presentations, and has gone to FAIR’s web site and read its articles, that person is not in a position to offer an informed comment?
    4. Is it not reasonable to expect that a person who has gone to FAIR’s web site and read its articles, or, for that matter, one who hasn’t bothered to do so, should, instead of impugning FAIR’s motives for publishing its review, point out the data or other errors he or she finds in FAIR’s articles and that this would be more mature, LDS, and productive than what we have read instead of that?
    5. Is it not understandable, that when the motives rather than the data are impugned, FAIR can be expected, and even entitled, to respond?
    6. Is it not reasonable that when some of FAIR’s explanations are said to be lies, the documents demonstrating the truth may be put before readers so that they can determine for themselves if FAIR is lying?
    7. That when not presenting actual facts, partisans, Rodney’s or FAIR’s, have added little of value to what can only in charity be called “the discussion”.

    Remember, please, that I am speaking for myself: it seems to me that during the exchanges many posters, including friends of FAIR, Mr. Meldrum, and Mr. Meldrum’s friends, have ocassionally, either because they were writing too late and too tired, or caught up in “blog rage” (which is a term I think I have just invented), written hurtful, rude, sarcastic, and uncalled for things, that whether we think we are, or are, guilty of such conduct, we owe a public apology, and that this then must thus stop.

    So: Step 1

    When anything I have written has been hurtful to anyone in any way, I should not have written it, I apologize, I am sorry and ask forgiveness. Robert White

    Step 2

    When any post which is not an apology, that has anything to do with any aspect of any element of this matter at all, that it is to either be “ignored severely” (B.Y.) or, if answered, answered in these words and these words only:

    “THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, PURCHASE AND WATCH RODNEY MELDRUM’S DVD, AND GO TO FAIR’S WEB SITE AND READ FAIR’S REVIEWS. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS OFF THE INTERNET AND THESE BLOGS BECAUSE RECENT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THEY ADD LITTLE OF VALUE, TEND TO CAUSE HARD AND HURT FEELINGS, AND ARE NOT BECOMING OF LDS. MANY IF NOT ALL OF US HAVE APOLOGIZED TO EACH OTHER. NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS ARE WELCOME.”

    :

76. Juliann says

    October 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Mr. Davis, FAIR provides information. Everyone is free to take it or leave it. I am unaware of any instance in which FAIR has used the term “snake oil salesman” and if there is anything even hinting at something like that please inform us and it will be removed. It is time for everyone to stop insisting that this blog speaks for FAIR. The disclaimer below specifically says it does not. If you are familiar with the Bloggernacle, I am sure you know that blogs have guest bloggers and I am unaware of anyone who actually thinks every word out of their keyboard is channeling the blog owner. Please don’t use anymore cyberspace trying to insist otherwise.

77. Juliann says

    October 10, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Ah….I amend my post.

    “THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, PURCHASE AND WATCH RODNEY MELDRUM’S DVD, AND GO TO FAIR’S WEB SITE AND READ FAIR’S REVIEWS. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS OFF THE INTERNET AND THESE BLOGS BECAUSE RECENT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THEY ADD LITTLE OF VALUE, TEND TO CAUSE HARD AND HURT FEELINGS, AND ARE NOT BECOMING OF LDS. MANY IF NOT ALL OF US HAVE APOLOGIZED TO EACH OTHER. NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS ARE WELCOME.”

78. Allen Wyatt says

    October 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    And with that, it would appear that this discussion has run its course…

    -Allen