117 replies to this topic

[Joseph Antley]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 08 December 2010 - 04:34 PM, said:

The amount of animosity towards Rod Meldrum from the members of this board is amusing, yet puzzling at the same time. Seems he is the only one not allowed to have a theory. For one man to ruffle so many feathers is very telling.

People's problems with Meldrum isn't that he has a theory. It's the self-righteous way in which he presents his theory and his suggesting than anyone who disagrees with him is denying the Prophets.

[Bob Crockett]

Joseph Antley, on 08 December 2010 - 10:52 PM, said:

People's problems with Meldrum isn't that he has a theory. It's the self-righteous way in which he presents his theory and his suggesting than anyone who disagrees with him is denying the Prophets.

Perhaps.  But I find his points very intriguing about all the statements the Brethren have made in support of a hemispheric model, and one or two outright condemnations of the limited Mesoamerican model.  And nothing of "equal dignities" on the other side.  And, although I have read Sorenson's book a couple of times and it has vastly improved my understanding of the Book of Mormon's internal complexities, I just shake my head at his speculation as to actual geography.

[Scott Lloyd]

Joseph Antley, on 08 December 2010 - 10:52 PM, said:

People's problems with Meldrum isn't that he has a theory. It's the self-righteous way in which he presents his theory and his suggesting than anyone who disagrees with him is denying the Prophets.

That pretty well sums up my problem with him. If he would cease casting the aspersions and clearly acknowledge that the Church takes no institutional position on specific Book of Mormon geography and therefore, no one's theory on that subject is binding on the Latter-day Saints, I'd be OK with him.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 09 December 2010 - 09:51 AM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 08 December 2010 - 05:04 PM, said:

Gee, the obviously dismissive attitude of Meldrum throughout the entire thread.

Spare me, Pahoran.


Clean up the attitude.  You have been asked a straight forward question so either answer straight forward or leave the thread.

Uh ok?

My attitude should vastly improve as Pahoran has become the first honorary member of my ignore list, even beating out Ahab.

[Scott Lloyd]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 09 December 2010 - 09:56 AM, said:

Uh ok?

My attitude should vastly improve as Pahoran has become the first honorary member of my ignore list, even beating out Ahab.

So are you going to answer the question? I believe it was, "Where [on this particular thread] do you see all this alleged animosity? Who argues that he shouldn't have a theory?"

Or do you plan to put me on "ignore" as well?

[livy111us]

Scott Lloyd, on 09 December 2010 - 09:49 AM, said:

That pretty well sums up my problem with him. If he would cease casting the aspersions and clearly acknowledge that the Church takes no institutional position on specific Book of Mormon geography and therefore, no one's theory on that subject is binding on the Latter-day Saints, I'd be OK with him.

I would add that he stop using artifacts that have been proven false, stop mis-representing (or lying about, depending on how you look at it) Joseph Smiths beliefs about geography, actually accept facts whether they agree with you or not, and avoid the same tactics anti-Mormons use to prove their point.
Basically, if he would be honest in his research, I wouldn't care if he placed it in the North Pole. But, I think that since this is his bread and butter, it HAS to be right in order for him to pay his house payment.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Scott Lloyd, on 09 December 2010 - 09:59 AM, said:

So are you going to answer the question? I believe it was, "Where [on this particular thread] do you see all this alleged animosity? Who argues that he shouldn't have a theory?"

Or do you plan to put me on "ignore" as well?

The animosity is in the tenor of the posts.

And sure... Welcome to the list. Say Hi to Pahoran.

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr, 09 December 2010 - 10:10 AM.

[Scott Lloyd]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 09 December 2010 - 10:09 AM, said:

The animosity is in the tenor of the posts.

And sure... Welcome to the list. Say Hi to Pahoran.

Fine. But there's a rule here about answering CFRs. For the third time, who argues that he shouldn't have a theory?

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 09 December 2010 - 10:30 AM.

[David Bokovoy]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 09 December 2010 - 10:09 AM, said:

The animosity is in the tenor of the posts.

And sure... Welcome to the list. Say Hi to Pahoran.

I would like to make a request that people not use the "ignore list" as some sort of public sword.  If a person wishes to ignore another poster's comments, fine, but let's dispense with this childish tactic as an attempt to belittle others.  For the record, Scott Lloyd is one of the last people on earth to deserve such treatment.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Meldrum is more than welcome to formulate, promulgate, advertise, sell, teach, whatever theory he wants regarding BoM geography. By entering an academic discussion he should recognize that his work can rightfully be subjected to scrutiny. He ought to welcome such scrutiny because it can help him avoid mistakes. Scrutiny is not always easy to swallow, of course. Personally, I see some pretty significant problems with Meldrum's use of other research which he is using second hand. I see problems with his use of historical sources and their provenance. I'm turned off by his salesman-like tone and his huckster-ish rhetorical devices. Probably above all, I disagree with his implying that one must accept his theory in order to be considered supportive of Joseph Smith's teachings.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

David Bokovoy, on 09 December 2010 - 10:37 AM, said:

I would like to make a request that people not use the "ignore list" as some sort of public sword.  If a person wishes to ignore another poster's comments, fine, but let's dispense with this childish tactic as an attempt to belittle others.  For the record, Scott Lloyd is one of the last people on earth to deserve such treatment.

I didn't treat Scott Lloyd in any way. I answered the question in regards to the animosity towards Meldrum and placed him on my ignore list as he suggested. I have no doubts Scott is a great guy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

LifeOnaPlate, on 09 December 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

Meldrum is more than welcome to formulate, promulgate, advertise, sell, teach, whatever theory he wants regarding BoM geography. By entering an academic discussion he should recognize that his work can rightfully be subjected to scrutiny. He ought to welcome such scrutiny because it can help him avoid mistakes. Scrutiny is not always easy to swallow, of course. Personally, I see some pretty significant problems with Meldrum's use of other research which he is using second hand. I see problems with his use of historical sources and their provenance. I'm turned off by his salesman-like tone and his huckster-ish rhetorical devices. Probably above all, I disagree with his implying that one must accept his theory in order to be considered supportive of Joseph Smith's teachings.

My point all along has been I have been surprised at the amount of vocal opposition to Meldrum. I have never seen LDS Book of Mormon academia come so strongly against one man. It seems weird to me.

[Anijen]

Quote

Quote

LifeOnaPlate, on 09 December 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:
Meldrum is more than welcome to formulate, promulgate, advertise, sell, teach, whatever theory he wants regarding BoM geography. By entering an academic discussion he should recognize that his work can rightfully be subjected to scrutiny. He ought to welcome such scrutiny because it can help him avoid mistakes. Scrutiny is not always easy to swallow, of course. Personally, I see some pretty significant problems with Meldrum's use of other research which he is using second hand. I see problems with his use of historical sources and their provenance. I'm turned off by his salesman-like tone and his huckster-ish rhetorical devices. Probably above all, I disagree with his implying that one must accept his theory in order to be considered supportive of Joseph Smith's teachings.

BookofMormonLuvr
My point all along has been I have been surprised at the amount of vocal opposition to Meldrum. I have never seen LDS Book of Mormon academia come so strongly against one man. It seems weird to me.

The question is why are you surprised? It is not because he has a theory. LOAP answer was to the point and as far as I am concerned spot on. BTW it isn't just Meldrum he is not "just one man" that academia is so strongly against I can think of others as well. But Meldrum is the subject of this thread so it appears as if it is just him. And for all the reasons mentioned he is scrutinized because he claims it is scholarly/academically backed that in and of it self is reason enough to research said scholarship and question the claims of authenticity and study etc when it fails to meet those standards.

And it doesn't help his cause when these are brought up and then he accuses them or labels them as going against the church and being apostate. Seriously how are professional historians, biologist, archeologist etc suppose to act or react when his methods and claims are filled with errors? I know 1+1=2 but when one person says it equals 3 then we should say correct as long as it makes you feel good; basically is this what you are saying how are reaction should be?

[LifeOnaPlate]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 09 December 2010 - 11:01 AM, said:

My point all along has been I have been surprised at the amount of vocal opposition to Meldrum. I have never seen LDS Book of Mormon academia come so strongly against one man. It seems weird to me.

When you create and sell a video presentation in which you use a quote from the President of the Church to malign the person and work of people who work at BYU, and who have helped pioneer some of the most widely accepted BoM scholarship to date, it tends to come and bite you in the butt. I'm not saying the "bite" should be harsh or overbearing, I'm only saying it shouldn't seem "weird" to you that people responded to Meldrum.  

Further, when you get the attention of otherwise unsuspecting listeners and sell them a bill of goods in shaky scholarship you tend to draw a few responses as well.

It seems weird to you? Before there is any rush to interpret opposition as evidence of truth, I recommend this old blog post. In sum it says, no, opposition in and of itself, no matter how rancorous or from what direction, is not, in and of itself, evidence of the quality or truthfulness of a proposition.

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 09 December 2010 - 12:05 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 09 December 2010 - 10:53 AM, said:

I didn't treat Scott Lloyd in any way. I answered the question in regards to the animosity towards Meldrum and placed him on my ignore list as he suggested. I have no doubts Scott is a great guy.

For my part, I have expressed my position clearly:

Quote

If he would cease casting the aspersions and clearly acknowledge that the Church takes no institutional position on specific Book of Mormon geography and therefore, no one's theory on that subject is binding on the Latter-day Saints, I'd be OK with him.

My other posts on this thread have been in line with this position. If that strikes you as animosity, I fear you will regard any form of disapproval, however mildly expressed, as animosity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I should also note, much to the delight of some critics, the FARMS Review has written some negative reviews of other works by other LDS authors. Meldrum isn't alone in having his work negatively critiqued there. Consider the review of Gordon L. Weight's book Miracle on Palmyra’s Main Street: An “Old-Time” Printer’s Perspective on Printing the Original Copies of the Book of Mormon. The reviewers note that, although the author was now deceased, the book was getting a little play in some circles, and they give the reason why they wrote a review:

Quote

Before his death in November 2004, the author presented his claims in numerous lectures and firesides. Although Weight is no longer alive to promote his booklet, there is still substantial enthusiasm for his work. Just recently we were alerted to two instances where his theories were championed in prominent settings. Since this booklet is apparently not going to fade away, it seems that the time has come to publish a review of this seriously flawed work.

Because the author is deceased and unable to respond, we hesitate to critique this work. A review based on rules of logic and evidence obviously outside the author’s expertise may come across as harsh. Further, we cannot fault the author for his interest, his sincerity, his testimony, or his good intentions. It is obvious that he desired only to build faith. Yet it is clear that nonspecialist readers stand to benefit from a reliable critique of Weight’s claims. The fact that his research is poor, his arguments are based on unwarranted assumptions, and his claims are unsubstantiated may, in the long run, do more to undermine faith than to build it. Testimonies strengthened by a “miracle” that can so easily be disproved are in peril. Therefore, our remarks are based on the rigor that we wish the author himself had employed.

I didn't take any glee in reading this review. I felt a bit glum about it overall. At the same time, I have seen people struggle over a "faith-promoting" bit of knowledge which later turned out to be false. On my mission I heard some tapes by a lecturer on the Nag Hammadi library. The speaker was excited and engaging. I later discovered he was also woefully inaccurate. I think people would like to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Of course, any time we write on a subject that touches religion we run the risk of causing problems with certain readers. The unintended consequences are tough to consider. That's another reason an important part of such research is a certain epistemic humility, one which encourages the reader to keep looking, not to simply take everything they are reading for granted.

[Pahoran]

Tarski, on 08 December 2010 - 10:45 PM, said:

The church itself is promoting mesoamerican theories? Hmm. That would be interesting.

My remark was intended as humorous.  I forgot the obligatory emoticon, or maybe it just wasn't that funny.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 09 December 2010 - 09:56 AM, said:

Uh ok?

My attitude should vastly improve as Pahoran has become the first honorary member of my ignore list, even beating out Ahab.

Interesting.  The tactic of affecting to ignore me when I ask inconvenient questions about assertions posters make in their posts is catching on.

So the fact that I've asked you to point out examples of "animosity" makes me just too despicable to talk to.  Got it.

I also didn't miss the fact that you can't support your claims.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Anijen]

Pahoran, on 09 December 2010 - 12:11 PM, said:

Interesting.  The tactic of affecting to ignore me when I ask inconvenient questions about assertions posters make in their posts is catching on.

So the fact that I've asked you to point out examples of "animosity" makes me just too despicable to talk to.  Got it.

I also didn't miss the fact that you can't support your claims.

Regards,
Pahoran

Just for a change I happen to appreciate Pahoran's post, besides when someone publicly says I am going to "ignore" just brings more attention to that person anyways. Like when Giuliani tried to censor the sensation art show it brought out record crowds or when a pope (cant remember which one) banned Copernicus book it became a best seller.

[Scott Lloyd]

LifeOnaPlate, on 09 December 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:

At the same time, I have seen people struggle over a "faith-promoting" bit of knowledge which later turned out to be false.

Perhaps an early example of this is the rumor that circulated at the time of Joseph Smith's martyrdom. Supposedly, some sort of divine miracle or intervention or manifestation prevented the assassins from desecrating the prophet's body after he was killed. This turned out to be false and probably provided occasion for yet further derision by the enemies of the Church.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 09 December 2010 - 01:05 PM.