Meldrum Loading for Bear in 2011

[BookofMormonLuvr]

to malign the person and work of people who work at BYU,

I think this is the gist of the problem with Meldrum- that he dares to disagree with the "big boys" at BYU.

Where exactly has he "maligned" anyone? (Be specific please)

[Mortal Man]

Yes. Only this week I wrote a rabid polemic about Christmas DVDs and CDs you can buy at the Distribution Center.

You should have given your readers some literature to go along with their DVDs.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think this is the gist of the problem with Meldrum- that he dares to disagree with the "big boys" at BYU.

Where exactly has he "maligned" anyone? (Be specific please)

From FAIR's original (and not altogether perfect) initial response to Meldrum:

Meldrum...seeks to turn his audiences away from the scholars, as well. In his presentation he says:

This is the kind of stuff that the anti-Mormons just love. They love to see our LDS scholars dismissing Joseph Smith because they know, they can see these things that Joseph Smith has written and they're not being followed by the scholarly community of the church, unfortunately.[26]

Meldrum is accusing "the scholarly community of the Church" with "dismissing Joseph Smith" and by so doing helping anti-Mormons. The community of scholars...includes the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

...

In his dismissal of the LDS scholarly community, Meldrum also implicitly charges Church leaders with wasting Church funds through research targeted at Central America:

Now there's been millions and millions of dollars have been spent in a vain attempt to show the Book of Mormon happened in Central America. My hope is, is that with this DNA, and the DVD and the information here, that we can at least have some discussion about the Book of Mormon being where Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon itself, testify that it happened.[29]

...

In his presentation Meldrum quotes three examples of how he feels the scholarly community have fallen in "discounting or disdaining Joseph's knowledge." His disapproves, for example, of the following:

Exactly what Joseph Smith believed at different times in his life concerning Book of Mormon geography in general is also indeterminable... Evidently, Joseph Smith's views on this matter were open to further knowledge.[30]

...The Church has long held there was no Book of Mormon geography revealed to Joseph. Not surprisingly, [other] LDS scholars say exactly the same thing.

Meldrum is very pointed in his criticism of a single quote, feeling that it illustrates perfectly how LDS scholars have dismissed and abandoned Joseph Smith:

The historical sources give no indication that Moroni's instructions to young Joseph Smith included geography, nor did Joseph Smith claim inspiration on the matter. Ideas he later expressed about the location of events reported in the book apparently reflected his own best thinking.[31]

This quote is from John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon...

To Meldrum, Sorenson's view is heresy and, notwithstanding the consistent position of the leaders of the Church, he invokes...Gordon B. Hinckley in support of his [own] view: "So, this is the Ensign, December of 2005. President Gordon B. Hinckley, that's what he had to say about this. He says..."[32]

[Meldrum interprets the quote as follows:]

Now, who is he talking about here? Is he talking about anti-Mormons here? Well, whoever these people are, they have plucked the fruit. They've already received some of the fruit. But they're cutting off the roots. That is my bottom line. Joseph knew...[33]

He doesn't say that it is the anti-Mormons to whom President Hinckley refers, [rather,] he must be referring to scholars who are believing and faithful Latter-day Saints. After all, Meldrum uses this quote right after displaying various quotes by LDS scholars [John Sorenson among them].

[Meldrum took Pres. Hinckley's quote completely out of context.]

An acquaintance said to me one day: "I admire your church very much. I think I could accept everything about it--except Joseph Smith."

To which I responded: "That statement is a contradiction. If you accept the revelation, you must accept the revelator."

It is a constantly recurring mystery to me how some people speak with admiration for the Church and its work while at the same time disdaining him through whom, as a servant of the Lord, came the framework of all that the Church is, of all that it teaches, and of all that it stands for. They would pluck the fruit from the tree while cutting off the root from which it grows.[34]

In context, it is clear that President Hinckley is not talking about LDS scholars, but about someone who is not a member of the Church. The person he speaks of will not accept the Church (despite its fruits) because to do so would require that he accept Joseph's prophetic call...

Footnotes:

26 Rodney Meldrum, DNA Evidence, section 3, "Joseph Smith," 36:18.

27 Bruce C. Hafen, " Annual Maxwell Institute Lecture, Brigham Young University, "Reason, Faith, and the Things of Eternity," Provo, Utah (21 March 2008), emphasis added. On-line at http://farms.byu.edu/Elder_Hafen_Mar_21_2008/ (accessed 21 June 2008).

28 "DNA and the Book of Mormon," newsroom.lds.org (16 February 2006). On-line at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon (accessed 21 June 2008).

29 Rodney Meldrum, DNA Evidence, section 17, "Conclusion," 4:20

[Pahoran]

From FAIR's original (and not altogether perfect) initial response to Meldrum:

So he maligned John Sorenson and a few other LDS scholars in his DVD by claiming they were not properly following Joseph Smith, and that President Hinckley himself objected to them, which is false. Needless to say, this rhetorical strategy (either a dishonest twisting of words or the outcome of an incompetent researcher, either option unflattering) didn't sit well with a lot of people. It seems to me that Meldrum knew precicely what he was getting at and was very careful with his words so as to allow a bit of breathing room, an escape hatch of sorts. He made it very easy to read between the lines. This gives me the impression that he knew what he was doing was dishonest, shaky, or perhaps simply questionable. Meldrum used to have a "correction" to this particular quote on his website. I don't know if it is still there.

Now, whether or not Meldrum was treated properly after this DVD was released (different sides have different views on this) it won't do to claim he is some sort of innocent fellow who is being shamefully attacked a la the boy Joseph Smith.

(We can also mention Meldrum's associate who made claims in several news stories that their work was negatively critiqued because the critics would lose money, that the reviews were financially motivated. This is simply false, and it maligned the character of people like Brant Gardner and others.)

LOAP,

Do you think that BoML's CFR makes him unfit for anyone to interact with, and therefore qualifies him to be placed on an "ignore" list?

Or is it just a little bit hypocritical of him to be issuing CFR's in the very same thread where he refuses to provide references for his own unsupported assertions?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here it is. Meldrum also evidently placed a ticker on the wrapper of the old DVDs:

"Correction Notice: A quote from President Hinckley used in the presentation is used incorrectly and will be removed from the next version of the DVD. It was incorrectly understood that the Prophet was speaking of all people who dismiss Joseph Smith, including LDS scholars; however it has been brought to my attention that President Hinckley spoke specifically of non-members and did not specifically mention scholars. As stated in the presentation, if there are mistakes, they will be corrected."

Of course, this is a strange disclaimer in that it retains the erroneous claim that such scholars "dismiss Joseph Smith." These scholars include Matt Roper, Ken Godfrey, and John Sorenson. I haven't seen any newer DVDs, I don't know if it was changed or not. If it retains the claim that these folks "dismiss Joseph Smith" then it still isn't changed to my own liking. Not that he has to capitulate to me,

[Sevenbak]

Perhaps you can articulate for us "Scott Lloyd's test."

I wasn't going to post on here anymore, but I have to say... anyone that can sing the golden pipes like you can in front of 12 Apostles, has passed any perceived test there is.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,

Do you think that BoML's CFR makes him unfit for anyone to interact with, and therefore qualifies him to be placed on an "ignore" list?

Or is it just a little bit hypocritical of him to be issuing CFR's in the very same thread where he refuses to provide references for his own unsupported assertions?

Regards,

Pahoran

Regardless, I think it's lame to use the ignore list as a way to shove it in people's faces. "I put so-and-so on ignore, I am also going to announce it to the world!" Meh.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't going to post on here anymore, but I have to say... anyone that can sing the golden pipes like you can in front of 12 Apostles, has passed any perceived test there is.

For the benefit of everyone else here, I will explain that Sevenbak and I this week had the shared experience of singing in a choir as part of the entertainment for a corporate Christmas party attended by, among others, the First Presidency, nine members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Presiding Bishopric. It was a thoroughly delightful experience and would have been even if they hadn't given us dinner (which I wasn't expecting when I volunteered for the gig).

[cinepro]

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

The Church did publish a series of articles written by John Sorenson in the Ensign in 1984. This would indicate at least some openness to the idea.

On the basis of my own research, I conclude with others that only one area qualifies in all respects

[livy111us]

Who said Meldrum is following what Joseph Smith said and all past prophets and apostles? He is only following a select few statements from Joseph Smith, while ignoring statements from Joseph Smith which do not agree with him, and only follow some modern prophets. He knows this, but continues to claim that he is. Just another, well, lie from him. I don't find him trustworthy when he knows what Joseph Smith has said (I know because, I, along with many others have discussed this with him) , but still ignores them because they go against the theory he is trying to promote. Why? Because his paycheck depends on it.

He isn't following these statements from Joseph Smith (only a two of the many):

After reading Stephens and Catherwoods book on their travels through Mesoamerica, he stated:

"This is a work [stephens and Catherwoods book] that ought to be in the hands of every Latter Day Saint; corroborating, as it does the history of the Book of Mormon. There is no stronger circumstancial evidence of the authenticity of the latter book, can be given, than that contained in Mr. Stephens' works... It has fallen to [stephens] lot to explore the ruins of this once mighty people, but the 'Book of Mormon' unfolds their history; and published as it was, years before these discoveries were made, and giving as it does, accounts of a people, and of cities that bear a striking resemblance to those mentioned by Mr. Stephens, both in regard to magnificence and location." Joseph Smith (editor)," American Antiquities," Times and Seasons 3/18 (15 July 1842): 860

and

"Stephens and Catherwood's researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatamala, and other cities, corroborate this statement, and show that a great and mighty people-men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen [Mormon} unfolds their history." Joseph Smith (editor)," American Antiquities," Times and Seasons 3/18 (15 July 1842): 860

He isn't following the inspired words from these dedicatory prayers:

Gordon B. Hinckleys dedicatory prayer at the Guatemala City, Guatemala temple, he stated, "Thou Kind and Gracious Father, our hearts swell with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi... We thank Thee O God, for lifting the scales of darkness which for generations clouded the vision of the descendants of Lehi"

In his March 6, 1999 dedicatory prayer given at the Colonia Juar

[Bob Crockett]

We've been through this before many times with the dedicatory prayers. They mean nothing to support geography. Those prayer statements are also found in Brazil.

Colonia Juarez is about the same distance from Mexico City as is Baton Rouge. A world apart.

[Brant Gardner]

I know someone who really feels that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of Meldrum's theories to him. I have tried to present the mesoamerican view, but he feels that it requires adherents to jettison too many authoritative statements made by prophets and apostles.

This may encapsulate the nature of the issue with Medrum's theories. He mixes two different types of "evidence." One is tradition and the other is science/history. When those two appear to concur, it creates a powerful motivation to belief (particularly in those who already believe).

I agree that Meldrum sparks more emotions than his theories should. In my case, just a twinge of jealousy, perhaps. However, if I must actually examine what he proposes, I have to separate the two parts to deal with them.

First, the science, history, and geography simply don't work. The science is simply wrong (as demonstrated by quite a number of faithful LDS who actually do work in the field). The history is wrong (as noted by several faithful LDS who are archaeologists or other flavors of anthropologists). The geography doesn't work based on the requirements of the entire Book of Mormon. While he can meet certain requirements, others simply don't fit the distance requirements of the text. Where the geography particularly fails in the analysis I did on it is the correlation between lands and peoples. His Jaredites are in the wrong place and have the wrong relationship to the Nephites when he attempts to correlate them with the Adena and Hopewell.

If you pull out all of the underpinnings of science or history, you are left with prophetic statements (in his argument). It is interesting that this is where he is pushing the model. The arguments for it no longer really deal with anything objective, but rather with this category of "statements of the prophets." Unfortunately, the approach is once again very narrow and selective, making sure to promote only certain statements and to find reasons to dismiss others (which faithful LDS historians attribute to Joseph Smith in spite of Meldrum's denials).

If it weren't for the fact that he stirs an emotional response, it would be no more interesting a theory than it was when Goble and May proposed it and no one noticed. It wasn't a good theory then, and isn't now, for the same reasons that it wasn't then. Goble eventually understood that, even though he worked hard to support the theory for quite a while.

As for the relationship of Meldrum to actual evidence, I noticed that one of the "new" books coming out is The Mystic Symbol. That comes very clearly from Wayne May and expands the Michigan artifacts to their derivative Barrows Cave artifacts. These are incredibly "faith promoting" if you don't know much about artifacts. It is very clear from some of them that the Book of Mormon inspired them. In fact, it did--but after 1830. These are known forgeries. That Meldrum continues to follow May in the promotion of these known forgeries should tell all of us to more carefully examine what Meldrum accepts as evidence (particularly when faithful LDS scholars with actual expertise in the various fields directly contradict Medltrum's "facts").

That leaves us with the issue of faith. There has never been anything wrong with believing that Cumorah and the drummond in New York are one and the same -- from the standpoint of faith. It began very early and a lot of people believed it. What becomes difficult is the implicit suggestion that Joseph Smith made such explicit declarations that our subsequent prophets appear to have forgotten (or worse, intentionally ignored). While I can accept one's faith in tradition, I cannot approve of the implicit suggestion that every prophet since Joseph Smith has forgotten/ignored his very clear teachings. When the official word of the church has been that we don't know the geography of the Book of Mormon and that we are free to search for it, I find no sympathy for anyone who contradicts them and suggests that it really was declared and they don't know what they are talking about. I find that doubly disturbing when the theory behind the statement has no change of being correct.

[livy111us]

We've been through this before many times with the dedicatory prayers. They mean nothing to support geography. Those prayer statements are also found in Brazil.

Colonia Juarez is about the same distance from Mexico City as is Baton Rouge. A world apart.

Who said they are used to support any particular geography? But they do show inspired statements for BOM geography outside the Great Lakes.

[Scott Lloyd]

We've been through this before many times with the dedicatory prayers. They mean nothing to support geography. Those prayer statements are also found in Brazil.

Colonia Juarez is about the same distance from Mexico City as is Baton Rouge. A world apart.

You're right in that locale doesn't make much difference if you accept the probability, as I do, that virtually all people today with pre-Columbian American ancestry are descended from Lehi, this because of the blending of ancestral lineages over time. The Book of Mormon events themselves could have had a limited setting, be it in North or South America, and yet the descent from Book of Mormon peoples could have easily and quite likely did spread over the entire length and breadth of the American continents.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bookofmormonlvr (or however you spell it)? Where'd you go?

[Stargazer]

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.

It's one thing to put someone on one's ignore list, but another one entirely to trumpet it. I have two people on mine, and will not say who they are. The reason they are on my list is because every time they posted something it would tick me off. Since having put them on ignore this has become a great blessing in my lurking here. David is right as to not making the ignore status a kind of weapon.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's one thing to put someone on one's ignore list, but another one entirely to trumpet it. I have two people on mine, and will not say who they are. The reason they are on my list is because every time they posted something it would tick me off. Since having put them on ignore this has become a great blessing in my lurking here. David is right as to not making the ignore status a kind of weapon.

Years ago, on a message board far far away, there was a rabid anti-Mormon who would put people "on ignore" when he didn't like their arguments and would trumpet the fact. I had a bit of fun with him when I would copy and paste their posts into posts of my own to make sure he would see them. For some reason not fully clear to me, he would never put me "on ignore."

[Fifth Columnist]

First, the science, history, and geography simply don't work.

I agree, but you will be hard pressed to convince Meldrum's followers of this. The problem is that they know Meldrum's theory is true by the same means that they know the Church is true - the Holy Ghost. They will cling to that to the end because admitting that they were wrong will cause some serious cracks in the foundation of their faith.

[CQUIRK]

I agree, but you will be hard pressed to convince Meldrum's followers of this. The problem is that they know Meldrum's theory is true by the same means that they know the Church is true - the Holy Ghost. They will cling to that to the end because admitting that they were wrong will cause some serious cracks in the foundation of their faith.

I didn't know that they consider The Adversary as the 'Holy Ghost'.

Idiots!

[livy111us]

I agree, but you will be hard pressed to convince Meldrum's followers of this. The problem is that they know Meldrum's theory is true by the same means that they know the Church is true - the Holy Ghost. They will cling to that to the end because admitting that they were wrong will cause some serious cracks in the foundation of their faith.

What about the people who have felt the "spirit" during Mesoamerican tours? Or in South America? I don't think the Spirit bears witness to every area whether the BOM actually happened there or not.

[Anijen]

What about the people who have felt the "spirit" during Mesoamerican tours? Or in South America? I don't think the Spirit bears witness to every area whether the BOM actually happened there or not.

I agree the Holy Ghost can use any location if he wants to validate truth. The Holy Ghost will confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon if you are in Siberia or Tahiti, Palmyra or Chiapas.

[Fifth Columnist]

What about the people who have felt the "spirit" during Mesoamerican tours? Or in South America? I don't think the Spirit bears witness to every area whether the BOM actually happened there or not.

My answer is that the feelings of the "spirit" are not a reliable indicator of truth. I think people can use those feelings to guide the course of their lives with good results, but I don't think they should be relied upon to determine the ultimate truth of anything.

[cinepro]

I'll just take a moment to point out that it would be absolutely awesome if President Monson put an end to these disagreements by identifying, through revelation, a few New World locations for Book of Mormon cities or events. It would take less than 30 seconds of time in conference (or perhaps a letter, only this time publish far and wide instead of faxing it to someone who might lose it). Such a statement could save at least a few people from spending inordinate amounts of time and money mistakenly walking around lands that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Since, by definition, the promoters and followers of at least one of these competing geographies are promoting and following erroneous conclusions (and marketing their false conclusions to Church members), this wouldn't be something totally surprising for the Lord to want to straighten out.

[LifeOnaPlate]

BookofMormonLuvr??

[Mortal Man]

I'll just take a moment to point out that it would be absolutely awesome if President Monson put an end to these disagreements by identifying, through revelation, a few New World locations for Book of Mormon cities or events. It would take less than 30 seconds of time in conference (or perhaps a letter, only this time publish far and wide instead of faxing it to someone who might lose it). Such a statement could save at least a few people from spending inordinate amounts of time and money mistakenly walking around lands that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps you could write something and get him to sign it.