An Open Letter To Rodney Meldrum

[livy111us]

Since many are unaware why so many disagree with Rodney Meldrum and his tactics, here are a two open letters to him from Dr. Greg Smith which give some insight into the situation

 

http://d7.bmaf.org/node/367

 

 

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO ROD MELDRUM

[Rod Meldrum sent me an e-mail recently. My reply is below. A paraphrased version of Rod's text is in red. I speak only for myself, not the Church of Jesus Christ, FAIR, or the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.]

 

Dear Rod:

Thank-you for your recent e-mail. I have also seen copies of your recent exchange with Stan Barker.

 

I didn’t have your email address. You don’t need to worry, I don’t harass anyone so don’t need to change your contact information. I’m really not a bad guy.

 

I've never said you were “a bad guy.” I think you have done some very unwise things. [You are welcome to contact me if you have something substantive and not more rants about my evil ways, but glsmith7@telus.net is far more reliable. The g-mail isn't always checked for days at a time.]

 

Snake Oil

 

I am happy to hear that you are willing to be civil, but your article was full of sarcasm, and wasn't impressed with what you said about ‘snake oil.’

 

I think you're mistaking occasional irony for sarcasm. But, in this case irony wasn't even the intent. Do you know what “snake oil” refers to? It doesn't have anything to do with you being a snake or oily, or anything like that. It refers to the patent medicines sold by hucksters in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. “Snake oil” was one of many things they put in the medicines (or claimed to) because they sounded exotic and fancy. “Snake oil” thus refers to:

“any of various liquid concoctions of questionable medical value sold as an all-purpose curative, especially by traveling hucksters.” [See here.]

So, what I am saying here was not meant in jest, nor in a cruel or sarcastic manner. I meant it very precisely, and I picked the image intentionally.

I mean that your book has pretensions to scientific accuracy and miraculous results, and makes a great many swelling claims for itself. (Just like those useless or deadly patent medicines did.) But, those claims are not borne out by the evidence, they are in many cases ridiculous or in error, and they are offered to the consumer with more marketing and hoop-lah than evidence, restraint, or concern for the patient who will be drinking your (useless, and potentially dangerous) mixture.

Snake oil salesmen still exist in medicine. I encounter them frequently. Some are shysters, but I think it more common (and more dangerous) to have a true believer snake oil salesman —he really thinks that he has something to cure the world, and assumes I must be financially threatened by him or hopelessly biased not to embrace it. Sound familiar? :-)

Now, you may not like that conclusion about your work—I would not expect you to--but I stand by it. And, the evidence for it is the dozens of pages which precede my concluding sentence.

 

     Full article removed

 

 Fair Use laws apply on this board, please do not copy pages of material.

[livy111us]

[Bob Crockett]

Utterly ridiculous.   No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation.  It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion.  Both Dr. Smith and Meldrum need to abandon the field.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[livy111us]

As well as others...

[strappinglad]

It is sad to see so much effort to work with a horse who ,even though surrounded by fresh water, refuses to drink. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as there are whole churches built up on the interpretation of ONE verse in the Bible.

[Bob Crockett]

As well as others...

I don't engage in geographic speculation.  I point to statements of the Brethren denouncing such.   

 

I don't care what model is correct, except spatial models without regard to actual geography like the one Dr. Sorenson has in his book.  That has been helpful to my seminary teaching of the Book of Mormon.  

 

All the on-the-ground models are incorrect, the arm of the flesh, they draw near to God with their lips but hearts are far from Him, and all of them are rooted in faithlessness in the text of the Book of Mormon.  I'm not saying that people who are fond of a particular theory lack faith; I'm saying that the genesis of each theory is that the Book of Mormon does not constitute enough on the subject.  

 

The exchange above is ludicrous.   Greg Smith comes across as a whole lot worse than Meldrum.  As to Meldrum, what a waste of time.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Teancum]

Sort of like arguing about where is Mordor, Rivendale or Lothlorien....

[Bob Crockett]

Sort of like arguing about where is Mordor, Rivendale or Lothlorien....

Not quite.  It is more like staking your belief in the Bible upon finding the whereabouts of Goshen, or proving the Shroud of Turin, or carrying around pieces of the True Cross.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I am content to have the Book of Mormon events happen anywhere in the America's, as long as they happened.  I just think that Dr. Sorenson's Mesoamerican model more closely depicts the location. 

Edited April 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[strappinglad]

Come now, you mean to tell me that if some famous non- Mormon archeologist came upon a cache of metal plates in southern Mexico that were written in a form of Hebrew and had the appropriate provenance, that would not be a major game changer, particularly if the writing was translated to " this record is dedicated to the sons of Moroni " ?

Or if a mound in New York State was opened and found a tomb containing remains with an inscription which when deciphered read" Here lies Hagoth the ship builder" it would not be a shot heard round the religious world?

The difference between finding bible related places and BoM related places is the story of where the books came from. If BoM places are found then the book's miraculous appearance and message of Christ is verified. It does not mean that a testimony through the Holy Ghost is not longer needed.

[thesometimesaint]

Come now, you mean to tell me that if some famous non- Mormon archeologist came upon a cache of metal plates in southern Mexico that were written in a form of Hebrew and had the appropriate provenance, that would not be a major game changer, particularly if the writing was translated to " this record is dedicated to the sons of Moroni " ?

Or if a mound in New York State was opened and found a tomb containing remains with an inscription which when deciphered read" Here lies Hagoth the ship builder" it would not be a shot heard round the religious world?

The difference between finding bible related places and BoM related places is the story of where the books came from. If BoM places are found then the book's miraculous appearance and message of Christ is verified. It does not mean that a testimony through the Holy Ghost is not longer needed.

 

While almost anything is possible. I don't foresee even an LDS archeologist doing that anytime soon.

[Bob Crockett]

Come now, you mean to tell me that if some famous non- Mormon archeologist came upon a cache of metal plates in southern Mexico that were written in a form of Hebrew and had the appropriate provenance, that would not be a major game changer, particularly if the writing was translated to " this record is dedicated to the sons of Moroni " ?

Oh, most certainly.  

 

But that hasn't happened.  Instead we are treated to games of parallelism and the wildest possible speculation based upon the flimsiest of reeds in the Book of Mormon.

 

As I have pointed out in the past, Dr. Sorenson is not a cartographer and did not use accepted statistical cartographic means to compare an ancient text to real-world geography, a point also observed by BYU Studies when what appears to be a geographer reviewed his 1985 book.  I mean, it  wasn't rocket science (but it is difficult science) for cartogrpahers or geographers to have made the attempt to trace Marco Polo's journey from his text, or Henry Hudson, or Alexander the Great, or many others.   This is way out of my field, but I was surprised to read the brief BYU Studies blurb on the subject, which opened my eyes a little wider.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[BookofMormonLuvr]

[livy111us]

Most every topic spoken about on this board is beating a dead horse in one way or another. This is providing information that was not previous known. It would be like bringing new information to any apologetic issue that has been discussed here at one time or another.

[Scott Lloyd]

Most every topic spoken about on this board is beating a dead horse in one way or another. This is providing information that was not previous known. It would be like bringing new information to any apologetic issue that has been discussed here at one time or another.

It is material I was not previously aware of. I appreciate the links.

[canard78]

Utterly ridiculous. No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation. It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion. Both Dr. Smith and Meldrum need to abandon the field.

I agree with you Bob.

[canard78]

Oh, most certainly.

But that hasn't happened. Instead we are treated to games of parallelism and the wildest possible speculation based upon the flimsiest of reeds in the Book of Mormon.

As I have pointed out in the past, Dr. Sorenson is not a cartographer and did not use accepted statistical cartographic means to compare an ancient text to real-world geography, a point also observed by BYU Studies when what appears to be a geographer reviewed his 1985 book. I mean, it wasn't rocket science (but it is difficult science) for cartogrpahers or geographers to have made the attempt to trace Marco Polo's journey from his text, or Henry Hudson, or Alexander the Great, or many others. This is way out of my field, but I was surprised to read the brief BYU Studies blurb on the subject, which opened my eyes a little wider.

Do you have a link or reference please? A relative is currently gobbling up Mormon's Codex. I found it interesting but no-where near conclusive. Edited April 11, 2014 by canard78

[MiserereNobis]

, or carrying around pieces of the True Cross.

 

We've got one of those in my parish church...

[cursor]

edit:

You said: "Dr. Sorenson is not a cartographer and did not use accepted statistical cartographic means to compare an ancient text to real-world geography"

 

Please clarify whether or not you are a cartographer, and whether or not you know what it means to be a cartographer. Thanks.

Edited June 9, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

Most every topic spoken about on this board is beating a dead horse in one way or another. This is providing information that was not previous known. It would be like bringing new information to any apologetic issue that has been discussed here at one time or another.

 

Actually, I think more correctly, you meant to say "beating a dead tapir."

Edited June 9, 2014 by cursor

[jkwilliams]

Utterly ridiculous.   No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation.  It leads to hard feelings, accusations of unfaithfulness on all sides and confusion.  Both Dr. Smith and Meldrum need to abandon the field.

I agree with you. I've never understood the animosity between the two "camps." Attempting to situate Book of Mormon action in a specific location is problematic, and both the LGT and the Heartland theory have their own issues. It's not as if either camp is on firmer ground or has the backing of the church, so why the intensity of feeling?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you. I've never understood the animosity between the two "camps." Attempting to situate Book of Mormon action in a specific location is problematic, and both the LGT and the Heartland theory have their own issues. It's not as if either camp is on firmer ground or has the backing of the church, so why the intensity of feeling?

With respect, John, since you reject the authenticity of the Book of Mormon outright in any case, why do you care whether a believer subscribes to this or that theory and how intense his or her feeling is?

Edited June 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cursor]

This is way out of my field, but I was surprised to read the brief BYU Studies blurb on the subject, which opened my eyes a little wider.

 

Perhaps there's room for your eyes might be widened a bit further, Bob. Have you read, and do you understand JLS's recent publication, Mormon's Codex?

[jkwilliams]

With respect, John, since you reject the authenticity of the Book of Mormon outright in any case, why do care whether a believer subscribes to this or that theory and how intense his or her feeling is?

I don't care who believes what, really, but I find the whole thing rather fascinating in that there is genuine animosity over something that really doesn't matter. It's sort of the same fascination I have that every March 23, Bolivians hold huge demonstrations during which they burn Chilean flags.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't care who believes what, really, but I find the whole thing rather fascinating in that there is genuine animosity over something that really doesn't matter. It's sort of the same fascination I have that every March 23, Bolivians hold huge demonstrations during which they burn Chilean flags.

I think what animosity there is has arisen from one camp's calling the faith and spiritual devotion of the other into question because of the position the other group holds.

 

Were it not for that, I think this would be hardly more than an academic disagreement.