Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
caspianrex

Annotated Book of Mormon

Recommended Posts

A couple months ago, @Robert F. Smith brought to my attention an annotated edition of The Book of Mormon, edited by David Hocking and Rodney Meldrum: https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

He also shared a rather in-depth review (really more of a critique) of the work: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/

I just happened on a somewhat more concise critique of the edition here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog entry/2019/Executive-Summary-Master Legally Revised.pdf

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum (besides Robert) had any experience with, or thoughts about, this annotated edition. It seems a bit pricey to me, so I don't suppose I'll acquire a copy unless I see one cheaper somewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have had experience with Meldrum, not the book. He is, imo, a showman, more concerned with style than substance and accuracy. If you buy it, my guess is it won’t be scholarship that it informs you about, but a particular world view, one that is very American-centric and tending to be a more aggressive type of believer*** (as in sees those who disagree with them even in nonessential or nonsalvific parts of the Church) as part of the faithless enemy even when they are faithful by anyone else’s standard).  

***There are aggressive believers, imo, in pretty every variation of Saint in the Church. The Meldrum approach seems to attract or create more than their fair share though, perhaps because they often include political ideology in their theories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

A couple months ago, @Robert F. Smith brought to my attention an annotated edition of The Book of Mormon, edited by David Hocking and Rodney Meldrum: https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

He also shared a rather in-depth review (really more of a critique) of the work: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/

I just happened on a somewhat more concise critique of the edition here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog entry/2019/Executive-Summary-Master Legally Revised.pdf

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum (besides Robert) had any experience with, or thoughts about, this annotated edition. It seems a bit pricey to me, so I don't suppose I'll acquire a copy unless I see one cheaper somewhere.

I am intentionally NOT a scholar of the history or geography of Book of Mormon- I look at it strictly as a spiritual work of tremendous spiritual value, easily equaling the Bible if not more important spiritually BUT its history and geographic questions, in my opinion, are independent variables in regard to its spiritual value.   Maybe some of it "happened" maybe all, maybe none, I find those questions unconnected and therefore irrelevant to its spiritual value, as the historicity of Jesus' parables are irrelevant to the Bible's history.

That said, perhaps you are not acquainted with some of the controversies we have here about the mound builders and the Heartland Model.

Suffice it to say that the Heartland model is not highly regarded by serious BOM scholars and is controversial because of its connection to Rod Meldrum who has made a living of promoting tours of alleged BOM sites.

Again, I do not take any sides in any of this- I simply wanted to inform you of the controversy in case you were unaware.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

A couple months ago, @Robert F. Smith brought to my attention an annotated edition of The Book of Mormon, edited by David Hocking and Rodney Meldrum: https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

He also shared a rather in-depth review (really more of a critique) of the work: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/

I just happened on a somewhat more concise critique of the edition here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog entry/2019/Executive-Summary-Master Legally Revised.pdf

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum (besides Robert) had any experience with, or thoughts about, this annotated edition. It seems a bit pricey to me, so I don't suppose I'll acquire a copy unless I see one cheaper somewhere.

But I already have this one: https://deseretbook.com/p/book-mormon-reference-companion-dennis-largey-41986?ref=recommend-product&variant_id=61360-hardcover]

I hope you're not suggesting I need another book now.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am intentionally NOT a scholar of the history or geography of Book of Mormon- I look at it strictly as a spiritual work of tremendous spiritual value, easily equaling the Bible if not more important spiritually BUT its history and geographic questions, in my opinion, are independent variables in regard to its spiritual value.   Maybe some of it "happened" maybe all, maybe none, I find those questions unconnected and therefore irrelevant to its spiritual value, as the historicity of Jesus' parables are irrelevant to the Bible's history.

That said, perhaps you are not acquainted with some of the controversies we have here about the mound builders and the Heartland Model.

Suffice it to say that the Heartland model is not highly regarded by serious BOM scholars and is controversial because of its connection to Rod Meldrum who has made a living of promoting tours of alleged BOM sites.

Again, I do not take any sides in any of this- I simply wanted to inform you of the controversy in case you were unaware.

I am not completely unaware of the debate, but I am only familiar with some of the basics of the controversy.

Most of the negative critique I have read of Hocking & Meldrum's Annotated BOM seem to be objecting to exactly what you're describing: an attempt to argue in favor of a position, while playing fast and loose with archaeology and history. As a non-member, I find the argument interesting, but I don't think it has any bearing on my reading of the BOM.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

I am not completely unaware of the debate, but I am only familiar with some of the basics of the controversy.

Most of the negative critique I have read of Hocking & Meldrum's Annotated BOM seem to be objecting to exactly what you're describing: an attempt to argue in favor of a position, while playing fast and loose with archaeology and history. As a non-member, I find the argument interesting, but I don't think it has any bearing on my reading of the BOM.

I think we are in the same camp then, but I am a member and have a different set of views than do many.

I am a Wittgensteinian- Kierkegaardian mystic fideist.  Dang that's a bunch of big words that means "In God We Trust- all others pay cash!"

I like the stories Mormons tell about cosmology and God has wonked me over the head telling me this is where I belong despite - or because of- my philosophical training and who am I to argue with The Boss?  ;)

These folks on all sides squabble about things that are totally irrelevant to me and I am baffled that they actually let this drek let them get closer to God.   Oh well.  ;)

What motivates you to collect Bibles?  It sounds like an interesting hobby!  I like to collect ideas so I guess that is somewhat similar?! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

I don't think it has any bearing on my reading of the BOM.

I would just be careful if you buy it in assuming any doctrinal discussion is mainstream, especially if dealing with prophecy interpretation or connection with actual location or people. 

I assume in collecting BoMs you are probably familiar with various interpretations and may well be able to recognize when they beer into speculation vs official interpretation or connection with other revelation. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, caspianrex said:

A couple months ago, @Robert F. Smith brought to my attention an annotated edition of The Book of Mormon, edited by David Hocking and Rodney Meldrum: https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

He also shared a rather in-depth review (really more of a critique) of the work: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/

I just happened on a somewhat more concise critique of the edition here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog entry/2019/Executive-Summary-Master Legally Revised.pdf

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum (besides Robert) had any experience with, or thoughts about, this annotated edition. It seems a bit pricey to me, so I don't suppose I'll acquire a copy unless I see one cheaper somewhere.

I saw an early summary of what it promised to offer, and agree with any negative critique I've read about it... and before I actually read any negative critique. Too much personal interpretation for what I'd expect / be interested in, and the scholarship (whether done badly or well; controversial to say the least) too quickly outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, I too have a copy of Dennis Largey's BofM Reference Companion -- a kind of BofM dictionary, and very helpful when you have a question about something.  Same as for a Bible Dictionary, of which there are many.

A study BofM is a whole different idea, in which the printed page is laid out so as to be easy to read, with quotation marks, poetry set as poetry, and with subject headings,  charts, and even maps.  Many modern Bibles already do that, and BofM lovers have been trying to do the same thing lately.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I do not have a problem with Meldrum running tours. Mesoamerican model people have run more then a few of them too. I do have a problem with him suggesting covert General Authority approval and especially with how he is either ignorant or dishonest about the things he is discussing. I am not a skilled archaeologist but I am a science reader and I read excerpts of the “science” book that was supposedly going to shake the paradigm of science entirely that Meldrum endorsed and is making money off of. The stuff said was absolute rubbish and the arguments laughable but sound plausible enough to appeal to “common sense” thinkers and the defiance of scientific consensus will probably thrill those who buy into it. After that I knew he was a con man and if he cannot be trusted in one area I see no reason to trust him in another.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The real con is the Mesoamerica model ripped off from the RLDS Church by F.A.R.M.S., now known as:

Book of Mormon Central = Jack Welch + Kirk Magleby

The Interpreter Foundation = Dan Peterson

 

Louis E Hills, 1919: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t39z9z24w;view=2up;seq=34;skin=mobile

This book is listed here for sale here for $10.00:

“Hills, Louis E., Historical Data from Ancient Records and Ruins of Mexico and Central America, 1919, private, 48 pages $10.00”
https://restornews.blogspot.com/2019/01/restoration-library-book-sale.html

Hills is mentioned in the 1922 RLDS General Conference minutes:

Minutes of General Conference of 1922
(page 210 of the pdf; or page 3288 of the scanned document)
 
“BOOK OF MORMON ARCH.tEOLOGY
It was moved to sustain the commission on Book of Mormon Archreology, appointed to examine the works produced by Elder L. E. Hills, such commis- sion to report to the next General Conference. Fol- lowing discussion the previous question was ordered and the motion prevailed.
A motion to add two members to the commission was laid on the table.“
 
This indicates RLDS Scholars wagged the dog of the RLDS Church:
“... appointed to exam the works..”
———-
Hills was the first to come up with the Hill Cumorah outside of New York, thus the “Two Cumorah” theory. Hills mentions this in his 1924 book, page 131:
I have no objection to that hill being also called Cumorah, with the understanding that the ancient hill Cumorah is still undiscovered, and that sometime its secrets will be revealed and come to the knowledge of God's people.”
 
The CofC Hill Cumorah Expedition Team, also a 501(c)(3), is doing that today: http://www.hceti.org/
 
A portrait of LE Hills is on the 27th page of this .pdf
A portrait of Joseph Smith III is on the 5th page.
 
L E Hills is mentioned by LDS Scholar, John Tvedtnes - John Sorenson (see footnote 6), Matt Roper, etc., here:
 
The Two-Cumorah Mesoamerica geography theory is a complete fraud originating with the RLDS Church, in the 1920s, as noted above.. But is being promoted by Welch, Magelby, Peterson and their 501(c)(3) employees. FairMormon also promotes it. The Maxwell Institute promotes it. The BYU Religion dept does: www.bom.byu.edu
 
This RLDS 501(c)(3) organization in Missouri promotes it today, as well: https://www.bomf.org/
 
Rip on Rod Meldrum all you want.
But he doesn’t claim Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were speculating on the location of the Hill Cumorah, like Welch, Peterson, Magleby do, to be able to claim the original Hill Cumorah is in Mesoamerica.
Edited by Burnside

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, caspianrex said:

A couple months ago, @Robert F. Smith brought to my attention an annotated edition of The Book of Mormon, edited by David Hocking and Rodney Meldrum: https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

He also shared a rather in-depth review (really more of a critique) of the work: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/

I just happened on a somewhat more concise critique of the edition here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog entry/2019/Executive-Summary-Master Legally Revised.pdf

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum (besides Robert) had any experience with, or thoughts about, this annotated edition. It seems a bit pricey to me, so I don't suppose I'll acquire a copy unless I see one cheaper somewhere.

I do not know Rod Meldrum nor Frank May. I do know that they are kind of a tag team for "the heartland model." They seem to buy into a lot of very speculative archaeological pieces - things most archaeologists call hoaxes. IMHO they also get a lot of archaeology plain wrong. I also disagree with their geographical ideas about the Book of Mormon. As people, I think they are both decent people, but for instance I just don't believe that the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon is across the river from Nauvoo, IL, and they both seem to be willing to build their geographical model around that.

However, I do not completely disagree with their interpretations of the Book of Mormon and D&C, and believe they have a lot more right than people give them credit for. I have not seen this annotated version of the Book of Mormon, but my guess is I will disagree with much of it - whatever value that statement may have for you.  I would definitely not buy it without being able to examine one. I will say that I often look at controversial stuff. I like to explore ideas. Sometimes that gives me new ideas. Maybe I will try to find one of these at some library... 

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Product Description

This particular edition of the Book of Mormon seems to have struck a resonant chord among readers. From the moment they feel its luxurious cover and see the brilliant gold gilding on its pages, readers are compelled to open its pages and begin reading the contents. 

https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

Well, it looks like you really can judge a book by its cover! 

Also, I wonder about this statement from the Amazon editorial review...

Quote

The book's unique appeal stems in part from the fact that it is the first edition to feature a complete literary treatment of all of the Hebraisms in the text.   [2018]

I thought that honor belonged to Donald Perry’s Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon [2007]. I love that edition which, BTW, avoids statements about locations, etc.

Quote

Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted comprises the entire text of the Book of Mormon formatted into historical narrative or paralletistic forms. All of these forms and figures are designed to present the central message of the Book of Mormon Jesus Christ and his gospel in an unforgettable, understandable, artistic, and fascinating way.

https://www.amazon.com/Poetic-Parallelisms-Mormon-Donald-Parry/dp/0934893365

I haven’t seen the Hocking/Meldrum version yet. Did they improve Brother Perry’s research andformstting, do their own research and editing, or did they just use his information?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did they improve Brother Perry’s research, do their own research and editing, or did they just use his information?

Hocking's degree appears to be in chemistry and he works as a salesman, so unlikely expert in Hebraisms; Meldrum doesn't have that background.  Rian Nelson's qualifications from his bio is his personal interest in the subject.  Jonathan Nelville is Jonathan Nelville,  Boyd Tuttle is listed as technical editor, so assuming that means no for him as well.

Most likely they just used the info I am guessing, hopefully with permission.  I am remembering some copyright issues being mentioned (may have been artwork), I will see if I can find where that was discussed.

As evidence of their ability to do actual research of Hebrew:

Quote

A chart provided on p. 542 lists “words and phrases” that are shared by “Indians of America” and biblical Hebrew. The first problem with this chart is that it does not specify which “Indians of America” are being discussed, so it is impossible to verify which language to check to see if the parallels are valid. The short citations of two eighteenth and nineteenth sources to give some kind of credence to the chart are woefully inadequate, as they offer no genuine anthropological or linguistic insight, but rather reflect what is now widely considered to be thoroughly out of date speculation, at best, about Native American origins.9 Besides this problem, the chart also suffers from the fact that many of the Hebrew words listed aren’t actually Hebrew. “Jehovah,” for instance, the first word cited as parallel to the “Indian” word “Yohewah,” is not actually Hebrew, but the English mispronunciation of the German mispronunciation of the Latin mispronunciation of a deliberate Hebrew mispronunciation of the tetragrammaton (YHWH),10 which is believed to have originally been pronounced something like ya-weh.11 “It was never actually pronounced ‘Jehovah’ in antiquity.”12 Additional non-Hebrew words (or badly confused words) in the chart include, but are not limited to, those for Heavens(shamayim, not “Shemin”), Wife (ʾishah, not “Eweh, Eve”), His wife (ʾishto, not “Lihene”), nose (ʾaf, not “Neheri”), Winter (choref, not “Korah”), Do (ʿasah, not “Jannon”), and Assembly (qahal, not “Grabit”). The last phrase on the chart, Waiter of the high priest, has no known correspondence in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is obvious that Hocking and Meldrum are clueless to even the basics of Hebrew, and have merely passed on spurious parallels they uncritically accepted from thoroughly outdated sources

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-4.html

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Burnside said:

The real con is the Mesoamerica model ripped off from the RLDS Church by F.A.R.M.S., now known as:

Book of Mormon Central = Jack Welch + Kirk Magleby

The Interpreter Foundation = Dan Peterson

 

Louis E Hills, 1919: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t39z9z24w;view=2up;seq=34;skin=mobile

This book is listed here for sale here for $10.00:

“Hills, Louis E., Historical Data from Ancient Records and Ruins of Mexico and Central America, 1919, private, 48 pages $10.00”
https://restornews.blogspot.com/2019/01/restoration-library-book-sale.html

Hills is mentioned in the 1922 RLDS General Conference minutes:

Minutes of General Conference of 1922
(page 210 of the pdf; or page 3288 of the scanned document)
 
“BOOK OF MORMON ARCH.tEOLOGY
It was moved to sustain the commission on Book of Mormon Archreology, appointed to examine the works produced by Elder L. E. Hills, such commis- sion to report to the next General Conference. Fol- lowing discussion the previous question was ordered and the motion prevailed.
A motion to add two members to the commission was laid on the table.“
 
This indicates RLDS Scholars wagged the dog of the RLDS Church:
“... appointed to exam the works..”
———-
Hills was the first to come up with the Hill Cumorah outside of New York, thus the “Two Cumorah” theory. Hills mentions this in his 1924 book, page 131:
I have no objection to that hill being also called Cumorah, with the understanding that the ancient hill Cumorah is still undiscovered, and that sometime its secrets will be revealed and come to the knowledge of God's people.”
 
The CofC Hill Cumorah Expedition Team, also a 501(c)(3), is doing that today: http://www.hceti.org/
 
A portrait of LE Hills is on the 27th page of this .pdf
A portrait of Joseph Smith III is on the 5th page.
 
L E Hills is mentioned by LDS Scholar, John Tvedtnes - John Sorenson (see footnote 6), Matt Roper, etc., here:
 
The Two-Cumorah Mesoamerica geography theory is a complete fraud originating with the RLDS Church, in the 1920s, as noted above.. But is being promoted by Welch, Magelby, Peterson and their 501(c)(3) employees. FairMormon also promotes it. The Maxwell Institute promotes it. The BYU Religion dept does: www.bom.byu.edu
 
This RLDS 501(c)(3) organization in Missouri promotes it today, as well: https://www.bomf.org/
 
Rip on Rod Meldrum all you want.
But he doesn’t claim Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were speculating on the location of the Hill Cumorah, like Welch, Peterson, Magleby do, to be able to claim the original Hill Cumorah is in Mesoamerica.

saupload_e48fe2c9-abb6-4228-9013-2e21f6e

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Burnside said:

But he doesn’t claim Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were speculating on the location of the Hill Cumorah

Please provide evidence that Joseph Smith, himself, indicated that the NY hill was Cumorah prior to the Wentworth letter. What did he call it, and why wasn't that name Cumorah? If you are going to claim it, please provide evidence. LDS historians working for the Church History Department couldn't find any early use of Cumorah by Joseph--even when he referred to the hill directly. Can you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, caspianrex said:

A couple months ago, @Robert F. Smith brought to my attention an annotated edition of The Book of Mormon, edited by David Hocking and Rodney Meldrum: https://deseretbook.com/p/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon?variant_id=172007-hardcover

He also shared a rather in-depth review (really more of a critique) of the work: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/

I just happened on a somewhat more concise critique of the edition here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog entry/2019/Executive-Summary-Master Legally Revised.pdf

Meanwhile, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum (besides Robert) had any experience with, or thoughts about, this annotated edition. It seems a bit pricey to me, so I don't suppose I'll acquire a copy unless I see one cheaper somewhere.

I know you didn't ask, but I did find this version for $56 with free shipping https://beaconlightbooks.com/product/the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon/

Again, just be aware that this edition apparently includes some very speculative stuff. For instance it references the Newark Holy Stones. I believe these to be a fraud perpetrated on their finder. The decalogue stone is in an aramaic block style lettering the Jews didn't use until after the Babylonian captivity, and therefore would be a form unknown to the Lehites or any other of the "lost" Hebrew tribes. It has Sephardic traits, and was probably an arm phylactery purchased by pranksters trying to get the surveyor fired, and planted where they knew he would find it. I don't believe they created it. Realizing their mistake, they then purchased the keystone, which was in the earlier paleo-Hebrew, and planted it. However, this points to at least one of these stones basically having to be fake, which casts serious doubt on the whole possibility of an early Hebrew American origin for these stones. My guess is that kind of detail is omitted from this annotated version. 

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Burnside said:

The real con is the Mesoamerica model ripped off from the RLDS Church by F.A.R.M.S., now known as:

Book of Mormon Central = Jack Welch + Kirk Magleby

The Interpreter Foundation = Dan Peterson

 

Louis E Hills, 1919: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t39z9z24w;view=2up;seq=34;skin=mobile

This book is listed here for sale here for $10.00:

“Hills, Louis E., Historical Data from Ancient Records and Ruins of Mexico and Central America, 1919, private, 48 pages $10.00”
https://restornews.blogspot.com/2019/01/restoration-library-book-sale.html

Hills is mentioned in the 1922 RLDS General Conference minutes:

Minutes of General Conference of 1922
(page 210 of the pdf; or page 3288 of the scanned document)
 
“BOOK OF MORMON ARCH.tEOLOGY
It was moved to sustain the commission on Book of Mormon Archreology, appointed to examine the works produced by Elder L. E. Hills, such commis- sion to report to the next General Conference. Fol- lowing discussion the previous question was ordered and the motion prevailed.
A motion to add two members to the commission was laid on the table.“
 
This indicates RLDS Scholars wagged the dog of the RLDS Church:
“... appointed to exam the works..”
———-
Hills was the first to come up with the Hill Cumorah outside of New York, thus the “Two Cumorah” theory. Hills mentions this in his 1924 book, page 131:
I have no objection to that hill being also called Cumorah, with the understanding that the ancient hill Cumorah is still undiscovered, and that sometime its secrets will be revealed and come to the knowledge of God's people.”
 
The CofC Hill Cumorah Expedition Team, also a 501(c)(3), is doing that today: http://www.hceti.org/
 
A portrait of LE Hills is on the 27th page of this .pdf
A portrait of Joseph Smith III is on the 5th page.
 
L E Hills is mentioned by LDS Scholar, John Tvedtnes - John Sorenson (see footnote 6), Matt Roper, etc., here:
 
The Two-Cumorah Mesoamerica geography theory is a complete fraud originating with the RLDS Church, in the 1920s, as noted above.. But is being promoted by Welch, Magelby, Peterson and their 501(c)(3) employees. FairMormon also promotes it. The Maxwell Institute promotes it. The BYU Religion dept does: www.bom.byu.edu
 
This RLDS 501(c)(3) organization in Missouri promotes it today, as well: https://www.bomf.org/
 
Rip on Rod Meldrum all you want.
But he doesn’t claim Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were speculating on the location of the Hill Cumorah, like Welch, Peterson, Magleby do, to be able to claim the original Hill Cumorah is in Mesoamerica.

I struggle with the Heartland Model because A) its advocates have generally failed to present much in the way of well-reasoned evidence and argument, and B) they instead resort to ad hominem nastiness (such as is very much on display in your post) to critique the Mesoamerican-based models of BOM geography.

I've worked as a litigating attorney for fifteen years now.  I've encountered attorneys who rely on this sort of all-bombast-and-no-substance histrionics.  In pretty much every case, this is because their argument or legal position is deeply flawed or unsupported in some material way.  I keep having this suspicion about Meldrum (and Neville).

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Calm cited one of Stephen Smoot's blog entries critical of the AEBOM. Stephen did an entire series that in my view pretty much eviscerates the thing. Stephen's analysis is very insightful, and the comments are quite enlightening/entertaining.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-2.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3a.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3b.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3c.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3d.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3e.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-4.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-5.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-6.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-7.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-8.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-postscript.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Calm cited one of Stephen Smoot's blog entries critical of the AEBOM. Stephen did an entire series that in my view pretty much eviscerates the thing. Stephen's analysis is very insightful, and the comments are quite enlightening/entertaining.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-2.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3a.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3b.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3c.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3d.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-3e.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-4.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-5.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-6.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-7.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-8.html

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-postscript.html

 

       Thank you for posting this !.

Edited by Anakin7

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Anakin7 said:

       Tried to click on links, they do not work.

They weren't 'activated'.  Click on them in your post, the blue color indicates they are a link

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

“But apparently it’s has to be hidden through censorship, since I obviously got banned and will be again, by the all powerful Nemesis who was too much of a chicken to note it here for others to see in the future, and likely was contacted by the Mesoamerica crybabies on this site who can’t stand the TRUTH, because it destroys their 501(c)(3) business in promoting a RLDS geography fraud started in the 1920s“

If this was true, then why in the world do the mods let you come back over and over again when they have to know you are just going to post your accusations again?

add-on:  my pardon...it does appear you finally got banned or at least you decided not to wait until the ban was lifted and instead posted under a new alias to circumvent the mods' decision.  Which means you chose to lie when you agree to abide by the terms of the board when you signed up unless things have changed.

Never understood why some posters think it is so necessary to post their criticism here that they are willing to be dishonest in their dealings to do so.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, -Burnside- said:

D&C 128:20 - which you don’t believe either.

But what you do believe is Joseph Smith was talking about Mexico, then in the next phrase was mentioning New York. 😄

Asking for a source does not suggest that I am inviting you to insult or question my faith. Please stop. 

Second, you will remember that I asked for an early source. 1842 is not early. As I noted, Joseph did eventually use the term, but well after it had become accepted shorthand. Thus, DC 128 continues to underscore the argument I made, and does in no way support your position. Joseph did not call it Cumorah until late, and 1842 is late. 

If Joseph didn't call it Cumorah until long after others did, why do you think that was? If he knew it was Cumorah, why didn't he say so and why wait until the Saints decided if for him?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, -Burnside- said:

Brant Gardner is having a Faith Crisis.

Stop making assessments of my faith. You are not my Bishop, therefore not qualified.

Second, my understanding is based on historians, not anonymous Internet denizens.

Reeve, Rex C., Jr., and Richard O. Cowan. “The Hill Called Cumorah.” In Regional Studies in LDS History: New York and Pennsylvania. Edited by Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman Jr., and Susan Easton Black. Provo, Utah: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992, 73:

Quote

At what point in modern times this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine. In his account in the Perl of Great Price, Joseph Smith refers to the hill where the plates were buried, but never calls it by any name. In the Doctrine and Covenants the name "Cumorah" only appears one time, in an 1842 epistle written by Joseph Smith: "And Again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!" (D&C 128:20). No other uses of "Cumorah" have been found in any other of Joseph Smith's personal writings. When this name does appear it has been added by later editors or is being quoted from another individual.

The point therefore remains, if Joseph didn't use the name, it is difficult to believe that he received it by revelation and forgot to use it. If others called it Cumorah, but Joseph didn't, then where did the idea come from? Only Joseph received revelation on the subject that was binding for the church--so we have no revealed name. 

What do the scriptures say?

Quote

And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. (Mormon 6:6)

Joseph didn't receive the name by revelation, but it appears that he adopted it late based on communal use. That is what happened with the phrase "urim and thummim" being applied to the interpreters. We have a more solid history on that phrase, but the process appears to be the same. Someone other than Joseph came up with a designation, and after many Saints had adopted it, Joseph did as well--but after a long time had passed.

Mormon says that he did not bury the plates he gave to Moroni in the hill Cumorah. So the second part of the problem is where we have any evidence that the plates Joseph took out of the hill in New York were ever in Cumorah, since the only scriptural text we have says that they were not buried in Cumorah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

They weren't 'activated'.  Click on them in your post, the blue color indicates they are a link

Thank You.   

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...