Rod Meldrum's Firesides & DVD (N.A. BoM Setting)

[hagoth7]

Edit: as to my impression of the thread, feel free to fast forward to post #70 - since my initial concerns in the following post(s) are largely resolved.

/Edit

Hi all,

I'm new to this thread, but there is one apparent theme here....out of expressed concern for truth, and/or for the saints, and/or for the order of the church, various people, including an entire organization, have stepped forward to publicly criticize one man's opinion, methods, and/or motives. I don't have a dog in the specifics of this fight, but if I may venture a point or three:

Opinions

Which (if either) of the two general geographic models competing in this thread ends up being correct doesn't matter a great deal to me (or, I would venture, to a good number of people). My testimony won't be impacted by the eventual outcome. At this juncture, I am under no obligation to align with a North American model, or with FAIR's published opinions. However, both models have value to contribute to the discussion. (Both sides are apparently trying to accomplish the same worthwhile thing - to investigate and demonstrate a viable historical model for the Nephite record.)

Methods

Several have disagreed with Rod Meldrum's methods. I haven't explored his premise or his approach sufficiently to comment. However, there is a frequent leap of logic in this thread on which I can (and perhaps should) comment. An error in methodology or in presentation does not necessarily mean a gross error in one's overall premise. To suggest otherwise is a huge and unwarranted leap of logic. Can we at least openly admit that a discussion is not over as soon as one or two flaws in a presentation surfaces? Most of us, at one time or another, have attempted to explain or defend known truths (or opinions) with methods or approaches that were, in hindsight, flawed. (For example, do the flawed methods of an earlier generation of Meso-American advocates somehow negate the viability of that geographic model?) I prefer to look at things this way - are Bro. Meldrum's methods improving? Apparently they are, since I noticed he has made at least one public correction - and that's after only four or five minutes of initial perusing. Whether additional improvements surface as quickly as others might prefer is a different question. So whether one agrees with his opinion or his methodology, the man is clearly showing improvement - something which should be commended.

Motives

As soon as it comes to Rod Meldrum's assumed motives and intent, I have concerns about the downhill tone of the thread. It was suggested elsewhere that Rod's driving motive is to generate money, even to the detriment of those who purchase from him. I almost choked on my milk on that one...and not out of laughter. For the record, I object to public defamations of the man's motives or character. If we'll fight back when defamations are tossed at the Brethren, but have no qualms about such claims being publicly tossed at a brother we've never met, I have to wonder what's up. Joseph suggested that we look for the good in each other. I'm hoping we can do that in this forum - even we do touch on strongly-held opinions. I'm hoping that as long as we lack revealed certainty on this issue we can be more charitable towards those who hold (or even advocate) differing viewpoints - even if the favor is not returned. Finally, if I've unintentionally offended anyone w/my comments here, to clear the air, you are welcome to burn my effigy in IM. (However, that may spark an international incident - kidding.)

Thoughts?

Regards,

Hagoth7

[cdowis]

Hagoth, did you read the entire thread, or just the last few posts.

[Greg Smith]

Hi all,

Can we at least openly admit that a discussion is not over as soon as one or two flaws in a presentation surfaces?

Absolutely. But, if you've read the reviews you will see that it is not a matter of 1-2 flaws. The presentation is so riddled with error, mis-ctation, and cherry-picking, that there is precious little left when the dust settles.

Have you read the reviews? What was your reaction?

http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Bo...y/DEBMG01F.html (DNA)

http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Bo...y/DEBMG02F.html (Geography)

http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Bo...y/DEBMG03F.html (Joseph Smith)

But, the bigger issue is the claim that this is a geography based on revelation to Joseph. Were it not for those problems, this would be simply one more really bad amateur BoM geography (there's a list of every one we know of here: good, bad, and indifferent):

http://en.fairmormon.org/Template:BoMGeoTableList

If anyone knows any others, please let FAIR or the wiki editor know.

[juliann]

I'm hoping that as long as we lack revealed certainty on this issue we can be more charitable towards those who hold (or even advocate) differing viewpoints - even if the favor is not returned. Finally, if I've unintentionally offended anyone w/my comments here, to clear the air, you are welcome to burn my effigy in IM. (However, that may spark an international incident - kidding.)

Thoughts?

You have completely missed what this is all about. You have just said that we lack revealed certainty. Yet Meldrum has declared revealed certainty for what he is doing. Could you can better explain the problem in objecting to that?

[hagoth7]

Hagoth, did you read the entire thread, or just the last few posts.

Prior to the previous post, I perused all three pages of the thread, minus most of the links. (As mentioned in that post, this aspect of geography doesn't interest me that much.)

Have you read the reviews?

Mostly no. As indicated in my previous post, "I haven't explored his premise or his approach sufficiently to comment." (I tend to hold off exploring in-depth critiques of someone's views until/unless I've first taken the time to review that person's views, and have formed my own initial assessments.)

However, I've never seen a fellow member publicly raked over the coals like this before (well, perhaps once before). Does this happen often?

[hagoth7]

You have completely missed what this is all about.

Perhaps.

You have just said that we lack revealed certainty.

Yep. On the issue of geography.

Yet Meldrum has declared revealed certainty for what he is doing.

If I'm hearing you correctly the core objection is that he is holding firesides (or the equivalent) claiming inside knowledge?

Could you can better explain the problem in objecting to that?

I don't have a problem with others having or claiming inspiration or guidance.

Or for claiming certainty for their conclusions.

And I don't have a problem with others sharing claimed inspiration in settings they deem appropriate.

(I have attended CES, KYR, and multi-stake firesides in previous years with such approaches, and have read a number of books which claim such certainty.)

I would only have a problem if such personal conviction was presented as binding church doctrine.

And even then, I would see the resolution for such an issue as falling under the purview of an individual's local priesthood leaders in a private setting - not between that individual and fellow members in a public setting. Correct me if my following assumptions are wrong. Before authorizing a fireside, the hosting authority is supposed to check with the speaker's local leadership to confirm the speaker is in good standing - correct? So wouldn't such a private approach, if necessary, resolve many of the concerns expressed in this thread - without the possible rancor sparked by extensive public criticism of an individual's methods? Am I oversimplifying?

[cinepro]

I'm not following the Meldrum saga closely, but could part of the problem be that he appeals to members of a Church that have been repeatedly told not to trust the "arm of the flesh", so they could be more naturally drawn towards a "faith-based" geography and be skeptical of a "research-based" one?

[Greg Smith]

If I'm hearing you correctly the core objection is that he is holding firesides (or the equivalent) claiming inside knowledge?

Speaking personally, I think the problem is claiming a revelatory geography to Joseph when all the prophets and apostles afterward have insisted that there IS no revealed geography.

This problem is compounded by claims that Pres Hinckley condemned scholars at BYU, and that BYU scholars have conspired to hide the truth (e.g., the Michigan artifacts), and led the Church astray.

(We spoke to Meldrum about his Hinckley claim before we published anything. He refused to admit there was anything wrong with it, and said that he couldn't be expected to provide ALL of Pres. Hinckley's 4 page article--as if that's what we were asking. We then published our first portion. Meldrum then finally admitted that he was wrong about the Hinckley quote.)

He claims further that those who disagree are rejecting Joseph Smith, are serving anti-Mormon interests, claiming blessings from emeritus general authorities that make him certain his course is correct, etc. It's all in the documents we've published so far.

I would only have a problem if such personal conviction was presented as binding church doctrine.

See above. Those who don't accept this are portrayed as rejecting Joseph, etc. I myself have been repeatedly lumped with "atheists." Not that I care. :-) But, it shows how those who dare to disagree are characterized, I think.

And even then, I would see the resolution for such an issue as falling under the purview of an individual's local priesthood leaders in a private setting - not between that individual and fellow members in a public setting. Correct me if my following assumptions are wrong. Before authorizing a fireside, the hosting authority is supposed to check with the speaker's local leadership to confirm the speaker is in good standing - correct?

Yes. Meldrum has been forbidden to use Church facilities to present his material.

FAIR has said nothing about his Church standing. We have objected to his false characterization of other members, and his (we now know) deliberate misrepresentation of some data.

So wouldn't such a private approach, if necessary, resolve many of the concerns expressed in this thread - without the possible rancor sparked by extensive public criticism of an individual's methods? Am I oversimplifying?

Oversimplifying a bit, since you don't know the whole story. He refused to see anything wrong with anything we raised before we published. So, we published a first paper. (At which point he then admitted that the Hinckley quote was over the top. He has a retraction at the bottom of his webpage. He is still, however selling the same DVD with the same claim--no disclaimer, no change, nothing.)

I pointed out a numerical error in his work, and he first refused to accept it, then denied making the claim (which he had--I have the DVD), and then said that even though he doubled the number, it "Didn't matter." So, this was the level of concern for accuracy with which we were faced.

After publishing the first paper, we then gave him about 6 weeks in which we agreed to say and publish nothing, with access to our first draft of our concerns. He was to:

1) tell us what we were right about, and how he would fix it

2) tell us what we were wrong about, and why

3) destroy the rough draft by 1 Sept 2008.

He readily, happily, and gratefully agreed to this.

But, he did none of those things. We told him that he could work in sections, and send us stuff, and we'd be happy to have people give him feedback. We've gotten NOTHING from him, and he won't confirm that he's destroyed the draft, as agreed. He attacked us again for rejecting Joseph, and not sustaining his (Joseph's) revelation. And, then accused us of disagreeing for money motives.

He refuses to even confirm that he has kept his word on point #3--not that it is of any great moment, but it speaks to trustworthiness.

We published reluctantly, but with the conviction that we had no other choice. Otherwise, we'd be putting out apologetic fires for years with this stuff.

He has since shown on the FAIR blogthat he knew things he was quoting were being done in a misleading way, but since he didn't agree with the science behind them, he felt no need to quote those parts of scientific papers that didn't support his theory, even though he knew about them.

FAIR tries to defend members and leaders of the Church from unfair attacks, and we consider the insistance that members who disagree are unfaithful to Joseph unfounded. We also consider it an attack to even imply that Joseph taught revelation, and no Church leader has continued to sustain it. (How Meldrum can know of such a revelation to Joseph if no other Church authority teaches such a revelation is not clear....)

If you know someone is being untruthful, and others may get hurt, what should you do? Not an easy question, but I for one would have felt bound to say something even if FAIR didn't want to.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I'm not following the Meldrum saga closely, but could part of the problem be that he appeals to members of a Church that have been repeatedly told not to trust the "arm of the flesh", so they could be more naturally drawn towards a "faith-based" geography and be skeptical of a "research-based" one?

I think that oversimplifies the issue, since the whole appeal of the DVD is that it supposedly uses a whole bunch of "new," "scientific research" to shore up faith. That's what the DVD cover promises:

Thousands have seen it including geneticists, General Authorities, scientists, stake presidents, mission presidents [and] patriarchsâ?¦. Surveys of those who have seen the presentation express tremendous excitement about the information, stating that it 'just makes sense' intellectually as well as spirituallyâ?¦

It is something like fundamentalist Christianity using "science" to "prove" that the earth really can't be more than 7,000 years old. The attempt is to shore up faith with the "street cred" of science.

Now that the science is shown to be bogus, there is an appeal by Rod not to "filter" through "scholars," but just to pray about his ideas and God will tell you they're right without examining the evidence (though it is OK, apparently, to filter through non-scholars like him). So scientific evidence is good until it disagrees with him, then it is bad.

See 3rd comment here

[John Larsen]

Speaking personally, I think the problem is claiming a revelatory geography to Joseph when all the prophets and apostles afterward have insisted that there IS no revealed geography.

All of the porphets and apostles? When did John Taylor say this? How about Richard L. Evans?

Yes. Meldrum has been forbidden to use Church facilities to present his material.

By whom? How do you know this?

[cdowis]

I'm not following the Meldrum saga closely, but could part of the problem be that he appeals to members of a Church that have been repeatedly told not to trust the "arm of the flesh", so they could be more naturally drawn towards a "faith-based" geography and be skeptical of a "research-based" one?

Unfortunately the "faith" is based on the arm of flesh, Meldrum's interpretation of the evidence.

"Trust me" is a misplacement of faith.

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, not an issue of faith, but of fact.

[Greg Smith]

All of the porphets and apostles? When did John Taylor say this? How about Richard L. Evans?

When do they say what?

If you're implying that every single apostle hasn't said something about it, then I agree wholeheartedly, and apologize for my imprecision. No statements that address the matter, so far as I am aware, have asserted a revelatory geography.

By whom? How do you know this?

Meldrum told me and the 3 other FAIR members that he had been instructed not to use church facilities while we were on the phone with him in conference call, while trying to convince him that he should stop misquoting Pres. Hinckley about FARMS (1 July 2008) and other things, as I've described above. He attributed that instruction to his stake president.

It was also apparent by checking the list of sites for "Upcoming events" on his website. He had a bunch of things scheduled like at the Nauvoo Temple visitor's centre, IIRC. These were suddenly all changed to private residences and the like. Meldrum mentioned on the phone that this change had inconvenienced a number of people.

[livy111us]

Wasn't his last fireside yesterday at a church building? If he was counselled not to preach that in Church buildings, he isn't doing a very good job at heeding that counsel.

[Greg Smith]

Wasn't his last fireside yesterday at a church building? If he was counselled not to preach that in Church buildings, he isn't doing a very good job at heeding that counsel.

No, it was at a private place. To his great credit, he indicated on the phone that he sustained the SP, and would abide by it.

Greg

[cinepro]

Unfortunately the "faith" is based on the arm of flesh, Meldrum's interpretation of the evidence.

"Trust me" is a misplacement of faith.

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, not an issue of faith, but of fact.

Faith is a fact.

(Go here and watch episode 14 from Season 1 if you don't get it.)

[Ipso Facto]

I understand that he has been asked not to use Church venues anymore so he has stopped. He was using church sites before. He is even wanting to create a foundation for a museum in Nauvoo.

It isn't a problem of having another theory. Some of my best friends have different theories. :-)

The issue is the claim that he is proclaiming anew the revelations of Joseph Smith. It is the denouncing of MesoAmerican believers as not being true followers of Joseph Smith. Frankly, that offends me. I have been accused by him of not protecting Joseph Smith's revelatory words.

I had more than one discussion with him as to why believing in the MesoAmerican Theory did NOT MEAN that you were denying the fruits of the Church. I think he finally conceded that point after our second or third discussion--maybe, but it is still in his DVD.

He insists he teaches Joseph Smith's revealed geography even though it has been brought up to him that the Church does not, and has never had an official geography. But, it seems he knows better than all of the prophets who have gone before.

From what I read, he is the new prophet. Sorenson, Gardner and FAIR are all leading the Church astray. He is going to save the Church from us.

In my judgment, this is the biggest problem with Meldrum. He is setting himself up as a fountain of revelation for those who come to hear him speak. My grandson attended one of his "firesides" and came away from it very uncomfortable on account of the way he was attempting to "speak as one having authority." I predict that Meldrum will only enjoy a short season of success, and that he will yet be discredited for reasons having nothing to do with Book of Mormon geography.

[cinepro]

I predict that Meldrum will only enjoy a short season of success, and that he will yet be discredited for reasons having nothing to do with Book of Mormon geography.

You anti-Meldrum's are just fulfilling the prophecy that Meldrum's name would be had for good and evil among all Church members. In fact, I've talked to many people that believe what he says, and they say that your anti-Meldrum attacks only make their belief in his claims stronger. It's like you just can't leave him alone. He's not tearing anyone down, he's building people up with knowledge. Instead of trying to tear him down, why don't you just teach your truth, and allow people to decide for themselves?

[livy111us]

He's not tearing anyone down

Not that you really care about what's going on, but he is the one who began this with attacks on the Church scholars, and saying that those who teach a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon are leading the Church astray. There were several attacks in personal email as well.

[hagoth7]

The events in the BOM text occurred in Mesoamerica.

May I suggest that it is such statements which make this delicate situation, at first glance, seem to boil down to a dogfight between proponents of competing geographic models?

I appreciate your fervor. However, I must respectfully object to the assertion itself, as it runs contrary to the generally agreed detente that there is no revealed geography. I hope no offense is taken. (None is intended.)

[hagoth7]

You have completely missed what this is all about.

After further exploration of the issue - I now agree with your above statement.

Thanks to those who have patiently helped clarify a few issues/concerns. (Like most average members of the church, it's initially unlikely that, in the press of other priorities, I'd read the 17-page executive summary, or 100+ pages of detail on a matter that, at surface level, doesn't seem to matter a great deal. The more I realize what the real issue is, however, the more valuable the effort put into those documents appears to be.)

So I appreciate the patience shown here. It must be tedious for people having to repeat painful things dozens of times. So a big thumbs up to those who are patiently trying to do what's right, in a difficult setting.

[John Larsen]

You anti-Meldrum's are just fulfilling the prophecy that Meldrum's name would be had for good and evil among all Church members. In fact, I've talked to many people that believe what he says, and they say that your anti-Meldrum attacks only make their belief in his claims stronger. It's like you just can't leave him alone. He's not tearing anyone down, he's building people up with knowledge. Instead of trying to tear him down, why don't you just teach your truth, and allow people to decide for themselves?

Meldrum sure seems to be mighty and strong in the face of adversity.

[TAK]

You anti-Meldrum's are just fulfilling the prophecy that Meldrum's name would be had for good and evil among all Church members. In fact, I've talked to many people that believe what he says, and they say that your anti-Meldrum attacks only make their belief in his claims stronger. It's like you just can't leave him alone. He's not tearing anyone down, he's building people up with knowledge. Instead of trying to tear him down, why don't you just teach your truth, and allow people to decide for themselves?

LOL... Clearly the Anti Meldrum's have sinned.

[It occurs to me . . .]

Not that you really care about what's going on, but he is the one who began this with attacks on the Church scholars, and saying that those who teach a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon are leading the Church astray. There were several attacks in personal email as well.

Who are the "church scholars"? I thought everyone was independant in this.

[cdowis]

May I suggest that it is such statements which make this delicate situation, at first glance, seem to boil down to a dogfight between proponents of competing geographic models?

I appreciate your fervor. However, I must respectfully object to the assertion itself, as it runs contrary to the generally agreed detente that there is no revealed geography. I hope no offense is taken. (None is intended.)

I am proposing a solution where we use both models. A hybrid model.

The two models are not mutually exclusive. They are both possible, considering the same evidence from JS's statements and the BOM text.