Jump to content

Meldrum's DNA DVD


notHagoth7

Recommended Posts

I know he has plenty of heavy-handed critics in this forum - but so far, the content in his 2008 DVD presentation is pretty impressive.

Has anyone else watched it recently? If so, your thoughts?

Link to comment

At the end of section 3, he pulls off the gloves.

This DVD is good stuff. I recommend it.

Link to comment

Is there anything substantively new or is it just the repackaging that's good, more professional?

It's new to me. I've heard of his stuff several times on this forum - but experiencing it first hand is an entirely different matter.

By "more professional," I'm not quite sure what you mean. The presentation includes very good maps and decent visuals.

As a public speaker, Meldrum initially comes across as pretty rough around the edges.

But I barely care about that - because the content he presents is excellent.

Link to comment

"pulls off gloves"....

In regards to what pray tell?

I'd rather not say - since it could stir up heated debate that centers on personalities rather than substance.

I would prefer to let people experience it first hand.

Link to comment

Is this more Haplogroup X stuff?

He does discuss haplogroup X in some detail.

That said, the rest of the content is interesting enough w/o the DNA content. It could stand alone quite nicely.

(So far, I'm only about half way through the 4-hour DVD.)

Link to comment

He does discuss haplogroup X in some detail.

That said, the rest of the content is interesting enough w/o the DNA content. It could stand alone quite nicely.

(So far, I'm only about half way through the 4-hour DVD.)

What specific items did you find interesting? I attended one of his presentations (although Bro. Meldrum wasn't the presenter in this particular one). I had a few issues with some of the things that were said.

Link to comment

What specific items did you find interesting? I attended one of his presentations (although Bro. Meldrum wasn't the presenter in this particular one). I had a few issues with some of the things that were said.

The things that are currently standing out the most for me are the considerable number of well-documented statements by Joseph, compared to the two or three statements supposedly attributed to him. The former cluster of evidence supports one paradigm for Nephite paradigms/birthrights. The latter group supports a much different paradigm.

In quantity alone, the former evidence *far* outweighs the latter (on a scale of at least 10:1)

And when you add in the element of quality [of evidence], the scales tip even more dramatically.

That's before even considering the genetic information - which I'm just beginning to explore.

Again, I'm only half way through the DVD (will get through the other half after Barney & MoTab finish getting their air time tonight.)

But that's just a birds-eye. I may provide an update w/details later. Perhaps after I comb through the presentation a second time.

Link to comment

The things that are currently standing out the most for me are the considerable number of well-documented statements by Joseph, compared to the two or three statements supposedly attributed to him. The former cluster of evidence supports one paradigm for Nephite paradigms/birthrights. The latter group supports a much different paradigm.

In quantity alone, the former evidence *far* outweighs the latter (on a scale of at least 10:1)

And when you add in the element of quality [of evidence], the scales tip even more dramatically.

That's before even considering the genetic information - which I'm just beginning to explore.

Again, I'm only half way through the DVD (will get through the other half after Barney & MoTab finish getting their air time tonight.)

But that's just a birds-eye. I may provide an update w/details later. Perhaps after I comb through the presentation a second time.

I haven't seen the DVD. Have you noticed whether or not the DVD contains this quote from " American Antiquities," Times and Seasons 3/18 (15 July 1842): page 860?

If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c.-were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized-that a great and a mighty people had inhabited this continent-that the arts sciences and religion, had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia. Babylon, Ninevah, nor any of the ruins of the Levant could boast of more perfect sculpture, better architectural designs, and more imperishable ruins, than what are found on this continent. 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 unfolds their history.-ED

It's signed "ED." Joseph Smith is listed as the editor of the T&S at that time.

Link to comment

I haven't seen the DVD. Have you noticed whether or not the DVD contains this quote from " American Antiquities," Times and Seasons 3/18 (15 July 1842): page 860?

It's signed "ED." Joseph Smith is listed as the editor of the T&S at that time.

I don't recall if he provided the actual quote, but he did refer to two specific pro-MesoAmerican statements in the Times and Seasons - I believe the one you cited being one of them.

If I recall correctly, he asserted three things about those two published statements:

1)Joseph was in hiding to avoid arrest during that window of time. So likely wasn't a functioning editor.

2)And Joseph had recently assigned editorial responsibilities for the Times and Seasons over to the Twelve.

3)Both pro-MesoAmerican statements likely trace to Bernhisel, or to a friend of Bernhisel's (as Bernhisel was said to be a vocal advocate for a MesoAmerican setting for the Book of Mormon).

**If** either or the first two assertions are true, it would leave little remaining basis for the assertion that Joseph himself favored a MesoAmerican interpretation. (I'll look for citations of specific details next time through.)

Link to comment

Meldrum's stuff is available here:

BookOfMormonEvidence.org

Thanks, it looks interesting. One thing the North America people going for them is some statements of apostles and prophets. Their not as heretical as others that say Joseph and others were all simply wrong about Cumorah, Zelph, Lamanites, and the Land of Promise. Not that his proposed geography is any better, but at least he doesn't throw out the prophets.

Link to comment

I don't recall if he provided the actual quote, but he did refer to two specific pro-MesoAmerican statements in the Times and Seasons - I believe the one you cited being one of them.

Yep. Went back and checked.

He specifically addressed the two pro-MesoAmerican Times and Seasons articles:

1) September 15, 1842 (the article you asked about) - and he quotes the same passage as you

2) October 1, 1842

The problems that the MesoAmerican camp has assigning those two pro-MesoAmerica articles to Joseph include:

1) Months earlier, in January of 1842, Joseph received a revelation that the Twelve should take over the editorial department of the Times and Seasons (DHC 4:50) (But we don't know when that went into effect.)

2) Either way, Joseph was in hiding during the publication of both articles, (actually from Aug 8, 1842 until October 20, 1842), to avoid arrest stemming from Bogg's recent accusations.

So he covers that issue extremely well in the DVD.

And even addresses two statements from Bernhisel documents.

However his pro-North American evidence is much more edifying and interesting than his dismantling of the pro-MesoAmerican evidence.

Link to comment

Yep. Went back and checked.

He specifically addressed the two pro-MesoAmerican Times and Seasons articles:

1) September 15, 1842 (the article you asked about) - and he quotes the same passage as you

2) October 1, 1842

The problems that the MesoAmerican camp has assigning those two pro-MesoAmerica articles to Joseph include:

1) Months earlier, in January of 1842, Joseph received a revelation that the Twelve should take over the editorial department of the Times and Seasons (DHC 4:50) (But we don't know when that went into effect.)

2) Either way, Joseph was in hiding during the publication of both articles, (actually from Aug 8, 1842 until October 20, 1842), to avoid arrest stemming from Bogg's recent accusations.

So he covers that issue extremely well in the DVD.

And even addresses two statements from Bernhisel documents.

However his pro-North American evidence is much more edifying and interesting than his dismantling of the pro-MesoAmerican evidence.

There is a reason many LDS are critical of his work, it portrays itself as being well-studied and accurate, when it is not.

If Joseph Smith was in hiding and had nothing to do with the articles, or Church business in general, it would not affect the evidence already provided. It has been shown that Joseph Smith believed in the Hemispheric Geography Theory for years, which included both North and South America. But we find, again, that Meldrums reasoning is faulty in relation to his explanation.

A simple reading of the

Link to comment

Meldrum wants you to think that Joseph Smith stayed away from everyone and had no contact with the Church.

That wasn't at all the impression I had. In Utah in the 1880's/90's, leaders ran the Church just fine when they were "in hiding." Are you sure you're not wanting to exaggerate/inflate his intent or statement just in order to make him seem deceptive?

More importantly, you notably decline to comment on the more important issue - the revelation from early 1842 to turn the editorial department of the paper over to the Twelve. Joseph's discussions with Taylor later that year, and Taylor being appointed the editor that winter, suggest that Joseph was in the process of cross-training and delegating during 1842 in order to fulfill the earlier revelation from January. (Taylor *was* one of the Twelve.) That Joseph tended to teach principles, and let people govern themselves is an established reality. Because of that, your assertion that he micromanaged the paper, when he was commanded to delegate it to the Twelve, and when he was more likely in the process of grooming his replacement, run contrary to those realities. So although I can certainly see your point of view, I agree with Meldrum on the issue of who was likely the acting editor of the paper in mid-September and early October.

If he would have either studied the issue a little more in depth, he would have saw that Joseph Smith ran the Church as usual and frequented the saints.
I don't disagree with you on what Joseph's general actions likely were regarding central Church government, or socializing.

However, you do Meldrum (and yourself) a disservice by saying his research is shoddy and shallow. On the contrary, his research is extensive - for those willing to give it a fair hearing.

This is only one example of Meldrum not doing his homework and assuming something to be right before examining the evidence.

I disagree. I have reason to believe you're simply being unfair in your treatment of him, and in your preference to dismiss the weight of his evidence (not just on this matter, but on weightier matters.) So I have reason to believe that this is simply an example of you criticizing someone for examining the same evidence as you, but arriving at a conclusion you don't happen to like. Please. Allow the man to reach a different conclusion without calling him sloppy or dishonest.

There are reasons why most true LDS scholars do not accept a North American Setting for The Book of Mormon.

So which is it? Is he not true? Or not LDS? Or not a scholar? Or not a combination of all three?

Your attack on his diligence and integrity is noted. But it carries no weight w/me, because such attacks unfortunately makes me think less of you (which I would prefer not to be the case). He provided 40 evidences, several of them eyebrow-raising, for his view of geography. You haven't addressed one of them here.

Link to comment

Another problem that Meldrums theory faces is that once Joseph Smith found out about what was being printed, assuming that he didn

Link to comment

"The work is persuasive, appears to be sincere, is accompanied by what looks like solid evidence with respect to geography and the purported views of the Prophet

Link to comment

That wasn't at all the impression I had. In Utah in the 1880's/90's, leaders ran the Church just fine when they were "in hiding." Are you sure you're not wanting to exaggerate/inflate his intent or statement just in order to make him seem deceptive?

More importantly, you notably decline to comment on the more important issue - the revelation from early 1842 to turn the editorial department of the paper over to the Twelve. Joseph's discussions with Taylor later that year, and Taylor being appointed the editor that winter, suggest that Joseph was in the process of cross-training and delegating during 1842 in order to fulfill the earlier revelation from January. (Taylor *was* one of the Twelve.) That Joseph tended to teach principles, and let people govern themselves is an established reality. Because of that, your assertion that he micromanaged the paper, when he was commanded to delegate it to the Twelve, and when he was more likely in the process of grooming his replacement, run contrary to those realities. So although I can certainly see your point of view, I agree with Meldrum on the issue of who was likely the acting editor of the paper in mid-September and early October.

I don't disagree with you on what Joseph's general actions likely were regarding central Church government, or socializing.

However, you do Meldrum (and yourself) a disservice by saying his research is shoddy and shallow. On the contrary, his research is extensive - for those willing to give it a fair hearing.

I disagree. I have reason to believe you're simply being unfair in your treatment of him, and in your preference to dismiss the weight of his evidence (not just on this matter, but on weightier matters.) So I have reason to believe that this is simply an example of you criticizing someone for examining the same evidence as you, but arriving at a conclusion you don't happen to like. Please. Allow the man to reach a different conclusion without calling him sloppy or dishonest.

So which is it? Is he not true? Or not LDS? Or not a scholar? Or not a combination of all three?

Your attack on his diligence and integrity is noted. But it carries no weight w/me, because such attacks unfortunately makes me think less of you (which I would prefer not to be the case). He provided 40 evidences, several of them eyebrow-raising, for his view of geography. You haven't addressed one of them here.

You've used the terms "deceptive" and "dishonest" to describe how livy111us is responding to Meldrum. I don't see where he said that at all, and it is not fair for you to accuse him of this. The most I saw him say was that Meldrum had not done all of his homework. That is a far cry from an accusation of deception and dishonesty.

It is entirely possible to have a different opinion of what someone is presenting without having to pull the "deception" and "dishonesty" card. I personally was not very impressed with what I saw in one of his seminars that was taught by someone other than Bro. Meldrum. I don't think that the presenter was dishonest or deceptive. On the contrary, I think that he was very sincere in what he believed and presented. I simply didn't buy it. Among other things, I didn't agree with his description of how one could determine truth. He presented what he called a "hierarchy" of doctrinal authority:

1. Scripture

2. Statements of Joseph Smith

3. Statements of the current prophet only while he is called as a prophet.

4. Everything that does not fit into these three categories is to be considered opinion.

I completely disagree with the living prophet coming in third on that list. I don't think he was being "dishonest" or "deceptive" when he taught us this. I simply think that he's wrong.

I also didn't like it when he showed a slide of a Black person, and Asian person and a Caucasian person and proceeded to teach us about how there were three genetic supergroups. He even mentioned that one of those supergroups couldn't hold the priesthood (Curse of Cain).

Link to comment

You've used the terms "deceptive" and "dishonest" to describe how livy111us is responding to Meldrum. I don't see where he said that at all, and it is not fair for you to accuse him of this.

What you're not aware is that we've had earlier discussions on this topic. So I'm responding to a broader spectrum of discussion above and beyond what you've seen here. To be more precise, he's basically been accused of priestcraft.

The most I saw him say was that Meldrum had not done all of his homework. That is a far cry from an accusation of deception and dishonesty.
Agreed.
It is entirely possible to have a different opinion of what someone is presenting without having to pull the "deception" and "dishonesty" card.
True. However, if you review much of the previous commentary on Meldrum's content and approach (here in the forum and elsewhere), you'll find such a coloring of his integrity. It is to that broader commentary that I was responding.
I personally was not very impressed with what I saw in one of his seminars that was taught by someone other than Bro. Meldrum.

Can't speak to that.

He presented what he called a "hierarchy" of doctrinal authority:

1. Scripture

2. Statements of Joseph Smith

3. Statements of the current prophet only while he is called as [??acting as??] a prophet.

4. Everything that does not fit into these three categories is to be considered opinion.

I completely disagree with the living prophet coming in third on that list.

Several general authorities and apostles have said that scripture trumps anything they say/write. So I don't have a major problem with scripture having a higher priority than other sources in that list.

And, for example, with the way Joseph was frequently tutored by Nephite messengers, and how he described their society to others in great detail, it might be quite reasonable to conclude that Joseph knew more about the details of Nephite civilization than any prophet or apostle since.

However, I wouldn't put scripture in first place. And as I recall from last night, Meldrum's presentation affirmed there's a higher authority than scripture.

I don't think he was being "dishonest" or "deceptive" when he taught us this. I simply think that he's wrong.
That works.
I also didn't like it when he showed a slide of a Black person, and Asian person and a Caucasian person and proceeded to teach us about how there were three genetic supergroups.

I watched a secular sociology university presentation earlier this week that had nothing to do with Meldrum or the church, and they asserted the exact same three genetic groupings (I believe the terms they used in that secular program were Mongoloid, Negroid, and Cauacasian). Can't speak to the priesthood issue you mention (although it is true that they were restricted from the priesthood for a while - so I'm not sure why such a statement would cause you to object....other than to perhaps object for some reason to someone mentioning that it had happened?) - but I don't recall Meldrum saying such a thing about priesthood on the DVD.

Link to comment

Maybe I'm missing something: Didn't you say that this is specifically a DNA DVD? That kind of presents it as something that focuses on DNA.

You're not missing anything. He presents 40 evidences. And of that, DNA was a relatively small part of that array of evidences.

(In the 4 hours, he probably spends something like 15-20 minutes on DNA, and much of that was simply bringing the average viewer up to speed on the new science of DNA, and refuting an anti book that was based on DNA.)

So DNA is in the title of the DVD, and forms some of the backbone for his assertions. But there's enough meat in the rest of the presented evidence that it could be self sufficient even without the DNA. Is that more clear?

Link to comment

I simply think that he's wrong.

To come back to this one more time.

I am of the initial opinion that he is generally right.

But right or wrong in his conclusions, I believe he is quite right to invest time refuting the anti DNA publications out there.

He's helping members address and counter some of the abused DNA science leveraged against the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...