Meldrum's DNA DVD

[LifeOnaPlate]

notHagoth: Can you do me a favor and tell me what Meldrum says at the 14:25 mark of the first DVD? Just the one sentence please.

[notHagoth7]

notHagoth: Can you do me a favor and tell me what Meldrum says at the 14:25 mark of the first DVD? Just the one sentence please.

You clearly have a point to share.

And you clearly know what he says there (when I don't).

Furthermore, I don't like to cite people out of context.

So rather than ask me to jump through arbitrary hoops, feel free to share what you feel would contribute to the discussion.

[cinepro]

For arguments sake, let

[LifeOnaPlate]

You clearly have a point to share.

And you clearly know what he says there (when I don't).

Furthermore, I don't like to cite people out of context.

So rather than ask me to jump through arbitrary hoops, feel free to share what you feel would contribute to the discussion.

I am having doubts that you actually own the DVD.

[notHagoth7]

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

I respectfully disagree.

For arguments sake, let

[notHagoth7]

I am having doubts that you actually own the DVD.

I don't own it. My father-in-law lent me his copy - saying he thought I might find it interesting.

Is there a reason I would dissemble?

Or have I given you cause in other threads to doubt my honesty?

[notHagoth7]

Actually, Meldrum's distancing of Joseph from the statements in T&S reminded me of the same arguments apologists use to distance Joseph from William Clayton's statements about the Kinderhook Plates.

You still think that's a fair assessment, when at that juncture (Sep & Oct of 1842) Joseph would clearly have been in the process of stepping back and replacing himself as editor (a task he had been commanded to delegate eight months earlier)?

It's not reasonable to conclude that eight months after that command, he was loosening his reins on the paper to let his replacement grow in responsibility and confidence?

Keep in mind that Taylor, who was being groomed for those very responsibilities during the juncture in question, was promoted from assistant editor to full editor the month after the second article in question.

Context is pretty crucial on this issue.

[dblagent007]

What about the archaeological evidence? Brant Gardner has stated on this very forum that the archaeological evidence is not even plausible for a North American setting.

[notHagoth7]

I am having doubts that you actually own the DVD.

And let me be more clear/transparent.

My son doesn't attend school on Thursday mornings, and happens to be watching his favorite Chinese show - which is teaching him more of his birth language/culture. It's something he specifically asked to watch this morning. (He's slated to have a Chinese sister in a few months, and the more he knows now, the better it will be for the both of them.) That process/preparation takes far more precedence in this household than your request that I interrupt his learning to appease your arbitrary curiosity.

That said, I mean no offense. I am, however, wanting to set things straight. Fair enough?

What does the DVD say at that juncture?

[notHagoth7]

What about the archaeological evidence?

It's quite extensive - and he only has time in those four hours to touch on it in broad strokes, show a few dozen illustrations/pictures/artifacts/maps, and refer the reader to research by others on that topic for further reading.

Brant Gardner has stated on this very forum that the archaeological evidence is not even plausible for a North American setting.

Brant's a good man. That doesn't mean that his every opinion is 100% accurate. (No offense Brant.)

If you listened to Meldrum's presentation, you might consider North America as a very plausible setting. Even more plausible.

As to an initial glimpse at some of the archaeological/cultural evidence, you can start exploring that for yourself.

[notHagoth7]

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

[katherine the great]

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?

Yes, thank you.

[dblagent007]

It's quite extensive - and he only has time in those four hours to touch on it in broad strokes, show a few dozen illustrations/pictures/artifacts/maps, and refer the reader to research by others on that topic for further reading.

I've read a small booklet put out by Meldrum's organization that described some of the archaeological evidence and I was extremely underwhelmed to the say the least. There were lots of pictures of mounds and artifacts, but there was nothing to indicate that he had any clue about major issues like dating the artifacts to the correct period, demonstrating that there was a complex political system like that shown in the BOM, etc., etc. It just seemed like the "evidence" was nothing more than a few pictures entirely divorced from context and without any understanding of how they supposedly supported the BOM.

Brant's a good man. That doesn't mean that his every opinion is 100% accurate. (No offense Brant.)

If you listened to Meldrum's presentation, you might consider North America as a very plausible setting. Even more plausible.

Maybe. Have you read some of the many long threads about the problems with the archaeological evidence for Meso-America? I think you will quickly realize the difficulties faced by the archaeological evidence and that the Hopewell culture only magnifies those.

As to an initial glimpse at some of the archaeological/cultural evidence, you can start exploring that for yourself.

This illustrates the problem. What you have cited is nothing more than a general description that the Hopewell's existed. Meldrum seems to rely on the same type of stuff - "look, here are some artifacts that show there were once Indians in this area, thus it supports the BOM's claims!"

Who were the Jaredites? Some Indian tribe in Canada? Is there any division that shows a Nephite/Lamanite type split? Do the Hopewell Indians have large cities? Do the Hopewell Indians have the population sizes that are required by the BOM? What about technology? Do the Hopewell Indians have anything like the technology required by the BOM?

I don't know, but I think the mainstream apologists are right about this one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't own it. My father-in-law lent me his copy - saying he thought I might find it interesting.

Is there a reason I would dissemble?

Or have I given you cause in other threads to doubt my honesty?

Nope.

[cinepro]

Who were the Jaredites? Some Indian tribe in Canada?

Joseph Smith placed them in Wisconsin.

Is there any division that shows a Nephite/Lamanite type split?

This archaeological record may not be precise enough to show such things. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Do the Hopewell Indians have large cities? Do the Hopewell Indians have the population sizes that are required by the BOM?

It's entirely possible that population numbers in the BoM are overstated, and population estimates for the Hopewell Indians are underestimated. Not enough data.

What about technology? Do the Hopewell Indians have anything like the technology required by the BOM?

I suspect you are bringing your assumptions to the text and not letting the text speak for itself. Also, the process of translation can introduce many imprecisions based on the knowledge and assumptions of the translator. Ultimately, the best understanding of such things may coincide very nicely with what is known about the Hopewells.

[notHagoth7]

I've read a small booklet put out by Meldrum's organization that described some of the archaeological evidence and I was extremely underwhelmed to the say the least. There were lots of pictures of mounds and artifacts, but there was nothing to indicate that he had any clue about major issues like dating the artifacts to the correct period, demonstrating that there was a complex political system like that shown in the BOM, etc., etc. It just seemed like the "evidence" was nothing more than a few pictures entirely divorced from context and without any understanding of how they supposedly supported the BOM.

I'm betting the 4 hour presentation has much more content than any small booklet could provide. Also, the potential Hopewell connection hasn't had serious professional advocacy for any period of time - and is likely in its infancy stages - so one can't compare initial findings with that of MesoAmerican advocates who have had decades to mature their research/publications. Methinks you're expecting too much so early in the game.

Have you read some of the many long threads about the problems with the archaeological evidence for Meso-America?

Yes.

I think you will quickly realize the difficulties faced by the archaeological evidence and that the Hopewell culture only magnifies those.

I don't have a problem w/that this early in the game.

This illustrates the problem. What you have cited is nothing more than a general description that the Hopewell's existed. Meldrum seems to rely on the same type of stuff - "look, here are some artifacts that show there were once Indians in this area, thus it supports the BOM's claims!"

It was offered as nothing more than a primer to Hopewell society. I wasn't expecting it to convince you of anything. Nor was I expecting you to find it compelling in any way. It's simply an initial on-ramp for further reading, should you be interested.

There is, however, a notable alignment between the timeframe for Hopewell Society (ca. 200 BC to ca. 500 AD) and that of the Zarahemla-based Nephite society (roughly 160 BC to ca. 420 AD.)

Is there any division that shows a Nephite/Lamanite type split?

Yes.

Do the Hopewell Indians have large cities?

Yes, they did.

Do the Hopewell Indians have the population sizes that are required by the BOM?

Apparently.

What about technology? Do the Hopewell Indians have anything like the technology required by the BOM?

Yes.

I don't know, but I think the mainstream apologists are right about this one.

I have no problem if you agree with them. I just find it odd to dismiss Meldrum's presentation without giving it a decent hearing.

[notHagoth7]

What about the Jaredites?

Joseph Smith placed them in Wisconsin.

Thank you for sharing that!

[Calm]

Does Meldrum mention the issues with dating DNA he is using that contradict his young earth beliefs (he has IIRC stated elsewhere he thinks evolution is allowed to be taught at BYU due to the Church leadership wanting to look good even though evolution is false doctrine and BYU thus intentionally is leading thousands of young Saints away from the truth)?

This has been an issue in the past with his work---ignoring dates when it doesn't work for his theory---which unfortunately imo tends to make the DNA appear to say something that it doesn't really.

[notHagoth7]

Does Meldrum mention the issues with dating DNA he is using that contradict his young earth beliefs

He provides some pretty fascinating DNA evidence, with a number of quotations from scientific journals, which turn previous assumptions about mtDNA mutation time periods on their head. Seriously good stuff.

(he has IIRC stated elsewhere he thinks evolution is allowed to be taught at BYU due to the Church leadership wanting to look good even though evolution is false doctrine and BYU thus intentionally is leading thousands of young Saints away from the truth)?

I don't recall any discussion of evolution or of BYU in the DVD.

This has been an issue in the past with his work---ignoring dates when it doesn't work for his theory---which unfortunately imo tends to make the DNA appear to say something that it doesn't really.

I can't speak to things he has said in the past. But his DNA commentary in the DVD is beyond interesting - and definitely merits a serious hearing. And in the DNA context, he certainly does talk to considerable extent about what a researcher is supposed to do when the data unearthed in research doesn't agree with a pre-existing theory.

I'd be hesitant to nail him to the wall on things he's said previously - when DNA itself is such a new field, and most of his findings are just starting to congeal. I think we'd all benefit by being more patient and charitable with what he is unearthing. Was it Nibley or Skousen who asked not to be held to things he said/wrote three or five years earlier? I think we can/should allow people to grow in knowledge - and not always expect them to get it right in the first, second, or third draft. We're all works in progress. And we all sometimes say things we wish we could take back.

[livy111us]

I don't have much time to respond, I just got home from work and am leaving for the Temple soon.

I didn't have a chance to read all of your responses to me, but you originally claimed "

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."

I showed you that he was not in hiding to the extent of not functioning in any of his capacities, but still lived a normal life and continued to act in all of his responsibilities.

[juliann]

What's with his fake artifact show?

[livy111us]

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.

The whole point of Meldrum bringing up that JS was in hiding was to show that he did not know what was being printed about The Book of Mormon happening in Mesoamerica. If Meldrum can place him in hiding, he distances JS from the article. However, if JS still was making editorial decisions about the T/S, then he would have pre-read the article and approved it. In fact, in the T/S the that places the BOM in Mesoamerica states

"The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH."

Between Joseph Smith continuing his editorial duties, and his name being listed as the editor, I think it is safe to say that he had an idea of what was going on. JS was editor until November 1842. I do have the reference, but don't have the time to look it up right now, this should suffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_and_Seasons

If Joseph Smith "knew" that the BOM took place in Central America, why was he letting false doctrine being preached under his name? Wouldn't those closest to Joseph Smith at least have an idea where he believed it was? Apparently JS never corrected them of his "revelation" on BOM geography because they continued to preach a Central American setting for the BOM their WHOLE lives. Meldrums theory of JS knowing a North American setting just doesn't add up.

I obviously have some kind of history with you (Meldrum himself?) by some of your comments, but that does not mean you know me or my intents. I disagree with some of Meldrums theory and don't think he should be teaching things that are not fact. If someones research if faulty, I will call him on it. Meldrums research is faulty, so......

I am not attacking Meldrum, but disagree with his conclusions because they are so blatantly wrong. I can relate them to many anti-Mormon claims. Their is a hint of truth covered with inaccuracies. Whether they are intentional or not, I don't know. He does not have any background in any of the fields he is teaching about, and many of them disagree with real scholars, meaning people who have doctorates in their fields. That doesn't seem right to me.

[katherine the great]

He provides some pretty fascinating DNA evidence, with a number of quotations from scientific journals, which turn previous assumptions about mtDNA mutation time periods on their head. Seriously good stuff.

Pft! I'll believe that when I see it.

[livy111us]

Pft! I'll believe that when I see it.

You may be waiting a while. Until we find out more, we will not know the details of X2a, but so far, it is not looking good for Meldrum.

[Wiki Wonka]

In fact, in the T/S the that places the BOM in Mesoamerica states

"The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH."

Here are all of the statements we've collected made by Joseph Smith. There are at least three or four that Bro. Meldum would have to somehow discount. These are from the FAIR Wiki article here: Book of Mormon geography/Statements/Joseph Smith

2 Feb 1833: American Revivalist

The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians