Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Meldrum's DNA DVD


notHagoth7

Recommended Posts

...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

Here's where I'm coming from. For well over a decade, I've been in Taylor's shoes on video projects, writing/editing projects, and interactive design/development projects. And I know full well that it's the assistants who generally end up doing most of the day-to-day decision making on content, sequencing, layout, etc. In general, in my experience, the one with the biggest title tends to make the fewest content-related decisions.

So you put too much weight on the "in hiding" thing, when it's the realities of pre-press content decision-making (and the succession planning that was clearly well under way in September/October) which play into the glimpse I'm trying to offer.

Joseph was clearly on his way out of the editor's chair, and was phasing Taylor in. You've notably declined to even acknowledge a phasing out period (and a ramping up period for Taylor, Joseph's assistant and replacement) between early 1842 and Nov. 1842. Nor have you acknowledged the January 1842 command to put the Twelve at the helm of the editorial department.

If Joseph Smith "knew" that the BOM took place in Central America, why was he letting false doctrine being preached under his name?

Answered earlier in the thread. More than once. Perhaps you haven't gotten around to reading those yet.

I obviously have some kind of history with you (Meldrum himself?) by some of your comments

If I recall correctly, you and I actually did discuss Meldrum and some of his research in some detail roughly a year ago - mostly in private. No, I'm not Meldrum. Nor have I ever met him. Nor do I know anyone who is working with him. Nor am I associated with his team in any way.

He does not have any background in any of the fields he is teaching about

And? That's the way things work in the church. People don't need a degree in child psychology to be called to teach Primary, or in classical Hebrew to teach the Old Testament, etc. If you have desires to serve, you're called in one form or the other - advanced degree in the field or not. And that's actually the way things frequently work in corporate & gov't professional instruction too. In such training departments, it's rarely the experts on the pending topic who are the ones tasked to conduct the instructional design, or to convey the actual training. Instead, it's people trained in cognitive psychology and adult learning theory who are frequently the ones researching the pre-existing documentation, sitting down to interview the experts, drafting the instructional script, and/or delivering the finalized course.

..and many of them disagree with real scholars, meaning people who have doctorates in their fields. That doesn't seem right to me.

See above. You don't understand. It may not seem right to you, but it's how instructional design often works. Analysts (generalists) are frequently the ones processing and synthesizing the work of experts in each topic.

Also, pick any field. Any topic. And either of us could relatively quickly find scholars in that field whose views are diametrically opposed to one another. So the fact that people can cite experts who disagree with some of the findings that Meldrum has uncovered means little. It doesn't come close to proving he's wrong - or even that he has sided with the wrong camp in that argument. (More disturbingly, I'm finding that those who attempt to discredit him with such wave-of-the-hand dismissals won't even publicly acknowledge the reality that there is opposition in all things - in all fields.)

Link to comment

I kind of like the Solutrean hypothesis. Especially since there is some archaeological evidence that supports it. However, what I was responding to was Meldrum's attempt to "overturn" the accepted rate of mutation in mitochondrial DNA.

To clarify, it's not his attempt. Instead, he cites other people's findings, from relevant professional journals, which challenge the earlier paradigm. So he's not creating things out of whole cloth. Instead, he's citing experts in the field, from professional journals.

Why some feel the need to construe him as a clueless hack boggles the mind.

Link to comment

Here are all of the statements we've collected made by Joseph Smith.

You'd be surprised how many of these he addresses directly in the presentation.

And how many others that aren't listed here.

By way of curiosity, what's the meaning behind the royal "we"?

Link to comment

Here's where I'm coming from. For well over a decade, I've been in Taylor's shoes on video projects, writing/editing projects, and interactive design/development projects. And I know full well that it's the assistants who generally end up doing most of the day-to-day decision making on content, sequencing, layout, etc. In general, in my experience, the one with the biggest title tends to make the fewest content-related decisions.

So you put too much weight on the "in hiding" thing, when it's the realities of pre-press content decision-making (and the succession planning that was clearly well under way in September/October) which play into the glimpse I'm trying to offer.

Joseph was clearly on his way out of the editor's chair, and was phasing Taylor in. You've notably declined to even acknowledge a phasing out period (and a ramping up period for Taylor, Joseph's assistant and replacement) between early 1842 and Nov. 1842. Nor have you acknowledged the January 1842 command to put the Twelve at the helm of the editorial department.

Answered earlier in the thread. More than once. Perhaps you haven't gotten around to reading those yet.

If I recall correctly, you and I actually did discuss Meldrum and some of his research in some detail roughly a year ago - mostly in private. No, I'm not Meldrum. Nor have I ever met him. Nor do I know anyone who is working with him. Nor am I associated with his team in any way.

And? That's the way things work in the church. People don't need a degree in child psychology to be called to teach Primary, or in classical Hebrew to teach the Old Testament, etc. If you have desires to serve, you're called in one form or the other - advanced degree in the field or not. And that's actually the way things frequently work in corporate & gov't professional instruction too. In such training departments, it's rarely the experts on the pending topic who are the ones tasked to conduct the instructional design, or to convey the actual training. Instead, it's people trained in cognitive psychology and adult learning theory who are frequently the ones researching the pre-existing documentation, sitting down to interview the experts, drafting the instructional script, and/or delivering the finalized course.

See above. You don't understand. It may not seem right to you, but it's how instructional design often works. Analysts (generalists) are frequently the ones processing and synthesizing the work of experts in each topic.

Also, pick any field. Any topic. And either of us could relatively quickly find scholars in that field whose views are diametrically opposed to one another. So the fact that people can cite experts who disagree with some of the findings that Meldrum has uncovered means little. It doesn't come close to proving he's wrong - or even that he has sided with the wrong camp in that argument. (More disturbingly, I'm finding that those who attempt to discredit him with such wave-of-the-hand dismissals won't even publicly acknowledge the reality that there is opposition in all things - in all fields.)

OK, I know who you are now. I can't believe that you kept, and looked up our conversation to quote me a year later. As I recall, you were taking our disagreements to heart and resigned the conversation. For the record, I think that was very noble of you. No one wants the spirit if contention and you were able to recognize that you were beginning to get worked up, and left the conversation. I've got to give you kudos for that.

While your situation may cause you to do much of the work of the editor, the editor is ultimately responsible for the content. Whoever may be doing the work, the editor "edits" the paper for content, etc... and "are responsible for developing a product to its final release". I highly doubt your editors, or any editors would print something under their name, without reading it. Not only that, but Joseph Smith said that "This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision. JOSEPH SMITH." So we know that from this point, according to Joseph Smith, he was responsible for the content of the Times and Seasons.

So we just need to figure out when he said this. The Times and Seasons during this period are very interesting, and would recommend you, or anyone reading them. Joseph Smith took over the editorship of the paper from the Twelve (I believe it was to keeping them to busy and preventing them from some of their duties. I'd have to look it up again to be sure), on March 1st 1842 to November 1842. He said

"TO SUBSCRIBERS.

This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision. JOSEPH SMITH."

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n09.htm

I was waiting for you to provide any evidence for your claim other than a theory, on Joseph Smith phasing out the Twelve. I am open to be wrong, but the evidence is against Meldrum. This quote by Joseph Smith should clear the water on what was going on in that time.

Link to comment

OK, I know who you are now. I can't believe that you kept, and looked up our conversation to quote me a year later.

? To be clear, I didn't look up our conversation. (I don't even know if I still have any of those messages.) Nor did I quote you here from those discussions. I simply remember those earlier discussion(s), and my reason for engaging in them.

As I recall, you were taking our disagreements to heart and resigned the conversation. For the record, I think that was very noble of you. No one wants the spirit if contention and you were able to recognize that you were beginning to get worked up, and left the conversation. I've got to give you kudos for that.

Thanks for the compliment - but I don't recall getting worked up over that discussion, resigning from it, or a sense of contention related to it. I do recall objecting to the idea of people ganging up on someone for saying things they don't happen to agree with.

I simply don't like the idea of self-appointed people trying to tell someone else what they can believe or say.

It didn't seem fair or decent then. It didn't sit right. And it still doesn't.

(As to getting "worked up", I'm a pretty level-headed guy. There's only one time on this board that I recall actually getting worked up, and it wasn't over that issue, but it *was* over an issue that definitely merited it.)

While your situation may cause you to do much of the work of the editor, the editor is ultimately responsible for the content. Whoever may be doing the work, the editor "edits" the paper for content, etc... and "are responsible for developing a product to its final release".

I fully understand the distinction.

Here's our key difference on this issue:

You're asserting there was basically a black-and-white demarcation from March to Nov - where Joseph wielded full micromanaging control until a flip suddenly switched in Nov, and his former assistant Taylor suddenly stepped in and took over.

I don't see it that way. I believe he did that gradually. And there's good reason for believing that.

Here's part of the reason why. With a previous background in planning and analyzing organizational succession strategies, I know that forward-thinking managers/executives don't think or act that way - they don't throw the new people to the lions all at once. Instead, after they've selected the person who will replace them, what is supposed to happen instead is a phasing in process, where the individual is patiently and properly groomed, up-trained, and encouraged to grow into shouldering the new responsibilities. They are phased into the new position over a period of time. Over the same period of time, the retiring executives phase themselves out, to allow their replacement room to grow in confidence.

So instead of a switch being flipped to suddenly transfer new roles and duties, the transfer in a forward-thinking organization is much more like the gradual phase from pre-dawn to full sunrise.

Ever since January, Joseph was looking to fulfill God's command to turn over the reins of editorship to the Twelve. But he didn't do it in haste. Instead, he took most of that year to groom one of the Twelve (Taylor) for that role. (This is more than a pie-in-the-sky theory. Unless you want to argue for some reason that Joseph didn't take the January '42 command seriously - and that he wasn't patiently working forward to make it happen. And unless you think it was a fluke that one of the Twelve just happened to be his assistant during that period, and that the same individual just happened to be the same one announced as his replacement later that year.)

I have good reason to believe Joseph worked to fulfill that January command prophetically. Proactively. Patiently. Gradually.

That, combined w/my first-hand experience of what really happens with the editing role, leads me to a different framework for assessing what happened in 1842, and what it implies.

I highly doubt your editors, or any editors would print something under their name, without reading it.

I usually hate to encourage doubts, but that is precisely what has happened, more times than I can count - when they were on vacation, or out of town on business, or knee-deep in other deadlines and responsibilities.

Not only that, but Joseph Smith said that "This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision. JOSEPH SMITH." So we know that from this point, according to Joseph Smith, he was responsible for the content of the Times and Seasons.

Agreed. I'm not arguing that he wasn't.

What that actually means, however, is where we currently differ.

So we just need to figure out when he said this.

I think it would be more reasonable to first step back and consider what it means. Because until we're on agreement on *that*, the "when" isn't as relevant as you might want to imply.

Joseph Smith took over the editorship of the paper from the Twelve (I believe it was to keeping them to busy and preventing them from some of their duties. I'd have to look it up again to be sure)

I'd suggest looking it up. Because he was told in January that the Twelve needed to assume editorial responsibility. And he was at the helm from early March until he could properly groom an appropriate replacement from among the Twelve.

I was waiting for you to provide any evidence for your claim other than a theory, on Joseph Smith phasing out the Twelve.

The phasing went the opposite direction. As far as the paper was concerned, he wasn't phasing out the Twelve. In 1842, he was instead phasing himself out in favor of the Twelve (Taylor).

I am open to be wrong, but the evidence is against Meldrum.

I certainly can see why you feel that way. And I certainly don't fault you for that.

Are you beginning to see why I view the transfer of duties in 1842 differently?

This quote by Joseph Smith should clear the water on what was going on in that time.

On the contrary. I believe the command in January, and the final transition in November provide a much clearer picture of what was going on throughout 1842. (The undercurrent of intent.)

Link to comment

I have looked at some Meldrum's stuff but personally do not find it persuasive.

I'm A-OK w/that. (The only thing of his that I believe I've seen is the 2008 DNA DVD.)

Personally I find Venice Priddis theory much more persuasive than Meldrum.

I read that several years back, and enjoyed it.

I've garnered evidence from other sources that make elements of that argument of additional interest.

However, I find a meso-american scenario most persuasive.

Super.

Link to comment

You originally said "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....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."

Your point here, was, from your own words "**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 disagree that even if he had nothing to do with those articles, there is sufficient evidence to say he did believe that The Book of Mormon did not take place only in North America. But that is a topic for another day. You, and Meldrum, need to get Joseph Smith away from those articles which place The Book of Mormon in Central America in order to support your view. So I showed you from Church History that Joseph Smith still acted in all of his capacities that he held prior to being in hiding (you can read them all in my first post), including "counseled Elder Taylor concerning the printing office", and spending days at a time with John Taylor, the Asst. Editor of the Times and Seasons.

Your argument without any citation then turned to Joseph Smith not being a micro-manager, and the editorship was given to the Twelve several months earlier. You say, without documentation, that Joseph Smith became editor, in order for the 12 Apostles, whom were supposed to be the chief editors, to be faded out? Again, nothing but a theory. To which I showed you from the Times and Seasons that Joseph Smith took the General Editorship in March of that year and would act as editor until November.

My point is, all of my material is backed up with documents, while you have only produced theory without documents. Please cite future arguments in your behalf. If you produce a theory, you need to back it up with the evidence.

So onto the editorship of the T/S. To help you out, here is the revelation that Joseph Smith received giving the editorship to the 12

Link to comment

I'm A-OK w/that. (The only thing of his that I believe I've seen is the 2008 DNA DVD.)

I watched the video and went online and looked through a good bit of the information on one of his websites. He is connected to more than one you know. He stretches a lot in some areas to try and make a fit and I don't think he does a very good job in several areas.

I read that several years back, and enjoyed it.

I've garnered evidence from other sources that make elements of that argument of additional interest.

It still has some interest and a little tidbit of DNA information from that area has interested me too.

Super.

All in all at the present the meso-american area has the best fit for me so far.

Link to comment

You originally said "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....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."

Your point here, was, from your own words "**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."

You misunderstand.

Above, I was summarizing Meldrum's assertions on his DVD.

That is not the same as **my own** argument. So when you claim my argument is shifting, that isn't accurate. All that is shifting is whether I'm paraphrasing his perspective, or whether I'm speaking from my own. I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to discern between the two. Fair enough?

I disagree that even if he had nothing to do with those articles, there is sufficient evidence to say he did believe that The Book of Mormon did not take place only in North America.

You overstate things. You'd be hard pressed to find a quote from me saying Joseph believed the Book of Mormon only took place in North America. (I have a much broader view of the Nephite stage than that.)

You, and Meldrum, need to get Joseph Smith away from those articles which place The Book of Mormon in Central America in order to support your view.
You'd be surprised how untrue that actually is (at least for me - I won't pretend to know how Meldrum would respond to such a statement.) However, apparently, you **do** need to tie Joseph closely to those articles to support your view.
So I showed you from Church History that Joseph Smith still acted in all of his capacities that he held prior to being in hiding (you can read them all in my first post), including "counseled Elder Taylor concerning the printing office", and spending days at a time with John Taylor, the Asst. Editor of the Times and Seasons.

Very good stuff. Evidence which can actually sustain what I've been saying, if you're willing to see it.

Your argument without any citation then turned to Joseph Smith not being a micro-manager

? Why would I need to cite a page number for Joseph's well-known statement about how he governed? (Via teaching general principles, and letting people govern for themselves.) Is there a reason I need to get tediously clerical about which page number such a statement is on? Are you disputing whether he said that? Or whether that accurately represents his management style? Or are you suggesting that such a governing principle, in the Editor's office, played no role in how much latitude his assistant (and pending replacement) Taylor was likely granted at various times throughout 1842?

and the editorship was given to the Twelve several months earlier.

Incorrect. You've misunderstood. I said months "later". I was referring to Taylor, in November of 1842.

You say, without documentation, that Joseph Smith became editor, in order for the 12 Apostles, whom were supposed to be the chief editors, to be faded out?

No, that's not what I said. It was for Joseph to phase out as editor (not for the Twelve to phase out), and for the Twelve to step forward in the editorial role, per the January command. Which they officially did in November via Taylor.

Again, nothing but a theory.
Documented history. Unless you're claiming Joseph gave no credence to the January command? Or that you're claiming Taylor's November appointment wasn't the eventual fulfillment of that command?
My point is, all of my material is backed up with documents, while you have only produced theory without documents. Please cite future arguments in your behalf. If you produce a theory, you need to back it up with the evidence.

The evidence you cite supports the premise I've presented quite nicely. But I'm not insisting that you see or acknowledge that.

...and Elder Taylor the editorial department of the Times and Seasons; who commenced by taking an inventory of the establishment this day."
Which he resumed again in November, after grooming and cross-training from Joseph (which your earlier citations documented quite nicely).
"I beg leave to inform the subscribers of the Times and Seasons that it is impossible for me to fulfil [fulfill] the arduous duties of the editorial department any longer. The multiplicity of other business that daily devolves upon me, renders it impossible for me to do justice to a paper so widely circulated as the Times and Seasons.

This actually supports what I've been saying - that sometimes people (including Joseph) are too busy with more important tasks/deadlines to fulfill every demand of the editing role. Consider those implications as a backdrop for what I've been saying.

I have appointed Elder John Taylor, who is less encumbered and fully competent to assume the responsibilities of that office..

Which demonstrates that he has been appropriately trained and groomed for the role.

If Joseph Smith was not *really* acting as editor during those months, John Taylor would be lying.

Your black-and-white world is a very nice place. Work side by side with a real-world editor, producer, or publisher for a year or two, and your opinion might shift.

Because your argument seems to be changing as evidence is produced which counters your beliefs

First off, my argument has been constant within this thread. You are blurring my summary of Meldrum's presentation, with my own personal views - and are mistakenly asserting that I have thereby shifted my argument with every wind of opinion. Not so. Secondly, the evidence you cite actually aligns with what I've been saying (so there has not even been any cause here to shift my opinion). And last of all, there are times when I do shift my view, when I encounter sufficient evidence/testimony. I would imagine the same might hold true for you. You're not suggesting that such shouldn't be the case, are you?

Link to comment

He stretches a lot in some areas to try and make a fit...

There were a few areas that seemed to be a stretch. But out of a long DVD, those areas were few and far between. Imagine if you had to shoot and edit a lengthy video that spanned language, DNA, culture, fortifications, artifacts, climate, etc. to present an overriding theory. I'd imagine there are areas where people new to the material might disagree with your assertions. Or might think you were stretching a bit to make a point.

Such wouldn't prove your core premise wrong.

And other than the occasional apparent stretch in the Meldrum DVD (mostly on minor tangent issues), several areas, especially the foundational ones, were quite impressive and well grounded.

Again, I think people's expectations are unrealistically high this early in the game - especially when they try to contrast some of these things to the academic pedigree of MesoAmerican advocates, who have had decades to collaborate and refine their foundation. Things take time to mature. We can't realistically hold a first generation of part-time Hopewell advocates to the same expectations that full-time MesoAmerican university departments can muster. (And why would we want to?)

All in all at the present the meso-american area has the best fit for me so far.

...In non-essentials, liberty.

In all things, charity

Link to comment

...and I don't think he does a very good job in several areas.

That was my initial knee-jerk reaction in the first few minutes of the DVD. More specifically, he came across as very uncomfortable in front of the group, and/or in front of the camera. And he stutters/stumbles frequently, especially in that first segment. (He warms up and ramps up later.)

I'd suggest that the DVD, and some of the controversy surrounding it, are good exercises in learning not to judge a book by its cover.

Two rules of thumb that have generally served me well:

1) When I found groups of critics circling, that's when my interest piqued. (There's some scriptural basis for such an approach.)

2) When I found things being discarded or ignored, my interest piques. (Ditto on the basis for that too.) Similar in principle to the Italian/Catholic priest-in-training who pulled a Book of Mormon from a garbage can (How Rare A Possession).

That doesn't mean every investigation into such things was productive, or that I immediately investigated everything that fell into one of those categories. But it does mean that overall, I benefited considerably from adopting those two general approaches.

Link to comment

All I have to say is, Wow....

BTW, John Taylor doesn't consist of the Twelve Apostles. Because he was a member of the 12, does not make him the 12. Joseph Smith took over the editorship immediately. Why did JS need to be a part of it to "train" them, when he had just as much experience as anyone else?

Also, if someones theory is critiqued, how does that make the theory correct? You have several people with Phd's in Genetics, who say a guy with zero schooling is wrong. Does that raise a red flag for you? Especially, when this same guy has quit his job and selling these DVD's, tours, etc... full-time, and making a six-figure income? I see that as someone trying to make a quick buck with bad information. The RLDS Church was attacked by Joseph Fielding Smith. Does that make them correct? The Adam-God theory has been attacked by scholars, does that make it a correct doctrine? How about pornography? That is a horrible reason to assume something has value, because of how people with the proper education and training feel about a theory a complete amateur came up with. So, at least to me, that seems absurd.

Also, I am still waiting to see a documented theory for *anything* you've been saying. You mention that you have "very good stuff". I would love to see what you have. Having previously spent considerable time on this subject, I don't see which other direction this could go.

Again, the evidence shows that Joseph Smith was directly tied to these articles. Remember, Joseph Smith stated that he was responsible for the All of the content of the Times and Seasons. He wrote:

"This paper commences my editorial career; I alone stand responsible for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision" (Times and Seasons, Volume 3:710)

Do you know whose name was on the September and October Times and Seasons? You got it! Joseph Smith. So by Joseph Smiths own words, he was responsible for the content of the papers which you are trying to discredit.

Also under Joseph Smiths name, he wrote and printed the following quotes:

"

Link to comment

And other than the occasional apparent stretch in the Meldrum DVD (mostly on minor tangent issues), several areas, especially the foundational ones, were quite impressive and well grounded.

To me it is more than occasional and not on minor tangent issues.

That was my initial knee-jerk reaction in the first few minutes of the DVD. More specifically, he came across as very uncomfortable in front of the group, and/or in front of the camera. And he stutters/stumbles frequently, especially in that first segment. (He warms up and ramps up later.)

I don't think Mr. Meldrum is uncomfortable in front of a group. It was not his presentation that I have problems with.

I'd suggest that the DVD, and some of the controversy surrounding it, are good exercises in learning not to judge a book by its cover.

Two rules of thumb that have generally served me well:

1) When I found groups of critics circling, that's when my interest piqued. (There's some scriptural basis for such an approach.)

2) When I found things being discarded or ignored, my interest piques. (Ditto on the basis for that too.) Similar in principle to the Italian/Catholic priest-in-training who pulled a Book of Mormon from a garbage can (How Rare A Possession).

I am not judging a book by its cover. To me it was Content, Content and Content.

Link to comment
There were a few areas that seemed to be a stretch. But out of a long DVD, those areas were few and far between. Imagine if you had to shoot and edit a lengthy video that spanned language, DNA, culture, fortifications, artifacts, climate, etc. to present an overriding theory.

It is certainly difficult to adequately cover that range of information in a video, but it is also very difficult for a non-specialist to understand where the shortcomings or the "stretches" are in such a presentation.

Meldrum's strongest presentation plays off of the assumption that Joseph Smith was a prophet and therefore knew everything there was to know about the Book of Mormon, especially its location. Because there are statements potentially attributable to Joseph that would indicate that his opinion was not fixed, but rather flexible over time, the argument must be made that those seemingly more open statements have to be discounted. The argument becomes one of "what did he really say" rather than whether the geography actually fits the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, this argument also extends (without saying so) to other prophets in the church. To hold to the position that Joseph was inerrantly aware of Book of Mormon geography and prophetically declared it, Meldrum must silently pit Joseph against those prophets who followed him and have firmly declared that there is no revealed geography (including prophets who knew Joseph personally and would have been quite aware of his opinions).

I suggest that this is an underlying theme that has made many at FAIR quite nervous. I have no problem declaring Joseph a prophet, but I certainly believe that there have been others. I don't believe that they were so fallen as to reject any of Joseph's firm teachings. Of course Meldrum never says this, but it is the only way his inerrant view of early Joseph Smith statements can be reconciled with the position of the church leadership in multiple official and semi-official statements starting early in the Utah period and continuing to the present. If the prophets of the church I sustain tell me that there is no official position on the Book of Mormon, then I believe them. That says that Joseph had opinions, not explicit revelations.

His second emotional argument plays off of cultural centrism that understands that the United States must be the promised land (though his argument really only applies to Eastern states - Utah and the West are out of it, not to mention Canada and Mexico).

If Meldrum's most forceful arguments plays off emotions, if we move past them and go to what should be the heart of any geographic correlation, how does he fare?

I suggest that Mormon knew Book of Mormon geography better than Joseph did. What clues he wrote in the text should be of the highest importance in discerning a location. That is where Meldrum moves away from careful specifics into very wide generalities. It requires some fast shifts in vocabulary to have the Sidon flow north to south when the text appears to have it flowing south to north (which makes for a very major problem).

There is a major problem dealing with one of the most specific verses in the Book of Mormon, that requires a land of many waters with few trees, north of Nephite lands and with cement houses. There is nothing in the heartland model that even comes close. The cultures in that region were called "Woodland" for a reason. By the time you go far enough north to not have trees, you don't have people at that time period. Cement lasts, and one would expect that we would find something. However, the lack of people is even more problematic.

When you attempt to correlate some of his ideas to the events of the text, they don't fit. He has Manti sitting at the confluence of rivers. Those natural barriers would have made Manti an important location, and virtually prevented any real attacks as they boats could be met as they arrive. Manti is the doorway to Nephite territories for most Lamanite invasions (which never mention crossing water, save for an important time when the army could ford across (which is really difficult on the rivers in the heartland model). The geography simply cannot square with the story.

How about the fortifications, language, etc. I don't know what he says about language, but there is no connection that could be reasonably made by any linguist. As for fortifications, they certainly existed, and there were certainly Hopewells in the right time period. One might be able to make an argument for them, but it falls apart when you try to find Jaredites. The Adena are in the right time, but wrong place.

Meldrum's best arguments play off of emotional responses. When he attempts to deal with the harder evidence of geography, culture, and particular correlations of those cultures to the text, he misses the mark significantly. However, if one is not acquainted with those cultures and the time periods, his superficial examination appears impressive enough.

From a geographical, temporal and cultural standpoing, Meldrum's theory looks as good as Olson's Malaysian hypothesis. Both are presented in ways that make them seem plausible. Neither stands up to actual data.

Link to comment

All I have to say is, Wow....

Which inspired the awe? My rugged handsome looks? My rippling muscles? Or my unprecedented and much-heralded humility? (I pride myself in it.) ;)

BTW, John Taylor doesn't consist of the Twelve Apostles. Because he was a member of the 12, does not make him the 12.

? I don't follow your logic. Are you trying to claim that the January injunction was somehow never fulfilled, simply because **all** of the Twelve never stepped forward in an editorial capacity? If that's your premise, that seems unreasonable. If not, please clarify.

Historically, when the Twelve assumed leadership of an initiative, they did so by **one** of their own simply becoming the lead, manager, or chairman of that initiative. Which is precisely what happened in November with Taylor. So why would the November event not fulfill the intent of the previous January injunction?

Joseph Smith took over the editorship immediately.
Well, almost immediately - a two-month interim is close enough for horseshoes.
Why did JS need to be a part of it to "train" them, when he had just as much experience as anyone else?
If you had the chance to be tutored by Joseph, wouldn't you want that opportunity too?
Also, if someones theory is critiqued, how does that make the theory correct?
Uh, it doesn't. Not even close. Nor I have stated or even implied that it somehow does. :P
You have several people with Phd's in Genetics, who say a guy with zero schooling is wrong. Does that raise a red flag for you?

Not if he's citing others with Phd's in Genetics. Which he is.

Especially, when this same guy has quit his job and selling these DVD's, tours, etc...

Is he filling a genuine need? Standing in a gap? Is he quelling some of the anti DNA hullaboo?

If so, who are you to critique what he chooses to do with his time, or how he chooses to support his family. Seriously. He doesn't answer to you.

What's bizarre is that those who raise the biggest hullaboo about him tend to be ones who are generally on an LDS payroll. As if whatever they do for a living is somehow pure and pristine and worthy of a paycheck, but what he might offer to support his family is unethical. Seems like a double standard to me.

full-time, and making a six-figure income?
How would you know what he earns, and, closer to the point, what difference would it make if it actually were six figures? Is this an attempt to appeal to populism? Create class division? More importantly, does what he earns reasonably align with the level of service he provides? If so, what's your objection with him providing that service? Do you also publicly question what church leaders make in their ministries (LDS or otherwise)? Or do you reserve that criticism solely for LDS musicians, film makers, researchers, authors, sculptors, etc. Or is that criticism solely held in reserve for those few who you deem are unfit to offer something of potential value?
I see that as someone trying to make a quick buck with bad information.
I see that as you having a problem with someone charging for a DVD you don't happen to agree with. Get as bothered as you deem appropriate. But if he wants, he can put a price on his DVD. And people are free to pay that price, if they deem it fair. Precisely how is it your place to stand between the two? Seriously. What qualifies you for that?
The RLDS Church was attacked by Joseph Fielding Smith. Does that make them correct? The Adam-God theory has been attacked by scholars, does that make it a correct doctrine? How about pornography?
Do you enjoy descending into the outlandish?
That is a horrible reason to assume something has value,
Wow. If you honestly think that's my reason, we're talking WAY past each other. Do you even want to understand where I'm coming from? Or does the absurd, cartoonish caricature suit your purposes/preferences better?
because of how people with the proper education and training feel about a theory a complete amateur came up with.
As a generalist, he is citing experts in their fields. Precisely what is absurd about that? Is he somehow not qualified to cite those who are experts? Is so, how/why?
Also, I am still waiting to see a documented theory for *anything* you've been saying. You mention that you have "very good stuff".
Hyperbole again. I cited DHC early on. Please be specific. Precisely what "good stuff" would you like to see?
Again, the evidence shows that Joseph Smith was directly tied to these articles. Remember, Joseph Smith stated...

Yep, you've cited that editorial header close to a half dozen times in this thread alone.

Is that degree of repetition somehow supposed to shift space/time?

Do you know whose name was on the September and October Times and Seasons? You got it! Joseph Smith. So by Joseph Smiths own words, he was responsible for the content of the papers which you are trying to discredit.
Being responsible for something is not the same as agreeing with or endorsing every statement and opinion in every article. I have no interest in discrediting the paper. I'm just not one to pretend that it, or the DesNews, or everything said from an LDS pulpit is the pristine gospel truth. It's scope was different. Consider its purpose, its audience, and its frequency, and you might begin to see why a number of articles that shed a potential favorable light on the Nephite record were likely enlisted. We're talking about human beings here, and serving their general needs, which requires a degree of latitude. Bishops are responsible for everything said from a ward's pulpit or in a ward class. That doesn't mean they'll publicly correct every testimony, lesson, comment, or talk. If you're going to be consistent, are you going to insist that anything said from an LDS pulpit (that isn't promptly corrected) must somehow be the gospel truth? Or are you going to insist that, since Deseret News and Deseret Book are church owned/controlled, that everything they have ever done, published, or sold is 100% accurate? Never an errant, uncorrected statement in any DesNews article? Every book or CD that has rung up a sale at a DesBook store is unadulterated gospel? Or are you going to instead allow for a reasonable degree of latitude? Rubber hits the road. Pony up please.

[cont'd]

Link to comment

You've GOT to show me how you are able to quote me in boxes. It will make this SO much easier. Until then, I'll do the best I can.

You:

Which inspired the awe? My rugged handsome looks? My rippling muscles? Or my unprecedented and much-heralded humility? (I pride myself in it.)

Me: That was exactly what I was referring to. I couldn't get past your avator picture to focus enough on the content.

You:? I don't follow your logic. Are you trying to claim that the January injunction was somehow never fulfilled, simply because **all** of the Twelve never stepped forward in an editorial capacity? If that's your premise, that seems absurd. If not, please clarify

Me: If it was the Twelve who were in charge, they would at least discuss it as a group. John Taylor was not acting in behalf of th Twelve, nor is it ever recorded that he was acting in behalf of the Twelve. He was acting as John Taylor, the Asst. Editor. We have zero documentation that he did, and anything more than that would be conjecture.

You:If you had the chance to be tutored by Joseph, wouldn't you want that opportunity too?

Me: This has nothing to do with being tutored by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not know anything more than anyone else when it came to editing (other than the content, which, as shown, MUCH more than a Heartland model was taught). The Twelve did *not* take over the Editorship, but Joseph Smith did, as shown many times before. Anything is would be a stretch on your part.

You:Uh, it doesn't. Not even close. Nor I have stated or even implied that it somehow does

Me: I was referring to your comments you made before. ") When I found groups of critics circling, that's when my interest piqued. (There's some scriptural basis for such an approach.)

2) When I found things being discarded or ignored, my interest piques. (Ditto on the basis for that too.) Similar in principle to the Italian/Catholic priest-in-training who pulled a Book of Mormon from a garbage can (How Rare A Possession)."

You "implied" that those who are attacked by critics, you get interested. This is where you implied it.

You: Not if he's citing others with Phd's in Genetics. Which he is.

Me: Since population genetics is a new science, it is changing very quickly. Meldrum is not keeping up with, or even acknoweldging new research in these areas. He uses the famous anti-Mormon quotations. Here is a quote from his presentation:

"Finally, phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of sub-haplogroup X2...The presence of a daughter clade [evolutionary group] in Northern Native Americans testifies to the range of this population's expansion. It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences."

Notice the elipses. What is in that section?

"and the associated population dispersal occurred around, or after, the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] when the climate ameliorated [improved]."

He removed the part of the article that did not agree with him. That is not being honest and something you'd expect to find in an Ed Decker book.

I would suggest you read FAIRs review of his DVD. This is the DNA section of the review, it will answer a lot of your questions.

http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography/DEBMG01F.html

But, this being off topic, I won't delve into it deeper. I would like to focus on Joseph Smith.

You: Is he filling a genuine need? Standing in a gap? Is he quelling some of the anti DNA hullaboo?

Me: If he is ignoring the latest research on the X haplotype, promoting "archaeological evidence" which has been proven by both Apostles and scientists to be forgeries, then I have a problem with it. No one will benefit from false information, no matter how good it sounds.

I also know about the six figure income from his website, which he has since removed. When he was selling his DVD's only a short while, he posted that he had sold over 8,000 of them. So, 20 bucks a pop would be $180,000. Minus production costs, which would be very little in his case, we'll err on an expensive DVD, and say it was 15 bucks profit. And that was before he became popular!

If there was the slightest bit of evidence to his theory, I'd be happy with it. But as I said, he is using DNA evidence that, according to the geneticist who has studied the X more than anyone else, cannot be concluded without great stretches and conjecture. (read Ugo Peregos recent article on the X). Many personal conversations with Ugo have provided me with a very strong belief that Meldrum is way out in right field with his conclusions, but you can get most of it from his paper and this years FAIR conference address. I have also brought this up to many other LDS geneticists who have basically said the same thing. These are the guys who are trained, Meldrum is not. Why would you trump many experts and believe one amateur?

You: Hyperbole again. I cited DHC early on. Please be specific. Precisely what "good stuff" would you like to see?

Me: How is asking for references and evidences for your case hyperbole? If you would like to side step evidence, perhaps we should part our ways. You cited on obvious reference, everything is conjecture on your part. You *think* that Joseph Smith was phasing in the Twelve without any evidence. On the other hand, I have shown you the contrary *with* quotations.

I think I mis-understood a past statement. You said "Very good stuff. Evidence which can actually sustain what I've been saying, if you're willing to see it."

You: Yep, you've cited that editorial header probably a half dozen times in this thread alone.

Me: And I'm sure I'll quote it a few times more. You don't seem to be reading it. If he was the Chief editor in charge of the content of the T/S, and had his name signed to the T/S in question, how can you say he had nothing to do with it?

You:Being responsible for something is not the same as agreeing with or endorsing every statement and opinion in every article. I have no interest in discrediting the paper.

Me: As shown previously (perhaps you didn't read my past posts), Joseph Smith strived for accuracy and corrected people several times for accuracy, how would that not reflect his opinion? Especially since HIS OWN ARTICLES promoted more than a North American setting, but also a Central American setting? Please read my posts more carefully.

The Church today does not claim to run and control the content of the Deseret News. You are side-stepping....again. Joseph Smith DID claim that.

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.

Link to comment

Actually, after re-reading our discussion, I am beginning to realize that this is a waste of time. If you can provide me with anything except conjecture, I'd be willing to listen. Until then, your opinion without documentation does not hold much water. I am really going to try to not open this thread up again, I've got a big test on Monday and need to study for it. Please email me if you have substance to add to our conversation.

God bless

Link to comment
I suggest that this is an underlying theme that has made many at FAIR quite nervous. I have no problem declaring Joseph a prophet, but I certainly believe that there have been others. I don't believe that they were so fallen as to reject any of Joseph's firm teachings. Of course Meldrum never says this, but it is the only way his inerrant view of early Joseph Smith statements can be reconciled with the position of the church leadership in multiple official and semi-official statements starting early in the Utah period and continuing to the present.
He does seem to be willing to sacrifice other prophets and apostles for his theories...in this case implicitly through claiming JS's words are being neglected and also with the claim that teaching evolution at BYU is solely for secular approval even if it happens to mislead faithful LDS youth away from the true doctrine.
Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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