Meldrum's DNA DVD

[Calm]

livy, the easiest way I've found to quote is to do a reply where it quotes the entire comment and then divide off the sections I'm responding to by using the given heading first (so the first one says who is talking but the rest just have "quote") and adding a [ / quote ] (remove the spaces) where I want a break for my comments, then at the end of my comments add a [ quote ], etc. etc. If he's quoted you in any of those sections, the second level of boxes pop up automatically. If you've miscounted, some formatting will be screwed up, so be sure and save before hitting the "post" button, though usually these days the editor function tells you that something is wrong and you have to correct it before you post.

[notHagoth7]

[cont'd]

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

Good quotes. You clearly interpret them from your framework.

And I interpret them from within a different framework.

If you understood my framework, you'd understand why.

As Chief Editor, several articles were printed which placed the BOM in Central America. Less than a year earlier, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to John Bernhisel, thanking him for a book on Stephens/Catherwoods book which goes into a lot of detail of Mesoamerican culture. In response to this, Joseph Smith wrote that this book

"corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon;...

Yep. You've cited this earlier in the thread. You see this as implying one thing.

While I see it as Joseph being quite comfortable recognizing and enlisting parallels which enhanced the credibility and veracity of the Nephite record. I see it as further corroboration of his inclusiveness, forbearance, and latitude in other matters.

Because Joseph Smith was responsible for the content of these newspapers, he wanted to be as accurate as he could. Whenever a mistake was made, he sent out a retraction, no matter how big or small it was.

And what of things that he didn't deem mistakes? Things which he instead deemed as reasonable allowances in order to circumscribe faith-promoting parallels?

John Taylor wrote of editor style which Joseph Smith used. He wrote:

"He wished me to write something for him on this subject [the Last Days]

[notHagoth7]

He does seem to be willing to sacrifice other prophets and apostles for his theories...

?

The DVD didn't reflect that attitude. (At least from where I sat.)

(Although I frequently hear the MesoAmerican camp putting that spin on his words.)

Is it possible some of you are still gravitating around an earlier, more controversial statement from him, which has since been corrected in the current version of the DVD?

...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.

Again, I don't recall anything like that from the DVD.

Sounds like people are choosing to stew over a statement made long ago, that has since been corrected.

Might it not be more worthwhile to move forward?

[notHagoth7]

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.

I don't have a problem agreeing there.

Problem is, there are few if any people who are specialists in DNA, and in any specific civilization, and in archaeology, and in climate, and in linguistics, and in military strategy, and in horticulture, and in dendrochronology, and in isotope analysis, and in the Nephite record, and in Joseph's statements related to that record, and in ancient commerce, etc.... The sciences, even the social sciences, are pretty specialized and fragmented. At some point, if the breadth and depth of a civilization is going to be discussed, participants may have to wade into areas where they have limited (if any) expertise. The question is, what are the best ways to do that? And is it somehow inappropriate for a generalist to engage in such a discussion?

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.

I agree - that is the strongest area of his presentation. I think it's an overstatement, however, assert that Meldrum says Joseph knew "everything" about the Nephite record. However, since the Nephite account was central to his ministry for about two decades, it might be reasonable to conclude that Joseph did know more about their society than anyone since. Since later leaders had other issues to tackle and bigger fish to fry. Joseph was the one tutored directly by Nephite prophets.

Because there are statements potentially attributable to Joseph that would indicate that his opinion was not fixed, but rather flexible over time,

That's certainly one way of interpreting the different data points. (I happen to have a different approach to reconciling them.)

...the argument must be made that those seemingly more open statements have to be discounted.

I don't think that requires one to discount the statement. One can view them within a broader framework, and they can reconcile quite nicely.

The argument becomes one of "what did he really say" rather than whether the geography actually fits the Book of Mormon.

I give more weight to what he really said. Since the geography we're looking at today may not reflect the geography of 2000 years ago. (With potential climate/hydrology changes (water levels), earthquake deformations, plate tilting, etc., it's beyond difficult to divide what was water and what was land at specific juncture in time.) By way of comparison, the coastline of northwestern Europe has deformed drastically over the last 2000 years due to many of the same factors.

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 agree that there is no revealed geography. But we'd both agree that there are a good number of revealed data points. The church has simply never presented what it deems the correct way to connect those dots.

It sounds like Meldrum was too strident (or was interpreted as being too strident) in times past. However, I didn't get that impression from his current DVD. Nor did I get the sense he was belittling post-Joseph leadership. So whatever the storm was earlier, I suggest that it has passed, and that we can all move forward.

I suggest that this is an underlying theme that has made many at FAIR quite nervous.

If my assessment is right that his message has apparently shifted in a more positive direction, it would be more fair for FAIR to let bygones be bygones, tear out the rearview mirror, and move forward.

I have no problem declaring Joseph a prophet, but I certainly believe that there have been others.

To be fair, if you watched the same DVD as I did, you would acknowledge that Meldrum openly attests to the same.

Of course Meldrum never says this

? Then what's the merit of asserting that he implies it? If people are inferring things into what he's saying, why can't we just acknowledge that, discard the difference, and move on?

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.

Actually, that's not what it says - although that's what one can certainly infer. But it isn't the only reasonable, faithful conclusion.

[cont'd]

[notHagoth7]

[cont'd response to BG]

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).

As a Canadian, I am of course frothing with rage (to mimic Dr. P.). Seriously though, there is more to his section about North America in general, and the eastern U.S. in specifics, than emotional appeal. Much more. To claim otherwise is to be beyond dismissive.

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 can't claim to check my emotions at the door, since I can be as biased as anyone else. But I think you patronize him, his message, and those who agree with him by parsing what he's saying down to nothing more than pedestrian emotional appeal. From my perspective, you've lost way too much in your translation. Baby. Bath water.

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 are challenges, assumptions, and problems with every proposed geographic model. Each camp has their own way of reconciling them. Calling them "fast shifts in vocabulary" implies intellectual dishonesty. To get past the previous years of rancor, I would ask if we could avoid resorting to that.

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.

Actually, I have a way to bridge those two concepts. But it goes far beyond the scope of this thread. And I may never get around to sharing it - at least in the current climate.

The geography simply cannot square with the story.

That there are challenges is acknowledged. That such challenges are insurmountable is merely an assertion. Geography does change. So do assumptions.

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.

I beg to differ. I have held such a book in my hand. Written two generations ago. (It of course predates modern linguistic methodology, but it offers a very promising starting point) When I finish connecting the dots, I might share that too.

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.

Depends largely on one's framework. Give the Hopewell camp some time, and I have reason to believe that as things mature, they'll have reasonable answers to such objections.

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.

To be fair, one cannot address the harder evidence with any reasonable degree of detail in a linear video slated for a general audience. With few exceptions, video is a medium better suited to narratives, and birds-eye-view overviews. Not to minutiae. Books and interactive media are better suited for the latter. So I don't think it's right to demand things from a video that don't translate well to video - especially to a video intended for a general audience.

Fair enough?

[Cold Steel]

Meldrum's stuff is available here:

BookOfMormonEvidence.org

Isn't there a place online to view it? I hate having to spend twenty-five bucks just to hear someone's theory. If I like it, then I'd buy it. I've just seen too many crappy DVD and CD productions lately.

[notHagoth7]

2 Feb 1833: American Revivalist

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

[notHagoth7]

[cont'd reply to BG]

and he also "forgets" to show the rest of the path, which crosses the land bridge out of Asia. That data on haplotype X counters his suggestion of where it came from.

Depends on which DNA data one happens to be citing. As in most sciences, there are of course competing camps in the DNA argument. Again, please don't imply that he's being intentionally dishonest. It's an anti tactic.

It cannot have arrived across the ocean if it is traced from Asia. He cannot use the south to north migration pattern as evidence unless he also accepts the rest of the hypothesis that has it coming from Asia.

I've demonstrated earlier in this thread that at least one supposed dichotomy can be reconciled. Can we please not assume this early in the DNA game that either of these two can't be resolved amicably either?

and the genetic evidence is not represented accurately from the original source nor according to the way actual geneticists understand those data.

As in most things, it hinges largely on which geneticist you cite.

What Meldrum has correct is that Joseph, at certain points in time, believed that the Book of Mormon applied to the entire hemisphere.

OK.

Since there is also evidence that Joseph was open to different ideas about that, the argument has to focus on who said what, pitting Joseph's early statements against later statements (hence the attempt to unattribute them to Joseph) and then to contradict what Joseph's closest associates said about the nature of the geography after that fact.

There's a third alternative.

Since the official church position, traceable at least to early SLC times, indicates that they accepted no revealed geography, either those brethren were no longer inspired or they had forgotten important prophetic utterances.

Or there's a third alternative. (You guys sure love black-and-white dichotomies. What's up w/that?)

I have a very hard time accepting either of those hypotheses.

OK

I can't see attempting to make Joseph the only real prophet of the church,

Are you implying Meldrum is claiming that? That's not at all the message I got out of his DVD.

with the rest of them somehow unknowing of what has been revealed.

Again, there's at least a third alternative...

[notHagoth7]

Isn't there a place online to view it? I hate having to spend twenty-five bucks just to hear someone's theory. If I like it, then I'd buy it. I've just seen too many crappy DVD and CD productions lately.

Ask your friends/neighbors. Without asking, two people approached me to ask if I wanted to borrow theirs. (So a copy is likely somewhere within easy reach.)

[livy111us]

Believe it or not, you can get most of what his DVD's are about, and a lot of his theories here:

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

[Brant Gardner]

Problem is, there are few if any people who are specialists in DNA, and in any specific civilization, and in archaeology, and in climate, and in linguistics, and in military strategy, and in horticulture, and in dendrochronology, and in isotope analysis, and in the Nephite record, and in Joseph's statements related to that record, and in ancient commerce, etc....

You seem to state that as though there is no coalition of people who cover those specialties and who actually can respond to specifics. There really are (and they have responded). In the case of DNA analysis, I tend to respect the opinion of people with degrees in the field and who have done actual research over someone who is simply reading the journals and pulling information. I won't suggest that an amateur cannot know what the journals say, but if the experts contradict the amateur's reading, I go with the experts.

The sciences, even the social sciences, are pretty specialized and fragmented. At some point, if the breadth and depth of a civilization is going to be discussed, participants may have to wade into areas where they have limited (if any) expertise. [\quote]

Certainly. That is why I will let experts handle DNA. I can, however, speak to culture and to the text. In particular, the way that the story of the text requires certain geographic elements (and it depends upon them at several points).

However, since the Nephite account was central to his ministry for about two decades, it might be reasonable to conclude that Joseph did know more about their society than anyone since. Since later leaders had other issues to tackle and bigger fish to fry. Joseph was the one tutored directly by Nephite prophets.

This is a assumption that is frequently made, but never followed through to any analysis of the data upon which the assumption might be based. First, is it based solely on Joseph as a prophet? No, else all other prophets would be equal. If it is based on the fact that he saw the Nephite world in vision, I can agree that those visions were helpful. However, I cannot see any way that those visions translate into geography. If he saw people and buildings, what does that tell him of geography? What map would he have been shown, and would he have known how to understand maps? The map of the US would have been very different.

I give more weight to what he really said.

Which, of course, is the subject of debate and obviously different opinions.

Since the geography we're looking at today may not reflect the geography of 2000 years ago. (With potential climate/hydrology changes (water levels), earthquake deformations, plate tilting, etc., it's beyond difficult to divide what was water and what was land at specific juncture in time.) By way of comparison, the coastline of northwestern Europe has deformed drastically over the last 2000 years due to many of the same factors.

While there are some known changes, north does not become south. Rivers do not reverse their course. Up rarely becomes down (really severe earthquakes notwithstanding). If you are suggesting that we can't use geographic facts to determine geography, then you have doomed the model to hypothetical with no way of being tested. If that is really your point, then it becomes simply one of faith, and there is no reason to have an academic discussion of it.

If, however, you think that the text and the geography actually have a chance to fit, then you have discard the cataclysmic excuse when it doesn't.

I agree that there is no revealed geography. But we'd both agree that there are a good number of revealed data points.

No, we disagree on that as well. There is no revealed geography. The "revealed" points are also subject to interpretation, and I disagree with the interpretation that gives them special status in interpreting the Book of Mormon geography.

It sounds like Meldrum was too strident (or was interpreted as being too strident) in times past. However, I didn't get that impression from his current DVD. Nor did I get the sense he was belittling post-Joseph leadership. So whatever the storm was earlier, I suggest that it has passed, and that we can all move forward.

I have no idea how strident he was. I don't know if he was ever explicit. That isn't my point. My point is that his very argument inherently denigrates the inspiration of all prophets who have followed Joseph. Regardless of what Meldrum says, his argument requires that I elevate Joseph to the point of a revealed geography, and demote all of those church authorities who have said there is no revealed geography. That is a fundamental conflict, whether he understands it or not, whether he highlights it or not (and he would be very wise not to highlight it).

If my assessment is right that his message has apparently shifted in a more positive direction, it would be more fair for FAIR to let bygones be bygones, tear out the rearview mirror, and move forward.

My interest is simply in the accuracy of the information. I don't have any rancor towards him or his theory. I have been through the data, and having done that, I continue to do what I would do for anyone. I look at the validity of the arguments. His geography is based on one that was originally presented by another author. That author has since repudiated the geography. So Meldrum is building a foundation on something that the original author no longer finds viable. I find that suggestive and impressive.

[Brant Gardner]

Depends on which DNA data one happens to be citing. As in most sciences, there are of course competing camps in the DNA argument. Again, please don't imply that he's being intentionally dishonest. It's an anti tactic.

You are apparently unaware of some of the miscitations. Still, when I need to understand those things, I would go to a professional who is really familiar with the subject. Meldrum once tried to use Ugo Perego as support for his position. Perego does not support that position, nor agree with the way Meldrum has read the relevant journals.

As in most things, it hinges largely on which geneticist you cite.

Only if the geneticists you are citing have already been filtered through Meldrum. I saw the analysis of what he did with one source. If I were a high school teacher and as student used data in that way, I would fail the paper.

Now, I notice that when you respond to me that you don't deal in specifics. You have some general statements that say that certain problems may not be problems. Unfortunately, I want to see the rabbit in the hat before I can agree that the very serious cultural, temporal and geographic issues are resolved. Remember, my interest is in how the actual story of the Book of Mormon integrates with the geography. The heartland geography simply cannot support the story in the Book of Mormon. No matter how you generalize features to make it appear that there is a fit, when you get tight enough to see if it actually works, it doesn't. The battles around Manti and south of Zarahemla where river has to be forded are places where I see no reconciliation.

I would really like to know where the land of many waters and no trees is. I have seen that area and even after modern man has cut down innumerable trees, there are still lots and lots of trees.

Now, we also have the problem of the Lamanites in the west. Not only can't they get across the Mississippi, but they are in the Great Plains. There is no way that the Great Plains supports the size of the nations that the Nephites do battle with - that requires agriculture, which didn't exist in those times on the Great Plains.

If you try to actually work the model against archaeology and history, it doesn't work.

[ERayR]

Isn't there a place online to view it? I hate having to spend twenty-five bucks just to hear someone's theory. If I like it, then I'd buy it. I've just seen too many crappy DVD and CD productions lately.

In my opinion its not worth $25, but thats me.

[notHagoth7]

You are apparently unaware of some of the miscitations.

One of them. I don't pretend to know if there were others.

Still, when I need to understand those things, I would go to a professional who is really familiar with the subject.

What would you do if you had considerable evidence that such findings pointed in a specific direction, but for various reasons, that individual didn't agree with such an interpretation? Would you consider yourself bound to their preferred interpretation, and would you discard the considerable evidence to the contrary? (I know that's a general question, and one's answer would hinge on a number of factors...but I'd be interested in a general response.)

Meldrum once tried to use Ugo Perego as support for his position. Perego does not support that position, nor agree with the way Meldrum has read the relevant journals.

That may be an issue. It may not. Here's what I mean:

I basically look at the writings of specialists as raw materials. I'll build with those lego blocks what I deem to be true, honest, and appropriate - whether the individual specialists agree with my final construct or not (within the legal principles of fair use).

Here's where the problems can arise. Expert A proposes and demonstrates the viability of premise 1. And Expert B proposes and demonstrates the viability of premise 2. Those two arguments have considerable overlap, with some areas of direct discord. So I might see interpretations, implications, and potential reconciliations from those two arguments which neither of those two individuals might agree with (since reconciliation requires give and take from the two competing opinions, and some people aren't willing to budge.) But I wouldn't feel bound to their opinions in what their findings imply from my perspective, or how I chose to reconcile them. I'd just try to be reasonably careful to delineate between what they actually said, how/why I reconciled their competing statements, and what I take the further implications of their statements to infer.

Yet, by talking to Expert A, you could cite his claims that I took him out of context - or inferred beyond his intent - or compromised part of his thesis (i.e. didn't believe every word he said). And you theoretically could then take such feedback to conclude I was dishonest and/or unethical. (And you could be 100% wrong in the process.) Does that make sense?

Which is basically why the he said/she said back and forth is tiring. Specialists frequently hate and resent what generalists do with their data period. It becomes somewhat of an ego thing. But generalists have every right to filter, extrapolate, and generalize from the various data points.

That said, while I'll do my best to represent their individual claims accurately - I don't consider myself bound or limited by them in how I build upon those initial building blocks. Which is the basic premise/intent behind the Fair Use clause.

I saw the analysis of what he did with one source. If I were a high school teacher and as student used data in that way, I would fail the paper.

Is that in the past? Or are you saying he still uses that data the same way?

Now, I notice that when you respond to me that you don't deal in specifics.

True. With this topic, that will generally the case. That's largely because this isn't an argument I have time, expertise, or interest to delve into beyond broad strokes. (I've got my hands full with a few other fun tar-baby topics, and am knee-deep in graduate work.) Others more qualified in those specifics will likely step forward on such details as they're ready.

Even in cases where I am better armed with specifics, I've found that general principles are a more productive starting point than details. And if people aren't in general agreement on principles, introducing more details into the discussion easily become fodder for a downspiral of disagreement. Cart before the horse.

Now, we also have the problem of the Lamanites in the west.

...**if** that's where you happen to place them, AND if you assert that a river is a near-insurmountable boundary. (Again, the earlier Rhine counterpart model should be of some help.) That said, many of the specifics of Meldrum's model don't interest me at this juncture - so if you want to actually debate such specifics, I'd suggest taking it up with someone on his team.

If you try to actually work the model against archaeology and history, it doesn't work.

I've found that with most things, believing is seeing. Some doors/perceptions only open if we have no vested interest in them *not* being true. Which is why, as much as I respect people with a MesoAmerican slant, I have good reason to believe they have perceptual limitations that make it difficult to fairly assess other models. (Same holds true for hard-core Meldrumites - or for avid Peru advocates, etc.) Confirmation bias and all that. (I don't claim to be exempt from that.)

I'm not questioning people's integrity. Just the ability to be truly open when one is already vested in a pre-existing conclusion.

Fair enough?

[notHagoth7]

In my opinion its not worth $25, but thats me.

I feel the same way about non-fiction DVD's in general - with very few exceptions.

Though for whatever reason, I have no qualms shelling out $20-$50 for a decent non-fiction book.

[notHagoth7]

You seem to state that as though there is no coalition of people who cover those specialties and who actually can respond to specifics.

No. That's not what I was saying.

I have no doubt that ad-hoc groups could be cobbled together with the appropriate blend of expertise.

What I said instead was that such a palette of expertise likely doesn't exist within any one mortal.

Which speaks to the issue of people expecting too much of any one generalist.

I won't suggest that an amateur cannot know what the journals say, but if the experts contradict the amateur's reading, I go with the experts.

Fair enough.

While there are some known changes, north does not become south. Rivers do not reverse their course. Up rarely becomes down (really severe earthquakes notwithstanding). If you are suggesting that we can't use geographic facts to determine geography, then you have doomed the model to hypothetical with no way of being tested. If that is really your point...

It isn't. It's just a general concern, based on the North European example, about assuming too much about the past from the present.

If, however, you think that the text and the geography actually have a chance to fit, then you have discard the cataclysmic excuse when it doesn't.

It's not an excuse. It's a caveat. Nothing more.

There is no revealed geography.

Methinks this may boil down to semantic hairsplitting.

The "revealed" points are also subject to interpretation,

As is most everything.

and I disagree with the interpretation that gives them special status in interpreting the Book of Mormon geography.

Which is likely where our views on that matter part ways.

From my frame of reference, it makes little sense to attempt to derive a geographic model for the Book of Mormon without attempting to incorporate and reconcile Joseph's various comments about Nephites and Lamanites into that model. I don't of course insist that you share that same frame of reference. But without it, it's unlikely we would see eye to eye on potentially viable models.

My point is that his very argument inherently denigrates the inspiration of all prophets who have followed Joseph.

Odd, I don't see it that way. Not at all. To be frank, however, I do see your approach, if I understand it correctly, as round-filing what Joseph disclosed about Nephites and Lamanites.

Regardless of what Meldrum says, his argument requires that I elevate Joseph to the point of a revealed geography...

No. The data points Joseph provided aren't conclusive enough to say any functional Book of Mormon geography was revealed. Instead, one would have to infer quite a bit to arrive at any potential geography or geographies.

...and demote all of those church authorities who have said there is no revealed geography. That is a fundamental conflict, whether he understands it or not, whether he highlights it or not (and he would be very wise not to highlight it).

I disagree. One **can** believe that Joseph provided several valid data points, and still believe the modern assertion that a working Nephite geography has not been specifically revealed. By that I mean, the data points Joseph provided aren't conclusive enough to force anyone to accept any single geography.

My interest is simply in the accuracy of the information. I don't have any rancor towards him or his theory.

Great.

I have been through the data, and having done that, I continue to do what I would do for anyone. I look at the validity of the arguments.

His geography is based on one that was originally presented by another author. That author has since repudiated the geography. So Meldrum is building a foundation on something that the original author no longer finds viable. I find that suggestive and impressive.

That doesn't suggest near as much for me, since over the years, I've found some impressive treasures on the figurative trash heap. (You might be surprised what some perfectly rational people will discard.)

But in and of itself, I won't pretend that such prior experience adds credence to his or any other model. Each has to stand on its own merits.

[Brant Gardner]

But in and of itself, I won't pretend that such prior experience adds credence to his or any other model. Each has to stand on its own merits.

I have said my piece and will now bow out of this thread. I have noticed that while I have given several very specific reasons why the geography doesn't square with the text, you continue to ignore those. You total response is that you have seen a way around them. I would have loved to know what that is, because these are serious issues when you attempt to correlate the text with know geography, archaeology and history.

For some reason, you are more interested in what people say about Joseph or about the fringe issues. The central problem of Meldrum's geography is Meldrum's geography. It cannot be made to fit with the distances fixed in the text. It cannot be made to fit with the hydrology of the text. It doesn't fit with the climate of the text. It doesn't fit with the anthropology/history that tells us about the carrying capacity of lands and the need for agriculture (the "western" Lamanites). It doesn't fit with the temporal/geographical definition of the Jaredites. Although it posits the Adena, which are at the right time, they are in the wrong place (Jaredites are always north of the Nephites and historically didn't mix until the Nephites moved into their territory very late--the Hopewell replaced the Adena in the same place). It doesn't fit with the historical migration patterns of the Hopewell, who moved north to south, not south to north. It does not fit with stories in the Book of Mormon that require very specific things (such as a fordable river running to the east of Zarahemla, with the ford on the south--plus the problem of the many waters, lack of trees, cement houses--and others).

You mentioned that one person doesn't have all of the talents to cover all of those specialties. I agree. My specialties are in ethnohistory, which requires the combination of textual evidence with archaeological evidence to determine a history of a people prior to the time that they had a written history. It also includes a reasonable background in linguistics.

You noted that you have a pre-modern linguistic book with the "evidence" of the language. There were any number of those in the early 1800s who found Hebrew being spoken among the American Indians. They were all non-linguists who didn't know what they were hearing. You will never find a modern linguist (and I have know a couple who were members of the church and who might have liked to have seen Hebrew) accept the data from that time period as remotely valid.

Quite apart from issues of whether we should believe Joseph of the modern church, of there is a way to reconcile that-- it is a side issue. The critical problem from Meldrum's model is that there is nothing in it that works except very broad generalities. Broad generalities can place the Book of Mormon anywhere, and has, from South America to Central America, to the heartland to the Great Lakes, to Malaysia. Each has had arguments made and people who have accepted them.

Could a geography possibly be correct if it doesn't fit with what the Book of Mormon says? Shouldn't that be our highest guide? We might argue about what Joseph knew or didn't know. We cannot (as believers) argue that Mormon knew and that the people who wrote the records he used also knew the land where they lived. Those statements are first hand and of the highest value. Meldrum's model fails against that test.

Is there any reason I should believe any geography, no matter who else believed it, if the Book of Mormon itself does not support it?

[notHagoth7]

I have said my piece and will now bow out of this thread.

Thanks for being here.

I have noticed that while I have given several very specific reasons why the geography doesn't square with the text, you continue to ignore those.

That's because most of your responses have revolved around why the specifics of Meldrum's proposed model don't add up for you. Here's the deal: I have no vested interest in the specifics of his model - so I have no cause or interest in defending specifics that I don't adhere to. It's only the broad strokes of his presentation that resonate w/me. That's why your argument has been a one-sided fight. Based on what I've seen so far, I have reason to believe it's premature to be proposing (let alone defending) locations for specific cities without better grounded research and justification. Still, he has the right to make such proposals (I just don't find those specifics well grounded or convincing.)

You total response is that you have seen a way around them.

Not quite. I see a viable response for two of the general things you stated as being major hurdles. And just for fun, I responded briefly to two of the minor issues (both of which you ignored). But I don't claim to have a response to every particular you raise. Because the specifics seem too premature. For example, the Manti argument doesn't even interest me - because I have no reason to side with Meldrum's placement for Manti.

Also, your assertion that the Lamanites were all west of the Mississippi and your desire to engage in a debate on that detail, was a response to Meldrum's assertion. It's not a premise I agree with - so it's not a position I'll pretend to defend or argue for. Does that make sense why I don't bother debating that kind of minutiae? However, it's more the broader strokes of his presentation that resonate for me.

I would have loved to know what that is, because these are serious issues when you attempt to correlate the text with know geography, archaeology and history.

At this juncture, it's unlikely that I would attempt to create a detailed Nephite geography out of the general North American model. However, if some parallel research that I've been working on from a different region/direction ever pans out favorably for the general North American premise (as external, triangulated validation), then I might well return to that issue to look at a detailed model that makes sense. It's just too premature this early in the game. Slow and steady.

For some reason, you are more interested in what people say about Joseph or about the fringe issues.

Correct on the first part. (I have considerable respect for the things Joseph has said.) But I don't know what you mean by "fringe".

The central problem of Meldrum's geography is Meldrum's geography.

Precisely. I don't claim to agree with the specifics of his proposed model.

It cannot be made to fit with the distances fixed in the text. It cannot be made to fit with the hydrology of the text. It doesn't fit with the climate of the text. It doesn't fit with the anthropology/history that tells us about the carrying capacity of lands and the need for agriculture (the "western" Lamanites).

Saying something "cannot" be made to fit sounds like a fun challenge. I might take you up on that some day. For now, it certainly does fit the broad strokes. And I'm not one who needs to dot every "i" or cross every "t" to be comfortable with an initial general premise whose details are not yet hammered out. Temporary cognitive dissonance on the details works just fine for me for the time being - as long as it resonates at the broader level.

It doesn't fit with the temporal/geographical definition of the Jaredites. Although it posits the Adena, which are at the right time, they are in the wrong place

Again, depends completely on your frame of reference.

(Jaredites are always north of the Nephites and historically didn't mix until the Nephites moved into their territory very late--the Hopewell replaced the Adena in the same place).

There's an excellent hint right there.

It doesn't fit with the historical migration patterns of the Hopewell, who moved north to south, not south to north. It does not fit with stories in the Book of Mormon that require very specific things (such as a fordable river running to the east of Zarahemla, with the ford on the south--plus the problem of the many waters, lack of trees, cement houses--and others).

Again, you're arguing against the details of Meldrum's model. Which is why you get no response from me. Ask his camp to engage you if that's the kind of discussion you prefer.

[cont'd]

[notHagoth7]

[cont'd reply to BG]

You mentioned that one person doesn't have all of the talents to cover all of those specialties. I agree. My specialties are in ethnohistory, which requires the combination of textual evidence with archaeological evidence to determine a history of a people prior to the time that they had a written history.

I've done a fair amount of similar research (in other areas).

It also includes a reasonable background in linguistics.

Yep.

You noted that you have a pre-modern linguistic book with the "evidence" of the language. There were any number of those in the early 1800s who found Hebrew being spoken among the American Indians. They were all non-linguists who didn't know what they were hearing. You will never find a modern linguist (and I have know a couple who were members of the church and who might have liked to have seen Hebrew) accept the data from that time period as remotely valid.

Yep, I'm familiar w/some of those. The text I referred to doesn't reference Semitic at all. Comes from an entirely different direction. I was just reviewing it the other day with a friend in the context of Meldrum's DVD. And as I indicated in my earlier post, I'm fully aware that the author of that book had absolutely no understanding of modern linguistic methodologies. Still, the book provides a pretty fun starting point for additional research - with extensive data.

Quite apart from issues of whether we should believe Joseph or the modern church, of there is a way to reconcile that

There is. As I pointed out earlier in the thread.

it is a side issue.

For you perhaps. For others, myself included, failing to reconcile the two simply introduces cognitive disonance - chaos - between what Joseph said and what the modern church says. Without a way to bridge that chaos, many won't agree with any proposed model.

The critical problem from Meldrum's model is that there is nothing in it that works except very broad generalities.

For now, I agree.

Broad generalities can place the Book of Mormon anywhere, and has, from South America to Central America, to the heartland to the Great Lakes, to Malaysia.

I respectfully disagree. There are broad, general prophecies, within the text, which create an obvious mismatch for **at least** one of those proposed regions.

Could a geography possibly be correct if it doesn't fit with what the Book of Mormon says?

Depends on what you mean. There are, for example, phases of Nephite history/migration for which the text provides almost no descriptive clues for the surrounding geography. (For example their pre-Zarahemla stages.) So one could be right about a proposed geography for such a phase of Nephite history without having much of anything from the text to align with or fit.

Shouldn't that be our highest guide?

From my limited perspective, any model which trumpets the Book of Mormon while dismissing Joseph's numerous statements seems like a house divided against itself. Unless a model can reconcile the two, it would have little value or credibility with me.

We might argue about what Joseph knew or didn't know. We cannot (as believers) argue that Mormon knew and that the people who wrote the records he used also knew the land where they lived. Those statements are first hand and of the highest value.

But any model requires an extrapolation of those writings. And when it comes to the Nephites, I'll take Joseph's extrapolation of their writings over that of a modern analyst's any day.

Meldrum's model fails against that test.

While I'm not interested in defending the specifics of his model, I believe your test is fatally flawed (in rejecting Joseph's insight), and is therefore prone to produce false negatives.

Is there any reason I should believe any geography, no matter who else believed it, if the Book of Mormon itself does not support it?

No.

[i should qualify that generalization with "...unless one receives it via inspiration or some similar means."]