Who Knows What Eeevil Lurks in the Heart of FARMS

[Somebodyz]

Wow. Once again I'm impressed with the extraordinary amount of paranoia had by Scratch and his followers at that board.

My thoughts also. They claim others have a lot of power.

I knew someone like scratch (yeah he's not even original) it astounding how they can blatantly lie and not bat an eyelid. No matter how many times I witness it, it still takes my breath away.

[Scott Lloyd]

If the book is being published-on-demand, I doubt DB would even consider it. Have they ever distributed such a book before? If Meldrum was asking them to publish it as well, then there are some serious economic considerations, and considering the depressed state of the book market right now (and presumably, the LDS book market), I don't blame them for being cautious.

First, we need to consider the source on the rumor that somebody sabotaged any deal with Deseret Book. It seems clear the gossipers on the other board don't know what they're talking about.

Second, this appears to be nothing more than a business relationship whereby Deseret Book is acting in the role of a retailer, as they do with any number of publishers, probably including self-publishers. It would not even be necessary to carry an inventory of copies; Deseret Book could merely special-order the book when required, pocketing a percentage of the profit.

Not much to see here folks; move along.

[cinepro]

From some of the content on Meldrum's Web site it is evident he could benefit from the services of a good proofreader. Is that the case with the book as well?

I'm sure a decent editor could make some improvements, but there was nothing that jumped out at me. And it is definitely better than other self-published books I've seen.

Even the design seems to be a cut above the usual; for example, "The Kolob Theorem" (another LDS-focused self-published book) looks like a direct output from MS Word, whereas Meldrum's book wouldn't look out of place on a DB bookshelf when it comes to type or layout.

[cinepro]

First, we need to consider the source on the rumor that somebody sabotaged any deal with Deseret Book. It seems clear the gossipers on the other board don't know what they're talking about.

Honestly, a likely source of the rumor (if there was one) would be the Meldrum camp. What a great way to generate buzz in the amateur apologetics community, get some bad PR for FARMS, and get people talking about the book without talking about what's in the book.

[Calm]

Having taken a quick look at the text, it appears that Meldrum continues to teach his version of a LGT.

I have always wondered why he qualifies as a so-called "Chapel Mormon" when he does not hold to the hemispheric theory that supposed Chapel Mormons are supposed to all believe.

He is really pushing for the US and only the US it seems to be "this Promised Land".

He's also conveniently leaving out quite a bit of detail in his discussion of Sorenson's work.

Nor does he deal with the more recent theories, but just refers to Sorenson's comments in vague ways in the first chapter.

[MormonMason]

Even more annoying is that those who hold to his kind of view actually think in terms of Columbus being the one who came to this land (meaning what is now the continental United States) and being the person described by Nephi in the Book of Mormon.

The trouble with that assumption is that Columbus did not visit what would become the continental United States. Columbus did, however, visit Mesoamerica. Columbus did believe that he was led by the Holy Ghost to come to that land. But, he never came here. He came to Mesoamerica.

So, assuming for the sake of argument, that the man described by Nephi is "Columbus" Mesoamerica is a better fit.

[cinepro]

Having taken a quick look at the text, it appears that Meldrum continues to teach his version of a LGT.

I have always wondered why he qualifies as a so-called "Chapel Mormon" when he does not hold to the hemispheric theory that supposed Chapel Mormons are supposed to all believe.

The distinguishing factor is probably more precisely their views on the number of Hill Cumorahs. So don't worry, the mindset that Meldrum employs is definitely that of a Chapel Mormon; Chapel Mormons that believe in the hemispherical geography (all of N/S America) will probably comfortably adapt to Meldrum's theory where they wouldn't adapt to a Mesoamerican theory.

He's also conveniently leaving out quite a bit of detail in his discussion of Sorenson's work.

Yes, he seems to focus on a few quotes from Sorenson, leaving the rest of the chapter to generalized observations, which is probably hoped to be enough to dissuade people from ever conducting an in depth study of the opposing theory. You can't say Meldrum didn't learn anything from FARMS...

[notHagoth7]

Even more annoying is that those who hold to his kind of view actually think in terms of Columbus being the one who came to this land (meaning what is now the continental United States) and being the person described by Nephi in the Book of Mormon.

? Why is that annoying?

Colombus' discovery still set the European colonization of the Americas in motion...

And if that's a problem, Leif Erikson's Vinland voyage or St. Brendan's voyage westward could also fit the bill, since Columbus did travel to Great Britain and Iceland, had his ear to the ground for rounding out his hunches, and likely heard of sailors' stories tracing to Leif and Brendan in those two areas. So either of them could have technically started the ball rolling.

The Irish even taught that their descendants would one day take possession of the land westward as a land of promise.

Columbus did believe that he was led by the Holy Ghost to come to that land. But, he never came here. He came to Mesoamerica.

True. Leif was a recently converted Christian. And Brendan was a monk. Each of them was likely led by God.

So, assuming for the sake of argument, that the man described by Nephi is "Columbus" Mesoamerica is a better fit.

And assuming for the sake of argument that he was only the third in a sequence of voyagers, two of the three landed in North America.

Still annoyed?

[notHagoth7]

Yes, he seems to focus on a few quotes from Sorenson, leaving the rest of the chapter to generalized observations, which is probably hoped to be enough to dissuade people from ever conducting an in depth study of the opposing theory. You can't say Meldrum didn't learn anything from FARMS...

That's quite funny.

[Pahoran]

I know a number of chapel Mormons that have looked at Meldrum's stuff. Every one of them comes away from his presentation believing that the DNA evidence only supports his theory. There is no other way to explain the DNA evidence.

As a chapel Mormon, I have read a number of attempts to locate the Book of Mormon events somewhere north of the Rio Grande, and have yet to be impressed by any of them.

Please note that since there aren't any honest people anywhere who subscribe to Shade's deliberately bogus dichotomy, I have no hesitation in claiming the title of "chapel Mormon" for myself. I go to Church in a chapel; I partake of the Sacrament in a chapel; I carry out my Church calling in a chapel. I was baptised in a chapel, ordained to the priesthood in chapels, and received my Patriarchal Blessing in a chapel. If the expression "chapel Mormon" describes anything at all, it describes me.

This may be why this causes so much concern to FAIR. If lots of chapel Mormons think Meldrum's stuff is the only answer and then they find out how flawed it is, then they will fall away.

Some might; those whose faith is more robust may be willing to look further.

Which would be disappointing to you, I know. But as James 1:8 says, "A dblminded man is unstable in all his ways."

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

Given that Columbus did not expect his way to the Indies to be blocked by the Americas, this idea does not seem to follow in relation to the context. He heard stories about a passage to the West from various sources where he went. I doubt highly that Columbus knew of Eriksen's voyages. Most of Europe knew nothing of them at that time.

Additionally, Newfoundland is outside of what is now the continental United States. Furthermore, the place where Leif Eriksen actually landed was an island detached from the mainland of continental North America entirely.

Both situations are problematic to Meldrum's hypothesis. Columbus, on the other hand, actually came to Mesoamerica on the mainland. This in itself is problematic to Meldrum's hypothesis and supportive of the Mesoamerican connection--assuming, for the sake of argument, that the man in Nephi's vision were Columbus.

[Scott Lloyd]

The distinguishing factor is probably more precisely their views on the number of Hill Cumorahs. So don't worry, the mindset that Meldrum employs is definitely that of a Chapel Mormon; Chapel Mormons that believe in the hemispherical geography (all of N/S America) will probably comfortably adapt to Meldrum's theory where they wouldn't adapt to a Mesoamerican theory.

I grew up with a hemispheric understanding of Book of Mormon locales, only because that was the traditional assumption and because it had never occurred to me to think otherwise. Once I encountered a limited geography model and the reasoning behind it, I had no trouble altering my thinking, especially comprehending as I do that the Church itself holds no official position regarding specific locales for Book of Mormon events and that the truthfulness of the book does not rise or fall on binding oneself to a specific theory.

I venture to say I am not unlike most Mormons in this respect.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just to clarify: The claim is that FARMS blocked the distribution of Meldrum's book at Deseret Book, not publication. The book has already been published.

Whatever.

FARMS -- more accurately known as the Maxwell Institute -- neither blocked the publication of Meldrum's book nor its distribution. In fact, so far as I'm aware, nobody has.

Is there the slightest chance that you'll read the book?

I wouldn't rule it out. I read lots of things.

[Anijen]

Though most know me as a LGT person. I have no problem with a Nephite northern migration (before the final battle). I still feel the final battle was in Mesoamerica.

I would feel better if money wasn't involved with his (Meldrums) site etc it just seems his agenda is more based on cashing in than debating his "US" only view.

Besides the weather thing is a huge issue with me. I feel if it was in upstate NY that snow or ice would be it least mentioned once in the BoM.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please note that since there aren't any honest people anywhere who subscribe to Shade's deliberately bogus dichotomy, I have no hesitation in claiming the title of "chapel Mormon" for myself. I go to Church in a chapel; I partake of the Sacrament in a chapel; I carry out my Church calling in a chapel. I was baptised in a chapel, ordained to the priesthood in chapels, and received my Patriarchal Blessing in a chapel. If the expression "chapel Mormon" describes anything at all, it describes me.

Likewise, if there is such a thing as a "chapel Mormon," I am one.

[Pahoran]

The distinguishing factor is probably more precisely their views on the number of Hill Cumorahs. So don't worry, the mindset that Meldrum employs is definitely that of a Chapel Mormon; Chapel Mormons that believe in the hemispherical geography (all of N/S America) will probably comfortably adapt to Meldrum's theory where they wouldn't adapt to a Mesoamerican theory.

Well, this "Chapel Mormon" finds the Mesoamerican model far more persuasive than any US-centric model he's ever seen.

Your continued loyalty to the Gallentine "Chapel/Internet Mormon" trope is seriously misled. It was developed for polemical reasons; the test that was got up for the purpose of supporting it failed; it describes nothing and explains nothing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Likewise, if there is such a thing as a "chapel Mormon," I am one.

Definitely by any commonsensical (such as Pahoran gives above) definition I qualify. Even by Shades' own problematic scale, I'm one as well.

[Daniel Peterson]

Definitely by any commonsensical (such as Pahoran gives above) definition I qualify. Even by Shades' own problematic scale, I'm one as well.

If somebody who typically spends six hours in a Mormon chapel every Wednesday evening (besides my "chapel time" from morning till evening on Sundays and many hours on other days of the week) isn't a "chapel Mormon," it's a bit difficult to know what to call him. (I leave for the chapel in about forty-five minutes.)

Besides, I've taken two or three of Shades's silly diagnostic quizzes, and have always come out a "chapel Mormon."

[cinepro]

Your continued loyalty to the Gallentine "Chapel/Internet Mormon" trope is seriously misled.

If your posts have been an honest representation of your understanding of the Chapel/Internet Mormon theory, then I don't blame you for seeing it as "trope".

BTW, what are your feelings about Noah's flood covering the whole planet, and there only being one "Hill Cumorah"? (You too, Scott Lloyd..) If the answers are "It was global, and there was only one", then you do indeed think like a Chapel Mormon. If your answers are anything else, then the line of thought that takes you to those answers is the definition of an Internet Mormon.

But I suspect if FARMS/MI ever reviews Meldrum's book, that will be the best example of the different approaches between the Chapel and Internet Mormons. It should be interesting.

[Paul Osborne]

I wouldn't rule it out. I read lots of things.

In that case, I predict you will read the book. Indeed, you will.

Paul O

[Calm]

If your posts have been an honest representation of your understanding of the Chapel/Internet Mormon theory, then I don't blame you for seeing it as "trope".

BTW, what are your feelings about Noah's flood covering the whole planet, and there only being one "Hill Cumorah"? (You too, Scott Lloyd..) If the answers are "It was global, and there was only one", then you do indeed think like a Chapel Mormon. If your answers are anything else, then the line of thought that takes you to those answers is the definition of an Internet Mormon.

But I suspect if FARMS/MI ever reviews Meldrum's book, that will be the best example of the different approaches between the Chapel and Internet Mormons. It should be interesting.

I find it rather remarkable that someone actually thinks there's something significant in identifying just two (goal post seems to keep changing) nonsalvific teachings as crucial to one's standing as LDS.

What if one believes in a global flood, but two Cumorahs? What if one believes in one Cumorah, but a local flood?

[Paul Osborne]

Likewise, if there is such a thing as a "chapel Mormon," I am one.

Not me, the door hit me on the way out!

Paul O

[Scott Lloyd]

If your posts have been an honest representation of your understanding of the Chapel/Internet Mormon theory, then I don't blame you for seeing it as "trope".

BTW, what are your feelings about Noah's flood covering the whole planet, and there only being one "Hill Cumorah"? (You too, Scott Lloyd..) If the answers are "It was global, and there was only one", then you do indeed think like a Chapel Mormon. If your answers are anything else, then the line of thought that takes you to those answers is the definition of an Internet Mormon.

I don't bind myself to a position on the flood. And I think it quite likely the hill described in the Book of Mormon final chapters and the drumlin in upstate New York are not the same location.

On the other hand, I object to, say, Consiglieri's free-wheeling "the h*** with Correlation and Church Curriculum; I'll teach whatever I want in Sunday School" approach. You tell me: Does that make me chapel or Internet?

[ERayR]

That's helpful.

To expand on that. do you recall specifically what was said that gave you that impression?

Also, out of curiosity, roughly how much reading about him on Fair did you do before viewing his presentation?

It has been about 3 months since I viewed it I will have to go back and review it againand I don't think I will get time untill next weekend. I will try to get back to you again.

As for Fair reading I had seen him mentioned in a thread on this board. When I got the CD I went to fair after I had watched it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't bind myself to a position on the flood. And I think it quite likely the hill described in the Book of Mormon final chapters and the drumlin in upstate New York are not the same location.

On the other hand, I object to, say, Consiglieri's free-wheeling "the h*** with Correlation and Church Curriculum; I'll teach whatever I want in Sunday School" approach. You tell me: Does that make me chapel or Internet?

Incidentally, an insistence that there has to be only one Cumorah falls under the category of what I would call folk doctrine, since the Church itself takes no official position on specific Book of Mormon locales. Is your definition of "chapel Mormon" one who holds fast to non-authoritative folk doctrine?