The Hypocrisy of Rod Meldrum and Bruce Porter

[annoyed]

The church has spoken authoritatively on the location of the Book of Mormon lands in virtually every public forum and official publication.

Actually Dan, I'm not at all convinced that you're offended by my comment. As I've repeatedly pointed out, you, along with the hundreds of other people who have published with FARMS, are of such sterling character that it's highly unlikely y'all would choose to take umbrage at such an innocuous comment; you're better people than that. I admire your competitive spirit, but some of your recent attempts to draw fouls have been so blatantly obvious they'd make Dennis Rodman blush.

So with a wave of your apologetic hand, decades of church teachings are dismissed as mere opinions and of no great significance because they get in the way of your revisionism.

In considering my previous comment, I see that "ego" has led to some misunderstanding and perhaps was a poor choice of words. Therefore, in the interest of diplomacy and mutual enlightenment, I wish to revise my earlier statement in order to excise the offensive term. Hubris was the word I was really looking for. Yes, hubris much better describes the situation here. Wouldn't you agree?

Excellent response, and, the quotes regarding Zelph impressive. Reminds me of the denial of polygamy by official church leaders during the time of Joseph, but their actions spoke LOUDER than any declaration.

-------------

It is tiring to read of the models based on what Joseph said. We've got Cavino all over the place with Erickson from CA to UT to NY, and new comer Coons tying in Harmony PA of all places not to mention Meldrum and Chile.

[annoyed]

But if the "running from the east towards the west" is referring to the river, then that would explicitly eliminate the Mississippi River, since it's clearly a north-south waterway.

Remove the punctuation and the reference is to the wilderness running east and west "by the river's head.

So, if Meldrum is saying the Mississippi river fits the Book of Mormon description of the River Sidon, he is definitely not following his own methodology. Weird how that hasn't seemed to stop him, or given the people who buy his books any anguish.

The river fails in other ways. Has anyone attended his recent presentations? Can you share if he skirted around the Mississippi River dilema.

[annoyed]

Stay on topic. Threadjackers will be removed from the thread do not respond.

Again, awesome!

[Greg Smith]

The only way I can see it working would be if the two rivers that conflue were given two different names, so the river named "Sidon" doesn't actually begin until the two other rivers run together...? That might make the point of confluence the "head" of that specific river.

But if the "running from the east towards the west" is referring to the river, then that would explicitly eliminate the Mississippi River, since it's clearly a north-south waterway.

I think most students of hte matter have concluded that the "head" has a relatively short east-west segment (that acts as something of a boundary) before it heads more generally north from the southern area near Manti.

So, if Meldrum is saying the Mississippi river fits the Book of Mormon description of the River Sidon, he is definitely not following his own methodology.

Well, this is precisely the point--he wishes to elevate his reading of what Joseph Smith said, use only a part of what Joseph Smith said, ignore the fact that others who heard Joseph say these varied things came up with their own models [a strange thing to do if they believed Joseph was revealing the geography], and ignore the fact that the Book of Mormon text doesn't match what he's claiming. And, then claim that this is revelatory, and condemn those who differ as being untrue to Joseph.

If so, you'd have to dismiss Orson Pratt (for example) who was there when Joseph said all these things, and yet who came up with a model strikingly different from the "Heartland" model of Meldrum/Porter.

Weird how that hasn't seemed to stop him, or given the people who buy his books any anguish.

One sees this in the intro posted as the original post--an effort to denigrate and downplay what the text itself says as unclear and confusing. But, whatever one thinks of geography in the Book of Mormon, the fact that the text has a remarkably consistent and understandable one is the most striking feature. (This is why I concern myself almost exclusively with internal models--they're all all need to understand the text better, which is my only real interest in the topic).

Having seen Meldrum's presentation, I can conclude with a fair degree of confidence that the reason those who buy his seminars and books don't realize it is because he is quite smooth at ignoring or papering over things that don't help his theory. They don't have anguish because they don't know about those things if Meldrum is their only source. And, Meldrum is only persuasive as a source if they have not studied the text itself on this point in any detail. [Which most LDS probably haven't, because it is a peripheral point to the spiritual message.]

Add in a bit of jingoism about how the US of A is the only promised land [again, completely contrary to what Joseph and others Church presidents have repeatedly said], and you have a winner. :-(

GLS

[annoyed]

(This is why I concern myself almost exclusively with internal models--they're all all need to understand the text better, which is my only real interest in the topic). GLS

Good approach. One should demonstrate their understanding of the internal geography prior to speculating on the external.

Has Meldrum produced an internal map?

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually Dan, I'm not at all convinced that you're offended by my comment.

Well, you would know better, needless to say.

So with a wave of your apologetic hand, decades of church teachings are dismissed as mere opinions and of no great significance because they get in the way of your revisionism.

Not my position at all, of course.

In considering my previous comment, I see that "ego" has led to some misunderstanding and perhaps was a poor choice of words. Therefore, in the interest of diplomacy and mutual enlightenment, I wish to revise my earlier statement in order to excise the offensive term. Hubris was the word I was really looking for. Yes, hubris much better describes the situation here. Wouldn't you agree?

No.

Why the uncivil hostility, by the way?

He has been removed and can't defend himself so don't keep the argument going.

[Mark Beesley]

I've not looked at the book yet, but I was wondering, as were some of my other friends at Deseret Book, why we were instructed to remove the book from the shelves. Apparently, some of the powers-that-be are concerned about the content.

[Daniel Peterson]

-1-

I know nothing about any order to remove the works of Rod Meldrum from any shelves at Deseret Book or anywhere else, except that, so far as I'm aware and supposing that such an order was actually issued, nobody at the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS) has had anything to do with it. Which is to say that I directly and flatly contradict certain false allegations that have been made.

-2-

So far as I'm aware, Brother Meldrum has not produced an internal map. This is vitally important. It suggests the likelihood that he has failed to take into account the full range of the relevant data.

I absolutely disagree with the claim that he is simply teaching what Joseph Smith and the other prophets have taught. His reading of them is selective, and, ultimately, conflicts with both the Book of Mormon and certain statements of Joseph Smith, to say nothing of more recent prophets.

Incidentally, since I'm routinely accused of being angered by Rod Meldrum, of having viciously attacked Rod Meldrum, and the like, despite the fact that I've had virtually nothing to say about Rod Meldrum either publicly or privately, I'm increasingly inclined to put together some materials, my own and from others, evaluating his theories. They won't be as nasty as I'm regularly accused of being -- my publications never are -- but they will at least give my critics the minimal cover of existing.

-3-

He has been removed and can't defend himself so don't keep the argument going.

Awww, okay. But this is supposed to be the point in the thread -- I've read the script produced by some of my critics -- where, having successfully demanded via private messages that a poster be banned after his courage and irrefutable logic had driven me to near-despair, I step back into the "discussion" and crow over my victory, pretending that the now-banned poster's silence demonstrates his inability to rebut my powerful arguments. Are you intending to deprive me of that?

[Mark Beesley]

I know nothing about any order to remove the works of Rod Meldrum from any shelves at Deseret Book or anywhere else, except that, so far as I'm aware and supposing that such an order was actually issued, nobody at the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS) has had anything to do with it. Which is to say that I directly and flatly contradict certain false allegations that have been made.

And, of course, if you know nothing about the "order," then it must not exist . . . omniscience must be such a burden. (Are you moonlighting at Deseret Book? No? Didn't think so.)

No one suggested FARMS had anything to do with Deseret Book's decision. Believe it or not, the Church does not revolve around FARMS. Some of us are perfectly able to make decisions without the input of FARMS. Deseret Book is currently reviewing the book for content. It may or may not reappear on the shelves. In the meantime Daniel, get over yourself. Frankly, your attitude does FARMS more harm than good, IMO.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Calm]

No one suggested FARMS had anything to do with Deseret Book's decision. Believe it or not, the Church does not revolve around FARMS. Some of us are perfectly able to make decisions without the input of FARMS. Deseret Book is currently reviewing the book for content. It may or may not reappear on the shelves.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Mark, actually someone has made that very claim as demonstrated in another thread. See the thread:

Why are you asking here if you don't believe anyone here, but only at DB can tell you? Or perhaps your "wondering" was not the question it appeared to be.

[annoyed]

-1-

I know nothing about any order to remove the works of Rod Meldrum from any shelves at Deseret Book or anywhere else, except that, so far as I'm aware and supposing that such an order was actually issued, nobody at the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS) has had anything to do with it. Which is to say that I directly and flatly contradict certain false allegations that have been made.

You're not as connected as some believed.

-2-

So far as I'm aware, Brother Meldrum has not produced an internal map. This is vitally important. It suggests the likelihood that he has failed to take into account the full range of the relevant data.

I absolutely disagree with the claim that he is simply teaching what Joseph Smith and the other prophets have taught. His reading of them is selective, and, ultimately, conflicts with both the Book of Mormon and certain statements of Joseph Smith, to say nothing of more recent prophets.

Meldrum is not worthy of a book response. A challenge or debate would be nice.

-3-

Awww, okay. But this is supposed to be the point in the thread -- I've read the script produced by some of my critics -- where, having successfully demanded via private messages that a poster be banned after his courage and irrefutable logic had driven me to near-despair, I step back into the "discussion" and crow over my victory, pretending that the now-banned poster's silence demonstrates his inability to rebut my powerful arguments. Are you intending to deprive me of that?

That script, or the pattern you present at least has manifested in the past, and your gloating was less than professional when the banned person's hands were tied.

Nonetheless, care to contribute to the topic by giving your defintion of river "head" from perhaps an OT view?

[Cold Steel]

It's pointless to keep bringing up statements from earlier church leaders or the Zelph incident. Although they're worthy of being addressed, they have been addressed and re-addressed. There are countless books written about the limited geography models and each of them addresses these two points. As a way of quickly rehashing them, the church has never released any formal declarative statements regarding the Book of Mormon lands. As for Zelph, the story relayed by early church leaders neither supports nor detracts from the Mesoamerican geography theory.

Here's one view:

Zelph and the Land of Cumorah

By Dr. Jerry Ainsworth

Since living in Salt Lake City during the last three months, I have had the opportunity to speak with a variety of people concerning The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni. Invariably when we engage in this discussion I am asked about the view that the Book of Mormon took place, at least partially, around the Great Lakes. Principle among those questions, indeed challenges, is the account of Zelph.

I have therefore decided to revisit this account and share my views on what this account may imply and what it may not. At the onset, let me say that I accept the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith did indeed identify the bones that were exhumed as being the remains of an ancient man named Zelph.

The thrust of the questions posed to me about this account is that the event is proof that the battle of Cumorah took place in or around the banks of the Missouri river. I will present the essentials of the story as given in Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, by Joseph Fielding Smith.

The Zelph incident event took place in June of 1834. There are seven written accounts of what the Prophet Joseph Smith said, when shown the remains of this man. Joseph Smith himself never recorded the account. Joseph Fielding Smith quotes Wilford Woodruff's account, which is the only account of the seven that mentions Cumorah. The other six accounts simple state that Zelph served under a great prophet named Onandagus, who was known from the eastern seaboard, to the Rocky Mountains. I will give Wilford Woodruff's account, as presented in Joseph Fielding Smith's book.

The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and a chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or at least, in part, one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before is death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.

Joseph Fielding Smith also quotes the account in Heber C. Kimball's journal, to wit: While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph.

You will notice that Heber C. Kimball's journal does not mention Cumorah, nor did any of the other five men who made journal entries of this event. Cumorah is only mentioned in the account of Wilford Woodruff. Most scholars conclude that the term Cumorah was added to the comments of Joseph, as the writer just assumed Missouri was the land of Cumorah. Evidence of this is that the account mentioned in the other six journals, do not indicate that the prophet Joseph included the name Cumorah. For more documentation and insight on this issue, see In Search of Cumorah by David Palmer.

Excluding the mention of Cumorah, which is assumed to be an errant entry, here is a summary of the several facets of this event:

1. Zelph was a white Lamanite

2. Zelph was a Lamanite warrior/chieftain, and a man of God

3. Zelph served under a great prophet named Onandagus

4. Zelph was killed in the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites

5. Zelph was killed by a Lamanitish arrow

Looking over these five points, I ask, Is there anything in these five points that would lead me to conclude that this warrior was killed in the battle of Cumorah? The answer is No, there is nothing that would lead me to believe that, indeed, just the contrary.

According to Mormon, there were no Nephites or Lamanites that were men of God, during his tenure as commander of the Nephite nation.

In 4 Nephi 1:45-46 Mormon writes: And it came to pass that when three hundred years had passed away, both the people of Nephi and the Lamanites had become exceeding wicked one like unto another. And it came to pass that the robbers of Gadianton did spread over the face of the land; and there were none that were righteous save it were the disciples of Jesus.

These two verses from Mormon make it clear that during his life time, there were no men of God, in the lands of the Book of Mormon, either Nephite or Lamanite. The one exception to this statement was the Three Disciples, who were themselves removed soon after this was written by Mormon. If there were no men of God, among the Lamanites or Nephites during Mormon's day, that pretty well excludes a Lamanite warrior, (man of God), being killed at the battle of Cumorah, indeed a man of God of either group. ...

This leads me to believe that Zelph may have been a Lamanite man of God, but was not killed during the battle of Cumorah, which addresses and explains items # 1 and # 2.

Item # 3 indicates that Zelph served under a great prophet named Onandagus and this prophet was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. During Mormon's day, the Lamanites did not serve under a prophet of any kind. They served under the very wicked King Aaron, (see Mormon 2:9 and Mormon 6:2).

Onandagus was a righteous prophet of God, while the King and commander of the Lamanites, King Aaron was a wicked and brutal cannibal, (see Moroni 9:7-10).

Not only were the Nephite and Lamanite armies devoid of any men of God, but Mormon says of them, â??And there never had been so great wickedness among all the children of Lehi, nor even among all the house of Israel, according to the words of the Lord, as among this people.

...

In item # 4, the account indicates that Zelph was killed in the last great struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites. The battle of Cumorah was not the last great struggle between the Nephites and the Lamanites. The battle of Cumorah took place in AD 385.

The struggle in which Mormon was killed, took place in AD 399, some fourteen years later, (see Moroni 9:24 and Mormon 8:1-. Mormon had been chased by the Lamanites for fourteen years after the battle of Cumorah and assumedly he had traveled many miles from Cumorah during those fourteen years.

Not only did the Lamanites and Nephites continue to have military struggles after Cumorah, culminating in the death of Mormon, but the Lamanites continued to chase Moroni for an additional 21 years. During those years, the Lamanites put to death every Nephite who would not deny the Christ. (see Moroni 1:1-2)

And lastly, item # 5, which states that Zelph was killed by a Lamanite arrow. Why would Lamanites be killing Lamanites?

* I remind the reader that the 3rd chapter of Helaman states that during the time period of BC 50 to BC 40, thousands of Nephites and Lamanites, (People of Ammon) had left the lands of the Nephites and Lamanites and gone into the land northward to get away from the wars of these two groups. Lamanites (the People of Ammon) would therefore have been in the land northward for almost 400 years before Mormon was chased in that direction after the battle of Cumorah.

So, there were no righteous Nephites or Lamanites in their lands, (the land southward). There were however, still righteous Nephites and Lamanites in the land northward. Proof of this can be found in Moroni 1:1-2 where the Lamanites are putting to death every Nephite who will not deny the Christ, and in Moroni 7:1-5, where Mormon is preaching to members of the church who are going to the Celestial Kingdom and who he represents as having a peaceful walk with the children of men. In other words, the People of Ammon, who were certainly people of God and who [lived] in the land northward, could have easily migrated as far as Missouri, during these 400 years. They were just not part of the Nephite or Lamanite nation, per se.

Not only does Helaman indicate these righteous Lamanites went into the land northward along with thousands of Nephites, but states there were many of the people of Ammon, who were Lamanites by birth, did also go forth into this land. And now there are many records kept of the proceedings of this people, which are particular and very large, concerning them.

We therefore know that during Mormon's day there were righteous Nephites and righteous Lamanites living in the land northward, and were still living the gospel. Not only had they separated themselves from the Nephite and Lamanite nations, but they were keeping their own records. I suggest they probably also had a prophet who led them, one different from Mormon.

I suggest this prophet's name could have been Onandagus. If there was indeed a person from the People of Ammon serving as a warrior under a prophet named Onandagus, it could explain two things. It could explain how this Lamanite was a man of God. It could also explain how he had lost the curse of dark skin. From what little we are told about the People of Ammon they were certainly people who lived the gospel.

This could also explain why Zelph had been killed by a Lamanite arrow. Even though he was a Lamanite, remember the wicked Lamanites hated the People of Ammon because of their belief in the teachings of the Savior. Therefore it would make sense to me for those Lamanites who had been chasing Moroni for 21 years to encounter a Lamanite warrior, (from the People of Ammon), who was a man of God, a Lamanite warrior named Zelph. I assume the Lamanites chasing Moroni, would want to put such a man to death.

Putting the story in this context, all of the five points of the story identified by me, now make sense. They don't make sense if you attempt to force this story into the battle of Cumorah.

I believe the remains of a Lamanite warrior, who was a man of God, was discovered on the banks of the Missouri River. I believe that the Prophet Joseph [identified] him as Zelph, and that he was involved in the last struggle between the Lamanites and Nephites. That struggle was in the lands of the Missouri River, some 36 years after, and thousands of miles from the location of the battle of Cumorah. The remains of Zelph were therefore not found in the lands of Cumorah, but in the north countries. (see Ether 1:1).

NOTE: It will be noted that Helaman 3:13 indicates that the People of Ammon, who went into the land northward 400 years before Moroni was there, were keeping their own records. One would assume that the People of Ammon were also keeping their records on gold plates. This may explain where Moroni got the additional gold plates he needed in order to finish his record, as there was almost no space left on the plates his father gave him. (see Mormon 8:5)

There are, of course, various takes on it, but it's quite clear that the Lord has never revealed (as far as we know) the places where the Book of Mormon took place. So despite their varying opinions, they are still opinions. As a convert to the church, I always just assumed that Cumorah was in New York. There was a land northward and a land southward, separated by a "narrow neck" of land. What could be simpler? Well, it one reads the Book of Mormon just to analyze the geography, suddenly dozens of problems begin popping up. The travel times don't balance. You read of wars and travels, yet no one complains of the cold, or of snow or ice. Yet if one reads history, George Washington often mentions the snow and biting cold. Similar reports appear all throughout the Civil War, and the Battle of the Bulge in Europe in World War II. The Romans complain about it and yet there's not a word about snow, cold or ice in the entire Book of Mormon. It's like it's not there. Indeed, it's not there.

Then is one travels to New York and looks at the tiny drumlin called "Cumorah," there's nothing strategic about it, neither is there anything remarkable about it. Camping tens of hundreds of thousands of people round about it? It doesn't wash. Populations also don't mesh. Those populations were in Mesoamerica, but not in New York.

Then there are all the temple sites that Moroni dedicated throughout the land, almost as if he were traveling from Mesoamerica to the New York region. When a puzzle doesn't fit, it's either a bum puzzle or you're not connecting the pieces right. Joseph Fielding Smith never offered any geographical solutions, only opinion, and there was a time I would have agreed with him. It just shows that I didn't know the issues then.

As I've read about the Mesoamerican LGT, it makes sense. You start putting the pieces together and suddenly they begin fitting. It's not perfect, but it is very tenable. And it's something that is ongoing, so if one is going to question it and ridicule it, it helps to at least read about it first and not make general statements that question the intelligence of the theory's supporters.

If Mesoamerica is not the place where the Book of Mormon took place, I would be surprised, but I wouldn't be devastated. But history is far too complicated for sweeping general statements that, in the end, just don't wash. If the New York advocates have maps and can answer the objections, more power to them. I'd as soon read their theories as well...if they can make a point.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, actually someone has made that very claim as demonstrated in another thread. See the thread: http://www.mormonapo...__fromsearch__1

Why are you asking here if you don't believe anyone here, but only at DB can tell you? Or perhaps your "wondering" was not the question it appeared to be.

Did I make a comment about the publicationof the book? No, only about its display in the stores.

Did I ask a question? No.

[Calm]

Did I ask a question? No.

But your wording "I was wondering" could be read as a question....and in fact, I read it first as a question. After your response to Dan, I went back and saw that it was just 'thinking your thoughts out loud'.

[Calm]

That script, or the pattern you present at least has manifested in the past, and your gloating was less than professional when the banned person's hands were tied.

"Gloating" is in the eye, etc. etc.

As a mod over on another board that Dan used to frequent, I don't recall him asking for any poster to be banned (so if it happened, it was rare) and do recall him asking for posters to be not banned or unbanned so they had a chance to respond, etc.

[Calm]

Did I make a comment about the publicationof the book? No, only about its display in the stores.

See post by Seth Payne in the thread I linked you to for clarification of that claim.

[Mark Beesley]

See post by Seth Payne in the thread I linked you to for clarification of that claim.

I read through this thread, and my comments related to this thread. As you may have noticed, I spend very little time here any more. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go and search other threads. It is a colossal waste of time, as evidenced by this exchange. <sarcasm on> My spiritual growth is much better nurtured by killing Darkspawn in Dragon Age. <sarcasm off>

Have a Happy Thanksgiving. I'm gone.

[Calm]

I read through this thread, and my comments related to this thread. As you may have noticed, I spend very little time here any more. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go and search other threads. It is a colossal waste of time, as evidenced by this exchange. <sarcasm on> My spiritual growth is much better nurtured by killing Darkspawn in Dragon Age. <sarcasm off>

Have a Happy Thanksgiving. I'm gone.

Well, if threads existed in a vacuum there would be much less misunderstanding of people's comments. However, that is not the case and I don't believe it's appropriate to insist that someone's comments be read only in the context of one thread if they did not intend them to be read that way.

I've got about another hour to go or so, don't want to leave until the last minute as the dog has to get kenneled when she's alone in the house due to her inclination to attempt to digest papers and books when no one's watching.

[Daniel Peterson]

And, of course, if you know nothing about the "order," then it must not exist . . . omniscience must be such a burden. (Are you moonlighting at Deseret Book? No? Didn't think so.)

Good grief. What on earth? Why the belligerence? Where did that come from?

The simple fact is that, if somebody connected with the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS) had intervened with Deseret Book to block publication of Meldrum's book, I would probably know, and that, if the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS) had intervened as an institution, I would certainly know.

But, as it happens, Meldrum's book has scarcely so much as been discussed in any Maxwell Institute meeting over the past year or more. It simply doesn't loom all that large on our horizon.

I thought it worthwhile to reiterate that. I didn't realize, for some reason, that doing so would inflame you as it did. (I didn't even know you were on the board, let alone following this thread and growing agitated.)

No one suggested FARMS had anything to do with Deseret Book's decision. Believe it or not, the Church does not revolve around FARMS. Some of us are perfectly able to make decisions without the input of FARMS. Deseret Book is currently reviewing the book for content. It may or may not reappear on the shelves.

As a matter of fact, Beesley, and as Calmoriah has now brought to your attention, somebody has suggested that FARMS is responsible for it.

So, in other words, don't impute your own lack of knowledge to others.

In the meantime Daniel, get over yourself. Frankly, your attitude does FARMS more harm than good, IMO.

Again, good grief!

Happy Thanksgiving.

Oh yes. It's plain that you're in a festive holiday mood today!

You're not as connected as some believed.

I'm connected just about precisely as well as I believe.

Your comment is a bit unclear, though. Are you perhaps suggesting that FARMS (or the Maxwell Institute) was involved, and that you have information indicating this that I lack? If so -- and I realize that that may not be at all what you're saying -- I would be interested in what you believe you know.

Meldrum is not worthy of a book response.

I said nothing about a "book response."

That script, or the pattern you present at least has manifested in the past, and your gloating was less than professional when the banned person's hands were tied.

I have never, ever, to the best of my recollection, had somebody banned and then "gloated" about his inability to respond, nor ever "gloated" about a banned person's inability to respond even if I didn't instigate the banning.

I see, "annoyed," that you're in a holiday mood, too.

Nonetheless, care to contribute to the topic by giving your defintion of river "head" from perhaps an OT view?

No. I care to contribute to the topic by addressing other aspects of it. The concept of the "head" of a river has already, in my view, been adequately addressed.

[Greg Smith]

As a matter of fact, Beesley, and as Calmoriah has now brought to your attention, somebody has suggested that FARMS is responsible for it.

For any interested, the thread in question is here:

http://www.mormonapo...heart-of-farms/

Which contains the citation from the Board That Shall Not Be Named where the accusation (supposedly based on insider information) was made.

Given that Meldrum has long been forbidden from holding his seminars and the like in Church buildings and property, I'm not surprised that the Powers That Be were not keen to allow him to hold book signings and sell his wares in Deseret Book.

And no, to my knowledge, he has never produced an internal geography. As FAIR's review demonstrates, even the geography that he did produce is not consistent with the Book of Mormon text. For example, he thinks that Hagoth set sail into Lake Michigan, and could "follow the Great Lakes to the ocean." Unfortunately, Hagoth preceded the construction of the Erie canal by almost 2000 years (the canal being built in 1825). This makes sailing to the ocean from Lake Michigan rather a challenge. :-)

GLS

[annoyed]

it one reads the Book of Mormon just to analyze the geography, suddenly dozens of problems begin popping up. The travel times don't balance. You read of wars and travels, yet no one complains of the cold, or of snow or ice. Yet if one reads history, George Washington often mentions the snow and biting cold. Similar reports appear all throughout the Civil War, and the Battle of the Bulge in Europe in World War II. The Romans complain about it and yet there's not a word about snow, cold or ice in the entire Book of Mormon. It's like it's not there. Indeed, it's not there.

I grant it is impossible to convince someone against their will, but let's try.

-1-

a. Oxygen was not mentioned, are we to believe there was none? However cold is mentioned. May I ask, when is the cold/flu season? Winter. Has malaria been cured by herbs? No. The Book of Mormon is clear, they were not in a tropical, malaria ridden area.

b. They at times wore "thick skins."

Then is one travels to New York and looks at the tiny drumlin called "Cumorah," there's nothing strategic about it, neither is there anything remarkable about it. Camping tens of hundreds of thousands of people round about it? It doesn't wash. Populations also don't mesh. Those populations were in Mesoamerica, but not in New York.

-2-

It's interesting how people visualize the final battle and interpret the verses.

a. They gathered to the "land of Cumorah" with the hill as the FURTHEST point from the battle front, ergo, the battle was not around the hill at all.

b. Cumorah was in a land of "many waters," but no one ever lived in Cumorah, therefore, that feature of Cumorah has no relevance to core Book of Mormon lands.

c. Cumorah, on a map, should NOT be within Book of Mormon inhabited areas, i.e. not part of the Land Northward, which WAS inhabited from the Sea West to the Sea East and from the Sea South to the Sea North.

d. No one was planning on burying the dead, so they chose an area beyond where they lived.

e. The strategy had to do with the water, land and hill, not only the hill. Knowing the enemy would be coming FROM the Land Northward, the Nephites first set up fortifications where they would disembark.

f. The water routes were important for travelling to Cumorah as they gathered distant supporters and supplies.

Then there are all the temple sites that Moroni dedicated throughout the land, almost as if he were traveling from Mesoamerica to the New York region. When a puzzle doesn't fit, it's either a bum puzzle or you're not connecting the pieces right.

Is that an "offical church statement" of "Moroni" dedicating "temple sites?" That's not a piece of the "puzzle."

As I've read about the Mesoamerican LGT, it makes sense. You start putting the pieces together and suddenly they begin fitting. It's not perfect, but it is very tenable.

How anyone can believe what you just said in the light of prophecy is beyond me. Is everyone ignorant of the fact that Book of Mormon lands would become COVERED BY MULTITUDES OF WHITE PEOPLE and those WHITE PEOPLE would become the LAND OWNERS??

How does that square with areas outside of the United States?

If the New York advocates have maps and can answer the objections, more power to them. I'd as soon read their theories as well...if they can make a point.

You haven't looked.

[annoyed]

I'm connected just about precisely as well as I believe.

Don't go poetic, you're (not FARMS - you) not privy to the going's on at Deseret - apparently.

I said nothing about a "book response."

Good. What about a debate?

I have never, ever, to the best of my recollection, had somebody banned and then "gloated" about his inability to respond, nor ever "gloated" about a banned person's inability to respond even if I didn't instigate the banning.

Personally, I don't believe you influence who gets banned, but have you gloated when someone has been banned in a dialogue with you after getting banned, and their hands were tied? Without question.

No. I care to contribute to the topic by addressing other aspects of it. The concept of the "head" of a river has already, in my view, been adequately addressed.

You're good at not committing yourself by stating a position. Wouldn't it be more honorable to be known for having edgy doctrinal statements rather than for bantering in forums?

[annoyed]

And no, to my knowledge, he has never produced an internal geography. GLS

You "watchmen on the wall" fail in your job if you don't challenge him in the public arena, in public publications like newspapers to produce an Internal Map, and/or a list of challenges/unexplainables/etc.

[Calm]

You "watchmen on the wall" fail in your job if you don't challenge him in the public arena, in public publications like newspapers to produce an Internal Map, and/or a list of challenges/unexplainables/etc.

FAIR is in the public arena....

[annoyed]

FAIR is in the public arena....

Greg stated in an earlier post that he went to Meldrum's presentation and the people there were ignorant of FAIR. Now what?