Jump to content

Meldrum's Book Back on the Shelves at DB


cinepro

Recommended Posts

For those following the drama, Rodney Meldrum's latest book arguing for a Great Lakes geography for the Book of Mormon has been re-stocked at Deseret Book.

It is on the website here:

Prophecies and Promises

The reviews are certainly interesting (emphasis added)...

A very wise man once said that "tradition is stronger than doctrine" with the members, and this book is an opportunity for members to examine primary sources from the Prophet Joseph Smith and the words of the Lord in the scriptures to determine if pre-conceived notions and tradition indeed outweigh the doctrine presented. We must allow the scriptures to speak for themselves, and Brother Porter and Meldrum do just that. And they have science and archaeological finds to support the word of the Lord. There are your multiple witnesses. Thank you for this great work. I have been able to clear an entire row of books from my shelf about erroneous but well-intentioned Mesoamerican theories, and replace it with just this book. The theory here resonates with my soul, and I appreciate the courage these brothers have to bring it forward in the midst of a sea of strong tradition.
These authors tackle numerous difficult questions and the more difficult challenge of long-standing tradition in this break-through book. Their unbiased research is concise, clear, logical, and supported by numerous scripture references among the standard works, the prophet Joseph Smith, and independent archaeologists and scientists. As with any pearl of great price, there is opposition to be had - but if a reader is willing to drop all pre-conceived notions in a sincere and valiant search for more possibilities, they will be pleasantly surprised by the reward that comes ten-fold from studying the information presented herein. An expanded understanding of the Prophet Joseph, our valuable scriptures, and those ancient peoples whose record we hold sacred will unfold in ways not expected. After reading this, I can't imagine how for decades we have missed something so obvious - that THIS land, the United States, truly is THE promised land spoken of by Lehi and his remnants. The implications from this research are huge and exciting, something to be embraced by "those who have eyes to see". This is an incredibly important work that provides further testament to the divinity and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
Prophecies and Promises by Bruce Porter and Rod Meldrum is beyond a doubt the most important Book of Mormon prophecy/geography primer ever written.
I just finished reading Prophecies and Promises and find it so refreshing that someone has finally put the Book of Mormon and its geography in its proper perspective by following a sound formula of the scriptural text, Joseph Smiths revelations and just good plain ole common sense.
I am one of those people who thought I was an "expert" on Book of Mormon archaeology... why? Because I had read nearly everything written on the subject. But after reading this one book, it has literally rendered my entire library obsolete! Now its as if the lights have been turned on and I can see everything in a clear light. Now much of what I used to have to dismiss or had to logically "leap" over now all of a sudden make so much sense! Kudos to Porter and Meldrum for boldly going where few have gone before... they actually take the prophet Joseph at his word.

And the loyal opposition...

I am sticking with the "pointy-headed" scholars at The Maxwell Institute and FAIR that this book aims to dispute.
Link to comment

For those following the drama, Rodney Meldrum's latest book arguing for a Great Lakes geography for the Book of Mormon has been re-stocked at Deseret Book.

It is on the website here:

Prophecies and Promises

The reviews are certainly interesting (emphasis added)...

And the loyal opposition...

Sounds like Meldrum's book is building helping to build testimonies and solidify faith in the BOM. Good for him.

Link to comment

Those favourable reviews, well, most of them, seem too similar

I thought the same thing. This, coupled with the fact that many of those reviews appeared on the same day, would lead me to not be too surprised if it were ever discovered that these reviews were posted by critics who just wish to stir the pot.

Link to comment

Those favourable reviews, well, most of them, seem too similar

I wouldn't be surprised if it were the most enthusiastic Meldrum supporters who wrote the earliest reviews. There are a few more posted since the book when back on the website:

Finally, a book that looks at scripture and printed works regarding what Joseph said and the scriptures teach that clearly identify where Lehi was speaking in 2 Nephi. He was in "this land" a "land of promise." Why have people made this study so confusing. We teach investigators that the Gospel is clear and not confusing. Then those that have reviewed this topic, ignore statements of Joseph and other Church leaders I read in Joseph's own history, by himself and by his mother. Why? Why do we as members pick and chose what Joseph said? That is dangerous.
Thanks Rod (and those working with you) for your incredible research and patience in putting all sources and facts together. For the first time in my 70 years on this earth, I feel there is a sensible answer on where and how it all took place. I am just a bit baffled as to why it took so long to happen. Joseph Smith's statements and teachings certainly should have been a clue many years ago, as well as the many Archeological finds in the Midwest that have likewise been known for many many years.

Meldrum's geography seems to be upheld by these "pillars":

- Statements by early Church leaders (especially Joseph Smith)

- DNA Evidence (obviously, Meldrum's specific interpretation of it)

- USA = "Promised Land"

- Claims of evidence found in that geographical area (including the Michigan relics?)

These four aspects of the geography seem to be very compelling to some people.

Link to comment

My favorite part:

This book is having an effect on the resurgence of Book of Mormon interest, study and excitement akin to what the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery did for spurring Biblical energies...

Pretty audacious comparing the publication of one's book to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Link to comment

Meldrum's geography seems to be upheld by these "pillars":

- Statements by early Church leaders (especially Joseph Smith)

- DNA Evidence (obviously, Meldrum's specific interpretation of it)

- USA = "Promised Land"

- Claims of evidence found in that geographical area (including the Michigan relics?)

These four aspects of the geography seem to be very compelling to some people.

Notice the lack of Scripture or an Internal Geographical map, which were the the reasons for this thread, that was locked:

Since anyone can download the first part of the new book "Prophecies and Promises, the Book of Mormon and the United States of America" by Bruce H. Porter and Rodney L. Meldrum:

Since anyone can download the first part of the new book "Prophecies and Promises, the Book of Mormon and the United States of America" by Bruce H. Porter and Rodney L. Meldrum:

http://www.bookofmor...?download_id=15

I perused its contents with some interest. Having a previous awareness of their most unusual interpretation for the word "head" in regards to the River Sidon, I hoped it would have been corrected in this book. Instead, they distanced themselves from the scriptures:

  • It would appear that any method using only "passages having to do with geography" as the first or primary witness is going to end up falling short of any definite conclusions, being fundamentally flawed. (p. 10)
  • Rather than relying on these unclear and inconclusive passages...(p. 11)
  • Because these geographical passages are so incomplete and non-conclusive...(p 11)
  • The fact that the geographical passages contained in the Book of Mormon are incomplete and inconclusive...(p14)

Created "new" methodologies:

Scriptural research must be done without trying to redefine the words and statements in the scriptures for the purpose of any personal agenda. The Standard Works are the standards of truth and, therefore supersede any and every personal or hypothetical interpretation. (21)

Why did Rodney Meldrum "redefine" the word "head" by using an obscure dictionary definition? There's no "personal agenda" to redefine the scriptures to his model is there?

Is anyone annoyed by this hypocrisy?

Where is an Internal Geography Map by Meldrum? He portrays himself an expert yet is unable to produce one.

Link to comment

Notice the lack of Scripture or an Internal Geographical map, which were the the reasons for this thread, that was locked:

Since anyone can download the first part of the new book "Prophecies and Promises, the Book of Mormon and the United States of America" by Bruce H. Porter and Rodney L. Meldrum:

http://www.bookofmor...?download_id=15

I perused its contents with some interest. Having a previous awareness of their most unusual interpretation for the word "head" in regards to the River Sidon, I hoped it would have been corrected in this book. Instead, they distanced themselves from the scriptures:

Created "new" methodologies:

Why did Rodney Meldrum "redefine" the word "head" by using an obscure dictionary definition? There's no "personal agenda" to redefine the scriptures to his model is there?

Is anyone annoyed by this hypocrisy?

Where is an Internal Geography Map by Meldrum? He portrays himself an expert yet is unable to produce one.

For the record, I am NOT annoyed.

I find this whole debate fascinating.

Link to comment

Why did Rodney Meldrum "redefine" the word "head" by using an obscure dictionary definition? There's no "personal agenda" to redefine the scriptures to his model is there?

While I agree that the lack of an internal map is a huge liability, it's only fair to note that some people have expressed "annoyance" with John Sorenson's liberal definitions of the cardinal points in his geography.

It seems every geographic theory has some degree of "creativity" incorporated within.

For the record, I am NOT annoyed.

I find this whole debate fascinating.

Indeed, with the book back on the shelves, I might need stock up on microwave popcorn.

Link to comment

Indeed, with the book back on the shelves, I might need stock up on microwave popcorn.

Most bang for your buck is to buy a hand crank stovetop popcorn popper. Doesn't take much more time or effort than microwave and tastes so much better (and you can get flavorings to put into it to suit your taste exactly).

Link to comment
For the record, I am NOT annoyed.
I find this whole debate fascinating.

Indeed, with the book back on the shelves, I might need stock up on microwave popcorn.

I cerainly don't see the need to fight over nondoctrinal ground. It's not as if Meldrum is a GA spouting off his nondoctrinal opinion. Mesoamerican LGT hypothesis' will always have a leg up until something else is found or revealed.

Link to comment

I perused its contents with some interest. Having a previous awareness of their most unusual interpretation for the word "head" in regards to the River Sidon, I hoped it would have been corrected in this book. Instead, they distanced themselves from the scriptures:

Created "new" methodologies:

Why did Rodney Meldrum "redefine" the word "head" by using an obscure dictionary definition? There's no "personal agenda" to redefine the scriptures to his model is there?

Hey, at least Meldrum isn't using the FARMS/FAIR approach: A tapir is a horse. You know, "loan-shift" some words as an excuse to sell books about a boxed-in MesoAmerica theory, until the loan comes due. Meldrum's just using an older definition of "head." Hyprocrisy and tapirs both stink.

Is anyone annoyed by this hypocrisy?

I was annoyed by FARMS / FAIRS hypocricy before learning anything of Meldrum's.

BTW, how's that pet tapir doing down on the FARMS? You haven't let it out the cage recently for public perusal.

Did you kill it by drowning it in the waters of criticizing Meldrum?

Where is an Internal Geography Map by Meldrum? He portrays himself an expert yet is unable to produce one.

Funny how some need to have a picture drawn for them. Years back, I ran across a website by a Non-Mormon proclaiming the Bible was true and the Book of Mormon false, because the former had maps while the latter did not. I guess the mentality has creeped downward into the intellectual Mormon elite - to defend their "It wasn't a horse. It was a Tapir Theory." :P

At least Meldrum is thinking outside of the Mesoamerica box.

Link to comment

Hey, at least Meldrum isn't using the FARMS/FAIR approach: A tapir is a horse. You know, "loan-shift" some words as an excuse to sell books about a boxed-in MesoAmerica theory, until the loan comes due. Meldrum's just using an older definition of "head." Hyprocrisy and tapirs both stink.

I was annoyed by FARMS / FAIRS hypocricy before learning anything of Meldrum's.

BTW, how's that pet tapir doing down on the FARMS? You haven't let it out the cage recently for public perusal.

Did you kill it by drowning it in the waters of criticizing Meldrum?

Funny how some need to have a picture drawn for them. Years back, I ran across a website by a Non-Mormon proclaiming the Bible was true and the Book of Mormon false, because the former had maps while the latter did not. I guess the mentality has creeped downward into the intellectual Mormon elite - to defend their "It wasn't a horse. It was a Tapir Theory." :P

At least Meldrum is thinking outside of the Mesoamerica box.

Tapir, tapir, tapir.

Blah, blah, blah.

Someone makes almost a passing reference to a tapir, in the context of what is actually a very valid argument, and now "FARMS" and "apologists" are universally condemned for claiming that the Book of Mormon, when it mentions horses, really meant tapirs.

Well, of course, that was never the argument in the first place, but why let the facts of the matter get in the way of a good excuse for ridicule?

At any rate, I am personally convinced that there were horses in the Americas prior to Columbus; prior to the Spaniards; and continuously up until that time. I don't know that there were typical modern-style horses among the Nephites, just as I believe it is quite apparent from the BoM that no one in that culture was routinely using horses as beasts of burden. In fact, despite the handful of references, the text of the BoM is notably absent of references to an animal that otherwise should have merited frequent mention--especially in the chapters that discuss the wars and travels of the people.

Horse bones are somewhat unique in many ways compared to the bones of other quadrupeds; they are much more elastic and porous in order to sustain the extraordinary stresses placed on them by the body of a beast whose legs are actually far too flimsy in many ways to support such a mass, and yet whose design tolerances are such that they do, and they do it very, very well. (I am, incidentally, a long time horse owner, breeder, and rider.)

Furthermore, I am persuaded by the traditions of many North American Indian tribes who claim that they have always had horses; that the so-called "Pinto" (or "Paint") and Appaloosa breeds descend from native, if rather rare, stock. Despite the fact that the anthropologists dismiss and otherwise attempt to explain away the Fremont and Anasazi rock art that shows horses with riders, I am persuaded that it constitutes documentary evidence of the existence of breeding populations of domesticated horses in at least North America prior to the arrival of Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries.

That said, I'm content to let people mock to their heart's delight. I am similarly content to have people claim intellectual license to disbelieve the restored gospel on the basis of things such as the reference to horses in the Book of Mormon. In the immortal words of Moroni: "Fools mock, but they shall mourn." And I, for one, do not have near as much confidence in the consensus beliefs of the "wise in their own eyes" scientists of the 21st century as many in our day are wont to.

As for Meldrum, I don't find fault with him because he wants to argue for a North American setting for the Book of Mormon. (I actually am inclined to consider the Hopewell culture a far northern extension of the Nephites, whose origins are referenced in the book of Helaman.) Rather, I fault Meldrum for attempting to establish his doctrine as the only correct doctrine, and the only one consistent with the words of the prophets. I am quite aware of the full body of the words of the prophets on this topic, and I know that Meldrum, with his arguments, is doing a disservice to the truth. Furthermore, he is directly challenging the authority and statements of prophets in this day in preference (as he mistakenly supposes) to prophets of former days. In that respect, he is carving out a course disharmonious with the spirit of fidelity to "The Brethren" in 2009, and incrementally distancing himself therefrom.

I predict that his blatant priestcraft in relation to these things will ultimately alienate him from the spirit of light and truth, and, before too long, he may very well find himself apostatizing from the very thing he now claims to defend.

Link to comment

Rather, I fault Meldrum for attempting to establish his doctrine as the only correct doctrine, and the only one consistent with the words of the prophets.

In the immortal words of Moroni: "Fools mock, but they shall mourn."

I noticed you're appealing to the words of the Prophets.

In that respect, he is carving out a course disharmonious with the spirit of fidelity to "The Brethren" in 2009, and incrementally distancing himself therefrom.

Says you.

I predict that his blatant priestcraft in relation to these things will ultimately alienate him from the spirit of light and truth, and, before too long, he may very well find himself apostatizing from the very thing he now claims to defend.

Now you're the Prophet?

Link to comment

First, I have no problems with the tapirs as "horse" idea and fail to understand why people find it either hypocritical or ridiculous.

and, if it isn't, I wish someone would take the time and refute it instead of just ridiculing it.

You may do so here or in a new post if you wish.

As for Meldrum, his views may be convincing until one reads the criticisms. Anyone wishing to establish a valid geographical model first must establish a map. Meldrum's inability to find a suitable River Sidon candidate in his model is alone enough to decimate it. The favorable, nay, gushing reviews strike me as sockpuppets.

Meldrum notes in his book early on that the church simply has not taken a position on the Book of Mormon's geography, yet he later dedicates several pages quoting early LDS authorities in an attempt to garner credibility for his views. He says the book is not intended to "correct any theory or organizations" whose views might be different, yet film maker Keith Merrill prefaces the book by thanking Steven Covey for making the notion of changing our "mental maps" a "proactive" means of doing just that. (I wonder if dropping Covey's name was really necessary in making his point.)

Meldrum says that in any scientific endeavor, one must ask, are the results conclusive. If a system for establishing a working model successful, it must see consistent results as it's applied. If it doesn't produce the desired, or consistent, results, then it must be replaced with something that does work -- a "better system." As someone who really would like to know where the Book of Mormon events took place, I'd be delighted if Meldrum could deliver on his hype. Alas, if one cannot even produce a convincing River Sidon, then one must immediately stop and reevaluate. Find a river that works and apply your model there.

It's not enough to take the geological references in the Book of Mormon and then fit them to geological models, he says. A hundred and fifty such maps already are in existence and serve as evidence to Meldrum that such a methodology just doesn't work. Instead of judging them individually and discussing the merits of each of the primary ones, he instead dismisses them all. He also goes after Dr. John L. Sorenson as the leader of the pack, and notes that early on George Q. Cannon criticized theorists for not having identical views. Although they may differ on some aspects, I've found that many agree of major points, and a fair number of such scholars ultimately end up in Mesoamerica, not the United States. So what if one believes the Cerro Vajia is Cumorah or goes a bit further north to pick the imposing Cerro Bernal? Agreement on many other items still puts the lands in very close proximity. And regardless of how many Cumorahs or Lands of Nephi one dredges up, that little drumlin in New York just doesn't look any more attractive.

I don't want to review his entire book. I'm no archeologist, but I know the types of arguments that make sense, and Meldrum just hasn't made a case in my view. Keith Merrill, who did the church's Testaments movie, seemed to place the Book of Mormon events in Mesoamerica (see photos below). I wonder how he would do it now if he had it to do over.

After decades of debate, Meldrum says, scholars simply have failed to produce the desired results. But instead of showing where their shortcomings are, he dismisses them as a group for inconsistency in favor of his new matrix of BOM geography. My own personal view is that his model is another flash in the pan and, once it's subjected to more critical review, that its shortcomings will be obvious.

testaments_7.jpg

testaments.jpg

Filming of Keith Merrill's Testaments seems to indicate

a Mesoamerican setting.

At least Meldrum is thinking outside of the Mesoamerica box.

So is George Potter, who is suggesting Peru. Neither one, in my view, has a credible map. Recall that the lands through the narrow neck were cut off for five years because of poisonous serpents. This almost demands tropical environs.

.

Link to comment

First, I have no problems with the tapirs as "horse" idea and fail to understand why people find it either hypocritical or ridiculous.

and, if it isn't, I wish someone would take the time and refute it instead of just ridiculing it.

How's this for refuting it? Nephi mentioned both *** and horse in the same phrase. You don't think Nephi knew the difference after landing on the Promised Land? LOL! I guess you have to have a PhD to observe that away or censor the word here on this forum. Nephi also mentions "forests" not jungle.

1 Ne. 18: 25

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.

There you go. Nephi mentioned both *** and horse in the same phrase. Similar looking beasts. Just like the cow and the ox. The goat and the wild goat. Yet Dan Peterson has to come up with a Tapir. Why? To fit his Mesoamerica theory and imply Nephi was stupid. Then again, Dan Peterson has a PhD. Nephi did not.

As for Meldrum, his views may be convincing until one reads the criticisms. Anyone wishing to establish a valid geographical model first must establish a map.

And why is that? His and Porter's book Prophecies and Promises essentially refutes that idea.

Meldrum's inability to find a suitable River Sidon candidate in his model is alone enough to decimate it. The favorable, nay, gushing reviews strike me as sockpuppets.

So now it's a personal attack. Is that a veiled request for the admin to "ban" anyone who disagrees with the Funny Farms? How "integrity" of you.

Meldrum notes in his book early on that the church simply has not taken a position on the Book of Mormon's geography, yet he later dedicates several pages quoting early LDS authorities in an attempt to garner credibility for his views. He says the book is not intended to "correct any theory or organizations" whose views might be different, yet film maker Keith Merrill prefaces the book by thanking Steven Covey for making the notion of changing our "mental maps" a "proactive" means of doing just that. (I wonder if dropping Covey's name was really necessary in making his point.)

And FARMS using the name of the late Apostle Elder Neil A. Maxwell isn't the same?

Meldrum says that in any scientific endeavor, one must ask, are the results conclusive. If a system for establishing a working model successful, it must see consistent results as it's applied. If it doesn't produce the desired, or consistent, results, then it must be replaced with something that does work -- a "better system." As someone who really would like to know where the Book of Mormon events took place, I'd be delighted if Meldrum could deliver on his hype. Alas, if one cannot even produce a convincing River Sidon, then one must immediately stop and reevaluate. Find a river that works and apply your model there.

Bogus claim. Why not refer to the scriptures which talk specifically of the Promised Land. If you've read Porter's and Medlrum's book, you know what I'm talking about.

FARMS/FAIR applied a river. But then what? They had to loan-shift the Book of Mormon from Cardinal Points on the compass to claiming horses were tapirs. Why is that? Why does FARMS/FAIR have to start questioning different parts of the Book of Mormon for them to stick to their river model?

I don't see Meldrum questioning the Book of Mormon to indicate where the River Sidon is located - or redefining the Book to fit his theory. The head of a river could be that, the high point from which it springs. If the direction of the river causes you consternation, then why not the changing of the Cardinal Points points of the compass changed by your FARMS/FAIR types to take into the account the West, East, North, South seas for your Mesoamerica maps. Not only do you raise doubts about the accuracy of the Book of Mormon and it's translator and the Truthfulness of the LDS church by doing so, you imply the ancients were idiots and didn't know true points of the compass, easily refuted by archeological ruins and markings which indicate their knowledge of the summer solstice, etc. As if they didn't know where the North Star was located if they knew of the movements of the planets went around the sun. Or maybe you also missed that in the Book of Mormon?

It's not enough to take the geological references in the Book of Mormon and then fit them to geological models, he says. A hundred and fifty such maps already are in existence and serve as evidence to Meldrum that such a methodology just doesn't work. Instead of judging them individually and discussing the merits of each of the primary ones, he instead dismisses them all.

The authors claimed that was not the purpose of their book! They used that as an indication of current attempts to locate the geography.

He also goes after Dr. John L. Sorenson as the leader of the pack, ...

Blah. blah. Cry me a river. Can't take your own medicine.

I don't want to review his entire book.

Then your opinions are baseless and without merit.

I'm no archeologist, but I know the types of arguments that make sense, and Meldrum just hasn't made a case in my view. Keith Merrill, who did the church's Testaments movie, seemed to place the Book of Mormon events in Mesoamerica (see photos below). I wonder how he would do it now if he had it to do over.

Like you noted, you haven't read the book. Kieth Merrill wrote the Forward. It can be downloaded HERE wherein Merrill regrets doing so.

After decades of debate, Meldrum says, scholars simply have failed to produce the desired results. But instead of showing where their shortcomings are, he dismisses them as a group for inconsistency in favor of his new matrix of BOM geography. My own personal view is that his model is another flash in the pan and, once it's subjected to more critical review, that its shortcomings will be obvious.

So, it's now your personal view against Meldrum's. And you yourself refuse to reveiw his book.

Flash away in panhandling the Mesoamerica LGT.

Link to comment

I don't want to review his entire book. I'm no archeologist, but I know the types of arguments that make sense, and Meldrum just hasn't made a case in my view. Keith Merrill, who did the church's Testaments movie, seemed to place the Book of Mormon events in Mesoamerica (see photos below). I wonder how he would do it now if he had it to do over.

Here's what Brother Merrill has said about that very subject:

In making "Testaments", I was influenced by the most popular, prevailing theory. The film was made on the island of Kauai. The city of Zarahemla was the largest set ever built in the state of Hawaii. The production designers used their imaginations, my vast collection of books by Sorensen, Allen and others, the abundant collection of art from the talented LDS community of artists, my own sketches and the jungle setting of the islands to recreate the world of the Book of Mormon. Every choice supported the prevailing theory. As a result, the setting of the movie implies a Mesoamerica setting in every way - jungles, pyramids, a curious and creative mix of remnant cultures that included Mayan, Aztec, Olmec and Toltec.

Movies demand making decisions about time and space. They demand choosing or creating a world in which the drama plays out. The world of "Testaments" was clearly influenced by the prevailing theories, popular opinion and the remnants of Mayan monuments that post-dated the final days of the Book of Mormon, some by as much as 500 years.

I'm not sure why I was honored by an invitation to write a foreword to this important work. Probably because of the many among us who have some sort of vested interest in keeping the Book of Mormon lands in Guatemala, I am perceived as one who jumped ship early and swam north. When I sent an e-mail to the authors and scolded them for writing their book ten years too late, they must have figured that in me they had an open-minded friend...and they do. Life is filled with woulda, coulda and shoulda, but I do wish I had had cause to evaluate the Hopewell culture, consider the North American perspective, examine an alternate theory and explore the exciting "evidences" herein proposed.

"Prophecies and Promises", Rodney Meldrum

Foreword by Kieth Merrill

(emphasis in original)

Hmmm...I wonder why he put the word "evidences" in quotes in that last line... :P

Link to comment

Cold,

I'm still Zarahemla agnostic, but I have to respond/rebut two pieces of evidence you've presented here:

Filming of Keith Merrill's Testaments seems to indicate

a Mesoamerican setting.

That's a bit disingenous, as Merrill has come out more recently to state that the setting wasn't dictated to him, AND that if he could do it again, he would not depict Mesoamerican culture.

So is George Potter, who is suggesting Peru. Neither one, in my view, has a credible map. Recall that the lands through the narrow neck were cut off for five years because of poisonous serpents. This almost demands tropical environs.

Rattle snakes, water moccasins, and the like are in regions far beyond tropical environs.

So the first item actually supports the opposite of what you've presented it to mean. And you drastically overstated the weight of the second matter to support your preferred conclusion.

Link to comment

Here's what Brother Merrill has said about that very subject:

Hmmm...I wonder why he put the word "evidences" in quotes in that last line... :P

I believe he was referring to "scriptural evidences" ignored by the progressively-secular BYU Professorial types.

Prehistoric Pronghorn: Ancient Antelope

In 2005, the Arizona Museum of Natural History excavated two tusks and a neck vertebra, probably from one or more Columbian Mammoths, in the city of Gilbert, Arizona. In addition to ancient elephant, paleontologists found fossil horse, llama, tortoise, and a single tooth of Stockoceros, a prehistoric pronghorn.

But I'm sure the FARMS/FAIR types will reject this evidence from 2005 - because it hasn't been accepted by the "WORLD" of scholary PhDs.

I guess Daniel Peterson couldn't wait. He had to make up excuses for the Book of Mormon to fit his Mesoamerica Theory of first applying a Map to an area then explaining away scripture.

This versus Porter's and Meldrum's approach of first using scripture and then NOT making excuses for the words of early Church Leaders including the Prophet's.

Funny how the murals in the Mesa LDS Temple, the 7th operating temple, depict Joseph Smith preaching to the "Indians" of North America. I guess the two Prophets who approved of the Dedication and Re-dedication of that Temple were "wrong" according to FARMS/FAIR types - who wrapped themselves in the name of a late Apostle to lend themselves legitimacy for refuting the Book of Mormon and the words of the Prophets. They only have continual excuses for those words.

Link to comment

Funny how the murals in the Mesa LDS Temple, the 7th operating temple, depict Joseph Smith preaching to the "Indians" of North America. I guess the two Prophets who approved of the Dedication and Re-dedication of that Temple were "wrong" according to FARMS/FAIR types - who wrapped themselves in the name of a late Apostle to lend themselves legitimacy for refuting the Book of Mormon and the words of the Prophets. They only have continual excuses for those words.

Holy smokes!

Did someone at FARMS molest you on a campout or something?

Relax buddy.

Link to comment

Funny how the murals in the Mesa LDS Temple, the 7th operating temple, depict Joseph Smith preaching to the "Indians" of North America. I guess the two Prophets who approved of the Dedication and Re-dedication of that Temple were "wrong" according to FARMS/FAIR types - who wrapped themselves in the name of a late Apostle to lend themselves legitimacy for refuting the Book of Mormon and the words of the Prophets. They only have continual excuses for those words.

How does a mural depicting Joseph preaching to Indians of North America contradict a theory of a Meso-American setting for the Book of Mormon? I don't know of any supporter of that theory who denies that the Indians of North America have Book of Mormon ancestry.

Link to comment

Wow, how many ways can one be wrong in a single post? More than we'll look at, but there are some interesting ones.

But I'm sure the FARMS/FAIR types will reject this evidence from 2005 - because it hasn't been accepted by the "WORLD" of scholary PhDs.

So, the hypothesis is that FARMS/FAIR types are ignoring evidence that might support the Book of Mormon because it isn't accepted in academia. The "proof," is evidence that has been recovered and dated by academia (so we begin with a major contradiction).

Next, however, we have the unstated problem of time. All of these fossils are way too early to fit the Book of Mormon. Even it you want to follow the 7000 year old earth, you have to place them way early in that sequence, and that is too early for the Book of Mormon. So, hypothesis denied. The evidence is against it.

I guess Daniel Peterson couldn't wait. He had to make up excuses for the Book of Mormon to fit his Mesoamerica Theory of first applying a Map to an area then explaining away scripture.

I am sure that Dan Peterson appreciates a well-crafted argument, and there are any number that he might wish he had thought of. However, I have never seen him claim credit when it wasn't due. You are suggesting that he came up with a hypothesis that he might support, but did not create.

As for "explaining away" scripture to fit a hypothesis, you seem to be confused as to the LDS definition of scripture. We accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. We accept the inspired utterances of the prophets. What we also understand is that there are times when prophets speak as humans. During those times they don't (Joseph specifically indicated he didn't) want to be assumed to be speaking prophetically.

Are you suggesting that Joseph was the only prophet and that those subsequent to him should be discounted? When the modern prophets tell us that Joseph had no revealed geography, are you suggesting that they are in error?

This versus Porter's and Meldrum's approach of first using scripture

Neither of them has approached the completeness of texts and analysis that Sorenson has. So, if you want to compare the "first" use of scripture, Porter and Meldrum are way behind.

and then NOT making excuses for the words of early Church Leaders including the Prophet's.

What excuses are you making for the modern prophets. Please explain why you believe that their words are incorrect while earlier ones must be correct. How are you choosing which prophet to believe? (remember, it isn't based on scripture, because Porter and Meldrum only use the verses that support them and ignore the rest.)

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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