Who is Rodney Meldrum and whats all the hubub about?

[Tiberius]

I attended a Meldrum sponsored presentation that was taught by Bruce Porter. He first taught us what he called a hierarchy by which we could determine if something was true:

1. Scripture

2. Statements of Joseph Smith

3. Statements of the current prophet only while he is called as a prophet.

4. Everything that does not fit into these three categories is to be considered opinion.

I had an issue with placing the living prophet #3 on that list.

Porter's/Meldrum's book, which I read, p.196 states (to paraphrase):

1. Scripture

2. Statements of Joseph Smith

3. External evidence: DNA and archeological

4. Use of geographical passages in the scriptures "(because of their inconclusive nature)"

The exact backward approach used by FARMS/FAIRS - IMHO.

#3 above: "Statements of the current prophet only while he is called as a prophet," or rather "Statements of Joseph Smith only while he was acting as a prophet," is the reply I received from Steven Danderson on this site about The Prophet's statements of the Plains of the Nephites, Zelph, letter to his wife, et cetera in defense of FARMS/FAIR's loan-shifting. I assume Mr. Danderson is a FARMS/FAIR TAPIR supporter - seeing I'm only a newbie without form and void. And Steven Danderson is so highly-educated that he knows when the Prophet was acting as a prophet and when he was not.

Now why did you confuse Porter's statement with FARMS/FAIR's in your #3 above?

I assume FARMS/FAIR uses this approach to bolster their GT's:

1. Make a map from geographical passages in the scriptures

2. External evidence: DNA and archeological

3. Explain away the DNA and archeological (i.e. a horse is a tapir, DNA was "diluted") when the scholarly world contradicts "non-spiritual" aspects of the BofM

4. Statements of Joseph Smith - claim he was not acting as a Prophet when he spoke about Geo. settings North American

5. Appeal to FARMS/FAIRS Pillar's secular training - Doctorate Degrees - for authority

(6. Create a Straw Man about Porter/Meldrum, then burn it at the stake)

Seems to me FARMS/FAIR considers the words of The Prophet low on the list and the scriptures about prophesied locations of New Jerusalem, etc.

Then he showed some quotations from several LDS scholars (whose names were only listed as "name witheld," like they were guilty of having done something wrong.) He told us that these scholars are "discounting and disdaining" Joseph Smith. The scholars that he quoted were in reality Kenneth W. Godfrey, Matthew Roper, Jeff Lindsay and John Sorenson.

How awful for a scholar to be questioned. Praise be to the Cult-Personality Worship among Mormons!

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

I'll bet you're saved more than that couple over there, because you were sealed to your spouse by an Apostle, not by some unknown Temple Sealer called by an Apostle. Am I right?

There were some Elders at the seminar who had invited investigators because they thought that the presentation was a fireside. I talked with them afterward and they told me that they were awfully glad that their investigators didn't show up after all. In fact, they thought that the hand of the Lord was evident in the fact that their investigators didn't show.

Was that Porter's fault or the Missionary's fault? It sounds like the missionary's: "they thought that the presentation was a fireside"

Porter wasn't presenting missionary discussions.

I guess you can deduce that I wasn't impressed.

I noticed you withheld the names of the missionaries to which you appealed to for authority to bolster your impressions. Oh well.

Anyway, Porter/Meldrum state early in their book that the LDS Church has made no official statement on the location and that theirs is only a theory.

Just as much of a theory as FARMS/FAIR's. Porter/Meldrum is contrasting their different approach to their theory.

So if the Church has made no official statement, it all comes down to the fact that Porter/Meldrum use a different approach versus FARMS/FAIR. FARMS/FAIR "firesides" of loan-shifting horses to tapirs and claiming they know when The Prophet Joseph Smith wasn't acting as a prophet - is obviously not suitable for investigators.

(I get the impression the PhDs think they should run the Church - or Steady the Ark, as it were.)

So who has the beam and who has the mote? Eyeball that one.

[Calm]

Porter's/Meldrum's book, which I read, p.196 states (to paraphrase):

1. Scripture...

The exact backward approach used by FARMS/FAIRS - IMHO....

1. Make a map from geographical passages in the scriptures

And how is this not using the scriptures as the first and foremost source?

[juliann]

Rodney Meldrum is a recent, vocal supporter of the traditional Book of Mormon geography that says Book of Mormon events took place mainly in the places now known as the US states of New York, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri etc. He travels throughout Utah, Idaho and Arizona offering seminars about this theory, and he has recently published a book as well.

Meldrum's geography relies on two primary beliefs:

- The Hill Cumorah/Ramah in the Book of Mormon and the "Hill Cumorah" in upperstate New York are one and the same. ( Conversely, all "Mesoamerican" geographies theorize there being two or more "Cumorahs".)

- The "promised land" in the Book of Mormon was geographically located in what is now the United States of America.

If you believe these two points, then Meldrum's geography will be very appealing to you.

Actually, it relies on the belief that Meldrum has special inside knowledge that even the prophets are not party to. Nobody cares about his theories other than he leaves out everything that doesn't fit which is always annoying His book openly attacks everyone who doesn't believe him. This guy is the poster boy for anti-intellectualism.

[David Bokovoy]

Actually, it relies on the belief that Meldrum has special inside knowledge that even the prophets are not party to. Nobody cares about his theories other than he leaves out everything that doesn't fit which is always annoying His book openly attacks everyone who doesn't believe him. This guy is the poster boy for anti-intellectualism.

LOL! Tell us how you really feel!

[juliann]

Seems to me FARMS/FAIR considers the words of The Prophet low on the list and the scriptures about prophesied locations of New Jerusalem, etc.

And that is Meldrum's methodology in a nutshell. His next problem is that he leaves out anything JS says that doesn't support his truth.

[Daniel Peterson]

Rodney Meldrum is a recent, vocal supporter of the traditional Book of Mormon geography that says Book of Mormon events took place mainly in the places now known as the US states of New York, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri etc.

Joseph Smith, who was enthusiastic about the then newly-published work of Stephens and Catherwood on Mesoamerica, apparently rejected "the traditional Book of Mormon geography," thus defined. So did Orson Pratt.

A few of my relatives have become very interested in Meldrum's theories. I asked one of them why he found them so appealing. His response: DNA evidence has disproven all the other theories and supports only Meldrum's theory.

This, of course, is flatly untrue.

You can see why Meldrum is like fingers grating on a chalkboard to the FAIR/FARMS establishment.

I hear, from time to time, how very upset and even desperate the folks at FARMS (better, the Maxwell Institute) are about Rod Meldrum. I confess that nothing I've seen or heard supports this claim, but I readily grant that others here may be more intimately connected with FARMS (or, better, with the Maxwell Institute) than I am. I wonder, in that case, if they would be willing to share details.

At one time I had to post a world map on the wall in order to settle an argument about where Australia was located. Some of the students apparently did not know the difference between Austria and Australia and were convinced that they were both in Europe.

When I was about to leave on my mission to Switzerland, my mother went to a garden supply store near our southern California home to buy some table ornaments for a farewell party. (This was, of course, eons ago. But, in order to forestall the obvious reply, I hasten to add that it was well after continental drift had separated the earth's landmass.) The store manager suggested pineapples as the obvious and appropriate table decoration. When my mother looked puzzled, the manager quickly corrected herself: "Oh. Sorry." she said. "I was thinking of Australia." I've puzzled over that one for decades now.

[Tiberius]

And how is this not using the scriptures as the first and foremost source?

Because no one agrees on a geographical setting and the Church has stated it's a "spiritual" book not a "geography" book - which both P/M and FARMS/FAIR agree on.

Why is referring to New Jerusalem, the singular: "that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered...", etc. so awful? Did Joseph Smith make a typo? Should it be nations? After reading FARMS/FAIRS excuses, one would think so.

[Tiberius]

And that is Meldrum's methodology in a nutshell. His next problem is that he leaves out anything JS says that doesn't support his truth.

And like I noted earlier, FARMS/FAIR doesn't do the same?

Well, what would those sayings be? I'm willing to learn. I'm formless, void, and newbie, afterall without a PhD. I'm a baby-tapir amongst intellectual wolves. The only FARMS picture coffee books give to me were from my non-coffee drinking Father. Then I learned horses were tapirs and by logical extension, the white apparition appearing in the sky as recorded in 3 Nephi was an albino howler monkey chattering as it descending from the top of a jungle tree when it missed the last branch on its way to meet Jane. (I wish I had a PhD. Then like Dr. Doolittle, I could talk to the Tapirs. Would that be doing a lot?)

I'm just jabbing ya...but please, what has Meldrum ignored?

[Daniel Peterson]

And like I noted earlier, FARMS/FAIR doesn't do the same?

CFR. Examples, please?

[Brant Gardner]

Anyway, Porter/Meldrum state early in their book that the LDS Church has made no official statement on the location and that theirs is only a theory.

This is very true. The problem isn't that they are presenting a theory, it is that their theory contradicts this declaration that there is no official statement.

According to them, Joseph Smith prophetically knew, and told us, where the Book of Mormon took place. Since Joseph, however, the leaders of the church seem to have forgotten Joseph's teachings and therefore they now tell us that we don't know. Porter and Meldrum and willing to help out and restore the lost revelation that every prophet since Joseph seems to have denied.

That is a fascinating conundrum. Of course, they never state this conclusion in precisely that way., but there is no way to avoid it. How can modern prophets declare that there is no official position if Joseph said there was? Either they are ignorant of Joseph's teachings or willfully ignoring them. Frankly, I find both of those propositions offensive and contrary to the tenets of my faith.

What is the new methodology they suggest? First, interestingly, they propose we need one because there is no official geography of the Book of Mormon. Since it is open to theory, then we must have the wrong ones or else we would have only one. They are clearly anatagonistic to the LGT model, but they never tell us why. It is wrong because it isn't right. Of course, it isn't right because it doesn't match their theory.

What about the actual methodology? They suggest that we have to use the whole Book of Mormon, geogrpaphic statements and prophetic statements. Then they use far less of both than are available, and never manage to create a geography of the Book of Mormon that fits the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. While it is true that the Book of Mormon isn't a geographic text, neither is the Bible. Nevertheless, we can use the Bible to assist us in the relative locations (and distances) between some of the sites mentioned. We ought to be able to do that with the Book of Mormon, but their theory never even attempts it.

They suggest that one of the kinds of evidence should be external. They use DNA, but use it in a way that no one (including their sources) would dare use it. They are counting on the fact that while all of their readers know about DNA, very few actually understand much about it, and even fewer understand what researchers are doing when they use DNA to trace gross populations shifts. Neither Porter nor Meldrum are qualified to speak on the subject of DNA, but we are asked to believe the way they interpret the data even though it contradicts what those who are qualified say about it.

They suggest that archaeological evidence supports their hypothesis. However, they give only the grossest of correlations, the type of correlation that says, in essence, "people lived here during that time." That isn't a correlation. It could be said of almost any location in the world. They only tell us what seems to fit the theory and are completely silent on the contradictions. For example, they use the Hopewell as their Nephite/Lamanite people. They then suggest that the Adena correspond well to the Jaredites. They are correct only in that the time period is similar. What they don't tell us is that the Book of Mormon has some specific requirements of the Jaredites. They have to be north of Nephite lands (until the very end of Nephite culture). Until that very late time (500 CE or so), there is no specific connection between Jaredite lands and Nephites, save for the appearance of Coriantumr at Zarahemla. How well do the Adena fit that? They don't. The Adena lived in the very area as did the Hopewell. There was never a separation as indicated in the Book of Mormon.

Their "methodology" is to cull statements that support their position, ignore anything contrary, and when they find someone willing to stand against their proposal (they very clearly assume that FARMS/Maxwell Institute is such an agency) they dismiss them as "intellectuals." I confess that the minute someone characterizes all opponents as "intellectuals" I am certain that I am dealing with an untenable theory. If only the intelligent people don't believe the theory, who is left to propose and believe it? Why do we accept any author telling us that we aren't very smart if we believe what they say? Why do we believe someone who tells us that the people who are actually educated in the proper fields and actually understand this stuff don't believe it? What kind of a recommendation is that?

[cinepro]

Regarding DNA, he put up a slide that showed a Black person, an Asian person and a Caucasian. He taught us that there were three "supergroups" from which all races descended:

1) All Caucasians are claimed to be descendants of Shem.

2) All Asians are claimed to be descendants of Japheth.

3) All Blacks are claimed to be descendants of Ham.

However, he got even this bad bit of science wrong. Traditionally, Japheth is assigned to the "white" race and Shem to the "red" race.

Then he talked about how the descendants of Ham couldn't hold the priesthood. Bro. Porter said that if one was "not a semite" that the person "won't be able to hold the priesthood," and that "to hold the priesthood one has to go back to Shem." In other words, he taught us the "Curse of Cain".

Wait a second. Wouldn't that also necessitate an Asian priesthood ban?

[notHagoth7]

I attended a Meldrum sponsored presentation that was taught by Bruce Porter....

How long ago was this?

[Tiberius]

CFR. Examples, please?

FAIR:

Where Did Book of Mormon Events Take Place?

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place.pdf

"When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography)."

Mr. Danderson's response:

Steven Danderson on FAIRBlog: http://www.fairblog.org/2009/03/31/a-look-at-meldrums-revised-dvd/comment-page-2/#comment-30049

"Have you ever read the History of the Church? He quite clearly corrected the SAME misconception you had; in HC 5:265, telling those who have it that 'a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.' "

This, apparently, is the "keystone" FARMS/FAIR uses to bolster their claims for all things equine. As if FARMS/FAIR knows when The Prophet was not acting as a prophet.

(I lump FARMS/FAIR together, since they each "published" their version of loan-shifting the Book of Mormon into an image of a golden-tapir.)

[Tiberius]

How long ago was this?

Dr. Porter presents an Adult Religion Class each Tuesday evening at 7:00pm in Mesa. It's not sponsored by Meldrum. Porter studied under Hugh Nibley and is a semi-retired Professor who taught at BYU. His bio is in the book co-authored by Meldrum. I've been to several of his classes. His main emphasis lately has been on identifying Temple symbolism in the scriptures. There's nothing dark and mysterious about his classes. He answers all questions thrown at him. He also has a website: www.bhporter.com.

Late last year, I attended in a rented Hotel Conference Room, a presentation by Meldrum on his Theory. It was free. I don't recall Dr. Porter being there. He may have been. The room was packed. His presentation sounded better than FARMS/FAIR making up excuses for the scriptures (Tapirs, cardinal points of the compass, etc). Not everyone agreed with Meldrum given the questions. Also, Porter and Meldrum do not believe in Darwin's Theories of "ManBearPig," unlike some members (not all) of FARMS/FAIR who do so to make up excuses for modern-science's claim that people inhabited the American Continents on a time-lime earlier than that indicated by the scriptures and to cover their failure to win the DNA debate.

[Daniel Peterson]

Was Bruce Porter ever a professor at BYU? I'm unaware of it, if he was. And what does it mean to say that he "studied under Hugh Nibley"? Lots of us did that. I did. Jack Welch did. John Sorenson did. Bill Hamblin did. Stephen Ricks did. And so on and so forth. If that's some sort of a claim of authority over against the folks associated with FARMS (better, with the Maxwell Institute), it doesn't work. Not that it really counts for much, in this sense, but the truth of the matter is that we were closely associated with Hugh right up until his death. Bruce Porter wasn't. We continue to be associated with his wife and his children. (I received an e-mail from one of them about twenty minutes ago, in fact.)

This, apparently, is the "keystone" FARMS/FAIR uses to bolster their claims for all things equine. As if FARMS/FAIR knows when The Prophet was not acting as a prophet.

(I lump FARMS/FAIR together, since they each "published" their version of loan-shifting the Book of Mormon into an image of a golden-tapir.)

For those who may be misled by such nonsense: FARMS (better, the Maxwell Institute) and FAIR are two entirely independent organizations, based in separate states.

You've got to love the way, though, in which Tiberius uses a single response by a single person on a single issue not only to characterize the entirety of FAIR but the entirety of the completely independent Maxwell Institute. Now that is rigorous logic. (And, for what it's worth, their version of loan-shifting the Book of Mormon into an image of a golden-tapir is a sterling specimen of clear and lucid prose. It must mean something, of course, but just what that "something" might be is largely opaque.)

[Tiberius]

Here is some more by FAIR:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Lamanites_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants

Joseph didn't claim to be hearing a voice or that he was simply taking dictation. Rather, impressions would come to him, which he would put into words. Joseph clearly did not consider them word-for-word quotations from God, since he, and others, felt comfortable revising them prior to publication.

The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice based upon inspiration. The few personal statements he made on Book of Mormon geography indicate that he believed it took place on a hemispheric scale, so it would follow that he believed that all Native Americans were pure descendants of Laman, and hence were literal "Lamanites." Even so, as noted in the preceding section, all of the inhabitants of the North and South American continents are considered to be Lamanites, and can likely count Lehi among their ancestry.

Footnote 133, p.228 of Porter/Meldrum's book, Prophecies and Promises.

In other words, FAIR believes they know what The Prophet believed and when he was and was not acting as a prophet, all to make up excuses for their geographical settings.

Then again, FAIR here is stating it was a hemispheric setting, while, it appears, there are other times they claim it was a LGT Mesoamerica setting.

FARMS claims a LGT setting and maybe a hemispheric setting as well.

Talk about chaos. Who knows what their true position is other than "The Prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." This does not increase faith in the Prophet Joseph Smith, but lessens it when people on FARMS/FAIR have to discount prophetic utterances to bolster their individual claims.

"Mormonism" needs to be protected FROM FARMS & FAIR.

[Anijen]

Here is some more by FAIR:

Footnote 133, p.228 of Porter/Meldrum's book, Prophecies and Promises.

In other words, FAIR believes they know what The Prophet believed and when he was and was not acting as a prophet, all to make up excuses for their geographical settings.

Then again, FAIR here is stating it was a hemispheric setting, while, it appears, there are other times they claim it was a LGT Mesoamerica setting.

FARMS claims a LGT setting and maybe a hemispheric setting as well.

Talk about chaos. Who knows what their true position is other than "The Prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." This does not increase faith in the Prophet Joseph Smith, but lessens it when people on FARMS/FAIR have to discount prophetic utterances to bolster their individual claims.

"Mormonism" needs to be protected FROM FARMS & FAIR.

Tiberius,

1. Could you please respond to Brant Gardner's post.

2. Could you please help me understand your devotion to Porter and Meldrum and your hate for FARMS and FAIR.

3.Could you tell me why they would be right and Dr. Perego wrong?

It appears to me that Porter and Meldrum cherry pick what buoys up their views and tears down anything critical to them. I could be wrong because I am gleaming this from your posts and have not read any of their recent stuff. You scoff at the scholars of those who contribute to FARMS and FAIR but in turn you will inflate the reputation of Meldrum and Porter beyond their own achievements. I for one will accept Ugo A. Perego's analysis every time over Meldrum and Porters. As for the Prophets statements you also tend to only have selective reasoning, again choosing statements that validate their (Porter and Meldrum) opinions yet ignore later statements that show they (The early Church leaders) had changed their minds (as far as geography goes). You appear to be closed minded and unwilling to learn from anyone that goes against your preconceived notions. I could be wrong and I have been many times so please help me understand your views without the ad hominems against FARMS, FAIR and scholars whom are outstanding in their fields of study.

[notHagoth7]

Dr. Porter presents an Adult Religion Class each Tuesday....

Tiberius,

You misunderstand. I was asking Wiki Wonka when he experienced Porter's presentation.

[juliann]

Here is some more by FAIR:

Footnote 133, p.228 of Porter/Meldrum's book, Prophecies and Promises.

In other words, FAIR believes they know what The Prophet believed and when he was and was not acting as a prophet, all to make up excuses for their geographical settings.

Then again, FAIR here is stating it was a hemispheric setting, while, it appears, there are other times they claim it was a LGT Mesoamerica setting.

FARMS claims a LGT setting and maybe a hemispheric setting as well.

Talk about chaos. Who knows what their true position is other than "The Prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." This does not increase faith in the Prophet Joseph Smith, but lessens it when people on FARMS/FAIR have to discount prophetic utterances to bolster their individual claims.

"Mormonism" needs to be protected FROM FARMS & FAIR.

If not knowing the setting is "chaos" then the church itself is in chaos because that is the official position. That puts you in the position of discounting "prophetic utterances to bolster" individual claims. What I find the most puzzling about all of this is the utter inability of the Meldrummers to see that they inevitably condemn themselves when they attack scholarship. It is so similar to the evangelicals who didn't realize their attacks on the BOM undermined the Bible as well.

[Calm]

Because no one agrees on a geographical setting and the Church has stated it's a "spiritual" book not a "geography" book - which both P/M and FARMS/FAIR agree on.

And this allows one to ignore the scriptures that deal with geography? Or to claim that the scriptures that deal with geography don't rate as "scriptures" somehow?

[Daniel Peterson]

Why is referring to New Jerusalem, the singular: "that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered...", etc. so awful? Did Joseph Smith make a typo? Should it be nations? After reading FARMS/FAIRS excuses, one would think so.

I'm not sure that this prophecy is quite the slam dunk you imagine it to be, because it's not at all clear to me that the Book of Mormon authors used the term nation in the modern sense of the "nation-state."

Incidentally, what do you do, if the Book of Mormon is really talking just about the confines of the United States of America, with all of the Latin American temple-dedicatory prayers -- and there are many of them -- that refer to the children of Lehi as special beneficiaries of those new Latin American temples? I'm genuinely curious.

Be that as it may, however, the main problem that I've come to have with Meldrumites -- I don't think Rod Meldrum himself is so guilty of it as some of his followers are -- is their tendency to denigrate those who disagree with them (e.g., most notably, the mythical hybrid "FARMS/FAIR") and even to read them out of the Church or to describe them as rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith. Personally, I don't care much what geographical scheme a believer favors for the Book of Mormon. But I care very much when I see someone dismissing somebody else as unfaithful or apostate merely for holding to a different geographical model.

Do I sense some of that odium theologicum in you, Tiberius?

"Mormonism" needs to be protected FROM FARMS & FAIR.

You need to inform the Brethren of that, Tiberius, because they plainly don't seem to understand it.

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom," said Joseph Smith. "It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives." (History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on 2 July 1839, in Montrose, Iowa, as reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards)

.

[volgadon]

Tiberius, what would you have termed a tapir?

[dblagent007]

I spoke with a "chapel" mormon that watched Meldrum's DVD and came away VERY impressed. He genuinely felt that it was both persuasive and faith-inspiring. When I asked him about the mesoamerican theory (trumpeted mainly by people within FARMS), he scoffed and said you mean "the two Cumorahs theory?" I was surprised that he even knew of the theory (aren't most Meldrumites just plain ignorant?). He did, he just didn't buy it.

I think there may be a large population of members that are in the same boat. They know about the FAIR/FARMS stuff, but it just isn't doing anything for them. Along comes Meldrum with a highly selective, but extremely faith promoting theory and these people gobble it up. Fascinating.

[Brant Gardner]

Tiberius, on 12 December 2009 - 02:09 PM, said:

Why is referring to New Jerusalem, the singular: "that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered...", etc. so awful? Did Joseph Smith make a typo? Should it be nations? After reading FARMS/FAIRS excuses, one would think so.

I'm not sure that this prophecy is quite the slam dunk you imagine it to be, because it's not at all clear to me that the Book of Mormon authors used the term nation in the modern sense of the "nation-state."

We also have some problems in how the prophecy is fulfilled. If it refers to the heartland model, it took the "gentiles" who started the process over 200 years to get around to scattering the people that Porter and Meldrum suggest are the "remnant" referred to. Remember, one Meldrum's arguments is that Joseph identified them as an existing group after the Book of Mormon was published, so they hadn't even been scattered to fulfill the prophecy when the Book of Mormon was taken to show them how it fulfilled a prophecy that hadn't yet happened to them.

Now, just for a fun comparison, the Spanish were the mightiest nation on earth at the time of the Conquest of Mexico, and it took them less than 50 years to get some good scattering done.

Then, of course, we have to parse the prophecy. Normally we can't do with punctuation to help because it wasn't dictated, but here the punctuation was verbalized with the "yea, even" -- which creates a linkage and separation from the first clause. The issue is when the mighty nation would arise. If it arose, and the then came to "the face of this land" we have to look for someone mighty before they came. England might be that, but then only the English colonies would count as the promised land.

If, for example, we decide that the "mighty nation" had to arise on the face of the land, then no European nation qualifies. The best qualification might be Teotihuacan, which was one of the largest cities in the world in its heyday and controlled a very large area. During the time when the Nephites were scattered, Teotihuacan was doing a lot of scattering. If we read the prophecy this way, we don't have any lag time at all. Nephi is right, a nation is raised up on the land and it literally scatters them. Were Teotihuacanos Gentiles? Since anyone not of the House of Israel would be considered a gentile, that makes for a very wide definition into which most of the world fits.

Returning to questions about the presentist reading of the prophecy: If we read the prophecy as having the mighty nation arise after it is here, when do we think of the United States as "mighty"? They were in a very precarious position up and through the war of 1812, and 20 years later they hadn't really jumped to "mighty" status. Certainly it was gaining respectability, but its might was developed after the Book of Mormon was released.

I agree with Dr. Peterson that this prophecy is not the slam dunk it is made out to be.

[sethpayne]

Tiberius, what would you have termed a tapir?

"A horse/pig - like creature"