Who is Rodney Meldrum and whats all the hubub about?

[Wiki Wonka]

How long ago was this?

It was roughly a year ago.

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.

The Elders said that it was announced as a fireside over the pulpit in Priesthood meeting, and that they were encouraged to bring investigators.

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

I don't remember the names of the Elders. I know that they were between the ages of 19 and 21, and that their first names were both "Elder" on their name tags. Why do you want to know their names?

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.

CFR. Please tell us where and when either the Maxwell Institute or FAIR presented a fireside in which Book of Mormon geography was discussed.

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

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here, I'm just reporting what was written in my notes from the presentation. I didn't confuse Brother Porter's statement. When I attended his presentation, that's what I wrote down that he said. Now, I could have written it down wrong, but the person who attended with me heard the same thing, so I'm pretty sure I wrote it down correctly. I haven't read his book, so I don't know how he presents it there.

[charity]

Meldrums brand of uninformed apologetic zeal ultimately results in a quite poor defense of mormonism and many headeaches for FARMS.

How does anyone's half-baked ideas create a headache for FARMS?

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

Has the Maxwell Institute ever even mentioned anything about the Porter/Meldrum geography? I just searched the site and I can't find anything on it at all.

[juliann]

Has the Maxwell Institute ever even mentioned anything about the Porter/Meldrum geography? I just searched the site and I can't find anything on it at all.

It's just another manifestation of their unfortunate FARMS Derangement Syndrome.

[Mark Beesley]

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

3 Nephi 11

I have begun reading Porter and Meldrum's book, and have found some interesting stuff. Certainly, they make some errors, but are they severe enough to warrant the type of contentious attacks I've read in this thread. Frankly, after reading through the thread I was sick to my stomach and the counsel of the Savior, quoted above, came to mind.

Folks, not everything said by everyone needs a response.

[David Bokovoy]

I have begun reading Porter and Meldrum's book, and have found some interesting stuff. Certainly, they make some errors, but are they severe enough to warrant the type of contentious attacks I've read in this thread. Frankly, after reading through the thread I was sick to my stomach and the counsel of the Savior, quoted above, came to mind.

Folks, not everything said by everyone needs a response.

They drew first blood.

[David Bokovoy]

Dan,

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."

I think that this is a very significant observation.

The Book of Mormon intentionally reflects the King James translation of the Bible which uses the English word

[Mark Beesley]

They drew first blood.

39 But I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also;

3 Nephi 12

[cinepro]

Has the Maxwell Institute ever even mentioned anything about the Porter/Meldrum geography? I just searched the site and I can't find anything on it at all.

They've certainly dealt with the US-centric geographies in the Review, such as this article:

This Idea: The "This Land" Series and the U.S.-Centric Reading of the Book of Mormon by Brant Gardner

Here's what Brother/Doctor Petersen says in the intro:

[notHagoth7]

I have begun reading Porter and Meldrum's book....Certainly, they make some errors, but are they severe enough to warrant the type of contentious attacks I've read in this thread[?]

Certainly not.

So if you would all simply lay down your swords and acknowledge that Canada has always been the land of promise, we can all get back to work focusing on more important things.

[juliann]

I have begun reading Porter and Meldrum's book, and have found some interesting stuff. Certainly, they make some errors, but are they severe enough to warrant the type of contentious attacks I've read in this thread. Frankly, after reading through the thread I was sick to my stomach and the counsel of the Savior, quoted above, came to mind.

Folks, not everything said by everyone needs a response.

Ah, but you obviously think it it does. Have you read the pinned thread about board nanny-ing?

[Calm]

39 But I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also;

3 Nephi 12

And yet here you are doing your own bit of smiting.....

[juliann]

They've certainly dealt with the US-centric geographies in the Review, such as this article:

This Idea: The "This Land" Series and the U.S.-Centric Reading of the Book of Mormon by Brant Gardner

Here's what Brother/Doctor Petersen says in the intro:

That's it? That is certainly a mention but hardly "dealing with it". Now that there is a book to review this would be the appropriate venue.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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)"

This is odd, numbers 1 and 4 are the same thing. This hierarchy is self-contradictory.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm just not getting caught up with the thread and noticed that Tiberius has not yet addressed many of the questions and responses sent his way. I hope he/she will take the time to provide responses.

[Nemesis]

Let's tone down the rhetoric everyone. Remember discus the topics at hand there's no need to attack them. Let's also keep the admonishments off the board.

Nemesis

[Calm]

This is odd, numbers 1 and 4 are the same thing. This hierarchy is self-contradictory.

Yes, I noticed that. But apparently since people don't agree on the interpreation of the geographical scriptures, we can toss them aside as irrelevant.

That does present another problem though because people don't agree on the interpretation of the prophetical scriptures either, yet they are given top billing.....

[Wiki Wonka]

This is odd, numbers 1 and 4 are the same thing. This hierarchy is self-contradictory.

Well, this is the way Brother Porter presented it a year ago.

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.

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)"

So, within in the last year, the "statements of the living prophet" item has dropped of the list entirely??? The placement of the words of the living prophet as third in the hierarchy was the issue that I objected to in the first place. How did that get replaced with "External evidence: DNA and archeological?" This is what the book actually says?

I'd also like to know how Brother Porter's book addresses the Bernhisel letter, if someone who has the book could be so kind as to look it up.

Joseph was referring to Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John L. Stephens when he wrote this.

I received your kind present by the hand of Er Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive. (Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 533)

[volgadon]

Dan,

I think that this is a very significant observation.

The Book of Mormon intentionally reflects the King James translation of the Bible which uses the English word

[volgadon]

Tiberius, what is a Nile, or river horse?

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's what Brother/Doctor Petersen says in the intro:

I have no idea who "Brother/Doctor Petersen" is, but I know "Brother/Doctor Peterson" pretty well, and I also know that he didn't write that introduction. (The name Louis Midgley, which appears just under the title of the essay, is a subtle hint to that effect.)

[cinepro]

I have no idea who "Brother/Doctor Petersen" is, but I know "Brother/Doctor Peterson" pretty well, and I also know that he didn't write that introduction. (The name Louis Midgley, which appears just under the title of the essay, is a subtle hint to that effect.)

I apologize for horrendously misspelling Lois Midgley's name.

[Daniel Peterson]

How awful for a scholar to be questioned. Praise be to the Cult-Personality Worship among Mormons! . . . I get the impression the PhDs think they should run the Church - or Steady the Ark, as it were.)

I just noticed this one. It illustrates pretty well my chief problem with some of the Meldrumites: Their hostile eagerness to attack fellow believers.

The Mormon scholars I know, and who are targeted by such comments as that above -- and I know lots and lots of them -- are, overwhelmingly, faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They've served as missionaries and bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents and patriarchs and temple workers and the like, and they don't deserve the sort of animosity reflected above. They're just trying to think about their faith and its contents as carefully and as well as they can.

If they're mistaken, they're mistaken. (If not, they're not.) But there is no intent on their part to supplant the Brethren, or to overthrow the Gospel and the priesthood order of the Church, and the things that they're mistaken about (if they're mistaken) are matters of secondary or even tertiary importance, not the fundamentals of the faith. They don't deserve Tiberius's apparent bitterness.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just noticed this one. It illustrates pretty well my chief problem with some of the Meldrumites: Their hostile eagerness to attack fellow believers.

The Mormon scholars I know, and who are targeted by such comments as that above -- and I know lots and lots of them -- are, overwhelmingly, faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They've served as missionaries and bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents and patriarchs and temple workers and the like, and they don't deserve the sort of animosity reflected above. They're just trying to think about their faith and its contents as carefully and as well as they can.

If they're mistaken, they're mistaken. (If not, they're not.) But there is no intent on their part to supplant the Brethren, or to overthrow the Gospel and the priesthood order of the Church, and the things that they're mistaken about (if they're mistaken) are matters of secondary or even tertiary importance, not the fundamentals of the faith. They don't deserve Tiberius's apparent bitterness.

In that regard, I think this statement from President J. Reuben Clark Jr. is pertinent:

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Tiberius, where'd you go?