"Rodney Meldrum: The Movie"

[volgadon]

Is the Terrible Tapir that Steve Danderson guy? I love how he uses the Salamander Society to ridicule FAIR. doesn't he realise that they mock everyone and everything to do with the church?

[Calm]

Is the Terrible Tapir that Steve Danderson guy? I love how he uses the Salamander Society to ridicule FAIR. doesn't he realise that they mock everyone and everything to do with the church?

IIRC, Tapir is "Steve" and then there is Steven Danderson who writes the FAIR blog on occasion.

[volgadon]

Oops, forget the Danderson bit.

Apologies to Steve Danderson for that.

[Wiki Wonka]

Is the Terrible Tapir that Steve Danderson guy? I love how he uses the Salamander Society to ridicule FAIR. doesn't he realise that they mock everyone and everything to do with the church?

Steven is a member of FAIR and he wrote the blog entry. "Mr. Tapir" responded a number of times in the comment section toward the end.

[livy111us]

I asked them about the Kinderhook plates. This video was done mostly by the producer who was not aware of the controversy surrounding the plates, and Meldrum only had a very short time to review it before publication, and did not notice them. They say it will be removed in future videos.

I do have to say that, while I do disagree with several portions of the film, I would say this is Meldrums best yet. He does it in a more documentary format with non-LDS scholars relating their thoughts. Just that in itself eliminates many problems. This video wasn't really advancing any theory per se, but, as the producer told me, answered why we don't know very much about the Hopewell. It gave a lot of information about that, how archaeologists viewed artifacts and the Indians in the 1800's, and the destruction of artifacts.

[Wiki Wonka]

I asked them about the Kinderhook plates. This video was done mostly by the producer who was not aware of the controversy surrounding the plates, and Meldrum only had a very short time to review it before publication, and did not notice them. They say it will be removed in future videos.

Somebody provided the photos of the Kinderhook plates to the producer, yet it seems that everyone is claiming that they either didn't know what they were or that there wasn't enough time to realize that they were there! How can someone produce a video and not be aware of what material they are putting in it?

[Sevenbak]

I asked them about the Kinderhook plates. This video was done mostly by the producer who was not aware of the controversy surrounding the plates, and Meldrum only had a very short time to review it before publication, and did not notice them. They say it will be removed in future videos.

I do have to say that, while I do disagree with several portions of the film, I would say this is Meldrums best yet. He does it in a more documentary format with non-LDS scholars relating their thoughts. Just that in itself eliminates many problems. This video wasn't really advancing any theory per se, but, as the producer told me, answered why we don't know very much about the Hopewell. It gave a lot of information about that, how archaeologists viewed artifacts and the Indians in the 1800's, and the destruction of artifacts.

I find that to be a total cop out and an attempt at plausible deniability. Is this a Meldrum film or not? Why is he putting his name on it if he's going to claim ignorance at what's in it?

[katherine the great]

I asked them about the Kinderhook plates. This video was done mostly by the producer who was not aware of the controversy surrounding the plates, and Meldrum only had a very short time to review it before publication, and did not notice them. They say it will be removed in future videos.

That sounds very strange to me. I've worked in film and television and I've never heard of a film trailer being done by a producer unless they are also the director. I'm not saying they are lying, but it would certainly be very unusual for a trailer to not be overseen by the director. But, it isn't at all unusual for trailers to contain things that are edited out of the final movie.

[Cold Steel]

Last night I saw the History Channel video on the 911 conspiracy movement. My brother is a die hard believer in all this and he also told me that President Kennedy was killed because he was going to become an active threat to the Federal Reserve. As experts addressed each aspect of the 911 attacks, I think they did a very good job in answering the critics. But at the end the critics were completely unmoved. Whatever part of their inner selves had bought into the conspiracy angle, it was clear nothing was going to change their minds.

Meldrum and other groups have spent so much time and money investing in their theories that they reach a point where they cannot be moved. Many of the books and authorities they quote from are unknown, quite a few of them the publishers of their own books. When research turns more into a religion than what it is, it becomes dangerous in my view. The idea that there was a vast culture that rivaled that of the Greek and Roman classic period sitting right here in the United States, yet it's gone all but unnoticed strikes me as foolish. Meldrum believes the Book of Mormon all took place in the cold north lands and quotes Joseph Smith speaking of Nephite plains and so forth, but when Smith saw the etchings of Mesoamerica, he became enthusiastic that these cities were those of the Nephites and of the Lamanites.

If people get locked into believing any one geographical model, go on expensive tours, write books and so forth, then find out that it's not true, they can end up losing faith in the important things. When I counter my brother in his 911 arguments, he simply says, "Well, one day you'll (not "we'll") know." Yet if I ask him whether he's received a revelation on all this, he admits, no, he hasn't. Yet he clings to the same old story.

Meldrum and Olive both have barbed responses towards those who disagree with them. Almost catty in places. I much prefer thinkers who admit there are problems with their theories, but they're still pursuing them.

I haven't seen that with Meldrum or Olive.

.

[katherine the great]

Last night I saw the History Channel video on the 911 conspiracy movement. My brother is a die hard believer in all this and he also told me that President Kennedy was killed because he was going to become an active threat to the Federal Reserve. As experts addressed each aspect of the 911 attacks, I think they did a very good job in answering the critics. But at the end the critics were completely unmoved. Whatever part of their inner selves had bought into the conspiracy angle, it was clear nothing was going to change their minds.

I think "conspiracy theorist" is a personality type. It doesn't seem to be related to lack of intelligence. In fact, the people like that I have met seem to have very high intelligence. In some extreme cases (not all by any means) I think it is actually attached to a mental illness.

[Olavarria]

And not only that, but crude hoaxes to boot.

Did I just see the kinderhook plates at the 57second mark?

[Greg Smith]

The idea that there was a vast culture that rivaled that of the Greek and Roman classic period sitting right here in the United States, yet it's gone all but unnoticed strikes me as foolish. Meldrum believes the Book of Mormon all took place in the cold north lands and quotes Joseph Smith speaking of Nephite plains and so forth, but when Smith saw the etchings of Mesoamerica, he became enthusiastic that these cities were those of the Nephites and of the Lamanites.

.

What mystifies me is the claim that these supposed experts were into North American archaeology and didn't know much about the Hopewell--that this was all hidden.

I mean, Meldrum is selling reprints of books from the 1800s on his website:

* Squire's "ANTIQUITIES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK" and "ABORIGINAL MONUMENTS OF NEW YORK BOOK"

* McLean's "The Mound Builders" (1879) Gutenberg link

* J.W. Foster "Prehistoric Races of the United States" (1873)

* MC Read "Archaeology of Ohio" (1896)

A paper was written in a professional journal which rebutted the idea that Amerindians didn't make the mounds:

Lewis, Theodore H. (1886) "The 'Monumental Tortoise' Mounds of 'Dee-Coo-Dah'" The American Journal of Archaeology 2(1):65-69.

That's more than a century ago.

Then, there's a national park (before that a national monument site) for the mounds. One would think that one's survey of American archaeology would, at some point, turn up such a thing:

"The present Hopewell Culture National Historical Park evolved in part from the former Mound City Group National Monument. The national monument was established by a proclamation signed by President Warren G. Harding in 1923 to preserve prehistoric mounds of "great historic and scientific interest." In 1980 Congress expanded the monument by adding a portion of the nearby Hopeton Earthworks and authorized the investigation of other regional archeological sites to determine their suitability for preservation. The National Park Service recommended four additional sites. Hopewell Culture National Historical Park was thus established in 1992 by a law that renamed Mound City Group National Monument, expanding boundaries at Hopeton Earthworks, and included High Bank Works, Hopewell Mound Group, and Seip Earthworks." (emphasis added)

http://www.nps.gov/hocu/historyculture/index.htm

====

Arguably, this is one of the more inefficient conspiracies.

Not having seen the movie, I may be missing something. But, I find this idea that it was all hidden, and largely remains so, quite strange....I don't really care much, save as it impacts claim about Church doctrine or purported revelations to Joseph Smith, but it just seems kinda bizarre.

Given how unreliable Meldrum's stuff has been on topics about which I know something, I would be reluctant to trust this account from him. But, it just doesn't seem to add up. Plus, in my experience, attempted suppression in an academic environment is about the best way to draw attention to something, unless you're in some sort of Soviet police state (see Lysenkoism).

GLS

[katherine the great]

Arguably, this is one of the more inefficient conspiracies.

Not having seen the movie, I may be missing something. But, I find this idea that it was all hidden, and largely remains so, quite strange....I don't really care much, save as it impacts claim about Church doctrine or purported revelations to Joseph Smith, but it just seems kinda bizarre.

Given how unreliable Meldrum's stuff has been on topics about which I know something, I would be reluctant to trust this account from him. But, it just doesn't seem to add up. Plus, in my experience, attempted suppression in an academic environment is about the best way to draw attention to something, unless you're in some sort of Soviet police state (see Lysenkoism).

GLS

I think I know where he is going with this. I kind of get the impression (and I could be completely wrong) but the feeling I have is that he is pointing the audience towards a theory that the American government intentionally destroyed evidence (or labeled as a "hoax") many genuine artifacts indicative of a very high civilization in order to carry out "manifest destiny."

[Cold Steel]

I think "conspiracy theorist" is a personality type. It doesn't seem to be related to lack of intelligence. In fact, the people like that I have met seem to have very high intelligence. In some extreme cases (not all by any means) I think it is actually attached to a mental illness.

Well, we live in a world where there are conspiracies -- horrible, inconceivable and unconscionable conspiracies. I don't think there's anything wrong with raising questions about the Kennedy assassination, the Vince Foster "suicide," Ron Brown's untimely death, but to state that one knows what happened when the evidence is just not there is another matter. I've had people tell me point blank that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. But I reject that out of hand because just minutes after it happened, I had a friend who called me in Arlington and said, "Hey, guess what...I just saw a jet airliner hit the Pentagon!" To others this would mean that my friend was just part of the conspiracy and had been planted to report it.

So conspiracies exist. To just dismiss all conspiracies out of hand is as boneheaded as accepting all of them. But you're right that conspiracies appeal to some more than others. But don't we see this in science, too? When scientists or scholars cling to an idea even when it's been discredited or at least rendered moot, isn't that the same thing? This whole Copenhagen thing is a shameful example of it. Phyllis Olive has spent much of her life trying to prove that the little drumlin in New York is actually the great Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (I did, too, until I saved five dollars and learned how to read!) People like her and Meldrum are painting themselves into a corner, whereas Sorenson and Clark can simply walk away from their theories if they're shown to be incorrect.

Did I just see the kinderhook plates at the 57second mark?

Yes, you did. The producers contend it was a mistake, but the Kinderhook plates actually appeared twice in the preview.

...Meldrum is selling reprints of books from the 1800s on his website:

... I find this idea that it was all hidden, and largely remains so, quite strange....I don't really care much, save as it impacts claim about Church doctrine or purported revelations to Joseph Smith, but it just seems kinda bizarre.

Given how unreliable Meldrum's stuff has been on topics about which I know something, I would be reluctant to trust this account from him. But, it just doesn't seem to add up.

Yes, his source material seems to have a lot of those types of books.

Years ago in California, there was a guy who traveled the state giving firesides. Very popular fellow; all the missionaries had his tapes in their collections. He spoke very authoritatively on the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls. He talked about Wilford Griggs and Hugh Nibley as though they were all colleagues of his and constantly used "we" in his stories. He's say, "We used to think the Gnostics were...but now we've come to the startling conclusion that...." and he was careful to leave the idea with his audience that the "we" included Nibley, Griggs, Kent Brown and him. I'm sure others have similar stories, but Meldrum is pretty much in the same category as I see it. Fifteen years from now, people will be trying to remember his name.

I worry that the guy will get a following, then when he's discredited, those who bought into his theories will suddenly lose faith in the Book of Mormon entirely. As convinced as I am that it all took place in Mesoamerica, I could easily walk away from it if evidence were to show it no longer was valid. So in my mind, Meldrum should say, "You know, after considerable study, I really think the Book of Mormon lands are over here, yet having said that, there are some pretty smart people in the church who think it's down here, while still others believe it's over here in this area. So while it's all good and fine that we study this -- and we should -- we also need to remember that the truly important thing is that the Book of Mormon happened somewhere, and we're just trying to put our heads together and figure it out." Instead, his approach more than just borders on arrogance.

.