Meldrum/Porter Fireside in Southern California

[dblagent007]

Richard Bushman is under no restriction from his stake president not to speak in Church buildings. Rod Meldrum is. A rather big difference, wouldn't you say?

Rod is not speaking. Bruce Porter is.

[RubyHunter]

I sat through this film that rod produced. I fell asleep after 20 minutes and had to break the film up in to 8 sessions in order to sit through it all the way. He's dry, dull, and hard to listen to. I feel sorry for the congregation if they are going to be listening to him.

On the flip side though, I was easily swayed by what he had to say (not so much any more though), and I can't help but fear for these people as they take what is said as gospel truth instead of being an opinion of these two men.

Scary stuff.

[Greg Smith]

Rod is not speaking. Bruce Porter is.

Yes, I know. The question was why people wouldn't care about Bushman, but might care about Porter/Meldrum. Meldrum's ban is one cogent reason people might care.

If one wants to discuss Porter vs. Bushman, well, Bushman knows what he's talking about, has done extensive academic research on his topic, etc. Porter's recent book with Meldrum is (or should be)...well...embarrassing on a number of levels. The DNA section is a staggering display of ignorance coupled with arrogance.

And, I don't personally care for the condemnation heaped upon those who disagree, or presenting it as "Joseph Smith's revealed knowledge" that the Church, its membership, and its leaders have ignored; while leaving unmentioned or downplaying other things from Joseph, misrepresenting the historical data, eisegesis, blaming other models on Satan, etc.

I've never heard or seen Bushman do that either.

GLS

[notHagoth7]

For those that seem angry that Meldrum or Porter are being allowed to give a presentation in a chapel of their "opinions" about Book of Mormon geography...

I have no issues with a fireside. If it's ok w/those local stake leaders, it doesn't much matter what bystanders elsewhere think.

[DanielR]

I watched Both sets of DVD's and for the most part was quite impressed, although I don't agree with much of the geography I think the heartland is right on.

There was some poor representation whether intentional or not is undecided, He does make several good points of which I think need to be addressed.

I have met Rod and think he is sincere about what he does and have no reason to think otherwise, he believes what he believes. However, I can't help but chuckle at his "Firm Foundation" as this is not a firm foundation to begin with being the New York Hill called Cumorah. Just as NO Narrow neck of land should be used as a firm foundation. Do we really have anything to establish a starting point?

I to would have a big problem promoting any kind of financial gain regardless, using the church as an icon of support, to me this is the true meaning of taking (Using) the Lords name in vein, Just as the many who advertise in our yellow pages with their cute little Christian fish, sending the message, Trust me I am a Christian, of which I would have to run, in the other direction.

Just my 2 cents.

Daniel

[Kevin Christensen]

DanielR writes:

I have met Rod and think he is sincere about what he does and have no reason to think otherwise, he believes what he believes. However, I can't help but chuckle at his "Firm Foundation" as this is not a firm foundation to begin with being the New York Hill called Cumorah. Just as NO Narrow neck of land should be used as a firm foundation. Do we really have anything to establish a starting point?

Paradigm choice always involves a decision "which problems are more significant to have solved?" If you listen, people do make their personal choices very clear.

IMHO, we do have a great deal to establish a starting point. There are over 1000 verses in the Book of Mormon with geographical information from eye-witness prophets. Granted, it needs to be studied carefully, and read in appropriate cultural contexts to make sense. But it should, and I think does, make good sense in Mesoamerica. Kuhn also observes that while some people rely on values such as accuracy of key predictions, ability to generate productive research puzzles, comprehensiveness of explanation, and the coherence with other theories and information, the fruitfulness of working in the model, the simplicity and aesthetics, and the future promise. Another good starting point has been Larry Poulson's computer search of the entire Western Hemisphere for rivers that match the text regarding the Sidon, and finding exactly one that fits (the Grijalva). What I see in the Washburns, Sperry, Sorenson, Clark, Gardner, Mark Wright, and company, is strong appeal to developing the Mesoamerican paradigm based on these wide ranging values and comparisons.

Kuhn also mentions that some paradigm choice is based on appeals to tradition or the influence of key teachers or authority figures, or personal biographical events, or nationalism. The problem with these kinds of appeals is that they do not directly deal with the full range of relevant issues, but rather, substitute short cut appeals of much lesser value, even if easier to swallow at first. If the New York Hill is the anchor because selected statements from the "Prophet and Church News editorials and some bureaucrats said so, end of story, hitherto thou shalt come and no further, God Bless America Land that I love," I can see how some people could be persuaded. Hierarchy is one way of dealing with complexity. But I see no reason to ignore most of what we get from Alma and Mormon and Moroni. Authoritative pronouncements should get their ultimate authority from how well they describe things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come. Truth, as Joseph Smith said, will cut its own way.

In a good model, everything should show a tendency to fit with the text, and the fit should get better over time as more information comes to light, and the model has been more refined. Kuhn also says that no paradigm solves all the problems it defines. So the existence of open issues should not overbalance the successes of a good model. So having the right river, the right rise and fall of civilizations of the right kinds, the right modes of warfare and politics, the right weather and seasonality of warfare, the right tectonic activity, the right cement at the right time relative to everything else, etc., all come together in a coherent fashion. "What about steel" and "What about horses?" are, in my mind, much less important that "What about a major volcanic event?" and "where is the river?" and "where and when was cement used to build cities?" Big things are, and should be easier to find first. Smaller things, mentioned only in a few locations, and times, should not be over balance a larger perspective.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mysteryman]

Richard Bushman is under no restriction from his stake president not to speak in Church buildings. Rod Meldrum is. A rather big difference, wouldn't you say?

I know nothing about any official declaration against Meldrum. But it doesn't say it is a presentation by him anyway.

Plus, Richard Bushman doesn't accuse those who disagree with him of "dismissing and disparaging Joseph Smith." Another rather significant difference.

He most certainly does. He accuses other Smith biographers such as Brodie and Vogel as dismissing Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. I don't know that he has ever used the word "disparaging," but I did hear him on the Mormon Miscellaneous radio show back in 2004 say that one thing Vogel did in his book was "scandalous," (I later found out what Bushman was referring to was in the original draft that did not make it in the final publication of Vogel's biography.)

My point was simply that I have seen chapels used before by an author promoting his opinions on a topic and promoting his own book. Therefore, if it was OK for Bushman, why not Bruce Porter and perhaps Meldrum if he shows.

[Greg Smith]

Paradigm choice always involves a decision "which problems are more significant to have solved?" If you listen, people do make their personal choices very clear.

IMHO, we do have a great deal to establish a starting point. There are over 1000 verses in the Book of Mormon with geographical information from eye-witness prophets. Granted, it needs to be studied carefully, and read in appropriate cultural contexts to make sense. But it should, and I think does, make good sense in Mesoamerica.

Meldrum and Porter essentially by-pass this by claiming in Prophecies and Promises that the geographical information is unclear and vague since the BoM wasn't intended to be a geography text. This allows them to play what they think is their trump card ("Joseph knew") without the trouble of engaging (say) Sorenson's Geographical Sourcebook, or having to demonstrate that their geography is workable.

I suspect they took this route because Meldrum's geographical claims failed so badly to match the BoM text in his 2008 DVD.

So, it is unfortunate that this approach leads people away from the Book of Mormon text, and toward a rather unreflective acceptance of the authors' version of what Joseph Smith thought--though even then later work connected to Joseph has to be misrepresented to make the theory work, while earlier material is exaggerated.

[Greg Smith]

I know nothing about any official declaration against Meldrum. But it doesn't say it is a presentation by him anyway.

I know you don't. But I do. I heard it from Meldrum himself. You asked about Porter/Meldrum, which is why I replied about Porter/Meldrum. If you want to know just about Porter, that is a separate question.

He [bushman] most certainly does. He accuses other Smith biographers such as Brodie and Vogel as dismissing Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

Don't be silly. Bushman does not accuse other believing, faithful LDS of dismissing or disparaging Joseph simply because they disagree with his historical model. Brodie and Vogel are not now believing or practicing LDS in any sense of the word, and were not when their books were written.

Nor does he pretend or claim that he is teaching a revealed truth from Joseph that the Church and its leaders have failed to defend or teach.

Interestingly, Meldrum and Porter also complain in their new book that they couldn't get approval to teach their ideas at BYU Education Week.

GLS

[Greg Smith]

However, I can't help but chuckle at his "Firm Foundation" as this is not a firm foundation to begin with being the New York Hill called Cumorah. Just as NO Narrow neck of land should be used as a firm foundation. Do we really have anything to establish a starting point?

Don't challenge the name "FIRM Foundation." It was received by revelation.

GLS

[Cold Steel]

I don't mind geography firesides but I do think there should be conditions set, such as not selling or even advertising your books or dvds during the fireside and I would be careful to watch the subject matter such as this is my theory and if you don't fall in line you are opposing the brethren....

I doubt there will be any "pitches" for the books at the fireside (and they're not selling tickets).

The problem I have is that Meldrum's presentation is dogmatic. While it acknowledges other views, Meldrum is quite vocal in saying that they're all flawed and that the only real model that makes sense is (with all due modesty)...his. If you read the opening chapters of his book, it's like hiding a lock in sock and smacking someone with it. What he needs to do is what most responsible scholars do and that is, admit there are varying views on this and that the important thing is that the events in the Book of Mormon took place somewhere, and that it is an actual historical account. Instead, part of his pitch is in undermining other theories, and that's where the danger is. If he wants to review other theories separately, fine, but that's not Meldrum's style.

I hope we can get a review of his address.

[cinepro]

Well, not much to report since it was apparently canceled! The posters disappeared from the lobby 2 weeks ago, and it was never mentioned in any program or calendar.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, not much to report since it was apparently canceled! The posters disappeared from the lobby 2 weeks ago, and it was never mentioned in any program or calendar.

Just a hunch, but the impression I get from his Web site is that Meldrum won't bring his presentation unless local organizers can guarantee a specified minimum attendance. Maybe the planned event didn't measure up to expectations.