Porter and Meldrum Drafting Hugh Nibley

[Hyrum Page]

So do I. But I still don't find it amusing to be accused of being an unbelieving apostate. I'm odd that way.

Well, you are entitled, since it is you who are accused of such. If a lunatic accuses one of being insane, shrugging it off may be another acceptable response, perhaps even the preferable response.

I've been involved in vigorous arguments regarding all sorts of subjects that have no bearing on anybody's salvation or on any other ultimate question. Was the tenth-century Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, for instance, insane, a religious fanatic, or a canny reformer? Was the Qur

[LifeOnaPlate]

On the other hand, what difference does it really make if some people believe the BoM occurred in North America instead of Central America? Is either view a central tenet of the faith?

I don't mind which geography members of the church hold to in regards to the BoM. At the same time, when I see quotes taken out of context I might say something about that, whether it be in regards to Mesoamericam Great Lakes, or Greenland.

[Mortal Man]

The statement "unless and/or until FAIR/FAIRS presents convincing evidence for Sorenson's theory" presumes a great deal in its use of the word "convincing."

I don't like arguing semantics, so please replace "convincing" with "some" or whatever you feel is appropriate.

the inscribed artifact discussed here is decisively relevant to your claim that we've got nothing.

http://www.shields-r...etter_122-2.PDF

The Anthon characters have been compared to many different scripts. Similarities of the circles, lines and dots on the 'Caractors' document with the circles, lines and dots on the Tlatilco roller stamp barely rises to the level of a plausibility argument, much less actual evidence. Regarding Jones' statement that the Anthon characters correspond to the first 224 words in 1 Nephi, it appears that John Gee disagrees.

If the so-called Anthon transcript is the actual piece of paper that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon, it is safe to assume that the characters came from the text they were then translating (the 116 missing manuscript pages, which contained a record from the time of Lehi to the time of King Benjamin).

Besides this, we have the the Nahom altars, a marvelous Bountiful candidate, among other things in the Old World (see Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, while supplies last).

I wasn't aware that Porter or Meldrum had a beef with the NHM altars, but since you brought them up, that is the type of rock-solid evidence (forgive the pun) I'm talking about. If you want to silence Porter and Meldrum then find a ZRHML altar somewhere in Guatemala.

In the New World, we have a Poulson's case for the textual description of the Sidon as uniquely matching the Grijalva, and significant convergences around that correlation, including the use of cement in the right relative location and time, the rise and fall of civilizations at the right time, evidence for a major volcanic event in the right time and place, the right seasonality of warfare, etc. Brant Gardner has eloquently spoken and written on "convergences."

These are plausibility arguments, not actual evidence.

Personally, I find his case very convincing, his perspectives relevant, and his approach fruitful.

There's that "convincing" word again.

[Daniel Peterson]

Am I still delirious with fury? Do Meldrum, Porter, and May still have me in a towering rage?

I've seen nothing on the matter, of late, from either my Malevolent Stalker or his sheep-like clone, but I really need to know.

[Hyrum Page]

Greenland.

Who told you about my BoM geography theory? And I thought you guys didn't have a network of spies!

[Hyrum Page]

Am I still delirious with fury? Do Meldrum, Porter, and May still have me in a towering rage?

I've seen nothing on the matter, of late, from either my Malevolent Stalker or his sheep-like clone, but I really need to know.

Allow me to fake fury on behalf of every one of you.

[Mortal Man]

Am I still delirious with fury?

Yes, although it's more of the former than the latter.

Do Meldrum, Porter, and May still have me in a towering rage?

Absolutely. Your ivory tower is glowing red.

I've seen nothing on the matter, of late, from either my Malevolent Stalker or his sheep-like clone, but I really need to know.

Relax and have a donut; I'll keep you posted.

BTW, when and where exactly did Porter and/or Meldrum call you "an apostate who rejects Joseph Smith"?

Was this direct slander or did they cast aspersions on your character via innuendo?

[Daniel Peterson]

BTW, when and where exactly did Porter and/or Meldrum call you "an apostate who rejects Joseph Smith"?

Was this direct slander or did they cast aspersions on your character via innuendo?

I've been told such things directly from more than one of their enthusiastic fans, and such things are, it seems to me, hinted at at several points in Meldrum's video lecture and not altogether obliquely suggested in some of Porter's recent advertisements. Several years ago, too, I attended a fireside given by Wayne May. I don't think anybody there knew who I was, and I sat far in the back. At one point, either May or somebody else making a statement declared that the "boys at FARMS don't even want the Book of Mormon to be true." The comment came in the context of our failure to accept the so-called "Michigan relics" as genuine, and nobody contradicted it or found it ridiculous. I simply remained quiet, feeling increasingly like an anthropologist observing the potentially volatile natives.

(Sorry about any typos in the sentences above. When my eyes are red with anguished weeping and my hands are trembling with repressed rage, it's really hard to use the keyboard accurately.)

[Cold Steel]

I was particularly irked by their drafting of Hugh Nibley.

Hmmm...who will be next, I wonder? Billy Mays?

[Hyrum Page]

(Sorry about any typos in the sentences above. When my eyes are red with anguished weeping and my hands are trembling with repressed rage, it's really hard to use the keyboard accurately.)

No worries, chief. Even the most battle hardened of us can be vulnerable at times. You've earned it.

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't like arguing semantics, so please replace "convincing" with "some" or whatever you feel is appropriate.

I felt that it was appropriate to observe that your unqualified use of "convincing" serves to conceal the ideological rails that carry it into your argument. "The answer," Alan Goff observes, "is to expose the implications of your ideology." (RBBM 7:1, p 180)

I write from the position of a believer who thinks that the best way to test the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to place it in the context that it claims for itself. I'm persuaded by Nibley's argument in New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study.

I wasn't aware that Porter or Meldrum had a beef with the NHM altars, but since you brought them up, that is the type of rock-solid evidence (forgive the pun) I'm talking about. If you want to silence Porter and Meldrum then find a ZRHML altar somewhere in Guatemala.

I haven't noticed that the NHM altars have silenced our other critics, and would not expect a Zarahemla altar to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced any more than the cylinder seals have done. Different people looking at the same rock, the same inscriptions, may not see the same implications. A Zarahemla altar might very well be evidence that "some things he may have guessed right among so many," or that it was a clever forgery, or Spaulding had connections to the Illuminati.

All data are theory laden, as N. R. Hansen observes. A rock may be a rock, and inscription an inscription, but they still have to be interpreted, and, as Nibley pointed out, an interpretation of physical artifact does not have the same factuality as the artifact upon which it is based.

These are plausibility arguments, not actual evidence.

That is an ideological statement, resting on what you do with both "actual" and "evidence." Alma 32 has an interesting comparison between those who seek to "know" in an absolute sense, versus those who get by with "cause to believe." I'm content with an ongoing evaluation of "cause to believe" and I'm happy to mention the implications of my approach.

There's that "convincing" word again.

And that was my point. Coming from a different perspective, with different expectations, I see much that convinces me, much that gives "cause to believe." I'm also aware that my approach is in competition with other approaches. Fine. I can ask which is "better" and I can look at those arguments as well.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Hyrum Page]

That is an ideological statement, resting on what you do with both "actual" and "evidence." Alma 32 has an interesting comparison between those who seek to "know" in an absolute sense, versus those who get by with "cause to believe." I'm content with an ongoing evaluation of "cause to believe" and I'm happy to mention the implications of my approach.

Sounds reasonable to me. I agree. Evidence is evidence. I am not fond of assumptions that include a special category of evidence for religious claims.

[Mortal Man]

I attended a fireside given by Wayne May. I don't think anybody there knew who I was, and I sat far in the back. At one point, either May or somebody else making a statement declared that the "boys at FARMS don't even want the Book of Mormon to be true." The comment came in the context of our failure to accept the so-called "Michigan relics" as genuine, and nobody contradicted it or found it ridiculous. I simply remained quiet, feeling increasingly like an anthropologist observing the potentially volatile natives.

LOL!

I'm sorry but that's hilarious. I wish I could've been there.

[Cold Steel]

The thing about the Meldrum Movement is that it's based largely on marketing, and it includes a strong element of religious undergirding, which is outrageous. That's why I think it invokes such rage in its opponents. It's bad enough that we have these things used against us as a church by misguided sectarians, but Meldrum's minions aren't content to let their arguments rest on archeological merits, but insist on introducing emotional and theological elements that would have repelled Nibley.

In Meldrum's emails, he talks about how the Lord is opening up their work and bringing new things to light even more rapidly that he (Meldrum) thought possible. Apparently still smarting over FAIR's comprehensive review, which I initially thought was a bit over the top. I now understand why it was done as it was. Meldrum initially acknowledges that there is no revealed geography as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, then turns around and uses statements by church leaders in an attempt to make it appear as though it was revealed.

The marketing angle is by far the most repulsive thing about the Meldrum Movement. His website is replete with offers for travel tours, seminars, conferences, CDs, DVDs, books, bronze medallions, paintings (prints) -- the works. It even has a section on "Inviting Others" that includes:

HOW TO PROPERLY INVITE A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER TO WATCH THE DVD OR COME TO A PRESENTATION

Many people who have viewed the DVD's or seen the live presentation become very excited to share this information with others. While this is commendable, if done improperly this could lead to putting others in a defensive position because audience survey's indicate that 95% of everyone that comes to a live presentation or is invited to watch the DVD presentation believe at the onset that Central America or Mesoamerica was where the Book of Mormon took place, while nearly 100% of those leaving indicate their paradigm has completely changed in 4 hours.

Rather than trying to 'explain' what you heard and saw during the presentation, I suggest taking the following approach to inviting people to see the presentation. Simply say one of the following:

"Have you heard about the exciting new research that shows that there is a possible genetic link between ancient Jewish populations and Native Americans? It is very interesting. And guess what?......its (sic) right where Joseph Smith indicated it would be!"

"Do you know where the Book of Mormon's "Promised Land" is located? Did you know that there are 36 prophecies about this new world "Promised Land" that clearly establish which Latter-day nation it is? Would you be surprised to find that it may be the same sacred ground where the Book of Mormon occurred?"

Then when their interest is piqued, simply invite them to watch the upcoming DVD or presentation and let it do the work. Don't attempt to answer questions because this information has to be built properly, line upon line, and precept upon precept, all atop a firm foundation of truth. That way they get all the information they need to make a 'new paradigm shift', rather than parts and pieces that you can remember and may present in an unorganized fashion. Don't tell them the outcome of where the research has lead (sic), but let them make the discovery for themselves as you and I did while seeing the presentation and doing the research. That is a thousand times more powerful then 'telling' them where it happened and why they should want to watch it. This has been the case for thousands who now have seen the presentation.

This is very much like the old "How to approach Mormons about why their religion is wrong" spiel.

There's even a "testimonial" section, where one can read heartfelt views such as: "I borrowed your video from a neighbor and watched it this past weekend. Interesting stuff. It caused me to go back and re-watch the new BYU video "Journey of Faith: The New World". I would say their video doesn't hold a candle to the data you are able to provide. I know it isn't their intent to prove anything with their video and it's geographic neutral insights are valuable and inspiring; but I am convinced after seeing the data you present that they are digging at the wrong latitude. I would love to see what you could produce if you had their budget."

Ah, yes! Their budget indeed!

.

[Hyrum Page]

The thing about the Meldrum Movement is that it's based largely on marketing, and it includes a strong element of religious undergirding, which is outrageous. That's why I think it invokes such rage in its opponents. It's bad enough that we have these things used against us as a church by misguided sectarians, but Meldrum's minions aren't content to let their arguments rest on archeological merits, but insist on introducing emotional and theological elements that would have repelled Nibley.

I agree.