Rodney Meldrum refuted....again

[livy111us]

Greg Smith has written an EXCELLENT article in the new Review on Meldrums book Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA. While Meldrum may seem pretend to be a scholar, Greg shows through a dissection of Meldrums book, that he is anything but. This 147 page review discusses many of the problems found in this book. I assume if Greg brought up every problem, he would have expanded this review into a 6-book series. A few things I liked:

Bad referencing--

"Each reference is listed in the numbered bibliography, which is inconsistently formatted, with some entries displaying stray underlining marks that appear to be the result of simple online cutting and pasting. Six of the references are repeated twice.25 There is no index, and the bibliography is not particularly useful, partly because page numbers are often lacking.26 Source citations within the text refer to the entire article or book rather than to specific pages, making it hard for the reader to heed the author's encouragement to "check up and verify the validity of the quotes" (p. iii).27 Some articles do not have even a month or an issue number, making it difficult to locate the article within a year of the bound journal. This is not an apparatus that lends itself well to verifying the author's material."

"Here Remnant through DNA's shoddy documentation causes problems. The source provided for this quotation of President Lee's is "BYU CES Summer School, 1970" (p. 167 n. 48). I could not find this quotation in any of the electronic databases at my disposal. Jeff O'Driscoll checked all of President Lee's 1970 discourses and could not find any such reference; he also searched an electronic database of all of President Lee's talks and addresses and could find nothing close to this. Clyde Williams, who edited The Teachings of Harold B. Lee and probably knows more about President Lee's writing and thought than anyone living, was likewise unable to find the citation in his database.47 A Google search turned up the quotation without documentation on cougarboard.com and on a page created by Robert Marrot of BYU-Idaho's Department of History, Geography, and Political Science.48 Marrot's citation is identical to that provided by Meldrum, and so I suspect this is Meldrum's source. Marrot indicated to me that it was an extemporaneous remark made by President Lee during the question-and-answer session. The remark was precipitated, Marrot explained, by a question about the church's position on birth control."

"Meldrum draws heavily on Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation and Man, His Origin and Destiny...Meldrum fails to tell us

[Bunk]

Greg Smith did a fantastic job dismantling Meldrum's pseudoscience. Meldrum truly is a snake-oil salesman, whether he believes in his own remedy or not. I hope, or wish, more LDS would see the light in this regard.

I wish Greg Smith had been in the game a few years back when David Stewart was peddling a similar DNA snake oil at the FAIR conference and then publishing it through the Maxwell Institute. Oh well, as we are told, even the elect may be deceived.

Now I ask, if Meldrum were pushing his material through the FAIR/FARMS system instead of going around it, do you think he would still get this (totally justified) rough treatment? Or would he get a pass, like Stewart did, with maybe an embarrassed roll of the eyes from Greg Smith and others who know better.

[kolipoki09]

In my opinion, Rodney simply doesn't care what Greg or anyone else opposed to his views has to say. As sad as it is, this is Rod's income. In spite of several critiques of his work, he continues to present his uncritical findings to an equally uncritical audience. As much as Meldrum's theories may have buoyancy in the LDS community, I have met only one person living in the "Mormon Bubble" who has bought into his arguments, and even then they were also unfamiliar with anything to the contrary published through FARMS or FAIR.

It isn't extremely hard to have an enthusiastic leader like Meldrum to collect a following of five hundred or so people with like-minded or indifferent views. In many ways, the rhetoric against competent scholars and Brigham Young University, along with claiming to "restore" Joseph Smith's original teachings as though they'd been ignored is the same type of approach Jim Harmston used to justify his own disaffection from the Church and subsequent fundamentalism.

If Meldrum wants to believe the BOM took place in New Jersey, he's welcome to believe that. However, if I believe the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, I'm not going to sit through a lecture telling me that I'm in "opposition to the Prophets" and guilty of "grave error" if I disagree with him, especially since the Lord "approves" with Meldrum's fundamentalist interpretation of scripture and research. In my own correspondence with him, this is precisely what has happened.

In the mean time, if there is anyone interested in meeting and discussing these things with Rod or one of his supporters, there are two upcoming events in the Utah area.

http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/events.php

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wish Greg Smith had been in the game a few years back when David Stewart was peddling a similar DNA snake oil at the FAIR conference and then publishing it through the Maxwell Institute. Oh well, as we are told, even the elect may be deceived.

I'm curious whether this is what you're referring to:

The recent explosion of molecular DNA data has led to a considerable increase in knowledge about our roots. However, some individuals have drawn and widely publicized conclusions far beyond those validated by existing data. The claims of critics that DNA evidence disproves traditional LDS teachings about Native American ancestry are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science and ignorance of history and scripture. There is still much we do not know about the genetics of ancient and modern populations, but careful study demonstrates that the teachings of LDS prophets are fully consistent with existing DNA data.

It's from Stewart's FAIR presentation, and in essence agrees with the conclusions of Greg Smith and Ugo Perego. His presentation is here:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

Feel free to fill us in about the "snake oil" in this piece.

[Bunk]

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Obviously I am not thinking of the polemics that everybody at FARMS/FAIR already says. I am thinking of the way he used science to purport something significantly new about DNA and the Book of Mormon -- although it is old news now that Meldrum has taken over the stage. Look again at how Stewart sets up his argument in your link and how Meldrum uses the same pattern:

1) The traditional LDS position is that Native Americans are descendants of Joseph of Egypt.

The Traditional LDS Position

Modern prophets from Joseph Smith to the present have consistently taught that the remnant of the other branch, the Lamanites, are ancestors of modern Native Americans. Joseph Smith, prophet and translator of the Book of Mormon, stated: "The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt."1

2) Mitochondrial DNA shows that nearly all Native Americans descend from one or a few closely related groups -- just like Joseph Smith and the traditional LDS view says they should.

Genetic evidence of one or a few closely-related founding groups serving as the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of Native Americans is fully consistent with traditional LDS views of Native American origin from the Lamanites, Nephites, and Mulekites.

3) Y chromosomal DNA provides evidence for an ancestral link between Native Americans and modern Jews, which is consistent with the Book of Mormon account.

The finding of two dominant Y-chromosome lineages in Amerindian populations is harmonious with traditional LDS view of Lehi and Ishmael representing the principal male ancestors of Native Americans, with Zoram and the Mulekites contributing minor lineages. The discovery of a founding Y chromosome lineage prevalent at a very high frequency among Native Americans corresponding to a founding lineage present in world Jewish populations demonstrates remarkable consistency with the Book of Mormon account.

4) All the DNA evidence fits together with the Book of Mormon except the estimated dates for when the markers came to America -- but we'll just set that lit'l issue aside.

The only part of the data that has not yet been explained in harmony with the Book of Mormon story is the timing. Many scientists date the genetic divergence of modern Native Americans as having arisen from migrations between 10,000 and 15,000 B.C, rather than shortly after 600 B.C. as stated in the Book of Mormon account.

Although consensus science still dates the peopling of the Americas well before the Lehites, dating methods depend highly upon assumptions that may not be universally valid and have a wide margin of error. Many estimates of the time of the settling of the Americas have been shortened greatly in recent years. Time will tell whether current calculations will hold or whether continued revision may be required.

5) The traditional LDS view of Native American ancestry is fully consistent with current genetic evidence.

The recent explosion of molecular DNA data has led to a considerable increase in knowledge about our roots. However, some individuals have drawn and widely publicized conclusions far beyond those validated by existing data. The claims of critics that DNA evidence disproves traditional LDS teachings about Native American ancestry are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science and ignorance of history and scripture. There is still much we do not know about the genetics of ancient and modern populations, but careful study demonstrates that the teachings of LDS prophets are fully consistent with existing DNA data

The model presented by David Stewart is similar to Meldrum's. It is in conflict with the Limited Geography/Limited Genetic models of LDS scientists and more progressive apologists like Greg Smith. Except that unlike Meldrum, Stewart had enough political intuition to avoid calling LDS scientists "apostates" for mindlessly cowpathing to consensus science and not upholding the traditional LDS view. Perhaps this was enough to get him into FAIR and published by the Maxwell Institute? Scientific integrity is maybe not very important after all?

Once again, let me say that I really liked most of Greg Smith's debunking of Rodney Meldrum. I like it because I think scientific integrity is important and people should not be deceived by snake oil salesmen just because they preach the faith.

Have you asked Ugo Perego what he thinks of the scientific elements of David Stewart's article ? Maybe you should check with a trusted expert like him to see if I am right on this.

[Brennin]

Yes, science has clearly disposed of the absurd concept of Native American Jewry in favor of Mesoamerican Jewry. (The latter just makes sense! As if Lehi and company lived in teepees and hunted Buffalo. I mean, come on!) Praise be to FARMS/FAIR for silencing these heretics!

[Sevenbak]

As if Lehi and company lived in teepees and hunted Buffalo. I mean, come on!)

What, you don't think Lehi and company lived in tents?

2 Nephi 2:15

Or Mosiah's people?

Mosiah 2:6

Or Mormon and company.

Mormon 6:4

Only established towns had permanent structures. Much of the Book of Mormon is about traveling groups, and there are many references to tents. Even the "Land Northward" is described first as being occupied by tent dwellers, before the references to cement.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What, you don't think Lehi and company lived in tents?

2 Nephi 2:15

Or Mosiah's people?

Mosiah 2:6

Or Mormon and company.

Mormon 6:4

The craziness of it all. Brennin has just made such a good point. The church is clearly false.

[Sevenbak]

The craziness of it all. Brennin has just made such a good point. The church is clearly false.

I forgot to add that just this week I saw some buffalo up in the forests of the Wasatch mountains, far east of Ogden, from Chopper 5. It's not the first time I've seen then not confined to a plains setting.

Truth is, we just don't know what kind of wild beasts they ate in the wilderness, or what kind of beasts they domesticated, or what their "flocks and herds" consisted of. For all we know, the Jaredites may have very well called the buffalo a Curelom. Doubtful, but still a possibility.

The idea that "teepees and buffalo" is used in such a negative way is a bit unsettling.

[shrff]

Looking forward to reading this. As for Meldrum, he is a true believer in his ideas and his own importance. I've heard it from him personally on more than one occasion. He honestly believes that he has been raised up to do an important work. It is unfortunate that he is merely setting up arguments that critics of the Church will point to as examples of poorly researched ideas that Mormons allegedly believe.

[Calm]

Now I ask, if Meldrum were pushing his material through the FAIR/FARMS system instead of going around it, do you think he would still get this (totally justified) rough treatment? Or would he get a pass, like Stewart did, with maybe an embarrassed roll of the eyes from Greg Smith and others who know better.

There is a significant difference between Dr. Stewart's claims and Mr. Meldrums, the first did not make claims of revelation or make belief in his position a test of worthiness or faithfulness to the prophets.

I don't know about FARMS (though I could make a pretty good guess since I've seen criticism from them on any theory including Mesoamerican ones that lack in accuracy or make use of sources incorrectly, see http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=776 for an example), but I can guarantee that even if the majority of FAIR members agreed with his assessment of the science that he would have been roundly criticized, though perhaps not as extensively (because he would have had to do the science right to get a majority of FAIR members in agreement with him). First and foremost reason FAIR decided to publish their criticism of him (you are not going to find comparable treatment of any other geographical theories that do not make acceptance of their theory into a test of belief in Joseph Smith or others as prophets) is stated quite clearly in their executive summary:

FAIR provides an "Ask the Apologist" service to which people frequently send questions. In recent months many well-meaning individuals have asked why FAIR has not endorsed DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography, a DVD created and promoted by Rodney Meldrum.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/MisguidedS.html#en1">¹ To those unfamiliar with DNA science, population genetics, and the historical facts, the information presented in the DVD may appear plausible and welcome.

After reviewing the material, examining the existing Latter-day Saint and scientific literature, and consulting experts in the relevant fields, FAIR cannot support or endorse Mr. Meldrum's theories or presentation. FAIR has unreservedly concluded the following:

• Mr. Meldrum has attempted to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship, and has used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
• The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the author is unfamiliar with the large body of work that addresses the very topics he seeks to address.
• The DVD plants erroneous concepts and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.

Mr. Meldrum appears sincere in his beliefs about the Book of Mormon. We are worried, however, by the means Mr. Meldrum uses to promote his beliefs. We have therefore concluded that Mr. Meldrum's theories should be publicly addressed. The following sections provide a broad overview of some of the theological problems we see. For a more detailed examination, we commend the full paper, Misguided Zeal and Defense of the Church.

http://www.fairlds.o...MisguidedS.html

My opinion as well....

By presenting his findings as being inspired, etc. he sets up believers in his theories in a completely different way than those who make claims grounded (correctly or incorrectly) on mundane historical or scientific findings. If found to be in error, the second leads to disillusionment in the individual; the first can lead to a much more global disillusionment if the individual does not examine where he went wrong right at the beginning attempting to tie spiritual experiences into a geographical or historical discussion.

Conversations with his followers who are offended by such criticisms supports imo this stance, he has turned what should be an interesting, enjoyable hobby into a test of faith that one fails just by opening up one's mouth to say "but...."

[Fifth Columnist]

Why is the Holy Ghost so unreliable when it comes to determining the geography of the BOM? I personally know people who have studied Meldrum's stuff and felt the HG told them it was true. Why can't they rely on that witness?

Maybe the Holy Ghost just doesn't work when it comes to testable hypotheses such as financial investments and geography. Maybe he is only good for determining the truth of untestable things.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why is the Holy Ghost so unreliable when it comes to determining the geography of the BOM?

Who has argued that the HG has revealed the BoM geography. That I think is the problem. That if God did will it then it would be known.

[Fifth Columnist]

Who has argued that the HG has revealed the BoM geography.

The people who listened to Meldrum and felt the same spirit they felt when they first read the Book of Mormon (I know some of these people).

[Kevin Christensen]

Why is the Holy Ghost so unreliable when it comes to determining the geography of the BOM? I personally know people who have studied Meldrum's stuff and felt the HG told them it was true. Why can't they rely on that witness?

Maybe the Holy Ghost just doesn't work when it comes to testable hypotheses such as financial investments and geography. Maybe he is only good for determining the truth of untestable things.

Why assume that the Holy Ghost is unreliable when all the interpreting is done by people? How much hypothesis testing (studying things out in their minds) have these people done on those topics? And how would a person go about identifying the promptings of the Holy Ghost? I've collected a great many scriptural passages on this topic, which means, I've got some material to test the hypothesis regarding whether the Holy Ghost or the human claiment is more unreliable.

I get the impression from the scriptures that the Holy Ghost is to help guide me to truth, not to bestow instant, effortless, omniscience and financial security, and intellectual freedom from both critical speech and personal effort.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bunk, thanks for the excerpts.

Have you asked Ugo Perego what he thinks of the scientific elements of David Stewart's article ? Maybe you should check with a trusted expert like him to see if I am right on this.

Nope, but given Perego's expertise and the article he just published in the FR, I'll stick with Perego's assessment on the current state of the debate though.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The people who listened to Meldrum and felt the same spirit they felt when they first read the Book of Mormon (I know some of these people).

The problem here is that it would need to come down from the leaders of the church not some random member.

I will quote Kevin below as I think it is very valid.

I get the impression from the scriptures that the Holy Ghost is to help guide me to truth, not to bestow instant, effortless, omniscience and financial security, and intellectual freedom from both critical speech and personal effort.

[Fifth Columnist]

Why assume that the Holy Ghost is unreliable when all the interpreting is done by people? How much hypothesis testing (studying things out in their minds) have these people done on those topics? And how would a person go about identifying the promptings of the Holy Ghost? I've collected a great many scriptural passages on this topic, which means, I've got some material to test the hypothesis regarding whether the Holy Ghost or the human claiment is more unreliable.

I get the impression from the scriptures that the Holy Ghost is to help guide me to truth, not to bestow instant, effortless, omniscience and financial security, and intellectual freedom from both critical speech and personal effort.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, it works like this. These people have had multiple experiences where the Holy Ghost told them the BOM was true, JS was a prophet, etc. etc. They then have the same experience when they listen to Meldrum's presentation. Case closed.

[Fifth Columnist]

The problem here is that it would need to come down from the leaders of the church not some random member.

That's just it. Why can't the Holy Ghost reliably testify to Meldrum's listeners that what he says is true, especially when the experience is the same as when the person first gained a testimony of the BOM, JS, or Jesus? Are there some areas where the Holy Ghost cannot operate (like BOM geography)?

[Doctor Steuss]

A Google search turned up the quotation without documentation on cougarboard.com and on a page created by Robert Marrot of BYU-Idaho's Department of History, Geography, and Political Science.48 Marrot's citation is identical to that provided by Meldrum, and so I suspect this is Meldrum's source. Marrot indicated to me that it was an extemporaneous remark made by President Lee during the question-and-answer session. The remark was precipitated, Marrot explained, by a question about the church's position on birth control."

LOL. Classic.

To deny evolution would be to an evolutionist the same as denying God to a Christian," we are told (p. 118). Meldrum's mental world is apparently uncluttered by such devout Christians as Teilhard de Chardin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Pope John Paul II, Kenneth B. Miller, Simon Conway Morris, and Francis S. Collins

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's just it. Why can't the Holy Ghost reliably testify to Meldrum's listeners that what he says is true, especially when the experience is the same as when the person first gained a testimony of the BOM, JS, or Jesus? Are there some areas where the Holy Ghost cannot operate (like BOM geography)?

It is just it? I just told you why the HG is not involved in Meldrum's stuff. If members listening to his shpill whould just realise that this type of relvelation does not come from random members people would not get caught up in thinking it is the HG.

Is the experiance really the same?

I am not limiting what the HG can and cannot do. But I have learned that there is a patern that the HG uses when revealing certain truths. Some can come to the individual. It all has to do with stewardship. Meldrum does not have the stweradship to claim that the HG has revealed the locations of the BoM lands. He does not speak for the church.

[Fifth Columnist]

It is just it? I just told you why the HG is not involved in Meldrum's stuff. If members listening to his shpill whould just realise that this type of relvelation does not come from random members people would not get caught up in thinking it is the HG.

Okay, so you are saying that there are areas where the Holy Ghost takes a back seat to Church leadership.

Besides, I've got news for you. These people haven't heard of the second Watson letter. They think that what Church leaders said for years and years is true (that Cumorah in New York was the same one as in the BOM, that the people we know as Indians are Lamanites, etc.). Most of them haven't even noticed that Church leaders have recently gone silent about these matters, and, even if they did, silence wouldn't overcome years and years of teachings. So when someone shows up with a theory that is in harmony with what most Church leaders have said and taught for 150 years and they feel the same Holy Ghost feelings they did when they prayed about the BOM, it is iron clad truth.

I am not limiting what the HG can and cannot do. But I have learned that there is a patern that the HG uses when revealing certain truths. Some can come to the individual. It all has to do with stewardship. Meldrum does not have the stweradship to claim that the HG has revealed the locations of the BoM lands. He does not speak for the church.

If I understand Meldrum correctly, he says that the HG will reveal it to the listener as well and that the listener need not rely on Meldrum's experience. Why then is the HG so unreliable in that context?

[Sevenbak]

The Lord reveals truth line upon line.

When GA's have spoken of their feelings and promptings atop Cumorah, for example, it rings true to me.

If someone really prayerfully needed to know if their views matched those of the prophets, would it bother me that they sought a divine affirmation? No. Nor would such a request guarantee an answer. It's the message of the book the Lord wants us to know as truth... not what helps Meldrum sell books and destination vacations.

But as it's precept upon precept, line upon line, such an acknowledgment of elements that have been long taught by the prophets, doesn't mean an endorsement of Meldrum and all of his associated theories.

[Calm]

Lehi hasn't returned the Liahona to Him yet.

Absolutely beautiful.

[Anijen]

The Lord reveals truth line upon line.

Yes, you are correct.

When GA's have spoken of their feelings and promptings atop Cumorah

When GAs speak at the top of Cumorah or even at conference this does not mean everything they utter is gospel truth. Your including "atop Cumorah" implies that everything mentioned is true because it was atop Cumorah. This appeal from authority (this case a site being the authority) is a logical fallacy.

When a General Authority of our church speaks it is usually pleasing to us and we agree it was given to them by revelation. We must note however that the Lord does not write their speeches for them. Some of what they say is subject to their own understanding and interpretation. For example, I think as a child when that future General Authority grew up he recognized the promptings of the Holy Ghost confirming the truthfulness of the Joseph Smith story to him. Nothing wrong with that. But then as the prevailing tradition and assumption at that time was that New York was the site of the last great battle mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That still young GA associated those feelings he received from the Spirit and he transfers that to Cumorah as the last battle scene must be true too because that is what he always assumed.

it rings true to me.

Another subtle appeal to authority again (what Anijen says cant be true because you have had a spiritual confirmation). What "rings true " to you and what rings true to me are irrelevant considering Book of Mormon geography. It is not our place to say what is and what isn't doctrinal truth even if an angel appeared to us. IMO we should keep our spiritual experiences to ourselves and to a select group of family and friends. I do not doubt anyone's experiences I have had many myself. I just am not in-tune enough to go from the Book of Mormon being true to a knowledge of every minute detail inside the Book of Mormon. I do not believe even our leaders are that dialed in either. And, when leaders did make statements in the past (on geography) I believe it was their own interpretation backed by many years of tradition.

The BofM is true yes I'll share that I know this by spiritual experience (though I wont share the details of that validation). The where and whys and hows I don't know. I have based my thoughts on these things mostly by prayerful study and pondering. I am not willing to say I know and if I did I would only share my secular that I have knowledge gleaned and keep the spiritual knowledge to myself or to some close personal friends/family.

I really enjoyed President Eyrings talk on discussing the revelation he receives on where a missionary is called. He would know exactly and perfectly which mission but he did not get revelation like who were his companions suppose to be which area in that mission he will labor, whom that missionary should teach. I believe he could if Heavenly Father wanted to reveal it because I believe he is that dialed in. but it is a time consuming task better suited for the Mission President and that missionary. Same with Book of Mormon geography, I believe that all our General Authorities could know and tell us more details if the Lord wanted us to know.

He is happy telling them to emphasize the purpose of the book and not the details He expects that to come from us, by daily study, pondering, and prayer. When we do have a eureka moment we share the secular side and keep the sacred to ourselves.

Just saying

Anijen steps down off his soapbox.