Rodney Meldrum refuted....again

[livy111us]

I have also heard people say similar "testimonies" about other geography theories as well, that conflict with Meldrums. So is God sending mixed signals? Or are people confusing the Spirit with a false sense of enlightenment?

James E. Talmage said "It matters not to me just where this city or that camp was located. I have met a few of our Book of Mormon students who claim to be able to put their finger upon the map and indicate every land and city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The fact is, the Book of Mormon does not give us precise and definite information whereby we can locate those places with certainty. I encourage and recommend all possible investigation, comparison and research in this matter. The more thinkers, investigators, workers we have in the field the better; but our brethren who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must speak with caution and not declare as demonstrated truths points that are not really proved. There is enough truth in the Book of Mormon to occupy you and me for the rest of our lives, without giving too much time and attention to these debatable matters" (James E. Talmage, General Conference, April 1929, 44).

Why do the "testimonies" on Meldrums site contradict what Prophets and Apostles have said in inspired Temple dedicatory prayers? Remember, these are written before hand after much prayer and thought, and then approved. They are not a prayer that is said off the cuff.

Gordon B. Hinckleys dedicatory prayer at the Guatemala City, Guatemala temple, he stated, "Thou Kind and Gracious Father, our hearts swell with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi... We thank Thee O God, for lifting the scales of darkness which for generations clouded the vision of the descendants of Lehi"

In his March 6, 1999 dedicatory prayer given at the Colonia Juar

[Bunk]

Hi Livy111us,

I guess if I were Rodney Meldrum I would say James Talmage was correct in his day, when the wonders of molecular biology were not known. But now we know so much more and it is time to move on and declare the truth that we now know. In regard to the temple dedicatory prayers, there is no contradiction. Even though the major events told in the Book of Mormon took place in the north eastern US, the blood of Lehi is found throughout indigenous people of central and south America too.

[livy111us]

Coupled with what geneticists are currently saying about Meldrums work, Meldrum does not have much of a case. Someone can keep on going against what the whole field is saying, but that does not make it true. Especially when that person has zero training in that field.

Why do you think that Temple dedicatory prayers in the Great Lakes area say nothing about having the blood of Lehi, or any other hints?

[Sevenbak]

Editing to move this response to the other geography thread, I mixed them up.

[Sevenbak]

I have also heard people say similar "testimonies" about other geography theories as well, that conflict with Meldrums. So is God sending mixed signals? Or are people confusing the Spirit with a false sense of enlightenment?

James E. Talmage said "It matters not to me just where this city or that camp was located. I have met a few of our Book of Mormon students who claim to be able to put their finger upon the map and indicate every land and city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The fact is, the Book of Mormon does not give us precise and definite information whereby we can locate those places with certainty. I encourage and recommend all possible investigation, comparison and research in this matter. The more thinkers, investigators, workers we have in the field the better; but our brethren who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must speak with caution and not declare as demonstrated truths points that are not really proved. There is enough truth in the Book of Mormon to occupy you and me for the rest of our lives, without giving too much time and attention to these debatable matters" (James E. Talmage, General Conference, April 1929, 44).

Why do the "testimonies" on Meldrums site contradict what Prophets and Apostles have said in inspired Temple dedicatory prayers? Remember, these are written before hand after much prayer and thought, and then approved. They are not a prayer that is said off the cuff.

Gordon B. Hinckleys dedicatory prayer at the Guatemala City, Guatemala temple, he stated, "Thou Kind and Gracious Father, our hearts swell with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi... We thank Thee O God, for lifting the scales of darkness which for generations clouded the vision of the descendants of Lehi"

In his March 6, 1999 dedicatory prayer given at the Colonia Juar

[Bunk]

Coupled with what geneticists are currently saying about Meldrums work, Meldrum does not have much of a case. Someone can keep on going against what the whole field is saying, but that does not make it true. Especially when that person has zero training in that field.

He gets around this by positing a conspiracy of experts against the truth. You know, like any creationist.

Why do you think that Temple dedicatory prayers in the Great Lakes area say nothing about having the blood of Lehi, or any other hints?

I think it is obviously because today most people in the Great Lakes area are of white european descent. No doubt if the temple were built to serve an Indian reservation in the northeast (or anywhere else), they would talk about the blood of Lehi. By the way, since you seem to have this material on hand, what do they say in the Pacific Islands?

[Sevenbak]

He gets around this by positing a conspiracy of experts against the truth. You know, like any creationist.

I think it is obviously because today most people in the Great Lakes area are of white european descent. No doubt if the temple were built to serve an Indian reservation in the northeast (or anywhere else), they would talk about the blood of Lehi. By the way, since you seem to have this material on hand, what do they say in the Pacific Islands?

President Kimball's patriarchal blessing said something along the lines of he being a great servant to the sons of Lehi... Kimball was specific about who they were, from S. America to Alaska and everything in between, including the Pacific Isles.

Edited to add the specifics of President Kimball's Patriarcle Blessing, which he quoted on several occasions, including temple dedicatory trips:

"You will preach the gospel to many people, but more especially to the Lamanites, for the Lord will bless you with the gift of the language and power to portray before that people the gospel in great plainness."

And what he said about Native Americans:

"Who are the Lamanites? The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. . . .

Lamanites share a royal heritage. I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. . . . There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 596).

[Sevenbak]

Why do you think that Temple dedicatory prayers in the Great Lakes area say nothing about having the blood of Lehi, or any other hints?

Because the blood of Lehi was rounded up and driven off or scattered by the Gentiles, just like the BoM said would happen. Temples are for the people that use them.

But, there is a hint...albeit a (ahem) news source.

The Church News, in describing the the Toronto Temple Dedication, wrote this:

"Not far from the "land of Cumorah," in a quiet, peaceful setting across the U.S.-Canadian border in metropolitan Toronto, the Church's 44th operating temple was dedicated Aug. 25-27."

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59033/Toronto-Ontario-Temple.html

[Sevenbak]

Yes, you are correct.

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.

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.

I'll respond on the right thread this time.

I'm not implying it was true because it was atop Cumorah, I'm saying prophets whom I sustain as seers and revelators revealed their thoughts and impressions while atop Cumorah. That's a big difference.

Again, I know of no GA's who hold to a LGT. I do appeal to their authority, for the last 200 years minus a bit. I just don't see that as a negative.

I loved P. Eyrings talk too. It also rings true.

And I don't mind your soapbox. Just make sure it's cleaned out so as to not leave any residue on my geographical map.

[livy111us]

If anyone has a case about Book of Mormon geography, using past Prophets statements, its the Hemispheric Geography Theorists. I was not using the quotes to show a LGT alone, but that there are inspired documents which place it in Central America. My theory of geography starts in Mesoamerica, but stretches up to the Hopewells from "northward" migrations. So I don't have a problem Lehis seed being north, but Meldrum doesn't have much to say about Lehite blood being in Central America....all over Central America.

Land of Cumorah, of course it is the land of Cumorah.

Here are some statements about The Book of Mormon and the polys

http://fi.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Polynesians/Statements

[Sevenbak]

If anyone has a case about Book of Mormon geography, using past Prophets statements, its the Hemispheric Geography Theorists. I was not using the quotes to show a LGT alone, but that there are inspired documents which place it in Central America. My theory of geography starts in Mesoamerica, but stretches up to the Hopewells from "northward" migrations. So I don't have a problem Lehis seed being north, but Meldrum doesn't have much to say about Lehite blood being in Central America....all over Central America.

Land of Cumorah, of course it is the land of Cumorah.

Here are some statements about The Book of Mormon and the polys

http://fi.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Polynesians/Statements

I must have misread your intent. My apologies.

You and I share the same view. I think we're in the minority on this site though, but not the minority among Latter Day Saints.

As to "land of Cumorah", this is the primary language used by Mormon to describe their migration and multiple year flight at the end. The Hill Cumorah only comes into play at the end, but the land was much bigger.

While we're at it, I've never understood why the LGT folks need to have a huge mountain for battle purposes. It's not an advantage at all, given that Mormon's men camped "round about" the hill, not on top. They would be exhausted having to go up and down before and after each day of battle.

It was for strategic command, not primarily for fighting. In fact, some of the statements of the Brethren are very specific as to the local, that the fighting was in the valley on the West side of Cumorah, primarily.

More things that make you go hmmmmm....

[Bob Crockett]

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

[Sevenbak]

However, in the quote below, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (at the time, President of the Q12, the Church Historian, the last GA to hold that position until Elder Marlin Jensen) points out that those who hold to the Mesoamerican view are weak in the faith. So it isn't like the Mesoamerican view has just crept in amongst the Brethren; they've discussed it and disposed of it.

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

This was published in what would later become a Priesthood Manual. It is still in publication; the Deseret Book website lists it as "authoritative," and Doctrines of Salvation is one of the most frequently-cited GA treatises in General Conference. So, here we have a Church publication, a priesthood manual nonetheless, disposing of the LGT which was in currency at the time and calling those who adhere to it weak in the faith. I don't necessarily go so far as to call LGT adherents weak in the faith, but Pres. Smith's brief against them is interesting.

Apostle Mark E. Peterson speaking in General Conference, said basically the same thing. I'll quote it here, but as my posts in the past on this subject have been construed as being snarky, I'll let his words speak for themselves. He's even more overbearing that I would imagine, given his last sentence.

"I do not believe that we should accept every theory advanced by men of science as though it were true. These men change their minds much too often for that. I do not believe that we should give credence to the highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America, and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates. I do not believe we can be good Latter-Day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith."

Mark E. Peterson, The Improvement Era, 123 Annual Conference of the Church, April 4-6, 1953; pp. 83-84.

Edited to add that since a LGT is taught by some at BYU, I don't think that makes them inferior Latter Day Saints, just that the Church encourages all kinds of secular knowledge. I just don't think we should rely on the latter before the former.

[Calm]

So it isn't like the Mesoamerican view has just crept in amongst the Brethren; they've discussed it and disposed of it.

Then why was Sorenson's work on Mesoamerica allowed to be published in the Ensign in Sep and Oct 84:

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

Also mentioned in DCP's article in 2000: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=741f6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[Sevenbak]

Then why was Sorenson's work on Mesoamerica allowed to be published in the Ensign in Sep and Oct 84:

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

Also mentioned in DCP's article in 2000: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=741f6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Sorenson had a lot more than just a 2 cumorah theory in his Ensign papers. That part was relatively small.

He has a lot of good work about Mesoamerica, and the Church has been consistent in teaching a Nephite homeland in Meso, just not all BoM lands.

And why is the allowing it to be the Ensign the end all, considering the actual words of prophets on the subject?

[Calm]

Sorenson had a lot more than just a 2 cumorah theory in his Ensign papers. That part was relatively small.

He has a lot of good work about Mesoamerica, and the Church has been consistent in teaching a Nephite homeland in Meso, just not all BoM lands.

And why is the allowing it to be the Ensign the end all, considering the actual words of prophets on the subject?

Whether it was small or not, it could have been easily edited out by request to portray a more neutral geography. Are you suggesting that the church leaders do not pay close attention to what goes into the Ensign?

I am not suggesting everything that goes into the magazine is doctrinal, but I have strong doubts that there is much that goes in there that contradicts actual doctrine.

[Sevenbak]

Whether it was small or not, it could have been easily edited out by request to portray a more neutral geography. Are you suggesting that the church leaders do not pay close attention to what goes into the Ensign?

I am not suggesting everything that goes into the magazine is doctrinal, but I have strong doubts that there is much that goes in there that contradicts actual doctrine.

Well, considering within the time frame of about 5 years of this Ensign series, we have at least 3 Apostles, Elder McConkie, Elder Romney, and Elder Peterson, all stating in the Ensign that the final battle was in New York.

So no, I don't think the issue is relevant to the purpose of the Ensign.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am not suggesting everything that goes into the magazine is doctrinal, but I have strong doubts that there is much that goes in there that contradicts actual doctrine.

Precisely.

If it were official doctrine of the Church that the Cumorah of the final battles was in New York, I'm very confident that a differing opinion would not have been published in the Church's official magazine.

Though there has been a long-standing and commonly-held opinion on the matter among both Church leaders and ordinary members, there is no official or binding doctrine of the Church on the subject. The publication of John Sorenson's articles in the Ensign, and of his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by the Church's publishing house, makes that fact clear and, in my judgment, places it beyond any reasonable dispute.

[poulsenll]

Well, considering within the time frame of about 5 years of this Ensign series, we have at least 3 Apostles, Elder McConkie, Elder Romney, and Elder Peterson, all stating in the Ensign that the final battle was in New York.

So no, I don't think the issue is relevant to the purpose of the Ensign.

Sevenbak

I like you do not believe that all activity related to the Nephites and Lamnaites occurred in the limited area proposed by Sorenson and others but based on the text of the BofM itself, most of what is described there fits best in a location centered on Mesoamerica. Although many equate the Jaredites with the Olmec culture, this does not jibe well with the geographic feqatures described in the Book of Ether. These features are best fit into an area in northern Veracruz rather than the Papaloapan basin. These same descriptions would place the Hill Ramah much further north than proposed by Palmer and Sorenson. I doubt if it was as far north as New York however. The relation ship of the Jaredite lands with the narrow neck and the east sea, just dont fit the area around Palmyra. The hill in New York does not appear high enough to allow for the following description of the aftermath of the great battle of destruction.

Mormon 6:

11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even aall my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a bfew who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

16 And my soul was rent with aanguish, because of the slain of my people, and I cried:

It is also erroneaous to describe the battle at Cumorah as the last great battle because the Nephites were not completely destroyed until later.

Mormon 8:

2 And now it came to pass that after the agreat and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the bLamanites, until they were all destroyed.

3 And my father also was killed by them, and I even aremain balone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father. And whether they will slay me, I know not.

[CA Steve]

Precisely.

If it were official doctrine of the Church that the Cumorah of the final battles was in New York, I'm very confident that a differing opinion would not have been published in the Church's official magazine.

Though there has been a long-standing and commonly-held opinion on the matter among both Church leaders and ordinary members, there is no official or binding doctrine of the Church on the subject. The publication of John Sorenson's articles in the Ensign, and of his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by the Church's publishing house, makes that fact clear and, in my judgment, places it beyond any reasonable dispute.

Not to pull a Bill Clinton here but what does 'it' mean? Which fact are you referring to that is placed beyond reasonable doubt? That there is no official doctrine from the Church on the subject or that a differing opinion would not be published in an official church magazine.

[Daniel Peterson]

there is no official or binding doctrine of the Church on the subject = that fact = it

[Bob Crockett]

I don't doubt that the Church has no official position on whether Cumorah is Cumorah is Ramah. The Church doesn't have an official position on many things we nonetheless hear about over the General Conference pulpit, stake conferences and ward meetings.

But, given the fact that a literalist believer in the Church will and must say that there was a real Ramah, a real Cumorah (where the plates where buried) and a real Cumorah (where the plates were found), we find ourselves in a collision course with many authoritative statements that say that Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah are all one. Not only are these statements authoritative, but they call into question those who believe to the contrary.

Where several authoritative statements question the belief of those who belief to the contrary, one asks whether this is unique in the Church? I suppose one could point to equivalent discussions about evolution and, before that, the Adam God theory. But, here, the defense of the LGT is not really a defense at all.

So, these authoritative statements (Q12 President Smith) are more than just the type of milquetoast statements we hear from those who say it isn't important (Elder Lee).

And then there is the substantial -- very substantial -- ink spilled to establish a Mesoamerican location for a Cumorah. This, despite authoritative statements to the contrary and milquetoast statements of equivocation.

And then there's the view that many of us have that Sorenson's book is sheer speculation, a view I had when I read it when it first came out and the view I've continued to have every time I've read it since.

[Bob Crockett]

dupe

[Sevenbak]

Precisely.

If it were official doctrine of the Church that the Cumorah of the final battles was in New York, I'm very confident that a differing opinion would not have been published in the Church's official magazine.

Though there has been a long-standing and commonly-held opinion on the matter among both Church leaders and ordinary members, there is no official or binding doctrine of the Church on the subject. The publication of John Sorenson's articles in the Ensign, and of his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by the Church's publishing house, makes that fact clear and, in my judgment, places it beyond any reasonable dispute.

I believe that's because geography isn't considered doctrine. The resulting teachings that occurred at said geography however, is.

But as I said earlier, the Ensign's purpose isn't to teach geographical 'doctrine'.

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak

I like you do not believe that all activity related to the Nephites and Lamnaites occurred in the limited area proposed by Sorenson and others but based on the text of the BofM itself, most of what is described there fits best in a location centered on Mesoamerica. Although many equate the Jaredites with the Olmec culture, this does not jibe well with the geographic feqatures described in the Book of Ether. These features are best fit into an area in northern Veracruz rather than the Papaloapan basin. These same descriptions would place the Hill Ramah much further north than proposed by Palmer and Sorenson. I doubt if it was as far north as New York however. The relation ship of the Jaredite lands with the narrow neck and the east sea, just dont fit the area around Palmyra. The hill in New York does not appear high enough to allow for the following description of the aftermath of the great battle of destruction.

It is also erroneaous to describe the battle at Cumorah as the last great battle because the Nephites were not completely destroyed until later.

We understand those passages differently.