Mound Builders

[livy111us]

Joseph taught a Hemispheric and migratory setting. Meldrum is nuts.

I would have to agree with you. Joseph Smith was not partial to ANY Book of Mormon geography theory. ANYONE who claims that he only taught their view of BOM geography is either ignorant of his teachings, or outright lying.

[Sevenbak]

I would have to agree with you. Joseph Smith was not partial to ANY Book of Mormon geography theory. ANYONE who claims that he only taught their view of BOM geography is either ignorant of his teachings, or outright lying.

Or relying to much on intellectualism. Another thing we're warned against.

[mapman]

Meldrum's geography also ignores much of the text of the Book of Mormon. If you can get John Sorenson's Book of Mormon geography sourcebook or Mormon's Map, you can figure out for yourself places that are more likely to fit the internal map of the Book of Mormon. The internal geography of the Book of Mormon looks nothing like anywhere in the US.

[cinepro]

It appears Rodney Meldrum may be guilty of nothing more than believing that "by the power of the Holy Ghost, he can know the truth of all things", that spiritual knowledge is more valid than scientific or temporal knowledge (although science can be useful for supporting spiritual knowledge), and that LDS Apostles and Prophets were inspired when making certain public claims about events that took place anciently in America.

Since these principles are commonly taught to LDS, I can't fault him if these are the foundation for his theories.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If those don't answer you questions (which they should), here are more articles on the subject http://www.bmaf.org/node/323 with this one being my favorite: http://www.bmaf.org/node/243

If there were no other issue but this one, this one alone is enough to dicredit a North American setting for the BoM

35. The Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from east [sea] unto the west sea, and thus had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south that they could occupy no lands farther north (Alma 22: 33). These statements are meaningless in North America.

This only works in Centeral America.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would have to agree with you. Joseph Smith was not partial to ANY Book of Mormon geography theory. ANYONE who claims that he only taught their view of BOM geography is either ignorant of his teachings, or outright lying.

The only thing one can say for sure, after reading all of JS' understanding of potential BoM geographical locations is that JS had no idea were they were. It appears that he learned of things in various parts of the America's and then came up with possible locations.

[kolipoki09]

It appears Rodney Meldrum may be guilty of nothing more than believing that "by the power of the Holy Ghost, he can know the truth of all things", that spiritual knowledge is more valid than scientific or temporal knowledge (although science can be useful for supporting spiritual knowledge), and that LDS Apostles and Prophets were inspired when making certain public claims about events that took place anciently in America.

Since these principles are commonly taught to LDS, I can't fault him if these are the foundation for his theories.

So because you disagree with Don Parry's theories on a global flood, you probably shouldn't find fault with him either then. I'll agree that the principle of believing Moroni's promise is central to LDS doctrine, but when Meldrum imposes his personal revelation upon myself and others and accuses me of apostasy for not following him....I think I can find fault in him.

[TruthSeeker24]

If Joseph Smith meant for his statements to be authoritative and binding on the Church, then we would consider them to be "doctrine" or "absolute truth." Yet not everything a prophet has said is considered doctrine. While I don't know what your beliefs are among the Apostolic United Brethren, in the LDS Church we don't (or at least shouldn't) believe that our prophets are infallible. As Joseph Smith noted, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." Did Joseph have a geography revealed to him by the power of the Holy Ghost? He may have. But when he never mentioned publicly that he did. Meldrum would have you believe that Joseph Smith did in fact have the geography revealed to him, and that Meldrum is "restoring" that idea through his own for-profit research.

You're wrong in your assertion that the LDS Church believes in prophetic infallibility.

What stone monuments are you referring to that "directly contradict the buildings that the Nephites built?" I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the buildings described in the Book of Mormon could not have existed in Central America? I would suggest on good authority that Meldrum is no more than marginally familiar with MesoAmerican archaeology. FAIR has dealt with every single quote that Meldrum uses in his DVD. Feel free to review them here:

http://en.fairmormon...raphy_%28DVD%29

There are literally hundreds of resources by reputable LDS scholars (rather than those that claim to be but aren't) that address the DNA issue.

http://en.fairmormon...on/DNA_evidence

Yes, I know that the Church does not believe a prophet to be infallible. My question was in regards to the statement of "thus saith the Lord" only.

[kolipoki09]

Yes, I know that the Church does not believe a prophet to be infallible. My question was in regards to the statement of "thus saith the Lord" only.

You're going to have to be more specific MoPyg. Ultimately, what constitutes the binding doctrine of the Church is what has either been canonized or treated in official statements by members of the First Presidency. Off-the-cuff second-hand comments recorded in journals may be insightful for the reconstruction of certain aspects of history, Meldrum's use of these sources and ignoring other statements has been detrimental toward his theory. Like the children who would not and could not see the "emperor's new clothes," so it is with Meldrum. He's convinced himself that no other people can be right regardless of the soundness of their arguments and has made quite a profitable venture for himself through fraudulent means. I would recommend researching FAIR's website for more information about Book of Mormon scholarship and its relation to Church doctrine.

[cinepro]

I'll agree that the principle of believing Moroni's promise is central to LDS doctrine, but when Meldrum imposes his personal revelation upon myself and others and accuses me of apostasy for not following him....I think I can find fault in him.

When did Meldrum accuse you of "apostasy"?

[kolipoki09]

When did Meldrum accuse you of "apostasy"?

The first time? September of this year.

I quote a portion:

[The only thing left for you is]...to come right out and deny that the Book of Mormon prophecies state (no less than 7 times) that there WILL be a remnant of the House of Israel (their "seed") remaining on the Promised Land in the latter days. I wonder how he [ugo Perego] works his way around those prophecies in order to make his claim that there should never be expected any physical DNA evidence in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon?....I suppose those prophetic words from the Book of Mormon can be ignored along with the terms 'horses' (really meaning tapirs), 'North' (really meaning east), and 'steel swords' (really meaning wooden clubs with embedded obsidian) as published by the Mesoamerican devotees of FARMS/FAIR/BMAF. If the words in the book don't fit, just bend them until they change into another word/idea entirely. Such is the life of devotion to Mesoamerica as the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon. Along with these words these good brethren [virtually anyone associated with FAIR or FARMS] can also ignore Joseph Smith's written statements such as the Wentworth Letter, the American Revivalist Account, the Zelph Accounts, and his letter to Emma while on Zion's camp march wherein HE claimed to have received revelatory knowledge clearly indicative of his North American understanding of the sacred grounds of the Nephites. All this to protect and preserve the concocted sacred theories of Mesoamerica as the 'nation above all other nations' where the New Jerusalem will be built and where the gospel must have been restored...oops, those would be talking about the United States of America.

There you have it Cinepro. According to Rod Meldrum, I'm on my way toward denying the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon because I refuse to accept his fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. I'm supposedly ignoring Joseph Smith's revelations in favor of a "concocted" theory about Joseph Smith's revelations. I'm an apostate for not literally believing that every word of the Book of Mormon describes a literal objective equivalent rather than figurative. Before even reading Greg Smith's review of his book, Meldrum said this:

I am aware that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship has reviewed my book, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA, however I would hardly call it 'peer' review, but more accurately 'adversarial' or 'hostile' review. The illustrious and venerable Louis Midgley has given me the warning of the upcoming review several weeks ago. Dr. Smith has surely outdone himself in writing 144 pages of text to refute such an 'uneducated' neophyte such as myself. I am honored that he would stoop all the way down to my level in, as Louis Midgley put it, "blowing me away."

Even after Smith's review was published, Meldrum didn't take interest that actual scholars had reviewed his work. The fact that his work is demonstrably flawed isn't stopping him from continuing repetitive a priori attacks on FAIR and FARMS.

I have not had time to make more than a passing glance at it [smith's review], but I will be very interested to know the viewpoints. Louis keeps stating that this "Some of your (my) tithing money at work" for which I wonder what his purpose is in drawing attention to this? Any idea? Why is he making such a point of this? Just wondering.

That was two months ago. I never received a response after that. As I've noted to others, Meldrum's work is a sort of hybrid between Cleon Skousen and Kent Hovind. I even discussed Smith's review with a professor here at BYU-Idaho who agreed with Smith's treatment of Meldrum's work, though he felt Smith may have been "selective" in his chosen statements from the First Presidency related to Organic Evolution.

This is a brief overview of my experience with Meldrum. Its not that I'm ignoring Joseph Smith's statements. In fact, I've paid a great deal of attention to them. Yet when you have a man who has claimed more than once that he had the BoM Geography revealed to him and that God has given his stamp of approval in his for-profit venture of giving tours and spreading fraudulent information about the history of the American peoples and the world, then I think he's going too far.

I'm sure he's well-meaning, or at least was in the beginning. Here all of these archaeologists and anthropologists were pointing toward Mesoamerica....but what about the Great Lakes? Why not along the route for the Zion's Camp march. Joseph Smith offered a few speculative statements about locations of BoM events....and since he was the prophet they must be true....since we sustained him as "prophet, seer, and revelator" how could he be wrong?

I imagine Joseph Smith looked at Book of Mormon geography in the same way modern day prophets have looked at the Garden Tomb. Yes, it looks nice and could have been the place, so ideally they'd like to think that it is. The same goes for those who have climbed the slopes of Mt. Horeb (Sinai) believing that they were walking in the footsteps of Moses, or those who stood at the various proposed locations of Calvary. Its never going to be an open/shut case for BoM Geography. But I think there is a way to approach it rationally without tossing competent science out the window, replacing it with pseudo-science and claiming that scholars at BYU are "ignorant of the facts."

[hagoth7]

The first time? September of this year.

I quote a portion:

...There you have it Cinepro. According to Rod Meldrum, I'm on my way toward denying the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon because I refuse to accept his fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. I'm supposedly ignoring Joseph Smith's revelations in favor of a "concocted" theory about Joseph Smith's revelations. I'm an apostate for not literally believing that every word of the Book of Mormon describes a literal objective equivalent rather than figurative. Before even reading Greg Smith's review of his book, Meldrum said this:

Your honor, if I may approach the bench, I think you've completely misread/misrepresented what he said.

Because what you claim he said, and what the citation actually says are two completely different things.

He isn't saying you're on your way to denying the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

He simply said that he doesn't believe you've seriously considered a few of the promises in that book.

Whether you have or not is perhaps even a separate matter.

Please don't twist what he said into a personal attack on you.

(It only expands the hard feelings.)

[hagoth7]

It appears Rodney Meldrum may be guilty of nothing more than believing that "by the power of the Holy Ghost, he can know the truth of all things", that spiritual knowledge is more valid than scientific or temporal knowledge (although science can be useful for supporting spiritual knowledge), and that LDS Apostles and Prophets were inspired when making certain public claims about events that took place anciently in America.

Since these principles are commonly taught to LDS, I can't fault him if these are the foundation for his theories.

[Anijen]

Cinepro staes,

It appears Rodney Meldrum may be guilty of nothing more than believing that "by the power of the Holy Ghost, he can know the truth of all things", that spiritual knowledge is more valid than scientific or temporal knowledge (although science can be useful for supporting spiritual knowledge), and that LDS Apostles and Prophets were inspired when making certain public claims about events that took place anciently in America.

it was more than just "nothing more" Meldrum was publicizing his alleged personal revelation as if he had the authority to speak for the church and then if called upon it, the questioner is made to feel like an apostate and chastised for his lack of faith for not following the prophet.

Since these principles are commonly taught to LDS, I can't fault him if these are the foundation for his theories.

I can not fault him either if that is all he was doing but that isn't all that he (Meldrum) was doing. It has never been okay to expound those theories (backed by personal revelation or not) as church backed and accepted doctrine of the church, this is what Kolipoki was referring to. I understand and have seen Cinepro throw many a seemingly innocent provocative barb into conversations and then sit back and watch the contention grow. He is getting very good at it.

Hagoth loved it by giving us this icon and then later saying this;

Your honor, if I may approach the bench, I think you've completely misread/misrepresented what he said.

I think it is you Hagoth who misread cinepro, which is easy to do, like I mentioned earlier he (cinepro) is getting good at those controversial barbs that seem so innocent. and it was Kolipoki who was misrepresented after all it was kolipoki who had the conversation with meldrum, not hagoth or cinepro, I bet hagoth wasn't even there to know what kolipoki and meldrum were saying to each other.

Because what you claim he said, and what the citation actually says are two completely different things.

Hmm, lets see someone who wasn't there is claiming to know better the conversation quoted by the person who was having the conversation. Hmm, sounds like mind-reading to me. let me set this strait, here is some of the direct quotes from Kolipoki;

"I've had Rod lie enough to me personally"

"when Meldrum imposes his personal revelation upon myself and others and accuses me of apostasy for not following him"

"That was two months ago. I never received a response after that"

It is clear here that Kolipoki has had a personal conversation with Brother Meldrum. I have also seen his (Meldrum's) presentations and although I didn't raise my hand or speak up, to me he seemed very condescending to anyone who did not subscribe to his theory, the crowd also seemed to be stacked with a few ringers to answer his supposed rhetorical questions and it is a fact that he has used bad DNA science and still shows on his dvd forged items to back up his theory.

He isn't saying you're on your way to denying the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

that is what it seems like he said to me, I wasn't there perhaps you were.

He simply said that he doesn't believe you've seriously considered a few of the promises in that book.

meh, and how does he say this? From my observations he does it very condescendingly and with the tone, how dare you question my personal revelation ...

Please don't twist what he said into a personal attack on you.

Like I said I wasn't there and I wouldn't recognize kolipoki if I was, but it seems kolipoki was there and I would think he could be the better judge to say if it was a personal attack or not.

(It only expands the hard feelings.)

well, yeah it does. How would you feel if a faith you believed in and someone told you, you were liken to an apostate?

I have no objection with Meldrum making money with his tour company. I did have a problem when at church meeting houses he would sell his dvd's etc. It seemed a little too much like instead of doing a faith promoting fireside it was a business venture. But I don't worry about that now that Brother Meldrum is no longer allowed to give his firesides in church buildings.

I have no problem with former GA Elder Hartman R Jr. believing in Meldrum's theory but it does rub me the wrong way when he is seemingly being used as a tool to say hey I have a general authority it must be true...

I have a big problem with his using forged artifacts to support his model. It really makes me question his motives, I mean ask yourself why would someone use fake artifacts? I don't know enough about DNA to question his science but I know some very good experts who have and I don't doubt their expertise.

Just my two cents

Anijen

[TruthSeeker24]

You're going to have to be more specific MoPyg.

Alright, that sounds more along the lines of what my interpretation has been in regards to the Church recieving the words of the "one man." Sorry for the slight "off topic" divergence there.

Anyways...in regards to this whole ordeal...as I've said before...I am willing to believe that Rod's theories are incorrect and "un-scholarly" assuming that I find his theories to be out of alignment with Joseph Smith's teachings. I will say that I stand with Rod in his belief that Joseph Smith knew more than any one of us could possibly know...and I think we as Mormons in general are quickly losing our sense of spirituality and relationship with God in favor of a more "intellectual" approach at things. I do believe in using your brain...but pure intellectualism eliminates faith in my opinion just as pure objectivity eliminates passion. The fact is, we don't have enough evidence to prove just about anything when it comes to religion...like Joseph Smith seeing God and Christ for example. A lot of it lies in pure faith and the necessity to rely upon witnesses of that faith. Anyways...just some more thoughts there

[cinepro]

The first time? September of this year.

I quote a portion:

I'm sorry, but saying someone believes a "concocted theory" of Book of Mormon geography is not the same as saying they are apostatizing. Since apostasy is an ex-communicable offense, are you suggesting that Meldrum believes believers in the Mesoamerican geography are in danger of being excommunicated? I think you're overinflating what he really said.

[cinepro]

it was more than just "nothing more" Meldrum was publicizing his alleged personal revelation as if he had the authority to speak for the church

I'm not sure I understand. Suppose I were sitting in the Tabernacle and a member of the first presidency stands and says that the final battle of the Book of Mormon took place in upperstate-New York.

If I feel the spirit and I firmly believe what he says, without a shadow of a doubt, what mistake have I made? If I believe the Church-published words of a member of the first presidency given in General Conference, is that not "faith"?

Then, if another member of the Church told me that no, this event did not take place in upperstate New York but instead thousands of miles away in Mesoamerica, what is the proper course of action? Do I stick with my faith in the Apostle's words, spoken over the pulpit in General Conference? Or do I go with the theories of scholars?

[Sevenbak]

I'm not sure I understand. Suppose I were sitting in the Tabernacle and a member of the first presidency stands and says that the final battle of the Book of Mormon took place in upperstate-New York.

If I feel the spirit and I firmly believe what he says, without a shadow of a doubt, what mistake have I made? If I believe the Church-published words of a member of the first presidency given in General Conference, is that not "faith"?

Then, if another member of the Church told me that no, this event did not take place in upperstate New York but instead thousands of miles away in Mesoamerica, what is the proper course of action? Do I stick with my faith in the Apostle's words, spoken over the pulpit in General Conference? Or do I go with the theories of scholars?

As to the former, it has happened, more than once.

Here's the latest mention of it in Conference, that I can find.

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the

[hagoth7]

It has never been okay to expound those theories (backed by personal revelation or not) as church backed and accepted doctrine of the church

On the contrary, he makes it quite clear that the things he teaches are not accepted.

I think it is you Hagoth who misread cinepro

? Are you aware that you've conflated two separate posts? In post #37, I was specifically replying to Koli's post #36, in which he specifically cited Meldrum as saying:

[snip]...to come right out and deny that the Book of Mormon prophecies state (no less than 7 times) that there WILL be a remnant of the House of Israel (their "seed") remaining on the Promised Land in the latter days...[snip] I suppose those prophetic words from the Book of Mormon can be ignored...[snip]If the words in the book don't fit...[snip]

That said, feel free to present anything cinepro said that you feel I've misread.

...it was kolipoki who had the conversation with meldrum, not hagoth or cinepro, I bet hagoth wasn't even there to know what kolipoki and meldrum were saying to each other.

? I actually don't claim to have been there. I do, however, claim to have read Koli's post #36 somewhat thoroughly, where he specifically quoted Meldrum.

Hmm, lets see someone who wasn't there is claiming to know better the conversation quoted by the person who was having the conversation.

? By my reading, the portion of the conversation relayed to us in post #36 simply doesn't support the allegations in that post. While I can see how Koli might choose to believe he was called an apostate in that passage - the passage itself doesn't seem to say of him what he chooses to infer.

Hmm, sounds like mind-reading to me.

? Nothing more than post-#36 reading.

let me set this strait, here is some of the direct quotes from Kolipoki;

"I've had Rod lie enough to me personally..."

From my perspective, Koli hasn't yet supported the claim that Meldrum called him an apostate.

I see no need to migrate to unsupported allegations.

I have a big problem with his using forged artifacts to support his model. It really makes me question his motives, I mean ask yourself why would someone use fake artifacts?

I have a better question: is there reason to believe he thinks those artifacts are fake?

Not having spent five minutes on that issue, I don't have an opinion.

But for example, is the Vinland Map fake? The answer depends entirely on which research team you ask.

[Anijen]

cinepro

I'm not sure I understand. Suppose I were sitting in the Tabernacle and a member of the first presidency stands and says thatthe final battle of the Book of Mormon took place in upperstate-New York. If I feel the spirit and I firmly believe what he says, without a shadow of a doubt, what mistake have I made? If I believe the Church-published words of a member of the first presidency given in General Conference, is that not "faith"? Then, if another member of the Church told me that no, this event did not take place in upperstate New York but instead thousands of miles away in Mesoamerica, what is the proper course of action?

That was not my argument, I am saying that it is wrong for a member of the church to publicize their personal revelations as if he spoke for the church and if one disagrees with him to publicly criticize him and in condescending tones imply his membership is weak or he is close to apostasy. Back to your scenario, in fact the church has come out and stated that the church holds no officially view of where the final battle took place or of any other Book of Mormon location. The opinions of a General authority quoted over the pulpit do not override that official view. I have no problem with Meldrum

[hagoth7]

Yes, both experts in our own church (such as James E Talmage) and experts outside the church have proven that many of the artifacts used in Meldrum' dvds are fakes.

Your response doesn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again.

Is there reason to believe that Meldrum believes the artifacts to be fake?

[Sevenbak]

It really does not matter the date if it was 1975 or yesterday, what is opined over the pulpit by one GA does not override the official church position. Besides President Romney does not say this is the position of the church. I too can bring up more recent quotes from President Hinckley that say that Mexico was the land of Lehi and his children, this directly contradicts Meldrum

[Anijen]

We've been down this road before. The GA's have not supported Meldrums model, or the Sorenson/Clark LGT model. They've been pretty consistent in teaching a Hemispheric model.

Well since the latest you could come up with is 1975 I wouldn't use the word consistent. But yeah we've been down this road.

Hagoth7

Is there reason to believe that Meldrum believes the artifacts to be fake?

Yes he knows they are fake, and in his videos he does not say they are real but uses their images to support his videos, which IMO is still a form of deceiving. So yes he knows they are fake, yes he continues to use their images, one must ask why he does this? I can only think of a few here is one reason IMO, his theory is weak and he knows it, so he uses them in a clever visual way to suggest there is credible evidence.

[hagoth7]

Yes he knows they are fake...

CFR Please.

[Sevenbak]

Well since the latest you could come up with is 1975 I wouldn't use the word consistent. But yeah we've been down this road.

Nice try, but were talking strictly about F. Presidency GC talks. If you include the correlated manuals of the Church, then the Institute manual used through 2009 teaches a New York final battle site.

My, I wish they'd stop teaching our youth such blasphemies. ;-)

Yeah, 180 years is pretty consistent.