Meldrum Loading for Bear in 2011

[livy111us]

That pretty well sums up my problem with him. If he would cease casting the aspersions and clearly acknowledge that the Church takes no institutional position on specific Book of Mormon geography and therefore, no one's theory on that subject is binding on the Latter-day Saints, I'd be OK with him.

I would add that he stop using artifacts that have been proven false, stop mis-representing (or lying about, depending on how you look at it) Joseph Smiths beliefs about geography, actually accept facts whether they agree with you or not, and avoid the same tactics anti-Mormons use to prove their point.

Basically, if he would be honest in his research, I wouldn't care if he placed it in the North Pole. But, I think that since this is his bread and butter, it HAS to be right in order for him to pay his house payment.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So are you going to answer the question? I believe it was, "Where [on this particular thread] do you see all this alleged animosity? Who argues that he shouldn't have a theory?"

Or do you plan to put me on "ignore" as well?

The animosity is in the tenor of the posts.

And sure... Welcome to the list. Say Hi to Pahoran.

[Scott Lloyd]

The animosity is in the tenor of the posts.

And sure... Welcome to the list. Say Hi to Pahoran.

Fine. But there's a rule here about answering CFRs. For the third time, who argues that he shouldn't have a theory?

[David Bokovoy]

The animosity is in the tenor of the posts.

And sure... Welcome to the list. Say Hi to Pahoran.

I would like to make a request that people not use the "ignore list" as some sort of public sword. If a person wishes to ignore another poster's comments, fine, but let's dispense with this childish tactic as an attempt to belittle others. For the record, Scott Lloyd is one of the last people on earth to deserve such treatment.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Meldrum is more than welcome to formulate, promulgate, advertise, sell, teach, whatever theory he wants regarding BoM geography. By entering an academic discussion he should recognize that his work can rightfully be subjected to scrutiny. He ought to welcome such scrutiny because it can help him avoid mistakes. Scrutiny is not always easy to swallow, of course. Personally, I see some pretty significant problems with Meldrum's use of other research which he is using second hand. I see problems with his use of historical sources and their provenance. I'm turned off by his salesman-like tone and his huckster-ish rhetorical devices. Probably above all, I disagree with his implying that one must accept his theory in order to be considered supportive of Joseph Smith's teachings.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would like to make a request that people not use the "ignore list" as some sort of public sword. If a person wishes to ignore another poster's comments, fine, but let's dispense with this childish tactic as an attempt to belittle others. For the record, Scott Lloyd is one of the last people on earth to deserve such treatment.

I didn't treat Scott Lloyd in any way. I answered the question in regards to the animosity towards Meldrum and placed him on my ignore list as he suggested. I have no doubts Scott is a great guy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Meldrum is more than welcome to formulate, promulgate, advertise, sell, teach, whatever theory he wants regarding BoM geography. By entering an academic discussion he should recognize that his work can rightfully be subjected to scrutiny. He ought to welcome such scrutiny because it can help him avoid mistakes. Scrutiny is not always easy to swallow, of course. Personally, I see some pretty significant problems with Meldrum's use of other research which he is using second hand. I see problems with his use of historical sources and their provenance. I'm turned off by his salesman-like tone and his huckster-ish rhetorical devices. Probably above all, I disagree with his implying that one must accept his theory in order to be considered supportive of Joseph Smith's teachings.

My point all along has been I have been surprised at the amount of vocal opposition to Meldrum. I have never seen LDS Book of Mormon academia come so strongly against one man. It seems weird to me.

[Anijen]

LifeOnaPlate, on 09 December 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

Meldrum is more than welcome to formulate, promulgate, advertise, sell, teach, whatever theory he wants regarding BoM geography. By entering an academic discussion he should recognize that his work can rightfully be subjected to scrutiny. He ought to welcome such scrutiny because it can help him avoid mistakes. Scrutiny is not always easy to swallow, of course. Personally, I see some pretty significant problems with Meldrum's use of other research which he is using second hand. I see problems with his use of historical sources and their provenance. I'm turned off by his salesman-like tone and his huckster-ish rhetorical devices. Probably above all, I disagree with his implying that one must accept his theory in order to be considered supportive of Joseph Smith's teachings.

BookofMormonLuvr

My point all along has been I have been surprised at the amount of vocal opposition to Meldrum. I have never seen LDS Book of Mormon academia come so strongly against one man. It seems weird to me.

The question is why are you surprised? It is not because he has a theory. LOAP answer was to the point and as far as I am concerned spot on. BTW it isn't just Meldrum he is not "just one man" that academia is so strongly against I can think of others as well. But Meldrum is the subject of this thread so it appears as if it is just him. And for all the reasons mentioned he is scrutinized because he claims it is scholarly/academically backed that in and of it self is reason enough to research said scholarship and question the claims of authenticity and study etc when it fails to meet those standards.

And it doesn't help his cause when these are brought up and then he accuses them or labels them as going against the church and being apostate. Seriously how are professional historians, biologist, archeologist etc suppose to act or react when his methods and claims are filled with errors? I know 1+1=2 but when one person says it equals 3 then we should say correct as long as it makes you feel good; basically is this what you are saying how are reaction should be?

[LifeOnaPlate]

My point all along has been I have been surprised at the amount of vocal opposition to Meldrum. I have never seen LDS Book of Mormon academia come so strongly against one man. It seems weird to me.

When you create and sell a video presentation in which you use a quote from the President of the Church to malign the person and work of people who work at BYU, and who have helped pioneer some of the most widely accepted BoM scholarship to date, it tends to come and bite you in the butt. I'm not saying the "bite" should be harsh or overbearing, I'm only saying it shouldn't seem "weird" to you that people responded to Meldrum.

Further, when you get the attention of otherwise unsuspecting listeners and sell them a bill of goods in shaky scholarship you tend to draw a few responses as well.

It seems weird to you? Before there is any rush to interpret opposition as evidence of truth, I recommend this old blog post. In sum it says, no, opposition in and of itself, no matter how rancorous or from what direction, is not, in and of itself, evidence of the quality or truthfulness of a proposition.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't treat Scott Lloyd in any way. I answered the question in regards to the animosity towards Meldrum and placed him on my ignore list as he suggested. I have no doubts Scott is a great guy.

For my part, I have expressed my position clearly:

If he would cease casting the aspersions and clearly acknowledge that the Church takes no institutional position on specific Book of Mormon geography and therefore, no one's theory on that subject is binding on the Latter-day Saints, I'd be OK with him.

My other posts on this thread have been in line with this position. If that strikes you as animosity, I fear you will regard any form of disapproval, however mildly expressed, as animosity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I should also note, much to the delight of some critics, the FARMS Review has written some negative reviews of other works by other LDS authors. Meldrum isn't alone in having his work negatively critiqued there. Consider the review of Gordon L. Weight's book Miracle on Palmyra

[Pahoran]

The church itself is promoting mesoamerican theories? Hmm. That would be interesting.

My remark was intended as humorous. I forgot the obligatory emoticon, or maybe it just wasn't that funny.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Uh ok?

My attitude should vastly improve as Pahoran has become the first honorary member of my ignore list, even beating out Ahab.

Interesting. The tactic of affecting to ignore me when I ask inconvenient questions about assertions posters make in their posts is catching on.

So the fact that I've asked you to point out examples of "animosity" makes me just too despicable to talk to. Got it.

I also didn't miss the fact that you can't support your claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

Interesting. The tactic of affecting to ignore me when I ask inconvenient questions about assertions posters make in their posts is catching on.

So the fact that I've asked you to point out examples of "animosity" makes me just too despicable to talk to. Got it.

I also didn't miss the fact that you can't support your claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

Just for a change I happen to appreciate Pahoran's post, besides when someone publicly says I am going to "ignore" just brings more attention to that person anyways. Like when Giuliani tried to censor the sensation art show it brought out record crowds or when a pope (cant remember which one) banned Copernicus book it became a best seller.

[Scott Lloyd]

At the same time, I have seen people struggle over a "faith-promoting" bit of knowledge which later turned out to be false.

Perhaps an early example of this is the rumor that circulated at the time of Joseph Smith's martyrdom. Supposedly, some sort of divine miracle or intervention or manifestation prevented the assassins from desecrating the prophet's body after he was killed. This turned out to be false and probably provided occasion for yet further derision by the enemies of the Church.

[CA Steve]

Just for a change I happen to appreciate Pahoran's post, besides when someone publicly says I am going to "ignore" just brings more attention to that person anyways. Like when Giuliani tried to censor the sensation art show it brought out record crowds or when a pope (cant remember which one) banned Copernicus book it became a best seller.

Why do I have this unexplicable urge to buy one of Meldrum CD's?

[Scott Lloyd]

Probably the Church News, the random zeal of its staff writers is legendary.

Yes. Only this week I wrote a rabid polemic about Christmas DVDs and CDs you can buy at the Distribution Center.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why do I have this unexplicable urge to buy one of Meldrum CD's?

Must be all the unbridled animosity on this thread.

[Fifth Columnist]

Meldrum's great sins appear to be that: (1) he actually believes what the prophets and apostles have taught about BOM geography and (2) he believes that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of those teachings. Hasn't he followed the method approved by the Church for determining truth? Why do most apologists treat BOM geography as if it is an exception to the rule?

[Scott Lloyd]

Meldrum's great sins appear to be that: (1) he actually believes what the prophets and apostles have taught about BOM geography and (2) he believes that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of those teachings. Hasn't he followed the method approved by the Church for determining truth? Why do most apologists treat BOM geography as if it is an exception to the rule?

Because the Church has not endorsed Meldrum's or anyone else's pet theory about it.

[LeSellers]

Why do I have this unexplicable urge to buy one of Meldrum CD's?

You want us to explain the inexplicable?

I know I'm not that good.

Lehi

[LifeOnaPlate]

Meldrum's great sins appear to be that: (1) he actually believes what the prophets and apostles have taught about BOM geography and

False, in that the statement entirely begs the question.

(2) he believes that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of those teachings.

Unsure, can't speak for his own spiritual experiences. He is not in a position, however, to receive revelation on the Church's behalf though, as per stewardship etc.

Hasn't he followed the method approved by the Church for determining truth?

There's an approved method? And this approved method can be applied to ethics, empirical science, and history?

Why do most apologists treat BOM geography as if it is an exception to the rule?

Unsure how to answer, question contains assumptions I don't agree with to begin with.

[Fifth Columnist]

Unsure, can't speak for his own spiritual experiences. He is not in a position, however, to receive revelation on the Church's behalf though, as per stewardship etc.

Has he claimed to receive revelation for the Church? He has said that the Holy Ghost confirmed it, but I don't think he passed that off as revelation for the Church. He simply invites others to view the same evidence and have the same Holy Ghost experience. What is wrong with that?

There's an approved method? And this approved method can be applied to ethics, empirical science, and history?

There is an approved method when it comes to the teachings of prophets and apostles. Ask the Holy Ghost if the teaching is true. Isn't that right?

I know someone who really feels that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of Meldrum's theories to him. I have tried to present the mesoamerican view, but he feels that it requires adherents to jettison too many authoritative statements made by prophets and apostles. But then he would probably qualify as a "folk mormon" under Scott Lloyd's test.

[Scott Lloyd]

But then he would probably qualify as a "folk mormon" under Scott Lloyd's test.

Perhaps you can articulate for us "Scott Lloyd's test."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Has he claimed to receive revelation for the Church? He has said that the Holy Ghost confirmed it, but I don't think he passed that off as revelation for the Church. He simply invites others to view the same evidence and have the same Holy Ghost experience. What is wrong with that?

Where does he do that?

There is an approved method when it comes to the teachings of prophets and apostles. Ask the Holy Ghost if the teaching is true. Isn't that right?

Meldrum isn't a prophet or apostle. Neither are any of my university professors. I've never prayed to know the truthfulness of communication law either.

I know someone who really feels that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of Meldrum's theories to him. I have tried to present the mesoamerican view, but he feels that it requires adherents to jettison too many authoritative statements made by prophets and apostles. But then he would probably qualify as a "folk mormon" under Scott Lloyd's test.

In that event he's welcome to his beliefs. That's fine with me. I would differ and if he wondered why I would provide information on the statements Meldrum uses, etc. But I certainly wouldn't call his faithfulness into question and would expect he do the same for me. I don't care if they believe the moon is made from cheese if they do their best to love.