Meldrum Loading for Bear in 2011

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I'll just take a moment to point out that it would be absolutely awesome if President Monson put an end to these disagreements by identifying, through revelation, a few New World locations for Book of Mormon cities or events. It would take less than 30 seconds of time in conference (or perhaps a letter, only this time publish far and wide instead of faxing it to someone who might lose it). Such a statement could save at least a few people from spending inordinate amounts of time and money mistakenly walking around lands that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Since, by definition, the promoters and followers of at least one of these competing geographies are promoting and following erroneous conclusions (and marketing their false conclusions to Church members), this wouldn't be something totally surprising for the Lord to want to straighten out.

While the effort would be great, it is highly unlikely that such would occur. The current divisions would prove currently too great to overcome. I think they do know where everything happened, that was told to me by some leaders in the Church. It is precisely because of the Meldrumites and others that they don't say anything in regards to that. If they did there would be quite a few schisms.

[Fifth Columnist]

I'll just take a moment to point out that it would be absolutely awesome if President Monson put an end to these disagreements by identifying, through revelation, a few New World locations for Book of Mormon cities or events. It would take less than 30 seconds of time in conference (or perhaps a letter, only this time publish far and wide instead of faxing it to someone who might lose it). Such a statement could save at least a few people from spending inordinate amounts of time and money mistakenly walking around lands that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

If past history is a guide, we don't need anything from President Monson. All we need is another fax from Carla Ogden to Bill Hamblin.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll just take a moment to point out that it would be absolutely awesome if President Monson put an end to these disagreements by identifying, through revelation, a few New World locations for Book of Mormon cities or events.

Yeah, and while he was at it, he could give a timetable for events leading up to and culminating with the precise day and hour of the Second Coming. Maybe he could direct that the timetable be developed into a smartphone app and be distributed through lds.org so you could put it on your iPhone.

[Scott Lloyd]

My answer is that the feelings of the "spirit" are not a reliable indicator of truth. I think people can use those feelings to guide the course of their lives with good results, but I don't think they should be relied upon to determine the ultimate truth of anything.

There always have been and I suppose will continue to be people who without authority claim revelation to guide the entire church. Whenever that happens I tend to doubt the source of the revelation. Doesn't invalidate the concept of personal revelation itself or discredit it as an indicator of truth.

Recognizing and heeding authentic personal revelation is a skill that takes learning and experience.

[ERayR]

I'll just take a moment to point out that it would be absolutely awesome if President Monson put an end to these disagreements by identifying, through revelation, a few New World locations for Book of Mormon cities or events. It would take less than 30 seconds of time in conference (or perhaps a letter, only this time publish far and wide instead of faxing it to someone who might lose it). Such a statement could save at least a few people from spending inordinate amounts of time and money mistakenly walking around lands that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Since, by definition, the promoters and followers of at least one of these competing geographies are promoting and following erroneous conclusions (and marketing their false conclusions to Church members), this wouldn't be something totally surprising for the Lord to want to straighten out.

Those that didn't agree with him would say he was only giving his own opinion.

[Fifth Columnist]

There always have been and I suppose will continue to be people who without authority claim revelation to guide the entire church. Whenever that happens I tend to doubt the source of the revelation. Doesn't invalidate the concept of personal revelation itself or discredit it as an indicator of truth.

Are you referring to Meldrum or my acquaintance who felt the Spirit confirm the truth of Meldrum's theory? I haven't seen either one "claim revelation to guide the entire church." They simply claim personal revelation. I guess this just goes to show that the Spirit moves in mysterious ways indeed.

Recognizing and heeding authentic personal revelation is a skill that takes learning and experience.

Yes, indeed. It seems there is one overarching principle that trumps all others when it comes to personal revelation - it cannot confirm the words of earlier prophets and apostles who were simply voicing their own fallible opinions as determined later by apologists.

[CA Steve]

Those that didn't agree with him would say he was only giving his own opinion.

Unless of course he were to put it a Sunday School manual.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you referring to Meldrum or my acquaintance who felt the Spirit confirm the truth of Meldrum's theory?

I'm referring to anyone who claims Holy Ghost endorsement of a strongly-held but unauthoritative personal opinion, and either directly states or tacitly implies that said opinion is therefore binding upon the other members of the Church.

Yes, indeed. It seems there is one overarching principle that trumps all others when it comes to personal revelation - it cannot confirm the words of earlier prophets and apostles who were simply voicing their own fallible opinions as determined later by apologists.

I suspect you are really not all that concerned about confirming "the words of earlier prophets and apostles," but are merely living up to your self-selected screen name by trying to foment internal discord.

[Sevenbak]

For the benefit of everyone else here, I will explain that Sevenbak and I this week had the shared experience of singing in a choir as part of the entertainment for a corporate Christmas party attended by, among others, the First Presidency, nine members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Presiding Bishopric. It was a thoroughly delightful experience and would have been even if they hadn't given us dinner (which I wasn't expecting when I volunteered for the gig).

Delightful is a great word. Hope we can do it again sometime Scott!

And I might add, the chocolate bomb was the bomb!

Let me just say, since I dipped my toes back in here momentarily, that's it's been a great thing, associating with you all on this board. I know I've been overzealous in my approach at times, and have offended some folks here, to which I am deeply sorry, and have apologized privately. To those I haven't, please accept my apologies.

But, moving on, trying to get my masters, having 5 kids and working full time takes it's toll on my time, and more importantly, my priorities, which is why I won't be on here too much. That will probably make someone's day, for sure. ;-)

Y'all have a very Merry Christmas.

Sevenbak

[BookofMormonLuvr]

From FAIR's original (and not altogether perfect) initial response to Meldrum:

...

In his presentation Meldrum quotes three examples of how he feels the scholarly community have fallen in "discounting or disdaining Joseph's knowledge." His disapproves, for example, of the following:

...The Church has long held there was no Book of Mormon geography revealed to Joseph. Not surprisingly, [other] LDS scholars say exactly the same thing.

Meldrum is very pointed in his criticism of a single quote, feeling that it illustrates perfectly how LDS scholars have dismissed and abandoned Joseph Smith:

This quote is from John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon...

To Meldrum, Sorenson's view is heresy and, notwithstanding the consistent position of the leaders of the Church, he invokes...Gordon B. Hinckley in support of his [own] view: "So, this is the Ensign, December of 2005. President Gordon B. Hinckley, that's what he had to say about this. He says..."[32]

[Meldrum interprets the quote as follows:]

He doesn't say that it is the anti-Mormons to whom President Hinckley refers, [rather,] he must be referring to scholars who are believing and faithful Latter-day Saints. After all, Meldrum uses this quote right after displaying various quotes by LDS scholars [John Sorenson among them].

[Meldrum took Pres. Hinckley's quote completely out of context.]

In context, it is clear that President Hinckley is not talking about LDS scholars, but about someone who is not a member of the Church. The person he speaks of will not accept the Church (despite its fruits) because to do so would require that he accept Joseph's prophetic call...

Footnotes:

26 Rodney Meldrum, DNA Evidence, section 3, "Joseph Smith," 36:18.

27 Bruce C. Hafen, " Annual Maxwell Institute Lecture, Brigham Young University, "Reason, Faith, and the Things of Eternity," Provo, Utah (21 March 2008), emphasis added. On-line at http://farms.byu.edu...en_Mar_21_2008/ (accessed 21 June 2008).

28 "DNA and the Book of Mormon," newsroom.lds.org (16 February 2006). On-line at http://newsroom.lds....-book-of-mormon (accessed 21 June 2008).

29 Rodney Meldrum, DNA Evidence, section 17, "Conclusion," 4:20

[kolipoki09]

Seeing as how LOAP is now stalking me into my personal mail, I suppose I should respond...

I see no maligning here, just an honest disagreement with the BYU big boys. Sure, Meldrum's wording is more blunt then many would prefer, but that is just the way some of us express ourselves. If his manner and approach is the main impetus behind attacking his theory, it is regrettable- science shouldn't be swayed by personality conflicts. I think the big boys at BYU have been so put on a pedestal that their skins are a little thin from having so little disagreement to their own theories- hopefully they will thicken up a bit.

My 2 cents.

I don't think LOAP was "stalking" you. The board allows members to contact one another through e-mail if one's privacy settings allow it. That's all. No one went through your Facebook profile sifting through pictures and personal information trying to find something embarrassing. LOAP and several others here on the board were simply asking you to substantiate your claims, which you failed to do. You left several of us with unanswered questions which undoubtedly prompted LOAP to send you a personal e-mail inviting you to make a response.

Meldrum is a "different" sort of fellow. His popularity has come largely from the support of those who align themselves to a particular political movement, as well as home-schooling families centered predominantly in the Intermountain West. While his personal philosophies inform his scholarship tremendously, my reservations with Meldrum have come to focus more and more on his application of the scientific method.

We could cite the fact that Einstein was probably a little kooky and different by today's standards. In fact, we're probably all a little kooky in our own ways. While many Latter-day Saints have focused on Meldrum's personality, I can tell you from first-hand experience that Meldrum is not a scholar. His work has literally hundreds of inconsistencies and/or false information. Latter-day Saints who are unfamiliar with much of the scholarship surrounding the Book of Mormon may find Meldrum's work convincing and powerful. While I cannot question their sincerity, false information (no matter how 'good' it makes someone feel) will eventually destroy faith, not build it up. His explanations regarding young earth creationism and DNA evidence "proving" the Book of Mormon to be true are classic examples of this.

It isn't just the "big boys at BYU." Most of Meldrum's critics aren't even scholars associated with BYU. Bad science is bad science. It isn't a matter of who has the "thickest skin." While LDS scholars generally focus their attention on MesoAmerica as the most probable location for the majority of the events described in the Book of Mormon, I don't believe these individuals are so utterly convinced of their proposed theories that they would simply ignore any other hypothesis.

What Meldrum has done and continues to do is poison the well with anti-intellectualism. According to Meldrum, no other scholars understand and properly interpret Joseph Smith's statements on BoM geography better than he can. It is he who is "restoring" Joseph Smith as the preeminent authority on where the events described in the Book of Mormon actually occurred, and anyone else who dares to question him is "overzealous," and failing to understand the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Many Book of Mormon scholars have approached the issues surrounding geography with meticulous effort. While everyone has their flaws, we can learn from each of them. As time progresses, theories are subject to change as new evidence comes forth. Meldrum was not the first to offer a theory placing the events of the Book of Mormon in the upper midwest. However, he has profited from that theory probably more than any other LDS author who has published on the subject. Lest we commit the fallacy of an appeal to popularity to determine the truthfulness of something, it is important to consider Meldrum's approach and method.

Greg Smith offers an in-depth analysis of Meldrum's scientific approach that puts Meldrum's scholarship in perspective. It would be to your advantage to take a look at it as you have time, and allow yourself room to reconsider your position.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=1&id=793

@LDSApologist

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't think LOAP was "stalking" you. The board allows members to contact one another through e-mail if one's privacy settings allow it. That's all. No one went through your Facebook profile sifting through pictures and personal information trying to find something embarrassing. LOAP and several others here on the board were simply asking you to substantiate your claims, which you failed to do. You left several of us with unanswered questions which undoubtedly prompted LOAP to send you a personal e-mail inviting you to make a response.

Meldrum is a "different" sort of fellow. His popularity has come largely from the support of those who align themselves to a particular political movement, as well as home-schooling families centered predominantly in the Intermountain West. While his personal philosophies inform his scholarship tremendously, my reservations with Meldrum have come to focus more and more on his application of the scientific method.

We could cite the fact that Einstein was probably a little kooky and different by today's standards. In fact, we're probably all a little kooky in our own ways. While many Latter-day Saints have focused on Meldrum's personality, I can tell you from first-hand experience that Meldrum is not a scholar. His work has literally hundreds of inconsistencies and/or false information. Latter-day Saints who are unfamiliar with much of the scholarship surrounding the Book of Mormon may find Meldrum's work convincing and powerful. While I cannot question their sincerity, false information (no matter how 'good' it makes someone feel) will eventually destroy faith, not build it up. His explanations regarding young earth creationism and DNA evidence "proving" the Book of Mormon to be true are classic examples of this.

It isn't just the "big boys at BYU." Most of Meldrum's critics aren't even scholars associated with BYU. Bad science is bad science. It isn't a matter of who has the "thickest skin." While LDS scholars generally focus their attention on MesoAmerica as the most probable location for the majority of the events described in the Book of Mormon, I don't believe these individuals are so utterly convinced of their proposed theories that they would simply ignore any other hypothesis.

What Meldrum has done and continues to do is poison the well with anti-intellectualism. According to Meldrum, no other scholars understand and properly interpret Joseph Smith's statements on BoM geography better than he can. It is he who is "restoring" Joseph Smith as the preeminent authority on where the events described in the Book of Mormon actually occurred, and anyone else who dares to question him is "overzealous," and failing to understand the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Many Book of Mormon scholars have approached the issues surrounding geography with meticulous effort. While everyone has their flaws, we can learn from each of them. As time progresses, theories are subject to change as new evidence comes forth. Meldrum was not the first to offer a theory placing the events of the Book of Mormon in the upper midwest. However, he has profited from that theory probably more than any other LDS author who has published on the subject. Lest we commit the fallacy of an appeal to popularity to determine the truthfulness of something, it is important to consider Meldrum's approach and method.

Greg Smith offers an in-depth analysis of Meldrum's scientific approach that puts Meldrum's scholarship in perspective. It would be to your advantage to take a look at it as you have time, and allow yourself room to reconsider your position.

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=1&id=793

@LDSApologist

"Reconsider <my> position"?

Are you assuming that because I find the animosity against Meldrum amusing and confusing at the same time that I support his theories?

My only reason for concluding that the Book of Mormon took place somewhere on this land- USA- is the way the book itself speaks of who will inhabit the same land as the Nephites in the last days. What Joseph Smith may or may not have said on the subject is of little concern to me, so Meldrum's work, while interesting, has little influence over my particular view of the subject.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Seeing as how LOAP is now stalking me into my personal mail, I suppose I should respond...

I sent you the following message in a pm through the board software. You have personal settings which forward such things to your personal email. You can send a message to any board member by clicking on the envelope icon under their username and avatar. Here's the message I sent:

We were having a discussion about Rod Meldrum and what I called his "maligning" of other scholars. You asked me for specifics. Like you, I am a pretty busy person but I took the time to get some information together and provided it for you on this thread:

http://www.mormonapo...11/page__st__80

I hope you will do me the courtesy of giving a response there, as I've noticed you have had time to reply in other threads and start new threads.

Best,

-lifeonaplate

If you believe this constitutes stalking, I suggest you turn off the private message feature on your message board profile. You can do this by clicking on your username at the top of the page. Select "My settings." On the left side of the page click the "Notification Options" from the settings menu. Check the box that says "Disable my personal messenger." Under that option the site explains: "If you disable your personal messenger, you will not be able to start or participate in personal conversations."

At any rate, thanks for coming back to the thread.

I see no maligning here, just an honest disagreement with the BYU big boys. Sure, Meldrum's wording is more blunt then many would prefer, but that is just the way some of us express ourselves.

Shouldn't you say the same about reviews of Meldrum's work and responses from "BYU big boys"?

If his manner and approach is the main impetus behind attacking his theory, it is regrettable- science shouldn't be swayed by personality conflicts.

The main impetus behind his theories, from what I see, is the small following Meldrum began to assemble and the poor scholarship he was selling to them. The fact that he maligned several respected scholars in the process didn't help his case in the least, though, which was my original point. I certainly don't agree that Meldrum's work is criticized merely because of his manner and approach.

I think the big boys at BYU have been so put on a pedestal that their skins are a little thin from having so little disagreement to their own theories- hopefully they will thicken up a bit.

My 2 cents.

That's a fine speculation (and it falls right in line with what Meldrum himself would intimate) but it doesn't account for the fact that by academic standards Meldrum's work is best described as pseudo-scholarship.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

And in an endless circle we go, which is why I tried to distance myself for this topic as of late, but to no avail. Now that I have responded, and you were able to browbeat me, can I be done with this topic?

[LifeOnaPlate]

And in an endless circle we go, which is why I tried to distance myself for this topic as of late, but to no avail. Now that I have responded, and you were able to browbeat me, can I be done with this topic?

You're welcome to leave any time you'd like. Additionally, you are more than welcome to deactivate your personal messages in order to prevent "stalking" in the future. I wrote the instructions for you above.

Where I come from, a typical conversation is a situation in which people ask questions, listen to responses, perhaps respond to responses, and perhaps ask more questions. Conversations like this are geared to reach a mutual understanding of a given topic or to better understand the perspective of other people, etc. With this basic understanding of what constitutes a conversation, I wouldn't think to call my replies "browbeating" any more than I would have labeled a private message "stalking." It seems to me you are overlooking my actual responses regarding Meldrum and are choosing to reply with comments about my character or actions (namely: that I am a stalker and a browbeater). I've asked you serious questions and have tried to do so respectfully. I don't feel that same sort of reaching for respect coming from your end of the conversation, though. I suppose it is both of our losses.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You're welcome to leave any time you'd like. Additionally, you are more than welcome to deactivate your personal messages in order to prevent "stalking" in the future. I wrote the instructions for you above.

Where I come from, a typical conversation is a situation in which people ask questions, listen to responses, perhaps respond to responses, and perhaps ask more questions. Conversations like this are geared to reach a mutual understanding of a given topic or to better understand the perspective of other people, etc. With this basic understanding of what constitutes a conversation, I wouldn't think to call my replies "browbeating" any more than I would have labeled a private message "stalking." It seems to me you are overlooking my actual responses regarding Meldrum and are choosing to reply with comments about my character or actions (namely: that I am a stalker and a browbeater). I've asked you serious questions and have tried to do so respectfully. I don't feel that same sort of reaching for respect coming from your end of the conversation, though. I suppose it is both of our losses.

My intention in venturing into this topic wasn't to argue in favor of Meldrum's ideas, it was just to point out that I have never seen one man so lambasted by fellow Book of Mormon researchers- I found it curious and amusing. The fact that many of you took it as some type of challenge to your manhood or something made it all the more amusing and curious to me.

You did follow me into unrelated topics and into my profile mail in an effort to force me to return to the topic. What was i supposed to think you were doing? You are obviously taking this much more personally then you need to.

[Anijen]

BookofMormonLuvr

My only reason for concluding that the Book of Mormon took place somewhere on this land- USA- is the way the book itself speaks of who will inhabit the same land as the Nephites in the last days.

CFR Out of curiosity where exactly in the text of the Book of Mormon do you find where it says it was in the US? I know it doesn't and it doesn't imply it either so I am wondering how you arrived to that conclusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see no maligning here, just an honest disagreement with the BYU big boys.

I find the phrase "BYU big boys" mildly offensive, given the fact that Brigham Young University is governed by a board of trustees that includes, if I understand correctly, the First Presidency of the Church and several members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Presumably, what goes on academically under their watch, does not warrant such disparagement.

Moreover, I've yet to see a BYU scholar cast aspersions, even by implication, on the faithfulness or loyalty of other Church members based on honest disagreement over conjecture about Book of Mormon geography.

[Pahoran]

I find the phrase "BYU big boys" mildly offensive, given the fact that Brigham Young University is governed by a board of trustees that includes, if I understand correctly, the First Presidency of the Church and several members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Presumably, what goes on academically under their watch, does not warrant such disparagement.

Moreover, I've yet to see a BYU scholar cast aspersions, even by implication, on the faithfulness or loyalty of other Church members based on honest disagreement over conjecture about Book of Mormon geography.

Which is, as BoML fails to grasp, where Meldrum blunders over the line.

And it appears to me that the so-called "animosity" that so amuses BoML consists in nothing more than pointing this out.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

My intention in venturing into this topic wasn't to argue in favor of Meldrum's ideas, it was just to point out that I have never seen one man so lambasted by fellow Book of Mormon researchers- I found it curious and amusing.

And I offered a few suggested reasons. I have a lot more reasons that probably be considered as well. For example, the state of Mormon research right now is pretty busy, comparatively. More people with more training in more areas are bringing more to the table. There is still a fine place for amateur research, most of my work would fall under that category. But when amateurs try to argue using the tools of the academy they should be prepared to see their arguments judged by those same tools. There are more people today who are interested and prepared to do such analysis. Your curiosity and amusement notwithstanding, there seem to be more publications on the BoM today and more people reading them, so we could expect to see responses. Also keep in mind, Meldrum set himself deliberately apart from BoM researchers, he did not consider them "fellow" researchers, he said they were worse than anti-Mormons. Add crappy scholarship to such an insult, plus people prepared to analyze said scholarship and venues willing to publish information on the subject and a small but decent following of the new pseudo-scholarship and you've got a recipe for reviews and responses. It seems to me you find the "lambasting" as evidence that Meldrum must be on the right track, or perhaps that other researchers are upset because they are motivated by profit and don't want to lose sales, or some other questionable suspicion. You've been very careful not to give reasons for your "curiosity and amusement," and when other reasons are offered you become defensive and disregard the reasons. (You also make weird claims about being stalked, presumably to try to get some sort of upper hand through insult.) I find your behavior curious and amusing, but more annoying than anything.

The fact that many of you took it as some type of challenge to your manhood or something made it all the more amusing and curious to me.

I didn't see anything mentioned about manhood anywhere nor do I think Manhood has anything to do with it. Again, you are making unfounded statements. Passive aggressive would describe it well. I'm curious: You say you are a lover of the Book of Mormon. Which part of the book encourages taking delight in the problems or consternation of other people? Where does it encourage the sort of disrespectful attitude you're taking in this conversation? Even if you could make a case that I'm the jerk here, where does the BoM justify rude responses?

You did follow me into unrelated topics and into my profile mail in an effort to force me to return to the topic. What was i supposed to think you were doing? You are obviously taking this much more personally then you need to.

True, in another topic I was reading I saw that you had posted and realized that you had overlooked my response. Sometimes this happens when someone becomes distracted and forgets the earlier conversation. I can understand that. Or, I could do as you're doing and attribute some ulterior motive to your actions, like say that you were studiously avoiding the conversation because it didn't fit into your perspective and thus made you uncomfortable. Or that you were afraid that your manhood was a challenge to your manhood and couldn't deal with that. (See? Pretty annoying, right? I think it's better to just assume a person missed it, and give them a kind reminder to check it out, which is exactly what I did.) No one is forcing you to do anything. I sent you a message requesting a response. To call this force is just silly. You're saying I'm taking it too personal. Well, in a small way there is a personal element to it at this point, in that you've said I'm a stalker, that my "manhood" is questioned, and other silly personal things that have no place in the conversation. Frankly, you're being immature about the whole thing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Which is, as BoML fails to grasp, where Meldrum blunders over the line.

And it appears to me that the so-called "animosity" that so amuses BoML consists in nothing more than pointing this out.

Regards,

Pahoran

It wouldn't shock me if BoML was Meldrum himself, or a close friend. Chances may be small, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[livy111us]

It wouldn't shock me if BoML was Meldrum himself, or a close friend. Chances may be small, but I wouldn't be surprised.

He sure is avoiding the issue, side-stepping CFR's, and focusing on the mundane like Meldrum. But, he is WAY to level-headed to be Meldrum.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It wouldn't shock me if BoML was Meldrum himself, or a close friend. Chances may be small, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Now, THAT is funny!! I can guarantee you I am not him, and have never made his acquaintance.

Edit: My true identity (dah, dah dah) is revealed in the MAD FB group.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

CFR Out of curiosity where exactly in the text of the Book of Mormon do you find where it says it was in the US? I know it doesn't and it doesn't imply it either so I am wondering how you arrived to that conclusion.

I will be happy to point you to the verses, it's just right now I am in the middle of a school project that is due today that I started tomorrow.

"I procrastinate even when I don't have anything better to do."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now, THAT is funny!! I can guarantee you I am not him, and have never made his acquaintance.

Edit: My true identity (dah, dah dah) is revealed in the MAD FB group.

Great, but it is strange that you would reveal such information to a stalker like me. (Which is my lame way of pointing out you were using "stalker" as a way to insult.)

You said "it was just to point out that I have never seen one man so lambasted by fellow Book of Mormon researchers- I found it curious and amusing."

And I offered a few suggested reasons. I have a lot more reasons that probably be considered as well. For example, the state of Mormon research right now is pretty busy, comparatively. More people with more training in more areas are bringing more to the table. There is still a fine place for amateur research, most of my work would fall under that category. But when amateurs try to argue using the tools of the academy they should be prepared to see their arguments judged by those same tools. There are more people today who are interested and prepared to do such analysis. Your curiosity and amusement notwithstanding, there seem to be more publications on the BoM today and more people reading them, so we could expect to see responses. Also keep in mind, Meldrum set himself deliberately apart from BoM researchers, he did not consider them "fellow" researchers, he said they were worse than anti-Mormons. Add crappy scholarship to such an insult, plus people prepared to analyze said scholarship and venues willing to publish information on the subject and a small but decent following of the new pseudo-scholarship and you've got a recipe for reviews and responses. It seems to me you find the "lambasting" as evidence that Meldrum must be on the right track, or perhaps that other researchers are upset because they are motivated by profit and don't want to lose sales, or some other questionable suspicion. You've been very careful not to give reasons for your "curiosity and amusement," and when other reasons are offered you become defensive and disregard the reasons. (You also make weird claims about being stalked, presumably to try to get some sort of upper hand through insult.) I find your behavior curious and amusing, but more annoying than anything.

You said:

The fact that many of you took it as some type of challenge to your manhood or something made it all the more amusing and curious to me.

I didn't see anything mentioned about manhood anywhere nor do I think Manhood has anything to do with it. Again, you are making unfounded statements. Passive aggressive would describe it well. I'm curious: You say you are a lover of the Book of Mormon. Which part of the book encourages taking delight in the problems or consternation of other people? Where does it encourage the sort of disrespectful attitude you're taking in this conversation? Even if you could make a case that I'm the jerk here, where does the BoM justify rude responses?

You said:

You did follow me into unrelated topics and into my profile mail in an effort to force me to return to the topic. What was i supposed to think you were doing? You are obviously taking this much more personally then you need to.

True, in another topic I was reading I saw that you had posted and realized that you had overlooked my response. Sometimes this happens when someone becomes distracted and forgets the earlier conversation. I can understand that. Or, I could do as you're doing and attribute some ulterior motive to your actions, like say that you were studiously avoiding the conversation because it didn't fit into your perspective and thus made you uncomfortable. Or that you were afraid that your manhood was a challenge to your manhood and couldn't deal with that. (See? Pretty annoying, right? I think it's better to just assume a person missed it, and give them a kind reminder to check it out, which is exactly what I did.) No one is forcing you to do anything. I sent you a message requesting a response. To call this force is just silly. You're saying I'm taking it too personal. Well, in a small way there is a personal element to it at this point, in that you've said I'm a stalker, that my "manhood" is questioned, and other silly personal things that have no place in the conversation. Frankly, I think you're being immature about the whole thing.