Why Are Lds Scholars Dismissed?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I hope you said this with a sense of irony. A list of ideal behaviors that includes a rule about not listing seems rather silly.

Ha, that is really great.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If the LDS archaeologists and anthropologists cannot be scientifically objective because to do so would compromise their faith, then their research and conclusions are not to be trusted. By definition, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for apologists to be objective for they've decided that some things are or are not true before they have done the research and those decisions form a filter through which some facts cannot emerge.

Objective? I don't think anyone is truley objective. Sure, they claim they are. But many, many people have agendas. Are the LDS any different? Nope. However, to claim that the research they do is bad solely because they beleive in the boM is a joke in and of it's self. I think a number of things researched are done very well. Others not so much.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I've read the evidences for a MesoAmerican/New York/Midwest setting for the BoM. I agree with the Mesoamerican. But I still don't put my faith in archaeology.

If today some archaeologist were to dig up a road sign that said "Zarahemla next five exits" in Mesoamerica. I doubt many would convert because of it. Same with any other place.

[rameumptom]

That's not true. Otherwise I wouldn't have my own website up. But, since you've brought my name into it, here is how I feel:

Bob Crockett

Thanks for correcting me. I should say, Bob Crockett does not like certain apologetics that do not fit his style.

I also prefer not making lists, even though (as noted) you did make a list.

I think there is some great apologetics and some poor apologetics out there. I agree that those who are not well studied in the Bible, archaeology and other fields, should probably stick with bearing their testimony.

I agree that we should strive to set a higher standard than others in regard to professionalism in what and how we write. Sadly, many of us occasionally are moved upon by emotions, or (like me) are very capable in the field of sarcasm. It is definitely an area we all need to work on. It does help not to hold onto theories so strongly that one feels offended if another disagrees. It is important to keep proper perspective, such as in the various theories of BoM geography. That said, I also think we need to recognize that General Authorities are not necessarily experts in history nor in geography, and so there is room for a civil debate regarding such theories.

I believe there is a difference between core doctrines and teachings of Church leaders that may or may not actually be correct doctrine. Adam-God, Polygamy required for exaltation, Black curse, evolution and a few others like this fall into such an area. We are commanded not to be slothful servants, but to think for ourselves. Unless it is an official doctrine that has been brought forth via one of the official manners (canonized, official proclamation, etc), then I deem it as something of personal opinion that I need to consider through the Holy Ghost for myself. Given none of the above mentioned have garnered anything of an official doctrine stance in the Church (or at least do not now have such a foundation), I feel free to share my opinions or theories as opinions and theories. I have no problem with disagreeing with Elder McConkie on evolution, or President Young on Adam-God.

Otherwise, should we be forced to defend Adam-God, simply because Brigham Young taught it over a century ago? We tie our hands against new and more correct revelation if we bind ourselves too tightly to our dead prophets on non-canonized statements they've made.

But as I mentioned before, we cannot leave the field to the enemies of the Church. It may be considered foolish to send 52,000 19 year olds out into the mission field, who do not know the Bible, who may not understand most things, but we still send them out. And perhaps some average apologetics done by beginners is perhaps better than nothing at all.

[kolipoki09]

Do you believe that lying for the Lord is beneficial to missionary work?

I think those in the film have ample justification to persue legal action given the extent to which their views were misrepresented.

However, I think the premise of this thread isn't quite accurate. It wasn't LDS scholars who produced the film, since they're not producing scholarship. It lacks peer review to the core. It ignores primary historical research and consistently dismisses any information found to be at odds with its premise. Rodney turns a blind eye to the bulk of LDS scholarship available. Any lay-member claiming personal revelation about the proposed locations of Book of Mormon lands while rejecting history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, and geology should send up red flags for anyone interested in the subject. It's dishonest, and it does more to harm the Church than help it.

I'm with Rob Crockett on this one.

[cinepro]

Any lay-member claiming personal revelation about the proposed locations of Book of Mormon lands while rejecting history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, and geology should send up red flags for anyone interested in the subject.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that if I go to a Meldrum presentation or read one of his books, it's based solely on his "personal revelation" and there isn't any history, archaeology, anthropology, biology or geology used to support his theory?

[livy111us]

I think those in the film have ample justification to persue legal action given the extent to which their views were misrepresented.

However, I think the premise of this thread isn't quite accurate. It wasn't LDS scholars who produced the film, since they're not producing scholarship. It lacks peer review to the core. It ignores primary historical research and consistently dismisses any information found to be at odds with its premise. Rodney turns a blind eye to the bulk of LDS scholarship available. Any lay-member claiming personal revelation about the proposed locations of Book of Mormon lands while rejecting history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, and geology should send up red flags for anyone interested in the subject. It's dishonest, and it does more to harm the Church than help it.

I'm with Rob Crockett on this one.

I don't think I've ever used "Rodney Meldrum" and "scholar" in the same sentence. If I have, I was completely wrong because I can honestly say that I haven't seen anyone so willing to ignore facts, and twist truth in order to maintain a theory. Fundamentalist anti-Mormons come in a close second, but I would think LDS should be a bit more honest.

[kolipoki09]

I don't think I've ever used "Rodney Meldrum" and "scholar" in the same sentence. If I have, I was completely wrong because I can honestly say that I haven't seen anyone so willing to ignore facts, and twist truth in order to maintain a theory. Fundamentalist anti-Mormons come in a close second, but I would think LDS should be a bit more honest.

So Tyler, what you're essentially saying is that actual reputable LDS scholars are made to look bad by people like

?

[kolipoki09]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that if I go to a Meldrum presentation or read one of his books, it's based solely on his "personal revelation" and there isn't any history, archaeology, anthropology, biology or geology used to support his theory?

Cinepro, as always I'm happy to answer your questions.

Meldrum is a pretty nice guy, I'm not claiming otherwise. What I do take issue with is his use of sources. Meldrum, a self-proclaimed young-earth creationist and biblical literalist, does use bits and pieces of scientific theory where he finds it the most convenient. Deliberate twisting of literally "mounds" (no pun intended) of historical evidence compromising the very core of his argument is to me, intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Meldrum started out with the premise that he had not only received revelation confirming the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (this comes as no surprise) but that he had been led by the Spirit to declare that a number of locations within the mid-west United States were in fact, the places described in the Book of Mormon. His use of the Michigan Relics in addition to literally scores of other pseudo-historical artifacts is alarming and ethically disturbing.

That a naive audience would buy into what is clearly a financially-motivated move is also disturbing, in addition to what Meldrum boasts as a "swelling movement within the Church."

[cinepro]

Meldrum, a self-proclaimed young-earth creationist and biblical literalist, does use bits and pieces of scientific theory where he finds it the most convenient. Deliberate twisting of literally "mounds" (no pun intended) of historical evidence compromising the very core of his argument is to me, intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Meldrum started out with the premise that he had not only received revelation confirming the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (this comes as no surprise) but that he had been led by the Spirit to declare that a number of locations within the mid-west United States were in fact, the places described in the Book of Mormon. His use of the Michigan Relics in addition to literally scores of other pseudo-historical artifacts is alarming and ethically disturbing.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that he does use history, archaeology, anthropology, biology or geology to support his theories, but you strongly disagree with his methodology for selecting and presenting that evidence?

Because that's different than saying he doesn't use any scientific evidence at all and totally bases his arguments on spiritual evidences.

The funny thing about Meldrum is, from what I can tell, that the "FARMS" crowd views Meldrum in the same way that non-Mormons seem to view the "FARMS" crowd when it comes to Book of Mormon claims. So while FARMS (or MI) supporters may not agree with the Meldrum crowd, I would at least expect them to be a little more understanding. Because everybody is just one talk in General Conference away from agreeing on the subject.

[kolipoki09]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that he does use history, archaeology, anthropology, biology or geology to support his theories, but you strongly disagree with his methodology for selecting and presenting that evidence?

Yes, he selectively uses portions of these resources, but he is neither a historian, anthropologist, archaeologist, biologist, or geologist.

Because that's different than saying he doesn't use any scientific evidence at all and totally bases his arguments on spiritual evidences.

Actually, in the last four or so years since I first encountered Meldrum's work, I've learned that the underlying principle upon which Meldrum governs is his notion that he has received revelation about where the Book of Mormon took place. I never claimed he didn't use secular resources, just that he twists/abuses them. Any research found to be at odds with Meldrum is dismissed immediately as "liberal," "Darwinistic" or in the case of the Maxwell Institute, "going against the doctrine of Joseph Smith."

The funny thing about Meldrum is, from what I can tell, that the "FARMS" crowd views Meldrum in the same way that non-Mormons seem to view the "FARMS" crowd when it comes to Book of Mormon claims. So while FARMS (or MI) supporters may not agree with the Meldrum crowd, I would at least expect them to be a little more understanding. Because everybody is just one talk in General Conference away from agreeing on the subject.

It is a somewhat intriguing thing, but how many non-Mormons have taken a serious look at the Book of Mormon to begin with? I think the difference here is that within Mormonism there are several scholars more than willing to engage the Book of Mormon, but very few reputable scholars on the outside. Maxwell Institute authors often hold accredited advanced degrees specializing in fields relative to history, archaeology, ancient America, and the ancient Near East. Yes, MI scholars can sympathize at least in part, with the desire to find parallelisms to the Book of Mormon through empirical means. But there is a vast difference in both the quality and quantity of material produced by the MI compared to FIRM. I contend that most of the MI's material has gone unchallenged outside the Church from both secular and fundamentalist/EV groups. It is one thing to be a historian and conduct historical research, consistently publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals, and another thing to call oneself a "scientific researcher for seven years" with no actual training relative to DNA research, biology, or geology. To those unfamiliar with DNA science, population genetics, and American history, the information presented by Meldrum may appear plausible and welcome. However, I don't feel the apples-to-oranges comparison is merited.

[cinepro]

I never claimed he didn't use secular resources, just that he twists/abuses them. Any research found to be at odds with Meldrum is dismissed immediately as "liberal," "Darwinistic" or in the case of the Maxwell Institute, "going against the doctrine of Joseph Smith."

To be clear, you said:

Any lay-member claiming personal revelation about the proposed locations of Book of Mormon lands while rejecting history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, and geology should send up red flags for anyone interested in the subject.

But now you're saying that he does use history, archaeology, anthropology, biology and geology, but he doesn't use the stuff he doesn't agree with, and frequently explains that he disagrees with it because he finds it biased.

I, for one, think the basis of the work for this foundation makes sense, and I don't begrudge someone for following this methodology for religiously-based questions:

The work of the Foundation rests on the premise that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were written by prophets of God. Belief in this premise—in the divinity of scripture—is a matter of faith. Religious truths require divine witness to establish the faith of the believer. While scholarly research cannot replace that witness, such studies may reinforce and encourage individual testimonies by fostering understanding and appreciation of the scriptures.

[TAO]

1. If you're anonymous, stay out of apologetics. If you lack the courage to put your own name on your apologia, you're neither credible nor courageous. Because most apologists are anonymous, they should stay out of it.

Hehe... I am anonymous for a good reason, which I will not post here. But let me explain to you why it is a decent thing to keep your name out of it (not the reason I use it, but it is useful to think about). One reason... is so that you don't get credit for it in real life. Would you say Daniel C. Peterson is respected in some places? Yes, he is. I would not blame him if he asked to avoid this. It is not good having pride over things... and it gets harder when people compliment you a lot.

2. Be polite. Most apologists are not. I think I'm polite but most people don't like what I write, so I must not be able to be self-critical about my tone.

Hehe... sometimes when I'm polite, people think I'm not. Sometimes when I think I'm not polite, people think I am. I think people are a bit different in determining politeness while doing apologetic (or critical) work. It's a whole 'nother ball game to learn =).

3. Stick to what the consensus view of the Brethren is or has been. For that reason I think MesoAmerican Mormon apologia to be so much speculation, smoke and mirrors.

Nah, MesoAmerica isn't smoke and mirrors, it does have some basis, including things by Joseph Smith himself. But I would agree, stay with what the brethren say, whenever possible.

But we will always be speculating to a degree or another... that is why it is good to keep all isles open... so that way you do not get stuck trapped on all sides with no path to follow =D.

4. Know the Bible. Most LDS apologists seem not to know it; if they don't they should stay out until they do.

Agreed here. But I wouldn't be too harsh on this one... it's something that must be learned... and the more time you spend on it, the better it will be. If you don't have new apologists coming into the field, you will never have a base for the next generation, so it's necessary for everyone to start somewhere =).

5. Don't be into rules and rules-setting, i.e., don't post silly lists of things not to do.

XD. There is one rule, so to say. "What do I have to do?"

"Survive."

Tron has some pretty good quotes, I'd say. =) But the wisdom in that quote is so simple... what is life about doing... it's about going through your trials, gaining faith, obtaining a testimony, and enduring to the end; surviving.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

[livy111us]

To be clear, you said:

But now you're saying that he does use history, archaeology, anthropology, biology and geology, but he doesn't use the stuff he doesn't agree with, and frequently explains that he disagrees with it because he finds it biased.

I, for one, think the basis of the work for this foundation makes sense, and I don't begrudge someone for following this methodology for religiously-based questions:

I find it odd that the same science he uses to prove his theory, discredits it elsewhere. Take the dating of the X2a haplotype. He claims that the genetic clocks are off by tens of thousands of years, yet, the same kind of science is used to date the Hopewell culture in a similar time frame as The Book of Mormon. If Meldrum is correct, then the Hopewell would actually date way after the the accepted time frame of 100 BC to 4-500 AD. He accepts it where it benefits him, but completely ignores it when it proves him wrong.

[dougtheavenger]

To be honest, non-LDS look at Mormons as cooks who put their faith in something so unbelievably fantastic that cannot possibly be supported by fact. Everyone has seen this and as an apologist, I try to correct them by giving them real scholarship and answers which support our view. By doing that, they can actually look at our faith more objectively. But, this is hard to do when some LDS give them a reason to believe we have to lie and distort to support our view.

Last week, Non-LDS scholar Alice Kehoe who appeared in the Meldrum influenced video "Lost Civilizations of North America" has wrote a review explaining her experiences with the producers of the video which supposedly supports The Book of Mormon. She stated:

"In an approach familiar to readers of RNCSE, the producers of the DVD, Barry McLerran

and Rick Stout, interviewed researchers with expertise on North American archeology—

Terry Barnhart, Kenneth Feder, Sonya Atalay, Deborah Bolnick, Bradley Lepper, Alice Kehoe,

and Roger Kennedy—at length. Then they skillfully edited the interviews to make it

appear that we agreed with the film’s thesis: that various artifacts shown in the film gave

evidence supporting the Mormon story. The producers sent the scholars a rough version

of the film in March 2010, provoking immediate e-mail demands for rectification of this

misrepresentation. Two of the younger scholars contacted legal counsel at their universities

about possible lawsuits, should the film be released with distortions of their interviews. What especially disturbed the scholars was that the connection to the Mormon legend had not been disclosed; the producers had said the film would be about appreciating First Nations’ achievements."

Why do some LDS feel it necessary to be dishonest in order to find "evidence" for their faith? What good will this do? Anyone who knows anything about the Hopewell, DNA, etc... realize that it is far from the truth and it strengthens their preconceived ideas that we have nothing to back up our faith. How does that benefit missionary work?

She continues:

"The Lost Civilizations of North America DVD can be ignored since it misrepresents reputable

interpretations of Midwest archaeological data—except, perhaps, by those interested

in the persistence of pseudoarcheological claims about the cultures and peoples of North

America before European colonization. It is unfortunate that Glenn Beck did not use his

forum to emphasize the true charge that Manifest Destiny propaganda fed the racist denigration

of America’s past and its First Nations citizens, a story well told in Roger Kennedy’s

Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization (1994).

Readers interested in archaeological controversies, serious or pseudoscientific, will enjoy

my Controversies in Archaeology (2008)."

You can read the entire review here:

http://reports.ncse....icle/view/23/14

Other reviews of the DVD by scholars in the video can be read here:

http://petra-archaeo...merica-dvd.html

http://www.dispatch....gical-spat.html

Do you believe that lying for the Lord is beneficial to missionary work?

I was non-LDS until the age of 20. I never looked at LDS as cooks. I also never met any anti-Mormon bigots such as I have encountered since joining the church. Had I done so, I certainly would have regarded them as cooks. I think they are a much smaller minority than we are and we encounter them as frequently as we do for the same reason that we encounter a lot of other Mormons.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

I've read the evidences for a MesoAmerican/New York/Midwest setting for the BoM. I agree with the Mesoamerican. But I still don't put my faith in archaeology.

This analogy doesn't work because of a clear change in scope in the last part of this part of the post. You don't need "faith" to think that the best explanation is the Mesoamerican based on what you think is evidence. You do need faith when you realize the evidence does not point to the Mesoamerican but to another option but you still go with the Mesoamerican. No need to get archaeology here at all. We are speaking of "two options", not of "an option and a whole class that includes that option".

[kolipoki09]

I, for one, think the basis of the work for this foundation makes sense, and I don't begrudge someone for following this methodology for religiously-based questions:

I think that's where we (respectfully) disagree cinepro. I don't begrudge Meldrum's methodology for relgiously-based questions any more than you've begrudged a number of LDS scholars/GA's for their views on the global flood.

As has been demonstrated elsewhere, Meldrum's usage of sources has been drawn into question by numerous authors who have engaged his work.

Incidentally, this past Saturday I saw a copy of Prophecies and Promises on the shelf at Deseret Book packed snugly between several Maxwell Institute publications on the subject of Book of Mormon geography. When I asked the clerk (who I also have a class with) how well the book was selling, he said sales were down across the board and they weren't planning on restocking the book. I told him I'd be glad to take it off his hands once the price was reduced. That's usually what I do with Blake Ostler's and Bob Millet's books. I seem to be less-and-less satisfied with each trip to DB. Seagull Book however, now that's a different story...

[MelvinCJohnson]

I think that Book of Mormon geographical speculation of any sort is disreputable.

Firm agreement.

[MelvinCJohnson]

willingness to go to court over something does not provide evidence that person willing to initiate a suit is right and the other is wrong. Also, "might lead viewers" hardly a conclusion.

But let me be clear, I do not support lieing. My complaint is against the complainers, Alice Kehoe has a axe to grind against religion or religious views of science, she is obviously biased so we can dimiss her complaint just as matter of factly as she says we should dismiss the DVD in question.

I would be intereseted in see this DVD only for to what the hubbub is all about with the "misleading".

Kehoe can be an axe murderess, which still would have no bearing on the unethical behavior of the DVD makers. They were not honest. Kehoe's lack of faith means nothing in this discussion.

[Commander]

People in general dismiss any super-religious person, especially those that are members of minority religions with beliefs many find strange - just human nature.