Aaron Shafovaloff And Rodney Meldrum

[Pahoran]

Rodney Meldrum strikes me as a decent fellow, not nearly the monster FARMS makes him out to be.

CALL FOR REFERENCES that FARMS/NAMIRS makes Meldrum out to be some kind of "monster."

Don't try to skip out with your usual sarcastic quips this time, please. Just support or withdraw your assertion.

What do you think JS would have said about the Bat Creek Stone?

No idea.

I guess I missed the "anti" part.

That's Aaronshaf. If he's not an anti, then there's no such thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's Aaronshaf. If he's not an anti, then there's no such thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

But he is not anti-Mormon he is anti-Mormonism.

That is about the lamest argument I have ever heard.

[bookofmormontruth]

Speaking of the Manti Pageant why does it attract so many anti-Mormon organizations? Does this happen to any other place in the world? They claim they are there to share the "real Lord" and because Mormons are "lost", but from this video - all I hear is the same anti-Mormon rhetoric directed to teenage girls of all people.

Does any of the LDS faithful feel closer to the "real Lord" from these "Christians"? I don't know, maybe they should take their "honorable efforts" to the streets of Vegas or NY where more likely there is a lot more that don't even have a belief in the Lord? Or would this eliminate making money off the "lost" Mormons?

[frankenstein]

Speaking of the Manti Pageant why does it attract so many anti-Mormon organizations? Does this happen to any other place in the world? They claim they are there to share the "real Lord" and because Mormons are "lost", but from this video - all I hear is the same anti-Mormon rhetoric directed to teenage girls of all people.

I would imagine it is easier with the youth who most likely would not have encountered the claims of the c.a.r.m folks before, and would be bothered by said claims.

One option for the people of Manti is to creat "time, place and manner" restrictions on assemblies, that is, a license with a reasonable fee is required. Now, in SLC, the GC protestors claim "we don't need a license because we are exempted under the ordianance for 'spontaneous assembly'", which is usually false because the person express months in advance their intent to show up and protest. So manti can have a similar ordinance to SLC and have a prosecutor with the willingness to enforce the ordinanace (SLC lacks a prosecutor and a police force willing to uphold the ordinance).

Edited June 23, 2011 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

I wonder how out of hand it can really be? Does it need further legislation?

[alter idem]

CALL FOR REFERENCES that FARMS/NAMIRS makes Meldrum out to be some kind of "monster."

Don't try to skip out with your usual sarcastic quips this time, please. Just support or withdraw your assertion.

??

I read his comments as hyperbole, nothing more.

I believe he was referring to some negative reviews of Meldrum and his theories which were posted by Farms a while back. I read the reviews and while I don't think Farms made him out to be a 'monster', they did take him to task quite strongly. It was strong enough that Rodney Meldrum was very upset by it, as I recall reading some of his responses to the criticisms at the time.

[alter idem]

I wonder how out of hand it can really be? Does it need further legislation?

I don't know, but I think not. Friends who attended the Manti pageant a couple of nights ago said that there were hardly any protesters there. They were told by one of the workers that they didn't have many this year and they attributed it to the many mosquitoes.

I personally don't think we need any more legislation. The less time our legislators spend passing laws, the better off we are, IMO.

[LeSellers]

I personally don't think we need any more legislation. The less time our legislators spend passing laws, the better off we are, IMO.

I'd like to have 250 more federal holidays, personally.

Lehi

[PacMan]

If anyone has Aaron's contact, tell him to come on over here for an answer to his Moroni (non)conundrum. His error is pretty easy to point out, and all boils down to the fact that he is making a common mathematical mistake, as committed by 7 year olds throughout the world. He's erroneously conflating units.

Tell him to come over so I can explain.

PacMan

[PacMan]

What questions you might have on this I probably can answer. But further reading you might want to look at Dubious Archaeology, 2011, Library of Congress by Kenneth L Feder He also wrote a book called Frauds, Myths and Mysteries. I have both if you want me to look something up for you. The best study I have found on the Bat Creek Stone is; Mainfort and Kwas, The Batcreek Stone Revisited" in the Journal of American Antiquity (2004) which is where I got a copy from EBSCO

Anijen,

If you wouldn't mind outlining the argument, I'd beinterested. The fact that the dating of the inscription by the Smithsonian back ~1500 years seems to kill the theory that it was a Masonic copy (not to mention the differences between known and actual hebraic grammar and the commonness of the "copied" part to religious text). Where am I going wrong?

PacMan

P.S. This was interesting: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf

Edited June 24, 2011 by PacMan

[Nemesis]

If anyone has Aaron's contact, tell him to come on over here for an answer to his Moroni (non)conundrum. His error is pretty easy to point out, and all boils down to the fact that he is making a common mathematical mistake, as committed by 7 year olds throughout the world. He's erroneously conflating units.

Tell him to come over so I can explain.

PacMan

Aaron has been banned since he tried to push his latest herasy that Heavenly Father was a homosexual and some other nonsense. Please don't invite him back.

Nemesis

[cdowis]

You do understand why he is so attentive to Meldrum.

Meldrum's idea is a friend to the antimormon view of the BOM as has been demonstrated here on this forum. The antis are big advocates of the one hill construct, and that gets rid of all that bothersome mesoamerica stuff which fits well with the BOM. You try to stick the BOM in the "heartland" and you are stuck with the lack of archeological evidence, that you find in relative rich abundance in mesoamerica. You dismiss all of that evidence with easy stroke -- "it didn't happen in mesoamerica."

You can see him grinning, and saying to himself, "Go, baby, go."

Edited June 25, 2011 by cdowis

[Anijen]

Anijen,

If you wouldn't mind outlining the argument, I'd beinterested. The fact that the dating of the inscription by the Smithsonian back ~1500 years seems to kill the theory that it was a Masonic copy (not to mention the differences between known and actual hebraic grammar and the commonness of the "copied" part to religious text). Where am I going wrong?

PacMan

P.S. This was interesting: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf

Sure, here is what I think; Cyrus Thomas was tasked with solving the mystery of the moundbuilders by the Smithsonian Institute. Thomas directed and oversaw the investigation of over 2000 mound sites. He collected over 40,000 artifacts. These artifacts are still today the basis of the Smithsonian's collection of Indian relics. While excavating these sites John Emmert (who was Cyrus Thomas assistant) excavated the BCS. At first Thomas thought the writing to be Cherokee (Cherokee writing was invented in 1819) Out of all the 40,000+ artifacts it was the only one like it which that in itself is uncommon. Even back then many thought it was a fake. Emmert had a drinking problem and was previously fired and some thought to ease and assuage relations with his boss Emmert happened to find the first and only artifact which just happened to support his boss's point of view.

With the BCS two brass bracelets were found which later metallurgical analysis show the exact same proportion of copper and zinc were in them that were being used in brass objects being made all over England at that time. Another oddity is when doing excavating it was done in teams and when Emmert uncovered the BCS he was alone. There are no other witnesses. But the most impressive evidence of the fraud is the same inscription on the stone was also found in the book with a image of a Roman coin the General History Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry (published 1870). This book was also found at Emmerts home.

I guess that quickly sums up the argument.

Anijen

[livy111us]

You do understand why he is so attentive to Meldrum.

Meldrum's idea is a friend to the antimormon view of the BOM as has been demonstrated here on this forum. The antis are big advocates of the one hill construct, and that gets rid of all that bothersome mesoamerica stuff which fits well with the BOM. You try to stick the BOM in the "heartland" and you are stuck with the lack of archeological evidence, that you find in relative rich abundance in mesoamerica. You dismiss all of that evidence with easy stroke -- "it didn't happen in mesoamerica."

You can see him grinning, and saying to himself, "Go, baby, go."

My thoughts exactly!

[PacMan]

Aaron has been banned since he tried to push his latest herasy that Heavenly Father was a homosexual and some other nonsense. Please don't invite him back.

Nemesis

Really? I missed it? Out of curiosity, does he believe that God has been crafted in Aaron's own image (in other words, is he hitting for the other team?)?

PacMan

[PacMan]

Sure, here is what I think; Cyrus Thomas was tasked with solving the mystery of the moundbuilders by the Smithsonian Institute. Thomas directed and oversaw the investigation of over 2000 mound sites. He collected over 40,000 artifacts. These artifacts are still today the basis of the Smithsonian's collection of Indian relics. While excavating these sites John Emmert (who was Cyrus Thomas assistant) excavated the BCS. At first Thomas thought the writing to be Cherokee (Cherokee writing was invented in 1819) Out of all the 40,000+ artifacts it was the only one like it which that in itself is uncommon. Even back then many thought it was a fake. Emmert had a drinking problem and was previously fired and some thought to ease and assuage relations with his boss Emmert happened to find the first and only artifact which just happened to support his boss's point of view.

With the BCS two brass bracelets were found which later metallurgical analysis show the exact same proportion of copper and zinc were in them that were being used in brass objects being made all over England at that time. Another oddity is when doing excavating it was done in teams and when Emmert uncovered the BCS he was alone. There are no other witnesses. But the most impressive evidence of the fraud is the same inscription on the stone was also found in the book with a image of a Roman coin the General History Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry (published 1870). This book was also found at Emmerts home.

I guess that quickly sums up the argument.

Anijen

Did you see the bit about the bracelets from the article I posted? It seems that the technique was actually not limited to modern metallurgy. And can you cite the book with the Roman inscription, and the cite that he had the book with the inscription? Indeed, that is problematic - not that he cared that it was necessarily Hebrew, but that he just wanted to impress.

PacMan

Edited June 26, 2011 by PacMan

[livy111us]

Did you see the bit about the bracelets from the article I posted? It seems that the technique was actually not limited to modern metallurgy. And can you cite the book with the Roman inscription, and the cite that he had the book with the inscription? Indeed, that is problematic - not that he cared that it was necessarily Hebrew, but that he just wanted to impress.

PacMan

Here it is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GjwiAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=freemasonry&lr=&cd=49#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Calm]

Really? I missed it? Out of curiosity, does he believe that God has been crafted in Aaron's own image (in other words, is he hitting for the other team?)?

PacMan

You misunderstood, he's pushing the claim that LDS believe or rather the logical result of LDS belief is that God the Father could be any type of sinner, including a homosexual drag queen (IIRC he posted an image to demonstrate), this is not what AS believes reality is, just twisted LDS faith....

[livy111us]

Did you see the bit about the bracelets from the article I posted? It seems that the technique was actually not limited to modern metallurgy. And can you cite the book with the Roman inscription, and the cite that he had the book with the inscription? Indeed, that is problematic - not that he cared that it was necessarily Hebrew, but that he just wanted to impress.

PacMan

Here is an interesting entry from Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology on the Bat Creek Stone

http://books.google.com/books?id=RlRz2symkAsC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=General+History+Cyclopedia,+and+Dictionary+of+Freemasonry+bat+creek&source=bl&ots=N_VR29VdoN&sig=0RLeoPr_rU1dMJMGF5qe7D_RMlw&hl=en&ei=IMUGTqOTIITGsAOci5XDDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

They note that:

"Metallurgical analysis of the bracelets (the proportion of copper to zinc) shows similarity to brass objects made anytime between the last few centuries BCE right up until the nineteenth century CE, so that proves nothing at all. Bracelets made in ancient Rome have proportions similar to those discovered in Mound 3 at Bat Creek, but brass bracelets made in England in the nineteenth century have exactly the same copper-zinc proportions."

[Anijen]

Did you see the bit about the bracelets from the article I posted? It seems that the technique was actually not limited to modern metallurgy. And can you cite the book with the Roman inscription, and the cite that he had the book with the inscription? Indeed, that is problematic - not that he cared that it was necessarily Hebrew, but that he just wanted to impress.

PacMan

Yes I read the article, you are right the bracelet even though it matched the exact copper-zinc mix of that of 19th century England copper could have been earlier. Both I and livy111 have given you a citation for book, livy111 even gives you a link to read the book. There is also a article that speaks of Luther Blackham claiming it was a forgery done for political reasons. The point is many even back then, when it was discovered thought it was fake. It is only recent writers who want to point out some cosmo connection or new age groups who write of it being true. Most of these do not research anything but what might benefit there agenda, lately that agenda is to write and sell the twilight zone approach of mysticism to the bat creek stone and other things such as the Nazca lines. here, here and here

Edited June 26, 2011 by Anijen

[PacMan]

Yes I read the article, you are right the bracelet even though it matched the exact copper-zinc mix of that of 19th century England copper could have been earlier. Both I and livy111 have given you a citation for book, livy111 even gives you a link to read the book. There is also a article that speaks of Luther Blackham claiming it was a forgery done for political reasons. The point is many even back then, when it was discovered thought it was fake. It is only recent writers who want to point out some cosmo connection or new age groups who write of it being true. Most of these do not research anything but what might benefit there agenda, lately that agenda is to write and sell the twilight zone approach of mysticism to the bat creek stone and other things such as the Nazca lines. here, here and here

I saw the picture from the book, but didn't realize that was what you were referring to. #1 If you look at the article I cited, his explanation is that there are subtle differences between the two, and those differences on the stone actually support its authentication because of the way the Hebrew was written. After looking at the links you included, it seems much more cheer leading than anything dispositive. Indeed, the noted scholars did not actually weigh their dissent more than express their view. Not being familiar with Hebrew, I have a difficult time knowing how much room for reasonable difference exists. #2 Do you have the citation that that book was actually in his personal library?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a big BCS advocate. But I haven't seen the criticism fully dealing with the rebuttals. Simply that people found it unbelievable, to me, is not very persuasive.

Thanks,

Aaron

Edited June 26, 2011 by PacMan

[livy111us]

You do understand why he is so attentive to Meldrum.

Meldrum's idea is a friend to the antimormon view of the BOM as has been demonstrated here on this forum. The antis are big advocates of the one hill construct, and that gets rid of all that bothersome mesoamerica stuff which fits well with the BOM. You try to stick the BOM in the "heartland" and you are stuck with the lack of archeological evidence, that you find in relative rich abundance in mesoamerica. You dismiss all of that evidence with easy stroke -- "it didn't happen in mesoamerica."

You can see him grinning, and saying to himself, "Go, baby, go."

I think this theory is bolstered a little now that Meldrum is speaking at this years Sunstone Symposium. I've just lost a lot of respect for that organization.

[kolipoki09]

I think this theory is bolstered a little now that Meldrum is speaking at this years Sunstone Symposium. I've just lost a lot of respect for that organization.

I still have a great deal of respect for many past and present organizers of Sunstone. However, I don't think Sunstone is necessarily providing Meldrum with a venue because his arguments have academic merit, but because he and a number of his followers have generated a cultural (albeit small) phenomenon within Mormonism itself. Culturally I think Meldrum's movement won't be bolstered with support from Sunstone - merely a venue for Meldrum to express his beliefs, just as it has at least partially with Jim Harmston, Chris Nemelka, and John Dehlin.

[Pahoran]

??

I read his comments as hyperbole, nothing more.

I believe he was referring to some negative reviews of Meldrum and his theories which were posted by Farms a while back. I read the reviews and while I don't think Farms made him out to be a 'monster', they did take him to task quite strongly. It was strong enough that Rodney Meldrum was very upset by it, as I recall reading some of his responses to the criticisms at the time.

Hyperbole is exaggeration. Exaggeration goes in the same direction, but farther, than whatever it exaggerates. IOW, in order to call a statement an exaggeration, there has to be something of the same nature to exaggerate.

For example, in the following exchange:

Person A: "Person B is not very nice."

Person C: "Person A made Person B out to be some kind of monster."

Person C has rather grossly exaggerated what Person A said; therefore, it is hyperbole. However, in the following exchange:

Person A: "Person B argues that these events took place at that location, but that argument is faulty because...."

Person C: "Person A made Person B out to be some kind of monster."

Person C has rather entirely misrepresented what Person A said. A was talking about B's arguments and evidence, not about whether or not B is a nice person. Thus, C's statement goes beyond hyperbole.

Since Mortal Man has (mercifully) gone silent on this topic, I conclude that he has no references to support his accusation. Which thus stands refuted.

The claim that FARMS/NAMIRS has personally attacked Meldrum is a popular chestnut in anti-Mormon circles. Which is, in itself, a fairly reliable sign that it is false.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

I still have a great deal of respect for many past and present organizers of Sunstone. However, I don't think Sunstone is necessarily providing Meldrum with a venue because his arguments have academic merit, but because he and a number of his followers have generated a cultural (albeit small) phenomenon within Mormonism itself. Culturally I think Meldrum's movement won't be bolstered with support from Sunstone - merely a venue for Meldrum to express his beliefs, just as it has at least partially with Jim Harmston, Chris Nemelka, and John Dehlin.

Kolipoki, for the sake of accuracy, that last site is not John Dehlin's site. It's an anti-Mormon site that has co-opted the name of John's site.

This is John Dehlin's site:

http://www.staylds.com/

StayLDS. org not affiliated with this site

January 4th, 2010 Someone has decided to engage in a form of cybersquatting by putting up an anti-mormon site using the .ORG extension of the same domain name we use for our site. “StayLDS. ORG” is not affiliated with or produced by us. The owner of that domain name is trying to confuse people who might type in the wrong URL.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Libs