Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[livy111us]

Well, at least against the video he inspired and participated in. Since Lost Civilizations of North America was released, Meldrum has touted that many non-LDS scholars agree with him since they appear in the DVD and seem to support what Meldrum has taught. But these same scholars have gotten together to write a rebuttal to this DVD (after several sought legal counsel against it's producers). They wrote 3 articles and published them in the Skeptical Inquirer and began to appear several months ago. But FINALLY, the first article has appeared online. You can read it here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_one_an_alternate_re/

Needless to say, the scholars have been less than impressed with this DVD and Meldrums theory. Here are a few blog posts that they have written as well:

http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com/2011/12/responding-to-lost-civilizations-of.html

http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com/2010/12/commentary-on-lost-civilizations-of.html

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/23/14

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/12/29/dvd-stirs-up-archaeological-spat.html

As a believer in The Book of Mormon I don't agree with everything they say, but think they make some strong arguments against this DVD. Here is one section of the paper

“there is no archaeological evidence of widespread “massive city remains” in North America by any formal definition of the term city. With the possible exception of Cahokia, there are no archaeological settlements in North America that are comparable in size and population density to, for example, the earliest city-states in Mesopotamia, the first cities located along the Indus River in Pakistan, or any of the large urban settlements located in the Valley of Mexico. Even estimates for Cahokia rarely calculate its population at more than ten thousand people, a number sometimes used as a statistical cutoff point for the designation of a settlement as a city. Other than Cahokia, all of the other large mound sites in North America appear to have been a different kind of settlement entirely: not cities but rather ceremonial centers with relatively small residential populations surrounded by numerous hamlets dispersed in vast areas around them. The people living in these hamlets produced the surplus (in the form of food, wealth, and labor) that supported the ritual elites living in the mound centers. In a particularly egregious example of misuse of terminology, the documentary describes the earth embankment that encloses the Newark Earthworks in Ohio as “city walls.” This is nonsense. The Newark Earthworks include a spectacular array of more than four and a half square miles of geometric enclosures and mounds in a variety of shapes and sizes, but there is no archaeological evidence for an urban population here (Lepper 2004) or at any of the other monumental earthworks of the Hopewell culture. To be clear: stating that places like the Newark Earthworks, Poverty Point in Louisiana (Gibson 2000), Etowah in Georgia, Moundville in Alabama (Welch 1991), Town Creek Mound in North Carolina, or Crystal River Mounds in Florida were not cities is not to disparage them or minimize the achievements of those who produced them. It merely points out the fact, as shown clearly by archaeological investigation, that this architecture was not urban in character and was wholly unlike cities as ordinarily defined. Indeed, one of the fascinating challenges posed by such structures is how a population dispersed in small hamlets without hereditary kings or pharaohs could have organized the labor to erect such massive earthworks.”

[Freedom]

It is important to note that the research tells us that there are no external cultural influences evident in the americas. It appears that, by and large, the cultures developed here rather than being imported. Research of the quality of Meldrum does does for Book of Mormon studies what the research evident in 'The Inconvenient Truth' did for global warming.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

?

[Daniel Peterson]

I can't say that I'm altogether unhappy to see Rod Meldrum's film get this kind of attention, though I do regret the fact that it probably does at least some damage to the public image of the Church (and, for that matter, of Mormon apologetics) as a whole.

For one thing, I think sloppy arguments and abuse of evidence need to be identified as such. For another, I periodically receive flurries of pretty insulting e-mails from Rod Meldrum -- earlier this week, for example --as well as very lengthy and elaborately and extraordinarily nasty messages from one of his followers (roughly three or four dozen such messages thus far, and, lately, one or more every Sunday and on Thanksgiving Day -- I can hardly wait for Christmas Sunday!) and my previous overall lack of interest in his positions and claims has begun to harden into a genuine dislike.

[Bob Crockett]

This is really too bad. I have some slight sympathy for some of Meldrum's positions, as I have repeatedly stated. But, I opposed his appearance at a stake fireside here in California, successfully, after he had been booked.

The MesoAmerican LDS scholars have the upper hand for a number of reasons. The orthodox need a champion; there isn't one.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't, for the record, see the disagreement between Mesoamericanists and "Heartlanders" as a battle between heterodoxy and orthodoxy. There is little if anything to suggest that Joseph Smith ever held to a limited Upper Midwest geography, and absolutely nothing to suggest that such is or has ever been the Church's official position. There is, in fact, decisive evidence to the contrary.

[Bob Crockett]

I, on the other hand, think that there was something going on of significance when the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah and dedicated a general conference to the event, with the Brethren declaring that the final battle occurred at its foot. If we believe in modern revelation, we believe those kind of utterances made after lots of deliberation, with the entire twelve and First Presidency present, involving a significant outlay of funds, the erection of a monument, and all that.

And since the Book of Mormon issued by revelation, I assert upon the "equal dignities" doctrine that revelation trumps archaeological speculation.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

?

Sorry, I didn't express myself very well. Some apologists are determined to find evidence via dna, artifacts or linguistics to prove that the natives of the Americas are decedents of one of the lost tribes, or at least of a people from the middle east. They do this by trying to find evidence of external influences. The research, however, is telling us that there were no external influences but rather that the society developed on its own gradually (Clark, Pool, Diehl). This does not suggest that there was not any immigration, but that such immigration did not measurably affect the dna, art, language or religion of the population.

I was making a comparison of the quality of the research in the Meldrum production with that of Al Gore. Critics of global warming point to Mr Gore's production to demonstrate the weakness of the global warming argument, as if his movie is the pinnacle of the science on the matter. I am not making an argument for or against global warming, only that this type of 'science' dirties the water.

In the greater Vancouver metropolitan region we have over 200,000 sihks, largely from the Punjab, which means they are about 6% of our population. Although they have had a great affect on our society, they have had virtually no affect on our art, architecture, religion and language. By and large, the immigrants are becoming Canadian, rather than the local population becoming indian. The largest Sihk temple has more worshipers attending that one location than we have mormons in the entire province of British Columbia. Despite this, they have only 20 non-indians where as my stake alone has 20 former sihks. Never mind how many former sihks are now baptist, catholic or agnostic. The immigrants are joining established american faiths rather than the other way around. Even some of their newer temples have a much more western design. The Nephites would have been .002% of the local population at best so if anybody finds evidence if Israel in mesoamerica I suspect they are not scholars of the caliber of John Clark (an LDS archaeologist) or Christopher Pool.

[Freedom]

I, on the other hand, think that there was something going on of significance when the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah and dedicated a general conference to the event, with the Brethren declaring that the final battle occurred at its foot. If we believe in modern revelation, we believe those kind of utterances made after lots of deliberation, with the entire twelve and First Presidency present, involving a significant outlay of funds, the erection of a monument, and all that.

And since the Book of Mormon issued by revelation, I assert upon the "equal dignities" doctrine that revelation trumps archaeological speculation.

I disagree with your argument but the lack of conclusive evidence leaves room for lots of speculation and various opinions. You may, in fact, turn out to be completely right. Regardless, the science has to be legitimate otherwise it causes more problems than it attempts to resolve.

[Freedom]

I don't, for the record, see the disagreement between Mesoamericanists and "Heartlanders" as a battle between heterodoxy and orthodoxy. There is little if anything to suggest that Joseph Smith ever held to a limited Upper Midwest geography, and absolutely nothing to suggest that such is or has ever been the Church's official position. There is, in fact, decisive evidence to the contrary.

I agree. The 'orthodoxy' of the church is summed up in the 13 articles of faith. There is nothing said there about where the events of the Book of Mormon took place so the disagreement is among the egoists who are vying to get in front of an audience to present their theory and not with 'orthodoxy' (I have presented a fireside or two so I count myself as among the egoists)

[Mortal Man]

I don't, for the record, see the disagreement between Mesoamericanists and "Heartlanders" as a battle between heterodoxy and orthodoxy. There is little if anything to suggest that Joseph Smith ever held to a limited Upper Midwest geography, and absolutely nothing to suggest that such is or has ever been the Church's official position. There is, in fact, decisive evidence to the contrary.

It just won't go away Dan, despite your ex cathedra proclamations.

Now tell us all about Carla Ogden's rebuttal.

[livy111us]

For one thing, I think sloppy arguments and abuse of evidence need to be identified as such. For another, I periodically receive flurries of pretty insulting e-mails from Rod Meldrum

Anyone who has had any personal contact with Rod and disagreed with him has gotten the same result, plenty of name calling, insults, and even threats (yes, that has happened to me). Personally, I'd like to gather as much documentation from those who have been on the receiving end of Rod's rants and put it altogether in one place to show people that Rod isn't the saint he tries to portray. He actually is very spiteful to anyone who opposes him has much to lose if his theory doesn't turn a profit. Perhaps faithful LDS would think twice about opening their pocket books to Rod thinking they are helping the Kingdom if they knew what kind of person he really is.

[Duncan]

It just won't go away Dan, despite your ex cathedra proclamations.

Now tell us all about Carla Ogden's rebuttal.

I read that letter as saying the general tradition of the Church has been that the Hill Cumorah is in upstate New York, which may be right or may be wrong

[Bob Crockett]

It just won't go away Dan, despite your ex cathedra proclamations.

Now tell us all about Carla Ogden's rebuttal.

Well, this kind of post isn't all that helpful. Everybody knowledgeable here knows all about the Watson letter and then the fax that attempts a more neutral position. Although I don't think much of a fax comment from nobody in a position of authority, I can easily see how such a retraction would come about. On a non-essential issue in which nobody has in recent history taken a real hard view, it is easy to see how a member of the FP simply said -- tell this guy we don't really take a position.

But I will comment further on your post. Your posts seem to indicate you are either an unbeliever or a needler of the believers, which is the same thing as being an unbeliever. I just don't see what traction there might be for an anonymous unbeliever to browbeat the believers with this letter. I mean, what would you think of me if I posted anonymous statements in front of a mosque, declaring my opinion and evidence as to which person was the legitimate successor to Mohammed? And not once, but over 2000 times? I mean, who cares whom might be the legitimate successor of Mohammed if one is not a believer? It is just meant to needle.

Edited December 24, 2011 by rcrocket

[tapirrider]

I can't say that I'm altogether unhappy to see Rod Meldrum's film get this kind of attention, though I do regret the fact that it probably does at least some damage to the public image of the Church (and, for that matter, of Mormon apologetics) as a whole.

For one thing, I think sloppy arguments and abuse of evidence need to be identified as such. For another, I periodically receive flurries of pretty insulting e-mails from Rod Meldrum -- earlier this week, for example --as well as very lengthy and elaborately and extraordinarily nasty messages from one of his followers (roughly three or four dozen such messages thus far, and, lately, one or more every Sunday and on Thanksgiving Day -- I can hardly wait for Christmas Sunday!) and my previous overall lack of interest in his positions and claims has begun to harden into a genuine dislike.

Dr. Peterson, you wrote this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=5&num=1&id=112

"...the fascinating essay of J. H. McCulloch on the so-called "Bat Creek Inscription."

This makes me skeptical of Mormon scholars because Tennessee archaeology professors Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., and Mary L. Kwas had Harvard University Dr. Frank Moore Cross assess the Bat Creek inscription. Dr. Cross was one of only two Americans who worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls publication team. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Paleo-Hebrew. He determined that the Bat Creek stone was not Hebrew from the time period it is alleged to be.

Dr. Peterson, you ignored this from your academic colleague Dr. Cross and instead have focused on the writings of Dr. McCulloch, an Economics professor. The archaeologists have published that the Bat Creek stone is a hoax. One of the top professors of Hebrew Language has determined it is not paleo-Hebrew from ancient America, yet you have published in support of the Bat Creek stone. This sure seems to be the way pseudo-studies go.

Also this is you, Dr. Peterson, on the video mentioning the horse in the upper midwest:

http://fi.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

That Spencer Lake horse hoax had been exposed in 1964. See the Wisconsin Archaeologist publication at this link:

http://www.archive.org/stream/wisconsinarcheol44wiscrich#page/n367/mode/2up

Mormon scholars are outstanding in their academic professions but that fact should not be used to support fringe beliefs such as the Bat Creek Stone, Horse skulls or the Book of Mormon.

[Mortal Man]

Well, this kind of post isn't all that helpful. Everybody knowledgeable here knows all about the Watson letter and then the fax that attempts a more neutral position. Although I don't think much of a fax comment from nobody in a position of authority, I can easily see how such a retraction would come about. On a non-essential issue in which nobody has in recent history taken a real hard view, it is easy to see how a member of the FP simply said -- tell this guy we don't really take a position.

But I will comment further on your post. Your posts seem to indicate you are either an unbeliever or a needler of the believers, which is the same thing as being an unbeliever. I just don't see what traction there for an anonymous unbeliever to browbeat the believers with this letter. I mean, what would you think of me if I posted anonymous statements in front of a mosque, declaring my opinion and evidence as to which person was the legitimate successor to Mohammed. And not once, but over 2000 times?

I'm neither a needler nor browbeater of believers. I'm just humbly pointing out the fact that Dan's magisterial decrees, fearsome and awe-inspiring as they may be, are nevertheless powerless to change history. Dan's edicts, no matter how forceful or numerous, simply cannot change the fact that a multiplicity of prophets and apostles have declared from official pulpits and in official publications that the Nephite Hill Cumorah is in New York.

[livy111us]

At the time the video was recorded, the Spencer Lake horse wasn't discovered as a hoax. It has since been removed from the DVD and accepted as a fraud. That's the great thing about keeping up on recent data. Some theories turn out to be wrong, so you drop them and move on. While others gain more and more evidence so you keep them to strengthen your theory. Not sure why you brought this up. I could see your point if he continued to advocate something that has been proven false but he hasn't, he has done just the opposite.

I can't speak for Dr. Peterson's opinion on the Bat Creek stone, but I have supported it in the past until I really looked into it and learned about substantial evidence against it. It is still possible that it is authentic, but not all that probable.

If you are only using these 2 examples so you can dismiss every Mormon scholar and their countless publications (many in non-LDS journals) then that is your perogative. But if you honestly want to look at what they have written without dismissing it all with the wave of a hand, you will see that they can actually back up their claims. But it is much easier to just dismiss them as a whole.

[tapirrider]

At the time the video was recorded, the Spencer Lake horse wasn't discovered as a hoax. It has since been removed from the DVD and accepted as a fraud. That's the great thing about keeping up on recent data. Some theories turn out to be wrong, so you drop them and move on. While others gain more and more evidence so you keep them to strengthen your theory. Not sure why you brought this up. I could see your point if he continued to advocate something that has been proven false but he hasn't, he has done just the opposite.

I can't speak for Dr. Peterson's opinion on the Bat Creek stone, but I have supported it in the past until I really looked into it and learned about substantial evidence against it. It is still possible that it is authentic, but not all that probable.

If you are only using these 2 examples so you can dismiss every Mormon scholar and their countless publications (many in non-LDS journals) then that is your perogative. But if you honestly want to look at what they have written without dismissing it all with the wave of a hand, you will see that they can actually back up their claims. But it is much easier to just dismiss them as a whole.

Can you back up your claim? The Spencer Lake skull was exposed as a hoax in 1964. I provided the link to the 1964 issue of the Wisconsin Archaeologist that exposed it. The video was made long after that. Why would you even try to say that it wasn't discovered as a hoax until after the video was made? And in the link I provided, it is still said, beginning at about 0:50. Please, CFR for sources that the video of Dr. Peterson was made before the hoax was exposed. You will not be able to do this.

[Bob Crockett]

Mormon scholars are outstanding in their academic professions but that fact should not be used to support fringe beliefs such as the Bat Creek Stone, Horse skulls or the Book of Mormon.

Last I looked, Dr. Peterson has the same qualifications in American archaeology that I have. My own opinion is that the jury is out and will always be out for the Bat Creek Stone; I like what Cyrus Gordon as to say about it. Some days I think it a fraud and other days legit.

As for horses in the Americas -- well, I'm convinced from the find in the Mayan cenote, but I realize I'm in a minority.

Edited December 24, 2011 by rcrocket

[livy111us]

I'm neither a needler nor browbeater of believers. I'm just humbly pointing out the fact that Dan's magisterial decrees, fearsome and awe-inspiring as they may be, are nevertheless powerless to change history. Dan's edicts, no matter how forceful or numerous, simply cannot change the fact that a multiplicity of prophets and apostles have declared from official pulpits and in official publications that the Nephite Hill Cumorah is in New York.

So anything said over the pulpit is doctrine?!?! You are smarter than that to make such obviously wrong proclamation. But if you are that anxious to take a jab at Dr. Peterson, then it must not bother you all that much. Well, using that same logic I can one up you. We have the CANONIZED 1970 Book of Mormon that is chock full of pictures of locations and artifacts from Central and South America. There is the Astronomical Observatory at Chichen Itza, the Aztec Calendar, The Temple of Kukulcan at Chichen Itza, the Pyramid of the Niches in Mexico, Temple I in Tikal, Guatemala, Plastered Wall and Large Cement Court, Mitla, Oaxaca, Mexico, Temple of Inscriptions, Palenque, Royal Tomb in Palenque, The Palace at Palenque, a Stelae in Copan, Honduras, Carving Depicting a Horse on the Temple of Plaques, Chichen Itza, Carving of a Horse on an Inca Wall, Cuzco, Peru, Pre-Columbian Wheeled Toy Discovered in Mexico, the Stela in Copan that may have Elephants depicted, "Baptismal fonts" in Chichen Itza and in Peru, the "Tree of Life" carving on Izapa Stela 5, White and Dark People at Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico, more "White and Dark" murals, etc...

Since this is in the scriptures themselves, we now know that The Book of Mormon took place in Central and South America! Not to mention the numerous Temple dedications in that area which places the BOM there, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and other Prophets who have placed it in Mesoamerica. Also, Harold B. Lee said in an "official publication" that we don't know where the hill Cumorah is.

“Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?” Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172–173.

My Prophet beats your secretary to the FP.

[livy111us]

Can you back up your claim? The Spencer Lake skull was exposed as a hoax in 1964. I provided the link to the 1964 issue of the Wisconsin Archaeologist that exposed it. The video was made long after that. Why would you even try to say that it wasn't discovered as a hoax until after the video was made? And in the link I provided, it is still said, beginning at about 0:50. Please, CFR for sources that the video of Dr. Peterson was made before the hoax was exposed. You will not be able to do this.

There had been controversy over the skull for quite some time, but controversy doesn't meant it was proven fraudulent. If you are not aware of the horse project at BYU, it is a project focused on, well, horses. It is now run by Wade Miller who has several (non-LDS) archaeologist friends that inform him of when they find horse remains that meet certain criteria, and then they carbon date the remains. The criteria is there to prevent them from spending funds on obvious post-Columbian remains. There are currently around 7 remains that he has found in the Yucatan that pre-date Columbus. I believe it was in 2008 when they carbon dated the Spencer Lake skull and found out that it was only around 150 years old, therefore, not ancient and not an evidence of pre-Columbian horses. It was at this time that it was proven to be modern, not just argued to be modern. From that time, it was edited of the DVD and I haven't heard Dr. Peterson or any other apologist use it as evidence. If he would have known about it before he wouldn't have used that information. False information does no one any good (obviously from the topic of this thread), and the very day it was found out that it was false, FAIR made every effort to correct the error. Now you know.

[tapirrider]

Last I looked, Dr. Peterson has the same qualifications in American archaeology that I have. My own opinion is that the jury is out and will always be out for the Bat Creek Stone; I like what Cyrus Gordon as to say about it. Some days I think it a fraud and other days legit.

As for horses in the Americas -- well, I'm convinced from the find in the Mayan cenote, but I realize I'm in a minority.

Dr. Cross refuted Cyrus Gordon's claim that the inscription was paleo-Hebrew. Dr. Cross worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls, actual objects from the time period that the Bat Creek stone was alleged to have been from. On the days you think the Bat Creek stone is legit, remember Dr. Cross.

[livy111us]

Dr. Cross refuted Cyrus Gordon's claim that the inscription was paleo-Hebrew. Dr. Cross worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls, actual objects from the time period that the Bat Creek stone was alleged to have been from. On the days you think the Bat Creek stone is legit, remember Dr. Cross.

I think the nail in the coffin for me was finding what seems to be the source of the writing on the Bat Creek Stone in the Freemasonry book "General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry" published in 1870.

FAIR has a good summary of the argument here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Hoaxes/Bat_Creek_Stone

[tapirrider]

There had been controversy over the skull for quite some time, but controversy doesn't meant it was proven fraudulent. If you are not aware of the horse project at BYU, it is a project focused on, well, horses. It is now run by Wade Miller who has several (non-LDS) archaeologist friends that inform him of when they find horse remains that meet certain criteria, and then they carbon date the remains. The criteria is there to prevent them from spending funds on obvious post-Columbian remains. There are currently around 7 remains that he has found in the Yucatan that pre-date Columbus. I believe it was in 2008 when they carbon dated the Spencer Lake skull and found out that it was only around 150 years old, therefore, not ancient and not an evidence of pre-Columbian horses. It was at this time that it was proven to be modern, not just argued to be modern. From that time, it was edited of the DVD and I haven't heard Dr. Peterson or any other apologist use it as evidence. If he would have known about it before he wouldn't have used that information. False information does no one any good (obviously from the topic of this thread), and the very day it was found out that it was false, FAIR made every effort to correct the error. Now you know.

It has not been edited from the video. Again, here is the link.

http://fi.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

There is a statement at the link, but Dr. Peterson is still in the video beginning at about 0:50.

"Video

Part(s) of this criticism are addressed in a video segment from a forthcoming FAIR production. Click here to see video clips on other topics.

NB: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account."

It was known to be a hoax in 1964. Perhaps wishful thinking based on radiocarbon dating of the mound made people want it to be real. But in 1964 the hoax was exposed.

[livy111us]

Ah, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was a little over zealous on uploading the video when it first came out and forgot about it on my personal Youtube site, which I never use. I just tried changing it but cannot even remember my password. I'll get it done tonight. I thought I got to them all but obviously missed this one. I am glad that there was an errata above the embed of the video, but will add one to that rogue video as well. You can see the edited versions here:

This is the entire video. The horses section is around 11 minutes.

This is the horse bone section itself with the annotation informing the audience that they have been found to be a "hoax".

It was not "known" to be a hoax, but was suspected to be a hoax. Without solid evidence like carbon dating, it is very hard to absolutely prove something. There were many people who believed very strongly that it was authentic, yet just believing it doesn't make it so. You need something a little more and now we have it. Now you don't see Dr. Peterson using that information anymore, do you? You should applaud him for being open minded enough to accept new information even if it conflicts with current theories. I'm unsure of why you were bringing this up in the first place other than to dismiss all LDS scholars everywhere as only accepting ideas that later turn out to be wrong. Even at that, not a honest or even a good argument.