Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[volgadon]

I lean towards Frank Moore Cross' verdict on the Bat Creek Stone, but lets not forget that Cyrus H. Gordon was no fly-by-night scholar.

[tapirrider]

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.

It is difficult to applaud anyone that uses questionable things like the Spencer Lake horse skull or the Bat Creek stone, as is being seen now with the the Lost Civilizations of North America DVD. Using pseudo sources only brings discredit. The 1964 Wisconsin Archaeologist exposed the hoax. Those who required further proof with radiocarbon dating of the skull were only fooling themselves.

[Bob Oliverio]

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

Now tell us all about Carla Ogden's rebuttal.

This seems fairly obvious and convincing. I am a new convert, but what am I missing? Has the Church ever come out with an official statement to withdraw this conclusion? This is what I was always taught by my wife's leaders in her ward when I converted. Was I misled?

[Freedom]

This seems fairly obvious and convincing. I am a new convert, but what am I missing? Has the Church ever come out with an official statement to withdraw this conclusion? This is what I was always taught by my wife's leaders in her ward when I converted. Was I misled?

The church makes it very clear that the location of the book of mormon events are not known. There is no official position on the location.

[Bob Oliverio]

The church makes it very clear that the location of the book of mormon events are not known. There is no official position on the location.

Thanks. Can you provide a link or reference to this official statement. I was converted and taught that Cumorah was in NY. That's why the letter provided above confirmed what had been taught to me. Again, when did this change?

[Sevenbak]

I'm not a big fan of Meldrum or his methods, but non-LDS scholars have been speaking out against all things Mormon since it's foundation... so I take what they all say with a grain of salt...

...or perhaps a grain of mustard seed would be a better term.

[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.

I called CFR. Please give a source for the 2008 carbon date. Your youtube video was uploaded on Jan 12, 2008

Are the radiocarbon results found in: Barker, Alex W. "Stewardship, Collections Integrity, and Long-Term Research Value," in Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. S. Terry Childs (Washington, D. C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004) 25-41?

[TAO]

tapirrider, chill dude.

Part of their job is to test things. Radiocarboning the skull was fine if that is what was needed.

There is a lot more evidence for horses, in any case, so you shouldn't worry about the skull. Many other things point to it, after all. Genetics, art, myths passed down from Native Americans... they all support the idea that horses lived in the Americas for a while after we thought they were extinct. It's only the fossil record that disagrees, right now, as far as I know =P.

The beginning of this thread helps:

Edited December 24, 2011 by TAO

[livy111us]

Is there any relation to you and "Hogle" from the Ex-Mo board? He made a very similar arguments on Sept. 11 of this year that you are making right now.

As you may know, from the time something is filmed to the point it is uploaded on the internet usually is not the same day. I first contacted and filmed Dr. Peterson in 2005, 3 years prior to uploading it on Youtube. I believe the first I heard of the Spencer Lake hoax was through Chris Smith when he posted it on this site in 2008. To my knowledge, there was nothing published on the the results of Jones' work prior to what Chris posted. To date, the only published material on this unfinished project have been by Wade Miller, and his research was un-officially released. To get the results, I would suggest contacting either Chris or Barker. But it may be easier to just ask Dr. Peterson himself when he learned about it, especially since he commented on this thread and is probably following it. But my question would be what would he have to gain from lying about the Spencer Lake skull? If he knew that it carbon dated to only 150 years ago, why would he lie about it if he knew that this information would be made public shortly and he would be caught in a lie? To my, it would seem more likely that a scholar, a Doctor in his field did not know about radio carbon date and was going off of the best information he had at the time. Scholar's tend to want to present the facts as best and accurate as they can, instead of openly lying on camera with absolutely nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. I am a believer in Occams razor and tend to shy away from conspiracy theories so I don't expect you to agree with me. But, why don' you make this easy on yourself and just ask him.

[juliann]

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:

Has Meldrum updated anything to reflect these objections?

[livy111us]

Since we are on the topic of horses, I found this article interesting:

Centuries-old bones of horses unearthed in Carlsbad

http://www.nctimes.c...l#ixzz1V1LyXsSg

A few highlights

Archaeologists working against the clock in Carlsbad have unearthed another nearly intact skeleton of a horse that may have lived and died 50 years before the Spanish began their conquest of California.

Radiocarbon dating of 340 years, plus or minus 40 years, puts the death of the horse sometime between 1625 and 1705, Mojado said. Therefore, the horses died at least 50 years before San Diego Mission de Alcala, the first of the California missions, was founded in 1769. The other horse and the burro were buried at the same level, suggesting that they were buried about the same time.

The bones of the horses and the donkey showed no signs of having been shod, an indicator that the horses were not brought by the Spanish, who fitted their horses with iron shoes, said Larry Tift, a researcher with Gallegos.

The radiocarbon date, if corroborated by more elaborate tests, may be remarkable since North American horses were thought to have been extinct by the late Pleistocene era more than 10,000 years ago, said Bradford Riney, a paleontology specialist with the San Diego Natural History Museum.

"That would make (the site) extremely important," he said Thursday. "It would be an early example of domestication."

"There were no horses here then," he said. "They didn't know what a horse or a donkey was. They would have seen them as big deer or antelope."

Edited December 24, 2011 by livy111us

[livy111us]

Has Meldrum updated anything to reflect these objections?

He did not produce the video, therefore does not have the authority to update the information in the DVD. But he still uses the information in the DVD as evidence of his theory without remorse. I haven't spoken to him about this recently, but he continues to claim that non-LDS scholars agree with him, that Hopewell built large cities, had large populations, and other nonsense that has been proven false. So his personal opinion hasn't changed despite that the facts have.

[Bob Crockett]

One of Charles Mann's books and his website points to works with propose that the Nez Perce horse stock predates Columbus.

I live close to the La Brea tar pits. It is always cool to see their preColumbian horse on display.

[Bob Crockett]

Since we are on the topic of horses, I found this article interesting:

Centuries-old bones of horses unearthed in Carlsbad

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_3510b187-f256-5b91-875e-b45c8865f14a.html#ixzz1V1LyXsSg

A few highlights

Archaeologists working against the clock in Carlsbad have unearthed another nearly intact skeleton of a horse that may have lived and died 50 years before the Spanish began their conquest of California.

Radiocarbon dating of 340 years, plus or minus 40 years, puts the death of the horse sometime between 1625 and 1705, Mojado said. Therefore, the horses died at least 50 years before San Diego Mission de Alcala, the first of the California missions, was founded in 1769. The other horse and the burro were buried at the same level, suggesting that they were buried about the same time.

The bones of the horses and the donkey showed no signs of having been shod, an indicator that the horses were not brought by the Spanish, who fitted their horses with iron shoes, said Larry Tift, a researcher with Gallegos.

The radiocarbon date, if corroborated by more elaborate tests, may be remarkable since North American horses were thought to have been extinct by the late Pleistocene era more than 10,000 years ago, said Bradford Riney, a paleontology specialist with the San Diego Natural History Museum.

"That would make (the site) extremely important," he said Thursday. "It would be an early example of domestication."

"There were no horses here then," he said. "They didn't know what a horse or a donkey was. They would have seen them as big deer or antelope."

I ran that to ground. Discredited but don't CFR me.

[Bob Oliverio]

Has Meldrum updated anything to reflect these objections?

Has anyone in an official capacity made any statements to object to give clarity to this issue?

[Anijen]

Has anyone in an official capacity made any statements to object to give clarity to this issue?

I once read that he is no longer allowed to give his presentations inside any church buildings anymore. All of his "firesides" are in public buildings now. This implies the church does not agree with some part of his presentation. My guess its either the bad scholarship but more than likely it is the priestcraft that goes on. For example I have no problem with a group or a person profiting from their hard work but he used to sell his dvds, magazines etc inside the church during and after his fireside.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Anijen

[livy111us]

I ran that to ground. Discredited but don't CFR me.

????

[Anijen]

Also mentioned earlier, Cahokia had the largest population of all the mounds in North America, however the population was never large enough to even closely match the Book of Mormon, another reason even more compelling is that when Cahokia did have a large population (remember not large enough for the BofM) it was too late. Cahokia's population reached its peak in the 9th century.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Anijen

[Daniel Peterson]

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,

I think that the New York Cumorah is an extraordinarily important place. It's where the plates were buried and recovered, Moroni was there both as a mortal and as a resurrected being, etc. It is, in very important ways, the birthplace of the Restoration.

with the Brethren declaring that the final battle occurred at its foot.

I realize that many of the Brethren have alluded to the final battle in connection with that hill. I have no doubt that most in the past, and perhaps even most still today, believe the final battle to have occurred there. Do they claim to know that, though, on the basis of a specific revelation to the Church identifying that hill as the site of the final battle? Not that I've heard. I myself grew up assuming that the final battle occurred in upstate New York, and I continued to assume that for more than three decades.

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.

The role of the New York drumlin in the story of the hiding up and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is quite enough, even to the extent that you and I agree on what happened, to justify the outlay and the monument. I've been to Cumorah a number of times, and I reverence the place deeply.

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

Yes, revelation trumps archaeological speculation. But I know of no revelation establishing that the final Jaredite and Nephite battles occurred near Palmyra, New York. Nor, evidently, do the leaders of the Church. If they did, they certainly would not have permitted John Sorenson's archaeological speculations -- which, by your implication, directly contradict revealed Church doctrine -- to be published in the Ensign and, in book form, by the Church's wholly-owned publishing company, Deseret Book.

You'll look in vain for any articles in the Ensign or any volumes issued by Deseret Book denying the deity of Christ, the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, the existence of God, the prophethood of Joseph Smith, the restoration of priesthood authority, the necessity of baptism, the importance of temple marriage, the validity of vicarious ordinances for the dead, etc. Why? Because those actually are official doctrines of the Church.

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

Ah. I can't say that I've missed your characteristically sneering personal hostility.

Dan's magisterial decrees, fearsome and awe-inspiring . . . Dan's edicts . . . forceful . . . numerous

I can't quite remember what I've ever done to deserve the incessant contemptuous snark that you've directed at me from the first time you aimed a post in my direction. It's awfully tiresome.

Incidentally, is the declaration "It just won't go away Dan, despite your ex cathedra proclamations" intended to illustrate, via its powerful evidence and obvious command of syllogistic reasoning, a non-ex-cathedra mode of expression?

The 1990 letter from Michael Watson to Darrell Brooks is very old news, and I've already discussed it ad nauseam with a number of hostile critics. I don't really see any point in discussing it further. If you think that the Church's official doctrine is revealed via private letters from the secretary of the First Presidency to individual local bishops, and then disseminated throughout the Church via bootlegged copies circulated almost entirely by critics, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

As far as I'm concerned, the letter to Bishop Brooks was neutralized by the letter sent by Michael Watson to William Hamblin on 23 April 1993, and published on page 181 of Professor Hamblin's excellent article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993). (Dr. Hamblin's article is accessible on-line at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=25, and, from there, a PDF version is available.)

Unfortunately, the original copy of Brother Watson's letter to Professor Hamblin -- written nearly nineteen years ago -- vanished long ago, which has provided an opening for his and my critics to accuse us of having forged it, of lying about it, of having hallucinated it, and etc. But we did none of those things.

Now tell us all about Carla Ogden's rebuttal.

I know nothing about it, and had never heard of Carla Ogden until some of your ideological kin began to celebrate her.

This makes me skeptical of Mormon scholars because . . .

I'm quite well acquainted with the work and the reputation of Frank Moore Cross, for whom I have enormous respect. At the time I made the statement you quote, though, I was unconvinced that his verdict was the correct or final one. I don't always agree with everything I read, even when the author is a really big name. And, candidly, I haven't paid any attention to the topic since then.

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

At the time I made the quoted statement, I believed it to be true. I spoke in good faith. I understand that the horse skull is a focus of controversy, but I haven't read a thing on it since then. If it's been exposed as a hoax since last I read anything about it or in something that I had not read -- which may or may not be the case; that some argue it to be a fraud is not ipso facto proof that it is a fraud -- then that's the way things go. Most academic fields -- this is no exception -- are in a state of constant flux on their margins. If a document proves to be a forgery or an artifact a fake or an experiment misconceived or misconstrued, we make a course correction and move on. I make no claim to infallibility, and am unaware of any scholar who does. If evidence that I relied upon in an earlier statement or publication turns out to be unreliable, and that comes to my attention, I'll try to take that fact into account the next time I speak or write about a topic to which it's germane.

This seems fairly obvious and convincing. I am a new convert, but what am I missing? Has the Church ever come out with an official statement to withdraw this conclusion? This is what I was always taught by my wife's leaders in her ward when I converted. Was I misled?

You weren't misled. Almost all members of the Church, from the leadership on down (remember that the leadership is necessarily drawn from the "on down" membership), assumed for well over a century that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles were fought at the New York Cumorah. And they may have been right (though I don't think so). Probably the majority of the Church still hold to that assumption. Some because they're really convinced of it, the majority (probably) because they were taught it (as I was) and have never really thought much about it. I have no idea what proportion of the current general leadership of the Church still assumes a New York Cumorah. I know from personal conversation with a few on the matter that they, at least, do not.

But if you're looking to find official Church doctrine on the matter, a private letter from a secretary at Church headquarters to a bishop in Oklahoma probably isn't going to be the way that the Church announces it.

Has anyone in an official capacity made any statements to object to give clarity to this issue?

There are no official statements on the subject one way or the other. Which means that we're entirely free to form our own opinions while remaining in full fellowship with the Church -- as, in fact, has clearly been the case.

I once read that he is no longer allowed to give his presentations inside any church buildings anymore. All of his "firesides" are in public buildings now. This implies the church does not agree with some part of his presentation. My guess its either the bad scholarship but more than likely it is the priestcraft that goes on. For example I have no problem with a group or a person profiting from their hard work but he used to sell his dvds, magazines etc inside the church during and after his fireside.

My sense, based mostly on third-hand accounts and rumor, is that it was the selling to which the Church took exception. The Church really, really doesn't like its property used for commercial purposes. Even if one weren't actually selling books and/or DVDs on the premises, it would still be objectionable if the overall purpose of the gathering seemed to be, in whole or in part, to further a commercial venture. I wouldn't necessarily read disagreement with the content of his presentation into the decision to disallow his use of Church property.

[BCSpace]

Now tell us all about Carla Ogden's rebuttal.

My rebuttal would be that the BoM itself implies two Cumorah's which could be easily missed by one not worrying about actual geographical location.

[cinepro]

Has anyone in an official capacity made any statements to object to give clarity to this issue?

A good acknowledgement that the "Church" is open to the mesoamerican geography is the publication of John Sorenson's articles in the Church's official magazine in the 1980's.

[Freedom]

Thanks. Can you provide a link or reference to this official statement. I was converted and taught that Cumorah was in NY. That's why the letter provided above confirmed what had been taught to me. Again, when did this change?

It is difficult to provide an official statement that does not exist. The church has made no statement on the geography, however in the church educational material, it directs not to create or provide a specific geography. Seminary teachers have this instruction when teaching the book of mormon. Here is a good explanation in the encyclopedia of mormonism. I think Dan Peterson has responded well to the matter as well in this same thread.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Geography

There have been many articles printed in the ensign about where the events took place, they are all speculative but they all agree that they took place in mesoamerica. Although this does not constitute doctrine, it is important to note that no articles have been accepted that place the events in New York, Baja California, or any other location. One could argue that the editors of the ensigns are presently biased towards a mesoamerican location, editors that include general authorities. Nevertheless, if you want to know where the events took place look to the official doctrine. This is found in the scriptures and in official proclamations. To my knowledge, none of these sources provide a location.

[Freedom]

Ah. I can't say that I've missed your characteristically sneering personal hostility.

I can't quite remember what I've ever done to deserve the incessant contemptuous snark that you've directed at me from the first time you aimed a post in my direction. It's awfully tiresome.

He is nothing if not consistent in his condescension and snarkiness. I have enjoyed many a circular argument with the alleged scientist who is deeply offended by Christians who believe in a god that can defy the current understandings of space-time.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As an aside, I find it amusing that Tapirrider signs up and within eight hours had 6 posts in exactly one thread, all appearing to be pre-written to some degree (at least in content and organization) and solely with the intent of attacking Dan Peterson and not even really touching on the original topic. Dan, you really know how to win people over who you've never even met or likely conversed with!

On that note: As an academic (turned property manager...) I have to say it's extremely ignorant of anyone to discount someone in academia because they turned out to be wrong on something. Especially in the field of biblical archeology, the feuds and debates on topics of forgeries, research, and theories run for decades between very accomplished and well respected professionals, gathering hoards of papers and like-minded academics on both sides. Forgeries are common, as are errors. When one person says something is a great new find, another is then introduced to this find they never looked in to (but the "find" was published in a journal they subscribe to), which causes them to look deeper and find an incongruity. This incongruity never would have been found without the work of the other person, and that person's work must be addressed point by point. This is the academic process. If you don't understand it and come out with those weak attacks on all scholars of LDS faith or even all of Dan Peterson's work, claiming they are all suspicious now, you will look as foolish and unfamiliar with relevant fields as Tapirrider just managed to do.

Regarding Meldrum, I do feel his efforts and often bitter spirit (on the issue of location) is making enemies among those who should be our good acquaintances. He does the Church no favors by his approach to those who disagree and his abuse of their research to twist it to fit his argument as if they support him. I hear, however, Meldrum outside of this topic is a great guy. Some people just get caught up in a specific area.

[BatCreekCrazy]

The church makes it very clear that the location of the book of mormon events are not known. There is no official position on the location.

I don't know that it makes it clear, but one thing is clear: God has firmly established the location of biblical events. Why is there prejudice against the Book of Mormon location? God doesn't have a problem with naming locations (as he did for the bible), and he could clear up the issues with the Book of Mormon by revealing clearly to Thomas S Monson where the events took place. He hasn't, not because of us needing faith, but perhaps prejudice against the BoM? Surely God wants us to find the real Lamanites and give them copies of the BoM. From what I can tell, Moroni's prophecy and hope that the BoM would go to his brethren and his promise of the Holy Ghost to the Lamanites (Mor 10) is unfulfilled. All it would take is one revelation on geolocation to fix this. It could be a simple revelation with the lat/long numbers only.

Archaeologists working against the clock in Carlsbad have unearthed another nearly intact skeleton of a horse that may have lived and died 50 years before the Spanish began their conquest of California.

Horses are notorious for roaming. The first horses landed in Florida in around 1512, brought by Juan Ponce de Leon. To think that in the next 100 years a few generation of horses couldn't prance across the plains and elsewhere is ridiculous. Perhaps even some of the Seminole rode (or hauled for meat) FL horses west, traded these horses with the Chickasaw who then, a generation later traded with the Iroquois, and etc. It didn't take that long for the horses to go west with the Mormon & Oregon Pioneers.