Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[Minos]

The first poster has been thread banned. We aren't putting up with the stupid, unnecessary, and juvenile insults guys. Those days are over so find a board where you can pile up the chips on your shoulders if you can't carry on an adult conversation here.

[Sevenbak]

Forgot to add a pic. 'Shadowing with wings', from the Isaiah reference.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hi Dan,

... hmmm...

You and Bill—not critics—have clearly established that Michael Watson did not send a letter "to William Hamblin on 23 April 1993" that "neutralized" an earlier "letter to Bishop Brooks."

If you'd like, I can provide links to or repost your and Bill's acknowledgments of this (though it may take me a day or so—holidays and all that).

What would be the point? What is it, exactly, that you hope to prove?

It's been roughly nineteen years, and it wasn't all that dramatic a thing when it happened. But whether it was a letter with Michael Watson's signature on it or a fax sent by Carla Ogden on behalf of her boss, Michael Watson, it was a communication from Michael Watson to Bill Hamblin, in response to an inquiry, as I recall, from Bill Hamblin to Michael Watson. We didn't simply invent or inflate the reference in the article.

I'm not quite sure why this looms so large in the minds of certain critics. Do they imagine that they've finally caught Bill Hamblin and me in a flat-out lie? If so, they're simply wrong. I may be, and in fact am, many things. But "liar" is not among them. Does it really matter that a communication from the Office of the First Presidency quoted a relevant statement from the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism instead of inventing its own synonymous boilerplate language? Not that I can see.

Kind regards,

LOL. Right. Sure.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

The radiocarbon dating of the horse skull was in print in 2004

That may well be. I've never seen the book.

There are several books published each year, nationally and internationally, that I don't read. On several different subjects, including my own specific professional field.

It was sloppy to make such a controversial claim about that horse skull without first checking to see if radiocarbon dating had settled the case.

Perhaps. And, if I made an error, I can promise you that it wasn't my first. And I'm reasonably certain that I'll make at least two more before I die. Possibly three.

Moreover, I'm not alone in this. Other scholars are fallible, too, from what I understand.

Had I been writing an article or a monograph on the question of Pre-Columbian horses, I would have done as complete a literature review as I could. For an off the cuff remark on a video, though, the typical standard is a bit more casual.

I'm happy to be corrected when correction is warranted. Some of my critics will find this impossible to believe, and will rise up in a chorus of indignant protest when they read this, but I do actually care about truth and accuracy. And, on the whole, I think I do reasonably well.

[Daniel Peterson]

The only thing more official is D&C 128:20.

Which -- strikingly -- doesn't identify upstate New York as the scene of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles.

[Daniel Peterson]

That is not the issue. No one here (to my knowledge) has filmed non-LDS scholars for an obvious Mormon film which provides "evidence" for The Book of Mormon, while only telling them that it was a video on the history of their expertise. Then editing their comments so they seem to agree with the premise of the video. After that, claiming that these oblivious scholars agree with and support your theory. That is what this thread is about. No one is claiming that Mesoamerican theorists have non-LDS scholars who support them.

There is an enormous difference between quoting something said by another scholar as part of the chain of evidence one is using in order to argue for one's own position or conclusion -- this is not only common in historical and similar scholarship, but essentially standard operating procedure -- and doing what the Meldrum film seems to have done. (See above.)

When I argue for a thesis -- whether it's a Mormon-related one or an Islam-related one -- I never presume that the scholars I'm quoting agree with my thesis. Presumably they don't. Presumably it's new. If it weren't, there would be no real point in my arguing it, it probably wouldn't be published, and it surely wouldn't gain me much academic cred if it were just a rehash of common ideas. They might even disagree with me. That's the way the scholarly game is played.

There's also a very big difference between quoting, in one's own manuscript, from articles or monographs or books published by others -- they're in the public domain, and fair game for such use -- and recruiting people to appear in a film. The former is, again, the very warp and woof of scholarship in history, the social sciences, and the humanities. And the latter? Not so much. Like scarcely ever. Very different things, subject to different protocols and sensitivities.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[BatCreekCrazy]

There's also a very big difference between quoting, in one's own manuscript, from articles or monographs or books published by others -- they're in the public domain, and fair game for such use -- and recruiting people to appear in a film. The former is, again, the very warp and woof of scholarship in history, the social sciences, and the humanities. And the latter? Not so much. Like scarcely ever. Very different things, subject to different protocols and sensitivities.

Good point Dan. Interviewing and editing statements out of context are very shoddy, dishonest forms of reporting.

And you're right, taking the public discourse and making new arguments from statements there is not at all out of line.

My question is: when one goes through the public discourse and cherry picks the statements favorable to one's thesis without also accounting for the evidence that is contrary, is that considered good scholarship?

I suppose one could comb the public discourse on a hot topic, cherry pick the statements and find sufficient material to make any argument. How is that really different in the end (neglecting process) from recruiting, interviewing and cherry picking statements from interviews?

[Freedom]

My question is: when one goes through the public discourse and cherry picks the statements favorable to one's thesis without also accounting for the evidence that is contrary, is that considered good scholarship?

No it is not, Batcreekcrazy, But this is the very tactic that you engage in.

[tapirrider]

If you see a problem then be specific. Do not use a thread about a specific topic to make unspecified accusations. Everyone is also on notice that we do not allow posters to call another poster a liar. Posters who engage in easy cheap shots will be banned from further participation in the thread.

I have called no one a liar. I have however shown specifically the sloppiness of claiming that the Spencer Lake horse skull was from the time of Christ. I have made no cheap shots, I have asked for CFR and not gotten it, I have provided sources for everything I have stated here. I have made no accusations, I simply showed that information was available before the FAIR video claim of the Spencer Lake Horse skull.

For livy111us,

You said:

"Excellent, great find! But this doesn't help your case to show Peterson a liar. First of all, the Spencer Lake Skull was being used as evidence of horses until 2008. Critics and apologists were even unaware of this gem until Chris Smith brought it to light. While it was published, no one knew about it's publication."

I have difficulty with that for the reason that results were anticipated in 2001. Why was nobody looking for them when they came out? Again, sloppy (nobody is being accused of lying).

Out of the Dust, 2001

http://maxwellinstit...10&num=1&id=246

"Meanwhile, Dr. Steven E. Jones of the BYU physics department has for several years been tracking down horse bones in North America considered to predate the European conquest. Professor Jones's purpose for this search is to submit the bones to tests by the radiocarbon method (some of that work has taken advantage of assistance from FARMS). So far, one or more finds appear to be possibly of pre-Spanish Conquest date, although definitive results will take more work. Further work is being done by Yuri Kuchinsky, a researcher in Canada who has been pursuing a variety of other evidence, based mainly on Native American lore, about possible pre-Conquest horses in North America."

livy111us said:

"particularly when the same methods used to prove the Spencer Lake skull a hoax is used to prove 7 other specimens to be authentic. You may claim it is pseudo-Science all you want in an attempt to take a jab at the authenticity of The Book of Mormon, but the fact remains, evidence is arising to prove this claim true."

You are claiming there are 7 horse specimens that are authentic before Columbus? I insist on CFR. Please do not direct me to ask someone else as you did on my last CFR. Give me sources from professional scientific journals. Give me some real documentation that will be accepted by mainstream science. I maintain that nobody has proven 7 horse specimens dated before Columbus but after the large mammal extinction. Speculation perhaps but not proof.

Finally, I will repeat that I have not called anyone a liar. I have taken Dr. Peterson's statement "For one thing, I think sloppy arguments and abuse of evidence need to be identified as such" and identified two examples of sloppy arguments. I have pointed out that even though Dr. Peterson is no longer using the Spencer Lake Horse hoax, it is currently available on youtube for LDS members to be misled with. This sloppiness goes beyond Meldrum and destroys credibility of LDS claims that they have Book of Mormon evidence.

In case you haven't caught on yet, we are fed up with clumsy, pointless and mean spirited search and destroy tactics being used on our message board and that goes for both sides. Nobody cares how often you deny what you are so obviously doing. We do care when you take time from the topic to argue with mods. Now you are out of the thread.

[Daniel Peterson]

destroys credibility of LDS claims that they have Book of Mormon evidence.

Since, in your apparent view, the presence of a single error, or even of a sprinkling of errors, in a scholar's public statements over the course of the years utterly destroys his credibility and that of those who agree with his position, you must be deeply, deeply grateful that you were born infallible.

Unfortunately, it's too late for me.

[Bob Oliverio]

I had the opportunity to share copies of the letter and fax referred to above to our Stake President yesterday. I thought these two sources were so completely different in content and authority but wanted to see if I was missing something.  Admittedly I had no idea who either Michael Watson or Carla  Ogden were/are.  The SP knew who Michael Watson was but had no idea of this Ms Ogden.  But his conclusion, and that of others at this gathering, were all very consistent that the letter from the First President's office was as official as one could get and that it clearly stated it was a response on behalf of the Prophet.  And again reiterating what I was taught all along - that the church has always concluded and taught that the BOM Hill Cumorah is located in NY.

Am I missing something here from those who want to discredit this letter or cast doubt on the position of the Church on this issue.  The SP and others were familiar with this letter and said it has never been retracted.  For those of you who disagree with the First Presidency's statement, can you provide any retractment of this statement or explain why this statement is bothersome to you?

[Daniel Peterson]

I had the opportunity to share copies of the letter and fax referred to above to our Stake President yesterday. I thought these two sources were so completely different in content and authority but wanted to see if I was missing something. Admittedly I had no idea who either Michael Watson or Carla Ogden were/are. The SP knew who Michael Watson was but had no idea of this Ms Ogden. But his conclusion, and that of others at this gathering, were all very consistent that the letter from the First President's office was as official as one could get and that it clearly stated it was a response on behalf of the Prophet. And again reiterating what I was taught all along - that the church has always concluded and taught that the BOM Hill Cumorah is located in NY.

Am I missing something here from those who want to discredit this letter or cast doubt on the position of the Church on this issue. The SP and others were familiar with this letter and said it has never been retracted. For those of you who disagree with the First Presidency's statement, can you provide any retractment of this statement or explain why this statement is bothersome to you?

If you want to believe that the First Presidency and the Church have an official stance on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, but that the First Presidency and the Church are nonetheless perfectly okay with permitting opposing views to be advocated by employees of its University in the Church's official magazine and in the Church's quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism and in books published by the Church's wholly-owned publishing company and in faxes sent out by secretaries in the Office of the FIrst Presidency itself, you're certainly welcome to do so.

I can't think of a single parallel to such alleged behavior by the First Presidency.

And how would your stake president know that a private letter sent by a secretary in Salt Lake City to a bishop in Oklahoma hasn't been retracted? It was never officially distributed. It's merely been passed around on the internet in bootleg copies. Had he seen it before? If so, that was by sheer chance. Were you the first person to show it to him? Is that -- seriously! -- the way official doctrine is proclaimed in the Church? How does he know that there wasn't a follow-up letter written to that same Oklahoma bishop? Perhaps one was sent two days later? Perhaps it just hasn't been picked up on the Web yet. How can he be certain that it wasn't sent? Perhaps there was a retraction sent privately to a bishop in Nevada. Or in Hong Kong. Or in Saskatchewan. Or perhaps it was sent to a deacons quorum president in American Samoa? How can he know that there wasn't? Can he guarantee that there wasn't? If this is the way official doctrine is propagated in the Church, how can you be sure that I myself don't have a private letter from a secretary in the First Presidency's office -- I've been a bishop, too -- revealing that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles were actually fought on the lower slopes of Mt. Whitney, in California? Perhaps I have such a letter, but am withholding it for a decisive article that I'm going to write someday in which I'll triumphantly reveal it and decimate all my critics . . .

Edited December 27, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Minos]

I had the opportunity to share copies of the letter and fax referred to above to our Stake President yesterday. I thought these two sources were so completely different in content and authority but wanted to see if I was missing something. Admittedly I had no idea who either Michael Watson or Carla Ogden were/are. The SP knew who Michael Watson was but had no idea of this Ms Ogden. But his conclusion, and that of others at this gathering, were all very consistent that the letter from the First President's office was as official as one could get and that it clearly stated it was a response on behalf of the Prophet. And again reiterating what I was taught all along - that the church has always concluded and taught that the BOM Hill Cumorah is located in NY.

Am I missing something here from those who want to discredit this letter or cast doubt on the position of the Church on this issue. The SP and others were familiar with this letter and said it has never been retracted. For those of you who disagree with the First Presidency's statement, can you provide any retractment of this statement or explain why this statement is bothersome to you?

Everybody gets it by now. Everybody agrees these were private letters. Agree to disagree on everything else.

NOW MOVE ON!

[BatCreekCrazy]

No it is not, Batcreekcrazy, But this is the very tactic that you engage in.

I engage in cherry picking and selective quoting? Evidence?

[BatCreekCrazy]

If you want to believe that the First Presidency and the Church have an official stance on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, but that the First Presidency and the Church are nonetheless perfectly okay with permitting opposing views to be advocated by employees of its University in the Church's official magazine and in the Church's quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism and in books published by the Church's wholly-owned publishing company and in faxes sent out by secretaries in the Office of the FIrst Presidency itself, you're certainly welcome to do so.

They do just that on evolution. They are perfectly fine with the evolution of homo sapiens being taught and advocated by science depts at BYU campuses.

And yet the first presidency has taken a firm stand against it...

http://lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

It would not surprise me that they want their cake and to eat it too on geography.

Also, from that link, is an interesting statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. "

But I also recall Gordon B. Hinckley telling reporters that we don't teach that.

So it seems to me, the First Presidency is comfortable with ambiguity, and even on essential doctrines, such as the creation and nature of God. Geography ambiguity is a no-brainer.

[Daniel Peterson]

They are perfectly fine with the evolution of homo sapiens being taught and advocated by science depts at BYU campuses.

Indeed they are. It's taught in all of the relevant science classes, and I just finished a semester-long faculty seminar on Darwinism.

And yet the first presidency has taken a firm stand against it...

Actually, I don't think they have. The statement that you quote affirms that Adam was, in some sense, the "primal parent of our race," but it says nothing, really, about how he got here.

There are many more Church statements on the matter, conveniently gathered here.

It would not surprise me that they want their cake and to eat it too on geography.

If your hypothetical lack of surprise at a future hypothetical possibility, fortified by your oversimplified misreading of an analogous situation, is the best evidence you've got against my position, above, I'm feeling pretty secure.

IAlso, from that link, is an interesting statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. "

But I also recall Gordon B. Hinckley telling reporters that we don't teach that.

You are, in my judgment, misrepresenting and misconstruing what President Hinckley said.

ISo it seems to me, the First Presidency is comfortable with ambiguity, and even on essential doctrines, such as the creation and nature of God. Geography ambiguity is a no-brainer.

Nice try. Good effort.

No cigar.

P.S. On a different note, I just got another e-mail from Rodney Meldrum. Not a very nice one, either. For a long time, I never really cared much about what he was doing. But I'm beginning to grow rather unfond of the fellow.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[BatCreekCrazy]

Actually, I don't think they have. The statement that you quote affirms that Adam was, in some sense, the "primal parent of our race," but it says nothing, really, about how he got here.

Scriptures quoted in that declaration tell us in what sense they officially meant Adam was defined doctrinally to be the primal parent and first man (keyword "first flesh", "first man"):

“And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them, and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

“But, I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

“And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word” (Moses 3:4–7; see also Moses 1 and Moses 2, and compare with Gen. 1 and Gen. 2).

And I realize that you're perfectly comfortable with your positions. I only post what I do for lurking eyes.

[Daniel Peterson]

And I realize that you're perfectly comfortable with your positions. I only post what I do for lurking eyes.

I trust that any who are really interested in the topic will do the necessary research to really understand the Church's position.

Slogans and sound bites won't cut it.

[BatCreekCrazy]

I trust that any who are really interested in the topic will do the necessary research to really understand the Church's position.

Slogans and sound bites won't cut it.

Let me understand this, a complete, unedited official declaration posted from LDS.ORG is not sufficient to understand the Church's position, but this site, http://www.gregkoffo...m-and-evolution IS?

Thanks.

Even a moderator can see Amazon's sample content proves that this book was approved by the First Presidency! You are not attempting to have a reasonable discussion you are attempting to stop one by limiting information. Last warning.

[livy111us]

P.S. On a different note, I just got another e-mail from Rodney Meldrum. Not a very nice one, either. For a long time, I never really cared much about what he was doing. But I'm beginning to grow rather unfond of the fellow.

On what topic? Or is he just harassing you because you are part of a Church owned, Church funded organization, approved to teach your theories in Church institutions and publications...er,.. I mean apostate organization?

[gtaggart]

What would be the point? What is it, exactly, that you hope to prove?

It's been roughly nineteen years, and it wasn't all that dramatic a thing when it happened. But whether it was a letter with Michael Watson's signature on it or a fax sent by Carla Ogden on behalf of her boss, Michael Watson, it was a communication from Michael Watson to Bill Hamblin, in response to an inquiry, as I recall, from Bill Hamblin to Michael Watson. We didn't simply invent or inflate the reference in the article.

I'm not quite sure why this looms so large in the minds of certain critics. Do they imagine that they've finally caught Bill Hamblin and me in a flat-out lie? If so, they're simply wrong. I may be, and in fact am, many things. But "liar" is not among them. Does it really matter that a communication from the Office of the First Presidency quoted a relevant statement from the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism instead of inventing its own synonymous boilerplate language? Not that I can see.

LOL. Right. Sure.

Dan, as often as you post here, I wonder why you have such trouble remembering that whether Brent rides in on a tapir or a palomino colt, his mount will always be a Budweiser Clydesdale in his mind.

[Daniel Peterson]

Let me understand this, a complete, unedited official declaration posted from LDS.ORG is not sufficient to understand the Church's position, but this site, http://www.gregkoffo...m-and-evolution IS?

I do not think that that declaration says what you think it says.

And the materials included in the book to which I supplied a link are, all of them, in their entirety, authoritative statements on the subject by the leaders of the Church.

Let me understand this: Your dubious interpretation of a single First Presidency statement trumps all of the First Presidency statements ever issued on the topic?

On what topic? Or is he just harassing you because you are part of a Church owned, Church funded organization, approved to teach your theories in Church institutions and publications...er,.. I mean apostate organization?

He's been writing to me to insult me for various things, and is trying to paint me as an apostate. He's losing his charm.

Dan, as often as you post here, I wonder why you have such trouble remembering that whether Brent rides in on a tapir or a palomino colt, his mount will always be a Budweiser Clydesdale in his mind.

LOL. I love it.

.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[BatCreekCrazy]

Even a moderator can see Amazon's sample content proves that this book was approved by the First Presidency! You are not attempting to have a reasonable discussion you are attempting to stop one by limiting information. Last warning.

Forgive me, but I didn't understand what rule I broke. I asked a question. I didn't make a claim. I was asking whether statements made officially by the first presidency are not as relevant as books published by independent publishers. Plus, I did not see an approval statement by the First Presidency in the sample at

http://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Evolution-Authoritative-LDS-Statements/dp/1589580931/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1325099493&sr=1-1-catcorr

But if you can point me to the page #, I would be happy to report otherwise.

I understand that the moderator does not like my argument. And that to the moderator it seems I am not being reasonable. My belief is, that many have the same question about what sources one should trust concerning doctrinal statements. If one should not trust LDS.ORG, but should trust a book on Amazon, I think this is a very good discussion to have. It's a confusing state, otherwise.

[BatCreekCrazy]

I do not think that that declaration says what you think it says.

And the materials included in the book to which I supplied a link are, all of them, in their entirety, authoritative statements on the subject by the leaders of the Church.

Let me understand this: Your dubious interpretation of a single First Presidency statement trumps all of the First Presidency statements ever issued on the topic?

.

I didn't say that. Since I haven't access to the book you referenced, perhaps you can provide a single salient First presidency quote that clarifies what is meant by the 1909 declaration. If I am not understanding doctrine, a clear, concise first presidency stating what I have amiss in my understanding of the 1909 statement would be much appreciated.

[Daniel Peterson]

one should not trust LDS.ORG, but should trust a book on Amazon

If that's intended to represent my position, you're distorting what I've said.

I don't dispute the statement from lds.org. I dispute your interpretation and use of it.

And the "book on Amazon" is, purely and entirely and solely, a collection of First Presidency statements on the subject, without commentary.

So please stop trying to misrepresent me as arguing with the First Presidency on the basis of less authoritative materials.