Non-Lds Scholars Debunk Meldrum

[livy111us]

The Meldrum influenced video "Lost Civilizations of North America" contained interviews of several non-LDS scholars who appeared to support the Heartland theory. As much as this group wanted non-LDS scholars to side with them, they have done just the opposite. Once the scholars saw the final cut of the video, they were less than pleased with how they were portrayed and some sought legal counsel against the producers. These scholars immediately denounced the video and began writing responses to this video. They just posted the final of 3 articles online. The first article is on the Hopewell culture as a whole and their real origins. The second article is on the Michigan relics, Bat Creek stone and other spurious artifacts that are used as evidence for the theory, and the last is on the DNA issue, particularly the X haplogroup which they use as evidence for his theory. These are a great read!

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

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

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

They said in part "Each of us was interviewed for this film. None of us was asked directly for our opinion on what turned out to be its underlying claim; that Old World civilizations played an active role in the development of Native American cultures, especially the mound builders. Instead, we were asked general questions about Native American societies, their remarkable technological achievements, genetic histories, and we were also asked to comment on the biases of many nineteenth-century historians and archaeologists concerning the abilities of the native people of North America. We fear that the context of our general remarks as they currently appear in the film might lead viewers to conclude that our words on these subjects provide support for the film’s claims. That would be a mistake. In fact, our remarks, if presented in an unedited form, show clearly that we reject the assertions made in the finished documentary concerning a non-native source for the complex cultures of Native America."

http://petra-archaeology.com/statement-about-the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-dvd.html

You can also read more of their thoughts on the heartland model on these websites:

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

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

[Anijen]

Hmmm, no comment from the heartlanders?

anyone?

Thanks livey111us for the links. I have been in contact off and on with both Dr. Lepper and Dr. Feder. I am hoping to get Dr. Feder to write an intro to my paper, that is if I ever get around to writing it.

but life keeps on happening.

[Log]

"Each of us was interviewed for this film. None of us was asked directly for our opinion on what turned out to be its underlying claim; that Old World civilizations played an active role in the development of Native American cultures.... [W]e reject the assertions made in the finished documentary concerning a non-native source for the complex cultures of Native America."

Well, I have a generally poor opinion of the NCSE, but this one takes some cake.

http://www.fairlds.o...rian-Stubbs.pdf

If their languages were there, they were there, and if they were there, their cultures were there. The cocaine mummies are just icing on that cake.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Log

[Tepui]

[sIGH] Calling the kettle black...

PBS THE MORMONS

To make Book of Mormon archaeology at all kind of believable, my friend .... has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies. He's tried to build a reasonable picture that these two civilizations weren't all that different from each other. Well, this is true of all civilizations, actually; there's nothing new under the sun.

So he has built up what he hopes is a convincing background in which you can put Book of Mormon archaeology, and he's a very serious, bright guy. But I'm sorry to say that I don't really buy more than a part of this. I don't really think you can argue, no matter how bright you are, that what's said in the Book of Mormon applies to the peoples that we study in Mexico and Central America. That's one way of doing it -- to build up a kind of convincing background, a kind of stage set to this -- but there's no actors. That's the problem.

---//---

How do they cope with this? I'll be the first to admit I don't know; I really don't. I don't really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn't shown up -- how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There's simply no way to bring them together.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/coe.html

It appears more than just Brother Meldrum has problems with their geography theories. You know who Dr. Michael Coe is?

[bcuzbcuz]

Well, I have a generally poor opinion of the NCSE, but this one takes some cake. http://www.fairlds.o...rian-Stubbs.pdf If their languages were there, they were there, and if they were there, their cultures were there. The cocaine mummies are just icing on that cake.

Stubbs not only has poor English skills but he also emphatically states in his presentation that: "The critics of the Book of the Mormon say that no one has shown evidence of any American Indian language being descended from Hebrew or Egyptian, discounting the Book of Mormon, or no one has shown that to the satisfactory of the linguistic community."

And he concludes with: "So when the critics say there is no language evidence for the Book of Mormon that has been accepted by the linguistic community, they are correct, there is nothing *yet* that has been accepted by the linguistic community,"

'Yet' is a pretty big word in semantics. It means that every single thing Stubbs states is supposition, a link between languages that only he and a few others see. I don't find his evidence compelling. The links are tenuous and are derived from his preconceived ideas regarding LDS scripture.

When linguist scholars find a language link between Native American languages to Hebrew or Egyptian they will publish regardless of whether they are Mormon or not. Until such time I guess "no language evidence" means "no language evidence".

[bcuzbcuz]

The cocaine mummies are just icing on that cake.

Two attempts to replicate Balbanova's finds of cocaine failed, suggesting "that either Balabanova and her associates are misinterpreting their results or that the samples of mummies tested by them have been mysteriously exposed to cocaine."^[26]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

As one might expect, the papers were greeted with disbelief, as if they'd announced that in the days of the pharaohs the sun rose in the west but didn't acknowledge that there was anything odd about this. Although the criticisms were politely phrased, the subtext was unmistakable: Listen, you morons, if you're going to present results that fly in the face of everything we know about ancient trade, botany, etc., you're going to need more than seven paragraphs and a chart to convince us. Among the possibilities suggested: (1) The samples were contaminated. (2) The mummies were fakes. (3) The analytical techniques were faulty. (4) Related Old World alkaloids might have been misidentified.

The Germans replied: We have no explanation; further research is needed. You can almost hear the eyeballs roll.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2375/whats-up-with-the-cocaine-mummies

Do you have any evidence that studies done by someone else, other than the German team, have independently verified any of these substances in any mummies skin (not hair samples which can be, relatively easily, contaminated)?

[livy111us]

Last I checked, Mesoamerican theorists didn't film non-LDS and edit them in such a way that it made them look like they accepted our conclusion all the while knowing that they do not. Then claiming that non-LDS support our theory.

[livy111us]

Stubbs not only has poor English skills but he also emphatically states in his presentation that: "The critics of the Book of the Mormon say that no one has shown evidence of any American Indian language being descended from Hebrew or Egyptian, discounting the Book of Mormon, or no one has shown that to the satisfactory of the linguistic community."

And he concludes with: "So when the critics say there is no language evidence for the Book of Mormon that has been accepted by the linguistic community, they are correct, there is nothing *yet* that has been accepted by the linguistic community,"

'Yet' is a pretty big word in semantics. It means that every single thing Stubbs states is supposition, a link between languages that only he and a few others see. I don't find his evidence compelling. The links are tenuous and are derived from his preconceived ideas regarding LDS scripture.

When linguist scholars find a language link between Native American languages to Hebrew or Egyptian they will publish regardless of whether they are Mormon or not. Until such time I guess "no language evidence" means "no language evidence".

You may also recall that he said every linguist he has shown his research to has agreed with his conclusions. He is not isolated in his beliefs.

[livy111us]

Hmmm, no comment from the heartlanders?

anyone?

Thanks livey111us for the links. I have been in contact off and on with both Dr. Lepper and Dr. Feder. I am hoping to get Dr. Feder to write an intro to my paper, that is if I ever get around to writing it.

but life keeps on happening.

I am anxiously awaiting your publication. I am sure it will be excellent.

[Bob Crockett]

This reminds me of Dr. Charles Anthon's reaction to Mormon use of his name. Or the Smithosian's reaction to inquiries.

[Bob Crockett]

Last I checked, Mesoamerican theorists didn't film non-LDS and edit them in such a way that it made them look like they accepted our conclusion all the while knowing that they do not. Then claiming that non-LDS support our theory.

The Christ in America video?

[livy111us]

So you are comparing a video that was done not to promote any theory, that was made decades ago, which Mesoamerican scholars have found to be full of flaws, and no one (to my knowledge) touted that non-LDS scholars support their theory, to a video which was made to promote the heartland theory and knowingly misrepresented the scholars in the video so they would seem to support that theory, use known forgeries as evidence, science that no geneticist would stand behind, then claim that non-LDS scholars support you? Forgive me for not seeing the connection.

[kolipoki09]

It appears more than just Brother Meldrum has problems with their geography theories. You know who Dr. Michael Coe is?

Knowing livy111us personally, I'm quite confident that he is intimately familiar with Dr. Coe's various analyses of the Book of Mormon.

There are also several LDS scholars who have a very high opinion of Dr. Coe as a Mayanist, but who nevertheless disagree with his conclusions about the Book of Mormon, primarily because they don't believe he has taken a very serious look at it. Perhaps that's my own conclusion, but it has been what I've generally observed.

Kevin Christensen - a frequent poster here - offers the following rebuttal to Coe's treatment of Mormon Mesoamericanists in the FARMS Review.

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=810

Coe dismisses arguments by Sorenson, John E. Clark, and Brant A. Gardner regarding how the Mesoamerican setting supports the Book of Mormon account of the rise and fall of the two major civilizations. Tellingly, Coe makes much of the disappointments of Thomas Ferguson relative to the Book of Mormon, but he does not seem to have grasped the implications of the very different approach taken by better trained, more disciplined Latter-day Saint archaeologists. Brant Gardner provides a particularly striking example of the difference that a change in perspective can bring to the questions one asks and the evidence, or lack thereof, that one finds:

The rather interesting discovery made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [book of Mormon] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics [were] for years focused on finding the Christian or the Hebrew—or who knows what—in Mesoamerican archaeology.

The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations [have] changed with that single shift in perspective.

When people ask for one thing that is the most important correlation, I have a hard time coming up with one, because it isn't a single thing. It is that the entire text of the Book of Mormon works better in a Mesoamerican context. Speeches suddenly have a context that makes them relevant instead of just preachy. The pressures leading to wars are understandable. The wars themselves have an explanation for their peculiar features. All of those things happen with a single interpretive framework that is in the right place at the right time. Even the demise of the Nephites happens at "the right time."

Against Sorenson's correlations, Coe raises questions about horses, metal, scripts, and the disappointments of Thomas Ferguson. He claims that there is a stage but no actors for the Book of Mormon story. Yet that conclusion seems to be based on the same kind of assumptions that led to Ferguson's disillusionment, and not on those held by Latter-day Saint archaeologists whose fieldwork Coe praises. While Latter-day Saint archaeologists produce archaeology that Coe respects, yet they see their findings in a different relation to the Book of Mormon text than Coe does—because they have different expectations of the text than he does.

Science historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn observed that paradigm choice always involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved. Suppose that in the ongoing Book of Mormon historicity debate we could swap currently plausible solutions for current problems. That is, suppose we had better evidence for metals and horses, a scrap of recognizably reformed Egyptian script, and even some profoundly unlikely DNA that somehow pointed directly to 600 BC Jerusalem. At the same time, suppose we did not have a unique fit for the river Sidon, nor an archaeologically suitable Cumorah, nor the rise and fall of major cultures at the right time (Olmec and Preclassic), nor a Zarahemla candidate that explained various circumstances in the text (physical, geographic, and linguistic), nor evidence of a major volcanic eruption at the right time, nor fortifications of the right kind, nor a candidate for the Waters of Mormon complete with a submerged city, nor a good candidate for the Gadianton movement, nor the other abundant cultural details that Sorenson, Gardner, Clark, and others have detailed. Suppose that Clark had demonstrated that the trend for Book of Mormon criticisms was moving consistently away from resolution of questions rather than toward it. And then for good measure, toss out all of the ancient Near Eastern correlations from Jerusalem through the Arabian desert to Nahom and Bountiful as well. Given that exchange of current solutions for current puzzles, would the present case for New World Book of Mormon historicity be stronger or weaker?

Edited April 30, 2012 by kolipoki09

[Calm]

Perhaps that's my own conclusion, but it has been what I've generally observed.

Mine as well. There seems a general consensus that he is not sufficiently familiar with the more recent scholarship to fairly judge it.

[kolipoki09]

Mine as well. There seems a general consensus that he is not sufficiently familiar with the more recent scholarship to fairly judge it.

And, in all fairness, that is the same language Meldrum used when he responded to Daniel Peterson's criticisms of the Heartlanders about a month ago.

In it, Meldrum refers to an (confidential?) e-mail where Peterson alludes to not paying much attention to Meldrum or his research.

[Note mods: If I'm violating a board policy here by summarizing an e-mail that was published elsewhere, I apologize. If you feel it necessary to remove this, I understand.]

However, I do think that the Maxwell Institute as a whole has - by comparison - done a much better job addressing Meldrum et al. than Coe has with LDS Mesoamericanists.

Edited April 30, 2012 by kolipoki09

[ERayR]

And, in all fairness, that is the same language Meldrum used when he responded to Daniel Peterson's criticisms of the Heartlanders about a month ago.

In it, Meldrum refers to an (confidential?) e-mail where Peterson alludes to not paying much attention to Meldrum or his research.

[Note mods: If I'm violating a board policy here by summarizing an e-mail that was published elsewhere, I apologize. If you feel it necessary to remove this, I understand.]

How did a confidential email get public?

[livy111us]

After crying foul and calling FAIR all sorts of names for using a mass email he sent, he did the exact same thing by publishing a personal email between two people. He is *really* good at name calling and hypocrisy. I'm not just saying that but have quite a bit of evidence to back it up.

[kolipoki09]

How did a confidential email get public?

Meldrum posted it on his website. Meldrum's own e-mails warn of legal action if any information is shared with anyone other than the specified recipient, unless otherwise authorized.

I don't know if the content of Peterson's e-mail was privileged, I'm only speculating (and cautious of possibly violating board policy by linking to it).

Edited April 30, 2012 by kolipoki09

[Calm]

After crying foul and calling FAIR all sorts of names for using a mass email he sent, he did the exact same thing by publishing a personal email between two people.

Not the exact same thing, his email was sent out to a number of people (including, IIRC, some that did not solicit the information) for the purpose of publicizing his efforts, the other was a personal one on one communication.

[Anijen]

Just an FYI our visiting GA [Elder Jose Alonso]for Stake Conference told me most of the Book of Mormon happened in his neck of the woods (Mexico). I of course agree with his opinion.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Bob Crockett]

Just an FYI our visiting GA [Elder Jose Alonso]for Stake Conference told me most of the Book of Mormon happened in his neck of the woods (Mexico). I of course agree with his opinion.

Well, there you go.

Of course, my authorities are Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Marion G. Romney and the First Presidency in 1929, and various temple prayers far from Central America, and further my authorities include the fact that Sorenson was asked to edit out of his Ensign piece malnourished views of Hill Cumorah, but who's counting authorities?

If you want to get into the General Authority game, the Mesoamericanists come out losers. Some, perhaps many, of us, think the Mesoamerican-centric view of the Book of Mormon is a way to explain away problems in the Book of Mormon, and thus possible faithless heterodoxy, but we shouldn't be citing "I heard a General Authority say" something about this view when there are official statements to the contrary. Official, meaning, uttered in Church publications, priesthood manuals, and over the pulpit in General Conference. Doctrinal? The jury's out on that

Going after Meldrum, and making him a celebrated cause, is risky business indeed when so much of what he says seems to rely upon orthodoxy, although I've never read a single thing he's published.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[livy111us]

I think you are blowing his statement out of proportion. He said "I of course agree with his opinion" Opinion meaning his personal belief. He did not say "the Lord revealed..." but stated an opinion on where he thought The BOM took place.

With that said, I think it would be interesting to take a comprehensive look at *all* BOM geography statements by leaders of our Church to see the diversity of beliefs on BOM geography through time. I would only conclude what we already know, there is no revealed geography and people are free to believe what they want.

[Bob Crockett]

I think you are blowing his statement out of proportion. He said "I of course agree with his opinion" Opinion meaning his personal belief. He did not say "the Lord revealed..." but stated an opinion on where he thought The BOM took place.

With that said, I think it would be interesting to take a comprehensive look at *all* BOM geography statements by leaders of our Church to see the diversity of beliefs on BOM geography through time. I would only conclude what we already know, there is no revealed geography and people are free to believe what they want.

That is quite untrue to say there is "no revealed geography." When the Brethren from the 1920s to the 1950s were condemning speculative Book of Mormon geography, it was often in the context of holding firm to the view that today's Hill Cumorah is yesterday's Ramah/Cumorah. So, to the extent of the Hill Cumorah, we have revealed geography. I have so many times posted on this board many of the statements. The most cogent ones relate to general conference statements in 1928 or 1929 when the impoverished church bought the Hill Cumorah, erected a monument, and dedicated an entire conference to the event. Although the President of the Church did not comment on the modern hill's relationship to the ancient battles, others did from First Presidency. This is "revealed" in the sense that we, as members of the church, sat at the foot of the prophets and received instruction on something very important to the First Presidency at the time.

Often I've seen folks on this board cite to statements from the brethren condemning speculative Book of Mormon geography when, in fact, the statements are used to criticize other Cumorah views.

As to the location of the rest of the Book of Mormon events, I think it is also "revealed" that they occurred on the American continents. So many statements to that effect, really; they cannot be gainsaid.

Contrast that to whether it has been "revealed" that the Sorenson model is the best model for a limited geography. Ehh, no such thing exists. The closest you have is Sorenson's publication the Ensign which, I point out many times, was edited to deal with his controversial statements about the Hill Cumorah.

And, again, what really deeply troubles me about this whole controversy is that it appears to me that the genesis of the LGT theory is founded upon a fear that modern archaeology does not support the things that the Book of Mormon appears to support with the easiest explanation and understanding of the text. Now, the LGT theory has developed a life of its own and there are many enthusiastic supporters of it who probably aren't thinking -- "wait, this is founded in a lack of faith" -- but it still is troublesome to the deeply orthodox.

Those who adhere to the LGT theory have started to adopt their own peculiar vernacular -- the "drumlin" when the Brethren have not used that word and, instead, have referred to Cumorah's imposing status.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

I do not think it is a matter of who said what or where. I was sharing my opinion as was Elder Alonso. The important matter is the Book of Mormon is a history of Christ in America, and his message is more important than the geography.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Scott Lloyd]

After crying foul and calling FAIR all sorts of names for using a mass email he sent, he did the exact same thing by publishing a personal email between two people. He is *really* good at name calling and hypocrisy. I'm not just saying that but have quite a bit of evidence to back it up.

When I receive a personal email, letter or other form of communication from someone, I don't fee duty-bound to automatically regard it as confidential. I may do so at the request of the other party, but it is my sole discretion whether or not to grant the request.

Furthermore, I don't see that I am under any sort of ethical responsibility to grant such automatic confidentiality. No one has ever made a persuasive case to that effect.