Non-Lds Scholars Debunk Meldrum

[Tepui]

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

Dr. Coe's podcast was posted at an earlier discussion. It's long, but good. He has no bias against religion nor against Mormonism.

He just tells it like he sees it.

http://mormonstories.org/268-270-dr-michael-coe-an-outsiders-view-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/

[Tepui]

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 that his geography.

I agree with this immensely. So let's set aside geography, archaeology, character conflicts, character assassination, etc.. etc.

This is what has happened with the Mesoamerica Theory. It has come to contradict with three main things:

1. Statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith
   
2. The text/wording of the Book of Mormon
   
3. History of the LDS Church
   

In other words, the original purpose of the Mesoamerica LGT Theory was to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon. Yet, it evolved over the years/decades, knowingly or otherwise, into contradicting those three areas.

Here are only a few statements from F.A.R.M.S., now known as, or part of the Maxwell Institute. (I've read their stuff, have you?)

1. Contradicts with Statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas. Even with Stephens's material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon's story to the newly-found ruins. And in the long run, the little blip on the Latter-day Saints' mental screen caused by the explorer's book faded as the mistaken folk view reasserted its dominance. http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

2. Contradicts with text/wording of the Book of Mormon

It is also possible that some Book of Mormon peoples coming from the Old World may have decided to call some New World animal species a "horse" or an "***." This practice, known as "loanshift" or "loan-extension," is well known to historians and anthropologists who study cross-cultural contact. http://maxwellinstit...scripts/?id=129

3. Contradicts with the History of the LDS Church

The story of the cave full of plates inside the Hill Cumorah in New York is often given as evidence that it is, indeed, the hill where Mormon hid the plates. Yorgason quotes one version of the story from Brigham Young and alludes to six others collected by Paul T. Smith. Unfortunately, none of the accounts is firsthand. The New York Hill Cumorah is a moraine laid down anciently by a glacier in motion. It is comprised of gravel and earth. Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=49

&

If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion's Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation.

http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=2&id=571

There are articles, after articles by F.A.R.M.S., now posted at the Maxwell Institute (BYU's website), that fall into these three broad categories.

Why? To discount all these areas if they conflict with a Mesoamerica Theory for the Book of Mormon.

Again, putting personality conflicts aside, geography, archaeology, etc., etc, - isn't the purpose of a Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon supposed to agree with the three areas mentioned, not contradict with them?

When did the Mesoamerica Geography Theory become more important than statements made by Joseph Smith, the translated text of the Book of Mormon, of Church History?

The three/four quotes above are just examples. You have to believe this stuff to accept the Mesoamerica Theory. I don't think a lot of people or members, realize this. They see some neat looking Maya/Olmec ruins - and - sure sounds great.

Yet F.A.R.M.S. has written this stuff for a reason. I didn't make it up. I'm quoting them.

Why was this stuff addressed by F.A.R.M.S.? Because F.A.R.M.S. knows and knew their theory contradicts with these three main points. So they attempted to explain it away.

No thanks.

Again, to summarize:

When did Why is the Mesoamerica Geography Theory become more important than statements made by Joseph Smith, the translated text of the Book of Mormon, or of Church History?

Edited May 1, 2012 by Tepui

[Anijen]

character assassination, etc.. etc.

I have not participated in such.

So let's set aside geography,

Yet, the rest is your post is just that.

Isn't that a bit of a double standard?

Just thinking out loud.

Anijen

[Brant Gardner]

This is what has happened with the Mesoamerica Theory. It has come to contradict with three main things:

Statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith

There is an assumption here that Joseph held some fixed concept of Book of Mormon geography. There is no evidence that he did, and much that he did not. He clearly saw the material in the Stephens and Catherwood book as confirming the Book of Mormon, even connecting some cities in the book with Book of Mormon places. However, those were clearly speculations. The fact that Joseph was so open to speculations tells us that his ideas were not fixed.

The issue that anything about Book of Mormon geography contradicts Joseph presumes that Joseph either held a fixed view (data show he did not) or that there was a reason that his speculations ought to be taken for revelation. That latter is a point of faith, not of evidence. For those who believe it, it cannot be contradicted. I believe, however, that it is entirely possible, probable, and consistent, to believe in Joseph as a prophet and believe that he did not know everything about the Book of Mormon. I believe there is quite a bit of evidence that he did not and that in some things he was influenced by other people (such as adopting urim and thummim as the generic term covering the interpreters and seer stones, which Joseph obviously knew were not the same).

The text/wording of the Book of Mormon

This issue stems from an assumption of "plain reading," where the modern meaning and context of any word is presumed to be determinative of textual meaning. That is inherently an ahistorical approach to the text. For those of us who really do believe that it is a translation of an ancient text, this assumptive reading cannot be correct. Ancient meaning has to be encoded.

There is also an assumption of an extremely literalistic translation, for which I cannot find sufficient evidence. It becomes a faith proposition and not one amenable to evidence as evidence contradicts it.

History of the LDS Church

Which history? Should we believe the history that was developed as the saints began to work out the details of their history, or the history that can be constructed to the earliest points, where the Hill Cumorah did not exist in New York. That appelation comes later and Joseph adopts it because others around him are using it. If it were to have been named by revelation, we would expect Joseph to have named it, and to have done it early.

Remember that the Book of Mormon specifically says that the records buried in Cumorah are not those given to Joseph, so the designation of the New York drumlin as the Hill Cumorah is based on a misreading of the text.

In other words, the original purpose of the Mesoamerica LGT Theory was to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon. Yet, it evolved over the years/decades, knowingly or otherwise, into contradicting those three areas.

This is not a correct statement of the issues or the history of the LGT.

[Log]

There is also an assumption of an extremely literalistic translation, for which I cannot find sufficient evidence. It becomes a faith proposition and not one amenable to evidence as evidence contradicts it.

What evidence contradicts it, exactly? Make your assumptions explicit when you explain this, please. Also, how does Royal Skousen respond to your criticisms? I could have sworn he used... well, evidence, to reach his position. And those apparent Hebraisms, of course, require an explanation, which a literalistic translation provides.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Log

[Benjamin McGuire]

This is what has happened with the Mesoamerica Theory. It has come to contradict with three main things:

Those who favor the heartland model have always been so selective in their sources in my view.

The earliest geography taught by members of the church was promulgated at least as early as 1832 as part of the missionary work of Orson Pratt (we have newspaper accounts detailing this in February of 1832 in Franklin Pennsylvania and in March of 1832 in New York. It placed Zarahemla just north of Panama. We have newspaper accounts discussing Pratt's theory as an extension of his missionary efforts - although he didn't formally publish his theory (in book form) until 1840. The accepted view in this geography was that Panama (then called the Isthmus of Darien) was the narrow neck of land. At least one of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in late 1833 references this geography - so it seems to have been reasonably widespread. This serves as the backdrop, for the same kinds of geography claims made in the Times and Seasons in 1842 where Central America is given as the geographical context for the Book of Mormon.

The idea that Joseph Smith was unaware of this kind of Geographical model until his encounter with Stephens seems highly implausible, and involves a very narrow selection and reading of the historical sources. The LGT may restrict the range of the Nephites a bit more than the early geographies produced by the saints, but, it roots them in the same area that many of the early saints favored.

Ben M.

[Brant Gardner]

What evidence contradicts it, exactly? Make your assumptions explicit when you explain this, please. Also, how does Royal Skousen respond to your criticisms? I could have sworn he used... well, evidence, to reach his position. And those apparent Hebraisms, of course, require an explanation, which a literalistic translation provides.

Skousen disagrees with me. Since I disagree with him, that is hardly surprising. However, my disagreements are based on evidence and published through Kofford Books. The title is The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. I examine all of the evidence I can find to discover what kind of translation the Book of Mormon is. I specifically review the evidence Skousen presents and draw different conclusions from the data.

As for assumptions, I assume that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text and that Joseph Smith was an instrument of its translation. I assume that an examination of both the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon and his translation of the Bible supply evidence of the way Joseph conceived of the idea of translation. Because there are demonstrable similarities in the way he translated the Bible and the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon, I believe that each supplies evidence for how the translation progressed and how well the translated text might reflect an underlying source text.

In particular, I cannot find evidence to support the presence of plate text Hebraisms. Hebraisms are most easily explained by borrowing from the KJV (which obviously occurs in many other contexts). I did find that the connection between the onomasticon and Old World languages is non-random and therefore likely to preserve plate text features, but that is the best I could support with the evidence.

[Bob Crockett]

I heartily recommend Brant's book. I am happy to report it is available on Kindle.

It is rather longish. I thought the secular asides unnecessary and which could have been edited out, at least some of them. The whole thing should have been edited to a short one volume. I don't necessarily agree with everything, especially his treatment of chiasmus, but a reader will come away an armchair expert in the translation issues. Plus i am convinced as to his thesis whereas before i was not. It is, in my a view, a much-needed treatment of the evidence.

Royal Skousen's FARMS piece should be read in conjunction with it.

For what is is worth.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Truth be known, when it comes to God, anyone and no one can be a scholar.

[Kevin Christensen]

Dr. Coe's podcast was posted at an earlier discussion. It's long, but good. He has no bias against religion nor against Mormonism.

He just tells it like he sees it.

http://mormonstories...on-archaeology/

Coe is not particularly well informed or up-to-date on the Book of Mormon, nor current Book of Mormon scholarship. (In five hours, he does not quote the Book of Mormon once. At one point he comments that he knows that Hugh Nibley wrote something about chiasmus, which Nibley never did. John Welch and Allen Christenson, yes. Nibley, no.) The interview talks mostly of Brodie, the 1950s and Tom Ferguson (a lawyer and fundraiser, not a trained archeologist). John Dehlin was not up to speed on current scholarship either, as his questions demonstrate. He seems most interested in getting Coe to offer blanket dismissals of superficial notions, and to gossip about how the LDS archeologists that Coe knew in the 50s and 60s lost faith.

Dehlin later tried to balance the Coe interview by interviewing Brant Gardner, who is up to date on the Book of Mormon and current Book of Mormon scholarship.

http://mormonstories...-brant-gardner/

We've discussed these here before.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 1, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[DWhitmer]

This is what has happened with the Mesoamerica Theory. It has come to contradict with three main things:

1. Statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith
   
2. The text/wording of the Book of Mormon
   
3. History of the LDS Church
   

In other words, the original purpose of the Mesoamerica LGT Theory was to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon. Yet, it evolved over the years/decades, knowingly or otherwise, into contradicting those three areas...When did the Mesoamerica Geography Theory become more important than statements made by Joseph Smith, the translated text of the Book of Mormon, of Church History?

Not a bad summation, but it's worse than that!

I believe, however, that it is entirely possible, probable, and consistent, to believe in Joseph as a prophet and believe that he did not know everything about the Book of Mormon.

That's nonsense if you believe J.Smith was using his own words, which you do. The fact is, J.Smith never did a study on the geography and though he had glimpses of the people, their manner of dress, etc., he was not given a geographical tour.

This issue stems from an assumption of "plain reading," where the modern meaning and context of any word is presumed to be determinative of textual meaning. That is inherently an ahistorical approach to the text. For those of us who really do believe that it is a translation of an ancient text, this assumptive reading cannot be correct. Ancient meaning has to be encoded...There is also an assumption of an extremely literalistic translation, for which I cannot find sufficient evidence. It becomes a faith proposition and not one amenable to evidence as evidence contradicts it.

Wrong and wrong. How can you say that with a straight face knowing true well that you failed to address the verses that both contradict your position and confirm Skousens?

20 thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee

22 when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee

24 shall read the words that shall be delivered him (2 Nephi 27)

Which history? Should we believe the history that was developed as the saints began to work out the details of their history, or the history that can be constructed to the earliest points, where the Hill Cumorah did not exist in New York. That appelation comes later and Joseph adopts it because others around him are using it. If it were to have been named by revelation, we would expect Joseph to have named it, and to have done it early.

That misinformation is getting real old, no offense. The short version of what B.G. said is, J.Smith never referred to the hill in Palmyra as Cumorah, it was some members first and then J.Smith borrowed from them. First, Whitmer, Cowdery, and Smith heard the word "Cumorah" from a Nephite in the Palmyra area (1829). Second, J.Smith did identify it in DC 128:20, which is official Mormon Church canon. Third, J.Smith did identify the hill in Palmyra as the place of the final Nephite battle (Messenger & Advocate, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12, 157- 8.

Thus, if Omer (a Jaredite) passed by "where the Nephites were destroyed" (Ether 9:3), then Omer walked through Palmyra!

Remember that the Book of Mormon specifically says that the records buried in Cumorah are not those given to Joseph, so the designation of the New York drumlin as the Hill Cumorah is based on a misreading of the text.

LOL. Now you know what's in their arsenal! No one believes that. Moroni did not go into battle with the plates only to have them fall into the enemies hands! He knew his people would perish, so before he went out to war "in front of his 10k" he of course secured them for J.Smith to find. The "a few plates" meant, a few blank sheets to reocrd the outcome on - IF - he survived. Don't forget, there are many prophecies YOU NEGLECT that place the records on BoM lands, etc.

Readers should know that the above facts (and more) were already assembled by President (Prophet) Joseph Fielding Smith in his Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, vol. 3, pp. 232-243 "WHERE IS THE HILL CUMORAH?" to defend BoM prophecy - that the BoM came forth on BoM land! He warned:

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. BECAUSE OF THIS THEORY SOME MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH HAVE BECOME CONFUSED AND GREATLY DISTURBED IN THEIR FAITH IN THE BOOK OF MORMON."

So, next time a Sorenson, Clark, Christiansen, or B.G. defend an antiquated, south of the border model, know they consciously do so against Mormon Church canon, official history, BoM Witnesses, BoM prophecy, and over twenty Mormon prophets and apostles. Now whose anti-Mormon?

Royal Skousen respond to your criticisms? I could have sworn he used... well, evidence, to reach his position. And those apparent Hebraisms, of course, require an explanation, which a literalistic translation provides.

Ditto

The earliest geography taught by members of the church was promulgated at least as early as 1832 as part of the missionary work of Orson Pratt (we have newspaper accounts detailing this in February of 1832 in Franklin Pennsylvania and in March of 1832 in New York. It placed Zarahemla just north of Panama...

Ben M.

Not quite, prophecy says that the BoM would go forth on BoM land to a remnant, so, by looking at where the FIRST Mormon missionaries delivered the first BoM to native peoples, is evidence of where BoM geography is. Where did the Pratt go? Western New York. Btw, I wouldn't place much merit on the musings of O. Pratt, the "apostle" who lamented he "never had a vision."

Skousen disagrees with me.

Brant's book...It is rather longish...

Well said, no offense.

Edited May 2, 2012 by DWhitmer

[Anijen]

CFR

First, Whitmer, Cowdery, and Smith heard the word "Cumorah" from a Nephite in the Palmyra area (1829).

Please leave a link or cite your source.

Second, J.Smith did identify it in DC 128:20, which is official Mormon Church canon.

It was Moroni declaring glad tidings, not Joseph identifying any geography.

Third, J.Smith did identify the hill in Palmyra as the place of the final Nephite battle (Messenger & Advocate, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1, 157- .

Where? Could you please leave a link? My source here shows two pages and no mention.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Benjamin McGuire]

Let me put it to you another way DWhitmer. While we do have early Mormon discussions (in fact we have published books containing those discussions) placing Zarahemla near present day Panama, and suggesting that the narrow neck of land was the Isthmus of Darien, we do not have any early Mormon discussion placing Zarahemla near the location proposed by Meldrum. As I said (and you illustrate), those who favor the heartland model are often very selective in the material they use:

... know they consciously do so against Mormon Church canon, official history, BoM Witnesses, BoM prophecy, and over twenty Mormon prophets and apostles.

and

I wouldn't place much merit on the musings of O. Pratt, the "apostle" who lamented he "never had a vision."

That kind of thing is very telling. Play up the authorities you want to use. Downplay the rest .... (and yes, we love the use of scare quotes).

Ben M.

[Anijen]

Just a side note on D&C 128:20.

A little history to put this verse in context. This verse is on baptism for the dead.

People in Nauvoo were very excited to receive revelation on the doctrine of baptism for the dead, so excited in fact that they went down to the Mississippi River to do some baptisms. Men were baptized for women, women were baptized for men and so on. Joseph had to remind them that it was a house of order and put baptism for the dead into an ordinance setting [the temple] that reflected its sacredness.

If the people of Nauvoo were excited what do you think the ancestors on the other side of the veil felt? I bet excitement. Is it no wonder that Moroni said glad tidings from Cumorah? Even the previous verse speaks of it in this context;

"Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of truth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead;" (D&C 128:19)

Just to clarify this verse does not designate the Hill Cumorah in Palmyra NY as the same hill Cumorah where the last battle was fought. It is poor scholarship to make the New York Hill the same hill as the one in the Book of Mormon because it was named for the hill from that book.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Brant Gardner]

The short version of what B.G. said is, J.Smith never referred to the hill in Palmyra as Cumorah, it was some members first and then J.Smith borrowed from them. First, Whitmer, Cowdery, and Smith heard the word "Cumorah" from a Nephite in the Palmyra area (1829). Second, J.Smith did identify it in DC 128:20, which is official Mormon Church canon.

You have missed the point, and the importance of historical accuracy. While the Whitmer quotation referred to something in 1829, it was written down long after (50 years?). By the time DC 128 was written, Cumorah had entered the vocabulary. There is no question that the name became associated with the NY hill. The question is when. Joseph begins using that term only after others have used it. It is a similar historical situation to his change in the way he referred to the interpreters, which again came from someone else's identification that became the accepted way to speak of it.

If you are going to invoke history, please use documents appropriately.

[Log]

Skousen disagrees with me. Since I disagree with him, that is hardly surprising. However, my disagreements are based on evidence and published through Kofford Books. The title is The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. I examine all of the evidence I can find to discover what kind of translation the Book of Mormon is. I specifically review the evidence Skousen presents and draw different conclusions from the data.

Royal tells me he's going to be indirectly responding soon in volume 3 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, but in the meantime, if all the data gets interpreted multiple ways, it appears that the difference is the assumptions taken into the analysis. When the Review gets around to your tome, I shall find out.

[DWhitmer]

Just a side note on D&C 128:20...Just to clarify this verse does not designate the Hill Cumorah in Palmyra NY as the same hill Cumorah where the last battle was fought. It is poor scholarship to make the New York Hill the same hill as the one in the Book of Mormon because it was named for the hill from that book.

Take a breath, one must take other facts into consideration. For example, B.G. has ignored the Messenger & Advocate account that places the Nephite battle in Palmyra and identifies the hill "Cumorah." That was J.Smith, not "some members."

The point of DC 128:20 is that YES, it was Moroni who made that declaration, and where did he meet J.Smith each year to proclaim its purpose? The hill in Cumorah where the plates were later retreived. Next notice the tense, "of a book TO BE revealed."

Thus, Moroni, declared from "Cumorah," the plates that were about to come forth. It's as clear as glass. (The quotes can be found on the geography site listed below). It was good enough for President and Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, make sure you review is defense and it utter disdain for those trying to change fulfilled BoM prophecy.

[DWhitmer]

You have missed the point, and the importance of historical accuracy.

As in Messenger & Advocate? Respond to that first, and then attempt to justify your exemption of 2 Nephi 27 for how the text was transmitted. Can't wait.

[Anijen]

Take a breath, one must take other facts into consideration.

Taking all relevant facts is appropriate, mixing facts with assumptions is not.

For example, B.G. has ignored the Messenger & Advocate account that places the Nephite battle in Palmyra and identifies the hill "Cumorah." That was J.Smith, not "some members."

Brother Gardner is an expert on both the Book of Mormon and in anthropology. In my opinion if he ignores anything then it probably is not relevant to the topic. He has asked you to document appropriately, and I have asked you to cite your sources (CFR). Please cite your source to where in the Messenger and Advocate where Joseph Smith claims the Hill Cumoroah in New York is the very same hill where the last battle was fought in the Book of Mormon. If you can not do this please retract your statement, those are board rules.

The point of DC 128:20 is that YES, it was Moroni who made that declaration

The point is baptism for the dead. It never was about the location of the Hill Cumorah, it wasn't then, it isn't now.

and where did he meet J.Smith each year to proclaim its purpose?

You are mixing assumptions with facts again. Let me educate you; Fact, Joseph did meet Moroni on the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra.

Assumption; that because he met him there does not make it the same hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cinepro]

Meldrum must be really jealous of all those non-LDS scholars that are lining up to support the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon.

[DWhitmer]

Meldrum must be really jealous of all those non-LDS scholars that are lining up to support the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon.

Hear that.

Taking all relevant facts is appropriate, mixing facts with assumptions is not...Brother Gardner is an expert on both the Book of Mormon and in anthropology. In my opinion if he ignores anything then it probably is not relevant to the topic. He has asked you to document appropriately, and I have asked you to cite your sources (CFR). Please cite your source to where in the Messenger and Advocate where Joseph Smith claims the Hill Cumoroah in New York is the very same hill where the last battle was fought in the Book of Mormon. If you can not do this please retract your statement, those are board rules.

Not sure if that is your canned response but B.G. admitted his approach was on an assumption but I have cited both verse and historical documents. Btw, "CFR" does not mean to others work for them. You had the reference, if you don't know how to find it, why are you debating?

[livy111us]

See what I mean?

[livy111us]

Meldrum must be really jealous of all those non-LDS scholars that are lining up to support the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon.

No one said that non-LDS scholars are "lining up" to support a Mesoamerican setting. If you would have been following the thread, you would have realized that the problem lies with videotaping non-LDS scholars in a video they thought was something completely different, only to make them look like they support a heartland theory. Then making the claim that non-LDS scholars support your theory when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Brant Gardner]

Meldrum must be really jealous of all those non-LDS scholars that are lining up to support the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon.

Of course, isn't everybody?

[Log]

[T]he problem lies with videotaping non-LDS scholars in a video they thought was something completely different, only to make them look like they support a heartland theory.

That wasn't the scholar's problem, if you re-read post #3 in this thread - they object to any claim that there could be a non-native source for AmerIndian culture. They view the notion that other cultures might have informed the AmerIndian cultures as something like cultural imperialism, which, in this context, is a claim akin to racism.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Log