Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[TruthSeeker24]

I've been a pretty strong proponent of the theories of Rod Meldrum, and I've noticed that the LDS scholarly community generally looks down on his ideas. I was wondering why that is. I'm very curious. I've read a lot of stuff from F.A.I.R. lds, but I really don't see how their statements take away the validity of what Mr. Meldrum believes.

[thesometimesaint]

He is free to believe whatever he wants. But I see little that gives support for his ideas, and much that takes away from them.

[TruthSeeker24]

Thank you for your response. I'm actually more curious in detail though, as to why his ideas are illegitimate.

[USU78]

As Herr Professor Doktor Sorenson said a month or so ago: "Where are the cities? Where are the writings?"

That's a good place to start.

[TruthSeeker24]

I hadn't considered that. To be honest, its been awhile since I was involved in apologetics. Didn't Meldrum show how all the cities were made of wood structures? Is that wrong?

[Kevin Christensen]

Try Matt Roper here, for a direct review of Meldrum and Porter.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=806

And here for the Book of Mormon populations in context:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

And John Clark on some attempts to situation the Book of Mormon in the Great Lakes area:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=14&num=1&id=420

Plus things like this from Larry Poulson:

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poulsenll.org%2Fbom%2Findex.html

And things like this from John Sorenson:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/243

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bart Burk]

I've been a pretty strong proponent of the theories of Rod Meldrum, and I've noticed that the LDS scholarly community generally looks down on his ideas. I was wondering why that is. I'm very curious. I've read a lot of stuff from F.A.I.R. lds, but I really don't see how their statements take away the validity of what Mr. Meldrum believes.

I at least am inclined to believe the Book of Mormon took place in the Great Lakes area -- on some level it makes a lot of sense. It wasn't discovered by a poor peasant in Mexico. Unfortunately, I don't think the Book of Mormon really gives the details necessary to establish where exactly it took place. Trying to place it anywhere based on what the Book of Mormon says may be a fruitless exercise. Where it takes place is not important if you are willing to accept its teachings. Maybe the reason there are so few details is because God inspired Mormon and Moroni to concentrate on spiritual truth rather than history -- maybe God doesn't want people running all over with tours proclaiming, "Alma was here!" Its purpose is to convince people that Jesus is the Savior of all of the world and with a message applying to all peoples, not just people in western Europe at the time of the Roman Empire. There are a lot of archaeologists looking at real Christian artifacts in the Middle East who are atheists.

[cinepro]

I hadn't considered that. To be honest, its been awhile since I was involved in apologetics. Didn't Meldrum show how all the cities were made of wood structures? Is that wrong?

One of the arguments made by those who support North-American geographies is that the Book of Mormon really doesn't claim that much "cement" was used; timber seems to be the primary building material.

[Calm]

It is not the choice of geography that bothers me about Brother Meldrum, it is his methodology and treatment of those who disagree with him....

In brief...

In the first case, he uses what he wants of the science, often pulling stuff totally out of context to come to the conclusions he wants while disregarding the technical limitations attached to the data (such as the time frame for the presence of certain DNA). In the second, he accuses those who disagree with him of ignoring the prophets while he himself does not take into account everything that is said by them, plus he labels others as apostates way too easily.

Currently he/his followers has/have made a claim that certain former employees of the NAMI were fired because of their treatment of him when there is no evidence to support his claim and in fact, the same reasoning that caused them to be let go would be used for any of his vocal supporters (not wanting to engage in apologetics, wanting to go a more academic route).

In his latest email sent out, I believe he makes a claim that Hugh Nibley was a "Heartlander" based on use of certain quotes while ignoring others.

He seems to feel that the more celebrities he can attach to his "movement" the more evidence there is that his claims are accurate. The self promotion is a big issue for me.

Edited September 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

Speaking of Meldrum's claims about Hugh Nibley, a few years ago, I did a post here in regard to a Nibley quote that had been posthumously wrenched from context for a full page ad that Meldrum put in the Tribune (I think). Meldrum's drafting the deceased author of Approaching Zion as a shill for a money-making conference still annoys me. A more informative response to Meldrum compared to Nibley is here:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/340

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 12, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Bart Burk]

It is not the choice of geography that bothers me about Brother Meldrum, it is his methodology and treatment of those who disagree with him....

In brief...

In the first case, he uses what he wants of the science, often pulling stuff totally out of context to come to the conclusions he wants while disregarding the technical limitations attached to the data (such as the time frame for the presence of certain DNA). In the second, he accuses those who disagree with him of ignoring the prophets while he himself does not take into account everything that is said by them, plus he labels others as apostates way too easily.

Currently he/his followers has/have made a claim that certain former employees of the NAMI were fired because of their treatment of him when there is no evidence to support his claim and in fact, the same reasoning that caused them to be let go would be used for any of his vocal supporters (not wanting to engage in apologetics, wanting to go a more academic route).

In his latest email sent out, I believe he makes a claim that Hugh Nibley was a "Heartlander" based on use of certain quotes while ignoring others.

He seems to feel that the more celebrities he can attach to his "movement" the more evidence there is that his claims are accurate. The self promotion is a big issue for me.

I suspect the same can be said of those who defend several geographic models. There is a tendency to besmirch those with whom we disagree. It is especially unfortunate since in Book of Mormon geography people are fighting over things they don't know and can never know until some kind of revelation is received from God by someone in authority.

[Alan]

Rod Meldrum may have his faults, but his views on Book of Mormon geography are much closer to the truth in my view than the Mesoamerican malarky peddled out by the so called "scholars".

[Calm]

There is a tendency to besmirch those with whom we disagree.

I don't remember seeing any of the names I usually associate with the Mesoamerican geography theory calling into question the personal faithfulness of those who disagree with them on geography.

[Calm]

Rod Meldrum may have his faults, but his views on Book of Mormon geography are much closer to the truth in my view than the Mesoamerican malarky peddled out by the so called "scholars".

I think the more people who get seriously involved in BoM geography the better. Critiquing the theories will only result in better information out there overall. I would have no problem with Brother Meldrum if he limited his activities to this.

[USU78]

Rod Meldrum may have his faults, but his views on Book of Mormon geography are much closer to the truth in my view than the Mesoamerican malarky peddled out by the so called "scholars".

So why the snarkiness?

[Alan]

So why the snarkiness?

What's "snarkiness"?

[USU78]

"so-called "scholars""

Why make it personal?

Snarkiness: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snarky

[Anijen]

Rod Meldrum may have his faults, but his views on Book of Mormon geography are much closer to the truth in my view than the Mesoamerican malarky peddled out by the so called "scholars".

Why not question why most scholars are against the Heartland theory, instead of questioning the scholars themselves?

Those who have the attitude of "malarky peddled out by the so called scholars" appears to be only emotionally attached to a Book of Mormon setting and disregard the science that backs up a different view (i.e. archaeology, linguistics, geography etc.)

Edited September 5, 2012 by Anijen

[Anijen]

I have sat in on a meldrum presentation and have a video of a Mark Wright presentation. I can attest in the difference in the two in many ways.

Meldrum has an elitist attitude and a ethnocentric personality, and when questioned he is condescending and incredibly contentious.

Wright is a humble presenter, yet incredibly gifted in his knowledge of Mesoamerica and how it fits in with the setting for the Book of Mormon. When he is questioned he is friendly and respectful.

Another feeling I had as I sat in on Meldrums presentation is to me it appeared to be canned (staged) with ringers in the audience to respond and lead him on to where he wants to go, any opposing questions are treated with jeers from these same ringers. In my personal opinion It felt and looked like an advertisement for a time share and a DVD market. It is one reason I plainly and without embarrassment say to me it appeared to be priestcraft than anything else.

I will not pull any punches. I know others feel the opposite. I have family members swearing he [Meldrum] will be called as the next General Authority. But for me no thank you.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Anijen

[teddyaware]

About five years ago I asked a friend of mine why his wife hadn't been out to church services for several weeks. He responded by informing me she'd been spending a lot of time on the Internet, and had learned that thus far there has been no credible archaeological evidence produced anywhere on the western hemisphere to substantiate that the Nephite civilization ever existed. So she tossed her 'testimony' and commitment to the LDS Church out the window. The sad news caused me to ruminate on her concerns, and as a result of my thought processes several important points came to mind that I'd like to share. I'll start with one of these points of insight first, and if anyone is interested, I'll share more of them:

1 What if the Book of Mormon plates, testified to as a reality by the eleven witnesses and by Joseph Smith himself, were the only remaining accessible, tangible artifacts anyone will ever see (until the Lord in his wisdom chooses to reveal more) of a civilization that is now lost to and hidden from the world of men. There have been other lost civilizations that none knew existed until fortuitous discovery. In fact, there are said to be lost civilizations only now coming to light with the help of modern technology, said to be located in the Sahara Desert and the Amazon Basin. Therefore, could it be possible that by divine design the only remaining evidence of the Nephite civilization is the translation of the Book of Mormon itself? And could it be that the Lord gently chuckles to himself when he observes those who embark on time-consuming, energy-sapping activities he knows will amount to nothing less than a series of hopeless archaeological wild goose chases?

Edited September 6, 2012 by teddyaware

[Kevin Christensen]

If you pay attention to the best informed LDS scholars on this topic, you don't end up with nothing but goose feathers, but rather a clearer sense of the times and places and peoples and cultures behind the Book of Mormon.

John Clark for instance:

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

Or Brant Gardner:

http://www.fairlds.o...ant-Gardner.pdf

Or Larry Poulson:

http://www.fairlds.o...rry-Poulsen.pdf

Or John Sorenson,

http://www.fairlds.o...g-mormons-codex

Just for example. There is really a lot more. Far far more, and of a far more imposing quality than what was available when I was young. We've been invited to come a lot further than The Trial of the Stick of Joseph, and Christ in America. When someone says that we have no credible evidence for the Book of Mormon, it's important to follow through and find out both what they know, where they got their information, what they have and have not read, and what their standards of credible are.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited September 6, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

1 What if the Book of Mormon plates, testified to as a reality by the eleven witnesses and by Joseph Smith himself, were the only remaining accessible, tangible artifacts anyone will ever see (until the Lord in his wisdom chooses to reveal more) of a civilization that is now lost to and hidden from the world of men.

Well, you're forgetting the Urim and Thummim, breastplate, Sword of Laban and Liahona that were also purportedly hidden with the plates.

There have been other lost civilizations that none knew existed until fortuitous discovery. In fact, there are said to be lost civilizations only now coming to light with the help of modern technology, said to be located in the Sahara Desert and the Amazon Basin. Therefore, could it be possible that by divine design the only remaining evidence of the Nephite civilization is the translation of the Book of Mormon itself? And could it be that the Lord gently chuckles to himself when he observes those who embark on time-consuming, energy-sapping activities he knows will amount to nothing less than a series of hopeless archaeological wild goose chases?

Your scenario is entirely possible, but unfortunately it's also entirely possible that people who want to believe something for which there is no evidence could rest their belief on a mistaken theory involving a God who hid all their evidence.

And a diligent observer might have no way to distinguish between the two.

Certainly, it could be argued that spiritual enlightenment could help distinguish between the two, but that methodology has already been ridiculed in this very thread, so it could only be suggested out of a sense of irony.

Edited September 6, 2012 by cinepro

[ANACO]

Speaking of his fellow Nephites on the verge of their destruction, the Prophet Mormon wrote:

18 But now, behold, they are aled about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.

19 And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles

who shall possess the land

.

20 But behold, it shall come to pass that they shall be driven and scattered by the Gentiles; and after they have been driven and scattered by the Gentiles, behold, then will the Lord remember the covenant which he made unto Abraham and unto all the house of Israel.

Emphasis on verse 19 above. I don't see any Gentiles with their blessings possessing a bunch of Maya ruins in Mesoamerica - which is nothing but a jungle as an outdoor museum.

The Gentiles were given or rather allowed to possess the lands given to the seed of Lehi & Mulek.

This same pattern was told to the Jaredite Coriantumr - as the wicked Jaredites were being destroyed: Ether 13:21:

And he should only live to

see

the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning

another

people

receiving the land for their inheritance

This verified the prophecy of the ancient Israelite prophet quoted by Jacob, in Jacob Ch 5, for those who have eyes to see. The Nephites/Mulekite inherited the land from the wicked Jaredites. The later wicked Nephites in turn lost it to the Gentiles.

You're not going to find the land with its ruins, because most of it is being lived upon by the Gentiles - who are "possessing it." Much of it was farmed over by early American settlers who told of finding numerous bones and war implements plowed up as they farmed. And look what Joseph Smith found near the scene of one of its last great battles!

Check this out: "One, the "Great Mound on the Rouge" in Delray at the junction of the Rouge and Detroit rivers, captured the fancy of early historians. It was 400 feet long, 200 feet wide and 40 feet high. It was so packed with bones that they were easily exposed by wandering cattle." "Early French explorers note the existence of the mound but by 1880, "pot hunting," the bane of archaeologists, had taken its toll. No trace of the mound remains today.

Can any of you use GoogleMaps to look up the location of the Rouge & Detroit Rivers? That's right. Downtown Detroit, near a narrow neck of land. Even the French were intelligent enough to give it the name 'Detroit' for a reason.

Of course, you'll have the lost and scattered remnants of FARMS/NAMI and their followers laugh. Because they demand "scholarly" evidence. You know, argumentum verbosium with innumerable footnotes. While the same claim Joseph Smith learned the geography of the Book of Mormon from a travel book.

Edited September 6, 2012 by ANACO

[Mark Beesley]

I don't see any Gentiles with their blessings possessing a bunch of Maya ruins in Mesoamerica - which is nothing but a jungle as an outdoor museum.

What were the Spanish Conquistadores? A bunch of Hebrews?

[ERayR]

Speaking of his fellow Nephites on the verge of their destruction, the Prophet Mormon wrote:

18 But now, behold, they are aled about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.

19 And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles

who shall possess the land

.

20 But behold, it shall come to pass that they shall be driven and scattered by the Gentiles; and after they have been driven and scattered by the Gentiles, behold, then will the Lord remember the covenant which he made unto Abraham and unto all the house of Israel.

Emphasis on verse 19 above. I don't see any Gentiles with their blessings possessing a bunch of Maya ruins in Mesoamerica - which is nothing but a jungle as an outdoor museum.

The Gentiles were given or rather allowed to possess the lands given to the seed of Lehi & Mulek.

This same pattern was told to the Jaredite Coriantumr - as the wicked Jaredites were being destroyed: Ether 13:21:

And he should only live to

see

the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning

another

people

receiving the land for their inheritance

This verified the prophecy of the ancient Israelite prophet quoted by Jacob, in Jacob Ch 5, for those who have eyes to see. The Nephites/Mulekite inherited the land from the wicked Jaredites. The later wicked Nephites in turn lost it to the Gentiles.

You're not going to find the land with its ruins, because most of it is being lived upon by the Gentiles - who are "possessing it." Much of it was farmed over by early American settlers who told of finding numerous bones and war implements plowed up as they farmed. And look what Joseph Smith found near the scene of one of its last great battles!

Check this out: "One, the "Great Mound on the Rouge" in Delray at the junction of the Rouge and Detroit rivers, captured the fancy of early historians. It was 400 feet long, 200 feet wide and 40 feet high. It was so packed with bones that they were easily exposed by wandering cattle." "Early French explorers note the existence of the mound but by 1880, "pot hunting," the bane of archaeologists, had taken its toll. No trace of the mound remains today.

Can any of you use GoogleMaps to look up the location of the Rouge & Detroit Rivers? That's right. Downtown Detroit, near a narrow neck of land. Even the French were intelligent enough to give it the name 'Detroit' for a reason.

Of course, you'll have the lost and scattered remnants of FARMS/NAMI and their followers laugh. Because they demand "scholarly" evidence. You know, argumentum verbosium with innumerable footnotes. While the same claim Joseph Smith learned the geography of the Book of Mormon from a travel book.

I think the Spanish invaders could be classified as Gentiles.