Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[DNA truthseeker]

I have read that article and found it very unconvincing. There are few passages in the Book of Mormon that give point-blank statements about directions unless there is some point to be made. This is as it should be since the people of the Book of Mormon knew where just about everything was located. It was taken for granted. That much is evident from the text.

But, it is easy to extrapolate...

That pretty much sums it up. Once you dismiss the alternative definition of the head of a river being a confluence, then of course this model doesn't work to your satisfaction. Then comes the extrapolations! That is precisely the problem.

[DNA truthseeker]

I feel the need to respond to this accusation of FAIR's actions above so that people will be informed about what actually occurred. I am only attempting to rebut the accusation of FAIR itself, not attempting to set up additional accusations of Brother Meldrum in doing so.

I have doublechecked that my memory was accurate and even received some specific information from those involved that I was not aware of before.

1. in response to the claim there were only a "few people"...the actual number was around 30, including several members of FAIR.

2. as to his claim that they were people he thought were "staunch supporters of his research", it appears that the only way he could have thought this was by a faulty attempt at mindreading as the email itself was sent unsolicited to individuals who were not actually interested in his work, let alone supporting it.

3. Meldrum himself does not seem to think it inherently immoral or unethical to post ("exploit") actual one on one emails as he has done so (without permission I believe) to Dan Peterson on his own site: http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=22

4. The email, which I refreshed my memory of by rereading, was sent out to garner feedback on his various ideas. He set up a meeting place at a school in Provo and had two times which people could attend for this purpose. However he also sent the email to individuals who would not in any likelihood be able to attend seeing as how not only were they not in Utah, they weren't even in the country. This seems to me to increase the generic/public nature of the letter itself. Perhaps others won't see it that way though.

5. FAIR quoted the email itself to support the claims being made. Unless Brother Meldrum is saying that he didn't mean what he said in the email, it seems to me that even if one were to concede (and I do not because I think the above facts demonstrate the actual public nature of the email) that it was inappropriate to use the email due to the claimed private nature of it, that does not remove the fact that he said these things whether publicly or privately and has, IIRC (and this is a qualified IIRC as I have not attempted to review past statements to see if my memory is accurate), never stated he was wrong in making these various claims, especially not prior to the publication of FAIR's review even when he had the chance.

6. In making its claim, FAIR referenced the email itself indicating the exact nature of the 'pronouncement'. There was no misrepresentation of how Brother Meldrum had shared this information.

Bottomline for me, I do not see how one can even assume privacy when sending solicitation emails to pretty much perfect strangers even if one introduces the letter using the phrase "dear friends".

Moderators: if I have crossed the line into making personal attacks or not focusing on responding to facts in the above, please feel free to delete that section.

Please allow me to clarify...

1. The number was indeed about 30 out of a database at the time of many thousands. I did not broadcast or publish it publicly as FAIR falsely proclaims. I did not send it to any known (by me) FAIR members. I refute the claim that it was sent to any FAIR members. I think it was forwarded to someone who then forwarded it to some FAIR members. I have the original email and I know everyone that I sent it to. I'd like to know exactly which person it was that is on my original email that was a FAIR member. I don't believe you can supply the name of that member. If you can, then contact me and I'll be happy to verify it. There are 29 others who can also verify it. I don't think you are being truthful.

2. prove it with something more than your hearsay evidence. I don't believe you can show any such evidence.

3. FAIR proved beyond any reasonable doubt that ANY email is fair game for them. Daniel Peterson's email is hardly an attack on him anyway.

4. Wrong again. The email was an invitation to participate on the newly formed FIRM Foundation board. Now why would I send out an invitation to someone hostile to my research or that I felt was not already a supporter to participate on my board? The meeting you reference was held and the board formed from those who I had invited. It was an invitation, not a command, it was strictly their choice. If memory serves one or two may have been out of the country on missions, but I knew they would be returning and would appreciate their input into the organization. There may have been one or two people who I thought were supporters that I felt could be an asset to the organization that I may not have known of their "Heartland" status.

5. The bottom line is that it was a private email sent to a very specific group of individuals and someone broke that faith and forwarded it to others without permission. So your entire premise is based on a falsehood. In addition, FAIR's dire predictions about my leading people to leave the Church in droves has not, and will not, ever happen. They were doing nothing more than "crying wolf" when none existed.

6. Yes there was dramatic misrepresentation of what was said in the email. When I didn't actually say what they were so desirous of me to have said, they simply made it up and said that I "meant" to say it, therefore it must be true!

7. Bottom line: You are emphatically wrong on nearly all counts. If you have evidence to contrary, then please provide the name or names of the FAIR members who received the original email and we'll contact any of the other email recipients to let them independently verify the truth. Does that sound fair enough? If you cannot, or will not provide such, then we must all assume you don't have the evidence to support your claims and you should drop this line of attack.

Do we have an accord?

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[DNA truthseeker]

I apologize for my divergence off topic.

Question about Rod Meldrum's theories?

• I guess I would like him to go into detail how his elusive convergence is the head of a river and how headwaters is not?
  
• I would like to ask him to explain why he uses the Bat Creek Stone as evidence of Hebrew (found in Tennessee) and why he refuses all the experts who say it is a fake?
  
• I would like his response to the six archaeologist whom had a refutation of his video?
  
• I would like to ask him why he does not try to be balanced when giving his perspective ignoring any and all evidences that are contrary to his theory, such as what are his resonses to the quotes of Joseph and other LDS leaders that believed in a Mesoamerican connection.
  
• I would like to know how he defines choice land and promise land, and explain why there can not be anywhere else.
  

I guess you must have missed the couple of dozen other posts with links to everything you just asked....so here goes again.

1. Read the Article The Mississippi; Could it have been River Sidon? A definition in Noah Websters 1828 dictionary is now somehow "elusive"?

2. Read the Article Hebrew Written Language CONFIRMED in Hopewell Mound in Tennessee! Are you calling the highly respected American Petrographic Services non-experts in their scientific analysis field?

3. Every one of the scholars in the film signed off on the project after being given final copies for their review. It was only after they learned that I was using it in support of the Book of Mormon that Bradley Leper, head archaeologist of Ohio, began contacting the others to tell them their materials were being used to support Mormonism. Out of the 17 scholars, Leper was only able to get 5 others to go along with him. That should say something about Leper's claims. In other words they were all OK with what had been produced until they learned that it supported Mormonism. Then a couple of them became concerned. Leper is not friendly to Mormonism. They could not sue because they had all signed off already. Leper is simply "sour grapes" that what he said may actually support the Book of Mormon claims but he didn't realize it.

4. I would like to know why Mesoamerican theorists have done the same. Why haven't they provided Joseph Smith's statements in the Wentworth letter, the American Revivalist account, his letter to Emma while on Zion's camp and others in their literature? The main difference between our sources is that mine are known to have been from the Prophet Joseph Smith (some even in his own personal handwriting), while those supporting Mesoamerica were written by someone that no Church historian can verify as the author...they were written by unknown authors who were most definitely not claiming revelation...as did the Prophet Joseph in the accounts that support the Heartland model geography. I have not ignored any contrary claims but have directly addressed each of them specifically. It would appear that you are again not familiar with my research. I have addressed them all in disk 2 of my 5 DVD series Book of Mormon Evidence (or watch it for FREE on my VIDEO GALLERY # 11-15) as well as in my Q&A on the website (not as complete) and this article debunking John Lund's false claims about Joseph declaring Zarahemla in Mesoamerica titled Did Joseph Smith Identify Zarahemla in Guatemala?

5. Read the article The Scriptural Basis for the Heartland Model Geography. The scriptural limiting factor is the use of the term "nation" and there are only two promised lands spoken of in scripture. I define "choice" land in my own way in disk 1 of the 5 DVD series, which can be watched on my VIDEO GALLERY for free. I would also recommend watching clips 1-15 for all the information regarding the scriptural basis and Joseph Smith's knowledge.

Try reading and watching the information. How many times have I already posted these links on this thread? And you STILL refuse to read them? Bad form.

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[DNA truthseeker]

Came across an Ensign article that some might find relevant:

https://www.lds.org/...hearts?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/s...tcraft?lang=eng

Don't really see anything here about teaching false doctrine.

And this below quote seems to demonstrate that priestcraft does not have to be about teaching false doctrine at all:

http://www.lds.org/l...ery=priestcraft

It appears to be the reason we teach much more than what we teach that results in priestcraft. That it can lead to teaching false doctrine when it is a more effective way of getting gain than teaching truth is a definite possibility.

http://www.lds.org/l...ery=priestcraft

I would like to address the subject of priestcraft directly from scripture.

29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 26:29)

16 Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor. (Book of Mormon | Alma 1:16)

23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 22:23)

26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ. (Book of Mormon | 4 Nephi 1:26)

32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins. (Book of Mormon | Mormon 8:32)

2 And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment-seat, there was a man brought before him to be judged, a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength.

3 And he had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church; declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.

4 And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

5 And it came to pass that he did teach these things so much that many did believe on his words, even so many that they began to support him and give him money.

6 And he began to be lifted up in the pride of his heart, and to wear very costly apparel, yea, and even began to establish a church after the manner of his preaching.

7 And it came to pass as he was going, to preach to those who believed on his word, he met a man who belonged to the church of God, yea, even one of their teachers; and he began to contend with him sharply, that he might lead away the people of the church; but the man withstood him, admonishing him with the words of God. (Book of Mormon | Alma 1:2 - 7)

From the scriptures themselves these are the signs of someone who is guilty of priestcraft.

1. They set themselves up as an authority or leader over others.

2. They preach false doctrines.

3. They preach to get riches, honor, popularity and praise for themselves.

4. They seek not the welfare of Zion.

5. They love the vain things of the world.

6. They build up churches unto themselves.

7. They build up their churches to gain power over others.

8. They claim to offer forgiveness for money.

9. They bear down against the church.

10. They are lifted up in the pride of their hearts.

11. They begin to live extravagantly, wearing costly apparel etc.

12. They seek to lead away the people of the church.

Which have I done? I testify that I have done none of these things, but rather I have done the following.

1. I have exhorted people to believe in the Book of Mormon and the Prophets and the Church.

2. I have bore solemn witness that the gospel is true and have indeed helped others to come back into the church, even some who were anti-Mormon.

3. I have testified of the prophetic calling of The Prophet, Joseph Smith, as the leader of this dispensation.

4. I have sought only to help those who are struggling with this issue to have an answer that will strengthen their testimony of its truthfulness.

5. I live in a rather shabby home by comparison with most of the families in our area,

6. I drive old cars and serve to the best of my abilities in my callings.

7. I have never tried to lead anyone from the gospel, but rather to bring them into it.

8. I have not attempted to start my own church or usurp authority of the Church in any way.

9. I have never preached any false doctrines, but rather I have exposed some false claims made by Mesoamerican proponents about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

10. I have supported the idea that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God and that his revelations must be adhered to, not ignored.

Anyone can verify the validity of these statements by simply reviewing my educational materials. Now, can we just put this whole priestcraft accusation to rest? Moderator, I ask that any further accusations be censored. Demonstrate that I am doing these things or cease your baseless attacks. FAIR enough?

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[MormonMason]

That pretty much sums it up. Once you dismiss the alternative definition of the head of a river being a confluence, then of course this model doesn't work to your satisfaction. Then comes the extrapolations! That is precisely the problem.

Your problem is far greater. You rely on the 23rd definition in a dictionary that did not exist when Joseph Smith learned his English vocabulary, the very vocabulary that he used in the Book of Mormon. Check the 1806 Webster's. You won't find the "confluence" definition of Head there in the vocabulary that Joseph Smith would have learned as a youth before he translated the plates.

His learning was the rudiments of the English language. These classes were taught using the current dictionaries of the day. The current dictionary of the day when Joseph Smith received that limited education was the 1806 Webster's Dictionary, or, as it was titled, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. The extrapolations come from a direct reading of the text, with comparative usage of words and phrases throughout the book. The Book of Mormon directly tells us the positional and directional relationship between Zarahemla, Manti, Cumeni, Antionum, the south wilderness, the (definite article in the singular, being a monadic use referring to the existence of one thing) head of Sidon and the land of Nephi. It also tells us the relative altitudes of these places with respect to each other using Hebraic conventions for travel "up" or "down" in relation to relative altitude of destination.

All of these taken together demonstrate a northward flow of Sidon from the south wilderness at least to Zarahemla. That is enough to know that the Heartland model doesn't work. It is a nice effort but it doesn't work with the internal evidences of the text itself. You must ignore some texts, redefine other texts, must use an obscure dictionary entry that did not exist when Joseph Smith learned his childhood language and vocabulary, and have to do such things as use broken up compound translations of single words in an original Hebrew/Egyptian text to do it all.

The definition of confluence referring to a head of a river did not exist in Joseph Smith's vocabulary. If you can prove that he had the newer 1828 dictionary in his possession and/or learned from it during the course of translation, you might be able to make a better case for it. But, the actual vocabulary that he was taught as a youth was from the 1806 edition. That you cannot get around no matter how much you try.

[DNA truthseeker]

Just got word that at least 2 other people (one of which was in another hemisphere...so much for attending a meeting the next day in Provo...granted there was another meeting scheduled the following Thursday he could have attended.....if he had been willing to shell out a couple of thousand dollars) received the "Hello dear friends" email after having only purchased his DVD so I am thinking the "few" people that Brother Meldrum assumed were "staunch supporters" were likely much more than 30, the estimate I was previously given was simply "more than 30". I would not be surprised if he had just taken his list of orders and sent it out to all of them at this point...but that is, I admit, speculation based on the fact that all but one of the people that I know who received the letter (5 and counting) only connection with his research was through the DVD purchase.

It is too bad he is unlikely to return to the thread as I would love to know if I am right.

I do think I've done pretty good at refuting his claim against FAIR's use of the email....even if I say so myself, .

add-on: just got another report that will hopefully be able to be confirmed that Brother Meldrum had reported the sale of 10,000 DVDs prior to the "Hello dear friends" letter being sent out. Don't know if he kept track of those he sold offline, if not then it is likely that it was not a full 10,000 of "staunch supporters" (yes, I am being a bit over the top here and there...perhaps lack of sleep has given me an unusual edge).

Just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. You are speculating, that is all.

[DNA truthseeker]

Actual count from Brother Meldrum's website was 8000 DVDs sold for $19.99 plus $5 shipping as of May 2008.

also this post where Brother Meldrum himself says the same...though talking mysteriously about himself in the third person:

http://www.mormondia...entry1208425874

Bottom line: Are you ready for your apology speech now that you know that I didn't broadcast out that email to the many thousands of people on our mailing list? I will accept your apology when it is received. Time to fess up...your speculations were off by many orders of magnitude! Thanks for refuting yourself.

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[MormonMason]

2. Read the Article Hebrew Written Language CONFIRMED in Hopewell Mound in Tennessee!

If the Bat Creek Stone is authenticated with no shadow of a doubt, there still is a problem. The dating has too wide a range. Retests of the artifacts and earspools are needed.

There is also a paleographical problem. The single character beneath the line that is translated, in part, "for Judah" appears to be an 'aleph. It stands alone, indicating that it may be a numeral. If it is a numeral, it cannot be connected with the Book of Mormon. The Hebrews at the time of Lehi either wrote numerals as Hieratic Egyptian characters or in Hebrew fully spelled out the words of the numerals. This sort of using single Hebrew characters as numerals did not obtain until Maccabean times, paleo-Hebrew also being revived again at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.

This is too late to have come from Book of Mormon peoples. If authentic, it is more likely from a group of refugees from the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (also dating to within Book of Mormon historical times--but circa 132 CE, fitting within the date range of the wooden earspools).

The word that almost no one translates in discussions of this sort seems to refer to "end" or "cessation (of existence)." While straining the syntax it may read something like "An end for Judah." This is seemingly incongruent in its tone for the Book of Mormon since they were mostly descended from Ephraim and Manasseh, with the exception of an unknown number from Judah among the people of Zarahemla. It, however, would fit really well within the context of a small group of Jewish refugees from the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.

Edited September 12, 2012 by MormonMason

[DNA truthseeker]

I am sure you have invested a huge amount of resources into your work.

Perhaps you can share with us your reason for choosing to part company with Bruce Porter and others and put on your own conferences. Was it to get the word out to more members about your alleged evidences? Why not just increase the number of conferences you all were doing instead? If it was for another reason, what was it?

Bruce Porter had been working for LDS travel when they decided that they wanted Wayne May and I to join them so that we could all be working together. We came to some initial agreement and began working together. I had already been conducting conferences on my own since 2008. I turned over all of my website purchases to them in exchange for a consistent salary which they agreed to. The amount being brought in at the time from my website being greater than the salary amount.

After about three months of receiving the salary, I was informed that there was insufficient funds to continue to pay me. I continued to work for free for two more months, hoping things would turn around. It was then that I found that I was the only one not receiving their salary, yet they (LDS travel) were continuing to keep all sales proceeds from my website which was more than my salary amount. Then we found out that the paid pre-orders for the upcoming Prophecies & Promises book had been spent and no books had yet been ordered. Bruce had to have a friend pay for the printing of the book and Bruce, the printer and I ate the amount taken by LDS travel in order to make good on the pre-ordered copies. This is when I left their company as we had no written agreement and I took back my website.

After parting ways I set up another conference and invited Bruce and Wayne to participate, which they did. At the conference I told the audience that we would have the next one six months later on the same schedule I have been using previously, the two days before LDS General Conference in April. That was the fall conference of 2010. I normally would send an email out the beginning of the year to announce the upcoming spring conference, but in December I received numerous calls about a conference scheduled those two days before General Conference which had been sent out by LDS travel in an email letting folks know that Bruce and Wayne would be speaking. I called to find out what was going on and LDS travel had used my email contact list (without my permission) to send out an invitation to a conference that they had deliberately scheduled on the dates I had previously been doing my conferences. After talking with Wayne and Bruce they told me that LDS travel meant to call me to speak as well (but they hadn't). Then they asked me to speak (at my own conference?) and while I was dismayed by what had happened, I nevertheless agreed to do so. They felt that I had been charging too little for my conferences and that they wanted to do more advertising and it was going to cost a lot more money, plus they liked the South Towne Expo Center better than the Zermatt Resort where I had been having my previous conferences. With just a couple of weeks before the scheduled conference LDS travel dis-invited me from speaking.

That is when I decided to hold my own conference again at the Zermatt and this was reported in Mormon Times. Bruce Porter was interviewed by Mormon Times reporter Michael DeGroote who asked Bruce why the dueling conferences. Bruce said that I left because of financial reasons, that I could make more money on my own. That was technically true, because I had worked for free for over two months and making anything is more than what I was receiving from them (which was zero) so I went back on my own and took back my website and split from them. This was, unfortunately misconstrued in the article as my leaving because I thought I could get rich faster on my own. That was simply not the case. I simply could not allow them to continue to take the purchases from my website and then refuse to pay me what they had agreed to. Bruce said that he was taken out of context by the reporter. I held my conference and they held theirs.

Bruce, Wayne and I are still good friends as evidenced by all three of us speaking at my upcoming FIRM Foundation conference this October. My difficulty was with the management of LDS travel, not Bruce or Wayne. We have since worked that out and moved on with our lives. Wayne and I are independent of LDS travel at this time.

And there you have it. No sinister plot, no behind the scenes back room deals, no one vying for power or greed, just three individuals who are passionate about the Book of Mormon and the evidence that leads us to North America.

[Brant Gardner]

First, you are correct that the Heartland Model geography didn't initially begin by speculating about narrow necks of land etc. It began with DNA research, which lead to turning to Church History, which ultimately lead back to the text.

That is a fascinating datum. Building an entire theory based on your understanding of DNA means that everything must balance on that understanding.

As I remember the data you were using to show the migration of that particular haplotype north up the Mississippi, you left off the data showing that migration coming from from the Bering Strait before it arrived there to move northward. Combined with a fascinating combination of accepting science when it is convenient, but declaring it incorrect when it doesn't fit, you move that data from around 15000 BC to a more Book of Mormon-acceptable timeframe. I understand that you have worked to justify your DNA theories, but I find that I am more convinced by those who have degrees in the field and actually work with that information who contradict your use of the data.

Next, the very idea that you would start with DNA and then construct a geography around it tells us that your geography is pre-determined rather than discovered. That is, you found what you were looking for. That is a fundamental problem with historical research. When you begin with a bias, that bias tends to color both the accepted evidence and the nature of your conclusions.

The Heartland model is not based on this speculative method, but rather on the prophecies and promises for which the book was actually written.

Another fascinating idea. First, we begin with a datum that is based on your personal re-reading of scientific evidence. Then, you create a geography that has very little to do with geography, but rather with the much softer interpretation of what prophecies must have meant. Again, you begin with a conclusion, and then find data that supports the original assumption. That is pretty much the scientific method upside down. It does allow for the very interesting derailing of any actual discussion of geography when you claim that we can't know geography. You suggest that the text doesn't tell us enough about geography, and then proceed to discuss geography. At least you have an out when things don't work.

We believe that more can be learned about the "where" through rigorous study of these prophecies, than we can about speculating about the direction of flow of a river or exactly what constitutes a "wilderness."

Fascinating. Prophecies that have a presumed meaning, or at least one that you can defend, are more accurate than geographic details in the text. That is an amazing theoretical assumption. It certainly removes discussion from scholarly arenas. If this is the case, I am surprised that you spend any time with geography at all.

Years before I began sharing this research I created a table with every city and geographic clue, along with the date of its first and last mention in the text, any cities or other features in the area and cross referenced anything that was to the north, south, east or west (with no or minimal interpretation). I have used this table thousands of times, but I have not endeavored to place every Book of Mormon city and feature on a hypothetical map because it is fraught with difficulties resulting from a lack of detailed information in the text and the ease of making inaccurate interpretations of their meaning.

And yet prophecies are much more explicit? You realize, I'm sure, that prophecy tends to be completely understood only after the fact. Prior to the time of the fulfillment, prophecies have historically been a bit vague. I find it fascinating that you assume that they are an infallible foundation, and that your opinion of their meaning is determinative.

Again a profound lack of knowledge of my proposed Heartland Model geography is evident in no less than four of your primary cases against my research in your post!

I suppose you missed the several times I mentioned that I hadn't seen a full geography. I also confess that there is no way that I would take the time to watch 5 DVDs. That is way too slow a method of learning for my personal tastes. I rarely use that method for anything, so it isn't a particular criticism of your DVDs. However, I have missed seeing your book. I'll have to add it to my collection.

The Adena civilization and the Hopewell civilization did emphatically NOT occupy the "very same lands" as you have again incorrectly assumed. See the map from University of California - Irvine which is one of the better maps of the two civilizations you claim to have been located on the "very same lands" and see if you still make that same (incorrect) assessment.

I wondered about your statement since I had read from standard sources that the Hopewell had succeeded the Adena. Then I looked at your map. I propose that you are not reading it correctly. In order to show the two cultures and then a time area, there is a difference between the color used to represent the Adena and the later more extensive Hopewell. However, the legend appears to clearly indicate that the Hopewell also included the Adena area. So, your map covers the precise point I was making.

Next, we have the problem of finding a way to get the Adena north of the narrow neck and into a land northward, and then to make sure that there is no cultural overlap. I can't find any way to make that happen with the map proposed. The Adena are in the right time, but the wrong place.

I am also unaware of any prophecy that could resolve this one. The Book of Mormon was written by people who understood where they lived, and when. If they tell us the Jaredites were above the narrow neck (Desolation is above the narrow neck, Bountiful to the south), then I see no reason to disblieve them.

Grant, I know that you and John Sorenson and other Mesoamerican scholars are excellent researchers, but I think you are so confident in your theories that you have not exerted a similar effort in exploring the possibilities of the Heartland Model, and instead of solid research, you go on assumptions and simple google searches in your efforts to "debunk" the Heartland model at all costs.

I quite agree that I haven't spent the same amount of time on the Heartland model. There is a very simple reason. I can't get it to work well enough to spend the time. If I had had the same kind of problems when I examined Mesoamerica, I would have spent little time on that as well. It is a question of where the research time is most valuable.

If, in questions of history, you have two hypotheses, and one continually poses problems and the other continually provides results, then it seems obvious to me which of the two is to be followed. Unlike your admission that you began with something entirely unrelated to geography and were then compelled to find a geography that fit you beginning assumption, I had no assumption when I started. I had decided that there was never going to be a reasonable location for the Book of Mormon. Data convinced me otherwise. I worked with the new data, checking its correlations for about 30 years before I ever published anything using the information. I had to discard some interesting correlations that other people had proposed along the way because I couldn't make them work.

In doing so you do yourself, and those who read your mistaken and UN-scholarly opinions,

I'm sorry. You have characterized a rather large body of work with a single label. If you are limiting your statement to the fact that I didn't understand your geography (and which I admitted when I wrote--the kind of qualification that a scholar might make), then I suppose I might see your point. However, I have no idea on what basis you would make such a blanket statement about my work.

It is also embarrassing for those who hold themselves out as the "scholars" of the Church to be so uninformed on things they are publishing online.

So, it is really only being uninformed on some aspects of your geography? I admitted that at the beginning, so I don't see any problem continuing to do so. I tend to be open about what I do and do not know.

Now, however, we should return to specifics. We do still have the issue of the Adena, which your rebuttal only reinforced. I concede the other points. Please move on from personal discussions and move on to the issues, which is what I was hoping to do with my post.

If you look at the map and follow the archaeological dating, the oldest Hopewell sites are along the gulf coast of the US (ie South) and they then move up into the Mississippi and Ohio river valley's where they find the Adena (Jaredite) ruins. That should have a familiar ring to those who are trying to reconcile the text with the landscape and civilizations.

Of course it sounds right, if you don't actually look at the evidence. The Book of Mormon should be the determination here, right? In order for your scenario to fit, you have to fit all of the details, not just some of them. Of course the Adena area was north of the older Hopewell. However, you have to find a way to get the Adena north of the narrow neck. The text associates the Jaredites with Desolation, which is the refuge land only at the end of the Book of Mormon. So, in your model, you shouldn't have Hopewell/Nephites in the Adena lands until say AD 300. I don't think that happened, but I confess to having limited recall on the Hopewell. Then, you have the problem of a narrow neck. You also must have Adena being destroyed in the area of Cumorah in NY, which the text appears to place firmly in Jaredite lands (the hill Ramah). Your Adena map doesn't place them anywhere close enough. Details are important. Generalities can be made to fit, it is the details that make the difference.

At least the Heartland Model has a proposed people to call the Jaredites and Nephites...in Mesoamerican theories there isn't even a proposed civilization to have been the Nephites.

I am sure you don't realize how difficult you have made your case with this assertion. I know that you don't deal with distances in your theories, but there are no constructible distances from the text that allow for the coverage you have just created for Lamanite/Nephite/Hopewell.

Remember..."the Maya were not the Nephites and the Nephites were not the Maya" according to FARMS Review.

I don't have to remember. I have said it myself many times. The following statement that you are missing is that Nephites participated in those cultural areas. This is an important nuance based on the nature of historical development of those cultures. It is actually a phrase that you would be wise to incorporate into your own model if you want any hope of correlating times and places and peoples. These gross cultural terms cover the reality of the way those people self-conceived, which wasn't as a larger people, but as separate cities. Therefore, Nephites could use pots from the material culture, but have a different religion from a neighboring city. I suspect that there is a similar diversity underlying the cultural label of Hopewell.

We know that they left Laman and Lemuel and were under strict command not to intermarry with them and their Jewish traditions would have disallowed their marrying into other cultures.

Actually, we don't know that. There were some specific prohibitions, but we know that intermarriages were allowed as well. Your premise is incorrect.

In addition, other cultures may not have been so excited about being forced to live the Law of Moses with its circumcision, strange rituals and practices which we know the Nephites continued to live until the time of Christ.

Frankly, using "I don't think so" as an argument is not a method I recommend, nor one I think requires any response. This is your opinion, and pretty unsupportable.

Finally, are you actually claiming that DNA evidence, prophetic prophecies, Joseph Smith's revelatory statements, archaeological evidences, meteorological evidences and cultural evidences are "soft" while speculations and accompanying interpretations of the few geography passages are considered "hard" fact?

1) DNA evidence is hard evidence, but open to interpretation and reinterpretation as data are accumulated. As part of a science, it should follow scientific rules. At the moment, those scholars who have degrees in the field disagree with the way you are using the evidence. So, DNA evidence is hard evidence, but you have not used it according to the scientific rules and have specifically changed the dating to fit your theory. Your justification, as I recall it, was that the science had the clock wrong. I am not aware of your response to those scholars who have rebutted your resetting of the clock.

2) Prophetic prophecies (accepting the redundancy): Yes, this is very soft. It requires that you apply a particular interpretation and declare it definitive whether or not it is correct. There isn't a a hard answer, but only an interpretive one. The particular use you have made of the prophecies simply declares that your interpretation is the only valid one. I disagree. Hence, soft because there can be legitimate disagreement.

3) Joseph's revelatory statements: Yes, soft in that you have defined statements as revelatory that in all probability were never meant that way. Again, this is entirely dependent upon your interpretation. Because other legitimate interpretations may exist, this is inherently soft evidence. However, historical research on these statements strongly suggests that they were not revelatory, which would remove even the original hypothesis.

4) Archaeological evidence: This is a mixture, because the artifacts exist, but the meaning of the artifacts is a construction, and one that is under constant revision as data are accumulated. In this case, however, there are still some very problematic issues for the Heartland use of the archaeology. See the problem of the Adena.

5) Meteorological data: Hard evidence, subject to interpretation, but pretty solid.

6) Cultural data: For historical peoples without written records, this is necessarily soft because it is a scholarly construction based on artifacts. It is always under revision. However, a good geographic correlation should put us in the position that understanding the culture of the region should increase our understanding of the actions in the Book of Mormon.

7) Geographic details: From the text, they are "hard" evidence in that they exist. Of course, they must be interpreted, as any other hard data are interpreted. Nevertheless, finding a proposed geography that doesn't match with the textual descriptions tells us that we have the wrong place, even when there are some things that fit. Perhaps the best example is the Malaysian hypothesis for the Book of Mormon. There are things that fit, but not upon close examination.

I wouldn't mind future discussions, but I would prefer that we stick to discussions of data instead of personalities. I find the problem of the Adena quite damaging to the Heartland model. I am also very curious about where we might possibly find the cement cities with a lack of trees. That is a discernable state with current methods, so we should be able to know that an area was denuded of trees during a historical time. For example, at its height, there were probably no visible trees around Tikal, but now it is hidden in jungle. So that should be hard evidence that we can find. I can't find anything that fits that in the Heartland model, but Mormon spent a rather interesting amount of time and detail on it--more than most locations. It was important to Mormon, we should be able to propose a location for it.

[DNA truthseeker]

I refuse to go along with the straw man you keep trying to thrust upon me. FAIR has not attack your faithfulness. I am not going to play this game with you.

This is why FAIR responded (but only after trying to work with you, you were the one who chose not to respond in kind):

http://www.fairlds.o...-church-summary (had to remove footnotes because they were screwing up formatting, see original article for them please)

BTW, for those interested the President Hinckley quote was removed after the publishing of this article.

And that is why FAIR members spent hours discussing the issues they had with your work prior to publishing anything; allowed you to see their critique before publishing so that you could respond and defend yourself or correct it if you chose; set up a contract so that both sides would know exactly what was expected of them, a contract you did not follow because you did not respond as agreed upon.

FAIR does not make money or fame off of Mesoamerican theories. We have members who believe the BoM took place in other locations. Why would the 150ish members of FAIR be willing to compromise their personal intergrity to allow a few...very few...members profit, especially when some don't even agree with those few on their theories? I have no personal investment in the Mesoamerican theory. I will never make a presentation or write a book or do much more than ask questions of others when it comes to all things Mesoamerican. I am interested in all aspects of the various theories that appear to inform the text for me. Why would I be supporting such actions as Brother Meldrum claims FAIR is undertaking to destroy him personally?

We present other options on the website. It has never been about the geography. It has been about your methodology and the way you attack others as you are on the attack now as well as the way you attempt to weave in spiritual witnesses of your work (though you seem to be letting others make that claim for you more lately, see the testimonials page on Brother Meldrum's site if anyone is wondering what I am talking about, testimonials that Brother Meldrum has approved of posting, perhaps even chosen himself I would assume since he is in charge).

This is what FAIR as an institution has to say about geography:

http://en.fairmormon...ormon/Geography

If FAIR was responding to Brother Meldrum's work only because we were concerned about protecting the Mesoamericanists within our ranks, why have we only chosen to respond to him in this way? Why have we not gone after every other person who has promoted a nonMesoamerican theory as well? Could it be because it is not the geography but the methodology that is at issue? (yes, this is unlike most of my other questions a rhetorical one).

And... the "straw man" card is played once again...

You don't have your facts straight.

I called Scott Gordon out of the blue to ask him to meet with me privately (possibly over lunch) to discuss my research. He responded by setting up a conference call while I was in California doing presentations with nearly the entire FAIR board (about 8-10 individuals as I recall). They proceeded to attack me, demanding all sorts of answers but I was not in a position to refer to my research which is at my home/office. After grilling me for what seemed like an eternity, they said that they simply wanted to 'help a brother' and would await my return home. Before I could return they posted their first attack article(s) against me and demanded that I reply to a more than 200 page attack article. I informed them that I was scheduled to leave town again for a trip back east and could not possibly respond in that amount of time. They decided to extend my FAIR induced deadline for response a couple of weeks and I would try my best to reply to their numerous accusations. It was either agree to this or they were going to publish immediately. Their "contract" with me was to threaten to publish immediately or force me to agree to their demands to reply. I had no other options given me. It was as if they felt that they owned me. Upon my return I began working on my response, but I had other pressing responsibilities and frankly more important obligations pressing which required time from the work on my response. As the deadline approached I tried to contact Scott Gordon to request additional time as I had not had sufficient time to form a proper response. They had spent months preparing the attack and they were "benevolently" giving me about 20-25 working days to respond. I believe it was deliberately meant to force me to be unable to respond properly, thus enabling them to formulate renewed attacks against anything I would present. FAIR claimed that they had some sort of hard deadline that they had to meet (again, self imposed, nobody had any emergency happening on this) and refused my request for more time. They then published their their formal attack articles. What was the point of then responding? Why provide them with further material to attack? They were bent on destroying me and nothing was going to get in their way.

Yes, FAIR spent hours discussing their attack plans, but it is to bad they refused to spend any time discussing the situation with me personally, which is what I was hoping to do with Gordon.

FAIR has board members who don't accept the Mesoamerican models? Really? I asked Scott Gordon to demonstrate their proclaimed "neutrality" by providing the name of just one single board member who isn't a Mesoamericanist and he couldn't do it. All one has to do to completely and utterly debunk FAIR's smokescreen on this is to take a look at their youtube channel and see how many Mesoamerican promotion video's they have as compared to the number of other geographies they have posted. Go ahead, do it. See if I am wrong. They cannot demonstrate AT ALL their proclaimed neutrality because they are NOT neutral. They only invite Mesoamericanists to speak at their conferences, they promote it on their websites, and their youtube channel and their books and videos. To claim that they are neutral is, in my view, a bold-faced lie. Their board members are close associates with those recently fired from FARMS/NAMI and BMAF, both of which are/were Mesoamerican promotion front organizations. FARMS was formed to promote Mesoamerica. BMAF proclaims it in their mission statement. FAIR is tight with both of these organizations. They need to stop deceiving people by claiming something that is absolutely demonstrably not true. While FAIR may mention other theories on their website, please show me any positive, endorsing kinds of material on anything that isn't Mesoamerican. I don't think you can.

It is truly rich with irony that you now accuse me of attacking on this thread. There were some 100+ posts, mostly by your Mesoamerican friends attacking me before I ever got involved. I have finally decided this one time to defend myself online while FAIR, FARMS and BMAF have posted hundreds of pages of attack articles without nary a response from me. Yet the attacks continue.

The testimonials on my site is what others have chosen to write. I did not write them nor did I edit them except for length or irrelevant material. That others have had such experiences I cannot control. You have posted testimonials of your Mesoamerican scholars on MormonScholarsTestify but I have been banned from contributing because, well, I'm not a "scholar." FAIR can proclaim all day long that they do not promote Mesoamerican theories. In the same vein I suppose that I can proclaim all day long that I am the king of Siam, but neither is demonstrable and neither is true.

The main reason that FAIR responded to me in this way is because the Heartland Model theory is the only alternative model that had become a serious threat to their Mesoamerican theories. That was true then and it has become even more true today. The Heartland model geography is gaining more and more momentum every day despite the constant barrage of attacks from my fellow members of the Lord's true Church. They have the voice of the Mormon media, years of promotion, advertising, funding and more, yet this Heartland model just isn't going away. That, to me, is true irony.

FAIR, FARMS and BMAF's methodology may have cost a few die-hard Mesoamericanists their jobs at FARMS Review. Whose methods are suspect?.. those who continue to attack fellow brothers of the Church, or those who simply are showing the evidences and the research they have found they feel supports the Book of Mormon better than the Mesoamerican theories? I know what my answer is...only the reader can decide for themselves.

Sorry, but I must now let you swoon in your own wisdom and knowledge as you gang tackle once again your unworthy opponent. Keep the faith.

Edited September 13, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[Anijen]

Sorry, but I must correct you on several items.

Please do so, but at the same time you have been corrected by almost every poster here in this theme. I hope you will humble yourself and recognize it just might be you who is wrong and not all of us.

1. You are not the only one to proclaim "priestcraft." Fiction writer Chris Heimerdinger did in his article on the BMAF attack webpage devoted to the Heartland Model. Others have also...I don't have time to look them all up.

That is why I wrote "as far as I know." If brother Heimerdinger has and as you have said others as well then perhaps you should look in the mirror and accept that you could be.

2. I have never sold any materials at any firesides held in any Church buildings...EVER! I consulted with my bishop early on to make sure there would not be any such problem and it never happened. I didn't even bring any DVD's with me in order to ensure that no one could make the claim. But of course anyone can claim anything so all I can say is "show me the evidence!" There isn't any and you know it. It never happened and I made sure that it didn't. You are welcome to your opinion about what you think you felt at one of my presentations, but I will not let you lie about selling things at Church buildings. Didn't happen, not even once.

I again believe you are deceiving people here. I have not attended any of your firesides (at a church building), but I do know of someone who has and he in fact bought something at that fireside. To give you the benefit of the doubt I will concede and say perhaps you did it in the parking lot of the church after the fireside. The fact is; it is a he said she said jury and I do not know you in your personal life but do know your public life, I also know my friend and I believe him over you, simple as that.

3. My reason for discontinuing presentations for a time in Church buildings has nothing whatsoever to do with selling things, but has more to do with people being influenced negatively by FAIR's and FARMS false claims. I followed the advice and counsel of my stake president not to conduct presentations in Church buildings for a time. I followed his counsel, even though very difficult, and still the information is growing exponentially. You are speculating on something you know practically nothing about. You are mistaken and wrong. I think you owe me and every reader an apology. But that is just my opinion....

If I am ever convinced that this is true I will apologize and beg for your forgiveness. It is and still continue to be my belief that when you say; "I followed the advice and counsel of my stake president not to conduct presentations in Church buildings for a time." that it is not for the reasons you are portraying and it is a clever spin of the truth. However I will be the first to admit I was not there, I could be wrong, yet it is my strong opinion that you are a deceiver based on many other factors i.e. portraying artifacts that are fake and saying they are not and then using them as a bolster for your theories. That fact alone puts you in the deceiving category.

4.... if you or anyone come to the lecture in a posture to disrupt it because you don't agree with it, that is also generally considered bad social etiquette

No I silently (patiently) sat through the whole thing and only offered up some hard questions when prompted. The same people who who almost feinting with delight from your presentation were the very same people who booed me when I started asking some of the harder questions, that is why I called them ringers. I never once interrupted. When asked; "are any questions?" I thought that might be an appropriat time.

I gave 93 presentations in 17 states plus 38 webinar presentations wherein many thousands attended. Where are all their similar cries and complaints as yours? Admit it, there is no such outcry! Someone is not telling the truth. You can cry priestcraft all day long if you'd like, just remember that bit about "bearing false witness" as you do.

Then refute the six archaeologist who you manipulated in the video, Then acknowledge that the Newark and Bat Creek stones are fake. If you can not then your statements are as phony as those fake stones.

[juliann]

And... the "straw man" card is played once again...

You don't have your facts straight.

I called Scott Gordon out of the blue to ask him to meet with me privately (possibly over lunch) to discuss my research. He responded by setting up a conference call while I was in California doing presentations with nearly the entire FAIR board (about 8-10 individuals as I recall).

This is blatantly false. There aren't near that many board members and no such call with the FAIR Board ever occurred. i know that because I am a Board member.

[Anijen]

Try reading and watching the information. How many times have I already posted these links on this thread? And you STILL refuse to read them? Bad form.

I have read every thing you have posted and watched everything I can on your web site, the stuff I didn't have to pay for, oh the irony.

How many times have I already posted these links on this thread?

Many times (too many in my opinion).

And you STILL refuse to read them?

Oh please. I have not only read them but many of them more than two or three times. I still find them unconvincing. For example your Hebrew Confirmed in Hopewell Civilization; is a joke, written by you, (as if you are going to write something bad about you). The experts you have cited had an agenda to find it authentic (they were paid by those wanting it to be authentic). What is glaringly missing are the very archaeologist that are in your DVD. These archaeologist I have met some and have corresponded by email with all of them. All of them including Dr. Leper, and Dr. Feder agree with me and not you, that the Bat Creek Stone, Newark Holy Stone and the Los Lunas Stone are fakes. Yet you refuse to publish this. the very experts who you use but manipulated are against your ideas you set forth in your video. Again to drive the point further, the Smithsonian did not display it because they felt it to be a fake, and in Tennessee where I had the opportunity to see it, study it and hold it (can you say that), when they did display it the curator himself believes it to be a fake and there is a sign on the display that says basically that. Edited September 12, 2012 by Anijen

[DNA truthseeker]

If the Bat Creek Stone is authenticated with no shadow of a doubt, there still is a problem. The dating has too wide a range. Retests of the artifacts and earspools are needed.

There is also a paleographical problem. The single character beneath the line that is translated, in part, "for Judah" appears to be an 'aleph. It stands alone, indicating that it may be a numeral. If it is a numeral, it cannot be connected with the Book of Mormon. The Hebrews at the time of Lehi either wrote numerals as Hieratic Egyptian characters or in Hebrew fully spelled out the words of the numerals. This sort of using single Hebrew characters as numerals did not obtain until Maccabean times, paleo-Hebrew also being revived again at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.

This is too late to have come from Book of Mormon peoples. If authentic, it is more likely from a group of refugees from the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (also dating to within Book of Mormon historical times--but circa 132 CE, fitting within the date range of the wooden earspools).

The word that almost no one translates in discussions of this sort seems to refer to "end" or "cessation (of existence)." While straining the syntax it may read something like "An end for Judah." This is seemingly incongruent in its tone for the Book of Mormon since they were mostly descended from Ephraim and Manasseh, with the exception of an unknown number from Judah among the people of Zarahemla. It, however, would fit really well within the context of a small group of Jewish refugees from the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.

Did you ever read the Book of Mormon? You know, part that specifically says that they had "altered" their language? Believe me, it's much less of a stretch to think that this single character could have been changed, than to magically revert the entire Mayan glyph system into Hebrew! Or Egyptian! Or anything even remotely like unto it. Your proposed Mayan glyph system is not in any way related to either of the two languages mentioned in the Book of Mormon, yet you seem to have no problem accepting that written language as somehow Book of Mormon related. Go figure! You are amazing in your ability to miss and completely ignore the elephant in the room!

[Nemesis]

Please knock off your grudge match and defend your theories instead. And as for your report you are the topic of this thread how can I edit out your name from the thread? Your theory is open to critique and discussion so please accept my advice and defend your theory instead. Now if your faithfulness is attacked we will not allow it to stand and will take action.

Nemesis

[Anijen]

the elephant in the room!

The elephant in the room is that the forgeries you use to support your unconvincing claims.

The Bat Creek Stone. The stone engraving is a fake. It was either an attempt for better job security by Emmert himself or perhaps the efforts of Luther Meade Blackman (LMB). LMB was a marble engraver, he also engraved tombstones. It also could have been the work of John P. Rogan. It is those three who are the main suspects for the forgery of the Bat Creek stone. Through my research it is my opinion that it was probably Emmert.

The Newark Holy Stones. Dr. Brad Lepper, who I believe to be the current foremost expert on the Hopewell and who Meldrum uses in his video believes the Newark Holy stones to be fake as well. The Newark Holy stones were made to do what Meldrum is doing now, that is, to bolster their ideas.

"there are instances in which individuals of a particular religious persuasion feel justified in doing so if they think that a fraud is likely to bring people to their faith... the Newark Holy Stones are an example of just a fraud." ~Brad Lepper, Jeff Gill 2000

Los Lunas Decalogue Stone. LOL, Frank Hibben a joke of an archaeologist who used fakes to climb the latter of academia.

We see this same motivation today with Meldrum. He uses these fake artifacts to bolster his theories. Meldrum then places these in his Heartland setting for the Book of Mormon as foundation ( a foundation mind you that are not true ie the the fake artifacts) and then as a wedge to assault and attack Mesoamerican theorist (can't hardly read any of his papers that does not have an attack on a Mesoamerican theory).

Edited September 12, 2012 by Anijen

[Sevenbak]

Anijen, long time no discuss... I hope you have been well.

I don't really want to get into another geography discussion, especially since I don't adhere to either of these absolute theories being discussed. You know my position on it. ;-)

But I'm wondering if you have any refuting evidence as to the wood artifacts that were discovered with the Bat Creek Stone, Carbon-14 dated to somewhere between 32 A.D. and 769 A.D? Or so the researchers claim...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did you ever read the Book of Mormon? You know, part that specifically says that they had "altered" their language? Believe me, it's much less of a stretch to think that this single character could have been changed, than to magically revert the entire Mayan glyph system into Hebrew! Or Egyptian! Or anything even remotely like unto it. Your proposed Mayan glyph system is not in any way related to either of the two languages mentioned in the Book of Mormon, yet you seem to have no problem accepting that written language as somehow Book of Mormon related. Go figure! You are amazing in your ability to miss and completely ignore the elephant in the room!

This is almost getting commical. This is a deflection pure and simple. We are not talking about the Mayan glyph system. We are talking about the things you use that are known to be fakes. MM brought up some very interesting things about the scripts that were used to write on these stones you claim are authentic. You deflected.

Dodge ball is in season folks.

FYI here is the relevant portion of MM thoughts.

It is too late and is the wrong script for the period. The characters in the replica of the "artifact" above are what is known as Aramaic Square Script. The Hebrews did not use that script until many years after the Lehi left the Old World. These characters did not come into use among the ancient Hebrews until post-Exile times. That means that Lehi and his people, and his descendants would not have been aware of its use and would not have used it in the New World during Book of Mormon times. Aside from this, the Book of Mormon itself claimed that they altered the Hebrew over time.

So, what would be the odds that they would have copied exactly the Aramaic Square Script of the Old World (separated by thousands of miles and multiple oceans) in the New?

Edited September 12, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[DNA truthseeker]

Please do so, but at the same time you have been corrected by almost every poster here in this theme. I hope you will humble yourself and recognize it just might be you who is wrong and not all of us.

No, I have been attacked by nearly every poster here in this theme. There is a big difference. Baseless and uninformed attacks cannot be seriously considered as legitimate "corrections" now can they?

That is why I wrote "as far as I know." If brother Heimerdinger has and as you have said others as well then perhaps you should look in the mirror and accept that you could be.

Or maybe another hypothesis is that they don't know my intentions and therefore have not basis to form any intelligent opinion on the matter. That would indicate that their (and your) opinions are simply ignorant and nothing more than assumptions without any merit. You are certainly into your own opinions and you seem to think that everyone shares them...or at least they should.

I again believe you are deceiving people here. I have not attended any of your firesides (at a church building), but I do know of someone who has and he in fact bought something at that fireside. To give you the benefit of the doubt I will concede and say perhaps you did it in the parking lot of the church after the fireside. The fact is; it is a he said she said jury and I do not know you in your personal life but do know your public life, I also know my friend and I believe him over you, simple as that.

Really? Name a time, place, and the name of the supposed "witness" and I'll see if my records can dig up someone who was actually there. You offer nothing more than further unsubstantiated heresay without any evidence whatsoever except a "pal" of your who said so. See if that holds up to scholarly scrutiny. Was it I that did the dirty deed (oh, and now supposedly outside in the parking lot, which of course would not longer be in a Church building anyway, am I right?) or was it someone who is a fellow Heartlander? What evidence, besides their story, do they have to offer to substantiate your claim?

If I am ever convinced that this is true I will apologize and beg for your forgiveness. It is and still continue to be my belief that when you say; "I followed the advice and counsel of my stake president not to conduct presentations in Church buildings for a time." that it is not for the reasons you are portraying and it is a clever spin of the truth. However I will be the first to admit I was not there, I could be wrong, yet it is my strong opinion that you are a deceiver based on many other factors i.e. portraying artifacts that are fake and saying they are not and then using them as a bolster for your theories. That fact alone puts you in the deceiving category.

I've heard it said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I seriously doubt that there is anything I could ever do or say at this point that would ever change your mind about me, short of proclaiming to the world that I am one of satan's minions who is an evil apostate and I did it all for money and fame and glory! I doubt that even that would satisfy your lust for destroying me. So I'll not give you that privilege. Sorry, I am NOT saying those things about myself or this research or against the many tens of thousands of solid, wonderful, striving Latter-day Saints who you are unwhittingly attacking along with me.

No I silently (patiently) sat through the whole thing and only offered up some hard questions when prompted. The same people who who almost feinting with delight from your presentation were the very same people who booed me when I started asking some of the harder questions, that is why I called them ringers. I never once interrupted. When asked; "are any questions?" I thought that might be an appropriat time.

What was the date and location of that presentation again? Possibly I know some others who were there that might have had a different viewpoint. Could you illucidate a bit more with some actual facts?

Then refute the six archaeologist who you manipulated in the video, Then acknowledge that the Newark and Bat Creek stones are fake. If you can not then your statements are as phony as those fake stones.

I have several quote from liy111us and others that, when confronted with the authenticity of Mesoamerican artifacts, have said such wonderfully enlightening nuggets of truth as "There had been controversy over the [artifact] for quite some time, but controversy doesn't mean it was proven fraudulent." There have many claims of artifacts being proclaimed as fakes or fraudulent or a hoax by some "professionals" which were later debunked and found to have been authentic. I would be sure confident in the "fake" claims if I were you or I'll have to drag out some of your Mesoamerican friends own words in defense of what main stream archaeologists have proclaimed as fakes. This shoe fits your model as well as it does mine. While there may be controversy, controversy proves nothing other than there are differences of opinion. There are competent scholars who disagree with each other over these stones. The verdict is still out and you are fighting against the ONLY scientifically verified stone anywhere in the America's with ancient Hebrew on it that has been dated into Book of Mormon time frames not only by carbon dating but by the artifacts found along with the stone which were absolutely Hopewell. Show me anything with this level of evidence for ancient Hebrew writing in Mesoamerica! Everyone reading this can clearly see that you are, again, missing the elephant in the room.

[DNA truthseeker]

This is blatantly false. There aren't near that many board members and no such call with the FAIR Board ever occurred. i know that because I am a Board member.

You had better check your sources, they seem to be misguided you again. I can tell you the day and the time and where I was (at my uncle's home in California who was formerly in the Sacramento temple presidency). I don't know if all the FAIR people were board members, we weren't formally introduced. There wasn't time. They started in on me like a pack of dogs on a three legged cat! But there were no less than 5-6 different voices on the call. Talk to Scott Gordon or Robert White or John Lynch and ask them who else, exactly, was on that conference call at 7:00 am on Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 at 888-481-**** security number 693-44163. Don't tell me it didn't happen. Ask them. They were all there plus, others. I have my records in my planner written in ink. You don't appear to have a grasp of the truth. Are all fellow FAIR board members obsessed with sharing their opinions served up with a complete lack of any facts? I should certainly hope not. You hold yourselves out as the final word in all gospel related truth and members of the Church are counting on you not to mislead them...like you just did. What happens when you are caught again and again spreading baseless falsehoods? Are reprimanded or rewarded by FAIR for these attacks?

Edited September 12, 2012 by Nemesis
Edited out phone number

[Calm]

Please allow me to clarify...

1. The number was indeed about 30 out of a database at the time of many thousands.

Excellent! Good to know. Now people can decide for themselves if they view that as a more private appeal or public one. For me personally--and in no way am I suggesting that others should share my judgment as I suspect number judging is a very subjective issue, we have all heard the jokes about some celebrity inviting 200 or more of their closest friends but I suspect there are people out there who do honestly feel that way about people and more power to them as we all should feel that way, that each man and woman out there is our brother and sister and our relationship to them is one of closeness...getting off track here---for me personally, I tend to judge "few" when talking about people as less than 10 and usually less than 5 unless one has specified they are talking percentagewise and not always then. At this point I am not sure how I would look on 30 out of thousands if it was connected with say a psychological study. I do know that when you said "few" in this thread I envisioned around ten people or so, a group one could comfortably meet with in one's house. And I will admit that having the two meetings at a local school led me to assume that the number was more like 50 at least (before I heard the statements about only having ordered a DVD and began wondering how the names were decided upon at that point) with an expectation of about 30 total which would give about 15 expected per meeting. Now that I think of it, perhaps you were just being nice to your wife in not having it at your own home. If so, I applaud your kindness and willing to put up with discomfort (school chairs are not conducive to good backs).

I am also not someone who would ever have the nerve to assume someone was a "staunch supporter" unless they had come right and out and told me that face to face and even then I might doubt it, lol. I just don't have that level of self confidence. It would seem that you do though, and let me repeat so that no one is confused that I never claimed or believed or even remotely thought you didn't believe the people you sent the info to were staunch supporters, I've just debated whether that was reality...and based on reactions from those you sent to I think the evidence that you were wrong is quite strong. Which draws into questions why you thought they were so supportive in the first place. Speculation here (and let me be clear that when I talk about speculating I in no way have ever wanted my speculation to influence anyone else's view of a situation, I think those who know me well on this board and elsewhere can verify for you I have never used speculation as evidence of a claim), I think it likely that you share a characteristic with many other entrepreneurs I have known (I've known a lot due to the fact that my husband's career is the study of such people) in that you are passionate about your work. Passion is essential to success for an entrepreneur not only because it keeps them going through the hard times, but because it catches up others in their vision and one can't succeed alone. The second necessary ingredient is a business ability that includes the gift of being able to market one's product. I have been astounded over the years to watch business with what I thought were pretty ordinary concepts make their owners wealthy men and women while others that had the potential to be actually life altering stalled on the ground floor due to their owners/creators' inability to get anyone else (or at least the ones with the funding) to share their vision. It is a sad commentary on humanity that it is not necessary to have a good product, sometimes salesmanship is all that is needed. Lest anyone doubt me, let me just say "pet rocks".

From what I've observed you have both the passion and the marketing ability where people can catch the fire when they interact with you, but the fire may be more of a reflection of your own commitment than theirs thus leading to misunderstandings. Also LDS in my experience face to face are almost as bad as Canadians in the level of politeness (lived in Canada for over a decade and adored every minute of it). They really don't like telling people negative things about them so even if someone offered you criticism it may not have been said strongly enough to convey the level of their critical view and other cues might have been misinterpreted by you in positive ways. Happens all the time in my experience with entrepreneurs, they make the assumption that everyone will see their product in much the same light as they do and it is a shock to many to find out that they are wrong and sometimes this takes awhile especially if they are really caught up in the dream.

I did not broadcast or publish it publicly as FAIR falsely proclaims.

I am happy to let others make that decision for themselves.

I did not send it to any known (by me) FAIR members.

Never said you did knowingly send it to any FAIR member.

I refute the claim that it was sent to any FAIR members. I think it was forwarded to someone who then forwarded it to some FAIR members. I have the original email and I know everyone that I sent it to. I'd like to know exactly which person it was that is on my original email that was a FAIR member. I don't believe you can supply the name of that member. If you can, then contact me and I'll be happy to verify it. There are 29 others who can also verify it. I don't think you are being truthful.

I don't have the right to share this information. I must check with those involved first to see if they are personally willing to share more than they already have. I am thinking of a particular third party who received your email who would be likely acceptable to you as well as to anyone at FAIR in order to keep the list confidential at both ends who could handle this for us.

In the case of the four names I am aware of, three are FAIR members. The one who reported that he had only ordered a DVD from you firsthand to me was verified by those I trust, if not by you, as someone who had received it at the time it had been sent out. The one that just spoke up, I am perfectly willing if he is unable to provide the email itself to grant that he is likely confusing an email sent with him with the material discussed. He has moved countries at least once since receiving it so I doubt that he has a copy. So that takes it down to three names that I know of, two members of FAIR. The other member of FAIR I have been given the information secondhand and I am perfectly willing to grant that perhaps he responded to receiving the DVD he ordered in such a way that it gave the impression to you of support or perhaps his order letter came across as expressing a supportive interest. He is a very polite and kind man and I can easily see that happening. The circumstances connected with the nonFAIR member I know of in part as related firsthand by and again I can see how perhaps polite or polite critical interest was perceived as supportive interest. I have never claimed that I know for a fact that you didn't believe you were sending it out to "staunch supporters" of your work. I have only claimed or implied by stating that some had reported ordering a DVD from you as their only contact that you misjudged their commitment. And it is really the lack of actual evidence that they were "staunch supporters" that makes me judge the email as a public one...the number of recipients just pushes it further into that territory for me; you did not know for sure that they were such supporters even if you believed they were but chose to send emails to people who may not have been interested anyway. I see it in much the same way as I've seen other entrepreneurs who have sent out 'feelers' to those "angels" who they believe might be interested in their company based on what companies these "angels" have provided capital for in the past. They have a high level of certainty that they will be interested, but it is based on their own evaluation, not on actual interaction. It might be an educated guess, but it is still a guess.

2. prove it with something more than your hearsay evidence. I don't believe you can show any such evidence.

see above for concerns about privacy issues

3. FAIR proved beyond any reasonable doubt that ANY email is fair game for them. Daniel Peterson's email is hardly an attack on him anyway.

Not really (in regards to the fair game claim). We have never published without approval any letter sent to us through the Ask the Apologist service because there is a confidentiality stipulation involved. You may have had an expectation of confidentiality for some reason, but you did not include or even hint at such an expectation in the email (I just went and reread it to be sure) and I can certainly understand why someone receiving it out of the blue would assume that confidentiality was not part of it especially when the legal system agrees with them.

As to it being an attack, are you ashamed of anything that was in the email, do you feel that anything in the email itself was inappropriate? If not, then how is publishing quotes from it an attack on you?

4. Wrong again. The email was an invitation to participate on the newly formed FIRM Foundation board. Now why would I send out an invitation to someone hostile to my research or that I felt was not already a supporter to participate on my board? The meeting you reference was held and the board formed from those who I had invited. It was an invitation, not a command, it was strictly their choice. If memory serves one or two may have been out of the country on missions, but I knew they would be returning and would appreciate their input into the organization. There may have been one or two people who I thought were supporters that I felt could be an asset to the organization that I may not have known of their "Heartland" status.

I never said that you had sent the email to someone you thought was hostile to your research or was not in your view already a supporter. I never said that the invitation to the meeting was anything but an invitation, I only meant to say (can't remember if I said it explicitly or implicitly) that it added to the public nature of the email that it was sent to those who would not in any way be likely to be able to attend the meeting and thus get involved in the way you were hoping and that this meant the email was likely intended by you to serve an additional purpose to getting people to come to the meeting, whether that was just to inform them in hopes of increasing their support or for another reason or to hope that even if they weren't there in person and able to be part of the FIRM board, that they would want to contribute in another way or any other reason that you might have have. And there was nothing wrong with that, btw, just to be clear.

5. The bottom line is that it was a private email sent to a very specific group of individuals and someone broke that faith and forwarded it to others without permission. So your entire premise is based on a falsehood.

I will let others decide for themselves if this is so or not.

In addition, FAIR's dire predictions about my leading people to leave the Church in droves has not, and will not, ever happen. They were doing nothing more than "crying wolf" when none existed.

Early days. Honestly, I hope FAIR is most definitely wrong in this. It was based not only on extrapolation but some actual experiences however. People make the claim that FAIR causes people to lose faith in the Church all the time and provide anecdotal evidence. We will have to wait and see which of us ends up being more dangerous, .

6. Yes there was dramatic misrepresentation of what was said in the email. When I didn't actually say what they were so desirous of me to have said, they simply made it up and said that I "meant" to say it, therefore it must be true!

Quotes were used. It is certainly possible that they were misinterpreted but people can judge that for themselves. If you are still very concerned about people assuming that FAIR is right, then since I assume you don't feel there is anything inappropriate in the email why don't you publish it? This is a sincere suggestion. You appear to me to be perfectly comfortable about the content of the email itself and I don't see anything in it that you should be ashamed of even if I believe that there are some fundamental problems. If I had shared it with individuals I had relationships with as you did with those that I know you sent it to, I would not feel the least bit uncomfortable with sharing it with everyone though this may be because my privacy level is smaller than yours in that I would consider sending personal emails to probably a dozen or so people in my life besides family members. Again, I am not trying to taunt you into publishing it, just saying why my perception is that you shouldn't feel uncomfortable in publishing it (and perhaps you have already and I have missed this, if so I applaud you for taking an assertive approach)....and I am not saying that if you are uncomfortable about publishing it you are wrong to do so. I've only gone into this detail to demonstrate it is not an underhanded suggestion.

7. Bottom line: You are emphatically wrong on nearly all counts. If you have evidence to contrary, then please provide the name or names of the FAIR members who received the original email and we'll contact any of the other email recipients to let them independently verify the truth. Does that sound fair enough? If you cannot, or will not provide such, then we must all assume you don't have the evidence to support your claims and you should drop this line of attack.

See above for concerns.

Do we have an accord?

Not yet.

Thank you for responding to my comments. I always prefer to be informed as much as possible, it can be frustrating sometimes trying to piece together what has happened with partial information.

[Anijen]

Anijen, long time no discuss... I hope you have been well.

I don't really want to get into another geography discussion, especially since I don't adhere to either of these absolute theories being discussed. You know my position on it. ;-)

But I'm wondering if you have any refuting evidence as to the wood artifacts that were discovered with the Bat Creek Stone, Carbon-14 dated to somewhere between 32 A.D. and 769 A.D? Or so the researchers claim...

Hi Sevenbak and it has been a long time. I hope all is well with you and your family. I respect your view and admit that your view (hemispheric/Mesoamerican hybrid) is probably the most accepted setting of the Book of Mormon held by most members of the church. It is defensible with both archaeology and statements of church leaders. I would accept it much more than I would a Great Lakes area only. I still believe that the majority of the book including the last battle occurred in Mesoamerica but I thank you for your respect and civil dialogue.

As far as the Bat Creek Stone. There were three mounds on the bank of Bat Creek at the conflux (sorry I couldn't resist) of the Tennessee river. The first mound shows some evidence that there was a structure on the top, it could have been a hut. Inside mound one there were some shell deposits, but no skeletons. Mound two had seventeen skeletons, a metal button, and two metal buckles. It appears the skeleton remains were placed in there at different times some respectfully placed in and at another level they appear to be thrown in. Mound two adjoined with a limestone rock vault and could have been a sacred burial place and then over time the mound built over it. Mound three the smallest of the three mounds had a growth of sassafras trees on it. The trees dated back it least forty years. The top stratum of the mound was red clay, next was dark soil (this strata is where nine of the skeletons were found). Underneath skeleton #1 were two bracelets, a drilled fossil, one bead, a bone and some small polished pieces of wood and the bat creek stone. No other skeletons had anything near them. It was a very moist area so close to the river water the wood pieces were all soft and colored green (probably from being so close to the metal bracelets). The bark around the bracelets dissolved when the bracelets were removed. Only the Bat Creek Stone had some of the red clay from the higher strata on it. The wood has been carbon dated to 1300 CE. The papers I have read on these is there is a consensus that they were ear spools. The dating has been questioned due to the condition of the mound when it was excavated. The stone itself is old and does not show any indication of it being younger than other objects in that area. The latest professional examination was in 2010 by Scott Walker done at the McClung Museum. Walker himself said he was limited and that he suggested even more test could be done. The bone found there could have helped because a good carbon dating could show a better dating however, the bone (it was a jawbone) has been lost. All that can correctly be determined is that the stone is old. Note the stone is old that does not make the engraving old. The Smithsonian as well as the McClung Museum still insist that the Bat Creek Stone is a fraud.

[Calm]

Just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. You are speculating, that is all.

Never claimed otherwise as far as the numbers went.

[Calm]

Bottom line: Are you ready for your apology speech now that you know that I didn't broadcast out that email to the many thousands of people on our mailing list? I will accept your apology when it is received. Time to fess up...your speculations were off by many orders of magnitude! Thanks for refuting yourself.

I am happy to admit I was most definitely wrong on my speculation about the numbers. Still am interested in what you based your choice of recipients on though if you wouldn't mind providing that info. It would help in understanding why you assumed some were staunch supporters when they were obviously not by their later actions. Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah