Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Calm]

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.....

I have been told that Brother Meldrum himself said that his stake president had forbidden him to teach at any church building and that he disagreed, but said he would comply with his wishes. This is much what is stated above in his quote though with some additional information. He did apparently attempt to schedule a church building that was out of state, but was required to change it.

This statement by Brother Meldrum was not in writing so I can't provide documentation.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

He was referring to the publication of the FARMS Review.

GLS

I was thinking that was it. It is related to Brother Meldrum's claims about the inappropriateness of what the FARMS/NAMI has published on the Mesoamerican theories and I asked him why he thought the Church was willing to spend money (don't know if it includes tithing or not) on such if those claims were so wrong to be made (not talking about accuracy here, just the willingness to allow this type of discussion to even take place in a church funded facility). Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Oops. I think you meant to say Scott Gordon.

This happens fairly often, people getting our names confused. But I've never been a member of the FAIR, though I am an avid follower of its work.

Oh my word, I didn't catch that, lol. Probably could use a boost of blood sugar or something.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm currently traveling in Turkey -- no tithing funds are being used to support me -- and my attention has just been called to this thread. I don't have time to read through it at the moment, but I can say this:

* Rod Meldrum apparently believes -- certainly he's been saying -- that my dismissal (and the dismissal of my associate editors) from the Mormon Studies Review occurred because of our public disagreement with his "Heartland model." I know of absolutely no reason to think that his claim is true. And, by the way, I have extremely strong reasons for concluding that the Brethren did not order the change, nor even know of it in advance. (That claim is also being made, though perhaps not by Rod Meldrum or in this thread. Just thought I would respond to it while I'm here.)

* No tithing money was used in publishing the Review.

* I continue to believe the "Heartland model" to be without serious merit.

* Nonetheless, I'm perfectly willing to fellowship with believers in it as fellow members of the Church.

* Rod Meldrum claims that he's been treated badly by "Mesoamericanists." Perhaps he has. Perhaps he hasn't. In any event, I can say that I've received scores of genuinely hateful communications from devotees of his "Heartland model."

* Many of those have pronounced me an apostate, unworthy of membership in the Church, and an enemy of Joseph Smith because I haven't bowed the knee to the "Heartland model."

* I strongly object to such pronouncements.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm currently traveling in Turkey -- no tithing funds are being used to support me -- and my attention has just been called to this thread. I don't have time to read through it at the moment, but I can say this:

* Rod Meldrum apparently believes -- certainly he's been saying -- that my dismissal (and the dismissal of my associate editors) from the Mormon Studies Review occurred because of our public disagreement with his "Heartland model." I know of absolutely no reason to think that his claim is true. And, by the way, I have extremely strong reasons for concluding that the Brethren did not order the change, nor even know of it in advance. (That claim is also being made, though perhaps not by Rod Meldrum or in this thread. Just thought I would respond to it while I'm here.)

* No tithing money was used in publishing the Review.

* I continue to believe the "Heartland model" to be without serious merit.

* Nonetheless, I'm perfectly willing to fellowship with believers in it as fellow members of the Church.

* Rod Meldrum claims that he's been treated badly by "Mesoamericanists." Perhaps he has. Perhaps he hasn't. In any event, I can say that I've received scores of genuinely hateful communications from devotees of his "Heartland model."

* Many of those have pronounced me an apostate, unworthy of membership in the Church, and an enemy of Joseph Smith because I haven't bowed the knee to the "Heartland model."

* I strongly object to such pronouncements.

You are an abominable fellow, but it has nothing to do with your rejection of the Heartland Model. You would be abominable even if you accepted the Heartland Model.

[Calm]

* No tithing money was used in publishing the Review.

Excellent to get specific detail on this. Thank you very much.

Hope you are having fun.

========

On a related note, Brother Meldrum made this serious theoretical claim (finally I can deal with the theory!!!) as well:

these crumbling Mesoamerican theories that try to lead people to believe that Guatemala is somehow that mighty Gentile nation above all other nations, that Guatemala is the oft referred to "land of liberty" rather than the USA, and that the New Jerusalem, prophesied to be build on the same lands as the Book of Mormon, is - notwithstanding its being thousands of miles to the south of the revealed location - somehow, in some magical way, are still those lands.

I am issuing a CFR for this though I understand that Brother Meldrum has again announced he is done with the thread.

PS: think I am all caught up finally. Maybe I will go eat breakfast now (I did have a little teeny snack about 8 so maybe I should say brunch). My fingers are killing me.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

BTW.....

Truthseeker24, have all your questions been answered? More than you ever wanted, I bet.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Greg Smith]

Oops. I think you meant to say Scott Gordon.

This happens fairly often, people getting our names confused. But I've never been a member of the FAIR, though I am an avid follower of its work.

yeah, sorry, Scott Gordon. Though Scott Lloyd was doubtless there in Spirit. He is the Great Helmsman. :-)

And, I should clarify that I think Lou was describing the _building_ at the Neal A. Maxwell institute, which was a very nice facility that had been built, in part with tithing funds (I presume) because that is where BYU operating funds come from (in part). Lou had offered, as I recall, to show Rod around the NAMIRS facility to see 'how his tithing had been spent'. It was a tongue-in-cheek effort, I believe, to get Rod to quit claiming that those who disagree with him are all atheists, etc.

Midgley had something like a 7 hour phone call one night with Rod, where this accusation was made repeatedly.

I was reportedly in league with the atheists too, but I already knew that from Rod's other public pronouncements. :-)

GLS

Edited September 12, 2012 by Greg Smith

[nealr]

DNA truthseeker said

Good idea... why don't you allow members of the Church to determine for themselves which theory they feel is stronger or better? Why all the animosity from the Mesoamerican camp? Why all the attack articles on all of their websites and Church News and Mormon Times and Meridian Magazine and LDS Living? Why? Because the Heartland model is dismantling these crumbling Mesoamerican theories that try to lead people to believe that Guatemala is somehow that mighty Gentile nation above all other nations, that Guatemala is the oft referred to "land of liberty" rather than the USA, and that the New Jerusalem, prophesied to be build on the same lands as the Book of Mormon, is - notwithstanding its being thousands of miles to the south of the revealed location - somehow, in some magical way, still those lands. I couldn't agree more. Lets leave it to the members and take down all the attack articles published on FAIR, FARMS Review and BMAF and simply present our cases to the Church membership. I am all in favor of that! The only articles again the Mesoamerican theories I have on our website are in defense of attacks from these three organizations. We could do a lot more defending and just may do so in the future depending on their disposition.

This is a common troupe for you, "Let people decide for themselves." But I don't know anyone who would disagree and rather force people to think one way or another. We all have decided for ourselves, and are perfectly willing to let others also decide for themselves. The difference, however, seems to be that in your mind "letting people decide for themselves" means us NOT sharing how we came to our decision. That, if we decided that we disagree with your geographic model, and give our reasons for that disagreement (i.e., our criticisms of your model), we are somehow not allowing others to decide for themselves. You insist that FAIR, NAMI, BMAF, etc. should not have their "attack articles" where they state their reasons for not endorsing your work and that they should take these down because this is somehow interfering with other peoples ability to "decide for themselves."

On this, I must emphatically disagree. In fact, it is just the opposite. I strongly feel that critical review is a necessary component to letting others "decide for themselves." After all, you do not provide me with ALL the information necessary to be able to evaluate their validity. This is not a criticism of you, because the same is true of any researcher. To do so is simply impossible, since gaining the necessary understanding of all the related disciplines requires years of research. So, if I can't possibly know all that I need to in order to be able to adequately evaluate your work, how, or on what basis, am I to decide for myself?

But, now, if someone else who is well versed in the literature and scientific research used to undergird your theories takes a look at your work, feels their are problems with it, and publishes a review explaining their reasons, that is useful for me. Because they know things that I don't know, and they can bring some of the information you chose not to use to my attention. I can now look at what you claim, and what they claim, and evaluate the two. And you, of course, are free to respond, adding any new information that you feel that they neglected to provide, or explaining why you feel that have misunderstood your argument, etc. Of course, then they are also free to respond again, on and on....

This also means that you should be providing cogent critiques of Mesoamerican theories. If you want to challenge a paradigm, you must first establish that the paradigm is mistaken and in error before proposing a counter-paradigm. There needs to be a reason for looking to a new explanatory model. As such, your claim that you never critiqued Mesoamerican theories except in defense of your own theory (which I don't think is true anyway, but that is for another time), is not a virtue. You should be critiquing them explaining why we need to look elsewhere for the Book of Mormon lands. Of course, that also means that they can respond and defend themselves, to which you could then again respond, and so forth.

This is the nature of scholarly discourse. People propose theories, others critique them, so people respond to said criticisms by either revising or defending their theory, and so on. In this kind of environment, people are empowered to decide for themselves. But when criticisms from opposing points of view are denounced as "attack articles" and it is insisted that such criticisms be silenced, this greatly cripples peoples ability to "decide for themselves" genuinely.

I am someone who personally tried to engage this process. That is, I've tried to understand the claims you make, and I've tried to understand the criticisms that have been made to them, and I've tried to understand the (few) responses you have made. In this process, I've tended to agree more often with your critics than yourself. I have even, where possible, checked your sources myself when dealing with topics in which I have access to the sources and some confidence in my own ability to parse through the information. When I have done this, I have invariably found you are mistaken or misrepresenting the data. But, of course, that is only what I have come to. Others may feel differently. My point is that critical review is important to letting others decide for themselves.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Nemesis
edited for clarity

[Calm]

yeah, sorry, Scott Gordon. Though Scott Lloyd was doubtless there in Spirit. He is the Great Helmsman. :-)

And, I should clarify that I think Lou was describing the _building_ at the Neal A. Maxwell institute, which was a very nice facility that had been built, in part with tithing funds (I presume) because that is where BYU operating funds come from (in part). Lou had offered, as I recall, to show Rod around the NAMIRS facility to see 'how his tithing had been spent'. It was a tongue-in-cheek effort, I believe, to get Rod to quit claiming that those who disagree with him are all atheists, etc.

Midgley had something like a 7 hour phone call one night with Rod, where this accusation was made repeatedly.

I was reportedly in league with the atheists too, but I already knew that from Rod's other public pronouncements. :-)

GLS

Sounds much more like something Lou would say. Thanks again for the clarification.

[cursor]

Please note that the initial referenced quote in post #309 is by DNA truthseeker, although that was not initially clear to me. Using the'quote' feature with 'user name' helps clarify, immensely. Thanks.

Edited September 12, 2012 by cursor

[nealr]

Please note that the initial referenced quote in post #309 is by DNA truthseeker, although that was not initially clear to me. Using the'quote' feature with 'user name' helps clarify, immensely. Thanks.

Sorry about the confusion. If I knew how to edit it, I would fix it, but alas I am not very "forum" savy.

[Nemesis]

Sorry about the confusion. If I knew how to edit it, I would fix it, but alas I am not very "forum" savy.

After 20 posts when you become a full member I believe you can start editing your posts. I put it in for you.

Nemesis

[Bob Crockett]

This also means that you should be providing cogent critiques of Mesoamerican theories. If you want to challenge a paradigm, you must first establish that the paradigm is mistaken and in error before proposing a counter-paradigm. . . . . This is the nature of scholarly discourse.

I'd take up the banner for Mr. Meldrum except that I don't think Book of Mormon geography is a fit subject for any scholarly discourse except as to textualist discourse -- i.e., what the text says. A discussion of Book of Mormon spatial history is appropriate; declaring that Zarahemla is likely in Guatemala is not.

The MesoAmerican paradigm is mistaken because of the many church authorities which say that we shouldn't be speculating as to Book of Mormon geography. The MesoAmericanists are doing the exact opposite of what the authorities say.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd take up the banner for Mr. Meldrum except that I don't think Book of Mormon geography is a fit subject for any scholarly discourse except as to textualist discourse -- i.e., what the text says. A discussion of Book of Mormon spatial history is appropriate; declaring that Zarahemla is likely in Guatemala is not.

The MesoAmerican paradigm is mistaken because of the many church authorities which say that we shouldn't be speculating as to Book of Mormon geography. The MesoAmericanists are doing the exact opposite of what the authorities say.

CFR that "the authorities" say we shouldn't be speculating. I think their objection is the over-emphasis on it at the expense of focusing on more important matters such as its character as a book of divine scripture and the true message of the book as another testament of Jesus Christ.

As I see it, the only harm that comes from speculating is when people use this theory or that as a litmus test for one's faithfulness or devotion to the gospel or the Church. I don't recall having seen proponents of a meso-American theory for Book of Mormon geography do such a thing.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The MesoAmerican paradigm is mistaken because of the many church authorities which say that we shouldn't be speculating as to Book of Mormon geography. The MesoAmericanists are doing the exact opposite of what the authorities say.

Can't remember if I've asked this before of you, Bob, sorry, if I have point me to the thread and I'll be happy to read it there.

Sincere question here, not rhetorical as I like being able to understand different POVs on pretty much anything of interest to me...

I would really like to know your opinion of why, if this level of speculation (not making it an issue of faithfulness to believe one geography over another but just seeing how the geography might fit with the text and the implications of such) is contrary to what the authorities have said, why someone further up the spiritual food chain didn't pass down some hints to the scholars who are spending so much of their leisure time discussing it and publishing it about it, especially after FARMS became associated with BYU apparently not having got the message of the line that shouldn't be crossed.

Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[cursor]

If God were to reveal to us tomorrow, through the Prophet, precisely where the Book of Mormon events took place, would that not add tremendous contextual significance in understanding the volume of scripture?

[Calm]

That is what I find appealing in the Mesoamerican discussion. They come up with stuff like the curse mentioned earlier of having your leader slain on the last night of the year. What a minute little detail...but that connection gets made and it gives a reason for the reaction of the men that we haven't had before. Brant's discussion of the various political power struggles going on, the clothing associated with status discussion...it all adds up to "okay, this pulls together more for me, the speaker has a direction he's taking his discourse in, it is not just a trivial connection".

I haven't seen that kind of approach in nonMesoamerican studies...granted I haven't studied them as much, if anyone has seen stuff like that out there for them, I would love a link to it. I am not talking about placing the prophecies and other stuff in the context of our day, btw, it is their context, the one the writers were living through that I want to know more about. I don't just want to know what their DNA was or where they lived, I want to know how they lived and how this impacted what they wrote and how they experienced the world and especially the gospel.

Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

If God were to reveal to us tomorrow, through the Prophet, precisely where the Book of Mormon events took place, would that not add tremendous contextual significance in understanding the volume of scripture?

As a curiosity perhaps, but cultures are fluid, populations are fluid, geography is not. Even knowing where and when these events took place would not give us much information that would increase our knowledge of the atonement and Christ's role in ministering to the isles of the sea.

I find this stuff fascinating but not worth having a civil war among LDS scholars and amateur anthropologists. It is exactly this kind of defending one's position, damn the consequences, that feeds ammunition to those who find Mormonism mock worthy.

[DNA truthseeker]

I'm currently traveling in Turkey -- no tithing funds are being used to support me -- and my attention has just been called to this thread. I don't have time to read through it at the moment, but I can say this:

* Rod Meldrum apparently believes -- certainly he's been saying -- that my dismissal (and the dismissal of my associate editors) from the Mormon Studies Review occurred because of our public disagreement with his "Heartland model." I know of absolutely no reason to think that his claim is true. And, by the way, I have extremely strong reasons for concluding that the Brethren did not order the change, nor even know of it in advance. (That claim is also being made, though perhaps not by Rod Meldrum or in this thread. Just thought I would respond to it while I'm here.)

* No tithing money was used in publishing the Review.

* I continue to believe the "Heartland model" to be without serious merit.

* Nonetheless, I'm perfectly willing to fellowship with believers in it as fellow members of the Church.

* Rod Meldrum claims that he's been treated badly by "Mesoamericanists." Perhaps he has. Perhaps he hasn't. In any event, I can say that I've received scores of genuinely hateful communications from devotees of his "Heartland model."

* Many of those have pronounced me an apostate, unworthy of membership in the Church, and an enemy of Joseph Smith because I haven't bowed the knee to the "Heartland model."

* I strongly object to such pronouncements.

I hope your travels in Turkey are going well for you. I was wondering if you have had the chance to review any or all of the free materials on the Heartland model I gave you earlier this spring?

I would suppose with your proven fund raising capabilities you'd have no need for further tithing funds. But while on the subject.... I've had many people ask me why FARMS Review was so severely late in coming out with the issue in which Greg Smith's attack article was published. There was much speculation about why it was many months behind schedule. Could you elucidate us a little? It is interesting that this was the issue that seems to be causing some internal things to be happening. Also, I do wonder if Director Bradford would have acted alone in such a monumental decision as to fire not just you, but your entire editing team? That seems hard to fathom in an institution such as BYU. While I may have suspicions, I have been very careful to let people know that I simply do not know why you were all fired, and we may never really know unless Dr. Bradford explains it himself, and even then I am confident it will be spun to fit whatever folks want anyway.

In your rather blistering response to Dr. Bradford you seemed awfully concerned about making sure you were going to get paid for your efforts. I don't expect you to tell us where that funding was coming from, but it was certainly seeming to be coming from NAMI for your services. Of course it could be coming from the many donations you've solicited.

There are a lot of people who have not taken the time to look at the material who have come to the same conclusions as you make here...that the Heartland model has no merit. I would have hoped you learned a little something from your New Years article taking a shot at the Heartland Model that failure to know what it is your are attacking can cause some amount of embarrassment. I do appreciate your willingness to at least meet with me and enjoy a nice lunch together. It was refreshing to have a civil dialogue as I am sure you felt similarly about me.

I understand, to some extent, the difficulties Mesoamericanists have had with my research. And I have been blessed to some degree by the critiques of my research in that I have tried to tighten it up, to make it better, to adjust where it was weak or coming across to strongly. On this post there have been numerous claims that it wasn't my research, but my methods that was sorely disliked. Then others claim my research is fatally flawed. Basically, the Mesoamerican promoters have not liked any aspect of my work and I understand why, but if we all just stood back a moment and became more concerned with finding the truth which I believe will lead to the best defense of the Book of Mormon, then we should be willing to look at all the evidence. Brant Gardner takes me to task for not complying to the method standardized by John Sorenson in using only the geographic passages to come to conclusions. Greg Smith takes me to task for daring to challenge the evolutionary basis of the DNA dating. We must simply agree to disagree. Like Daniel Peterson in this post, I'm perfectly willing to fellowship with the believers and I know he and I both are that. We are all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we should act like it. The part I've been most disappointed with is that FAIR and FARMS determined to make our differences public with their attack articles and published reviews. Why couldn't we have sat down like gentlemen and discussed the issues in private? Why wouldn't Scott Gordon simply meet with me as I had initially requested, rather than creating a hostile environment to begin with. You guys are so used to dealing with anti-Mormon's that you seemed not to realize that we are on the same team. The same tactics you use against anti-Mormon's were deployed against a fellow brother. There was never any open dialogue with me, only contempt and closed minded determination to "debunk" me. That is all water under the bridge at this point and I really would like to have a more open dialogue, but I'm afraid that is not possible with those who have entrenched themselves against me and this research. That is OK.

Daniel, we've apparently both been on the receiving end of scores of genuinely hateful emails from both sides. While I know that you cannot control Lou Midgley for example (I don't know even Lou himself can) in that same vein I cannot control what fellow Heartlanders have done to offend you. Blaming that on me is tantamount to my saying the my mistreatment by Midgley is a direct reflection on your Mesoamerican models. Can you see the disconnect there? Yet you have repeatedly tried to hold me accountable for anything any fellow Heartlander may say or do that displeases you. Lou Midgley and livy111us

constant barrage of attacks and posting of negative reviews has been orders of magnitude more destructive than simply distasteful personal emails to your inbox only. Yet you fail to see that significance for some reason.

Rather than 'bow the knee' to the Heartland model, why don't you simply take the time and effort to get to know it - like you do the Mesoamerican models - and look at the possibilities that could come from it with your help, rather than your determination to destroy it? I know that is asking a lot, but when you make statements like you did in the New Years article, you are not helping things.

Someone asked me to get specific about attacks against the Heartland model in the Church News and Mormon Times. I must correct myself in that I haven't found anything in the Church News, but there has been plenty of Heartland bashing in Mormon Times. Take Michael Ash from FAIR in his weekly column over the last year or two, taking consistent aim at our research and constantly telling his readers the Book of Mormon could not have happened in the North American Heartland and that practically all leading scholars in the Church are walking lock-step with the Mesoamerican models. Side note: I hate to break it to you guys, but the Heartland model has literally hundreds of supporters with advanced degrees and I'd dare say that we have more than twice as many accredited "scholars" on our side as you good fellows have on your side. So please stop with the "all LDS scholars" are on our side routine. It is no longer true. Daniel, in your free publicity column you occasionally take pot shots at the Heartland model, even using faulty, misinformed information attributed to our model but not even claimed by it.

Then there is the fact that while the FIRM Foundation conducts two conferences a year that consistently draw more than 400 people each time, we get absolutely no coverage from Mormon Times, while if FAIR sneezes, Mormon Times is there with three reporters to cover the details. After each FAIR conference there are pages of articles about nearly every speakers subject matter. Yet FAIR crowed about getting 400 people - the largest group ever - to their recent (once a year) conference. We've had over 800 at simultaneous conferences. I'm constantly amazed at the bias even among the Mormon media.

I don't know what we could change to begin taking down the walls between us, but I am open to beginning some new dialogue that maybe could be more conducive to working together than tearing us down. I'm open to it, but I'm afraid that the only way for this to happen if for me to abandon what I believe is a more plausible, but not perfect, model in support of the Book of Mormon. That has been my desire from the start. I hope that this is also your desire and I think it most likely is. Let's see about beginning reparation and that has to come from the top...and that, like it or not, is you, Daniel.

Please let me know when you have reviewed the materials I gave you. I look forward to getting together again when you return. Happy travels.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Nemesis
name edit

[DNA truthseeker]

I'm not thoroughly acquainted with either Meridian Magazine or LDS Living, but I'm confident Mr. Meldrum would be hard-pressed to find a piece on this topic in either the Church News or Mormon Times that is fairly characterized as an "attack article."

You are correct in that I have, gratefully, found no attack articles in the Church News. Sorry for the inclusion in the list. However, Mormon Times has had Michael Ash's free column in the past couple of years wherein he had carte blanche to run roughshod over the Heartland research, spending week after week hammering the Heartland Model. No one saw fit to stop him, and then Daniel Peterson has taken a couple of 'pot shots' as well. I don't know of any recently, but there was a glaring one in his New Years article I finally had to call him on because it was so blatant. Read the rebuttal article Reply to a Misleading New Years Article.

[Calm]

The part I've been most disappointed with is that FAIR and FARMS determined to make our differences public with their attack articles and published reviews. Why couldn't we have sat down like gentlemen and discussed the issues in private? Why wouldn't Scott Gordon simply meet with me as I had initially requested, rather than creating a hostile environment to begin with. You guys are so used to dealing with anti-Mormon's that you seemed not to realize that we are on the same team. The same tactics you use against anti-Mormon's were deployed against a fellow brother. There was never any open dialogue with me, only contempt and closed minded determination to "debunk" me. That is all water under the bridge at this point and I really would like to have a more open dialogue, but I'm afraid that is not possible with those who have entrenched themselves against me and this research. That is OK.

Wow.

[DNA truthseeker]

DNA truthseeker said

This is a common troupe for you, "Let people decide for themselves." But I don't know anyone who would disagree and rather force people to think one way or another. We all have decided for ourselves, and are perfectly willing to let others also decide for themselves. The difference, however, seems to be that in your mind "letting people decide for themselves" means us NOT sharing how we came to our decision. That, if we decided that we disagree with your geographic model, and give our reasons for that disagreement (i.e., our criticisms of your model), we are somehow not allowing others to decide for themselves. You insist that FAIR, NAMI, BMAF, etc. should not have their "attack articles" where they state their reasons for not endorsing your work and that they should take these down because this is somehow interfering with other peoples ability to "decide for themselves."

On this, I must emphatically disagree. In fact, it is just the opposite. I strongly feel that critical review is a necessary component to letting others "decide for themselves." After all, you do not provide me with ALL the information necessary to be able to evaluate their validity. This is not a criticism of you, because the same is true of any researcher. To do so is simply impossible, since gaining the necessary understanding of all the related disciplines requires years of research. So, if I can't possibly know all that I need to in order to be able to adequately evaluate your work, how, or on what basis, am I to decide for myself?

But, now, if someone else who is well versed in the literature and scientific research used to undergird your theories takes a look at your work, feels their are problems with it, and publishes a review explaining their reasons, that is useful for me. Because they know things that I don't know, and they can bring some of the information you chose not to use to my attention. I can now look at what you claim, and what they claim, and evaluate the two. And you, of course, are free to respond, adding any new information that you feel that they neglected to provide, or explaining why you feel that have misunderstood your argument, etc. Of course, then they are also free to respond again, on and on....

This also means that you should be providing cogent critiques of Mesoamerican theories. If you want to challenge a paradigm, you must first establish that the paradigm is mistaken and in error before proposing a counter-paradigm. There needs to be a reason for looking to a new explanatory model. As such, your claim that you never critiqued Mesoamerican theories except in defense of your own theory (which I don't think is true anyway, but that is for another time), is not a virtue. You should be critiquing them explaining why we need to look elsewhere for the Book of Mormon lands. Of course, that also means that they can respond and defend themselves, to which you could then again respond, and so forth.

This is the nature of scholarly discourse. People propose theories, others critique them, so people respond to said criticisms by either revising or defending their theory, and so on. In this kind of environment, people are empowered to decide for themselves. But when criticisms from opposing points of view are denounced as "attack articles" and it is insisted that such criticisms be silenced, this greatly cripples peoples ability to "decide for themselves" genuinely.

I am someone who personally tried to engage this process. That is, I've tried to understand the claims you make, and I've tried to understand the criticisms that have been made to them, and I've tried to understand the (few) responses you have made. In this process, I've tended to agree more often with your critics than yourself. I have even, where possible, checked your sources myself when dealing with topics in which I have access to the sources and some confidence in my own ability to parse through the information. When I have done this, I have invariably found you are mistaken or misrepresenting the data. But, of course, that is only what I have come to. Others may feel differently. My point is that critical review is important to letting others decide for themselves.

My primary point here was that we might want to consider not "going negative" like political attack ads do when discussing something like the Book of Mormon and where it might have occurred. Why can't we "stay positive" and provide our best arguements for our respective theories without trying to tear down each others work. I do understand the value of objective scrutiny, but this has gone way beyond that from the Mesoamerican side in my point of view. Where are all the articles by the Heartland model proclaiming the Book of Mormon could not possibly have happened in Mesoamerica? What we are saying is that there is evidence to support its claims in North America's Heartland. Don't you see the problem with tearing each others theories to ribbons? We just did the job of the anti-Mormon's for them. All they have to do is cut-and-paste. Why give them their material on a silver platter. Let us discuss these things in meetings and in private and keep the negativity off line! That's what I'm proposing. I will take off anything from my websites that could be considered attacks against the Mesoamerican theories, and you guys (FARMS Review/NAMI, FAIR and BMAF) jettison your attacks against the Heartland model and keep only those things that you feel supports your models. What think ye, my brethren? I know its a long shot, but it would be worth the try to make it happen for the good of the Church as whole, don't you agree?

[Calm]

Dan, since you don't have time to read the entire thread, thought you might be interested in these

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.....

I have finally decided to this one time 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....

You have posted up testimonials of your Mesoamerican scholars on MormonScholarsTestify but I have been banned from contributing because, well, I'm not a "scholar." .....

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 calmoriah

[Calm]

Here's another one

Regarding FARMS/NAMI firings. Our FIRM Foundation official statement can be found HERE. Where is a claim that the firings were because of their treatment of me and other Heartland model researchers? I simply observed that nearly all of those fired have been vocal and hostile critics of the Heartland Model and also pointed out that FARMS was at least partially organized for the purpose of promoting Mesoamerican theories, as evidenced by Daniel Peterson's own words and the FARMS logo sporting a Mayan glyph.