Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Bob Crockett]

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.

Quite no. We shouldn't give any credence to any Book of Mormon geography claims. See my blog link below and scroll to my short review of Sorenson.

[Calm]

Another...

Where are our attack articles like those on BMAF and the now defunct FARMS/FARMS Review which attempt to dismantle Mesoamerican theories? You won't find them on our websites. Read the article from Meridian Magazine and our response HERE. If there is any attacking going on, it is coming from the Mesoamerican side, not the Heartland Model side....

Why can't the Mesoamerican scholar's research bear the same? Why don't they encourage folks to study out the research and come to their own conclusions? Because they know the devastating results of members becoming informed with the facts...if a member objectively looks into this research there is an extremely high probability that they will consider the Heartland model a stronger, more robust theory. Our surveys have shown it consistently for the past 4 years. It is growing exponentially and has become a definite and overwhelming challenge to the theories that consider Guatemala to be a better fit for a "land of liberty" and "mighty Gentile nation above all other nations" than the United States of America. Read The Scriptural Basis for the Heartland Model Geography

[Calm]

Another

Even if some of my research was found to be incorrect, does anyone really believe that everything FAIR and FARMS promote in their Mesoamerican theories is 100% truth? Are they the bearers of all truth? What if they are wrong? Does that mean that I should treat them as they have treated me? I don't think I'd treat a true enemy the way they treated me....

When did it become the responsibility of FAIR or FARMS to correct fellow members of the Church in good standing, rather than my local and area Church appointed leadership? Especially on a subject wherein the Church has been quite clear they are neutral! Couldn't this fact be a possible line that FARMS/NAMI crossed, when using sacred Church funds to attack members of the Church on an issue about which the Church is officially neutral? Who is overstepping their bounds here?.....

Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

Quite no. We shouldn't give any credence to any Book of Mormon geography claims. See my blog link below and scroll to my short review of Sorenson.

But that is not responsive to the CFR. Please give the reference documenting what you claim and if it is somewhere on your blog, have the courtesy to cut & paste it here.

[DNA truthseeker]

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.

Many times (too many in my opinion).

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.

I too have been to the McClung Museum in Knoxville and what is absolutely amazing to me is the stone is still being displayed UPSIDE DOWN from its true Hebrew orientation! Talk about obvious bias! Hebrew scholars have declared it authentic ancient Hebrew and they display it upside down? Also, Feder isn't even in the final version of the documentary, so what is he crying about? So that leaves Dr. Leper, who has always maintained the stone is fake based on his assumption that there were no Hebrews in America in ancient times. His assessment is not based on scientific analysis, but on his presuppositions. There are a number of very credible scholars who disagree with Leper, but Leper always tries to 'stack the deck' in his favor in debates or uses his position with the Ohio Historical Society to gain more credibility than those who support the stones authenticity. Nice try on saying the scientific analysis was bias because the investigators were paid to do a job. They weren't pandering to anyone. They are a very respected analytical company who do work for other companies nationwide. They have no horse in this race and it was actually very bold for them to go against the main-stream archaeological line that the stone was a forgery. You need to explore both sides of the argument and get your facts straight. You can call my article a "joke" but it is highly referenced to non-LDS sources. What is a joke is to continue to consider Mayan glyphs as in any way Book of Mormon related. This is the best hope we have been given anywhere in America to verify the existence of Jews in Book of Mormon time frames in the America's and incredibly its Mesoamerican propagandists who are the ones trying to falsify it! How ironic is that? The ones who claim to be looking for evidence deny it when it slaps them in the face because they don't like where it was found!

[Bob Crockett]

But that is not responsive to the CFR. Please give the reference documenting what you claim and if it is somewhere on your blog, have the courtesy to cut & paste it here.

It is quite responsive. I have many times in the past put those quotes on this board. Now they are there on my blog. And there are other quotes like the three I reference. I really have not expected a dedicated MesoAmerican to sign onto the non-engagement quotes of the Brethren. Too much invested. Church hobbies are the worst. When I was a teenager it was the John Birchers in my ward. The level of rhetoric they directed to non-believers was unreasonable. The same now occurs with geographers on all sides.

If one wants to pursue a Book of Mormon geography hobby, it is best to use neutral language in discussing competing geographies because not a one is revealed or endorsed. I certainly question trying to make money off this hobby. I wonder what Nibley would say.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

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.....

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 Tyler Livingstons 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.

...

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.

Dan, besides the above, you might be interested in what he has posted over on his site:

Maxwell Institute Fires FARMS Review Editorial Board To Begin New Direction

The original vision of the FARMS board was to engage scholars “conversant with biblical studies, ancient languages,Mesoamerica, archaeology, etc., which were the bread and butter of FARMS scholarship” to advocate those views and theories. However, current Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute, Dr. Gerald Bradford, has signaled that the organization will “align its work with the academy’s highest objectives and standards” (outlined in MI’s Mission Statement) which is a different direction than that of the former FARMS organization ([removed link to anti board]. This change in direction was made clear when, on Jun 14, 2012 director Bradford fired Daniel C. Peterson [removed antilink] as chief editor of the FARMS Review along with his editorial staff, including Louis Midgley, George Mitton, Gregory L. Smith and Robert White. The former FARMS Review is being renamed Mormon Studies Review to reflect this dramatic change in publication style and direction. (See the Maxwell Institute official announcement on their website here).

Peterson Announces New Apologetic Organization

Daniel Peterson announced the formation of a new organization to be called Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripturewhich is to focus on LDS scriptures and apologetics. He has appointed several of his former editorial team who were fired from BYU’s Maxwell Institute, including Midgley and Mitton, to positions within his new board of editors. It would appear that Peterson’s fund raising capabilities has made it possible to restore many of the former FARMS board members to their pre-Maxwell Institute status and given rise to an organization that is again free from the direction of BYU and Church leadership. They will now be able to continue in the former tradition of FARMS unimpeded. That Peterson intends to do so is evident in his presentation at the 2012 FAIR conference. It will be interesting to see if their style of apologetics changes.

Even provides a reference to the RFM board for a copy of Dr. Bradford's email and your response.

http://www.firmlds.o...ature.php?id=24

But don't worry, there are no attack pieces on his site.

Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I certainly question trying to make money off this hobby. I wonder what Nibley would say.

Who do you believe is making money off of this hobby?

[Calm]

Love this from the article responding to Greg's paper, another warm and fuzzy piece :

http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=25

Even while under the direct control of BYU management, the former FARMS board members turned from defending the official positions of the Church to defending their own theories, specifically the ongoing promotion of their own Mesoamerican theories over the Church’s official position of neutrality on the subject. Following their assimilation into the Maxwell Institute, they began again aggressively criticizing alternative theories that were not in alignment with the now defunct FARMS favored Mesoamerican ideologies. They developed their own interpretations of the geographic passages in the text and held that every other theory must comply with their interpretations or face a hostile negative "review" in their flagship publication, the FARMS Review. However, this time they were in association with and under the auspices of the Church's BYU controlled Maxwell Institute. Under Peterson's direction they launched Mesoamerican theory based criticisms against faithful members of the Church whose desire was simply to defend the gospel, but using alternative theories to those of FARMS. The culmination and climax of these critical reviews were those perpetrated against Rod L. Meldrum and his Heartland Model colleagues Wayne N. May and Bruce Porter and many others (all faithful Church members) which were included in the last, and final, three issues of the now defunct FARMS Review.

Maxwell Institute Fires Former Editorial Board of FARMS Review - June 14th, 2012....

In June of 2012 Maxwell Institute executive director M. Gerald Bradford fired the former editorial staff of the FARMS Review who were among the most outspoken critics and detractors of the Heartland Model geography research. It included Daniel C. Peterson, Chief Editor of FARMS Review as well as Louis Midgley, another editor, and Gregory L. Smith, the author of the highly critical review, addressed in this article, of Meldrum's book, ReDiscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant Through DNA and Robert White who was on the FAIR board when they determined to spend many months in producing hostile "reviews" of Meldrum's first released video DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography.

Combined, these two issues included 306 pages of anti-Heartland articles in an historic and monumental effort to discredit this invigorating new research and discourage Church members from objectively considering it. This is because it seriously challenges the many years of heavy promotion of Mesoamerican theories by FARMS, especially since a significant paradigm shift was already occurring only months after the release of Meldrum's first DVD, DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography (see blog link) [had to remove another link to an anti site]. According to former FARMS Review Senior Editor Louis Midgley in his Editor's Introduction of issue 1, A Tidy Garden, most alternative Book of Mormon geography theories "have not garnered much attention among the saints. However, because the Heartland Model has become a "swelling movement" within the Mormon Church, according to the University of Chicago's Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion, Meldrum and fellow Heartland advocates were targeted for critical, even hostile reviews. Incredibly, this unprecedented barrage of negative articles followed on the heels of blog comments made by Peterson while trying to downplay the significance of what was (and is) really happening, posting on several blogs that Rod Meldrum and the Heartland Model were not even "on the radar" of FARMS/MI. [removed antilink]

Peterson has used his column in Mormon Times/Deseret News as a sort of bully pulpit to promote his Mesoamerica leaning theories and discount or discredit the Heartland Model research....

When confronted in an email (01.02.12) by Meldrum asking why he ignored what the Heartland research actually proposes, Peterson quipped, “On the whole, I pay no attention to what you do. Seriously." The column wasn’t aimed at you. I don’t think about you or your “movement” very much. You don’t loom very large in my universe."” Such a response seemed disingenuous considering the unprecedented number and voracity of articles he presided over as Chief Editor of FARMS Review published just months previous. Realizing that Peterson now openly admitted that he was ignorant of the Heartland research he had attacked using his organization and column.

According to personnel on the editorial team of the FARMS Review, since FARMS was now part of BYU’s Maxwell Institute and BYU is overseen by the First Presidency of the Church, they alleged that any article critical of the FARMS Review would be construed as an attack on the First Presidency. Thus any challenge to the critiques would result in accusations of being unfaithful to Church leadership.

Really? I find that so very hard to believe. Who exactly said this? No one is cited.

Therefore, Peterson, in publishing Smiths article in the Maxwell Institute's FARMS Review, used BYU/Church funds to promote their views rather than the official position of the Church or its leadership. Smith ignored the observed dating rate observations provided in Meldrum's book, apparently preferring unobserved evolutionary dogma over observable science or scriptural and prophetic teachings. All this was done in an effort to prop up Peterson and FARMS crumbling Mesoamerican theories which to date have failed to provide any genetic support for the Book of Mormon.

Had to remove embedded links because it screwed up the formatting. I am hoping I got everything straightened out.

Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

I'm about to repost something I contributed to this thread last night, to which I got no response. Since the point of fact I made in said previous post is something I believe to be of such critical importance to the subject of Book of Mormom geography, I'm going to try posting it again, in hope that defenders of both the Mesoamerican and Heartland theories will let me know if they've ever taken said point of fact into consideration when formulating their geographical models. Here it is:

"I think there is a possibility proponents of both the Mesoamerican and Heartland theories have not taken a serious point of fact into consideration when performing the research and investigations that have informed the construction of their geographical models. That serious point to consider is that geographical characteritics of the lands of the Nephites did not remain static -- frozen in time. Please take the time to read the following words spoken by the Lord himself, after the great cataclysims of nature that took place at the time of his death:

'Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof. And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city ofJerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.

And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

It seems -- if we are to use the Lord's own words as guide -- that when a once holy and favored nation forsakes the Lord and his prophets and totally ripens in iniquity, it is his often his will that he bury all traces of their former existence, so that nary a trace can be found. Note that this process of utter obliteration is done "to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

So then, if in a matter of hours (not hundreds and thousands of years) the Lord was able to totally remove all traces of a once great, mighty and populous cities that had ripened in iniquity from off the face of the earth, so as to hide them from before his face -- would it be too difficult for him to hide nearly all traces of a Nephite society that had totally ripened in iniquity, as well, some four hundred years later? After all, God had a millennium and a half to accomplish this work, not hours as in our first cited instance.

Notice, in addition, that not only did many cities totally disappear from off the face of the earth, but great geological changes also occured as a result of God's judgements upon the wicked. As we just read, "waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof;" and again, "all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof."

Though the obliteration of the Nephite cities at the time of Moroni is not mentioned, it would seem to me the Lord may have hidden those cities before his face as well. Remember, at that point in time the Nephites had ripened in total wickedness even beyond the terrible state they were in at the time of the Lord's death. Why wouldn't he have hid this civilization from before his face as well? They certainly met the criteria for such a fate.

Perhaps it is this same self same divine decree, will and even burning desire to bury and hide away the remains of formerly holy civilizations ripened in wickendness (a sort of temporal form of outer darkness and perdition ) that have caused the great Christian civilizations of the Lost Tribes of Israel, mentioned in 1 Nephi 29, to seemingly vanish into thin air, with virtually no traces of their former glory left behind.

In light of the above, I'd be more cautious and circumspect about making claims that some Mayan ruins are the achaeological remains of Nephite cities. For by the just judgement of God, the great Nephite cities may be buried deep in the earth and sea, or utterly obliterated by fire (like Sodom and Gumorrah), hidden from before the face of an offended God, and kept from the eyes of unworthy men.

So, will some of the archaeologists and researchers on this thread chime in and let me know if you've ever factored this process of God hiding wickedness and abominations from before his face into consideration when performing your research and developing your models?

Edited September 13, 2012 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Now where was I before I wandered off...

Admit it, you have been caught off guard as you were bad mouthing my research when you don't even know about it, just like I caught Daniel Peterson in his New Years article Reply to a Misleading New Years Article. Since I have in the past not defended my position in order to avoid contention, you likely thought you were free and clear to say anything you wanted without recourse. Now you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you are trying to backpeddle to avoid the embarrassment you should feel for attacking something you know precious little about.

I have, however, recently read FAIR's and Daniel Peterson's pitiable requests for donations in order to do advertizing during the Church's General Conference and to start a new organization for those ousted by BYU/NAMI for not following Director Bradford's directions. They are very adept at getting money from other people to support their causes and theories. I have, for the most part, utilized my own funds.

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....

[Calm]

I'm about to repost something I contributed to this thread last night, to which I got no response.

I think you missed my response, granted it would have been easy to do. I will see if I can find it.

I think Mormonmason addressed your post here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58880-question-about-rod-meldrum-theories/page__st__220__p__1209174813#entry1209174813

Mine short but sweet (for once, ) http://www.mormondia...entry1209174808

Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Greg Smith]

If one wants to pursue a Book of Mormon geography hobby, it is best to use neutral language in discussing competing geographies because not a one is revealed or endorsed. I certainly question trying to make money off this hobby. I wonder what Nibley would say.

"Book of Mormon geography is a waste of time. I wouldn't touch it with a forty-foot pole. Never have; it's not necessary." - Hugh W. Nibley, "Lecture 18: 2 Nephi 3-8," in Teachings of the Book of Mormon: Transcripts of lectures presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University 1988-1990, Vol. 1, (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993). ISBN 1591565715.

:-)

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Hugh_Nibley

[Calm]

I don't ever second guess the Church leadership, which is why I back them 100% in their decision to fire the FARMS Review editors. Good on them! I know you want to have it only one way, saying that an attack on FARMS is an attack on the brethren, but sorry, you can't...it now goes both ways.

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.

[Calm]

Last one for Dan...

It is not now, nor ever has been the responsibility of any private organization such as FAIR, BMAF, or FARMS to correct members of the Church and attack them mercilessly as has been done in my case. I hope that this thread hasn't 'stirred the hornets nest' to extensively, but it is wearisome to have my tithing money being used to attack me. One Louis Midgley (of FARMS Review and FAIR fame) left a final message on a "courtesy" email he sent me wherein he nearly gleefully announced that at long last the attack issue against me was about to come forth, inviting me to lunch to help him revel in the moment. At the bottom of his email he quipped "Your tithing money at work." That should help to tell the story of the demise of FARMS Review and their attitude toward me and the Heartland model geography.

Everything you need to know about what has been said about you and your associates in the thread in two pages. Edited September 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[cursor]

Did Nibley NEVER consider the value of geography (for any/all subject matter)?

I very seriously doubt it.

Edited September 13, 2012 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

"Book of Mormon geography is a waste of time. I wouldn't touch it with a forty-foot pole. Never have; it's not necessary." - Hugh W. Nibley, "Lecture 18: 2 Nephi 3-8," in Teachings of the Book of Mormon: Transcripts of lectures presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University 1988-1990, Vol. 1, (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993). ISBN 1591565715.

:-)

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Hugh_Nibley

Hah. I take back my criticism of your Meldrum piece.

[nealr]

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?

Okay, and I can certainly sympathize with a desire to keep the tone congenial, but I still must insist that in order for the generic "people" to be able to make an informed decision, then there must be public discourse on the subject, with disagreements being stated and the reasons for those disagreements given. We can't help people make informed decisions on this subject by keeping all the discussion (and ensuing information that it yields) hush-hush and out of their reach.

As for "doing the anti-Mormon's job", I can only say that I see this issue the complete opposite as well. As I see it, it is better that our ideas be subjected to rigorous criticisms in-house. Otherwise, we are subject to the criticism that we LDS will accept anything, regardless of whether is bears scrutiny or not. But when faithful LDS speak-up and critique each other when they feel it is necessary, it shows that while we desire to defend our faith, we believe that defense should be held to the highest standards of quality and accuracy. It also has the benefit of allowing others to discover the faults of any particular idea within a context and is still faithful and faith-promoting, rather than in a context designed to destroy faith. This would certainly bode better for faith.

So, on the whole, while I think that perhaps the tone of the debate could be improved, no I don't think opposing sides should take down their "attack articles." I think both sides should respectfully pursue public discourse that allows and enables the layman to better parse through the claims made by each side.

[ERayR]

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.

And the other models including the heartland model are not?

[ERayR]

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?

It would make some scholars happy and some unhappy but it wouldn't change the message of the BoM one bit.

[Bob Crockett]

And the other models including the heartland model are not?

That is no justification.

[ERayR]

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.

Eighteen pages and you have yet to present any reasons why I should accept the heartland model over any other. All you have done is attack and complain. Don't tell me to buy your books and tapes. Just layout why I should beleive.

[livy111us]

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.

Archaeologist Stuart Fiedel wrote:

“Around 100 BC, the Adena culture in the Ohio Valley was transformed into the Hopewell culture…Illinois Hopewell may in fact be a little earlier, which raises the possibility that the Adena-to-Hopewell transition in Ohio may have somehow been sparked by diffusion or immigration from Illinois…The Ohio Valley situation is complicated by radiocarbon dates that suggest that Adena and Hopewell groups may have coexisted there for several centuries.” Prehistory of the Americas Stuart J. Fiedel, pg 241

[Anijen]

I too have been to the McClung Museum in Knoxville and what is absolutely amazing to me is the stone is still being displayed UPSIDE DOWN from its true Hebrew orientation! Talk about obvious bias!

What is funny you calling the experts wrong.

Hebrew scholars have declared it authentic ancient Hebrew

There is a difference between saying the writing is Hebrew than saying it is Hebrew and it was engraved 1600 years ago.

Also, Feder isn't even in the final version of the documentary, so what is he crying about?

He isn't in it because he literally threatened to take legal action against you and in your wisdom edited his comments out.

So that leaves Dr. Leper, who has always maintained the stone is fake based on his assumption that there were no Hebrews in America in ancient times.

So if you are so against him why use him in the first place? He is one of the best scholars in the world as far as the Hopewell is concerned. I think I will take his side rather than yours. On the topic of the Bat Creek Stone and the ancient inhabitants of this country your opinion is absolutely worthless compared to his.

His assessment is not based on scientific analysis, but on his presuppositions.

That is not true. It would be absolutely true if you said your assessment is not based on scientific analysis, but on presuppositions.

There are a number of very credible scholars who disagree with Leper,

And I know a few of them personally and respect them. One of them is Alice B. Kehoe who in my opinion is also a top notch archaeologist, but she does not disagree with him on the Bat Creek Stone and she does disagree with your video.

To make a long story short the experts (Deborah A. Bolnick, Kenneth L. Feder, Bradley T. Lepper, and Terry Barnhart) have wrote a rebuttal of your video naming it appropriately Civilizations Lost and Found: Fabricating History I love the part Fabricating History.

Funny the very experts you use and continue to do so reject what you are doing and how you tricked them. With very clever editing you make it look as if they support you, when in truth it is the opposite.

see here for a source

[Calm]

Eighteen pages and you have yet to present any reasons why I should accept the heartland model over any other.....

Half the pages were me chatting so maybe you should call it "nine pages".