Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Scott Lloyd]

In a religion which relies heavily upon the pronouncements of its prophets and apostles, one cannot simply discard the direction I've cited. I certainly would have a different view of things if modern statements encourage the study of Book of Mormon geography. (I exclude, of course, a study of internal BoM geography which is a legitimate form of study.) But, they don't.

I've reviewed the Encyclopedia's statement on Book of Mormon geography, which leads me to the conclusion that the Church and the Brethren tolerate Book of Mormon geographic speculation, but don't encourage it.

Given that state of affairs, I return back to my original thesis. Those who write books and have websites dedicated to the topic of a real-world Book of Mormon geography are doing little more to advance the Church's mission or an understanding of the Book of Mormon than those who write books or host websites about episodes of the 1960s' Star Trek. Harmless? Maybe. Harmful? Maybe.

The value I see in considering theories about Book of Mormon geography is that they can help maintain the plausibility of the book being an authentic record, thus neutralizing the attacks of critics who purport to debunk it on the basis of long-held but unsubstantiated assumptions about what the book supposedly says about itself.

Juliann makes a valid point about your sources. Two of the statements were made before I was born and the other (the one given in a private setting) when I was only a child. There has been a great deal happen since then. Anti-Mormons have become more sophisticated in their attacks, and it is necessary that they be knowledgeably rebutted, if only so a sincere individual can feel intellectually free to prayerfully seek a spiritual manifestation of the book's truthfulness.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Mr T]

I'm new to this discussion and often get suckered into debates on Book of Mormon geography. It is a fascinating subject to say the least. While I lean heavily to the side of the Meso-American theories, I'm open to ideas.

I've had many "Heartland" proponents attempt to sell me DVD's books and seminars. I found it troubling and disturbing that I felt VERY MUCH like I was being sold too...like buying a time share. Similarly, the actual archeologists that I know willingly and freely give away information.

I've also been on the other end of the 'elitist' attitude that comes from the 'heartland' proponents...as if I had not seen the light that the USA can be the only promised land.

I'd gently remind people that the early pioneers left what was geographically the USA into what was MEXICO to their 'Promised Land' in Zion. The idea of a Promised Land is a moving target...and current geography didn't exist in Book of Mormon times. There was no Mexico, or Guatemala or USA at that time.

Here is the question that I'd sincerely like an answer too:

In all my reading and study I can find no proof that either Joseph Smith or the resurrected Moroni ever referred to that hill in New York as Cummorah. I may have missed something but it seems significant to me that the man who witnessed the entire destruction of his people at Cummorah, never referred to that hill as the place where this final battle took place...and neither did his protege.

Also, I've tried to approach the thought of Cummorah from a military standpoint (an area where I have some expertise) and when you see this little hill that is about a mile long, half a mile wide and a few hundred feet tall...it seems to be a terrible place to house millions of people and offers no strategic advantage to someone who is trying to defend said hill. If Mormon were the brilliant general that we are told...why would he choose such a terrible location and why would his other commanders let him get away with such a terrible location.

Lastly, we know that Moroni didn't bury the plates for another 30 years after the battle occurred. I wonder why he would just hang around in that location where people were bent on his murder and wait all that time to bury the plates there. It makes sense to me that he'd get as far away from that place of murder and destruction as possible.

If anyone has evidence to opposite I'd love to hear it.

The conclusion that I've come too is that this hill is named Cummorah not because it really is Cummorah, but more in honor of that final battle. It's name grew in the telling years after the fact (first called that by Oliver Cowdery) and nobody ever considered that it was very likely NOT where that battle took place. Now in 2012, it's been called that for so long, we just take it for granted.

[Mr T]

I also find it significant that the evidences of Hebrew writings in the Great Lakes area have all been pronounced forgeries, and one of the most prominent scientists to pronounce them as such was James E. Talmage...

BOM geography studies will never convince people of the truth, but if you already have a testimony, then this kind of study can shed a lot of light on what is going on culturally in the context of scripture...

[cursor]

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.

Regarding Hugh Nibley, Kirk Magleby wrote:

"John W. Welch, John L. Sorenson, and I began building FARMS in 1979–80. Hugh was never involved administratively in the organization, but he was a powerful force who influenced much of what we did. We consulted with him often. On one occasion, he expressed delight that Dr. Sorenson was on board. Nibley viewed Sorenson as our best hope to replace the pseudo scholarship of previous generations with substantive insights from Mesoamerica. When Dr. Sorenson’s book was hot off the press in 1985 [

An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon

], I personally gave a copy to Dr. Nibley. Holding it, he lit up, saying, “At last, something I can sink my teeth into.” He really liked the maps that John and I had commissioned from cartographers in the University of Utah Department of Geography."

[

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

]

Edited September 13, 2012 by cursor

[Greg Smith]

Regarding Hugh Nibley, Kirk Magleby wrote:

"John W. Welch, John L. Sorenson, and I began building FARMS in 1979–80. Hugh was never involved administratively in the organization, but he was a powerful force who influenced much of what we did. We consulted with him often. On one occasion, he expressed delight that Dr. Sorenson was on board. Nibley viewed Sorenson as our best hope to replace the pseudo scholarship of previous generations with substantive insights from Mesoamerica. When Dr. Sorenson’s book was hot off the press in 1985 [

An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon

], I personally gave a copy to Dr. Nibley. Holding it, he lit up, saying, “At last, something I can sink my teeth into.” He really liked the maps that John and I had commissioned from cartographers in the University of Utah Department of Geography."

[

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

]

And I should point out that I don't think there's anything wrong with informed discussion of BoM geography--as I suspect Nibley would have agreed. I see his "forty foot pole" as a tongue-in-cheek remark about the chaos and lack of rigor that has often attended the field.

Plus, Sorenson can hardly have been too far off the reservation when he publishes multiple articles in the Ensign on the topic. That doesn't make it "official," but surely if such thinking was completely beyond the pale, that wouldn't happen.

GLS

Edited September 13, 2012 by Greg Smith

[KevinG]

From the peanut gallery... for what it is worth?

Neither the Heartland or the Mesoamerican theory is beyond the pale. What is disappointing to me is the defensiveness and contention that both sides of the debate seem to exhibit when they are challenged.

I am more turned off by the attitudes of the so called scholars than I am by their evidences. Not having been privy to this discussion in the past I was content to ponder and hear about any theory with some research and thought behind it. Now I have to say I'm disappointed at the territorial (pun intended) nature of the debate.

"He attacked first" is not a reasonable excuse for retaliation and bitterness, and no matter how well researched a topic is no one is immune from professional critiques of their work.

Edited September 13, 2012 by KevinG

[MormonMason]

After looking more in-depth into John Cabot and his visit to North America, and the church-building and interaction with Native Americans that a clergyman who was with him performed, I have come to the conclusion that Canada is the promised land, that the Hudson River is the River Sidon, and will be relocating within the hour.

:tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek:

Edited September 13, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

OK, seriously, though (yes, I know that the Hudson River is not located in Canada and flows from north to south), MrT makes a good point about the strategic significance of Cumorah. That hill in New York is not significant enough for what Mormon sought out and prepared for in the final days of his people. It does not really match up as close as one would like with what is described in the Book of Mormon.

Just try fitting several tens of thousands of people onto the one in New York and see where that gets you.

It is also clear that in order to get to it you had to go into the narrow neck of land and into the land northward, above that narrow neck of land, just to get there.

Edited September 13, 2012 by MormonMason

[Kevin Christensen]

One of the characteristics of paradigm debates is "chronic debate about fundamentals." Another is that each side defines their paradigm in terms of different standard examples, which consequently embody different, "methods, problem fields and standards of solution." And that paradigms provide not only a map, but some of the directions for map making. And since the standards and methods for different positions are different, there is a problem in trying to persuade the opposition in terms of a set of assumptions and methods that the other side does not accept. It's a problem of self-referential standards. Think of Escher's Drawing Hands.

And as Ian Barbour points out, while there are no rules for paradigm debate, there are sets of values that do not depend on particular paradigms. While there are no rules for using them, they do at least provide a way to focus on what really matters most.

Puzzle formulation and solution. (Think of Teddy's proposal here that God has deliberately concealed all evidence and there is no way to make any New World corrolation. How does one go about testing that paradigm? Or is it sensible to cancel all testing once someone has made the proposal that no one should even try?) On the other side, take the problem of identifying the Sidon. Larry Poulson proposed to identify all 37 mentions of the Sidon in the text, and search the Western Hemisphere for candiate rivers that match the collective, detailed description. And then to examine the resulting setting to see whether it casts light on the stories in the text. Or say, the related problem of what direction does the Sidon flow? Does the text provide enough details to formulate a worthwhile puzzle?

Accuracy of key predictions. There is the issue of deciding which predictions are key, of course. And which predictions are truely required by the text. Does the Book of Mormon really predict that we should find Hebrew speakers or Cohen DNA everywhere? And what does the Lamanite curse involve? What about the destructions in 3 Nephi? Is there any evidence? And what counts more as key? Locating a river, or swords that Limhi's explorers described as rusting away some 2,100 years ago? Does it matter than for the Mesoamerican correlation that the existance of actual mineral deposits corrolate to whether metals are mentioned in the text? Locating horses or cultural patterns in the right time and place? Seasonality in the warfare or a pot with Nephi's name? And there is the issue of whether the predictions being tested are actually made by the text, or by the interpreter. I think of John Dehlin mentioning the problems of Brass helmets and iron arrowheads and wheels, none of which appear in the text. And the issue of whether the Book of Mormon requires an empty continent, or an influx to a heavily populated one. And whether an existing remnant must be identified in terms of DNA markers that do not actually get transmitted to most descendants. The source text does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Readers who are unaware of how their ideology affects their readings are more likely to produce ideologically laden readings. This is true both on the fundamentalist side: God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

And the positivist side: The data said it. Experiments proved it. That settles it.

Both positions ignore the element of interpretation and what affects it. That includes translation issues, as well as the cultural problem spelled out in 2 Nephi 25.

Comprehensiveness and coherence. How much does a model account for? Do the bits cohere and interlock, in the right times and places, and making sense of and casting light on the stories? Say the relation between the use of cement building materials at Teotihuican compared to the narrow neck, Mesoamerican views of direction, the Sidon, and the Narrow Strip of Wilderness that extends from the Sea west to the Sea East. Does the model fit with what else is known, both internal to the text and in the proposed physical setting? Does the Cumorah candidate, for instance, fit with the textual descriptions offered by Mormon and Moroni? Do the stories in the text come to life in that setting? Does the matter of the Sidon flowing the wrong direction matter more or less than the problem of finding horse bones at the right time depth? Should we expect to find a lot of horse bones buried in the ceremonial sites and public buildings that tend to get excavated? Do the fortifications come at the right time and place? Do civilizations rise and fall at the right time? Does that matter more or less than the fact that story of Ammon never specifies what animals comprised the flocks involved?

Fruitfulness. If we try out a model, and seriously treat it as valid, what happens over time? Do we start to see things that we never would have seen otherwise? Is there a trend towards reconcilliation of open issues, as John Clark says. Or does more information tend to undermine and stress the model?

Does a new model solve problems that led another to crisis? Do open problems respresent puzzles to work on or counter instances that disprove a model? Does a proposal depend on positive aspects of its own correlation, or does it merely attack and assert? And are the attacks accurate? (Comparing DNA Truth Seeker's post 170 with what I actually find in Sorenson's Ancient American Setting reveals a serious disconnect. The charges do not accurately report what Sorenson claims, and therefore, the claims of counter instance overlook the actual solutions proposed.)

Simplicity and aesthetics. Does holding the model together involve a lot of ad hoc explaining. Or does it make sense? Is it enough to claim that any explaining cultural and interpretive issues involves an ad hoc dodge, or are they issues that occur in any translation and cross cultural setting matters of general principles that should be accepted?

Future promise. Does the problems that a paradigm promises to solve eventually count?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 14, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[MormonMason]

Kevin C.,

I agree with your post 384--with one caveat. We don't get much of a chance to find a pot with "Nephi" written on it if we don't have some kind of a consensus of where to begin digging. Hence, it is important to determine what the Book of Mormon is actually saying regarding its internal geography. Then, we try to fit that to a map. The rest can follow once agreement is reached about locations to propose for digging.

Edited September 13, 2012 by MormonMason

[cursor]

Also, I've tried to approach the thought of Cummorah from a military standpoint (an area where I have some expertise) and when you see this little hill that is about a mile long, half a mile wide and a few hundred feet tall...it seems to be a terrible place to house millions of people and offers no strategic advantage to someone who is trying to defend said hill. If Mormon were the brilliant general that we are told...why would he choose such a terrible location and why would his other commanders let him get away with such a terrible location.

Peek at these two posts for pics and comparative data:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209158157

http://www.mormondia...entry1209157649

[nealr]

Kevin Christensen (post # 384) has published similar thoughts back in 2010: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=810

I really liked the perspective it offered when I first read it (about a year ago now) and blogged briefly about precisely how it might impact this particular debate: http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-evidence-is-better.html

Just thought I would offer that, for what its worth.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin C.,

I agree with your post 384--with one caveat. We don't get much of a chance to find a pot with "Nephi" written on it if we don't have some kind of a consensus of where to begin digging. Hence, it is important to determine what the Book of Mormon is actually saying regarding its internal geography. Then, we try to fit that to a map. The rest can follow once agreement is reached about locations to propose for digging.

Yes. that is one of the things that impressed me most when I first read Sorenson's Ancient American Setting. Figure out first what you are really looking for, and where so that you can both look in the right place and for the right things that you know how to recognize when you see them. Otherwise, we're into variations on the story of the lost keys.

A man walking home sees a friend of his searching frantically in the light under a street lamp.

"What are you doing?"

"Looking for my keys."

"Where did you drop them?"

"Somewhere over there?"

"Why are you looking here?"

"Because the light is better."

And now imagine a variation, in which the man is looking under a flagpole on grounds that it is more patriotic.

Or a variation in which the man finds some keys and starts home.

"Are you sure they are the keys to your house? Those don't look like your house keys to me. They look like keys to a briefcase of some kind."

"I was looking for keys and found some. I'm tired of looking and I want to go home."

"How will you get into your house if those are not the right keys?"

"I expected more support and loyalty from you. Not criticism!"

And so it goes.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mr T]

Often I think that we make assumptions based off 'common' knowledge and fail to objectively look at reality. For instance I sat in a primary class where the teacher was teaching about Abinidai and she asked the class "Was Abinidai an old man or a young man?" The class all in unison said "Old man"...based, I'm sure, on their knowledge of the classic Arnold Frieberg painting. Reality is that the BOM never specifically says if he is old or young (and I can make a pretty good argument that he was actually a young guy)

I have made an honest and sincere effort to read scripture and historical accounts of Moroni's visits with Joseph Smith and can find nowhere that Moroni ever called that hill Cummorah or that it was ever referred to as such by anyone at that time. The earliest mention I can find is from Oliver Cowdery about 10 years after the restoration. To me that silence says it all. That hill is not the Cummorah where the Nephite nation was obliterated.

I've heard stories about Cerro Vigia and they are compelling. I lived in Mexico for some time as a missionary and the local stories and evidences are incredible. Leaving me pretty well convinced that the BOM occurred in the Yucatan/Guatemala area. When I read with that in mind, I have gained many insights to what is actually going on in the scriptures and the message is that much more compelling.

That said, I'm always willing to listen to a good and substantive presentation to the contrary, as long as it is well done. My personal opinion is that Mr. Meldrum's presentation is the opposite of that. I have visited with actual archeologists who have done digs in Central America and the sense I got from them was one of being humble and discovery.

[MormonMason]

Peek at these two posts for pics and comparative data:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209158157

http://www.mormondia...entry1209157649

I find poulsenll's proposal #3 interesting. It certainly fits the descriptions associated with the land of Cumorah and also has a distinctive military advantage. That is a lot of rivers. The fact that a rain made it more defensible and made it difficult for anyone to leave or enter in also makes this one a location of interest. None of this appears to be the case, so far as I know, for the area of the Cumorah in upstate New York.

In addition, it is the more interesting when one considers that the Spanish description sounds an awful lot like that in the Book of Mormon. Have any digs been done to look for buried weaponry or skeletal remains? If I were involved I would also look for layers of bone mineral in the soil. Bodies left in the open too long will have even the skeletal remains decompose into mineral dust, particularly in an area as humid as that one is described to be.

Thanks for that. I saved a copy for later reference.

Edit: Corrected a few spelling errors I missed...may be more but I am too tired to look for them. :-)

Edited September 14, 2012 by MormonMason

[cursor]

I sat in a primary class where the teacher was teaching about Abinidai and she asked the class "Was Abinidai an old man or a young man?" The class all in unison said "Old man"...based, I'm sure, on their knowledge of the classic Arnold Frieberg painting.

Actually, we're all "old folks" from the perspective of Primary children.

[cursor]

To offer visual scale for the hill Cumorah in upstate NY that all can appreciate, I've drawn a rectangle around Temple Square that indicates the hill's size. And, the hill would be no higher than the temple is tall. Is it at ALL possible that this could be the final battleground for the Nephites (given the numbers that were killed)? Note that the elevation change from the peak to the surrounding area would be no greater that that between the Salt Lake Capital building and the valley floor below. To me, this hardly sounds like quality/strategic position to stand your last ground.

Edited September 14, 2012 by cursor

[Calm]

I also find it significant that the evidences of Hebrew writings in the Great Lakes area have all been pronounced forgeries, and one of the most prominent scientists to pronounce them as such was James E. Talmage...

BOM geography studies will never convince people of the truth, but if you already have a testimony, then this kind of study can shed a lot of light on what is going on culturally in the context of scripture...

Pretty impressive...you are the first person I've known who has more rep points than posts, over twice as many in fact. Keep up the good work!

And welcome to the board.

[Calm]

Plus, Sorenson can hardly have been too far off the reservation when he publishes multiple articles in the Ensign on the topic. That doesn't make it "official," but surely if such thinking was completely beyond the pale, that wouldn't happen.

Allowing for publication in the Ensign seems much more than "toleration".

[Calm]

The only reason why some of us try to work to find some actual location that can be pinned down is to try to see why it is that some people did what they did and how they did it, and even how it could be so easy for a people to come to reject what they knew under the influence of other peoples. We know and can understand why the Israelites in Palestine did it because of the layout of the land and the cultural traits of their neighboring nations. It makes the text more understandable and more sensible when we can look at a map and see a geographical situation of events in an ancient text. The same can be said about the Book of Mormon. Thing is, events do not happen in a vacuum.

Well said

I'm also one of those who believe we shouldn't bear testimony of a trip in fast and testimony meeting.

I personally don't see much difference between bearing one's testimony about a spiritual experience that happened at home and expressing how one felt the Spirit at the Garden Tomb or in the Sacred Grove. If the Spirit has made a connection, then why not testify of it....taking care it was the Spirit and not an emotional experience of course.

There has been a great deal happen since then. Anti-Mormons have become more sophisticated in their attacks, and it is necessary that they be knowledgeably rebutted, if only so a sincere individual can feel intellectually free to prayerfully seek a spiritual manifestation of the book's truthfulness.

Not only that but the science has dramatically improved, therefore the quality of our ability to study such things has changed.

[cursor]

Allowing for publication in the Ensign seems much more than "toleration".

Believe me ... there is a TON of red tape (it took him 5+ years). For the segments to have been published at all in the Ensign (particularly considering in-house controversy) has to require very high-level approval for the content.

Edited September 14, 2012 by cursor

[De Groote]

A few things that might be relevant to the discussion.

From an article I wrote in 2010:

The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.

The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended the two-day Book of Mormon convention. Although he found the discussion interesting, he was obviously concerned that people were getting a little too worked up about their geographic theories. He decided to intervene.

The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.

"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."

More recently, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how "Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography."

But the lack of an official position hasn't squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.

But something is rotten in Zarahemla — wherever it may be.

In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.

In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled "Mormon's Codex," is in the process of being published.

In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American "heartland" setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book "Prophecies and Promises," which promotes the heartland setting.

It wouldn't be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.

read more...

[Calm]

The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory's mantra: "Joseph knew.".....To the heartlander, Joseph's knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn't just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.

Me, I just don't understand how the above belief can be reconciled in a positive way with this statement:

It is well established that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse any proposed Book of Mormon geography, but rather maintains neutrality on the subject.

http://www.firmlds.o...ature.php?id=25

At the most generous of readings, this means church leadership has forgotten Joseph's revelations.

Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Brother De Groote, you quote Bro. Meldrum here:

"They are getting really worried because they are seeing this is becoming a movement. That's their words," Meldrum said. "They are just saying it's a movement because they are getting a lot of flak from people who are seeing the DVD and the information and thinking, 'You know what, this makes a lot of sense.' 

Was he downplaying the idea of a "movement" in your view? Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

De Groote said,

"A few things that might be relevant to the discussion.

From an article I wrote in 2010:"

What an excellent, informative, even-handed piece of impartial, old fashioned journalism! Congratulations De Groote! You've breathed a cool, pleasent breeze of peace and possible reconcilliation on an otherwise too often overheated thread. Too bad you didn't chime in earlier, this article of yours might have prevented a lot of acrimony and agita. Blessed are the peacemakers...

Best Regards, Ted