Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Scott Lloyd]

A few things that might be relevant to the discussion.

From an article I wrote in 2010:

A very even-handed piece, say I.

I don't recall if it appeared in Mormon Times or elsewhere in the Deseret News. (It's late in the evening, and Michael is not at his desk a few feet from where I sit; otherwise I would ask him.) But I wonder if Rod Meldrum includes such things as this in what he calls "attack articles".

[Calm]

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

I felt the same way about it, Ted....though I am not so sure how much it would have cooled me down being as how I am so hotblooded and all.

[Calm]

A very even-handed piece, say I.

I don't recall if it appeared in Mormon Times or elsewhere in the Deseret News. (It's late in the evening, and Michael is not at his desk a few feet from where I sit; otherwise I would ask him.) But I wonder if Rod Meldrum includes such things as this in what he calls "attack articles".

It is on Mormontimes.com, does that help?

On MormonTimes.com: The debate on Book of Mormon geography is heated, but is it necessary for one's salvation to know the location?

[teddyaware]

I felt the same way about it, Ted....though I am not so sure how much it would have cooled me down being as how I am so hotblooded and all.

I sympathize with you calmoriah. There was a time in my life when I was a hothead extraordinaire, wound up tighter than a spitting mad rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike. I'm now attempting to transform that emotional 'thermal energy' into dispassionate logic and reason (a sort of psychological alchemy), with some modest success. Why? I just couldn't take it anymore! Excessive infusions of adrenaline and the stress hormone cortisol really do begin to take a toll after a while.

OK now calmoriah: s-l-o-w-l-y... in through the nose and out through the mouth; in through the nose and out through the mouth ...

Ted

Edited September 14, 2012 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED ON THIS THREAD, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING!

I just had an epiphany! I've seen the light! I want all of you Mesoamerican and Heartland theorists to know I love and am very proud of each of you. Want to know why? Because I now realize all of you -- in spite of your differences of opinion on this subject -- stand humbly proud on the same common, sacred ground. From now on, when I observe how each of you so passionately and diligently tries to defend and prove your respective theoretical models, I will understand the reason why you are motivated to do what you do comes as a consequence of your great love for and powerful testiomonies of the Book of Mormon! The Spirit of the Lord has so mightily convinced each of you -- regardless of which side of this debate you stand -- that the Book of Mormon really is true. Each of you is on fire with a holy zeal to search out and find the hallowed lands of the Lehites and Mulekites. Each of you has received an unquechable witness in your heart that those once holy lands are out there somewhere, if you could only find them.

God bless each of you forever, my beloved brothers and sisters. Do not ever forget there is more that draws us together than keeps us apart. We all share in the same precious knowledge that comes of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, let not the enmity of the adversary enter into your hearts to poison the wholeness and well-being of the body of Christ, of which we are all essantial and indispensible members. For even though your brethren may not follow a course of exploration similar to yours, rejoice in the fact that they believe fervently enough to go out and search.

"A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another" Jesus Christ

[MormonMason]

I just noticed something that may or may not mean something relating to Joseph Smith's vocabulary in the Book of Mormon. Right now I am not where I can access my printed copies of Skousen's Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and his Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, and it is not likely that I will be able to get back and get to them within the next few weeks. Can someone please check those for me and look up the text that became Enos 1:20 and post the spelling of the line "and their skill was in the bow and in the cimeter" in those manuscript references here? I would surely appreciate it. Please do be careful to type the exact spellings you see on the pages. :-)

Now, here is why I needed to cross-check that information. I want to be careful in what argument I might formulate in future on the issues of vocabulary in the Book of Mormon. Earlier I mentioned the importance to a couple people here in using the 1806 edition of Webster's Dictionary rather than the 1828 edition commonly used to refer to Book of Mormon vocabulary. I still feel strongly about that and highly recommend that people check both volumes of text to see what Joseph Smith's understanding might be of the vocabulary of the text. The 1806 should be consulted first because that edition is the one containing the vocabulary with which Joseph Smith would have been familiar as a youth during his limited education.

At any rate, I wanted to check further on this because I was looking through and comparing both editions of Webster's Dictionaries with the spellings of some words here and there in the Book of Mormon. Something about the spelling of the word "cimeter" in the Book of Mormon caught my eye. On comparing the Book of Mormon in both the current edition and the 1830 first edition, I noticed that the spelling C-I-M-E-T-E-R was not found in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary that came out after Joseph Smith had obtained the plates and was translating here and there with the aid of his wife and Martin Harris.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary spells it two ways. The first way is: C-I-M-I-T-E-R. The second spelling is: S-C-I-M-I-T-A-R, which is the same spelling used today and in Skousen's Book of Mormon: The Earliest Edition. (Skousen informs the reader that he has chosen to use the more familiar spelling rather than the antiquated spelling for the purposes of easier reading). The second entry in the 1828 Webster tells the reader: "[see cimiter.]"

On consulting the 1806 Webster's Dictionary, the one with which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery would have been familiar actually has on the 51st page: "Cim'eter, a. a Turkifh hanger, a fhort crooked fword." Cimeter in the 1806 dictionary is the exact same spelling as that found in the Book of Mormon and not in the 1828 dictionary. Note: There still are words written in that dictionary that use the initial and medial forms for the letter 's' because of the early date but standardization of spelling was occurring even then until the 1828 edition.

I found it of some degree of interest and it may turn to be further evidence in support of what I have elsewhere stated. It may be much ado about nothing but it also may be a fruitful path to pursue as well in relation to understanding at least some of the vocabulary of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith would have understood it. As I mentioned above, the definition that Joseph Smith would have known as a schoolboy did not contain the alternate definition for "head" = "confluence" that the 1828 edition would later expand to include as a 23rd definition.

Edited September 14, 2012 by MormonMason

[De Groote]

Brother De Groote, you quote Bro. Meldrum here:

Was he downplaying the idea of a "movement" in your view?

If I recall correctly, he seemed bemused by it a bit. I don't think he means anything more than just people learning about his ideas and seeing, in his view, how much better they are.

I don't recall if it appeared in Mormon Times or elsewhere in the Deseret News. (It's late in the evening, and Michael is not at his desk a few feet from where I sit; otherwise I would ask him.) But I wonder if Rod Meldrum includes such things as this in what he calls "attack articles".

It was a cover article for Mormon Times and had a great illustration by Josh Ferrin.

I do not think Rod considers it an attack piece at all. I think he refers more to the columns by Michael Ash as being more attacky. The columns are, of course, more opinion pieces. I'm sure Rod would have liked to have a chance to respond in the paper, but responses to columns printed outside the opinion pages must be rare since I've never seen one allowed -- except when the columnist does it himself by allowing someone to respond in their column.

Edited September 14, 2012 by De Groote

[DNA truthseeker]

What is funny you calling the experts wrong.

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

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

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.

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

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

Dear Anijen: Time for a few more corrections, since it is obvious you are again misinformed on many items you are talking about in your last post.

Are you saying that "experts" are always right? They are never wrong and therefore cannot be questioned? Is that your position? If so I am sorry for you. I am not the only one questioning these experts. My opinion has little to no power since I am not a "scholar" right? Luckily for me, none of this research is based on the authority of Rod Meldrum, because I have no authority. The power and strength of it comes from its alignment with Book of Mormon prophecies, Joseph Smith's historically documented and verifiable statements (unlike Mesoamerican theories which are based on articles by unknown authors in a newspaper), peer reviewed journal articles, etc. I'm just a researcher presenting the case for the Book of Mormon in what I believe the scriptures are clear about...the nation known today as the United States of America is situated on the sacred lands of the Book of Mormon.

Sure there is a difference in saying the writing is Hebrew and saying it is 1600 year old Hebrew. But are we to accept that there is no bias when they refuse to even accept the obvious (that it IS HEBREW) and continue to display the stone up side down? That is so clear a case of bias that anyone (who isn't bias themselves) should be able to understand it is happening still. Yet somehow you seem to not understand the problem here.

Feder's removal from the film had nothing to do with me at all. You see, I didn't make the film. I wasn't at all involved with the editing of it. I was not there for the interviews (except for Leper's and my own). It is not my film. You keep claiming that it is my film. You are uninformed and mistaken. You are flat out wrong. Now, having said that, as I understand from past conversations with those that did make the film, Feder was taken out because his material was dealing with the Vikings and had nothing to do with the archaeology at hand. I don't know of any threatened law suit. There wasn't even a complaint from Feder until after the final edition was released---and he wasn't in it! Everyone else had signed off on the film but him, and he didn't need to because his interview was already sitting on the clipping room floor, so to speak. If you have some documentation from Feder that he was threatening legal action, please post it on this thread because I don't believe that to be the case, but then again, I wasn't directly involved and don't know all the details with him.

I am not against Dr. Leper, I just know his bias. He is an expert on the Hopewell and he gave us a great interview. He is helping to preserve this ancient history for which I am grateful. You are welcome to take anyone's side you so choose, but that doesn't mean a thing in regarding what is the truth. Again you seem to think that I am relying on my opinion to add authority or credibility to my research. I say again, I am but a researcher and not a "scholar" in the academic sense and therefore my opinion is of little value, and that is why it is so critical for me to base my research on the truth and on others who have more credibility that I. I don't know if I'd go so far as you do in saying that anyone's opinion that is not backed by a PhD or other accepted scholarly accreditation is summarily "absolutely worthless," but I suppose you are free to make that claim if you'd like. All you have to do is bury your head in the sand at all the amazing things that have come from "non experts" while the "experts" told everyone it could not be done, that it was impossible, and that these amateurs were wasting their time and money. Do you read much history?

Again you hold me up higher than I do! My assessment is based on the scientific analysis of American Petrographic Services of St. Paul Minnesota. They are not LDS and they are the ones who conducted the analysis. It is not my presupposition, it is Leper's since he is apparently refusing to believe the scientific analysis in order to hold, like you are doing, to non-scientific dogma and opinions. Get your facts straight about who has the scientific analysis on their side and who does not. If you can show me where Leper has conducted scattering electron microscopy on the Bat Creek Stone to back his positions...I'm all ears, but if you can't (and I know that to be the case), then you should have backbone enough to realize that you are wrong about who has the best backing for their claims...me, with American Petrographic Services scientific analysis, or Leper with his professional opinions. I'll let the reader decide. We now know where you stand. Opinions mean more to you than facts. That is almost a requirement for Mesoamerican theorists, it would seem. You must be a good one, you've got that one down pat.

So you DO understand that even scholars may disagree about things! Yes, Alice Keyhoe was pretty severely attacked initially for her stand on her research regarding pre-historic intrusions to North America by boat. She stuck to her guns and eventually showed enough facts to overcome the bias she was up against, but only to some of the opposition. Others still refuse to accept Keyhoe's work. That is how academics works. Why should I abandon the facts I see that are so compelling in my research just because some scholar disagrees with it. I, like Keyhoe feel the Heartland model provides sufficient evidence to warrant bucking the present dogma of today, knowing it can become the the trash of tomorrow when the facts and the truth are on your side. It is just a matter of time before more and more will accept your ideas and the truth, but there will always be those naysayers, claiming it can't be right and burying their heads in the sand.

Yes, they have written a rebuttal about the film they all signed off on because they don't like the fact that their material may actually support the claims of the Mormon Church's Book of Mormon which they do not like to be associated with. That is their issue. To say that they were "tricked" because the film didn't include their entire interviews is ridiculous. Of course their interviews, like virtually EVERY documentary in film history, were edited. Please show me any professional documentary where no editing has taken place? Where they simply turn on the camera and leave it on until the interviewed is through. Really? They are upset that the film was edited? Or they are upset because the film wasn't edited the way they would like the film to have been edited. The film was trying to show why so little is known about the ancient Hopewell civilization and there are opposing sides. Leper and the others wanted only their side to be told, and not the diffusionist side of the story. Luckily for those who view the film, the diffusionists were finally given a voice for once, and the anti-diffusionist's like Leper don't like that story being told, so they complain about it. All good documentaries show more than one side of an issue, so to demand that the film show only their side is ludicrous. They are simply sour grapes that their own words support the claims of the Book of Mormon when its geography is placed in North America among the Hopewell Mound Builder civilization. And please, don't try and tell me that there have not been main stream scholars who have severely disagreed with many claims of the Mesoamericanist propoganda films and clips. So are you ready to abandon your Mesoamerican leanings if any "expert" takes issue with anything in your films? Really? If so, may I point out to you some films so you can abandon your Mesoamerican faith? You know you wouldn't and won't. You would disagree with them and continue on in your belief that they are wrong. Don't tell me differently unless you have evidence to back it up. Yet that is your expectation of me. Why the obvious double standard?

Again, I didn't have the slightest thing to do with the editing of the film, so it is impossible that I "edited it to make it look like" it supported me. I simply took the finished film and started showing it to those who are interested...and indeed there are a LOT of people interested. Sorry you are not, but that is OK, there are plenty of others with more open and objective minds. I'm reminded of an old saying...You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And another... A mind made up against it's will is of the same opinion still. I think your mind is made up, so no level of evidence will ever be sufficient for you. That is fine, I simply move on to others who don't waste my time. I mean, if our Father in Heaven can't get 1/3 of his children to understand His plan in the preexistence, why should anyone think they can get everyone to accept their ideas? I don't sweat it if someone refuses to open their mind and look objectively at the facts, it is their prerogative given them by the Lord. It's called "freedom." You are welcome to utilize it - in my book. May I be allowed the same?

And remember... "experts" built the Titanic, but a "novice" built the ark. Something to think about if you believe in Noah's ark and the flood...(opps, I know that many Mesoamericanists don't believe in all that Biblical story stuff like Noah's ark and a great world-wide flood). Sorry if my reference to the flood being a real event on a world-wide scale offended you. No offense was meant, but that IS my belief.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[DNA truthseeker]

One last thing. There has been some discussion on why Book of Mormon geography is important, with one person insisting it is a useless exercise. While I agree that one can get the important message of the book without knowing its geographical setting, and agree with Marilyn Arnold when she says "that anyone who can read, and is willing to be guided by the spirit, can access and understand [the Book of Mormon]," I think is a gross misunderstanding to say that learning the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon is completely useless. (Do we gain nothing from knowing and studying the Holy Land of the Bible?)

I am a political science student, so permit to use analogy related to my field of study. As a political science student, and one with emphasis in American government, the American Constitution forms an important part of what I study. In fact, there is a whole upper division course (which I haven't actually taken yet, but I know the gist of the course curriculum) dedicated to studying the American Constitution. Do you think all we do is read the document itself? (I wish, it would make my life much easier.) We study the additional writings of men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, we study what was going on at the time in colonial America, we study what was going on in Great Britian, we go back a century or so and study the works of thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbs, and beyond - ultimately going all the way to ancient Greece. All this to better understand a relatively shot document penned in the eighteenth century. While anyone who can read English can, for the most part, understand the essence of the Constitutional text, a great deal of studying the historical context and the intellectual heritage that produced the Constitution goes along way in bettering our understanding of it.

I believe the same can be said of any document - even the Book of Mormon. But with the Book of Mormon, how can we do that without knowing the geographic setting? It is the geography that provides us with the historical context to look to. We of course can - and do - study the Old World background (which is like studying the intellectual heritage of England and Europe in the centuries prior to the writing of the Constitution), and it has yielded a great deal of insight that helps us better understand the teachings in the Book of Mormon, and helps us better understand people like Lehi and Nephi who are direct products of that environment. But we can only do this for the New World by establishing where in the New World it took place. That is why I think it is important. And I think the recent work by Brant Gardner and others, who try and read the text as a Mesoamerican book, has already demonstrated how that historical setting can really help shed some light on the text and the men who wrote it.

Here, here! Well said! Except that last part...

Also please consider the importance of the setting as it relates to an important purpose of the Book of Mormon - to give us advanced warning of what they saw happening in our day on the Promised Land and the nation that would occupy it in the latter days. It is critical to that nation that they understand their role in the history of the world and the great blessings - and judgments- that await them depending on their righteousness. That is way we Heartlanders feel so compelled to help get this message out to the members of the Church and our nation, because we believe that the prophecies were meant specifically to warn us (USA) about allowing secret combinations and dwindling righteousness to overcome our nation. Confusion sets in when we don't understand what nation they were prophesying about. That is why a study of the prophecies is so critical.

Heartlanders believe that this nation was raised up, set up, and established (as it says in the Book of Mormon) by men whom God prepared for the purpose of bringing forth the gospel and establishing the ancient covenant with God on this nation in order for it to bless all other nations of the earth as the prophesies indicate. In order to do so it must be a land of liberty, prosperity and righteousness. America has been all of this and more...until recently. It has blessed the world not only with the gospel but with raising the standard of living of all peoples, rescuing other human beings from the clutches of dictators and tyrants and providing aid and support to millions around the globe. It is unquestionably the most giving nation in human history and it has prospered mightily while it kept its part of the covenant...to obey the commandments. While we've done so, we've been blessed beyond measure, but the Book of Mormon prophecies predicted that there would come a time in that mighty nation when the powers of darkness would raise again its ugly head in the form of secret combinations and they desperately try to tell us what to do to avoid it.

But instead we sit and argue about whether the Sidon flows north or south and think, like Brant Gardner, that the 'hard evidence' lies in such speculations while ignoring again the elephant in the room that the nations of Guatemala or Mexico could not possibly be the nation they were trying to warn in order to save all the people of the earth from destruction. Neither of those two nations, as nice as they are, have the global reach or impact on the world as the USA. How much would it impact the world if the Governments of Guatemala or Mexico were to succumb to secret combinations...oh, yeh, they already have - and the world is still looking to the United States for help.

The more I've studied and learned, the more convinced I am of the importance of understanding the "where" of the Book of Mormon in order to avoid making the mistakes that others made on this same sacred land. Adam's posterity made the same mistakes (after being driven from the Garden of Eden in what is now Missouri) and was swept off in Noah's flood. The Jaredites were given the same Promised Land and didn't learn the importance of the covenant and were summarily swept off. The Nephites didn't learn either but they have tried to warn US. Now it is our turn on the promised land and if we don't know that these judgments are all about us, we are less likely to learn from them and do all we can to protect this land from those wicked secret combinations. That is one of the reasons why we Heartlanders feel it so important to learn where the Book of Mormon took place.

Of course there are many others, not the least of which is the fact that the Lord has commanded us to seek learning and truth. Where in scripture does it ever say we should not pursue truth? Where does it say that we need no more knowledge? It doesn't, and this in itself should be sufficient to show the importance of learning all we can about the Book of Mormon in my humble opinion.

[DNA truthseeker]

Has anyone noticed that Meldrum speaks most about how he was treated and other peripheral points but doesn't engage with any of the scholars who are on this forum? He can argue polemics until he is blue in the face but doesn't take on the facts when they are presented. Before you say anything, Rod, answer Brant Gardner and MormonMasons posts.

There you go again, thinking you can command me to do things. You can't. Don't try. I'll abandon this thread before I'll be dictated to by you.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Nemesis
Name removal. Stop doing it.

[Greg Smith]

There you go again, thinking you can command me to do things. You can't. Don't try. I'll abandon this thread before I'll be dictated to by you.

I think he was suggesting a course of action that would give you more credibility, not commanding. No one is under any illusion they can "command" you to do anything, I suspect. :-)

Given that the "Hello dear friends" letter that started this all includes Meldrum's explicit claim that God told him not to try to convert "FARMS," his reluctance to discuss these things isn't too surprising if those involved have any connection there:

Many people have asked ‘What does FARMS think of your research’ and my response is that I have not heard anything at all from them, but after much prayer, I know that we are not to attempt to ’convert’ FARMS, but rather to establish a new organization of those espousing a North American Book of Mormon setting that ‘competes’ in the realm of ideas with FARMS. I have pondered and prayed about a name for this organization and the name that was received is ‘Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism’ and it will be called ‘The FIRM Foundation’.

On-line here: http://www.fairblog....ll-out-at-last/

GLS

Edited September 14, 2012 by Nemesis
Name removal

[Greg Smith]

GL Smith to Rod Meldrum 13 July 2011.pdfGL Smith to Rod Meldrum 14 July 2011.pdf

Two posts I sent in reply to Rod where I tried to outline why his expectations haven't panned out. Replies generally to much of the last 20 lbs.

GLS

[MormonMason]

As stated in the presentation, if there are mistakes, they will be corrected.

I find that interesting in light of the fact that he has been given information on the fraudulent nature of the "Holy Stones" and likely will continue to push them as evidences for his model. Never mind that the script is not only the wrong script but that it is flawed and out of the proper timeline to be genuine artifacts. Both those "Holy Stones," of which he sells replicas, are frauds. And, even if they were real, they would then be from the wrong time period to be connected with the Book of Mormon at all. And Aramaic Square Script originated in Babylon. Lehi was already gone before that script came into use among the Jews.

It is the same with the Bat Creek Stone. Even though the characters are closer to the script that would have been used by the people of the Book of Mormon, and even if it were authenticated in every way, the stone still would come from the wrong time period to connect with Book of Mormon events. The script and the abbreviated way in which "Judah" is written is something that they did during the late first century and during the revival of Paleo-Hebrew during the Second Jewish Revolt. It is too late to be connected with the Book of Mormon.

Worst of all, he makes much of the DNA evidence and even stated that he built his initial case for his Heartland model on it, and he cannot even get the mtDNA clades right! See a previous post above that was linked by Calmoriah that briefly discusses the evidence and the differences between the mtDNA clades and their respective populations.

Edited September 14, 2012 by MormonMason

[Brant Gardner]

Can someone please check those for me and look up the text that became Enos 1:20 and post the spelling of the line "and their skill was in the bow and in the cimeter" in those manuscript references here?

That verse is not extant in the original manuscript. In the printer's manuscript Oliver first wrote Semiter,then overwrite the first 'e' with 'i', leaving it as Simeter.

I think I would be careful to hang to heavy an argument on Oliver's spelling, as he (nor very many others) were consistent in spelling.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin Christensen (post # 384) has published similar thoughts back in 2010: http://maxwellinstit...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://ldsreasonandr...-is-better.html

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

Thanks. And a very interesting blog post.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[rodheadlee]

Why do the promises regarding "this land" have to be limited to the area where most of the Nephites lived? Can't these promises regard the entire Americas? What about the Nephites that migrated, would they not carry these promises to their new home?

[livy111us]

There you go again, thinking you can command me to do things. You can't. Don't try. I'll abandon this thread before I'll be dictated to by you.

By asking you to respond to the evidence against your theory and avoid polemics? You realize that you are saying that you are refusing to address the many problems of your theory, right? You tend to only speak about issues that have nothing to do with your theory (using emails, "persecution", etc...) and leave the countless damning evidences against your theory alone. I was asking you to engage in scholarly discussion that deal with the actual evidences themselves. If you cannot deal with the evidences, then you should be willing to concede certain issues and modify your theory. If you have valid answers, then we will have to concede certain issues and modify our theory. By ignoring them you are only saying that you don't care about what the evidence is you are going to believe in your preconceived notions no matter what the facts are.

[livy111us]

By the way, everyone. DNAtruthseeker is *NOT* Rodney Meldrum. He cannot be. Because Rod Meldrum himself has publicly denied that it is not him. Rod responded to LDS-Man on the FAIR blog after he brought up a quote from DNAtruthseeker on this very board.

Rod Meldrum Says:

September 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

“LDS-Man” posts: “FAIR, and FARMS are not the official voice of the LDS church. They are just people expressing their opinion just like everyone else. Please people, take FAIR and FARMS with a grain of salt…very little credibility. My family is un-phased by the spewing of FAIR and FARMS but instead listen to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the successors PERIOD.”

Is it just me or is there a striking similarity between these two quotes? I just hope that Rod learned his lesson after he got busted for defending and praising himself in the 3rd person as the “DNA Truthseeker” ….PERIOD.

"Michael, sorry, but you are making a wrong assumption and insinuation for which you have no evidence. It was not me. Rod"

So again, this is not Rod Meldrum. If it actually was, then that would make Rod Meldrum a liar which is absolutely out of the question. It would mean that he openly and willingly distorts facts that he is ashamed of, in this case, pretending not to be him and praising himself and his works. Even if it was embarrassing information, Rod would confront the information and not lie to cover it up. So the logical answer is that the man who we have been conversing with and claims to be Rod Meldrum, cannot actually be him. Rod doesn't distort facts.

[MormonMason]

That verse is not extant in the original manuscript. In the printer's manuscript Oliver first wrote Semiter,then overwrite the first 'e' with 'i', leaving it as Simeter.

I think I would be careful to hang to heavy an argument on Oliver's spelling, as he (nor very many others) were consistent in spelling.

Oh, I understand about that alright. That is why I was hoping that someone would check that for me so I could know what was on the manuscripts. I have seen a scan of a photocopy of the Printer's Manuscript online but it is horribly done. I could not make out several of the letters and I am away from my copies of the printed texts by Skousen. I am looking forward to the publication of said manuscript by the Joseph Smith Papers Project. That one will be a whole lot easier to read. And, it most definitely is the case that the scribes were not consistent in spelling in every case. I think one still could make the case for the definition differences, however, based on the current dictionary of the day for Joseph Smith regardless of the scribes' proclivities.

Thank you for looking that up for me. It was appreciated, as was the advice.

[poulsenll]

Latest word from a Prophet of God.

On Saturday Sept 9, 2012

President Eyring spoke last and said: “When I came into the stadium, I somehow saw, long, long ago, in

these lands of the Book of Mormon, a crowd that greeted the Lord Jesus Christ, and I know by your smiles and your wonderful greeting you are like the people who greeted the Savior, so I come to you and accept your kindness for Him…. It is so wonderful to be here with you, it makes me want to be better just to be with you… You will have a feeling tonight that the Church of Jesus Christ is on the earth and the Temple is His House.

Larry P

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/11450

[Bob Crockett]

Latest word from a Prophet of God.

On Saturday Sept 9, 2012

Larry P

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/11450

Just as I thought. Argentina.

[juliann]

Just as I thought. Argentina.

Just as I thought. "Speculation" (as you call it) about BOM geography. And at the highest levels in the church.

[MormonMason]

...And, they had barley in Argentina, too. In fact, they had it there first, the barley of North America being a direct genetic descendent of that from South America, brought by bird migrations on their way north. So, there!

[Bob Crockett]

Just as I thought. "Speculation" (as you call it) about BOM geography. And at the highest levels in the church.

I'd disagree with that thought. The Brethren seem to think the entirety of the Americas is "Book of Mormon lands." You can see that in the dedicatory prayers in Cardston, South America and now this off-hand comment.

I don't consider that "speculation." Around the early part of the Twentieth Century there were several factions which advocated for particular locations of Book of Mormon venues -- cities, rivers and the like. That prompted the "we disapprove speculation" notion from some of the Brethren. So, it seems that disapproval of the speculation business in the past has meant, among the Brethren, that we can't get more specific than "all of the Americas" but we at least know where the old and new Cumorah is.

This particular outward-in exclusion, with the Cumorah proviso, can be seen with Pres. Ivin's thoughts. In 1928, he said: "We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them." (Conf Report, April 1928.) But in 1929, he addressed the question of "[w]here was the land of Zarahemla" with the response: "We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true." (Conf Report, April 1929.)

These are not inconsistent statements but consistently hold to the true view that good members of the Church should not be in the business of telling others where they think Zarahemla might be.

Seems that mid-20th Century there arose a new belief system which knew not Joseph. Captained by Santa Barbara lawyer Thomas Stuart Ferguson and championed by Elder Milton R. Hunter, church funds and interested persons focused on Central America as a means to find and locate Book of Mormon locales. This, of course, led to Ferguson's bitter disappointment and some rather caustic remarks by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and Mark E. Peterson, less so from Elder Harold B. Lee. As Pres. Smith said, in a book still in publication (and one of the most heavily-cited in General Conference addresses), "This modernist theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years . . .” (DoS, vol. 3: 233-34.)

But the brief for MesoAmerican nonsense was taken up by Professor Sorenson, a diffusionist. His championship for a MesoAmerican setting fit quite nicely with his professional work as an anthropologist. His book met with a very enthusiastic audience who had forgotten the discharged Book of Mormon geography committees and Bro. Ferguson. What set him and Bro. Clark apart was that they were true professionals, as opposed to the hacks that had so dominated Book of Mormon geography, such as Jack West. When I was a young missionary I'd carry around one of Jack West's flim strips about MesoAmerica, where he proudly exhibited Spanish millstones as evidence of pre-Columbian wheels. No, Sorenson and Clark were a different breed.

And despite official Mormon-speak about not taking a position about geography, it seemed that the best and the brightest in Mormon academia bought the MesoAmerican model hook line and sinker. President Joseph Fielding Smith was of the view that the reason for this was the members had lost their faith or were being confused. Inroads were nonetheless made into church publications, like the Ensign, essential FARMS publications, and even church videos played in visitors centers. I have really no comment about these aberrational publications except to say that I'm waiting for a member of the First Presidency to endorse them. I think the FP thinks such nonsense is harmless. I, for one, am not sure.

Too bad. There still is no proof. And that does not trouble me, because I have been counseled to know that the Book of Mormon is not a geographic text. For all we know the spatial geography in the Book of Mormon is allegorical, exaggerated or wrongly edited.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[nealr]

As Pres. Smith said, in a book still in publication (and one of the most heavily-cited in General Conference addresses), "This modernist theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years . . .” (DoS, vol. 3: 233-34.)

But there is evidence that even Joseph Fielding Smith himself did not consider his comment doctrinally binding:

In 1938 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote an article published in the Deseret News arguing against what he then termed the "modernist" theory that the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites may have been in Central America rather than in New York.¹⁰ In 1956 this article was included in a selection of Elder Smith's writings compiled by his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie.¹¹ Although Elder Smith would later become president of the church in 1970, his article arguing for a New York location as the scene of the final battlefield was written many years before he assumed that position, and he apparently never revisited the question as president of the church. There is evidence that Elder Smith may have softened his opposition on the Cumorah question. In a letter written to Fletcher B. Hammond, who argued emphatically for a Central American location and had sent Elder Smith a copy of his findings, the apostle explained, "I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid any attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork." ¹² Apparently, he did not consider his 1938 argument as settled and definitive or as a measure of doctrinal orthodoxy.

Sidney B. Sperry, after whom an annual Brigham Young University symposium is named, was also one who initially supported the New York Cumorah view (that is, an area of New York as the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites).¹³ During the 1960s, as he began to explore the issue, he came to a different conclusion. For several years Sperry circulated a handout for his Religion 622 class on the Book of Mormon that outlined key information in that scripture suggesting that the final battlefield was within or near the land of Desolation, which bordered the narrow neck of land. ¹⁴ Sperry encouraged his students to address the question and try to reconcile a New York location for those events with the data in the Book of Mormon text. In 1968 he published these conclusions in his Book of Mormon Compendium.¹⁵ Reversing his earlier position, he wrote: "It is now my very carefully studied and considered opinion that the Hill Cumorah to which Mormon and his people gathered was somewhere in Middle America. The Book of Mormon evidence to this effect is irresistible and conclusive to one who will approach it with an open mind. This evidence has been reviewed by a few generations of bright students in graduate classes who have been given the challenge to break it down if they can. To date none has ever been able to do so." ¹⁶ Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it." ¹⁷

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=805

Edited September 14, 2012 by nealr