Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[juliann]

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.

If you are referring to the Heber J. Grant dedication, he said nothing about lands at all, only descendants. Whether he meant this literally or figuratively descendants would be everywhere after centuries and that would not be disputed by anyone so it is a moot point. Unless you are now going to claim that he said the BOM events took place in Canada....

The rededication in 1991 mentioned nothing about any of it so you are again having to reach back to 1923 to keep this up and have produced only two very old quotes to substantiate your lecturing about what "many church authorities" say.

We beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou wilt stay the hand of the destroyer among the descendants of Lehi, who reside in this land, and give unto them increasing virility and more abundant health, that they may not perish as a people, but that from this time forth they may increase in numbers and in strength and in influence, that all the great and glorious promises made concerning the descendants of Lehi, may be fulfilled in them; that they may grow in vigor of body and of mind, and above all in love for Thee and Thy Son, and increase in diligence and in faithfulness in keeping the commandments which have come to them through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that many of them may yet have the privilege of entering this holy house and receiving ordinances for themselves and their departed ancestors.

I really don't know where you are trying to go with this, as you have not produced anything substantiating it, but at least you are backing away from your earlier and very inaccurate claim. Even if all church authorities decry "speculating" , it is unrelated to the accuracy of any "paradigm".... even if you could position "MesoAmericanists" as being in opposition to "many church authorities".

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.

[Calm]

Whether he meant this literally or figuratively descendants would be everywhere after centuries and that would not be disputed by anyone so it is a moot point.

Except apparently Brother Meldrum if I understand his position accurately.

I can't remember if it was him or someone else that said along the lines of 'if they don't have the right DNA, it doesn't count'.

I have never heard anyone who held a Mesoamerican position limit descendants and blessings and prophecies to only that area (which is why I called for a CFR---that was ignored---about Central American having to be the only land of liberty in the Mesoamericanist view as is claimed here by whomever is posting as DNA Truthseeker.)

Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

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.

Now I'm confused. You rely on "many church authorities" from the last century to give official binding warning against speculation (as you define it), but then dismiss multiple modern authorities (or what most would consider the church) as being hoodwinked as predatory scholars took over official publications? Seriously?

[Bob Crockett]

I really don't know where you are trying to go with this, as you have not produced anything substantiating it, but at least you are backing away from your earlier and very inaccurate claim.

I don't think I am backing away from a position here.

It seems that you think I have some hidden agenda here, in that by frequenting this board and opposing the popular view here that the Book of Mormon lands are restricted to MesoAmerica, that I am somehow trying to do something nefarious. Not so. I hold the very simplistic view that gospel hobbies are dangerous, and the most popular gospel hobby out there today is one pertaining to Book of Mormon geography. Whether it be Meldrum's nativist-U.S. only geography, or Dr. Sorenson's MesoAmerican geography, it is the same to me. A hobby. Without support. Whatsoever.

It really is not my burden to dredge up support, as you have said "you have not produced anything substantiating it," Since I think Book of Mormon geography (except for internal spatial geography) is wrong, a waste of time, and potentially testimony-threatening, my burden is simply to show the many statements of the Brethren counseling against Book of Mormon geography. My burden is a light one, really.

NealR's quote from a Maxell Institute article relies upon the very sort of weak methodology I challenged in my two FARMS articles dealing with the MMM. My position in my two articles is that for dangerous territory, one must rely upon reliable evidence. The source for NealR's reference, where Pres. Smith took back his comments about geography, is this: "Recollection of John Fugal of Orem, Utah, to Matthew Roper, 15 May 2010. Fugal was a student in a BYU Book of Mormon class where Sperry recounted the experience." Of course, Fugal, Roper and Sperry are all trusted men, in my view, but I don't trust this data and will never trust it; it doesn't meet the "equal dignities doctrine" test, that is, that to consider a retraction one must have the same strength of evidence to support a retraction as one has for the original statement. Bro. Sperry didn't think enough of this evidence to publish it himself. Fugal didn't either. Roper didn't get it from Sperry. So there you have it.

Seriously?

Seriously, although I can't accept your restatement of my position. But I don't fault you for trying with a restatement; I do that as well!

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[MormonMason]

For those interested in seeing the Zelph event in the Manuscript History of the Church for the date in question, visit the following links.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/history-1838%E2%80%931856-volume-a-1?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=488&s=&sm=none

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/history-1838%E2%80%931856-volume-a-1?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=489&s=&sm=none

Notice also was got crossed off in the manuscripts.

[Calm]

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.......

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.

My understanding (granted it is thirdhand) is that at least two DNA specialists offered him corrections him extensively before he published his materials...no significant changes, if any, occurred then either. Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

For those interested in seeing the Zelph event in the Manuscript History of the Church for the date in question, visit the following links.

http://josephsmithpa...=488&s=&sm=none

http://josephsmithpa...=489&s=&sm=none

Notice also was got crossed off in the manuscripts.

Thanks. I'm not sure that really settles much. I would read the Cumorah cross out to indicate that Joseph Smith wanted to expand Zelph's fame to a larger part of the continent. A dedicated MesoAmericanist would argue that crossing out Cumorah removes an improper reference to Cumorah that Joseph Smith didn't maintain.

I think a textualist, or an expert in textualism, might argue that simply putting the word "Cumorah" there in the first place demonstrated a wide-spread view.

[hagoth7]

...

Edited September 14, 2012 by hagoth7

[Anijen]

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.

So by this logic Joseph Fielding Smith would have felt that President Gordon B. Hinckleys daughter is confused or has lost her faith. I wonder how that would make President Hinckley feel?

I personally spoke with Sister Hinckley in Nauvoo in which her and our families shared a backstage canopy as we participated in the pageant, and she advocates a Mesoamerican theory. But don't take my word for it just watch the DVD Journey of Faith in which at times she is shown making statements in that video, a video that assumes a Mesoamerican setting.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Anijen

[Bob Crockett]

So by this logic Joseph Fielding Smith would have felt that President Gordon B. Hinckleys daughter is confused or has lost her faith. I wonder how that would make President Hinckley feel?

I personally spoke with Sister Hinckley in Nauvoo in which her and our families shared a backstage canopy as we participated in the pageant, and she advocates a Mesoamerican theory. But don't take my word for it just watch the DVD Journey of Faith in which at times she is shown making statements in that video, a video that assumes a Mesoamerican setting.

I disagree. I say nothing about people who are not in my radar screen on this topic. It does not naturally follow that I believe that ordinary members who have become persuaded by Meldrum's model, or the MesoAmerican model, are weak in the faith.

Really, I want to keep my views as narrow and circumscribed as possible to (1) what the Brethren have said, (2) what they haven't said, and (3) what the leading advocates have said.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[De Groote]

Since I think Book of Mormon geography (except for internal spatial geography) is wrong, a waste of time, and potentially testimony-threatening, my burden is simply to show the many statements of the Brethren counseling against Book of Mormon geography. My burden is a light one, really.

What do you think of the Book of Mormon geography studies that led to the discovery of a strong candidate for the place called Nahom? Or Bountiful in the old world? Was that pursuit "wrong, a waste of time, and potentially testimony-threatening"?

The potential for any intellectual pursuit to become a distraction from the things that matter most merits a warning, but not a prohibition.

[nealr]

NealR's quote from a Maxell Institute article relies upon the very sort of weak methodology I challenged in my two FARMS articles dealing with the MMM. My position in my two articles is that for dangerous territory, one must rely upon reliable evidence. The source for NealR's reference, where Pres. Smith took back his comments about geography, is this: "Recollection of John Fugal of Orem, Utah, to Matthew Roper, 15 May 2010. Fugal was a student in a BYU Book of Mormon class where Sperry recounted the experience." Of course, Fugal, Roper and Sperry are all trusted men, in my view, but I don't trust this data and will never trust it; it doesn't meet the "equal dignities doctrine" test, that is, that to consider a retraction one must have the same strength of evidence to support a retraction as one has for the original statement. Bro. Sperry didn't think enough of this evidence to publish it himself. Fugal didn't either. Roper didn't get it from Sperry. So there you have it.

1. It is not a retraction. Merely an acknowledgement his previous comments are not doctrinally binding. I did not represent it as a retraction, and it it should not be viewed as such.

2. This ignores the experience related to Hammond Fletcher, which cites a first hand source (letter from JFS). If Book of Mormon geography was a no-no and his statements about the hill Cumorah doctrinally binding, then why didn't he provide correction to the misguided Fletcher?

3. I will admit the evidence is not overwhelming. A personal letter making rather neutral comments and third-hand story of him giving the okay to publish opposing views. Certainly not enough to declare that he "retracted: anything. But then again, as stated in my first point, retraction is not the point at all. The simple point is that there is evidence that JFS did not view his firmly expressed opinions as the binding doctrine on the members of the Church. I made no judgement as to the strength of that evidence; I simply put it out there for others to make their own assessments. I left the links to the footnotes in specifically so that others could see what sources were being used.

[KevinG]

Just guessing here but I suspect the brethren would be much more concerned about contention over theories than the content of the theories themselves.

[Bob Crockett]

Just guessing here but I suspect the brethren would be much more concerned about contention over theories than the content of the theories themselves.

Well, there is some difficulty even with this statement. My posts above argue that we shouldn't even be spending any time of these theories. Pres. Smith said that people who advanced them were confused. So, I would also argue that -- lookee here, all the bad things said about Bro. Meldrum -- isn't that evidence that these theories are getting people in trouble? And all the contention offered up by his proxy here.

So, your statement is very appropriate indeed for my theory, but I'm sure there are plenty here that would say that my posts are contentious for having the temerity to saw that the Book of Mormon geographers ought to follow the counsel of the Brethren.

It is a chicken-and-egg issue.

Our stake had announced that Bro. Porter was giving a fireside. (He's not banned; Bro. Meldrum is banned.) The poster created for the event showed a copy of Bro. Porter's and Bro. Meldrum's book for sale. I am a nobody in the stake, and I tend to sympathize with the Meldrum/Porter view, but I dropped an email to the stake presidency about this. Two minutes worth of googling led to cancellation, precisely because of the contention.

[Bob Crockett]

What do you think of the Book of Mormon geography studies that led to the discovery of a strong candidate for the place called Nahom? Or Bountiful in the old world? Was that pursuit "wrong, a waste of time, and potentially testimony-threatening"?

The potential for any intellectual pursuit to become a distraction from the things that matter most merits a warning, but not a prohibition.

Well, when you rely on the arm of the flesh you might receive some satisfaction. You might also be disappointed.

For example, Cyrus Gordon is a very respected fellow. He championed the Bat Creek Stone. Lots of members of the church signed onto that concept.

As well, the last time I was at the Mexico City temple, the on-ground visitors' center was selling replicas of the Chiapas Stela 5. There's been a lot of pot shots taken at Stela 5 and folks are going to be disappointed, but the arm of the flesh set up Stela 5, not God.

[ERayR]

Well, there is some difficulty even with this statement. My posts above argue that we shouldn't even be spending any time of these theories. Pres. Smith said that people who advanced them were confused. So, I would also argue that -- lookee here, all the bad things said about Bro. Meldrum -- isn't that evidence that these theories are getting people in trouble? And all the contention offered up by his proxy here.

I tend to take the view taught in D&C 88:78-80 paying special attention to verse 79

78 Teach ye diligently and my ^agrace shall attend you, that you may be ^binstructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in ^aheaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must ^bshortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the ^cnations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a ^dknowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to ^amagnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the ^bmission with which I have commissioned you.

Edited September 14, 2012 by ERayR

[nealr]

So, your statement is very appropriate indeed for my theory, but I'm sure there are plenty here that would say that my posts are contentious for having the temerity to say that the Book of Mormon geographers ought to follow the counsel of the Brethren.

The problem is that what you represent as the "counsel of the Brethren," is not counsel unanimously held by the brethren. You have produced a small handful of relatively old quotes that support that view. But the same thing can be done by those of us who believe Book of Mormon geography to be a worthy pursuit. Consider a few examples:

"Zarahelma", Times and Seasons 3/23 (October 1, 1842), p. 927:

It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts.

It doesn't matter to me whether this was written by Joseph Smith, John Taylor, or Wilford Woodruff. Anyone of them was at the time an apostle and one of the "brethren." This statement is encouraging the Saints to compare what the Book of Mormon text says about it's geography with the findings of explorers - the same process the those involved in Book of Mormon geography engage in today.

George Q. Cannon, 'Editorial Thoughts: Book of Mormon Geography," 25/1 (January 1890): 18-19 (emphasis and brackets added):

There is a tendency, strongly manifested . . . among some of the brethren, to study the geography of the Book of Mormon. . . . We are greatly pleased to notice the . . . interest taken by the Saints in this holy book. . . . But valuable as is the Book of Mormon both in doctrine and history, yet it is possible to put this sacred volume to uses for which it was never intended, uses which are detrimental rather than advantageous to the cause of truth, and consequently to the work of the Lord. . . . The brethren who lecture on the lands of the Nephites or the geography of the Book of Mormon are not united in their conclusions. No two of them, so far as we have learned, are agreed on all points, and in many cases the variations amount to tens of thousands of miles. These differences of views lead to discussion, contention and perplexity; and we believe more confusion is caused by these divergences than good is done by the truths elicited. How is it that there is such a variety of ideas of this subject? Simply because the Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities of the ancient Jaredites, Nephites and Lamanites is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work and almost invariably only extends to a statement of the relative position of some land or city to contiguous or surrounding places and nowhere gives us the exact situation or boundaries so that it can be definitely located without fear of error... The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.... For these reasons we have strong objections to the introduction of maps and their circulation among our people which profess to give the location of the Nephite cities and settlements. As we have said, they have a tendency to mislead, instead of enlighten, and they give rise to discussions which will lead to division of sentiment and be very unprofitable. We see no necessity for maps of this character, because, at least, much would be left to the imagination of those who prepare them; and we hope that there will be no attempt made to introduce them or give them general circulation. Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go [further], because it is plain to be seen, we think, that evils may result therefrom.

Now, I fully realize that the vast majority of this quote is very negative toward the practice of Book of Mormon geography. But the last part (bolded) clarifies that (a) there is no harm in engaging in BoM geography so long as those who do draw on all possible information in the text, and (b) makes clear that his admonitions are restricted to the "present time." He seems to insinuate that we may, in the future, have the necessary information to draw firmer conclusions. This, I think, underscores the problem with using old quotes on a topic like this: the counsel is that time period and situation, not necessarily the future. Given that present leaders have not been opposed to the practice and have allowed it, I'd say that is evidence that counsel not to engage in the practice is no longer in force. It also seems clear that, as someone else suggested, the real issue is the contention and not the content or the practice itself.

John A. Widtsoe, Preface to Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Cumorah - Where? (Oakland: Publised by Author, 1947):

Out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet come a utility of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography.

This seems pretty self-explanatory. Elder Widtsoe felt that the study of Book of Mormon geography could be productive.

John A. Widtsoe, "Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?" Improvement Era 53/7 (July 1950): 547:

Usually, an ideal map is drawn based upon geographical facts mentioned in the book. Then search is made for existing areas complying with the map. All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they maybe correct, must at best be held a intelligent conjectures.

Again not much commentary needed. Widtsoe states unequivocally that Book of Mormon geography is a legitimate pursuit.

John A. Widtsoe, "Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?" Improvement Era 53/7 (July 1950): 597:

Out of diligent, prayerful study, we may be led to a better understanding of times and places in the history of the people who move across the pages of the divinely given Book of Mormon.

Again, Widtsoe is hopeful the the study of Book of Mormon geography could yield productive results.

More could be added (I didn't even include anything from Orson Pratt, who as an apostle had formed his own Book of Mormon geography). Now, I don't deny that I have cherry picked here. But the is my point. You insist that you are following the "brethren" and those who engage in Book of Mormon geography are going against their counsel. But the truth is that the "brethren" as a united body have not spoken on the issue, and different "brethren" throughout the history of the Church have had different views. Some have felt it was a waste of time and should not be engaged. Others have encouraged the practice. No one has spoken to the issue, so far as I'm aware, for more than fifty years. So I don't see any support for the assertion that your view - the one you have where you insist the Book of Mormon geography is a worthless endeavor - is the "counsel of the brethren."

Edited September 14, 2012 by nealr

[Calm]

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"

Someone should tell the mods there is a case of identity theft occurring right in front of them.

[Bob Crockett]

The problem is that what you represent as the "counsel of the Brethren," is not counsel unanimously held by the brethren.

Well, you make some very good points. I also pointed out that Elder Milton R. Hunter, a very influential Seventy, led the charge for use of Church funds for NWAF research. So, I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that there has been discussion of an interest by some in Book of Mormon geography.

But, I think the amount resources spent to pursue this pet project and to criticize those who don't agree with it are inappropriate.

[ERayR]

Well, you make some very good points. I also pointed out that Elder Milton R. Hunter, a very influential Seventy, led the charge for use of Church funds for NWAF research. So, I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that there has been discussion of an interest by some in Book of Mormon geography.

But, I think the amount resources spent to pursue this pet project and to criticize those who don't agree with it are inappropriate.

And there are those who disagree with you. So can we go to church together and welcome each other. I tend to agree with you on one point. Book of Mormon geography is irrelevant to Book of Mormon truth claims and there are those who are too heavily invested in their own view.

[nealr]

Well, you make some very good points. I also pointed out that Elder Milton R. Hunter, a very influential Seventy, led the charge for use of Church funds for NWAF research. So, I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that there has been discussion of an interest by some in Book of Mormon geography.

But, I think the amount resources spent to pursue this pet project and to criticize those who don't agree with it are inappropriate.

Fair enough. And I would agree to at least some degree.

[cursor]

And yet, as has been very clearly indicated by Joseph Smith Jr, Brigham Young, and authoritative others, that our depth of understanding of Book of Mormon events can be increased dramatically by recognizing the actual setting, and by understanding the associated cultures. How can that be achieved without some digging, some intellectual investment, and some selective exposure? That's exactly what Joseph Smith Jr. did when he read Stevens' Incidents of Travel? Hey, that's example enough for me.

Edited September 14, 2012 by cursor

[nealr]

And yet, as has been very clearly indicated by Joseph Smith Jr, Brigham Young, and authoritative others, that our depth of understanding of Book of Mormon events can be increased dramatically by recognizing the actual setting, and by understanding the associated cultures. How can that be achieved without some digging, some intellectual investment, and some selective exposure? That's exactly what Joseph Smith Jr. did when he read Stevens' Incidents of Travel? Hey, that's example enough for me.

It could also be added that not having a real world setting for the Book of Mormon makes it more vulnerable to attack. Now, for many of us here, such criticisms may not have much of an effect, but if that is a barrier that keeps some from being able to accept the important message of Christ in the Book of Mormon, then doesn't seeking to remove that barrier - thus enabling more to come unto to Christ - become a worthy use of our time? Even if it only helps one soul? (see D&C 18:10-15).

That is, ultimately the goal of all activities loosely labeled as "apologetic." To try and remove barriers that keep people from exercising the faith to accept the restored gospel?

I certainly don't want to overstate the importance Book of Mormon geography - is not a primary means for bring souls to Christ. Heck, it isn't even a secondary means. It is way out their in left field, so to say. But every good team needs somebody out in left field. It is something that may help some, and that, to me, makes it worth it.

[De Groote]

Well, when you rely on the arm of the flesh you might receive some satisfaction. You might also be disappointed.

I'm sorry Bob, I don't think I am understanding you correctly.

My understanding is to be learned is good if we hearken to the prophets. You seem to be arguing that if we hearken to the prophets we will realize "to be learned" is bad.

TROY OR ZARAHEMLA?

Is it ok to study the Illiad to try to find Troy, but not the Book of Mormon to try to find Zarahemla? Or are both wrong pursuits? Am I allowed to map out the battle of Gettysburg but not the final battle of the Nephites? Or can I learn about the position of the temple in Jerusalem, but not in Bountiful? Is one good and the other bad?

Doesn't it take a lot of funds to do an archeological dig of, say, a medieval castle? Should such endeavors also be discounted as pet projects? Or are only secular endeavors for understanding worth the efforts and expenditures?

I don't see why one particular subject, Book of Mormon geography, needs to be singled out as verboden.

Sorry if I go over the top, writing and reading MormonDialogue.com can be addicting. Maybe, if any gospel hobby needs banning, perhaps this board should be banned. It is so compelling.

(I edited this to shorten it up. It was way too long)

Edited September 15, 2012 by De Groote

[Calm]

Sorry if I go over the top, writing and reading MormonDialogue.com can be addicting. Maybe, if any gospel hobby needs banning, perhaps this board should be banned. It is so compelling.

Another sucked into the void! Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah