Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[zerinus]

So you think that when shown these sites, that there was included a global map or something along those lines so that not only did he know what things looked like, but he understood perfectly where everything was located in relation to each other.

People can watch movies detailing the life of faraway places all the time and still not be able to locate those places on a map without a further reference. I've known people who have flown to places and still get lost trying to find them on maps or don't understand the exact relationship between one place and another.

We know from the Book of Mormon that Nephi was given a vision such as you describe. He was shown a panoramic vision of the Nephite civilisation devslopment---which extended beyond the Nephite period to our time. Joseph Smith was a greater prophet Nephi. I have no doubts that he was given greater visions and revelation about the past, present, and future than Nephi.

[Calm]

We know from the Book of Mormon that Nephi was given a vision such as you describe. He was shown a panoramic vision of the Nephite civilisation devslopment---which extended beyond the Nephite period to our time. Joseph Smith was a greater prophet Nephi. I have no doubts that he was given greater visions and revelation about the past, present, and future than Nephi.

While I think this is a reasonable assumption, it seems to me that it can only remain an assumption because Joseph never states this or as far as I know says anything that even implies this, though some have made inferences.

And I think there is sufficient evidence that makes the assumption that he did not see geographic details in a global sense due to the way he responded to certain information over time very reasonable as well.

Edited September 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Anijen]

Available information about the early life of Joseph Smith suggests that he was tutored by angels (extensively) for four years prior to obtaining the plates, during which he was given extensive information about the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, and shown visions of their societies, customs, manner of dress etc., which he was able to describe to members of his family in great detail. It is highly likely that he had been shown visions of their original landing sites, as well as subsequent geographical developments. It is absurd to claim that he was ignorant of BOM geography.

This is a very poor argument to use.

Do you expect me to believe that out of the many visits Joseph had from Moroni and others that they used that time for secular learning? His first visit they discussed math, the second visit they discussed proper English, the third visit geography? Absurd. Personally I have the opinion they discussed things that had to do with restoring the gospel to these latter-days such as the priesthood etc.

I do not think geography was in the top 100 list of things to teach Joseph. Besides Matt Roper (IIRC) gives a very persuasive argument on how Josephs knowledge of geography was growing after all these viisits, seems strange that would happen if Moroni tutored him on the secular field of geography.

[Anijen]

Mesoamerica is the only place we know there was a written language.

Which in that fact gives Mesoamerica more credence than the heartland.

I have studied a lot of non-Mormon writings on the Adena and the Hopewell.

As have I, it being the field of study I will be doing graduate work in.

What I took away from reading these materials is that what we know about the Adena and the Hopewell is extremely limited. There is a lot of guessing going on with regards to the evidence available.

I can't argue with you there, but an archaeologist will back up his "guesswork" with the interpretation of available evidence and has it peer reviewed. Meldrum's method is to swindle the experts into one thing and displaying their words as a support for something they did not intend to do. These experts have written rebuttals to Meldrum and those who did the video in direct response. Also the experts would never use fraudulent artifacts to back up their work.

I also have read they can translate Mesoamerican materials, and at least the small amount of what I have read of these translations does not seem to line up with anything we know from the Book of Mormon.

True most of Mayan can be read. I myself can read some of it, although I am no where near the level of Mark Wright. Having said that; Wright, Sorenson, Gardner, and others have offered many intriguing connections between the Mayan and the Book of Mormon. To dismiss them so flagrantly is refusing to even discuss that such a connection exists. Edited September 10, 2012 by Anijen

[zerinus]

While I think this is a reasonable assumption, it seems to me that it can only remain an assumption because Joseph never states this or as far as I know says anything that even implies this, though some have made inferences.

It is an assumption, but a very reasonable assumption---knowing the very extensive amount of visions and revelations we know he received, which he wrote down, published, or described in detail.

And I think there is sufficient evidence that makes the assumption that he did not see geographic details in a global sense due to the way he responded to certain information over time very reasonable as well.

What information is that? You need to be more specific.

[Bart Burk]

Which in that fact gives Mesoamerica more credence than the heartland.

As have I, it being the field of study I will be doing graduate work in.

I can't argue with you there, but when an archaeologist backs up his "guesswork" with the interpretation of available evidence and has it peer reviewed. Meldrum's method is to swindle the experts into one thing and displaying their words as a support for something they did not intend to do. These experts have written rebuttals to Meldrum and those who did the video in direct response. Also the experts would never use fraudulent artifacts to back up their work.

True most of Mayan can be read. I myself can read some of it, although I am no where near the level of Mark Wright. Having said that; Wright, Sorenson, Gardner have offered many intriguing connections between the Mayan and the Book of Mormon. To dismiss them so flagrantly is refusing to even discuss that such a connection exists.

I'd be interested in at least one link to one of these articles. All I know is what I have read about the translation from non-Mormon writers. I'd be interested in the similarities that Wright, Sorenson and Gardner provide.

[ERayR]

Available information about the early life of Joseph Smith suggests that he was tutored by angels (extensively) for four years prior to obtaining the plates, during which he was given extensive information about the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, and shown visions of their societies, customs, manner of dress etc., which he was able to describe to members of his family in great detail. It is highly likely that he had been shown visions of their original landing sites, as well as subsequent geographical developments. It is absurd to claim that he was ignorant of BOM geography.

That he had "visions of their original landing sites, as well as subsequent geographical developments" is written down, where?

[zerinus]

This is a very poor argument to use.

Do you expect me to believe that out of the many visits Joseph had from Moroni and others that they used that time for secular learning? His first visit they discussed math, the second visit they discussed proper English, the third visit geography? Absurd. Personally I have the opinion they discussed things that had to do with restoring the gospel to these latter-days such as the priesthood etc.

I do not think geography was in the top 100 list of things to teach Joseph. Besides Matt Roper (IIRC) gives a very persuasive argument on how Josephs knowledge of geography was growing after all these viisits, seems strange that would happen if Moroni tutored him on the secular field of geography.

Some posts just don't deserve a reply, and this is one of them.

[zerinus]

That he had "visions of their original landing sites, as well as subsequent geographical developments" is written down, where?

It is written down nowhere; but it is a reasonable assumption to make on the basis of the information previously provided.

[ERayR]

Some posts just don't deserve a reply, and this is one of them.

His royal eminence has spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done.

[Anijen]

Some posts just don't deserve a reply, and this is one of them.

Some post don't deserve a reply I agree with that statement. I like to think that my very logical reply did not deserve a reply from you because 1, its true and 2, because you can not refute it.

Having said that your post was still a reply to it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Anijen

[ERayR]

It is written down nowhere; but it is a reasonable assumption to make on the basis of the information previously provided.

You know what they say about assumptions.

[zerinus]

Some post don't deserve a reply I agree with that statement. I like to think that my very logical reply did not deserve a reply from you because 1, its true and 2, because you can not refute it.

No, that was not the reason. The reason was because it was smug, condescending, and ignorant.

[Kevin Christensen]

I have not released my claims regarding Dr. Nibley, however I have directly quoted him. Whether it was "wrenched from context" is subjective and I encourage the reading of all of Dr. Nibley's related articles which in many cases promotes the Hopewell Mound builders and thus the Heartland Model geography. Try reading his book "An Approach to the Book of Mormon" or "Ancient Temples: What Do They Signify?" Ensign, Sept. 1972 p 47 and see for yourself if I am taking Dr. Nibley out of context.

Regarding the Nibley quote in the newspaper ad, it was because I had read Ancient Temples: What do they Signify? in the Ensign that I knew the source of the quote as well as its intended context. As I recall, the ad did not provide a source, but it did provide a rather different context in terms of the information surrounding it. An Approach to the Book of Mormon dates to 1957. Additional context comes from Nibley's later writers, talks, conversations, interviews, including tapes and videos of his Book of Mormon clases. Did you go through those? The ad cited Nibley without specifying it came from a 1972 essay about Nibley's one and only visit to two Mesoamerican locations. The essay was written thirteen years before he got his copy of Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, and the visit was to locations that were not part of Sorenson's correlation.

Even so, back in 1957, the last paragraph in Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon has this:

But what of the mighty ruins of Central America? It is for those who know them to speak of them, not for us. It is our conviction that proof of the Book of Mormon does lie in Central America, but until the people who study that area can come to some agreement among themselves as to what they have found, the rest of us cannot very well start drawing conclusions. The Old World approach used in these lessons has certain advantages. The Near Eastern specialists are agreed on many important points that concern the Book of Mormon, and the written records of that area are very ancient, voluminous, and in languages that can be read. It is our belief that the decisive evidence for the Book of Mormon will in the end come from the New World; the documents may be already reposing unread in our libraries and archives, awaiting the student with sufficient industry to learn how to use them.

Brant Gardner, in about 2004 commented that the information necessary to seriously contextualize the Book of Mormon has only been available in the past 30 years. Nibley had turned to the Old World approach because of his dissatisfaction with the state of LDS efforts based on then available New World information. Students with sufficient industry have emerged since then, and while Nibley personally stated that he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten-foot pole, and his writings nowhere provide any serious detailed look at the relevant passages, he does occasionally talk about Central America. I know that he has talked about the New York Cumorah on occasion (say in a FARMS preliminary Report from the 80s), he never explores the issue in a sustained or rigorous way by locating and accounting for the relevant stories in the text.

The use of the Nibley quote in the ad was not proper. I doubt if the misuse was intentional, but I do believe it clearly mistaken in intent and misleading in context. You're free to say whatever you want, but free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Quite the opposite.

Anyone can make such a claim (and Mesoamerican supporters who have nothing better to offer often resort to such tactics). In his article Kirk Magleby tries mightily to make the case that Dr. Nibley was a Mesoamericanist, but offers only his own personal accounts rather than any written statements by Dr. Nibley himself.

Anyone can make a claim that Kirt Magleby provided nothing but personal accounts, but those who take the trouble to read the essay I linked see things like this, in addition to the quote from An Approach to the Book of Mormon:

Typical is this quote from a presentation at a Portland, Oregon, institute symposium: “Write on anything you want, because that is where you give yourself away. Joseph Smith could write anything at all; no one knew about Central America in those times long ago.” (“The Book of Mormon: True or False?” Millennial Star 124, November 1962, 276)

In the third of his four major works on the Book of Mormon, Since Cumorah, first published in 1967, Nibley says: “For example, the book describes in considerable detail what is supposed to be a major earthquake somewhere in Central America, and another time it sets forth the particulars of ancient olive culture. Here are things we can check up on; but to do so we must go to sources made available by scholars long since the days of Joseph Smith. Where he could have learned all about major Central American earthquakes or the fine points of Mediterranean olive culture remains a question.” (“Some Fairly Foolproof Tests,” Since Cumorah, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 7:231)

It seems to me that you owe Magleby an apology. You can disagree, but you should admit that he offered more than personal claims. And his claims about what Nibley said to him in person strike me as at least as good evidence as the various personal stories about what Joseph said about Zelph, or how David Whitmer understood about Cumorah.

While it may be annoying to you that I have used direct quotes from Dr. Nibley that question Mesoamerican theories, your "methodology" is to attempt to characterize me as a money-grubbing hoaxster for spending years of my life conducting this research and offering educational materials to help in educating others of the facts surrounding this new Book of Mormon geography model. Isn't this a bit disingenuous? How, pray tell, would one go about sharing information to the membership of the Church without offering some things for sale to at least cover the costs of years of research and production of the materials?

I've done so in a couple of ways. I've submitted essays to Dialogue, Sunstone, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the FARMS Review, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, FARMS Occasional Papers, and to a book published by Oxford University Press. And since I didn't get paid for any of this, I kept my technical writing career going.

I have not gone about soliciting financial donations in order to share this research, but instead have offered at reasonable and normal costs my materials which I have used to create more detailed and improved materials and research. And I have paid for nearly all of it myself without financial benefactors. I don't spend much of my time soliciting donated funds as some Mesoamerican promotion organizations do, who then create and offer for sale their materials to Church members resulting from those donations. Doesn't this strike you as somewhat hypocritical to continue with character assassination attempts and howling "priestcraft" when I or other Heartlanders offer our hard-earned research in a DVD or book, yet crow about John Sorenson's books offered for sale?

Sorenson is a bona fide anthropologist. With a real Phd and publications in Journals. There is something that he does not do, which leads to this little bit of misleading contextualization, coming after a discussion of Sorenson's books.

How many books, tours, travel advertisements etc. have been targeted to LDS members promoting Mesoamerica?

How many of them are sponsored by John Clark, John Sorenson, or Brant Gardner or Larry Poulson? Can you be specific as to who does what? How many of these tours are sponsored by FARMS or FAIR? I know this stuff goes on and a lot of it no doubt well meaning. It's done by people who are every bit as well meaning and convinced as you are. But I think it matters a great deal who does it and who most emphatically does not.

Have you ever stepped into any Deseret Book store and wandered into the Book of Mormon (geography) section? Maybe you can tell me who is promoting and trying to sell more books and DVD's, the Heartland Model proponents or Mesoamericanists? Any how many years has this promotion gone on without abatement?

When I go into a Deseret Book store, my first thought is, "Where, amid all this kistch and trivia, and belaboring of the obvious, and dubious certainty, can I find a bit of the good stuff?" And I long for a sign that says, "Let the buyer beware." There is some good stuff around. But you do have to watch your step and excercise discernment.

How many people have purchased $3000-$4000 per person tours to so-called "Book of Mormon Lands" while there is not a single location anywhere in Mesoamerica where it is known that any Book of Mormon event actually occurred.

I'm not one who has done a Book of Mormon lands tour, since other priorities have ruled that out. But I disagree that there is not a single Mesoamerican location that is known. I'm very impressed with what Larry Poulson did with the Grijalva as Sidon, based in a computer search of the entire Western hemiphere for candidate rivers and am also very impressed with the convergences that emerge in that setting.

http://cmtk3.webring.../bom/index.html

As Larry says in a recent FAIR presentation, alluding to an earlier FAIR presentation by Brant, "I can't unsee the dog."

At least in North America we have 5 locations 1. (real) Hill Cumorah,

Does the New York hill match the textual descriptions? Do Mormon and Moroni count as eye-witnesses and prophets or not? Do we start with all of what they said, or do we only bother with what agrees with what we think, or do we not bother at all because we know without having to read what they said?

2. Zelph's Mound,

Where does the Book of Mormon say that Zelph lived and died?

3. Nephite altar at Adam-ondi-Ahman,

I've been there. I personally don't find the story about the altar at all persuasive.

and the temples sites of 4. Manti and 5. St. George which are ALL KNOWN locations of Book of Mormon events (and BTW, they are ALL located in North America while not one is located in Mesoamerica).

Can you cite Book of Mormon chapter and verse for the events that happened in Manti (the one in Central Utah, not the Book of Mormon one by the head of the Sidon, in the highlands, in that narrow strip of wilderness that goes from the east Sea to the West Sea) and St. George?

So stop with the obvious character attacks and try to address the research. Become familiar with it first. I am confident most of those reading this blog will appreciate it.

We're offered a choice of competing paradigms. And that choice is a matter of deciding which paradigm is better, and which problems are more significant to have solved (as Kuhn puts it.) There are no rules for making the choice, but in making our choices we cannot help but demonstrate our own values in justifying our personal decisions.

As Nibley says:

A big black leather chair stood in Brigham Young's office by the Lion House—it faced the window on the opposite wall and the President's desk in the middle of the room. First-time visitors to the office were invited to sit on that chair, facing the strong light of day and the calm blue eyes of Brother Brigham, who sat there at his desk, his back to the window, quietly waiting for his guest to say something. After all, the man had come to see him, and it was only right to let him state his business. President Young, according to Grandfather,¹ would never say a word for the first three minutes. And at the end of those first three minutes he always knew exactly the sort of man he was dealing with, and the nature—greedy, benign, or sinister—of his business. "And he never [here Grandpa smote the arm of his chair] had to change his mind!"—his psychoanalytical techniques, black leather couch and all, were deadly accurate, and always put him on top of the situation. Brigham Young used to say that no man, if allowed to speak, could possibly avoid revealing his true character, "For out of the abundance of the heart the tongue speaketh."

http://maxwellinstit...d=49&chapid=313

Now, unlike Brigham Young, I've occasionally had to change my mind. I just keep listening and watching. Eventually, the picture becomes clearer.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 10, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[zerinus]

You know what they say about assumptions.

All of your positions are full of assumptions. That is the nature of the subject matter we are dealing with.

[Anijen]

No, that was not the reason. The reason was because it was smug, condescending, and ignorant.

I apologize if it was taken as smug or condescending, but ignorant it was not.

This is a very poor argument to use.

Any college level paper would be graded by the thesis used and the argument presented. When I said that you using the many visits of Moroni to show that he must have learned geography is what I meant by a poor argument. Here is what I said;

Do you expect me to believe that out of the many visits Joseph had from Moroni and others that they used that time for secular learning? His first visit they discussed math, the second visit they discussed proper English, the third visit geography? Absurd. Personally I have the opinion they discussed things that had to do with restoring the gospel to these latter-days such as the priesthood etc. I do not think geography was in the top 100 list of things to teach Joseph. Besides Matt Roper (IIRC) gives a very persuasive argument on how Josephs knowledge of geography was growing after all these visits, seems strange that would happen if Moroni tutored him on the secular field of geography.

How is that ignorant?

Edited September 10, 2012 by Anijen

[ERayR]

No, that was not the reason. The reason was because it was smug, condescending, and ignorant.

And this is humble, open and intelligent?

[ERayR]

All of your positions are full of assumptions. That is the nature of the subject matter we are dealing with.

Right but does that make you the arbiter of all that is good and right? And yours are not?

Edited September 10, 2012 by ERayR

[cursor]

@ANACO

Would you mind detailing (as carefully as possible, please) your proposed "heartland" layout of where the Book of Mormon events occurred? Hey, thanks.

Hello cursor, may I suggest you get a copy of my new picture book (available at Costco or Deseret Book) called Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland, with some 27 maps, or the DVD's and bone up on the research before further embarrassing yourself. Like I said before, I knew you knew practically nothing about our research or you wouldn't have written the things you have and now you've openly admitted to it. I would advise you to watch the FREE VIDEO GALLERY or contact me directly and I will provide a loaner set for your use.

I asked ANACO in post #89 for his/her understanding of a "heartland" layout for Book of Mormon lands, not Rod Meldrum (AKA DNA truthseeker). You, sir, had not yet posted in this thread. I'm already familiar with your web-publicized efforts. In addition to reading and viewing materials on your website, I own copies of both The Book of Mormon in America's Heartland -- A Visual Journey of Discovery, and Prophecies and Promises - The Book of Mormon and the United States of America.

[DNA truthseeker]

I don't remember ever hearing another FAIR member state you didn't believe in the gospel or weren't committed to it even if some have condemned the forms your promotion of a particular Book of Mormon geography paradigm takes. I am also not suggesting that some of the things said by FAIR members, including myself in this thread, have not been harsh.

My comment was specifically about addressing accusations against faithfulness. Faithfulness as in believing in and trying to live the gospel and obey the commandments and follow the prophets. Priestcraft as currently being used by certain FAIR members in regards to your work refers to something very different.

The thing I don't understand is when I offer a book or DVD or hold a conference or conduct a presentation or host a tour I am summarily dismissed as practicing priestcraft, yet which of these DON'T Mesoamerican theorists practice? What am I doing that they are not? Nothing. I am doing the same things they are doing with one huge exception. I have not been doing my presentations in Church buildings like many Mesoamerican theorists do which gives a tacit endorsement of the Church to their theories. So if anyone is practicing priestcraft, you might want to look to your Mesoamerican friends, but I am not accusing them of it, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

So you don't feel that FAIR's "reviews" are in any way suggesting my unfaithfulness? Really? Let's do a little role play reversal. You read the following and insert YOUR name into the places where my name is being discussed and see if you have all sorts of wonderfully Christ-like feelings about what is being falsely claimed about you, OK?

From FAIR's opening salvo introducing their attack articles. Bolding is for emphasis - and is mine.

“FAIR has unreservedly concluded the following:

• Mr. (insert your name here) has attempted to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship, and has used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
  
• The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the author is unfamiliar with the large body of work that addresses the very topics he seeks to address.
  
• The DVD plants erroneous concepts and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.
  

He infers endorsement by “geneticists, General Authorities, scientists, stake presidents, mission presidents [and] patriarchs” and includes positive comments from an emeritus General Authority Seventy.

Mr. (insert your name here) claims that God has chosen to “re-establish…Joseph Smith as the preeminent scholar on the subject of Book of Mormon geography.” It is easy to concluded from such a statement that Mr. Meldrum believes Joseph Smith gave revealed answers to the issue of Book of Mormon geography and that the Church has ignored those revelatory insights–otherwise he would see no need to “re-establish Joseph Smith.” Mr. Meldrum therefore takes it upon himself to correct the Church and our leaders, who for more than a century have taught that Joseph Smith never revealed a geography.

By implication Mr. (insert your name here) leads people to conclude that he is restoring revelatory insights lost to the Church and its leaders for more than a century.

Mr. (insert your name here) also states that the blessing promised his information will go out to millions and the Saints will “declare anew the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”Of course, it would only need to be declared anew if it weren’t being declared now, something that should astonish any missionary-minded Latter-day Saint.

He accuses “the scholarly community of the Church” of “dismissing Joseph Smith” and by so doing helping anti-Mormons. He also implicitly charges Church leaders with wasting Church funds through research targeted at Central America.

FAIR is troubled by Mr. Meldrum’s public claims to divine guidance and revelation to fortify his theories. We are also disturbed by the fact that such claims are outside the normal revelatory channels for the Church, and yet Mr. (insert your name here) seeks to apply them to the Church as a whole.”

Now after having read this, just the opening few paragraphs, how did you feel about being accused of:

1. asserting revelation for the Church (meant to cast aspersions on your character)

2. substituted solid scholarship (meant to disparage your education or lack thereof)

3. misrepresented material (meant to say that you are deliberately misleading people, which is generally looked upon as a negative personality trait, don't you agree?)

4. unfamiliar with the material (meant to indicate that you're just an uninformed idiot who doesn't know any better)

5. plants erroneous concepts and expectations (again you are supposedly deliberately misleading folks)

6. making member easy targets (you're going to cause members to leave the Church, another rather negative suggestion, don't you think?)

7. infers endorsements (inferring that you have received no actual endorsements...when you have actual endorsements, which is not uncommon to use when publishing books, is it?)

8. that you've claimed that the Church has ignored things (you're now attacking the Church...even though blatantly false and deliberately misleading)

9. that you've taken it upon myself to correct the Church (another attempt to show that you are attacking Church leadership)

10. that you're trying to restore revelatory insights for Church leaders (and another inference that you are usurping the role of Church leaders, even though patently false)

11. that the Church isn't declaring what needs to be declared and that you are now doing it for them (which is simply more scare tactics to cause Church members to avoid your research for fear of becoming apostates)

So I hope that this has refreshed your memory about FAIR's supposed lack of any attacks against my "faithfulness" to Church leadership and my following of the prophet. Remember, this is notwithstanding their personal attacks against my education, knowledge, grasp of the subject material, motives, etc. which were in large part based on a single private email that went to a few people who I thought were staunch supporters of my research, but one of them betrayed that confidence and sent it out to FAIR. FAIR then exploited that private email in their head-long attacks against me, falsely proclaiming that I had publicly pronounced them which they knew to be a blatant lie.

Priestcraft is the teaching of FALSE DOCTRINES for fortune or fame. I am not teaching any doctrine, only showing evidences of the Book of Mormon in North America. How is this doctrinal? What I am sharing is not false and the vast majority of it is coming from non-LDS source materials, rather than LDS scholars who have less credibility to those outside of the Church because of obvious conflicts of interest and potential bias. Even if some of my research was found to be incorrect, does anyone really believe that everything FAIR and FARMS promote in their Mesoamerican theories is 100% truth? Are they the bearers of all truth? What if they are wrong? Does that mean that I should treat them as they have treated me? I don't think I'd treat a true enemy the way they treated me.

Then there are the motivation inferences, which no one but the Lord and I know since this is something that is in my heart. Unless the brethren of FAIR think that they know my heart better than God, I would suggest to them that they let this be between me and my Lord. Who are they to judge why I do what I do? If the Church leadership was concerned, why haven't they simply asked me to stop? They haven't. When did it become the responsibility of FAIR or FARMS to correct fellow members of the Church in good standing, rather than my local and area Church appointed leadership? Especially on a subject wherein the Church has been quite clear they are neutral! Couldn't this fact be a possible line that FARMS/NAMI crossed, when using sacred Church funds to attack members of the Church on an issue about which the Church is officially neutral? Who is overstepping their bounds here? I have not sought for fame or for fortune, but only to have this information go out - which I believe provides better, stronger and more robust evidences in support of the Book of Mormon than such wonderfully Mesoamerican theorists claims such as:

1. that Joseph changed his mind about his early revelations in order to embrace a New York Times best selling travel book,

2. that there will never be any genetic support for the prophetic claims of the Book of Mormon of a "remnant of the House of Israel" remaining on the promised land in the latter days..."according to the flesh" even though no less than 7 passages claim there will be such a remnant,

3. that steel swords with hilts and sheaths and that could cancor with rust are instead actually wooden clubs with embedded rocks,

4. that horses are actually pigs (tapirs) which anyone knowledgeable about Hebrew practices would automatically know it is an unclean animal and that they would become unclean by merely touching them, much less riding them as proposed,

5. that Nephite sheep may have actually been a rat, according to John Sorenson, even though the Nephites had sheep in order to perform their sacred rituals tied with their living of the laws of Moses. Thus they would have to have substituted a rat for a sacrificial lamb. Do you think that God would be accepting of such a sacrifice? (hint: think about Cain's proposed substitution)

6. that the complete lack of evidence for many archaeological items, like gold, copper, silver, headplates, breastplates, etc. in the correct time frame of the Book of Mormon can be repeatedly explained away with the continual excuse that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." However, you can only invoke this so many times before people start to realize that sometimes the absence of evidence is because there is an actual absence of evidence and nothing more - and it is time to move on and abandon that which does not work.

I could go on and on with this...but I won't as time is short and I've better things to do. I more than likely will not be posting or watching this thread very often so I apologize in advance for not responding to ongoing concerns except as I have time. This is not a cop out, it is the truth. I cannot possibly keep up with all the current emails, phone calls, events and upcoming projects and am behind over 200 emails since hosting my Heartland "Mounds" tour last week. I really should not have taken the time to address this, but felt that something finally needed to be said. Happy blogging!

Edited September 10, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[cursor]

... your "methodology" is to attempt to characterize me as a money-grubbing hoaxster for spending years of my life conducting this research and offering educational materials to help in educating others of the facts surrounding this new Book of Mormon geography model. ... I don't spend much of my time soliciting donated funds as some Mesoamerican promotion organizations do, who then create and offer for sale their materials to Church members resulting from those donations. Doesn't this strike you as somewhat hypocritical to continue with character assassination attempts and howling "priestcraft" when I or other Heartlanders offer our hard-earned research in a DVD or book, yet crow about John Sorenson's books offered for sale?

My father's book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, was the very first book published by FARMS (1985). I can't speak to financial relationships between FARMS/MI and other authors, but all proceeds from the sale of the text was 100% donated to FARMS. To this date he's not received a cent. That's how he elects to do "business."

[USU78]

My father's book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, was the very first book published by FARMS (1985). I can't speak to financial relationships between FARMS/MI and other authors, but all proceeds from the sale of the text was 100% donated to FARMS. To this date he's not received a cent. That's how he elects to do "business."

Meldrum is a nasty piece of business, ain't he?

[cursor]

In an upcoming article I debunk the claim that Hugh Nibley was a Mesoamerican adherant using his own quotes. The article is not yet complete and has not been released so I fail to understand how the claim that I have ignored quotes has any validity since you have no idea what I have or have not covered.

Here are a couple of significant quotes for you, Rod (DNA truthseeker):

On April 12, 2012 my father, John L. Sorenson wrote the following to me:

"Brent Hall, the FARMS office manager, and I were standing in the office with Hugh Nibley when we presented him with a copy of my

Images of Ancient America—Visualizing Book of Mormon Life

book. After a quick scan of it he made the comment '

this is the best book I have ever seen of the Book of Mormon.'

Later Brent thought he would get it on a piece of paper so wrote out

what is shown

and sent it to Hugh and asked him to sign it. Instead Nibley wrote a fuller note at the bottom of the page, and sent it back. Brent then copied the sheet to me. Obviously it is of much satisfaction to me. (I was a student in several classes under Nibley in 1949-51.)"

On January 14, 1999 Hugh Nibley wrote the following to John L. Sorenson:

"John Sorenson's book 'Images of America' must remain the indispensable handbook for students of the Book of Mormon. The only book of its kind — enlightening and convincing. Who else will ever bring such diligence, knowledge and honesty to the task?"

[ scan of original document ]

This certainly trumps any Hugh Nibley quotes from 20 years prior about not supporting Mesoamerica as the setting for the Book of Mormon events. I would strongly suggest that you not misrepresent him in any future documentation that you circulate, now that you know the truth.

We all learn "line upon line, precept upon precept" (even Hugh), right?

Edited September 10, 2012 by cursor

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So a.... Rod is here? Cool This should be fun.

[Ares]

This can be fun but please keep the posts polite and the disagreements substantive and about the subject - not personal.