jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 John isn't alone. Critics like John like to browbeat the Church and its believers with its own standards. The Church no longer teaches that Adam is God? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe Adam is God). The Church once limited the Aaronic Priesthood to adults and now does not ? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe the Aaronic Priesthood has any meaning.) The Brethren have stated in general conference several times that Book of Mormon geographical studies ought not to be pursued, and yet the Church published an Ensign article by Dr. Sorenson? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe that there is any geography that would ever apply.) That is quintessential needling by somebody using a needle one despises. Does that sound like good faith, or an admirable expenditure of effort? At least John uses his own name and doesn't hide behind an anonymous one. I don't think when Jesus told the apostles to preach the Gospel to the world he intended that they do so anonymously. There's not really much I can say in response to this other than to say it doesn't reflect how I feel or think. It is probably good for me to know that Bob thinks it does.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) No writing systems which have been found yet. "Advanced civilization" (whatever that means) isn't required for the Book of Mormon.I disagree; the social structures described in the Book of Mormon do require a relatively high degree of advancement. Add in the working of metals into thin plates, writing words on them, requires skills not found in natives found in North America. Edited June 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Daniel Peterson Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I never cared about Rod Meldrum's geographical theories until it came to my attention that he was publicly questioning the faith and loyalty of friends of mine, of people whom I admire and respect, and that, implicitly, he was attacking mine. That caught my attention, and it displeased me (and displeases me) very much. I don't return the (dis)favor, but I heartily disapprove of turning the precise GPS coordinates of the Jaredite city of Lib into a tool for dividing the Saints. No wonder the Brethren have counseled us to stay away from Book of Mormon geographic speculation. The Brethren have stated in general conference several times that Book of Mormon geographical studies ought not to be pursued I'm genuinely curious. Could you please, at your leisure, supply some references on this? Edited June 10, 2014 by Daniel Peterson 4
sethpayne Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I happen to agree with Scott Lloyd. I think antagonists of the Church, and John is obviously one, can't resist needling the Church over seeming inconsistencies for which the antagonists could not care one whit except that they are a means to needle. That's all John is doing. You obviously don't know John.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) If I were to suggest that Dr. Sorenson's view is based upon bad science, bad assumptions, bad evidence, and bad geography, would you think I would be justified in challenging his faithfulness to the Church or claiming that he has a bad effect upon the Church? I just don't see it is justified or right no matter what theory one wishes to promote. However, Joseph Fielding Smith would disagree with me. I didn't say Meldrum is not a faithful member, but he got very mad when the Church published the DNA Essay, Meldrum wrote, "There’s no way to say this softly, so I will just say it: That article is complete and total garbage!"https://www.facebook.com/MormonEvidence The reason why Meldrum got mad, it's because the church challenged his "DNA evidence" "f I were to suggest that Dr. Sorenson's view is based upon bad science"and what about John Clark? or Mark Wright? If you have strong evidence that the Mesoamerican models don't work, then we will have to accept it. Do you have any? I think it is good to debunk forgeries, pseudoscience, bad geographic models, and questionable artifacts when presented as proof. Edited June 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I disagree; the social structures described in the Book of Mormon do require a relatively high degree of advancement. Add in the working of metals into thin plates, writing words on them, requires skills not found in natives found in North America. Not found in the USA. Mexico and Guatemala are North America.
frank_jessop Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) John isn't alone. Critics like John like to browbeat the Church and its believers with its own standards.The Church no longer teaches that Adam is God? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe Adam is God).The Church once limited the Aaronic Priesthood to adults and now does not ? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe the Aaronic Priesthood has any meaning.)The Brethren have stated in general conference several times that Book of Mormon geographical studies ought not to be pursued, and yet the Church published an Ensign article by Dr. Sorenson? Beat the Church with a stick over it. (I'm sure John does not believe that there is any geography that would ever apply.)That is quintessential needling by somebody using a needle one despises. Does that sound like good faith, or an admirable expenditure of effort? At least John uses his own name and doesn't hide behind an anonymous one. I don't think when Jesus told the apostles to preach the Gospel to the world he intended that they do so anonymously.John agreed with you. You, then, accuse John of needling the Church for his agreement with you. You, as the originator of the statement, must also be needling the Church; otherwise an agreement with you is not a needling of the Church. Are you willing to explain how and why agreeing with you is needling the Church? Edited June 10, 2014 by frank_jessop
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 John agreed with you. You, then, accuse John of needling the Church for his agreement with you. You, as the originator of the statement, must also be needling the Church; otherwise an agreement with you is not a needling of the Church. Are you willing to explain agreeing with you is needling the Church? Well, whatever this thread is about, I would prefer we not make it about me.
Daniel Peterson Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I didn't say Meldrum is not a faithful member, but he got very mad when the Church published the DNA Essay, Meldrum wrote, "There’s no way to say this softly, so I will just say it: That article is complete and total garbage!"https://www.facebook.com/MormonEvidence The reason why Meldrum got mad, it's because the church challenged his "DNA evidence" LOL. That makes it a bit more difficult to claim that Meldrumism defends the Church against faithless pseudo-believer FARMS types. 2
Daniel Peterson Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Well, whatever this thread is about, I would prefer we not make it about me. Should I start a new thread? I have a lot of dirt to dish on you, and some of it -- who knows? it's not impossible -- might even be true.
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Should I start a new thread? I have a lot of dirt to dish on you, and some of it -- who knows? it's not impossible -- might even be true. Whatever dirt you have on me, it's nothing compared to the dirt I have on myself. Oh, wait ...
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Well, whatever this thread is about, I would prefer we not make it about me. No. no.. that was your intent from the beginning. Don't play coy with us. You spotted a thread about Meldrum and in your self-loving way made it all about you, just to satisfy your own ego. You make me sick. (-;
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I didn't say Meldrum is not a faithful member, but he got very mad when the Church published the DNA Essay, Meldrum wrote, "There’s no way to say this softly, so I will just say it: That article is complete and total garbage!"https://www.facebook.com/MormonEvidence For the record, I don't believe it was Meldrum who made that comment, but rather, one of his devotees. I went to the link and can't find the author on the Facebook page, and it would take more time than I want to spend on it to chase it down. But I remember quite clearly it was somebody other than Meldrum. There was even a thread about it on this board. Edited to add: I found the thread. It was Jake Hilton, not Rod Meldrum. Edited June 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Whatever dirt you have on me, it's nothing compared to the dirt I have on myself. Oh, wait ... This potential thread sounds about as intriguing as any I've read here. Whose starting this?
livy111us Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 For the record, I don't believe it was Meldrum who made that comment, but rather, one of his devotees. I went to the link and can't find the author on the Facebook page, and it would take more time than I want to spend on it to chase it down. But I remember quite clearly it was somebody other than Meldrum. There was even a thread about it on this board. Edited to add: I found the thread. It was Jake Hilton, not Rod Meldrum. Meldrum has pretty much said the same thing in several podcast's since the DNA article came out. I had to suffer through several hours of them but it's there. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Well, whatever this thread is about, I would prefer we not make it about me.I agree, and I regret the degree to which my question (and that's all it was) may have led to that consequence. As to whether it is "childish" to argue over this matter, well, only in some respects. I believe it is childish to call the faith of others into question on a topic such as this when the Church itself has taken no position. I don't think it childish to defend oneself or others against that sort of thing, nor do I think it childish to dispute a theory on academic grounds, especially when that theory is being advanced as a litmus test for one's faithfulness to the Church or the gospel of Christ. 1
Daniel Peterson Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Meldrum has pretty much said the same thing in several podcast's since the DNA article came out. I had to suffer through several hours of them but it's there. Yes. And it's entirely consistent with his overall position. People like John Sorenson, according to Meldrumite demonology, have led Church leaders astray. The ark needs steadying. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Meldrum has pretty much said the same thing in several podcast's since the DNA article came out. I had to suffer through several hours of them but it's there.That may well be. I was only speaking to this specific quote.
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I agree, and I regret the degree to which my question (and that's all it was) may have led to that consequence. Your question was fine. As to whether it is "childish" to argue over this matter, well, only in some respects. I haven't used that word, so I can't answer for it. I did say that I don't understand the animosity, and I really don't. I believe it is childish to call the faith of others into question on a topic such as this when the Church itself has taken no position. I don't think it childish to defend oneself or others against that sort of thing, nor do I think it childish to dispute a theory on academic grounds, especially when that theory is being advanced as a litmus test for one's faithfulness to the Church or the gospel of Christ. Generally speaking, it's not good to call anyone's faith into question simply because we disagree with them.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I haven't used that word, so I can't answer for it. I did say that I don't understand the animosity, and I really don't. I understand it in the sense that animosity breeds animosity. In this case, the initial animosity (calling the faith of others into question) brings forth indignation from those who have been thus attacked. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I understand it in the sense that animosity breeds animosity. In this case, the initial animosity (calling the faith of others into question) brings forth indignation from those who have been thus attacked. Yes, it's that initial animosity I don't understand.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Generally speaking, it's not good to call anyone's faith into question simply because we disagree with them. Yes, we need to respect the faith of others, but not always It is okay to explain why some "evidences" are just forgeries and questionable artifacts. It is okay to challenge geographic models, but with respect. The Church challenged Meldrum's DNA "evidence"
cinepro Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I've got a question for y'all. Is Book of Mormon geography something that someone could pray about and get an answer from the Holy Ghost? In Moroni 10:5, we are told "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Does this include, for example, a question about whether or not a particular location was Zarahemla? If someone were standing in Deseret Book and thinking of buying a book about Book of Mormon geography, would (or could) the Holy Ghost prompt them away from buying a book that wasn't true?
Calm Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 If I were to suggest that Dr. Sorenson's view is based upon bad science, bad assumptions, bad evidence, and bad geography, would you think I would be justified in challenging his faithfulness to the Church or claiming that he has a bad effect upon the Church? What does scholarship (good or bad) have to do with faithfulness?If you stated you had observed members who were having troubles due to the badly researched faithpromoting rumours presented as science and scholarship, I think you could validly put forth an argument claiming he had a bad effect on the Church.
Calm Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Yes, it's that initial animosity I don't understand.It is bewildering.....especially when it appears it must include those who make some major decisions for BYU such as getting it accredited by teaching to the youth of the Church the lies of an old earth and evolution (according to Meldrum). Given who is among the regents of BYU....Then there is the whole no official position of the Church on BoM geography contrasted to an insistence that Joseph made it clear where the BoM took place..,so what does that say about our church leadership? Edited June 10, 2014 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts