An Open Letter To Rodney Meldrum

[juliann]

 

My friend Dr. Paul Hedengren of BYU authored Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi:  Further Evidence for the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah:  Tepran, 1999, originally published 1995).  He advocated a Great Lakes theory for geography and criticized no competing theories.  His work was reviewed in John E. Clark, "Review of Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi. Provo, Utah: Bradford & Wilson, 1995. iv + 92 pp., with subject index. $12.95," FARMS Review of Books (1996) 8/2.   Clark described Dr. Hedengren's work (while at the same time promoting a Mesoamerican theory) with the following words:  sophistry, beguiling,  naive arguments, flimsy evidence, and unfulfilled and unrealistic expectations, semantic sloppiness and ambiguous, conflated, or sliding referents, Geography hobbyist, promiscuous dialectic, investigative ruse.  "To conclude: caveat lector!," he says.  I found Dr. Hedengren's work to be rather interesting and on some grounds compelling, to the extent I accept anything having to do with Book of Mormon geography "compelling."

 

I find this sort of dialogue troubling and always have.  I don't think it true at all the the Mesoamericanists have the moral high ground in rhetoric.  My two cents. 

You have to go back two decades to find an example?  If I recall, the term "MesoAmerica" and "Great Lakes" or "Heartlander"  wasn't even in play. There are entirely new players now so it is disingenuous at best to reach back to this.  More problematic is your misrepresentation of this article.  It is too snarky but it is also a good academic treatment with positive comments.  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1439&index=2

 

 

Hedengren's argument for Cumorah is extraordinary and refreshing precisely because it claims to establish the New York Cumorah as the Cumorah/Ramah of the Book of Mormon on the basis of primary textual evidence from the Book of Mormon itself rather than from nebulous traditions ascribing such a belief to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and their associates. In short, Hedengren relies on the technique of textual exegesis, employed by advocates of the Central American thesis, to establish the primary claim central to the New York thesis. Given the importance of this argument to Hedengren's proposed geographic correlation, and its potential importance to continuing intelligent debate about Cumorah, I will examine it in detail here.

 

Most important, he does not attack Hedengren's standing in the church or make his opinions a measure of his worthiness. He sticks to what he is reviewing. 

[thesometimesaint]

Not found in the USA. 

 

Mexico and Guatemala are North America. 

 

Technically anything north of the equator is in North America. However traditionally Mesoamerica is not considered Norteamericano.

[USU78]

I don't care who believes what, really, but I find the whole thing rather fascinating in that there is genuine animosity over something that really doesn't matter. It's sort of the same fascination I have that every March 23, Bolivians hold huge demonstrations during which they burn Chilean flags.

 

To commemorate the aggressive territorial acquisition of Bolivia's sea coast by rapacious Chileans.

 

Not quite the same thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

The verse in Moroni says we may know the truth of all things. It doesn't say that we will know them immediately or on demand.

 

Spiritual gifts are always bestowed by the will of God and according to His timing.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

To commemorate the aggressive territorial acquisition of Bolivia's sea coast by rapacious Chileans.

 

Not quite the same thing.

 

Nope, but equally fascinating.

[cinepro]

The verse in Moroni says we may know the truth of all things. It doesn't say that we will know them immediately or on demand.

 

Spiritual gifts are always bestowed by the will of God and according to His timing.

 

But you're saying that such a thing is possible?  Someone could pray to know the truth of a particular claim regarding Book of Mormon geography, and God could answer that prayer by confirming or disconfirming the truth of that claim?

[ERayR]

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? 

 

 

Only if his answer agrees with me.

[ERayR]

Technically anything north of the equator is in North America. However traditionally Mesoamerica is not considered Norteamericano.

 

You may want to rethink that.  North America is a continent with specific boundaries.  Te equator passes through South America.  The last I heard northern South America had not been annexed into North America.

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_countries_in_South_America_does_the_equator_pass_through?#slide=4

[Bob Crockett]

You have to go back two decades to find an example?  If I recall, the term "MesoAmerica" and "Great Lakes" or "Heartlander"  wasn't even in play. There are entirely new players now so it is disingenuous at best to reach back to this.  More problematic is your misrepresentation of this article.  It is too snarky but it is also a good academic treatment with positive comments.  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1439&index=2

 

Most important, he does not attack Hedengren's standing in the church or make his opinions a measure of his worthiness. He sticks to what he is reviewing. 

My post basically quotes directly from Sorenson and Clark with very little editorializing.  I'm sorry I did not include the positive things Clark said, but I had really no obligation to do so.  If somebody plagiarizes one of my works, it is not a defense that other parts of the plagiarizing work were original material.  Similarly, personal attacks are not ameliorated by positive statements.  In my view, at least.

 

Focusing on the issue at hand, because Book of Mormon geographic speculation is disfavored by the Church as a matter of no importance, members should avoid getting involved with calling each other liars, cheats and frauds, bad members, or dangerous to the church in their particular geographic speculative works.  Surely you can agree with at least that.

 

I don't have a problem with reading speculative works about Book of Mormon geography any more than I have a problem with a member standing up in Fast and Testimony meeting and bearing testimony about a recent trip to Nashville.  Irrelevant, not conducive to the Spirit or the study of the Gospel, more than reasonably possible that it is contrary to the guidance of the Brethren, but not dangerous.  But certainly if members start calling each other liars and frauds in disputes over whether a trip to Nashville versus a trip to Natchez is more pertinent to a Fast and Testimony meeting, I have a problem with that and so should everybody else.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

My post basically quotes directly from Sorenson and Clark with very little editorializing.  I'm sorry I did not include the positive things Clark said, but I had really no obligation to do so.  If somebody plagiarizes one of my works, it is not a defense that other parts of the plagiarizing work were original material.  Similarly, personal attacks are not ameliorated by positive statements.  In my view, at least.

 

Focusing on the issue at hand, because Book of Mormon geographic speculation is disfavored by the Church as a matter of no importance, members should avoid getting involved with calling each other liars, cheats and frauds, bad members, or dangerous to the church in their particular geographic speculative works.  Surely you can agree with at least that.

 

I don't have a problem with reading speculative works about Book of Mormon geography any more than I have a problem with a member standing up in Fast and Testimony meeting and bearing testimony about a recent trip to Nashville.  Irrelevant, not conducive to the Spirit or the study of the Gospel, more than reasonably possible that it is contrary to the guidance of the Brethren, but not dangerous.  But certainly if members start calling each other liars and frauds in disputes over whether a trip to Nashville versus a trip to Natchez is more pertinent to a Fast and Testimony meeting, I have a problem with that and so should everybody else.

 

Would you consider this statement quoted below to be conducive to the Spirit?

Would you stand up at the podium in a Fast and Testimony Meeting and state this?

Would you state that after "visiting Nashville or Natchez," that the Prophet was in error?

 

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history." http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19

 

 

Most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates he didn't understand or was ambiguous about the true location of The Book of Mormon new world geography?

Really?

 

Call each other liars, etc. What about calling the Prophet Joseph Smith the same?

Sorry, that phrase is the keystone to the Mesoamerica Theory: You need to remove the Prophet Joseph Smith's statements about geography, then you can accept the Mesoamerica theory.

 

Hey. I'm not making this up. I'm pointing it out.

 

The Prophet's statements had to be addressed by those who promote the Mesoamerica LGT theory.

Why? It's simple. Because Joseph Smith's statements contradict with the Mesoamerica Theory.

Thus you have to claim he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

 

Here's another quote, discrediting the Prophet Joseph Smith:

 

Just how much did Joseph know about Book of Mormon geography? How did he arrive at his opinions? Could the local controversies have colored opinions? Vogel's research could suggest that the Wentworth letter demonstrates that local controversies unduly colored Joseph's perception of the text. (How could they not?) In this case, how much authority should we give his opinions on this subject? Was he consistent or flexible and, therefore, speculative? Joseph himself said, "A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1425&index=28

 

 

Yep, "A Prophet is only a Prophet when he's acting as such" - and WE all know when the Prophets are not acting as such?!  Apparently, FARMS / MI does.

(Have any of you noticed this excuse with other subjects such as Evolution, Noah's local flood, the Ordain Women movement, etc.? Wow. I wonder where it started. Maybe with a geography theory.)

 

Yep, Joseph Smith's statements contradict the Mesoamerica Theory.

So attack the Prophet Joseph Smith!  Attack! Attack!

 

Apparently, Rod Meldrum is in good company - for so persecuted they the Prophet Joseph Smith who came before us (3 Nephi 12:12).

 

So yes, The Holy Ghost can reveal to you the truthfulness of all things. The truthfulness of an error.

The Mesoamerica Theory is error.

[Anijen]

Yep, Joseph Smith's statements contradict the Mesoamerica Theory.

 

Simply not true.

[cdowis]

 

 

The Prophet's statements had to be addressed by those who promote the Mesoamerica LGT theory.

 

 

You actually need to read our responses.  We have already addressed those issues.

 

"Calling JS a liar"

 

This is a formal CFR.  Please give us the exact posts.

Edited June 11, 2014 by cdowis

[livy111us]

It's the usual rhetoric that Heartlander's use. Instead of actually examining Joseph Smith's statements (all of them) and honestly looking at what he actually said concerning Book of Mormon geography, they attempt to get converts by claiming that Mesoamericanists are calling Joseph Smith a liar. Of course, no one wants to call Joseph Smith a liar so they ignorantly follow Meldrum. They only accept Joseph Smith as uttering prophetic statements on BOM geography when he agrees with them and completely ignore him when he agrees with a Mesoamerican theory. This is one of the many problems I have with Meldrum. He is encouraging you to close your eyes, plug your ears and accept everything he says while ignoring any contradicting evidence. As a Church, this only makes us look bad and promotes false assumptions and poor research. Personally, I'd like to know the truth and not something that can only be true if I ignore facts.

I tend to follow what the Church says about BOM geography. There is no revelation on it and *anyone* who has spoken about it in the past was only speculating because it has not been revealed. So, you can either follow what the Church says or what Meldrum says. I'll stick with the Church.

 

Tiki sounds an awful lot like someone who has already been banned several times for making such outrageous claims and kept coming back as a sock puppet under several different pseudonyms. 

Edited June 11, 2014 by livy111us

[Bob Crockett]

Simply not true.

I don't think your "simply not true" statement is true.

 

Both Sorenson and Matt Roper have been on record to say that notwithstanding interest in Stephens' and Catherwood's exploration in Chiapas, Yucatan and Honduras (which only served to show extensive building structures south of the extensive building structures discovered three hundred years preivously by Cortez), Joseph Smith did not appear to endorse any sort of limited geography theory.

 

As my evolving paper says:  

 

Sorenson has written:  “[W]hen Smith-as-mere Joseph later commented on geography, the picture he communicated is that all South and North America were involved.”[57]  “[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.”[58]  Roper agrees that Joseph Smith “seems to have adopted the wording of fellow Latter-day Saints who thought of the Book of Mormon in broad terms inclusive of all the Americas.[59]  “It would appear that Joseph Smith and his close associates had not personally grasped the geographical scheme that the book itself consistently reveals.”[60]

 

Thus, it seems to me that Joseph Smith's views contradict the "Mesoamerican theory" to the extent it is offered as a limited geography theory.  

 

In addition to the famous article of 1 October 1842 where the Times and Seasons extols the finds of Stephens and Catherwood as Book of Mormon proof, my paper (see blog reference below) documents other "Book of Mormon proofs" discussed in Times and Seasons articles which extol finds in Texas and New Jersey and other places in North America.

 

If it is your position that the Mesoamerican evidence itself was endorsed by Joseph Smith as a Book of Mormon proof, and that is the extent of it, I can't see how that can possibly be any sort of endorsement for a limited theory, given all these other Times and Seasons articles about other locations.

 

It's like when LDS Mesoamericanists point to Central American temple dedicatory prayers as evidence of a limited theory when the same stuff is said about Lamanites and their heritage in Mesa, Cardston (I think; have to check) and Brazil.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

I don't know much, but I do know that the possibility that JSJr had no special insight into the "where" of Cumorah is a stunning testimony to his non-authorship of the BoM.

[cinepro]

I don't know much, but I do know that the possibility that JSJr had no special insight into the "where" of Cumorah is a stunning testimony to his non-authorship of the BoM.

 

If I told you that L. Frank Baum didn't know where Oz actually was, would that be an indicator to you that he didn't actually write the Oz books?

[USU78]

If I told you that L. Frank Baum didn't know where Oz actually was, would that be an indicator to you that he didn't actually write the Oz books?

 

Orange, meet thermonuclear device!

[Scott Lloyd]

Orange, meet thermonuclear device!

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know much, but I do know that the possibility that JSJr had no special insight into the "where" of Cumorah is a stunning testimony to his non-authorship of the BoM.

And, I don't think it is the case that he had no special insight as to the location of Cumorah, atlhough that particular issue is somewhat different than the issue I address above about whether Joseph Smith endorsed the limited geography theory.

 

The earliest examples of First Presidency (or “Presidency,” as in the case of Joseph Smith’s presidency with Oliver Cowdery) pronouncements are contained in the Church’s official history maintained by Oliver Cowdery and others, but “jointly authored” by Joseph Smith, or so the Joseph Smith Project maintains.[96]  In a July 1835 entry, known as “Letter VII,” in the LDS Messenger and Advocate, republished in The Joseph Smith Papers as official history, Cowdery describes an area between Palmyra and Manchester where “between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.”[97]  “[Y]ou will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people as they were encamped around this hill Cumorah.”[98]  “This hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah . . . .”[99]  In Letter VIII, October 1835, Cowdery picks up his account of the history of the Hill Cumorah, the “hill of which I was speaking,” where “records were placed by Nephi,” and where the “Nephites were destroyed” and where “the records were found.”[100]

 

Now, I fully understand the argument that might be made that Joseph Smith was not the author of this "jointly authored" article and thus its provenance can be questioned.  However, when it comes to the 1 October 1842 article discussing the anonymous piece about Stephens and Catherwood in the Times and Seasons, Matt Roper presented at a FAIR conference an entire article arguing for Joseph Smith's endorsement of the article in the strength of the tombstone advertisement in the paper that says he was the editor.  This is the case even though Joseph Smith was in hiding in October 1842 because of Governor Carlin's subpoena issued against him in relation to the Boggs assassination attempt.   The only reasonable conclusion is that Joseph Smith endorsed both articles and was ultimately responsible for them, meaning that in the case of the Cumorah where he found the plates, he knew it was the same hill where Mormon buried his records at the time of the final Nephite battle.

[cdowis]

 

Sorenson has written:  “[W]hen Smith-as-mere Joseph later commented on geography, the picture he communicated is that all South and North America were involved.”[57]  “[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.”[58]  Roper agrees that Joseph Smith “seems to have adopted the wording of fellow Latter-day Saints who thought of the Book of Mormon in broad terms inclusive of all the Americas.[59]  “It would appear that Joseph Smith and his close associates had not personally grasped the geographical scheme that the book itself consistently reveals.”[60]

 

Thus, it seems to me that Joseph Smith's views contradict the "Mesoamerican theory" to the extent it is offered as a limited geography theory.  

 

 

 

Your logic is flawed.  

 

The limited geography theory is compatible with Nephites/Lamanites occupying the entire Western Hemisphere.  Are you familiar, for example, with the "land northward" in the BOM text?  And the extent of the Lamanites in the land southward is not delimited.

 

The LGT merely indicates that the BOM history is contained in mesoamerica, but the extent of their occupation is not limited only to that area.  The BOM indicates that there were extensive records for the land northward, but they were not contained in the BOM itself.

[sethpayne]

 

The Prophet's statements had to be addressed by those who promote the Mesoamerica LGT theory.

Why? It's simple. Because Joseph Smith's statements contradict with the Mesoamerica Theory.

Thus you have to claim he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

 

 

First off, are you Jake Hilton?  If so, may I recommend not emulating the criminal Kent Hovind in your seminar lectures and YouTube videos.

 

Anyway, are you suggesting that the Prophet Joseph Smith was always correct in anything and everything he ever spoke/wrote?  This appears to be the position you are advocating but I wanted to clarify.

[Bob Crockett]

Your logic is flawed.  

 

The limited geography theory is compatible with Nephites/Lamanites occupying the entire Western Hemisphere.  Are you familiar, for example, with the "land northward" in the BOM text?  And the extent of the Lamanites in the land southward is not delimited.

 

The LGT merely indicates that the BOM history is contained in mesoamerica, but the extent of their occupation is not limited only to that area.  The BOM indicates that there were extensive records for the land northward, but they were not contained in the BOM itself.

Sorenson limits the "land northward" in his limited model to southern states of Mexico.  Thus, it is quite delimited.  Your recitation of the limited geography theory is not Sorenson's but more approaches Joseph Smith's hemispheric view. 

 

Have not we had this discussion before?  You've refused to acknowledge that Sorenson's model has this limit, as I recall.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

Sorenson limits the "land northward" in his limited model to southern states of Mexico.  Thus, it is quite delimited.  Your recitation of the limited geography theory is not Sorenson's but more approaches Joseph Smith's hemispheric view. 

 

Thanks, I must have  missed the memo.

Anyway, He and I disagree on several things, none of which are very significant.  It appears that he has discounted or chosen to ignore the Zelph incident, I guess.

 

Have not we had this discussion before?  You've refused to acknowledge that Sorenson's model has this limit, as I recall.

 

That situation has now been corrected in this post.  I was not aware that he is the high priest of LGT, so I guess I missed that memo as well.  May I refer you to Nibley's views on experts and scholarly opinion, to which I subscribe.

Edited June 11, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

In case you are unaware, I really try to pay more attention to the facts rather than a consensus opinion.  I suspect from your post that this will greatly annoy you, but I make an attempt to make up my own mind on such things based on the evidence at hand.

 

I understand the difference between fact and opinion.  If I am speaking of LGT, I am speaking of my version of that theory.  I can live with the idea that Sorenson and I draw different boundaries.

 

Is that now clear?

Edited June 11, 2014 by cdowis

[livy111us]

 

 

Both Sorenson and Matt Roper have been on record to say that notwithstanding interest in Stephens' and Catherwood's exploration in Chiapas, Yucatan and Honduras (which only served to show extensive building structures south of the extensive building structures discovered three hundred years preivously by Cortez), Joseph Smith did not appear to endorse any sort of limited geography theory.

 

As my evolving paper says:  

 

Sorenson has written:  “[W]hen Smith-as-mere Joseph later commented on geography, the picture he communicated is that all South and North America were involved.”[57]  “[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.”[58]  Roper agrees that Joseph Smith “seems to have adopted the wording of fellow Latter-day Saints who thought of the Book of Mormon in broad terms inclusive of all the Americas.[59]  “It would appear that Joseph Smith and his close associates had not personally grasped the geographical scheme that the book itself consistently reveals.”[60]

 

 

 

If it is your position that the Mesoamerican evidence itself was endorsed by Joseph Smith as a Book of Mormon proof, and that is the extent of it, I can't see how that can possibly be any sort of endorsement for a limited theory, given all these other Times and Seasons articles about other locations.

 

 

 

Wow.... I can't believe I'm saying this, Bob. But I completely agree with you. 

NO LGT can claim that Joseph Smith exclusively taught their specific geography. To do so, one would have to ignore a host of other statements by the Prophet. Meldrumites *love* to do this but this faulty reasoning is also done by those of every LGT. Joseph Smith taught that The BOM happened all over the Western Hemisphere and if you were to accept his words as doctrine, then you would have to accept a skewed HGT. I think I may even come across this way but that is not my intent. When I provide evidence that JS taught a Mesoamerican setting for The BOM I am only doing it to show that he did teach it and that his words contradict Meldrum (whose followers I am usually discussing this with).

With that said, we should not base BOM geography on any of Joseph Smith's statements because he was guessing just as other Prophet's were guessing. This is the position of the Church. If we want to discover BOM locations, we need to stick to the text of the book. Anyone can find a past Prophet or Apostle to agree with them but don't realize that there is contradicting statements between them and even sometimes themselves depending on when in their life you are quoting them (Orson Pratt for example).