Rod Meldrum Doesn't Seem To Understand

[MormonFreeThinker]

FIRM Foundation:

[1] So, do WE have definitive revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically NO.

[2] Did Joseph Smith have revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.

[3] Is there a conflict? No, because Joseph did not disseminate that knowledge to us, therefore the statements of modern-day prophets stand as absolutely true.

 

Even if Joseph Smith received revelation about the geography of the Book of Mormon, members of the church do not have to believe it because it has not been presented to the church. 

 

"When the Lord reveals His will to the Church, He speaks through His prophet. Prophets are the only people who can receive revelation for the Church" 

https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

 

"3] Is there a conflict? No, because Joseph did not disseminate that knowledge to us"

 

Joseph Smith's views about the geography of the Book of Mormon are not revealed truth, so that means Meldrum cannot use them to establish truth. Rod Meldrum contradicts point number 3 because Meldrum is spreading that alleged knowledge everywhere. The truth is that Joseph Smith did not know where the Book of Mormon events happened. 

 

[Rivers]

I don't know of any statements by Joseph Smith saying he knew exactly where it all took place.

[iamse7en]

But you can piece together Joseph's statements to get an idea of where he believed it took place. e.g. Zelph accounts and saying Illinois is the "plains of the Nephites." Some of his contemporaries believed Lehi landed in places such as Chile or Panama, however. It seems that they and later leaders believed in a more widespread model than the limited model apologists are pushing today. And the T&S did praise ruins discovered in Central America. Who knows.

[MormonFreeThinker]

But you can piece together Joseph's statements to get an idea of where he believed it took place

 

His opinions are not revealed truths. 

[iamse7en]

Right, not saying they are, but given he knew more about the Nephites and Lamanites than any other living person, his "opinion" does carry quite a bit of weight.

[Brant Gardner]

Right, not saying they are, but given he knew more about the Nephites and Lamanites than any other living person, his "opinion" does carry quite a bit of weight.

Joseph must have known more, but there was so little to know that it is a very low bar. We do know that he had visions of the people, but there is nothing except our assumptions that suggest that he could locate the geography. Assume for a moment that Joseph saw Zarahemla (quite possible). Having seen it, could he locate it on a map? Did he have access to a lot of maps? Were the maps accurate at all? 

 

Joseph was certainly familiar with what a contemporary city might look like. However, there is nothing that tells us that he would have recognized a Hopewell or a Zoque if he had seen one in a vision. I saw an interesting geography test where pictures of various places where shown and you had to guess where they were. I suspect that I did better on that than Joseph would because I have traveled much more than he did, and some of the photos had signs in them where I could guess the place from the script/language. Nevertheless, I got a lot of them wrong. Now imagine Joseph again with his vision and explain how he might have turned that into a prophetic geography.

[SmileyMcGee]

His opinions are not revealed truths. 

Your comment is rather fascinating to me and I'm interested to know how you would define "revealed truths," how we can identify what a "revealed truth" is, and how the church establishes "revealed truth." Over my years of membership in the church, I have found the concepts of "revelation," "doctrine," and "truth" to be rather elusive. I don't mean to derail the thread, I just feel that if you are confident in determining when a prophet is stated an opinion and not a "revealed truth" you should be able to clearly explain how you made such a determination. 

[Anijen]

But you can piece together Joseph's statements to get an idea of where he believed it took place. e.g. Zelph accounts and saying Illinois is the "plains of the Nephites."

Joseph himself never mentions the word "Zelph," Those whose journal entries have recorded the Zelph incident contradict each other in many areas. I am not saying it didn't happen, I believe it did, but I also believe it to be speculation based on their knowledge at the time. We know Joseph also based events in Mesoamerica as well.

[nosmelone]

Right, not saying they are, but given he knew more about the Nephites and Lamanites than any other living person, his "opinion" does carry quite a bit of weight.

I would agree that Joseph probably knew more then any other living person about the Nephites and Lamanites but to me he would not be the main person to turn to for BOM geography...that would be Mormon and Moroni.  They are the people who know the most about the geography so turning to their words is probably the best idea for finding where it took place.   As far as I am concerned Sorenson and a few others have followed this idea the best I have seen. 

[stemelbow]

Joseph must have known more, but there was so little to know that it is a very low bar. We do know that he had visions of the people, but there is nothing except our assumptions that suggest that he could locate the geography. Assume for a moment that Joseph saw Zarahemla (quite possible). Having seen it, could he locate it on a map? Did he have access to a lot of maps? Were the maps accurate at all? 

 

Joseph was certainly familiar with what a contemporary city might look like. However, there is nothing that tells us that he would have recognized a Hopewell or a Zoque if he had seen one in a vision. I saw an interesting geography test where pictures of various places where shown and you had to guess where they were. I suspect that I did better on that than Joseph would because I have traveled much more than he did, and some of the photos had signs in them where I could guess the place from the script/language. Nevertheless, I got a lot of them wrong. Now imagine Joseph again with his vision and explain how he might have turned that into a prophetic geography.

 

 

I want to take this test you reference.  Sounds fun.

[Bowtiemenace]

Mr. Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ...Let us turn our subject, however, to the Book of Mormon, where these wonderful ruins of Palenque are among the mighty works of the Nephites:—and the mystery is solved...Mr. Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ, pages 459-60. Who could have dreamed that twelve years would have developed such incontrovertible testimony to the Book of Mormon? (emphasis added)<ref?John Taylor (editor), "Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America',

 

[W]e have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma...It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it as Mosiah said; and a 'large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,' as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, (to him,) lost and unknown. We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon...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.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century/Joseph_Smith's_lifetime_1829-1840/Joseph_Smith

 

Both are geography statements that support the mesoamerican theory. Then there are ones that support Meldrum. Essentially Joseph taught North AND South AND Central American theory, not Meldrum's limited north theory. So, no, Meldrum is not "following the prophet." 

 

I agree with you Brant Gardner, there's no way (without speculating a completely new form of revelation, which isn't mentioned anywhere else) that Joseph prophetically knew the locations. The obvious answer is he thought he did and when he saw native Americans he got excited and drew parallels, even if they were faulty ones as any excited man would do.

[Bob Crockett]

Joseph must have known more, but there was so little to know that it is a very low bar. We do know that he had visions of the people, but there is nothing except our assumptions that suggest that he could locate the geography. 

I think sending missionaries to the land of the Lamanites, calling the Iowa Territory the land of the Lamanites, and his very vigororous but largely unsuccessful missions to the surrounding Indian nations, as well as reference in the D&C to the adjacent lands as those of the Lamanites, demonstrates his prophetic "vision" that he knew where the Lamanites were.

 

As well, the official church history puts the modern Hill Cumorah as the locale of the ancient Nephite and Jaredite final battles demonstrates Joseph Smith's official teachings to church members which further pinpoints, in prophetic fashion, the locale of specific Book of Mormon events.

 

Then there's repeated references in the Times and Seasons to enthusiasm over Native American finds throughout the United States and South America as evidence of the Book of Mormon, demonstrating Joseph Smith's official teachings to members of the Church at the time.

 

Then there's Sorenson's admission that Joseph Smith intended to write and preach and geography, and did so, and did not ever conceive of an LGT theory centralized in Mesoamerica.  John L. Sorenson, “How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?” in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds.,Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah:  Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002).  Roper says the same thing.  Mathew Roper, “Joseph Smith and the Question of Book of Mormon Geography,” FAIR Presentation Aug. 5, 2010, at 19, published at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2010-Matthew-Roper.pdf, accessed June 8, 2014.

 

The notion that Joseph Smith never intended to state, authoritatively, that the events of the Book of Mormon occurred throughout the Americas, and in particular North America north of Mexico, is to basically put one's hands over one's eyes and another set of hands over one's ears.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

demonstrates his prophetic "vision" that he knew where the Lamanites were.

 

But that is a different topic, the revelation does not say the iowa territory is a Book of Mormon land.

Lamanite has two meanings

1. a decedent of Book of Mormon Lamanites

2. somebody that is not a member of the church 

 

Joseph Smith's views about the Book of Mormon geography were only his opinions, not revelations, that is why the church does not have an official position about the geography of the Book of Mormon. 

Edited July 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bowtiemenace]

I'd recommend reading Blake T. Ostler's Approaching Mormon Doctrine Bob Crockett.

 

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/11/an-interpretive-tradition-rather-than-church-doctrine/471/

 

I'd add in that un-canonized Proclamations are just below canonized scripture. 

 

If something a prophet says completely defies reason (as that would) then you should go where the evidence says unless it is canonized. Prophets are wrong a lot of the time and its hard to tell when they're speaking from revelation.

 

If the lamanites had lived there, then they'd have died immediately. They wore loin clothes all winter. That pretty much trumps any argument for the heartland.

[Bob Crockett]

I'd rather have teeth pulled than read Blake Ostler.

 

It does not "completely defy reason" to say that the Book of Mormon events spanned two continents, as far north as New York.  Unless you have a different a priori view.

 

The Pauite men wore only a loin cloth made of rabbit fur when the Spanish and Mormons found them along the Green River; temps are below zero in the winter.  The Delaware wore loin cloths in the summer and the same in the winter with blankets.  I don't find that even remotely compelling an argument.    

[Bob Crockett]

But that is a different topic, the revelation does not say the iowa territory is a Book of Mormon land.

Lamanite has two meanings

1. a decedent of Book of Mormon Lamanites

2. somebody that is not a member of the church 

 

Joseph Smith's views about the Book of Mormon geography were only his opinions, not revelations, that is why the church does not have an official position about the geography of the Book of Mormon. 

Lamanite never meant "somebody that is not a member of the church" in Joseph Smith's day.

 

Let's see how the word "Lamanites" is used in the D&C:

 

• Doctrine and Covenants 54:8

  8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.

• • Doctrine and Covenants 49:24

    24 But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.

  • Doctrine and Covenants 28:14

    14 And thou shalt assist to settle all these things, according to the covenants of the church, before thou shalt take thy journey among theLamanites.
  •  
  • Doctrine and Covenants 30:6
    • Doctrine and Covenants 28:9

      • 9 And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by theLamanites.

      • Doctrine and Covenants 32:2

      • 2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.

      • • Doctrine and Covenants 3:18

          18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.

        • • Doctrine and Covenants 28:8

            8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto theLamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.

          •  

    • 6 And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites;

• • These in most part are geographic statements about the location of the Lamanites.   Moreover, the great promises of the D&C to the Lamanites would seem rather pointless if these promises were directed to a small group of people living in Guatemala and southern Mexico.  

  • Joseph Smith's views on Book of Mormon geography were never intended by him to be "opinion."   At least as far as I can tell.  If they made it into the official history, I can't see them as opinion but instead as a prophetic "vision."

• Sorry for the garbled post.  I have no control over the editor.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

I'd rather have teeth pulled than read Blake Ostler.

Wow, you must really hate intelligent philosophers (and just reason in general.) I find it funny how heartlanders don't believe in evolution as much as limited mesoamerican geography people do. Do you believe in Evolution by any chance.

 

 

It does not "completely defy reason" to say that the Book of Mormon events spanned two continents, as far north as New York.  Unless you have a different a priori view.

Ok. I'll tell you what. Start doing the calculations. Nobody traveled in any direction farther than 200 miles in the Book of Mormon. There's absolutely no way they moved over ten thousand miles (I think its more than that) from South America to New York. 

 

 

The Pauite men wore only a loin cloth made of rabbit fur when the Spanish and Mormons found them along the Green River; temps are below zero in the winter.  The Delaware wore loin cloths in the summer and the same in the winter with blankets.  I don't find that even remotely compelling an argument.    

Yes and snow, blankets, and heavy skins aren't mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You also realize that there are NO volcanoes anywhere except in Mesoamerica and South America. (And Utah area, but nobody has even considered that area as a Book of Mormon place.) If you accept the limited heartland model (It appears you don't even accept that. That's what John Wayne may preaches and that's smarter than the unlimited model, which is just ridiculous.) Then there couldn't have been any eruptions. 

 

The hundreds of little things like this are why real scholars don't accept the heartland model or an unlimited theory. Real scholars don't just write for money. They're trained, intelligent, professors (like at BYU.) Scholars realize that that's not what the Book of Mormon points to, or the archaeological evidence.

 

Here's a further analysis into your comments:

 

 

The Pauite men wore only a loin cloth made of rabbit fur when the Spanish and Mormons found them along the Green River; temps are below zero in the winter.

You expect me to believe that they wore only a loin cloth in the winter? No they probably stay in their tents with blankets and fires, except when they go hunting where they probably have skins like every other tribe in the winter. They might have worn loin clothes in the summer. If you think you can survive outside with just loinclothes below zero degrees, you're expecting me to believe something that's physiologically impossible. You'd freeze in 30 minutes about, I think. The problem with heartland model is also not just that snow and blankets aren't mentioned, but that they warred in the winter in loin clothes! Wars don't last 5 minutes, and the lamanites would be completely dead. Also, if it was cold wouldn't for convenience the lamanites put something on? Its not hard to steal technology from other people (like the Nephites who had breastplates. It also says in the Book of Mormon that they wore extremely fine clothes. That's the Nephites class distinction. For us its a house or a car. For them it was clothes.) 

 

 

The Delaware wore loin cloths in the summer and the same in the winter with blankets.  I don't find that even remotely compelling an argument.    

Yes, and they didn't have major, multi-day battles in the winter, I'm assuming (If they did they probably wore their blankets outside, so they aren't just wearing loinclothes.) Remember the lamanites were naked in the winter except for loinclothes. Blankets aren't mentioned in the Book of Mormon, or snow. 

 

Bottom line is: the unlimited and limited heartland models are ridiculous.

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

24 But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.

Look at whats' going on right now. The lamanites are taking over the gentiles in population, because we've turned away from the Lord. Economic growth is crazy in Central and South America. The native Americans aren't doing too well though. The Cherokee's are making a living off their Casinos. (And aren't converting to the gospel too. Big surprise since a huge portion work at Casinos though)

 

 

 

 

 

14 And thou shalt assist to settle all these things, according to the covenants of the church, before thou shalt take thy journey among theLamanites.

Yeah, this doesn't support you at all. Is there any D&C scripture actually referring to Oliver Cowdery having gone to the Lamanites to preach? Let's look at another prophecy in that section.

 

9. And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites.

So, the city of Zion was built. Prophecies are very loose. Zion became a project, not a city (and when Cowdery died it was bordering the Lamanites, because we had a settlement in Texas right by Mexico. There were polygamists in Mexico too because it was illegal in the US. You could also hypothesize that later the lamanites spread, over time, but not during Book of Mormon times, which is when we're concerned. Lamanites could have been a loose term by the time of Joseph Smith due to genetic dissemination. It wasn't in Book of Mormon times though.

 

 

 

• 2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.

Same thing as above

 

 

8 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.

Yay! Central Americas doing great!

 

 

• 6 And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites;

We're doing well. Most baptisms are in South/Central America now. 1/4 of the Church is there too. Prophecy fulfilled and thank you south and central americans for being so open to the glorious truth of the gospel. I wish the gentiles were more like that. 

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think it reasonable to say that I must hate reason in general because I dislike Ostler.   I think his writings, in a large part, are foolish.  

 

Look at whats' going on right now. The lamanites are taking over the gentiles in population, because we've turned away from the Lord.

 

 

That seems a rather dubious proposition, both in fact and the way you portray it.  

Edited July 15, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

Moreover, the great promises of the D&C to the Lamanites would seem rather pointless if these promises were directed to a small group of people living in Guatemala and southern Mexico.  

You forget that Lamanites and Nephites in the Book of Mormon were political titles more than ethnic titles. (Oh wait! That refutes your entire argument!!!)

 

The Nephites swore allegiance to a specific King, and the lamanites were everyone who was an enemy to the Nephites.

 

Here are examples of this...

 

Alma 31:8

 8 Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites; therefore they had had the word of God preached unto them.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.8?lang=eng#7

 

If Nephites were an ethnic group, then how could the Zoramites dissent from the Nephites? The answer is, they stopped following the Nephite king.

 

1 Jacob: 13 and 14

 

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites,Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

 14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall callNephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/1.11?lang=eng#10

[Bowtiemenace]

Not at all. I'm saying that the gentiles aren't having babies and the hispanics are. Just look at the statistics. 

I think its a wonderful thing. The Righteous have babies. That gives them a way to have enough numbers (despite the appealing ways of wickedness that drive many away from truth) to remain large enough to have a say in things and not get overrun by anti-religious governments. Its a great protection mechanism and i'm glad the Hispanics are overcome the gentiles. I don't have any problems with that.

[Bowtiemenace]

Here are some links to statistics. (Sorry I didn't know what dubious means.) 

 

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-child-population

 

Also, Europe's basically dying off, because they have so few babies. Our wimpy, unrighteous, white culture is going the way of Europe. Just look at all our cultural trends, towards socialism, government healthcare etc.

 

The hispanics are definitely fulfilling it better than NA native Americans. That seems hard to doubt at all. You can doubt the other things (although I think its very evident.) In reality, you can take a prophecy any way you want to though.

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

I don't think it reasonable to say that I must hate reason in general because I dislike Ostler.   I think his writings, in a large part, are foolish.

I agree. That was unfair of me to say. People have many philosophical viewpoints. I will say, though, that Blake Ostler makes a lot of sense to me. 

[Bob Crockett]

Birthrates of minorities have nothing to do with righteousness or wickedness.

[Bowtiemenace]

... 

 

1. If Central Americans are the Lamanites. Then they will Blossom as the rose. There is another prophecy, which states that if the Gentiles don't turn to the true church they will be swept off the face of the earth.

2. Central Americans are the Lamanites, (Combined with Spaniard Genes) so we see this occuring.

 

 

 

Birthrates of minorities have nothing to do with righteousness or wickedness.

It is a sacred duty to have children according to Mormon doctrine. I was pointing out the logical, besides theological, reasons for this, and also how the Lamanites are fulfilling the prophecies about them. How they are doing this has everything to do with "the birthrates of minorities."