Are you ready?....For the next Apocalypse.

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I don't believe he was practicing priestcraft from what I saw Saturday.

Will take a look at the Universal thing.

 

He is disingenuous. On one hand his products include disclaimers about his products that they are his own ideas, not revelation, and the like. This is standard LDS stuff. His email updates are crammed with talk of even the name of his foundation coming by revelation and how he was led to certain studies to back up his theories. His testimonials, at least last time I checked, were filled with talk of his divine work.

So it both is and is not revelation depending on where you look. However he insists it is scientific and it is not. His DNA discoveries are a perversion of the evidence.

The Universal Model is sheer unbridled arrogance based on discredited theories and pseudoscience.

He wants it to be revelation and science at the same time and picks and chooses methodology depending on what is more convenient. When science says he is wrong he appeals to the words of the prophets (and ignores any apostle or prophet who disagrees). When the prophets are silent he fills that silence with scientific gibberish. He quotes liberally from scientific sources but also insists we have been in a scientific dark age and almost all of their conclusions are wrong.

He seems like a nice enough and pleasant guy but that is how good snake-oil salesmen always seems.

Edited September 19, 2017 by The Nehor

[hagoth7]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Feast your eyes on the glorious Universal Model!!!!!

https://universalmodel.com/

Pardon my ignorance, but what does Dean Sessions have to do with Rod?

What am I missing here?

[hagoth7]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He is disingenuous. On one hand his products include disclaimers about his products that they are his own ideas, not revelation, and the like. This is standard LDS stuff. His email updates are crammed with talk of even the name of his foundation coming by revelation and how he was led to certain studies to back up his theories. His testimonials, at least last time I checked, were filled with talk of his divine work.

So it both is and is not revelation depending on where you look.

Most authors, musicians, and other kinds of artists will say the same of their work.

Those who have experienced it know it's a valid principle of heaven stepping in and lending a hand.

Being a co-creator is part of what life's about, last I checked.

Inspiration for the individual, and at times helpful for 2nd-hand recipients of that.

Inspiration is sometimes deemed a subset of revelation. That said, the former (inspiration) is not necessarily always equated with the latter (revelation). So that kinda thing both is and isn't revelation, depending on semantics.

Kinda simple. Nothing disingenuous about that reality.

Quote

However he insists it is scientific and it is not. His DNA discoveries are a perversion of the evidence.

The Universal Model is sheer unbridled arrogance based on discredited theories and pseudoscience.

He wants it to be revelation and science at the same time and picks and chooses methodology depending on what is more convenient. When science says he is wrong he appeals to the words of the prophets (and ignores any apostle or prophet who disagrees). When the prophets are silent he fills that silence with scientific gibberish. He quotes liberally from scientific sources but also insists we have been in a scientific dark age and almost all of their conclusions are wrong...

Again, Universal isn't his baby.

So why get caught up on that tangent, and therefore why harpoon him for something that isn't even his?

I haven't studied the Universal thing, but even if he were wrong to support that model, can't a man simply have an errant idea and still be a decent person?

Edited September 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

9 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I personally attended the Friday night session...

Then Mr. Meldrum launched into an explication of the final battle of Nephite destruction at Cumorah. He stressed that all the Nephites had camped there in tents. Then said to all of us assembled "all the Nephites were in tents. Maybe you should get a tent ... I'm just sayin.'" So no retraction coming from me, sorry.

OK. Thanks for the extra info.

And was that said in the context of disaster preparedness for disaster for the here and now...

...or was it meant in some other context?

:::Trying to understand how what you're saying aligns (and doesn't align) with what I've heard elsewhere:::

Edited September 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what does Dean Sessions have to do with Rod?

What am I missing here?

They worked together on that project.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Most authors, musicians, and other kinds of artists will say the same of their work.

Those who have experienced it know it's a valid principle of heaven stepping in and lending a hand.

Being a co-creator is part of what life's about, last I checked.

Inspiration for the individual, and at times helpful for 2nd-hand recipients of that.

Inspiration is sometimes deemed a subset of revelation. That said, the former (inspiration) is not necessarily always equated with the latter (revelation). So that kinda thing both is and isn't revelation, depending on semantics.

Kinda simple. Nothing disingenuous about that reality.

Again, Universal isn't his baby.

So why get caught up on that tangent, and therefore why harpoon him for something that isn't even his?

I haven't studied the Universal thing, but even if he were wrong to support that model, can't a man simply have an errant idea and still be a decent person?

And artists can get away with it (for good or ill) because music is an aesthetic pursuit. It is not right or wrong.

Meldrum suggests divine inspiration about claims that are factually wrong while claiming to be supported by science and revelation. His grasp of the science of DNA tracing is laughable.

Meldrum supports, contributed to, and publicizes the Universal Model which is quack science.

Yes, you can be a decent person and do bad things. I have no idea about Meldrum. He might be a great guy, a fantastic husband, a wonderful father, and serve well in church callings and in his community. I have no idea. Despite all of that what he is doing is still priestcraft and he is still preaching falsehoods. If he were humble about it and admitting the possibility he was wrong instead of marketing using hyperbolic religious language and not making his living off quasi-preaching I would not call it priestcraft. He would just be a run of the mill strange crank with no grasp of what he is talking about preaching deranged ideas. If he just claimed to be a prophet restoring true science I would respect him more though I would still think he was deluded.

He is trying to play in both science and revelation. He is either dangerously ignorant or dangerously selective about both. I hope he is ignorant. If he is preaching this stuff knowing that apostles and scientific consensus had and continue to have much to say against his work and is ignoring them because he is dedicated to his work then the sin would be much greater.

[Derl Sanderson]

12 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

OK. Thanks for the extra info.

And was that said in the context of disaster preparedness for disaster for the here and now...

...or was it meant in some other context?

:::Trying to understand how what you're saying aligns (and doesn't align) with what I've heard elsewhere:::

My sense was that he was using the concept of Nephites living in tents prior to their destruction as a type we should consider following because we are near our own end-time.

The content of his presentation reminded me of a bad gospel doctrine class. The response of the listeners made me think of my early years where I had an ill-fated experience with Amway conventions.

Nehor's assertion of a close relationship between Mr. Meldrum's Firm Foundation and the pseudo-scientific claims of UM seems dead-on to me. Far and away the largest vendor display at the convention was that of the UM folks.

Other observations at the conference:

Jonathan Neville's books were offered for purchase. Who he is, I'm not exactly sure, but he sure is prolific (think Robert Millet on steroids). And if you like books that assert scholarly rigor but have no bothersome bibliographies and footnotes, he's your boy. Looking in the books themselves for some information about the author, I could only find that he is a lawyer (graduate of which law school not specified) and popular lecturer and speaker. Virtually all his books offered at the conference were arguments supporting the heartland model.

Other vendors included items for sale from an emporium named The Seal of Melchizedek Jewelry and Art. Also available at another table were samples of (as claimed on the poster supporting the display) "Newark Holy Stones and Zelph's Arrowhead -- for the first time ever, authentic museum-grade quality replicas of these priceless originals." Sixty bucks for the stones and 25 for the arrowhead.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Derl Sanderson

[PeterPear]

On 9/18/2017 at 6:18 PM, The Nehor said:

I am not paying for that. Are you crazy? I read the summary on their site and what it said is completely and utterly bonkers.

No is asking you to pay for it. And since you haven't and don't have a copy, how do you know it's "utterly bonkers?"

The author refutes in a logical way, long-held scientific dogma, which is what our knowledge of the earth, geology, etc, taught to us in school is based on.

[The Nehor]

Just now, PeterPear said:

No is asking you to pay for it. And since you haven't and don't have a copy, how do you know it's "utterly bonkers?"

The author refutes in a logical way, long-held scientific dogma, which is what our knowledge of the earth, geology, etc, taught to us in school is based on.

The author appeals to defunct disproved theories. It says so in the summary. There was so much fundamentally wrong in the summary That I can characterize anything based on those bonkers premises to be bonkers conclusions.

It would be akin to me claiming I could reexamine and refute quantum theory and then starting my chain of reasoning with the premise that the Earth is flat and that outer space is filled with ether. Would you have to read the whole book to find out if I was on to something?

[hagoth7]

11 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

...Other observations at the conference

:...Virtually all his books offered at the conference were arguments supporting the heartland model.

Other vendors included items for sale from an emporium named The Seal of Melchizedek Jewelry and Art. Also available at another table were samples of (as claimed on the poster supporting the display) "Newark Holy Stones and Zelph's Arrowhead -- for the first time ever, authentic museum-grade quality replicas of these priceless originals." Sixty bucks for the stones and 25 for the arrowhead.

You seem to gravitate to the extremes. The booths were not what you describe.

You focus on two booths closest to the door. One of them was apparently put on by the organizer of the conference, so it would obviously focus on the Heartland model. However, most of the booths and their books had nothing to do with heartland. One amazing booth was about healing from abuse. Another was about art that had nothing to do with Heartland, another great booth was about Jerusalem and the temple mount, etc. One of the book booths simply had many books on the Restoration, none of which were about the Heartland model, one of which was on Joan of Arc, which I briefly coveted. One was on artful items made by Native Americans (dreamcatchers, decorative drums, etc). And your example of Seal of Melchizedek has nothing to do with Heartland either. One was on treated water. It was a supermarket of ideas that mostly had nothing to do with Heartland. You are mistaken.

My impression of the session was different from yours. I came by invitation of a gifted family that I've interacted with several times over the last year. They were beyond gracious with me, and with others there who came to their booth. I won't go into detail, but they are genuine. 

My impression of Rod is that he's genuine, and that he likes to help people, even to a fault. I was offered the opportunity to meet Rod, but declined due to personal challenges I was facing that day.

Is there more vocal audience support in Rod's presentations than there is in a typical church meeting? Yes. And what's wrong with that? It's *not* a church meeting, so let's please not pretend it needs to be held to that standard. 

What concerns me, is that as saints we're too prone to criticize fellow saints. BYU and Institute employees lead summer junkets to Europe, Central America, and other areas of the world sharing their differing views of the Restoration in exchange for a dime, and no one faults them for doing that. But for some reason Rod becomes the lightning rod for monetary concerns, and I take issue with that. Why do Mesoamerican authors and tour guides get a pass, while he doesn't? So criticizing Rod seems like a blatant double standard. Why can't we let him be, and realize that what he offers is something that some in the church both want and need. Why not graciously allow him/them that, even if it doesn't exactly match your current wants/needs?

In short, I think more charity is in order.

Thoughts?

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The author appeals to defunct disproved theories. It says so in the summary. There was so much fundamentally wrong in the summary That I can characterize anything based on those bonkers premises to be bonkers conclusions.

It would be akin to me claiming I could reexamine and refute quantum theory and then starting my chain of reasoning with the premise that the Earth is flat and that outer space is filled with ether. Would you have to read the whole book to find out if I was on to something?

A blog critiquing the UM:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/universal-model/

[Calm]

"for some reason Rod becomes the lightning rod for monetary concerns, and I take issue with that. Why do Mesoamerican authors and tour guides get a pass, while he doesn't? So criticizing Rod seems like a blatant double standard."

Because he and his followers are prone to condemn other Saints who see things differently as apostates or on the way there.

If you can show me a MesoAmericanist who does the same, I would be very interested.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

13 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

No is asking you to pay for it. And since you haven't and don't have a copy, how do you know it's "utterly bonkers?"

The author refutes in a logical way, long-held scientific dogma, which is what our knowledge of the earth, geology, etc, taught to us in school is based on.

Peter, I know almost nothing about this. Could you please briefly summarize UM?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

A blog critiquing the UM:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/universal-model/

Nice, he caught the obvious stuff I saw and a lot more. Looks like he bought the overpriced book too.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Peter, I know almost nothing about this. Could you please briefly summarize UM?

Here is their brief summary on their website if you want to count the basic errors:

https://universalmodel.com/um-introduction/

They have a more comprehensive summary but you have to pay for it.

They also have a question and answer section that does not really say much beyond how wonderful it is and how it will change the world.

[hagoth7]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

"for some reason Rod becomes the lightning rod for monetary concerns, and I take issue with that. Why do Mesoamerican authors and tour guides get a pass, while he doesn't? So criticizing Rod seems like a blatant double standard."

Because he and his followers are prone to condemn other Saints as apostates or on the way there.

If you can show me a MesoAmericanist who does the same, I would be very interested.

Thanks for the reply Calm.

If we could simply drop the -ites and the -ists, I think the church would be much better off.

Why not simply let people believe what they wish about geography? Most of the conference (the portion that I saw) had relatively little to do with American geography.

Criticizing them for sometimes criticizing others seems like adding fuel to the fire. If we stop heaping criticism on them for their enthusiasm, it would likely alleviate much of their criticism or concern of others. Otherwise, it just becomes a vicious cycle.

Thoughts?

[hagoth7]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Here is their brief summary on their website if you want to count the basic errors:

https://universalmodel.com/um-introduction/

They have a more comprehensive summary but you have to pay for it.

They also have a question and answer section that does not really say much beyond how wonderful it is and how it will change the world.

Do you believe science will eventually arrive at a unifying model of some sort?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Thanks for the reply Calm.

If we could simply drop the -ites and the -ists, I think the church would be much better off.

Why not simply let people believe what they wish about geography? Most of the conference (the portion that I saw) had relatively little to do with American geography.

Criticizing them for sometimes criticizing others seems like adding fuel to the fire. If we stop heaping criticism on them for their enthusiasm, it would likely alleviate much of their criticism or concern of others. Otherwise, it just becomes a vicious cycle.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, very little criticism is made of Meldrum by scholars overall. Most of the time I see it, it is more of a defense of others he and his group are attacking than random attacks on him.  People have a right to defend themselves when called faithless and apostates.

I know FairMormon only started to critique his stuff because he was making these false claims.  Several members worked months with him giving him the chance to offer a rebuttal of why the critique was wrong about him.  In the end, he never produced, so the critique was published.  Nothing has changed from what I have seen from him. He appeared on this message board sometime back and continued to misrepresent the beliefs and actions of FM members.

A quick look at google would indicate that the last time FM published criticism of him was in 2008.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Do you believe science will eventually arrive at a unifying model of some sort?

I believe it already has. We just have not discovered it. Sessions has definitely not discovered it.

A unified theory of everything is the holy grail of physicists right now. Right now we have general relativity and quantum field theory. We have found them both to be correct when applied to situations they can measure and basically every prediction has been found to be accurate using these models. The problem is that they are incompatible in some scenarios. Note that these scenarios are things like black holes and the theoretical situation just after the Big Bang. There are also some other weird theoretical things that they cannot both explain such as a naked singularity but then again we are not sure if those can even exist.

The better developed forms of String theory are attempts at a grand theory of everything but it is difficult to test it.

Sessions approach is nothing like any of that. In his selling points he points out how simple his model is.....as if that is a good selling point for it being true. He argues that the Core of the earth is made up of ice and not predominantly made of iron. He describes magma as a myth.

I got some of this stuff from a long YouTube video explaining this theory:

You can tell the audience is Mormon. Who else would bring a crying baby to a two hour supposed science presentation? 

Edited September 20, 2017 by The Nehor

[hagoth7]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

In my opinion, very little criticism is made of Meldrum by scholars overall. Most of the time I see it, it is more of a defense of others he and his group are attacking than random attacks on him.  People have a right to defend themselves when called faithless and apostates.

I know FairMormon only started to critique his stuff because he was making these false claims.  Several members worked months with him giving him the chance to offer a rebuttal of why the critique was wrong about him.  In the end, he never produced, so the critique was published.  Nothing has changed from what I have seen from him. He appeared on this message board sometime back and continued to misrepresent the beliefs and actions of FM members.

A quick look at google would indicate that the last time FM published criticism of him was in 2008.

Understood.

My feedback wasn't focused on FM.

In the decade I've engaged here, the frequent pile-on-Rod enthusiasm gets exhausting.

Wishing we could simply be more gracious....if he's out of line, can't we allow priesthood leadership to resolve that. Can we possibly do that?

I believe that if we can graciously allow him to speak his mind, we would see the tone at his conferences become more gracious. The kindness cycle. 

Thoughts?

[Calm]

Priesthood leadership doesn't generally oversee what people are doing in the public world unless they are teaching the Church is a fraud or things on that level, imo.

His Priesthood leadership barred him from speaking in church buildings.  This, however, did not change his mind about doing this for a living.  They don't have a duty to discipline him because he rents public space and promotes crap science and crap history and promotes people that do the same along with condemning others that point out errors.

Nor do others have a duty to remain silent while he is attempting to make his error riddled theories and teachings mainstream Church culture and for some of his followers, doctrine as well.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[PeterPear]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The author appeals to defunct disproved theories. It says so in the summary. There was so much fundamentally wrong in the summary That I can characterize anything based on those bonkers premises to be bonkers conclusions.

It would be akin to me claiming I could reexamine and refute quantum theory and then starting my chain of reasoning with the premise that the Earth is flat and that outer space is filled with ether. Would you have to read the whole book to find out if I was on to something?

Well, the UM starts off with disproving the existence of "magma." Now we've all been taught since Elementary School that many miles below the crust of the earth, there is a source of heat which is the source of and creates volcanoes. Simple enough. Scientists have observed volcanoes spewing hot rocks and liquid rock - and logically the question arises, where does this lava, ash, steam, come from? Thus the theory of magma was created.

He disproves it, because the existence of magma has never been proven. He cites, quotes, references, attempts by scientists who have drilled in shallow below-sea-level basins (So. Ca. for one) in an attempt to reach magma. It's never happened. Magma has never been observed. Magma is a theory.

So what! you may ask. That's crazy! Well, the theories of geology are based on the existence of magma. We all know there are three main types of "rocks" in geology. Sedimentary, Igneous and Metamorphic. He disproves this also by showing that most rocks are made from water. Modern Science says no, the rocks all came from a melt, from magma, as the Earth cooled.

Water? What? The jeerers jeer! Surely you jest! Except, of course, for rocks made from a melt, from volcanoes and the like, are called glass - lava, pumice, etc.

Modern geology claims, for example, that crystals come from a melt. He proves otherwise. He has created crystals out of water in an Autoclave. And guess what, modern industry has made crystals for years; for radios, for watches, etc.

Granite, considered a metamophic rock that modern-day science claims came from a melt, contains - you guessed it - crystals! Crystal and Glass are not the same thing.

Ask your Grandmother. She likely used crystal goblets during those special dinners. Not glass. ugh. glass is cheap. Get my point?

Sedimentary rocks are made from - you guessed it Water! Igneous rocks from heat, or a melt, they're glass!

So what's the point. The point is, the Earth, the moon and other planets were made from water. That's why they are spherical. Water in a weightless environment coalesces into a sphere. DUH!

Read Genesis 1:2 about water.  He also refutes modern theory on how planets were formed: rock smashing into each other and sticking - are with me with this?

This is a very small part of what the UM contains.

He refutes other modern-day theories - such as Evolution. He proves fossils can be made in weeks, not millions or billions of years.

So you get the point? The Creation was not a long process. Hey! what a novel concept here at MormonDialogue!

So what do you want me to do? Photocopy all 800 pages and spoon-feed it to you?   Quit squawking and fill your own lamp with knowledge. 

 

 

[PeterPear]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Priesthood leadership doesn't generally oversee what people are doing in the public world unless they are teaching the Church is a fraud or things on that level, imo.

His Priesthood leadership barred him from speaking in church buildings.  This, however, did not change his mind about doing this for a living.  They don't have a duty to discipline him because he rents public space and promotes crap science and crap history and promotes people that do the same along with condemning others that point out errors.

Nor do others have a duty to remain silent while he is attempting to make his error riddled theories and teachings mainstream Church culture and for some of his followers, doctrine as well.

His Priesthood leadership barred him from speaking in church buildings, because his priesthood leadership at the time were BYU Professors who didn't like his "Heartland" theory. Despite this, he dutifully obeyed his Priesthood leaders. I would tell what became of this but I was told in confidence.

Since this is a Free Country, anyone can say whatever they like. So your last point is moot.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Thanks for the reply Calm.

If we could simply drop the -ites and the -ists, I think the church would be much better off.

Why not simply let people believe what they wish about geography? Most of the conference (the portion that I saw) had relatively little to do with American geography.

Criticizing them for sometimes criticizing others seems like adding fuel to the fire. If we stop heaping criticism on them for their enthusiasm, it would likely alleviate much of their criticism or concern of others. Otherwise, it just becomes a vicious cycle.

Thoughts?

Meldrum is much more condemney (to coin a new word) then his opponents. They are also playing with different rule books. Most MesoAmerican and even Heartland geography enthusiasts about the Book of Mormon play by the rules of archaeology and scientific study to some extent. Some are better at it then others. All make mistakes and make guesses. The problem is Meldrum bases his conclusions on false premises that those who are acquainted with the field know to be false. He has done this repeatedly and continually despite attempts by others to point this out. He is either incredibly deluded and ignorant at a nearly unimaginable level or he is ignoring criticism to sell his product and his theory. The way he works is deceptive and it is wrong.

I have met one person I could see Meldrum being like. One of my hobbies is that I am a board gamer and play a lot of complex games. I used to play with a guy whose grasp of the rules of every game he played was extremely limited. He seemed incapable of recognizing any rule that would hurt his chances of winning. I am not sure to this day if it was some kind of mental fault he had or whether he was just perversely and deliberately ignorant in his quest for victory as he cheated. I do not play games with him anymore. Meldrum does the same thing when he uses scientific resources such as papers and theories. He abuses context, ignores anything he would find difficult to explain, and blithely acts like the facts are always behind him even when that conclusion is ludicrous.

He is particularly dangerous because he is trying to feed the Saints something many want to hear (that scripture is literally correct on many things and current science bears them all out) and most who hear it are not equipped to judge his case on its genuine merits. He sets himself up as a light that can guide the world to greater truth while lying whether that lying is deliberate or not. People try to correct him on his blatant errors and he rallies his troops to fight. He promotes contention beyond the normal give and take of refutation and refinement of ideas that makes up these kinds of inquiries amongst most scholars involved.

[Calm]

"Crystal and Glass are not the same thing."

Are you suggesting scientists are claiming such?