Examining the Secular Side
by Allen Wyatt on September 3rd, 2008Late in June of this year, FAIR posted an initial review of Rodney Meldrum’s DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography. At the time, there were several folks who indicated that they were looking forward to the promised analysis of the DVD’s use of research and scholarship.
I’m pleased to report that FAIR has published the first three reviews, as promised, this morning. (We’re sorry they took so long; we hope you won’t be displeased at the results so far.) Posted on the FAIR website are reviews dealing with DNA Evidence, Geography, and Joseph Smith. All three of these reviews correspond with sections in the DVD DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography. The reviews in various forms–along with an explanation of why these reviews have been done–can be found at this single page.
During the past two months, working with other FAIR volunteers on these reviews, I’ve been quite interested in the responses that some people have made to our introductory review. A good number of people were appreciative; some others took the approach denouncing the review as consisting of “blatant and inflammatory lies,” “conjecture,” “innuendo,” and amounting to little more than “character assassination.”
For those who think it not appropriate to look a the manner in which information is presented (as was done in the introductory review), perhaps you will be more satisfied with the examination of the research and scholarship in these latest reviews.
For my part, regardless of whether you look at the presentation techniques or the content delivered by those techniques, there is little to recommend in DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography.
-Allen
PS: Why did I name this post “Examining the Secular Side?” Because of my belief that some topics tangentially related to the LDS faith (such as DNA, geography, and what Joseph Smith may have known or not known) are essentially secular in nature. They deal with science and history, two disciplines distinct from theology.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
My belief is just the opposite, Allen. While science and history are commonly categorized as secular, as you do, they are inextricably bound up with religion and almost indistiguishable from theology, in my view. If you fail to see religion within the context of history and science, you have an empty shell, devoid of the color and tradition it was born, in part, to preserve. Mormonism is all about history … recent and ancient. Joseph Smith sought to preserve those elements in Mormonism that were most sacred to the ancients. Hence, our temples, our scriptures and our gospel are rife with historic and scientific information. We’ve simply been blinded to them by our popular, cultural biases. That is, we’ve allowed the world to dictate our paradigm. In truth, these largely unacknowledged elements are inseperable from events and conditions in Earth’s early history and mankinds career thereon. Pure science actually shares the search for truth with the restored religion. That there is profound divergence between the two in our modern world graphically displays the ignorance and hubris in both religion and science. Much scientific belief today is so badly misguided that it maintains only a semblance of reality. Astronomy is particularly afflicted by this scotoma. The fact that we saints see science and history as separate entities or disciplines reveals a profound flaw in our perception of the gospel. It arises from our ignorance of our roots, and it is extremely difficult to overcome. In my experience, only a small minority of church members are able to recognize this. So, you are in ample company, my friend. But, you are mistaken.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Anthony,
I would be surprised if our beliefs were that different, Anthony. (Nice comment, by the way.) I probably didn’t do a great job in explaining myself, primarily because the “PS” had little to do with the real reason for the post.
Two people, one religious and another non-religious, can look at DNA and see two entirely different things. One sees the handiwork of God, the other sees the culmination of evolutionary forces. Which one is right? Both could argue all day long that their paradigm is right, and neither come to agreement. (Forget for a moment that one who sees the handiwork of God could also believe in evolution, seeing that also as His handiwork.)
Two people could look at historical events and interpret them differently. Does seeing an empty tomb mean that Christ is the Savior? Depends on whether you are a “believer” before you examine the facts.
Two people can go walking somewhere in the western hemisphere and find a sign that says “Welcome to Zarahemla. Please visit our library for a great selection of scriptural records.” Does such a finding engender religious conviction? No, else why are there athiests who already know where the outskirts of Jerusalem are?
The fact is, our paradigms color how we view information, the information does not dictate the paradigm. True that paradigms can shift over time as new information is garnered, but information–by itself–does not a paradigm make.
When I say that the study of DNA, geography, and history is a secular venture, I do not mean that it should be done without faith, for my faith goes with me and colors everything I absorb in my day to day world. (I am no different than any other person in this regard.) What I mean is that such studies are not, indeed cannot, be the basis of faith. Basing one’s faith on such issues is “trusting on the arm of man.” Why should such basis be relied upon in preference to a more sure word?
-Allen
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Is FAIR being fair?
Please add your comments to the NEW BLOG site at http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/ and look for my complete responses to these several articles on my website at http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org for a more ‘balanced’ understanding of the FAIR reviews in the next few days.
The apologists at FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) officially launched their reviews of my research presented in the DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography DVD, along with again using a personal and private email to bolster their character assassination attempts to discredit me personally, but overall their reviews have been ‘cleaned up’ considerably, to their credit.
From the FAIR website (quoted below) we gain a proper perspective of the significance of the FAIR review of my research.
“FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.”
As such, their collective opinions are no more, nor less, valid than any general member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
All members of the church are given the power of discernment through the gift of the Holy Ghost at baptism. It is encouraged that members use this God-given power to determine for themselves whether something is true or in error. Members need not assume that all truth must be first filtered through scholars before being able to find and know it for themselves.
“5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:5)
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sadly, here we see the problem, if there was any doubt.
Rod Meldrum wants to claim that revelation will confirm what he is claiming. No evaluation of the evidence needed, nothing to see here….
He wants us to pray about his claims without examining the evidence.
But, as the scriptures teach us, we must first “study it out in our minds.” (see D&C 9:8) How can we study without reliable information? How can we choose if we don’t have the options laid before us?
Meldrum claims that truth need not be filtered through “scholars.” This is true. The truths that matter–whether God lives, whether Jesus is the Christ, whether Joseph was a prophet, whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God, whether Thomas S. Monson is a prophet–need no intermediary.
But, he ignores–or hopes we don’t notice–that what HE is offering people is claims about historical, scientific, and technical matters. And those things are filtering through HIM. He has not mastered the material. He misrepresents it–either through ignorance or intent. And, he is , therefore, repeatedly wrong–as has been demonstrated at great length for those interested in examining the evidence.
This is why your ideas are dangerous to members, Rod. Not because you have a different idea about Book of Mormon geography. Speaking personally, I couldn’t care less, and I don’t know anyone else who does either.
But, what you are doing is dangerous because you choose to drape your claims in revelation, and malign those who disagree as unworthy members who “ignore Joseph Smith” or “reject Joseph’s revelation.” And, the Church has repeatedly insisted that there _IS_ no revelation on this topic.
You don’t seem to WANT people to evaluate your claims with anything but what you give them.
Why do I say that? Well, you’ve tried to poison the well against FARMS by manipulating Pres. Hinckley’s words to condemn them. You’ve admitted you were wrong about that, but you’re still selling unaltered DVDs to unsuspecting members. Why? If it were me, I’d be very anxious not to misrepresent the prophet with his own words to other Latter-day Saints.
You are now trying to poison the well against FAIR, and convince people they don’t need to hear more evidence–they just need to listen to YOU, pray, and follow you. You want them to “take no thought, save…to ask” God (D&C 9:7), without studying the issue. But, you DO want them to listen to you, read YOUR blog, buy your DVDs, and listen to your presentation. Why?
I wonder how this approach works in other areas of life? “Don’t listen to the doctor, just pray about your appendix.” “Don’t listen to that tax attorney, just ask God how to keep yourself out of jail.” “Don’t read a language book written by a scholar to learn a foreign language–just pray to God for the gift of tongues.”
This idea that we can approach factual matters (without examining the facts and opinions on both side) through prayer alone is false doctrine. Publicly teaching such ideas could easily tip into apostasy, especially when some of the ideas you are teaching are about Joseph Smith and your claim that he had revelation.
I very much fear that you will do yourself and others grave harm if you continue down the path you’re on.
That’s right. They’re also no more valid than yours, despite your continued claims that revelation has established and will establish your views. But, we aren’t telling people they don’t need to hear the other side.
I think everyone should read everything Rod says, and everything FAIR and others say. Study it out, weigh the evidence, ask who has been most honest and logical. THEN pray, and make up your minds.
And, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, not all opinions are created equal. Evidence in such matters counts for rather a lot.
I fear it will be necessary to repeat a lot of this in the near future, it seems.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I have requested several times to have these issues resolved in private, rather than a public forum, but FAIR has been adamant about taking this public. FAIR believes that they are protecting the church and the testimonies of its general membership by attacking a fellow brother in the gospel in good standing in the church because he espouses ideas not held by the dominantly Mesoamerican leaning leadership of FAIR.
It is hoped that those who take the time to read the exhaustive reviews will do so with an eye toward what would motivate FAIR to consume so much of its resources to squelch an opposing view on geography? Could it be that they have a commercial interest in doing so?
I didn’t know until a few weeks ago that FAIR has a distinct interest in attempting to discredit this research, you see, they recently released their own DNA DVD titled ‘The Book of Mormon and New World DNA’ which is currently available on their website as well as Deseret Book. See http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1893036073.html to see their commercial offering.
Could this be the motivating factor in their choosing to put so much effort into an obviously biased review of my research, to protect their monetary interests in selling their own competitive DVD?
Did you know that in their DNA video their resident ‘geneticist’ John A. Tvedtnes, comes right out and states about Haplogroup X:
“since it is more closely related to the kind of X that we find, X haplogroup we find, in the middle east, there is no reason to exclude it as being from Book of Mormon peoples.”
yet FAIR spends 18 pages of their DNA review to take issue about that very same conclusion reached in my research! This seems rather disingenuous, don’t you think?
Fair claims to be neutral on the geography of the Book of Mormon, but when I emailed FAIR President Scott Gordon the following:
“Could you please provide me with the names of the members of your board who do not support a Mesoamerican setting,… Also any articles of a positive nature put out by FAIR for any geography other than a Mesoamerican one? I would like to know how you can demonstrate your claimed neutrality.”
…I got no reply. If you go to the FAIR Youtube site at http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg you can watch several clips on multiple subjects. If any geographical representations are a part of the subject matter, you can guarantee that it will be Mesoamerican! In fact, in FAIR’s new DNA DVD out in the bookstores, opening speaker Keith Crandall does not even make it 15 seconds into the video before he is establishing the Mesoamerica theory! It is in the very first sentence and is throughout the entire video. It is clear that FAIR has a strong bias toward Mesoamerica for the geography of the Book of Mormon. Little wonder they would take such extensive issue with a competing theory.
What are they so afraid of about this research getting out that they would go to such great lengths to destroy it? As far as I know their extensive review is unprecedented for any other previous review matter, including anti-Mormon works. Usually opposing theories are relegated to a page or two of review, while these reviews (of which they have posted for a couple of sections so far) are currently more than 66 pages in length! FAIR has certainly out-done itself against a fellow member, when they never (to my knowledge) launched such a full-scale attack on any anti-Mormon critics of the church.
It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
September 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Lest anyone misreads the following sentence in Greg’s answer:
“Publicly teaching such ideas could easily tip into apostasy, especially when some of the ideas you are teaching are about Joseph Smith and your claim that he had revelation.”
I don’t know of any member of FAIR who does not believe that Joseph was a true prophet of God. Being a true prophet, he OF COURSE received revelations. This is NOT being debated.
But we know of no revelation that settles questions of Book of Mormon geography. The Church as such therefore has NO opinion (and no doctrine) of where in the Americas the BoM story happened. In official church publications this stance has been repeated again and again, at least for the last 50 years.
To claim that Joseph HAD received such a revelation (when the Church in its official publication supervised by the FP and the Q12 says otherwise) borders on apostasy.
To insinuate that personal revelation and blessings supercede the official position of the church, is repeating the error of Hiram Page recorded in D&C 28.
To ask others to follow this lead is to lead others into apostasy.
At FAIR, we have lots of differing positions on BOM Geography there is place for the HGT and various LGTs. Study the FAIR website, and you will find them.
But there is no place for leading people astray from the position the Church has endorsed, by claiming personal revelation and blessings received.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Rod, this seems to be an assertion without evidence. Could you please indicate which “personal and private e-mail” you are talking about? I know you feel strongly about the contents of your e-mail being used in our introductory review from June 30, but could you point out where such is used “again” in the reviews released September 3?
-Allen
September 4th, 2008 at 6:20 am
And we tried to resolve it privately, Rod, but you wouldn’t. You had almost two months to review a rough draft of the materials we just started to publish. You entered into an agreement with FAIR as to what you would do during those two months with those materials, but you didn’t do it. And now you behave as if FAIR is somehow mistreating you?
Wrong. Period. The reason for the “attack” (which is a mischaracterization) has been spelled out very clearly in the comments to this blog post. It has been spelled out very clearly in the introductory review on June 30. It has been spelled out very clearly on the website. It has been spelled out very clearly over and over again, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. We, too, are “fellow brother[s] in the gospel in good standing in the church,” and yet you still misrepresent our clearly stated reasons for doing what we are doing. Why is that, Rod?
No, FAIR doesn’t. This is a red herring. Rod doesn’t want to accept (or face) the real reason FAIR is doing what it is doing, so he has to cast about for other conspiratorial reasons.
Again, Rod, you fail to accept the stated reasons. You fail to accept the obvious because doing so would be unthinkable, right?
Not true. Let me help your research, just so you don’t raise this non-sequitur again. FAIR has done several reviews that have been just as extensive. For instance, there was the Mormonism 201 project which took several months to complete. Then there was the response to the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD. There have been others (including several books), but I hope these two specific examples will dissuade you from placing yourself (and our response to your research) at the pinnacle of our efforts.
Yes, it does.
-Allen
September 4th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Rod, when you accuse FAIR of mistreating a “brother in the gospel” because they critique or criticize your work, are you not returning in kind? (assuming that FAIR is mistreating you, which I don’t believe they are.) What I am saying is the very thing you accuse FAIR of doing, you yourself are doing.
As a member of FAIR I get to observe many of the conversations among other members. While I believe a majority favors a mesoamerican setting for the BoM I know of other members who do not, and they are active in FAIR and they are not ridiculed or shouted down in any way.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:56 am
To add to BHodges’ comment, every member of FAIR that I know of (and I know them all)–even those who favor a Mesoamerican setting–is open to learning more information, provided the information takes into account the totality of the available evidence and is grounded in good scholarship. Rod’s information fails on both counts, which is made abundantly clear in the reviews released yesterday.
Read the reviews, Rod, and deal with the criticisms of your research and scholarship. That is what happens in academia–people examine and critique each others theories. You said in your DVD that you wanted an exchange about the ideas and that you would welcome it, but here you are rejecting the very thing you asked for.
What’s up with that?
-Allen
September 4th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I am a member of the FAIR management board. I am stating that so that readers who do not know me will understand the bias from which I write. However, I am not writing on behalf of FAIR, but entirely on my own account as one who has been involved in the FAIR-Meldrum dialogue from the beginning. What follows is a bit long, but it can’t be made shorter and still fully inform readers about what Rod Meldrum is now doing. And readers should be fully informed.
FAIR was going to publish the material that it has just released, in the early summer. As you know, Rod, as a courtesy to you as a latter-day saint, FAIR agreed to enter into a contract with you. The contract provided that FAIR would lock its blog on your material, provide you with its work to date, and withhold publication until September–a date selected at your request. Your part of the contract was to read the FAIR material, and before FAIR’s publication date you would tell FAIR what you believed FAIR had wrong, and why. FAIR would review that, and make any appropriate changes.
FAIR lived up to its contract obligations scrupulously. You, on the other hand, broke your promises. You did not provide FAIR with any list of what you believe to be errors or other grievances. There is available for publication a series of emails between you and officers of FAIR in which you do, as you write, ask for meetings to work things out privately, to which FAIR pointed out that there was a contract in place, to which you not only agreed but for which you effusively thanked FAIR, and that was the way to proceed. A series of emails is also available for publication in which you are reminded of your contractual obligations, and that you have not fulfilled them. Your responses varied from claims of problems correlating page numbers to assertions that you didn’t remember what the contract said about your obligations.
On this blog you are referring people to your site on which you have posted the very things that you were contractually obligated to provide to FAIR well before this. Obviously, you didn’t write the material you have posted since FAIR published, and since the final date on which your communication to FAIR was due. It is therefore clear that you had prepared what, in your view, was a list of things about which FAIR was in error, and notwithstanding your contractual obligations, which are not only legal but, for a latter-day saint, ethical, you chose to break your word, and do it egregiously.
As I have written, there are series of emails between you and FAIR officers–I am not referring to the email that has passed between you and me–documenting all of this, including your clearly expressed gratitude to FAIR for allowing you to do this, and asking for and obtaining from FAIR an extension of time because of the commitments to work and family you described to us. If you differ with me about the contract that you made and your obligations under it, I am sure that publication of the email exchanges will more than adequately address your disagreements.
So, legally, ethically and honorably, you really should, as the first item on your site, acknowledge that you agreed to send what follows to FAIR prior to September 2nd, that you decided not to live up to your obligations and to proceed instead as you have. Readers will then be fully informed about the context of your complaints and also be able to judge your credibility in making them.
To any of you who are reading this and have previously not known of this contract, I am sure that if you send an email to Ask The Apologist from the FAIR website, FAIR may decide to send you, or broadly publish, the contract in full.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Two observations:
September 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Mike,
“The Book of Mormon has some interesting things to say about the subject of priestcraft, BTW”
This reminds me of my favorite hymn: We Thank Thee, Oh God, For a Profit.
Rod,
I am not a FAIR member and am familar with your DVD and FAIR’s work. I have to say that you seem to be missing the point here. While FAIR is reviewing what you present as evidence, much of the beef seems to be the way that you present your theories. I get the impression that you want me to accept your theory because of support from your personal inspiration. I agree with you that we can use the Spirit to discern truth (which LDS doesn’t?), but without studying it out in our minds and considering/pondering the argument first? If you are going to produce something for profit that members will consider as evidence, expect it to come under scrutiny.
Though Hugh Nibley was prolific and highly respected, I would hardly say that all FAIR members agree with all hypotheses. Even some FARMS scholars don’t agree with his methodologies. I doubt he would have called their critiques “character assassination”. Such language is highly inflammatory and ignores the merits of your theory. Nor do I agree with a lot of what Elder McConkie said, especially in the Seven Deadly Heresies. It could easily be argued that he had a problem with his methodology of presenting his opinion as church doctrine. Because I have disagreed with this on my blog, I doubt that he would believe that I am assassinating his character even though I scrutinize his statements and supporting evidence.
Do you not expect similar scrutiny of your for-profit work and advertising methods when it is a source of income (bias)?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
[...] about the author’s total lack of substantive response? As far as I can tell, his response lives here at the Fairblog. There’s lots of back and forthing between FAIR and Meldrum here, I suggest anyone interested read [...]
September 4th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Rod writes:
Manyp people have told Rod that there are people who are of multiple views on this issue. He continues to imply that we’re lying.
Let’s deal with the evidence.
Exhibit A
Rod’s presentation quotes a portion of the DNA article that follows:
The Last Glacial Maximum was about 18,000 years ago.
The bold material was omitted by you, Rod as you read it and on your slide. Can you please explain:
a) Whether a claim by the authors that the split we’re talking about happened 18,000 years ago is of any relevance to assessing whether it applies to Lehi leaving 2,600 years ago. Don’t you think your audience has a right to know this information to assess what you’re asking them to believe?
b) Why we should consider this omission to be unintentional, instead of a deliberate attempt to disguise what the paper actually says? It looks pretty deliberate, unless you didn’t understand the words. And, the part snipped out is exactly that part that devastates your theory.
Thanks for your answer.
Then we can move on to Exhibit B. This is pure evidence, doesn’t require anyone to believe anything about any geography or DNA.
Is the use of this quote fair? Why or why not?
Other readers are also invited to answer questions (a) and (b) above.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I would like to see Meldrum stop all his grand standing and stop thinking he is being attacked, when in fact it is his theory that is under scrutiny. From what I have seen not once has Meldrum addressed the issues FAIR has brought forth and he has had all summer to do it. Seems like he would rather claim foul then deal with the facts.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
re: Rod writes:
Could you please provide me with the names of the members of your board who do not support a Mesoamerican setting…
As I have told you, I have no idea where the new world events in the Book of Mormon took place. I am competant enough to know that they didn’t occur in the locale for which you argue; but I do not “support” a mesoamerican setting. I have a layman’s reservations, but beyond that I cannot go because I am not competant to evaluate the evidence. The fundamental point is: Joseph Smith did not reveal this to us; his successors have not revealed it to us and have repeatedly said that there is neither revelation nor position from the Church on the subject. You claim you do nevertheless do have a position on the subject, that you have scholarly material in support of your position, and as far as that goes you are on the same playing field as FARMS or any number of other people with theories. But you differentiate yourself by claiming that your position is founded upon revelations through Joseph Smith that you must proclaim anew. In doing that, you differentiate yourself both from other theorists and researchers, and from the uniquivocal statements of the Prophets and Apostles who lead the Church. How can you justify that? Were your stake president to ask you to stop it, would you?
September 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I do want to respond to this one quote from Rodney:
This is true. Rodney sent me this question. I ignored the question and didn’t reply. The question is why I didn’t reply.
We already had an agreement in place. Rodney was supposed to be responding to our research and concerns. It was a written agreement that spelled out the terms. This question came out of “left field” and didn’t have anything to do with what we were working on. While we do have members of FAIR that do not subscribe to the Mesoamerican theory, I have already seen how Rodney feels about people who don’t agree with his theory. I wasn’t about to give a list of names of who might or might not agree with a certain theory. It sounds too much like a litmus test. The last thing we need is a list of names generated to see who gets the scarlet A of Apostate based on belief in a non-revealed pet theory.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
In responding to a post I made on Rod Meldrum’s blog, he calls me “Elder White”. I have just posted this on his blog, in response.
In post 8, Rod Meldrum refers to me as “Elder White”. I finished my call as an area seventy two years ago, and have never used the title “Elder” since. I did not sign the post to which he responds as “Elder White”, but rather as “Robert White”. Mr. Meldrum knows all of this. By choosing to distort even my name, and to thereby insinuate that I had applied the sacred title to myself when it is not mine to use, is relevant information for readers to use in evaluating what FAIR is doing, and why.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I am sorry if you feel offended, but I was only doing so out of respect for your past calling and have been refering to you as such many, many times over the past month and you never seemed to mind it then.
I will be happy to refer to you in any way you’d like. Bob, Robert, Brother White, whatever.
It is not uncommon for people to refer to past members of the Seventy as ‘Elder’. I am sorry you are offended so easily.
Please let me know which you would prefer and I’ll respectfully use that. There was no ‘distortion’ intended, only respect.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
President Scott Gordon indicates that asking the question about neutrality of FAIR “didn’t have anything to do with what we were working on.” The reason it is relevant is because of the fact that FAIR states that it is neutral as a basis for their being ‘un-biased’ in their review. This makes it relevant and has everything to do with whether or not their review would be an unbias ‘peer review’ (as they want everyone to believe) or a highly biased hostile review.
If FAIR cannot demonstrate that they are not biased, then they should not be claiming so in the opening lines of their reviews.
Please demonstrate for all of us FAIR’s un-biasness by putting links to all the positive reviews of any work on geography NOT in Mesoamerica you have done in any of your symposiums, video’s, written reviews or other media in the past year or so, or even in the past several months. Then please compare it to the number of works that support the Mesoamerican theories and allow us to make some calculations. I am anxious to see the hard evidence for your claimed statement on neutrality.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Rod Meldrum writes:
I think this is missing the point. As I understand it, it’s not FAIR’s purpose to be advocating, supporting, or defending any particular geographical model for the Book of Mormon setting. Even in this case, it seems even from this blog posting that it’s been made abundantly clear that FAIR isn’t taking issue with the geographical claims per se. So this is really a red herring.Since FAIR doesn’t (as far as I can tell) make a point of responding to such theories in general (unless, as is the case here, there are other, more central and important issues at stake around how these ideas are being presented and taught), I wouldn’t expect any reliable data could be calculated, since it would be starting from a faulty premise.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Robert White wrote: “The fundamental point is: Joseph Smith did not reveal this to us; his successors have not revealed it to us and have repeatedly said that there is neither revelation nor position from the Church on the subject. You claim you do nevertheless do have a position on the subject, that you have scholarly material in support of your position, and as far as that goes you are on the same playing field as FARMS or any number of other people with theories. But you differentiate yourself by claiming that your position is founded upon revelations through Joseph Smith that you must proclaim anew. In doing that, you differentiate yourself both from other theorists and researchers, and from the uniquivocal statements of the Prophets and Apostles who lead the Church. How can you justify that? Were your stake president to ask you to stop it, would you?”
Maybe I can help to clear up something that seems to be one of the primary ’sticking points’ in our understanding of one another.
I have tried to understand better where FAIR is coming from and after pondering on it a while I think I finally realize where our differences are stemming from. Allow me to clarify if I can what I see as the issue.
In my DVD I demonstrate through direct quotes from Joseph Smith himself that HE claimed (not me), in first person english, to have received by revelation on the subject, along with scripture he received by revelation, that leads to my final slide in that section stating “Joseph Knew”.
FAIR is demonstrating that a statement by the First Presidency to the effect that there is no revealed geography is also true and FAIR is assuming that the two are incompatible.
I disagree. While it is true that in the Wentworth letter Joseph states in first person:
“I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they wre, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments…The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” and in the same document he describes the angelic visitation wherein “I was also told where there was deposited some plates…” thereby making it clear that he was shown things by revelation directly pertaining to their entire civilization.
Yet there is another peice to this puzzle. While Joseph himself knew, he did not share all of his knowledge. We can only speculate about why Joseph did not come right out and tell us, but my guess would be that he wanted folks to read and ask the Lord about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon based on faith, rather than his knowledge of the subject. So I do agree that WE have no revealed geography, but I also take Joseph at his word when he states no less than three times in historically unquestioned documents that HE in fact did know. There were a lot of things that Joseph knew that he didn’t share because of their nature.
Still, I believe that Joseph gave us some clues about what he knew.
For example, Where did he send the first missionaries ‘unto the Lamanites’ (D&C 28:8) when commanded by the Lord to do so? He immediately dispatched brethren to New York, Ohio, and Missouri, the latter being declared by the Lord to be “on the border of the Lamanites” (D&C 54:8) and “among the Lamanites” (D&C 32:1-2) I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t think that the Lord is confused about where to find the remnant Lamanites!
So, do WE have definitive revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically NO.
Did Joseph Smith have revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.
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.
I hope this can bring us to a clearer understanding of where both FAIR and I (Rod Meldrum) are coming from, and that it can lead to further understanding and reconciliation. That is my hope.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Daniel wrote: “I would like to see Meldrum stop all his grand standing and stop thinking he is being attacked, when in fact it is his theory that is under scrutiny. From what I have seen not once has Meldrum addressed the issues FAIR has brought forth and he has had all summer to do it. Seems like he would rather claim foul then deal with the facts.”
Dear Daniel, I will deal with the facts as soon as I can when they are complete. Mesoamerican theorists have been working on getting their ‘facts’ straight for 30 years now, and yet they can’t agree. Surely you are not supposing that I alone can do what FARMS and FAIR (combined) have not been able to accomplish in 30 years, and do it in less than 30 days. Of the 60 days that FAIR gratiously allowed me to perform, all of the FAIR board knows that I was out of town doing additional research for a month of that time, and that left me with only 23 working days to accomplish the monumental task of addressing every issue brought up by the multiple collaborative authors of FAIR in over 160 pages of documentation. I knew that I could not submit a poorly done paper as I knew that it would be scrutinized to the utmost degree by FAIR, therefore I failed to accomplish the task in the time set forth by FAIR to complete my reply. I thought I could do it, but I simply could not. FAIR did not have anyone demanding that they publish, but they were eager to take this public.
Well brethren, here we are!
September 5th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Greg Smith writes: “Manyp people have told Rod that there are people who are of multiple views on this issue. He continues to imply that we’re lying.”
Greg, please stop attempting to put words into my mouth that aren’t there. I have never said that I thought you wer lying, only that I was interested in knowing if FAIR can demonstrate their claimed neutrality. Scott Gordon explained his hesitancy, thinking that I would immediately attack someone personally. That is not my way, but I understand how he could think that as FAIR has targeted anyone that seems to have an associating with me. Therefore I accept his premise and will not expect him to name names, but rather to demonstrate it through FAIR’s ‘works’ such as symposium speakers, video’s, materials, articles and any other media.
Greg continues:
“Let’s deal with the evidence.
Exhibit A
Rod’s presentation quotes a portion of the DNA article that follows:
Finally, phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of sub-haplogroup X2, and the associated population dispersal occurred around, or after, the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] when the climate ameliorated [improved]. The presence of a daughter clade [evolutionary group] in northern Native Americans testifies to the range of this population expansion. - M. Reidla, et al., “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” American Journal of Human Genetics 73:5 (2003), 1188.
The Last Glacial Maximum was about 18,000 years ago.
The bold material was omitted by you, Rod as you read it and on your slide. Can you please explain:
a) Whether a claim by the authors that the split we’re talking about happened 18,000 years ago is of any relevance to assessing whether it applies to Lehi leaving 2,600 years ago. Don’t you think your audience has a right to know this information to assess what you’re asking them to believe?”
Greg, may I ask you a question? Do you believe in the scriptures as revealed by God’s prophets? Please explain to me then how you seem to think that these people arrived prior to Adam, who arrived only about 6,000 years ago. Do you believe God when he clearly states in D&C 77: vs 6 and 12 which state:
vs. 6 “Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
vs. 12 “12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.
My advice to you, Greg (who quotes devout aethiests to take issue with my asking people to view new information objectively rather than skeptically or affirmatively) is this:
(Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:8 - 10)
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.
9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand…
Greg Continues: “b) Why we should consider this omission to be unintentional, instead of a deliberate attempt to disguise what the paper actually says? It looks pretty deliberate, unless you didn’t understand the words. And, the part snipped out is exactly that part that devastates your theory.
Thanks for your answer.”
Greg, you really assume too much for someone with so little understanding of the subject material. Your hatred towards me should be evident for everyone to observe. Maybe Rene will bail you out again. This will be addressed in detail in my upcoming DNA report. Please withhold further comments on this subject until you have a chance to review that article. If you don’t, you may need Rene a lot more in the future.
In the meantime be it known that my belief is this:
True science and true religion are completely compatible. If there are inconsistencies between true religion and man’s science, it will be science that will conform to true religion, not the other way around.
When God sayes that the earth’s temporal existance will be 7,000 years and he put Adam on the earth, as the first man, 6,000 years ago, Greg, I believe him. Period.
Therefore I do reject the theoretical phylogenetic dating because it is not compatible with the truths of the gospel through the scriptures and the prophets who have spoken dozens of times on the subject. I do, however understand genetics enough to know the difference between phylogenetic (theoretical) dating and pedigree (empiracle) dating. The question is, do you? I can answer that for you because you give no indication that you have any idea about the raging debate going on right under your nose in the genetic world. No, you don’t understand.
Keep you comments coming Greg.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Rod said: The apologists at FAIR…officially launched their reviews of my research presented in the DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography DVD, along with again using a personal and private email to bolster their character assassination attempts to discredit me personally…
Allen said: “Rod, this seems to be an assertion without evidence. Could you please indicate which “personal and private e-mail” you are talking about? I know you feel strongly about the contents of your e-mail being used in our introductory review from June 30, but could you point out where such is used “again” in the reviews released September 3?”
Hello Allen, Yes, I will be happy to provide this evidence. Before I do, however, I would like to thank you for removing the vast majority of it, as your rough draft was loaded with it and the final reviews are truly much improved. I do mean this in all sincerity. Now if you could just get Greg to stop using it, things would calm down alot.
Since you asked. Take a look at the Section 3: Joseph Smith section (full version), the last sentance before the conclusion. It states “The LNAM does not embrace such a venue, and trying to claim revelatory approval for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance of such is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Who is ‘trying to claim revelatory approval’ here? Could you clear this up for me?
Thanks!
September 5th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Again, the evidence disagrees with this reading, since it requires us to ignore key pieces of data.
More importantly, the leaders of the Church have not agreed with this either.
For example, Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve:
So, we don’t have Joseph’s revelation, no leader of the Church from Brigham Young to the present has known about the revelation, but you “emphatically” know he had it?
Q.E.D.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Greg Smith
Yup. I just don’t believe in your use/interpretation of them.
Am I to conclude, then, that if I don’t agree with your reading, I don’t believe “the scriptures as revealed by God’s prophets”?
Or, is more than one reading possible?
So, you snipped out the section of the scientific report–the part that disagrees with you. I guess we now know that it wasn’t accidental.
We do, apparently, have a better understanding of what went on. You decided to snip it out even though you understood it, and even though you knew the people writing the articles wouldn’t agree with your view of it. Why? Because it disagreed with your interpretation of scripture–it couldn’t be true (in your view) so it didn’t bear mentioning.
Have I got that right?
I don’t know if you get get any more poison into the well, there Rod, but keep trying. Maybe people won’t notice.
I’m surprised you think quoting a scientist on how to do science is bad form. I assume you vetted the scientists you (mis)quoted in your presentation? Made sure they were all good Mormons, did you?
I suppose since you’re going to edit them to your taste, that’s less important.
At any rate, I think you’ll find plenty of non-atheists who also think the idea of “objectivity” is nonsense. The ad hominem fallacy is not a pretty thing. In fact, it was the paragons of claims about “objectivity” (see the logical positivists, for example) who tended to die-hard atheism. Most Christians are humble enough to be aware of their own fallibility; it’s not a stance that would appeal to most of them.
If you say so. I suppose I really should go sit at the children’s table, and try not to throw food while the grown-ups eat.
I’m incorrigible.
Readers can judge for themselves whether you are competent to be passing judgment on anyone’s command of the genetics material.
Incidentally, two professional geneticists in the Church checked our material for accuracy. Would you like me to get permission to quote their letters about your work? Think carefully before you answer. Think carefully too about what you claimed about professional geneticists as “DNATruthseeker” on the MADB message board. Their names are not unknown to you.
Well, your presentation would seem to belie that claim. (For interested readers, the term is “empirical.” The literature often refers to it as a “pedigree rate”.)
Again, I can ask those genetics witnesses if you like.
Ok. I’m certainly finding they produce revealing material, in my simple way.
I didn’t say you said we were lying, I said you implied we were lying.
Most reasonable people, when told “You all think this and so are picking on me,” and they are then told, ”No, we have have people who believe other theories; you are mistaken,” and who then get the response “Give me the names so I can verify it for myself,” would probably be justified in concluding that the person is implying that they do not trust the message they have been given.
Since we surely know the opinions of our own group, the only reasonable conclusion is that we would have to lie for our statement to be false.
Yet you did not appear to believe us, but did not think we were lying. Got it. And, you then continued to insist (despite what we told you about having multiple views in FAIR) that we were out to defend “our” view of Mesoamerica.
Curious. So, you believed all along that we had people of multiple views, yet you continued (even on this message blog board today) to charge us with favoring a different view because we wouldn’t give you names. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.
However, I’m glad we have allayed your concerns about whether FAIR is out to ‘defend’ a Mesoamerican setting, and trust we’ll hear no more of this particular diversionary tactic.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Sure. Since I’m the one who edited it, I can definitively say that the I could have just as easily have rendered the sentence as “…trying to claim revelatory approval [by Joseph Smith] for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance [by any other modern prophet] is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Does that help? It had nothing to do with revelation you may or may not have received, or any claims you may have made to having received such. It had to do with Joseph and those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.
-Allen
September 5th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Perhaps you missed the comment in this blog post by Mike Parker where he provided a link to a presentation, at a FAIR Conference several years ago, by David Stewart. He believes in a hemispheric geographical model, and FAIR had no problem with providing the venue for his talk. Does this evidence help with your concerns?
Rod, could you please indicate why you think that someone’s beliefs concerning Book of Mormon geography are of any bearing to whether someone can respond in an “unbiased” manner to your theories? It sounds like you want to do one of two things: (1) try to discredit FAIR using some sort of litmus test of your own devising or (2) paint an academic review of your theories as “biased” because those doing the review may not agree with your theories.
Neither reason makes sense, Rod, because when all is said and done you still haven’t addressed the problems with your theories. You are trying to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the message.
-Allen
September 5th, 2008 at 7:57 am
White responds: Points 2 and 3 are one of the two cores of your insurmountable problem.
a. How do you know (point 1) that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.”?
b. Why did he not “disseminate that knowledge to us”?
c. Given that the Prophets and Apostles are not disseminating any such revelatory knowledge that you allege, why don’t they?
d. Given:
i) that the Prophets and Apostles do not claim that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.” and
ii) that the Brethren do not disseminate any such knowledge to us or disseminate it,
e) On what basis do you claim to know that Joseph Smith had revelatory knowledge that the Brethren do not acknowledge, and in fact say is not the case? In short, how do you claim knowledge of revelations that are not claimed by the Apostles and Prophets?
f) Finally, given that the Prophets and Apostles do not and will not teach that “Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.” what is the basis of your claim:
i) To be entitled to do so, as you are doing; and
ii) To receive money for doing it?
September 5th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Rod, you write:
>True science and true religion are completely compatible.
>If there are inconsistencies between true religion and
>man’s science, it will be science that will conform to
>true religion, not the other way around.
>
>When God sayes that the earth’s temporal existance will be
>7,000 years and he put Adam on the earth, as the first
>man, 6,000 years ago, Greg, I believe him. Period.
I, too believe that true religion and true science are compatible. Nevertheless, I really prefer to be on Brigham YOung’s side, than on yours. Writes he:
Science and Religion — I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, “If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.” In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.258)
In this quote, the Prophet Brigham Young clearly states that in a clash between religion and science, it is NOT always science that is “manmade”, and President Young especially talks about the earth being really old.
So, maybe your endorsement of a young earth idea and your rejection of science whenever it clashes with your religious ideas is premature. I’ve studied the issue a lot, especially from the published viewpoints of general authorities, living and deceased, and I’ve started out as a young earth believer, then became, through that study, a young earth agnostic, and now I believe that God’s creation is as old as science thinks it is. Mind you, it was not science that “corrupted” me, but the words of the prophets, in which I know to be true, that made me turn.
Also, you seem to be an inerrantist.
Again, this is not a position I would like to hold. Says the Prophet Brigham Young again:
“I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fullness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capabilities.”
What does this mean? For me, when the LORD sent missionaries to the Lamanites, that is to the descendants of the people described in the BoM, he was not concerned with ancient Book of Mormon geography, but His message was the border between descendants of BoM people and non-descendants of BoM people in the 1830ies.
And I do believe that the Lord correctly calls all native Amerindians, from Alaska to Firelands “Lamanites” (that is, descendants of BoM people), in the very same way that Jesus is called the Son of David. This does not mean anything concerning the geography of the BoM, though, and it does not say anything about other ancestors of Amerindians.
But, of course, this personal opinion of mine is based on the words of the Prophet Brigham Young, and on the literature the Church has published for the last 178 years or so. Unfortunately, most members never got to that material, and they brought in false traditions. False traditions like “inerrancy”.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mr. Meldrum makes references to the “Lamanites” as found in the D&C, but as seems to be his habit, selects his materials at random, omitting that which doesn’t support his thesis. The Lord, in the D&C, actually tells us who the Lamanites are and how He defines that term:
“D&C 10: 48
48 Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.”
Clearly, one can become a Lamanite via dissension only and without any regard to lineal decent. Thus, because of their apostate state, the plains indians et. al., could very easily be called “Lamanites” though they have no direct lineal connection to the man Laman.
Lance Starr
September 5th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
CC from http://www.bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com and found at: http://bookofmormonevidenceblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/initial-response-to-fairs-reviews-of-this-research/#comment-36#comment-36
White responds: Points 2 and 3 are one of the two cores of your insurmountable problem.
a. How do you know (point 1) that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.”?
Robert, (I hope it’s OK to call you by your given name, as you have not let me know which title you would prefer me to use) I know that you know the answer to this because you read it to me over the phone one evening. But to refresh your memory, I will again lay it out for you. You can find additional information on this here http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n09.htm#706
From the Times and Seasons Joseph wrote the following:
On the evening of the 21st of September, A. D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of scripture on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance, and brightness burst into the room, indeed the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire; the appearance produced a shock that affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God sent to bring the joyful tidings, that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled, that the preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the gospel, in all its fulness [fullness] to be preached in power, unto all nations that a people might be prepared for the millennial reign.
I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of his purposes in this glorious dispensation.
I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me: I was also told where there was deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgement [abridgment] of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things.
Which part of this written historical account do you not understand? It should be clear to anyone that Joseph A. received a heavenly visitation and revelation and B. that it included all the things that he himself said were included (please see above).
So the question to you, Robert, is this…Do you believe Joseph Smith’s written words or don’t you?
If not, please explain away this revelation for us so that we can understand why what he wrote is not what he meant, and explain how it is that you have more knowledge about whether he had the vision or not, that he did.
There are other examples, but this one should suffice to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was shown a tremendous amount of information about the ancient civilization recorded in the Book of Mormon. And yes, he received it by revelation. Read it again, Robert for yourself without trying to ’spin’ it.
Robert White : b. Why did he not “disseminate that knowledge to us”?
I don’t presume to know the mind of Joseph, but if you have somehow received a knowledge of what his thoughts were, please tell us what Joseph was thinking.
Robert White: c. Given that the Prophets and Apostles not not disseminating any such revelatory knowledge that you allege, why don’t they?
I’m not sure your question makes sense, but it appears you are trying to ask why our modern day prophets are not disseminating a revelatory knowledge?
I also don’t presume to know the minds of our prophets either. Your question is obscure.
Robert White: d. Given:
i) that the Prophets and Apostles do not claim that Joseph Smith had “revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? Emphatically YES.” and
Do you have a reference where the Prophets and Apostles specifically claim that Joseph Smith did NOT have a revelatory knowledge of the geography of the Book of Mormon? If so, please post it for us. We would like to see the document, if it exists.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Lance Star wrote: “Clearly, one can become a Lamanite via dissension only and without any regard to lineal decent. Thus, because of their apostate state, the plains indians et. al., could very easily be called “Lamanites” though they have no direct lineal connection to the man Laman.”
While that was certainly true towards the end of the Book of Mormon, where the distinction between ‘Nephite’ and ‘Lamanite’ was one of believers vs. non-believers, rather than any genetic tie.
The question then becomes ‘Who are the ‘remnant’ of the Lamanites? By your definition, the ‘Lamanites’ now include every human on earth who are not members of the church. I highly doubt that is what the Lord meant by a ‘remnant’ as he sent those first missionaries out to specific tribes of Native Americans. By your definition Joseph was sending missionaries to the ‘Lamanites’ as he sent brethren to Europe! That does not seem to make much sense. Do you know of a single example where Joseph thought that the term Lamanite meant every non-believer in the world? If you find it, let us all know.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Brigham Young Quote: “Science and Religion — I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, “If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.” In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.258)”
Rene writes: “In this quote, the Prophet Brigham Young clearly states that in a clash between religion and science, it is NOT always science that is “manmade”, and President Young especially talks about the earth being really old.”
Your understanding of what President Young wrote differs considerably with mine. You ignore the fact that I specifically used the term TRUE religion (meaning revealed truths found in the scripturs such as D&C 77), while obviously Brigham was specifically talking of ‘religious teachers of the people’ or in other words, men of faith of other religions without revelation. You are confused about the Brighams meaning of who would change. Of course man-made religion will change, and man-made science will change, to conform to TRUE RELIGION. D&C 77 as I quoted is a revelation from God, not a man-made religion precept, so your arguement is without merit. Besides, are you saying that you would take a non-revelatory quote from Brother Brigham (he didn’t claim revelation on this so far as I know) over God’s statement in scripture.
Even so, for a clearer understanding of the Prophet Brigham Young’s thoughts on the matter of a young earth, what do you think of this quote of his.
President Brigham Young: “After passing over the ages and generations of the children of men FOR ABOUT SIX THOUSAND YEARS (emphasis mine), we will come to the present congregation and say the right of heirship is the same now that it was in the beginning.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.307, Brigham Young, April 8, 1853)
So Rene, do you still think that Brother Brigham was espousing a 4.3 billion year old earth? Let’s see how you ‘wrest’ his words above to show that he does. Maybe you can ‘interpret’ his meaning for us so that we can all understand why he didn’t really mean “six thousand years” but 4.3 billion.
It is always amazing to me how far some will go to keep one foot on the side of the gospel, and the other foot firmly planted in the theories of men, even when the two are completely incompatible and irreconcilable.
Rene, one day that gulf will widen to the point that you will have to choose who’s side you are on, or you will be stretched until you fall.
Rene wrote: “So, maybe your endorsement of a young earth idea and your rejection of science whenever it clashes with your religious ideas is premature. I’ve studied the issue a lot, especially from the published viewpoints of general authorities, living and deceased, and I’ve started out as a young earth believer, then became, through that study, a young earth agnostic, and now I believe that God’s creation is as old as science thinks it is. Mind you, it was not science that “corrupted” me, but the words of the prophets, in which I know to be true, that made me turn.”
We now all know which foot you have planted where. Please tell me which of the prophets was it that claimed by revelation that the earth is 4.3 billion years old (to endorse the scientific view) to support your last statement (and which would be in direct opposition to the MULTIPLE times the scriptures clearly state otherwise). I’d like to see one. And then I’ll show you 15 pages of quotes where nearly EVERY prophet and many apostles has claimed otherwise. You need to study and have faith in the prophets more and the theories of men maybe just a little less. Your selections of prophetic quotes seem to be limited to the ones that you think support your new found ‘views’.
“Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.” Alma 13:20
Good advice from the Book of Mormon indeed!
September 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Rod,
Just curious… Why do you think that BYU teaches evolution and an “old earth” in their courses?
-Allen
September 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
From a previous post:
Rod said: Since you asked. Take a look at the Section 3: Joseph Smith section (full version), the last sentance before the conclusion. It states “The LNAM does not embrace such a venue, and trying to claim revelatory approval for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance of such is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Who is ‘trying to claim revelatory approval’ here? Could you clear this up for me?
Allen said: “Sure. Since I’m the one who edited it, I can definitively say that the I could have just as easily have rendered the sentence as “…trying to claim revelatory approval [by Joseph Smith] for the LNAM or prophetic acceptance [by any other modern prophet] is not evidenced in the historical record.”
Does that help? It had nothing to do with revelation you may or may not have received, or any claims you may have made to having received such. It had to do with Joseph and those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.”
Yes Allen, your explanation helps to clear that up, and I retract my statement because of the good faith you have shown in cleaning up the personal attacks in the recent review(s). Again I thank you for doing so.
Kudo’s!
Is there a way that I can ‘edit’ my previous post with that statement?
September 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Elder John A. Widtsoe:
So, if Joseph didn’t say where it was, and Elder Widtsoe doesn’t know about Joseph knowing, how do you what Joseph knew?
We can’t know Joseph knew unless he told us he did. And, Elder Widtsoe says he didn’t. (Unless you can read his mind?)
===
For example, Joseph wrote this (and signed it in the Times and Seasons as editor):
Joseph says the ruins of Guatemala speak of their greatness, and the Book of Mormon speaks of their history. Guatemala is, you may note, not in your claimed revelatory geography.
So, we are left with two options:
1) Joseph says the Book of Mormon is a history of people partly in Guatemala. He knew this by revelation. Your claim fails.
2) Joseph was expressing an informed opinion that the Book of Mormon occurred partly in Guatemala–but, did not know by revelation. Your claim fails again.
Given that #1 does not match some of the other data, #2 has been the conclusion of historians, apostles, and Church statements.
Joseph also wrote to Bernhisel that a book on Central American geography “unfolds and develops many things that have great importance to this generation and corresponds with and supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon….”
But, if Joseph knew the Book of Mormon took place in your model, then Central America can tell us exactly nothing about the Book of Mormon at all. Yet, Joseph disagrees–he says this book supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon. Seems pretty clear.
Rod also told Rene:
Hmmmm. What’s that burning smell?
September 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Mr. Meldrum,
Why is it that you think that the reason people take issue with your stuff is because of Geography? ESPECIALLY Fair? Let me give you the perfect example. It appears that your DVDs are clearly based on my geography theory from 2002 that appeared in my book This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation that I co-authored with Wayne May. I have never heard from you, nor have I heard one peep from anybody about giving credit where credit is due for “your” geography, Mr. Meldrum.
Mr. May was responsible for all of the questionable artifacts in that volume, but the Geography is MINE. While it is true that elements of that geography are from other sources, at least May and I gave credit to where credit was due.
So Mr. Meldrum, I have to question your ethics for this very reason. The idea of a confluence of rivers making up the head of the Sidon is lifted from MY book, Mr. Meldrum. That was MY idea.
Now, just because I RETRACTED that geography because it was WRONG, doesn’t change the fact that it is mine.
And guess what Mr. Meldrum. Just guess what I thought at the time. I thought that I felt REVELATION that my Geography was right. I felt so sure that it was right, and I thought I felt the Holy Ghost telling me it was right.
And guess what, Mr. Meldrum. Guess what FAIR found fault with in my book. It was MAY’S ARTIFACTS! NOT the Geography. Brant Gardner reviewed my book, and didn’t find fault with the GEOGRAPHY. He reviewed the faulty artifacts from Burrows Cave and the Soper Savage frauds! And guess what apparently you are using, Mr. Meldrum, that BYU Studies has shown to be fraudulent! You are using the Soper Savage frauds and Burrows Cave frauds!
Now Mr. Meldrum, I may ask, is Meldrum being FAIR when Meldrum doesn’t even give credit where credit is due when he plagiarizes a geography and claims revelation for it?
Here’s a quote from the prophet Joseph Smith that refutes your geography (Oh thats right. Its MY geography):
“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side, in the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that [were] brought, with a broken arrow. They [were] laid down by our camp. Joseph addressed himself to Sylvester Smith: “This is what I told you, and now I want to tell you, that you may know what I meant. This land was called the Land of Desolation, and Onandagus was the King, and a good man was he. There in that mound did he bury his dead. And [they] did not dig holes as the people do now, but they brought there dirt and covered them until, you see, they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high. The last man buried was Zelph. He was a White Lamanite who fought with the people of Onandagus for freedom.” (Levi Hancock Journal)
Notice, Mr. Meldrum, how the placement of the Land of Zarahemla in my old geography is where Joseph Smith said was Desolation. HMMM. Joseph Smith just refuted all North American Setting geographies! That is, if you believe Joseph Smith knew anything about geography, which you seem to claim he did. Joseph Smith’s own words, push the land of zarahemla and the narrow neck south of the United States. The Cumorah question is entirely a different question altogether.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
First off, I am not a member of FAIR. I have attended one of Meldrum’s firesides and have also read FAIR’s posted critique as well as all the posts on this blog to date. I have also looked at Rod’s website a little bit. I wish to add a few of my impressions. So here comes an opinion from a “general member of the church” as Rod referred. I have no position on BoM geography and honestly, I could really care less where it happened. In my opinion, FAIR has done me as a general member of the church a great service in essentially doing much of the leg work that the vast majority of church members would be unwilling or unable to do left to themselves. Most people in the church know next to nothing about DNA and BoM geography. They come to a “fireside” (using this word already creates certain expectations in the church) and to begin, someone is asked to pray. I know Rod that you likely (I hope) don’t plan or know who will pray or what people will say when they pray but when I attended, the sister prayed the same as if we were ready to sit down and listen to an Apostle of God preach to us! To quote her (I took notes) she said “we pray that the spirit will bear witness of the truthfulness of these things as they are presented.” Does anyone see a problem with this besides me? I wanted to crawl under my chair it felt so awkward. Already, this seemed to prime people to suck it all in with no reservations that anything that Rod says or does or puts on his DVDs should be questioned at all! Members of the church by-and-large are very trusting and believing. In such a setting though, this could be a problem. It implies (settle down Rod I’m not putting words in your mouth) that what we are about to be taught is truth, please let me feel the Holy Ghost. While I think this may be a wonderfully appropriate thing to pray for before a missionary discussion and the like, I felt it very inappropriate considering the nature of the material being presented. FAIR’s review I believe allows someone who doesn’t have the background on these topics to have a look at the papers that you quote, the letters you read, the quotes you extract, related research done by other respectable people, and take a step back and ask some valid questions about why you included some things and perhaps intentionally glossed over, ignored or avoided others. Essentially, it allows a general member to “study it out” in his mind. Rod, in your presentation that I attended you mentioned the Bernhisel evidence (by name only) and said something to the effect: ‘I don’t want you to think I’m being one sided but, we don’t have time to go into this so… I’ve covered it.’ (next slide) I am dumbfounded every time I think of that statement. Because in that short statement: (1) you ARE being one-sided and (2) you DID NOT “cover it.” In fact, as I read the Berhisel letter for myself, it is quite devastating to your theory. It seems to have so much more strength than arguing over the definition of one word spoken by an infallible mortal man Joseph Smith in another century, or by extrapolating what Joseph must have known or been taught with your own logic.
Another thing that bothered me is how Rod seems to put his “research” on such a pinnacle. For example, in his presentation, Rod dangled an anti-mormon DVD to his listeners and stated that the reason that the DVD has had so much success, is that until recently (i.e. until Rod’s “research”), it was all found to be true. Yikes! Again, did no one else find a problem with that statement? So if Rod is wrong, I guess the anti-mormon DVD is right after all and I should leave the church! Another example: Rod told the story about the reporter from Germany speaking with Pres. Hinckley at the 2002 games in SLC, and how Pres Hinckley said that the DNA issue has not yet been proven. Then Rod went on to say that in 2002 when Pres Hinckley said that is hadn’t been proven but now with this evidence presented today… (again we should have given him a standing ovation after that grandiose statement regarding his “research.” If “DNA truthseeker” was in attendance I’m sure he would have stood up first.
You may have noticed that I keep putting research in quotations. That is because after examining the scientific papers that Rod has (ab)used, and how he has blatantly and repeatedly used excerpts from while ignoring context and contradictory statements contained in those same papers, I am disgusted. I am in my 8th year of university 4 of which were spent in the sciences and the last 4 in a health science atmosphere. So you see, Rod, I know something about real research and appropriate scientific methodology (and I’m not an atheist…gasp!) and what you are doing/have done fails miserably on both counts. If I did what you have done in paraphrasing and misrepresenting the findings of others’ scientific researchers’ papers to prop up a pet belief of my own, I would be on academic probation. If I persisted and was intentionally doing it, I would likely be dismissed not to mentioned discredited.
So Rod, cut the crap and answer for what you’ve done to manipulate the papers you’ve cited. You keep posting attacks on people that have asked you to answer for your actions.
By the way, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so concerned about going back to change what you said in your previous post and you expressed desire to do. I would be worrying about the people that I have manipulated and the DVDs that you have sold (and are perhaps still selling) that are propagating this philosophy of man mingled with scripture.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Mr. Goble,
Could there be a connection in such a resemblance to your now divested geographical model because your ex-partner has an invested interest in Meldrum money making scheme. If you go to Meldrums website you can see that in his Tour he is providing for the low cost of 2 grand plus air-fare one of the tour guides is Wayne May.
From Meldrums site,
“We are planning to leave the day after October conference, Monday, October 6th, and return on Saturday the 18th.
This is the prime time for the amazingly beautiful autumn leaves in thier full color and it will be the most unforgetable ‘Ultimate’ LDS tour ever.
…,Wayne May, Mary Ellen Elggren along with Rod Meldrum will be the tour directors. New and exciting insights will be discovered and shared by all those in attendence all along the way.”
So the plot thickens. Looks like they are trying to make a buck off plagerizing your theory.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Well, May can’t plagiarize on something that he owns and that he participated in writing. But I am the originator of that part of the book, and May didn’t do any Geography, although in the sequels, May continued on with it.
But if Meldrum has partnered up with May, then the plot thickens in a sense, but if May gave him the go ahead for using the theory, then I guess I can’t say much about it. Perhaps this explains why Meldrum didn’t think he owed anybody like me anything intellectually because he is dealing directly with May in a partnership so it appears. Perhaps May thinks now he owns the idea now. I mean, technically he owns the book… Obviously now the whole thing is a complicated mess now I suppose, but I don’t care much because I’m done with that theory.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Before I begin, I need to note that I am an undergrad student majoring in the sciences. I started out as an anthropology major because I was curious about archaeology and culture. So even though I am no expert and I hold no degree in this subject, I understand what is being presented to a degree.
I watched Mr Meldrum’s dvd because I was asked to by an Institute director who was curious about the claims made in it because he wanted to teach a lesson in one of his mission prep classes on DNA and how to diffuse the subject with antis and investogators alike. He wanted my opinion on the contents as someone who is a science major. Also since Mr Meldrum seems to think that there is a Mesoamerican bias against his work, I would like to point out that I dont buy into the varying Mesoamerican hypotheses. They, like all these other archaeological pursuits to put the Book of Mormon into the context of known amerindian civilizations tend to emphasize little bits and details that “may” be evidences of the Book of Mormon, while throwing important context under the rug making it impossible for much of this stuff to pass any real peer review. I just dont trust the stuff. Do I believe the Book of Mormon happened as it is recorded? Yes. Do I believe we will find substantial archaeological evidence proving that it happened? Probably not. Is that important? Not really. Is the geography of where it occurred really relevant? Not at all. Also, I didnt really look into anyone elses responses to the DVD before watching it so I could be objective in viewing it. So here goes…
If I could go back and do anything differently with how I watched the DVD, I would have watched the DNA segment last. Unfortunately, my issues with this segment made it impossible for me to look at the rest of the DVD objectively. So how does this happen, when the dvd talks about a range of subjects? Cant one segment be iffy while the others great? It depends on what the problem is with the first segment and that problem, as others have stated here, lie in the improper methodology which Mr Meldrum used to present the information. I could go into details but pretty much everything was covered in the fair response to the DNA section and in the comments to this post.
If there is anything I would add, it is that it was clear to me from about 10 minutes into the presentation that Mr Meldrum is not a scientist and did not have anything close to a clear grasp on the underlying concepts of the material he was presenting. He doesnt even have a grasp on how science and the scientific method works. The way he presented Mitochondrial Eve showed me he had no grasp on who she was and how she fits into the theories of modern anthropology as the mtDNA MRCA. How he presented the Czar Nicolas data was also laughable.
So one piece of data is supposed to invalidate an entire set of data? Thats “good science”? The stopclock analogy in the article was perfect in explaining the problems with this kind of thinking, but the fact that he presents it like this shows his complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. You cant throw out an entire set of data because one piece disagrees with the rest of the set, especially when that one piece is clearly an exception and not a rule. Instead, you find out what causes the exception. I never really looked into it to see why the mtDNA mutated so much faster, but here’s an idea I came up with while watching the DVD: Czar Nicolas was a member of the Happsburg royal family. They were well known for their inbreeding. As a scientist I would develop a method for testing this hypothesis and find the rules which dictate the exception.
Maybe I would look at the mtDNA of certain Amish colonies or the FLDS communities and see if they too have an accelerated mutation rate. Maybe inbreeding is the cause of the discrepancy. Maybe not. That is how a scientist would have approached it. They would not have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
His characterization of the Bering land bridge theories as a “pseudotheory” too was laughable. He obviously has no concept of what the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. There is an abundance of evidence showing an asiatic migration into the Americas. Skeletal morphology, dna, dating of artifacts through radiocarbon dating and obsidian hydration all show asiatic origins. This evidence constitutes the theory. The evidence he portrays could barely constitute a hypothesis because so much is untestable. In any case, his conclusions and interpretations of the materials he was dealing with were way off.
I recently read an article in the Religious Educator journal out of BYU that I think is relevant to this DVD. In it, there is a discussion between Richard Holtzapffel (sp?) and a couple other biblical scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Towards the end of the article, Dr Holtzapffel talks about tapes that were widely distributed during the 80s or so claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. These tapes were produced by someone who had no qualifications to make him any kind of authority on the material he was presenting. They were made by someone who did not understand the material he was discussing. They were made with the goal of bringing others into the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if you have read the article, you will know that they ultimately cost us investigators who when finding out that the claims didnt hold up to scrutiny. They dealt a blow to the reputation of the Church in the scholarly community. One scholar in a presentation on the scrolls that Dr Holzapffel attended accused the Church of using them deceptively for conversion. This DVD has the potential to hurt the Church the same way that those tapes did if missionaries go out and use the claims in it as a defense or a proof of the truthfulness of the Church.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Interestingly, while Rod was praising his own work in the 3rd person as “DNA Truthseeker,” he denied a Wayne May connection until later in the process:
This was also the post in which Meldrum mocks the idea of Mesoamericans wearing thick clothing as armor–unaware, it would seem, of their tendency to do just that. Not to be missed.
And, there are Michigan artifacts in the DVD–no pictures that I recall, but they get mentioned and we’re told that adequate scientific studies haven’t been done on them, and they’re then listed in the checklist at the end in the conclusion. So “DNA Truthseeker” is either mistaken or lying about that too.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Mr. Meldrum,
While I think you have a lot to answer for and explain, I’m sorry for flying off the handle and making assumptions. I have no idea who you are or what your connections are exactly. And I have no idea what your basis for using the This Land geography is. But I’m removing myself from this conversation. I should have never entered into it. I’ve been done with this issue for years, and now and again a twinge of anger about it rises up in me, when I should have let it all go. So I’m letting this conversation go. If I were you, I would disassociate myself from the questionable artifacts. Goodbye.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
This DVD has the potential to hurt the Church the same way that those tapes did if missionaries go out and use the claims in it as a defense or a proof of the truthfulness of the Church.
Exactly.
You get it exactly.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
[...] Here is a very interesting discussion going on between FAIR and Rodney Meldrum: FAIR Blog Blog Archive Examining the Secular Side [...]
September 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“This DVD has the potential to hurt the Church the same way that those tapes did if missionaries go out and use the claims in it as a defense or a proof of the truthfulness of the Church.”
Personally, I think that this Meldrum disaster of 2008 (and hopefully no other year) has the potential for being as damaging to the Church and wavering members as the Hoffman escapades of the 1980s. I’ll grant that Meldrum is probably sincere and isn’t trying to derail the work of the Church, but the Meldrum business is of the same type, if not yet the same magnitude, as the Hoffman forgeries.
By the way, has anybody calculated yet whether Meldrum and this cash-cow business of his has made as much as Hoffman?
September 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Rod,
You mention that FAIRs video on DNA “The Book of Mormon and New World DNA” supports your position of the X haplotype. But you fail to mention that it is also said in the explanation of X, that it came into the Americas WAY to early to be used as evidence for The Book of Mormon, but does show that it happened at one time, and could very well happen again.
Also, you say that FAIR did not give you enough time to respond, I am curious, what would have changed if you had more time?
Tyler
September 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Interested on-looker asked:
Without official figures, one can only do back-of-the-envelope calculations.
In May 2008, in response to Rod/DNATruthseeker’s claim that he was doing “free” presentations, one author noted that “the website brags about selling 8,000 of them [DVDs].
Assuming none were sold since then,
8,000 DVDs x $19.95 + $5.00 S&H/DVD (if bought separately) = $24.95 * 8,000 = $199,600 gross. There are other books and the like at the same site.
There’s also this:
I’ve heard cost was about $2,000 per person, but that’s anecdotal.
Note that he’s still pretending to be someone else here. (And, Rod, are you claiming you didn’t have “free access” to equipment from anyone?)
I note, though, that Rod has recently been telling people that he’s shot at least 12 hours of HD footage for a new DVD. Presumably, then, income has been adequate to allow him to undertake another foray into something that is “not an inexpensive venture.”
BTW, to forestall the inevitable attempt at distraction, I will save us all time and point out that FAIR’s DVD is free for all comers on YouTube, and has been for a long time (though I believe this is a newer version now out of beta):