But the point is, May has made all the money off it since 2002. And now Meldrum is making money off my work, so it appears, besides not acknowledging the source of most of his geographical information.

The only money I ever made off the book was the one box of copies of the book that May sent to me that I sold to friends and family for cheap, after all those years of work on the book. And Meldrum expects me not to be upset, and accuses me of unchristianlike behavior.

In an article written by Elder George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency in 1890 he noted that there was wide disagreement at the time among students of the Book of Mormon as to the locations of Book of Mormon events. “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared to even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to to clear up many points now obscure . . . . Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go, because it is plain to be seen, we think, that evils may result therefrom”(George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor (January 1, 1890); reprinted in The Instructor 73/4 [April 1938]: 159-60).

On May 25, 1903 President Joseph F. Smith attended a convention on the Book of Mormon at BYU Academy in Provo, Utah. After several individuals and expressed and presented their views on the subject, “President Smith spoke briefly and expressed the idea that the question of the situation of the city [of Zarahemla] was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on he question it would not affect the salvation of the people: and he advised against students considering it of such
vital importance as the principles of the Gospel . . . . [He] again cautioned the students against making the union question–the location of the cities and lands–of the equal importance with the doctrines contained in the book . . . . [President Anthony H. Lund] advised those present to study
the Book of Mormon, and be guided by the advice of President Smith in their studies” (Deseret News, 25 May 1903).

“The present associate editor of The Instructor was one day in the office of the late President Joseph F. Smith when some brethren were asking him to approve a map showing the exact landing place of Lehi and his company. President Smith declined to officially approve of the map, saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it, and that if it were officially approved and afterwards found to be in error, it would affect the faith of the people” (The Instructor, April 1938, 160).

“There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where is the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographical matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles the question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles aprt in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do no make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true”
(President Anthony W. Ivins [He was a counselor in the First Presidency at this time], General Conference, April 1929, 15-16).

“I sometimes think we pay a little undue attention to technicalities, and to questions that cannot be fully answered with respect to the Book of Mormon. It matters not to me just where this city or that camp was located. I have met a few of our Book of Mormon students who claim to be
able to put their finger upon the map and indicate every land and city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The fact is, the Book of Mormon does not give us precise and definite information whereby we can locate those places with certainty. I encourage and recommend all possible
investigation, comparison and research in this matter. The more thinkers, investigators, workers we have in the field the better; but our brethren who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must speak with caution and not declare as demonstrated truths points
that are not really proved. There is enough truth in the Book of Mormon to occupy you and me for the rest of our lives, without giving too much time and attention to these debatable matters (James E. Talmage, General Conference, April 1929, 44).

“He that hath an ear to hear . . .”

Please be the first poster on the new thread here:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/09/book-of-mormon-geography/

Maybe you can start us off with your internal geography?

Greg

See here:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/09/book-of-mormon-geography/

It will be a jolly old time. You are an unethical clown and a charlatan. I cant wait to meet you.

Let’s please be civil, or FAIR won’t have any interest in hosting this. As you have indicated, there is much that is problematic. But, as you’ve also indicated, _ad hominem_ serves no one well.

Greg

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html

If you don’t agree with me on Cumorah being our best strating point, I would be very open to hearing what you consider to be the best piece of evidence or the best witness to call upon as the most solid to date.

In my opinion, it is a huge problem to start with ANY physical location. You’re already making assumptions, no matter how hard we try.

First, you need an internal map and geography. Only when you can say that you’ve got the Book of Mormon text figured out, can we start looking for physical locations.

So, I would say–pick a theoretical geography, and start from there. You can build your own, but since Sorenson has done the most work, I don’t understand why people don’t cheat and start with his. Explain what he gets wrong, and why. Then modify his map. Repeat.

Once that’s done, then one can start to think about placing that map with real-world correlates. John Clark’s article(s) on this are required reading. They’re in the FAIR review.

I forgot to respond about the drumlin not being able to have a cave in it. Apparently you are not aware of the chambers within Adena mounds dating to the Book of Mormon time period archaeologically, which are also piles of dirt, but the chambers were deliberately constructed of wood. The very same thing could be done to a drumlin by constructing a man-made chamber within it and then burying the chamber back up again. This is not only plausible, but has the archaeological analog to go along with it. Nobody said the cave had to be a natural one.

The interpretation you bring up of Mormon 6:6 is flawed at a fundamental level, because that scripture only mentions what Mormon did, and what plates he delivered to his son. It doesn’t comment on what Moroni did decades later, and certainly doesn’t prophesy of something to come decades later. It doesn’t say anything about where the plates Moroni had ended up. Therefore, you cannot establish by it that Moroni did not go back to the very same hill decades later, nor can you establish by it that he did either. Therefore, the Book of Mormon itself is silent on where those plates ended up, and is silent on the point of whether that hill is the same one that we know they ended up in New York.

If some dude lived in a house and his journal says he didn’t have a certain book in his house, and then later on, long after he wrote it, some other dude brings the book into the house, you cant use his earlier journal entries as evidence that the book was never brought into the house decades later. That kind of logic is absurd and flawed.

That’s like saying that I never lived in Riverton, Utah since 2001 because my dad’s journal from 1996 says I lived in Magna, Utah. That’s absurd.

Whoever I am? Wow for someone crying about the spirit of contention not being conducive to the spirit you sure are quite the hypocrite. With all of the data I presented, you decide to reply with a simple ad hominem attack on me. For your information, I am a biology major. And the debate between phylogenetic and pedigree dating here is totally irrelevant. The debate you speak of, any way you pute it has nothing to do with the first woman Eve, it has to do with the MRCA (most recent common ancestor). Did you know we have genetic data in our mtDNA from women before her? Maybe thats why shes called the “most recent” common ancestor instead of the “most distant”. Shocker! An even bigger shocker for you I am sure will be the fact that the dates for mitochondrial eve and y chromosomal adam dont correlate! Honestly, you are a sad person. Basically whats going on here is peer review, and you are responding with ad hominem attacks. So this team you have doing your homework, are they as well educated as you? I sure hope you have at least one person on your staff who knows how science works because you sir surely dont. Heck, I hope you find someone who knows how argumentation works for that matter since you cant seem to address any of the issues being brought up and keep presenting this as people attacking your Geography. They have done nothing but questioned your methodolgy which is rife with cherry picked quotes, and deceptive logical fallacies. What is the FAIR has kept their criticism of you well within the bounds of acceptable and cordial from a scholarly viewpoint in dealing with your distortions but I will not. I can not wait for you to do a presentation down here in southern California because I will be there. And you can be sure Mr Meldrum, that I will confront you face to face in front of a crowd. So you had better hope that your crew of clowns you have doing your homework for you know what they are talking about because I will not hold back in my criticism of your unethical and deceptive scholarship at all. It will be a jolly old time. You are an unethical clown and a charlatan. I cant wait to meet you.

I have written an article that was going to be featured first in a book that I have written, but it has since been removed. It is going to be published in Dialogue soon if it makes it through their peer review. It is entitled “Resurrecting Cumorah,” meaning, resurrecting the traditional view of Cumorah in New York as the ancient site of the battles. However, now my reasoning is because of the Book of Mormon text, not because of tradition.

Now, if you do not address the objections against Cumorah in New York one by one and soundly defeat them made by David Palmer in In Search of Cumorah as well as the multitude of other charges made against it by the Mesoamericanist crowd, then you simply cannot “begin at Cumorah.” It is discredited, and a lot of work has to be done to establish it as rational AND plausible. Only when something is rational and plausible, can belief exist. Irrational belief doesn’t impress people who want to believe in something rational.

Could you give us a scripture from the Book of Mormon that confirms that the plates that Moroni had were buried in the hill Cumorah mentioned in the book? I am aware that the Book of Mormon refers to many records contained in a cave in a hill called Cumorah, however, does the book say that the plates that were in the possession of Moroni were buried in the same hill? One problem that I have with the New York hill Cumorah is that the hill is a drumlin: It is a pile of glacial gravel – there is no cave in it.

The best arrow in Rod’s quiver is his idea of starting at the Hill Cumorah in determining a geography.

The two Cumorahs theory never made a bit of sense to me in light of all the statements and accounts that seem to indicate that the Cumorah where Moroni buried the plates was the same Cumorah and region where the Nephites fought their last battle. You really have to stretch credibility, credulity, and imagination to make a two Cumorah theory work. Why would Moroni lug the plates for thousands upon thousands of miles to a hill in upstate New York, risking death, capture, and subsequent loss of the plates? Why would Joseph Smith indicate that Zelph was killed in the final battles between the Lamanites and Nephites if these battles occured in Central America? All of the contemporary accounts seem to indicate that Joseph believed the Hill Cumorah and the surrounding valley to be the BoM Cumorah. This idea is just as credible, in my view, as the Times & Seasons articles discussing Nephites in Chile and Guatamala, if not more so. If we use Joseph and his contemporaries as key witnesses in our case, we have to accept that a hemispheric model, with all of its inherent difficulties, seems to be the order of the day.

Rod has accurately determined that these witnesses (Smith, Young, etc.) are crucial, because, frankly, we don’t have a lot in the realm of archaeological or anthropological evidence that is of any substantial value to our cause. The closest we get is the mammoth findings in North America. The Jaredites had the elephant, and they inhabited the land northward, no? The Jaredites also met their end in the same lands of Desolation/Cumorah. Just one more boost for the one Cumorah plank.

If we are ever to agree on anything at all in the search for BoM lands, Cumorah seems to be our best hope for a point of consensus. IT seems to be one of the precious few areas of discussion that may approach the “beyond a reasonable doubt” realm. If we can’t agree at this point, let’s just all agree to disagree and drop the whole topic now, becuase any other course makes Joseph and his contemporaries unusable as witnesses, and what are we left with then? Not much. Very not much. At that point, anyone’s theory is just as valid as anyone else’s.

If you don’t agree with me on Cumorah being our best strating point, I would be very open to hearing what you consider to be the best piece of evidence or the best witness to call upon as the most solid to date. credible.

Rod needs a bit of help here. I know his theory has more howlers in it than a rain forest, but even a dead clock is right twice a day. Smile, Rod. I’m poking a wee bit of fun at some of your evidences, NOT YOU!!! Play along and defend your theory, or go home and pout. Half of the fun in scholastic debate is the ribbing you can dish out now and again.

Just don’t allow yourself to get so personally attached to and invested in what is, after all, just a theory.

If you have a good theory, it will be defendable with sound facts. If you have a bad theory, you have to take your medicine and revise your view. No harm in that. My views are constantly under revision, and I’m not ashamed or embarrassed by that. All most of us are saying is please don’t make the mistake of thinking that God is going to grant you sure revelation on what would most certainly be considered a matter that would be of importance to the entire church. If you feel that you are right through what you perceive to be the Holy Ghost, you remove yourself entirely from the realm of scientific thought and research. You are no longer in a position to discuss and debate. You are aligning yourself with God, and your view can no longer be a theory. That is the problem. You claim on one hand that you are only arguing for a still-evolving theory, while indicating that your theory is backed by revelation on the other. Those two views are incompatible. You may refer to recorded revelaion as a supporting point for your theory, but you don’t seem to grasp the proper use of evidence.

I don’t have much of a background in science. I DO have a fairly substantive background in law enforcement/criminal investigation, especially theft and fraud investigation. The cardinal rule in any GOOD investigation is to refrain from making any encompassing theory until all evidence is in and evaluated. The evidence drives the theory. This is the exact same principle that drives the scientific method. With all due respect to you, Rod, you wouldn’t make a good detective if you were to use your BoM methodology in a criminal investigation. Your approach is NOT scientific. You start with your pet theory (the BoM occured solely in North America) and then try to explain away or completely ignore evidence that doesn’t support that view. To be fair, FAIR does this to a certain extent as well. A proper approach would be to calm down and realize that the investigation is still ongoing and we are nowhere near ready to take our case into the courtroom. We need to look at all the evidence objectively and continue to search for a theory that will hold up beyond a reasonable doubt. Every bit of evidence needs to be carefully evaluated, for not all evidence is equal in value or credibility. What you are experiencing at this point is equivalent to what you experience if you go into a courtroom with a sloppy and incomplete case. The defense shreds you to pieces, and you have insufficient evidence to do anything about it. Your mistake, Rod, was in jumping the gun and going to court WAY too early.

Now, everyone, can we discuss some geography, already?

Are you guys all in the same church or what?

If it wasn’t so sad, (watching you all denigrate one another) it would be comical.

I do appreciate the insight into Mormon thought, though. I especially like the way you attack the person instead of what he has to say. That is very insightful. Thanks.

That might explain the teaching on the subject in the classrooms, though personally I think that the Church leaders would be more willing to shut down the university than allow false teachings to be taught to faithful LDS youth as truth, thus intentionally leading them away from belief in what the prophets and scriptures have taught according to Mr. Meldrum. This intentionally allowed deception (according to Mr. Meldrum) must have the ultimate effect of causing them to doubt the credibility of the prophets and the scriptures and ultimately weaken their faith in the Gospel, which is directly contrary to the stated mission of BYU as clearly stated: “The mission of Brigham Young University–founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life” and includes the observation “[t]o succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God”.

Accreditation is desirable when trying to establish a recognizably high quality university, but in the minds of our Church leadership that takes second place (if not way down on the list) to the Church’s three fold mission that includes perfecting the Saints, though perhaps Mr. Meldrum justifies his disbelief in this proclaimed mission of BYU by believing that the Church leadership are quite comfortable in lying about their actual priorities for the Saints.

BYU has not been reluctant in the past to dismiss professors who have taught socially acceptable theories which happened to be contrary to the teachings of the prophets and scriptures in the field of science and other areas. Why would they be so willing to give in on this one issue of evolution and the old earth when they have not in others?

Mr. Meldrum apparently thinks the First Presidency and other church leaders place more value on the approval of the world than on the Word of the Lord when it comes to educating our youth or so this answer of his would lead me to believe. I don’t see much evidence myself for his claim and a lot of evidence in contradiction in the actual practices of BYU as well as the mission statement (which can be read here: http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/missionstatement.aspx

—–

It should also be obvious that there is nothing in “acceditation compliance” that requires that placement of the packet on evolution whose contents have been detailed above in the HBL Library accessible to all students and anyone else interested.

Therefore I ask the question to Mr. Meldrum why has the Church leadership through BYU made available to the faculty and students of BYU this packet of materials, vetted and approved by the highest members in our leadership, on Evolution and the Origin of Man?

“For acceditation compliance” will not suffice as an logical answer here so I hope you will take the time to explain your reasoning on this as I am very curious as to your position.

Cal

The following is in response to Rodney’s comments about my post on his views concerning the teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ at Brigham Young University, given that the trustees of that university are the entire First Presidency and seven Apostles.

The first part of his response is this:

“Why did you not put my entire post into your comments? I simply re-used your comments in the same way you used them against me as an example of how you are taking things and twisting them to make me appear as though I am doing things I am not, nor intend.

“I used your same slick tactics on you and your response is testiment of how it feels to be so maligned. Your continuous and unrelenting attacks on my character and your misrepresenting my words in every conceivable way possible are clear. Feigning your ‘concern’ for me is unbecoming.”

I followed the accustomed practice of keeping entries as brief as possible, and so quoted the relevant parts. However, so that Rodney cannot make that the issue rather than responding to what is the issue,as a first step I am setting out the entirety of Rodney’s post to Allen, now. It is long, but will put an end to this diversion from the issue with the added benefit of demonstrating the problem at length. The sarcasm and innuendo is more fulsome than in the portions I quoted.

“Allen Wyatt Says:
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

“For acceditation compliance. The vast majority of Prophets and apostles who have addressed the subject, along with the scriptures, do not support pre-Adamites or earth’s temporal existence longer than 7,000 years. Do your homework on the matter and you will see. Either the prophets and the scriptures are correct, or the philosophies of men are correct. I do not feel that they can be reconsiled (although I know plenty of others who believe they can), but either way, I am standing with the Prophets and their clear statements to the best of my ability, even if it goes against the concensus.

“Rod Meldrum Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Allen Wyatt Says:
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

“Dear Allen, that is a really good question. Please see the following quote by the founder of the Brigham Young Academy himself, Brigham Young.

“We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall…this course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst.”
(Brigham Young, Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, p. 200.)

“Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.

“Allen, do you believe the church now endorses evolution and an ‘old earth’? Please let us all know?

“Does the fact that BYU is teaching these concepts indicate their acceptance of such? I know that some professors do indeed teach evolution as ‘the firmest fact of science’ but I reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. Are you stating that my belief in the scriptures and the prophets are any less valid than your ideas on Darwin’s evolution or an old earth?

“Allen, do you believe evolution and an ‘old earth’ over these witnesses?

“Tell us how you are going to reconsile Brigham Young’s statement with your position.”

And so, Rodney, there it all is. I do not use “slick tactics”, and a comparison of my selections from your entire post will demonstrate that.

Rodney then writes to me:

“Showing that BYU approved the teaching of evolution does not translate into official acceptance of evolution for the church.”

First, it was not BYU that approved it. Through its Provost, Bruce C. Haffen (now of the Seventy) the Board of Trustees was asked for guidance. That came under cover of their letter of June, 1992, identifying a packet of materials to be made available for faculty and students on the subject of Evolution and The Origin of Man.

Not forbidding the teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ of course does not constitute “official acceptance” of evolution for the Church. That is the point which I made, and you have avoided. You have, in your exchange with Allen, placed belief in and by innuendo teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ against a paragraph in the letter by Brigham Young to one of his sons, and thus made it a test of allegiance to the Prophets this way:

“I…reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. …”. Therefore, in allowing the teaching of evolution and an ‘old earth’ at BYU, you are saying by necessary and obvious and unescapable conclusion that the First Presidency and a majority of the Apostles are permiting things that are contrary to “the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. The innuendo, which is offensive to the Brethren, is made clear from your statement introducing this point: “Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.”

I will put it starkly: Rodney, write to the First Presidency, with a copy to your stake president, and another full copy and evidence of mailing posted here, and tell them that on a public Blog you asked “…why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university [Brigham Young founded] when you “…reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. …”; and that anyone who believes “evolution and an ‘old earth’ over these witnesses” should “…tell us how [they]are going to reconsile Brigham Young’s statement with [their] position.” Please do it and put the minds of all of us at rest.

Rodney then writes to me:

“The official statement of the church is clear. Please see below. This was reiterated in the Feb. 2002 Ensign. Read it, Brother White, and please explain it for all of us to see.”

OK, having read it in several locations, several times in the past, and having now looked it up and read it again, I will. The lead-in to the article in the February 2002 Ensign states:

“In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.”

The 1909 letter from the First Presidency is included in the Packet which the Brethren authorized to be made available to faculty and students at Brigham Young University. In addition to the 1909 letter the Brethren included the following: 1) Their June 1992 cover letter; 2) the Context of the 1909 First Presidency Statement–the one set out in the Ensign; 3) An excerpt from a First Presidency Message in 1910; 4) the Context of the First Presidency Statement “Mormon View of Evolution” in 1925; 5) The First Presidency Statement of 1925; 6) the Conext of the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on evolution published in 1992; 7) The article from the encyclopedia.

The Brethren obviously are of the view that all of these documents, and the context in which they were written, are of value.

The article in the Encyclopedia includes this statement: “The scripture tell us why man was created, but they do not tell us how, though the Lord has told us that he will tell us that when he comes again. (Doctrine and Covenants 101:32,22) A fuller version of the article was presented to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, from which the existing article was developed. Final approval was given to it by Gordon B. Hinckley. This information is included in the authorized Packet.

From this it will be clear that any actions taken by the Brethren with respect to these subject, and the teaching of them, are taken with great care, deliberation, moderation and inspiration. It is offensive, and disprespectful to the Brethren, for Rodney to challenge a Latter-day Saint to “…tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university [Brigham Young] founded.”

Now, so any bias of mine is known: 1) I sustain, honor, revere and follow the Brethren without an deviation of which I am aware. 2) I cannot figure out evolution. I do not deny it; but as a layman I do not understand how it can be. I have tried. I find no fault with those who accept it. 3) I believe that the earth is very old. I do not believe that there is any scripture or other doctrine in the Church that precludes or condemns that belief, nor is there any that requires it.

I end with the core issue, which Rodney has not addressed: please read what he wrote to Allen, all of it as Rodney insists–I have set it out in full above–then please read my comments about it. To these last, there has been no answer.

Greg must not have gotten the memo about using someone’s personal, private correspondence that FAIR honorably avoided the second round of reviews.

What memo is this, Rod?

You need better legal counsel if you think this has any grounds at all. The law is very well established on this point. You should get them to look up “fair use, for starters.

I’m not sure why you think FAIR would use your e-mail twice. We don’t tend to repeat ourselves (except when speaking directly to you, in this case). It’s still available here. FAIR has not withdrawn its citation or use of it–nor have they any reason to.

If you feel it has been used out of context, you can always demonstrate how.

I didn’t write the letter. I didn’t steal it. I didn’t break into your Dear Diary by snapping the Heart-Shaped Locket(tm). You sent that letter to several people. At least one of them forwarded it to a bunch of people. And, one of _those_ people forwarded it to me. I’m at least third a generation recipient. So, how far do you think your claims have spread?

You didn’t label it as “personal and private” (not that this would matter legally). You sent it out to encourage people to come to a meeting to support your ideas.

It is ironic–and telling–that you refuse to deal with the letter’s contents, and want desperately for it to go away. This is not surprising, since any Latter-day Saint who reads it will see what is going on. And, they will be (as I am) concerned.

Tell me, Rod, if I wrote a letter saying that Thomas S. Monson is a fallen prophet, and gave it to ten of my friends, is that any more of a problem than if I tell a thousand people?

You made your views known to others. You’ll have to deal with that.

Greg’s continued hate posts has earned him ‘banned’ status on my blog, so you will only get it here on the FAIR blog.

“Hate posts?” Goodness, and me without my shaved head and SS tattoos. I’m just quoting your own words, Rod. You said you never claimed revelation. I’ve shown with your own words that that claim is not true. That isn’t hate.

I’ve said nothing at all about you personally.

Is it so strange to you, Greg, when making a big decision like this was for me that you would consult the Lord through prayer, your patriarchal blessing, and get advice from those you know and respect?

No, Rod. What’s strange to me is that you would seek for signs, admit it to others as a GOOD thing, and then use your personal revelatory experiences as an argument to persuade others (see below).

None of these things involved anyone else as far as guidance, and I was not attempting to win anyone over. It was an invitation to participate in a preliminary meeting to a group who are supporters of the research. I was not attempting to persuade anyone,

So, you included them NOT because you thought they might persuade people? You were just including them as an “FYI”?

That is certainly not the impression one gets, especially when one reads such lines as these:

* “I hope you feel as I do that we are all engaged in saving souls….”
* “I have pondered and prayed about a name for this organization and the name that was received is….”
* “So the Lord is watching out for this project!”
* “THANK YOU for all you are doing in forwarding this work. It is hoped that this group will form the nucleus for the organization that will be responsible for turning the tide of anti-Mormon falsehoods and re-establishing Joseph Smith as the preeminent scholar on the subject of Book of Mormon geography and reinforcing it as the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

So, none of this was intended to persuade others, and will not reasonably have that effect? Really?

It is difficult to see these as anything but attempts to persuade others to support what you’re doing. And, most of the e-mail is taken up with signs, promptings from the Lord, etc. You’re asking us to believe that you included all that for no reason whatever, and with no intent that they would sway anyone?

Is that right?

You seem to be taking issue with me (or anyone) for having answers to prayers.

Nonsense. I’m taking issue with you seeking signs (which is forbidden by scripture) and using your own claimed revelatory experiences and signs in a letter whose intent you admit was designed to get other people to help you with your foundation. (Except all the stuff about revelation–that was just filler, not intended to persuade anyone of anything at all.)

That you cannot see the distinction is staggering, but less surprising as time goes on. I can only hope that repetition will help.

You complain someone “betrayed your trust” by sending the letter. Surely if they forwarded it on, they understood what you were doing–as almost any Latter-day Saint would.

I believe in prayer. I do not claim to have had such guidance for anyone else or for the church, but the scriptures are clear that we should all be asking for guidance, and I do. This was and is for me only.

If that was true, then why did you speak about it to others? If it was for you, then it was for you–not me, not anyone else, and not for the people who hoped would join the FIRM Foundation. Yet, surely you intended it to go to THEM, at least?

You are again attempting to impugn my character.

I’m not impugning your character. I have said nothing about your character. I have posted your own words. If they reflect poorly on your character, that is your fault, not mine. You make claims, and I have demonstrated repeatedly that those claims are false.

I think your repeated disparagement of those who do not agree with you on this board probably speaks more loudly on the issue of your character than anything I have said.

Your e-mail merely shows us what is actuating your behavior here, and elsewhere.

I hope people see it for what it is, personal character assasination. I have not done so with you, why do you have such bitterness and hatred toward me?

I’m not bitter, and I don’t hate you. I’m concerned for you, but I suspect you will never believe that. I’m also concerned for those whom you might mislead.

You’re charging toward a cliff, with some people following you. Many people are yelling “Stop” to you and them. Even if you don’t listen, perhaps some others will not follow you over the cliff.

I hope people see it for what it is, personal character assasination. I have not done so with you….

You really should quit making claims that your own words don’t back up. You’ve repeatedly associated me with “atheists” for merely quoting an atheist, and you’ve now accused me of hate speech. You’ve also implied that if I don’t share your view of a particular scripture interpretation, I’m not sustaining them or the prophets. I’ve asked you to clarify if it is possible to read scripture differently than you and still be right before the Lord. You’ve not answered yet.

I’ve got some other examples from your e-mails to FAIR. Do you want to withdraw this claim, or shall I post them too?

What is wrong with competing in the realm of ideas on geography, if there is no offical established geography as you have stated so many times?

There’s nothing wrong with competing with the ideas, full stop. There is something (a great deal) wrong with claiming to others that your decision came by revelation (“after much prayer”) and then expressing that conviction publicly to those whom you are hoping will help you form a foundation to do just that. (But, lest we forget, you didn’t tell them this decision was given you by heaven to influence them in any way. Right? You were just making conversation?)

But, you have done more than disagree about ideas. You have chosen to slander those who disagree with your ideas as not supporting the prophets and apostles. You’ve done that with FARMS/NAMI, you’ve done that with me, and you’ve done that with others on this very blog post. Again, I’ve got letters. Do you want everyone to see them? Think carefully before you answer.

It is simply a proposed idea, yet you falsely make it out to be a sinister plot. Such stretches of imagination are becoming commonplace within FAIR, and are false.

I haven’t said it’s a sinister plot. I don’t think you plotted with anyone–I think this is all your own error. Your words speak for themselves. If I’ve misrepresented the e-mail, then post it and show how innocent this all is.

I suspect you will not, because you cannot.

Besides, you seem to insist that your FIRM foundation email was to be utterly secret, and no one else has any right to know what was in it. If this is so, then that begins to look quite a big more conspiratorial–”come to my foundation meeting, named by God, confirmed by signs, etc., but don’t let anyone else know about this in any way.”

Which is it? Were your FIRM foundation plans secret, private, not for anyone else to know about–or, they were perfectly innocent gatherings for benign purposes?

If you truly believe the latter–and I think you do–then your continued insistence that your e-mail is somehow privileged, private, and off limits just doesn’t wash.

Your choice.

Greg’s continued hate posts has earned him ‘banned’ status on my blog

I suppose this does spare you the difficulty of answering my questions, drawn from your own words.

I guess this claim from your blog doesn’t apply, then:

No crude, vulgar or unethical comments will be allowed, however views differing from the authors/editors will be allowed so long as they are not abusive. Should abuse occur, it will be deleted. If it happens again, that poster will be permanently blocked.

(I apologize to delicate readers, for whom the posting of Rod’s own words will constitute hate speech, and require you to reach for your smelling salts. We’ll pause briefly while you gather yourselves….)

So, can you show me where I’ve made a “crude,” “vulgar,” “abusive,” or “unethical” comment on your blog? Can you show me the first instance of abuse which I’ve committed, which should have been deleted before banning me permanently for a second offense? Can you show me a warning e-mail or comment from you anywhere about my behavior on your blog?

I suspect not. If anyone can, I will correct the matter.

You claim to want a discussion about ideas. But, when you’re offered that–I’ve said nothing about you personally, just about what I find problematic about your claims–you complain about where the ideas come from (your own e-mail and writing) and then prefer to silence me.

Maybe discussion isn’t what you’re looking for?

I recently contributed a post addressing Rod’s criticism of the teaching of evolution and ‘old earth’ geology at Brigham Young University, implying that to do so was directly contrary to the views of a Prophet. I pointed out that the Board of Trustees of the University consist of the First Presidency, seven members of the Quorum of the Tweleve Apostles and other General Authorities. Rodney has thus arrayed himself against the Brethren themselves. I noted that this is another clear demonstration of the root problem with his Book of Mormon geography–nothing could make this clearer. I pleaded with him to stop.

At the end of my post, I added as a supplement for the benefit of those who may have been unaware of it, that in June 1992 the University’s Board of Trustees (still the entire First Presidency, seven Apostles, and other General Authorities) published a packet of materials at BYU address the subject of evolution and the origin of man.

Rather than accept my plea to him to stop arraying himself against the trusteeship of the University by the Brethren, or addressing the issue of his doing so, Rodney, in the following, chooses instead to take me to task for informing readers of the Packet authorized by the Brethren for use at BYU. Here is what Rodeny wrote:

” Dear Robert White,
Are we to understand from the authorization of “a packet of materials on evolution” that you are now claiming to have established the official position of the church on the matter of evolution, thereby taking into your own hands the authority of it’s leadership and claiming that the church has officially sanctioned and embraced evolution and an ‘old earth’?
…
“Can you see how you are usurping the authority of the entire church and its leaders by speaking officially for them on the matter of evolution? It seems you are overstepping your bounds and don’t understand proper priesthood lines of authority in making such claims for the church. Stop, brother, stop!”

The transformation of my heartfelt plea into a parody is saddening. More to the point, however, is that in a regrettably typical avoidance of the substance of this or other examples of his calling into question–in this case, his apparent opposition to the Brethren’s permitting the teaching of evolution and an ancient earth at Brigham Young University, he ignors the tragic position on which he has been called, and tries to deflect readers onto a tangental offering of information. I have a enough respect for those who read here, that Rodney may not, that to believe that you will have noticed that my message and plea have gone unanswered, and drawn your conclusions from that. I am sure you will have also noticed the intellectually dishonest attempt made by Rodney to use my item of information of general interest, to portray me as an apostate, setting myself up as a light to the world. Because this effort by Rodney can inform all readers of his methods and intent, I will first set out my brief item of information, and then Rodney’s assault on it, and me. My purpose is not to defend myself, for I have no need for defence, but to demonstrate how Rodney works.

Here is what I added after my substantive comments:

“With respect to the evolution matter: In 1992 the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University authorized the publication of a packet of materials on “Evolution And The Origin Of Man”, by a letter dated in June of that year.”

This is a simple statement of fact: The entire First Presidency, seven Apostles, and other General Authorities issued a letter authorizing the publication of a packet of information on this subject, in June 1992. It will be clear to all that I have only said what the Brethren did.

Here is Rodney’s response. He is addressing the statement of fact I made, about the packet, quoted just above.

“Can you see how you are usurping the authority of the entire church and its leaders by speaking officially for them on the matter of evolution? It seems you are overstepping your bounds and don’t understand proper priesthood lines of authority in making such claims for the church. Stop, brother, stop!”

In the last three words he mocks my plea for him to stop what he is doing–for his sake, and for those who may listen to him.

The following will be clear to your from his response to my statement of fact about a step taken by the Brethren:

1. I have not spoken official or otherwise for the Brethren or the Church on evolution or anything else. I have merely pointed out to interested readers something the Brethren have done.

2. I not not “usurped the authority of the entire Church and its leaders…” It is clear that the Brethren’s letter of June 1992 explains the purpose and use of the packet. I had nothing to do with it, do not have anything to do with, but as with many other Latter-day Saints I do appreciate the Brethrens’ letter and the packet which it makes available.

3. I have not overstepped my bounds and have not misunderstood “proper priesthood lines of authority” by informing members of something the Brethren have published,

4. Lastly “as far as my “…making such claims for the church,” as Rodney says, I guess I have said that the Brethren have written an open letter making material available for consultation at and by the University, and explaining why. But I haven’t invoked any priesthood that I have, nor spoken for the Church, as will be clear to all.

I have set all this out, not in defence of anything I have written or done, but to illustrate that which must be grasped to understand FAIR’s concerns, and the perils to which it has drawn attention: Rodney ignores or sidesteps actual issues; Rodney distorts what one says when calling his statements into question; and Rodney mocks those who, in charity, plead with him to stop. I dare say that this modest post of mine will explain to any who read it what the real problem is with Rodney’s self-appointed mission and business and, thus informed, will be protected and able to protect others.

At the conclusion of his message to me, Rodney says that he is now forever leaving the FAIR Blog because it has become “to (sic) contentious.” That is welcomed. However, regretably he continues his contention on his own Blog. I’m going to post this there, although I don’t know if it will pass review.

Don’t use my name misspelled as if we are a “team” or something leaving the conversation. I guess I haven’t left the conversation like I thought, since you re

It is abundantly clear, Mr. Meldrum that you bore testimony of the truth of your claims and then asked others to get revelation on what you got revelation on, rather than asking them to get confirmation without bearing your testimony of the truth of your claims. Your bearing of your testimony on your claims is claiming revelation on your claims.

Its not Gobble, Mr. Meldrum. Its Goble.

Given that the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University includes The First Presidency, seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles,and other General Authorities you are, in essence, speaking for the Brethren themselves that “we are teaching Evolution (sic) and an ‘old earth’” at the University. The question is rhetorical but definite: Is Brother White speaking for the trusteeship of the University and the entire First Presidency and seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles in doing so? This demonstrates as cleary as anything could be demonstrated why Rod became concerned with Brother Whites public teachings–the issue there was a root the same as the issue he demonstrates now.

Can you see how you are usurping the authority of the entire church and its leaders by speaking officially for them on the matter of evolution? It seems you are overstepping your bounds and don’t understand proper priesthood lines of authority in making such claims for the church. Stop, brother, stop!

The above is an (almost humorous) example (however poorly done) of the magnitude of the stretches FAIR is willing to make in twisting anything I have said into what it is not.

I will no longer participate in this blog because it has become to contentious. I and Ed Gobble are removing ourselves from this and I highly recommend anyone still reading these posts to do the same. I will no longer be a part of this.

“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 11:29)

Is it so strange to you, Greg, when making a big decision like this was for me that you would consult the Lord through prayer, your patriarchal blessing, and get advice from those you know and respect?

None of these things involved anyone else as far as guidance, and I was not attempting to win anyone over. It was an invitation to participate in a preliminary meeting to a group who are supporters of the research. I was not attempting to persuade anyone, it was an invitation and it was addressed “Hello Dear Friends” which establishes that it was sent only to specific individuals to whom I thought I could trust. Again, one of those betrayed that trust by sending it to others. Every one of these things were my personal spiritual feelings, and never did I attempt to impose them on others, they were for me only. You seem to be taking issue with me (or anyone) for having answers to prayers. I believe in prayer. I do not claim to have had such guidance for anyone else or for the church, but the scriptures are clear that we should all be asking for guidance, and I do. This was and is for me only. You are again attempting to impugn my character. I hope people see it for what it is, personal character assasination. I have not done so with you, why do you have such bitterness and hatred toward me?

What is wrong with competing in the realm of ideas on geography, if there is no offical established geography as you have stated so many times? It is simply a proposed idea, yet you falsely make it out to be a sinister plot. Such stretches of imagination are becoming commonplace within FAIR, and are false.

“I know that some professors do indeed teach evolution as ‘the firmest fact of science’ but I reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. Are you stating that my belief in the scriptures and the prophets are any less valid than your ideas on Darwin’s evolution or an old earth?

Allen, do you believe evolution and an ‘old earth’ over these witnesses?

Tell us how you are going to reconsile Brigham Young’s statement with your position.” (End of Rod’s statement.)

One might initially regret that the subject matter has vered into what appears to be another field until one realizes that Rodney’s response to Allen demonstrates in the context of another subject that were Allen to believe in evolution and an old earth, it is appropriate to require him to justify himself to Brigham Young–or at least to a statement made by Brigham Young. Only slight less clear is Rodney’s apparent willingness to question the teaching of evolution at BYU at all. This sentence by Rodney appears a little earlier in his post:

“Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.”

Given that the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University includes The First Presidency, seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles,and other General Authorities Rodney is truth and essence asking the Brethren themselves why “we are teaching Evolution (sic) and an ‘old earth’” at the University. The question is rhetorical but definite: Rod is questioning the trusteeship of the University by the entire First Presidency and seven members of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles. This demonstrates as cleary as anything could be demonstrated why FAIR became concerned with Rodney’s public teachings–the issue there was a root the same as the issue he demonstrates now.

Rodney, by quoting President Young, and then later writing “”Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.” you are calling the governance of the University by the Brethren into question, and showing disrespect to those Brethren, which I for one consider intolerable.

It is from this mind set that I have implored you to turn. Do you not see where you have gone, and where you are taking yourself? Stop, brother. Stop.

Rodney:

With respect to the evolution matter: In 1992 the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University authorized the publication of a packet of materials on “Evolution And The Origin Of Man”, by a letter dated in June of that year.

I told him he was exactly right. It is very easy for one person to be misled by their own enthusiasm but it is less likely that several people in consultation will also be misled. That is why the Church is governed by councils, and I suppose that is why scholars have peer reviews.

FAIR has lead you to believe that I think I have received revelation on the matter. If I had, ask yourself, why would I have made such a statement?

Rod made this statement:

…after fasting and praying about it with my family, and after reading my patriarchal blessing, I asked each of my children and sweetheart what I should do about it, and the clear answer was ‘Dad, you know what you need to do!’ It was clear that I was going to have to leave interact [Interact Medical, his employment] to work on these projects full time, but I wanted more of a ‘sign’ from the Lord. So I had three big projects about to close with Interact Medical, and I told the Lord that if he wants me to make this project my #1 priority to please cause that none of these jobs go through, but that if I was to stay with Interact to let at least one come in (emphasis added)

Isn’t a sign from God a revelation? Why else would one fast, pray, and consult a patriarchal blessing, save to seek revelation? What else would we call it?

So, you’re claiming God wants you to make this you #1 priority. And, you got a sign to prove it. And, you then provide that sign to persuade others to support your “FIRM Foundation” (the name of which you also claim you got by revelation (see below)

Are we to conclude that God wants you to do this because you’re preaching a false geography and false ideas about Joseph’s purported revelation?

And this statement:

Many people have asked ‘What does FARMS think of your research’ and my response is that I have not heard anything at all from them, but after much prayer, I know that we are not to attempt to ‘convert’ FARMS, but rather to establish a new organization of those espousing a North American Book of Mormon setting that ‘competes’ in the realm of ideas with FARMS. I have pondered and prayed about a name for this organization and the name that was received is ‘Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism’ and it will be called ‘The FIRM Foundation’. Within 48 hours the Lord provided the answer to how this was to be accomplished.

Much prayer still sounds like revelation. And, you’re receiving a name for it–God cares enough about what you’re doing to declare the name from on high? I’m serious–how else are we to read this?

And it’s purportedly a revelation about what Rod ought to do about a group formally associated with BYU, which is under the direction of the board of trustees of BYU, which includes the prophets and apostles.

So, you have a revelation that God wants you to “compete” in the realm of ideas with this group? Really? Does this pass even an elementary sniff test?

And this:

Brother [name omitted] gave us the most incredible blessing imaginable.

They were incredibly powerful and caused both [my wife] and I to no longer doubt the validity of work in which we are engaged. The only thing I can share from the blessings is that the overall understanding is that this information will go out to “millions” who will be touched by the work, and that this will “embolden” the saints to open their mouths and declare anew the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ so that millions will find and enter his kingdom! The spirit was overwhelmingly wonderful and we felt so blessed to have that privilege.

So, you’re claiming you had a blessing given to you to proclaim Joseph “anew,” affecting “millions.” You’re claiming that you and your wife no longer doubt that what you’re doing (already established, we are told, by signs, but apparently there was still some doubt…) has validity because of the blessing.

Sounds like a claim to truth and revelation to me. Or, are we to believe you’re saying God just thinks its a good idea for you to spread a false idea around to “millions”?

What is all this if not revelation?

This geography was not plagerized from you at all, as you so indicated in your rant. You called ALL of the Great Lakes ‘Sea West’, you claim the ‘Nephite North’ is a highly skewed angle nearly making Lake Ontario and Lake Erie north/south of each other (see p.75 of your book) which completely changes your geographic ideas. I do not espouse either of these arguements. If you had seen the DVD, you would have known that out geographies are substantially different, if not unrelated. Your unsubstantiated claim that I copied your geography is not true. I began to research North American geographies after I had worked on the DNA evidence. I had come to many preliminary conclusions prior to my meeting Wayne May.

Interestingly, you were far more favorable in your review posted on Mr. May’s website here.

“Wayne May’s book series provides the most comprehensive compilation of Book of Mormon background history, geography, logical research, and artifacts (complete with photographs), of any book on the subject to date….Open your mind and heart to the information contained in these books, and you will gain a renewed love for the prophet and the Book of Mormon itself. Truth will prevail.”

Maybe you ought to get him to change or remove it?

You haven’t addressed Mr. Goble’s specific area in which he directly asserted plagiarism–the matter of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers acting as the “head” of the river Sidon:

“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.”

Given that it is a rather strange, counterintuitive idea, it does seem a bit uncanny that you’d have the exact same idea….

FAIR bears no animosity. My concern is your poisoning the well toward LDS scholars. It is also very concerned about your proclaiming anew the revelations of Joseph Smith and your implication that those who don’t accept your position don’t accept the teachings of Joseph Smith. I am concerned about your implication of the Church being led astray. I am very concerned that your responses to these ideas is that we hold animosity and contempt toward you. One more thing–just to preempt you. As we have discussed before, there is no one at FAIR who will gain financially from attacking you or putting down your theory. We are an all volunteer group.

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.

Dear Brother Gobble,
I think that your advice to leave the FAIR conversation is good. There is nothing of a positive or uplifting nature to this that I can see. I have been drawn into this by FAIR and would prefer not to be embroiled in it. I will address their issues, but within my time constraints and limitations as one vs many.

I have in the past week felt akin to the old saying that goes “It’s been like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat!” Such has been my lot this past week.

To answer a couple of your concerns. This geography was not plagerized from you at all, as you so indicated in your rant. You called ALL of the Great Lakes ‘Sea West’, you claim the ‘Nephite North’ is a highly skewed angle nearly making Lake Ontario and Lake Erie north/south of each other (see p.75 of your book) which completely changes your geographic ideas. I do not espouse either of these arguements. If you had seen the DVD, you would have known that out geographies are substantially different, if not unrelated. Your unsubstantiated claim that I copied your geography is not true. I began to research North American geographies after I had worked on the DNA evidence. I had come to many preliminary conclusions prior to my meeting Wayne May. I found his geographic ideas were the closest to what I had found, and so went to one of his presentations to learn more. Again I am being accused without evidence in fact. I agree with you, your geography doesn’t work and I don’t blame you for abandoning it. The proposed geography of my DVD has many things that need to be addressed as well, and I am hoping for competent help in establishing a more complete understanding. In my DVD I state that “I reserve the right to make changes (to the geography/maps) without notice”. People much more intelligent than I will help in connecting more of the dots. That is my hope. I am exploring one option. FAIR has lead you to believe that I think I have received revelation on the matter. If I had, ask yourself, why would I have made such a statement? Their mis-characterizations have certainly taken their toll by ‘poisoning the well’ of the minds of those seeing their initial review.

Just curious… Why do you think that BYU teaches evolution and an “old earth” in their courses?

-Allen

Dear Allen, that is a really good question. Please see the following quote by the founder of the Brigham Young Academy himself, Brigham Young.

“We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall…this course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst.”
(Brigham Young, Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, p. 200.)

Maybe you can tell me why we are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he founded.

Allen, do you believe the church now endorses evolution and an ‘old earth’? Please let us all know?

Does the fact that BYU is teaching these concepts indicate their acceptance of such? I know that some professors do indeed teach evolution as ‘the firmest fact of science’ but I reject that philosophy based on the words of the scriptures, prophets and apostles on the subject. Are you stating that my belief in the scriptures and the prophets are any less valid than your ideas on Darwin’s evolution or an old earth?

Allen, do you believe evolution and an ‘old earth’ over these witnesses?

Tell us how you are going to reconsile Brigham Young’s statement with your position.

Just curious… Why do you think that BYU teaches evolution and an “old earth” in their courses?

-Allen

For acceditation compliance. The vast majority of Prophets and apostles who have addressed the subject, along with the scriptures, do not support pre-Adamites or earth’s temporal existence longer than 7,000 years. Do your homework on the matter and you will see. Either the prophets and the scriptures are correct, or the philosophies of men are correct. I do not feel that they can be reconsiled (although I know plenty of others who believe they can), but either way, I am standing with the Prophets and their clear statements to the best of my ability, even if it goes against the concensus.

Dear octium (whoever you are).
Exactly which of the sciences are you majoring in then, you didn’t say. I agree that you are no expert (nor am I) in genetics, but I also disagree that you ‘understand what is being presented’. You are apparently unaware of the raging debate going on right now between the theorists (phylogenetic dating) and the experimentalists (pedigree dating), which don’t match up even in some cases to two orders of magnitude. The scientists are working to add ‘filters’ to the experimental data so that it can be ‘massaged’ to agree with the underlying assumptions of mutation rates by the theorists. Czar Nicholas was but one of many pedigree lineages that do not match the theoretical rate. Maybe you should do more homework before assuming that I do not have a grasp on the subject matter. No, I am not an expert, but I do try to stay informed of the relevant issues. Your statement makes it clear that you do not know of the ongoing controversy, but you can read my reply when completed for further information on the matter.

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

Dear Tyler, your curiousity will be satisfied when the my response is posted on my website, when I complete it. Then you can send the un-named FAIR reviewers on another quest to tear it down again. I am confident that it will be fruitless to expect an un-biased FAIR review because of the animosity and contempt held by it’s governing body against me and my information, which should be obvious to those reading this blog.

No less than three times Joseph Smith wrote that he had a knowledge of things relating to the location of the Book of Mormon saga, their civilization and who the ‘remnant’ Lamanites are/were. He did so by revelation according his documented history. I did not make the statements, he did.

If FAIR does not like the fact that Joseph made these statements, please take it up with the official historians of the church, who’s responsibility it is to verify said documents.

All I am doing is bringing Joseph’s words back into the light after Mesoamerican theorists have done their best to relegate these statements by the prophet into nothing more than his opinions. Their written statements testify to that fact.

See the Mesoamerican leaning FARMS Zelph review http://preview.farmsresearch.com/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=202 and then compare it to the historians Zelph REVISITED article http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/341folder/Zelph%20Revisited%20Cannon.html if you’d like to see the difference serious bias makes.

FARMS review states:
“Exactly what Joseph Smith believed at different times in his life concerning Book of Mormon geography in general is also indeterminable. Only a few clues remain. For example, while the church was headquartered in Nauvoo, Joseph read a best-selling book of his day by John L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan,10 which John Bernhisel had sent to him from the East.”

“Evidently Joseph Smith’s views on this matter were open to further knowledge. Thus in 1834, when Zelph was found, Joseph believed that the portion of America over which they had just traveled was “the plains of the Nephite,” and that their bones were “proof” of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. By 1842 he evidently believed that the events in most of Nephite history took place in Central America.”

Compare this to the historians account which states:
“The journal accounts of Joseph Smith’s activities and his letter indicate that he believed that Book of Mormon history, or at least a part of it, transpired in North America. What does one do with such a prophetic statement? Some have dismissed it as a joke or playful exercise of Joseph’s imagination.19 Others have chosen to emphasize discrepancies and possible contradictions in the source accounts, thereby discrediting what Joseph Smith said.20

It seems to me that either approach carries heavy risks. When one chooses to state that Joseph Smith can’t be taken seriously on [p.109] this issue, the door is opened to question his statements on other issues. Where does it stop? Does the First Vision, with the discrepancies in the primary source accounts, also come under the doubt and skepticism applied here to Zelph? Why can’t we simply take Joseph Smith at his word?”

Amen.

A few posts later “LDS-Man” posts: “FAIR, and FARMS are not the official voice of the LDS church. They are just people expressing their opinion just like everyone else. Please people, take FAIR and FARMS with a grain of salt…very little credibility. My family is un-phased by the spewing of FAIR and FARMS but instead listen to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the successors PERIOD.”

Is it just me or is there a striking similarity between these two quotes? I just hope that Rod learned his lesson after he got busted for defending and praising himself in the 3rd person as the “DNA Truthseeker” ….PERIOD.

Michael, sorry, but you are making a wrong assumption and insinuation for which you have no evidence. It was not me.

Rod

How dare you, Sir!? Why do you imply that the problem is in how Robert White took your comment, rather than in your ill-fated attempt to “drop names” (Before Robert admitted that he was an Area Authority Seventy, how would YOU know that?)?

Frankly, Sir, your statement strikes me as an attempt to bully Brother White in a manner reminiscent of anti-Mormon who insist that they are my friends–in spite of very UNfriendly behaviour!

Rod: I knew that Brother White was a former 70 long before any of this happened, as he made it abundantly clear in our first communications together. In our ongoing communications, he would use his given name and after awhile I began to use it as well. Then in a communication with FAIR, I didn’t use his title, for which FAIR took issue that I was not showing proper respect, so I changed back to using ‘Elder’ for the past month or more in all correspondence. Not once did Brother White bring it up as a problem, so I simply continued that respectful title until he attepted to make an issue of it in public, and so now I am not sure how to address him except ‘Brother’ or ‘Robert White’ which I have done ever since he posted his objection.

How is my immediate apology an attempt to ‘bully Brother White’ as you so indicate? It was an honest apology.

May I ask you, who is being UNfriendly here?

Also, how would I gain from ‘dropping names’ in behalf of FAIR? It seems to me that it would be to FAIR’s advantage to show they have a former 70 on their board, it certainly doesn’t help me. It was out of respect, as I have said, and meant. FAIR is trying to create animosity where none exists by posting what they ‘think’ I ‘meant’ to say rather than what I in fact did say. Your case in point.

How dare you, Sir!? Why do you imply that the problem is in how Robert White took your comment, rather than in your ill-fated attempt to “drop names” (Before Robert admitted that he was an Area Authority Seventy, how would YOU know that?)?

Frankly, Sir, your statement strikes me as an attempt to bully Brother White in a manner reminiscent of anti-Mormon who insist that they are my friends–in spite of very UNfriendly behaviour!

A few posts later “LDS-Man” posts: “FAIR, and FARMS are not the official voice of the LDS church. They are just people expressing their opinion just like everyone else. Please people, take FAIR and FARMS with a grain of salt…very little credibility. My family is un-phased by the spewing of FAIR and FARMS but instead listen to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the successors PERIOD.”

Is it just me or is there a striking similarity between these two quotes? I just hope that Rod learned his lesson after he got busted for defending and praising himself in the 3rd person as the “DNA Truthseeker” ….PERIOD.

At what point do we discount Joseph Smith or those who knew and paraphrased him? I think Joseph made it quite clear that he believed that Adam, Eve, and the immediate family lived in or near Jackson County, Missouri. Either they did or they didn’t. Which is it?
We have no first-hand statement that I know of from Joseph. But, lots of his associates believed he taught it, and taught he taught it. I think it pretty certain Joseph taught something very like this.

However, the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with Book of Mormon geography, so far as I can see.

FAIR has no “official view,” but the article you mentioned captures a pretty broad consensus, I think. (It was written in response to media interest during the Mitt Romney candidacy.) See here.

In saying that it wasn’t “super important” vis-a-vis the atonement, we were trying to reflect the Church’s official website answer on the question (which is cited at the beginning of the article.) We never knowingly say anything that’s different from something on the Church website.

So, if you consider that an avoidance tactic, you’ll have to take it up with Church Public Affairs. We won’t be altering it.

The article also acknowledges that Joseph almost surely taught this. I’m not clear what your concern is exactly?

Your [Rod's] entire theory rests upon the perceived infallibility and perceived scriptural importance of any and all utterances made or purportedly made by Joseph Smith. That is the entire sum and substance and keystone of your “scientific research.”

The problem isn’t relying on “any and all statements by Joseph Smith.” It’s excluding those statements and actions that don’t agree with his theory, and misrepresenting others (e.g., Bernhisel letter).

Joseph sent missionaries to “the Lamanites,” and I’m fairly certain that he probably meant literal descendants when he said it. He taught these people the history of “their fathers,” did he not? Meldrum makes some errors by putting to much emphasis on Joseph’s words, but FAIR seems to willing to discount those same words as being irrelevant to the matter when they are anything but.

I don’t know where we’ve discounted them.

I’m pretty sure he meant literal descendants too. And, they WERE literal descendants. Unfortunately for establishing a geography, every Amerindian in the entire hemisphere would have shared Lehi as an ancestor if he left any descendants (which I’m convinced he did). (You may have overlooked this point in the review; it is on page 15-16 of the “Joseph Smith” PDF.

The intriguing thing, to me, is that Joseph often did not seem to have read his own book–which is unsurprising, since he was the translator, not the author. [One remembers how astonished he was when he learned Jerusalem had walls.]

He often didn’t seem to appreciate the import or nuance of what he had produced, especially at the beginning (which enhances my appreciation for what he did.)

It seems pretty clear that Joseph started out with a hemispheric geography of the Book of Mormon that involved North America. The intriguing thing is his willingness to learn new information from secular sources, and decide that this supported the Book of Mormon. His associates did the same thing.

This makes no sense if he had some master geographical revelation OR if he was sly author of a con; it makes perfect sense if he was a translator with only a very general sense of the physical geography. And, that is exactly what we see.

The point is not to “ignore Joseph,” which is Rod’s red herring. By all means, listen to Joseph–take EVERYTHING Joseph said and did on the topic, and see where that leads us.

It’s pretty clear where it lead everyone who knew him, and every leader who came afterward–no revelatory geography (else they would have taught and defended it to the death and not kept insisting there wasn’t one), and lots of those who knew him and were supposedly at the binding revelation that Meldrum asserts for his model on Zion’s Camp (e.g., the Pratts and Wilford Woodruff) were very happy to do geographies including Central and even South America.

As Elder Widtsoe noted, the Zelph event isn’t much use for BoM geography, since it came after BoM times. Ditto calling people in the 1800s “Lamanites,” since (while accurate) it doesn’t help us narrow the geography of 1500 years earlier. (Imagine using current demographics of Utah to determine where an account about “white people” should be placed at the time of Christ!)

Greg

Your entire theory rests upon the perceived infallibility and perceived scriptural importance of any and all utterances made or purportedly made by Joseph Smith. That is the entire sum and substance and keystone of your “scientific research.”

The problem isn’t “any and all statements by Joseph Smith.” It’s excluding those that don’t agree with his theory.

Joseph sent missionaries to “the Lamanites,” and I’m fairly certain that he probably meant literal descendants when he said it. He taught these people the history of “their fathers,” did he not? Meldrum makes some errors by putting to much emphasis on Joseph’s words, but FAIR seems to willing to discount those same words as being irrelevant to the matter when they are anything but.

I’m pretty sure he meant literal descendants too. And, they WERE literal descendants. Unfortunately for establishing a geography, every Amerindian in the entire hemisphere would have shared Lehi as an ancestor if he left any descendants (which I’m convinced he did). (You may have overlooked this point in the review; it is made here on page 15-16.

The intriguing thing, to me, is that Joseph often did not seem to have read his own book–which is unsurprising, since he was the translator, not the author. He often didn’t seem to appreciate the import or nuance of what he had produced, especially at the beginning (which enhances my appreciation for what he did.)

It seems pretty clear that Joseph started out with a hemispheric geography of the Book of Mormon that involved North America. The intriguing thing is his willingness to learn new information from secular sources, and decide that this supported the Book of Mormon. His associates did the same thing. This makes no sense if he had some master geographical revelation OR if he was sly author of a con; it makes perfect sense if he was a translator with only a very general sense of the physical geography. And, that is exactly what we see.

===
You also asked:

At what point do we discount Joseph Smith or those who knew and paraphrased him? I think Joseph made it quite clear that he believed that Adam, Eve, and the immediate family lived in or near Jackson County, Missouri. Either they did or they didn’t. Which is it?

We have no first-hand statement that I know of from Joseph. But, lots of his associates believed he taught it, and taught he taught it. I think it pretty certain Joseph taught something very like this.

However, the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with Book of Mormon geography, so far as I can see.

FAIR has no “official view,” but one article on this very issue captures a pretty broad consensus, I think. (It was written in response to media interest during the Mitt Romney candidacy.) See here.

In saying that it wasn’t “super important” we were trying to reflect the Church’s official position on the question (which is cited at the beginning of the article.) The article also acknowledges that Joseph almost surely taught this. I’m not clear what your concern is exactly?

Greg