Comments on: Examining the Secular Side http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/ Defending Mormonism Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:57:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Ed Goble http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-3/#comment-6413 Ed Goble Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:59:58 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-6413 I'm dropping this whole thing. I feel that the geographical claims are too vague in this whole thing. I feel that I was too emotional, and this is all just a bunch of nonsense. I’m dropping this whole thing. I feel that the geographical claims are too vague in this whole thing. I feel that I was too emotional, and this is all just a bunch of nonsense.

]]> By: Ed Goble http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-3/#comment-6381 Ed Goble Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:20:35 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-6381 And if there is ever any question about whether proof exists about what parts of the book I'm responsible for, then I can certainly provide an old link from www.archive.org that preserves an old web page from my old web site with an old rough draft of the book long before my stuff was merged with Wayne May's stuff. My rough draft at that point was entitled "Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation", long before the "This Land" was added to the title, because of May's desire to have it in the title. And if there is ever any question about whether proof exists about what parts of the book I’m responsible for, then I can certainly provide an old link from http://www.archive.org that preserves an old web page from my old web site with an old rough draft of the book long before my stuff was merged with Wayne May’s stuff. My rough draft at that point was entitled “Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation”, long before the “This Land” was added to the title, because of May’s desire to have it in the title.

]]> By: Ed Goble http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-3/#comment-6367 Ed Goble Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:24:27 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-6367 Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that if you look on his site, he is selling the very book in question (This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation) that he has not acknowledged, making money off it with Wayne May. You see, when May and I split up, I signed over my interest in the book to May, which was stupid, but it was done in a moment of fear when I thought that May might sue me or something when he was irate at me after he saw what I wrote about the fraudulent artifacts having been tested by BYU and how I retracted what I wrote about them. 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. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that if you look on his site, he is selling the very book in question (This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation) that he has not acknowledged, making money off it with Wayne May. You see, when May and I split up, I signed over my interest in the book to May, which was stupid, but it was done in a moment of fear when I thought that May might sue me or something when he was irate at me after he saw what I wrote about the fraudulent artifacts having been tested by BYU and how I retracted what I wrote about them.

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.

]]> By: Ed Goble http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-6366 Ed Goble Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:14:00 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-6366 This thing with Meldrum has gone a lot farther than I wanted it to. But since I have been "banned" from his "open dialogue" blog, I wanted to make one last statement here for the record. He doesn't address the substance of my claim that my intellectual property has been violated. Nor does he acknowledge that someone who feels such a thing has been done to what they view as their intellectual property would naturally be angry at such a thing. He just accuses me of unchristianlike behavior and unchristianlike language, after he himself provoked me to anger after continually not addressing the substance of what I was saying. He was provoking me to anger by making comments alleging that in other parts of my life I am "anti-authority" and that I was going to have a heart attack and comments like that. I wanted to put this here for the record, that this is how I see it. My anger and my anxiety issues are beside the point. This thing with Meldrum has gone a lot farther than I wanted it to. But since I have been “banned” from his “open dialogue” blog, I wanted to make one last statement here for the record. He doesn’t address the substance of my claim that my intellectual property has been violated. Nor does he acknowledge that someone who feels such a thing has been done to what they view as their intellectual property would naturally be angry at such a thing. He just accuses me of unchristianlike behavior and unchristianlike language, after he himself provoked me to anger after continually not addressing the substance of what I was saying. He was provoking me to anger by making comments alleging that in other parts of my life I am “anti-authority” and that I was going to have a heart attack and comments like that. I wanted to put this here for the record, that this is how I see it. My anger and my anxiety issues are beside the point.

]]> By: Matthew Roper http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-6015 Matthew Roper Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:16:44 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-6015 Since this thread seems to have nearly run its course for now I would like to offer the following counsel from several of the past general authorities of the Church from which we might all benefit. 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 . . .” Since this thread seems to have nearly run its course for now I would like to offer the following counsel from several of the past general authorities of the Church from which we might all benefit.

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 . . .”

]]> By: Greg Smith http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-5739 Greg Smith Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:43:47 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-5739 Ed: 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 Ed:

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

]]> By: Ed Goble http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-5736 Ed Goble Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:53:21 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-5736 Its easy enough to create a transect from Clark's evaluating the case for nephite geographies up far to the North in an internal geography ahead of time, following the internal geography requirement of an exceedingly great distance, and have your Cumorah be by the large bodies of water on that transect near the east sea. And then you compare that to Mesoamerica, and it flops as far as Cumorah goes. As for the Land Southward, Mesoamerica passes with flying colors. This is why the New York Cumorah works with an internal geography just as easily as the other placements. And this is also why the "clearing your mind" thing is nonsense when it comes to those that are trying to place Cumorah in Mesoamerica. Because, if they truly cleared their mind and got Mesoamerica out of their mind, an exceedingly great distance would mean perecisely that to them. But they cant, because they have to jam it into Mesoamerica contrary to the text of the book of Mormon, unnaturally. Its easy enough to create a transect from Clark’s evaluating the case for nephite geographies up far to the North in an internal geography ahead of time, following the internal geography requirement of an exceedingly great distance, and have your Cumorah be by the large bodies of water on that transect near the east sea. And then you compare that to Mesoamerica, and it flops as far as Cumorah goes. As for the Land Southward, Mesoamerica passes with flying colors. This is why the New York Cumorah works with an internal geography just as easily as the other placements. And this is also why the “clearing your mind” thing is nonsense when it comes to those that are trying to place Cumorah in Mesoamerica. Because, if they truly cleared their mind and got Mesoamerica out of their mind, an exceedingly great distance would mean perecisely that to them. But they cant, because they have to jam it into Mesoamerica contrary to the text of the book of Mormon, unnaturally.

]]> By: Greg Smith http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-5734 Greg Smith Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:44:04 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-5734 I've created a separate thread for those wishing to discuss the theoretical or actual development of BoM geographies. See here: http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/09/book-of-mormon-geography/ I’ve created a separate thread for those wishing to discuss the theoretical or actual development of BoM geographies.

See here:

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

]]> By: Greg Smith http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-5733 Greg Smith Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:24:50 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-5733 <blockquote>It will be a jolly old time. You are an unethical clown and a charlatan. I cant wait to meet you.</blockquote> 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

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

]]> By: Scott Gordon http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examining-the-secular-side/comment-page-2/#comment-5728 Scott Gordon Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:03:37 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=171#comment-5728 Here is the link to the John Clark article: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html Here is the link to the John Clark article:

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

]]>