AN EVENING WITH RODNEY MELDRUM (Warning: *LONG*)

[_Trevor]

Or in other words, there are a lot of critics and apostates who love Meldrum because Meldrum's research, together with his version of Mormonism, is so damn easy to refute.

I suspect this is one of the same reasons Meldrum is not very popular with the FAIR/MI crowd.

Meldrum's perspective also reflects the black and white mentality that most apostates once held regarding their faith, which is precisely why when confronted with evidence that negated their approach to Mormonism, they simply abandoned their religious convictions. Unlike someone who does not adhere to a fundamentalist mindset, Meldrum is a person with whom the apostate can clearly identify.

With all due respect, I think this is fundamentally unfair. Whatever the merits of Meldrum's "scholarship" when stacked against a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, the simple fact is that many generations of Mormons came to the Book of Mormon with certain assumptions, which a newer generation of Mormon scholars have steadily worked to dismantle (implicitly) by pursuing and defending the Mesoamerican view. To imagine that this has no impact on those who long thought one way about the text would be unreasonable. Furthermore, LGT in "Mesoamerica" exchanges a relatively tangible geography in which there was an identifiable hill Cumorah for one that is effectively a will-o-the-wisp in people's minds. Sacred geography is powerful for its ability to bring meaning to the real world around you. The lost phantoms of Nephites blended into a massive "Asian" population raises major questions about the exact meaning and significance of the Book of Mormon as an ancient, sacred document that are difficult to overcome. Much one thought one knew about the Book of Mormon becomes sand slipping through the fingers.

I would wager that the reason why critics like Meldrum is that he does not appear in their eyes to be dodging the view they were raised on. You may see the scholarship on an LGT, Mesoamerican Book of Mormon as scholarship as well as apologetic, but the critics are approaching it as apologetic. And we know, that however mistaken they may be in narrowing their sights in this way, it is an apologetic that contradicts in some important ways long-cherished views about the book, views that those of us who were raised LDS are much more familiar with than LGT, the wandering Cumorah, etc. Meldrum confirms what we experienced as members, and shows that all of the qualifications and rhetoric of "that was not doctrine" really do not always apply so well in the lived experience of members, which must count for something.

I do not think it is incorrect to say that in protecting the Book of Mormon through these new views, apologist-scholars run the risk of being viewed as either snobs or as duplicitous. People who were long members of the Church, some who are still in the Church, feel like they are being told, "your belief was wrong," "what these prophets and apostles said was wrong," "the apologists know more and better," etc. And frankly, that does not cut it with a number of folks who have a more uncomplicated faith. It is important to know that this uncomplicated species of faith, however inferior it may be made out to be by certain apologists, simply is more prevalent than the "nuanced" and "scholarly" testimonies. That is the faith that motivated people to commit to the Church, not LGT and lost Lamanites.

So, I think you are grossly oversimplifying this issue. Yes, it would be nice to think that a few critics who salivate to see any potential humiliation of apologists are the real fans of Meldrum, but the real fans of Meldrum are the people who want to recover a Book of Mormon world they can understand, not one that is lost in the predominantly "Asian" population of some minor village outside of an unidentified but major Mesoamerican polity.

David, it simply does not do to continually blame the apostates for their apostasy. It is not as though the Church or Mormon scholars are doing a perfect job. We all need to take responsibility for our decisions. The decision to lose the tangible world of the Book of Mormon in the service of both understanding and protecting the book is not without consequences. Ultimately, the decision may be the right one, but to ridicule the casualties is really bad form.

[_EAllusion]

I think something Stewart has going for him over Meldrum is his degree. Granted, it was just an MD without specific relavent expertise in the subject at hand. Sure, the man clearly had an exceptionally poor grasp of molecular clock theory that would've had me fail that section in my very first genetics class. Still, the aura of academic credibility that degree gives, regardless of how misplaced that thinking happens to be, is part of why people at FAIR were enamored by him. What matters here is that a well-educated person is reassuring them that their faith can be reconciled with science by putting on a sciencey-sounding display.

I don't mean to suggest that FARMS/MI/FAIR types require degrees and academic posts to be in the club, as that obviously is false. But I do think that makes it easier to be absorbed into that apologetic apparatus. Meldrum probably would have a tougher time even without the hostility because he is more outside academia. Good chance he'd still just be an over-glorified Jeff Lindsay in their eyes. Which isn't really a bad thing, but it also isn't where Stewart was at despite peddling pseudoscience that a smart undergrad should've been able to spot.

[_BartBurk]

The FARMers probably underestimate the appeal the Great Lakes model has for modern U.S. Mormons. As an example I would suggest reading the following speculation on a pro-Mormon web site:

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/link%20five.htm

Quoting from this page:

Thus, the people of the Hopewell tradition made up a wide-spread kingdom rivaling any around the world. Although each region was somewhat different, it is commonly believed that they were all living under one grand system of institutions, with the little band of Nephites in New York, those who had not joined the Hopewell, still clinging tenaciously to their worship of Christ, and doing their best to stay out of the hands of the Lamanites who wanted to kill them, and the Hopewell who wanted to convert them to their sun-worshiping ways, and thus destroy their souls.

There is absolutely no evidence provided for the above paragraph, but it can fire up the imagination of a believing Mormon in a way the FARMers can't.

[_Enuma Elish]

The decision to lose the tangible world of the Book of Mormon in the service of both understanding and protecting the book is not without consequences. Ultimately, the decision may be the right one, but to ridicule the casualties is really bad form.

I haven't ridiculed anyone Trevor. In hindsight I should have used the word "many" rather than "most" in my statement that "Meldrum's perspective reflects the black and white mentality that most apostates once held regarding their faith." Despite the fact that most of the "critics" and "apostates" I have encountered throughout my life approach Mormonism this way, a more polite post would have used the word "many," rather than "most." My heavens, this less than optimal word choice, however, was clearly not an example of ridiculing the casualties of abandoned testimonies!

[cacheman]

I haven't ridiculed anyone Trevor. In hindsight I should have used the word "many" rather than "most" in my statement that "Meldrum's perspective reflects the black and white mentality that most apostates once held regarding their faith." Despite the fact that most of the "critics" and "apostates" I have encountered throughout my life approach Mormonism this way, a more polite post would have used the word "many," rather than "most." My heavens, this less than optimal word choice, however, was clearly not an example of ridiculing the casualties of abandoned testimonies!

Well, I took the words "black and white mentality" to be pejorative, which is why I reacted badly. The fundamentalist mindset that you describe (and that Juliann sneers at in her "Critics in Wonderland" piece) is foreign to me and to most of my friends.

The issue to me is this tension between the church's claims of Truth with the understanding that rational, Enlightenment approaches to truth have their limitations. I was just reading Massimo Introvigne's piece about the dichotomy between rationalists and liberals in the "Book of Mormon Wars" where he warns against retreating from rationalism into extreme subjectivity. Juliann seems to privilege that subjectivity over everything else, which in my view is dangerous.

And it's pretty clear that early Mormonism was rooted in Enlightenment thinking. The movement away from finding scientific evidence for the church is a rather recent development.

[_Ray A]

And it's pretty clear that early Mormonism was rooted in Enlightenment thinking. The movement away from finding scientific evidence for the church is a rather recent development.

Probably the 1950s and the Joseph Fielding Smith era. But the roots of that go back further:

The B. H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair.

Mc Conkie would eventually have a huge impact on Mormon thinking from the 1960s until his death. At one stage many members brought the standard works and Mormon Doctrine to Church hand in hand.

[_Trevor]

I haven't ridiculed anyone Trevor. In hindsight I should have used the word "many" rather than "most" in my statement that "Meldrum's perspective reflects the black and white mentality that most apostates once held regarding their faith." Despite the fact that most of the "critics" and "apostates" I have encountered throughout my life approach Mormonism this way, a more polite post would have used the word "many," rather than "most." My heavens, this less than optimal word choice, however, was clearly not an example of ridiculing the casualties of abandoned testimonies!

I think that you personally are a very reasonable and decent fellow. I don't think it is personally your intention to ridicule anyone. But, it is important to see how this rhetoric can easily be taken as such, and I think that a number of the people who use it do intend to protect themselves by laying into the failings of people they view as fundamentalists, uneducated rubes, and apostates. So, my apologies for failing to distinguish between you as an individual and what I think are pretty clear implications of this kind of rhetoric.

But, you are not addressing the real challenge to your statement. There are very good reasons, that are not easily dismissed as "black and white thinking" or Schadenfreude, which account for a good deal of the interest in Meldrum. Would you care to address my points about that?

[_Trevor]

And it's pretty clear that early Mormonism was rooted in Enlightenment thinking. The movement away from finding scientific evidence for the church is a rather recent development.

Reading Widstoe's book Rational Theology in comparison with these new views can be vertigo inducing.

[_Dr. Shades]

UPDATE:

I received an e-mail from Brother Meldrum containing a correction of the part of my opening post that I got wrong.

Regarding Louis Midgley's confrontation of/with a presenter at BYU over the issue of Cleon Skousen and Glenn Beck, Rodney Meldrum was NOT in attendance. He learned about the goings-on via an e-mail from Paul Skousen.

My apologies.

The Daily Universe did a write up of the goings-on, which Meldrum was kind enough to pass along to me. It reads as follows:

Louis Midgley, a BYU political science emeritus professor, said Beck tries appealing to his audience’s prejudices, emotions or special interests rather than using intellect or reason.

“He’s a skilled performer where he is funny, clever, demeaning, insulting and so on,” Midgley said. “But often, there are no arguments, they are just insults that deal with fear.”

Midgley has written negative reviews on Skousen’s book, “The Naked Communist,” and called himself one of the biggest opponents of Skousen’s views.

“I thought his book, ‘The Naked Communist,’ was poorly done because he didn’t know the current literature and didn’t set out decent arguments,” Midgley said.

Continuing on:

Back to the DNA question, Dr. Shades said it wasn't a big part of his presentation, yet it has a prominent place on the cover of his book. So which is it?

Keep in mind that it's not his movie. He was merely interviewed for it. Of course, he gives viewings of it for free, but it was produced, directed, etc. by two other people independent of him.

I guess what I really want to know is whether Meldrum believes there were millions of indigenous Asiatic people in the Americas when Lehi & Co. landed on the gulf coast, and if he thinks the Nephites blended in with these Asians to leave only a small DNA signature that remains today. Like what FARMS and MI are saying.

Judging from the movie, I'd guess that that's the case (except that among the Plains Indians the X signature isn't necessarily "small"). The show put forward the Middle East as the origin of the X mtDNA haplotype. The movie didn't discuss the origin of any of the other haplotypes that I recall.

Or whether he thinks all (or most) of the DNA signatures came from Lehi & Co.

Nope.

. . . if he believes, like FARMS, that Lehi was just a small fish in a big pond of more ancient civilizations, then he's just as hard to disprove on the DNA front. Really, he would have a limited geography/genetics theory like FARMS/MI but just a different location that matches better with Joseph Smith's ideas.

Yep.

Yet to coin Sethbag's words, the vast majority of "critics" and "apostates" I have encountered abandoned their religious convictions because they were unable to shift their fundamentalist approach to Mormonism to a more sophisticated paradigm.

Do you say the same thing about people who apostatize from Scientology? If not, why not?

Yes, I think Shades' fascination with Meldrum comes from the fact that he sees it as emblematic of his chapel/internet Mormonism dichotomy slash internal struggle.

Meanwhile, I'm sure the folks at FAIR/FARMS/MI/MA&D hate Meldrum for precisely the same reason.

I don't know about "Chapel Mormonism," . . .

CLICK HERE to find out.

. . . but when you throw out the Gospel net to bring in the world, the result is a bowl of cereal. You're bound to wind up with lots of fruits, nuts, and flakes.

Active Mormons know these "fruits, nuts, and flakes" as "apostles, prophets, and God."

When an apologist comes out presenting an alternative perspective while simultaneously attacking the religious commitment and orthodoxy of those who disagree, the apologist is bound to be considered a threat by those whom he condemns.

You believe that Meldrum is "attacking" anyone? What on earth makes you believe that? The only time he ever mentions FAIR/FARMS/MI is in response to their attacks against him.

Wow.

[_Enuma Elish]

Would you care to address my points about that?

Other than the suggestion that I was “ridiculing” former believers, I actually found myself in agreement with your post and felt you raised some significant points that I had not considered.

I certainly can sympathize with Americans who desire to connect with Book of Mormon sacred geography. I don’t believe, however, that their desire is in anyway more authentic than those Latter-day Saints from Central and South America who hold a similar yearning to connect with Mesoamerican sacred geography.

Many Latin-American members of the Church view the Mesoamerican geographical model as an essential reflection of their spiritual and cultural heritage. Personally, I find the idea that only the United States of America encompasses the Promised Land mentioned in the Book of Mormon a bit offensive.

My main problem, if you will, however, with those who feel threatened by a non-traditional model for the Book of Mormon occurs only when those believers attempt to use bad science to support their religious convictions. If a traditional believer rejects the LGT in Mesoamerica approach to the Book of Mormon advocated by many of the scholars at the MI, it would be better, in my opinion, for the individual to simply ignore science altogether, rather than suggest that spurious scientific proposals somehow support and/or prove a North American only geographic model.