Skip to main content


Showing posts from February, 2012

Critiquing a Critique: Responding to Rod Meldrum's Critique of John Sorenson's Methodology

I posted the following at a blog that had recently done a podcast with Rod Meldrum. Thus far, my comment has been essentially ignored. Now, I have no ax to grind with Meldrum, but I find that his claims typically don't stand up to scrutiny. Here, I dissect the Meldrum's critique of John L. Sorenson's method for doing Book of Mormon geography. When I first heard this critique I thought Meldrum had made an interesting point. When I decided to actually investigate it, I quickly found that Meldrum had played fast and loose with the facts. Remember that this was just a quick comment (long though it is). You can read my more formal critique here, where it is included in my lengthy aside on Book of Mormon geography (you'll have to scroll down a long ways to find it, or use the ctrl+G search function and type in "Rodney").  ==============================================


Overview             Compared to most issues, this issue is rather small. It features only seven reviews/essays. Despite its size, this issue has a lot to offer. Five of the seven articles are recommended, and each was very good. A lot of emphasis seems to be on science this time around, with one review and an essay discussing the relationship of science and Mormonism (well, if you count intelligent design as a science). The others discuss pretty standard topics for the Review, i.e. theology, evangelical anti-Mormonism, apologetics, etc.
Recommended Reading
Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’sIntorduction – The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to ‘Second Sight’ by PeopleWho Say It Doesn’t Exist,” pg. ix-lxiv: In what is one of my favorite Ed. Intro.’s by Peterson, he offers an “apology (defense) for apologetics,” and also dispels several myths and rumors about FARMS (particularly their peer-review process) that are frequently circulated by anti-Mormon’s and other critics in an effort to dismiss …