Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oklds

The "Heartland Theory" (?)

Recommended Posts

On 1/1/2019 at 7:08 PM, oklds said:

The fact that coinage was found at that location dating to the 4th century BC, and containing elements endemic to North America is irrefutable evidence that people were mining metals in North America and pressing coins with it within 120 years of Lehi's arrival here.

Fact: there is no evidence of any kind to support coinage in North America or that people "were mining metals" that long ago. See; JSTOR Pre-Columbian Old World Coins In America Many other academic sites will confirm this.

--The patterns that have been found indicate that, insofar as coins are concerned, no case can be made for pre-Columbian contact between America and the Mediterranean. When one examines the dates of the coin discoveries, the distribution of the finds, and the times when the coins were minted, the most plausible interpretation is that the coins were lost recently. In fact, most of them appear to have been lost since World War II. It is also apparent that, in spite of their age and their historic significance, Roman and Greek coins are frequently lost, in both urban and rural settings. The fact that a coin is turned up in a hitherto unplowed field proves nothing other than that it was once lost there. Confirmation of these interpretations comes from England, where Alexandrian coins occur with some frequency. According to Robert Carson, Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum (personal communication) ~ Jeremiah F. Epstein

Quote

As to Rod Meldrum and his theories, I consider myself biased because I dislike him personally.  However, that does not make him wrong.  In fact, these coins are evidence with great weight that he is almost certainly right. 

You are giving "great weight" to false evidence and way too much credit to a man [Meldrum] who's own church has banned him from doing anymore firesides in the church buildings. Meldrum continually ignores science that shows any of his theories to be wrong (which is most of them)

Quote

Think about this: ... ...I could be wrong, but I'm not.

You could be wrong, and you are.

Quote

And, yes, I keep capitalizing the words SHEETS and PAGES, since most folks can't seem to grasp (no pun intended) the difference.

Please scan and post or link us to these sheets and pages.

 

Just an FYI, I have personally held the Bat Creek Stone in my hands and studied it, its origins, its history, and all those involved. It is a fake. Even the museum were it was displayed had a sign noting its name and history and that it was a fake to perpetuate the popular held belief of Hebrews in America.

How do you account for the lack of population in the Hopewell, compared with what the Book of Mormon requires?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I do not account for it at all.  I have coins which contain mineral endemic to North America.  Period.  The minerals contained in the metal of those coins were not 'lost' in the coins.  Nor do I care what "many other academic sites" will confirm or not.  It is what it is.

Furthermore, I do not know that they were pressed (do you understand the difference?) by any peoples from the Book of Mormon.  However, I am convinced that there was not another civilization that came here, mined metal, pressed coins, and then left them here and went home.

From what I understand, the Hopewell is a fraud.

And no, I am not going to make copies for your benefit.

So, it seems the only thing we shall agree upon is that Rod Meldrum is a jackass.  If this back-and-forth diatribe accomplishes nothing more than that, it will have been worth it anyway, in my opinion.  :)

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, oklds said:

From what I understand, the Hopewell is a fraud.

What does this mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, oklds said:

I have coins which contain mineral endemic to North America. 

"endemic[?]" Are you saying the meteors that hit North America had a different iron makeup of the meteors that hit the Old World? Are you saying that North America had the knowledge of smelting? I can see the cold hammering of copper, some gold, and meteoritic iron. However, any evidence for smelting is really not there. If you examine claims for pre-columbian smelting you will find many inconsistencies, the actual evidence lacking or even made up.

Quote

The minerals contained in the metal of those coins were not 'lost' in the coins. 

Copper or Iron from North America was not transported to the Old World. (1) There was no sailing back and forth from North America before Columbus; (2) Even if there was a some sort of trade system connecting the  Old World and the Americas, No country would have financed it for a very expensive transportation, time wasting venture, for metals they already had in abundance; (3) A claim that the purity levels of a metal (like copper) is different from each world, to prove there was pre-Columbian crossing is simply silly (again why would the Old World want any metals (other than silver or gold) when they already had an abundance and could acquire it cheaper and in less time? (4) Moreover, the purity level can be made to match both worlds by purging out the impurities (dross) from ore the copper was found in.

Quote

Nor do I care what "many other academic sites" will confirm or not.  It is what it is.

I understand that and it is certainly your right to do so. However, to simply swipe away the conclusions of scientist, historians, and anthropologist which disprove your opinions will be a detriment to you and frankly is a little bit arrogant compared to the many scholars who have come up with different theories other than the ones you subscribe to. 

Quote

Furthermore, I do not know that they were pressed (do you understand the difference?) by any peoples from the Book of Mormon. 

Please define "pressed" as you use it here. Pressed do you mean here, the molding of coins via heating a metal and pouring into a mold or cold hammering into a small disk? There is no evidence of coins used as a monetary system here in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus. Generally terms like cold hammering, smelting etc are the terms scientist will use [metallurgist, geologist, anthropologist]. The extraction of a metal from an ore via smelting (not hammering it out) has occurred in the Old World for a long time. The combining of alloys has occured as well. In fact, so important was that discovery, entire periods of time were named after the process (i.e. Bronze Age, Iron Age). IIRC smelting first was used in pre-columbian times in the Americas in South America (I want to say in Peru, but I could be wrong). Also, by the Mayan. This metallurgy in the Americas was generally with copper, gold and silver. The combining of copper, silver, gold occurred independently from that of the old world. Most anthropologist posit that through kilning of pottery the metallurgy was discovered. 

Quote

However, I am convinced that there was not another civilization that came here, mined metal, pressed coins, and then left them here and went home.

Your sentence here is pretty broad. One could conclude from your sentence that you are convinced that another civilization came here, they mined metals, they "pressed" coins, and transported the mined metals and pressed coins back to the civilization they came from. Which again, I ask, for what purpose? The metals,coins  were already in abundance in the Old World, the coins made in the Old World would be ludicrous to think an entrepreneur, a king, a emperor or (name your leader) would allow, let alone finance such a venture.

Quote

From what I understand, the Hopewell is a fraud.

I do not know what you mean here. The Hopewell certainly existed, although they did not call themselves "Hopewell."

Quote

And no, I am not going to make copies for your benefit.

(1) I am sure it would benefit all reading this, not just for me. (2) quoting something to us without  citing a reference source, link, or a way to check the sources is unprofessional and causes mistrust which may causes a credibility problem with you.

Furthermore, I could CFR you. The rules of this site says you have to produce the info when asked or take back the inferences you made concerning the issue. However, I really do not have much interest in the papers, so I wont. 

Quote

So, it seems the only thing we shall agree upon is that Rod Meldrum is a jackass.  If this back-and-forth diatribe accomplishes nothing more than that, it will have been worth it anyway, in my opinion.  :)

I do not think Meldrum is the word you used, but I do believe his pride has been hurt and he wants to defend his reputation and does so vainly and wrongly by using science incorrectly, calling opposers apostates (he did so to me personally), and in a limited way his intentions are also more financial and less spiritual.

oklds, I do not wish to offend you in anyway. I do wish to persuade you to open up to all the science, accept all the academic scientific theories on these issues and then work with them and find solutions that meet them. I would also advise not to choose a concept and then only look at theories that collaborate that concept while throwing out the vast science that disprove that concept. That type of selective choosing will only cause misunderstanding, fractures in friendships, and problems with credibility. 

Edited by Anijen
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I agree.  You have shown me the light.  I will immediately take the metal articles (you notice I did not refer to them as artifacts because you said they weren't) to the local metal recycling yard, and burn the papers, since they are taking up valuable SD box space.  Thank You so Much!

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, oklds said:

I agree.  You have shown me the light.  I will immediately take the metal articles (you notice I did not refer to them as artifacts because you said they weren't) to the local metal recycling yard, and burn the papers, since they are taking up valuable SD box space. 

The sarcasm is not justified. I mean, maybe I deserve it, I dunno...

I was merely addressing some important issues, such as the existing contrary theories to your own, the backing of peer reviewed scholars, and the science that currently disproves the theories you may have about pre-Columbian coinage and the Old World using their ships for transporting minerals, such as copper and coins, back to the Old World. I wonder why would a country with abundant copper resources and already has the way to make and use coins need to have them purged, refined, and made in America and then have shipped back to that country that already has the same resources right there?

If questioning the logic of such venture causes you to radically cause you to burn what you consider important papers and/or take metal back for recycling, then, I would definitely question your soundness of mind. However, I do not question your intelligence and I recognised the sarcastic intent of your post.

Quote

Thank You so Much!

So, in like return... You are very welcome. So glad I could of been of assistance. Incredibly joyous for your recognition of the light I have brought for you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/2/2018 at 8:29 PM, clarkgoble said:

 Although his [Steve Jones] reputation is in tatters since he became a 911 Truther (thinks the towers were destroyed intentionally by the government and not the airplanes we saw smashing into them). Because of his controversial writings he was pressured to retire from BYU.

 

I align with most of your comments in this thread regarding competing BofM models and the evidence for or against them.  Well done.

However, regarding Steve Jones, his “reputation is in tatters” not because of his work with 9/11 scientific truth, but because most people, being caught up in the official story of this event, don’t bother to really look at what he and others like him have uncovered in terms of real science, and are apt to believe the lies about them.

Your other comments about him underscore this and show that you are as susceptible to be misled as the most naïve Heartlander.  You’ve grossly misrepresented what he had done, what he believes and why he was ‘forced’ out of BYU.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

  You’ve grossly misrepresented what he had done, what he believes and why he was ‘forced’ out of BYU.

 

Off topic, but given it is an old thread probably okay to provide what you believe are accurate details as long as not purely political (that might be a problem with the mods).

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Off topic, but given it is an old thread probably okay to provide what you believe are accurate details as long as not purely political (that might be a problem with the mods).

I just ran into this thread based on following links from elsewhere, but always feel to defend the work of Dr. Steve Jones.  Why?  I'm a co-author and investigator on his project and paper involving the discovery of unreacted nano-thermite in multiple samples of dust from the 9/11 episode. Versions of nano-thermite can be categorized as a lower-grade high explosive.  

Steve's main focus has been on investigating the collapse of the WTC buildings, i.e., the physical causes, performance and aftermath of these building collapses, NOT on 'who did it'.  He was essentially pressured into early retirement based on an entrapment ploy cum interview conducted by Doug Fabrizio of KUER-FM (I could supply a lot more details), which involved personal slander against him, picked up and believed by BYU officials.

Yes, I get triggered by smug, uninformed publicly-displayed opinions regarding what Steve Jones and and many others have been involved in in their attempts to fully understand the events of 9/11.  Steve Goble is correct in saying he was pressured in leaving BYU, but this could be characterized as saying he was 'forced'.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/31/2018 at 9:36 AM, Tajara said:

I agree that the Heartland model is not particularly troublesome.  If you dig deep enough (no pun intended) the evidence of war, weapons and armor are all present--except maybe the bow.  The numbers do seem to be down until you consider items such as the great Hopewell road -- completely unnecessary for a few hunter-gatherers. 

There is evidence of metallurgy including brass, iron and steel if you know where to look, and as far as the issue of writing...  Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates.  

CFR on all that I bolded and underlined (emphasis mine). Tajara since you're new, board rules state you have to back up this claim with credible source or retract.

Not true, incredibly false, fiction, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, corrupt, scrupulous, dishonorable, untrustworthy, and falsehearted are the claims there was a pre-Columbian written language.  

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, blarsen said:

I just ran into this thread based on following links from elsewhere, but always feel to defend the work of Dr. Steve Jones.  Why?  I'm a co-author and investigator on his project and paper involving the discovery of unreacted nano-thermite in multiple samples of dust from the 9/11 episode. Versions of nano-thermite can be categorized as a lower-grade high explosive.  

Steve's main focus has been on investigating the collapse of the WTC buildings, i.e., the physical causes, performance and aftermath of these building collapses, NOT on 'who did it'.  He was essentially pressured into early retirement based on an entrapment ploy cum interview conducted by Doug Fabrizio of KUER-FM (I could supply a lot more details), which involved personal slander against him, picked up and believed by BYU officials.

Yes, I get triggered by smug, uninformed publicly-displayed opinions regarding what Steve Jones and and many others have been involved in in their attempts to fully understand the events of 9/11.  Steve Goble is correct in saying he was pressured in leaving BYU, but this could be characterized as saying he was 'forced'.

Just an FYI, I could not believe that the government could do such a thing.

Then, I did some studying (love that study thing).

I do not know if the govt was involved (probably).

What I do know:

  • There is evidence of thermite in the debris of  the three towers.
  • There are many (many is an understatement) videos of "puffs" of movement coming out of the buildings where each sound of a blast is heard (during their fall). I compared some of the videos to other buildings that were professionally brought down, you can see these same types of "puffs of movement" coming out of the buildings which matches the timing of the blasts.
  • The third building was not hit by an airplane, but comes down the same way the towers did. Compared to burning buildings the roof will collapse first and walls usually remain intact, (this is not how the third building came down).
  • Dr. Steven E Jones (retired BYU Professor) is very knowledgeable in the method of taking down buildings by controlled demolition and had no reason to take the conspiratorial  controversial side that he took.
  • Hate to say it, but there is weight to the evidence that after the planes hit the towers that the towers (and building 7) were taken down by controlled demolition.

 

Enough evidence for me to say, that it is very plausible that controlled demolition took place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Just an FYI, I could not believe that the government could do such a thing.

Then, I did some studying (love that study thing).

I do not know if the govt was involved (probably).

What I do know:

  • There is evidence of thermite in the debris of  the three towers.
  • There are many (many is an understatement) videos of "puffs" of movement coming out of the buildings where each sound of a blast is heard (during their fall). I compared some of the videos to other buildings that were professionally brought down, you can see these same types of "puffs of movement" coming out of the buildings which matches the timing of the blasts.
  • The third building was not hit by an airplane, but comes down the same way the towers did. Compared to burning buildings the roof will collapse first and walls usually remain intact, (this is not how the third building came down).
  • Dr. Steven E Jones (retired BYU Professor) is very knowledgeable in the method of taking down buildings by controlled demolition and had no reason to take the conspiratorial  controversial side that he took.
  • Hate to say it, but there is weight to the evidence that after the planes hit the towers that the towers (and building 7) were taken down by controlled demolition.

 

Enough evidence for me to say, that it is very plausible that controlled demolition took place.

Good post, Anijen. Always heartwarming to see someone willing to research controversial subjects that have such high import.  You've hit on some important key points.  There are more . . . .

The only exception I would take to what you've said is that Steve Jones "[took] the conspiratorial controversial side that he took."  I'm not aware that he ever took this stance, though he certainly speculated in private who may have been behind 9/11.  His public stance was always focused on the 'science' aspect of the WTC collapses as far as I'm aware.  Can you back up that statement?

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blarsen said:

Good post, Anijen. Always heartwarming to see someone willing to research controversial subjects that have such high import.  You've hit on some important key points.  There are more . . . .

The only exception I would take to what you've said is that Steve Jones "[took] the conspiratorial controversial side that he took."  I'm not aware that he ever took this stance, though he certainly speculated in private who may have been behind 9/11.  His public stance was always focused on the 'science' aspect of the WTC collapses as far as I'm aware.  Can you back up that statement?

Thanks.

I made the statement to show that Dr. Jones had no motive to publicly come out and say the buildings appear to be a control demolition. I mean did he want to be ridiculed and asked to leave BYU (he chose retirement)?  I am not saying that Dr. Jones believes in conspiracy theories, but I am saying he had no motive to do so other than the evidence he has saw and confirmed in his own studies and testing. He was defamed as a conspiracy nut after the fact.

So, I should not have phrased it that he took a conspiratorial side. I only meant that he had no motive, unless he actually wanted to tarnish his academic reputation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, blarsen said:

However, regarding Steve Jones, his “reputation is in tatters” not because of his work with 9/11 scientific truth, but because most people, being caught up in the official story of this event, don’t bother to really look at what he and others like him have uncovered in terms of real science, and are apt to believe the lies about them.

Your other comments about him underscore this and show that you are as susceptible to be misled as the most naïve Heartlander.  You’ve grossly misrepresented what he had done, what he believes and why he was ‘forced’ out of BYU.

Not sure what to say beyond that it goes against what most engineers, skyscraper fire experts and physicists say. So it sounds like you just agree both with what his beliefs were and also his perception of their truth. Which is fine but not exactly a resounding defense of Dr. Jones.

4 hours ago, blarsen said:

Yes, I get triggered by smug, uninformed publicly-displayed opinions regarding what Steve Jones and and many others have been involved in in their attempts to fully understand the events of 9/11.  Steve Goble is correct in saying he was pressured in leaving BYU, but this could be characterized as saying he was 'forced'.

I suspect you're conflating people. But I'm not interested in a debate of trutherism. I can but say that for most people your defense is having the opposite effect.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 1/3/2019 at 1:00 PM, Anijen said:

Fact: there is no evidence of any kind to support coinage in North America or that people "were mining metals" that long ago. See; JSTOR Pre-Columbian Old World Coins In America Many other academic sites will confirm this.

This article is hardly convincing.  It documents hundreds of coin finds in North America.  It dismisses them all as fraudulent with little evidence to do so.  Merely because one find is fraudulent does not make all others.  This article documents way more finds that I knew previously existed.  Am I to conclude that hundreds of farmers, building excavators and pig sty owners had Roman and Greek coins?

As one peer-reviewer noted of this work (the comment is at the bottom):  "The evidence does not lead with any certainty, however, to the conclusions he would extract. The dichotomy set up at the outset between "diffusionists" and "professional anthropologists" suggests a mind-set prevailing throughout."  In other words, the author of the article, Epstein, had a predisposition against diffusionists and would thus instantly discredit their work.    Epstein challenges the legitimacy of the original provenance of the coins found in the 17th to 19th centuries, but then what would one expect under the circumstances?  Epstein concludes that many of the coins may have been salted in the ballast of ocean-going ships, but how does one explain finds deep inland?  Epstein challenges the distribution pattern of the finds (particular places in Tennessee but not elsewhere), but is that really a criticism? 

Epstein seems to have one valid critique, which I haven't analyzed, and that coins are not found in legitimate well-known Amerind sites.  That will take some thinking.  

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Epstein seems to have one valid critique, which I haven't analyzed, and that coins are not found in legitimate well-known Amerind sites.  That will take some thinking.  

Isn't the bigger problem the dating of the coins? And the lack of indigenous coins? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't the bigger problem the dating of the coins? And the lack of indigenous coins? 

Neither of these were Epstein's concerns, although he addressed the layering of the coins.  Why were they found at the surface?  (Not all were found at the surface; he sweeps in criticism.)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Anijen said:

I made the statement to show that Dr. Jones had no motive to publicly come out and say the buildings appear to be a control demolition. I mean did he want to be ridiculed and asked to leave BYU (he chose retirement)?  I am not saying that Dr. Jones believes in conspiracy theories, but I am saying he had no motive to do so other than the evidence he has saw and confirmed in his own studies and testing. He was defamed as a conspiracy nut after the fact.

So, I should not have phrased it that he took a conspiratorial side. I only meant that he had no motive, unless he actually wanted to tarnish his academic reputation.

Gotcha.  And quite right.  Steve Jones simply felt to take a closer, more analytic look at the 9/11 situation in early 2005, and fell out of his chair when he realized how weak the official explanation was.  From there, it was "Do what is right, let the consequences follow".   And the consequences were quite severe for him and his family.

Edited by blarsen
make clearer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what to say beyond that it goes against what most engineers, skyscraper fire experts and physicists say. So it sounds like you just agree both with what his beliefs were and also his perception of their truth. Which is fine but not exactly a resounding defense of Dr. Jones.

I suspect you're conflating people. But I'm not interested in a debate of trutherism. I can but say that for most people your defense is having the opposite effect.

Dr. Jones can defend himself.   I merely pointed out your public mischaracterization of him.  And your resorting to an ad populum argument is rather amusing, let alone your use of the ‘trutherism’ epithet.  What else do you have in your arsenal?

My direct experience supports the contention that “most engineers, skyscraper fire experts and physicists” (and I’ll add, most scientists in general) have never taken a serious, close look at the events of 9/11, and most have certainly never even heard of the collapse of WTC 7.

Some homework for you, Clark.  Watch some videos featuring the testimony of Peter Michael Ketcham (easily listed/accessed on YouTube).  He was a 14 year mathematician/scientist on the NIST Technical Staff, and only started looking into his own organization’s reports on the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7 in 2016 . . . . becoming highly dismayed after he did so.  He is typical of the majority of scientists and engineers . . . in terms of largely ignoring the issues.

A couple of URLs to facilitate this, if allowed:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkxBnGAT4aA and https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/4-stand-for-the-truth-a-government-researcher-speaks-out

I’ll be interested in your impressions of his testimony.

Oh, and back to the topic of this thread, if you are related to Ed Goble, you can’t be all bad.   Also, what people may I be "conflating".  You lost me.

Edited by blarsen

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2019 at 2:55 PM, blarsen said:

  Also, what people may I be "conflating".  You lost me.

Oh.   You got me, Clark.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/28/2019 at 6:40 PM, Anijen said:

CFR on all that I bolded and underlined (emphasis mine). Tajara since you're new, board rules state you have to back up this claim with credible source or retract.

Not true, incredibly false, fiction, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, corrupt, scrupulous, dishonorable, untrustworthy, and falsehearted are the claims there was a pre-Columbian written language.  

Anijen,

     You ask me to back up this claim with credible sources or retract:  "There is evidence of metallurgy including brass, iron and steel if you know where to look, and as far as the issue of writing...  Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates."   I am happy to give you my references and expect the same from you.  Back up your claim with credible source or retract:  "Not true, incredibly false, fiction, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, corrupt, scrupulous, dishonorable, untrustworthy, and falsehearted are the claims there was a pre-Columbian written language."  (emphasis mine)  You first?  :)

~ Tajara

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/5/2019 at 3:23 PM, Tajara said:

Anijen,

     You ask me to back up this claim with credible sources or retract:  "There is evidence of metallurgy including brass, iron and steel if you know where to look, and as far as the issue of writing...  Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates."   I am happy to give you my references and expect the same from you.  Back up your claim with credible source or retract:  "Not true, incredibly false, fiction, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, corrupt, scrupulous, dishonorable, untrustworthy, and falsehearted are the claims there was a pre-Columbian written language."  (emphasis mine)  You first?  :)

~ Tajara

Sorry just getting back from a much needed vacation abroad and just saw this today.

NO, no, no, none of this "you first" stuff. You made the claim of pre-Columbian languages, now  you back it up. This is an official CFR.

As for my resources:

  • New York Anthropology Depart
  • New York Archaeology Association
  • South Dakota Bureau of Indian Affairs
  • Chief Left Hand Tribal Law College
  • University of New Mexico Anthropology Dept.
  • Brian Stubbs Ancient American Language Expert see this article here
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Source of Two-Cumorah Mesoamerica Geography Theory:

RLDS 1894 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074867811;view=2up;seq=2;skin=mobile

RLDS 1924 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=2up;seq=58;skin=mobile

CofC 2007 to 2019: http://www.hceti.org/

https://hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/Testimony.html

RLDS 1960s to present: https://www.bomf.org/bmf-history.html

RLDS Quetzal Codex publications, merged with above: https://www.bomf.org/quetzal-codex.html

RLDS Current issues of “The Witness” by bomf: https://www.bomf.org/the-witness.html

Adopted by BYU Professors:

http://www.bmaf.org/bio/shirley_heater - LDS recognizing RLDS 

http://bom.byu.edu/ - fantasy map, can’t use a real map, BYU students are considered idiots

Fantasy Map used by RLDS 1919, page 2:

https://nebula.wsimg.com/7bb9e706664eb88ffcc243bf714261ca?AccessKeyId=AA525AED21BB7CA23BE6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

RLDS teach their children the people of Ammon are Mayas: https://nebula.wsimg.com/46d3ed609d473e951de5cf1cc03c41c7?AccessKeyId=AA525AED21BB7CA23BE6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

http://bom.byu.edu/mormons-cave/ BYU Mormon’s cave in Mexico

RLDS/CofC  Mormon’s Cave in Mexico, Cerro Rabon: https://hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/Expeditions.html

RLDS Two-Cumorah Geography theory sold by Deseret Book, a waste of trees:

https://deseretbook.com/p/mormons-codex-john-l-sorenson-88816?variant_id=7218-hardcover

Oliver Cowdery in 1834 declares final Jaredite and Nephite battles at Hill Cumorah in New York, in response to anti-Mormon publication “Mormonism Unvailed”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

Don’t believe Oliver Cowdery, declares LDS Jack Welch; Cowdery was “speculating” the real Cumorah (RLDS) is in Mexico:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-are-oliver-cowderys-messenger-and-advocate-letters-to-be-understood-and-used

BIGGEST FARCE EVER PERPETUATED ON THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS by a bunch a quack BYU Professors who plagiarized the RLDS geography theory then created 501(c)(3) Charitable Corporations:

“Book of Mormon Central” aka “BMAF.org”

”The Interpreter”

So they can beg for tax-free money for “research” on Book of Mormon geography, from fools who are easily separated from their money - because Oliver Cowdery can’t be believed and the Prophet Joseph Smith learned Book of Mormon geography from a travel book written by John Lloyd Stephens - while RLDS members are already down in Mexico on expeditions.

Thus the RLDS influence promoted by LDS BYU Professors - because the rest of us are ignorant stooges about the RLDS Church.

Explained: http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/03/the-m2c-hoax-part-4-rlds-won.html

 

Edited by Burnside
more info

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Burnside said:

Source of Two-Cumorah Mesoamerica Geography Theory:

RLDS 1894 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074867811;view=2up;seq=2;skin=mobile

RLDS 1924 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=2up;seq=58;skin=mobile

CofC 2007 to 2019: www.hceti.org

https://hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/Testimony.html

RLDS 1960s to present: https://www.bomf.org/bmf-history.html

RLDS Quetzal Codex publications, merged with above: https://www.bomf.org/quetzal-codex.html

RLDS Current issues of “The Witness” by bomf: https://www.bomf.org/the-witness.html

Adopted by BYU Professors:

http://www.bmaf.org/bio/shirley_heater - LDS recognizing RLDS 

http://bom.byu.edu/ - fantasy map, can’t use a real map, BYU students are considered idiots

Fantasy Map used by RLDS 1919, page 2:

https://nebula.wsimg.com/7bb9e706664eb88ffcc243bf714261ca?AccessKeyId=AA525AED21BB7CA23BE6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

RLDS teach their children the people of Ammon are Mayas: https://nebula.wsimg.com/46d3ed609d473e951de5cf1cc03c41c7?AccessKeyId=AA525AED21BB7CA23BE6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

http://bom.byu.edu/mormons-cave/ BYU Mormon’s cave in Mexico

RLDS/CofC  Mormon’s Cave in Mexico, Cerro Rabon: https://hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/Expeditions.html

RLDS Two-Cumorah Geography theory sold by Deseret Book, a waste of trees:

https://deseretbook.com/p/mormons-codex-john-l-sorenson-88816?variant_id=7218-hardcover

Oliver Cowdery in 1834 declares final Jaredite and Nephite battles at Hill Cumorah in New York, in response to anti-Mormon publication “Mormonism Unvailed”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

Don’t believe Oliver Cowdery, declares LDS Jack Welch; Cowdery was “speculating” the real Cumorah (RLDS) is in Mexico:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-are-oliver-cowderys-messenger-and-advocate-letters-to-be-understood-and-used

BIGGEST FARCE EVER PERPETUATED ON THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Explained: http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/03/the-m2c-hoax-part-4-rlds-won.html

 

Have you considered taking up tennis?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/30/2018 at 3:52 PM, Calm said:

The heartland has some issues with it.  From what I have seen, it appeals to people who want the prophecies' blessings to apply primarily to the US rather than a more widespread approach.  They claim they are the ones trusting what Joseph said, but choose to ignore some of his comments that place some events elsewhere.  They also pick and choose their science, ignoring what timelines are attached to stuff they see as evidence for their claims.  A few people have chosen to make their career promoting this theory along with attaching anything else that can make them a buck, so it makes it difficult for them to deal with criticism, imo.  I am a member of FM and was around when the FIRM Foundation got going and was able to observe how Rod Meldrum just blew off any attempts to help him adjust to the science where he was misusing it.  He overdid 'this work has been revealed to me' bit making geographical belief a matter of faithfulness when the Church has officially come our and said it endorses no theory.  Scholars are in apostasy, etc, in many heartlanders' views and are regularly attacked.  (BYU is viewed as in apostasy for teaching evolution by Meldrum...he never did answer my question of why BYU regents, which include apostles, are allowing our youth to be led into apostasy by teaching scientific theories he says are lies)  He got banned from giving presentations in Church buildings for promoting his product, I believe (I am actually certain of it, but wasn't party to the conversation, so I admit I may be wrong).  Iow, while I have no problem with him sharing his ideas even though I find them to be low quality on the science side, I think he and others like him go way too far in tying them to Faith and turning the whole endeavor into an allegedly God directed, spiritual movement.  

The MesoAmerican theories do have the issue that while the geography works best with the text, it does not appear Joseph saw it as so localized and of course it contradicts the traditional hemispheric model (though I believe the hemispheric model doesn't work with the timelines in the text).

This approach is probably the most up- to-date one, imo, if you are not already aware of it:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/heartland-as-hinterland-the-mesoamerican-core-and-north-american-periphery-of-book-of-mormon-geography/

My take on the Heartland Model:

1. I am not impressed with the advocates of this model, who in advancing their theory seem to rely less on evidence and reasoning and persuasion, and more on attacking the integrity of those who have alternative perspectives on the geography of the Book of Mormon.

2. To the extent the Heartland folks have presented evidence-based scholarship and reasoning, I have found it to be generally of uneven quality.  Brant Gardner has said this (speaking of disagreements about the geography issue):

Quote

Theodore Brandley has offered some very specific analyses of geographic references in the Book of Mormon. So far, we have seen some reiteration of the conceptual divide of the believers in different theories, but no specific engagement with Brandley’s analysis. I submit that if he is correct in all of them, then those advocating for other geographies would have to reconsider. It should always be a question of evidence rather than defense of previously accepted positions.

Brandley and I disagree on the geography of the Book of Mormon, but we both owe it to ourselves and the LDS community to carefully understand the evidence. 

 "It should always be a question of evidence rather than defense of previously accepted positions."

"{We}...owe it to ourselves and the LDS community to carefully understand the evidence."

Well said.  I think the Heartland folks (I'm thinking mostly of Porter, Meldrum, and Neville) should be heard, but I would like to see more rigor in their scholarship.

3. The Heartland folks seem to be trying to put the geography issue into the it's-been-settled-by-revelation category.  It hasn't (see also here).

4. I can't help but wonder if there are some 'Murica!-based sentiments underlying the Heartland model.  I love America, and I am not ashamed to say so.  But I would not love America less if essentially all of the Book of Mormon took place elsewhere on "this continent" (such as, I dunno, around southern Mexico).

5. I appreciated Mark Alan Wright's attempt to "sythensize" or, to some extent, harmonize the Mesoamerican and Heartland models here: Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...