Jump to content

Dna Evidence For Book Of Mormon Geography


Sparty

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I just finished watching a DVD titled "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography". The basic premise of the "research" engaged in by the author, Rod Meldrum, was that there was sufficient evidence in the Book of Mormon and from the Prophet Jos Smith Jr. to correlate the Hopewell Indians (the Mississippi Mound Builders) to the Book of Mormon. The thing that makes his video compelling is that he claims the Hopewell tribes had the Haplotype X, which doesn't tie them to the Siberian migration, but to a Near East or European migration.

I was left with very mixed feelings about the video. First, I was struck that the research was poorly done...the author pulls a verse from the Book of Mormon and then correlates it with the geography of the Great Lakes and MidWest, or takes a single quote from Jos Smith Jr. and correlates it with geography. Additionally, instead of going to the academic community with his theory, he seems to touring firesides, etc. However, the comprehensive nature of the theory was interesting and there were some correlations that were very interesting to me. For instance that the East Sea was actually Lake Erie (used quotes from BOM and from Jos Smith Jr.), that there are no large migratory mammals in Central America, the mention of tornados in the BOM, etc.

I was just curious if anyone else had seen this video or been to his presentation. What was your take?

Sparty

Link to comment

Hi Sparty,

This concept was discussed recently on this thread: Book of Mormon Evidence

Here is an important scientific problem with this fellow's claim about haplogroup X: it separated from the Old World more than 10,000 years ago just like the other mitochondrial haplogroups found in this hemisphere. It doesn't harmonize with Joseph Smith's timeline.

American Journal of Human Genetics

Time estimates for the arrival of X in North America are 12,000-36,000 years ago, depending on the number of assumed founders, thus supporting the conclusion that the peoples harboring haplogroup X were among the original founders of Native American populations.

Therefore, haplogroup X cannot be a remnant of Book of Mormon people.

Link to comment

Ditto. I think that he has done a poor job on reliable research. I don't know of any scholar who agrees in the slightest to his theories. As you said, he is taking it on a fireside circuit and not to the scholarly community. I know plenty of scholars who are getting upset at him for not only presenting poor scholarship, but turning firesides into a money making machine. He tells on his site that he has sold 5000 copies. At 20 bucks a pop, that is $100,000. Not bad for preying on ignorance.

Here are some clips that scholars agree with on DNA:

In all honesty, I think he needs to be stopped.

Link to comment

I too have seen Meldrum's DVD and have even met him. He is a nice guy who is trying his best. But, as was noted, his research is sloppy. There were some things here or there that I thought was interesting, but I remain unconvinced in his theory of a Great Lakes Geography.

Later after watching his DVD, I read some articles by John Clark that I think has noted some big problems with a Great Lakes Geography.

Also, I have to agree with The Dude (brrr...did Hell just freeze over? :P ) that Meldrum's DNA arguments are weak.

Link to comment

I don't know about this guy or the DVD he has produced, but he is probably smart enough to have an answer to your objections. Has anyone actually put the "DNA evidence is 8,000 too early" argument to him?

However, I would completely agree with his claim regarding the Great Lakes and the Mound Builders. To me it is obvious that is the setting for the Book of Mormon story and not Central or South America.

Alan

Link to comment

I don't know about this guy or the DVD he has produced, but he is probably smart enough to have an answer to your objections. Has anyone actually put the "DNA evidence is 8,000 too early" argument to him?

In the other thread I discussed the similarities between bad DNA arguments from this segment of apologists, and bad creationist arguments in general. With that in mind, I think this guy would probably say the dates are only estimates based on flawed assumptions ... kind of like radiocarbon dating. "Pay them no mind," he would say. So why pay attention to DNA at all if you are going to have that attitude?

I'm a little uncomfortable putting words in his mouth, however. It would be better to have Rod Meldrum come on this board and defend himself.

Link to comment

Even if he has a perfect answer for the dating of the DNA, the rest of his theories are way to stretched. He has admitted to not even keeping up on Mesoamerican studies and The Book of Mormon. He hasn't even read the basic books showing the possibility of a CA setting. Just that in itself shows ignorance. Why claim to be the one who knows the geography, when you haven't even read other theories, let alone, the most prominent and accepted one?

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I believe Rod actually addressed the dating problem. He said that the mutation rate used to form the dating of mtdna doesnt match with other evidence, and that if you use the new fixed dating clock the mutation rate is much faster. Using the new mutation rate the DNA roughly fits the dating of the Nephites.Even if you don't believe Rods DNA theories, then you should atleast be able to see the potential of the Hopewell people being the right fit for the Nephites. There is a substantial amount of things that fit the North America setting and don't fit the Central America setting. Not to mention the North America setting fits what Joseph Smith knew about the BOM Geogrophy. The CA theory contradicts what Joseph said about it. The zelph incident should be enough evidence that Joseph KNEW where the BOM people were, to try and outsmart him would put Josephs propheic calling into question IMO.

I don't know about this guy or the DVD he has produced, but he is probably smart enough to have an answer to your objections. Has anyone actually put the "DNA evidence is 8,000 too early" argument to him?However, I would completely agree with his claim regarding the Great Lakes and the Mound Builders. To me it is obvious that is the setting for the Book of Mormon story and not Central or South America.Alan
I agree.
Link to comment
See the thread The Dude referenced for answers to your assertions. They've already been discussed.

I already read through the whole thread and nothing I said in my last post has been refuted. The only basis of attack everyone has had on Rods DNA evidence is that the dating doesn't fit, but like I said Rod was well aware of that and he addresses it in his DVD. Plus the evidence on the Hopewell people havn't even been touched in the other thread, nor have the evidences of what Joseph knew concerning the Nephites. This stuff needs to be discussed more thuroughly

Link to comment

I gave links to articles by archaeologists which cast considerable doubt onto the N. American theory. While it doesn't really matter what any GA has thought or said about it before (because there has been no revealed doctrine on the geography of the BOM), did you read the portion where Joseph Smith stated the BOM events happened in Mesoamerica and actually named mesoamerican cities and rivers as BOM cities and rivers? And that Moroni then travelled northward from Mesoamerica to N America? Then we have 20x the evidence in Mesoamerica as we do other places.

Link to comment

It amazes me how over the course of the history of the Church that every time a new scientific concept about precolumbian America gains popularity, some one in the Church tries to use it to support Book of Mormon historicity. In many of these cases, there is an almost total abandonement of the textual evidence found in the Book of Mormon. One of The most common ones related to attempts to locate the culture in the United States is to assume that the seas mentioned in the text were fresh water lakes in the New York area. Joseph Smith was well aware of the difference in the concept of a salt water body called a sea and that of a fresh water body of water called a lake. In addition, they completly ignore the mention in the tezt of a north and a south sea. Another is the amount of geographical information in the text related to the River Sidon. The river Sidon is mentioned 37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographical locations. For any model to have any correspondance with the actual geography of the Book of Mormon, it must conform to these texts.

The first problem with a New York model is that the text clearly indicates an east to west and south to north orientation of the River sidon. The only river that I know of in the NY area is the Gennesee and it fails to meet the criteria described in the text. Most seriously in that the Hill Cumorah is not in the land nothward but is located within 50 miles of the river sidon and the proposed land of Zarahemla. All of the other rivers run to the south, in particular those depicted by Meldrum as being located in the Land of Zarahemla.

The Zelph story is one of the major props used to support a US location for the BoM. This incident occurred in May of 1834, yet in 1842, under the editorship of Joseph Smith, articles were published sugessting that Zarahemla and the BoM culture were located in Mesoamerica. Ken Godfrey published an article in BYU Studies Vol 21 1989 that casts serious doubt that many of the statements referring to this incident were even uttered by Joseph Smith. However, there were at least 5 articles published in the Times and Seasons and the Millenial Star refering to the posibility of a Mesoamerican location.

It has always puzzled me as to why the Saints, including Joseph Fielding Smith, put more value on the Zelph story and ignored the articles published under the editorship of Joseph Smith. I have finally concluded that this is based on a belief that God somehow favors the United States as proposed in the political doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". This political justification for the treatment of the Indians came into popularity at essentially the same time as the BofM was published. It was used to support the westward movement of the white European population and the concurrent displacement of the Indians from their ancestral lands.

Sorenson has done an in depth corelation of all the references to BoM geography in the text and has concluded that the Mesoamerican location is the only one that correlates with essentially all of the textual data and is in good agreement with the data accumulated by geologists and anthropoogists. Proponents of the US location conveniently use only a portion of the textual data and ignore most of the geological and anthropological information.

I agree with most of what Sorenson says and my recent studies of the convergance of Mesoamerican concepts of space and direction with the geography described in the BofM have confirmed and extended my belief in a Mesoamerican location for the BofM.

This does not deny the possibility that others may differ but please do so from a basis of personal study rather than simply jumping on someone elses bandwagon with no attempt to study it out for yourself.

Larry P

Link to comment
I gave links to articles by archaeologists which cast considerable doubt onto the N. American theory. While it doesn't really matter what any GA has thought or said about it before (because there has been no revealed doctrine on the geography of the BOM), did you read the portion where Joseph Smith stated the BOM events happened in Mesoamerica and actually named mesoamerican cities and rivers as BOM cities and rivers? And that Moroni then travelled northward from Mesoamerica to N America? Then we have 20x the evidence in Mesoamerica as we do other places.

I havn't read anything of the sort. Let me ask you this, have you watched the newest DNA evidence for Book Of Mormon geograpy? I'm guessing not because he has a whole section that talks about Josephs beliefs on the Geography of the BOM and spends a good deal of time on where the CA theory came from. The whole basis of which it was formed (a few things from the times and seasons, wentworth letter, a few other letters) were misconstrued and alot of things were assumed to have meant Joseph supported the BOM Central America theory, which wasn't the case.

Link to comment
I don't know about this guy or the DVD he has produced, but he is probably smart enough to have an answer to your objections. Has anyone actually put the "DNA evidence is 8,000 too early" argument to him?

However, I would completely agree with his claim regarding the Great Lakes and the Mound Builders. To me it is obvious that is the setting for the Book of Mormon story and not Central or South America.

Alan

If we could only find a sword or a coin or a chariott! Or maybe any remnant whatsoever of the millions of people and huge wars that were fought! Heck, I'd settle for just one single pre-Columbian horse!

Link to comment
It amazes me how over the course of the history of the Church that every time a new scientific concept about precolumbian America gains popularity, some one in the Church tries to use it to support Book of Mormon historicity. In many of these cases, there is an almost total abandonement of the textual evidence found in the Book of Mormon. One of The most common ones related to attempts to locate the culture in the United States is to assume that the seas mentioned in the text were fresh water lakes in the New York area. Joseph Smith was well aware of the difference in the concept of a salt water body called a sea and that of a fresh water body of water called a lake. In addition, they completly ignore the mention in the tezt of a north and a south sea. Another is the amount of geographical information in the text related to the River Sidon. The river Sidon is mentioned 37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographical locations. For any model to have any correspondance with the actual geography of the Book of Mormon, it must conform to these texts.

Watch the dvd. All of this stuff is covered, and it's supported scripturally as well.

The first problem with a New York model is that the text clearly indicates an east to west and south to north orientation of the River sidon. The only river that I know of in the NY area is the Gennesee and it fails to meet the criteria described in the text. Most seriously in that the Hill Cumorah is not in the land nothward but is located within 50 miles of the river sidon and the proposed land of Zarahemla. All of the other rivers run to the south, in particular those depicted by Meldrum as being located in the Land of Zarahemla.

The river Sidon in Rods theory is the Mississippi river. This solves all of your problems stated. If you had watched the DVD in it's entirety you would know this.

The Zelph story is one of the major props used to support a US location for the BoM. This incident occurred in May of 1834, yet in 1842, under the editorship of Joseph Smith, articles were published sugessting that Zarahemla and the BoM culture were located in Mesoamerica. Ken Godfrey published an article in BYU Studies Vol 21 1989 that casts serious doubt that many of the statements referring to this incident were even uttered by Joseph Smith. However, there were at least 5 articles published in the Times and Seasons and the Millenial Star refering to the posibility of a Mesoamerican location.

There were 5 acconts of the Zelph incident. 3 of which were from APOSTLES. There was als a letter to Emma where Joseph talks about walking over the plains of the nephites in Zions camp. The Zelph incident is a fact. The times and seasons artices however were published while the prophet was in hiding and was not the chief editor of the times and seasons. There were many people who were anctious to find the BOM lands and to them it seemed as if Central America was the perfect fit, they ublished these by their own opinions, not Josephs. If they were the words of Joseph they would have bore his signature. Once again if you watched the dvd you would know this

It has always puzzled me as to why the Saints, including Joseph Fielding Smith, put more value on the Zelph story and ignored the articles published under the editorship of Joseph Smith. I have finally concluded that this is based on a belief that God somehow favors the United States as proposed in the political doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". This political justification for the treatment of the Indians came into popularity at essentially the same time as the BofM was published. It was used to support the westward movement of the white European population and the concurrent displacement of the Indians from their ancestral lands.

They werent under the editorship of Joseph.

Sorenson has done an in depth corelation of all the references to BoM geography in the text and has concluded that the Mesoamerican location is the only one that correlates with essentially all of the textual data and is in good agreement with the data accumulated by geologists and anthropoogists. Proponents of the US location conveniently use only a portion of the textual data and ignore most of the geological and anthropological information.

Wrong. Do your research

I agree with most of what Sorenson says and my recent studies of the convergance of Mesoamerican concepts of space and direction with the geography described in the BofM have confirmed and extended my belief in a Mesoamerican location for the BofM.

The narrow neck of land in the CA theory is WAY to big to fit what is described in the BOM. It's supposed to take only a days travel to cross it. Where as with the Jungles in central America and the insane distance it would be impossible to do so.

This does not deny the possibility that others may differ but please do so from a basis of personal study rather than simply jumping on someone elses bandwagon with no attempt to study it out for yourself.

Not jumping on a bandwagon. I believe the NA theory because it makes sense and doesnt have all the holes of the CA theory. Seriously, before you go criticizing the theory you should atleast watch the source in which you're arguing against.

Larry P

Link to comment
I havn't read anything of the sort. Let me ask you this, have you watched the newest DNA evidence for Book Of Mormon geograpy? I'm guessing not because he has a whole section that talks about Josephs beliefs on the Geography of the BOM and spends a good deal of time on where the CA theory came from. The whole basis of which it was formed (a few things from the times and seasons, wentworth letter, a few other letters) were misconstrued and alot of things were assumed to have meant Joseph supported the BOM Central America theory, which wasn't the case.

Actually, the newest DNA evidence shows an infusion of Middle Eastern DNA into Central America. Also, biological evidence says the same thing.

You forgot to mention the Central American theory came from Joseph Smith himself. To be honest, it seems you are drawing all of your information off of these DVD's and ignoring the research over the last 25 years done by experts. There is a reason why the Mesoamerican theory is so popular among Book of Mormon scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc... You don't seem to have a knowledge of the most prominent theory, but because a smooth talking amateur came along with a DVD, you have bought into that theory.

Link to comment

"You forgot to mention the Central American theory came from Joseph Smith himself"

Please give me a direct quote where Joseph says that the BOM took place in Central America.

I've done most of my research on the NA theory rather then the CA theory. I started out believing the CA theory but I ran into alot of problems such as CA not fitting the description as a land of freedom or liberty. The Book Of Mormon hints at America all over the place, I don't really see how you can ignore it all and come to the conclusion that it took place in CA. It doesn't fit the description very well at all.

Also, you never answered my question. Have you watched the whole dvd? I mean that's what the thread is about.

Link to comment

Vic says

The river Sidon in Rods theory is the Mississippi river. This solves all of your problems stated. If you had watched the DVD in it's entirety you would know this.

Precisely. The mississippi flows from north to south. The River Sidon described in the text of the BofM runs from south to north. Its head was in the narrow strip of wilderness and it flowed from there through the land of Zarahemla which is to the north of the narrow strip.

Alma 22

27 And it came to pass that the king sent a aproclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the bwest, and which was divided from the land of cZarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of dManti, by the head of the eriver Sidon, running from the east towards the westâ??and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

28 Now, the more aidle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathersâ?? first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called aBountiful.

Please explain to me how the head of the river Sidon was in the narrow strip of wilderness with Zarahemla to the north fits the Missiissippi with its head waters north of Meldrums Land of Zarahemla and a direction of flow to the south.

I would suggest that you should do a little more study about the CA theory before coming up with one liners that do not even relate to the arguments or text of the Book of Mormon.

Your comments about the landof liberty is exactly what I was saying about the need to justify the US as the Land of liberty spoken of in the BofM. The US is indeed a Land of Liberty but there is no need to distort the BoM in order to justify this belief. However this is exactly what many have done ever since it was published.

Larry P

Link to comment

Heres a list of things that support the NA theory rather then the CA theory. Most comes straight from the BOM its self

1. Present day hopewell indians have light skin

2. Matches Josephs Smith Revelations and historical record

3. NA contains narrow neck of land which can be crossed in 1 and 1/2 days (unlike CA whose neck would take atleast 10 days)

4. Where Joseph sent the first missionaries where he claimed were the descendants of the Nephites.

5. Contains the location of the original Hill Cumorah

6. Has the location of the New Jerusalem

7. The land of liberty

8. it's the land of promise

9. It's a nation above all other nations

10. It's the land of promise

11. Civilization and culture of the mound builders are in proper chronology to BOM peoples. (the Mayans dont even fit the BOM timeline)

12. Contains temple structures like Solomons Temple (Mayan temples don't fit Solomon temple descriptions)

13. Hopewell temples were used for proper purposes (Mayan temples were used for human sacrafice)

14. Jopewell Civilization matches BOM description

15. Archaelogical sites match Nephites defenses

16. Contains the proper climates (CA can be argued with this also)

17. Hopewell used stones to build walls but not cities

18. Wood used as primary building material

19. Cities were burned because they were made of wood

20. North, South, East and West seas divide the land.

21. Land contains tempest and Tornados (CA has never had a tornado)

22. Nephite Expansion matches civilization remains.

23. Hopewells dissapeared the same time as the Nephites

24. BOM people lived in tents (this is debaable with the CA theory)

25. Rightcheous man were raised up to establsh the constitution which belongs to all mankind (straght from the BOM)

26. It's where the BOM came forth

27. Hopewell contains oral history of mass extincton

28. Hopewells containe war artifacts prevalent from Archaelogy

29. Fulfills all promise land prophecies.

30. Contains artifacts depicting christ (both actually have this)

31. candidate civilization for the Jaredites

32. U.S is where the gospel has been restored

Plus it fits DNA evidence and that DNA can be found in tribes which Joseph claimed were Nephites.

Almost all of these are fulfilled in America and can be found in the BOM. You can't say the same for Central America.

Seems to me like NA has a much stronger case, it's just nobody has given it the proper study because they're stuck on CA.

Link to comment
"You forgot to mention the Central American theory came from Joseph Smith himself"

Please give me a direct quote where Joseph says that the BOM took place in Central America.

I've done most of my research on the NA theory rather then the CA theory. I started out believing the CA theory but I ran into alot of problems such as CA not fitting the description as a land of freedom or liberty. The Book Of Mormon hints at America all over the place, I don't really see how you can ignore it all and come to the conclusion that it took place in CA. It doesn't fit the description very well at all.

Also, you never answered my question. Have you watched the whole dvd? I mean that's what the thread is about.

As you know, Times and Seasons came out continually about a Central American setting for The Book of Mormon, which paper JS was the editor of. Meldrum argues that JS was in hiding and wasn't there for the printing. But there are a few problems with this. JS got the book "Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan" on Sept. 8th 1842, which he tied to The Book of Mormon, and sent a thank you letter to the sender saying that it "corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon;". Not something he would say if he thought it took place in N America. Also, if Joseph Smith thought it was NA setting, he would have corrected the MANY editorials which gave a positive Central American setting for the BOM. These articles said things like the following:

"They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America", "The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land [Central America]" "Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" "Central America, or Guatemala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien . . . . The city of Zarahemla stood upon this land . . . . It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them" and it goes on and on....

If JS had it revealed that it was in North America, he would not stand for the continuation of this false doctrine being taught. He would have corrected it right away, but we don't see that. What we do see is JS continuing to promote a Central American setting.

While speaking to Patriarch Mcbride, he "with his cane in the sand the track the saints would take to the Rocky Mountains...described the valley of the Great Salt Lake just as though he had lived there...said we should make stations all the way to New and Old Mexico until we crossed the Isthmus of Teohuantipec and get back to the place where the covenant was broke by the Nephites. Spoke of the great Temple in Central America unifinished...This river was situated by the River Copan, anciently called the River of Nephi" (Diary of Charles Lloyd Walker, 2:524-525) We have maps made according to the words of Joseph Smith which show Moronis travels from Central America to N America.

Link to comment
If we could only find a sword or a coin or a chariott! Or maybe any remnant whatsoever of the millions of people and huge wars that were fought! Heck, I'd settle for just one single pre-Columbian horse!

We HAVE found the swords, LOTS of them. See my video on the You Tube on the Book of Mormon Evidences the Sword. You have to type it all as one word to get to my site, namely - thebackyardprofessor.

Link to comment

Ok, if you're here attacking Rods work and the NA theory then you'd think you would have watched the DVD before you started arguing. Everything you bring up has been addressed already in Rods work so it's blatantly obvious you aren't too familiar with it. Here's the deal, go do your research on it, watch the dvd in it's entirety and THEN we can talk about it. In the mean time i'll go ahead and do some more research on the CA theory to be fair. :P

Link to comment
Heres a list of things that support the NA theory rather then the CA theory. Most comes straight from the BOM its self

1. Present day hopewell indians have light skin

Note: The board only allows so many quotations in a single post, so I have broken this response into pieces so the quotation formatting is preserved.

There are two problems with this. First is that I believe that it is based on a misreading of the text--a traditional misreading to be sure--but still a misreading. Secondly, the fact of lightness doesn't allow for the contrast in the textually simultaneous and neighboring populations. If all Hopewell descendents are light, what happened to the "dark" Lamanites, who were victorious and should have been more represented that remnants of the hypothesized light-skinned (though still not "white") Nephites.

2. Matches Josephs Smith Revelations and historical record

Joseph Smith was rather flexible in his assessment and there is no indication that his use of the term Lamanite was precise. It was (and continued to be) a socially determined definition rather than a revealed on. See Armond Mauss, All Abraham's Children/

3. NA contains narrow neck of land which can be crossed in 1 and 1/2 days (unlike CA whose neck would take atleast 10 days)

Moot point. Many geographies claim a time-appropriate narrow neck. That is a single element of a geography and too easily found. What cannot be easily found is a corresponding set of distance appropriate and spatially appropriate locations--save in Mesoamerica.

4. Where Joseph sent the first missionaries where he claimed were the descendants of the Nephites.

See response to number 2.

5. Contains the location of the original Hill Cumorah

Contains the modern Hill Cumorah. That is a beginning hypothesis, but it doesn't cover the textual data as it must also contain the Hill Ramah of the Jaredites. The Jaredite component is missing in the NA theory. Our Hill Cumorah was named after the fact based on the text, not on revelation. It is therefore circular to claim it as evidence for the text.

6. Has the location of the New Jerusalem

That one appears to be correct, though textually not an issue.

7. The land of liberty

Based on an egocentric reading of the text. Because it is so highly intepretive, it doesn't work as a demonstration of locality.

8. it's the land of promise

See no. 7

9. It's a nation above all other nations

See no. 7. Remember, this requires that this be true during Book of Mormon times. It is not a reference to modern political geography.

10. It's the land of promise

Repeat of 8

11. Civilization and culture of the mound builders are in proper chronology to BOM peoples. (the Mayans dont even fit the BOM timeline)

The Hopewell are slightly later, though not much of a problem (assumed about 400 B.C.). However, equating the peoples is a problem if you claim either Maya or Hopewellian. Making a connection based on the assumed dates sets up a possibility, but not a demonstrative correspondence since both the Maya and Hopewell cultures demonstrable built upon earlier populations.

12. Contains temple structures like Solomons Temple (Mayan temples don't fit Solomon temple descriptions)

This is a fascinating assertion and one I have not heard. On this point I would love to see the evidence. I am unaware of any such structure in North America.

Link to comment

Continued:

13. Hopewell temples were used for proper purposes (Mayan temples were used for human sacrafice)

There is no way that you can assert that they were used for "proper purposes," save to contrast them with human sacrifice. That is the wrong way to use negative evidence, and perpetuates a popular (and incorrect) notion that Book of Mormon peoples were the Maya (defined as an entire culture).

14. Hopewell Civilization matches BOM description

Not particularly well, and it sufficiently generic terms that such a "match" could be made in a number of places.

15. Archaeological sites match Nephites defenses

As do those in Mesoamerica. Not a distinguishing feature.

16. Contains the proper climates (CA can be argued with this also)

Only if you remove the Hill Cumorah from the mix, which is rather important. The Hopwell moved south into Ohio from the Western NY area. I know that area and the climate certainly doesn't match.

17. Hopewell used stones to build walls but not cities

Please indicate this for the Book of Mormon.

18. Wood used as primary building material

Please indicate this for the Book of Mormon.

19. Cities were burned because they were made of wood

The classic Aztec symbol for a conquered city was a burning temple. The historical records indicate the burning of cities. Obviously something of wood/combustible material existed, even in cities of stone. This is an incorrect reading of the evidence and cannot be a distinguishing point.

20. North, South, East and West seas divide the land.

Dependent upon the way the text is read and how one uses the word "sea." Because it is interpretive, it can be evidence only after the rest of the evidence is established that can bolster the interpretation. Similarly, the interpretation of seas in Mesoamerica works--if you accept the data that otherwise establish the geography.

21. Land contains tempest and Tornados (CA has never had a tornado)

You can strike tempests, you will certainly find those in Mesoamerica. As for tornados, that again depends upon a reading of the text. The text does not say tornado, but rather whirlwind. If whirlwind is read as tornado, then there is some support for your statement. However, if we are reading into the text something other than the literal reading, then a hurricane works for the descriptions just as well.

22. Nephite Expansion matches civilization remains.

The directio of Nephite Expansion was from south to north. The Hopewells expanded north to south.

23. Hopewells dissapeared the same time as the Nephites

See response to no. 11

24. BOM people lived in tents (this is debaable with the CA theory)

Not very often. Typically they lived in rather well established cities. I can't find the reference to cultural preference/habit of residing in tents rather than cities.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...