Dna Evidence For Book Of Mormon Geography

[Brant Gardner]

Continued:

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

Does not require the same geography.

26. It's where the BOM came forth

Not a very strong geographic marker. It would be a plausible argument if and only if more significant markers were met.

27. Hopewell contains oral history of mass extincton

Oral histories are very tricky things to work with as history, and there are any number of tales of mass extinctions for one reason or another. I would have to see the original tales to see how they might have been reinterpreted, and particularly know the hands through which the tales were handed down, as they can alter the telling of the tales. I have a fair backgound for this in Mesoamerican lore and have seen the process.

28. Hopewells containe war artifacts prevalent from Archaelogy

You have just located the Book of Mormon in the entire world at any point in human history (particularly since early war weapons and hunting weapons were the same).

29. Fulfills all promise land prophecies.

Repeat of 10, see responses to 7,8, 10.

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

I really need evidence on this one. The only ones I know of are the Michigan artifacts, which are modern fakes. If there are others, please let me know.

31. candidate civilization for the Jaredites

Truly? Where?

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

Not a textually appropriate clue. It is evidence only if you accept the original premise and therefore circular.

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

Not according to DNA experts. Misreading and misapplication of the DNA data is always possible, and it is easy for non-experts to see the wrong conclusions. In this case, I suspect that we do best to stick with the geneticists (and LDS experts) who contradict that hypothesis.

Rather than respond with a similarly long list, please find the Hopewell location that fits this description from the Book of Mormon:

7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.(Book of Mormon | Helaman 3:7)

There are two things that you should find simultaneously, cement and an area with very few trees. I am unaware of cement in that area. When does the archaeology say that there were very few trees in any part of that area?

[poulsenll]

Continued:

Does not require the same geography.

Not a very strong geographic marker. It would be a plausible argument if and only if more significant markers were met.

Oral histories are very tricky things to work with as history, and there are any number of tales of mass extinctions for one reason or another. I would have to see the original tales to see how they might have been reinterpreted, and particularly know the hands through which the tales were handed down, as they can alter the telling of the tales. I have a fair backgound for this in Mesoamerican lore and have seen the process.

You have just located the Book of Mormon in the entire world at any point in human history (particularly since early war weapons and hunting weapons were the same).

Repeat of 10, see responses to 7,8, 10.

I really need evidence on this one. The only ones I know of are the Michigan artifacts, which are modern fakes. If there are others, please let me know.

Truly? Where?

Not a textually appropriate clue. It is evidence only if you accept the original premise and therefore circular.

Not according to DNA experts. Misreading and misapplication of the DNA data is always possible, and it is easy for non-experts to see the wrong conclusions. In this case, I suspect that we do best to stick with the geneticists (and LDS experts) who contradict that hypothesis.

Rather than respond with a similarly long list, please find the Hopewell location that fits this description from the Book of Mormon:

7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.(Book of Mormon | Helaman 3:7)

There are two things that you should find simultaneously, cement and an area with very few trees. I am unaware of cement in that area. When does the archaeology say that there were very few trees in any part of that area?

Thank you Brant

Larry P

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

I think "ethnocentric" may be a more appropriate word in this case.

[Brant Gardner]

I think "ethnocentric" may be a more appropriate word in this case.

I'm sure that's what I told my fingers to type!

[Rommelator]

Contains artifacts depicting christ (both actually have this)

Meldrum used the bogus Michigan relics and other forgeries to support his case for this assertion. He also banked on the bogus con man Wayne May for his information.

The "evidence" for Christ in North America are fakes. They are not authentic.

As for the temples in North America, Meldrum set up a rather useful straw man for this. If I remember correctly, Sorenson does not equate Mayan temples with Nephite temples. Meldrum has misrepresented the case of Sorenson and others, which was unimpressive for me.

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

Really? Lamanites running around in the dead of winter with nothing but a "girdle around their loins" in upper North America? Not likely.

[DNA truthseeker]

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?

Where did you learn that Mr. Meldrum 'admitted' that he has not been keeping up with the Mesoamerican theories? How do you substantiate your claim that "He hasn't even read the basic books showing the possibility of a CA setting." Do you know Mr. Meldrum or is it in his DVD?

Are you inferring that it is necessary to have studied all books from every religion before being enabled to gain a witness of the truthfulness of the gospel and become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS? Must one continue to study all other religions after one has received a testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in order to know of its continued truthfulness? What purpose would it serve, other than to know how to address concerns from those other religions. It appears that you espouse such a criterion as evidence against Mr. Meldrum. If he has not studied every detail of every new Mesoamerican theory, is he then unqualified to comment on a geography that aligns with the express statements made by Joseph Smith?â?¦statements written by his (Joseph's) own hand and claimed by him to have been received by inspiration/revelation? Did you know that no less than three times Joseph Smith claimed to have received revelation on the matter? If you don't know that, does it indicate poor 'research' on your part?

There have been so many different theories created in the Mesoamerican setting that even the anti's are confused ;-) In one blog they have an article titled "One Cumorah, two Cumorah, three Cumorah, four..." because of all the 'new Cumorah's' found in Mesoamerica, trying to keep up to them all is truly a challenge. It is so much less confusing when we take Joseph Smith at his word when he said that the Hill Cumorah (from whence he recovered the plates) was

"51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:51)"

There is mentioned ONLY ONE Hill Cumorah by Joseph Smith, and it was nowhere near Mesoamerica, it was in New York, USA. The internal consistency of the text of the Book of Mormon itself would indicate only one hill. They continuously come back to the 'same hill' even going to lengths to ensure the connection between the Hill Ramah and the Hill Cumorah as written in the text...

"11 And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did hide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred." (Book of Mormon | Ether 15:11)

Allow me to address a few other 'issues' pertaining to other threads seen on this blog.

To: Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth, who stated:

"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."

Which scientific journal quoted by Mr. Meldrum do you feel is unreliable? Nearly all of Mr. Meldrum's DNA research includes every reference to peer-reviewed journal articles, so I am wondering which of those journals you feel are unreliable? Is it 'The American Journal of Physical Anthropology', Science, or Nature? What scholars, have you talked with on this issue, sir? Have you talked with the geneticists at Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation who arguably are the two most qualified geneticists in the church? If so, what did they have to say? Mr. Meldrum has. Exactly how many scholars do you know who are geneticists? I would venture a guess that most of the scholars you know are Mesoamerican 'scholars' and most folks could tell you what the chance of having them agree with the evidence presented by Mr. Meldrum, which is directly contrary to their theory.

There are many wonderful Mesoamerican theorists, who are doing all they can to promote faith through their attempts at showing evidence for the Book of Mormon there. However, they also, as a group, have a very vested interest in maintaining their 'scholarly' status and providing some results for the millions of dollars that have been poured into developing and marketing the theory to the church membership at large. If you doubt the marketing, just take a peek inside any Deseret Book or Seagull book and see how many books and CD's and DVD's are being hawked there by these same people who are being paid by BYU and the tour companies that rely on them to sell their tours.

How receptive do you really believe they would be to anyone who has evidence that completely contradicts their theory? That being the case, what kind of reception do you feel Mr. Meldrum, or anyone else who directly challenges the authority of the 'LDS scholarly community', would receive if he was to take his evidence before the tribunal of Mesoamerican judges? They have much too much at stake to ever concede evidence against their theories. Many of them make a great deal of money taking people on their supposed 'Book of Mormon' tours, and charge to attend their 'Book of Mormon Lands' conferences etc. So what Mr. Meldrum is doing with his free presentations is hardly worth mentioning in that context.

The DVD is 4 hours in length, and is still only about 10% of the total research according to Mr. Meldrum. In order for the presentations to be shortened to accommodate normal meeting durations (about 2-2.5 hours), the DVD was produced so that those interested in further information on the subject could obtain a copy and watch it at their leisure, rather than sit through the entire 4 hours in one sitting, which has been what Mr. Meldrum was doing originally. Many of his first presentations ran past midnight when starting at 7:00 pm. Most people who see the presentation request a copy of it because there is simply to much information to absorb in one sitting. The DVD was made to accommodate people's time schedules so folks can review the references and information. DVD shooting, editing, and production are not inexpensive ventures and Mr. Meldrum has no free access to BYU's facilities as the Mesoamerican theorists may have, so a significant amount of investment certainly has occurred in creating the DVD. Should he be expected to invest that money and time, and then give the DVD's away? Is that what YOU would do? What would you do in this situation, and what would your wife and family say, were you to do it?

Remember that Mr. Meldrum is not on the payroll of the church, as most Mesoamerican scholars are at BYU, and thus he has worked a full-time job while doing his research and giving free presentations. How many Mesoamerican theorists have done so? If he was getting a nice salary from BYU that paid him to work on his theories, then maybe he wouldn't need to sell his DVD's to cover his travel expenses and costs of making the DVD's and ongoing research. But he doesn't take money from the churches institutions and therefore must provide for his family without that support. You claim that he is 'turning his free firesides into a money making machine'...How is Mr. Meldrum turning his free firesides into a money making machine? He is in no LDS or other bookstores, he does no major advertising, and yet he has had over 8,000 DVD's go out by word of mouth only. He offers the DVD's at below wholesale price for those who want to share his research with others as well. Go to his website if you don't believe this fact. His research is going forward because most people who see it are excited by it and most importantly, feel the spirit of it. He demonstrates that Joseph Smith was not confused about the geography of the Book of Mormon, and if we look in the right location, we will find evidence for its truthfulness. The Mesoamerican theorists dismiss Joseph's statements, thinking they know more than Joseph on the matter, that Joseph was 'confused' or that he 'changed his mind' about its geography. Joseph did nothing of the sort. He was clear and resolute about where he KNEW the Book of Mormon took place.

According to Dr. Lund's latest audio CD set, he states three times that 'the strongest evidence that the Book of Mormon happened in Mesoamerica is because Joseph Smith himself said so in the Times and Seasons.". Dr. Lund must be unaware that Joseph did not write that article and was actually in hiding at the time it came out in Sept and Oct. 1842. Even BYU knows Joseph didnâ??t write the article as he explicitly stated months before that he would take responsibility only for those articles "having my signature henceforward". Neither of Dr. Lund's supposed â??best evidencesâ?? articles were signed...by anyone...much less Joseph Smith. If these articles were to be used in a court of law as evidence, they would have been thrown out long ago on insufficient evidence.

Conversely, the documents Mr. Meldrum uses are well-known, non-disputed original documents still in possession of the church and written by Joseph who in most cases specifically states were written by commandment from God. Most of his references are, in fact, printed right in the standard works and are scripture. For example, in D&C 54:8 we read:

â??8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 54:â?

Mr. Meldrum states that even if Joseph did not know the geography of the Book of Mormon (which he did), he doubts that GOD was confused about where the remnant of the Lamanites are to be found, and that is Missouri, USA, not Guatemala!

Even more important to show what Josephâ??s mindset was in regard to geography than his own written words (Mr. Meldrum uses no second hand sources) are his ACTIONS. When God told Joseph Smith to send missionaries â??unto the Lamanitesâ??, where did he send them? Guatemala? No, he immediately dispatched three brethren to New York, Ohio, and Missouri. See D&C sections 28-32 for the facts. Joseph never sent a single missionary to Mesoamerica, and in fact, Brother Meldrum states that the first missionaries to enter Guatemala wasnâ??t for some 117 years after God commanded Joseph to preach the gospel unto the Lamanites. It is sad that our so-called â??scholarsâ?? have not done their homework in the scriptures themselves, preferring to hold to their own theories over Josephâ??s words and actions. The anti-Mormonâ??s just love it when they read these same scholars dismissing Joseph as having translated the book, but didnâ??t know the scope of its geography.

As relating to the DNA research. I see a lot of postings claiming that Mr. Meldrumâ??s research is â??sloppyâ?? but as of yet I have seen no specific examples. Probably because those saying so have not actually seen the DVD, and are not scientifically trained themselves.

To: Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth, who stated:

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.â?

My question to you, sir, isâ?¦have you even seen Mr. Meldrumâ??s DVD? He addresses the four primary documents attempting to link Joseph Smith with Mesoamerica in the DVD. The so-called map is a third hand account of what someone wrote in their journal about what another person is said to have heard the prophet say. This is among the poorest possible evidence there is. Mr. Meldrum uses only the written words of Joseph himself, and specifically claimed to have received inspiration in doing so, not some journal entry made by someone who thinks they heard something from Joseph. Again, in a court of law this poor evidence would be thrown out. Can you please point out for us all the written statements by the prophet Joseph himself with all of that fantastic information about naming cities and rivers in Mesoamerica. Are those documents signed by Joseph? Are they available for inspection today in the church archives? Did Joseph claim to have received revelation on them as he did for the reference documents used by Meldrum? If so, please let the rest of us know where you are hiding them, because they should be front page news.

To: Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth, who stated:

â??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. â??

Please indicate your source documents for this new â??DNA evidence that shows and infusion of Middle Eastern DNA into Central Americaâ?. What journal is this stated in and can you please provide a reference and quote stating the same? We would all greatly appreciate you backing up your statement with some facts.

Where did you come up with the idea that the CA theory came from Joseph himself? Please tell us what the exact source document is that has Josephâ??s written words on it and signed by him to this effect. We will all be anxiously awaiting your research. Also, please remember that â??expertsâ?? built the titanic, while a â??noviceâ?? built the ark. The Mesoamerican theory may be popular among the â??scholarlyâ?? BYU theorists, but the majority of members of the church understand that the prophesies and promises in the Book of Mormon itself appertaining to the â??Promised Landâ?? can only be attributed to the United States of America. No Mesoamerican setting qualifies for, nor fulfills all of the prophecies and promises detailed in the Book of Mormon. Your attempt to prove something because the â??expertsâ?? agree reminds me of so many other times when an appeal to authority resulted in scientific dogma giving a false sense of comfort until some amateur with real substantive evidence upsets the applecart and people see the truth. Your condescending tone (â??you donâ??t seem to have a knowledgeâ?¦you have bought into that theoryâ?â?¦ie. You were con-ed) is what usually occurs when one has nothing of substance to fall back on. Then one must rely on name-calling and appeals to authority, which is exactly what you are doing, without even seeing the evidence. Shamefulâ?¦just shameful.

River Sidon info:

Yes, it works very well in Meldrumâ??s geography, once a proper understanding of the what the 'head' of the river Sidon means.

As regarding the Sidon River. There is a very simple explanation that fits the geography beautifully. It is so simple, and again, right before our eyes if we will but learn by both study and faith.

The simple answer lies in the definition of 'head' of a river. In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, the reference dictionary at Joseph Smiths time, and look up the word 'head' we find:

'Head, 18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.' http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,head .

While this is the standard definition, there is also another definition, which is very important.

Description 23. states 'Conflux'.

To be sure exactly what 'Conflux' means, look it up in the same dictionary and you will find:

CONFLUX, n. [L. See Confluence.] http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,conflux

1. A flowing together; a meeting of two or more currents of a fluid.

Just to be sure what â??confluenceâ?? is defined as, look it up and...low and behold...

CONFLUENCE, n. [L., to flow. See Flow.] http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,confluence

1. A flowing together; the meeting or junction of two or more streams of water, or other fluid; also, the place of meeting; as the confluence of the Tigris and the Frat, or of the Ohio and Mississippi.

So the 'head' of the Sidon river of the Book of Mormon could be defined as the location where the Ohio and Mississippi rivers met, or their confluence.

Manti is southward from Gideon and Zarahemla. Gideon was located just across the river Sidon within hours' travel from Zarahemla (Alma 2; 6:7â??8 ) and was much closer to Zarahemla than Manti was. It follows then that the general direction from Zarahemla to Manti was 'southward,' the same as it was from 'Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti' (Alma 17:1).

Manti was near the 'head of the river Sidon.' By using the 'standard' definition (the principle source of a stream), if Manti was where the Sidon river began, and it flowed past Zarahemla to the north (Manti was south of Zarahemla), then it stands to reason that the river flowed northward.

However if the confluence definition is used, Manti would have been at a junction of two rivers, which means that the river flowed past Zarahemla and then on down to the junction (head) at Manti, which would thereby indicate a southerly flow from Zarahemla (a main branch of the river) down to the confluence. See Alma 43:32...where they went 'down into the borders of the land Manti'. Rivers flow 'down' in elevation, which again indicates that the Sidon was actually flowing to the south.

The Lamanites withdrew from the Nephite cities around Jershon. Jershon was located on the east side of a sea (Meldrum believes to be Lake Michigan) (see Alma 27:22), which was also north of the land of Antionum (Alma 31:3). Which means that they left from Jershon and began traveling south through Antionum. And then they 'took their journey round about in the wilderness, away by the head of the river Sidon, that they might come into the land of Manti' (Alma 43:22).

The head of the river Sidon, and also the south border of the land of Manti, were integrated parts of the borderline that separated the Nephites and the Lamanites.

The land of Manti was:

a) located by the head of the river Sidon (Alma 22:27);

southward from the land of Gideon (Alma 17:1);

c) on the east side of the river Sidon when coming from the city of Zarahemla (Alma 16:7); and

d) on the west side of the river Sidon when approaching from the wilderness to the east (Alma 43:32).

The land of Manti fits well in the area just north of the confluence (head) of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers (between two branches of the river Sidon). The city of Manti may well have been right there at Huntsville, MO as stated by The Prophet, Joseph. Huntsville is northwest of St. Louis, near Moberly, MO.

Moroni inquired of Alma who received revelation of where the Lamanites were going. So Moroni divided his armies on either side of the Sidon and caught them before they made it to Manti.

So to recap, the 'headwaters' likely refer to the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi. The river flowed past Zarahemla toward Manti (which was at the head of the river Sidon, and southward from Zarahemla). From this description, Sidon would have flowed in a southerly direction.

There is so much more to come. And please, the epitome of prideful arrogance is manifested when one automatically rejects evidence out of hand because of their preconceived , dogmatic notions. It is painfully obvious that those most vocal in criticizing Meldrumâ??s work are the same ones who have obviously not taken the time to watch it.

[DNA truthseeker]

Meldrum used the bogus Michigan relics and other forgeries to support his case for this assertion. He also banked on the bogus con man Wayne May for his information.

The "evidence" for Christ in North America are fakes. They are not authentic.

As for the temples in North America, Meldrum set up a rather useful straw man for this. If I remember correctly, Sorenson does not equate Mayan temples with Nephite temples. Meldrum has misrepresented the case of Sorenson and others, which was unimpressive for me.

Really? Lamanites running around in the dead of winter with nothing but a "girdle around their loins" in upper North America? Not likely.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood" would be a good idea for this last post. You have obviously not seen Meldrum's DVD as he has no Michigan artifacts in it and he came to his DNA conclusions long before encountering Wayne May. The way you throw out insulting inuendo ("bogus con man") without any evidence to that effect is shameful. If you have proof that Wayne May is such, please provide that evidence. If not, you may consider getting your facts together before throwing out such dispariging remarks.

Please indicate what non-LDS scholarly journal article you are referencing as relating to the authenticity of the Michigan artifacts? Or are you referring to the Mesoamerican theorists who wrote in a BYU publication that they did their own study and found them to be fakes? What are the chances of any artifact getting an 'authentic" label by these pseudo-scientists when doing so would disprove their personal theories attempting to link the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerica? Not likely.

True, Sorenson admits that all these Mesoamerican pyramids don't date even remotely close to the Nephite time line, but yet they are still used as their 'poster child' in every "Book of Mormon' picture book you find in Deseret Book and Seagull. The LDS Scholars have created through their intense marketing a "Book of Mormon = Mesoamerican Pyramid structure" mentality and that is why revealing that these structures are not, and indeed cannot be the temples built by righteous Nephitesis not only valid, but necessary. That is why addressing this is fair game.

Imagine an army in Mesoamerica wearing heavy, thick clothing in the tropical heat...yet here they are! It must have been nearly unbearable to wear such clothing in the jungles of Mesoamerica. An army of heavily dressed men in mid-summer in Mesoamerica...not likely.

"19 And when the armies of the Lamanites saw that the people of Nephi, or that Moroni, had prepared his people with breastplates and with arm-shields, yea, and also shields to defend their heads, and also they were dressed with thick clothingâ?? (Book of Mormon | Alma 43:19)"

"6 Now the leaders of the Lamanites had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done; yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thick garments to cover their nakedness." (Book of Mormon | Alma 49:6)

In fact, the Nephites seemed somewhat astonished at the brazen stupidity of the Lamanites attempting to 'show their masculinity' by dressing in nothing but a loincloth in the first account. It would seem that a loincloth was the exception rather than the rule in warfare at that time. Most wars don't mention loinclothes except in this circumstance, which would indicate that generally they were well dressed.

[MormonMason]

...

True, Sorenson admits that all these Mesoamerican pyramids don't date even remotely close to the Nephite time line, but yet they are still used as their 'poster child' in every "Book of Mormon' picture book you find in Deseret Book and Seagull. The LDS Scholars have created through their intense marketing a "Book of Mormon = Mesoamerican Pyramid structure" mentality and that is why revealing that these structures are not, and indeed cannot be the temples built by righteous Nephitesis not only valid, but necessary. That is why addressing this is fair game.

Many of these pyramids are built overtop the ruins of older pyramids. Copan actually is several layers of structures built over top of older structures. This became rather well known when archaeologists studied Altar Q and set out to find K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo'. They had to dig through layers of stone to get to what is believed to be the burial place of the legendary man. I suspect that the same can be said about many of the pyramids and structures in Mesoamerica. They may well be built overtop much older ruins by several layers.

But, Mexico generally will not allow digging into these structures to see what might be underneath. Those they have allowed, such as at Teotihuacan, revealed several layers. The remains of the influences of at least three cultures were revealed in those excavations. I do not now recall the source for the Teotihuacan data as it has been a couple decades since I read the information last. It was definitely a non-LDS source, however. That much else I do remember.

Imagine an army in Mesoamerica wearing heavy, thick clothing in the tropical heat...yet here they are! It must have been nearly unbearable to wear such clothing in the jungles of Mesoamerica. An army of heavily dressed men in mid-summer in Mesoamerica...not likely.

...

It is not that much of a stretch when we consider that the later Aztecs also wore such clothing to battle. They would sew skins or cloth together with salt between the layers of cloth and/or skin, much like a quilted pattern. It had the effect of protecting vital areas while leaving the legs and arms vulnerable.

The Aztec army dressed much differently than the rest of the culture. The main reason for this was for protection in times of war. The dress of higher warriors was very elaborate. Their bodies were covered with a close vest of quilted cotton. Although impenetrable the garment was very light.

("The Aztec Culture" URL: http://www.angelfire.com/az/atid410/ Accessed: 5-12-2008; bold emphasis mine)

Another readily accessible source is the following:

Ranged weapons

Atlatl: The Aztec dart thrower was a weapon used to hurl small darts called "tlacochtli" with greater force and from greater range than they could be thrown by hand. Murals at Teotihuacan show warriors using this effective weapon and it is characteristic of the Mesoamerican cultures of central Mexico.

Tlahuitolli: a bow.

Mitl: arrow

Micomitl: Aztec arrow quiver.

Yaomitl: war arrows with barbed obsidian points.

Tematlatl: a stone sling. made from maguey fiber.

M

[Brant Gardner]

Please indicate what non-LDS scholarly journal article you are referencing as relating to the authenticity of the Michigan artifacts? Or are you referring to the Mesoamerican theorists who wrote in a BYU publication that they did their own study and found them to be fakes? What are the chances of any artifact getting an 'authentic" label by these pseudo-scientists when doing so would disprove their personal theories attempting to link the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerica? Not likely.

I find this argument absolutly fascinating by a proponent of a theory where the DNA argument can only be held if one ignores modern science and their peer-reviewed journals. I find it doubly fascinating because that is precisely the response that someone else gave when their book containing forgeries was reviewed.

Calling a scientist a "pseudo-scientist" simply because they have labeled something a forgery doesn't sit will if you only look at the place where the article was published. Nevertheless, while Richard B. Stamps, "Tools Leave Marks: Material Analysis of the Scotford-Soper-Savage Michigan Relics," BYU Studies 40, no. 3 (2001):210-238 is the source I have easiest access to, I refer you to a set of articles he cites that fit the qualification of non-LDS peer-reviewed journals:

Francis W. Kelsey, "Some Archaeological Forgeries from Michigan," American Anthropologist 10, no. 8 (May 1908):48-59, Francis W. Kelsy, "A Persistent Forgery," The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 33: no.1 (1911): 26-31; Stephen D. Peet, "A 'Stamp' Table and Coind Found in a Michigan Mount," The american Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 15 (September 1894): 313. Frederick Starr, J.O. Kinnaman, and James E. Talmage, "The Michigan Archaeological Question Settled," The American Antiquairian and Oriental Journal 33, no. 3 (1911):160-64.

There are more, but I tire of typing.

My favorite discovery Stamp indicates was the discovery of a the impression of a fly wing in the "patina" that was added to make an artifact look old.

And then we have the following:

In June 1911, [James E.] Talmage was back in Detroit. After some sluetyhing, he contacted Etta Riley, James Scotford's stepdaughter. After speaking iwth her, Talmade confided in his journal,

She solemnly declared to me that she positively knows her step-tather, James Scotford, has made, buried, and dug up many of the articles reported tob e genuine archaeological relics. She gave circumatantial details, and agreed to sign a written statement with the proviso that such statement shall not be makde public without her consent during the lifetime of her mother, Mrs. Jas. Scotford.

Riley also informed Talmage that Scotford made the objects at his home, So in addition to considerable scientific evidence, Talmage now had the forger and the factory.

Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Mormonism's Encounter with the Michigan Relics," 40, no. 3 (2001):187.

[Jim B.]

One of the issues, besides the river Sidon, that seems problematic with Meldrum's theory is the location of Cumorah relative to the narrow neck of land.

The Nephite/Lamanite Cumorah is the same as the Jaredite Ramah. It appears that Cumorah was located north of the narrow neck in, or in the vicinity of the land of Desolation. This is referenced in Alma 22:

30 And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.

31 And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

It appears to me that Br. Meldrum asserts that the narrow neck of land is between lakes Erie and Ontario. In this scenario, where he uses the hill where Joseph found the plates as Cumorah, it places Cumorah southward of the narrow neck.

In addition, the first landing being referenced in the above scripture is that of the Mulekites. According to Meldrum's theory about the position of Cumorah and the narrow neck of land, the Mulekites would have left Jerusalem and made their first landing somewhere on the western shore of Lake Ontario. Then they would have sailed a bit further southward to a land much more bounteous than that of their first landing. I know that this isn't likely. My question is, is it even possible?

[Brant Gardner]

True, Sorenson admits that all these Mesoamerican pyramids don't date even remotely close to the Nephite time line, but yet they are still used as their 'poster child' in every "Book of Mormon' picture book you find in Deseret Book and Seagull.

I believe you have overgeneralized. It is true that there are many a book that publishes pictures of temples from non-Book of Mormon times. However, equating those with what Sorenson has suggested ignores everything he has written.

[MormonMason]

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.

I love statements like the above point 21. I also loved it when people claimed that there is no hail in Mexico or CA in trying to make the unsupported claims to another Great Lakes hypothesis a few years ago. I know people who have been caught in hailstorms and/or who have otherwise seen them in Mexico! They do happen there in varous places.

But, on the matter of tempests vs. tornadoes, it is true that the Book of Mormon does not mention tornadoes. As you said above, however, it does mention whirlwinds. On the other hand, there are things of which many are ignorant. Not too long ago, several tornadoes struck Mexico in Jalisco State. Here is the anectodal account of a person (just last year) living in Yucatan, who prefers hurricanes to tornadoes:

At least in Yucatan we only have to worry about the heat and a hurricane now and then. They have recently had several tornadoes in the Jalisco area, with property damage and 5 deaths. Give us a hurricane any day. You know it is coming and you can be prepared or get out of the way.

("Heat Waves and Tornadoes," in Midsummerâ??s News in the Yucatan, 2007 URL: http://www.yucatanliving.com/news/midsumme...the-yucatan.htm Accessed: 5-12-2008; bold emphasis mine)

Jalisco State is where Guadalajara is located. In the same State in Mexico, about 100 miles to the south from Guadalajara, there is a town called Cuidad Guzman, where one of these tornadoes struck. Here is a picture of one in action there, taken from the road:

No tornadoes in Mexico ever??? People in Mexico know better than to make such a claim.

[Calm]

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...

23. Hopewells dissapeared the same time as the Nephites

Apparently Meldrum has identified the Hopewells as the Nephites. Has he also specified who the Lamanites were (if you've mentioned this, I've missed it)?

[Rommelator]

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood" would be a good idea for this last post. You have obviously not seen Meldrum's DVD as he has no Michigan artifacts in it and he came to his DNA conclusions long before encountering Wayne May. The way you throw out insulting inuendo ("bogus con man") without any evidence to that effect is shameful. If you have proof that Wayne May is such, please provide that evidence. If not, you may consider getting your facts together before throwing out such dispariging remarks.

Please indicate what non-LDS scholarly journal article you are referencing as relating to the authenticity of the Michigan artifacts? Or are you referring to the Mesoamerican theorists who wrote in a BYU publication that they did their own study and found them to be fakes? What are the chances of any artifact getting an 'authentic" label by these pseudo-scientists when doing so would disprove their personal theories attempting to link the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerica? Not likely.

True, Sorenson admits that all these Mesoamerican pyramids don't date even remotely close to the Nephite time line, but yet they are still used as their 'poster child' in every "Book of Mormon' picture book you find in Deseret Book and Seagull. The LDS Scholars have created through their intense marketing a "Book of Mormon = Mesoamerican Pyramid structure" mentality and that is why revealing that these structures are not, and indeed cannot be the temples built by righteous Nephitesis not only valid, but necessary. That is why addressing this is fair game.

Imagine an army in Mesoamerica wearing heavy, thick clothing in the tropical heat...yet here they are! It must have been nearly unbearable to wear such clothing in the jungles of Mesoamerica. An army of heavily dressed men in mid-summer in Mesoamerica...not likely.

"19 And when the armies of the Lamanites saw that the people of Nephi, or that Moroni, had prepared his people with breastplates and with arm-shields, yea, and also shields to defend their heads, and also they were dressed with thick clothingâ?? (Book of Mormon | Alma 43:19)"

"6 Now the leaders of the Lamanites had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done; yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thick garments to cover their nakedness." (Book of Mormon | Alma 49:6)

In fact, the Nephites seemed somewhat astonished at the brazen stupidity of the Lamanites attempting to 'show their masculinity' by dressing in nothing but a loincloth in the first account. It would seem that a loincloth was the exception rather than the rule in warfare at that time. Most wars don't mention loinclothes except in this circumstance, which would indicate that generally they were well dressed.

Yes, I have seen Meldrum's presentation. Twice, actually. I have even met him and have spoken with him on some issues. Nice try though.

Second, Wayne May is a con man. He has even conned people that I know (friends and family) out of thousands of dollars. You want the evidence? Here you go: http://www.flavinscorner.com/falling.htm (Note: There is some foul language in this, but I feel it is important to expose the con man Wanye May. That is why I posted it. Mods, if you feel so inclined, you can take it down. Just know why I posted it.)

Meldrum, banking on May, did include the Michigan relics and the "Burrows Cave" forgeries in order to bolster his indefensible North American Geography theory. This is sad and is a sure sign of sloppy research. The Michigan relics are without a doubt forgeries. Both LDS and non-LDS researchers have agreed that they are fakes. Not for the reason that Meldrum provides in the presentation, but because scientific analysis has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are.

As for your referencing to the thick clothing of Mesoamerican armies, you severly do not understand the nature of Mesamerican warfare. Read the posts by MormonMason and Brant Gardner.

Also, I like that you have choosen to ignore the fact that the Book of Mormon has nearly naked Lamanites running around in the middle of winter. It even says that they were fainting in the heat of the day in the winter. In Mesoamerica, this is no problem, since it can get very hot during winter months. But what about North America? Lamanites running around in the dead of winter nearly naked in North America, fainting because of the heat? Geez...give me a break.

Edit: I realize that my characterizing Wayne May as a con man might be too strong. I personally have not met him nor has he conned me personally out of anything. I apologize for any pretense on my part or for any possible offense. That said, however, I know of people who claim that May has conned them (including personal friends) and the man on the website referenced. Nevertheless, I apologize for any offense I may have made.

[MormonMason]

...

River Sidon info:

Yes, it works very well in Meldrumâ??s geography, once a proper understanding of the what the 'head' of the river Sidon means.

As regarding the Sidon River. There is a very simple explanation that fits the geography beautifully. It is so simple, and again, right before our eyes if we will but learn by both study and faith.

The simple answer lies in the definition of 'head' of a river. In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, the reference dictionary at Joseph Smiths time, and look up the word 'head' we find:

'Head, 18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.' http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,head .

While this is the standard definition, there is also another definition, which is very important.

Description 23. states 'Conflux'.

To be sure exactly what 'Conflux' means, look it up in the same dictionary and you will find:

CONFLUX, n. [L. See Confluence.] http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,conflux

1. A flowing together; a meeting of two or more currents of a fluid.

Just to be sure what â??confluenceâ?? is defined as, look it up and...low and behold...

CONFLUENCE, n. [L., to flow. See Flow.] http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,confluence

1. A flowing together; the meeting or junction of two or more streams of water, or other fluid; also, the place of meeting; as the confluence of the Tigris and the Frat, or of the Ohio and Mississippi.

So the 'head' of the Sidon river of the Book of Mormon could be defined as the location where the Ohio and Mississippi rivers met, or their confluence.

The biggest problem is the use of terms and definitions that do not seem to apply here. If we take Meldrum's definition of "head" as in "head of the river" we find that Sidon would have many such heads, such as the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and a number of others, not just the one where the Ohio meets the Mississippi River.

The true source of the Mississippi River is what is now called Lake Itasca, in northwestern Minnesota. This is the true head or source of the Mississippi River, as in definition 18 above. There are many "heads" by definition if we use definition 23, not just the one that forms with the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Why does not the Book of Mormon refer to multiple heads of Sidon? It was the major river in the Book of Mormon. Surely we could expect something, should we not?

Manti is southward from Gideon and Zarahemla. Gideon was located just across the river Sidon within hours' travel from Zarahemla (Alma 2; 6:7â??8 ) and was much closer to Zarahemla than Manti was. It follows then that the general direction from Zarahemla to Manti was 'southward,' the same as it was from 'Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti' (Alma 17:1).

Manti was near the 'head of the river Sidon.' By using the 'standard' definition (the principle source of a stream), if Manti was where the Sidon river began, and it flowed past Zarahemla to the north (Manti was south of Zarahemla), then it stands to reason that the river flowed northward.

Agreed. So far, so good. This reasoning is correct. Now, what makes you think that Joseph Smith would have used a more obscure meaning in translating passages relative to the head of the river Sidon such as meaning a confluence? How many definitions of "head" would you expect this young man with a third grade education to know?

However if the confluence definition is used, Manti would have been at a junction of two rivers, which means that the river flowed past Zarahemla and then on down to the junction (head) at Manti, which would thereby indicate a southerly flow from Zarahemla (a main branch of the river) down to the confluence. See Alma 43:32...where they went 'down into the borders of the land Manti'. Rivers flow 'down' in elevation, which again indicates that the Sidon was actually flowing to the south.

But, this is contrary to anything in the text. The Book of Mormon says "the head" when referring to the head of Sidon. The Book of Mormon does not use the word confluence and does not say that there were two rivers that make the Sidon or flow together to make the head of Sidon. The Book of Mormon gives us nothing that allows for postulation of a southward flow of Sidon.

In the highlands of Mexico and Guatemala there are hills and valleys all over the place that are higher than the lowlands. Even if there were a valley in the borders near Manti that was of a lower altitude than the surrounding layout of the land near Manti, it still could allow for Zarahemla to be in a lower area. In point of fact, the location postulated for Zarahemla is in lower altitude than Manti and its nearby valley. No southern flow is necessary and the Book of Mormon states that the river flows past Zarahemla from the area of Manti. Since Zarahemla was north of Manti, Sidon flowed north.

Furthermore, the problem with Meldrum's postulation becomes apparent when you consider this map:

Meldrum's Great Lakes hypothesis

Notice the location of the land of Zarahemla in connection with the land Bountiful, to which the Book of Mormon attaches strategic importance. It was important for the Nephites to prevent the Lamanites from gaining control of this land so that they could not make it into the land northward and hem the Nephites in. Look at this map! There is nothing strategically important about it! The Lamanites did not need to march into Nephite territory and battle with them at all. All they had to do was go around to the west and go around the Nephites entirely to get to the northernmost lands and gain control without spilling a single drop of blood! But, the Mesoamerican theory, on the other hand, has much more merit in having Bountiful as a place of strategic importance.

According to the Book of Mormon, the land Bountful was adjacent to Desolation. Desolation was on the narrow neck and northward. Bountiful's being inhabited and fortified made it more difficult for anyone to gain access to the land northward. In one of the attempts that was made, the Lamanites tried to punch through Zarahemla and toward the city of Bountiful in order to get through to the land Northward. The Nephites knew it was all-important to stop them.

But, in Meldrum's maps we see something entirely different. The Lamanites did not have to punch through anything and they do not have to go to the city of Bountiful to get through to the narrow pass. According to the map above, the Lamanites already controlled lands that went clear up to the borders of what is now the United States. They could have stayed in their own lands and made their way northward until they had control of everything above the narrow pass guarded by city Bountiful!

But, in the Book of Mormon, the lands of the Book of Mormon are in shape like a rough hourglass, causing the narrow pass to be of strategic importance. Enter the Mesoamerican LGT. This configuration fits the Book of Mormon's rough hourglass and prevents Lamanites from gaining a foothold in the land northward with much greater ease.

What is more, look at all the rivers that people would have to cross in the land of Zarahemla in the Great Lakes area. The Book of Mormon records no need to cross any rivers to reach places on the west of Sidon from Zarahemla.

The Lamanites withdrew from the Nephite cities around Jershon. Jershon was located on the east side of a sea (Meldrum believes to be Lake Michigan) (see Alma 27:22), which was also north of the land of Antionum (Alma 31:3). Which means that they left from Jershon and began traveling south through Antionum. And then they 'took their journey round about in the wilderness, away by the head of the river Sidon, that they might come into the land of Manti' (Alma 43:22).

Jershon is NOT on the east side of a sea (Meldrum's Lake Michigan). This is Meldrum's misreading of the Book of Mormon and/or reading into it things that are not there. Jershon is on the east and south of Bountiful and is by the shore of the sea and above the land of Nephi, forcing the Nephites to place armies between the land Nephi and Jershon, which would be in the south of the land Bountiful. Thus, Meldrum's map of the Bountiful region, when redrawn to account for the error, would have Jershon nearer to his Sea South rather than to his own Lake Michigan/Sea West!

Cumorah and Desolation are out of whack, too. Notice the borders of Desolation? Notice the relative position of Meldrum's Cumorah to the narrow pass/narrow neck of land? In order to get from the Michigan/Indiana/Ohio borders to New York would have required the crossing of the Niagara River! Why bother? Why not just go around? Why not just cut up northward on the other side of the Appalachians and get there the other way?

According to the Book of Mormon, one had to go through the narrow pass into the land northward in order even to get to Desolation, wherein was the location of Cumorah! Remember that the Nephites were already living in the land northward, or land Desolation. Even if the Lamanites did get to Desolation from going around to the north, they would again have to cross back down over the St. Lawrence River to get to Cumorah! If they managed to get into the area of Meldrum's Desolation that is now Michigan, they would have to have crossed the St. Claire River to what is now Canada. In either case, they still would have to face either Niagara or St. Lawrence to get to Cumorah, or just go around entirely to the north without confrontation. There is nothing like any of that which Meldrum postulates discussed in the Book of Mormon.

But, in the Mesoamerican LGT, one does as the Book of Mormon says one does. One goes northward until going through the narrow pass into the land northward, and then goes to Cumorah, which is near the narrow neck of land based on the Book of Mormon as a whole. In point of fact, Ramah/Cumorah, according to the Book of Mormon, is located in the old Jaredite lands, which are adjacent to the narrow neck on the north, which lands were called Desolation by the Nephites. All of this can be accomplished in the Book of Mormon without all the dangerous river crossings necessary as postulated for the Great Lakes hypothesis.

The head of the river Sidon, and also the south border of the land of Manti, were integrated parts of the borderline that separated the Nephites and the Lamanites.

The land of Manti was:

a) located by the head of the river Sidon (Alma 22:27);

southward from the land of Gideon (Alma 17:1);

c) on the east side of the river Sidon when coming from the city of Zarahemla (Alma 16:7); and

d) on the west side of the river Sidon when approaching from the wilderness to the east (Alma 43:32).

Two of these also are misreadings like the above. Two are not:

1. We know that reference 'a' is correctly read and understood.

2. We know that reference 'b' is correctly read and understood.

3. Reference 'c' is interpreted incorrectly. Manti is on the west side of Sidon, as is Zarahemla. Manti is south of Zarahemla. The south wilderness is what is "up" from Manti and is on the east side of Sidon.

4. Reference 'd' is misinterpreted but not quite as badly, mistaking some details and getting some right. The west valley which is in the borders near Manti is what is west of Sidon. Manti also is on the west side of Sidon as established above.

In the latter reference, the Nephites were waiting for the Lamanites in Jershon while the Lamanites were gathering in Antionum (Alma 43:15). Antionum was east of Zarahemla [further east than Gideon, which was across from Zarahemla and east of Sidon itself], south of Jershon, which was the east and south of Bountiful and near the borders of the sea (Alma 31:3), convenient to the wilderness which was infested with Lamanites. It was so convenient that the Nephites were afraid that the Zoramites would open up a correspondence with the Lamanites (Alma 31:4).

They were met by the Nephites there (Alma 43:18). At that point, Zerahemnah realizes that he and his warriors were not prepared to meet the Nephites (Alma 43:19-20). They leave and decide to attack Manti instead. But, notice that they leave Antionum and go around in the wilderness to the head of the river Sidon. In so doing they were NOT going east, but were going south and then west to attack Manti across the head of Sidon! They are heading west, NOT east as Meldrum and supporters claim.

Moroni is not falling for it though, and finds out where they are going via messengers (Alma 43:23-24). He leaves part of his army in Jershon. and then takes the rest "marched over" [probably involved a Sidon crossing] to Manti. He then got the people in that area ready for battle and hid his men he hiding places in a valley on the west of Sidon (Alma 43:25-27).

Moroni realizes that he needs to know exactly where they are coming across Sidon so he sends spies out (Alma 43:28). Moroni finds out their exact point of entry over the Sidon from the spies (Alma 43:30).

He then divides his army up and keeps half hidden there on the west of Sidon and sends the others to the east side of Sidon to hide on the south side of the hill Riplah (Alma 43:31-32). The Lamanites finally arrive at the place they are to cross and have no notice of the waiting Nephites because they are coming from the north of the hill, heading west toward the bank of Sidon. They get to the east bank of Sidon and begin to cross, when they notice the Nephites waiting for them.

The rest is history, as they say. However, the fact is, Manti was on the west of Sidon regardless of where the Lamanites were at that time. They did not travel east but rather to the west from the east. Had they been going east in the wilderness they never would have reached Manti! Thus, this is why reference 'd' was written incorrectly. But, perhaps point 'd' could have been written a little more clearly. Even if it were, the point would be...?

The land of Manti fits well in the area just north of the confluence (head) of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers (between two branches of the river Sidon). The city of Manti may well have been right there at Huntsville, MO as stated by The Prophet, Joseph. Huntsville is northwest of St. Louis, near Moberly, MO.

Two branches of the Sidon? Not hardly! The Ohio River is a tributary of the Mississippi River!

Just north? Huntsville, MO? It is not near to where the Ohio River confluxes with the Mississippi. It is closer to where the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers conflux! Not only that, but the Missouri River flows northwest to northeast there, as does the Mississippi turn from northwest to southwest in that area! Looks to me like Meldrum and you have your Geography mixed up a bit.

Moroni inquired of Alma who received revelation of where the Lamanites were going. So Moroni divided his armies on either side of the Sidon and caught them before they made it to Manti.

So to recap, the 'headwaters' likely refer to the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi. The river flowed past Zarahemla toward Manti (which was at the head of the river Sidon, and southward from Zarahemla). From this description, Sidon would have flowed in a southerly direction.

...

The first paragraph is correct. The second is not because it is based on incorrect information. The head of Sidon was east and southward of Manti. Given that there was an east and west bank, the river could not have been either the Missouri or the Ohio rivers or their confluences if Meldrum's map is to be believed. These locations have a north and south bank. The Book of Mormon does NOT say that they were going to cross the head, only that they were going to cross Sidon near the head of the river.

Additionally, in order for such a crossing to take place from Antionum--which was south of land Bountiful and Jershon!--would have required a crossing of the Ohio river, because Meldrum's map places that as the lower border of Bountiful. The Book of Mormon mentions nothing about such another crossing. They were merely traveling in the wilderness round about until they got to Sidon. They would then have to cross the Mississippi and then the Missouri in order to get to Manti, if Meldrum and supporters' map and placement of Manti be correct!

But, this is not what the Book of Mormon describes. Their plan was to cross Sidon into Manti. They crossed Sidon itself, not the confluences of the Ohio and Mississippi. Another problem with Meldrum's scanario and map in this attack is that the Lamanites left the borders of the land Bountiful and departed departed out of the land of Antionum--which was south of land Jershon and land Bountiful--into the Lamanite wilderness. But, crossing the Ohio is the only option unless we have them going against the Meldrum map!

The only way to prevent crossing the Ohio on their way would be to stay north of the Ohio and remain in the land of Bountiful until they reached the Mississippi and then went north before crossing the Mississippi. The confluence of Ohio and Mississippi rivers is not near enough to where Meldrum postulates and says is where Joseph Smith said is Manti but where the Missouri and Mississippi meet is closer. This would then require them to go northward. This would mean that Moroni's strategy of hiding part of his army on the south side of the hill Riplah could not possibly have worked! They would have been spotted by the Lamanites coming from the south to cross Sidon!

All of this would then again go against the Meldrum map and Book of Mormon together! If they remained in the land Bountiful I would think that the Book of Mormon would have said something about that. But, the wilderness which is infested with Lamanites was to the south of Antionum, which was south of Bountiful. In short, Meldrum's map does not mesh with the Book of Mormon and his Geography presents far too many problems as well--from several perspectives.

[Cold Steel]

What really convinces me of the Mesoamerican theory is that by the end of the Lehites arduous sea voyage, Laman and Leumuel had just about had it with Nephi. Coming into the lush, tropical jungles of Mesoamerica, I doubt strongly that they would have any motive to embark on another gruelling journey of faith through Texas and on through the Midwest and to the Great Lakes region. Would they not have recorded that difficult trek after having recorded the journey from Jerusalem through the deserts and so forth. What would have kept Laman and Lemuel with them?

There also are many drawings of light-skinned and dark-skinned peoples in Mesoamerica. There was the use of cement in roads and in personal dwellings.

True, people like Phyllis Olive continue to believe in the Great Lakes theory. Ms. Olive, in addressing the trek from Mesoamerica, just insists it didn't happen. The Lehites, she said, "simply did not make that march, but were living in the regions aroundabout the Hill Cumorah in New York all the time." How so? Wouldn't that mean that they would have had to land on the Atlantic seaboard somewhere? She goes on to say that it's all explained in her "newest book, the Lost History of the New World," where "one will recognize that the Nephites and Lamanites actually did make it into Mexico and Guatemala, but much later in time. The story is far greater than any had previously supposed, with the new book hopefully bridging the gap between the two theories, for both have merit, all but the time line. Rather than start in Mexico, they ended up in Mexico."

I'll be interested to see how that fits in with the New York Cumorah. "The city in Guatemala thought to be Zarahemla was not constructed until 300 A.D., but may well have been built by those carrying Nephite blood." Addressing Lund's work, she says: "For instance, Lund said that the last nail in the coffin ofthe New York theory was the fact that there was no gold, silver, or copper in the region. For someone with such impressive credentials, such a statement is simply mind boggling. The greatest copper deposits in the world are in the regions around Lake Superior and Michigan, which also has gold and silver in abundance. New York itself has each of these metals as well as does many of the states surrounding it."

And, finally, she reports: "I have worked exhaustively in the past ten years to make sure that everything I have written was based on facts, not past suppositions or traditions. I wrote a 300-page pager on the Mesoamerican setting in an effort to understand it better, and was astonished how much 'fudging' they did to make it fit. There is no fudging in the New York setting."

So I look forward to her new book. I only hope she's not so wed to her position that she's just not letting it go. I imagine she's spent untold hours researching and writing her books and now seems to see some need in getting to Mesoamerica. At any rate, I'll look forward to seeing the reviews of her latest endeavor.

[VicRattledeth]

Thank goodness there are people like DNA_truthseeker on here. It's so hopeless debating on the forum if you are the only person who goes against the Mesoamerica theory.

[Cold Steel]

Why go against the Mesoamerican theory?

If you're a Great Lakes advocate, please tell me how you view things. Where did Lehi arrive in the New World? How did he and his family get to that land? Why is there no mention of snow or ice? Where is the cement? I've read numerous theories, but the only one that makes sense is the Mesoamerican. For a slightly different view, try this website.

The review of the Great Lakes theory also is fairly good.

One of the greatest arguments against the Great Lakes model is that Cumorah is just too small to fit the Book of Mormon's description. It can't be encamped by hundreds of thousands of warriors and it's not in any way a tactical outlook. There would be no place for caves or other records.

[MormonMason]

Thank goodness there are people like DNA_truthseeker on here. It's so hopeless debating on the forum if you are the only person who goes against the Mesoamerica theory.

It might not be so hopeless if you took the time to look at what we have posted and try to refute it. I just fired a volley at DNA_truthseeker's statements of Meldrum's position and why it won't work. Take a look.

As to DNA, I've looked at Meldrum's claims and the evidence. The claims are wanting. The mtDNA is from the wrong clade to have come from Israel. There are several variants on the X mtDNA lineage. X1 and X2b are the ones from Europe and the Middle East. The one in North America, X2a, which is the mtDNA lineage of the Navaho, Yakima and Ojibwa--the tribal lineages upon which Meldrum bases his claim--is believed to have come through migration from Asia rather than from Europe or the Middle East directly.

The Na-Dene language family in North America has a fair degree of linguistic correlation and data showing a degree of relation with the Ket language, one of the Yeniseian family of languages in Western Siberia. (See: LINGUIST List 19.717 Mon Mar 03 2008 - FYI: Linguists demonstrate Siberian-North American link).

[MormonMason]

...

And, finally, she reports: "I have worked exhaustively in the past ten years to make sure that everything I have written was based on facts, not past suppositions or traditions. I wrote a 300-page pager on the Mesoamerican setting in an effort to understand it better, and was astonished how much 'fudging' they did to make it fit. There is no fudging in the New York setting."

So I look forward to her new book. I only hope she's not so wed to her position that she's just not letting it go. I imagine she's spent untold hours researching and writing her books and now seems to see some need in getting to Mesoamerica. At any rate, I'll look forward to seeing the reviews of her latest endeavor.

She may be basing her new thesis on material she has read and heard over the years from those who have critically addressed her statements and claims, as well as a Book of Mormon scripture she may try to marshall to her defense:

15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

(Mormon 6:15)

[livy111us]

"The Titanic was built by experts, but the Noahs ark was built by amatuers"

GREAT logic. Next time I need to go to the doctor, I'll go ask the clerk at the local dollar store. Because if you have a doctorate in a field, you don't know enough about it as the guy who is an armchair scholar. I'll start asking people who don't have the education for guidance.

Here is a good article on the X haplotype:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_an...s:Haplotype_X2a

and a brand new study disagrees with Meldrums analysis of it. It says:

"...the differential pattern of distribution and frequency of haplogroup X led some to suggest that it may represent an independent migration to the Americas. Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models.

Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis."

Rod, have you read John Sorensons "An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon"? This can be cleared up immediately.

[MormonMason]

...

Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis."

...

X2b, or a variant descendent clade thereof would be required to lend weight to the validity of the Solutrean hypothesis. X2a is the mtDNA lineage of the Navaho, Yakima and Ojibwa.

[livy111us]

Wait, I had to add one more thing of the MANY I could raise about the comments made by DNAtruthseeker, he said "So what Mr. Meldrum is doing with his free presentations is hardly worth mentioning in that context."

I am curious, how much are these DVD's going for? 20 bucks a pop. And the website brags about selling 8,000 of them. So, let's do the math. Let's see....that is $160,000! Not to shabby!

Then Bro. Meldrum is doing BOM tours for around 2,000 bucks. Hmm.... Sounds like he has a vested interest in his theory, especially now that he's quit his job to spend more time doing this.

[livy111us]

Dang it! Now I have to reply to all of it!

Rod: Must one continue to study all other religions after one has received a testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in order to know of its continued truthfulness?

Me: That is odd that you are comparing studying other religions after receiving a witness that our Church is true, to geography of the BOM. Last I heard, the Church has no official position on BOM geography. They have said it has not been revealed to them. So how is it that the Lord bypassed His Prophets and revealed it to you?

You: If he has not studied every detail of every new Mesoamerican theory, is he then unqualified to comment on a geography that aligns with the express statements made by Joseph Smith?â?¦

Me: I did not say for you to have a detailed analysis of every peice of evidence for a Mesoamerican setting (but I am sure you would restate your case if you were to do such a thing), but to at least catch up on what 30 years of scholarship has to offer. There is a reason why the Great Lakes theory has been rejected by scholars, and a Mesoamerican one accepted. Again, have you read Sorensons work? Not a skimming of the text, but cover to cover?

You: statements written by his (Joseph's) own hand and claimed by him to have been received by inspiration/revelation?

Me: That is odd why the Church does not accept them as doctrine then. But not only that, if you look on the cover of this years Gospel Doctrine Manual, past Book of Mormons, Church issued Institute Manuals, videos produced by the Church and some played on Temple Square, etc. etc... All show the BOM to have happened in Mesoamerica. They all are Mesoamerican based. So the Church seems to be leaning one way, and it is not towards a Great Lakes area.

You: There have been so many different theories created in the Mesoamerican setting that even the anti's are confused ;-) In one blog they have an article titled "One Cumorah, two Cumorah, three Cumorah, four..."

Me: If the antis are the experts, maybe you should ask them about what they think of the Great Lakes theory. They have even less nice things to say about that.

You: It is so much less confusing when we take Joseph Smith at his word when he said that the Hill Cumorah (from whence he recovered the plates) was

Me: It is also not a correct reading of the text. Here is a good article: http://en.fairmormon.org/Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah

It says some interesting things. 1) that Cumorah didn't even get it's name till after the BOM was published 2) it wasnt named by Joseph Smith and 3) explains from the text 2 Cumorahs.

You: There is mentioned ONLY ONE Hill Cumorah by Joseph Smith, and it was nowhere near Mesoamerica, it was in New York, USA.

Me: Why do we not find evidence of great battles fought there then? It seems to me if millions of people were killed there, some artifacts would be found. Here is an interesting article on that: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...jbms&id=377

You: Which scientific journal quoted by Mr. Meldrum do you feel is unreliable?

Me: I am curious what you think about the scientific journals which say your interpretation is wrong? What do you say about genetic and biological markers which say there was a migration from the Middle East to the Mayan area?

You: What scholars, have you talked with on this issue, sir? Have you talked with the geneticists at Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation who arguably are the two most qualified geneticists in the church? If so, what did they have to say?

Me: I have spoken with numerous geneticists and all save one, believe the X chromosome as evidence of The Book of Mormon in NA to be unreliable.

You: Exactly how many scholars do you know who are geneticists? I would venture a guess that most of the scholars you know are Mesoamerican 'scholars' and most folks could tell you what the chance of having them agree with the evidence presented by Mr. Meldrum, which is directly contrary to their theory.

Me: As I have said, I have spoken and had sit down one on one interviews with them, and no, they couldn't care one way or the other where the BOM happened. Building a straw man argument will not help your position.

You: However, they also, as a group, have a very vested interest in maintaining their 'scholarly' status and providing some results for the millions of dollars that have been poured into developing and marketing the theory to the church membership at large.

Me: As I have said, you have much more of a vested interest in it. Their books and this theory is not their bread and butter, but are professors, archaeologists, anthropologists (all genuine scholars) etc... While you have been successful in business in the past, this current venture (which I do not doubt you believe 100%, and believe you have the greatest intentions) IS your bread and butter. If you are shown to be correct, these scholars will still have a job. If you are shown to be wrong, then you are out of a job.

You: Many of them make a great deal of money taking people on their supposed 'Book of Mormon' tours, and charge to attend their 'Book of Mormon Lands' conferences etc. So what Mr. Meldrum is doing with his free presentations is hardly worth mentioning in that context.

Me: See my comments above about $$$$ While there are some who capitalize on BOM tours, no scholar which you are referring to (FARMS) has these kinds of tours, but thinks they are ridiculous. When Brant Gardner has a BOM tour, I will eat my hat.

You: DVD shooting, editing, and production are not inexpensive ventures and Mr. Meldrum has no free access to BYU's facilities as the Mesoamerican theorists may have, so a significant amount of investment certainly has occurred in creating the DVD. Should he be expected to invest that money and time, and then give the DVD's away? Is that what YOU would do? What would you do in this situation, and what would your wife and family say, were you to do it?

Me: I do not have access to BYU's facilities, and have created DVD's for an LDS audience. But we price them very low so to cover the cost, and give 100% of the profits to an organization that is built on defending the faith. I have invested thousands and thousands of hours and am compensated with a thank you, and that is enough. I have actually spent thousands of dollars of my own money on these DVD's. What would my wife say? You can ask her yourself. She is supportive of me because we are sharing the Gospel message and don't need to be paid for it. If you wanted to do it, you could. Honesty is better than covering up.

You: Remember that Mr. Meldrum is not on the payroll of the church, as most Mesoamerican scholars are at BYU, and thus he has worked a full-time job while doing his research and giving free presentations. How many Mesoamerican theorists have done so?

Me: You mean that the Church is paying these men to present a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM?!? Hmmm.....

PS, I worked a full-time job, and a part-time job while doing DVD's, and my work is actually free, no compensation.

You: The Mesoamerican theorists dismiss Joseph's statements, thinking they know more than Joseph on the matter, that Joseph was 'confused' or that he 'changed his mind' about its geography. Joseph did nothing of the sort. He was clear and resolute about where he KNEW the Book of Mormon took place.

Me: You ask for a reference on JS beliefs of a Mesoamerican setting? Read post 21 for only a few.

You: Even BYU knows Joseph didnâ??t write the article as he explicitly stated months before that he would take responsibility only for those articles "having my signature henceforward". Neither of Dr. Lund's supposed â??best evidencesâ?? articles were signed...by anyone...much less Joseph Smith.

Me: If JS believed otherwise, do you not think he would have corrected John Taylor on the setting of the BOM? There were no editorials after he came back saying it was wrong. John Taylor and him were very close. Do you not think that John Taylor would have known where JS believed it to happen? John Taylor continued to place the BOM in Mesoamerica long after JS came back. Why did JS say that John Lloyd Stevens book "corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon;"? Why are there many other testimonies saying that JS taught them the BOM happened in Mesoamerica? It doesn't make sense if JS KNEW that the BOM happened in the GL region.

OK, I'm ready for bed. Here is a quick rundown of the rest:

Your veiw on the meaning of Lamanites is terribly flawed

You say we are not scientifically trained, well, neither are you. But I am going off of the studies of scientists and scholars and have many interviews with them supporting our view. If you want the reference, by the DVD.

Evidence that JS believed in a mesoamerican setting has been said many times before on this board.

and believe MormonMason answered the rest. Isn't he great?

[MormonMason]

Wait, I had to add one more thing of the MANY I could raise about the comments made by DNAtruthseeker, he said "So what Mr. Meldrum is doing with his free presentations is hardly worth mentioning in that context."

I am curious, how much are these DVD's going for? 20 bucks a pop. And the website brags about selling 8,000 of them. So, let's do the math. Let's see....that is $160,000! Not to shabby!

Then Bro. Meldrum is doing BOM tours for around 2,000 bucks. Hmm.... Sounds like he has a vested interest in his theory, especially now that he's quit his job to spend more time doing this.

Oh, don't forget the $5.00 shipping and handling! I know for a fact that not all of that pays for shipping as it is not that expensive to mail a DVD media mail. I doubt he has a full-time staff on the payroll. If he doesn't, part of that charge is money he keeps, too! I figured out a few mailing scenarios that would let him keep $2.50 or more per package, meaning, add to his money pot another $20,000.00! That is a grand total of $179,600.00!!! Not bad at all!

Looks like he's also selling Wayne May's con-man garbage and a book about the Michigan forgeries (although supportive of their "authenticity" I'd wager). I'd say he is doing pretty well for himself. Why didn't I think of that?