Meldrums Heartland model

[Anijen]

I am just getting back from my son

[Anijen]

Added caveat;

...that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent;

I feel this from the Articles of faith (#10)is the strongest support that Joseph did not view the US as the exclusive place for a promised land. Particularly from the Mississippi to the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes (Heartland model)as the only place "this land" implies.

[BCSpace]

Or any support for a US only "promised land would also be appreciated.

One could start by pointing out that the US is the only nation in this hemisphere to have accepted and continue to accept a God-inspired constitution, but I agree in that the US is not the only possible candidate and in fact I think it's a very unlikely candidate.

[Anijen]

One could start by pointing out that the US is the only nation in this hemisphere to have accepted and continue to accept a God-inspired constitution, but I agree in that the US is not the only possible candidate and in fact I think it's a very unlikely candidate.

Thanks BCSpace for your input. I have to ponder on that for a bit before I respond. I have also been thinking about volcanoes spurred by a recent trip to a place close to my home. I live near Ash Fall fossil beds in the great state of Nebraska and visiting there I saw the rhinos, horses, dogs, and other animals buried in the volcanic ash that erupted in Idaho and the wind blew the ash to Nebraska were many of the animals were killed. This started me contemplating volcanic activity in the US during the time of the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon we read of thick darkness

[BCSpace]

Well there is the FARMS pooh-poohed Mapping the Book of Mormon theory by Pate. He did make a significant mistake about one city in that he attempted to match it's current name, which had been given in the 1950's, as if it were an ancient name. The connection he makes is that the Nahuatl language is descendant from the Nephite language. But I thought his overall work was sound and just as plausible and scientifically accurate as the best of any other. It's a Mesoamerican geography btw.

Anyway, it opened my eyes to the possibility that seas can perhaps refer to rivers or small lakes just as well as any ocean or large lake. Also that a narrow neck of land could be a pass or a river crossing and that the mention of a narrow neck in the BoM likely refers to several different places; there are several geographically separated narrow necks of land in the BoM. Something like that.

It also has the best and most detailed map I've ever seen though of course that does not give any real scientific weight to the theory.

A wrench in this of course would be the process of the interpretation of the plates, but yet it is something to think about imho.

[Anijen]

I am weak in etymological of words and will leave them to the linguists, I tend to undervalue them. I know through the anthropological courses I have participated in that language changes so much over time that even unrecognizable languages will often have the same root language from a long way back. I recall reading something about the uto/mayan language somewhere (maybe on this site). I do know that the city of Lamani in Mesoamerica predates the conquest and is an original name but can I make that connection to the Book of Mormon? No, I cannot, but I do find it interesting none the less. I know some Mayan words have a close approximation to words like Kish but like the previous example I cannot connect that strongly to the Book of Mormon and also like the city name Lamani I find it interesting. I find linguistical evidence such as Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon very interesting but again I am not married to these language theories too strongly.

[poulsenll]

Well there is the FARMS pooh-poohed Mapping the Book of Mormon theory by Pate. He did make a significant mistake about one city in that he attempted to match it's current name, which had been given in the 1950's, as if it were an ancient name. The connection he makes is that the Nahuatl language is descendant from the Nephite language. But I thought his overall work was sound and just as plausible and scientifically accurate as the best of any other. It's a Mesoamerican geography btw.

Anyway, it opened my eyes to the possibility that seas can perhaps refer to rivers or small lakes just as well as any ocean or large lake. Also that a narrow neck of land could be a pass or a river crossing and that the mention of a narrow neck in the BoM likely refers to several different places; there are several geographically separated narrow necks of land in the BoM. Something like that.

It also has the best and most detailed map I've ever seen though of course that does not give any real scientific weight to the theory.

A wrench in this of course would be the process of the interpretation of the plates, but yet it is something to think about imho.

BC

He makes more than just that mistake. His directions are rotated 90 degrees, he has no north flowing river in the land of Zarahemla and his idea that Nahuatl decends from the Nephite language does not take into account the known time depth of the Nahuatl language is over 5000 years. Proto Nahuatl, the ancester of Modern Nahuatl goes back to 3000 BC, well before the arrival of the Nephites. Based on the use of the /r/ and /l/ consonants that are prevalent in Jaredite names ,it is more likely that Nahuatl decended from the Jaredite language.

Larry P

[Bill Hamblin]

Acceptance of Meldrum's theory requires not only a complete rejection of the standard dating of North American archaeology, but also the acceptance of known forged artifacts as authentic. Until he deals with those two issues, there's not much to discuss.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

[Anijen]

I agree we are definitely beating a dead horse every time this subject arises. None the less, Book of Mormon geography is the subject that is interesting to me. I feel the urge every now and then to discuss such, even if it is a issue that has decayed a long time ago. Perhaps every now and then a new tidbit of information arises and is a catalyst for a little more introspection. Maybe I can persuade Will Schryver to come back and put his keen mind to BofM geography and we might get a whole new insight to it. I loved his lecture on the KEP. I also can die now that two of my favorite posters have taken time to respond on this subject, (thank you William Hamblin and Larry Paulsen). Now if I can get Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, Brother Peterson and Sorenson to post then I truly hit Nirvana (perhaps throw in some Beastie for entertainment value).

Kudos to all of you who post on geography it keeps my otherwise boring existence fun. We all have hobbies mine just happens to be a dead horse LOL.

[poulsenll]

I agree we are definitely beating a dead horse every time this subject arises. None the less, Book of Mormon geography is the subject that is interesting to me. I feel the urge every now and then to discuss such, even if it is a issue that has decayed a long time ago. Perhaps every now and then a new tidbit of information arises and is a catalyst for a little more introspection. Maybe I can persuade Will Schryver to come back and put his keen mind to BofM geography and we might get a whole new insight to it. I loved his lecture on the KEP. I also can die now that two of my favorite posters have taken time to respond on this subject, (thank you William Hamblin and Larry Paulsen). Now if I can get Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, Brother Peterson and Sorenson to post then I truly hit Nirvana (perhaps throw in some Beastie for entertainment value).

Kudos to all of you who post on geography it keeps my otherwise boring existence fun. We all have hobbies mine just happens to be a dead horse LOL.

It is only a dead horse if you stick with the status quo and dont do any new research. Somebody is always coming up with a theory for a new location but unfortunately most of them seem to lack any new research and simply rehearse and reinterpret what has already been done by others. And usually those others have done a more competent presentation of the material. There seems to be a desire to place the Book of Mormon culture in locations that they have either visited on a Book of MOrmon tour or where they served on a mission. It is not where we would like it to be, it is where the Prophets and writers of the BofM text say it is. BofM geography proposals must comply with all, not just some, of the textual descriptions in the Book of MOrmon. It is a given that there may be more than one geographical feature that fits a single text but whatever feature is chosen must have the correct relationship with ALL the other features described in the text.

One must also realize that just because we have a plausible proposal for a given feature, for example the location of Ramah/Cumorah, there is always the possibility that there is another real location that fits better and is in agreement with more of the text. Until three weeks ago, I thought I had a resonable candidate for Ramah/Cumorah then I stumbled on another location that appears to be even more reasonable.

Larry P

[Anijen]

It is only a dead horse if you stick with the status quo and dont do any new research. Somebody is always coming up with a theory for a new location but unfortunately most of them seem to lack any new research and simply rehearse and reinterpret what has already been done by others. And usually those others have done a more competent presentation of the material. There seems to be a desire to place the Book of Mormon culture in locations that they have either visited on a Book of MOrmon tour or where they served on a mission. It is not where we would like it to be, it is where the Prophets and writers of the BofM text say it is. BofM geography proposals must comply with all, not just some, of the textual descriptions in the Book of MOrmon. It is a given that there may be more than one geographical feature that fits a single text but whatever feature is chosen must have the correct relationship with ALL the other features described in the text.

One must also realize that just because we have a plausible proposal for a given feature, for example the location of Ramah/Cumorah, there is always the possibility that there is another real location that fits better and is in agreement with more of the text. Until three weeks ago, I thought I had a resonable candidate for Ramah/Cumorah then I stumbled on another location that appears to be even more reasonable.

Larry P

Thanks Larry for your always insightful posts. I am fascinated with studying this subject but more than geography but the whole Book of Mormon in general. I like the academic approach to the geography and at the same time keep the spiritual approach for the whole message and purpose of this great book. I admit my frustration with not the GLT but with the very questionable tactics and sources that Meldrum uses and I find it offensive and in the long run more harmful to a testimony than helpful. I post often on this subject because it is what I know better than any other subject. I hope to strengthen those who may be weak and to correct bad research and seemingly intentional deceptive statements used by Meldrum (before getting blasted by those who defend Meldrum I am speaking of his use of artifacts that have been proven fake and the use of very real experts but using their statements in a way unknowingly or desired by them). Oh by the way I am taking next semester a geography course specifically focused on Latin America and hope to gain some more insights... keep up the good work!

[Cold Steel]

What's astounded me is that Meldrum's following will just not admit defeat under any circumstances. Population deficits, the fact that the Book of Mormon nowhere mentions snow or ice and a deadly serpent problem that existed in the "narrow neck" of land that lasted for generations (something that couldn't have happened had there been seasons of snow/ice). In short, everything points to Mesoamerica as the lands of the Book of Mormon.

Having rejected Meldrum's views long ago, I'm now interested in learning more about the Nephi Project's theory that these lands were located in Peru.

Joseph Smith and other prophets of this dispensation have identified Zion as being comprised of both American continents. There is nothing that Smith ever said that would lead me to think these lands would be in the U.S. heartlands.

Getting back to the snow and ice, you can't overemphasize the fact that it plays a tremendous role in warfare, many times causing more casualties than the fighting itself. If Book of Mormon writers had documented ongoing wars, why wouldn't there be any mention of armies crossing rivers that were frozen, or men dying of the cold? But forgetting all that, the populations in the heartlands just wouldn't support the BOM story.

.

[Anijen]

What's astounded me is that Meldrum's following will just not admit defeat under any circumstances. Population deficits, the fact that the Book of Mormon nowhere mentions snow or ice and a deadly serpent problem that existed in the "narrow neck" of land that lasted for generations (something that couldn't have happened had there been seasons of snow/ice). In short, everything points to Mesoamerica as the lands of the Book of Mormon.

Having rejected Meldrum's views long ago, I'm now interested in learning more about the Nephi Project's theory that these lands were located in Peru.

Joseph Smith and other prophets of this dispensation have identified Zion as being comprised of both American continents. There is nothing that Smith ever said that would lead me to think these lands would be in the U.S. heartlands.

Getting back to the snow and ice, you can't overemphasize the fact that it plays a tremendous role in warfare, many times causing more casualties than the fighting itself. If Book of Mormon writers had documented ongoing wars, why wouldn't there be any mention of armies crossing rivers that were frozen, or men dying of the cold? But forgetting all that, the populations in the heartlands just wouldn't support the BOM story.

.

I agree with this. Although I do not write much on the climate of the Book of Mormon it is still a very strong argument against any cold location. As I have studied many journals of those here in the United States (mostly from the Civil War era) all have mentioned even if briefly the snow or ice or problems because of it. I would think over the many years of a warring people in the Book of Mormon that it would be mentioned it least once (not counting the quote from Isaiah). Thanks for your input.

[Anijen]

I am digressing from my own OP but found this image cool of Chichen Itza at Spring Equinox, many tourist come at this time to see the snake...

[rodheadlee]

That may be true for you. I find the geography discussions the most interesting.

[livy111us]

Great thread, Anijen. I also find it odd that Meldrum uses the Cahokia as evidence for his theory (I know he has tried using them as evidence with me), but, they post-date The Book of Mormon by centuries (around 650 AD, while The Book of Mormon came to an end in 400 AD), and have absolutely nothing to do with the people of The Book of Mormon, no matter where it took place. I might as well use the people living in Guatemala city as evidence for a Meso-american setting for The Book of Mormon. The thing is, he knows that they post-date The Book of Mormon, but still attempts to use them as evidence for his theory. This is classic example of his refusal to accept reality in an attempt to prove his theory, whether his claims are based on facts/truth or not. It is nothing short of dis-honest on his part.

[FutureTwitBlog]

One could start by pointing out that the US is the only nation in this hemisphere to have accepted and continue to accept a God-inspired constitution, but I agree in that the US is not the only possible candidate and in fact I think it's a very unlikely candidate.

Unless I'm quite mistaken, I think that the majority of the countries in this hemisphere are constitutional democracies. As for God inspired, I don't think the church takes the position that the constitutions of other countries are NOT inspired by God. So, I think that we can't take that position either (or we can't take that position and imply that it's the church taking that position).

[Anijen]

Great thread, Anijen. I also find it odd that Meldrum uses the Cahokia as evidence for his theory (I know he has tried using them as evidence with me), but, they post-date The Book of Mormon by centuries (around 650 AD), and have absolutely nothing to do with the people of The Book of Mormon, no matter where it took place. I might as well use the people living in Guatemala city as evidence for a Meso-american setting for The Book of Mormon. The thing is, he knows that they post-date The Book of Mormon, but still attempts to use them as evidence for his theory. This is classic example of his refusal to accept reality in an attempt to prove his theory, whether his claims are based on facts/truth or not. It is nothing short of dis-honest on his part.

I have pondered why he continues to pursue such a course. It is one thing to push an agenda but after learning its methodology is wrong or the tactics used are deceptive or the artifacts used to support his claims actually tear his theory down, or the condescending tone and being labeled an apostate or a million other ors'..... I have politely commented on some of his youtube vids only to come to find all have been deleted (anything disagreeable to his views are deleted). I have sadly come to the conclusion that either his investment into it is too great of a risk of failure or too much pride to admit its wrong or perhaps both. I am lenient or it least tolerant of good intentioned people but once they learn of the weaknesses of their argument they need to change their argument or find better support, something about shuffling seats on the Titanic comes to mind or to persist in the denial that the boat is sinking is dangerous course to all its passengers.

I like critics who challenge my thinking and have the knowledge to do so. I think of posters on this site who seem to be very knowledgeable and can put forth a contrary theory which makes me run to the scriptures or my books etc, but blunt disregard to scholarship and the twisting words of LDS leaders to fit a model is frankly disturbing. I have no problem what so ever for those who earn their living in the tourist industry (no problem at all) and I have enjoyed many of these excursions myself(even been on one that sided with the heartland model). I find them wonderful, uplifting even inspiring to date not one of them have had the audacity to claim authority to say that their theory is the only true model or is the only one supported by the church and its leaders, that takes a lot of guts and is instantly a concern when such claims are made.

[Anijen]

Unless I'm quite mistaken, I think that the majority of the countries in this hemisphere are constitutional democracies. As for God inspired, I don't think the church takes the position that the constitutions of other countries are NOT inspired by God. So, I think that we can't take that position either (or we can't take that position and imply that it's the church taking that position).

Hi FTB. Thanks for your participation. I usually tend to stay away from constitution type arguments but agree with you here. I think are forefathers liked the idea of the old world republic and used that as a model. I still believe they were inspired men. I also believe that other leaders can be inspired regardless of their beliefs Ghandi comes to mind.

Oh just a random thought (talk about attention deficit LOL), I just remembered something I read somewhere that the definition of the American continent in the early 19th century would sometimes included both South and North America. Also I am willing to bet the definition of the American continent has always included Central America (yes, even back in the early 1800's).

[BCSpace]

He makes more than just that mistake. His directions are rotated 90 degrees

I think he makes use of the Hebrew reference frame. Standing on the shore of the Mediterranean facing Jerusalem, east is forward, west is behind, north is left and south is right. He claims, iirc, that in the Quiche Maya language, the ritual title for north is left and south is right. So considering this frame of reference, there is little or no tilt. Sounds plausible though it's been a while since I've visited it.

As for the rest, I'd have to look it up in the book and follow where the criticism leads.

[BCSpace]

One could start by pointing out that the US is the only nation in this hemisphere to have accepted and continue to accept a God-inspired constitution, but I agree in that the US is not the only possible candidate and in fact I think it's a very unlikely candidate.

Unless I'm quite mistaken, I think that the majority of the countries in this hemisphere are constitutional democracies.

I would argue that few or none actually work that way. I would also admit that in our own case, we now barely accept the constitution. What do the scriptures say what will happen when we reject the God of the land who is Jesus Christ?

As for God inspired, I don't think the church takes the position that the constitutions of other countries are NOT inspired by God. So, I think that we can't take that position either (or we can't take that position and imply that it's the church taking that position).

I think one can take that position. One could, I suppose, compare constitutions and their evolution. Those not very close to ours could be said not to be God authorized. I think it likely most of the hemisphere started out well. I don't think it's going so well now.

[poulsenll]

I think he makes use of the Hebrew reference frame. Standing on the shore of the Mediterranean facing Jerusalem, east is forward, west is behind, north is left and south is right. He claims, iirc, that in the Quiche Maya language, the ritual title for north is left and south is right. So considering this frame of reference, there is little or no tilt. Sounds plausible though it's been a while since I've visited it.

As for the rest, I'd have to look it up in the book and follow where the criticism leads.

He is using the same argument that Sorenson used. This argument has been refuted by numerous scholars starting with John Clark. In a recent article by John Tvedtnes, he explains the Hebrew words for directions.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/332

The problem, as I see it, is that ancient peoples would have oriented themselves to the east, not the west. This is clear from Hebrew, where we have two sets of terms for the four directions, one set deriving from orienting oneself to the sunrise. Thus, one word for