Prophecies And Promises (The Heartland Theory)

[Anijen]

Simply put, Porter and Meldrum's book Prophecies and Promises is speculation even though they want to portray it as factual, official doctrine and supported by the leaders of the church. In this thread I would like to discuss in detail some of the supposed strengths of a LGT in the Heartland Model.

I would like any attacks of faithlessness for adhering to one theory or another avoided at all cost.

I would like to respectfully discuss mainly the following topics;

1 Prophecies and Promises that exclude everything outside the Heartland model (Great Lakes setting). using historical support why "this land, this continent, this country" can only mean the Eastern USA. Discuss Zarahemla and Manti as being in the US and supposedly backed by Joseph Smith.

2 Fortifications. How can one say that these were from the Book of Mormon times when most where erected by the Erie and Iroquoian Indians, many in the 16th and 17 century (yes this is backed with historical and archaeological support)

3 Mass graves and skeletal remains. I would like to discuss where these where found and what is the definition of "mass." I would also like to bring up the fact that after 1492 with the introduction of the Europeans 90-95% of the Indian population was killed by disease and it is these bone piles of dead Indians that were written in early reports (i.e. the pilgrims). I can cite historical records that say just this.

4 Zelph incident. Does this prove a hemisphere model or disprove it and does it support only Porters and Meldrum's theory that it was exclusively only in the eastern US?

5 any other that supports a heartland only model. Ideas and suggestions that you might have are welcome.

I realize and acknowledge that some posters believe in a Mesoamerican setting but a final battle being in New York. I would like to avoid this discussion unless done in a respectful manner, and if it is relevant to the other points. I also am a firm believer in archaeological support and historical support so when making a point I would ask please cite source including page number. Thanks.

[Anijen]

Okay first point is in the Heartland model discussed in their book and videos they posit that the phrase "this land, this country, this continent" refer to the Eastern U.S. and usually refering to the area or ground under the feet of the speaker. So when Joseph said "this country" it meant the United States.

I reject that notion and offer up as support for my view the following quotes;

"of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprehensive." Joesph Smith wrote to John Bernhisel this was regarding a book about Central America.

Matthew Roper writes; "Before the Israelite's entered the land of promise, Moses spoke of it as "this land" although he never set foot upon it." (Deut 3:18)

Nephi was referring to the land of Canaan when he used the word "this land" while he was in Bountiful. (1 Nephi 17:33)

and many others. I think this is adequate enough to suggest that when "this land, this country, this continent" is used it definitely does not have to mean the land where the speaker is but could be "the land of which is spoken of."

[BCSpace]

4 Zelph incident. Does this prove a hemisphere model or disprove it and does it support only Porters and Meldrum's theory that it was exclusively only in the eastern US?

What about those groups that moved or sailed northward? If they did so from a Mesoamerican LGT point of origin, could they not have still established/influenced culture and civilization in North America, for which we obviously don't have an account, and still be refered to as Lamanities/Nephites?

[Anijen]

What about those groups that moved or sailed northward? If they did so from a Mesoamerican LGT point of origin, could they not have still established/influenced culture and civilization in North America, for which we obviously don't have an account, and still be refered to as Lamanities/Nephites?

I think if they did integrate into the Northern Iroquois Indians (Western New York area) population they could have influenced culture and there is some support for this. In the archaeological record we can see that projectile points changed during the end of the archaic period (8000-1000 BC) into the woodland era (3000 BC - 1000 AD). But that is a huge time span and rock cannot be carbon dated. However we can test this hypothesis (and I have) by studying the earliest migration of the Iroquois from the South (the Georgia area) by the study of soapstone vessels, vinette pottery and cremation burials (which can be dated) and the results date suggests migration starting about 900 AD lasting up to the 14th century, which is to late for Hagoth's group or the main characters from the Book of Mormon. However Zelph could have been a descendant of an earlier smaller migration or he migrated himself. We just don't know and cant say.

I have a great love for the people of the islands and would like to think Hagoth went Pacific bound rather than into the heartland. But again we just cant say.

Edited to say; After agricultural methods were enhanced hunting-gathering drastically slowed down much of the migration factor because it required a more sedentary way of life. But this change in the North East (Western New York) also post dates the Book of Mormon. Most tribes migrated with the movement of the animals such as Bison. The push pull factors of migration (people or agriculture) are evident in the archaeological record.

[ERayR]

I have a great love for the people of the islands and would like to think Hagoth went Pacific bound rather than into the heartland. But again we just cant say.

Add to that the theory that some of Hagoths voyages may have ended in scandinavian Europe and the discussion can get interesting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My dad served in Samoa in '68 and he recounts how the Hagoth story is quite popular there. I will have to talk with him he had some old lore about Hagoth. I will see if I can find it and post it.

I believe that Hagoth did sail to the pacific islands and possibly to even Japan.

I guess the Japanese have some interesting genetic markers and that they are not related to other Asian peoples. Of course I have only "heard" this stuff. Could be wrong and I would not be surprised.

[LeSellers]

I believe that Hagoth did sail to the pacific islands and possibly to even Japan.

The Ainu are Caucasian, like the Nephites.

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

Okay first point is in the Heartland model discussed in their book and videos they posit that the phrase "this land, this country, this continent" refer to the Eastern U.S. and usually refering to the area or ground under the feet of the speaker. So when Joseph said "this country" it meant the United States.

I reject that notion and offer up as support for my view the following quotes;

"of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprehensive." Joesph Smith wrote to John Bernhisel this was regarding a book about Central America.

Matthew Roper writes; "Before the Israelite's entered the land of promise, Moses spoke of it as "this land" although he never set foot upon it." (Deut 3:18)

Nephi was referring to the land of Canaan when he used the word "this land" while he was in Bountiful. (1 Nephi 17:33)

and many others. I think this is adequate enough to suggest that when "this land, this country, this continent" is used it definitely does not have to mean the land where the speaker is but could be "the land of which is spoken of."

I found the whole emphasis in the book on the word "this" to be rather tortured and myopic. Your examples of more expansive uses of the word in the scriptures blows their argument out of the water, IMO.

By the way, the HIll Cumorah is in my backyard. Now, the only thing some future archaeologist/linquist needs to figure out is, 1. Where do I live; and 2. What do I consider to be my backyard?

[BCSpace]

However Zelph could have been a descendant of an earlier smaller migration or he migrated himself. We just don't know and cant say.

That's always going to to be the problem, we just can't say. I prefer to think of Hagoth as going northward (even a Hebrew compass northward) like the BoM says and see his people farther up the coast in North America rather than the Pacific Islands. But there are obviously going to be many migrations of various sorts that we don't even know of (wars, slavery, economic migrations, etc.). We could even have an as yet unreported situation like Lehi where God says, "The Nephities are going to be destroyed, get your family out of there to a land of promise......"

But I think Mesosamericanists and Meldrumites can both ultimately have their cake and eat it too though it might not be as sweet as they each expect. I personally prefer the Mesoamerican LGT.

[Anijen]

Thanks Mola, I have also heard many stories while I was in the islands that is why I am more biased towards a Pacific Hagoth.

Okay we can come back to "this land" comments anytime. I think I will start on #2 Fortifications. How can one say that these were from the Book of Mormon times when most where erected by the Erie and Iroquoian Indians, many in the 16th and 17 century (yes this is backed with historical and archaeological support).

Okay the earthen walls and fortification are often brought up by Meldrum and Porter in their book and videos and sometimes are brought up in these geography threads. In my studying I have found the Iroquois and specifically the Erie Indians were very adept at putting up these type of defensive structures. In one paragraph they are described as being able to make large defenses in the span of a few days. This at first sight supports the Heartland model but as I looked up some papers on the subject (I love EBSCO) and to my books I have found that these earthen defense fortresses were erected after the time of the Book of Mormon. The earliest ones date about 900 AD. Most date during the great Indian wars between 1400 and late 1600s. All of these were ditches dug like a moat and the excess earth used as additional detriment into the defensive structure. This structure was also reinforced with fallen trees.

Furthermore many that have been described by those like Squires or studies before 1900, they did not date any, and guessed the time frame on most. Some tried to date it with the rings of the trees but most trees dated were younger than 200 years so any that were located before that time the dates were pure guess work. It wasn't until carbon dating that a better understanding could be used to validate most the dating for these defensive buildups. Unless one could validate a date by comparing the area with midden deposits this area of archaeology was guesswork.

In conclusion if they cite the massive earthen fortresses and defense works ask what is the location? What dating method was used? Is there any recent peer reviewed papers on these fortresses? I have found that Meldrum and Porter will use old statements such as from Squire etc and ignore the more recent ones which can give a more accurate detailed update on the dating of some of these structures. In the end because a defensive structure was built does not mean they were Nephites around but simply that there was a need for defense from usually a hungry enemy.

BCSpace; But I think Mesosamericanists and Meldrumites can both ultimately have their cake and eat it too though it might not be as sweet as they each expect. I personally prefer the Mesoamerican LGT.

I agree. I prefer the Mesoamerican side because the archaeological evidence is stronger in my opinion than that of Western New York.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree. I prefer the Mesoamerican side because the archaeological evidence is stronger in my opinion than that of Western New York.

I would add "Among other things" between "stronger" and "in". I think the text of the BoM makes a better case for Mesoamerican setting than any other other setting, and that goes hand in hand with the archaeology. About the only going for the other settings is that there seems to be more statements from past church leaders on the matter. Along with that, there seems to be quite a few contradictory POV from the early church leaders. Of course we have been over this before.

[Anijen]

I would add "Among other things" between "stronger" and "in". I think the text of the BoM makes a better case for Mesoamerican setting than any other other setting, and that goes hand in hand with the archaeology. About the only going for the other settings is that there seems to be more statements from past church leaders on the matter. Along with that, there seems to be quite a few contradictory POV from the early church leaders. Of course we have been over this before.

Thanks Mola, I agree with you often. Even the past statements are quote mined for those that fit their model and others are ignored, or twisted out of context.

Here is an example;

Many quote a 1938 article by Joseph Fielding Smith about the final battle being in New York. I have no problem with this. I believe he said it and I believe he held that view. This statement then were collected among other writings of President Smith and put in print (1956) by his son in law (Bruce R. McConkie).

My argument is when proponents of the heartland model raise then Elder Smiths statement to a revelatory level and it becomes official church doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith became President in 1970, making his previous statement on his belief of New York as the final battle 32 years before his presidency. The kicker is in a letter written by President Smith to brother Fletcher B. Hammond (who had encouraged and argued for a Mesoamerican setting), President Smith wrote;

"I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork" (sept 18, 1959)

He was/is exactly right, there is a lot of guesswork. It appears from this statement that his 1938 article was his personal opinion and not even close to official church doctrine nor revelatory. It saddens me that their is such a division among members and I am very much aware of contention; "the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another" (3 Nephi 11:29). I would hope we can respectfully disagree and post not purely out of emotion but to include some restraint out of respect for a brother who has a different opinion.

[Calm]

Okay first point is in the Heartland model discussed in their book and videos they posit that the phrase "this land, this country, this continent" refer to the Eastern U.S. and usually refering to the area or ground under the feet of the speaker. So when Joseph said "this country" it meant the United States.

So when it works for them it's only the Eastern US and when it works for them, it is the entire US?

[BCSpace]

My argument is when proponents of the heartland model raise then Elder Smiths statement to a revelatory level and it becomes official church doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith became President in 1970, making his previous statement on his belief of New York as the final battle 32 years before his presidency.

The true doctrinal test is whether or not it's published by the Church and whether or not something later superceeds it like John L. Sorenson's two-parter in the Ensign.

[nosmelone]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Porter distance himself from the Book and the Heartland theory eventually? For some reason I seem to remember he had done so and he wasn't at the most recent Book of Mormon Evidences Conference held my Meldrum either.

[Bob Crockett]

My argument is when proponents of the heartland model raise then Elder Smiths statement to a revelatory level and it becomes official church doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith became President in 1970, making his previous statement on his belief of New York as the final battle 32 years before his presidency. The kicker is in a letter written by President Smith to brother Fletcher B. Hammond (who had encouraged and argued for a Mesoamerican setting), President Smith wrote;

He was/is exactly right, there is a lot of guesswork. It appears from this statement that his 1938 article was his personal opinion and not even close to official church doctrine nor revelatory. It saddens me that their is such a division among members and I am very much aware of contention; "the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another" (3 Nephi 11:29). I would hope we can respectfully disagree and post not purely out of emotion but to include some restraint out of respect for a brother who has a different opinion.

Once again, you mush together two very inconsistent and mutually exclusive concepts. When the Brethren, including President Smith, criticized speculative Book of Mormon geography, they did so to defend the NY Cumorah location. You (and others like you) now use their statements against them. They'd be aghast.

[Anijen]

Once again, you mush together two very inconsistent and mutually exclusive concepts. When the Brethren, including President Smith, criticized speculative Book of Mormon geography, they did so to defend the NY Cumorah location. You (and others like you) now use their statements against them. They'd be aghast.

I guess we will have to amicably agree to disagree. Besides defending the New York Cumorah location is fine, yet it still was their opinion and their office and calling at the time does not make it revelatory nor official church doctrine.

The statement by JFS in his letter to Brother Hammond repeated here for emphasis;

"I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork" (sept 18, 1959)

Was exactly about a final battle in Mesoamerica (Brother Hammonds argument).

One might ask if Brother Hammond was arguing for a different local for the final battle why the soft answer from Joseph Fielding Smith? I would assume if the final battle was set in stone in New York Elder Smith would have had a firmer answer than the one I quoted above.

[Anijen]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Porter distance himself from the Book and the Heartland theory eventually? For some reason I seem to remember he had done so and he wasn't at the most recent Book of Mormon Evidences Conference held my Meldrum either.

I believe you are thinking of Ed Goble. He is a frequent poster here and although he and Sevenbak and Rcrocket might disagree with me I think of them as brethren in the church and even more though I do not know them personally as friends.

[Calm]

I believe you are thinking of Ed Goble. He is a frequent poster here and although he and Sevenbak and Rcrocket might disagree with me I think of them as brethren in the church and even more though I do not know them personally as friends.

Meldrum split with Porter, but not over content IIRC, but over financial issues.

[Anijen]

You (and others like you) now use their statements against them. They'd be aghast.

I am wondering why you feel I use their statements against them, when Joseph Feilding Smith himself did not defend it when Brother Hammond uses it the way I do.

Joseph Fielding Smith did not appear to be "aghast" when brother Hammond argued for a Central America Cumorah, Why would he be aghast at me? I weight and measure the remarks of our leaders seriously, I follow their council I believe strongly in the Book of Mormon and know that it will strengthen us and bring us closer to Christ. I do not think they would be aghast that I happen to hold to a very unimportant none salvic theory such as a LGT in Mesoamerica.

[Anijen]

Meldrum split with Porter, but not over content IIRC, but over financial issues.

Oh that is right I forgot about that, thanks Calmoriah.

[nosmelone]

I believe you are thinking of Ed Goble. He is a frequent poster here and although he and Sevenbak and Rcrocket might disagree with me I think of them as brethren in the church and even more though I do not know them personally as friends.

Your right as well, I think he split with May and I think it had a lot to do with the Michigan Mound relics if I remember right.

[Bob Crockett]

I guess we will have to amicably agree to disagree. Besides defending the New York Cumorah location is fine, yet it still was their opinion and their office and calling at the time does not make it revelatory nor official church doctrine.

The statement by JFS in his letter to Brother Hammond repeated here for emphasis;Was exactly about a final battle in Mesoamerica (Brother Hammonds argument).

One might ask if Brother Hammond was arguing for a different local for the final battle why the soft answer from Joseph Fielding Smith? I would assume if the final battle was set in stone in New York Elder Smith would have had a firmer answer than the one I quoted above.

I'd like to see the letter Hammond wrote to Pres. Smith and the responsive letter. So far, all i can see is an oblique reference to it in Hammond's book.

From the First Presidency, reporting upon the purchase of the Hill Cumorah: "That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

[brightpath]

When Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room 3 separate times in one night he told Joseph that the gold plates give an account of the former inhabitants of this continent(The Americas). See JS History verse 34. Also when Joseph Smith wrote the Wentworth Letters he also stated that the BOM was about the ancient inhabitants of this continent. Church history records when the BOM was barely translated Joseph Smith went to the Native Tribes of the Midwest. Brigham Young continued to preach the gospel to the many tribes across the plains into Utah and Arizona. The Lamanites are not in one specific location. They are all over this continent(The Americas).

[Anijen]

When Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room 3 separate times in one night he told Joseph that the gold plates give an account of the former inhabitants of this continent(The Americas). See JS History verse 34. Also when Joseph Smith wrote the Wentworth Letters he also stated that the BOM was about the ancient inhabitants of this continent. Church history records when the BOM was barely translated Joseph Smith went to the Native Tribes of the Midwest. Brigham Young continued to preach the gospel to the many tribes across the plains into Utah and Arizona. The Lamanites are not in one specific location. They are all over this continent(The Americas).

Hello brightpath. Just a slight disagreement. Although I hold to a LGT opinion in Mesoamerica, "this continent" can mean all of North and South America

I already explained "this land" see post #2 in this thread. This in "this land" does not tell us the area or place borders or any type of limits of the land referred to, in other words the proximity in this case of Moroni's visit does not necessarily define it to be only the acreage that Joseph lived on nor does it only mean the city of Palmyra New York. I don't understand how one can say it covers a certain area and no more?

I gave specific examples in post #2 there are plenty more for example here is another great example for those who like to place great distances between the land northward and the land southward; the prophet Mormon was in the land northward when he wrote about "this land," where Jesus had chosen His New World disciples, the thing is, when Jesus did this he was in Bountiful which was in the land southward (Mormon 3:19, 8:23).

Another good example was when Joseph was editor of the Times and Seasons in June 1842 it reads; "The tradition and hyeroglyphics of the Zaltees, the Colhuacans, and the Azteca nations, in regard to the confusion of languages and their travels to this land, is so like that contained in the Book of Mormon..." Notice Joseph was in Nauvoo Illinois when he said "this land" when he was speaking of the Indians in Central America.

These are two other examples besides the ones I had given in post #2, and I could quote many more. One can not claim a for certainty a border or limits for "this land" when Joseph and many other church leaders used it in a context that obviously meant a much larger or even far distant area.