Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[BatCreekCrazy]

Meldrum also has a huge uphill battle regarding far more than horses (or steel and wheat, etc.) While the problem with horses in pre-Col America is absolutely valid, it is small potatoes compared with asking Meldrum where is the enormous amount of evidence dating to the events of the great dozen+-city upheaval in the three days around Jesus' crucifixion (3 NE 8 -9). Also, we should ask him about the enormous evidence supporting the rebuilding and christian society that was peaceful, utopian and industrious as written in 4 NE. I can't believe that archaeologists would miss the sweeping evidence of what is written in those sections.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know that it makes it clear, but one thing is clear: God has firmly established the location of biblical events. Why is there prejudice against the Book of Mormon location? God doesn't have a problem with naming locations (as he did for the bible), and he could clear up the issues with the Book of Mormon by revealing clearly to Thomas S Monson where the events took place.

The Bible does align with many actual events, yes. But there is, for example, no proof for Goshen.

And critics of the Bible do have a field day with it. There is no contemporaneous proof of Christ. The closest one is Josephus and his references are probably insertions.

I would like Thomas S Monson to be a vending machine. Insert a few quarters and get a Coke. But having read the Reed Smoot transcripts I can see that God works more like He did with Peter and Paul.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know that it makes it clear, but one thing is clear: God has firmly established the location of biblical events. Why is there prejudice against the Book of Mormon location? God doesn't have a problem with naming locations (as he did for the bible),

Not so. Not so at all.

Bill Hamblin's 1993 article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" remains a very good discussion of this and related issues:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=25

Critics of the Book of Mormon routinely understate the support that it receives from Mesoamerican studies, and vastly overstate the certainty of biblical archaeology and geography.

[Freedom]

I don't know that it makes it clear, but one thing is clear: God has firmly established the location of biblical events. Why is there prejudice against the Book of Mormon location? God doesn't have a problem with naming locations (as he did for the bible), and he could clear up the issues with the Book of Mormon by revealing clearly to Thomas S Monson where the events took place.

If you read the church educational material, it is quite clear. At least in my opinion. They have not issued any official statements on the matter, but certainly the teaching material is a reflection of their points of views. I don't think one could say that God has established locations for the bible, in truth, the advantage that the bible has is that place names have not changed for thousands of years so locations mentioned in the bible can be correlated with locations in the old world. None of the events or peoples mentioned in the bible, however, can be verified through archaeology. There is more proof of the James Bond novels than for the bible. The book of mormon does reveal where virtually all of the events took place, the problem is that these place names have not been carried forward.

If we are going to receive revelation to clear up the location of the Nephites, there is a long list of other matters that are further up the line such as how the earth was created, the nature of the universe, when humans arrived on the planet, when was Jesus born and many other long debated topics that put all of Christianity in the position of having to rely on faith.

There are also many matters of the nature of our planet that compel scientists to rely on faith as apparent contradictions await the discovery that will resolve existing conundrums.

[Gervin]

Critics of the Book of Mormon routinely understate the support that it receives from Mesoamerican studies, and vastly overstate the certainty of biblical archaeology and geography.

Proponents of the Book of Mormon routinely overstate the support it receives from Mesoamerican studies and vastly understate the certainty of Biblical archaeology and geography.

What's the difference between your rhetoric and mine? Yours is apologetic rhetoric that must be - and always will be - uttered by the Book of Mormon believer. Mine is irrespective of religious position and not dependent on belief in the Bible.

[Freedom]

Proponents of the Book of Mormon routinely overstate the support it receives from Mesoamerican studies and vastly understate the certainty of Biblical archaeology and geography.

What's the difference between your rhetoric and mine? Yours is apologetic rhetoric that must be - and always will be - uttered by the Book of Mormon believer. Mine is irrespective of religious position and not dependent on belief in the Bible.

Proponents of the Book of Mormon give equal value to both disciplines. Demonstrate how your opinion is not biased by religion or biblical belief. Do you have proof for biblical events that we are not privy to?

[BatCreekCrazy]

Bill Hamblin's 1993 article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" remains a very good discussion of this and related issues:

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=25

Critics of the Book of Mormon routinely understate the support that it receives from Mesoamerican studies, and vastly overstate the certainty of biblical archaeology and geography.

Let me get this straight. The LDS church has never had a revealed position on location, but you are fairly certain that it happened in Mesoamerica? Can you point to one city that is definitively a BoM city? Why not?

If you read the church educational material, it is quite clear. At least in my opinion. They have not issued any official statements on the matter, but certainly the teaching material is a reflection of their points of views. I don't think one could say that God has established locations for the bible, in truth, the advantage that the bible has is that place names have not changed for thousands of years so locations mentioned in the bible can be correlated with locations in the old world. None of the events or peoples mentioned in the bible, however, can be verified through archaeology. There is more proof of the James Bond novels than for the bible. The book of mormon does reveal where virtually all of the events took place, the problem is that these place names have not been carried forward.

I would agree with your assessment, that the only thing the bible has are authentic places. The BoM doesn't even have that. Both are troubling as far as authentic history. Like a Bond novel, authentic places used as backdrop for fiction doesn't make that fiction real. The BoM doesn't even have a good backdrop as far as I can see. I realize that a lot of time has been spent matching Mesoamerican geography, by the likes of Sorenson. John Sorenson and many here believe that the BoM happened somewhere in Mesoamerica distributed roughly around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec ("narrow neck of land"). The BoM clearly states this narrow neck of land divided the north and south lands. But the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is most definitely positioned East/West. Sorenson puts the Nephite East Sea in the gulf to the north, and the West Sea in the south (Pacific).

Sorenson makes up this fault by giving examples from a number of cultures to demonstrate that human societies handle directionality and the labeling of directions in diverse ways. In his argument, Sorenson points out a strange Hebrew directional scheme which had east as forward, north as left hand, south as right hand, and west as seaward. For Sorenson, Lehi was "confused" (John L's word) by his new American surroundings and "assumed" that west was seaward. Cause that's the way it was back around Jerusalem.Ok. Nephi built a boat. Lehi got a Liahona compass. They sailed accurately between continents. Nephi built a temple with specific directionality of a dawn-facing entry.But they got confused when they got here about which way the sun rose and set.Yeah, that makes so much sense.

Despite Sorenson's Faulty Compass geography and other Tehuantepec variants, I've yet to see another model advanced that fits much of anything real.

If we are going to receive revelation to clear up the location of the Nephites, there is a long list of other matters that are further up the line such as how the earth was created, the nature of the universe, when humans arrived on the planet, when was Jesus born and many other long debated topics that put all of Christianity in the position of having to rely on faith.

There are also many matters of the nature of our planet that compel scientists to rely on faith as apparent contradictions await the discovery that will resolve existing conundrums.

Prophets have declared that the best way to know the truth of the restored gospel, the mission of Joseph Smith and the LDS prophets is by discovering the veracity of the BoM. If it is true, the rest is. A revelation on geography is extremely high up on the list, much more important than the origin of the earth, nature of the universe and evolution of humans--all which are being adequately and satisfactorily explained by modern science. On the other hand, BoM geography is being left behind.

As for faith, BoM geography would not prove any of the events or miracles of Jesus' visit to America. But it would corroborate with the claims of an unparalleled 200-year long society of peace, anti-slavery, anti class distinction, living a progressive utopian christian lifestyle. Such a civilization of dozens of cities would stand out in such a way that revelation of their location would be necessary.

[volgadon]

I don't know that it makes it clear, but one thing is clear: God has firmly established the location of biblical events. Why is there prejudice against the Book of Mormon location? God doesn't have a problem with naming locations (as he did for the bible),

Umm, when and where has He done so?

[BatCreekCrazy]

There are also many matters of the nature of our planet that compel scientists to rely on faith as apparent contradictions await the discovery that will resolve existing conundrums.

It's sounds like you're making an equivalence argument. If I am wrong, apologies. If so, I hear this, "Science requires faith too" argument, and it's wrong.

Please review this excellent reply to this claim here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI

[Bob Crockett]

I would agree with your assessment, that the only thing the bible has are authentic places.

It is interesting that atheists point to problems with Biblical archaeology as proof of the Bible's falsity.

Your youtube video is boring as all get-out.

We know that a Jerusalem exists. We know that Herod's temple once stood. The Gospels recount extraordinary events surrounding the Temple and Jesus's ministry and confrontation with the Romans and the Jews, which were both highly literate societies. Yet -- nothing in contemporary literature about the events. Zero. No letters from Herod. None from Pilate Nothing. References to Jesus come decades later. Even Paul's letters don't seem to acknowledge any particular aspect of Jesus' ministry.

When Paul quotes from Jesus, it isn't from any Gospel we have. It's like oral traditions of Jesus, or the so-called "Q", weren't available to Paul.

By comparison, we know that there is an American continent. The Book of Mormon recounts events there, the "promised land" over the oceans.

I can't quite frankly tell much difference.

Of all the scriptures that have any hope of contemporaneous accuracy, it would be the Apocrypha.

Jesus tells us in John that the reason he can't stay with the disciples is that they'd be unable to understand the truth without the Holy Spirit, which can't rest upon them while Jesus lives with them in the flesh. Christians believe that the truths of the Bible don't come from archaeology.

Edited December 24, 2011 by rcrocket

[Daniel Peterson]

Proponents of the Book of Mormon routinely overstate the support it receives from Mesoamerican studies and vastly understate the certainty of Biblical archaeology and geography.

What's the difference between your rhetoric and mine?

Superficially, the rhetoric is quite similar.

My statement is based upon my reading of articles such as Professor Hamblin's, referenced above, and various essays by Professor John Clark (including this one, a passage of which it almost paraphrases, along with decades of reading critics, and fortified by my own fairly extensive direct experience of the Middle East. I'm more than willing to defend it.

Yours is apologetic rhetoric that must be - and always will be - uttered by the Book of Mormon believer.

I don't agree that belief in the Book of Mormon necessarily entails my particular view of the current state of the relevant archaeological and geographical data.

I know believers whose estimate of the evidence is quite a bit more negative than mine, as well as believers whose view is much more positive than mine is.

Mine is irrespective of religious position and not dependent on belief in the Bible.

Sorry, Don't buy that one, either.

Let me get this straight. The LDS church has never had a revealed position on location, but you are fairly certain that it happened in Mesoamerica?

Yup.

Can you point to one city that is definitively a BoM city?

I think John Sorenson has established some very plausible correlations.

Why not?

Because definitive identifications aren't possible in the current state of our knowledge. And this doesn't afflict only Book of Mormon studies. There is a reason why many of the most important sites in Mesoamerica bear Spanish names like Tres Zapotes, Palenque, El Mirador, Piedras Negras, and Las Flores: Very often, archaeologists simply don't know what their ancient names were.

[Bob Oliverio]

But if you're looking to find official Church doctrine on the matter, a private letter from a secretary at Church headquarters to a bishop in Oklahoma probably isn't going to be the way that the Church announces it.

The letter shown above is a letter from the Office of the First Presidency. How much more official can we get? It is very clear iin what it states, leaving no ambiguity. Why is it your opinion that it is something different The letter appears to be in line with what i have been shown from past leaders of the church regarding the location of Hill Cumorah. I was told this from missionaries at the Palmyra pagent as well. That is what started my conversion into the Church. This is the first Ive ever heard that some in the Church beleive the location is not in NY? Other than your opinion, can you point to somethng more official than a letter from the First Presidency's Office?

[Bob Crockett]

Hey, I like the letter. I believe that the modern Hill Cumorah is the same as the old one. But official church policy doesn't come from a letter such as this, nor does this letter claim to state official church policy.

When I was a teenager, my bishop tried to form a non-profit corporation to run a religious-oriented elementary school for Latter-day Saint children in Washington State, along the lines of the Catholic and Lutheran schools in our area. He received a letter from the first presidency, which I saw, which said that the church discouraged bishops getting into such activity. Was that official doctrine? No.

These days, this century, official church doctrine comes in the form of statements signed formally by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Official policy comes in the form of the official procedures manual.

I've tried to argue in the past that the Watson letter is "official" because it comes from an "official source," but the Church is very committee- and council-governed, and can't simply pop off with letters such as this. Much as I'd like to find a recent "official" endorsement of the traditional Cumorah view, it isn't there. The last thing approaching that were various conference addresses in the 1920s coinciding with the acquisition of the Hill Cumorah, but even then talks by individual authorities don't have the council-approved imprimatur the modern church really requires. It seems burdensome, it seems cumbersome. Perhaps the revelation on the priesthood would have come earlier had the church not operated that way, but it seems to be the way it works.

I stil think the MesoAmericans have it wrong with their two Cumorahs theory, but the rest of what they speculate about is as good as any other speculation, and it certainly supports the evolving idea of a huge and complex civilization described in the Book of Mormon.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Bob Crockett

[Fifth Columnist]

The letter shown above is a letter from the Office of the First Presidency. How much more official can we get? It is very clear iin what it states, leaving no ambiguity. Why is it your opinion that it is something different The letter appears to be in line with what i have been shown from past leaders of the church regarding the location of Hill Cumorah. I was told this from missionaries at the Palmyra pagent as well. That is what started my conversion into the Church. This is the first Ive ever heard that some in the Church beleive the location is not in NY? Other than your opinion, can you point to somethng more official than a letter from the First Presidency's Office?

Bob, your point of view is precisely the reason Rod Meldrum has so many followers. The mesoamerican view relies on the fact that church leaders were wrong (speaking as a man, speculating, etc.) when they said things like the hill Cumorah in the BOM is the same as the one in New York. Meldrum didn't like that the theory requires the prophets to be wrong so he created a theory that lines up better with their statements.

[BatCreekCrazy]

I think John Sorenson has established some very plausible correlations.

Any of them correlate to Bountiful of 200 years ago? From what I can tell, Lamanai would be Sorenson's Bountiful. Interestingly, the leading authority of that region is David Pendergast, and he lists children sacrifice as an inescapable event there. I'm not sure of the timing, but the other elements about Lamanai do not at all match Bountiful, the hub of the nearly 200 year christian world of the Nephites.

Do you know when the name Lamanai came into existence?

What other cities can you list that match?

[BatCreekCrazy]

Any of them correlate to Bountiful of 200 years ago? From what I can tell, Lamanai would be Sorenson's Bountiful. Interestingly, the leading authority of that region is David Pendergast, and he lists children sacrifice as an inescapable event there. I'm not sure of the timing, but the other elements about Lamanai do not at all match Bountiful, the hub of the nearly 200 year christian world of the Nephites.

Do you know when the name Lamanai came into existence?

What other cities can you list that match?

I meant 2000 years ago. I can't edit my posts.

[Fifth Columnist]

Hey, I like the letter. I believe that the modern Hill Cumorah is the same as the old one. But official church policy doesn't come from a letter such as this, nor does this letter claim to state official church policy.

The only problem with this is that the letter states specifically that it is merely reinforcing the statements of General Authorities that the hill Cumorah in New York is the same as the one in the BOM.

[Daniel Peterson]

I disagree with the claim that Rod Meldrum's model of the Book of Mormon lines up better, overall, with the statements of the Brethren -- though it tends to do so on the specific issue of Cumorah. It's quite clear from the illustrations that have long appeared in official editions of the Book of Mormon, from articles that have appeared in the official Church magazines, from various films that the Church has produced, from the dedicatory prayers of Latin American temples, and the like, that the Brethren have never advocated an exclusively Upper Great Lakes or New York model of Book of Mormon geography along the lines that Rod Meldrum promotes. And this can be traced back quite some distance into the past (e.g., in Orson Pratt's geographical speculations, etc.).

The letter shown above is a letter from the Office of the First Presidency.

Yes. It's from a secretary in that office, written to a particular bishop in Oklahoma.

How much more official can we get?

Quite a bit. A statement from the First Presidency itself, directly addressed to the entire membership of the Church, would be far more "official," for example.

Church doctrine isn't disseminated via private letters from secretaries to individual bishops that are then scanned and placed on the Web by critics of the Church. The First Presidency has at its disposable methods of communication that are considerably superior to this one.

It is very clear in what it states, leaving no ambiguity. Why is it your opinion that it is something different

I don't think it's "something different." (I'm not even sure what you mean.) But I'm quite confident that, if the critics and the proponents of a New York Cumorah had something -- anything -- better than a nearly quarter-century-old letter from a secretary to a bishop in Oklahoma to support their position, they would certainly use it. A canonized revelation, a declaration of the First Presidency -- these would seal the deal. But they don't exist.

The letter appears to be in line with what i have been shown from past leaders of the church regarding the location of Hill Cumorah. I was told this from missionaries at the Palmyra pagent as well.

There is absolutely no question that it represents the traditional consensus assumption about the hill in upstate New York.

This is the first Ive ever heard that some in the Church beleive the location is not in NY?

The position has existed within the Church since at least the 1950s, and is now held by quite a number of people, including -- I happen to know -- at least some general authorities of the Church.

Other than your opinion, can you point to somethng more official than a letter from the First Presidency's Office?

No. My position is that the Church has no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.

But I want to be really clear, so that you don't misunderstand what I'm saying: I firmly believe that Moroni buried the plates in that glacial drumlin near Palmyra, and that Joseph, under his guidance, retrieved the plates from it. But I strongly doubt that the final battles of the Nephites and the Jaredites occurred there. I believe that they occurred in Mesoamerica. However, nobody's salvation hinges on this question. In the eternal scheme of things, it's not very important.

If you want to read further on the arguments for a Mesoamerican siting of the ancient battles, I would recommend John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and David Palmer's In Search of Cumorah.

[Daniel Peterson]

Any of them correlate to Bountiful of 200 years ago?

John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

It's still in print, I believe. Sorry. It's Christmas Eve, and I just don't have time to do any research for you.

From what I can tell, Lamanai would be Sorenson's Bountiful.

No. Sorenson's model doesn't extend into the Yucatán.

Do you know when the name Lamanai came into existence?

It's Pre-Columbian, documented back into the first millennium AD.

What other cities can you list that match?

See, for now at least, John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

[Mortal Man]

As far as I'm concerned, the letter to Bishop Brooks was neutralized by the letter sent by Michael Watson to William Hamblin on 23 April 1993, and published on page 181 of Professor Hamblin's excellent article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993). (Dr. Hamblin's article is accessible on-line at http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=25, and, from there, a PDF version is available.)

Unfortunately, the original copy of Brother Watson's letter to Professor Hamblin -- written nearly nineteen years ago -- vanished long ago, which has provided an opening for his and my critics to accuse us of having forged it, of lying about it, of having hallucinated it, and etc. But we did none of those things.

I know nothing about it, and had never heard of Carla Ogden until some of your ideological kin began to celebrate her.

Good grief Dan, your memory can’t possibly be that short. Here is what Bill wrote:

Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography.

“The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.”⁷⁰

70. Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993.

And (yet again) here is Carla Odgen’s fax:

The text and date of Carla’s fax precisely match the text and date of Bill’s elusive “Second Watson Letter”. It’s been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the two are one and the same. And, as Brent pointed out, all Carla did was copy the relevant entry out of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. (Note that the FAIR WIKI fails to give Brent credit for being the first to make this observation.)

This isn’t the first time your words have come back to haunt you on this issue.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Daniel Peterson]

Good grief Dan, your memory can’t possibly be that short.

This silly little tempest in a teapot has agitated a number of you in the hive, I realize -- from which, intermittently, the hoots of triumph can be heard, but I haven't paid much attention to the nonsense for a very long time now.

Here is what Bill wrote:

And (yet again) here is Carla Odgen’s fax:

The text and date of Carla’s fax precisely match the text and date of Bill’s elusive “Second Watson Letter”. It’s been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the two are one and the same. And, as Brent pointed out, all Carla did was copy the relevant entry out of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

And your scenario is . . . what, exactly? That Bill and/or I cunningly and dishonestly decided to turn this into a letter from Michael Watson?

It's been very nearly two decades now, and the details aren't at my command. (Anyway, this was Bill's correspondence, not mine, though I remember when he received the communication from the Office of the First Presidency, because he showed it to me.) A reasonable reconstruction of what likely happened is that Bill sent a note to Michael Watson at the Office of the First Presidency, requesting a statement from him to clarify or correct (or whatever) the 1990 letter to that bishop in Oklahoma, of which we were both aware. Michael Watson, THE Secretary to the First Presidency, head of a large and busy office, responded by directing a secretary of lower rank to send Bill that statement. That the FAX was actually put into the machine by Carla Ogden (of whom I had never heard) is immaterial. I sometimes have various secretaries send FAXes on my behalf, as well.

Moreover, that Michael Watson quoted language from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is also immaterial. It doesn't matter where the language came from. The fact remains that it was sent out, almost certainly at the direction of the Secretary to the First Presidency, by the Office of the First Presidency.

This isn’t the first time that your words have come back to haunt you on this issue.

They've never "haunted" me, and I don't see much of an issue here.

[Peppermint Patty]

Dr. Peterson and Mortal Man,

It appears I am about 20 years too late for this silly battle over the "missing fax" or whatever. Come on guys, it's Christmas. Let's put aside our differences and let me buy both of you a Coke and put this behind us:

I know you mean well but please do not board nanny. Our board guidelines prohibit:

Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Edited December 24, 2011 by Minos

[Daniel Peterson]

Not to worry. I'm headed out in just a few minutes for the evening, and I'll certainly be busy elsewhere much of tomorrow. Merry Christmas to all. And special best wishes (because it's our holiday in a very special sense) to my fellow believers in Christ.

[BatCreekCrazy]

John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

Ok, before posting that previous one, I found a map listing the BoM geography for the limited geography model. The following is what I based my post on. (I have now located Sorenson's map online, shown below)

And Sorenson's map:

And a map of corresponding sites in Mesoamerica:

From this, I gather the area where Bountiful is supposed to have existed there are ruins which correspond to the temple where Jesus came when visiting.

Can you point me to the modern name of the ruins where this happened? Sorenson's map shows a pretty small area. I'm sure it's uncovered by now, since he pointed it out in 1985.

The verse I mention is 3 Ne:11:1

1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

The verse mentions, "great multitude" and "temple". Since Bountiful was a gathering place among the 12+ cities which existed (at least a dozen cities were destroyed so I assume there were many others not destroyed and Bountiful was, with a temple, the larger of those). This city should be quite obvious in archaeology, within the placement Sorenson predicts.

[livy111us]

Bob, your point of view is precisely the reason Rod Meldrum has so many followers. The mesoamerican view relies on the fact that church leaders were wrong (speaking as a man, speculating, etc.) when they said things like the hill Cumorah in the BOM is the same as the one in New York. Meldrum didn't like that the theory requires the prophets to be wrong so he created a theory that lines up better with their statements.

Actually, the reason he has so many followers is because he likes to give the listeners what they want to hear without the evidence to back up what he says, and claiming that his opponents are not following the Prophet Joseph Smith by believing in a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM. But since Joseph Smith himself taught that the BOM happened all over North and South America (including Mesoamerica), it is hard for him to back up this claim. So by selectively picking quotes from Joseph Smith to support his theory, many falsely believe that JS *only* taught the BOM to have taken place around the Great Lakes. It is a bit deceiving, really. If one was to look at ALL of Joseph Smith's quote concerning geography, you would realize that he placed it all over North and South America, contrary to what Meldrum wants you to believe. He then poison's the well by saying we dismiss JS when that is exactly what he is doing.

Here is a good article on statements by Joseph Smith and other leaders given during the lifetime of Joseph Smith:

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/04/02/book-of-mormon-geography-in-joseph-smiths-day/

and a quick video as well

Since the Church has no official doctrine on BOM geography, past Prophets and leaders have been placing it all over the Western Hemisphere. Anyone can pick and choose the statements that agree with them and then claim that everyone else "relies on the fact that church leaders were wrong" when they disagree with them. Again, this is far from honest. Perhaps I could use the same logic.

Joseph Smith: After reading Stephens and Catherwoods book on Mesoamerica he said that it "corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive." Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 533.

Brigham Young: "Nor do I expect we shall stop at Arizona, but I look forward to the time when the settlements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will extend right through to the City of Old Mexico, and from thence on through Central America to the land where the Nephites flourished in the Golden era of their history, and this great backbone of the American Continent be filled, north and south, with the cities and temples of the people of God. In this great work I anticipate the children of Nephi, of Laman and Lemuel [native Indians] will take no small part" p. 382 of Leonard Arrington's "Brigham Young: American Moses".

Wilford Woodruff: "I felt truly interested in this work for it brought to light a flood of testimony in proof of the book of mormon in the discovery & survey of the city Copan in Central America" Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 2:126 (journal entry dated 13 Sept 1841)

John Taylor: "For this reason we copy the foregoing eulogy on General Joseph Smith, one of the greatest men that ever lived on the earth; emphatically proved so, by being inspired by God to bring forth the Book of Mormon, which gives the true history of the natives of this continent; their ancient glory and cities:-which cities have been discovered by Mr. Stevens [stephens] in Central America, exactly were the Book of Mormon left them" "The Mormon Prophet," Times and Seasons 6 no. 6 (1 April 1845), 855.

Joseph Fielding Smith: "The history of this American continent also gives evidence that the Lamanites have risen up in their anger and vexed the Gentiles. This warfare may not be over. It has been the fault of people in the United States to think that this prophetic saying has reference to the Indians in the United States, but we must remember that there are millions of the 'remnant' in Mexico, Central and South America" (Church History and Modern Revelation 2:127, emphasis mine).

Gordon B HInckley: President Hinckley in his prayer at the dedication of the Mexico City temple in December 1983, he stated, "Bless Thy Saints in this great land and those from other lands who will use this Temple. Most have in their veins the blood of Father Lehi" http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cgi-bin/prayers.cgi?mexico_city&chronological

James E Faust: When James Faust gave the dedicatory prayer for the Tuxtla Gutierrez, Mexico temple on March 12, 2000, he stated, "We invoke Thy blessings upon this nation of Mexico where so many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi dwell." (http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cgi-bin/prayers.cgi?tuxtla_gutierrez&chronological)

Thomas S. Monson: President Monson made the same connection when he prayed at the dedication of the Villahermosa, Mexico temple on May 21, 2000: "May Thy eternal purposes concerning the sons and daughters of Lehi be realized in this sacred house. May every blessing of the eternal gospel be poured out upon them, and may the suffering of the centuries be softened through the beneficence of Thy loving care." (

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cgi-bin/prayers.cgi?villahermosa&chronological)

The Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon has been published in the official Church publication of the Ensign, and has been spoken about and implied over the pulpit NUMEROUS times in General Conference!

And the list could go on an on...

Anyone can quote mine past leaders and post them to bolster their theory. Honest, no. Effective, yes. This is exactly what Meldrum has done and has convinced many of his "followers" of as well. Any superficial study of geography statements by past leaders would show that they have never been consistent on this teaching. Which is actually what we should expect since THE CHURCH HAS NO POSITION ON BOM GEOGRAPHY.

FAIR is a great resource on past leaders comments on BOM geography. You can sift through them here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century

"If [the Lord] wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point. Some authors have felt ‘called upon’ to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.” (Deseret News, July 29, 1978, Church News Section, p.16.)