Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Calm]

So when we apply Ockhams Razor, is it easier to believe Moroni, by himself, transported the heavy gold plates, the metal breastplate of the very large man, the urim and thummim and the sword of Laban all the way from central America to upstate from New York? Or is it easier to believe the final recorded events in the Book of Mormon happened somewhere in the general vicinity to the spot where the plates were buried?

Given that other records were already buried in the Cumorah of the BoM, why do you think that Moroni did not just bury the plates he had with them?

Also, why do you think that it is likely that Moroni would hang around for 30ish years (IIRC) between the end of the war and when he finally buried the plates in an area that would have been full of the enemy looking for any Nephites to spill their blood and empty of anyone to ally himself with? To me it makes more sense that Moroni would have gone as far and as fast as he could from that place.

Mormon 6:6

6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Brant Gardner]

In the case of the Book of Mormon and its accompanying ancient artifacts, both sides agree it will one day be proved to all doubters, by Lord's own declaration, that about 1600 years ago a Prophet named Moroni buried the gold plates in a hill near the Smith family's New York home.

The plates were certainly removed from the hill near the Smith family home. We have record of that. We actually don't have any indication that Moroni buried them there. It is not an unreasonable assumption, but there is no evidence. On the other hand, Moroni took the plates from Joseph after the loss of the 116 pages, so Moroni as a divine messenger easily moved plates out of the physical world. There is no decent reason to suppose that he could not have similarly moved them to that hill when appropriate (from wherever they were in the interim). Or, he could have walked them there when he was alive. As I said, we simply have no evidence at all.

The one verse that has been used to indicate that the records were buried in Cumorah refers to all records except the plates given to Joseph, so that doesn't help us.

Or is it easier to believe the final recorded events in the Book of Mormon happened somewhere in the general vicinity to the spot where the plates were buried?

Well, given the fact that we have no evidence for how the plates arrived in the hill in New York, but we do have a lot of information in the text that can inform us of geography, distances, topography, hydrology and anthropological information, I would say that it is way easier to explain the plates in the NY hill than all of the Book of Mormon events in the Heartland.

But why don't the proponents of both camps cut their polemical adversaries some slack, because, after all, both sides make assetions that seem a stretch.

I agree that there is no place for acrimony. That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't a place for a serious look at the data, and by that I mean all of the data. The Heartland geography/anthropology only works if you are very selective in not only what you talk about, but how you talk about it.

[MormonMason]

Another thing of interest is that Meldrum is selling replicas of the fraudulent Newark Holy Stones to those who will pay for them. Meldrum has used them in presentations as evidences for the Book of Mormon. Here is one of them: Here is a photo of the original from which Meldrum's replicas for sale come:

The problem is that this fraudulent discovery has zero to do with the Book of Mormon while there will be those who will be suckered into purchasing some of these replicas because of their misrepresented association with allegedly Book of Mormon peoples. It is akin to people selling replicas of Joseph Smith's "Masonic Jewel" on e-Bay. Never mind that the items offered for sale were not Masonic jewels of any kind.

But, this is not the worst of it. Even if this item above were genuine (scholars are pretty much unanimous that these are fraudulent) it could not possibly relate to the Book of Mormon. Why? It is too late and is the wrong script for the period. The characters in the replica of the "artifact" above are what is known as Aramaic Square Script. The Hebrews did not use that script until many years after the Lehi left the Old World. These characters did not come into use among the ancient Hebrews until post-Exile times. That means that Lehi and his people, and his descendants would not have been aware of its use and would not have used it in the New World during Book of Mormon times. Aside from this, the Book of Mormon itself claimed that they altered the Hebrew over time.

So, what would be the odds that they would have copied exactly the Aramaic Square Script of the Old World (separated by thousands of miles and multiple oceans) in the New? Astronomically high, I would hazard to guess. The item description also claims that this "artifact" is inscribed in "ancient Hebrew." It isn't. Aramaic Square Script did not come into use until during Israel's sojourn in Babylon! Following is ancient Hebrew from the 6th century BCE (middle column):

It should be remembered that ostraca are inscribed pieces of pottery. Thus, the form of Hebrew above used in inscription, or something like it, should be what we expect to see if the Newark Holy Stones had any hope of being authentic. I find myself wondering how many people have been and will be suckered into buying these things that have exactly zero to do with the Book of Mormon and its peoples.

Note: I had to edit this post because the images that were linked no longer will display in this post from the FIRM site. The picture is not the one replica offered on Meldrum's site but is a photo of the original "relic."

Edited September 12, 2012 by MormonMason

[poulsenll]

In Lund's book, "Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon - , is this the place?" he includes a diagram, drawn by a Stake Patriarch, a contemporary of Joseph Smith, showing the route Moroni took from Central America to New York. Patriarch McBride testified in a Temple Prayer Meeting that he was present when Joseph Smith drew this diagram in the sand at Nauvou. A record of this occurrence is found in a publishe Diary of the day.

Note the point of origen at land Bountiful, Sentril America. This diagram is in the Chuch Historical Library in Salt Lake City. While visiting the libray, I had the opportunity to see and handle the diagram and read the inscription on the back attributing it yo Joseph Smith.

For more threads discussing this do a forum search on "Patriarch McBride"

Larry P

[teddyaware]

ERayR,

I ask the following three questions with respect for you as a brother and fellow member of the Church. They're not a trick questions, I'm just sincerely curious to know.

Could it be said you have a spiritual testimony that the Mesoamerican Book of Mormon Model is true, or are you merely intellectually persuaded, based on the preponderance of evidence you have studied?

If you do have a spiritual testimony that the Mesoamerican Model is true, is it as strong as your testimony of the Book of Mormon itself?

If you don't have a spiritual testimony, on a scale of 0% to 100% just how intellectually convinced are you?

I ask these because you seem so powerfully persuaded by and commited to the Mesoamerican Model; I'm wondering just how far that persuasion and commitment goes.

[teddyaware]

I think there is a possibility proponents of both the Mesoamerican and Heartland models have not taken a serious point into consideration while performing their research and investigations. That serious point to consider is that that geographical characteritics of the lands of the Nephites did not remain static -- frozen in time. For example, carefully read the following words, spoken by the Lord himself after the great cataclysims of nature that took place at the time of his death:

"Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof. And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city ofJerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.

And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

It seems -- if we are to use the above as guide -- that when a once holy and favored nation forsakes the Lord and totally ripens in iniquity, he buries all traces of their former existence so that nary a trace can be found. This process of utter obliteration is done "to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

So then, if in a matter of hours (not hundreds and thousands of years) the Lord was able to totally remove all traces of a once great, mighty and populous cities that had ripened in iniquity from off the face of the earth, so as to hide them from before his face -- would it be too difficult for him to hide nearly all traces of a Nephite society that had totally ripened in iniquity some four hundred years later? After all, God had a millennium and a half to accomplish this work, not hours.

Though the obliteration of the Nephite cities at the time of Moroni is not mentioned, it would seem to me the Lord may have hidden those cities before his face as well. Remember, at that point in time the Nephites had ripened in wickedness even beyond the terrible state they were in at the time of the Lord's death. Why wouldn't he have hid this civilization from before his face as well? They certainly came up to meet the criteria for such.

In light of the above, I'd be more cautious and circumspect about making claims that Mayan ruins are the achaeological remains of Nephite cities. For by the just judgement of God the actual Nephite cities may be buried deep in the earth and sea, or utterly obliterated by fire (like Sodom and Gumorrah), hidden from before the face of an offended God, and hidden from the eyes of unworthy men.

Edited September 12, 2012 by teddyaware

[Calm]

That serious point to consider is that that geographical characteritics of the lands of the Nephites did not remain static -- frozen in time.

They have actually discovered a city buried in a lake that possibly corresponds to a city referred to in the BoM.

The work of Brant Gardner most definitely takes into account possible change. I don't know about all the mesoamericanists, but those I do know talk about likely changes and their causes, for example volcanoes (quite some time ago Tao gave an excellent post on volcanoes, if you are interested you should do a search on his name for that post).

[MormonMason]

...Even the use of the word "cement" in the Book of Mormon only occurs in a few verses in the same chapter of Helaman. We simply don't have any idea what the word "cement" might mean -- in the Book of Mormon it discusses it in line with the lack of trees. If I understand it properly a lot of trees would be necessary to make the fire for what is modern day cement. If there weren't any trees it would be difficult to make what we commonly think of as cement. So it had to mean something different than our common understanding.

In the case of building houses of wood and burning wood for the making of cement, they are two different things. Wood of quality enough to build houses and other buildings easily could become a rarity in the land northward (and making of cement may even be part of the reason for rapid loss of quality timber in the land Northward!) while still leaving plenty of lesser-quality kindling for use of making cement as the ancients in Mesoamerica did it. And, no one said anything about modern-day cement.

P.S.: I would not resort to using arguments made by the Ex-Mormon community to bolster your case against any Mesoamerican model. It could backfire on you before you know it.

[MormonMason]

Teddyaware, I do not think that the Lord had to do anything at that late time. The other Mesoamerican peoples would have taken care of that by building overtop the ruins of the Nephites. That was the practice among the Maya, for example. Many of the Maya would build overtop their own cities and temples (see information relative to Altar Q and the postulated tomb of Yax K'uk Mo') as well as the cities of their enemies--after they either assimilated them into their culture or entirely wiped their enemies out first, of course. (Wars of total extermination were a very Mesoamerican practice. You either assimilated into the culture or were wiped out. Often, if the great king was displeased, he would lead an army to attack and slaughter everyone in a city or land associated with cities ruled over by a king under him).

I have seen evidence of this sort of practice in Mesoamerica. In fact, in one of the cities, archaeologists were allowed to dig into the ruins of one of the temples there. They were astounded by the fact that there were earlier remains under the latest remains, and further digging found yet another culture (so far as I last heard, they did not know who those people were). Each had built overtop the culture and building that preceded them. I do not now recall the name of the city but do recall being astounded by the fact that there was evidence of such things having gone on. To me, it explained a lot and also led me to understand that archaeology relative to the Book of Mormon was going to be very difficult there from the outset.

Another interesting thing I read some years ago detailed how the Maya remained mostly in the highlands until about A.D. 385, when they expanded their territory into the lowlands and the Yucatan. Something kept them up there for a long time. I do not claim to know what but the dating is curious. A.D. 385 or so is about when Nephite civilization fell. We have no way at present to know for sure but it is interesting. If I recall the source, I would be glad to post it. Perhaps someone else here might have that source or have updated information to offer us.

Edited September 12, 2012 by MormonMason

[Calm]

add-on: just got another report that will hopefully be able to be confirmed that Brother Meldrum had reported the sale of 10,000 DVDs prior to the "Hello dear friends" letter being sent out....

Actual count from Brother Meldrum's website was 8000 DVDs sold for $19.99 plus $5 shipping as of May 2008.

also this post where Brother Meldrum himself says the same...though talking mysteriously about himself in the third person:

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

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[DNA truthseeker]

Making enough of a profit to make a living off of it for one thing.

I know for a fact that in the past FAIR hasn't even broken even on the conference and it had to be funded by the bookstore sales, perhaps the numbers are up enough now the past few years that it does. All the money raised goes to projects of FAIR, none of it goes into FAIR members' pockets. Members of FAIR pay for the privilege of helping others. Some have freely given without any return on their donation thousands and thousands of dollars. Many others have donated hundreds of hours of their leisure time. We have one paid employee, the person who runs the bookstore who is not involved in the rest of the operation at all, does not get involved in the apologetics side. On rare occasions expenses are reimbursed without any profit added on to it.

Having been involved in book sales from a number of angles including the FAIR bookstore, few trained/professional Mesoamericanists who publish with FARMS or FAIR make enough money off of book sales to merit their time put into their education, training, personal study and then work on the book itself if one counts the hours.

I have been party to discussion on what all those quotes are intended to convey, none of them IIRC were about your commitment to the gospel and the Church, ie. suggested you were personally apostate or intentionally attempting to lead people away from the Church.

• Where does this imply you are unfaithful to the gospel or the Church?
  
• Where does this imply you are unfaithful to the gospel or the Church?
  
• Where does this imply you are unfaithful to the gospel or the Church?....now if this was your actual intent to make faithful members easier targets, that would be implying unfaithfulness, but I've never heard any FAIR member imply, infer and make the slightest suggestion that this was your actual intent as opposed to a belief that you were actually leading them to a stronger faith.
  

Again, I am not suggesting nor ever was that FAIR and others have not made harsh judgments about your work and its effects. But that is different than making attacks on your commitment to the faith and church itself. That you continue to read it that way is yet another example of misinterpretation in my view.

I do not nor have ever supported anyone who promotes "BoM tours", if any connection is made with the BoM in a tour it should be expressed in the same sort of context that such things are published about at FARMS.

So your primary issue is that I "make a living off of it" is that correct? If that is the case then what about Sheri Dew who "makes a living" from selling books to Church members....yet I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Or what about all the independent LDS bookstores who cater to LDS book buyers and "make a living" from it? What about those who take tours to supposed "Book of Mormon Lands" in Mesoamerica and "make a living from it"? I suppose I am the only one practicing priestcraft though, right? Why? because you don't agree with my research.

So are you saying that the opinions of those associated with FAIR are somehow more righteous, trustworthy, benevolent, or better able to find truth because they don't "make a living" from their materials? While I applaud their apparent willingness to spend hours doing research and donating time, it their choice. I too, have had conferences wherein I have lost money, but you don't hear me claiming some kind of moral superiority over it, I was responsible and I had to pay for it. You don't have any idea how much money and time I have put into my efforts to let the members of the Church know about these exciting new evidences. The issue of whether or not I'm making or losing money is completely irrelevant to the research. This is nothing but a personal attack by trying to make the claim that I am only doing all of this for money. You are wrong. I live in a modest home, the vehicles I own all have well over 100,000 miles on them, and I live within what means I have.

Why did you chose only the three implications from the FAIR review that attack my personality, rather than respond to all the others that are absolutely meant to call into question my devotion to the Church? You failed to even answer the simple question about how you would feel had those types of accusations been leveled at you? You continue to defend FAIR's attacks but those on this thread should be able to see what your true intentions were. You were out to destroy me personally. You know it and anyone else reading your attacks should be able to see it. You can call it my "misinterpretation" if you'd like, but others can see right though the smokescreen to the truth...FAIR was determined to castigate everything and anything they could for damage control to their Mesoamerican theories.

Funny, but I've never seen FAIR bring their "influence" to bear against Mesoamerican tour leaders who are promoting their favorite theories. I have, however, recently read FAIR's and Daniel Peterson's pitiable requests for donations in order to do advertizing during the Church's General Conference and to start a new organization for those ousted by BYU/NAMI for not following Director Bradford's directions. They are very adept at getting money from other people to support their causes and theories. I have, for the most part, utilized my own funds.

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[Calm]

Mormonmason (and others interested), here is a previous post of yours that goes into more detail about the claimed equivalence of "head" and "confluence":

I find it somewhat sad that the same issues are being gone over in a thread from 2008 as if no one has discussed the weaknesses and errors before with Bro. Meldrum. I know that many, including experts in their fields have spent hours and hours discussing problems with him, most reporting no change in his claims.

[Calm]

Funny, but I've never seen FAIR bring their "influence" to bear against Mesoamerican tour leaders who are promoting their favorite theories.

And I don't believe I have ever seen any of those Mesoamerican tour leaders accuse others who hold different geographical theories of lacking in faith. I don't follow all of them, but I don't remember anyone writing in concern to FAIR that someone was doing so.

[Calm]

So your primary issue is that I "make a living off of it" is that correct?

Absolutely not. I have no problem with the fact that you make a living off of it. You asked what you were doing that was different that someone would accuse you of priestcraft. I responded with a possible reason. This does not mean I believe you are practicing such. That would depend, imo, on the intent of your heart as described by Elder Oaks in the article I cited and I am not privy to that information.

I probably should have been clearer that I find it problematic that you make accusations against others about the financial incentives they have to misrepresent the science or even lie while the reality was those you were making accusations against had a lot less incentive than you did. Why do you assume so quickly that fraud for financial gain or academic standing must be the reason for disagreement?

BTW, you made this comment:

I have not been doing my presentations in Church buildings like many Mesoamerican theorists do which gives a tacit endorsement of the Church to their theories.

Are you suggesting here that you don't give your presentations in Church buildings only because you are concerned about giving the impression of endorsement of the Church of your theories? You originally did give your presentations there...then you stopped. Are you claiming that you stopped due to your own concerns and no one else's? Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I too, have had conferences wherein I have lost money, but you don't hear me claiming some kind of moral superiority over it, I was responsible and I had to pay for it. You don't have any idea how much money and time I have put into my efforts to let the members of the Church know about these exciting new evidences.

I am sure you have invested a huge amount of resources into your work.

Perhaps you can share with us your reason for choosing to part company with Bruce Porter and others and put on your own conferences. Was it to get the word out to more members about your alleged evidences? Why not just increase the number of conferences you all were doing instead? If it was for another reason, what was it?

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Why did you chose only the three implications from the FAIR review that attack my personality, rather than respond to all the others that are absolutely meant to call into question my devotion to the Church? You failed to even answer the simple question about how you would feel had those types of accusations been leveled at you?

I refuse to go along with the straw man you keep trying to thrust upon me. FAIR has not attack your faithfulness. I am not going to play this game with you.

This is why FAIR responded (but only after trying to work with you, you were the one who chose not to respond in kind):

In recent months many well-meaning individuals have asked why FAIR has not endorsed DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography, a DVD created and promoted by Rodney Meldrum. To those unfamiliar with DNA science, population genetics, and the historical facts, the information presented in the DVD may appear plausible and welcome.

After reviewing the material, examining the existing Latter-day Saint and scientific literature, and consulting experts in the relevant fields, FAIR cannot support or endorse Mr. Meldrum’s theories or presentation. FAIR has unreservedly concluded the following:

• Mr. Meldrum has attempted to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship, and has used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
  
• The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the author is unfamiliar with the large body of work that addresses the very topics he seeks to address.
  
• The DVD plants erroneous concepts and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.
  

Mr. Meldrum appears sincere in his beliefs about the Book of Mormon. We are worried, however, by the means Mr. Meldrum uses to promote his beliefs. We have therefore concluded that Mr. Meldrum’s theories should be publicly addressed. The following sections provide a broad overview of some of the theological problems we see. For a more detailed examination, we commend the full paper, Misguided Zeal and Defense of the Church...

Mr. Meldrum doesn’t stop there, however. He not only cuts himself off from the scholars, but seeks to turn his audiences away from the scholars, as well. He accuses “the scholarly community of the Church” of “dismissing Joseph Smith” and by so doing helping anti-Mormons. He also implicitly charges Church leaders with wasting Church funds through research targeted at Central America.....

To Mr. Meldrum, current LDS scholar’s views are heretical and, notwithstanding the consistent position of the leaders of the Church, he misuses a quote by President Hinckley to portray the scholars as those who “would pluck the fruit from the tree while cutting off the root from which it grows.” In other words, he misuses the words of a prophet to poison the well against existing LDS scholarship.

http://www.fairlds.o...-church-summary (had to remove footnotes because they were screwing up formatting, see original article for them please)

BTW, for those interested the President Hinckley quote was removed after the publishing of this article.

You were out to destroy me personally. You know it and anyone else reading your attacks should be able to see it.

And that is why FAIR members spent hours discussing the issues they had with your work prior to publishing anything; allowed you to see their critique before publishing so that you could respond and defend yourself or correct it if you chose; set up a contract so that both sides would know exactly what was expected of them, a contract you did not follow because you did not respond as agreed upon.

FAIR does not make money or fame off of Mesoamerican theories. We have members who believe the BoM took place in other locations. Why would the 150ish members of FAIR be willing to compromise their personal intergrity to allow a few...very few...members profit, especially when some don't even agree with those few on their theories? I have no personal investment in the Mesoamerican theory. I will never make a presentation or write a book or do much more than ask questions of others when it comes to all things Mesoamerican. I am interested in all aspects of the various theories that appear to inform the text for me. Why would I be supporting such actions as Brother Meldrum claims FAIR is undertaking to destroy him personally?

We present other options on the website. It has never been about the geography. It has been about your methodology and the way you attack others as you are on the attack now as well as the way you attempt to weave in spiritual witnesses of your work (though you seem to be letting others make that claim for you more lately, see the testimonials page on Brother Meldrum's site if anyone is wondering what I am talking about, testimonials that Brother Meldrum has approved of posting, perhaps even chosen himself I would assume since he is in charge).

This is what FAIR as an institution has to say about geography:

http://en.fairmormon...ormon/Geography

The geographical setting of the Book of Mormon has been the subject of serious study and casual speculation since before the book was first published. The Church has been neutral when it comes to issues relating to Book of Mormon geography, as is FAIR. The articles linked below will describe the various theories and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each.

• Old World—Old World or Arabian, geography - this considers the journey from Jerusalem to Old World Bountiful, where Nephi constructed the ship. (Link)
  
  • Lehi's cave—I've heard about a place in the Arabian desert called "Lehi's cave." Does this provide evidence for the Book of Mormon? (Link)
    

  [*]New World—New World geography - location of the majority of the Book of Mormon narrative, in the "promised land"—somewhere in the western hemisphere. (Link)

  • Hemispheric geography theory (HGT)—The Hemispheric Geography Theory (or HGT) is the traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon. It postulates that the events in the book took place over North and South America, with the Isthmus of Panama as the narrow neck of land. (Link)
    
  • Limited geography theory (LGT)—The Limited Geography Theory (or LGT) is a non-traditional interpretation of the text, but one that has gained wide acceptance among the Book of Mormon scholars and readers over the last 60 years. It is based on a close reading of the text, which indicates that the lands inhabited by the Lehites could be traversed on foot in only a few weeks, making the area no larger than present-day California. (Link)
    
  • Hill Cumorah (New York) archaeology—What do we know about the archaeology of the drumlin from which Joseph Smith recovered the plates? (Link)
    

  [*]Statements—Statements made by Church leaders, members, and publications about Book of Mormon geography issues (Link)

  • No revealed geography—A collection of statements indicating that there is no revealed geography for the Book of Mormon (these quotes are also in the collections below, by date). (Link)
    
  • Statements by Hugh Nibley—LDS scholar Hugh Nibley is sometimes cited out of context by advocates of a geography theory who wish to claim his support for their ideas. They do this to disguise that Nibley argued for Mesoamerican involvement in the Book of Mormon. All of Nibley's statements should be considered if one wishes to know what he thought. (Link)
    

  [*]Models—Book of Mormon geographical models (Link)

  [*]Disdaining Joseph?—Do LDS scholars "disdain" the statements of Joseph Smith related to Book of Mormon geography? (Link)

  [*]"Continent"—With regard to the location of Book of Mormon lands, it is sometimes claimed that "[t]here's a North American continent and a South American continent in Noah Webster's [1850] dictionary," and that this means that all references to "this continent" must refer to North America. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines a ""continent"" as follows: "1. In geography, a great extent of land, not disjoined or interrupted by a sea; a connected tract of land of great extent; as the Eastern and Western continent. It differs from an isle only in extent. New Holland may be denominated a continent. Britain is called a continent, as opposed to the isle of Anglesey." Therefore, Webster's definition of a "Eastern and Western continent" is equivalent to today's definition of "Eastern and Western hemisphere." (Link)

  [*]Location of Zarahemla—It is claimed that the location of the city of Zarahemla was provided to Joseph Smith through revelation and that it was located on the Mississippi River opposite where Nauvoo is located today. (Link)

  [*]Borders of the Lamanites—Critics claim that the proposal of a Mesoamerican limited geographical Book of Mormon setting contradicts D&C 54:8, which discusses the "borders of the Lamanites" being in North America. (Link)

  [*]Hoaxes related to Book of Mormon geography—Sometimes falsified artifacts are used to promote a Book of Mormon geography (Link)

• 
  
  • Bat Creek Stone—The "Bat Creek Stone" purports to a stone written in Paleo-Hebrew reading "for the Jews". A preponderance of the evidence available argues that the stone is a modern forgery. (Link)
    
  • Burrows Cave artifacts—The Burrows Cave collection is a group of "artifacts" supposedly found in a Cave in Illinois, named after Russell Burrows, the person who initially found the cave. To this day, Burrows Cave enthusiasts have never demonstrated the existence of the cave. The artifacts contain many obvious hallmarks of modern manufacture, including the so-called "mystic symbol" found on artifacts in the Michigan artifacts collection. This is offered as evidence that the hoaxers deliberately meant to associate these artifacts with the Michigan collection. Some LDS people have fallen prey to those who push these artifacts as genuine. (Link) ^{[needs work]}
    
  • Michigan artifacts—The "Michigan Artifacts" or "Michigan relics" are a group of "artifacts" produced by hoaxers in the late 19th century and around the turn of the 20th Century from Michigan. They wanted to produce "proof" of the existence of the ancient civilization known in 19th century lore as the Mound Builders. Many contain scenes from biblical stories. Some LDS members have been misled into believing that the artifacts are genuine. Not surprisingly, advocates of the Michigan artifacts also push the Burrows Cave collection. (Link) ^{[needs work]}
    
  • Newark Decalogue Stone—These items, which were presented to the public in 1860, have Hebrew writing on them. Some have used them as evidence for the Book of Mormon, but this is problematic on two grounds: (1) the items may be modern forgeries; and (2) even if authentic, the writing dates to around AD 100-300, which is too late to represent the 600 BC Lehi colony. (Link) ^{[needs work]}
    

  [*]No maps in the Book of Mormon—Critics claim that the Church has no official position on geography of the Book of Mormon because the lands in the Book of Mormon never existed. (Link)

  [*]Transoceanic Crossing—The Book of Mormon, in 1 Nephi chapters 17 and 18, recounts that Nephi built a ship in which the Lehi colony sailed from the old world to the new. In June 2010 the History Channel aired a documentary, "Who Really Discovered America?" which claims that it would have been impossible for a ship (such as that made by Nephi) to have successfully carried the people and necessary supplies in a transoceanic crossing. (Link)

If FAIR was responding to Brother Meldrum's work only because we were concerned about protecting the Mesoamericanists within our ranks, why have we only chosen to respond to him in this way? Why have we not gone after every other person who has promoted a nonMesoamerican theory as well? Could it be because it is not the geography but the methodology that is at issue? (yes, this is unlike most of my other questions a rhetorical one).

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[DNA truthseeker]

Mr. Meldrum,

I do not have a lot of time to participate at the moment but I will make a couple comments. You got hot and bothered over my mention of Great Lakes models. The only reason why I brought it up is because that became a diversion of the topic by someone else. It took a while to get out that poster what sort of map he was following since it could not be yours.

In any case, the Book of Mormon gives enough geographical details to in fact know which direction Sidon flows between the land of Manti and Zarahemla. Where it goes after that is unknown. All that is known is that it empties into the sea, but which one I do recall seeing mentioned in the Book of Mormon. But, the information that we are given in the Book of Mormon makes it quite clear that Sidon flows from South to North on the east side of Zarahemla and on the east of the land of Manti with an intervening valley. Your Heartland map is done based upon that alone, for if you cannot get Manti and Zarahemla right, you are bound to have the whole rest quite wrong in your efforts to make a North to South flowing river or a confluence of two rivers as the location of Book of Mormon events involving one of the single most important cities in the Book of Mormon.

We know from the Book of Mormon that Manti was southward from Zarahemla. Your heartland map has that correct at least. Your map also has it on the east of Zarahemla. At least you got that right, too. Where you go wrong is that Sidon does not fit the requirements of the Book of Mormon on your map. Manti is near the head of Sidon but the actual head of Sidon is in the South wilderness "away up beyond" the land of Manti. That puts it on a higher altitude than either Manti or Zarahemla, which would result in a northward flow of water between Zarahemla and Manti, for as I said, Manti is south of Zarahemla, and if the source of the river is above Manti and flows to Zarahemla, the direction of flow would be to the north, for Zarahemla is north of the land of Manti.

The Heartland of the US does simply does not fit with what the Book of Mormon says about the relation between the locations of Zarahemla, Manti, and Sidon. Your map has the river Sidon flowing the wrong way between Zarahemla and westward valley between Manti and the Sidon. The Book of Mormon gives us a northern flow; your map gives us otherwise.

If I had the time I would love to go at it detail for detail for the sake of your readers and those reading this site. I will see how much time I could possibly devote to something like this. I am not sure where I will find the time at the moment but I surely want to do so. I will state at the outset that, for the record, I am not associated with FARMS (now NAMI), I am not associated with FAIR, and I am associated with no group with any vested or financial interest in the location of the Book of Mormon, and I am not trying to sell books or DVDs, either.

I'm not "hot and bothered" at all about your mention of the Heartland Model being a "Great Lakes Model." I was simply correcting you because it is not primarily centered in the Great Lakes as are many other models. It is different. You seemed not to recognize that fact. I felt you needed to know.

As far as the direction of flow of the River Sidon...you have apparently still not read my article explaining my position. No, the Book of Mormon does not give enough geographical details to know if it flowed north or south. It all rests on the definition of the "head" of the river. Since you seem not to be interested in reading the entire article, I'll post a portion of it for you and the other readers. You can (and should) read the entire article so that you can see that there is not scriptural basis for claiming the river ran north. Read the article The Mississippi; Could it have been River Sidon?

Pasted from the article:

Claims have been made that the Sidon River of the Book of Mormon could not have been the Mississippi River as proposed by the Heartland Model geography. These claims have rested primarily on certain assumptions about what is indicated by the Book of Mormon text itself. It is critical to examine all the facts before an understanding can be reached.

Below are the major criticisms of the Heartland Model's proposal of the Mississippi River being the ancient River Sidon of the Book of Mormon:

1. The index in the Book of Mormon states that the Sidon River flowed north to a sea, but the Mississippi River flows south to the Gulf of Mexico and therefore could not have been the Sidon River of the Book of Mormon.

2. The Sidon River could be crossed on foot but the Mississippi River is much to wide and deep to do so.

3. The Sidon River had banks upon which wars took place and no such banks exist on the Mississippi River.

Did the Sidon River flow north?

The Book of Mormon index indicates the Sidon River flows north into a sea, is this correct? Yes and No. Yes, the index in the Book of Mormon does state that the Sidon River is the "most prominent river in Nephite territory, runs north to sea". However, nowhere does the text of the Book of Mormon definitively state the direction of flow of the Sidon River, therefore it was simply deduced from alternative sources of information.

The index was written by Bruce R. McConkie, and is not considered holy writ, as evidenced by brother McConkie's introduction to the Book of Mormon being amended by correcting the introduction page of The Book of Mormon to indicate the Lamanites are "among" the ancestry of the American Indians, rather than the "principal'" ancestors of them. Church curriculum has noticed the inaccuracy and has corrected it, demonstrated by the latest (2012) Institute teachers instruction manual which has dropped the "runs north" description and now simply states, "Sidon, River: Empties into the sea (Alma 3:3, 44:22; flows to the east of the city of Zarahemla (Alma 6:7); head in the wilderness between lands of Nephi and Zarahemla (Alma 22:27)."

What we do know is that the river ran either north or south as it had east and west sides or banks. Alma 2:15, 2:17, 6:7, 16:7, 43:53 and 49:16 specify an east bank or side of the river, and Alma 8:3, 43:27, 43:32, 43:53 indicate a western side or bank. The Book of Mormon also indicates that shipping of lumber was being accomplished (see BoM Helaman 3:10) potentially indicating a navigable river (indicating a river without natural barriers to boat travel such as falls, etc). The proposed river in this geography model fits beautifully into both of these criterions.

What is the "Head" of a river?

Alma 22:29 does indicate that the head of the Sidon river was in the north as it states "the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, ..." This is completely congruent with the proposed geography outlined in the presentation and DVD(s). If the place of first landing was the Gulf Coast of North America and the proposed location for Zarahemla (according to the Heartland Model) is across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo, IL (named by the Lord "Zarahemla" D&C 125:3) then certainly the 'head' was in the northern parts of the land.

The Book of Mormon textual references to the River Sidon works very well in this geography, once a more complete understanding of what the 'head' of the river Sidon might mean. As regarding the Sidon River there is a very simple explanation that lies in the definition of 'head' of a river.

In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, the reference dictionary in Joseph Smiths time, the word 'head' as relating to a river is defined thus.

'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 one definition, there is also another equally valid definition relating to rivers which is less well known but very important to a more complete understanding.

Description 23. states 'Conflux'.

To be sure exactly what 'Conflux' means, this same dictionary defines it as;

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.

Again in this same dictionary the word ‘confluence’ is defined as follows:

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 has two possible definitions, one at the commencement of a stream or river and one which is defined as the location where two branches or tributaries of a river meet, or their confluence. Which definition did the Book of Mormon authors and translator mean and is there a scriptural basis for the idea of the 'head' of a river being a junction of two or more rivers?

In the Old Testament in Genesis 2:10 it states, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads." (see also PoGP Moses 3:10 reference note b) There is a reference note b at 'parted' in the LDS King James Version of the Bible which reads "HEB (Hebrew) - divided into four heads (branches)" clearly indicating that the 'heads' of each of these four rivers were at the junction of two or more rivers.

A second scriptural basis for understanding that the word "head" could designate a "junction" can be had from several passages wherein attempts are made to cut off or "head" something (an army or flocks) at a certain junction. Such occurrences can be found in Alma 17:32, 46:32, 50:33-34, 51:29-30, and Hel. 1:28-30.

Therefore, there is scriptural evidence to support the use of 'head' of a river as where two or more rivers join, making this a perfectly legitimate choice among alternative definitions. This also provides further insight into Alma 56:24-25 which reads, "They durst not pass by us with their whole army, neither durst they with a part, lest they should not be sufficiently strong and they should fall. Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah." It is understandable that the Lamanite army would be afraid to battle the Nephite army, or go against the Nephite capital city Zarahemla, but why would crossing a river at its "head" or source (presumably a stream) cause such dread? The simple answer could be that the "head" was a junction of two rivers, thereby making it a fearfully difficult and dangerous point to attempt a crossing.

We can only speculate as to which of the two definitions were meant by the Book of Mormon authors. But it appears that each definition is valid. This being the case, it cannot be said with confidence that the river Sidon flowed north. It could have been flowing in either direction. Therefore, the Mississippi River, based on this criterion, is a valid alternative to be considered to be the Book of Mormon's "River Sidon."

Now back to our discussion...

Alma 16:6 makes reference to going "away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti" but in the next verse there is no mention of their actually going "up" in elevation. v. 7 simly states that they "marched away beyond the borders of Manti" omitting the "up." Why?

While I agree that generally speaking in the Book of Mormon "up" is indicative of elevation, does it necessitate elevation in this case? Isn't it possible that like in English, "up" may have more than one meaning (also like "head")? Could it be that "up" also references going northward or something similar to our saying "I'm going up the street" to a friend's home when our street is physically level? Can we say for certain that "up" is always and exclusively meant as elevation? I don't think so. For example, Mosiah 17:2 includes the statement "Therefore the king was stirred up in anger against him, and he delivered him up that he might be slain." Were these used to indicate that the kings anger became higher in elevation or that Abinadi was delivered to a higher elevation for his execution? Again, I don't believe they do.

[MormonMason]

We could add to this the events of the battles involving the city of Cumeni. This city was somewhere between Zarahemla and Manti. It is likely that it was at or near the same elevation as Manti because there is no mention of going up or down between Cumeni and Manti. In the Book of Mormon, they take Cumeni and, in another battle with reinforcements on the side of the Lamanites chase the Lamanites back to the city of Manti. (See Alma 57:7-22).

Now, notice also what they said about the direction they were going on the way to Zarahemla? Read the verses again, and follow those up with the report given by the soldiers who took the prisoners to Zarahemla. From the city of Cumeni, they went down to Zarahemla. Since there was no mention of differences in altitude between Manti and Cumeni, we can assume that they were at or about the same altitude. If that is the case, and the Book of Mormon gives us no reason to say think otherwise, both Manti and Cumeni were actually on a higher altitude than Zarahemla.

This is also consonant with the idea that water flows from higher to lower altitude and that Zarahemla was lower than Manti. Thus, the Sidon had to have flowed in a northern direction. We already know it flows to the north past the valley near the land of Manti because the head of Sidon is "away up beyond" the borders of the land of Manti. Cumeni is also on a higher altitude than Zarahemla, with no mention of going up or going down to Manti from Cumeni. Thus we now have further, interlocking, textual evidence of the internal geography of the Book of Mormon, and the northward flow of Sidon from the head of Sidon "away up beyond" the borders of the land of Manti in the south wilderness.

Meldrum's Heartland river system model does not fit the Book of Mormon. And, this is one of the most important elements of the text that needs matching before any model can be considered any kind of a decent fit.

Now, there is more that can be said about this. For instance, although we do not know the precise flow direction of Sidon after Zarahemla because it isn't mentioned, we can conjecture on good grounds that it continued northward and then turned eastward. We can infer this but cannot prove it because there are no river crossings mentioned when going from Zarahemla to Bountiful. If the Sidon went past Zarahemla and continued due north, there would have been a river crossing. If Sidon had continued northward and then turned to the West, it would have necessitated a river crossing. So, it may yet be possible to reconstruct the direction of flow after Zarahemla but more work will have to be done.

All that we can know pretty certainly about is that Sidon flows from south to north past both the valley near the land of Manti and Zarahemla, since water flows from higher to lower altitudes.

[DNA truthseeker]

My memory says that his model uses a different definition of "head of a river" (he points to the confluence of two rivers as a "head") than you are using here (a river's source). My memory also says I did not see his definition as all that likely when I read it.

add-on: my memory appears to be correct, I am being lazy though in that I chose the first source and did not go directly to Bro. Meldrum's work so if the quote on this site is wrong, perhaps he can correct it:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/297

I don't buy the confluence equates to head of a river argument. Can't remember if he used any examples of people describing heads of rivers in such a way, I do know that the 1828 Webster's dictionary defines "head" in this way:

HEAD, v.i. hed. To originate; to spring; to have its source, as a river.

http://1828.mshaffer...earch/word,head

I already posted this elsewhere, but the 1828 Noah Websters dictionary also has another definition under "head." You don't have to "buy" my use of the definition, but you also cannot ignore that there is more than one definition. And that is precisely my point.

What is the "Head" of a river?

Alma 22:29 does indicate that the head of the Sidon river was in the north as it states "the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, ..." This is completely congruent with the proposed geography outlined in the presentation and DVD(s). If the place of first landing was the Gulf Coast of North America and the proposed location for Zarahemla (according to the Heartland Model) is across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo, IL (named by the Lord "Zarahemla" D&C 125:3) then certainly the 'head' was in the northern parts of the land.

The Book of Mormon textual references to the River Sidon works very well in this geography, once a more complete understanding of what the 'head' of the river Sidon might mean. As regarding the Sidon River there is a very simple explanation that lies in the definition of 'head' of a river.

In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, the reference dictionary in Joseph Smiths time, the word 'head' as relating to a river is defined thus.

'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 one definition, there is also another equally valid definition relating to rivers which is less well known but very important to a more complete understanding.

Description 23. states 'Conflux'.

To be sure exactly what 'Conflux' means, this same dictionary defines it as;

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.

Again in this same dictionary the word ‘confluence’ is defined as follows:

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 has two possible definitions, one at the commencement of a stream or river and one which is defined as the location where two branches or tributaries of a river meet, or their confluence. Which definition did the Book of Mormon authors and translator mean and is there a scriptural basis for the idea of the 'head' of a river being a junction of two or more rivers? In the Old Testament in Genesis 2:10 it states, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads." (see also PoGP Moses 3:10 reference note b) There is a reference note b at 'parted' in the LDS King James Version of the Bible which reads "HEB (Hebrew) - divided into four heads (branches)" clearly indicating that the 'heads' of each of these four rivers were at the junction of two or more rivers.

A second scriptural basis for understanding that the word "head" could designate a "junction" can be had from several passages wherein attempts are made to cut off or "head" something (an army or flocks) at a certain junction. Such occurrences can be found in Alma 17:32, 46:32, 50:33-34, 51:29-30, and Hel. 1:28-30.

Therefore, there is scriptural evidence to support the use of 'head' of a river as where two or more rivers join, making this a perfectly legitimate choice among alternative definitions. This also provides further insight into Alma 56:24-25 which reads, "They durst not pass by us with their whole army, neither durst they with a part, lest they should not be sufficiently strong and they should fall. Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah." It is understandable that the Lamanite army would be afraid to battle the Nephite army, or go against the Nephite capital city Zarahemla, but why would crossing a river at its "head" or source (presumably a stream) cause such dread? The simple answer could be that the "head" was a junction of two rivers, thereby making it a fearfully difficult and dangerous point to attempt a crossing.

We can only speculate as to which of the two definitions were meant by the Book of Mormon authors. But it appears that each definition is valid. This being the case, it cannot be said with confidence that the river Sidon flowed north. It could have been flowing in either direction. Therefore, the Mississippi River, based on this criterion, is a valid alternative to be considered to be the Book of Mormon's "River Sidon."

[DNA truthseeker]

That is correct, Calmoriah. We need to use the vocabulary of Joseph Smith because that is the vocabulary that he grew up with and used in translating the Book of Mormon. That vocabulary can be determined by comparison of the 1828 and 1806 American English dictionaries.

Confluence is not used anywhere in the Book of Mormon to describe river elements like the head of a river.

Further, because the head of the river is "away up beyond" the land of Manti, and has east and west banks as it flows by the valley on the east of Manti and west of Sidon, it means that Sidon also flows from south to north as it passes the region. This is the same direction as it flows past Zarahemla. Even a confluence fails on these grounds, therefore.

Please see my previous post.

[Calm]

I already posted this elsewhere, but the 1828 Noah Websters dictionary also has another definition under "head." You don't have to "buy" my use of the definition, but you also cannot ignore that there is more than one definition. And that is precisely my point.

I haven't. As I posted above, I linked to the thread where you discussed this before and problems with your assumptions were pointed out there as well.

There are in all 31 definitions, I posted the only one that actually referenced "river" in its definition.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Please see my previous post.

Please see his previous post here:

[MormonMason]

I'm not "hot and bothered" at all about your mention of the Heartland Model being a "Great Lakes Model." I was simply correcting you because it is not primarily centered in the Great Lakes as are many other models. It is different. You seemed not to recognize that fact. I felt you needed to know.

As far as the direction of flow of the River Sidon...you have apparently still not read my article explaining my position. ...

Now back to our discussion...

Alma 16:6 makes reference to going "away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti" but in the next verse there is no mention of their actually going "up" in elevation. v. 7 simly states that they "marched away beyond the borders of Manti" omitting the "up." Why?

While I agree that generally speaking in the Book of Mormon "up" is indicative of elevation, does it necessitate elevation in this case? Isn't it possible that like in English, "up" may have more than one meaning (also like "head")? Could it be that "up" also references going northward or something similar to our saying "I'm going up the street" to a friend's home when our street is physically level? Can we say for certain that "up" is always and exclusively meant as elevation? I don't think so. For example, Mosiah 17:2 includes the statement "Therefore the king was stirred up in anger against him, and he delivered him up that he might be slain." Were these used to indicate that the kings anger became higher in elevation or that Abinadi was delivered to a higher elevation for his execution? Again, I don't believe they do.

Mr. Meldrum,

I have read your article, multiple times. I used it to formulate my argument. I also have not changed my position from that which I held in 2008.

By the way, using your references to the word "up" in compound translations of single words to try to counter my argument doesn't work. Whether in Hebrew or Egyptian the word in English for "up" is not represented by any word in such usage as the first two you provided. For example, a single word in Hebrew is translated into English as "deliver up," as is the case for "stirred up." This is not the case for directional phrases, which use either a word that means "up" or a verb that signifies an upward motion inherent in the meaning used to express motion. "Deliver up" and "stirred up" are just "Englishisms."

Using the word "up" to refer to North in the Book of Mormon like we do today is highly unlikely. Hebrews did not think that way.

Your analogy to the today's colloquial English also does not work. You should take out a Hebrew Bible and analyze all passages that speak of directions and motion toward cities. Do the same with the Greek New Testament. Then, compare these with maps of the region of Palestine. The evidence of the usage in the Book of Mormon of directional senses shows that they spoke of change in altitude when they used "up" in said sense. They go "down" into valleys. They go "down" into the land of Zarahemla from the land of Nephi. They go "up" to the land of Nephi from the land of Zarahemla. Nephi, who was from Jerusalem, also used the word in a directional sense, and spoke of going up to Jerusalem whenever they were outside of Jerusalem. They spoke of going "down" to their father's land of inheritance from Jerusalem, just like any Hebrew-speaking man would regarding Jerusalem and its relative altitude to the rest of the terrain.

The passages of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are also evidences of that usage. One passage, for example, is "their blossoms shall go up as dust" in 2 Nephi 15:24. What does dust do when you stir it up or a strong wind blows on it? Clouds of dust rise. In point of fact, the verb inherently means in the Hebrew original of that passage in Isaiah "rising." Thus, "go up" in directional sense-phrases means to go higher in altitude.

That is again another way where you go wrong in trying so hard to justify your model. You have to take passages that are not directional sense-phrases like you did with "stirred up" and "delivered up" above in order to get around the plain sense of the Book of Mormon text. Any model must conform to that text or it should be invalidated and discarded in the interest of truth. But, you don't want to do that. You have to take an obscure definition here and misuse scriptural phraseology there just to make it work to force-fit it to the heartland of what would later become the continental USA.

Another major problem in this regard is that you rely solely on the 1828 Webster Dictionary when that is not the dictionary that Joseph Smith would have been taught vocabulary from. Why not use the 1806 Webster Dictionary? You won't find that expanded definition there. Remember that Joseph Smith had the equivalent of a third-grade education at the time he dictated the Book of Mormon translation, without the aid of dictionaries, books, manuscripts, a Bible, or any other tool of man that is tangible. His education would have included the use of the older edition of the dictionary not the newer one. Did you think of that?

Your map also would have not one confluence but several. But, there is no mention at all of the Book of Mormon Sidon having multiple heads in the sense of confluences or the Book of Mormon would have said so, don't you think? In your model there would be far more river crossings than the Book of Mormon mentions.

Fact is, the head of Sidon was in the south wilderness. It is a fact that one goes up to the land of Nephi (literally, in the sense of altitude) from Zarahemla through this south wilderness. It is a fact that one goes "down" into the land of Zarahemla from the land of Nephi in this south wilderness. Thus, the topography described in the Book of Mormon has the land of Zarahemla on a lower altitude than that of Nephi.

The head of Sidon is located south and east of the land of Manti. Thus, if you are passing from the land of Nephi, through the south wilderness, and into the land of Zarahemla, you are descending. If you are descending and you are traveling along the Sidon, you are descending. Thus, Sidon also must be descending from a higher point to a lower point. Since the south wilderness and the land of Nephi are south of Zarahemla, if you are going "down" you are descending, going in a northward direction from the land of Nephi and the south wilderness.

Since both the traveler and the river Sidon are moving northward toward Zarahemla from this south wilderness, it stands to reason that the Sidon flows from south to north.

Edited September 12, 2012 by MormonMason

[DNA truthseeker]

I have been on vacation and missed most of this thread. Rather than respond to particular posts, allow me to attempt to refocus the issue. If this is a question of geography, we really should be talking more about geography. What I have found most interesting in what I have followed of the Heartland model is that it rarely deals with geography, but spends more time in other topics. That is a fundamental issue that doesn't seem to be discussed sufficiently. I know of only one printed discussion of the geography that underlies all of the rest of the arguments, found in Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May's This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation. That is the geography that I have seen used as the basis for Meldrum's correlations. If there is a better explanation of the geography, I would be very interested in knowing what it is. Thanks in advance.

This model has serious difficulties. First, (p. 75) it requires a shifting to a "Nephite North" to make the directions fit. While understand that this has also been a criticism of Dr. Sorenson's model, I have recently defended that location using Mesoamerican directional systems which use the same geography and require no change to directions. I see no justification for it in this model.

The narrow neck is placed between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. There is a small problem with this identification. There is a river there that would create a natural barrier to movement from south to north. That is never mentioned nor hinted at in the text. Second, placing the narrow neck that far north creates a problem for the description in Helaman 3:4-7. That requires going an "extremely great distance" north to a land that has a specific combination of characteristics. It has to have a lot of water, no trees and buildings of cement. Using this geographic model, the biggest problem is finding an area with a lack of trees. That is a heavily forested area, and by the time you go far enough north in Canada to get out of the tree line, you are in an area that very few people lived. That is even before we wonder about where the water is and what a cement building might have been.

Second, Bountiful must militarily protect the entrance into the north through the narrow neck, but also be by the East Sea. Since all of the Great Lakes are labeled as the "West Sea," that leaves the Atlantic as the East Sea, but there is no way that a city anywhere near the Atlantic has any military function for the described narrow neck.

Third, This places Cumorah south of the narrow neck when the Book of Mormon requires that it be north of the narrow neck.

The issue of what "head" might have meant has already been discussed. Let us assume for a moment that the confluence of rivers is the proper definition of the head. That tells us that we must place Manti in some location that defends passage through that region. With three major rivers joining, that is a rather significant geographical barrier, and Manti wouldn't be needed. What would be needed is a lot of discussion of how armies ported and then used boats/canoes to cross the rivers. That doesn't fit with the descriptions in Alma 2:15 which requires a fordable river near the hill Amnihu - which creates an important backdrop to the military action. I am unaware of any walkable ford across the Mississippi.

There isn't a lot more discussion of geography, because things then turn to cultures. There is an important problem here as well. The two important groups are the Adena and the Hopewell, two groups where the timeframe is encouragingly close to the Jaredites and the Nephites. There is a major problem, however. The Book of Mormon requires that the Jaredites be north of the narrow neck and that they have virtually no direct connection with Nephites (only Coriantumr with the people of Zarahemla prior to the arrival of the Nephites in that land). The Adena preceded the Hopewell, in the very same location. They are at the right time, but in the wrong place.

I find those issues irreconcilable between geography, history, and the text of the Book of Mormon. If there is a different proposed geography, please let me know about it. What I have seen is a remarkable retreat from anything dealing with geography and an emphasis on "softer" issues that are more flexible, such as the interpretation of where the promised land must have been.

First, you are correct that the Heartland Model geography didn't initially begin by speculating about narrow necks of land etc. It began with DNA research, which lead to turning to Church History, which ultimately lead back to the text. There have been over 150 different proposed geographies for the Book of Mormon and all of them have used their interpretations to one extent or another. The bottom line is that there is simply not enough geographical information from the text itself to positively identify its location. It was never intended as a geography book. The information on geography is sketchy and incomplete which has lead to much speculation and few hard facts about the overall picture.

The Heartland model is not based on this speculative method, but rather on the prophecies and promises for which the book was actually written. We believe that more can be learned about the "where" through rigorous study of these prophecies, than we can about speculating about the direction of flow of a river or exactly what constitutes a "wilderness." Years before I began sharing this research I created a table with every city and geographic clue, along with the date of its first and last mention in the text, any cities or other features in the area and cross referenced anything that was to the north, south, east or west (with no or minimal interpretation). I have used this table thousands of times, but I have not endeavored to place every Book of Mormon city and feature on a hypothetical map because it is fraught with difficulties resulting from a lack of detailed information in the text and the ease of making inaccurate interpretations of their meaning. I don't believe we can ignore the prophecies while clinging to unknowns. The book was written for its prophecies, not its geography.

Again a profound lack of knowledge of my proposed Heartland Model geography is evident in no less than four of your primary cases against my research in your post!

1. I don't propose the narrow neck of land as being between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. Please watch disk 5 of the DVD series Book of Mormon Evidence or read pages 194-196 of my book Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland for my research on the narrow neck.

2. No, Brant, all the Great Lakes are NOT labeled the west sea with the Atlantic as the East Sea in my Heartland model. I've never proposed that...which again shows your lack of knowledge of the material you are trying so desperately to discredit. Bad form. Before attacking, it would be good to first get informed about what it is you are attacking, wouldn't you agree? That is one of the reasons I have withheld attacking directly most of the Mesoamerican claims...I am not (yet) a Mesoamerican expert. You would do well to do likewise, as would we all.

3. Since you have now admitted that you are unaware of any walkable ford (crossing) across the Mississippi, then you must also admit that you cannot possibly have watched disk 4 of my 5 DVD series Book of Mormon Evidence or read my book Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland which both go into some detail about the Des Moines rapids that ran between Nauvoo and Zarahemla (Montrose, Iowa today) which, prior to the dam at Keokuk, had a mean depth of only 2.4 feet according to historic sources. In my book I even give an account of men riding horses across the river at that location from Church History (see pages 81-81). If you had watched or read that material, I doubt you could have missed it since I emphasize it in both. Again...bad form.

4. The Adena civilization and the Hopewell civilization did emphatically NOT occupy the "very same lands" as you have again incorrectly assumed. See the map from University of California - Irvine which is one of the better maps of the two civilizations you claim to have been located on the "very same lands" and see if you still make that same (incorrect) assessment. Grant, I know that you and John Sorenson and other Mesoamerican scholars are excellent researchers, but I think you are so confident in your theories that you have not exerted a similar effort in exploring the possibilities of the Heartland Model, and instead of solid research, you go on assumptions and simple google searches in your efforts to "debunk" the Heartland model at all costs. In doing so you do yourself, and those who read your mistaken and UN-scholarly opinions, a serious disservice that could be avoided with more thorough research. It is also embarrassing for those who hold themselves out as the "scholars" of the Church to be so uninformed on things they are publishing online. I know you can do better and your readers deserve better as well. If you were to apply yourself to defending the Heartland model like you've applied yourself to defending the Mesoamerican theories, I think you'd find the defending much easier and more fruitful. Both the Adena and the Hopewell are in the right time frames as you have admitted, but they are also in the right locations based on their relative positions to each other. If you look at the map and follow the archaeological dating, the oldest Hopewell sites are along the gulf coast of the US (ie South) and they then move up into the Mississippi and Ohio river valley's where they find the Adena (Jaredite) ruins. That should have a familiar ring to those who are trying to reconcile the text with the landscape and civilizations. At least the Heartland Model has a proposed people to call the Jaredites and Nephites...in Mesoamerican theories there isn't even a proposed civilization to have been the Nephites. Remember..."the Maya were not the Nephites and the Nephites were not the Maya" according to FARMS Review. So who exactly were the Nephites? We know that they left Laman and Lemuel and were under strict command not to intermarry with them and their Jewish traditions would have disallowed their marrying into other cultures. In addition, other cultures may not have been so excited about being forced to live the Law of Moses with its circumcision, strange rituals and practices which we know the Nephites continued to live until the time of Christ. So, again I ask, who exactly were the Nephites?

I think it unconscionable and possibly even a little bit embarrassing for you to be attacking a proposed geography without even knowing many of its basic tenets, don't you? I don't know how others feel, but at this point if I were them I'd be asking why you have not done your homework before posting on this blog. Now it is here on this blog forever where I (or anyone) could point to it as an example of the quality of research one can expect from Heartland detractors who are Mesoamerican theorists such as yourself.

Finally, are you actually claiming that DNA evidence, prophetic prophecies, Joseph Smith's revelatory statements, archaeological evidences, meteorological evidences and cultural evidences are "soft" while speculations and accompanying interpretations of the few geography passages are considered "hard" fact? Really? What I find remarkable is that anyone would cling to such speculations over all those other so-called (by you) "soft" evidences which are anything but soft, but rather incredibly more scientific, prophetic and revelatory!

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[DNA truthseeker]

As far as I know I am the only one who has accused Meldrum of priestcraft. When I did I clarified that it was my opinion. I do not find anything wrong with making a living off of guided tours, writing books etc. I am a true blue through and through capitalist. I myself am self employed and own several businesses. Where I draw the difference is Meldrum's approach. For instance when he did have "firesides" within church buildings he sold his merchandise there and that is not the place for that. IIRC this is the reason he has not been allowed back in the church building for his presentations. The one presentation I attended I felt like I was at a business convention more so than an academic lecture on the supposed geography of the Book of Mormon and not a fireside where the agenda is to strengthen ones testimony of the Book of Mormon.

In my opinion from being present at one of the presentations and from his websites, combined with his calling me the usual names he calls those who do not subscribe to his views his motive is not one of respect and learning, but more of trying to shove down my throat a model I do not find convincing. At the same time the comments and sales pitches of times shares and DVDs sells seem to me over the top. I find t smacks of priestcraft. Until I see differently or convinced otherwise I stand by what I wrote.

Sorry, but I must correct you on several items.

1. You are not the only one to proclaim "priestcraft." Fiction writer Chris Heimerdinger did in his article on the BMAF attack webpage devoted to the Heartland Model. Others have also...I don't have time to look them all up.

2. I have never sold any materials at any firesides held in any Church buildings...EVER! I consulted with my bishop early on to make sure there would not be any such problem and it never happened. I didn't even bring any DVD's with me in order to ensure that no one could make the claim. But of course anyone can claim anything so all I can say is "show me the evidence!" There isn't any and you know it. It never happened and I made sure that it didn't. You are welcome to your opinion about what you think you felt at one of my presentations, but I will not let you lie about selling things at Church buildings. Didn't happen, not even once.

3. My reason for discontinuing presentations for a time in Church buildings has nothing whatsoever to do with selling things, but has more to do with people being influenced negatively by FAIR's and FARMS false claims. I followed the advice and counsel of my stake president not to conduct presentations in Church buildings for a time. I followed his counsel, even though very difficult, and still the information is growing exponentially. You are speculating on something you know practically nothing about. You are mistaken and wrong. I think you owe me and every reader an apology. But that is just my opinion....

4. I'd like to know exactly when and where you're supposed attendance at one of my lectures occurred because for the life of me, I think you have me confused with someone else. More often then not I don't even take questions from audience members because I usually go over time as nearly anyone who has been to my lectures can attest (sometimes to their dismay as sometimes we go over by an hour or more) so there is no time for questions. Also, if you or anyone come to the lecture in a posture to disrupt it because you don't agree with it, that is also generally considered bad social etiquette and I don't go to any Mesoamerican lectures to heckle them so I would expect the same. No one likes the contentious spirit which accompanies such disruptions and I don't feel that allowing someone to do so when others are trying to learn is acceptable but is more telling of the type of personality the disruptor. If someone doesn't like what they are hearing, they are free to leave. No one is forcing anything on anyone. I don't shove anything down anyone's throat, ever. Watch the DVD's and see for yourself! I will sometimes simply say that we must agree to disagree but I don't do anything near what you claim. The very worst case is one time a board member of BMAF drove from Arizona to hand out anti-Meldrum literature and hassle conference goers at the Zermatt Resort, and we had to have security come before they would leave the premises, but that was all done before the conference and was not done during it. We have never done such a thing as that (like anti-Mormon's do at LDS functions) to any FAIR conference. I question whether you have honestly been to any of my presentations. There are no time-share sales pitches, no big emphasis on selling things...most of the time I completely forget to mention what is available and people have to ask. You have a very warped sense of what actually goes on in my presentations and you are unfortunately doing so based on one very biased experience. If that were actually happening there would be thousands upon thousands of people making the same claim because just last year I gave 93 presentations in 17 states plus 38 webinar presentations wherein many thousands attended. Where are all their similar cries and complaints as yours? Admit it, there is no such outcry! Someone is not telling the truth. You can cry priestcraft all day long if you'd like, just remember that bit about "bearing false witness" as you do.

Edited September 12, 2012 by DNA truthseeker