Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[mapman]

From his website:

Does the Book of Mormon itself indicate the location of its 'Promised Land'? YES, again the Book of Mormon consistently gives us guidance and direction if we will simply look for it. The DVD series begins with a study of the Book of Mormon's "Prophecies and Promises" which develops a scriptural 'chain maille' (interlinking links rather than long single linked strands) that firmly and conclusively indicates where the 'Promised Land' of the Book of Mormon is to be found. There are 36 specific Prophesies and Promises found in over 200 scriptural passages pertaining to the Promised Land of the latter days. Each of these are fulfilled in only one latter-day nation as defined by scripture. That nation is the United States of America. This is supported by the text of the Book of Mormon, along with the Doctrine and Covenants, both considered holy cannon of the church. The Book of Mormon occured on the Promised Land according to it's record, making the United States of America the principle location of it's geography.

(http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/FAQ.php)

I think it is pretty clear that the reason that Bro. Meldrum believes that the Nephites lived up by the Great Lakes is because he is convinced that the United States is more promised than the rest of the Americas (I wonder if he thinks American Samoa and US embassies are part of the Promised Land!). Everything else is just him trying to find evidence to back up his opinion. To me it seems more political than anything.

Edited September 6, 2012 by mapman

[teddyaware]

Hi Kevin, It's Ted from Dr. Barker's Yonkers, NY lecture. Good to hear from you. Since you and Cinepro responded to my post, I'll continue with my insights.

I will look into the information on the links you've provided, Kevin. But while I have a stream of conciousness flowing, permit me to share my next insight on the Book of Mormon and archaeology, Remember, though, the thoughts I'm sharing here are speculative, and I'm not 'married' to any of them; they're just points to ponder:

Anyone who's carefully read the Parable of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5 knows the Lehites and Mulekites are not the only of the Children of Israel led out of the Holy Land. Other groups of the Lord's people were commanded of the Lord to travel to and settle other lands of promise scattered all over the face of the earth. So, if we are to believe the Book of Mormon (which I do), there have been several other Messiah-centered civilizations, led by living prophets of God, that have for significant periods of time flourished somewhere on this planet.

But if these great Christ-centered civilizations once existed on this earth as autonomous ecclesiastical entities, separated from the Holy Land by great distances, where is the evidence they ever existed. Remember, these "colonies of the Lord" are very much likened in the Book of Mormon to the Lehite civilizations (Nephites & Lamanites). So again I ask, where is the archaeological, literary, artistc, and theological evidence that these great Christian civilizations once existed. They certainly don't sound like any of the ancient peoples I've ever studied or heard about. So it would appear to me these ancient civilizations are hidden from and lost to the knowledge of men as well. The archaeological evidence that "proves" these nations once existed must be "hid up unto the Lord" in some way (shades of the Book of Mormon and its accompanying artifacts somewhere in the earth, far from the prying gaze and trampling feet of men who are as yet unworthy to know of their once glorious existence and living holy religion.

Equally astonishing is the fact that the Lord himself (in 2 Nephi 29) tells us the peoples of these nations were commanded to write divinely-inspired scriptures of their own; that these records were also, apparently, hid up unto the Lord; and that one day when all these ancient scriptural records are revealed, unearthed, translated and gathered in one, our quadruple combination scriptures might be replaced by a decuple combination.

"11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews." 2 Nephi 29:11-13

Again I say there appears to be no emperical evidence anywhere (perhaps I'm wrong?) in the annals of learning of the secular world that these great Christian nations ever existed. Yet the Lord tells us they did once exist and flourish as his beloved people. So then, if the remains of these once mighty nations are hidden at present from the world, might we not then expect the same to,be true of the Book of Mormon peoples and civilizations? Perhaps the Lehite civilization is likewise hid up unto the Lord, kept from the profane eyes and hands of wicked, undeserving men. Perhaps the sacred archaeological evidence of the remnants of the Lehites' cities "can be likened unto a book that is sealed" and "hid up unto the Lord." Might it be that the Lord is testing his people to see if they will trust in the 'voice of the Spirit' or in the arm of flesh?

Edited September 6, 2012 by teddyaware

[MormonMason]

In my own view, I am opposed to the Heartland view for many reasons, not the least of which is that the map just does not fit the Book of Mormon. Besides that, in the Heartland theory--unless things have changed recently, the river Sidon flows in the wrong direction. That is a big problem. Sidon in the Book of Mormon flows from south to north. In the Heartland theory it is the opposite so they have to situate Zarahemla in a river loop. It still changes nothing since the river Sidon flowed from the region of Manti, and Manti is south of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon, with Manti at a higher elevation. The heartland theory has to do the opposite of this.

Another serious problem is Book of Mormon descriptions of weather patterns. They just don't fit the region. They do fit Mesoamerica, though--perfectly.

Use of alcoholic beverages and a huge number of them hinted at. In the Heartland, the natives went so long without use of alcohol that the genes required for alcohol metabolism did not work as well as for those who lived in Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerica, on the other hand, the people outside of the Book of Mormon made alcoholic beverages out of all sorts of things. The same is implied for the Book of Mormon peoples with all their alcoholic beverages.

The practices of the sacrifice of human blood are Mesoamerican practices (the Book of Mormon mentions that practice and tells how useless it is).

Dyeing oneself in human blood before battle is a Mesoamerican scare tactic and practice.

The kingship structure of the Maya and other Mesoamerican groups compares favorably with that of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon Lamanites had kings over lands and cities, with a great king set over them all. Mesoamericans shared a similar structure. I know of no valid evidence that this was the case in the Heartland of what would later be called the United States. What we see there is a collection of loose federations of tribes.

If the following passage in the Book of Mormon refers to Columbus as has been interpreted so for generations, then the Heartland theory is toast on this ground alone.

12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

(1 Nephi 13:12)

This is reminiscent of the following:

Those who heard of my enterprise called it foolish, mocked me, and laughed. But who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?

(Jakob Wassermann, Columbus: Don Quixote of the Seas, translated by Eric Sutton [boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1930], 19-20)

Problem: Columbus never landed in North America, much less in the heartland thereof. He did, on the other hand, make Mesoamerican landings.

There is a lot more that could be said about this but I have run out of time for the moment.

Edited September 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[Alan]

We need to understand that Rod Meldrum is not the first or only proponent of the Great Lakes area theory. There are a number of books written by others who present credible evidence of the Book of Mormon story being played out in that area.

I would caution anyone who uses science, instead of the text of the Book of Mormon itself, to be very careful.

[Alan]

"so-called "scholars""

Why make it personal?

Snarkiness: http://www.merriam-w...tionary/snarky

"Snarkiness": An example of two nations divided by a common language.

I call them "so-called scholars" because that is what they are in my view. We give them far to much deference. How many of them have actually been digging down in mesoamerica or in the great lakes area? Not many. They just regurgitate other peoples work, often interpreting the data to fit their pre-concieved views.

I used to subscribe to the mesoamerica theory until I became a "so-called scholar" myself and altered my view.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Teddyaware. Regarding the question:

So again I ask, where is the archaeological, literary, artistc, and theological evidence that these great Christian civilizations once existed.

It might help to ask first of all, what are you looking for? Would you know it if you saw it? Would their art stand out as to be instantly recognizable, and easily interpreted by people from another culture?

Brant Gardner has emphasized how much changed for him when he "stopped looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, and started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon." That is, if someone starts there search by looking at Friberg's art, and tries to find an archeology that matches, and fails to find it, where did they go wrong? This is the lesson of Poe's Purloined Letter. Will you recognize what you are looking for when you see it?

Brant found that for him, everything changed when he first learned a great deal about Mesoamerican culture, and then took that knowledge to his reading of the Book of Mormon as set against a particular historical context.

http://www.fairlds.o...ant-Gardner.pdf

And where do you look? Larry Poulson has, I think, made some crucial observations:

The river Sidon is mentioned 37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at

least six different geographical locations.

He then entered the distinctive information in a Satellite map of the Western Hemisphere searching for candidate rivers that matched the description, finding only one. The Grijalva.

http://cmtk3.webring.../bom/index.html

Then what? It becomes of matter of convergences, as Brant as discussed. If start looking there, what other pieces of the puzzle fit? Is it south of cities build of cement starting around 100 BC? What about evidence of volcanic activity at the right time to account for the details in 3 Nephi? What about the rise and fall of civilizations at the right time? What about details of particular stories, like explaining not only how Limhi's explorers got lost (following the wrong river) but what they see along the way, including coming upon an unoccupied archeological site on the west bank of a river (La Venta) that they could have mistaken for Zarahemla.

http://cmtk3.webring.../bom/index.html

It's also a matter of trends over time, as John Clark has shown. Does further investigation tend towards or away from reconcilliation on open issues?

And what about others of the sort that the Allegory describes? After Paradigms Regained came out, I heard from a young Japanese American man in Kansas City who had gotten interested in the theory that elements of the lost tribes had made there way to Japan and had an influence on the course of Shinto. What he found was that reading Margaret Barker's work allowed him to strengthen their case. He found evidence of First Temple themes. I've got a copy of his paper and it's quite amazing. At one point the was an effort to get The Great Angel translated into Japanese.

Margaret had earlier talked about finding First Temple evidence in China, in her talk on What King Josiah Reformed.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 14, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Bart Burk]

"Snarkiness": An example of two nations divided by a common language.

I call them "so-called scholars" because that is what they are in my view. We give them far to much deference. How many of them have actually been digging down in mesoamerica or in the great lakes area? Not many. They just regurgitate other peoples work, often interpreting the data to fit their pre-concieved views.

I used to subscribe to the mesoamerica theory until I became a "so-called scholar" myself and altered my view.

A good example is the scholars' contention that because the Book of Mormon doesn't mention snow that it couldn't have happened in the Great Lakes area. They can't find evidence of a written language in the Great Lakes area so they assume the people of Book of Mormon times up in the Great Lakes area didn't have a written language. And the most laughable scholarly conclusion is there must have been two Hill Cumorahs. The reality is they don't know anymore than anyone else does about where the Book of Mormon took place. It is very hard for me to get past the reality that the Hill Cumorah we know about is in New York -- in my opinion that has to be the starting point for any Book of Mormon geography. If that causes problems I guess you would have to take it up with Moroni.

[Anijen]

There are a number of books written by others who present credible evidence of the Book of Mormon story being played out in that area.

CFR since there are "a number" of books that "present credible evidence" please list a few of these books and list some of the credible evidence that is used.

I study the archaeology or the Northeast area especially the New York, Canada area and have yet to find evidence that has more weight than that of Mesoamerica. IOW I am willing to bet that I could list two just as credible evidences for Mesoamerica against everyone listed for the heartland.

I would caution anyone who uses science

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using science to help understand and strengthen your understanding of the scriptures. The leaders of our church from Joseph Smith to President Monson has not discouraged this fact but constantly encourage it.

instead of the text of the Book of Mormon itself

You are correct we should use the Book of Mormon. However if we are studying settings to the book, then we now are including the physical world with all the sciences available to help us understand that setting. Also the authors of the Book of Mormon know more about the setting of the Book of Mormon than anyone in this modern era, that would include Joseph Smith and the modern day prophets. I would strongly encourage to place a greater importance in their words regarding the area they lived before those of modern day prophets. I am not throwing our modern day prophets words out and find them very important. Bottom line is as far as the setting of the Book of Mormon it is important to know that Mormon, Alma, Helaman, Nephi, knew more about the area where they actually lived more than Joseph, Elder Mark E. Peterson, President Marion G. Romney etc where they thought they lived.

Lastly Mesoamerica is an excellent fit. If we choose to use the opinions of our modern day prophets we must recognize that many of them including Joseph included Mesoamerica for some of the setting of the Book of Mormon. Most Heartland followers completely reject any place in Mesoamerica and focus on a United States and no other place. And they cite "promise land" quotes to support that idea. They neither understand the term promised land or the multiple meanings it has.

[Alan]

Anijen,

I am at work right now so I can't answer your question about the books. I have one of them on my bookshelf at home so I will certainly get back to you on that question.

You say "Mesoamerica is an excellent fit". It isn't. If it was I'm quite sure everyone, including Rod Meldrum et al, would be happy to accept it and this thread on this forum would not exist. The reason why many people are now looking to an alternative is precisely because it is not a good fit.

[Anijen]

I am at work right now so I can't answer your question about the books. I have one of them on my bookshelf at home so I will certainly get back to you on that question.

No problem, thanks.

You say "Mesoamerica is an excellent fit". It isn't.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

If it was I'm quite sure everyone, including Rod Meldrum et al, would be happy to accept it

I adamantly disagree. IMO Meldrum pushes a heartland theory because his motivation is profit. I repeat that. He recruits (dupes them) high profile people only to make his heartland theory more acceptable. The more acceptable the better the profit. He disagrees with a hemispheric and Mesoamerican theory because it disagrees with his money making machine therefore any setting outside a US setting is wrong.

This is my opinion of him and I admit I could be wrong. It is based solely on my personal observations of him, his presentation, and his pressure to sell (like a Kirby vacuum salesman).

My opinion of the heartland setting is based on research of the great lakes area, archaeology of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Canada (North of the Niagara). Also from the study of many of the North American Indian tribes and from study of the Book of Mormon itself.

The reason why many people are now looking to an alternative is precisely because it is not a good fit.

Why in your opinion is it not a good fit? More precisely why it is not a good fit while the Heartland is a better fit? IMO most members do not care about the setting.

[USU78]

Anijen,

I am at work right now so I can't answer your question about the books. I have one of them on my bookshelf at home so I will certainly get back to you on that question.

You say "Mesoamerica is an excellent fit". It isn't. If it was I'm quite sure everyone, including Rod Meldrum et al, would be happy to accept it and this thread on this forum would not exist. The reason why many people are now looking to an alternative is precisely because it is not a good fit.

We plainly disagree about the viability of the LGT and the placement of Lehite Polity in Mezoamerica . . . but do you really think it is good strategy to support your own thesis in part on mocking the people who've spent scores of years working on the problem? Sorenson is no fool, no matter what you personally would think of him.

[nealr]

I call them "so-called scholars" because that is what they are in my view. We give them far to much deference. How many of them have actually been digging down in mesoamerica or in the great lakes area? Not many. They just regurgitate other peoples work, often interpreting the data to fit their pre-concieved views.

I used to subscribe to the mesoamerica theory until I became a "so-called scholar" myself and altered my view.

This is manifestly false, at least when it comes to the scholars who advocate Mesoamerica as the setting of the Book of Mormon. John L. Sorenson has been on professional digs in Mesoamerica. John E. Clark has been on professional digs in Mesoamerica (and, in fact, was the director of the NWAF for a few years). Gareth Lowe and V. Garth Norman have been on professional digs in Mesoamerica. And I am quite confident that Brant A. Gardner has been on professional digs in Mesoamerica (though I'm not 100% sure on that one). Others could also be listed, but my point has sufficiently been made here. When people talk about the scholars who accept the Mesoamerican setting, it is these people who have actually done archaeological work they generally have in mind.

On the other hand, I know of no professional archaeologist who has done work in the "heartland" area who argues for the North American setting of the Book of Mormon. That is just reality. As a Book of Mormon geography enthusiast, I'll be the first to say I would LOVE to see a truly professional attempt to correlate the Book of Mormon to North America. Only then can the validity of that setting be fairly compared to Mesoamerica by all of us lay persons.

But since that has not happened and does not seem likely to happen anytime soon, I think it is legitimate to ask "why". Why hasn't any professionally trained archaeologist (or anthropologist) been drawn to the North American setting? Why do all professional Latter-day Saint archaeologists and anthropologists (who have spoken on the matter) find that setting lacks viability?

[Bart Burk]

This is manifestly false, at least when it comes to the scholars who advocate Mesoamerica as the setting of the Book of Mormon. John L. Sorenson has been on professional digs in Mesoamerica. John E. Clark has been on professional digs in Mesoamerica (and, in fact, was the director of the NWAF for a few years). Gareth Lowe and V. Garth Norman have been on professional digs in Mesoamerica. And I am quite confident that Brant A. Gardner has been on professional digs in Mesoamerica (though I'm not 100% sure on that one). Others could also be listed, but my point has sufficiently been made here. When people talk about the scholars who accept the Mesoamerican setting, it is these people who have actually done archaeological work they generally have in mind.

On the other hand, I know of no professional archaeologist who has done work in the "heartland" area who argues for the North American setting of the Book of Mormon. That is just reality. As a Book of Mormon geography enthusiast, I'll be the first to say I would LOVE to see a truly professional attempt to correlate the Book of Mormon to North America. Only then can the validity of that setting be fairly compared to Mesoamerica by all of us lay persons.

But since that has not happened and does not seem likely to happen anytime soon, I think it is legitimate to ask "why". Why hasn't any professionally trained archaeologist (or anthropologist) been drawn to the North American setting? Why do all professional Latter-day Saint archaeologists and anthropologists (who have spoken on the matter) find that setting lacks viability?

They have done professional digs there. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything from them which credibly correlates the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. I don't think they are any further ahead in proving a Mesoamerican Book of Mormon than the Heartland enthusiasts are for the Great Lakes Book of Mormon. My own guess is they will never find anything which can be linked directly to the Book of Mormon. The main reason I believe this is that I don't think the details in the Book of Mormon lend themselves to archaeological research. That wasn't the purpose of the book.

[Alan]

They have done professional digs there. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything from them which credibly correlates the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. I don't think they are any further ahead in proving a Mesoamerican Book of Mormon than the Heartland enthusiasts are for the Great Lakes Book of Mormon. My own guess is they will never find anything which can be linked directly to the Book of Mormon. The main reason I believe this is that I don't think the details in the Book of Mormon lend themselves to archaeological research. That wasn't the purpose of the book.

Well said. All the clues required to make a reasonable guess about BofM geography are contained in the book itself. I believe the story plays out in the Lakes area because that is how it reads to me.

[Alan]

Anijen,

The book on my shelf is titled The Lost Tribes of the Book of Mormon by Phyllis Carol Olive and is a the follow-up to the first book in the set entitled The Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon.

[ERayR]

Well said. All the clues required to make a reasonable guess about BofM geography are contained in the book itself. I believe the story plays out in the Lakes area because that is how it reads to me.

If it works for you.... I just wonder why there is no mention of the blizzard of 302 and again the blizzard of 398.

Edited September 6, 2012 by ERayR

[MormonMason]

We need to understand that Rod Meldrum is not the first or only proponent of the Great Lakes area theory. There are a number of books written by others who present credible evidence of the Book of Mormon story being played out in that area.

I would caution anyone who uses science, instead of the text of the Book of Mormon itself, to be very careful.

Understandable. Some of those who have proposed the Great Lakes scenario were critics of the Church with an agenda of proving that Joseph Smith just borrowed and referred to the geography of the area in which he lived.

But, when I look at the Book of Mormon and compare practices and references to similar things in Mesoamerica, including kingship structure, I see much better matches for the whole of it than I do for any Great Lakes geography. This is especially so when I look at the setting of the Book of Mormon in relation to geographical descriptions of the relationships between cities and lands, as well as the river Sidon. The entire Book of Mormon in context shows a southward to northward flow for Sidon. Most of the Heartland material I have seen and read over the years cannot get past that.

The weather patterns just don't fit, either. Where is the snow that should be talked about if most of the Book of Mormon events took place in the Heartland of what would later become the US? Where are the volcanoes that would make air that is thick and results in darkness all over the land?

Worse, there is no way to see the prophecy commonly regarded as that referring to Columbus as referring to him anymore, under any Heartland theory, because he landed in Mesoamerica, not North America.

Edited September 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[Bart Burk]

Understandable. Some of those who have proposed the Great Lakes scenario were critics of the Church with an agenda of proving that Joseph Smith just borrowed and referred to the geography of the area in which he lived.

But, when I look at the Book of Mormon and compare practices and references to similar things in Mesoamerica, including kingship structure, I see much better matches for the whole of it than I do for any Great Lakes geography. This is especially so when I look at the setting of the Book of Mormon in relation to geographical descriptions of the relationships between cities and lands, as well as the river Sidon. The entire Book of Mormon in context shows a southward to northward flow for Sidon. Most of the Heartland material I have seen and read over the years cannot get past that.

The weather patterns just don't fit, either. Where is the snow that should be talked about if most of the Book of Mormon events took place in the Heartland of what would later become the US? Where are the volcanoes that would make air that is thick and results in darkness all over the land?

Worse, there is no way to see the prophecy commonly regarded as that referring to Columbus as referring to him anymore, under any Heartland theory, because he landed in Mesoamerica, not North America.

You will find that several of the heartland models mention rivers that flow from south to north into Lake Ontario. Weather reports seem to generally be absent from the Book of Mormon.

[MormonMason]

You will find that several of the heartland models mention rivers that flow from south to north into Lake Ontario. Weather reports seem to generally be absent from the Book of Mormon.

I've seen some of those Great Lakes models. The ones I have seen put the Sidon right in the middle of the narrow neck of land. That also does not fly in the Book of Mormon because it is clear that the Sidon is in the land southward, south of the narrow neck of land, not in it. But, I am sure I have not seen all the new models that have been created over the years. If you know of ones that propose differing examples, let me look them over and I will then give you my assessment of them. But, remember that Manti must be south of Zarahemla, and that the river Sidon must run on the east of Zarahemla on its way northward, as well as adhere to other criteria. That is what the Book of Mormon tells us about these.

As to "weather reports," the Book of Mormon does mention weather events. The writers describe the heat of the day during what would be winter months in the Heartland models' locations. They describe the kinds of fevers that come with hot weather in the tropics and the plants used to treat them (again, fitting perfectly well with Mesoamerica and known plants from that region that even today are used to treat various fevers that occur during various times of the year).

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon writers NEVER mention snow and ice in their winters. There is zero mention of rivers freezing and allowing them to cross thereby. I think that would be quite unusual for a book written by people who lived in such places in and around the heartland of America. Passages of the Bible mention snow, including those quoted by the Book of Mormon. That is because it snows in the lands of the Bible during winter. Yet, no mention at all of such can be seen anywhere in the Book of Mormon. In contrast, however, this lack of discussion of winter snows would be quite consistent with a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.

[Bart Burk]

I can only find one mention of the heat of the day in the Book of Mormon. I can find one mention of fever as the result of sickness. That is enough to construct a geography around? And how would they know what a reference to snow meant if they hadn't experienced it?

I can't tell what month these citations were from in the Book of Mormon text. Record temperatures in Rochester, NY in March are in the 80s. 90s in April. 70s in February. And people have been known to get sick there all year long. And I'm not sure what the climate was like in Book of Mormon times in New York state.

I still maintain there is not enough information in the Book of Mormon to defend an alternate to a geography which assumes one Cumorah in the Great Lakes area.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Bart Burk

[MormonMason]

I can only find one mention of the heat of the day in the Book of Mormon. I can find one mention of fever as the result of sickness. That is enough to construct a geography around? And how would they know what a reference to snow meant if they hadn't experienced it?

I can't tell what month these citations were from in the Book of Mormon text. Record temperatures in Rochester, NY in March are in the 80s. 90s in April. 70s in February. And people have been known to get sick there all year long. And I'm not sure what the climate was like in Book of Mormon times in New York state.

I still maintain there is not enough information in the Book of Mormon to defend an alternate to a geography which assumes one Cumorah in the Great Lakes area.

Heat and humidity combined are far worse in Mesoamerica, and can really sap your strength, particularly if you have been laboring very hard to accomplish something in a hurry.

In one battle sequence, it takes place at the time of the new year. The enemy is frightened when they awaken to find their leader dead. They were quite fatigued from the heat of the day prior to that event. This would have been in the winter time if the people of the Book of Mormon went by any sort of solstitial calendar like many of those in various parts of the Americas.

And, no, references to times of fever are not enough, but it can be taken together with other elements to build a stronger case. These, taken together with Mesoamerican practices that seem to be discussed in the Book of Mormon, with descriptions of weapons that seem to conform to Mesoamerican equivalents, right down to arm shields, head plates, and armor made of thick animal skins or cloth, with geographical descriptions that seem to fit best in Mesoamerica, it all adds weight to the argument.

For instance, the common position of heartland models fails in light of certain criteria, particularly regarding the Sidon, Zarahemla and Manti. They often leave out crucial information and rely upon misunderstanding of the wording of certain passages of the Book of Mormon that, combined, make a good case for being anywhere but the Heartland of what would later become the US. Let me give you an example.

Valley of Gideon and Sidon east of Zarahemla (must cross Sidon from Valley of Gideon to reach Zarahemla from there). (Alma 2:26-27)

Alma goes over (crosses Sidon) upon east of Sidon to go out of Zarahemla into Valley of Gideon. (Alma 6:7)

The Valley of Gideon is east of Zarahemla, as is Sidon, which Sidon it is necessary to cross to get to Zarahemla when headed there from the Valley of Gideon.

Alma, journeying southward to Manti and gone "away to the land of Manti" from Gideon, meets the sons of Mosiah, who themselves were heading northward from the land of Nephi toward Zarahemla. (Alma 17:1)

Manti is south of Zarahemla. The headwaters of Sidon originate near Manti but still are beyond the land of Manti. The actual headwaters of Sidon are "away up beyond" (heading south and at higher altitude than) the borders of the land of Manti, where, even there, they will cross Sidon and meet the Lamanites on east of Sidon to fight them there. (Alma 16:6)

It is "up" to go toward the land of Nephi from both Zarahemla and Manti. It is "away up beyond" the borders of the land of Manti in the South Wilderness, where the actual head of Sidon is located. Thus, Sidon flows from south to north, on the east side of Zarahemla.

Even by Manti, there is a valley separating Sidon from the borders of Manti, and from this location, the Sidon still has west and east banks. (Alma 43:31-32) The south wilderness is on the east of Sidon. (Alma 16:7)

Now, look at all of the following heartland models and tell me which one, if any, fits best.

Meldrum's model.

Vernal Holley's Model.

Byron Marchant's model.

I can tell you that all these models fail because of either arrangement of relative locations of Zarahemla and Manti to the river or the proposed identification with Sidon flows the wrong direction, or regions around Zarahemla do not match in varying ways. I mean, look where Holley's map puts the valley of Alma in relation to Zarahemla and the land of Lehi-Nephi. Meldrum's map makes the Sidon go the wrong direction. It gets worse when you look at the fuller picture of battle logistics. There are a lot more river crossings involved if you look at the wider picture.

Attempts to place Manti northward fail, as do attempts to make Sidon flow the wrong direction accordingly in order to force a northern Manti or a Manti at a lower altitude than Zarahemla to force-fit a location that does not really fit as some models do.

It is also problematic in the case of the verse that traditionally has been interpreted to discuss Columbus. If that passage that I mentioned above does refer to Columbus, no heartland hypothesis or theory will ever hold up because Columbus never came to or visited what would become the continental United States, much less the heartland thereof. Columbus came to Mesoamerica. If the passage in the Book of Mormon does not discuss Columbus, then who does it discuss and what of those General Authorities who thought of the passage as representing Columbus? I can recall many official missionary copies of the Book of Mormon that used to make just that positive identification. I even have a couple lying around here in my home somewhere.

Edited September 7, 2012 by MormonMason

[Bart Burk]

Heat and humidity combined are far worse in Mesoamerica, and can really sap your strength, particularly if you have been laboring very hard to accomplish something in a hurry.

In one battle sequence, it takes place at the time of the new year. The enemy is frightened when they awaken to find their leader dead. They were quite fatigued from the heat of the day prior to that event. This would have been in the winter time if the people of the Book of Mormon went by any sort of solstitial calendar like many of those in various parts of the Americas.

And, no, references to times of fever are not enough, but it can be taken together with other elements to build a stronger case. These, taken together with Mesoamerican practices that seem to be discussed in the Book of Mormon, with descriptions of weapons that seem to conform to Mesoamerican equivalents, right down to arm shields, head plates, and armor made of thick animal skins or cloth, with geographical descriptions that seem to fit best in Mesoamerica, it all adds weight to the argument.

For instance, the common position of heartland models fails in light of certain criteria, particularly regarding the Sidon, Zarahemla and Manti. They often leave out crucial information and rely upon misunderstanding of the wording of certain passages of the Book of Mormon that, combined, make a good case for being anywhere but the Heartland of what would later become the US. Let me give you an example.

Valley of Gideon and Sidon east of Zarahemla (must cross Sidon from Valley of Gideon to reach Zarahemla from there). (Alma 2:26-27)

Alma goes over (crosses Sidon) upon east of Sidon to go out of Zarahemla into Valley of Gideon. (Alma 6:7)

The Valley of Gideon is east of Zarahemla, as is Sidon, which Sidon it is necessary to cross to get to Zarahemla when headed there from the Valley of Gideon.

Alma, journeying southward to Manti and gone "away to the land of Manti" from Gideon, meets the sons of Mosiah, who themselves were heading northward from the land of Nephi toward Zarahemla. (Alma 17:1)

Manti is south of Zarahemla. The headwaters of Sidon originate near Manti but still are beyond the land of Manti. The actual headwaters of Sidon are "away up beyond" (heading south and at higher altitude than) the borders of the land of Manti, where, even there, they will cross Sidon and meet the Lamanites on east of Sidon to fight them there. (Alma 16:6)

It is "up" to go toward the land of Nephi from both Zarahemla and Manti. It is "away up beyond" the borders of the land of Manti in the South Wilderness, where the actual head of Sidon is located. Thus, Sidon flows from south to north, on the east side of Zarahemla.

Even by Manti, there is a valley separating Sidon from the borders of Manti, and from this location, the Sidon still has west and east banks. (Alma 43:31-32) The south wilderness is on the east of Sidon. (Alma 16:7)

Now, look at all of the following heartland models and tell me which one, if any, fits best.

Meldrum's model.

Vernal Holley's Model.

Byron Marchant's model.

I can tell you that all these models fail because of either arrangement of relative locations of Zarahemla and Manti to the river or the proposed identification with Sidon flows the wrong direction, or regions around Zarahemla do not match in varying ways. I mean, look where Holley's map puts the valley of Alma in relation to Zarahemla and the land of Lehi-Nephi. Meldrum's map makes the Sidon go the wrong direction. It gets worse when you look at the fuller picture of battle logistics. There are a lot more river crossings involved if you look at the wider picture.

Attempts to place Manti northward fail, as do attempts to make Sidon flow the wrong direction accordingly in order to force a northern Manti or a Manti at a lower altitude than Zarahemla to force-fit a location that does not really fit as some models do.

It is also problematic in the case of the verse that traditionally has been interpreted to discuss Columbus. If that passage that I mentioned above does refer to Columbus, no heartland hypothesis or theory will ever hold up because Columbus never came to or visited what would become the continental United States, much less the heartland thereof. Columbus came to Mesoamerica. If the passage in the Book of Mormon does not discuss Columbus, then who does it discuss and what of those General Authorities who thought of the passage as representing Columbus? I can recall many official missionary copies of the Book of Mormon that used to make just that positive identification. I even have a couple lying around here in my home somewhere.

I suggest you look at this:

http://www.bookofmor...m/index.htm#abc

It is not Meldrum's model. I believe his is flawed. But he's got the right idea placing the Book of Mormon in the United States. Columbus' voyage began the voyages that eventually resulted in the settling of the United States. I don't see any conflict there. Have you ever heard of John Cabot?

As for heat and humidity, I've spent my entire life in the upper Midwest. I can tell you you can sweat a heck of a lot working in February-April when it gets into the 50s-60s. The heat of the day doesn't have to mean extreme heat. And I've sat at track meets in April when the temperatures have been in the 80s with 90% humidity. You can't make as much out of one verse as you are attempting

Edited September 7, 2012 by Bart Burk

[MormonMason]

I suggest you look at this:

http://www.bookofmor...m/index.htm#abc

It is not Meldrum's model. I believe his is flawed. But he's got the right idea placing the Book of Mormon in the United States. Columbus' voyage began the voyages that eventually resulted in the settling of the United States. I don't see any conflict there.

As for heat and humidity, I've spent my entire life in the upper Midwest. I can tell you you can sweat a heck of a lot working in February-April when it gets into the 50s-60s. The heat of the day doesn't have to mean extreme heat. And I've sat at track meets in April when the temperatures have been in the 80s with 90% humidity. You can't make as much out of one verse as you are attempting to make.

As for Holley's map, why are you using it? Did he even believe in the Book of Mormon?

I have read a number of heartland and related books but I have not read the one you mention in your link as of yet. I'll look over it as I get the time.

I used Holley's map because it is among the maps that people are using to try to place the map of the Book of Mormon for varying reasons.

I cited Meldrum's map because that map and his theories are the subject of this thread.

Read 1 Nephi 13:12 out loud to yourself a few times. It mentions physical encounters with the seed of Nephi's brethren. That happened in Mesoamerica and the nearby isles of the sea connected therewith. Attempting to spiritualize it into representing his beginning the voyages that resulted in colonization of the US rather than actual, physical encounters the text briefly mentions does injustice to the text and "allegorizes" it away into something it isn't. Anything other than a physical encounter is a conflict.

As to humidity in the Mid-West, I used to live there, too. Let me tell you that a humid, Mid-West heatwave doesn't hold a candle to conditions in areas in Mesoamerica. But, if you don't believe it, pay the region a good long visit and enjoy the glorious experience of hot, steamy days filled with having your clothes drenched and sticking to your body like glue without doing anything but standing there or even walking slowly with the tropical sun beating down on your head in the valleys of Chiapas. Then, compare that with hard, physical labor and tell me that the two regions still compare favorably with one another. Just saying...

[DBMormon]

I think the "Book of Mormon" took place in Colorado. I am going to hold a seminar in Ohio near my home for $150.00 a person and it includes a bologna sandwich and kool-aid lunch. I will explain my evidence then (still have to put some together). any takers?

[Bart Burk]

I have read a number of heartland and related books but I have not read the one you mention in your link as of yet. I'll look over it as I get the time.

I used Holley's map because it is among the maps that people are using to try to place the map of the Book of Mormon for varying reasons.

I cited Meldrum's map because that map and his theories are the subject of this thread.

Read 1 Nephi 13:12 out loud to yourself a few times. It mentions physical encounters with the seed of Nephi's brethren. That happened in Mesoamerica and the nearby isles of the sea connected therewith. Attempting to spiritualize it into representing his beginning the voyages that resulted in colonization of the US rather than actual, physical encounters the text briefly mentions does injustice to the text and "allegorizes" it away into something it isn't. Anything other than a physical encounter is a conflict.

As to humidity in the Mid-West, I used to live there, too. Let me tell you that a humid, Mid-West heatwave doesn't hold a candle to conditions in areas in Mesoamerica. But, if you don't believe it, pay the region a good long visit and enjoy the glorious experience of hot, steamy days filled with having your clothes drenched and sticking to your body like glue without doing anything but standing there or even walking slowly with the tropical sun beating down on your head in the valleys of Chiapas. Then, compare that with hard, physical labor and tell me that the two regions still compare favorably with one another. Just saying...

I was a missionary in Venezuela so I know about that kind of heat. The Book of Mormon has one verse that talks about the heat of the day. Heat is a relative term. The heat of the day doesn't require the book to take place in Central America. The heat and humidity in New York would cause the same type of fatigue.

As for 1 Nephi 13:12, maybe you should read it in light of verses 14-20. Also see verse 30. The Gentiles are white. They prosper in the land. They are preserved by God in a special way so they obtain freedom. The entire section seems to require the U.S. as the promised land.

But the Book of Mormon is not an archaeological guide. About all we can say is they were building forts out of earth with timbers on top. They might have used rocks. In Helaman it says they had used all of the wood so they were living in tents and homes built of cement. It doesn't say what kind of cement -- about all we can gather is they were using a building material to hold their homes together. It could have been a mud type material used with brush for all we know. It doesn't look as if they were permanent because eventually the trees grew back. In Mormon 5:5 it says their buildings were burned with fire. It is not surprising that a civilization using wood and rocks as their main buildings materials wouldn't leave much evidence of its existence. It is interesting to me that Mesoamerican apologists will take a few verses in one chapter of Helaman about cement and expand it to mean that modern day cement was a major building material in Nephite civilization. There is no justification for that.

I didn't give you the best link above. Try this from the same web site:

http://www.bookofmor...d of Israel.htm

Edited September 7, 2012 by Bart Burk