Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Anijen]

I would strongly suggest that you not misrepresent him in any future documentation that you circulate, now that you know the truth.

Don't hold your breath.

[DNA truthseeker]

I asked ANACO in post #89 for his/her understanding of a "heartland" layout for Book of Mormon lands, not Rod Meldrum (AKA DNA truthseeker). You, sir, had not yet posted in this thread. I'm already familiar with your web-publicized efforts. In addition to reading and viewing materials on your website, I own copies of both The Book of Mormon in America's Heartland -- A Visual Journey of Discovery, and Prophecies and Promises - The Book of Mormon and the United States of America.

That is a good starting point, but the picture book, as I've clearly outlined in the beginning of it, is a very simplified overview of the primary research. To say you are familiar with the research after reading the picture book is like saying you've memorized the Oxford dictionary after reading a thesaurus. There are nearly 20 hours of condensed information in the two DVD series which you do not have and that is where the primary research is located, so unfortunately you still cannot say that you have any real "understanding" of the Heartland model geography. Being familiar with what other people have publicized is your method of conducting research? Really? No wonder there is such confusion in your posts regarding this research. So you said that you own the two books, but you never said whether you have actually read them. Have you read them? Cover to cover? If you had I seriously doubt that you'd have asked the questions you asked, because you'd know I have addressed them. Admit it, you have been caught off guard as you were bad mouthing my research when you don't even know about it, just like I caught Daniel Peterson in his New Years article Reply to a Misleading New Years Article. Since I have in the past not defended my position in order to avoid contention, you likely thought you were free and clear to say anything you wanted without recourse. Now you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you are trying to backpeddle to avoid the embarrassment you should feel for attacking something you know precious little about. Do your homework and watch the two DVD series and then you and I can have a respectful conversation. I have read most of the Mesoamerican materials but you haven't bothered to review what we have published. There is a lot to it. This is a multifaceted approach that will not be swept under the rug by name calling and casting dispersions. It is going to require some intellectual honesty on your part. I hope you are up to the challenge of having your paradigm seriously altered. Are you looking for whatever is the truth, or to defend your position no matter what?

As Dr. Sorenson's son I would offer you and your father complimentary copies of the DVD sets for your use, IF you will actually review them. If you'd like to do so, simply contact me via email and I'll make the arrangements. Some years ago the BYU debate team president attempted to set up a debate between FARMS and FIRM but FARMS/NAMI declined, citing that to do so would only lend further credibility to the Heartland Model. Based on the level of interest in our research, I'd say maybe it was time to reconsider that debate.

Edited September 10, 2012 by DNA truthseeker

[cursor]

To say you are familiar with the research after reading the picture book is like saying you've memorized the Oxford dictionary after reading a thesaurus.

As noted, I have a second text that you've authored. And, yes, I've read it (too). Additionally, as previously noted, I've read your online material. Perhaps there is some that I've missed.

Being familiar with what other people have publicized is your method of conducting research? Really? No wonder there is such confusion in your posts regarding this research. So you said that you own the two books, but you never said whether you have actually read them.

Snarky replies will hardly get you a respectable conversation.

Have you read them? Cover to cover?

Actually, yes. I don't purchase books for wall ornamentation.

Since I have in the past not defended my position in order to avoid contention, you likely thought you were free and clear to say anything you wanted without recourse. Now you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you are trying to backpeddle to avoid the embarrassment you should feel for attacking something you know precious little about.

Sheer nonsense. I have no clue what your defense posture might or might not be (or has been).

Do your homework and watch the two DVD series and then you and I can have a respectful conversation. There is a lot to it. This is a multifaceted approach that will not be swept under the rug by name calling and casting dispersions. It is going to require some intellectual honesty on your part. As Dr. Sorenson's son I would offer you and your father complimentary copies of the DVD sets for your use, IF you will actually review them. If you'd like to do so, simply contact me via email and I'll make the arrangements.

I might well take you up on that offer.

I hope you are up to the challenge of having your paradigm seriously altered. Are you looking for whatever is the truth, or to defend your position no matter what?

Back at you ...

Edited September 11, 2012 by cursor

[Calm]

What am I doing that they are not?

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.

So you don't feel that FAIR's "reviews" are in any way suggesting my unfaithfulness?

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.

• Mr. (insert your name here) has attempted to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship, and has used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.

  Where does this imply you are unfaithful to the gospel or the Church?
  

• 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.

  Where does this imply you are unfaithful to the gospel or the Church?
  

• The DVD plants erroneous concepts and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile criticswhen these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of 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.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

My father's book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, was the very first book published by FARMS (1985). I can't speak to financial relationships between FARMS/MI and other authors, but all proceeds from the sale of the text was 100% donated to FARMS. To this date he's not received a cent. That's how he elects to do "business."

And he would not be the only author who has chosen to do so in my experience.

[Calm]

Meldrum is a nasty piece of business, ain't he?

In my view he gets emotional and strikes out sometimes blindly; it is understandable given some of the charges that are given against him (I have made a few) though he could have easily avoided having them brought up in my view and I believe he has made some changes after charges have been made public to his credit. Rather than seriously examining (and this is a subjective judgment of mine, I am happy to admit) why people are making such claims he turns around and attacks them, but I think "nasty piece of business" is going too far.

I do think it says something unfortunate about how he presents his work that it is not uncommon among his followers to attack others' faithfulness in similar ways, such as calling FARMS and FAIR volunteers "apostates", basically hellbound and other such accusations.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

There are nearly 20 hours of condensed information in the two DVD series which you do not have and that is where the primary research is located, so unfortunately you still cannot say that you have any real "understanding" of the Heartland model geography.

Perhaps Brother Meldrum will be willing to send you, cursor, a copy of his work for your evaluation.

As Dr. Sorenson's son I would offer you and your father complimentary copies of the DVD sets for your use, IF you will actually review them.

Should have finished the post before commenting on that aspect of it, lol.

Based on the level of interest in our research, I'd say maybe it was time to reconsider that debate.

If by a debate, you mean holding an actual debate rather than responding in writing, I see no reason to reconsider it. Debates show who thinks best on their feet, not who has the best data and methodology to support their conclusions in my experience. Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[cursor]

I'm taking advantage of DNA truthseeker's offer, calmoriah. My intent is to listen, study, then intelligently comment and contrast.

Edited September 11, 2012 by cursor

[hagoth7]

I think Bro. Meldrum defended his views quite well here.

That's coming from one who is agnostic about BoM geography.

It would be nice if we could keep personal attacks out of all this.

[MormonMason]

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.

Edited September 11, 2012 by MormonMason

[Calm]

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.

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.com/d/search/word,head

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[MormonMason]

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.

[Calm]

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.

Well, I have the 1828 bookmarked on my computer and have referenced it ever since I discovered it online years ago probably about once a month when reading JS and others of his time comments, hadn't thought about the 1806 one, will now go and try to find an online version of that (isn't the internet a wonderful invention, )

add-on: here is the 1806 version...

Head, n. a chief, the top, what contains the brain

Head, v.t. to lead, govern, lop, top, behead, go in front, have a source or originate

http://www.premierat... Dictionary.txt Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[livy111us]

Case in point.... livy111us has made it his life's quest to bad mouth anything he finds about the Heartland model research anywhere on the internet.

It's bad form to reveal someone's real name and I've asked you not to do it, which you have ignored several times.

Moderator: It is a violation and will result in removal from the thread or board if it continues.

He claims to be neutral but if one simply looks at all of his comments on Amazon, for example, he has singled me out personally and written lengthy negative articles in his efforts to dissuade members of the Church from even looking at our research.

I have never claimed to be neutral, only to not put too much stock in BOM geography and exhort others to actually research your claims like I have (extensively at that) to see if they hold up. They do not. I wrote reviews of my findings, which is in par with the whole review process on Amazon. Just because I provide evidence that contradicts your theory, you got very angry and posted numerous "reviews" of your own work. In these reviews you call into question my sanity, mental health, motives, called me all sorts of names, etc... In this review of, well, me, you didn't forget to give yourself a 5 star rating. Classic. Amazon has since removed your comments for the reason of "slandering your [my] name," Amazon continues "this customer was not only slandering your name but also the producer." So a neutral third-party group saw the obvious problems with your posts, and zero problems with my posts. Perhaps that should be a clue as to who is being the attacker.

What should be known is that there is a real difference between the public Rod Meldrum and the real Rod Meldrum. Anyone who has caught a glimpse of the real Rod Meldrum realizes he is the polar opposite of who he would like to portray himself as. He doesn’t CONSTANTLY call names to those who disagrees with them, say that they are under the influence of satan, call them a child of hell, insane stalker, full of hate, only in it for the money (when he knows I don’t receive a penny for any of my work), etc… in his public self, but regularly does it in when he is out of the lime light.

“He is associated with the FAIR organization and has been hostile toward me and this research for four years now, always stalking our every move to place his hatred of me and this research up online as fast as he can.

Stalking? If I didn’t spend so much time outside of your house, I would have more time to “stalk” you online. Since I am sure that you will attempt to use that against me in the future, let me point out that it is sarcasm.

Instead of side-stepping the issues at hand by claiming I hate you, stalk you, jealous of you, envious of you, and other accusations you have thrown at me, you should actually deal with the evidence I bring up. You have yet to do that and only attack me as a person. That is called an ad hominem attack.

I have not done so against him or any other Mesoamerican theorist, but have encouraged members to look at both geographies and come to their own conclusions.

I actually have countless documented cases which say otherwise.

Why can't the Mesoamerican scholar's research bear the same? Why don't they encourage folks to study out the research and come to their own conclusions? Because they know the devastating results of members becoming informed with the facts...if a member objectively looks into this research there is an extremely high probability that they will consider the Heartland model a stronger, more robust theory.

I do not doubt that they will accept it. They will accept it because you are great at what you do, not because your information is solid as has been shown many times in the past. You are popular among people who are not experts in any of the fields you teach about. You know what happens when you try to prevent your theory to those who are experts.

I was going to avoid joining this conversation, but since you mention me by name, I'll add a few comments.

Our surveys have shown it consistently for the past 4 years. It is growing exponentially and has become a definite and overwhelming challenge to the theories that consider Guatemala to be a better fit for a "land of liberty" and "mighty Gentile nation above all other nations" than the United States of America.

Since the land of promise encompasses all of North and South America, I would have to agree with you. But North America is not the only portion of the land of promise.

[livy111us]

We look at all the evidence and find it wanting on the Mesoamerican side. Please, Tyler, show us one historically documented and accepted revelation from the Prophet Joseph Smith making claims of Mesoamerican as the Book of Mormon setting. Letters written by others (John Taylor's letter to Bernhisle) and unsigned Times and Seasons articles are not historically verifiable to have been Joseph's. On the Heartland side we have the Wentworth Letter (revelation), the American Revivalist account (Joseph claimed was "written by commandment from God), the Zelph account(s) (another revelation claim made), the letter to Emma written two days after the Zelph experience and D&C sections 28, 30, and 32 wherein the LORD send missionaries "unto the Lamanites" and then promises them that He would "go before them" on their journey. What about the Nephite altar at Adam-ondi-Ahman which was also revealed to Joseph? So to try once more with you...please provide just one single historically documented revelation from Joseph Smith supporting Mesoamerica...just one. We have no less than seven (7) such documents. Who is picking and choosing to dismiss authentic, historically accepted writings while clinging to non-signed, unknown authorship for support of their theories? That would be our friends in the Mesoamerican camp. Again, I didn't claim the revelation, Joseph did. Attempts to dismiss it are not going to change the facts, Tyler.

The letter was written by Joseph Smith, not John Taylor. You know better than that.

One question. If the geography of The Book of Mormon was revealed through Joseph Smith, why does the Church state that there is no revelation on BOM geography? Are they in apostasy too?

As Joseph Smith would come across information on past civilizations, he would draw parallels. Early in his life, these parallels were mainly based in North America and many were based off of Josiah Priest's work "American Antiquities", and after reading Stephens and Catherwoods book "Incidents of Travel in Central America" he drew many parallels between The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. He did not entirely teach one or the other.

I think it is necessary to mention that while it is interesting to learn what Joseph Smith believed, it in no way makes it official doctrine. The Church has taken a stand that there has never been a revelation on the subject of BOM geography, and any comments on geography are only speculation. This would include statements from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, or anyone else. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were big proponents of a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon yet their statements wouldn't add any more weight behind the Mesoamerican theory for the same reasons.

Since you are all familiar with Joseph Smith statements placing The Book of Mormon in in the "Heartland", I will provide quotes from Joseph Smith which place it outside of that model. It should first be explained that Joseph Smith was the General Editor of the Times and Seasons and took full responsibility of the contents. In March of 1842, Joseph Smith made the announcement and wrote

“This paper commences my editorial career; I alone stand responsible for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision.” (Times and Seasons, Volume 3:710)

And at the end of paper, you will find this signature block:

The Times and Seasons,

IS EDITED BY

Joseph Smith

Printed and published about the first and fifteenth

of every month, on the corner of Wa-

ter and Bain Streets, Nauvoo,

Hancock County,

Illinois, by

JOSEPH SMITH

So the statements from the Times and Seasons during his editorialship were approved and published by him. The statements from the Editor (or Ed.) were written by Joseph Smith himself.

In June of 1841, Joseph Smith published under the article “American Antiquities—More Proofs of the Book of Mormon” and speaks of the “Antiquities of Central America, which have been discovered by two eminent travelers who have spent considerable labor, to bring to light the remains of ancient buildings, architecture &c., which prove beyond controversy that, on this vast continent once flourished a mighty people, skilled in the arts and sciences, and whose splendor would not be eclipsed by any of the nations of Antiquity—a people once high and exalted in the scale of intelligence, but now like their ancient buildings, fallen into ruins.” Then the account is given of Stephens and Catherwoods travels and discoveries in Mesoamerica.

In 1842 he said that the “Mexican records agree so well with the words of the book of Ether (found by the people of Limhi…) Traits of the Mosaic History, Found Among the Aztaeca Nations, Times and Seasons, vol. III no. 16 Pg 820

He also taught that “Stephens and Catherwood's researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatamala, and other cities, corroborate this statement, and show that a great and mighty people-men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen [Mormon} unfolds their history.” Joseph Smith (editor)," American Antiquities," Times and Seasons 3/18 (15 July 1842): 860

In November 1841, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to Bishop Bernhisel thanking him for a book that he sent him by Stephens and Catherwoods which is written on their expeditions in Mesoamerica. Joseph Smith saw parallels between Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon and stated that the Book of Mormon "corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.-…”Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), 501 - 502.

And the list goes on and on…

Other leaders echoed Joseph Smiths teachings of a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon as well.

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

Parley P. Pratt said in 1842 “it is remarkable that Mr. Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon from 1827 to 1830, should mention the names and circumstances of those towns and fortifications in this very section of country, where a Mr Stephens, ten years afterwards, penetrated a dense forest, till then unexplored by modern travellers, and actually fines the ruins of those very cities mentioned by Mormon.” "Ruins in Central America," Millennial Star 2/11 (March 1842): 165.

W.W. Phelps wrote from the article “Discovery of Ancient Ruins in Central America” “We are glad to see the proof begin to come, of the original or ancient inhabitants of this continent. It is good testimony in favor of the book of Mormon, and the book of Mormon is good testimony that such things as cities and civilization, ‘prior to the fourteenth century,’ existed in America” Evening and Morning Star 1/9 (February 1833), pg 71.

Apostle John Page said in 1842 "Let it be distinctly understood that the Prophet Alma uttered this prophecy, not far from Guatemala or Central America, some 82 years before the birth of Christ." John E. Page, "Mormonism Concluded: To 'A Disciple,'" Morning Chronicle, Pittsburgh, 20 July 1842

There are also statements which place The Book of Mormon in North America but outside of Meldrums geography, we find that in 1833 Joseph Smith said "The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians". (“Mormonism,” The American Revivalist and Rochester Observer 7/6 (February 2, 1833).) The Western Tribes in Joseph Smith's day referred to the Indians from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean. The Indians in California, Oregon, Washington, etc... are too far West to fit into Meldrums geography.

[Skylla]

DNA truthseeker: You need to edit out the IRL info you included in your posts towards livy or I will delete your posts entirely.

Skylla

[MormonMason]

I have a few moments more so wanted to add one more comment. Meldrum makes much about wild grapes and his claim that grapes do not grow well in Mesoamerica.

The truth is, grapes do grow well in a number of localities in Mexico. There are wineries there. There are sections of Mexico that have a close to temperate climate with a lot of sun that grapes love.

But, the claim that Mesoamerica did not have any kind of wild grapes is also not true. I am going by memory here but if I recall correctly, there was a species of plant that is today called Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera), a kind of shrub that grows along the coasts of Mexico. These were known to the Maya as Sak tabka'an.

For the Book of Mormon, we do not know what it was that they had and used, only what they called certain things. Were they acquainted with true wild grapes? Were they acquainted with Seagrape and did they call it "grape." These are questions that are open for debate. But, Mesoamericans did make wine as well as many other kinds of alcoholic beverages. Various kinds of true wild grapes also grow from the east to the west coasts of North America, and also reaching northward into the south of Canada and south into Mexico.

A kind of wine can also be made from xocolatl (chocolate) and such chocolate beverages were drunk by Mesoamericans. Besides that, in other parts of the world wine is made from rice. The term wine does not necessarily require grapes to make and there are examples of wines made from other substances all over the world. It does not have to be made of grapes. Claiming that wine can only be made from grapes is a canard of first order. Worst of all, the Book of Mormon nowhere says that the wines that they made were made with grapes. That is an assumption made by Meldrum and company via reading it into the text.

And, if the Lord can tell the saints that it does not matter what we eat and drink for the sacrament, I see no reason why he could not do the same for the Nephites. We use water today. What and if the Nephites used something else that they called wine? If it can be acceptable now to use water, why not something else that they called wine if it did not come from grapes? Can we prove what it was that they did use? There is not enough in the text in those portions to tell us certainly what they used for wine in those events in the passages. It does, however, say that they "prepared" their wine, in that instance, to make it strong.

And it came to pass that they did take of the wine freely; and it was pleasant to their taste, therefore they took of it more freely; and it was strong, having been prepared in its strength.

(Alma 55:13)

This is of interest because grape wines can be made but they are not really prepared to make them strong. Trying to evaporate the fluid to strengthen the wine would evaporate the alcohol first. They would have had to know the principle of distillation and added the alcohol back into the drink using a distillery of some sort. Did they? Some of the other kinds of wines were actually prepared, however. Things were added to the mix to produce stronger alcohol content. Some of these drinks had to be prepared and took time to make. Among Mesoamericans, some of the peoples would use a kind of wild honey to boost the pleasantness and sweetness of the beverage. These kinds of drinks would knock people on their hind-ends, to coin a phrase, and make them see all kinds of gods before passing into unconsciousness.

For Meldrum and his followers to use the argument that anything other than grapes was not fit for use for the sacrament is another canard and one that further shows the flaws and over-rigidity in much of his thinking when he constructed his Heartland model.

[livy111us]

I have a few moments more so wanted to add one more comment. Meldrum makes much about wild grapes and his claim that grapes do not grow well in Mesoamerica.

The truth is, grapes do grow well in a number of localities in Mexico. There are wineries there. There are sections of Mexico that have a close to temperate climate with a lot of sun that grapes love.

But, the claim that Mesoamerica did not have any kind of wild grapes is also not true. I am going by memory here but if I recall correctly, there was a species of plant that is today called Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera), a kind of shrub that grows along the coasts of Mexico. These were known to the Maya as Sak tabka'an.

For the Book of Mormon, we do not know what it was that they had and used, only what they called certain things. Were they acquainted with true wild grapes? Were they acquainted with Seagrape and did they call it "grape." These are questions that are open for debate. But, Mesoamericans did make wine as well as many other kinds of alcoholic beverages. Various kinds of true wild grapes also grow from the east to the west coasts of North America, and also reaching northward into the south of Canada and south into Mexico.

A kind of wine can also be made from xocolatl (chocolate) and such chocolate beverages were drunk by Mesoamericans. Besides that, in other parts of the world wine is made from rice. The term wine does not necessarily require grapes to make and there are examples of wines made from other substances all over the world. It does not have to be made of grapes. Claiming that wine can only be made from grapes is a canard of first order. Worst of all, the Book of Mormon nowhere says that the wines that they made were made with grapes. That is an assumption made by Meldrum and company via reading it into the text.

And, if the Lord can tell the saints that it does not matter what we eat and drink for the sacrament, I see no reason why he could not do the same for the Nephites. We use water today. What and if the Nephites used something else that they called wine? If it can be acceptable now to use water, why not something else that they called wine if it did not come from grapes? Can we prove what it was that they did use? There is not enough in the text in those portions to tell us certainly what they used for wine in those events in the passages. It does, however, say that they "prepared" their wine, in that instance, to make it strong.

This is of interest because grape wines can be made but they are not really prepared to make them strong. Trying to evaporate the fluid to strengthen the wine would evaporate the alcohol first. They would have had to know the principle of distillation and added the alcohol back into the drink using a distillery of some sort. Did they? Some of the other kinds of wines were actually prepared, however. Things were added to the mix to produce stronger alcohol content. Some of these drinks had to be prepared and took time to make. Among Mesoamericans, some of the peoples would use a kind of wild honey to boost the pleasantness and sweetness of the beverage. These kinds of drinks would knock people on their hind-ends, to coin a phrase, and make them see all kinds of gods before passing into unconsciousness.

For Meldrum and his followers to use the argument that anything other than grapes was not fit for use for the sacrament is another canard and one that further shows the flaws and over-rigidity in much of his thinking when he constructed his Heartland model.

Wild grapes have been found in the Mesoamerican diet: David L. Lentz, “Plant Resources of the Ancient Maya: The Paleoethnobotanical Evidence,” in Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet,edited by Christine D. White (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999), 9.

[Chaos]

Everyone stop the personal attacks. Talk about the flaws of the theories, not the flaws of the people who promote them.

[teddyaware]

livy111us and DNA truthseeker

"DNA truthseeker, on 10 September 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Case in point.... T... L......... aka livy111us has made it his life's quest to bad mouth anything he finds about the Heartland model research anywhere on the internet.

It's bad form to reveal someone's real name and I've asked you not to do it, which you have ignored several times."

So sad and unseemly to see fellow brethren of the Lord's Restored Church involved in such a bitterly contested controvery. It's so unecessary, especially in light of the fact that the Lord's chosen prophets, seers and revelators appear, for now, to be neutral on the subject. So until they speak by revelation on the matter, and settle things once and for all, this debate is a merely a contest about words and opinions, ultimately unprovable. Why not just agree to disagree like noble and gracious gentleman, and then cheerfully go about the business of your mutual research projects without all the enmity?

Personally, I find the Heartland Model compelling, but I'm trying hard to keep an open mind on the subject. Surely, no matter which side of the controversy proves to be the correct one (remember, though, both theories could in reality turn out to be incorrect), there will be many surprises when the Lord reveals the full factual account of what actually happened. And remember, in disputes of this type there is usually more than enough blame for the generated ill will to go to go around on both sides. *** for tat (equivalent retaliation) feuding here is futile, useless and unbecoming of behavior for priesthood holders.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an stimulating discussion, but there should be a spirit of demonstrable goodwill, with a "we report, you decide" approach. Anything short of this is the devil's favored playground; he just loves it because it furthers his cause to try to destroy the Church from within, one soul at a time. This sort of thing is what caused the Great Apostacy! If you brethren couldn't participate in a prayer circle in righteousness together, it's time to step back and reassess. Paul warned well of such unproductive and unity destroying goings on when he exhorted Timothy:

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting (behaving foolishly) about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,"

[MormonMason]

Wild grapes have been found in the Mesoamerican diet: David L. Lentz, “Plant Resources of the Ancient Maya: The Paleoethnobotanical Evidence,” in Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet,edited by Christine D. White (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999), 9.

Thank you for that. I could not for the life of me recall that title you cited. The wheels were turning but you beat me to the punch.

Also, see page 185 in the same volume for a discussion of evidence of the presence of wild grape at Copan. Also, I refer you to the following:

Vitis caribaea DC. The uva silvestre, or wild grape. An indigenous species which climbs over trees in the ravines around the edge of the valley. Its fruits are small and sour, but are used by the natives.

(Wilson Popenoe, "The Useful Plants of Copan," in American Anthropologist, Vol. 21 [April-June 1919]: No. 2, p. 133).

Here are photos of the fruit of this plant (ripe and apparently unripe):

Edited September 11, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Here is another kind of wild grape from the Yucatan, Belize, and a few other areas in Mesoamerica:

[Anijen]

I have never claimed to be neutral, only to not put too much stock in BOM geography and exhort others to actually research your claims like I have (extensively at that) to see if they hold up. They do not. I wrote reviews of my findings, which is in par with the whole review process on Amazon. Just because I provide evidence that contradicts your theory, you got very angry and posted numerous "reviews" of your own work. In these reviews you call into question my sanity, mental health, motives, called me all sorts of names, etc... In this review of, well, me, you didn't forget to give yourself a 5 star rating. Classic. Amazon has since removed your comments for the reason of "slandering your [my] name," Amazon continues "this customer was not only slandering your name but also the producer." So a neutral third-party group saw the obvious problems with your posts, and zero problems with my posts. Perhaps that should be a clue as to who is being the attacker.

What should be known is that there is a real difference between the public Rod Meldrum and the real Rod Meldrum. Anyone who has caught a glimpse of the real Rod Meldrum realizes he is the polar opposite of who he would like to portray himself as. He doesn’t CONSTANTLY call names to those who disagrees with them, say that they are under the influence of satan, call them a child of hell, insane stalker, full of hate, only in it for the money (when he knows I don’t receive a penny for any of my work), etc… in his public self, but regularly does it in when he is out of the lime light.

Although I have not reviewed his books or DVDs on Amazon I have made critical comments on his youtube vids, only to find he deletes them all. I like you was not attacking him, I was giving an expert opinion on his scholarship and also like you exhorted others to search deep his sources and fact check his so called "facts". Anything remotely reviewed that takes away from his theories are removed. He simply turns a blind eye to any type of peer review and then to boot insults me (apostate,child of hell, and the irony that I am only in it for the money, and like you I have not asked for or received one cent) Edited September 11, 2012 by Anijen

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think accusations of "priestcraft" can be made by any adherent of a particular Book of Mormon geography. For every Rod Meldrum leading Book of Mormon tours for money, there are MesoAmerican supporters as well as LDS-Israel tour guides who do the same. For money.

Dr. Sorenson may have indeed donated the proceeds of his book to FARMS, but somebody made money off of it -- from the booksellers, to distributors and to FARMS itself.

The question is whether Book of Mormon geography is worthy of academic or popular study. I think the answer is "no," and I further believe that those who spend BYU assets (salaried time; staff resources) or those who charge the faithful (DVD sales, seminars) are doing exactly what the Brethren have discouraged on the subject. It is the same, really. Selling trinkets at Lourdes.

I contrast this trinket-salesmanship to legitimate study of the Book of Mormon. Those who study its text, its provenance, its historical basis, its internal structure and who sell books on the subject are a little above the Lourdes-trinket salesman, but only because the Church has never condemned this kind of study.

I liken the professional or popular-for-money study of Book of Mormon geography to the member of the Church who is told to avoid affiliation with groups which advocate plural marriage, but nonetheless support them by attending their meetings and providing financial support.

[KevinG]

Studying the history of the church and book of Mormon then publishing results in capitalist countries requires a certain amount of donations or for profit activities. I wouldn't be too harsh. Its not like selling indulgences or getting paid for giving blessings.

Even BYU has study abroad semesters that require tuition and travel expenses.

I too wish Meldrum and others would skip the personal shots and discuss their theories and the evidences for them. I think the content is fascinating but the argument is petty and childish.

Edited September 11, 2012 by KevinG