Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[Brant Gardner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[livy111us]

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:

Excellent! I think I originally stole that quote from you, so I was just regurgitating information you previously gave

[Anijen]

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.

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

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

[Bob Crockett]

As far as I know I am the only one who has accused Meldrum of priestcraft. When I did I clarified that it was my opinion. I do not find anything wrong with making a living off of guided tours, writing books etc. I am a true blue through and through capitalist.

You are free to stand by what you wrote but many feed at the trough. Not just Meldrum.

And to feed at the trough at the Church on a subject criticized by the Brethren is even worse than bad.

[Calm]

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

Chaos, I have sent you a PM asking about responding to a particular issue.

BTW, to anyone reading this including other mods is there a link for just generally contacting all mods? I looked around the forum page as well as the home page and don't see any so I just used the PM system to Chaos. I remember there being a "contact us" eons ago.

[MormonMason]

Please provide the passage in the text of the Book of Mormon that demonstrates that the river flowed north. Just one single, solitary direct reference will suffice. I'm not talking about extrapolating the information or deriving it from where other cities are, just a plain and simple reference that it flowed north. There is no such passage. Please read the article... The Mississippi; Could it have been River Sidon?

I have read that article and found it very unconvincing. There are few passages in the Book of Mormon that give point-blank statements about directions unless there is some point to be made. This is as it should be since the people of the Book of Mormon knew where just about everything was located. It was taken for granted. That much is evident from the text.

But, it is easy to extrapolate from the text some basic directions and relationships between locations. When placing these together, they tell us the direction of the flow of at least part of the Sidon, namely that part that flows from the south wilderness to Zarahemla. The layout of the region is clear enough without any necessity of having to reinterpret the evidence from the text itself. Read the following passages carefully.

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) and travels 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 it is necessary to cross to get to Zarahemla when headed there.

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 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 16:6-7)

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 eastward from Sidon and south or southward from the land of Manti. (Alma 16:7)

Now, if we take these passages together, we can indeed establish that the Sidon flows from the south to the north as Sidon passes the valley by the land of Manti. We know that the actual head of Sidon resides in the south wilderness that is southward of the land of Manti. Manti is northward of the south wilderness. Thus, the river Sidon flows northward from the south wilderness past the land of Manti and the nearby valley on the West of Sidon. We indeed establish that Sidon flows from south to north in that region.

Now, if we also realize that Zarahemla is north of Manti, and that the Sidon river flows past Zarahemla on the east of Zarahemla, and we realize that both Zarahemla and Manti are lower in altitude than is the area in the south wilderness where the head of Sidon is located, then we also can see that the Sidon flows in a northward direction past Zarahemla as well.

And, we also know that it was a downward direction in altitude between the lands of the Zarahemla and Nephi. Since the head of Sidon is south of the Nephite lands, located itself in the south wilderness "away up beyond" the borders of the land of Manti, and that the Sidon flows northward as it passes the region of the land of Manti, and that Zarahemla is lower in altitude than is the south wilderness, it stands to reason that it continues its northward flow from higher to lower altitudes, particularly since Zarahemla is north of the land of Manti.

We also do not just have those, but as I showed above, we have the travel directions given us by Mormon and Alma, and it tells us that they ran into each other as one person was headed away the region of Zarahemla and the sons of Mosiah were headed toward the land of Zarahemla when they ran into each other. All of these taken together give us a layout for the region surrounding Zarahemla and Manti, and for the flow of Sidon past both Zarahemla and the land of Manti.

I know that your model tries to postulate that the land of Manti is lower in altitude than Zarahemla. But, you then use a verse that talks not about the land of Manti but of a valley near the land of Manti that is located between Manti and the river Sidon. That says nothing regarding the relational altitude of Manti to Zarahemla.

Worse for your position, you have the lands of Antionum and Jershon in the wrong places. Yes, Jershon is east of the land of Zarahemla (but recall that the land of Zarahemla is a big place, and encompasses other lands of the Book of Mormon in the geopolitical scheme of things but is not referring to the city of Zarahemla). Yes, Antionum is south of Jershon, and, yes, Jershon is near the east sea. What you fail to tell your readers, however, is that Antionum is bordered upon the wilderness south and full of Lamanites. (See Alma 31:3). People might read your reference and they might not, for you do reference the verse. But, in mentioning the verse you do not mention the fact that Antionum bordered upon the south wilderness that was filled with Lamanites.

Well, we know that the wilderness south is higher in elevation than is either the valley near the land of Manti or the city Zarahemla. As one got closer to the south wilderness the altitude would increase. So, it is not difficult to see why they would "come down" in relation from where they were to where they were going. But, that still places Zarahemla and Manti as lower in altitude than Antionum and the south wilderness, where they were travelling to get to the head of Sidon so that they could get down into the land of Manti. Well, of course they would go "down" from where they were, because they were in the south wilderness--which we already know is at a higher altitude than both the land of Manti and Zarahemla.

This does not support your position as you might think. It rather goes against the grain of your model.

Edited September 11, 2012 by MormonMason

[Calm]

Remember, this is notwithstanding their personal attacks against my education, knowledge, grasp of the subject material, motives, etc. which were in large part based on a single private email that went to a few people who I thought were staunch supporters of my research, but one of them betrayed that confidence and sent it out to FAIR. FAIR then exploited that private email in their head-long attacks against me, falsely proclaiming that I had publicly pronounced them which they knew to be a blatant lie.

I feel the need to respond to this accusation of FAIR's actions above so that people will be informed about what actually occurred. I am only attempting to rebut the accusation of FAIR itself, not attempting to set up additional accusations of Brother Meldrum in doing so.

I have doublechecked that my memory was accurate and even received some specific information from those involved that I was not aware of before.

1. in response to the claim there were only a "few people"...the actual number was around 30, including several members of FAIR.

2. as to his claim that they were people he thought were "staunch supporters of his research", it appears that the only way he could have thought this was by a faulty attempt at mindreading as the email itself was sent unsolicited to individuals who were not actually interested in his work, let alone supporting it.

3. Meldrum himself does not seem to think it inherently immoral or unethical to post ("exploit") actual one on one emails as he has done so (without permission I believe) to Dan Peterson on his own site: http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=22

4. The email, which I refreshed my memory of by rereading, was sent out to garner feedback on his various ideas. He set up a meeting place at a school in Provo and had two times which people could attend for this purpose. However he also sent the email to individuals who would not in any likelihood be able to attend seeing as how not only were they not in Utah, they weren't even in the country. This seems to me to increase the generic/public nature of the letter itself. Perhaps others won't see it that way though.

5. FAIR quoted the email itself to support the claims being made. Unless Brother Meldrum is saying that he didn't mean what he said in the email, it seems to me that even if one were to concede (and I do not because I think the above facts demonstrate the actual public nature of the email) that it was inappropriate to use the email due to the claimed private nature of it, that does not remove the fact that he said these things whether publicly or privately and has, IIRC (and this is a qualified IIRC as I have not attempted to review past statements to see if my memory is accurate), never stated he was wrong in making these various claims, especially not prior to the publication of FAIR's review even when he had the chance.

6. In making its claim, FAIR referenced the email itself indicating the exact nature of the 'pronouncement'. There was no misrepresentation of how Brother Meldrum had shared this information.

Bottomline for me, I do not see how one can even assume privacy when sending solicitation emails to pretty much perfect strangers even if one introduces the letter using the phrase "dear friends".

Moderators: if I have crossed the line into making personal attacks or not focusing on responding to facts in the above, please feel free to delete that section.

It is all right to respond to claims that others have made as long as it isn't arguing about personal attributes.

[Anijen]

You are free to stand by what you wrote but many feed at the trough. Not just Meldrum.

And to feed at the trough at the Church on a subject criticized by the Brethren is even worse than bad.

Please could you be more specific. What do you mean by feed by the trough ( am I a pig?), criticized by the brethren, and worse than bad?

[Bob Crockett]

It is just an expression. To "feed at the trough" means to make one's living at the sufferance of and to the detriment of a large institution, often in an unseemly way. Like a pig, I suppose, since that is where the expression comes from I have no clue if you do that so my comment was not directed to you.

Anyone who wants to stay in the thread needs to stay on topic. Last warning to all.

[MormonMason]

Please...read the article and ask yourself if a smaller river that could be crossed nearly anywhere, makes any sense when the Nephites waited in a valley for the Lamanite armies to come to the river crossing. How would the Nephites know where the Lamanites were going to cross unless there were only specific places where is could be crossed? It must have been a large river with only limited crossings (either two or three at the most are mentioned in the text). ...

They knew where the Lamanites were going because of a little (or, should I say, "Great"?) thing called revelation. See Alma 16:5-6 for a previous episode and Alma 43:22-24 to address the episode which you mention above and on your Mississippi River Sidon web page. The Nephites knew exactly where the crossing was going to be, not because of their own knowledge of the layout of the geography, or of the limitations of crossing because of the situation or size of the river Sidon but because they knew by revelation from a High Priest with the gift of prophecy the precise locations where the Lamanites were going to attack.

See what a careful reading of the Book of Mormon can reveal?

[Anijen]

I apologize for my divergence off topic.

Question about Rod Meldrum's theories?

• I guess I would like him to go into detail how his elusive convergence is the head of a river and how headwaters is not?
  
• I would like to ask him to explain why he uses the Bat Creek Stone as evidence of Hebrew (found in Tennessee) and why he refuses all the experts who say it is a fake?
  
• I would like his response to the six archaeologist whom had a refutation of his video?
  
• I would like to ask him why he does not try to be balanced when giving his perspective ignoring any and all evidences that are contrary to his theory, such as what are his resonses to the quotes of Joseph and other LDS leaders that believed in a Mesoamerican connection.
  
• I would like to know how he defines choice land and promise land, and explain why there can not be anywhere else.
  

Edited September 11, 2012 by Anijen

[cursor]

BTW, to anyone reading this including other mods is there a link for just generally contacting all mods? I looked around the forum page as well as the home page and don't see any so I just used the PM system to Chaos. I remember there being a "contact us" eons ago.

I've had pretty good results from simply clicking the Report link at the lower-right corner of any post of concern. Note that you can even Report any of your own posts.

[Calm]

And if he has a moment after all that, I would love to know a nontheory point though it isn't going to look as interesting as I don't know how to make a bullet list plus there is only one item in the "list" anyway :

How did he determine who was and wasn't a "staunch supporter" to create his list of 30 or so recipients to his email?

I have been given some additional information which informs me his selection wasn't completely out of the blue, but just almost since the only interest at least one of those (further info informs me that it was two members whose only interest demonstrated was purchasing a DVD) on the list had shown was the purchase of a DVD and another had been solicited by Bro. Meldrum to see his presentation but had not expressed support for it (and the only known feedback was a correction) so it would seem that at least part of his method included looking through the order list for names of prominent people in the Church.

My information is incomplete, of course, so I would be happy to receive correction if my assumptions--based on the info I have been given by firsthand participants in the episode with FAIR and the infamous email--are faulty.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I've had pretty good results from simply clicking the Report link at the lower-right corner of any post of concern. Note that you can even Report any of your own posts.

That's what I do normally. This time I wrote Chaos directly as the "senior mod" who had responded on this thread and he very kindly quickly replied. I feel bad using the report function though because it just seems 'wrong' when I am not reporting a board violation. I tend to be nitpicky like that, lol.

[Calm]

Came across an Ensign article that some might find relevant:

https://www.lds.org/...hearts?lang=eng

The Book of Mormon illustrates this same principle in its definition of priestcraft, the sin committed by those who preach the gospel to gain personal advantage rather than to further the work of the Lord: “Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.” (2 Ne. 26:29; see also Alma 1:16.)

Priestcraft is not a sin that is committed solely on the basis of our desires because it involves acts. Those acts become sinful only when they are done with the wrong desire, to get gain or praise. The sin is in the desire, not in the act.

http://www.lds.org/s...tcraft?lang=eng

Don't really see anything here about teaching false doctrine.

And this below quote seems to demonstrate that priestcraft does not have to be about teaching false doctrine at all:

But we must be careful to remember in our service that we are conduits and channels; we are not the light. “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Matthew 10:20). It is never about me, and it is never about you. In fact, anything you or I do as instructors that knowingly and intentionally draws attention to self—in the messages we present, in the methods we use, or in our personal demeanor—is a form of priestcraft that inhibits the teaching effectiveness of the Holy Ghost. “Doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? And if it be by some other way it is not of God” (D&C 50:17–18).

http://www.lds.org/l...ery=priestcraft

It appears to be the reason we teach much more than what we teach that results in priestcraft. That it can lead to teaching false doctrine when it is a more effective way of getting gain than teaching truth is a definite possibility.

Popular Teachers and the Potential ofPriestcraft

Another illustration of a strength that can become our downfall concerns charismatic teachers. With a trained mind and a skillful manner of presentation, teachers can become unusually popular and effective in teaching. But Satan will try to use that strength to corrupt teachers by encouraging them to gather a following of disciples. A Church teacher, Church Educational System instructor, or Latter-day Saint university professor who gathers such a following and does this “for the sake of riches and honor” (Alma 1:16) is guilty of priestcraft. “Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Ne. 26:29).

Teachers who are most popular, and therefore most effective, have a special susceptibility to priestcraft. If they are not careful, their strength can become their spiritual downfall. They can become like Almon Babbitt, with whom the Lord was not pleased, because “he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church; and he setteth up a golden calf for the worship of my people” (D&C 124:84).

http://www.lds.org/l...ery=priestcraft

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[poulsenll]

Just a note about strong alcoholic beverages in Mesoamerica. One of the strongest is Mezcal, It it can reach 55% alcohol content without fermentation. It is made by cutting off the flower stalk of the maguey plant and allowing the sap to collect and ferment in the cavity of the plant. The plant reabsorbs the water in the sap leaving the alcohol behind. This beverage is known to have been produced before the arrival of the Spannish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezcal

Larry P

[cursor]

From Images of Ancient America—Visualizing Book of Mormon Life, page 45.

[Calm]

I've got that book, it's quite beautiful and a favourite. Should put it on the coffeetable but that puts it within the reach of the dog which means it is not read as often as it should be.

[cursor]

From Images of Ancient America—Visualizing Book of Mormon Life, page 42.

Fermented alcoholic drinks made from various plants were in wide use. The Spaniards labeled these beverages wine (technically they were closer to beer). There seems to have been no knowledge of distilled (hard) liquors anywhere in the Americas until the Europeans conferred that dubious gift on the Native Americans. Most of the consumption of these wines took place with religious celebrations (of which there were many!). Certain moral restrictions on drinking restrained people's consumption at other times. The aged were seldom restricted from drinking as much and as often as they wished.

Wine is mentioned quite often in the Book of Mormon from Jaredite times on. It was used both routinely and to excess (see Mosiah 22:7; Ether 15:22; Alma 55:31; and 3 Nephi 18:2). Apparently they made more than one type (see Alma 55:32). The only other beverage mentioned is water (see Alma 3:34).

[Calm]

The aged were seldom restricted from drinking as much and as often as they wished.

Effective painkillers......

[cursor]

Excessive consumption (particularly on a regular, habitual basis) can be a serious pain-causer!

[ERayR]

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

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

Edited September 11, 2012 by ERayR

[Calm]

Just got word that at least 2 other people (one of which was in another hemisphere...so much for attending a meeting the next day in Provo...granted there was another meeting scheduled the following Thursday he could have attended.....if he had been willing to shell out a couple of thousand dollars) received the "Hello dear friends" email after having only purchased his DVD so I am thinking the "few" people that Brother Meldrum assumed were "staunch supporters" were likely much more than 30, the estimate I was previously given was simply "more than 30". I would not be surprised if he had just taken his list of orders and sent it out to all of them at this point...but that is, I admit, speculation based on the fact that all but one of the people that I know who received the letter (5 and counting) only connection with his research was through the DVD purchase.

It is too bad he is unlikely to return to the thread as I would love to know if I am right.

I do think I've done pretty good at refuting his claim against FAIR's use of the email....even if I say so myself, .

add-on: just got another report that will hopefully be able to be confirmed that Brother Meldrum had reported the sale of 10,000 DVDs prior to the "Hello dear friends" letter being sent out. Don't know if he kept track of those he sold offline, if not then it is likely that it was not a full 10,000 of "staunch supporters" (yes, I am being a bit over the top here and there...perhaps lack of sleep has given me an unusual edge).

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Though what I'm about to say is non-sequitur to the most recent posts on this thread, I'll say what I have to say anyway. Here goes: The 'Heartland Theory' seems somewhat reasonable, if for no other reason than the fact that the gold plates were buried and discovered in what is now up state of New York.

Most here, I'm sure, are familiar with the principle commonly known as Ockham's Razor which states, "when you have two competeing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is usually the better." In the case of the Book of Mormon and its accompanying ancient artifacts, both sides agree it will one day be proved to all doubters, by Lord's own declaration, that about 1600 years ago a Prophet named Moroni buried the gold plates in a hill near the Smith family's New York home.

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

For this one reason alone, Mesoamerican Theory proponents should be magnanimous, gentle and kind to the 'Heartlanders.' Why? Because, let's face it, when it comes to applying the principle of Ockham's Razor to this debate, the Heartlanders would appear to espose the much more likely and reasonable scenario.

Of course, this doesn't at all prove Moroni didn't travel that long distance with the unwieldy relics in tow (for it goes without saying that God is a God of miracles) -- it's just easier and less stress-inducing to believe otherwise.

As for me, I really don't know who's on the correct side in this debate. But why don't the proponents of both camps cut their polemical adversaries some slack, because, after all, both sides make assetions that seem a stretch.

Edited September 12, 2012 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

Though what I'm about to say is non-sequitur to the most recent posts on this thread, I'll say what I have to say anyway. Here goes: The 'Heartland Theory' seems somewhat reasonable, if for no other reason than the fact that the gold plates were buried and discovered in what is now up state of New York.

It would seem so if Book of Mormon internal evidences are ignored.

Most here, I'm sure, are familiar with the principle commonly known as Ockham's Razor which states, "when you have two competeing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is usually the better." In the case of the Book of Mormon and its accompanying ancient artifacts, both sides agree it will one day be proved to all doubters, by Lord's own declaration, that about 1600 years ago a Prophet named Moroni buried the gold plates in a hill near the Smith family's New York home.

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

Even Occam's razor must give deference to the amount and quality of the evidence on one side or the other.

That Moroni transported the plates and other artifacts by himself is assuming facts not in evidence.

For this one reason alone, Mesoamerican Theory proponents should be magnanimous, gentle and kind to the 'Heartlanders.' Why? Because, let's face it, when it comes to applying the principle of Ockham's Razor to this debate, the Heartlanders would appear to espose the much more likely and reasonable scenario.

Again the quantity and quality of the evidence must be entered into the equation.

Of course, this doesn't at all prove Moroni didn't travel that long distance with the unwieldy relics in tow (for it goes without saying that God is a God of miracles) -- it's just easier and less stress-inducing to believe otherwise.

As for me, I really don't know who's on the correct side in this debate. But why don't the proponents of both camps cut their polemical adversaries some slack, because, after all, both sides make assetions that seem a stretch.

See above.

Edited September 12, 2012 by ERayR