An Open Letter To Rodney Meldrum

[Sevenbak]

Just an FYI, the church puts little importance on the Zelph incident. The arrowhead the church had kept all these years turned out to be an arrow head from the Utah area of the Rocky Mountains not from Russel's mound #8 where the Zelph incident occurred. When I contacted the church history department they emailed me back and told me all this and referred me to Kenneth W. Godfreys paper; What Is the Significance of Zelph in the Study of Book of Mormon Geography?

 

Hope that helps.

Hi Anijen.  Can you provide a copy of the email that you received from the CHD that minimizes the account of the Zion's Camp incident on the Illinois River?  According to the correlated manual, it states that "the Prophet inquired of the Lord and learned in an open vision" … so the Church is still teaching a revelatory history about Joseph that collaborates with the numerous statements by others.   I'm not so concerned with artifacts, they come and go and are hard to prove they trace to original firsthand incidents.  There are many arrowhead stories, from many GA's, some of which originate in NY.  I imagine that Church has more than one, and that families have others.   What I'm most interested is the email you got from the Church that minimizes the incident so much.

 

Thanks much!   

[carbon dioxide]

I don't know where the Book of Mormon setting occurred but I am quite confident where it did not happen.  Any place that gets very cold pretty much can be discounted.  If we learned anything from this past winter it is that a polar vortex would be difficult to live through even under good planning.  I know the half naked Lamanites would not last very long from an artic blast.  So Canada, North and South Dakato, Great Lakes area,  I feel fairly certain that is not where the events in the Book of Mormon occurred.

[Sevenbak]

Well, this speaks to two issues, but it would seem to contradict one or the other.  The LGTheorists can't have both, it's got to be one or the other.  I'll let y'all choose… nakedness or winter warfare.  There can be only one.  (spoken in my best clan McCloud accent)

 

Alma 49:6 "...and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thick garments to cover their nakedness." 

[livy111us]

Not at all. Mesoamerica is a tropical area but they used to wear garments of skin and thick garments as armor. This is a direct hit for Mesoamerica.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Ay4h3lCWc

Edited July 4, 2014 by livy111us

[Sevenbak]

The very same can be said for the land Northward though.  That's the point.  Just because one reference has them in loin cloths and shaved heads doesn't mean that they were always so.
 
A good example of this is 18th century watercolor of Algonquins of the Canadian northeast.  Notice that at least one of them is largely naked under that robe or blanket.

 

 

 
You also need to understand I'm not advocating a Meldrum geography.  I'm very much in favor of Mesoamerica being the main land for most of the BoM.  I do believe however, that the Land Northward was and included the United States.

 

It's also interesting to note that in the very same paragraph that Joseph exalts Steven's and Catherwood's book, he likewise speaks of N. America and the mound people as also being from BoM peoples.  It wasn't one or the other, and he didn't change his stance on the subject.   Honestly, I can't see how some people gravitate to him changing his mind after reading this book.  He was inclusive, not exclusive.

 

Times and Seasons, vol. 3 (November 1841-October 1842), Vol.. 3 No. 18 July 15, 1842 860.

If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c.—were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized—that a great and a mighty people had inhabited this continent—that the acts sciences and religion, had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia. Babylon, Ninevah, nor any of the of the Levant could boast of more perfect sculpture, batter architectural designs, and more imperishable , that what are found on this continent. Stephens and Catherwood’s researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous , the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the 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 speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen unfolds their history.—ED.

 

 

It's not one or the other, it's both.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Sevenbak

[livy111us]

Really? I thought I remembered you believing in an HGT setting, but I could be wrong.

 

The Book of Mormon does give us the kind of clothing that they wore and before the Lamanites wised up and began to wear armor, they wore loincloths year round. It would be difficult to do this if it was centered in the Great Lakes region and survive. But, that is not what you are arguing. I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I believe that Mesoamerica was the main lands of The BOM and that many of the travels northward took the Nephites to what several areas of what is now the USA.

 

I also completely agree with your assessment on Joseph Smith's beliefs on BOM geography. He never gave up on a North American setting for The BOM when he began teaching a Central American setting, but just included it into his geography. He even placed the BOM in North America up until the time of his death while still maintaining a Mesoamerican setting as well. If you want Joseph Smith to agree with you then you need to accept an HGT. It's as simple as that. Not one LGT can claim that JS exclusively taught their theory. That is one thing that drives me nuts about Meldrum. He makes this claim knowing that JS placed The BOM in Mesoamerica as well. 

[Sevenbak]

Agreed.  Except for where the text says they wore loin cloths year around.  Perhaps they did down south in lower elevations, but they weren't limited to such a small area.
 
The HGT... Hemispheric, I'm assuming you mean, is probably closer aligned to what I believe.  They didn't start migrating north to an exceedingly great distance until the end of Alma.
 
 

 

Edit to add:  I've shared this before, but it's worth repeating… Orson Pratt said it best.  "...the people of " NEPHEL" or " NEPHITES" dwelt in the country of the mounds, from fifty years before Christ, till three hundred eighty-four years after Christ."  

 

 

It was the end of the BoM that had them in the US, but it began in and was mostly Mesoamerica.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh, the LGT claims the Nephites and Lamanites only fought after the harvest was in:

"When the seasons for cultivation and warring in Mesoamerica before the time of Columbus are studied, an equally sharp division is seen. (The schedule is essentially the same anywhere in tropical America, in fact.) The preparation and cultivation of farmlands and other domestic chores went on from about March through October, which constituted the rainy season. Wars began after the harvest and mainly went on during the hot, dry months, November through February. Of course, camping in the field was sensible at this time, and movement was least hampered by the swollen streams or boggy ground common in the other part of the year."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=49&keyword=Seasonality%20of%20Warfare%20in%20the%20Book%20of%20mormon

It's considered more accurate than the Book of Mormon because the Nephites lived among swollen streams, soggy bottomland and monkeys.

Hey daddy! I just finished throwing the hay in the loft and filling the cellar with squash and corn! Can I now try out my new macuahuitl on a Nephite?

No son! The Nephites haven't yet finished with their harvest!

Hey, Tiki, I'm having trouble deciding whether you are mocking or just being mawkish (in a friendly sort of way).

 

However, you should be informed that the kings in the ancient Near East also had a season for war -- in which "kings go forth to battle" (II Samuel 11:1)  -- since mud and harsh weather don't make for efficient movement of armies.  Do you bother with practical realities?

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................   

* Dr. Sorenson claims the Lehites had no animals in their journey from Jerusalem. The LGT Scribes can't even keep track of their own fables.

Which fabulous tale are you telling us here, Tiki?  I know of no one who has ever said that Clan Lehi did not use animals in their journey from Jerusalem.  They may debate whether the animals were camels, mules, horses, and the like, but no one has ever made the claim you falsely assert.

 

Perhaps you are referring a bit inaccurately to the journey from Bountiful to the New World by ship, and whether animals were taken on board.  Perhaps you could CFR the locations where "the LGT Scribes can't even keep track of their own fables."  Your claims are regularly noteworthy for their lack of attention to detail.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[livy111us]

But Orson Pratt also placed BOM events in Mesoamerica. He was generally an HGT. I can point to a dozen early apostles who placed events in where I believe The BOM to have taken place as well. Orson Pratt was speaking for Orson Pratt, not the Church, so his statement is irrevelant.

 

In regards to the loincloths year round, Randall Spackman has done the most comprehensive work on The Book of Mormon calendar, and concluded that the first of the year was in February http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1397&index=8

 

Lund writes:

"In the Eastern Mesoamerica coastal region, the average temperature on April 1st is 88 degrees. The Book of Mormon reports that Amalickiah camped in tents, "on the beach by the seashore" (Alma 51:32). In the northern climates around Rochester New York, the average temprature for April 1st is 42 degrees with the evening minimum temperature at freezing. The heat of the day is a phrase that best applies to Mesoamerica for late March and early April..." One wouldn't wear loin clothes to battle in tempratures like this, then complain it was to hot. If it was in North America, they should be mentioning how cold it was.

 

More interesting points can be found in Alma 14:8-23 when Alma and Amulek had their clothes taken from them, bound with cords and suffered "many days". Alma 10:6 sets the date as the 4th day 7th month, or around the beginning of October, end of September (lunar calendar). They were delivered from the prison on the "twelfth day in the tenth month" (Alma 14:23). That is about 96 days in prison, and corresponds to around the first week in January. If the BOM happened in N. America, the temp that they would have to endure would be, for the first week of January, a high of 31 degrees, and a low of 19 degrees. They would have surely died from exposure. But in Mesoamerica, the lowest temp would be in the mid-sixties. It would be cold, but survivable.

 

Enos who lived between 544 bc and 421 bc described the Lamanites as "wandering about the wilderness with a short girdle about their loins and their heads shaven" (Enos 1:25)

Around 178 bc, Zeniff said of the Lamanites dress "And they had their heads shaven and they were naked; and they were girded with a leathern girdle about their loins" Mosiah 10:8

In 87 bc said  "the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins" Alma 3:4-5

74 bc "they were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins, yea all were naked save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites" Alma 43:20

 

Alma 43:37 "nakedness was exposed"

Alma 44:18 "naked skins and their bare heads"

19 ad 3 Nephi 4:7 "lamb-skin about their loins"

The internal evidence in The Book of Mormon confirms that the Lamanites came to battle year round. Some of the wars lasted for six years and thye were not seasonal, but one continious struggle (Alma 51-62). As previously quoted, the naked and shorn Lamanites came to war in the sixth month (Sept, 3 Nephi 4:7) and the commencement of the year (April), and at the years end (March) (3 Nephi 4:1, 2:17, ALma 56:20). Teancums killing of Amalickiah was on the last day of the first month,March, and on the first day of the new moon near April 1st, they found Amalickiah dead in his own tent (Alma 51:33-37). Supplies are brought to the Stripling warriors of Helaman in the second month (May) (Alma 56:27). And these same groups of young soldiers were fighting in the seventh month (October) (Alma 56:42). Alma records a battle in the eleventh month (Feb. 10th) (Alma 49:1)

The sum of the matter is that the Lamanites came to battle and war dressed in only a loin cloth, and their heads were shaven. This tradition was perpetuated for centuries. They came to battle in Feb. March, April, May, Sept, and Oct. as specifically mentioned in the BOM, and some wars lasted for years. It is doubtful these battles took place in a climate not conducive to nakedness and loinclothes. Feb. in New York with loincloths is a stretch for the most avid adherent to the Canadian border believers. Year-round loincloths in Mesoamerica are a well established fact. When the explorer John Lloyd Stevens first arrived in Mesoamerica he made some preliminary observations: "The Indians were naked, except a small piece of cotton cloth around the loins, and crossing in front between the legs" It was November 1839.

 

 

 

What are your beliefs on South America? Do you believe BOM events took place in that area as well?

I may go into the climate a little deeper with you to hash out my own beliefs on it for criticism. You've got a good head on your shoulders and enjoy our conversations.

Edited July 5, 2014 by livy111us

[Bob Crockett]

But Orson Pratt also placed BOM events in Mesoamerica.

And the ancient Hill Cumorah in NY.   I don't know what that gets you.  Certainly no support for Sorenson's theory.

What are your beliefs on South America? Do you believe BOM events took place in that area as well?

 

Yes.  So says Times and Seasons articles edited by Joseph Smith.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

Hey, Tiki, I'm having trouble deciding whether you are mocking or just being mawkish (in a friendly sort of way).

 

However, you should be informed that the kings in the ancient Near East also had a season for war -- in which "kings go forth to battle" (II Samuel 11:1)  -- since mud and harsh weather don't make for efficient movement of armies.  Do you bother with practical realities?

I am mocking.

The "practical reality" is that the Book of Mormon states otherwise. I and others here have referred to verses in the text which disagree with Sorenson's conclusions. You apparently missed them.

But of course, if appealing to the Book of Mormon as the authority for this, let us know. For I thought the LGT was supposed to agree with the Book of Mormon, not some Near Eastern kings as recorded in the book of Samuel.

[livy111us]

And the ancient Hill Cumorah in NY.   I don't know what that gets you.  Certainly no support for Sorenson's theory.

Yes.  So says Times and Seasons articles edited by Joseph Smith.

 

Bob, I was speaking to Sevenbank.

 

The point of the Orson Pratt comment is that ANYONE can find a past Prophet or Apostle to support their specific BOM geography. They are/were welcome to believe any geography that they liked and so there were as many opinions back then about where the events of the BOM took place as there are now. There is so much contradiction because people are left to their own studies and don't have revelation from the Lord where the main events of the BOM took place. So I can find quotes which contradict your theory and you can find quotes to contradict mine. The LGT can find quotes to contradict the HGT and the HGT can find quotes to contradict LGT. By only quoting past leaders to support your theory is futile because there is no harmony of thought among them. If we want to locate BOM lands the best way to do that is to stick to the BOM and find geographical and cultural similarities between BOM and ancient cultures.

[Anijen]

The Book of Mormon does agree with a Mesoamerican setting, actually better than any other proposed setting. This is going by archaeological findings as well, and just as importantly by the text of the Book of Mormon.

[livy111us]

I am mocking.

 

 

You are quite good at that, and doing so without providing any real substance to the argument.

Edited July 5, 2014 by livy111us

[Anijen]

 If we want to locate BOM lands the best way to do that is to stick to the BOM and find geographical and cultural similarities between BOM and ancient cultures.

Excellent and succinctly put. 

[Tiki]

Which fabulous tale are you telling us here, Tiki?  I know of no one who has ever said that Clan Lehi did not use animals in their journey from Jerusalem.  They may debate whether the animals were camels, mules, horses, and the like, but no one has ever make the claim you falsely assert.

 

Perhaps you are referring a bit inaccurately to the journey from Bountiful to the New World by ship, and whether animals were taken on board.  Perhaps you could CFR the locations where "the LGT Scribes can't even keep track of their own fables."  You claims are regularly noteworthy for their lack of attention to detail.

No problem, friend. BTW, nice comments you wrote earlier about Rod Meldrum who's in your High Priest Group. If I still lived in UT, I would not mind visiting your meetings.

 

Here is the quote by Dr. John L. Sorenson. Have you heard of him?

 

When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 (1992): 1–34.

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/19660

There's a .pdf from the link above, at it appears the article no longer resides at the MI site.

 

Bold added below

Notice how Dr. Sorenson uses the argument that animals are not mentioned in the text - to prove his point that there were others, who also are not mentioned in the text. (silly logic)

 

 

Since it is certain that "others" passed on knowledge about

and a taste for com to the Nephites and Lamanites, it becomes

likely that other cultural features also came from them. The

keeping of "flocks," for example (Mosiah 9:14; cf. Enos 1:21),

was not a pattern which Lehi's folks are said to have brought

with them; no animals are mentioned in Nephi's Old World

record (it is purely speculation that they utilized camels or any

other animals in their trek from Jerusalem to Bountiful). Even if

they started out with animals, these would not have survived the

party's famine-plagued journey through western Arabia (note,

for example, 1 Nephi 16:18-32). Moreover, no hint is given that

any were taken aboard Nephi's boat (in specific contrast to the

Jaredite case-see Ether 6:4). So how would they have obtained

native American fowls or other animals to keep in "flocks," or,

more importantly, how would they have discovered techniques

for successfully caring for them? Discovery or invention of a

major cultural feature like the domestication of animals is rare

enough in human history that it is highly unlikely that these

-newcomers could simply have pulled themselves up culturally

"by their bootstraps" in this way in a generation or two.

 

 

 

Dr. Nibley, as recorded at the M.I. disagrees with Dr. Sorenson:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1135&index=8

 

When I first came here, I started writing Lehi in the Desert. The Church had a rather ridiculous film out in which they showed Lehi's people all going through the desert carrying everything they had on their backs because the book doesn't mention any animals of burden, you see. One person would be carrying a jar, etc. Now to wander eight years in the wilderness and cross the Rub al Khali, the worst desert in the world, in that condition, you're not going to get very far with all the little kids walking. Who would carry everything? Everything had to be carried. Lehi was a rich man. He was carrying down all his family and provisions and tents into the wilderness. Here's a typical chief's tent (I'll show you these pictures here). Here's the tent. Now, you're not going to fold up a tent like that and carry it on your back. It's a huge tent, their tribal tent. Over and over again, Nephi says, "And my father dwelt in a tent."

 

 

So the later claim by the F.A.R.M.S. LGT Scribes that Lehi sold his camels to be able to afford buying logs from India, etc., for Nephi's ship, it triply ludicrous.

But like I wrote earlier, F.A.R.M.S. and the LGT Scribes are experts at contradicting amongst themselves, with the scriptures, and Jumping the Shark.

The LGT is a house of confusion. It's a fable.

 

Brother Robert F. Smith, will the quotes above suffice for you?

Edited July 5, 2014 by Tiki

[Bob Crockett]

The point of the Orson Pratt comment is that ANYONE can find a past Prophet or Apostle to support their specific BOM geography.

You haven't and can't make your point.  You'll not be able to point to any "Prophet or Apostle" who agrees with the Sorenson model.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

No problem, friend. 

 

Tiki,

 

When was the last time you changed your mind after an online discussion? If never, why do you make others waste their time?

Edited July 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tiki]

Tiki,

 

When was the last time you changed your mind after an online discussion? If never, why do you make others to waste their time?

You can leave. I was replying to Robert F. Smith.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Tiki

[MormonFreeThinker]

You can leave. I was replying to Robert F. Smith.

 

and you can answer my question, how many times have you changed your mind after participating in a online discussion? Never?

Edited July 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tiki]

and you can answer my question, how many times have you changed your mind after participating in a online discussion? Never?

Is changing one's mind a requirement for being here?

[MormonFreeThinker]

e

Is changing one's mind a requirement for being here?

 

No, you are free to waste your time and the time of others. 

Why don't you answer my question?

[Tiki]

e

 

No, you are free to waste your time and the time of others. 

Why don't you answer my question?

Because it would be a waste of your time.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Because it would be a waste of your time.

 

We won't know until you answer it, it depends on your answer.