Heartland Theory Question

[nosmelone]

So I have been just doing some research on Book of Mormon evidences for both Mesoamerican and a Heartland setting and have been looking for relics, stones, tablets anything from the Heartland area that would be recognized as evidence.  I am familiar with the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, Bat Creek Inscription, Michigan Relics, Burrows Cave Relics, Newark Holy Stones, Davenport Tablets, and  Grave Creek Stone but was wondering if anyone can name any others that may not be as questionable as those noted above?  I am not trying to turn this into an argument over theories I am set in my theory but am just doing some research for a blog post and would appreciate any direction on relics, ruins or anything I may have missed. Thanks.

[canard78]

Zelph?

[sunstoned]

The Bat Creek Stone is a suspected forgery:

 

A forged item can tell us nothing about ancient America in general, or the Book of Mormon in particular. Any current source that uses the Bat Creek Stone as evidence should be treated with caution; its author(s) are not using the most up-to-date information. At the very least, it is premature to rely on the Bat Creek Stone as evidence of anything related to ancient America.

 

 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Bat_Creek_Stone

[canard78]

This board has very few (if any) heartland advocates so it's unlikely any of us will have much in the way of viable evidence to propose that supports it.

[JAHS]

I  assume you are aware of this website?

 

http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/video_gallery.php

 

They have what they call "evidence" and even provide tours of the heartland locations which they believe are associated with the Book of Mormon

[Brant Gardner]

The Bat Creek Stone is a suspected forgery:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Bat_Creek_Stone

Not just the Bat Creek Stone, but every one of the "evidences" listed in the opening post.

[Brant Gardner]

I  assume you are aware of this website?

 

http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/video_gallery.php

 

They have what they call "evidence" and even provide tours of the heartland locations which they believe are associated with the Book of Mormon

This is Rod Meldrum's site, and is probably the epi-center of heartland thinking. I hadn't looked at the site for quite a while, so I looked at a few things on the site. I don't really know the nature of the relationship between Wayne May and Rod Meldrum, but it appears that Meldrum's main contribution has been either on the side of prophecies (though with Bruce Porter) and in the DNA material. Wayne May is providing the "evidence" supporting the archaeological correlations. If I didn't know anything about the data, I would certainly be impressed with both the DNA and archaeological arguments. I looked at one of the video clips where May is speaking of linguistic confirmation. He points to Mi'kmac hieroglyphs that are virtually the same as characters in the Anthon transcript--then cites Barry Fell as the non-LDS scholar who actually called them reformed Egyptian. Impressive. Except that they were petroglyphs that an early French priest expanded and adapted to a writing system, and May shows the post-adapted characters. As for Fell, I doubt you would find many (if any) serious linguists who accepted anything he had said concerning early writing systems in the Americas. So, it really sounds good--if you don't mind scholarship that has long been known to be incorrect.

[JAHS]

This is Rod Meldrum's site, and is probably the epi-center of heartland thinking. I hadn't looked at the site for quite a while, so I looked at a few things on the site. I don't really know the nature of the relationship between Wayne May and Rod Meldrum, but it appears that Meldrum's main contribution has been either on the side of prophecies (though with Bruce Porter) and in the DNA material. Wayne May is providing the "evidence" supporting the archaeological correlations. If I didn't know anything about the data, I would certainly be impressed with both the DNA and archaeological arguments. I looked at one of the video clips where May is speaking of linguistic confirmation. He points to Mi'kmac hieroglyphs that are virtually the same as characters in the Anthon transcript--then cites Barry Fell as the non-LDS scholar who actually called them reformed Egyptian. Impressive. Except that they were petroglyphs that an early French priest expanded and adapted to a writing system, and May shows the post-adapted characters. As for Fell, I doubt you would find many (if any) serious linguists who accepted anything he had said concerning early writing systems in the Americas. So, it really sounds good--if you don't mind scholarship that has long been known to be incorrect.

Yeah, I certainly don't plan on wasting any money on one of their tours. 

[rameumptom]

Most of those relics you mentioned, if actual relics, date to after the Nephite BoM period. If true relics (and Zelph falls in this), they could just as easily have been other groups from the Middle East or some of the Nephites that Hagoth carried north and out of the BoM's main story area.  There is evidence of Maya trade and travel as far away as Florida.

 

Mounds do not correlate in the correct time frame. Size of populations do not correlate. Finding a few interesting artifacts do not make a full theory that correlates with the BoM.

[Uncle Dale]

...would appreciate any direction on relics, ruins or anything I may have missed. Thanks.

 

 

Well, there's the Nephite tower (or Nephite altar, or Adam's altar,

or the grave of Adam -- or whatever) in Daviess County, Missouri.

 

 

 

Some of my ancestors lived up there, until "gentile persecution"

got too hot for them, and they moved down to Far West.

 

I suppose that if there was ever a "heartland" it would have centered

upon the Garden of Eden location and the site of the future Great

Temple of the Millennium and the culmination of the 7th Dispensation.

 

Then again, I haven't had much reason to think of such things since

I was a kid and reading fantasy at the comicbook level.

 

UD

[nosmelone]

Thanks guys.  Yes I am aware that all of the relics I originally mentioned are fraudulent.  I am just putting together a list of them.  I am a diehard Mesoamericanist but I have seen many Heartlanders try to pass these off as legitimate evidences so I was in the process of collecting a list just for rebuttal purposes.  Thanks again.

[Kaleb Webb]

 

 

This board has very few (if any) heartland advocates

There's one right here, although the only evidences of it I'm familiar with are how well it fits with the BoM geography compared with the other geography models I've seen, and Zelph.

[ERayR]

There's one right here, although the only evidences of it I'm familiar with are how well it fits with the BoM geography compared with the other geography models I've seen, and Zelph.

 

You must be joking.       

[Sevenbak]

This board has very few (if any) heartland advocates so it's unlikely any of us will have much in the way of viable evidence to propose that supports it.

The heartland theory is a recent phenomenon, but in relative terms, so is the Meso only idea. Both limited geography theories have their flaws IMHO.

[Kaleb Webb]

 

You must be joking.          

 

Nope, although I admit it's been a long time since I researched Book of Mormon geography theories.

[Brant Gardner]

Nope, although I admit it's been a long time since I researched Book of Mormon geography theories.

There are a lot of people who have been impressed with the Heartland geography, though Heartland discussions move away from geography very quickly. Most discussions will center around DNA, artifacts, and prophecies rather than specific discussions of geography. There is a good reason for that, The geography does not work with any careful reading of the Book of Mormon.

 

If you are going to support a geography of the Book of Mormon tying it to a known geography, there are multiple requirements. Every geography gets a couple of them right, but most fall apart when you start to look at the details. One of the problems is distance. There is no indication that any basic travel in the Book of Mormon is other than on foot. While horses are mentioned, no one rides one. The assumption that the horse pulls a chariot is no more than an assumption. The text does not say that nor is there any part of the text that would suggest the kind of cultural revolution that would cause. That means that distances cannot be as long as many geographies (including the Heartland hypothesis) require. 

 

The text requires that Bountiful be in a strategic location that can protect the way northward. In the Heartland hypothesis, no matter where you put Bountiful, you either simply go around it--or end up in a northland where there were no people in Book of Mormon lands. The text requires a place north of Book of Mormon lands that is devoid of trees, uses cement for buildings, and has lots of water. I have heard adobe as the explanation for cement, but in places that are dry enough for adobe to be practical, there isn't much water.

 

Finally, you have to have peoples living in the regions described in the text at the times described. One of the most important aspects of the Book of Mormon for that correlation is the relationship between the Jaredites and the Nephites. There is both a time and physical distance between the two, with no direct overlap (with Nephites, and only one person with the people of Mulek). While the Adena and Hopewell might represent roughly the right time periods, the Adena overlap with and precede the Hopewell in the same places--contrary to the requirements of the Book of Mormon.

 

If it has been a while since you have looked at geography, you might want to look again.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

This is Rod Meldrum's site, and is probably the epi-center of heartland thinking. I hadn't looked at the site for quite a while, so I looked at a few things on the site. I don't really know the nature of the relationship between Wayne May and Rod Meldrum, but it appears that Meldrum's main contribution has been either on the side of prophecies (though with Bruce Porter) and in the DNA material. Wayne May is providing the "evidence" supporting the archaeological correlations. If I didn't know anything about the data, I would certainly be impressed with both the DNA and archaeological arguments. I looked at one of the video clips where May is speaking of linguistic confirmation. He points to Mi'kmac hieroglyphs that are virtually the same as characters in the Anthon transcript--then cites Barry Fell as the non-LDS scholar who actually called them reformed Egyptian. Impressive. Except that they were petroglyphs that an early French priest expanded and adapted to a writing system, and May shows the post-adapted characters. As for Fell, I doubt you would find many (if any) serious linguists who accepted anything he had said concerning early writing systems in the Americas. So, it really sounds good--if you don't mind scholarship that has long been known to be incorrect.

Not to get too far off subject, but I envy Meldrum for the correction and criticism he has received. My own theory, not on the Book of Mormon but on the Book of Abraham, thus far attracts no substantive criticism. Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer some in the way you did above with Meldrum? If you are willing to, here's a post. Thanks http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64906-book-of-abraham-solution/#entry1209464861

[DragonLancer]

Not to get too far off subject, but I envy Meldrum for the correction and criticism he has received. My own theory, not on the Book of Mormon but on the Book of Abraham, thus far attracts no substantive criticism. Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer some in the way you did above with Meldrum? If you are willing to, here's a post. Thanks http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64906-book-of-abraham-solution/#entry1209464861

 

Substantial correction and criticism has been offered.  He hasn't been willing to "receive" it.

[Investigating]

This board has very few (if any) heartland advocates so it's unlikely any of us will have much in the way of viable evidence to propose that supports it.

 

Just curious.

 

How do those of you who subscribe to a Mesoamerican geography explain the presence of precolumbian European DNA (X haplogroup) in the North American (plains Indian) gene pool?

Edited February 9, 2015 by Investigating

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

[Investigating]

Why does that paper say that the X haplogroup is primarily East Asian when Rod Meldrum says it's European?

[Calm]

The people who wrote the article are scientific experts in the field.  Meldrum is someone who loves the data when it agrees with him and just ignores it when it doesn't…and probably doesn't understand the implications all that well to begin with.

[Brant Gardner]

Why does that paper say that the X haplogroup is primarily East Asian when Rod Meldrum says it's European?

The X haplotype has been found in a wider dispersal than originally thought. At one time it was Middle Eastern (I believe this was Meldrum's argument rather than European, but I'm remembering and not certain). Later studies found it in Asia as well. As the article on LDS.org notes, a fairly recent study has found even more evidence of Near Eastern DNA in the Americas, but likely prior to the major migrations.

 

Meldrum's evidence was correct enough for the basic information, though the information is now significantly out of date. The problem was never the DNA per se, but the problem of dating. All of the migration studies place the Near Eastern DNA prior to, or early in the peopling of the Americas, or about 20,000 years ago. Meldrum believes that the dating must be wrong because the earth is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, he can accept the location of the DNA, but change the timing so that it matches what he wants it to prove. It is an interesting case of accepting the science when it says what you want it to, and rejecting the same science when it becomes inconvenient. 

[morgan.deane]

The people who wrote the article are scientific experts in the field.  Meldrum is someone who loves the data when it agrees with him and just ignores it when it doesn't…and probably doesn't understand the implications all that well to begin with.

And then they accuse you of apostasy for pointing it out to them. 

[rockpond]

I think that the Church's gospel topics essay on Book of Mormon DNA has opened up the option to take a non-literal view of the Book of Mormon history which really should encourage everyone to give each other that wiggle room that Smac mentioned.