Book of Mormon Geography In North America - Wayne May

[DesertWonderer]

samizdat, But you don't have a response for Zarahemla...why was it not named "New Zarahemla"?

The verse you quote does not even remotely suggest that that place was the same Zarahemla was where the Nephites lived. It simply tells them to call it that.

[kittycat51]

samizdat, But you don't have a response for Zarahemla...why was it not named "New Zarahemla"?

The verse you quote does not even remotely suggest that that place was the same Zarahemla as where the Nephites lived. It simply tells them to call it that.

Let me write my earlier post again, you haven't responded to the question either....I wrote

Speaking of Zarahemla; D&C 125:3 states "Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." This according to the Heartland model is where Zarahemla may have been. Maybe God called it Zarahemla for a reason? He has an infinite number of names that He could have used, yet He used the specific name Zarahemla. If this was not the location of the ancient city, why didn't God so indicate as He did by distinguishing the Jerusalem in the Old World from the new by calling it "New Jerusalem". Why wasn't it called "New Zarahemla"? if doing so was only symbolic?

[kittycat51]

Believe it or not tornados are not an uncommon occurrence in Mexico. In San Cristobal de las Casas they have had quite a few over the past few years.

Zarahemla is said to have taken fire and to be in the middle of an earthquake. Three days of darkness where a candle couldn´t be lit (which happens to be the case in severe ashfall and sulfur dioxide/carbon dioxide which will put out flames). Other cities sunk in the sea or in lakes, others with mountains lifted upon them.

There are no mountains anywhere in the Heartland. In Meso several mountains above 4000 masl can be found, with a few exceeding 5000 masl. Down further south the Andes Mountains are even higher.

Tempests are very common in Meso too (hurricanes).

Just had to throw this out there concerning "mountains". Size is up to interpretation. According to D&C 117:8 it states: "Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?" SO according to God, mountains exist in Missouri... Several times in the BofM it talks about Nephites in the cities seeing the lamanites coming from a distance to invade the land. So if you were the watchman on a tower, how could you see from a distance into a jungle or very mountainous terrain? You could however on rolling hills or plains. As Joseph quoted to Emma in a letter while on Zion's Camp March as to his experience..."Roaming over the plains of the Nephites..."

You make a good point that hills could've been called mountains. You should be aware however that the mesoamericans built tall stone structure as watchtowers so that they could see invaders from afar. Let's see...where did I read a story about a wicked king on a watchtower that was about to be killed by a patriot but saw the enemies approaching? Oh yes, that was part of the King Noah story. That event alone correlates incredibly well with mesoamerican culture.

Where does it say the watchtower was made of stone? There are many scriptures that talk about wood...wood that falls apart over time leaving no trace.

2 Nephi 5:15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. (Notice he said Solomon's temple, this is not what the huge stone structures look like is central America. Solomon's temple was much simpler)

Jarom 1 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery,

Mosiah 11:8 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;

9 And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof, all of which was of fine wood and was ornamented with gold and silver and with precious things.

10 And he also caused that his workmen should work all manner of fine work within the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass.

11 And the seats which were set apart for the high priests, which were above all the other seats, he did ornament with pure gold; and he caused a breastwork to be built before them, that they might rest their bodies and their arms upon while they should speak lying and vain words to his people.

12 And it came to pass that he built a tower near the temple; yea, a very high tower, even so high that he could stand upon the top thereof and overlook the land of Shilom, and also the land of Shemlon, which was possessed by the Lamanites; and he could even look over all the land round about.

13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom, which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land; and thus he did do with the riches which he obtained by the taxation of his people. (Nope no mention of the type of material to make this tall tower)

Cement is not mentioned until Helaman 3:4 And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers.

5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land.

6 And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate.

7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings. (TIMBER was what they were use to in building.)

10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.

11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

We could talk until we are blue in the face. You will not be able to convince me to return to my old ways of thinking and I obviously can't convince you. Views in the Church are beginning to be all over the place. I have a good friend from Canada who believes in another theory which is popular up there...that of Baja California. (New to me) My father having served in the Quorum of 70 believes in the Heartland model, as do some of the other brethren...but certainly not all of them. (I know of one apostle who died recently who believed in the Heartland model; he was presented a book by Rod Meldrum and read it cover to cover LOVING it.)

We can both certainly believe in the Book of Mormon's truthfulness though :ymhug:

[Durzan]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

[kittycat51]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum. He states when the question is asked "Was the Book of Mormon's climate tropical?" His response:

"Only once is a hot day mentioned as having occurred. This is found in Alma 51:33 and reads, 'And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.'

This ONE solitary reference has formed the foundation upon which many have speculated about Book of Mormon lands using climate as a guide. They have surmised from this one passage that a tropical climate is required by the text. Does the text justify such a requirement?

There are three instances of observed weather phenomena, only two mention the most common, that of rain.

The word "heat" has several possible definitions. While it could certainly describe a hot day, the Book of Mormon once described "heat" as that experienced by a guilty conscience (Alma 15:3) and several times the book describe a form of heat as "warm contention" (Alma 1:22, 50:26) or "dispute" (Alma 51:4) Certainly the use of the word "warm" in this context does not provide a basis for climate. Phrases such as "the heat of battle" do not reflect a type of climate, but an intensity of emotional experience, such has had just been experience by Amalickiah's men. Could this reference to heat have been a reflection of the intensity of the battle they had endured as they contended with their adversaries?

Even assuming that this use of "heat" meant a hot day, does that then preclude the North American Heartland Model as potentially valid? Why would it be thought that this single reference rules out America's heartland as being Book of Mormon related? The answer is in the timing of this battle, which was fought on the last day of the Nephite year, and the lamanites were wearing nothing but a loin cloth. Wouldn't it have been too cold to have been dressed this way in December in the mid-west?

An important aspect in our understanding is whether Nephite calendars were the same as ours today.

At the time just prior to Christ's crucifixion he went to Jerusalem for Passover which is observed at the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox, usually in mid April.

In 3 Nephi 8:5 it states 'And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, n the first month, on the fourth day of the month there arose a great storm...' This was the sign of Christ's death. Since He died in April according to our calendar, and this was the first month of the Nephites, it indicates that the Nephite calendar was shifted 4 months (Nephite month one was our month four or April)

This means the Lamanites came to battle in a loin-cloth in mid April, Is this plausible in the Heartland of America? Weather almanacs for St. Louis, Missouri show average high daily temperature in April as 67 degrees Fahrenheit, with record high temperatures as high as 93 degrees.

Having acclimatized to the cold of winter, a warm spring day, combined with the fatigue of battle may have felt worthy of mention as "heat" to them.

Temperature change is minimal in the tropical areas of Mesoamerica. Would those accustomed to consistently warm weather make specific comments about the "heat of the day" from one day to another. It is unlikely since one day would not be significantly warmer than any other.

...Nephites seemed somewhat astonished when the Lamanites came to battle dressed in nothing but loincloths. So odd was it that they made specific mention of the Lamanites lack of clothing. It would seem that a loincloth was the exception rather than the rule in warfare although several such battles were ultimately recorded.

Generally those going to battle for the Nephites were well dressed as indicated by the Book of Mormon itself. Nephite warriors wore "thick" clothing and armor, not loincloths....No indication is given in the text that Lamanites wore loincloths year round."

[AI2.0]

I guess you win then. Take care.

It's not about wining it's about sharing facts and how it everything fits together.

It's not facts your are sharing, it's misinformation--the misuse of DNA evidence is the most egregious.

Then asking about animals, claiming there are not the 'right' kind of altars in Mesoamerica--in the 1500's when the Nephite civilization was long gone...you don't want to know truth, you want to push your agenda.

This is what has really soured me on Heartland theory, the misinformation and twisting by proponents of so called 'evidence' to try to prove their theory correct and the hostility toward any suggestion that central and south america are also part of the promised land.

[iWriteStuff]

I don't have anything useful to add to the discussion here, but thought I'd share what I read the other day on the subject of BofM studies....

"The Book of Mormon is tough; it thrives on investigation; you may kick it around like a football, as many have done; and I promise you it will wear you out long before you ever make a dent in it."
- Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert

[AI2.0]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

Another place I think Heartland falls apart is the distances. The book of mormon mentions distances by how far a Nephite could walk in a day. There's no way they could have walked some of these north american distances in a day or even a few days---they simply can't cover these distances as they are in the Book of Mormon if they are where they claim they are. The narrow neck is Niagara??, they landed in Florida, Zarahemla is next to Nauvoo, the 'plains of the Nephites in Nebraska....it makes no sense, these distances are way to far and nothing aligns with the geography in the Book of Mormon.

And where is the 'west' sea and the 'east' sea?

Also, they often massage bits and pieces of 'evidence' to try to make it fit with what's in the Book of Mormon. Example--claiming that the Micmacs had a written language. They didn't, until a monk created it, but this is ignored. Also using known forgeries and hoaxes to try to prove these things. That is dishonest.

[AI2.0]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum. He states when the question is asked "Was the Book of Mormon's climate tropical?" His response:

"Only once is a hot day mentioned as having occurred. This is found in Alma 51:33 and reads, 'And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.'

This ONE solitary reference has formed the foundation upon which many have speculated about Book of Mormon lands using climate as a guide. They have surmised from this one passage that a tropical climate is required by the text. Does the text justify such a requirement?

There are three instances of observed weather phenomena, only two mention the most common, that of rain.

The word "heat" has several possible definitions. While it could certainly describe a hot day, the Book of Mormon once described "heat" as that experienced by a guilty conscience (Alma 15:3) and several times the book describe a form of heat as "warm contention" (Alma 1:22, 50:26) or "dispute" (Alma 51:4) Certainly the use of the word "warm" in this context does not provide a basis for climate. Phrases such as "the heat of battle" do not reflect a type of climate, but an intensity of emotional experience, such has had just been experience by Amalickiah's men. Could this reference to heat have been a reflection of the intensity of the battle they had endured as they contended with their adversaries?

Even assuming that this use of "heat" meant a hot day, does that then preclude the North American Heartland Model as potentially valid? Why would it be thought that this single reference rules out America's heartland as being Book of Mormon related? The answer is in the timing of this battle, which was fought on the last day of the Nephite year, and the lamanites were wearing nothing but a loin cloth. Wouldn't it have been too cold to have been dressed this way in December in the mid-west?

An important aspect in our understanding is whether Nephite calendars were the same as ours today.

At the time just prior to Christ's crucifixion he went to Jerusalem for Passover which is observed at the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox, usually in mid April.

In 3 Nephi 8:5 it states 'And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, n the first month, on the fourth day of the month there arose a great storm...' This was the sign of Christ's death. Since He died in April according to our calendar, and this was the first month of the Nephites, it indicates that the Nephite calendar was shifted 4 months (Nephite month one was our month four or April)

This means the Lamanites came to battle in a loin-cloth in mid April, Is this plausible in the Heartland of America? Weather almanacs for St. Louis, Missouri show average high daily temperature in April as 67 degrees Fahrenheit, with record high temperatures as high as 93 degrees.

Having acclimatized to the cold of winter, a warm spring day, combined with the fatigue of battle may have felt worthy of mention as "heat" to them.

Temperature change is minimal in the tropical areas of Mesoamerica. Would those accustomed to consistently warm weather make specific comments about the "heat of the day" from one day to another. It is unlikely since one day would not be significantly warmer than any other.

...Nephites seemed somewhat astonished when the Lamanites came to battle dressed in nothing but loincloths. So odd was it that they made specific mention of the Lamanites lack of clothing. It would seem that a loincloth was the exception rather than the rule in warfare although several such battles were ultimately recorded.

Generally those going to battle for the Nephites were well dressed as indicated by the Book of Mormon itself. Nephite warriors wore "thick" clothing and armor, not loincloths....No indication is given in the text that Lamanites wore loincloths year round."

This is why I don't trust Rod Meldrum's way of 'proving' Heartland. So, because there was only one mention of it being 'hot' then that means the climate was not tropical? That's not proof, just like the FACT that snow is never mentioned does not prove that it never snowed, it simply means we don't know one way or the other. Absence of the mention of something does not mean it did not exist.

Another thing; Too many Heartlanders keep talking about migrating beasts, thinking this HAS to mean Bison. That's ridiculous. There's no mention of migrating beasts in the Book of Mormon. Does that mean there weren't Bison, no, but it also is something that is dishonest to influence readers into thinking the Book of Mormon mentioned migrating herds when in actuality, it's talking about a time of drought when the animals were moving to find water and food. That's not migration, it's not a normal occurrence, but out of the ordinary because of drought.

The worst thing Meldrum does is instill doubt and distrust in church leaders. He has given his listeners the impression that Joseph KNEW that North America was where the Book of Mormon events took place but that our church leaders have for some reason, attempted to keep this from the LDS members and are instead pushing the MesoAmerican model, which is not true.

[DesertWonderer]

samizdat, But you don't have a response for Zarahemla...why was it not named "New Zarahemla"?

The verse you quote does not even remotely suggest that that place was the same Zarahemla as where the Nephites lived. It simply tells them to call it that.

Let me write my earlier post again, you haven't responded to the question either....I wrote

Speaking of Zarahemla; D&C 125:3 states "Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." This according to the Heartland model is where Zarahemla may have been. Maybe God called it Zarahemla for a reason? He may have or he may not have the verse gives no indicaiton one way or the other why He used this name. He has an infinite number of names that He could have used, yet He used the specific name Zarahemla. So what? If this was not the location of the ancient city, why didn't God so indicate as He did by distinguishing the Jerusalem in the Old World from the new by calling it "New Jerusalem". Why wasn't it called "New Zarahemla"? if doing so was only symbolic?
Sorry, I"m not following your logic here. Can you re-phrase it for me? That's why I didn't respond the 1st time. .

[Ezra]

I think that quite a few mentions of men of large stature as well as metal work fits really well with North America models.

Quite a few things from this vid I feel makes sense for North America being the place

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgXYU1XtBU

[DesertWonderer]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum.

Meldrum knowingly uses fraudulent information to prove his point (i.e. sell books and DVDs) so just how excellent of a book could it be?

[kittycat51]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum. He states when the question is asked "Was the Book of Mormon's climate tropical?" His response:

"Only once is a hot day mentioned as having occurred. This is found in Alma 51:33 and reads, 'And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.'

This ONE solitary reference has formed the foundation upon which many have speculated about Book of Mormon lands using climate as a guide. They have surmised from this one passage that a tropical climate is required by the text. Does the text justify such a requirement?

There are three instances of observed weather phenomena, only two mention the most common, that of rain.

The word "heat" has several possible definitions. While it could certainly describe a hot day, the Book of Mormon once described "heat" as that experienced by a guilty conscience (Alma 15:3) and several times the book describe a form of heat as "warm contention" (Alma 1:22, 50:26) or "dispute" (Alma 51:4) Certainly the use of the word "warm" in this context does not provide a basis for climate. Phrases such as "the heat of battle" do not reflect a type of climate, but an intensity of emotional experience, such has had just been experience by Amalickiah's men. Could this reference to heat have been a reflection of the intensity of the battle they had endured as they contended with their adversaries?

Even assuming that this use of "heat" meant a hot day, does that then preclude the North American Heartland Model as potentially valid? Why would it be thought that this single reference rules out America's heartland as being Book of Mormon related? The answer is in the timing of this battle, which was fought on the last day of the Nephite year, and the lamanites were wearing nothing but a loin cloth. Wouldn't it have been too cold to have been dressed this way in December in the mid-west?

An important aspect in our understanding is whether Nephite calendars were the same as ours today.

At the time just prior to Christ's crucifixion he went to Jerusalem for Passover which is observed at the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox, usually in mid April.

In 3 Nephi 8:5 it states 'And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, n the first month, on the fourth day of the month there arose a great storm...' This was the sign of Christ's death. Since He died in April according to our calendar, and this was the first month of the Nephites, it indicates that the Nephite calendar was shifted 4 months (Nephite month one was our month four or April)

This means the Lamanites came to battle in a loin-cloth in mid April, Is this plausible in the Heartland of America? Weather almanacs for St. Louis, Missouri show average high daily temperature in April as 67 degrees Fahrenheit, with record high temperatures as high as 93 degrees.

Having acclimatized to the cold of winter, a warm spring day, combined with the fatigue of battle may have felt worthy of mention as "heat" to them.

Temperature change is minimal in the tropical areas of Mesoamerica. Would those accustomed to consistently warm weather make specific comments about the "heat of the day" from one day to another. It is unlikely since one day would not be significantly warmer than any other.

...Nephites seemed somewhat astonished when the Lamanites came to battle dressed in nothing but loincloths. So odd was it that they made specific mention of the Lamanites lack of clothing. It would seem that a loincloth was the exception rather than the rule in warfare although several such battles were ultimately recorded.

Generally those going to battle for the Nephites were well dressed as indicated by the Book of Mormon itself. Nephite warriors wore "thick" clothing and armor, not loincloths....No indication is given in the text that Lamanites wore loincloths year round."

This is why I don't trust Rod Meldrum's way of 'proving' Heartland. So, because there was only one mention of it being 'hot' then that means the climate was not tropical? That's not proof, just like the FACT that snow is never mentioned does not prove that it never snowed, it simply means we don't know one way or the other. Absence of the mention of something does not mean it did not exist.

Another thing; Too many Heartlanders keep talking about migrating beasts, thinking this HAS to mean Bison. That's ridiculous. There's no mention of migrating beasts in the Book of Mormon. Does that mean there weren't Bison, no, but it also is something that is dishonest to influence readers into thinking the Book of Mormon mentioned migrating herds when in actuality, it's talking about a time of drought when the animals were moving to find water and food. That's not migration, it's not a normal occurrence, but out of the ordinary because of drought.

The worst thing Meldrum does is instill doubt and distrust in church leaders. He has given his listeners the impression that Joseph KNEW that North America was where the Book of Mormon events took place but that our church leaders have for some reason, attempted to keep this from the LDS members and are instead pushing the MesoAmerican model, which is not true.

Migrating beasts? So why do they do it? Migration is driven by a simple fact: Resources on Earth fluctuate. Warm summer months may be followed by inhospitable cold. (Change of seasons) Plants – or other meals – may be abundant, but only for a short time. The best place to give birth or hatch young may not be a good place to find food.

Alma 22:31 states "...the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food." Doesn't this indicate migration?

Ether 9:34 states "...And it came to pass that the people did follow the course of the beasts..." Whatever these beast were they certainly migrated.

The lamanites lived in tents and hunted beasts of prey. They lived in tents because they had to follow their "course" as these 'beasts' moved.

I don't know where you get the premonition that Rod instills followers of the Heartland model to distrust Church leaders. I don't distrust Church leaders and yes, Joseph did know. How could he not? He conversed several times with Moroni, and who knows what other BofM prophets? Don't you think they would have told him WHERE the Golden Plates took place? He never changed his views. The facts are pretty plain with things he said. Do you deny what Joseph wrote to Emma while on Zions March wherein he stated: "The whole of our journey in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendor and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed." (where did Zion's march take place... Central U.S.) What about Zelph's mound? What about the first missionaries of the church being sent to the lamanites of the U.S. i.e. the American Indians, not to the indigenous people of Mexico or Central America. What about what was mentioned in the Wentworth letter where Joseph writes: "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [U.S.] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me..." What about Joseph declaring an Nephite alter at Adam-ondi-ahman, and the location of the New Jerusalem which Christ Himself declared to be on Book of Mormon lands?

3 Nephi 20:22 "And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you." I really don't think Christ is saying "this land" referring to down in central America which is 2500 miles away from the "New Jerusalem" which is way up in Missouri. "This land" means where you currently are. Elder Perry quotes in December 2012 Ensign "The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon" He did not say the promised land was in central America.

I could write a whole bunch on the claims of what was written in the "Times and Seasons" in 1842 by supposedly Joseph when it could not have been because he was in hiding at the time. Those articles were not written in the writing style of first person singular as are Joseph's known written and published accounts. They were written in first person plural, indicating different authorship.

If the prophet himself comes out and states the Heartland to be false I would listen. If Brother Joseph himself comes to me in the life hereafter and says "Sister you were wrong" I will repent. Until then I hold firm in my beliefs.... No matter the Book of Mormon is TRUE regardless.

[larsenb]

. . . .

I could write a whole bunch on the claims of what was written in the "Times and Seasons" in 1842 by supposedly Joseph when it could not have been because he was in hiding at the time. Those articles were not written in the writing style of first person singular as are Joseph's known written and published accounts. They were written in first person plural, indicating different authorship. . . . .

Your assertion about Joseph not being the author of the Times and Seasons Editorials because he was in hiding at the time has been thoroughly debunked by John Lund in his book: Joseph Smith and the Geography of the Book of Mormon.

Lund has also made an essentially airtight case that Smith was the author of the editorials based on 12 different criteria. You really don't have a leg to stand on, KC51, unless you show how Lund is wrong about these issues. And to stand any chance of doing so, you're going to actually have to read and study what Lund has done . . . . or present the work of someone else who has done this and has come up with reasonable objections to Lund's study.

Others have put forth what they claimed were rebuttals of Lund's work in other threads and I kindly pointed out how their rebuttals fell way short of doing so. Do you have anything different, either from your own studies or someone else? I'm eager to see what you can come up with.

[kittycat51]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum.

Meldrum knowingly uses fraudulent information to prove his point (i.e. sell books and DVDs) so just how excellent of a book could it be?

How does Meldrum knowingly use fraudulent information? Because he sells books and DVD's to prove a point does not hold water. The GA's sell books. (Aren't they trying to prove a point in favor of God and the gospel?) If Rod is so fraudulent why does Deseret Book carry several of his books YET they DON'T carry "Visions of Glory" or anything by Rowe or Sosa.

[kittycat51]

. . . .

I could write a whole bunch on the claims of what was written in the "Times and Seasons" in 1842 by supposedly Joseph when it could not have been because he was in hiding at the time. Those articles were not written in the writing style of first person singular as are Joseph's known written and published accounts. They were written in first person plural, indicating different authorship. . . . .

Your assertion about Joseph not being the author of the Times and Seasons Editorials because he was in hiding at the time has been thoroughly debunked by John Lund in his book: Joseph Smith and the Geography of the Book of Mormon.

Lund has also made an essentially airtight case that Smith was the author of the editorials based on 12 different criteria. You really don't have a leg to stand on, KC51, unless you show how Lund is wrong about these issues. And to stand any chance of doing so, you're going to actually have to read and study what Lund has done . . . . or present the work of someone else who has done this and has come up with reasonable objections to Lund's study.

Others have put forth what they claimed were rebuttals of Lund's work in other threads and I kindly pointed out how their rebuttals fell way short of doing so. Do you have anything different, either from your own studies or someone else? I'm eager to see what you can come up with.

Wasn't airtight enough. Heard of the "Smoking Gun?"

(Hey you are back. Heard you were working on something secret and important)

[jbalm]

Scholars agree that the Book of Mormon lands are right between Narnia and Middle Earth.

[larsenb]

. . . .

I could write a whole bunch on the claims of what was written in the "Times and Seasons" in 1842 by supposedly Joseph when it could not have been because he was in hiding at the time. Those articles were not written in the writing style of first person singular as are Joseph's known written and published accounts. They were written in first person plural, indicating different authorship. . . . .

Your assertion about Joseph not being the author of the Times and Seasons Editorials because he was in hiding at the time has been thoroughly debunked by John Lund in his book: Joseph Smith and the Geography of the Book of Mormon.

Lund has also made an essentially airtight case that Smith was the author of the editorials based on 12 different criteria. You really don't have a leg to stand on, KC51, unless you show how Lund is wrong about these issues. And to stand any chance of doing so, you're going to actually have to read and study what Lund has done . . . . or present the work of someone else who has done this and has come up with reasonable objections to Lund's study.

Others have put forth what they claimed were rebuttals of Lund's work in other threads and I kindly pointed out how their rebuttals fell way short of doing so. Do you have anything different, either from your own studies or someone else? I'm eager to see what you can come up with.

Wasn't airtight enough. Heard of the "Smoking Gun?"

(Hey you are back. Heard you were working on something secret and important)

How not airtight, and which smoking gun?

Nothing secret, but something I don't want to advertise/divulge on this forum.

[AI2.0]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum. He states when the question is asked "Was the Book of Mormon's climate tropical?" His response:

"Only once is a hot day mentioned as having occurred. This is found in Alma 51:33 and reads, 'And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.'

This ONE solitary reference has formed the foundation upon which many have speculated about Book of Mormon lands using climate as a guide. They have surmised from this one passage that a tropical climate is required by the text. Does the text justify such a requirement?

There are three instances of observed weather phenomena, only two mention the most common, that of rain.

The word "heat" has several possible definitions. While it could certainly describe a hot day, the Book of Mormon once described "heat" as that experienced by a guilty conscience (Alma 15:3) and several times the book describe a form of heat as "warm contention" (Alma 1:22, 50:26) or "dispute" (Alma 51:4) Certainly the use of the word "warm" in this context does not provide a basis for climate. Phrases such as "the heat of battle" do not reflect a type of climate, but an intensity of emotional experience, such has had just been experience by Amalickiah's men. Could this reference to heat have been a reflection of the intensity of the battle they had endured as they contended with their adversaries?

Even assuming that this use of "heat" meant a hot day, does that then preclude the North American Heartland Model as potentially valid? Why would it be thought that this single reference rules out America's heartland as being Book of Mormon related? The answer is in the timing of this battle, which was fought on the last day of the Nephite year, and the lamanites were wearing nothing but a loin cloth. Wouldn't it have been too cold to have been dressed this way in December in the mid-west?

An important aspect in our understanding is whether Nephite calendars were the same as ours today.

At the time just prior to Christ's crucifixion he went to Jerusalem for Passover which is observed at the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox, usually in mid April.

In 3 Nephi 8:5 it states 'And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, n the first month, on the fourth day of the month there arose a great storm...' This was the sign of Christ's death. Since He died in April according to our calendar, and this was the first month of the Nephites, it indicates that the Nephite calendar was shifted 4 months (Nephite month one was our month four or April)

This means the Lamanites came to battle in a loin-cloth in mid April, Is this plausible in the Heartland of America? Weather almanacs for St. Louis, Missouri show average high daily temperature in April as 67 degrees Fahrenheit, with record high temperatures as high as 93 degrees.

Having acclimatized to the cold of winter, a warm spring day, combined with the fatigue of battle may have felt worthy of mention as "heat" to them.

Temperature change is minimal in the tropical areas of Mesoamerica. Would those accustomed to consistently warm weather make specific comments about the "heat of the day" from one day to another. It is unlikely since one day would not be significantly warmer than any other.

...Nephites seemed somewhat astonished when the Lamanites came to battle dressed in nothing but loincloths. So odd was it that they made specific mention of the Lamanites lack of clothing. It would seem that a loincloth was the exception rather than the rule in warfare although several such battles were ultimately recorded.

Generally those going to battle for the Nephites were well dressed as indicated by the Book of Mormon itself. Nephite warriors wore "thick" clothing and armor, not loincloths....No indication is given in the text that Lamanites wore loincloths year round."

This is why I don't trust Rod Meldrum's way of 'proving' Heartland. So, because there was only one mention of it being 'hot' then that means the climate was not tropical? That's not proof, just like the FACT that snow is never mentioned does not prove that it never snowed, it simply means we don't know one way or the other. Absence of the mention of something does not mean it did not exist.

Another thing; Too many Heartlanders keep talking about migrating beasts, thinking this HAS to mean Bison. That's ridiculous. There's no mention of migrating beasts in the Book of Mormon. Does that mean there weren't Bison, no, but it also is something that is dishonest to influence readers into thinking the Book of Mormon mentioned migrating herds when in actuality, it's talking about a time of drought when the animals were moving to find water and food. That's not migration, it's not a normal occurrence, but out of the ordinary because of drought.

The worst thing Meldrum does is instill doubt and distrust in church leaders. He has given his listeners the impression that Joseph KNEW that North America was where the Book of Mormon events took place but that our church leaders have for some reason, attempted to keep this from the LDS members and are instead pushing the MesoAmerican model, which is not true.

Migrating beasts? So why do they do it? Migration is driven by a simple fact: Resources on Earth fluctuate. Warm summer months may be followed by inhospitable cold. (Change of seasons) Plants – or other meals – may be abundant, but only for a short time. The best place to give birth or hatch young may not be a good place to find food.

Alma 22:31 states "...the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food." Doesn't this indicate migration?

Ether 9:34 states "...And it came to pass that the people did follow the course of the beasts..." Whatever these beast were they certainly migrated.

The lamanites lived in tents and hunted beasts of prey. They lived in tents because they had to follow their "course" as these 'beasts' moved.

I don't know where you get the premonition that Rod instills followers of the Heartland model to distrust Church leaders. I don't distrust Church leaders and yes, Joseph did know. How could he not? He conversed several times with Moroni, and who knows what other BofM prophets? Don't you think they would have told him WHERE the Golden Plates took place? He never changed his views. The facts are pretty plain with things he said. Do you deny what Joseph wrote to Emma while on Zions March wherein he stated: "The whole of our journey in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendor and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed." (where did Zion's march take place... Central U.S.) What about Zelph's mound? What about the first missionaries of the church being sent to the lamanites of the U.S. i.e. the American Indians, not to the indigenous people of Mexico or Central America. What about what was mentioned in the Wentworth letter where Joseph writes: "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [U.S.] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me..." What about Joseph declaring an Nephite alter at Adam-ondi-ahman, and the location of the New Jerusalem which Christ Himself declared to be on Book of Mormon lands?

3 Nephi 20:22 "And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you." I really don't think Christ is saying "this land" referring to down in central America which is 2500 miles away from the "New Jerusalem" which is way up in Missouri. "This land" means where you currently are. Elder Perry quotes in December 2012 Ensign "The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon" He did not say the promised land was in central America.

I could write a whole bunch on the claims of what was written in the "Times and Seasons" in 1842 by supposedly Joseph when it could not have been because he was in hiding at the time. Those articles were not written in the writing style of first person singular as are Joseph's known written and published accounts. They were written in first person plural, indicating different authorship.

If the prophet himself comes out and states the Heartland to be false I would listen. If Brother Joseph himself comes to me in the life hereafter and says "Sister you were wrong" I will repent. Until then I hold firm in my beliefs.... No matter the Book of Mormon is TRUE regardless.

This stuff about 'migrating' animals has never come up until Rod Meldrum tried to make a case for Bison in the Book of Mormon. I don't read 'migration' in Alma 22:31, it simply says they came 'for food'. That doesn't mean migration, it can be other things, like drought.

Ether 9:34 is absolutely not migration, you are reading it out of context, it is describing drought and scarcity of food. Migration is a natural thing that animals do, as in the seasons. Birds fly south, deer move north, etc.

Lamanites lived in tents, but are you thinking of the plains indians? My understanding is that they didn't live in tents and migrate until after about the 1600's, so this is not what's being described in the Book of Mormon.

Here's where I see a big problem with Heartland. I believe that the Native American indians and the peoples of Mexico, Meso America and South America and the polynesian Islands all share the blood of the Lamanites/Nephites. They are their descendants. They all share in the blessings of being part of the House of Israel. Their lands are the lands of Promise. I believe that the events of the Book of Mormon more likely took place in MesoAmerica, but I believe that many of the people who left the Lamanites and Nephites (such as the groups of Hagoth) ended up in North AMerica and they are probably the peoples who lived in North America and built some of the mounds--at least the ones from about 100-200 BC and later. But, what I've read from Heartland people, they do not agree. They only believe that Book of Mormon events took place in North America and they don't believe anyone but the Native American Indians are descendants of Lehi--something I think is a falsehood.

So I have no problem with the things Joseph Smith said about the Indians and the mounds and the Nephite altars (hey guys, it's spelled 'altar') that he said were there and zelph's grave. The Nephite/Lamanites did not disappear, they were still around for 1400 years after the end of the Book of Mormon. They were in apostasy, but they were still around. Why the Heartland people are so exclusionary that they won't even consider for anything but North America, I just do not understand. It also goes against so many of the statements of our church leaders. Pres. Kimball would be rolling in his grave at the Heartland promoters' views of Hispanics/Mexicans not being part of the Lamanite/'Nephites!

Elder Perry is right. America is the Promised land, for US. But that doesn't mean that MesoAmerica is not also. This 'land' to me is the western hemisphere. Why the need to be so exclusionary?? I don't get this, I find it disturbing. It's a relatively NEW perception; it is something that has grown out in the last 20 years and gotten quite hostile and rigid. Rod Meldrum is the driving force and I think it is not good.

[AI2.0]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum.

Meldrum knowingly uses fraudulent information to prove his point (i.e. sell books and DVDs) so just how excellent of a book could it be?

How does Meldrum knowingly use fraudulent information? Because he sells books and DVD's to prove a point does not hold water. The GA's sell books. (Aren't they trying to prove a point in favor of God and the gospel?) If Rod is so fraudulent why does Deseret Book carry several of his books YET they DON'T carry "Visions of Glory" or anything by Rowe or Sosa.

I'm glad they sell his books, frankly, they ought to sell Visions of Glory and Rowe and Sosa's books. They are a bookstore, they ought to sell things that LDS might be interested in. Let people decide for themselves. But you need to be discerning. When Meldrum talks about artifacts in his book, and other 'evidences', you need to do your own homework---do some fact checking. In the age of the Internet, it is so easy. If you read something that you feel you should check references on, then look it up. Don't take Rod Meldrum's word for it, double check his scholarship. I know he's misreading the DNA, because he doesn't understand the science and he's been called on it--by geneticists! And yet, he's ignored it and still makes the same claims. If you want to believe the Heartland theory, fine, but at least believe the things that are a possibility, don't get taken in by false claims and misrepresentations. Rod Meldrum is a business man and this is his business, you need to keep that in mind.

[DesertWonderer]

The main problem with the heartland model would be the weather. With the exceptions of areas around the warmer waters to the south, winter gets pretty cold in the US... even in the more southern latitudes (though snow may not fall there). The fact that it is mentioned that Lamanites go to war in loincloths is indicative of the climate being fairly warm year round, and the BoM makes no mention of winter or summer. Would you really expect someone to go around in a loincloth during the winter months, unless it was warm year round?

I am going to quote from an excellent book I have called "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Rod Meldrum.

Meldrum knowingly uses fraudulent information to prove his point (i.e. sell books and DVDs) so just how excellent of a book could it be?

How does Meldrum knowingly use fraudulent information? Because he sells books and DVD's to prove a point does not hold water. The GA's sell books. (Aren't they trying to prove a point in favor of God and the gospel?) If Rod is so fraudulent why does Deseret Book carry several of his books YET they DON'T carry "Visions of Glory" or anything by Rowe or Sosa.

l
Some of the key artifacts his whole argument rests on are forgeries.
He uses an incorrect version of the Zelph story that JS later edited taking out the references to Zelph being a lamanaite.
Micmac was not a native writting systems as he claims
...I could give many other examples but its not worth the effort.

[davedan]

Bat Creek Stone and Ohio Decalogue Stone are not proven forgeries. They just are called forgeries because they don't fit the narrative and cannot comfortably be explained except by the whole Smithsonian and Archeology community admitting that they were wrong and fessing up to being influenced by US policy of Manifest Destiny.

Artifacts are difficult because you can have authentic ones, but then owners make forgeries that look like the originals, wanting to preserve the originals. So, then you get a mix of real and fake (Michigan Tablets).

Wiki- Mi'kmaq language: Writing system

Mi'kmaq is written using a number of Latin alphabets based on ones devised by missionaries in the 19th century. Previously, the language was written in Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing, a script of partially native origin.

It is hard to discuss an issue when one side makes incorrect arguments but may never confess that they might have been mistaken.