Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

Thanks, Ben. I cannot get that link to work, though.
In addition to Ben's comments, the Bible doesn't only mention an altar of unhewn stone, but also altars of dirt, stone, gold, brass, etc... They are not limited to unhewn stone. One Bible Dictionary states:
“The stone altar is the most commonly mentioned altar in biblical records and the most frequently found in excavations from Palestine. A single large stone could serve as an altar (Judges 6:19-23; Judges 13:19-20; 1 Samuel 14:31-35). Similarly, unhewn stones could be carefully stacked to form an altar (Exodus 20:25, 1 Kings 18:30-35). Such stone altars were probably the most common form of altar prior to the building of the Solomonic Temple. A number of examples of stone altars have been excavated in Palestine. The sanctuary at Arad, belonging to the period of the Divided Monarchy (900 B.C. to 600 B.C.) had such a stone altar.”

And another:

“Before considering the Biblical texts attention must be drawn to the fact that these texts know of at least two kinds of altars which were so different in appearance that no contemporary could possibly confuse them. The first was an altar consisting of earth or unhewn stones. It had no fixed shape, but varied with the materials. It might consist of a rock (Jdg 13:19) or a single large stone (1 Sam 14:33-35) or again a number of stones (1 Ki 18:31 f). It could have no horns, nor it would be impossible to give the stone horns without hewing it, nor would a heap of earth lend itself to the formation of horns. It could have no regular pattern for the same reason. On the other hand we meet with a group of passages that refer to altars of quite a different type. We read of horns, of fixed measurements, of a particular pattern, of bronze as the material. To bring home the difference more rapidly illustrations of the two types are given side by side.”
So, righteous Israel did use altars of different material. This is found not only in scripture, but also in archaeology. One argument against The Book of Mormon is that it speaks of Temples being built outside of Jerusalem, when the Bible says that they cannot. Of course, when the Bible is looked at as a whole, it says something different. In Tel Arad they discovered an ancient Temple that was used by Righteous Israelites. This showed that the Israelites WERE operating Temples of God outside of Jerusalem. In this Temple was an altar that was solid stone. You can see the evidence for the argument here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af6esIB10d4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tel Dan Temple has a stone altar, similar to those found in Mesoamerica, along with many other Israelite altars.

User avatar
Benjamin Harrison
captain of 100
Posts: 472

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Benjamin Harrison »

DR. Jones: SEE: Pool of the rain God Altar of un-hewn limestone found in Chemenche, Mexico. Also are the Izapa stella # 5 in Guatemala depicting Lehi's Dream of the tree of Life written in Chiasmic form no less. Other ruins glyphs that have been found are also in chiasmic form as well.
tree of life.jpg
Izapa stella 5.png
On H.W. Hunters desk.jpg
I guess you have to google it as I can't get a link to work here. Academia.edu/pool-of-the-rain-god-stuccoed-altar-aguacatal-chemeche-mexico.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

larsenb wrote:
Rod Meldrum wrote:
livy111us wrote:
2. how he supposedly changed his mind after the 1842 Times and Seasons articles (which he didn't write and was historically known to have been in hiding from the law at the time) . . . . .

Your faulty "internal model" interpretations are no match for the prophecies and Joseph Smith's statements which all support our Heartland Model theory. I'll be interested to read how you are going to "spin" this one! Happy trails! Contrary to Mesoamerican theorists who gleefully proclaim that Joseph was ignorant and uneducated about where the lands of the Book of Mormon were located...Joseph Knew! The Lord Knew! And they both sent those first missionaries unto the Lamanite remnant in the Heartland of North America and never to Mesoamerica. Now you know.

Now, I would have to look into your assertion that Joseph was on the lam and therefore wouldn't have been available to write these articles. And of course would have to read any rebuttal to your claims on this issue to get a clear idea of the possibilities to see how that fits in with the evidence that Joseph actually wrote the articles.
While Joseph Smith was in hiding, he still attended to all of his duties as Prophet and General Editor of the Times and Seasons. Here are accounts from historical records of his exact doings while he was in "hiding". While he was "hiding" he still was very active in his duties.


History of the Church volume 5:
Aug. 8th- Arrested w/ Rockwell

-Aug 17th 1842, corresponding with Wilson Law, asking

-Aug 17th, left from hiding at Brother Sayers and went to hide at Carlos Granger

Aug. 18th- wrote a letter to Newel K Whitney family which he says: “I am now at Carlos Graingers [Granger], Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of y you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night”

-Aug 19th received visit from his aunt Temperance Mack, went to Nauvoo, and concluded to tarry at home until something further transpired relative to the designs of my persecutors.

Business as usual
-Aug 20th spent the day in his business office, and that evening had an interview with “Hyrum, William Law, Wilson Law, Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, on the illegality of the proceedings of our persecutors.”
Appointed Bishops, ordained Amasa Lyman, demoted John Bennet and Signey Rigdon re-affirmed faith in front of the “saints”

Aug 22nd- received another visit from Temperance Mack, went back to Nauvoo (when did he leave?) After receiving a letter from Emma. After dark, returned home.

Aug. 24th-At home all day; received a visit from Brothers Newel K. Whitney and Isaac Morley.
Aug. 26th- at home all day, had a meeting with some of the twelve (John Taylor was a 12 at the time)

Aug 27th-In the assembly room with some of the Twelve and others, who were preparing affidavits for the press.

Aug. 28th-At home. James Whitehead, Peter Melling, Tarleton Lewis, and Ezra Strong were received into the High Priests' quorum at Nauvoo

Aug 29th–went on the “stand” after Hyrum and spoke to the saints whom he hasn’t seen in three weeks. Said “I had been in Nauvoo all the while, and outwitted Bennett's associates, and attended to my own business in the city all the time.”
30th- at home all day

31st- at home, went for walk, went to relief society


Sept 1st- D/C 127:1 When I learn that the storm is fully blown over, then I will return to you again.

Sept. 2nd - spent the day at homeA report reached the city this afternoon that the sheriff was on his way to Nauvoo with an armed force.

Sept. 3rd- In the morning at home, in company with John F. Boynton. President Smith, accompanied by Brother Erastus Derby, left Brother Whitney's about nine o'clock, and went to Brother Edward Hunter's, where he was welcomed, and made comfortable by the family, and where he can be kept safe from the hands of his enemies
Sept. 6th- writes letter to the Church concerning baptisms for the dead, D/C 128
In the evening, William Clayton and Bishop Whitney called to see me concerning a settlement with Edward Hunter. Also Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Amasa Lyman, called to counsel concerning their mission to the branches and people abroad.

Sept. 7th- Early this morning Elders Adams and Rogers, of New York, brought me several letters—one from Dr. Willard Richards..Brothers Adams and Rogers called again this afternoon, and I related to them many interpositions of Divine Providence in my favor, &c.

Sept. 8th-Prophet writes letter to James Arlington Bennet “You speak also of Elder Foster, President of the Church in New York, in high terms; and of Dr. Bernhisel, in New York. These men I am acquainted with by information; and it warms my heart to know that you speak well of them, and, as you say, could be willing to associate with them for ever”

Sept. 9th- At 10 p.m. I received a very interesting visit from Emma, Amasa Lyman, George A. Smith and Wilson Law. After a conversation of two hours, I accompanied the brethren and Emma to my house, remaining there a few minutes to offer a blessing upon the heads of my sleeping children; then called a few minutes at the house of my cousin George A. Smith, on my way to my retreat at Edward Hunter's. John D. Parker accompanied me as guard.

Sept. 10.—Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith, and Amasa Lyman started on their mission, and proceeded as far as Lima, where they met Brigham Young, who was preaching to a congregation. This was the day for the training of the companies of the Nauvoo Legion; and, lest I should be observed by the multitude passing and repassing, I kept very still. After dark, my wife sent a messenger and requested me to return home, as she thought I would be as safe there as anywhere; and I went safely home undiscovered.

Sept. 11th-—I was at home all day

Sept 12th. was at home all day in company with Brothers Adams and Rogers

Sept 13th -At home all day. Settled with Edward Hunter

Sept 14th-At home. Mr. Remmick gave me a deed of one half his landed property in Keokuk, though it will be a long time, if ever, before it will be of any benefit to me. Had a consultation with Calvin A. Warren, Esq. In the evening I received the following letter from General James Arlington Bennett:

Thursday, 15.—In council with C. A. Warren, Esq. Also counseled Uncle John Smith and Brother Daniel C. Davis to move immediately to Keokuk, and help to build up a city.
1. Friday, 16.—At home with Brother Rogers, who was painting my likeness.


Saturday, 17.—I was at home with Brother Rogers, who continued painting my portrait. Elder William Clayton wrote Governor Carlin a long letter, showing up the Missouri persecution and my sufferings in their true colors.

Sunday, 18.—At home. In the evening, received a visit from my mother.
1. Monday, 19, and Tuesday, 20.—With Brother Rogers, painting at my house.
Wednesday, 21.—In the large room over the store. In the evening had a visit from Elder John Taylor, who is just recovering from a long and very severe attack of sickness. I counseled Elder Taylor concerning the printing office, removing one press to Keokuk, &c.
Thursday, 22.—At home, arranging with Remmick concerning moving printing press to Keokuk, buying paper, &c.
Friday, 23.—At home. Visited by Elder Taylor.



24th-At home. Had a visit from Mr. Joseph Murdock, Sen., and lady concerning some land, &c., at St. Joseph.
Sunday, 25.—At the Grove. Spoke more than two hours, chiefly on the subject of persecution

27th At home. Nothing of importance transpired

Thursday, 29.—This day, Emma began to be sick with fever; consequently I kept in the house with her all day.
Friday, 30.—Emma is no better. I was with her all day.

Saturday, October 1.—This morning I had a very severe pain in my left side, and was not able to be about. Emma sick as usual. I had previously sent for the Temple committee to balance their accounts and ascertain how the Temple business was going on. Some reports had been circulated that the committee was not making a righteous disposition of property consecrated for the building of the Temple, and there appeared to be some dissatisfaction amongst the laborers. After carefully examining the accounts and enquiring into the manner of the proceedings of the committee, I expressed myself perfectly satisfied with them and their works. The books were balanced between the trustee and committee, and the wages of all agreed upon.

I said to the brethren that I was amenable to the state for the faithful discharge of my duties as trustee-in-trust, and that the Temple committee were accountable to me, and to no other authority; and they must not take notice of any complaints from any source, but let the complaints be made to me, if any were needed, and I would make things right. The parties separated perfectly satisfied, and I remarked that I would have a notice published, stating that I had examined their accounts and was satisfied, &c. It was also agreed that the recorder's office should be moved to the Temple, for the convenience of all.
In this day's Wasp I noticed the following letter from Elder Pratt:

Oct 2nd-The Quincy Whig also stated that Governor Reynolds has offered a reward, and published the governor's proclamation offering a reward of $300 for Joseph Smith, Jun., and $300 for Orrin P. Rockwell. Pg 166
Monday, 3.—Emma was a little better. I was with her all day.
Tuesday, 4.—Emma is very sick again. I attended with her all the day, being somewhat poorly myself.
Wednesday, 5.—My dear Emma was worse. Many fears were entertained that she would not recover.
Thursday, 6.—Emma is better; and although it is the day on which she generally grows worse, yet she appears considerably easier

7th- Accordingly, at twenty minutes after eight o'clock in the evening, I started away in company with Brothers John Taylor Wilson Law, and John D. Parker, and traveled through the night and part of next day; and, after a tedious journey, arrived at Father James Taylor's well and in good spirits.
This day the teachers met in Nauvoo, and organized into a quorum, by appointing Elisha Averett, president; James Huntsman and Elijah Averett, counselors ; Samuel Eggleston, scribe; and eleven members.
Monday, 10.—Elder Taylor returned to Nauvoo and found Emma gaining slowly

11th- published article in Times and Seasons about Temple Commiteed affairs

16th- I copy the following from the New York Herald

Thursday, 20.—Early this morning I arrived at home on a visit to my family. During the day I was visited by several of the brethren, who rejoiced to see me once more.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

livy111us wrote:
Etosha wrote:I was just reading over this thread and I've decided that I really don't care where they were - not enjoying the tone here.
I think you have more sense than most of us (including me). I have tried been guilty in the past, but am looking forward to have a respectful conversation with Rod, but have to say, it is difficult when you are continually maligned. One thing that keeps drawing back are the insults he throws at me. If he would be respectful, there would have been a lot of conversations I just would have avoided. But you are absolutely right, it does not matter where it happened and too many people get worked up over something that makes zero difference on our salvation.
Rod: Tyler, I will continue to use your real name rather than your screen name because you constantly hide behind your screen name on other blogs yet you always use my real name. I am going to reply in kind. No more hiding your, Tyler Livingston's, real identity for your ongoing attacks then you make it absolutely clear who you are attacking by using my real name. Why do you feel the need to hide your identity? What are you hiding from?

Now Tyler, you know that I have not gone online to seek you out and publish online nasties about you, as you must, if you are honest, have done against me. You have placed negative comments on most every website article, review or blog mentioning my name and this research. You can continue with your attempts to lie and deceive people about your proclaimed neutrality, your nonchalant "I don't care where it happened" claims, but your ACTIONS are not consistent with your words. If it does not mean anything to you, why have you, for more than 4 years now, done your level best to spread false and deceitful information everywhere my research shows up. You have taken it upon yourself to keep this information from getting out the membership of the Church, hiding behind your livy ID and claiming you are just neutral. That is not neutrality, that is activism and you are the most active in this than anyone else. In your post above you hide behind your claim that no ones salvation is dependant on it, yet you have spent many hundreds of hours attacking me. Why can't YOU just let it go? Why are you so invested in attacking me? Since to you this is so unimportant, why have you spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours of your time stalking me and then attacking me? Again, your claims and your actions are world's apart.

I find it almost funny that you now ask for civility and respectfulness after you, earlier in this thread, have attacked me and put links to your favorite Mesoamerican promotion organizations websites. That you continue to claim neutrality on the issue by FAIR is truly laughable! FAIR is a 100% Mesoamerican promotion front organization (in the BOM Geography realm) and the EVIDENCE and PROOF of this fact is their very own youtube channel with now has well over 250 video's all promoting Mesoamerica theories, and 0 (zero, nadda, nothing) promoting anything else. You can make false claims all day long, but "by their works you shall know them" and their works demonstrate the truth about their Mesoamerican promotion. Also, the fact that they leave out much of what Joseph Smith said - and did - in regards to BOM geography is further evidence of their unquestionable bias.

I have grown weary of your continued attacks and therefore in a few places where your Mesoamerican devotee's aren't in control of the conversation, have refuted and exposed just a slight few of your false claims. Since you have determined to continue with your attacks you might find more refuting them on our part. Why can't you simply present your case for Mesoamerica and let us present our case and let the members of the Church decide? Instead you feel compelled to use false information to tell members why you think it could not have possibly happened in North America... but what is rich is when many times your arguments against it are equally damning for your theories. I know one of the reasons you and other Mesoamerican promoters can't simply let Church members determine for themselves is because you believe that they are not smart enough or are incapable to come to the "correct" decision without your so-called "scholarly" help. Yet the Lord has said that every member of the Church has been given the give of the Holy Ghost which bears witness to the truth of all things. Why don't I ever hear you and your Mesoamerica promotion organizations simply follow this route in determining truth? What are you all so afraid of? You know that the vast majority of Church members, once they see the entirety of the information, are 95-98% likely to come to a belief in the Heartland Model...and that is why you and your Mesoamerican promotion organizations are so determined to discourage ANY review of my material, DVD's, books, website etc.

Are you saying that you are showing "respect" for my research when you make the kind of statements as you did early on in this thread...before I began posting? You shoot off your baseless attacks and when you are caught, then you ask for respect from me and then pretend you are upset by the tone of the conversation. Apparently, the tone of your attacks you consider to be respectful, and when I refute you I am being disrespectful, right? No Tyler, after 4 years of your unrelenting attacks I have grown weary of allowing you to continue to get away with the misleading and indeed deliberately lying comments you make.

Also, Tyler, you know that I have even tried to 'wave the white flag' and several times offered to have you over for dinner so we could discuss our differences in private, but you are instead determined and insist on putting our differences all up online so the world can "watch the Church's High Priests slugging it out" as one anti-Mormon site has mentioned. I have been trying to avoid such public conflict, you seem to relish in it, going out of your way to cause it. They are just thrilled with watching we faithful Church members bad mouthing each other. It presents such a wonderful view of the Church to the world, don't you think, Tyler? Of course I'm being sarcastic here, because I, for one, would rather see us work out our differences off-line, where we can have our disagreements outside of the public square and work towards reconciliation, but you and your Mesoamerican co-horts have refused to even allow me to come and present my research to your organizations, to print any rebuttals, to speak at your conferences, or even meet in person.

The only Mesoamerica promotion person I've been able to have a face-to-face meeting with in 4 years is Daniel Petersen and we, this past spring, had a nice, cordial and respectful conversation over lunch which I bought and then gave him about $200 of free materials for his review. To date I've never heard a peep back from him. We disagree, but I think Dan is a nice fellow. You, on the other hand have shunned my offers and have never reciprocated. You want contention and everywhere you post your comments the contention level rises many notches. You thrive on it, you seem to crave it and I am sorry, but I don't.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by larsenb »

Benjamin Harrison wrote:Another problem with N. America is the mountain range that is described in the BOM that runs from east to . . . . .
Very interesting sculpture of Kokopelli. Do you know who did it and where it is located? Couldn't get it to reproduce here.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

Hello Rod,
So, after reading your long post, I take it you are declining a respectful conversation based on evidence?

Also, you are not your theory. I disagree with your theory and has no bering as to my feelings about you. When I provide evidence against your theory, that is not me talking badly about you. If I've done something in the past that has offended you, I sincerely apologize. I do, however, enjoy speaking about BOM geography. You have gotten me interested in it and have studied it at length since we first spoke. You asked that your facts be checked, so I did and came to the opposite conclusion that you have. That doesn't mean I dislike you, quite the contrary. It means I disagree with you. Since joining this conversation, I've had to change my beliefs numerous times as new facts are brought to my attention. When you, or others criticize my beliefs, I take them to heart and study them out. If they hold up then I alter my beliefs on BOM geography. It is really a refining process that I am grateful for. If I were to automatically discard all information that disagreed with me, I would not get closer to the truth but would be stuck in a rut. If I or someone else says something that shows a certain aspect of your theory to be wrong, then I would wish that you would refine your theory to make it stronger. We can all use constructive criticisms. But, for you to be as dis-respectful to me as you are because I disagree with your theory does not show me and others that you are willing to accept any fact that contradicts your theory, but are so set in it that facts no longer matter. All I hope for is cordial dialogue that we may learn from each other. I know I can learn from you, but it is hard to get past the continual insults you throw at me, and condescending words. Let me plead with you again. Let's have a cordial conversation that is based on the evidence. No insults, and disrespect. Just you and me discussing the issues. Is this possible?

BTW, I am still more than happy to meet with you (again). I apologized for having ill-health and not being able to make the dinner appointment. You also live quite a ways from me, but am happy to meet somewhere in the middle if you'd like.
God bless,
livy

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

Benjamin Harrison wrote:DR. Jones: SEE: Pool of the rain God Altar of un-hewn limestone found in Chemenche, Mexico. Also are the Izapa stella # 5 in Guatemala depicting Lehi's Dream of the tree of Life written in Chiasmic form no less. Other ruins glyphs that have been found are also in chiasmic form as well.
tree of life.jpg
Izapa stella 5.png
On H.W. Hunters desk.jpg
I guess you have to google it as I can't get a link to work here. Academia.edu/pool-of-the-rain-god-stuccoed-altar-aguacatal-chemeche-mexico.

Even honest Mesoamerican scholars have refuted the validity of Stella #5 as being a "Lehi stone" see "A New Artistic Rendering of Izapa Stela 5: A Step toward Improved Interpretation" by John E. Clark at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=1&id=181. It is wishful thinking on the part of some over-zealous Mesoamerican promoters.

In contrast, readers may want to take a close examination of the validation of the Bat Creek Stone recently completed through a full scientific analysis of the stone inscribed with ancient Hebrew (one of the two languages mentioned in the BOM) and recovered in an official archaeological dig by the Smithsonian Institution. The analysis was done by American Petrographic Services of St. Paul, MN at the McClung Museum on the campus of Tennessee State University. You can read the entire article, including links to the published analysis in the article "Hebrew Written Language CONFIRMED in Hopewell Mound in Tennessee!" found at http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=23. This is the first and ONLY confirmed Hebrew anywhere in the America's and it recovered in an archaeological dig in Tennessee, USA! Unlike our Mesoamerican promoters, this verification was completed without ANY Mormon involvement whatever. This was not done by LDS "scholars" as is virtually everything presented in support of Mesoamerican archaeology. When you read articles in support of Mesoamerican theories, they most often are quoting themselves. Take a look at the bibliographies and see how many main-stream journals they are quoting. You might be surprised at how few there are. This is not scholarship. This is cronyism and circular reasoning.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

Have you read the work of John Sorenson? He very rarely quotes LDS scholars, but uses mainstream archaeology and science. Same thing with Brant Gardner. You cannot dismiss all Mesoamerican evidence by inaccurately saying they quote themselves. You are again trying to dissuade people from a Mesoamerican theory without evidence for your claim as wrong as it is.
Regarding the Bat Creek Stone, Scott Wolter of American Petrographic Services deliberately avoids peer review. One friend wrote "It appears to me that there are two fundamental errors in the report, the first being that they take the word of Emmett basedon his qualifications and appear to simply dismiss the other claims as speculations (after first poisoning the well). Thus they make the assumption the mound was undisturbed at the time of the finding of the stone, that the stone was where JE claimed it was etc.

Second, the SEM may demonstrate a lack of residue in the set of lettering, thus differentiating them from the scratches added after it was allegedly found, but I don't see how that demonstrates weathering over a long period of time especially when the item is described as polished."


Personally, I am hoping it is authentic, but there are enough questions to be answered that keep me from accepting it wholeheartedly. Fraudulent items were prevalent during this time period. I actually began using at evidence for The Book of Mormon over 10 years ago to answer questions. It was a slam dunk. The Book of Mormon said that there were Hebrews in the Americas and now we found evidence of the Hebrew language here. What more could I ask for? But after I actually started digging into it's authenticity, I began to doubt it more and more. I cannot fully discount it, but the evidence seems to be in favor of it being a forgery. I have read everything I have found both for and against the Batcreek stones authenticity before seriously forming an opinion on it. I believe it could be a forgery for many reasons. It was found by John Emmert under the head of a skeleton.There was no archaeological team, no photos, no field notes, no strat mapping or anything that archaeologists do, and no witnesses there to back up Emmert. Emmert was actually fired in 1887 for drunkenness and was very eager to get his job back. Then he finds this stone which just so happens to support his bosses view. He was also familiar with forgeries being involved in the discovering forgeries of pipes and was the one who identified them as such. He knew how to identify them and would also know how others would identify them.
Among the Batcreek stone was found two brass bracelets which current metallurgical analysis show the exact same proportion of copper and zinc in them that were being produced during that time period all over England.
What about the Hebrew writing on it (I don't buy into the Cherokee argument, it is paleo-Hebrew)? There is a freemasonry publication in 1870 that has a picture of a transcription from a Jewish revolt coin which is almost an exact match for what is found on the Batcreek stone. It looks like someone just copied the letters from this book that was available at that time. You can see a side by side comparison between the BCS and the book here: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Ancient ... stone.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Read here from what archaeologist's have to say about it. http://books.google.com/books?id=RlRz2s ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by larsenb »

Rod Meldrum wrote:
Also, before putting to much stock in the FARMS Review attacks against the Heartland Model, you might want to know that all those involved with the editorial board of the publication were summarily fired from the Church's BYU Maxwell Institute for undisclosed reasons. However, what IS known is that they spent months in assembling hundreds of pages of attack articles against a member of the Church in excellent standing while using Church funds to promote their own theories, which runs contrary to the Church's official position of neutrality on Book of Mormon geography. The issue bearing the attacks was some 8 months behind schedule for undisclosed reasons.

Find out the facts and the truth about their firings from their own words at the links included in this URL http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=24 and a reply to the shameless attack article by the now defunct and terminated FARMS Review.
This whole cavalier dismissal of Dr. Peterson (and others) from The Maxwell Institute is disturbing. It reminds me of how Dr. Steve Jones was treated by people representing and allied with BYU. Daniel Peterson's letter to Bradford and subsequent posts on his blog certainly underscores his legitimate grievances. Some of those dismissed didn't even get an email notification. Ugh to the maximum!

Whether it had anything to do with articles maligning you (and Smith's was over the top, no doubt about it), is really beside the point that Peterson and his fellows were treated so shabbily. And I think it was Livy111 that provided good evidence that your thesis on this point doesn't quite hold up.

They obviously made a strategic mistake in aligning FARMS with BYU. It was never any mystery that FARMS was started by people picking up on where others such as Wells Jakeman and Christiansen left off; people who favored the Mesoamerican model. So what. That so many people who had put in multiple years (upwards to 30+ years for some) into FARMS to be treated so poorly is really unconscionable.

I've read quite a few articles from FARMS people rebutting some of your ideas and was never struck that they were ad hominem in intent.

User avatar
Benjamin Harrison
captain of 100
Posts: 472

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Benjamin Harrison »

LaresenB: Here you go.
Kokopelli Moroni.jpg
sculpture by, John Coleman at the McLarry Fine art Center in Santa Fe, NM

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by JohnnyL »

Hey, here's an idea: put up a website for BoM lands, with all the possibilities, and let each point be represented/ debated, rebutted, etc.

I think it will soon be evident that ALL of the theories have problems.

Yet, all will be represented.

About the only good thing I can think of coming out of this, is people reading the BoM more carefully.
Well, sometimes.

Helaman3000
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 4

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman3000 »

Rod Meldrum wrote: Rod: Ed, for the record, I had never heard of either you or Wayne May before coming to the conclusion that the lands had to be in the Heartland of North America. The DNA research I was doing was leading in that direction and I have always known that the Promised Land was the United States, as do most Mormon's who have not been indoctrinated with Mesoamerican theories. This is not the first time you have made this inaccurate accusation...that I based my theory on yours and Waynes, but it is simply incorrect. I was already doing presentations before I met Wayne at a presentation in the Provo Library. It was only then that I realized that there were others who already believed as I had found. Ed, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and obviously you have yours and I have mine, but please stop saying that I somehow plagiarized your theory. The fact is that I and Wayne and Bruce Porter and many others have come to the same conclusion independent of each other. I don't want to "burst your bubble" but I did not base my theory on your book. You may be short-changing yourself and your previous work by not continuing to standing with it. With all that is coming out now, I can't help but think you and I ought to get back together again and take a new look at it. I think you'll be happy you did. Keep up the good work!
Rod... I actually tried to lock myself out of this site so I could keep myself from posting more by changing my password to a bunch of random stuff so I couldn't log back in, because I thought I was done here. So I have yet created another account, just for the sake of responding to you. I thought that we were done a long time ago. I'm not going to argue with you or livy or the Mesoamericanists anymore. My book Resurrecting Cumorah is done as to the content for the Revision #4, and has been for a while. To be perfectly honest Rod, you exhaust me. I have no desire to hash out the facts with you once again, but Livy/FAIR et al have the evidence that you based your theory on my theory inasmuch as you were praising my book before any of your stuff came out in 2003. It is perfectly fine to base yours on another theory and make tweaks to it. That isn't plagiarism. Who cares? I don't anymore, but you continue to not give credit where credit is due, and for that, I say you are less than honest. I don't care what you do, but you will stand before Jehovah to answer for what you are less than honest about. I made no accusation that you "plagiarized" it for a very long time. I haven't made that accusation since I was riled up against you by what happened on the FAIR blog in 2008. But the fact of the matter is, your intellectual pursuit on geography is simply based on those who came before you, but you will not acknowledge that, because for you, I don't know, maybe its a ego thing. I have no idea. There is nothing wrong with owing other people an intellectual debt. Einstien owed one to Newton. Who cares? I just think that you ought to give credit where credit is due, and you ought not to deny the truth in this matter. The whole first part of This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation was about giving credit to those who came before Wayne and I.

Whatever man. It's all over with, as I have no desire for more Book of Mormon Geography stuff. I have solved the puzzle to my own satisfaction, and left my record behind me of that fact. Nobody cares about it, and continues to listen to people like you saying inane things like this or that is second hand or whatever so it shouldn't be listened to. Brant Gardner took you to task for that a very long time ago, but you just keep on with it, making the same inane charges about the quote.

There is a huge chasm between me and you Rod. And that is, I retract what I find out is incorrect. You continue to uphold stuff with illogical reasoning.

Rod, I made an offer to have something to do with you some time ago, and collaborate on something, but you wanted nothing of it, nor did you want to offer me to be a part of the FIRM foundation. I have no ill feelings toward you or to Livy, or to FAIR. I'm trying to forgive everyone, and I'm pretty numb after all that has happened.

If you want to talk further, email me at kokobim@gmail.com, but now I have to sign off again and try to keep myself off of this site. If you have something you would like to collaborate on, it is a possibility, but I don't know where our minds can meet. Let's talk.

Ed Goble

Helaman3000
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 4

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman3000 »

JohnnyL wrote:Hey, here's an idea: put up a website for BoM lands, with all the possibilities, and let each point be represented/ debated, rebutted, etc.

I think it will soon be evident that ALL of the theories have problems.

Yet, all will be represented.

About the only good thing I can think of coming out of this, is people reading the BoM more carefully.
Well, sometimes.
There is no use in this. It's all been said before. Its all been hashed and re-hashed out. I am tired, and Rod makes me even more tired.

Helaman3000
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 4

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman3000 »

Rod, here are the quotes from the FAIR Wiki (incidentally, I'm sure you are unaware, while I was a FAIR wiki editor before I quit FAIR, I did you a HUGE favor and toned this down a lot from what it used to be! As the FAIR guys were going to town with it, and even Greg Smith was using it in his paper that was published by FARMS -- See http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... ldrum_2003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So the remainder of this post is a direct quote from the Fair Wiki:

Ed Goble has also charged that this model plagiarized elements from his first geography (Goble-May 2002) without attribution.[2]
Note: Goble has since retracted his old belief in the US Heartland Model in favor of a new setting, the "Two Heartland" theory (Goble-2004). Also, more recently, Goble now realizes that his initial charge against Meldrum's model was too emotionally-based, and that excessive fault-finding about minutia is unproductive. Also, Goble now realizes that any new geographical model based in any particular setting is bound to build upon the former models, and it is understandable how it is that it can be difficult to give credit where each idea one builds upon comes from.

"Conclusion of DVD uses the Michigan relics as evidence. The DVD elsewhere refers to these artifacts as "a person on a cross" which makes their identity clear (Meldrum, DVD (2007), Sect #14, 7:56.) For more details, see subheading "Michigan Relics as Evidence," in Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography, Section 5: Identifying the Nephites, FAIR (2009)..
After the initial charge had been made about Meldrum's geography, the head of the FIRM Foundation (Rod Meldrum) replied:
“Seek first to understand, then to be understood” would be a good idea for this last post. You have obviously not seen Meldrum’s DVD as he has no Michigan artifacts in it and he came to his DNA conclusions long before encountering Wayne May.[3]
The former claim is false, since the Michigan forgeries are in the presentation (see screenshot image)
The head of the FIRM Foundation later told Goble:
This geography was not plagerized [sic] from you at all, as you so indicated in your rant. You called ALL of the Great Lakes ‘Sea West’, you claim the ‘Nephite North’ is a highly skewed angle nearly making Lake Ontario and Lake Erie north/south of each other (see p.75 of your book) which completely changes your geographic ideas. I do not espouse either of these arguements [sic]. If you had seen the DVD, you would have known that out [sic] geographies are substantially different, if not unrelated. Your unsubstantiated claim that I copied your geography is not true. I began to research North American geographies after I had worked on the DNA evidence. I had come to many preliminary conclusions prior to my meeting Wayne May. I found his geographic ideas were the closest to what I had found, and so went to one of his presentations to learn more. Again I am being accused without evidence in fact. I agree with you, your geography doesn’t work and I don’t blame you for abandoning it. The proposed geography of my DVD has many things that need to be addressed as well, and I am hoping for competent help in establishing a more complete understanding.[4]
It has, however, been pointed out that Meldrum's enthusiasm for Goble's book was much greater than his statements might lead us to believe, from a testimonial posted on Wayne May's website:
“Wayne May’s book series provides the 'most comprehensive compilation of Book of Mormon background history, geography, logical research, and artifacts (complete with photographs), of any book on the subject to date….Open your mind and heart to the information contained in these books, and you will gain a renewed love for the prophet and the Book of Mormon itself. Truth will prevail.”[5]
Goble has pointed out that one of his ideas is quite unique, and matches the Heartland model's claim:
“The idea of a confluence of rivers making up the head of the Sidon is lifted from MY book, Mr. Meldrum. That was MY idea.”[6]
This can be compared with The FIRM Foundation's identical idea.[7]

User avatar
CUMORAH
captain of 50
Posts: 81

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by CUMORAH »

Called to Serve wrote:Pardon me if this topic has been discussed before...There are two theories I believe are possible, the United States location, because of its current status as the home of a blessed nation and the South America location...I haven't studied the topic more than casually. But I am curious about it. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject.
What you see being argued so far are two center points: heartland of the United States and south of our border. There is a third option - the Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, NY.

Below in my signature you'll find links to several models centered around Cumorah in Palmyra, NY. There are two central themes highlighted/required by these models:

1. Prophet statements where the Nephite battle was.

2. Prophecies about the Book of Mormon.

User avatar
CUMORAH
captain of 50
Posts: 81

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by CUMORAH »

So as to not derail this thread, I have opened a new topic for any interested in the topic of Cumorah:

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 98#p332501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

CUMORAH wrote:So as to not derail this thread, I have opened a new topic for any interested in the topic of Cumorah:

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 98#p332501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by RaVaN »

I have to thank all who posted in this thread. This was by far one of the more enlightening discussions on this topic that I have seen to date. It was a veritable wealth of information. On the same note, it also pointed me into a more focused research into various themes and views that I had not considered before. It also cemented my views of a hemispheric model and why I think a hemispheric model is more accurate without accepting any current model I have seen. There is alot of evidence for the Book of Mormon in generalities throughout the Americas. Some of it seems to point overwhelmingly to specific limited models, except they all seem to have fatal flaws. When you start adding it all together however, add in various archeological evidences it points away from a limited model and towards a hemispheric model. This ,of course, is my opinion, but I do have to thank you all for an enlightening discussion.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

RaVaN wrote:I have to thank all who posted in this thread. This was by far one of the more enlightening discussions on this topic that I have seen to date. It was a veritable wealth of information. On the same note, it also pointed me into a more focused research into various themes and views that I had not considered before. It also cemented my views of a hemispheric model and why I think a hemispheric model is more accurate without accepting any current model I have seen. There is alot of evidence for the Book of Mormon in generalities throughout the Americas. Some of it seems to point overwhelmingly to specific limited models, except they all seem to have fatal flaws. When you start adding it all together however, add in various archeological evidences it points away from a limited model and towards a hemispheric model. This ,of course, is my opinion, but I do have to thank you all for an enlightening discussion.
If you rely on the opinions of past leaders, there is no reason to come to any other conclusion than a Hemispheric model for The Book of Mormon (and a few Pacific Islands as well). There is no constant limited geography model taught since the beginning of the Church, but every limited geography theory activist can give quotes of certain Prophets or Apostles which support their theory. If there was some unity in thought, this would not happen. But there is no unity because there has been no revelation on the subject so it is left up to the discretion of the readers of The Book of Mormon to determine it's whereabouts. Until the Lord reveals it, it is ALL conjecture.

With that said, there are also problems with a HGT (along with every other model). This is a fair review of the HGT including it's history, pros & cons, etc... http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... phy_Theory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think distances in The Book of Mormon pose a problem for this model, as well as the implications of this theory.

There is also more detailed history of this theory here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=555" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The HGT actually starts in the 4th paragraph

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by RaVaN »

livy111us wrote:
RaVaN wrote:I have to thank all who posted in this thread. This was by far one of the more enlightening discussions on this topic that I have seen to date. It was a veritable wealth of information. On the same note, it also pointed me into a more focused research into various themes and views that I had not considered before. It also cemented my views of a hemispheric model and why I think a hemispheric model is more accurate without accepting any current model I have seen. There is alot of evidence for the Book of Mormon in generalities throughout the Americas. Some of it seems to point overwhelmingly to specific limited models, except they all seem to have fatal flaws. When you start adding it all together however, add in various archeological evidences it points away from a limited model and towards a hemispheric model. This ,of course, is my opinion, but I do have to thank you all for an enlightening discussion.
If you rely on the opinions of past leaders, there is no reason to come to any other conclusion than a Hemispheric model for The Book of Mormon (and a few Pacific Islands as well). There is no constant limited geography model taught since the beginning of the Church, but every limited geography theory activist can give quotes of certain Prophets or Apostles which support their theory. If there was some unity in thought, this would not happen. But there is no unity because there has been no revelation on the subject so it is left up to the discretion of the readers of The Book of Mormon to determine it's whereabouts. Until the Lord reveals it, it is ALL conjecture.

With that said, there are also problems with a HGT (along with every other model). This is a fair review of the HGT including it's history, pros & cons, etc... http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... phy_Theory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think distances in The Book of Mormon pose a problem for this model, as well as the implications of this theory.

There is also more detailed history of this theory here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=555" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The HGT actually starts in the 4th paragraph

This is pretty much my thoughts and the first lnk you posted echos my own thoughts on the disadvantages:
Disadvantages include:
distances in the Book of Mormon are extremely difficult to square with the HGT scale, which requires thousands of miles in a North-South direction
even if it were true that there was an exceedingly great distance between the core Nephite domain and the Cumorah where the Nephites and the Jaredites were destroyed, there is no justification from the text of also extending this exceeding distance throughout the whole western hemisphere.
The distance issue from Chile to Cumorah in New York is in terms of 6-8 thousand miles depending on how you do the figuring. That distance is pretty staggering and hard to work around especially when you figure in the city building that went on during the Book of Mormon time period. It also requires some pretty significant population increases. However, the distance issue by itself isn't such a huge issue by foot when you figure in what some of the modern footrace times/distances have been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-American_Footrace

Best time being 573 hours for 3,423 miles in one 1928 races. That amounts to about 5 miles an hour. Which running 12 hours a day for about 50 days will get you there. 100 days will start getting you close to the right distance. That of course is semi straight line distance, but even so, following the coastline gives you a relative quick path versus terrain.
The population increase isn't such a big deal either when you figure how fast it is for populations to increase in a relatively short period of time.

Those same limited geography quotes when you take all them just add to the hemispheric model in my view and should be looked to as such. As you say, it is ALL conjecture.

My biggest issue with some of these limited geography views is that some people accept them as dogma. I know in the Church of Christ(TL), recently one of the Apostles published a book (A Book of Mormon Companion: Witnesses to its Validity, by Donald E. Mclndoo I think) that uses a limited geography model that to me is just so flawed as to suspend belief.

http://www.cocsermons.net/bom_archaeology_map.html

Now, as a mental exercise and opinion, I have no real issue with any of the guesses out there. What I do have an issue with is the rejection of so much other evidence in order to sell a pretty story to convert the heathen by making them feel special. It's a pretty story but it just is inaccurate to say the least. I have heard the story told to the Maya that "they are descendants of the Nephites". It's a real problem in my eyes because you are selling something that just isn't true and is just opinion. I also have an issue with a complete rejection of restoration beliefs from almost the beginning of the restoration.

Now my personal opinion (and it is just that) is the beginning of the Book of Mormon story in the Americas begins in South America. I suspect that the Chavin Culture/Moche culture were those early peoples. I like Venice Priddis' Book and the Map because there are some pretty important things in there discussing this BUT it only scratches the surface.

Anyhow, figuring the BoM geography is very much like trying to see a painting that is missing huge chunks. I often time think that the reason there hasn't been definative prophetic utterings on this is because Faith is more important than knowledge than evidence to the historical evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

I do see it as a way for people to get lost and confused in the truths they hold dear. Someone gets presented with a mass of information that sounds plausible and then they hinge their belief on that information and when evidence to that contrary of that information is presented...they throw the baby out with the bath water.

This is why I tend to tell people to do the research and determine it on their own. Without that divine instruction, it is better not to accept the views of other men as truth when you are very lacking in seeing the whole picture.

I do however, spend more time on this than I should at times, but it is just fascinating to me to start in Chile and end in New York and see what the evidence leads every year or so. When I do that, I am just amazed at the things in the Book of Mormon that are evidenced along that path and wonder how people can accept a limited geography model as IT ALL HAPPENED HERE. The evidence as a whole just doesn't add up looking at the current archeological evidence.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

RaVaN wrote:
Those same limited geography quotes when you take all them just add to the hemispheric model in my view and should be looked to as such. As you say, it is ALL conjecture.
The HGT was, and is the most prominent geography theory. In the early days, Orson Pratt championed the HGT and it's stuck around. I have no reason to doubt that Joseph Smith believed this as well. But, it is conjecture like all of the other theories. Fun and interesting to discuss, but will probably be one of the things we will only discover after this life.
RaVaN wrote: My biggest issue with some of these limited geography views is that some people accept them as dogma.
That is wrong on so many levels. I have seen an increase of this with Rod Meldrum's theory being popularized, which is one of the many reasons I oppose it.
RaVaN wrote: I know in the Church of Christ(TL), recently one of the Apostles published a book (A Book of Mormon Companion: Witnesses to its Validity, by Donald E. Mclndoo I think) that uses a limited geography model that to me is just so flawed as to suspend belief.
Interesting. There is a lot of bad information out there, and no geography theory is immune to it. One thing I really appreciate with the Mesoamerican theory is that with the likes of John Sorenson and Brant Gardner, they've dispelled a lot of the bad information that was popularized by the likes of Jack West and others.
RaVaN wrote:Anyhow, figuring the BoM geography is very much like trying to see a painting that is missing huge chunks. I often time think that the reason there hasn't been definative prophetic utterings on this is because Faith is more important than knowledge than evidence to the historical evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

I do see it as a way for people to get lost and confused in the truths they hold dear. Someone gets presented with a mass of information that sounds plausible and then they hinge their belief on that information and when evidence to that contrary of that information is presented...they throw the baby out with the bath water.

This is why I tend to tell people to do the research and determine it on their own. Without that divine instruction, it is better not to accept the views of other men as truth when you are very lacking in seeing the whole picture.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
RaVaN wrote: I do however, spend more time on this than I should at times, but it is just fascinating to me to start in Chile and end in New York and see what the evidence leads every year or so. When I do that, I am just amazed at the things in the Book of Mormon that are evidenced along that path and wonder how people can accept a limited geography model as IT ALL HAPPENED HERE. The evidence as a whole just doesn't add up looking at the current archeological evidence.
Even in most LGT, the authors generally don't claim that all events of the Lehites are contained in a small area. But since that is where the interest, and where the majority of events are, they focus on that. Again, with the distances determined in The Book of Mormon seem to place it in a smaller area, but not confined to this area. You have major travel, and migrations "northward" by the Nephites, and most positively southward and elsewhere by the Lamanites. We have numerous stories in The BOM that are mentioned, but never told. Off the top of my head you have Amulek who was a descendant of Aminadi who interpreted the writing on the Temple wall written by the finger of God. Where did this happen, and why isn't it in the main text of The BOM? I believe there were Nephites who made it to the Great Lakes area from Mesoamerican and were most likely part of the mass migrations northward mentioned in Alma. I wrote an article on this topic a while back and present evidence from several fields of Mesoamerican's traveling northward as well. http://www.bmaf.org/node/458" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
While a LGT presents what we believe to be the main stage of the BOM, it is in no way the *only* area of the Lehites.

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by RaVaN »

Another thing that occured to me last night while thinking about this subject is what God told the "Lehites"(I am stealing that word, never occured to me to use that) and the Jaredites about the land they were going to.


http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?la ... ament=bofm



1 Nephi 2:20

20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.


Ether 10:28

28 And never could be a people more blessed than were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord. And they were in a land that was choice above all lands, for the Lord had spoken it.


2 Nephi 1:5

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.


Ether 2:10

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.


Ether 13:2

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;


2 Nephi 10:19

19 Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God.


Jacob 5:43

43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.


Ether 2:12

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.


Ether 9:20

20 And thus the Lord did pour out his blessings upon this land, which was choice above all other lands; and he commanded that whoso should possess the land should possess it unto the Lord, or they should be destroyed when they were ripened in iniquity; for upon such, saith the Lord: I will pour out the fulness of my wrath.


Ether 1:42

42 And when thou hast done this thou shalt go at the head of them down into the valley which is northward. And there will I meet thee, and I will go before thee into a land which is choice above all the lands of the earth.


Going down that list you see a recurring theme: A choice land, land of freedom, land where God will lead people. In the mesoamerica models, that just doesn't apply with the descriptions. North America and South America do fit. I am not saying that parts of mesoamerica are not nice...but choice above all other lands? Even after the cataclysmic events after the death of Christ those two areas in general remained a choice land...even with the Andes. Another point I ponder is that we don't know the full extent of the cataclysmic events or other cataclysmic events soon after the flood. An example would be Lake Agassiz or Lake Bonneville

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

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

Current scientific theories place the draining of that lake at about 10,000 and 14,000 years ago. These both were huge events that changed the landscape and need to be taken into account.

Ether 1:43 is even more specific on the Jaredites:

"43 And there will I bless thee and thy seed, and raise up unto me of thy seed, and of the seed of thy brother, and they who shall go with thee, a great nation. And athere shall be none bgreater than the nation which I will raise up unto me of thy seed, upon all the face of the earth. And thus I will do unto thee because this long time ye have cried unto me."

Which civilization in the Americas fits this passage? The Olmec don't fit it, the Inca are too late in the timeline, the Adena don't fit that even at thier highest peak and so forth down the known civilizations. This suggests to me something is missing in the archelogical record as some have suggested outside of mainstream archeology. I also suspect there was a repurposing of many ruins to use of people after the events in the Book of Mormon that has muddied the record. There is ample evidence that this repurposing of ruins occured with the Inca structures when you examine the ruins. Repairs were done that were just shoddy compared with the amazing skill done below the repairs.


http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_9.htm Not the greatest link, but some information in there to get a start.

Anyhow, these thoughts and more keep me pondering the question because there are just too many unknowns and I haven't seen very many take a holistic approach to some of these questions even though Venice Priddis in general NOT specifics probably comes closest because those questions are broached even if they aren't answered. I know alot of people thing that throwing out the scientific interpetations of data is just twisting things to fit your belief, but when the scientific models just are ridiculous...it's best to make your own interpetations. I like to use the Grand Canyon as an example, it wasn't to long ago that the commonly accepted theory of how the Grand Canyon area was made was by the Colorada river + wind over eons. There were some creationists that showed that no, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by water, and were unduly critized for that thought...but now the view is become very apparent that it was made very swiftly during one of the lakes draining. They still try to make it into a uniformity view versus cataclysmic. I would post the links and might still when I have a bit more time, but I just found that to be interesting.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

RaVaN wrote: Going down that list you see a recurring theme: A choice land, land of freedom, land where God will lead people. In the mesoamerica models, that just doesn't apply with the descriptions. North America and South America do fit. I am not saying that parts of mesoamerica are not nice...but choice above all other lands?
I'm short on time, so I'll respond to the main point of your post (above). I mentioned earlier in this thread that I do not disagree that America fits that description and is the land of Promise. However, the land of promise is not confined to the modern boundaries we have set. If not so, would it have only included the boundaries of America when The Book of Mormon was discovered? The original boundaries of America? Would it include Alaska? Hawaii? The territories that are currently under hegemony of our government? Past leaders of the Church have said many times that the land of promise includes all of North and South America.

Wilford Woodruff “This land, North and South America, is the land of Zion; it is a choice land—the land that was given by promise from old father Jacob to his grandson and his descendants, the land on which the Zion of God should be established in the latter days.” Journal of Discourses (12 January 1873), 15:279.

“the land of North and South America is a very much favored portion of our Father’s footstool, and he has declared with his own mouth that it is a land of promise—a chosen land—above all other lands.” George F. Richards, in Conference Report, October 1922, 80.

Orson Pratt: “And the Lord gave unto them the whole continent, for a land of promise….” Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840); cited in David J. Whittaker, The Essential Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), p. 11.

“the land of Joseph is the land of Zion; and it takes North and South America to make the land of Joseph.” Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 6:296 (15 August 1852).

I wrote a blog post about this that you can read here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/09/16/land ... of-mormon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I said in part:

The Book of Mormon states several times that the land which they were led to, was the “promised land”, or a “choice land”. According to The Book of Mormon, the Promised Land shall be a land of liberty, with no kings upon the land [1], and be discovered by a Gentile whom the Spirit of God wrought, to cross “many waters” [2] in order to find, among many others.

The “Gentile” who discovered the Americas is generally thought to be Christopher Columbus. In the 1879 Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt added the footnote to 1 Nephi 13:12 which named this “gentile” as Christopher Columbus. Columbus began writing a book called “Book of Prophecies” and in this book

“set forth views on himself as the fulfiller of biblical prophecies! Columbus saw himself as fulfilling the ‘islands of the sea’ passages from Isaiah and another group of verses concerning the conversion of the heathen. Watts reports that Columbus was preoccupied with ‘the final conversion of all races on the eve of the end of the world,’ paying particular attention to John 10:16: ‘And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold’ (see also 3 Nephi 16:3). He took his mission of spreading the gospel of Christ seriously. ‘made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth. . . . He showed me the spot where to find it,’ Columbus wrote in 1500.” [3]

As the scripture says, the Spirit led the gentile to the Promised land, the Spirit also led Columbus to the Americas.

The prevailing opinion is that Columbus discovered America, or the United States. But in all actuality, Christopher Columbus discovered islands in the Caribbean, and Central and South America. He never stepped foot on what we now know as the United States. His first two voyages were only to the Bahamas, his third to the Bahamas and the Northern portion of South America, and his fourth to the Bahamas and Central America. If 1 Nephi 13:12 is referring to Christopher Columbus, that would mean the land he discovered was part of the “promised land”.

Point being, the land of promise in The Book of Mormon is not only the USA, but all of North and South America. It is not the land that is important, it is the promise that is made. I'll post a quote from Matt Roper on the subject in my next post.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

It's a bit long, but has some good info on this topic. It is a review of one of Meldrum's book. It also discusses land of liberty, Lamanites and more.


http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The authors' discussion of an American promised land confuses the parts with the whole (pp. 36–40). The Book of Mormon, they note, speaks of some events that have occurred or will occur in what is now the United States. Therefore, they conclude, only the United States can be the promised land spoken of in the Book of Mormon. There are, they observe, scriptures that speak of the remnant of Lehi in the United States, or in the lands that eventually became the United States; therefore, they reason, only those Native Americans in the United States are related to ancient Lamanites. Their argumentation is faulty since prophecies of events that occur in one part of the land do not exclude the fulfillment of other prophecies elsewhere. In the Bible, Israel obtained a land of promise. "And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein" (Joshua 21:43). That land was a land of promise because of the oath and covenant the Lord made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deuteronomy 1:8; 34:1–4; 1 Chronicles 16:5–18; Psalm 105:6–11). Hence it has been called a "land of promise" (Hebrews 11:9). Similarly, Moroni tells us that the land of the Jaredites was a "land of promise" because of what the Lord had "sworn" unto the brother of Jared (Ether 2:8). The biblical land of promise was Israel's land of inheritance. "Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance" (Psalm 105:11). This refers to the entire land itself, but parts of that land were likewise considered and called lands of inheritance within that greater land of promise. Both the parts and the whole are precious lands; hence the prophecies can speak of "lands of promise" in the Lord's land (2 Nephi 24:2). There are in this sense many finite lands of promise in the larger land of promise. This is why the prophet Jacob can speak of the house of Israel in the latter days being "restored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise" (2 Nephi 9:2). The covenant the Lord made with Israel concerns their "restoration to the lands of their inheritance" (2 Nephi 6:11; 3 Nephi 29:1). Each part of the land of promise is both the land and a land since they are parts of the whole. My wife promised the family a banana cream pie. She made it for us on Thanksgiving. The next day I said, "I ate the best pie in the world." In fact, I ate only one piece of the entire pie, but it was still the best pie in the world. The parts were no less good because they were not the whole. Similarly, one can speak of the promised land even if one knows only a part of it.

Porter and Meldrum provide a useful chart of thirty-six prophecies and promises, listing passages that they believe show that the American land of promise can refer only to the United States (pp. 80–82). The chart is, however, selective, and many of the passages are inadequately addressed by the authors. In fact, the passages, insofar as they are intended to refer exclusively to the United States, do not demonstrate what the authors think they do. Most of them make better sense when understood to include the United States and other lands and nations of the Americas as well. Some passages indeed refer to events that occurred, commenced, or will happen in the future within the United States. These events include the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel, the organization of the church, and the commencement of the gathering of Israel. Future events include the building of the New Jerusalem. It is erroneous, however, to conclude that such references confine the American land of promise to the United States.

One prophecy that deserves more attention than the authors give it is Nephi's vision of the promised land (1 Nephi 11–14). Nephi saw the future events that would eventually culminate in the latter-day fulfillment of the Lord's covenants concerning the seed of Lehi in the land of promise.

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. (1 Nephi 13:12)
Latter-day Saints have almost universally understood this verse to refer to Columbus, a reading with which the authors agree (p. 64). Columbus, however, never visited the land now known as the United States and never encountered the people who lived there. During his first and second voyages, Columbus encountered the islands and people of the Bahamas and the Caribbean, including Cuba and Hispaniola.4 On his third voyage he sailed to northern South America to what is now known as Trinidad and Venezuela. During his fourth and final voyage, he encountered Mayan traders off the coast of Honduras and from there continued southward along the coast of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.5 In his prophecy, Nephi calls those people the seed of his brethren the Lamanites and calls their land "the promised land." Nephi says that the man went forth "unto the seed of my brethren" and that those people were "in the promised land" (1 Nephi 13:12). This suggests that the "promised land" of Nephi's vision must include not just the United States or North America, but parts if not all of Central and South America as well.

And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. And it came pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. (1 Nephi 13:13–15)
Nephi's reference to American "Gentiles," according to Porter and Meldrum, can refer only to Gentiles in the United States: "The Gentiles prophesied in the scriptures above cannot include the Spanish military conquests involved in the rapine and plunder of the peoples of Mesoamerica" (p. 69). The authors reach this conclusion by assuming that the "many multitudes of the Gentiles" are the same Gentiles who "went forth out of captivity." This is not, however, evident from what Nephi says. Again, if the man seen by Nephi in verse 12 is identified as Columbus, then the promised land of Nephi's vision must include more than North America. A more accurate interpretation of verses 14–15 is that the Gentiles who went forth out of captivity were a subgroup of the "Gentiles" or "many multitudes of the Gentiles" upon the promised land who would afflict and scatter Lehi's seed and obtain power over the land. This interpretation is consistent with the teachings of latter-day prophets. At an area conference in 1977, President Spencer W. Kimball taught the Saints in Mexico, "Columbus discovered America in 1492. After him came many colonizers and explorers. The Puritans and Pilgrims came from Europe. . . . For four hundred years the Lamanites were scattered throughout America. Cortes came here, and Pizarro went to South America. They had a great influence upon the people. They scattered them and persecuted them." 6

Nephi continues:

Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance. (1 Nephi 13:30)
Nephi sees that the group of Gentiles who go forth "out of captivity" are "lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land." Thus there must be other nations upon the land over whom those Gentiles might be so lifted. The land "choice above all other lands" must be more extensive than that possessed by any one group or nation. Clearly, the one group mentioned in verses 13, 16–18 is blessed above others in some way. If we understand this to refer to the United States, it makes sense. In what way was the United States blessed above other nations? It was there that an environment of religious liberty was prepared in which the Book of Mormon could eventually be brought forth, the Church of Jesus Christ could be established, and other aspects of the restoration of the gospel could commence. Nephi's vision, however, did not end there but was expanded to include all Gentiles upon the land to whom the blessings of the Book of Mormon and the restoration would eventually be taken, who would, like that first group, have the opportunity to receive the gospel and help gather and be numbered with the remnant of Lehi's seed. This is an expansive view.

And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks—and harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever; they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of Israel shall no more be confounded. (1 Nephi 14:1–2)
Other Book of Mormon prophecies indicate that the teachings concerning the land of promise apply to all nations there, not one nation only:

• "I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land" (Alma 37:25).

• "And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (Alma 45:16).

• "And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity" (Ether 2:9).

• "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written" (Ether 2:12).

• "And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not" (Ether 8:22).

The repeated references to "every nation" and "whatsoever nation" also suggest that there are more nations than one upon the promised land to whom the covenant applies.

JohnShultz
captain of 10
Posts: 38

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by JohnShultz »

I'd like to thank BrentL for locking the topic that spawned off of this one. I thought that Mr. Cumorah had gone too far.

I'd like to make a few responses and observations however to a few statements there. Bobhenstra stated:
bobhenstra wrote: I suggest you read the book "in Search of Cumorah" by David Palmer, all your seemingly objections are handled there.
Ed Goble has directly challenged Mr. Palmer's criteria head on in his book Resurrecting Cumorah (addressing each one in-depth), as well as all the other major points of the Mesoamerican Theorists, and is the first New York Cumorah theorist to do so. I suggest that you take a look at his responses to Palmer. It is worth noting that, up to this point, in all the reviews of Goble's book, including the ones on the BMAF site, no Mesomericanist has chosen to directly try to refute or rebut Ed's work on those points.

Now, for Mr. Cumorah. I think that it is instructive to consider the title of the other thread. Mr. Cumorah called it "Cumorah forever more". This clearly shows that Mr. Cumorah is only open to the idea that Cumorah is in New York, and closed minded to anything else. Furthermore, Mr. Cumorah appeared suddenly on the scene as a new user to this forum to dominate the argument. That is an odd thing. Could it be that he wanted to make bombastic and heavy handed statements that he wouldn't have to answer for, that he wouldn't make otherwise if his true identity were known? Next, he wanted to dominate the argument, attempting to censor anyone else that disagreed with him.

Now, remember that Ed Goble's book, Resurrecting Cumorah actually argues FOR a New York Cumorah. Yet, of Mr. Ed Goble, Mr. Cumorah said:
CUMORAH wrote: Why trust his new work? He thought he was right before. He is confused.
Yet, previously in this thread, Ed himself wrote this in reply to Rod Meldrum:
Helaman3000 wrote: There is a huge chasm between me and you Rod. And that is, I retract what I find out is incorrect. You continue to uphold stuff with illogical reasoning.
So, who is really confused? Mr. Cumorah is trying to rebut someone that agrees with his major premise, that Cumorah is in New York. The difference there is that Ed actually does NOT argue for the New York Cumorah in his book by using the words of the prophets as EVIDENCE. He actually goes back to the drawing board to see what it would take to defend Cumorah without actually appealing to the beliefs of the past as much as possible. His argument actually deserves substantive response from both the Mesoamericanists and the Heartlanders, because it starts out where nobody else has gone before. Palmer's criteria cannot just be quoted now as if there has never been a rebuttal to them. That doesn't mean that Ed has succeeded in his attempt. It just means that now Mesoamericanists should actually address what he has said, and not just quote from previous writings as if Ed's work does not exist. It appears to me that Mr. Cumorah dismissed Ed only because of the fact that Ed was previously a Heartlander, and now he is not, after consideration of the evidence. It seems abundantly clear that Mr. Cumorah is a Heartlander, and dismisses any New York Cumorah theorist that is not a Heartlander. The strength of Ed's work is it actually employ's Mesoamerica and the Heartland of the US to bolster a New York Cumorah argument, and he takes on the dismissive arguments against the lack of evidence at the New York Cumorah head on. But rather than making excuses for lack of evidence, he actually makes the best case he can with the evidence he does have, and makes appropriate concessions for what evidence he does NOT have. While some may argue that he has NOT made the case for it, at the very least, he has established a NEW starting point for it, a new paradigm for it, on which new research can be built. Clearly, he was a one-man band in that effort, while others just dismiss him, and fellow New York theorists just dismiss him too. It seems to me that everyone is underestimating the importance of what he has done as far as raising the bar for the arguments and research on the New York Cumorah. It appears to me that, Mesoamericanists thought that such a thing could not be done, and obviously they don't agree with the premise. However, that is not an excuse for not dealing with the argument carefully. And it also appears to me that some Heartlanders, some not being very profound in their thought process, don't seem to know how to react to it, only to dismiss it.

It seems that the difference between Ed Goble and other theorists that just quote other people is that he is an original thinker. This seems to stand out even in the days of his first book that seems in some part to have established the Heartlander paradigm. Pay close attention to the fact that his book with May was published in 2002, before all of the hullabaloo about the Heartland theory started, and before Meldrum appeared on the scene. And since that didn't work for him, he established something new with Resurrecting Cumorah that just hasn't been looked at carefully enough by thoughtful people.

Post Reply