Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
pritchet1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3600

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by pritchet1 »

+1

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Vision »

livy111us wrote:I am curious why the Kennewick man and Nevada woman bring you to believe in a Great Lakes setting for The Book of Mormon? They lived no where near the Great Lakes region but lived thousands of miles away.

Also, white indians have also been found in Central and South America.
Because North America was covered with pale skinned peoples, I could only think of those 2 off the top of my head at the time of my post.

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

Called to Serve, you'll have to forgive me because I didn't see this post till tonight and didn't know that you had specifically messaged me on this subject.

Here's the basic idea. The one clear statement of Joseph Smith on Book of Mormon Geography is not in the times and seasons statements. It is in the Levi Hancock Journal, where he states that the Land of Desolation was the area he was in in Illinois. Anyone fairly knowledgeable on book of Mormon Geography usually believes that the Land of Desolation was Northward of any narrow Neck candidate. Once upon a time, I tried to argue around this statement of Joseph Smith in favor of Niagara as the neck. Finally, I had to admit to myself that there was no way around it, and it destroyed the Heartland Model that I had supported forever in my mind, even after I published a book on that theory. Whichever way you choose, if you take Joseph smith's statement at face value, the Narrow Neck has to be south of the United states. This is an issue that heartland theorists cannot get around, because the very bedrock basis of their very theory requires a belief in Joseph Smith's statements. Furthermore, this statement indicates that desolation extended far above whatever neck it was all the way into the United States in Hopewell Territory, placing New York within this very domain where it has been traditionally placed. The Book of Mormon clearly indicates that cumorah was within the domain of Desolation.

Next, the Narrow Neck of Land ought to be in an area of an ancient civilization that is somewhat south of it. And also, it has to have an ancient civilization dating to the time of the Jaredites right on that neck as the Book of Mormon requires. All other necks fail these requirements with the exception of Tehuantepec, because the Olmec heartland is right on the neck.

You need to get past the idea of the narrow neck being within the borders of a 'blessed nation'. The borders of the Nephite nation of old cannot be expected to be exactly the same as ours. That nation extended from cumorah in New York (where I believe it was), to as far south as it extended. For me that is Tehuantepec, and it extended down into Guatemala for the furthest extent of the borders of Zarahemla and Nephi. You can certainly pick your favorite neck, as its just all a game that people like me take too seriously. For me and my house, we have chosen Tehuantepec.

I realize that tehuantepec is wide. I think that you need to think about the other things that it has in favor of it before you let that color your thinking too much. You will never find a perfect candidate according to various presumptions you may have. You can only have a "good" candidate based on various criteria that you choose to believe in. And what you choose in the end depends on what is most important to you.

Ed Goble
Called to Serve wrote:Pardon me if this topic has been discussed before. I have never seen it on this forum myself as its own thread. I have been wondering about this topic for a while, but now the apologetics thread has prompted me to start this thread. Apparently, we have some very smart people on this subject on this forum.

There are two theories I believe are possible, the United States location, because of its current status as the home of a blessed nation (if only they would stay good so they can keep that status!) and the South America location. The United States location is problematic because of the narrow neck of land, which some explain by pointing to the narrow neck of land between the great lakes. South America has the narrow neck of land, but no status as a blessed nation at this point in time. However, South America has one thing going for it and that's that the ruin of the Jaredites kept the Nephites from inhabiting the "land northward." So this means that the Jaredite land has be North and separate from the Nephite land.

Ed, you mentioned in the other thread that you believe Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land. This seems terribly implausible to me because of all the land that needed to be possessed South of that narrow neck which just doesn't exist. And even if it did, you would think that the panama canal narrow neck would be mentioned as well since it is fairly close. I'd love to hear why you believe that is the narrow neck. It also calls into question how much space the Nephite and Lamanite nations covered. It seems to me like it would have been pretty large.

There is one thing that I haven't heard mentioned ever in this discussion and that is the change that came upon the land when Christ was killed. If there are verses in the Book of Mormon that describe the Nephite's land well after this great change, I can't find them. Mountains sunk, valleys rose, the entire face of the land was changed. Doesn't it even say somewhere that the earth was divided at this time? I can't remember for sure. But the point is, can we rely on the physical descriptions in the Book of Mormon at all? What if the land changed so much that most of those descriptions are useless?

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.
Last edited by Helaman2000 on September 16th, 2012, 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

Rod Meldrum based his theory on my book that I wrote in conjunction with Wayne May, and fortunately for me or unfortunately for heartland theorists, I have retracted it, but Meldrum and May still push it. You may want to know why I went to all the trouble to write such a book, and then only ended up retracting it before you choose to believe in Meldrum's take on it.
haddomr wrote:I think Rod Meldrum is right and the place was by the Great Lakes in the USA. The DNA matches, they found city ruins with walls on top of earthen works in the eastern US near the Great Lakes, like the BOM describes. JS talked about Zelph the white Lamanite on Zion's march, the 4 seasons of the BOM are in North America and South America has only two seasons. The distance between two of the Great Lakes, the narrow neck of land is a day and a half apart. The oceans in the BOM are described as the great deep and seas (Great Lakes) are like the size of the Red sea and the dead sea. I think it all adds up. Just my opinion. Of course there was 1000 years from when the BOM ended and when Columbus discoverd America, lots can happen in 1000 years. :)
Last edited by Helaman2000 on September 16th, 2012, 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

The very quote you seek is the one placing the land of desolation in the United States, forcing the neck of land south of it. It is in the Levi Hancock Journal. As you can see, the implication is that the northern Nephite lands were in the United states where they spread out later on , but NOT the Land of Zarahemla or the neck of land. This to me is the definitive statement of Joseph Smith on Geography that has vast implications, if you give any creedence to his words on the subject of geography, that is.

"Joseph Smith addressing himself to Sylvester Smith and said, “This is what I told you and now I want to tell you that you may know what I meant. This land was called the land of desolation and Onandagus was the King and a good man was he. There in that mound did he bury his dead and did not dig holes as the people do now, but they brought their dirt and covered them until you see they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high. The last man buried was Zelf or Telf. He was a white Lamanite who fought with the people of Onandagus for freedom. When he was a young man he was a great warrior and had his thigh broken and never was set. It knitted together as you see on the side. He fought after it got strength until he lost every tooth in his head save one, when the Lord said he had done enough and suffered him to be killed by that arrow you took from his breast.”
Called to Serve wrote:Here's a problem that I see with a lot of people's assumptions of the Book of Mormon lands. They seem to be fitting a lot of people into small spaces. Maybe it's me who just doesn't understand how big the areas are that I'm seeing on the maps.

That's the major problem I see with the North America/Great Lakes model. How on earth would all those millions of people fit into that area? We're talking old times and no skyscrapers. People would have needed to spread out to farm. Of course, I've never been to the area and am just seeing it on a map. Still, it just doesn't seem logical to me.

Another problem I just ran across today is that the Lamanites were said to have spread over the land from the sea East to the sea West. So they covered all of the United States coast to coast, but the Nephites were stuck in that little area around the lakes? There is no sea East or sea West South of the narrow neck besides the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Good point about Mormon, by the way, livy111us. Mormon probably would have made a note about the changes if the ones in the Book of Mormon didn't apply.

Oh, and I'd love to see some quotes by Joseph Smith if anyone knows of any. I haven't seen anything yet that could definitively pinpoint the Book of Mormon setting in the North. Everything I've seen so far could be explained by Nephites migrating. If he actually pointed the location of Zerahemla or told us which river was Sidon, then that would be worth something.

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

Haddomr, how can you possibly say that the levi hancock quote supports meldrum? It is clear that desolation is north of the narrow neck of land. Please explain. thanks.

Ed Goble

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

Hey Livy, that map wasn't drawn by Joseph Smith, but was drawn by people that claimed they were copying what he drew once upon a time, or had communicated to them, from memories decades old. Furthermore, it has the word Cumorah there in New York, so why not Mesoamerica? I thought that for Mesoamericanists Joseph Smith never used the word Cumorah in conjunction with the Hill in New York. Next, it mentions the Kinderhook plates on it, that Joseph Smith never followed up on, and seemed to sense there were something wrong with them, which later turned out to be frauds, yet the map indicates them as an important thing of note, as if they have something to do with Moroni's travels. Next, is it Moroni's wanderings, or is it Moroni and his armies on the way to New York for a battle? I see no place on the map where Cumorah is mentioned except for in New York. You'd think that if something significant happened in Mesoamerica aside from the fact that Mesoamericans started out there, you'd think that the map would say something, like "last battle" or "real Cumorah" so that we could discern really what the map is trying to say, with regard to what "starting place" means. It is clear to me that Mesoamericans fought at Cumorah in New York for the last battle, so of course they started there in Mesoamerica in their trek north before the last battle. But in reality, it seems clear to me that it was somebody that didn't have all the geography very solid in their head to begin with, just like the rest of the people from the nineteenth century, aside from trying to use the Kinderhook frauds as something notable for the map So on a great very many levels, I think mesoamericanists should stop trying to use the map to justify it as something that Joseph Smith believed. It has as much validity as the White Horse prophecy. Philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Now its true that the map does indicate that a place in Mesoamerica as a domain of the Nephites was on people's mind in the nineteenth century. that indeed is significant from the point of view of dating for how old that concept was. But the map does little to validate a limited geography model in the sense of making Joseph Smith responsible for a concept that the last battles took place in Mesoamerica. It does nothing for that at all, just like the White Horse prophecy does nothing for a claim that Joseph Smith said that the Chinese would attack the US.

Ed Goble

livy111us wrote:Here are a few resources on Joseph Smiths beliefs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVCXOpxga3Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bmaf.org/node/444" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bmaf.org/node/381" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a list of several statements, but not all of them.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... seph_Smith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a map that Joseph Smith drew which shows The BOM to have taken place in Mesoamerica, with lines showing Moroni's travels all the way up to Cumorah in New York. http://www.elektroteck.com/bens/SCAN0003.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Helaman2000 on September 17th, 2012, 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rose Garden »

Thanks for replying, Ed.

So you believe Tehuantepec to be the narrow neck because it corresponds with certain ancient people, the Olmecs? What about the space issue I brought up? Do you think there is enough land between Tehuantepec and the panama narrow neck for the Nephite and Lamanite nations to fit? I'm also curious what river you think would be the Sidon in that area.

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

Called to Serve wrote:Thanks for replying, Ed.

So you believe Tehuantepec to be the narrow neck because it corresponds with certain ancient people, the Olmecs? What about the space issue I brought up? Do you think there is enough land between Tehuantepec and the panama narrow neck for the Nephite and Lamanite nations to fit? I'm also curious what river you think would be the Sidon in that area.

there is plenty of space in mesoamerica to fit the requirements for the lands of zarahemla and nephi. The nephites were not concerned with the southern extremity of the land of Nephi. They were concerned about a limited area from the northern part of the land of Nephi to the borders of desolation at the neck of land. The extent of how far south the land of nephi went was never a concern in the book of Mormon. The whole reason people want a limited setting is because the Book of Mormon calls for a limited setting under the neck, because it didn't take long for people to go from place to place in the land southward. The only time we start talking about exceedingly great distances is when we get to desolation above the neck, and large bodies of water in that land (the great lakes). And ripliancum was just one day's travel north of Cumorah, according to the text. cumorah is tied to ripliancum, as one of the large bodies of water. The exceedingly great distance was between the neck and the large bodies of water.

As for the river sidon, it was south of the neck, and Tsidon in Hebrew translates as Fish or Fishery. River Sidon is Fish River. The confusion with the Mississippi that me and Wayne May had was because the place name Namaesi Sipu or Messu Sipu in Algonquian means fish river. but its a trojan horse. Because this same word in Mayan that corresponds to Namaesi from Algonquian (its cognate) is Usumacinta. You can no doubt see that Namaesi and usumacinta not only sound very similar, but have practically almost the same consonants in the words, although the order of the consonants is mixed up. Usumacinta means fish River in some dialects. So it is the Usumacinta river. Namaesi is a trojan horse for the Heartland theorists to choke on because the Nephites named the Misssissippi AFTER the Usumacinta river in their migration northward! The original river Sidon is the Usumacinta, because the translation of Usumacinta into Hebrew is Tsidon. It is unlikely that we will find place names pronounced as Nephites pronounced them. We will more often find any remnants of them TRANSLATED into Mayan from Nephite/Hebrew. The problem is, most Nephite words and place names in the book of Mormon are not necessarily easily translateable, as not all of them are clearly Hebrew, but are probably Nephite corruptions of Hebrew and whatever other language may have been popular among them, perhaps dialects and languages derived from Egyptian and Hebrew mixed with Mayan and other language families making the Nephite language a difficult hodge-podge. the word Sidon is one of those exceptions that is easily distinguishable which Hebrew word corresponds to it.

Among Mesoamericanists, the Sidon river issue is a hot topic, with some believing in the Grijalva and some the Usumacinta. I am squarely in the Usumacinta camp.

Ed Goble

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8241
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by creator »

The Book of Mormon points to the location being North America, and more specifically the heartland area... the area where Joseph Smith said the Nephites had their last battles, and other things he said about the Nephites.

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

Actually, no, it doesn't. Just because you believe so does not make it fact. The evidence just is not there. Here are a few articles which point out the enormous problems with the heartland theory.

http://www.fairblog.org/2011/02/12/the- ... of-mormon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=805" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=1&id=793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=1&id=796" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/09/16/land ... of-mormon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/09/16/weat ... geography/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/04/29/the- ... oup-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/04/02/zelp ... geography/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/04/02/book ... miths-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fairlds.org/reviews-of-dna-e ... -geography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bmaf.org/node/323" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

livy111us
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by livy111us »

Hello Ed,
I agree with your comments. As the link stated, it was taken from two separate individuals who recorded it years later. It is a third hand account but falls in line with what Joseph Smith was teaching towards the end of his life. I cannot say I completely accept the maps as authentic, but find them interesting. I was able to go the the Church archives and research them but did not come out with a definite answer. Hopefully one day we will be able to determine it's authenticity or not.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rose Garden »

Helaman2000 wrote:
Called to Serve wrote:Thanks for replying, Ed.

So you believe Tehuantepec to be the narrow neck because it corresponds with certain ancient people, the Olmecs? What about the space issue I brought up? Do you think there is enough land between Tehuantepec and the panama narrow neck for the Nephite and Lamanite nations to fit? I'm also curious what river you think would be the Sidon in that area.

there is plenty of space in mesoamerica to fit the requirements for the lands of zarahemla and nephi. The nephites were not concerned with the southern extremity of the land of Nephi. They were concerned about a limited area from the northern part of the land of Nephi to the borders of desolation at the neck of land. The extent of how far south the land of nephi went was never a concern in the book of Mormon. The whole reason people want a limited setting is because the Book of Mormon calls for a limited setting under the neck, because it didn't take long for people to go from place to place in the land southward. The only time we start talking about exceedingly great distances is when we get to desolation above the neck, and large bodies of water in that land (the great lakes). And ripliancum was just one day's travel north of Cumorah, according to the text. cumorah is tied to ripliancum, as one of the large bodies of water. The exceedingly great distance was between the neck and the large bodies of water.

I'm going to have to take your word for it since I have to rely on maps and it's hard to tell. I should note that I wasn't worried about distances so much as just the number of people fitting into the tight spaces. There were millions of people, so it seemed like they would need more room.

As for the river sidon, it was south of the neck, and Tsidon in Hebrew translates as Fish or Fishery. River Sidon is Fish River. The confusion with the Mississippi that me and Wayne May had was because the place name Namaesi Sipu or Messu Sipu in Algonquian means fish river. but its a trojan horse. Because this same word in Mayan that corresponds to Namaesi from Algonquian (its cognate) is Usumacinta. You can no doubt see that Namaesi and usumacinta not only sound very similar, but have practically almost the same consonants in the words, although the order of the consonants is mixed up. Usumacinta means fish River in some dialects. So it is the Usumacinta river. Namaesi is a trojan horse for the Heartland theorists to choke on because the Nephites named the Misssissippi AFTER the Usumacinta river in their migration northward! The original river Sidon is the Usumacinta, because the translation of Usumacinta into Hebrew is Tsidon. It is unlikely that we will find place names pronounced as Nephites pronounced them. We will more often find any remnants of them TRANSLATED into Mayan from Nephite/Hebrew. The problem is, most Nephite words and place names in the book of Mormon are not necessarily easily translateable, as not all of them are clearly Hebrew, but are probably Nephite corruptions of Hebrew and whatever other language may have been popular among them, perhaps dialects and languages derived from Egyptian and Hebrew mixed with Mayan and other language families making the Nephite language a difficult hodge-podge. the word Sidon is one of those exceptions that is easily distinguishable which Hebrew word corresponds to it.

:-\ You lost me with the languages. But I can understand Sidon=Fish River. Unfortunately, I can't find a map that marks that river online. Just get a bunch of pictures of people fishing.

Among Mesoamericanists, the Sidon river issue is a hot topic, with some believing in the Grijalva and some the Usumacinta. I am squarely in the Usumacinta camp.

Ed Goble

Helaman2000
captain of 100
Posts: 119

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Helaman2000 »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usumacinta_River" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

this may help

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

[quote="livy111us"]Actually, no, it doesn't. Just because you believe so does not make it fact. The evidence just is not there. Here are a few articles which point out the enormous problems with the heartland theory.

Rod: Here are answers from the Heartland Model. Each of the below titles are linked to full articles at our website.
See http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/index.php
The Scriptural Basis for the Heartland Model Geography

ReDiscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant Through DNA - Entire Book Download - FREE

Heartland Model Declared a "Movement" by Univ. of Chicago

Hebrew Written Language CONFIRMED in Hopewell Mound in Tennessee!

The Mississippi; Could it have been River Sidon?

Podcast by LDS Liberty (listen to the interview!)

Best Evidence for the Book of Mormon by Allen Rock Waterman

Central America or North America? posting by Denver Snuffer

The Remnant; a posting by Denver Snuffer

Lehi's Voyage Demonstrated; The Phoenicia Expedition

Review of Prophecies & Promises by Jake Freeman of Telemoonfa Time

Did Joseph Smith Identify Zarahemla in Guatemala?

BYU's Maxwell Institute Fires Heartland Model Critics

Response to FARMS Review Article, Gregory L. Smith

Reply to Jay Osmond’s “Friendly Critic”

Reply to a Misleading New Years Article

Reply to Meridian Magazine article, Mesoamerican or Heartland Model: Only One Right?

LDS Freedom Forum; Rod Meldrum Defends Book of Mormon; The Packham Debate

LDS Freedom Forum: Book of Mormon Setting in North America blog

Interview at Manti Pageant with Aaron Shafovaloff of Mormon Research Ministry

Reply to Deseret News article, Pros, Cons of Book of Mormon Geography Theories

LDS Freedom Forum blog; DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography

Is Izapa Stella #5 the Story of Lehi's Dream? An Improved Interpretation Suggests it is Not

Take your pick. Every article is posted with links on the home page of the website.
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

Called to Serve wrote:
Oh, and if anyone has Joseph Smith quotes to share, I'd love to read those. I've heard he spoke on the subject.
Here are some quotes from Joseph Smith generally hidden by Mesoamerican promotion organizations because most are first hand accounts of Joseph Smith's writings and actions which support his indisputable understanding of North America as the setting. Beware of second hand and unsigned accounts falsely attributed to Joseph Smith. Follow his actions in order to understand where he KNEW the lands of the Book of Mormon to be. Where did he send the first missionaries when the Lord commanded him to take the gospel to the "Lamanites"? See D&C 28, 30 and 32 and then read Parley P. Pratt's autobiography...they were sent to Native Americans in North America. Joseph never sent a single missionary "unto the Lamanites" in Meso or South America. Undeniable historical fact. Mesoamerica theorists repeatedly proclaim that Joseph abandoned and reneged on his earlier claims of revelations in order to embrace a popular travel book (Incidents of Travel in Central America by John Lloyd Stephen), yet they ignore the written journal account of the Prophet just a month before his death wherein he AGAIN reiterates that the Sak & Fox Indians in the HEARTLAND of America are the actual remnants of the Book of Mormon. And this is supposed to be "faith promoting apologetics"? Really? With this type of faith promotion it is no wonder so many are disillusioned with Mesoamerican attempts at answers.

Please read http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=21
and http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/FAQ.php
or watch a presentation on Joseph Smith's knowledge on our VIDEO GALLERY #11-15 at http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/FAQ.php

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.

For a reply to one of the attack articles, please review this article http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=25

Funny that livy failed to mention the firings of many of those involved in the articles he linked to. I wonder why?
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 4:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

I am very certain that the true descendants of Laman and Lemuel are found today mainly in South America. Most of those with Native American blood in Central and North America are a mixture that sometimes includes Lamanite blood.

I am not so sure where the Book of Mormon account took place. But I tend to believe it took place in South America. I found Venice Priddis' book, "The Book and the Map" very convicing in some ways. I realize it takes faith to believe the Amazon basin was underwater before the time of Christ, but it takes faith to believe the Book of Mormon itself.

Rod: Please read the scriptural basis for the Heartland Model and then explain for all of us how the New Jerusalem is prophesied to be built in Meso or South America. Which "nation" is it that you are proposing to be the latter-day nation prophesied about in the Book of Mormon? You know, the "mighty Gentile nation above all other nations" that the ancient prophets called 8 times in the Book of Mormon a "land of Liberty." Perhaps you should take a few minutes to review the article at http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=18 as well as the FREE VIDEO GALLERY presentations about the 36 prophecies establishing the United States of America as the one and ONLY nation that qualifies as the Book of Mormon's Promised Land. You will be glad you did! See #1-10 at http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/video_gallery.php. Enjoy the journey!
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 4:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

livy111us wrote:
haddomr wrote:I think Rod Meldrum is right and the place was by the Great Lakes in the USA. The DNA matches,
There is no geneticist who supports Rod Meldrums claim on the DNA. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Even LDS geneticists who are neutral on BOM geography see major problems with Meldrums claims and find countless amateur mistakes made on his part. He is relying on information that is decades old in a science that is just as old and being refined. It is like using medical books from the 1800's as fact while discounting, literally, everything that has been published since.
http://www.bmaf.org/node/445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rod: livy (of FAIR) is full of himself. My research is more up to date than the Mesoamerica promotion DNA video he released back in 2007 and my research is based on peer reviewed non-Mormon scientific journals while livy and his Mesoamerican theory promotion team generally quote each other rather than any non-Mormon geneticists. For the truth about my research you can download my entire book, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA which debunks the false and lying claims of livy. Go to my free downloads page at http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/downloads.php and get the entire book for FREE, read it and verify the truth and the lies of livy. Most of the material is from journal articles spanning 2002-2009, rather than the 1800's. The strength of my research is not based on my credentials, but on those whom I reference in main stream journals. Certainly I do not agree with everything that they may have said or claimed in every article, just as is natural in all scientific en devour, but I have tried to explain why I disagree with some of the findings when I do. Livy and company accept and agree with the assumption that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor 5-6 million years ago. I don't agree with the assumption, believing instead in scriptural creation and the man came from God. This naturally does not square with the evolutionary basis of much of the DNA dating and amazingly livy and his Mesoamerican friends, in order to try to find something to whine about in my DNA research, have found themselves forced into admitting their evolutionary belief systems. Livy has been lying, attacking and stalking me for years under this same guise. I've forgiven him way past 70x7. It is time to expose he and his Mesoamerican promotion ilk. He has been getting more and more desperate in his false claims as each week hundreds more find the facts and the truth about the Heartland Model research. This is a prime example.
haddomr wrote: they found city ruins with walls on top of earthen works in the eastern US near the Great Lakes, like the BOM describes.
There are also similar cities in Mesoamerica. The problem with earthen mounds in the Great Lakes area is that the population did not exist in BOM time periods. During The Book of Mormon, the indians in that area (the Hopewell) were so small in number, that the *entire* civilization would have been wiped out in one major Book of Mormon battle. They lived in small villages, not huge cities like BOM peoples. It is like saying the population of Antarctica is actually a huge civilization that numbered in the millions and lived in a complex culture with huge buildings. The Hopewell can't even pass the most basic pre-requisites to be considered BOM peoples.
http://www.bmaf.org/node/394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rod: More non-sense from livy.(of FAIR).. Main stream archaeologists have discovered that the Hopewell built over 200,000 cities, embankments, ceremonial centers and mounds spanning the entire Mississippi and Ohio river valley's. They are now believed to have moved more earth than any other civilization of their time, yet we are expected to believe in livy's 1970's population modeling analytic's. At Fort Ancient in Ohio the Hopewell built over 3 miles of earthen walls that, according to the curator of the museum there, from calculations made by main stream archaeologists, the amount of soil moved is equivalent to filling modern day dump trucks full and then parking them end to end...for 200 miles! Does this sound like something accomplished by a couple of groups of people or small villages? And this is only one of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of earthworks dotting the entire region. If livy would look at this the way he looks at everything Mesoamerican, he'd be able to find all sorts of ways to spin it because the evidence is everywhere that such was not the case. There were huge populations in America's Heartland in ancient times. One single dig near St. Louis last year caused the population estimates to be revised upwards by more than an order of magnitude! Early estimates claimed that there were only 7,500 people, but newer, more robust estimates now claim a minimum of 75,000 and this is just the tip of the iceberg here. Most of the archaeology has been ruined because of extensive and intensive building and farming in America's Heartland. Livy has been spewing this tired and false argument for months. Time for him to wake up and get his facts straight.
haddomr wrote: JS talked about Zelph the white Lamanite on Zion's march,
This is one thing that bothers me about someone who has an agenda, particularly Rod Meldrum. He highlights statements by Joseph Smith that place The Book of Mormon in his geography as proof of it's accuracy. What he fails to mention is that Joseph Smith also placed The Book of Mormon in the western United States, Canada, and countless times in Mesoamerica. Again, I see dis-honesty in showing only the evidence which supports your theory, while pretending all the other evidence that contradicts your theory doesn't even exist.
Also, by accepting the Zelph account you will have to dismiss the entire Great Lakes theory geography. Levi Hancock recorded Joseph Smith saying this about the Zelph account.

Rod: livy, please show us one single historically documented instance of Joseph Smith writing in his own handwriting, journal or otherwise historically verifiable document that Joseph EVER mentioned Mesoamerica or Central America as the lands of the Book of Mormon. You know no such documentation exists and yet you continue to lie and deceive people with such false and misleading statements. I'm sure that if you had such a document, you'd be proudly displaying it everywhere. The fact that you have no such document is clear. Countless times? Really? Show us just one that is known to be Joseph Smith's own writings (either his handwriting or signed by him personally). You already know you can't. Countless? Another lie.

“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side, in the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that [were] brought, with a broken arrow. They [were] laid down by our camp. Joseph addressed himself to Sylvester Smith: “This is what I told you, and now I want to tell you, that you may know what I meant. This land was called the Land of Desolation, and Onandagus was the King, and a good man was he. There in that mound did he bury his dead. And [they] did not dig holes as the people do now, but they brought there dirt and covered them until, you see, they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high. The last man buried was Zelph. He was a White Lamanite who fought with the people of Onandagus for freedom.” (Levi Hancock Journal)

Ed Goble wrote "Notice, Mr. Meldrum, how the placement of the Land of Zarahemla in my old geography is where Joseph Smith said was Desolation. HMMM. Joseph Smith just refuted all North American Setting geographies! That is, if you believe Joseph Smith knew anything about geography, which you seem to claim he did. Joseph Smith’s own words, push the land of zarahemla and the narrow neck south of the United States."

Rod: Sorry, but no matter how much you may DESIRE to believe this account to be from Joseph Smith, it is another second hand account and there are other problems with the account as well. Livy knows this but is keeping silent on it because it makes for better deceit. No second hand account can ever be used as primary source material, which is where Ed also gets it wrong. He would consider second hand or unsigned newspaper articles (Times and Seasons) accounts over Joseph Smiths own handwritten statements to the contrary, such as his letter to Emma just after the Zelph account. I wonder why livy and Ed didn't bring that one up?

I find it hypocritical for livy to accuse others of not providing information that challenges their theories when he and his Mesoamerican promotion team are guilty thousands of times over of the exact same thing. Funny again the livy and Ed both ignore the fact that the LORD himself places Zarahemla across from Nauvoo by revelation. Read D&C 125:3 to read for yourself. Oh, I know that livy will be just itching to "spin" more yarns about how that was just Joseph's term and not the Lord's (as did the FAIR organization in their response to the truth) but in doing so isn't he then saying that all of Joseph's revelations were simply his words, rather than the Lords? Is this really where our so-called "scholars" are leading members of the Church? So now the revelations to Joseph are just his words and not the Lords...all in the ongoing effort to discredit the truth and promote their Mesoamerican theories. Bad form.

haddomr wrote: the 4 seasons of the BOM are in North America and South America has only two seasons.
This is a point that can be argued, but The BOM requires a temperature high enough to sustain life for someone who is naked all year long. The climate in the Great Lakes area gets so frigid, and gets so much snow, that the Lamanite warriors and Nephite prisoners would have perished in this weather. However, in Mesoamerica, wearing loin clothes year round would be common due to the tropical weather.

Rod: livy, please provide the passage in the Book of Mormon that supports your claim that they were "naked all year long." You know that no such scripture exists, so why are you making such a false claim? In fact the Lamanites showing up to battle in nothing more than a loincloth was indeed noteworthy to the Nephites, enough so to mention it in their record. Meanwhile, Livy again fails to mention the fact that both the Nephites and Lamanites are known to have "thick clothing" (see Alma 43:19, 49:6) as well as coats and cloaks or capes (which have been found among Hopewell burials). He also fails to mention that the Book of Mormon mentions whirlwinds (tornado's) which do not occur in Mesoamerica, but obviously do occur in "tornado alley" of America's Heartland. Mesoamerican promoters such as Livy try to parlay one single solitary verse regarding a warm day at the end of the Nephite year as somehow a demand for a tropical climate. For a complete and total debunking of this incredibly non-scholarly claim, see my article "Reply to a Misleading New Years Article" by one of livy's mentors, Dr. Daniel Peterson, at http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=22. It is a rather long article that also shows the shoddy and utterly embarrassing so-called "research" by some Mesoamerican promoters. You will enjoy finding out the facts from some real experts. Even the master of all Mesoamerican theorists, John Sorenson openly admits the tripe he was offering regarding Book of Mormon calendaring was a result of practically no research done on his part, yet it was "peer reviewed" and published by the "scholarly" crowd at FARMS Review. Go figure.
haddomr wrote:The distance between two of the Great Lakes, the narrow neck of land is a day and a half apart.
However, that narrow neck is East-West, not North and South. If that is the narrow neck, then the hill Cumorah would be directly east of the not North of the narrow neck. It's an impossible correlation. There needs to be more than just one parallel to be considered a BOM location. While it is "a" narrow neck, there are too many factors which say it is not "the" narrow neck of land.

Rod: That is only your unsubstantiated interpretation. Livy could easily justify rotating the entire heavens and earth compass directions if he were trying to defend his Mesoamerican models...oh, he's too late, his mentor John Sorenson and other Mesoamericanists have already done that for him! Let's see now...according to Mesoamerican theorists north is east, right? So where does that leave the narrow neck of land? Actually, when taken in context, both Lake Ontario and Lake Erie extend more east west than north south and there relative positions in relationship to each other are also more east-west than north south. So the narrow neck of land that might exist between them (the Niagara river) separates an "east sea" (Lake Ontario) from a "west sea" (Lake Erie) by a narrow neck of land that the word "Niagara" means in Iroquois to be "place of the narrow neck." Where, praytell, does the Book of Mormon actually claim that the narrow neck runs north/south? It doesn't. It is Livy's again false assumption. He again spews forth his false interpretations without substance.
haddomr wrote: The oceans in the BOM are described as the great deep and seas (Great Lakes) are like the size of the Red sea and the dead sea.
Quite possible. But there are too many other, and bigger problems.
Like all the ones above? What problems are you seeing in your world? The rest of us can't seem to make them out.
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 3:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

[quote="livy111us"]Here are a few resources on Joseph Smiths beliefs:

Here are some quotes from Joseph Smith that Livy and his Mesoamerican promotion team somehow failed to include in their articles, but that actual honest Church historians have on hand for your further enlightenment. See my article, "Did Joseph Smith Identify Zarahemla in Guatemala?" with links to those "hidden" quotes. Go to http://www.firmlds.org/feature.php?id=21 for a great article about this. Enjoy the journey and don't let livy try to spin the truth for you...read them yourself and decide.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

Called to Serve wrote:Thanks, those are some great resources.

I'm wondering where some people are getting the idea that there were four seasons in the Book of Mormon. I've never seen anything myself that would indicate that to me. Anyone able to point to a verse?
How about Alma 46:40? Apparently it was the nature of the climate to have seasons, according to this verse. "And there were some who died with fevers, which at some SEASONS OF THE YEAR were very frequent in the land...to which men were subject by the NATURE OF THE CLIMATE. Another indication it could not have occurred in Mesoamerica is because of the instances of tornado's (whirlwinds) which do not happen in Mesoamerica because the conditions necessary for their formation don't exist. Now compare that to the Heartland of North America. (see 3 Nephi 8:12, 16). Remember Joplin, Missouri? When it was hit by a category 4 twister it was quite literally "blown away." Incredibly, there was a Joplin man's body that was found over 50 miles away from Joplin. It had, like those described in the Book of Mormon, been "carried away in the whirlwind" (3 Ne. 8:16). Show me any category 4 tornado in Mesoamerican history. They don't exist... and don't let ol' livy try to mislead you into thinking that "whirlwind" actually meant "hurricane" because Ether 6:6 defines such fierce winds as a "tempest" not a "whirlwind."

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

[quote="coachmarc"]Four seasons aren't mentioned specifically, but here are some interesting scriptures from which you can research seasons of grain, fruit, war, fevers and beasts. Interesting that Alma 46 specifies some seasons of the year. That sounds like more than two seasons to me:

The plants/crops mentioned in the Book of Mormon, namely wheat, barley and grapes for making wine DO NOT GROW down in the tropical climates of Mesoamerica. They require a temperate climate, such as America's Heartland to grow. There are no barley or wheat crops grown in Mesoamerica today because they require cold seasons. Grapes, while livy will tell you that they existed in Mesoamerica, were nonetheless NEVER a significant or even known crop by the Mayan's. There is no evidence that they even knew what grapes were, much less ever made wine out of it. The Mayan's liquor of choice came from the milky white gel of a relative of the Agave or Aloe Vera plant that grows to monstrous proportions in Mesoland. The thing is... all of these crops were absolutely essential and necessary to the Nephites claimed living of the Law of Moses, yet none of them are found in Mesoamerica. That is another HUGE clue to the geography and climate. Would the Lord have sent his covenant and chosen people to a "Promised Land" which was completely devoid of nearly every single item they would have been required to have in order to live the Laws of Moses, such as sheep, goats, these aforementioned plants, etc? I don't think the Lord is very big on substitutes...just ask Cain how it worked out for him! :))
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

livy111us wrote:I am curious why the Kennewick man and Nevada woman bring you to believe in a Great Lakes setting for The Book of Mormon? They lived no where near the Great Lakes region but lived thousands of miles away.

Also, white indians have also been found in Central and South America.
The reason it is significant, since you apparently can't understand why, is because they have European features and were found in NORTH AMERICA, not Central or South America where they have found no such evidence for European features among the ancients of the Book of Mormon time frames there. Also, I suppose with your small geography mindset you can't consider that they may have simply traveled there from the Heartland area. It is probably closer to get there from Missouri than from Guatemala, wouldn't you agree?

They (Kennewick man) also happens to have had haplogroup X DNA, which is clearly a European DNA type. To date in Mesoamerica there has been found zero, nadda, zilch, evidence for ANY European or Semitic DNA types or lineages. Yet 7 times the BoM prophets revealed that there would be a "remnant of the House of Israel" remaining on the Promised Land in the latter days...and that they would NOT be destroyed "according to the flesh." That sounds like a genetic remnant to me!

Yet livy is so desperate to hang onto the sinking Mesoamerican theories that he and his buddies will throw those prophecies right under the Mesoamerica promotion bus if it means they can continue with their belief that Guatemala is the location for the future New Jerusalem! See Ether 13:6 and then read D&C 84:1-4 for comparison. Guatemala is THOUSANDS OF MILES away from the Book of Mormon lands where the New Jerusalem will be built! Again, livy conveniently ignores this massive scriptural problem with his dogmatic theories.

Yes, there have been a few small groups of people in Mesoamerica with partial albino genetic inheritances, but the Algonquian tribes in North America are nearly indistinguishable from European populations such as Italians and Israeli's. Their facial bone structure is also not Asian, but European or Semitic. When the early explorers met them, they were wearing TURBANS on their heads! Wonder where THAT practice came from?
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

Haddomr wrote:
The problem the geneticists, you quote in your article, have is with carbon dating. Rod Meldrum addresses that in his video by talking about the maternal DNA done on a Russian CZAR and showing that Adam and Eve would be 6000 years ago or so, not 10's of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. You seem to be big on attacking Meldrum and not his arguments. You also use exaggeration "medical books from the 1800's".

Livy111us responds:
So you are basing your argument on Meldrum who has never studied genetics at a college level, while dismissing experts in their field who have 10 years of school and a lifetime of experience? I am not “attacking” Meldrum as you say, but pointing out obvious problems that cause a faulty conclusion. You are not attacking someone by saying that they are not qualified and providing evidence for that claim. It *is* an attack to say that they are ugly, or wear over-sized shoes so you should not listen to them. But my points are very pertinent to this conversation. You wouldn’t go have surgery by someone who has never even taken a college course, but read a few things on the internet would you? Meldrum likes to portray himself a victim instead of looking at the evidence for and against his theory.
Also, it is not an exaggeration to say he is using old science and my example stands. He is using information that was introduced in the infancy of population genetics that has since been abandoned. As another example, you can’t convince people the earth is flat because we have discovered new information which contradicts that theory. You can make a case for a flat earth if you use information that pre-dates the discovery that the earth is round, but that is using old science that is out of date. Meldrum is using old science that is out of date.
You have to remember, that the same science he is disputing is the same science that he is using to date the Hopewell civilization to BOM time periods. If we were to accept his theory on timing of genetics being MUCH younger than he would like, that would also mean that science should actually place the Hopewell MUCH earlier than the timing of The Book of Mormon. They should actually date to around 1,000 AD, 600 years AFTER the end of The Book of Mormon. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Rod: Typical livy baloney... you ARE attacking me. You are trying to say that I am an uneducated fool and therefore can be dismissed without question. It is nothing less than a personal attack when you make claims that I don't understand the science, that I refuse to accept your Mesoamerican based interpretations, that I consider the idea that humans evolved from chimps repugnant, which is the basis for the DNA dating that you are promoting and that I don't accept due to the temple endowment ceremonies, and multiple accounts of creation in the scriptures and Adams being placed on earth only 6,000 years ago. I know scripturally that haplogroup X didn't magically show up here in America 40,000 years ago because that would have been about 36,000 years before the first man on the planet showed up. The DNA dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that man and chimps shared a common ancestor 5-6 million years ago and all the DNA mutation rates are based upon that assumption. You accept it. I don't. You apparently don't even know the difference between carbon dating and phylogenetic dating methods, or you wouldn't even have made the ridiculous comparison of the Hopewell's CARBON dating (which is generally fairly accurate after Noah's flood era, but not before for reasons I won't go into now) with the haplogroup X DNA's phylogenetic dating! This demonstrates, for all to see, your incompetence in even understanding the dating methods involved in your statement. Yet you hold yourself out as some kind of DNA expert and make a DVD documentary interviewing all your Mesoamerican promotion "experts" which you thought would compete with your sales which is why you decided to begin attacking me many years ago? Really? FYI - The Hopewells carbon date directly into Book of Mormon time frames. The haplogroup X DNA's EXTRAPOLATED arrival date is based on the the assumed split of humans from monkeys and the extrapolated and assumed rate of mutation, wherein lies the problem. But you would rather just lump them both in together in order to ATTACK my proclaimed (by you) lack of knowledge of the subject material. Bad form.

It is so easy to just throw out there into cyberland that my research is out of date, and yes, the genetics community has manufactured ways of massaging the DNA dating to fit their preconceived models, but that does not make the facts go away as you are wont to assume.

Your little game of asking if someone would rather have a trained surgeon work on them or a lesser trained person is ridiculous. We are not talking about surgery, but ideas. Are you saying that just because someone has not been trained that they are incapable of being trained...that they are not mentally capable of learning everything a doctor has learned just because they have not been formerly trained? How many millions of times have new ideas and inventions been discovered and produced by experts who were not "trained in the ministry"? In fact, in the realms we are dealing with, sometimes it is an advantage not to have been "trained" that certain things cannot be done or produced or in something that is false. The world is literally full of things that the "experts" claimed could never work. So by your standard we shouldn't have airplanes or cars or helicopters or electricity or cell phones. All of these were thought by "experts" not to be possible, viable, or feasible at some point in their progress. You are the one on the sidelines telling everyone it can't be done while those you castigate are making it happen right before your eyes. The interesting thing is that there are some who will willfully ignore it and continue to claim the "earth is flat" even against overwhelming evidence, and there are those who see the truth and abandon former false ideas. We can all see what camp you are in. You are the flat earther, desperately clinging to the dying Mesoamerican models against all facts, and evidence. When are you going to admit the earth is not flat, and that Mesoamerican is not the "nation above all other nations" or the "land of liberty" prophesied of by Book of Mormon prophets?

Haddomr wrote:
Nothing wrong with Meldrum's argument here.

Livy111us responds:
Actually there is. I pointed out that the Hopewell, whom Meldrum believes are BOM peoples, were a very small population spread out over a very large area. They numbered about 1 person per square mile. Compare that to the Nephites alone who had huge cities that consisted of tens of thousands of people, fighting in battles where millions were slain. As I said before, the ENTIRE Hopewell civilization would have been destroyed if they fought in one single Book of Mormon battle. That in itself disqualifies them for BOM people. Since you didn’t read the articles I posted, here is one on this topic again that I would recommend. http://www.bmaf.org/node/394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you are really looking for BOM geography, you need to look at all the facts and weigh them accordingly. You should not accept the teachings of one man wholeheartedly as doctrine and dismiss any and all evidence that contradicts it. That will not bring you to the home of the Nephites, only the home of where they want the Nephites to be.

Rod: Well put, livy...one should most definitely NOT accept the bias of one man wholeheartedly as doctrine and dismiss all evidence that contradicts it. The hard facts are that these supposed "small bands of hunter-gatherers" as you are wont to call them moved more earth than any other civilization of their era. Had these massive earthworks been found anywhere else in the world no one would question that it would have taken hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to build them. Your article uses outdated population sources. You should already know this because I already posted the more resent findings from the worlds most prestigious science journal "Science" just last year that debunks your old outdated claims from 1980something. Talk about old using old material...you are guilty of it right here!

Haddomr wrote:
Thanks for adding that the BOM came from the Hill Cumorah, I forgot to mention that. The Ed Goble quote was lost on me...the logic doesn't have enough information to make sense, try to make your statements more coherent so I can understand them. The Levi Hancock quote was good and supportive of the Meldrum position.

Livy111us responds:
No problem. We should examine all the evidence whether we like it or not and I am more than willing to look at others beliefs. Obviously, no one has a problem that The Book of Mormon came from Cumorah, but you are welcome anyway.
The Levi Hancock journal is not supportive of Meldrums geography but actually places The Book of Mormon far South of where he believes it to be. Let me explain why. The land of Desolation was far North of BOM lands, and north of the Narrow Neck of land. That means that the narrow neck you mentioned earlier and believe to be “the” narrow neck, is in the wrong place. The narrow neck cannot be north of Desolation. That is the first problem. The second problem is that since it is the land Desolation is far north of BOM lands, that means that the events in The Book of Mormon took place south of that area. By placing The BOM south of that area excludes the Great Lakes area for possible BOM geography.

Rod: The BIGGEST problem is that is nothing more than a SECOND HAND account and cannot EVER be considered as more authoritative than Joseph Smith's own words! We don't know exactly what Levi heard or what he understood the prophet to have meant. To establish an entire theory of geography based on a second hand account is absurd, but, like all Mesoamerican theories, is just the kind of sandy foundation you typically like to build your house upon. I prefer to use first hand written accounts as my primary foundations. You prefer speculations. No wonder you love the Mesoamerican theories so much!

Haddomr wrote:
I don't think it says the narrow neck is East-West in the BOM. North-South works if it leads to the land northward. See Alma 63:5
5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

Livy111us responded:
You are exactly right! The narrow neck is SOUTH of the hill Cumorah. But if you are using the narrow neck by the Great Lakes, that means that Cumorah is due East of the narrow neck of land. Look at a map. You will see the narrow neck and Cumorah are East-West of each other, not north-south like The Book of Mormon requires.

Rod: Again another wondrous extrapolation and interpretation without basis in scripture livy, you are on a roll! Could not the narrow neck of land that LEADS into or out of the land northward or southward have nevertheless been nearly east or west? In real life it is obvious that it very well could. When given the barriers to travel by the Great Lakes, in order to go from lets say Buffalo, NY to lets say Chicago, IL at the southern end of Lake Michigan, the shortest route would take you between Lakes Ontario and Erie. I think that we would all agree that Chicago is "southward" of Buffalo, but to get their you''d have to go west. Isn't it possible that such a scenario was what was being described in the Book of Mormon?

Also, there is the issue of whether or not the "narrow neck" of land is even between two seas! Nowhere does the text so state...the only sea mentioned is the sea on the west while no eastern sea is mentioned for the other side. It is entirely possible that the narrow neck was between a western sea and some other obstruction to travel or a valley or something else that could be crossed in either a day or a day and a half (see Hel. 3:8 which discusses four cardinal seas, each sea being specifically mentioned, which is normal for Hebrew language), also Ether 10:20 which speaks of the sea "dividing the land" (where does this occur in Mesoamerica? There the lands divide the two seas. Alma 22:32 and Hel. 4:7 ONLY specifically mention a WEST sea, but neither specifically mention an east sea.


Haddomr wrote:
The point is that Meldrum could be right and likely is. Your argument that he could be wrong is no argument at all. Meldrum has too many points that all add up.

Livy111us responds:
He does have quite a few points, at least on the surface. I am someone who has studied most every point of his extensively I can honestly say, very little is actually what he portrays it to be and cannot stand to the slightest scrutiny. If his material was solid, I would be the first one to promote his theory in every venue I have access to, produce DVD’s on my own dime and donate all proceeds to his cause, and be his biggest proponent. My goal is to help break down walls on non-members so the Spirit can work on them, and believe that evidences can do that. I don’t care where The Book of Mormon took place but want solid evidences so I can use them honestly in missionary work. I was very disappointed to see SO many errors in his material that I feel it necessary to let others know that they are being duped by him. I don’t care if you believe The BOM took place in New York, Peru, Mesoamerica, or Baja California because it has absolutely no effect on yours or my salvation. I do have a problem when someone is pulling the wool over others eyes deliberately, no matter what the subject is.

Rod: livy...you are bold face lying here. You have no intention of ever looking objectively at my research and you have proven yourself not to even be familiar with my research. The entire argument about the narrow neck I have covered in some detail in my DVD series. You may have watched my original DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography DVD I released in 2007 and for which you and your FAIR friends determined to spend eight months in attacking because you felt slighted that my DVD was gaining much more support than your DVD, but have you seen either my 5 DVD series or my 6 DVD series? If so, you need to go review them again because it is obvious to me that you are either uniformed about the research, are ignoring what I have presented, or are deliberately misleading people. You claim to want the spirit and to do missionary work, yet you spend almost all your 'spare' time attacking a fellow priesthood holder in the Church because your opinion doesn't match with his. You have literally spent hundreds of hours finding and attacking me and everything I have done online. THAT is YOUR MISSION...admit it! Just be honest and admit it.

If you truly want to break down the walls of non-members you might want to try not shoving down their throats the Mesoamerican spin and excuses such as that horses are actually pigs (tapirs and which is laughable because to people living the Law of Moses pigs are unclean animals and would require a cleansing process each time it was touched...oh, did you Mesoamerica promoters forget that fact?), that steel swords are nevertheless wooden clubs with embedded obsidian shards, that the Mayan glyph system had anything to do with the Book of Mormon languages of Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian, and that there will never be a DNA remnant of the House of Israel contrary to the prophecies in the Book of Mormon. While you are at it, maybe it would be nice if you would not try to make Joseph Smith out to be a charlatan by claiming he changed is mind about his proclaimed revelations wherein he openly writes of North America as the setting of the Book of Mormon and North American Indians as the remnant. Geneticists know that the Indian tribes spoken of by the Prophet Joseph Smith did NOT come up from Mesoamerica...they are the actual descendants of the Hopewell Mound builder population as verified by DNA analysis. You probably don't even know that fact do you, livy?

So stop throwing Joseph Smith under the Mesoamerican bus and read his written statements and better yet, follow is actions. Where did he and the Lord send the first missionaries "unto the Lamanites"? Do you really think that the LORD doesn't know where the true remnant of the House of Israel is located?! Then WHY did the Lord send those first missionaries to America's Heartland while completely failing to send a single missionary unto "Lamanites" in Mesoamerica? Why, after all these years of stalking me haven't you answered those questions with your self - proclaimed "open mind"? Simple answer, you don't like me and you don't really want to know. You put your trust in your Mesoamerican pals and ignore the actual research, the scriptures the prophecies and the science. You are a true blue Mesoamericanist first and Mormon apologist after.
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

Called to Serve wrote:They are trifling if you are trying to learn the gospel. But if you are trying to figure out where the Nephites lived, they're vital.

No one's saying that we have to know where the Nephites and Lamanites lived in order to obtain salvation or anything. It's just fun to think about. That can be one of the things when the Savior comes again and reveals all things to us we can say--yeah, I got that one! Or not. Just fun. Not serious.
Rod: And that is where I disagree. While it may be true that the location of the true lands of the Book of Mormon may not be critical to your salvation or mine personally, I would hardly call it just "fun" or "not serious" when the Book of Mormon prophets were trying so desperately to warn a particular nation, that they had seen in vision, not to let the "secret combinations" get above them as had been the cause of so much death and destruction among their civilizations.

The ancient prophets made is absolutely clear which nation they were attempting to warn by deliberately calling it 8 times "the land of liberty" a land of "prosperity" and "security" a "mighty Gentile nation above all other nations" so that we could not mistake which nation they were trying so hard to warn! Does anyone really think that those descriptions better fit Guatemala or Mexico than the United States of America? If we don't know what nation they were trying to warn, then how are the inhabitants of that nation going to understand one of the critically important messages in the book. Do you really think that its just a 'fun' exercise that the ancient prophets considered "not serious"? Really?

It may be a game to Mesoamerican theorists, but I feel that such an attitude is a travesty because of their theories trying to tie the sacred and covenant Promised Land of God to the impoverished, poor and drug lord torn and run nations of Guatemala or Mexico. Uninformed members of the Church who live in the true nation that the ancient prophets were trying to warn may think that "where" doesn't matter, that its nothing more than a entertaining hobby, but I don't think that the ancient prophets considered it trivial, fun or unimportant.

I disagree with the premise that it is not important. EVERYTHING written in the Book of Mormon is important or the ancients would not have put it in! I think it vitally important that we understand that the prophecies, the promises, the covenants, and the judgments of God are all about THIS nation, the United States of America and the Lord's ancient prophets were desperately trying to warn us - knowing that should the United States fall, it would directly and absolutely impact the ability of the Church to accomplish its mission and calling to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Please keep that in mind before making the claim next time that this is all about fun and games. To many of us, it is not. Its about heeding and understanding God's warnings for our day and helping others understand it as well. Its about the prophecies contained in the Book of Mormon which Mesoamerican theorists are loathe to even consider as evidence of the lands of the Book of Mormon, preferring instead to argue about narrow necks of land and subjective interpretations of geographical passages.
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 4:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rod Meldrum
captain of 10
Posts: 17

Re: Location of the Book of Mormon Lands

Post by Rod Meldrum »

livy111us wrote:As long as you have that attitude, that is great. But I just spoke to someone yesterday who subscribes to Meldrums Great Lakes theory who believes BOM geography is central to the Gospel. As long as we study it with the understanding that it is interesting and fun to toss ideas around, then there is no harm. When you take it so seriously that you think those who disagree with you are in apostasy then you are looking beyond the mark.
I have never claimed that Mesoamerican theorists are in apostasy, and while I agree that its geography may not be central to the gospel message, to not take the Promised and Covenant lands of the Book of Mormon, and the latter-day nation that would occupy those lands, warnings seriously, I believe, implies a lack of understanding and trivialization of the effort put forth by ancient prophets to warn that nation. When you ignore the prophecies in order to promote a personal geography theory that places the covenant lands somewhere other than where the prophecies are meant, then I think you are not even looking towards the mark, much less beyond it.
Last edited by Rod Meldrum on November 10th, 2012, 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply