Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

cayenne wrote:
larsenb wrote:
cayenne wrote:go leif erickson!
I hope you're joking.

Any record from Leif that he was influenced by the Holy Ghost to sail to Vinland?? 8-|

He was a Christian, he wanted to spread Christ, he was here before Columbus, etc…..The fact that Columbus enslaved and tortured many natives is not a very good sign he was a man of God….
Reading the Wikipedia entry on Leif, it does say that he converted to Christianity: "He also converted to Christianity and was given the mission of introducing the religion to Greenland." And it goes on to say: "After Leif's first trip to Vinland, he returned to the family estate of Brattahlíð in Greenland, and started preaching Christianity to the Greenlanders." This would be to the Norse Greenlanders, not the Eskimo inhabitants.

It also says:
Leif was not the first European to discover America, nor the first to make landfall there: he had heard the story of merchant Bjarni Herjólfsson who claimed to have sighted land to the west of Greenland after having been blown off course. Bjarni reportedly never made landfall there, however. Later, when traveling from Norway to Greenland, Leif was also blown off course, to a land that he did not expect to see, where he found "self-sown wheat fields and grapevines". He next rescued two men who were shipwrecked in this country and went back to Greenland (and Christianised the people there).[24] Consequently, if this is to be trusted, Bjarni Herjólfsson was the first European to see America beyond Greenland, and the two unnamed shipwrecked men were the first people known to Europeans to have made landfall theree.
Regarding his contact with the natives (Skraylings), it says:
The first apparent contact between the Norse and the indigenous people [in Vinland], who the Norse later referred to as skrælingjar, was made by his brother Thorvald, and resulted in hostilities and killing.[
So absolutely no evidence cited in this article, that he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to find new lands to the west of Greenland, or that he made significant contact "even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land."

And apparently the first contact with the indigenous inhabitants was made by his brother, which resulted in "hostilities and killing", and it wasn't until Columbus made his voyage about 500 years later that other Gentiles were move upon by the Spirit of God to claim the new land for their inheritance.

Here are quotes from Christopher Columbus' writings:
"With a hand that could be felt, the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible to sail and he opened my will to desire to accomplish the project . . . This was the fire that burned within me . . . Who can doubt that this fire was not merely mine, but also of the Holy Spirit . . . urging me to press forward".
There are also many passages from his writings indicating Columbus was imbued with the idea that the Gospel had to be preached to all the world before Christ would return, and that his voyage to the New World would play an essential role in this process.

Regarding this, Columbus devoted 6 paragraphs to discussing the importance of John 10:14 and 16, where it says: "I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me, etc. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd".

Finally, the charge that Columbus enslaved and tortured many natives has some truth to it, but one needs to read the circumstances that led to some of this to get a balanced view of what Columbus was up against. For instance, some of his co-leaders or those he appointed helped create bad situations by their predations against local populations, which seemed to call for extreme measures; measures very common among Europeans and their kingdoms. Clark B. Hinckley's book, Christopher Columbus, "A Man Among the Gentiles" gives a good overview of what was going on.
Last edited by larsenb on December 16th, 2016, 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

cayenne wrote:
davedan wrote:
The river Sidon is most likely the Mississippi it flows in a north south direction. There is a second river mentioned that flows from east to west. The river Sidon flows into the South Sea.
The confusion about which direction the River Sidon flowed may stem from confusion about the "head" of the river. In ancient times the "head" of a river is not the source, but instead the area of the fall-line.

Notice in the vision of the tree of life, Nephi was standing at the source of the river of water and looked to his mother and brethren standing at the "head" of the river aways off not knowing where they should go. Therefore, the "head" is not the source. Also, the river coming out from the Garden of Eden, and divided or "became into 4 heads." Again, the "head" is not the source. . . . .
I looked up a definition that says the fall line of a river was: "a line joining the waterfalls on numerous rivers that marks the point where each river descends from the upland to the lowland and the limit of the navigability of each river". Show me any citation that says the fall line is defined as the head of a river.

Also, your example of the river coming out from the Garden of Eden, doesn't quite make your point. Why? Because you describe the river as "coming out from the Garden of Eden", and then dividing into "4 heads". Now if the river coming out of the Garden of Eden gave forth or split into 4 separate rivers, you could very well describe the head of these 4 rivers as the point where they originated in splitting off from their parent river. This would be the source or head of each of the 4 rivers.

Now the description you gave (in so far as it seems to describe 4 rivers splitting off from the one that came out of the Garden of Eden), is the OPPOSITE of what normally happens in nature: i.e., tributary rivers join into making one big river. So you may want to clarify this.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

cayenne wrote:
davedan wrote:
The river Sidon is most likely the Mississippi it flows in a north south direction. There is a second river mentioned that flows from east to west. The river Sidon flows into the South Sea.
The confusion about which direction the River Sidon flowed may stem from confusion about the "head" of the river. In ancient times the "head" of a river is not the source, but instead the area of the fall-line.

Notice in the vision of the tree of life, Nephi was standing at the source of the river of water and looked to his mother and brethren standing at the "head" of the river aways off not knowing where they should go. Therefore, the "head" is not the source. Also, the river coming out from the Garden of Eden, and divided or "became into 4 heads." Again, the "head" is not the source.

Also, the land of Nephi was likely in Eastern Tennessee. The search group sent to find Zarahemla would have followed the Tennessee river until it met up with the Mississippi (Sidon) but then took the wrong fork and ended up following the Ohio river all the way up into Western New York region (Land of Desolation).

The center of the Land where Lachoneas gathered the Nephites together against the Gadiantons was likely southern Illinois where the Ohio and Mississippi joined. Remnants of a gigantic line of fortifications along the southern tip of Illinois remains today.

The Heartland Model:
Seasons
Iron swords
Peaceful agrarian society surrounded by more savage hunter-gatherer society
Grapes = scuppernongs.
Wild beasts = Bison
Sheep
Horses (thank you Dr. Jones)
Hill-top fortifications
Earthen wall and timber embattlements.
Temples without steps
Written language - micmaq
DNA - Haplogroup X = Algonquin Great Lakes Native Americans
River Sidon = Mississippi River
Foresty area where people get lost = Tennessee
Grassy areas were armies march long distances and don't get lost = Illinois, Indiana, Ohio
Waters of Mormon = Big spring Missouri (Ozarks)
Prophecy = Zarahemla location, City of Manti, Zelph mound
City of Desolation as the final area of Adena and Hopewell cultures = Western New York
Cumorah = Cumorah (actually the hill might not necessarily be the exact location where the Nephites and Jaredites made their final stand which may be in another nearby location in Western New York, maybe Tug Hill Plateau)
Land of Zarahemla = Iowa, Illinois
Land of Bountiful = Michigan
Land of Jershon (Ammon) = Ohio
Land of Desolation = Western New York
Land of Nephi = Tennessee
Land of First Inheritance = Georgia or Florida Coast
Land Northward = Canada
Land of Liberty = US
Land of the New Jerusalem = US

Also, the climate was much warmer back then (vineyards in London) = no snow

HEARTLAND FOR THE WIN!!! Sorry, I used to be a Mesoamerica guy growing up, with a Book of Mormon Lands poster on my bedroom wall.

I never cared for 20 years of my theological studies where the BOM lands were. I assumed Meso America, until 2 years ago I prayed about it. I was really surprised when the answer came back North America. Since then it has been a fun journey learning and realizing all the evidence for North America far outweighs the minimal evidence for Meso America. What saddens me though is my inability to plainly see obvious scriptures pointing to this land being the land. I just missed those versus because I was studying others things instead.

Something else weird I have come across. In my research it seems almost all North American model believers take the scriptures from a literal context (like I do) and of course believe in creation, not evolution. Yet pretty much all the Meso people I have come across are the opposite.They look at scripture allegorically and believe the creation and flood accounts are not literal, and God used evolution. I find that very telling. I am not saying all people….just a majority per category
At least the answer to your prayer covered the bases for you. Whew! #:-s

Why is that?? It's because Mesoamerica is simply the southern portion of North America. So you're OK in actually getting that answer to your prayer.

Oh, and strangely enough, if you had talked to Joseph Smith in the 1842-43 time-frame he would say he was a 'Meso person'. But you didn't say all people. So I guess you would allow Joseph Smith his views.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

The really puzzling question I have is: why do all the 'Heartland' modellers seem to think North America stands for the continental US and maybe Canada?

The only reason I can come up with is that it may be Meldrum's usage, so they are just carrying on with it, in perhaps an unthinking fashion. ;)

cayenne
captain of 100
Posts: 758

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by cayenne »

larcenb, that is not cool you mocking God's answer to me in prayer. It is highly disrespectful. You obviously have a different view, and that is your agency, but why can't you chill out and be respectful? I am fine with you believing the way you so choose. I give you that respect. It is obvious you study and are not some dumb guy, but their are others on here who also study that will not agree with you. Maybe you should just leave it at that?

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

cayenne wrote:larcenb, that is not cool you mocking God's answer to me in prayer. It is highly disrespectful. You obviously have a different view, and that is your agency, but why can't you chill out and be respectful? I am fine with you believing the way you so choose. I give you that respect. It is obvious you study and are not some dumb guy, but their are others on here who also study that will not agree with you. Maybe you should just leave it at that?
You misread me cayenne. I'm willing to believe that God told you that the Book of Mormon lands were in North America. This is something I believe as well . . . . which is why I don't take issue with your claim. The point you seem to miss, however, is that Mesoamerica lies within North America. Let me put it another way: North America INCLUDES Mesoamerica.

But you've also got to wonder why you've received this revelation, yet the Brethren don't claim to have anything like the revelation you claim. How could that be . . . . and with you going public with your revelation, and in effect pre-empting the Brethren in this arena?

My cautionary suggestion to anyone receiving a revelation of that sort, would be that it was probably given to you for your private edification, not for public dissemination.

And those who study this issue who might not agree with me, if you publish/promulgate your views on a discussion forum such as this, you should expect someone to ask for your reasons why you believe what you do, and if you make particular assertions about your view, you should be prepared to be able to defend them. That's what a discussion blog/forum is for.

cayenne
captain of 100
Posts: 758

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by cayenne »

Brother, I like you should stand as a witness to any and all truth we are given. This concept of "locking in a box" all that the saints receive as truth from God in the name of not violating "stewardships" is ridiculous. My sharing my answer in prayer has nothing to do with authority, nor the brethren. It feels that you are undermining my answer in prayer since the brethren have said nothing of the sort. Do you believe we are to not witness truth? I hope you realize I am just an elder, and I certainly cannot get authoritative administrative revelation for the church, or you, or any other . However, I can witness whatever truth I so desire. My answers I will gladly share. I also have received "revelation" that evolution as it is commonly called is false. Uh oh, the brethren seem to have their tongue tied on that one too, so I guess I should shut up? No brother….I will continue to witness truth as these truths have nothing to do with personal stewardships. Again, you may disagree, oh well. My answer to prayer was not just North America, but it went further than just that, it was specifically the Eastern half of them country.

See Brother Larsenb, My answers in prayer that I am sharing publicly are to witness these truths. Therefore others may receive the same answers and we have more than one witness, etc…..This has nothing to do with authority, and my place in it. Any person should witness to God. Woman should be out on the street witnessing God just like a man. Witnessing liberty, creation, Christs law, etc without being put in a box with a muzzle because supposedly they are outside there scope of authority. Now brother, if I come out and try to give authoritative revelation for the church, or you, or my neighbor, ah, now that is not my business because that is not my place……but the law of witness still stands. The law of witness has no enacting power to make policy, it is just truth baby!

Brother, This conversation is fruitless, and unpeaceful. We obviously disagree on the BOM lands. Now we disagree on when one is "allowed" to witness truth. From past posts of yours I am pretty sure you are an Adam God believer, and an evolutionist believer. I don't think we are doing very well agreeing on much. May God bless you as we go our separate ways.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

cayenne wrote:Brother, I like you should stand as a witness to any and all truth we are given. This concept of "locking in a box" all that the saints receive as truth from God in the name of not violating "stewardships" is ridiculous. My sharing my answer in prayer has nothing to do with authority, nor the brethren. It feels that you are undermining my answer in prayer since the brethren have said nothing of the sort. Do you believe we are to not witness truth? I hope you realize I am just an elder, and I certainly cannot get authoritative administrative revelation for the church, or you, or any other . However, I can witness whatever truth I so desire. My answers I will gladly share. I also have received "revelation" that evolution as it is commonly called is false. Uh oh, the brethren seem to have their tongue tied on that one too, so I guess I should shut up? No brother….I will continue to witness truth as these truths have nothing to do with personal stewardships. Again, you may disagree, oh well. My answer to prayer was not just North America, but it went further than just that, it was specifically the Eastern half of them country.

See Brother Larsenb, My answers in prayer that I am sharing publicly are to witness these truths. Therefore others may receive the same answers and we have more than one witness, etc…..This has nothing to do with authority, and my place in it. Any person should witness to God. Woman should be out on the street witnessing God just like a man. Witnessing liberty, creation, Christs law, etc without being put in a box with a muzzle because supposedly they are outside there scope of authority. Now brother, if I come out and try to give authoritative revelation for the church, or you, or my neighbor, ah, now that is not my business because that is not my place……but the law of witness still stands. The law of witness has no enacting power to make policy, it is just truth baby!

Brother, This conversation is fruitless, and unpeaceful. We obviously disagree on the BOM lands. Now we disagree on when one is "allowed" to witness truth. From past posts of yours I am pretty sure you are an Adam God believer, and an evolutionist believer. I don't think we are doing very well agreeing on much. May God bless you as we go our separate ways.
It just seems a bit presumptive to me to declare publicly a revelation you say you received on an issue the Brethren have claimed no revelation on, especially on a topic having to do with the location of Book of Mormon events. It’s not any more complicated than that. Not a very good thing to do from my point of view.

But you can testify to anything you want. I’m not stopping you.

Once again, this is a discussion forum. If you float ideas and what you think are strong reasons for them, you should expect someone to call you on them if they think your reasoning is off or faulty. Does this surprise you?

My guess is that you think our “‘conversation’ is fruitless and unpeaceful” because I have taken issue with you. If that is the case, you may want to reconsider whether it is wise for you to participate in a discussion forum on a topic that might garner disagreement with your beliefs regarding that topic.

davedan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3064
Location: Augusta, GA
Contact:

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by davedan »

larsenb

Thanks for your post. I don't fault anyone who believes in Mesoamerican model. I was a fan for a long time along with everyone else. I just prefer the Heartland model at the current time. I don't claim revelation on this. I will leave that to the Prophets and Apostles.

You addressed the Eden "head" of the river, and I think you got what I was talking about. You didn't address the Vision of the Tree of Life, where Lehi said that his family was standing at the head of the river, while Nephi seems to indicate that the pure water of the river began at the tree and became filthy and polluted down stream.

Nephi 1 8:17 And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.

I like in Augusta, GA, and it stands at the "Head" or "fall-line" of the Savannah, River. Other fall-line cities on the East Coast are Macon, Columbia, Charlotte, etc. This is the most strategic point of any river. River's were used as the main source of travel in ancient times and all civilization grew up around major rivers. The fall-line is the point at which you have to get out of the river and transfer goods from boat to land. The fall-line of the Mississippi river is the Keokuk falls. Nauvoo and Zarahemla would occupy the most strategic (sacred) point on the most important river in North America.

My point is NOT that the "head" of the river = fall-line today, but that it could have meant that anciently. Also, before the dams were put in, historians report that the Mississippi was easily crossed at the Keokuk and Nauvoo area.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

cayenne wrote: . .. . . . . My answer to prayer was not just North America, but it went further than just that, it was specifically the Eastern half of them country. . . . . .
Well you have a problem when someone else says they have had witnesses of the spirit that the main Book of Mormon events happened in Mesoamerica.

I know someone in that category. So who ya gonna believe?

My view is that this is something I probably won't pray about, especially when the Brethren have not made this effort or received revelation on this subject . . . at least that they are willing to share. And I did mention in an earlier post the emeritus Seventy who came out publicly saying he believed in the Mesoamerican model, mainly because of what he learned from May Indians he had talked to while on his mission.

danduree
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by danduree »

letsjet wrote:Brother May's lectures are pretty interesting. He said that the Mississippi River is the River Sidon. According to the Book of Mormon the River Sidon flowed north, the Mississippi flows south. I haven't yet heard his explanation for that particular discrepancy.
Here is the response you haven't heard:
The natives walked NORTHWARD in elevation. The river ran northward in relation to walking uphill. It's their perception based on the way in which they traversed the land being climbing up or downward. Things were based on landmarks and how it looks from where you stand, not from a N,E,S,W direction off of a compass.

Post Reply