More Nauvoo area Heartland Model evidence on the Mississippi, the only spot fitting scripture description.

[Subcomandante]

I like the concept of the Heartland model but I have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved. I prefer a more compact geography and lean towards a Chesapeake / Mid-Atlantic answer. But I have only a notion and so I greatly appreciate those who make an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geographic models and to apply those models to actual geography.

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Making an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geography models and then trying to match the models up with actual geography is the correct and potentially fruitful approach to illuminating the real geography of the Book of Mormon. Try not to limit yourself to just the continental US area, if you are able.

I use to believe the central America concept.

Until I realized that it doesn’t fit the mosaic law.

The Nephites were disobeying the Mosaic law long before they even made it to the Americas. There were many instances where they had to eat raw meat in the wilderness.

[Bronco73idi]

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Making an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geography models and then trying to match the models up with actual geography is the correct and potentially fruitful approach to illuminating the real geography of the Book of Mormon. Try not to limit yourself to just the continental US area, if you are able.

I use to believe the central America concept.

Until I realized that it doesn’t fit the mosaic law.

The Nephites were disobeying the Mosaic law long before they even made it to the Americas. There were many instances where they had to eat raw meat in the wilderness.

Is eating raw meat the same as building an altar or house to God?

My God would allow them, in their time of need, to eat raw meat and he would bless it to not make them sick. He is a God of the living, not the dead.

When they made an altar in the wilderness, they most likely made it per the mosaic law.

Perfectionism is of Satan.

That being said, YHWH isn’t going to have them build an Altar or house to him differently, unless he commands it. I don’t read anywhere in the BOM that has him change his command from Exodus 20:24-26. Do you?

Next, wouldn’t the great earthquake destroy anything the lord considered an abomination to him, that his people might use? I think he would, unless those items were not near his people. Then he would not care. Almost like they were near people not descendants of Abraham, Shem, Noah or Adam….

We look at the history and we find technology keeps getting buried, until the last days…..

If the Lord was smarter than the smartest man, why would he live so meagerly?

We don’t need this technology to have everlasting happiness and joy in our Father’s kingdom.

The Hopewell people lived meagerly compared to the Mayans.

[Bronco73idi]

Haplogroup X DNA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

[larsenb]

I detect an air of pride and hostility from you. Care to explain why?

I wouldn't care to address your statements although I really could because it's obvious that you aren't willing to bend. It's funny how blanket accusations are nearly always a mirror.

I detect an air of pride from you, certainly. And yes, I've never experienced a heartlander yet who bends an inch on anything or concedes any argument against their model. So, who is projecting?? Yes, I do get frustrated with them because of this attitude . . . whenever I engage with them.

Here's a challenge for you, if you care to engage. Show me any evidence from the Book of Mormon that Irreantum could possibly be the Atlantic, then I will show direct passages from 1st Nephi why this can't be true.

Maybe, I'm prideful. But here's two things: I don't care or think about this very much; and I'm just calling it like I see it. Show me good evidence and I'll change my mind.

However, I've yet to see what seems to me like good evidence to support the meso-America theory or contradict the Heartland model. You cite evidence calling the Hopewell a loose confederation of people. Fine. That's how they actually seem to me in the Book of Mormon, for the most part. That's really not evidence against the Heartland model, especially when you take into account the inaccuracies inherent in archeology.

But in any case, I'm not willing to engage in hostilities. Come on a thread and start throwing insults and challenges and I'll question why and then disengage.

This is primarily a discussion board, where we test one another's ideas. Does it surprise me that you choose to make it personal and be offended to avoid a back-and-forth discussion? Nope. But this choice of action certainly does allow you to avoid this kind of interaction.

So instead of supporting your ideas, you choose to leave the field. That's kind of sad, in my view, being someone who is more impressed with people willing to put up a good fight.

Additionally, I have shown you good evidence that certain Heartlander claims don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and passages,, but you refuse to even discuss or counter my arguments. And I'm not even talking about the Meso American hypothesis.

[kirtland r.m.]

A lady by the name of Lisa Mills did her doctoral thesis on the Hopewell. She sampled 49 Hopewell burials from Mound City in Chillicothe, Ohio. They were originally excavated by Shetrone in the mid-20th century. Of the 49 she extracted Mt/DNA from 64% of them. What is significant is she found Haplogroup X in several remains. Haplogroup X is a marker that originated in Galilee. This in my opinion strongly suggests contact by the Hebrews with Hopewell. Richard D. Moats, Avocational Archaeologist, Archaeoastronomer

Once again, ignoring expert geneticist analysis of the origins and dispersion of the variations of Haplogroup X. One of the 'broken record' topics promulgated by Heartlanders.

Hey larsenb, let's lay out a logical argument with some facts, no drive by bomb throwing.

[larsenb]

Ireantum is the Atlantic Ocean. The Lamanite were to the south and east of the Nephites.

Just an aside to kirtland r.m., I already said I would post information developed by geneticists on haplotype X. But very busy at the moment. And notice, I did take the time to give very factual/scriptural information below disputing Atrasado's assertion that Irreantum is the Atlantic Ocean, despite his refusing to engage in our discussion any more.

Previously I had told Atrasado that "there is absolutely no evidence from the Book of Mormon that Irreantum is or could be the Atlantic Ocean. None. Quite the opposite. I can outline the logical analysis for this, if you care to see it. . . . . ."

First, I'm wondering if it is a general Heartlander proposition that Irreantum is to be identified as the Atlantic Ocean, or is it just an idea that Atrasado has come up with?

Book of Mormon passages and usages don't support this idea. Here is why:

First we have Lehi being warned to flee Jerusalem into the wilderness, and 1 Nephi 2:5 says: "And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family . . . . .". This establishes the idea they are traveling along the borders of the Red Sea.

After 3 days travel, they come to a valley, which has a stream entering the Red Ses (verses 8 and 9 of 1 Nephi 2). They are still following the course along the Red Sea.

Then, after several events in the valley of Lemuel, they take their journey into the wilderness again heading to a place called Shazar; See 1 Nephi 16:12-14:

"12 And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman.

13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer.

14 And it came to pass that we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families; and after we had slain food for our families we did return again to our families in the wilderness, to the place of Shazer. And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea.

So obviously they are still traveling along the borders of the Red Sea.

Next, we have 1 Nephi 16:33-34:

"33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom."

Same course . . . and they come to the place called Nahom. Now if you trace this same course on older Arabian maps (many more than one), you come to a tribal area/location called Nahom. It is located in Saudi Arabia, not on the west coast of the Red Sea. A very big hit for the Book of Mormon.

It was here that Ishmael died, and after mourning for him, they again took of in the wilderness as indicted by 1 Nephi 17:1:

"1 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness."

Looking at a map, and the location identified as Nahom, traveling due-east will eventually bring you to the South Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean, in the region of southern Oman. Nephi says in 1 Nephi 17:5:

"5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters."

Clearly, not the Atlantic Ocean.

Now, could Lehi have been directed to travel around the Horn of Africa into the Atlantic Ocean? It's up for grabs, except for the Book of Mormon passages indicating that the land of their first inheritance, after they disembarked from their boats, bordered on the west sea. And there are many passages from the Book of Mormon indicating dealings/events of the Nephites during their history, that took place close to this west sea. It wasn't something up in the center of a land mass such as a great lake. For this to be true, they would have to have first disembarked from boats from their long voyage, into one of these great lakes.

But maybe I've got the Heartland model all wrong and someone can enlighten me.

[Atrasado]

I detect an air of pride from you, certainly. And yes, I've never experienced a heartlander yet who bends an inch on anything or concedes any argument against their model. So, who is projecting?? Yes, I do get frustrated with them because of this attitude . . . whenever I engage with them.

Here's a challenge for you, if you care to engage. Show me any evidence from the Book of Mormon that Irreantum could possibly be the Atlantic, then I will show direct passages from 1st Nephi why this can't be true.

Maybe, I'm prideful. But here's two things: I don't care or think about this very much; and I'm just calling it like I see it. Show me good evidence and I'll change my mind.

However, I've yet to see what seems to me like good evidence to support the meso-America theory or contradict the Heartland model. You cite evidence calling the Hopewell a loose confederation of people. Fine. That's how they actually seem to me in the Book of Mormon, for the most part. That's really not evidence against the Heartland model, especially when you take into account the inaccuracies inherent in archeology.

But in any case, I'm not willing to engage in hostilities. Come on a thread and start throwing insults and challenges and I'll question why and then disengage.

This is primarily a discussion board, where we test one another's ideas. Does it surprise me that you choose to make it personal and be offended to avoid a back-and-forth discussion? Nope. But this choice of action certainly does allow you to avoid this kind of interaction.

So instead of supporting your ideas, you choose to leave the field. That's kind of sad, in my view, being someone who is more impressed with people willing to put up a good fight.

Additionally, I have shown you good evidence that certain Heartlander claims don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and passages,, but you refuse to even discuss or counter my arguments. And I'm not even talking about the Meso American hypothesis.

Ok. Here's the deal. You want a good fight (your words, not mine). Not interested.

In terms of making things personal, here's a quote from your first post on this thread,

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Let's count the pejoratives:
1. "for the simple reason they don't make sense."
2. "Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief"
3. "try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements"
4. "This approach is exactly backward"

We could try counting the facts or data in that quote as well, but there aren't any. You say you want to discuss, and I'm perfectly willing to do that, but you don't engage with the details.

Like your drive by shooting on Haplotype X. The undisputed fact among the experts is that, "The highest concentrations are found in the Ojibwe (25%), Sioux (15%), Nuu-Chah-Nulth (12%), Georgia (8%), Orkney (7%), and amongst the Druze Assyrian community in Israel (27%)." I took the time to read the non-Meldrum "experts" and they were uniformly equivocal about this. In other words, they don't think so and don't like the idea of cross Atlantic migrations to the Great Lakes region; however, they can't rule it out. What they can rule out is the meso-America American population being Near Eastern in origin.

If you were willing to engage with the details in an open-minded fashion you would say something about the other main Book of Mormon lands theory being completely unsupported by genetics.

In short, you came in with a hostile attitude throwing crap at everyone at everyone and then act surprised we don't want to talk. Why are you surprised? Actually, are you surprised? Doesn't this reaction happen to you a lot, or do you only do this sort of thing on line with perfect strangers?

[larsenb]

Maybe, I'm prideful. But here's two things: I don't care or think about this very much; and I'm just calling it like I see it. Show me good evidence and I'll change my mind.

However, I've yet to see what seems to me like good evidence to support the meso-America theory or contradict the Heartland model. You cite evidence calling the Hopewell a loose confederation of people. Fine. That's how they actually seem to me in the Book of Mormon, for the most part. That's really not evidence against the Heartland model, especially when you take into account the inaccuracies inherent in archeology.

But in any case, I'm not willing to engage in hostilities. Come on a thread and start throwing insults and challenges and I'll question why and then disengage.

This is primarily a discussion board, where we test one another's ideas. Does it surprise me that you choose to make it personal and be offended to avoid a back-and-forth discussion? Nope. But this choice of action certainly does allow you to avoid this kind of interaction.

So instead of supporting your ideas, you choose to leave the field. That's kind of sad, in my view, being someone who is more impressed with people willing to put up a good fight.

Additionally, I have shown you good evidence that certain Heartlander claims don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and passages,, but you refuse to even discuss or counter my arguments. And I'm not even talking about the Meso American hypothesis.

Ok. Here's the deal. You want a good fight (your words, not mine). Not interested.

In terms of making things personal, here's a quote from your first post on this thread,

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Let's count the pejoratives:
1. "for the simple reason they don't make sense."
2. "Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief"
3. "try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements"
4. "This approach is exactly backward"

We could try counting the facts or data in that quote as well, but there aren't any. You say you want to discuss, and I'm perfectly willing to do that, but you don't engage with the details.

Like your drive by shooting on Haplotype X. The undisputed fact among the experts is that, "The highest concentrations are found in the Ojibwe (25%), Sioux (15%), Nuu-Chah-Nulth (12%), Georgia (8%), Orkney (7%), and amongst the Druze Assyrian community in Israel (27%)." I took the time to read the non-Meldrum "experts" and they were uniformly equivocal about this. In other words, they don't think so and don't like the idea of cross Atlantic migrations to the Great Lakes region; however, they can't rule it out. What they can rule out is the meso-America American population being Near Eastern in origin.

If you were willing to engage with the details in an open-minded fashion you would say something about the other main Book of Mormon lands theory being completely unsupported by genetics.

In short, you came in with a hostile attitude throwing crap at everyone at everyone and then act surprised we don't want to talk. Why are you surprised? Actually, are you surprised? Doesn't this reaction happen to you a lot, or do you only do this sort of thing on line with perfect strangers?

Such a sensitive individual.

My saying: "You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense." They don't. I've already posted a few reasons why this is so. I just posted more reasons why this is so in my last post. It would be a thankless task to go into more detail with people who don't engage.

This is no way a personal attack on 'A Disciple', it's just my strong opinion informed by a LOT of experience debating these issues. His further elucidation of what should be a proper methodology for doing BofM Geography research is right on the money: " . . . .I greatly appreciate those who make an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geographic models and to apply those models to actual geography. " Exactly.

And my further experience is that most (I should have used this qualifier) Heartlanders I've talked to, start out from an interpretation of the words of Joseph Smith, etc., about the American Indians he encountered being Lamanites living in their original lands, the promised land where a Gentile nation rises up to dominate the world being the U.S., the whole Zelph controversy, the whole controversy surrounding the Times and Seasons articles that appeared when JS was its editor, that the hill in NY called Cumorah was the actual Hill Cumorah/Ramaha last battle site for the Jaredites and the Nephites . . . , etc., etc. They don't start out with the idea of carefully reading the Book of Mormon regarding locations, distances and directions, etc., then trying to fit their analysis of these things to a geography that fits.

That's just my experience. It's too bad that upsets you.

And for people who take this approach (having settled on the BofM site), they then try to make the BofM statements regarding locations, distances and directions, etc., fit this model the best they can. And in taking this approach, they are putting the cart before the horse . . . in my strong opinion.

Again, that's been my experience. Sorry if that upsets you.

And are you not "attacking me" when you use the 'drive-by shooting" accusation against me?? kirtland r.m. was ribbing me with that comment. You aren't. You also weren't aware of a post before kirtland r.m. made this comment that I said I would post some geneticist arguments showing why Meldrum's interpretation of the the X haplotype was greatly conflating or pushing the data. Which has nothing to do w/what tribes may have some variation of this haplotype.

And how insulting do think your last comment of your post was?? I hope you will be able to win through to not being so sensitive sometime in your life. Lots of luck with that. And especially because we are complete strangers. Though, if Astrado is your real name (first or last?) I admire you for the courage to go public with it.

[kirtland r.m.]

I have done about eight or more posts in the last six weeks on D.N.A. and I am getting tired of all of the large amount of research I need to do for them, so I will be happy to do more at a later date. Right now I have done some intensive archeology (including battle evidence) work surrounding Cumorah, and that is what I will be commenting on in coming days.

Professor Nibley also observed: "A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the [mound builder] earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica…" (The Prophetic Book of Mormon', pp.272-273)

[marc]

Oooh, another BoM geography thread!

D&C 125:3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.

Now I know this does not necessarily mean that this was the original location of the same Zarahemla in the BoM, but there's no conclusive reason to doubt it either.

[larsenb]

I have done about eight or more posts in the last six weeks on D.N.A. and I am getting tired of all of the large amount of research I need to do for them, so I will be happy to do more at a later date. Right now I have done some intensive archeology (including battle evidence) work surrounding Cumorah, and that is what I will be commenting on in coming days.

Professor Nibley also observed: "A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the [mound builder] earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica…" (The Prophetic Book of Mormon', pp.272-273)

The latter, stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica, are largely much younger than the pre-Classic era encompassing the Nephite/Lamanite period.

Hugh also wasn't aware of fairly recent archaeological work done in northern Guatemala/southern Mexico by Ric Hauck, who has done detailed excavations on sites ringed by remnants of wooden palisades on high banks and fronted by deep defensive ditches, etc.

Recent LIDAR studies in this region over an area the size of Utah Valley, showed intensive occupation and fortifications, way beyond what archaeologists had imagined.

[larsenb]

Oooh, another BoM geography thread!

D&C 125:3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.

Now I know this does not necessarily mean that this was the original location of the same Zarahemla in the BoM, but there's no conclusive reason to doubt it either.

I wonder how far this new 'city' developed? Meanwhile, the site being coincidental with the original Zarahemla is purely speculative. But if it is the same site, and in view of the long habitation of the Nephites in Zarahemla, there should be many, many archaeological remains in the location. What is actually there?

[logonbump]

I like the concept of the Heartland model but I have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved. I prefer a more compact geography and lean towards a Chesapeake / Mid-Atlantic answer. But I have only a notion and so I greatly appreciate those who make an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geographic models and to apply those models to actual geography.

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Making an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geography models and then trying to match the models up with actual geography is the correct and potentially fruitful approach to illuminating the real geography of the Book of Mormon. Try not to limit yourself to just the continental US area, if you are able.

"Use Book of Mormon text to build geography models" is what I did. I read the Book of Mormon and listed all the verses and what they said about the geography, plants, minerals, animals, anything that might be a clue, etc. I decided where I thought it probably took place based on that. When I then learned about the heartland model it closely matched where I already thought.

What have your come up with on the subject of plants that cure fevers? On this hemisphere there is only one locale that supports this scripture: the Andes mountains of Peru.

Devon DowDell argues for a South American model for the first landing in his book, Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica. A principal argument of his (one of many included in his voluminous blog, nephicode.blogspot.com, as well) was that the herbs made mention of in Alma 46:40 used for the treatment of fever and malaria were the one sourced to make quinine, a recent discovery.

[Atrasado]

This is primarily a discussion board, where we test one another's ideas. Does it surprise me that you choose to make it personal and be offended to avoid a back-and-forth discussion? Nope. But this choice of action certainly does allow you to avoid this kind of interaction.

So instead of supporting your ideas, you choose to leave the field. That's kind of sad, in my view, being someone who is more impressed with people willing to put up a good fight.

Additionally, I have shown you good evidence that certain Heartlander claims don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and passages,, but you refuse to even discuss or counter my arguments. And I'm not even talking about the Meso American hypothesis.

Ok. Here's the deal. You want a good fight (your words, not mine). Not interested.

In terms of making things personal, here's a quote from your first post on this thread,

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Let's count the pejoratives:
1. "for the simple reason they don't make sense."
2. "Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief"
3. "try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements"
4. "This approach is exactly backward"

We could try counting the facts or data in that quote as well, but there aren't any. You say you want to discuss, and I'm perfectly willing to do that, but you don't engage with the details.

Like your drive by shooting on Haplotype X. The undisputed fact among the experts is that, "The highest concentrations are found in the Ojibwe (25%), Sioux (15%), Nuu-Chah-Nulth (12%), Georgia (8%), Orkney (7%), and amongst the Druze Assyrian community in Israel (27%)." I took the time to read the non-Meldrum "experts" and they were uniformly equivocal about this. In other words, they don't think so and don't like the idea of cross Atlantic migrations to the Great Lakes region; however, they can't rule it out. What they can rule out is the meso-America American population being Near Eastern in origin.

If you were willing to engage with the details in an open-minded fashion you would say something about the other main Book of Mormon lands theory being completely unsupported by genetics.

In short, you came in with a hostile attitude throwing crap at everyone at everyone and then act surprised we don't want to talk. Why are you surprised? Actually, are you surprised? Doesn't this reaction happen to you a lot, or do you only do this sort of thing on line with perfect strangers?

Such a sensitive individual.

My saying: "You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense." They don't. I've already posted a few reasons why this is so. I just posted more reasons why this is so in my last post. It would be a thankless task to go into more detail with people who don't engage.

This is no way a personal attack on 'A Disciple', it's just my strong opinion informed by a LOT of experience debating these issues. His further elucidation of what should be a proper methodology for doing BofM Geography research is right on the money: " . . . .I greatly appreciate those who make an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geographic models and to apply those models to actual geography. " Exactly.

And my further experience is that most (I should have used this qualifier) Heartlanders I've talked to, start out from an interpretation of the words of Joseph Smith, etc., about the American Indians he encountered being Lamanites living in their original lands, the promised land where a Gentile nation rises up to dominate the world being the U.S., the whole Zelph controversy, the whole controversy surrounding the Times and Seasons articles that appeared when JS was its editor, that the hill in NY called Cumorah was the actual Hill Cumorah/Ramaha last battle site for the Jaredites and the Nephites . . . , etc., etc. They don't start out with the idea of carefully reading the Book of Mormon regarding locations, distances and directions, etc., then trying to fit their analysis of these things to a geography that fits.

That's just my experience. It's too bad that upsets you.

And for people who take this approach (having settled on the BofM site), they then try to make the BofM statements regarding locations, distances and directions, etc., fit this model the best they can. And in taking this approach, they are putting the cart before the horse . . . in my strong opinion.

Again, that's been my experience. Sorry if that upsets you.

And are you not "attacking me" when you use the 'drive-by shooting" accusation against me?? kirtland r.m. was ribbing me with that comment. You aren't. You also weren't aware of a post before kirtland r.m. made this comment that I said I would post some geneticist arguments showing why Meldrum's interpretation of the the X haplotype was greatly conflating or pushing the data. Which has nothing to do w/what tribes may have some variation of this haplotype.

And how insulting do think your last comment of your post was?? I hope you will be able to win through to not being so sensitive sometime in your life. Lots of luck with that. And especially because we are complete strangers. Though, if Astrado is your real name (first or last?) I admire you for the courage to go public with it.

I suppose I can be sensitive. I rarely start things, but sometimes I'll react strongly to negative things someone else says. My apologies.

I really don't feel strongly about this subject one way or another. You seem to feel quite strongly about this debate. How come? Is it a professional interest? Did you study this when you were younger? There must be something that grabbed your interest in the subject.

[oneClimbs]

“The face of whole earth became deformed.”
- 3 Nephi 8:17

So, what limits, if any, do you put on the area you think his statement applies to??

Unsure. Cities were buried under earth and others were covered by water. It doesn’t take much to cover an ancient settlement with either.

I’m imagining it being a smaller area, not necessary across an entire continent but wide enough to astound the people then to where they considered the effects to have been global or at least the face of the whole earth they could see.

[Mindfields]

Haplogroup X DNA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

So this DNA showed up in North America at least 20,000 years before the Nephites showed up on the scene. I guess that kind of kills that argument.

[marc]

Oooh, another BoM geography thread!

D&C 125:3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.

Now I know this does not necessarily mean that this was the original location of the same Zarahemla in the BoM, but there's no conclusive reason to doubt it either.

I wonder how far this new 'city' developed? Meanwhile, the site being coincidental with the original Zarahemla is purely speculative. But if it is the same site, and in view of the long habitation of the Nephites in Zarahemla, there should be many, many archaeological remains in the location. What is actually there?

And how thoroughly was it destroyed in the great deforming destruction? (3 Nephi 8:17) What kinds of materials did the Nephites have available to build structures that would have stood for centuries? Many stone structures were plowed over, metal weapons were found and either discarded, sold, or taken to clear fields for plowing over the last three hundred years. Mounds have been leveled or covered up and/or destroyed. Unlike archaeological sites that have meticulously been preserved in the Middle East, most sites in the Heartland area have been destroyed, covered up, and erased. But there are some few historians and collectors who can and do show the collections of artifacts which they have found and can only speculate who forged them and why. Wayne May makes an excellent case about much of it, though.

"...let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." That's very random of God. Or is it?

[Bronco73idi]

Oooh, another BoM geography thread!

D&C 125:3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.

Now I know this does not necessarily mean that this was the original location of the same Zarahemla in the BoM, but there's no conclusive reason to doubt it either.

I wonder how far this new 'city' developed? Meanwhile, the site being coincidental with the original Zarahemla is purely speculative. But if it is the same site, and in view of the long habitation of the Nephites in Zarahemla, there should be many, many archaeological remains in the location. What is actually there?

And how thoroughly was it destroyed in the great deforming destruction? (3 Nephi 8:17) What kinds of materials did the Nephites have available to build structures that would have stood for centuries? Many stone structures were plowed over, metal weapons were found and either discarded, sold, or taken to clear fields for plowing over the last three hundred years. Mounds have been leveled or covered up and/or destroyed. Unlike archaeological sites that have meticulously been preserved in the Middle East, most sites in the Heartland area have been destroyed, covered up, and erased. But there are some few historians and collectors who can and do show the collections of artifacts which they have found and can only speculate who forged them and why. Wayne May makes an excellent case about much of it, though.

"...let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." That's very random of God. Or is it?

Just sharing some evidence for Zarahemla

https://theheartlandresearchgroup.org/zarahemla-lidar/

[Bronco73idi]

Haplogroup X DNA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

So this DNA showed up in North America at least 20,000 years before the Nephites showed up on the scene. I guess that kind of kills that argument.

I have looked for the actual time vs location of specific sample(skeleton) to no avail.

To say it ended 20000 years ago is to say that DNA doesn’t exist today.

They give us just enough information to make us think they know what they are talking about but we can not hold them accountable for it.

[kirtland r.m.]

Haplogroup X DNA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

So this DNA showed up in North America at least 20,000 years before the Nephites showed up on the scene. I guess that kind of kills that argument.

Well you are placing a lot of faith in science to be able to go back as you say 20.000.years. I certainly don't as scientific theory is changed constantly. Here is a brief story you might not enjoy.

While administering a 2nd year exam at Princeton University, his teaching assistant noted that Einstein had set the same paper as the previous year. Dr. Einstein, he asked, “Isn’t this the same exam you gave this class last year?”

Einstein paused, then replied, “Yes, it is.”

Puzzled, the assistant enquired, “Why would you give the same exam two years in a row?”

“Because,” Einstein replied, “the answers have changed”.

[marc]

To the Lamanites, Part 3

[larsenb]

Ok. Here's the deal. You want a good fight (your words, not mine). Not interested.

In terms of making things personal, here's a quote from your first post on this thread,

Let's count the pejoratives:
1. "for the simple reason they don't make sense."
2. "Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief"
3. "try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements"
4. "This approach is exactly backward"

We could try counting the facts or data in that quote as well, but there aren't any. You say you want to discuss, and I'm perfectly willing to do that, but you don't engage with the details.

Like your drive by shooting on Haplotype X. The undisputed fact among the experts is that, "The highest concentrations are found in the Ojibwe (25%), Sioux (15%), Nuu-Chah-Nulth (12%), Georgia (8%), Orkney (7%), and amongst the Druze Assyrian community in Israel (27%)." I took the time to read the non-Meldrum "experts" and they were uniformly equivocal about this. In other words, they don't think so and don't like the idea of cross Atlantic migrations to the Great Lakes region; however, they can't rule it out. What they can rule out is the meso-America American population being Near Eastern in origin.

If you were willing to engage with the details in an open-minded fashion you would say something about the other main Book of Mormon lands theory being completely unsupported by genetics.

In short, you came in with a hostile attitude throwing crap at everyone at everyone and then act surprised we don't want to talk. Why are you surprised? Actually, are you surprised? Doesn't this reaction happen to you a lot, or do you only do this sort of thing on line with perfect strangers?

Such a sensitive individual.

My saying: "You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense." They don't. I've already posted a few reasons why this is so. I just posted more reasons why this is so in my last post. It would be a thankless task to go into more detail with people who don't engage.

This is no way a personal attack on 'A Disciple', it's just my strong opinion informed by a LOT of experience debating these issues. His further elucidation of what should be a proper methodology for doing BofM Geography research is right on the money: " . . . .I greatly appreciate those who make an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geographic models and to apply those models to actual geography. " Exactly.

And my further experience is that most (I should have used this qualifier) Heartlanders I've talked to, start out from an interpretation of the words of Joseph Smith, etc., about the American Indians he encountered being Lamanites living in their original lands, the promised land where a Gentile nation rises up to dominate the world being the U.S., the whole Zelph controversy, the whole controversy surrounding the Times and Seasons articles that appeared when JS was its editor, that the hill in NY called Cumorah was the actual Hill Cumorah/Ramaha last battle site for the Jaredites and the Nephites . . . , etc., etc. They don't start out with the idea of carefully reading the Book of Mormon regarding locations, distances and directions, etc., then trying to fit their analysis of these things to a geography that fits.

That's just my experience. It's too bad that upsets you.

And for people who take this approach (having settled on the BofM site), they then try to make the BofM statements regarding locations, distances and directions, etc., fit this model the best they can. And in taking this approach, they are putting the cart before the horse . . . in my strong opinion.

Again, that's been my experience. Sorry if that upsets you.

And are you not "attacking me" when you use the 'drive-by shooting" accusation against me?? kirtland r.m. was ribbing me with that comment. You aren't. You also weren't aware of a post before kirtland r.m. made this comment that I said I would post some geneticist arguments showing why Meldrum's interpretation of the the X haplotype was greatly conflating or pushing the data. Which has nothing to do w/what tribes may have some variation of this haplotype.

And how insulting do think your last comment of your post was?? I hope you will be able to win through to not being so sensitive sometime in your life. Lots of luck with that. And especially because we are complete strangers. Though, if Astrado is your real name (first or last?) I admire you for the courage to go public with it.

I suppose I can be sensitive. I rarely start things, but sometimes I'll react strongly to negative things someone else says. My apologies.

I really don't feel strongly about this subject one way or another. You seem to feel quite strongly about this debate. How come? Is it a professional interest? Did you study this when you were younger? There must be something that grabbed your interest in the subject.

I've always had a strong interest in archaeology. My professional background is geology and I have been involved in numerous scientific endeavors. And yes, I've been following the Book of Mormon location controversy for years; was even a member of BYU's SEHA when it was still active.

In recent decades, I've been involved to some degree with a well-known investigator/archaeologist who has done work in MesoAmerica, and currently in Oman. I've consulted on some of his digs, locally and elsewhere. Currently, I'm working up the analyses of and reportage on iron-ore float samples from the Khor Kharfot region of Dofar, Oman; the primary candidate for Lehi's first land of Bountiful.

I'm not wedded to the Meso American model, but so far, think it is the best candidate, based on the Book of Mormon verses describing locations, travel times, distances, etc., etc. And we aren't even talking about significant passages from various Mayan codices strongly suggesting they were aware of their origins, or had memories they picked up from groups they associated with. One small item, is that they identify with 7 tribes that first came to the land, similar to the Book of Mormon description of the 7 tribe grouping that derived from the Lehi entourage.

[larsenb]

I wonder how far this new 'city' developed? Meanwhile, the site being coincidental with the original Zarahemla is purely speculative. But if it is the same site, and in view of the long habitation of the Nephites in Zarahemla, there should be many, many archaeological remains in the location. What is actually there?

And how thoroughly was it destroyed in the great deforming destruction? (3 Nephi 8:17) What kinds of materials did the Nephites have available to build structures that would have stood for centuries? Many stone structures were plowed over, metal weapons were found and either discarded, sold, or taken to clear fields for plowing over the last three hundred years. Mounds have been leveled or covered up and/or destroyed. Unlike archaeological sites that have meticulously been preserved in the Middle East, most sites in the Heartland area have been destroyed, covered up, and erased. But there are some few historians and collectors who can and do show the collections of artifacts which they have found and can only speculate who forged them and why. Wayne May makes an excellent case about much of it, though.

"...let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." That's very random of God. Or is it?

Just sharing some evidence for Zarahemla

https://theheartlandresearchgroup.org/zarahemla-lidar/

Interesting, but not too convincing. First, is this the area of the proposed City of Zarahemla to be built across from Nauvoo? Is the blue line following the bluff the wall? This line appears to have been artificially drawn in to connect up discontinuous traces . . . . of what? Someone needs to go there and see what the traces actually are.

And giving it a moments thought, I would expect many more remains to be visible via LIDAR of the long-time thriving city of Zarahemla, despite the plowing, etc.

[MikeMaillet]

I like the concept of the Heartland model but I have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved. I prefer a more compact geography and lean towards a Chesapeake / Mid-Atlantic answer. But I have only a notion and so I greatly appreciate those who make an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geographic models and to apply those models to actual geography.

You have a difficult time making sense of the distances involved in the Heartland model, for the simple reason they don't make sense. Nor do other considerations taken directly from the Book of Mormon. Heartlanders start out with an almost iron-clad belief in their model, then try to force-fit Book of Mormon statements/verses about its own geography to their model. This approach is exactly backward.

Making an effort to use the Book of Mormon text to build geography models and then trying to match the models up with actual geography is the correct and potentially fruitful approach to illuminating the real geography of the Book of Mormon. Try not to limit yourself to just the continental US area, if you are able.

The heartland model had significant evidence surrounding it's conception. I keep posting it week after week. In addition it is a wide area in the eastern U.S. now being supported by D.N.A. evidence as well as other middle eastern Hebrew evidence. One problem with academia though, is their continued calling of every Hebrew evidence "faked", as it goes against what they have chosen to formulate.

Now I have begun to post on direct beliefs of those Native Americans from the Heartland Model area. They in their own words, are telling about the visit of Jesus Christ anciently, the great flood, one ancient civilization being completely wiped out by the other, and sacred information being passed down in medicine lodges which is to remain sacred, including new names, signs, hand grips ect.. They are also watching for the ancient record to come forth of their people, and I have gotten even more specific than this in some of my posts.

Buffalo Tiger claims this record was buried in the N. Y. area, and that they buried Mormon (he calls him the Leader of the army that his people had destroyed) there, and the spot is very close to Cumorah. Some of the Cheyenne claim Joseph Smith was "all sewn up" man (from an ancient vision and they were given an accurate description of him) who would be a latter day prophet. It goes on and on. I will continuing posting on this subject.

Thanks, I agree with you and enjoy your posts.

Mike

[Bronco73idi]

And how thoroughly was it destroyed in the great deforming destruction? (3 Nephi 8:17) What kinds of materials did the Nephites have available to build structures that would have stood for centuries? Many stone structures were plowed over, metal weapons were found and either discarded, sold, or taken to clear fields for plowing over the last three hundred years. Mounds have been leveled or covered up and/or destroyed. Unlike archaeological sites that have meticulously been preserved in the Middle East, most sites in the Heartland area have been destroyed, covered up, and erased. But there are some few historians and collectors who can and do show the collections of artifacts which they have found and can only speculate who forged them and why. Wayne May makes an excellent case about much of it, though.

"...let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." That's very random of God. Or is it?

Just sharing some evidence for Zarahemla

https://theheartlandresearchgroup.org/zarahemla-lidar/

Interesting, but not too convincing. First, is this the area of the proposed City of Zarahemla to be built across from Nauvoo? Is the blue line following the bluff the wall? This line appears to have been artificially drawn in to connect up discontinuous traces . . . . of what? Someone needs to go there and see what the traces actually are.

And giving it a moments thought, I would expect many more remains to be visible via LIDAR of the long-time thriving city of Zarahemla, despite the plowing, etc.

I watch a video on LiDAR and the amazon rainforest that was awesome and dates to 600-1600 ad and when reading this post thought, “someone had to LiDAR Zarahemla” so I googled and found that. So I know as much as you

Here is the other video, I think it’s awesome.