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

[marc]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

[Niyr]

If I were to make a conjecture on where the Book of Mormon events took place, the Heartland would probably be the LAST place to look.

The Book of Mormon describes civilizations of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. We don't see anything remotely close to that anywhere in precolumbian USA. We DO see it in Mesoamerica and in Andean South America.

The narrow neck of land cannot possibly be Niagara Falls because that would place Cumorah SOUTH of the narrow neck. In addition, strategically, it makes little sense to call that a narrow neck when people could simply bypass that route on the south side or on the north side.

You can't really do that in southern Ecuador because you have ocean on one side and high mountains (5-6km amsl) on the other.
You can't get around Panama too easily either; to this day the Darien Gap is pretty much impassible to large groups of people and people find themselves trying to go around it rather than through it.
The Isthmus of Tehanatepec is also fairly narrow, especially in the rainy season when the region north of the mountains near Juchitan and Salina Cruz becomes impassible. No one is getting around those areas without a navy, and the Book of Mormon does not speak of naval battles.

There are linguistic similarities between the Quechua tribes of South America and the Purepecha tribes of Mexico. Also many crops present in South America made themselves all the way to Polynesia. I'm thinking Hagoth would have left South America, traveled north, ran into Mexico, and then ran into Polynesia.

There's no northerly route for Hagoth in the Heartland model unless you have him going up through the Hudson Bay and then the NW passage. Keep in mind that after Nephi's mention of snow, snow isn't even mentioned a single time after that. We have lots of references of warm to hot weather. There's also conditions consistent with volcanism in 3 Nephi 8 and the Midwest simply does not have the vulcanism that Mesoamerica , Central America, and South America has. Not to mention the earthquakes down there are far larger than anything conjured up in the NMSZ.

The Hopewell, for whatever reason, have been mostly ignored. However, at their height they easily had the numbers the Nephites had. They were a huge civilization for the ancient world.

Who would the Lamanites have been, who were more numerous and stayed around longer than 400 AD?

[Atrasado]

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.

Geology? That's a fascinating subject. I've worked with several geologists and envy the outdoor work many of them get. To me, it seems there's always a puzzle to be solved with geology.

[Atrasado]

If I were to make a conjecture on where the Book of Mormon events took place, the Heartland would probably be the LAST place to look.

The Book of Mormon describes civilizations of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. We don't see anything remotely close to that anywhere in precolumbian USA. We DO see it in Mesoamerica and in Andean South America.

The narrow neck of land cannot possibly be Niagara Falls because that would place Cumorah SOUTH of the narrow neck. In addition, strategically, it makes little sense to call that a narrow neck when people could simply bypass that route on the south side or on the north side.

You can't really do that in southern Ecuador because you have ocean on one side and high mountains (5-6km amsl) on the other.
You can't get around Panama too easily either; to this day the Darien Gap is pretty much impassible to large groups of people and people find themselves trying to go around it rather than through it.
The Isthmus of Tehanatepec is also fairly narrow, especially in the rainy season when the region north of the mountains near Juchitan and Salina Cruz becomes impassible. No one is getting around those areas without a navy, and the Book of Mormon does not speak of naval battles.

There are linguistic similarities between the Quechua tribes of South America and the Purepecha tribes of Mexico. Also many crops present in South America made themselves all the way to Polynesia. I'm thinking Hagoth would have left South America, traveled north, ran into Mexico, and then ran into Polynesia.

There's no northerly route for Hagoth in the Heartland model unless you have him going up through the Hudson Bay and then the NW passage. Keep in mind that after Nephi's mention of snow, snow isn't even mentioned a single time after that. We have lots of references of warm to hot weather. There's also conditions consistent with volcanism in 3 Nephi 8 and the Midwest simply does not have the vulcanism that Mesoamerica , Central America, and South America has. Not to mention the earthquakes down there are far larger than anything conjured up in the NMSZ.

The Hopewell, for whatever reason, have been mostly ignored. However, at their height they easily had the numbers the Nephites had. They were a huge civilization for the ancient world.

Who would the Lamanites have been, who were more numerous and stayed around longer than 400 AD?

That's a good question. I really don't know enough to comment on that, but I'm sure I'll do a bit of research on it when I have the time and energy.

[Christianlee]

The Book of Mormon doesn’t really fit any geographic model.

[larsenb]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

[kirtland r.m.]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

As if I haven't demonstrated to the critics on this thread and others in hundreds of postings, and straight forwardly answered every point, here is something mind blowing from Nauvoo. The ancient temple site across the river from the Nauvoo Temple (that site is now owned by a group of our church members) has something to say (archeologically speaking) take a look starting at 40:15.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaFrTnW0uI

[marc]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

I'm not really pro or anti any region. It's been a long time since I've looked at either side, but the BoM is replete with examples of Nephites casting up huge mounds of earth for defensive purposes. I'm not saying those have anything to do with the mounds that exist today, though some might.

[kirtland r.m.]

If I were to make a conjecture on where the Book of Mormon events took place, the Heartland would probably be the LAST place to look.

The Book of Mormon describes civilizations of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. We don't see anything remotely close to that anywhere in precolumbian USA. We DO see it in Mesoamerica and in Andean South America.

The narrow neck of land cannot possibly be Niagara Falls because that would place Cumorah SOUTH of the narrow neck. In addition, strategically, it makes little sense to call that a narrow neck when people could simply bypass that route on the south side or on the north side.

You can't really do that in southern Ecuador because you have ocean on one side and high mountains (5-6km amsl) on the other.
You can't get around Panama too easily either; to this day the Darien Gap is pretty much impassible to large groups of people and people find themselves trying to go around it rather than through it.
The Isthmus of Tehanatepec is also fairly narrow, especially in the rainy season when the region north of the mountains near Juchitan and Salina Cruz becomes impassible. No one is getting around those areas without a navy, and the Book of Mormon does not speak of naval battles.

There are linguistic similarities between the Quechua tribes of South America and the Purepecha tribes of Mexico. Also many crops present in South America made themselves all the way to Polynesia. I'm thinking Hagoth would have left South America, traveled north, ran into Mexico, and then ran into Polynesia.

There's no northerly route for Hagoth in the Heartland model unless you have him going up through the Hudson Bay and then the NW passage. Keep in mind that after Nephi's mention of snow, snow isn't even mentioned a single time after that. We have lots of references of warm to hot weather. There's also conditions consistent with volcanism in 3 Nephi 8 and the Midwest simply does not have the vulcanism that Mesoamerica , Central America, and South America has. Not to mention the earthquakes down there are far larger than anything conjured up in the NMSZ.

The Hopewell, for whatever reason, have been mostly ignored. However, at their height they easily had the numbers the Nephites had. They were a huge civilization for the ancient world.

Who would the Lamanites have been, who were more numerous and stayed around longer than 400 AD?

They would be Native Americans in Joseph's and our day, who live in the areas where these events took place. They are there, and their traditions show much evidence as to that being the case.

As recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord sent missionaries to the Indians living in New York, Ohio, and Missouri, specifically identifying them as Lamanites and telling them that He (the Lord) “would go with them and be in their midst.” (D&C 32:2) During this mission, Joseph Smith told tribes from Michigan that the Book of Mormon was the history of their ancestors. He wrote that the Book of Mormon is a record of “the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians.” Joseph Smith, “Mormonism,” The American Revivalist and Rochester Observer 7/6 (February 2, 1833). Only the last two paragraphs of Joseph’s letter to the newspaper were printed. The entire letter appeared eleven years later in the November 15, 18. issue of the Times and Seasons. ↩

[kirtland r.m.]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

Really, you might have missed the following.

Contrasting the works of the mound builders with Mesoamerica stone ruins, Hugh Nibley observes: “A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica… Though such piles as the great pyramid-temple of Chichen Itza are surpassed by few buildings in the world in beauty of proportion and grandeur of conception, there is something disturbing about most of these overpowering ruins… The great monuments do not represent what the Nephites stood for; rather they stand for what their descendants, mixed with the blood of their brethren, descended to…” (Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, pp. 272-273)

I have a suggestion to you larsenb, instead of following me around from thread to thread, why don't you do one or more O.P."s with evidences of your views on Mesoamerica. I promise I won't follow you around if you do.

[AZRob]

I have a suggestion to you larsenb, instead of following me around from thread to thread, why don't you do one or more O.P."s with evidences of your views on Mesoamerica. I promise I won't follow you around if you do.

That's mighty magnanimous of you to post a controversial topic and then invite someone else to leave with those passive aggressive wink-winks. You know there's a private message function here? I think it's possible to PM yourself if you don't want anyone responding. That way you can keep it quiet, like really quiet. It looks like you did a good job of shutting this topic thread down fast, so congratulations are in order.

Like blarsen, I'm not wedded to any model, but to believe the Heartland model you have to throw out geography and rely on offhand comments by Joseph Smith and appeals to Nibley's authority rather than scripture.

[honestseeker12]

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.

I second your South American model thoughts. Until I came across the website nephicode.blogspot.com, I thought that the Book of Mormon could have taken place here in the USA with the final battle at the hill Cumorah in New York. However, Del DowDell has done such thorough research that covers practically every angle ever considered, that I am convinced that Nephi's family landed in Chile and from there traveled into Peru and Ecuador. Del DowDell follows the scriptural record with every detail matching from the BOM. Everything from where a ship could sail being driven before the wind taking into account wind patterns and currents of the ocean, to where they could have landed with their seeds being able to grow abundantly (there are only 2 places in the whole western hemisphere with the same climate as Jerusalem), to having lots of gold, silver, copper, etc., the mountains whose height is great, and a numerous list of other things that match the scriptural record. The author has so much information and evidence including pictures on his website that is very compelling for the South American model.

Del Dowell says that the Amazon basin used to be under water (which even the scientists admit is true). However, the scientists think that this was millions of years ago instead of in more recent times. However, the BOM talks about cataclysmic changes which happened at the time of Christ's crucifixion which show that drastic change does not always take millions of years to occur gradually. With most of South America under water until Christ was crucified, the land was more like an island which also agrees with Jacob saying they were on an isle of the sea. According to this model, the mountains that Samuel prophesied to the people whose height would be great are the Andes mountains which rose even higher at Christ's crucifixion. There are farming terraces on the mountains there now which are 3,000 feet higher than any crops can even grow. The heartland model does not have any mountains whose height is great. I highly recommend checking out the website nephicode.blogspot.com for a lot more information than I can even include here. It would probably take weeks or months to read it all if anyone is truly interested. However, there is a nice search tool which is very useful to find any information that you might be looking for there. He covers basically every argument made by other theorists and uses the BOM itself as evidence.

Of course there is evidence of other civilizations from the Nephites and Lamanites in meso America and also the USA. That is because they immigrated northward. It specifically says that Hagoth went north in his ships. Meso America is north of Peru. From there I am sure that they continued to go northward into the USA. Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. I have no desire to argue about it, though. I just wanted to add my opinion about it and give other people a different perspective.

[hideki]

The Hebrew convention of naming directions.

The Israelites of Palestine derived directions as though standing with their backs to the Mediterranean Sea, facing the desert.
"Yam" ("sea") meant "seaward" or "west," for the Mediterranean lay in that direction, while "Qedem" ("fore") stood for "straight ahead" or "east."
Then "Yamin" ("right hand") meant "south," while "shemol" ("left hand") denoted "north."
By the same convention as used in ancient Palestine, Lehi's party may have referred to directions based on the seashore which runs northwest-southeast.
Thus by that convention, their directions would be forty-five or more degrees off the absolute truth.
What they would call "Qedem," intending eastward, would actually mean northeast or even almost north and so on.
It is interesting that in the Mayan languages of Mesoamerica, "south" meant "on the right hand" and north "on the left," corresponding to the Hebrew convention. Also in the ancient Mayan culture, the gulf of Mexico was the "east sea" while the Pacific Ocean is the "west sea."

[hideki]

Automatic translation.
As a Japanese, I am interested in this topic.
In fact, there is a similar controversy in Japan.
Scholars are arguing over the location of the capital city of the first Japanese state to rule the entire country.
There are two main theories.

The funny thing about this dispute is that the scholars who are wrong on one side stubbornly refuse to change their theory, because if they change their claim, they will lose their previous achievements and authority.
Sometimes new findings of fact are ignored or forcibly denied.

In ancient Japan, the topography changed very dramatically.
This is a phenomenon unique to Japan.
Small islands were separated, large islands were combined, and islands rotated more than 90 degrees.
This is understandable based on recent research, but the older scholars ignore or deny information that shakes their own theories.

The topography of ancient America did not move as much as that of Japan.
However, as the Book of Mormon says, there were cataclysmic changes at certain times.
It could have been the fall of a group of meteorites or even North and South America being engulfed in flames.
And Central America, I think, underwent a relatively large topographic change.
In fact, there are archaeological sites on the ocean floor in that area.

[hideki]

I will learn from your input.
I do not have enough information to determine which theory is correct.
Excavations and other physical evidence are important.
However, just because it has not been excavated does not mean it does not exist.

A place name can also be
If a group of people moved to a new location, they may use the name of a place they lived in the past as the name of their new settlement.
In such cases, the same place name is often given to a place in a state whose topography is very similar to that of the past.

It is conceivable that people in the past may have walked at a greater and faster pace than people today.
This takes into account differences in physical fitness between people in the past and today, as well as changes in topography, forests, etc.
In other words, the calculation of travel speed and distance from the scriptures could also be considered longer distances.

And given the disastrous wars of the time, one would want to be far away from the enemy.
I would not feel safe in a place where the enemy could reach my place of residence in a few dozen days' walk.
In other words, people at that time may have had a much more extensive presence.
They could have existed in Central America, North America and South America.
Hebrew influence and knowledge of the gospel exist in the Mayan civilization of Central America.
If the Mayan civilization is the civilization of the Book of Mormon period, it would be that of the Nephites and the Lamanites.

From Joseph Smith's statements and others, I believe that the Nephites and others lived in North America.
Let us assume that Lehi had arrived in Central America or south of it.
In the beginning, they may have built their culture in Central America, had many wars, and migrated north.

[Cruiserdude]

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.

The part towards end about the soil, Terra preta..... woooooow

[larsenb]

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.

Geology? That's a fascinating subject. I've worked with several geologists and envy the outdoor work many of them get. To me, it seems there's always a puzzle to be solved with geology.

Yep. And as a generality, the study area is alwayks right in front of you.

And the outdoor work . . . Some of the hardest grunt work I've ever done was hauling rock samples out of Wadi Sayq last February, which is incredibly rugged, littered with massive boulder fields; or being knocked over backwards in a somersault by a high wave hitting a small fishing boat used for transportation to the field site, a few years before this.

[larsenb]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

As if I haven't demonstrated to the critics on this thread and others in hundreds of postings, and straight forwardly answered every point, here is something mind blowing from Nauvoo. The ancient temple site across the river from the Nauvoo Temple (that site is now owned by a group of our church members) has something to say (archeologically speaking) take a look starting at 40:15.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaFrTnW0uI

Why not give a link to your previous posting about a 'temple site' found across the river from Nauvoo? Or something other than throwing a video link out allegedly covering this idea. And the same regarding your hint that you've explained the lack of mound building evidence or tradition (burial, ritual mounds, not fortifications) among the Nephites/Lamanites or their Jewish/Israelitish progenitors.

[larsenb]

The Book of Mormon doesn’t really fit any geographic model.

Now there's a bold assertion. There are models that fit the book to some degree. The Meso model fits it the best, in my view and that of many others. But there are still questions not fully answered.

[honestseeker12]

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.

Thank you for sharing that video. It was very interesting.

[larsenb]

Keep in mind when thinking about pyramid type temples, that it was against the Law of Moses to have any kind of steps leading to altars.

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Whoever built the pyramids in Central America, it wasn't the law (of Moses) abiding Nephites. So a lot of LDS paintings are doctrinal bunk.

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

Really, you might have missed the following.

Contrasting the works of the mound builders with Mesoamerica stone ruins, Hugh Nibley observes: “A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica… Though such piles as the great pyramid-temple of Chichen Itza are surpassed by few buildings in the world in beauty of proportion and grandeur of conception, there is something disturbing about most of these overpowering ruins… The great monuments do not represent what the Nephites stood for; rather they stand for what their descendants, mixed with the blood of their brethren, descended to…” (Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, pp. 272-273)

I have a suggestion to you larsenb, instead of following me around from thread to thread, why don't you do one or more O.P."s with evidences of your views on Mesoamerica. I promise I won't follow you around if you do.

You completely misunderstand my motive. I'm not interested in defending a particular model. In any of my posts on this subject, I'm mainly pointing out what I see as the deficiencies of the claims of the heartlanders, or of others with their models. I may have suggested from time-to-time, where the Book of Mormon passages seem to support the Meso model, but I'm not really interested in defending it.

I.e., I don't care what people believe in terms of the Book of Mormon geography models. My closest neighbor is a heartlander and does work for them. A close friend is in the same category. But if the topic ever comes up, they kind of laugh and say something like: "Well . . . we know where you're coming from", and we drop the subject.

What does get my attention is when heartlanders come on in a public forum with their claims and and assertions that really aren't very well supported, and can't respond to counter arguments, ideas and evidence. They also commonly engage in what in science is called "arm waving", pushing or misrepresenting the data or ignoring other more authoritative studies. Mostly, they strongly come across as having settled on the model for considerations other than actual Book of Mormon evidence/passages.

I have no problem with anyone expressing his/her views on a public forum such as this. But you shouldn't be surprised if you get push-back form people who may disagree with you . . . . and perhaps for very good reasons. This forum is mainly for back-and-forth discussion, as I understand it.

[Luke]

True, but most of the stone pyramids came in after the Nephite time-frame. And there are temple layouts in MesoAmerica that fit the Israelitish example and have been determined to have been measured with the same cubit. They aren't pyramids.

Being, apparently, as a Heartlander, can you identify 'mound-building' as a preoccupation of the Nephites/Lamanites, or the ancient Israelite/Jewish cultures? I've seen nothing even hinting at such a thing in the Book of Mormon or the Tanach.

But this activity was a hall-mark of the Adena/Hopewell cultures.

Really, you might have missed the following.

Contrasting the works of the mound builders with Mesoamerica stone ruins, Hugh Nibley observes: “A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica… Though such piles as the great pyramid-temple of Chichen Itza are surpassed by few buildings in the world in beauty of proportion and grandeur of conception, there is something disturbing about most of these overpowering ruins… The great monuments do not represent what the Nephites stood for; rather they stand for what their descendants, mixed with the blood of their brethren, descended to…” (Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, pp. 272-273)

I have a suggestion to you larsenb, instead of following me around from thread to thread, why don't you do one or more O.P."s with evidences of your views on Mesoamerica. I promise I won't follow you around if you do.

You completely misunderstand my motive. I'm not interested in defending a particular model. In any of my posts on this subject, I'm mainly pointing out what I see as the deficiencies of the claims of the heartlanders, or of others with their models. I may have suggested from time-to-time, where the Book of Mormon passages seem to support the Meso model, but I'm not really interested in defending it.

I.e., I don't care what people believe in terms of the Book of Mormon geography models. My closest neighbor is a heartlander and does work for them. A close friend is in the same category. But if the topic ever comes up, they kind of laugh and say something like: "Well . . . we know where you're coming from", and we drop the subject.

What does get my attention is when heartlanders come on in a public forum with their claims and and assertions that really aren't very well supported, and can't respond to counter arguments, ideas and evidence. They also commonly engage in what in science is called "arm waving", pushing or misrepresenting the data or ignoring other more authoritative studies. Mostly, they strongly come across as having settled on the model for considerations other than actual Book of Mormon evidence/passages.

I have no problem with anyone expressing his/her views on a public forum such as this. But you shouldn't be surprised if you get push-back form people who may disagree with you . . . . and perhaps for very good reasons. This forum is mainly for back-and-forth discussion, as I understand it.

I’ve never even given the BoM Geography debate much thought to be honest.

[larsenb]

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.

Not quite getting your point here. The heartland model area is full of D.N.A. evidence, your meso theory has Zero. I am not just using one source, but a number of them and more recent ones.

When I get the time, I'll post genetic experts analyses of the X haplogroup, when and where it appears in populations and when and where it dispersed.

How the Heartlanders deal with genetic haplotype X data/information is a prime example of how they push/misrepresent and ignore the scientific consensus regarding this topic.

This is illustrated by the following article:

First: The Book of Mormon and the X haplogroup….again, April 29, 2010 by Tyler Livingston; at: http://www.bmaf.org/articles/bom_x_hapl ... livingston

Extracts:

Although this point has been hit on quite a bit, I’d like to add a few points to the discussion of the X haplogroup as evidence for The Book of Mormon. I am not a geneticist, but Ugo Perego, a leading geneticist who has published on the X haplogroup, assisted with the article, and had the final say of it’s content. I’d also like to add that this is not meant to attack anyone, but to just present the facts.

Contrary to nearly all the haplogroups in the mtDNA tree, haplogroup X is not geographic specific being found at low frequencies in several places around the world. 1 It is now also is commonly accepted that the ancient origin of this lineage is the Middle East. 2 In a recent study, the Native American specific branch of haplogroup X (called X2a) was estimated to arrive to North America approximately 14-17,000 B.C. 3 Because X2a entered into the Americas long before Lehi and his party did, it cannot be used as an evidence for any of The Book of Mormon peoples. However, if it is possible that there was an ancient migration originating from the Middle East, would it also be just as possible for a migration to have come from Israel and enter the Americas around 600 BC.?

How haplogroup (X2) arrived in North America, is still a matter of debate that currently cannot be absolutely determined. As stated before, the ancient X root seems to have originated in the Middle East, but by the time it arrived in the Western Hemisphere, it had accumulated enough mutations to differentiate substantially from the other X lineages. As of today, two X2 lineages are found exclusively in North America and nowhere else (X2a and the recently discovered X2g). 4 One recent study placed X2 as being a founding lineage along with the pan American A2, B2, C1, and D1 haplogroups, thousands of years before the Nephites and Jaredites existed:

“Native American populations exhibit almost exclusively five mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups (A-D and X). Haplogroups A-D are also frequent in Asia, suggesting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages. However, the differential pattern of distribution and frequency of haplogroup X led some to suggest that it may represent an independent migration to the Americas. Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis.” 5

Therefore, haplogroup X2 in America is also believed to have come from Asia across Beringia with the other haplogroups. Ugo Perego, a scientist specialized in Native American mtDNA studies, explains why X2 is found only in the Great Lakes area. He writes “haplogroup X2a might have arrived from Beringia through a path that was different from that followed by the pan-American haplogroups. According to environmental and paleoecological data, such a path existed and was represented by the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets, which opened approximately 15 kya or possibly was never completely closed. Through such a corridor, where some glacial-refuge areas have been recently identified, X2a could have moved from Beringia directly into the North American regions located east of the Rocky Mountains. This latter scenario would imply that the X2a expansion in America occurred in the Great Plains region, where the terminal part of the glacial corridor ended, and is in complete agreement with both the extent of diversity and distribution of X2a observed in modern Native American populations.” 6

Since X2a is not found anywhere else in the world, it makes it difficult to trace. A close Asian counterpart to X2a–called X2e–found among the Altai people of Siberia, is thought by some to be the link demonstrating a passage through Asia of the ancestors of Paleo-Indians that eventually brought X2a to the Americas. However, this Asian branch of the X tree is actually a younger “sister” to the American clade, with less genetic variation than the lineages found in North America. In other words, the Asian X2e cannot be considered ancestral to X2a as it has a younger age than the latter. Additionally, X2e is also found among the Druze of the Middle East, thus implying its presence among the Altai as the result of a more recent migratory event. 7

Although it is obvious that the Asian X2e is not ancestral to Native American X2a haplogroup, there is no reason to assume that the ancestor of X2a came also from Asia, through Beringia and then into North America. This could be possible, as geneticist Ugo Perego points out, if “the Asian ancestor of X2a disappeared due to genetic drift (it basically went extinct for not known reasons simply because all the female lineages belonging to the ancestral haplogroup died out – a phenomenon to keep into consideration when studying ancient populations using DNA samples from individuals living today). Genetic drift (a naturally occurring event) and bottleneck (caused mainly by the non-random extermination of millions of Native Americans after the arrival of the Europeans) took over the millennia since the first expansion of the Paleo-Indians to the Americas and greatly shaped the genetic landscape of today’s Native American populations.” 8
He also theorizes that the reason why X2a harbors a unique mutational motif that distinguish it from the other non-American X2 branches is the long period of forced isolation experienced by the ancestors of Paleo-Indians belonging to this haplogroup (as well as to the other Native American lineages) during the time they were “trapped” in Beringia as a consequence of the last Ice Age (20-37,000 years ago). The truly continental in size landmass of Beringia offered a natural refuge for thousands of years. As the water was trapped in ice during that period, the level of the sea was much lower, exposing a natural land bridge connecting Siberia to Alaska. Strong winds and other factors kept ice from forming on the ground, thus providing an ecosystem that would have allowed the survival of small groups of anatomically modern humans. This area was most likely all steppe and tundra and resources were scarce. As such, population growth was not experienced during this time. MtDNA lineages continued to experience accumulation of mutations, which are now observed in the haplogroups that survived and later colonized America’s double-continent. When climate conditions improved, the ice began to melt opening the way into the Americas, for Paleo-Indians belonging to X2a as well as to the other pan-American haplogroups to expand into the inhabited New World. 9

and:

Some North American theorists attempt to show the X haplogroup introduction into the Americas at a more recent time, in an attempt to make it look like it could be from Lehi. While the dating of mtDNA is controversial at best, the dates that are produced by this dating system are generally within an accepted time range. In order for the theory of “Lehi’s X haplogroup” to work, these clocks would have to be off by tens of thousands of years, something that would not be feasible when the evidence is weighed. Ugo Perego wrote “We know few things about [the mutation rate of mtDNA], we assume few things about it- and, as a scientific community, we hope to continue to develop studies that will provide an ever more accurate calculation. However, I seriously doubt that it will move from thousands to hundreds of years ago.” 10

We also have evidence of a late(r) arrival of homo sapiens to the Americas in other dating systems, namely archaeological and geological, which place the populating of the Americas by the founding groups (the X haplogroup being one of them) in the same time period as the mtDNA clocks. Many archaeological sites have been found in the Americas which carbon date to around 12,000 years BP, a date that is not disputed among scholars. Several sites have later dates, but are controversial in one way or another and I do not feel it necessary to enter the debate of arguing for pre-clovis cultures, or whether there was one wave, or three waves of migration into the Americas.

The Clovis culture, a founding population in the Americas, “is considered to be the oldest unequivocal evidence of humans in the Americas, dating between 11,500 and 10,900 radiocarbon years before the present (14C yr B.P.). Adjusted 14C dates and a reevaluation of the existing Clovis date record revise the Clovis time range to 11,050 to 10,800 14C yr B.P.” 11 The melting of the glaciers and the improvement of climate conditions around the same time period allowed for expansion from Beringia.

It has also been claimed that certain cultures in the Great Lakes area, namely the Hopewellian culture, date back to the same time period as The Book of Mormon and therefore, seems to strengthen their case of the geography of The Book of Mormon taking place in North America. In answer to this, one LDS scholar noted “The same principles that scientists use to date the phylogenetic change are used in other processes. Rates of change are indicated and assumed to create a “clock.” That is how archaeological sites are dated, not through phylogenetic changes, but through atomic changes. Same science, different clock.

If you don’t accept any timeframe deeper than 7,000 years, then you must also reject the C-14 clock and assume that all dates that it gives are much earlier. If that is really your position, how do you accept the dates for the Hopewell. According to the logic of the way you use science, we shouldn’t trust them and therefore they must be much younger than Nephite society.

How does the C-14 clock get it right only when you want it to, but get it wrong at all other times? Why can you believe that there were people along the Mississippi from AD 200-400 if you believe that all scientific clocks are too fast? They should be much younger than that.” 12
If you accept one form of dating system, you must not reject another when the same principles are used in both. Archaeology and Genetic clocks compliment each other and fit within similar time periods.

More information from Ugo Perego in response to a comment by 'John' to Livingston's paper:

John,
I emailed Ugo about this and received this response:

“First of all, he stated that haplogroup X2a has been found in Iran and in Egypt (and he cites a couple of footnotes from my recent article from FAIR). However, nowhere in my article I (nor the original authors of the two papers i cited) call the haplotypes found in Iran and in Egypt “X2a”. The haplotypes are termed X2* which means that at the current time, the researchers involved in such studies have placed them in a paragroup, which is essentially a not-yet defined branch of the X2 phylogeny (tree). In other words, there is not yet enough evidence to conclude that the common mutation shared by the Native American X2a branch and the samples found in Egypt (which by the way are identical among themselves thus representing a single line or haplotype) and the Iranian sample (which was the result of a SNP test and not of a complete mtDNA sequence) is ancestral to all of them. Researchers do not know whether they are dealing with a case of IBS (identical by state – or a recurrent mutation within the haplogroup) or a case of IBD (identical by descent — where the common mutation was inherited from a common ancestor). In the Iranian sample (Reidla et al. 2003), the author suggest that it is a recurrent mutation due to the fact that it has been observed on other haplogroups (see page 1187 of the attached Reidla et al 2003 article where the authors make the following statement “We surveyed our Old World haplogroup X mtDNAs for the five diagnostic X2a mutations (table 2) and found a match only for the transition at np 12397 in a single X2* sequence from Iran. In a parsimony tree, this Iranian mtDNA would share a common ancestor with the Native American clade (fig. 2). Yet, the nonsynonymous substitution at np 12397 converting threonine to alanine cannot be regarded a conservative marker, as it has also been observed in two different phylogenetic contexts—in haplogroups J1 and L3e—among 794 complete mtDNA sequences (Finnila et al. 2001; Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, the scenario that the threonine to alanine change in the haplogroup X background is indeed due to recurrence appears most plausible.”). No links to the Native American X2a branch were suggested in Kujanova et al 2009 where the Egyptian X2* have been reported (and no mention of X2a is made in the text, also attached).

The common mutation shared by these Old World samples and the Native American X2a (mutation at nucleotide position 12397) is not sufficient to identify the Iranian and Egyptian samples as members of X2a. Therefore, to date, X2a is still limited to northern North America, as I wrote in my article and shared it with you.

John Perry is correct in stating that we might be looking at Sariah’s mtDNA and not even knowing it. Without a valid haplotype to be used for comparison, everything we state about Book of Mormon people mtDNA is mere speculation, no matter how good it may sound.

Additionally, the timinig issue is still not resolved. In fact, the common mutation between Egyptian/Iranian samples and Native American X2a does not resolve the coalescence issue we have been dealing all along. I am in the process of calculating the current age of the two branches to see if things remained the same or if the divergence has increased.

Also, things can change quite drastically if a newer sample reporting not just one, but two common non-coding region diagnostic mutations with the northern North American X2a was to be found. Now, one mutation could be recurrent within the mtDNA phylogeny, but two would most likely not be coincidental.”

Now, Alexander does says for the X lineage that it "is commonly accepted that the ancient origin of this lineage is the Middle East", but you have to read the rest of what geneticists say about its distribution and, to understand that this idea in no way supports the eastern AmerIndian/Lamanite origin coming from the Middle East or from Israel, because of timing and a myriad other considerations.

[larsenb]

Really, you might have missed the following.

Contrasting the works of the mound builders with Mesoamerica stone ruins, Hugh Nibley observes: “A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica… Though such piles as the great pyramid-temple of Chichen Itza are surpassed by few buildings in the world in beauty of proportion and grandeur of conception, there is something disturbing about most of these overpowering ruins… The great monuments do not represent what the Nephites stood for; rather they stand for what their descendants, mixed with the blood of their brethren, descended to…” (Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, pp. 272-273)

I have a suggestion to you larsenb, instead of following me around from thread to thread, why don't you do one or more O.P."s with evidences of your views on Mesoamerica. I promise I won't follow you around if you do.

You completely misunderstand my motive. I'm not interested in defending a particular model. In any of my posts on this subject, I'm mainly pointing out what I see as the deficiencies of the claims of the heartlanders, or of others with their models. I may have suggested from time-to-time, where the Book of Mormon passages seem to support the Meso model, but I'm not really interested in defending it.

I.e., I don't care what people believe in terms of the Book of Mormon geography models. My closest neighbor is a heartlander and does work for them. A close friend is in the same category. But if the topic ever comes up, they kind of laugh and say something like: "Well . . . we know where you're coming from", and we drop the subject.

What does get my attention is when heartlanders come on in a public forum with their claims and and assertions that really aren't very well supported, and can't respond to counter arguments, ideas and evidence. They also commonly engage in what in science is called "arm waving", pushing or misrepresenting the data or ignoring other more authoritative studies. Mostly, they strongly come across as having settled on the model for considerations other than actual Book of Mormon evidence/passages.

I have no problem with anyone expressing his/her views on a public forum such as this. But you shouldn't be surprised if you get push-back form people who may disagree with you . . . . and perhaps for very good reasons. This forum is mainly for back-and-forth discussion, as I understand it.

I’ve never even given the BoM Geography debate much thought to be honest.

I would guess most LDS -related people and groups haven't either.

For me it was a hobby-horse indulged in as part of my attempt to make room for any belief in the Book of Mormon, whatsoever. Getting into my teens, I was kind of a 'reductionist' in terms of belief. Was reading a lot of 'existential' literature, etc. In fact one of the things that really impressed me about the Book of Mormon was how accurate and close the ideas of Korihor were to those of those espousing existentialism, etc.

[Atrasado]

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.

Geology? That's a fascinating subject. I've worked with several geologists and envy the outdoor work many of them get. To me, it seems there's always a puzzle to be solved with geology.

Yep. And as a generality, the study area is alwayks right in front of you.

And the outdoor work . . . Some of the hardest grunt work I've ever done was hauling rock samples out of Wadi Sayq last February, which is incredibly rugged, littered with massive boulder fields; or being knocked over backwards in a somersault by a high wave hitting a small fishing boat used for transportation to the field site, a few years before this.

Now that would be a great place to visit. What an interesting local mini climate. I'm not sure about the hauling rocks part.