The Problem With Zarahemla – Part I—Significance in a Name?

Rod L. Meldrum, a Great Lakes Theorist (or more specific, an American Heartland Theorist), has on his website (www.bookofmormonevidences.org) on the question and answer page, the following:

“8. And finally, where did GOD himself place the city of Zarahemla? See D&C 125:3 and see for yourself where he placed it. Remember, God has only named a handful of places through his prophets, so it is likely very important when he does so. You may be very surprised at the answer, and it was not in Mesoamerica.”

Now, one would think from this that Meldrum is indicating that God himself, in the Doctrine & Covenants, stated where the Nephite Zarahemla was located—an attitude stated elsewhere in his writings as well. However, that is not at all what the 125th Section is about. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Mormon, the Nephites, the Lamanites, the geography of the Land of Promise, or anything else relating to the subject matter of Meldrum’s book, tapes, or writings regarding the Land of Promise.

Instead, this short, four-verse section deals with what the Lord wanted the Saints located in the Territory of Iowa to do in March, 1841. Zarahemla, is indeed, mentioned in this section, but in the same sentence the Lord also names the city of Nashville and the city of Nauvoo, both along the Mississippi. Is this to mean there was a Nashville and a Nauvoo in the Book of Mormon that we know nothing about? Clearly, this idea about naming a city Zarahemla had nothing to do with the location of the original City of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon, for that city was near the west sea, where the Mulekites landed (Omni 1:16). There never was a West Sea near Nauvoo or Nashville.

And just as clearly, this short 4-verse section relates to the question in verse 1: “What is the will of the Lord concerning the saints in the Territory of Iowa?” in which the Lord says in verse 2 “if they will do my will and keep my commandments concerning them, let them gather themselves together unto the places where I shall appoint unto them by my servant Joseph, and build up cities unto my name, that they may be prepared for that which is in store for a time to come.” Then, in verses 3 and 4, the Lord continues: “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. And let all those who come from the east, and the west, and the north, and the south, that have desires to dwell therein, take up their inheritance in the same, as well as in the city of Nashville, or the city of Nauvoo, and in the stakes which I have appointed, saith the Lord” (verses 3 and 4).
Stated differently, the Lord was telling the Saints then, as well as now, that we should be building up cities, communities, and a society that will serve the Lord, and no matter from where we come (or who we are), we should “take up our inheritance” in the kingdom of God in that city (wherein we dwell), whether it be in Iowa, or anywhere else in the land. That is, no matter where we live, no matter in what city, no matter what the name of that city where we dwell, we should consider it our inheritance in the kingdom of God and build it up to the Lord through our devoted service to Him. How anyone can use such a reference to try and prove a point about the Land of Promise as stated in the Book of Mormon, that is, Lehi’s promised land, is beyond understanding.

Nor do we know why the Lord wanted that city named Zarahemla other than the fact that Zarahemla was the seat of government in the time of the Nephites in the Land of Promise, as this area around Nauvoo will, perhaps, be part of the seat of government when Adam returns to Adam-ondi-Ahman, where he once dwelt nearby.

The problem here, as in almost all areas Mesoamerican and other Theorists (such as the Great Lakes devotees), is that people have a location in mind and try to fit every possible little idea into it. Zarahemla was indeed the name of a city in the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, as was Jerusalem, Moroni, Mulek, Moronihah, Gilgal, Onihah, Mocum, Gadiandi, Gadiominah, Jacob, Gimgimno and numerous others. That does not mean another city by that name is located today where the Book of Mormon city was located.

(See the next post “The Problem with Zarahemla – Part II,” for an understanding of how Zarahemla, Iowa, came to be—it is not as Meldrum claims)