The Word Sea—What Did it Mean? Part I

When Joseph Smith translated the gold plates between April and July, 1829, Noah Webster had just completed his American Dictionary of the English Language—in which in his preface, he stated: “A great number of words in our language require to be defined in a phraseology accommodated to the condition and institutions of the people in these states, and the people of England must look to an American Dictionary for a correct understanding of such terms. The necessity therefore of a Dictionary suited to the people of the United State is obvious.” Noah Webster was an American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author. He has been called the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," and his blue-backed speller books taught five generations of children in the United States how to spell and read.
Webster was born in West Hartford, Connecticut. His father farmed 90 acres, was justice of the peace and deacon of the local Congregational church, and was captain on the "alarm list" of the local militia, and was a descendant of Connecticut Governor John Webster. Noah’s mother Mercy Steele was a descendant of Governor William Bradford of Plymouth colony. A religious man, and one who felt inspired of God to write his dictionary, Noah Webster said of his educational primers and dictionary: “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed—no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Living in New England around the same time of Joseph Smith, who was born in Sharon, Vermont, about 150 miles north of West Hartford, where Noah Webster was born, the language they both knew would have been quite similar, and the meanings and definitions the same. Therefore, the usage of language Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon, would have been the same language as understood by Noah Webster and used in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. Thus, for clearer meaning, uncluttered by today’s changes, we can know what Joseph understood by looking up the words he used in Webster’s 1828 dictionary.
Let’s take the word SEA, which is used several times in the Book of Mormon. Despite the fact that “yam” in Hebrew means “sea,” we do not know what word Alma, Mormon, Nephi and others used for sea in Reformed Egyptian—but the Reformed Egyptian in which they all wrote, was understood by Joseph in his own wordage and verified by the Spirit in his translation. Therefore the word “sea” would have the same meaning as the word “sea” as defined by Noah Webster in 1828, which is: “A large body of water, nearly inclosed by land as the Baltic or the Mediterranean. Seas are properly branches of the ocean, and upon the same level. Large bodies of water inland and situated above the level of the ocean, are lakes. The appellation of sea, given to the Caspian lake, is an exception, and not very correct. So the lake of Galilee is incorrectly called a sea, from the Greek.” He also refers to SEAS in the plural as “the common highway of nations.”

Thus, the term Red Sea, as used in 1st Nephi, would be correct, since the Red Sea empties into the Arabian Sea, which is contiguous with the Indian Ocean, etc., and though almost, is not entirely enclosed by land. Nor can we suggest that the Hebrew word for sea, or the fact that the Hebrews called the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea by the words “sea” which, in both cases are Greek words, they would have had no application to the use in the Book of Mormon of the word “sea” since the Book of Mormon was not written in Hebrew. But most importantly, that the Spirit verified Joseph’s use of the word “sea” and that the Lord talks to us in our language for our understanding. Thus, we do not have to make a mystery out of the scriptures, or the translation Joseph Smith gave the gold plates to understand the meaning of words used in the Book of Mormon.

The Way Theorists Think Regarding Their Predetermined Models – Part IV

Theorists, in trying to understand what the Book of Mormon means, so that it agrees with their predetermined models, have a tendency to quote words out of the ancient or modern Hebrew. But what they forget, is that the Book of Mormon was not written in Hebrew, and the Nephites were not in Palestine, nor had anyone but Nephi and Sam among the Nephites ever been in Jerusalem. Therefore, it would be odd that they would use words that had no meaning in their new homeland—such as “backward” meaning “westward,” etc.
Often the word “yam” is used by Great Lakes Theorists to try and prove that the West Sea and the East Sea were not really oceans, but lakes. The funny thing is, when Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Mormon and the others wrote about their location, they were not writing in Hebrew, and not using Hebrew words—yam never appeared on the gold plates. The Nephite prophets wrote in Reformed Egyptian (1 Nephi 1:2) for the thousand years they were in the Land of Promise (Mormon 9:32). Not only is Reformed Egyptian a far different language than Hebrew, it is written in different characters—with far fewer (or condensed) meanings than Hebrew.

Consider an English person writing the word “sea” in Spanish—you would have a choice of three words: mar (which means a lot, lots of, no end of, sea), marino (which can mean marine, sailor, sea, seaman), marytimo (which can mean marine, maritime, sea, seaside). Ocean can be oceano, oceanya (which means a large, spatial body of water). Lake, which in English is a body of usually fresh water surrounded by land, does not necessarily have the same meaning in Spanish—laca (which means hair spray, lacquer, lake, shellac), or lago, which means loch, which is an arm of the sea similar to a fjord—a long narrow inlet of the ocean that is nearly landlocked.

The point is, when translating from one language into another, it is almost always a difficult process in trying to find the right word to denote the right meaning. When the Nephites wrote in Reformed Egyptian, they were using characters (meanings) that were not as familiar to them as their native language of Hebrew, therefore, they had to choose words that conveyed the meaning they wanted. Because “yam” in Hebrew meant “the water (Mediterranean) behind them when facing east” does not mean they chose a Reformed Egyptian character for sea which had the exact same ancient connotation—but, in fact, conveyed the meaning of sea or ocean. When Joseph Smith translated the Reformed Egyptian character for “sea,” he concluded that it meant ocean (which is what sea meant in his time) and the spirit told him that was correct. Thus, they entered their ship on the shores of Irreantum (many waters) and were “driven forth before the wind to the promised land” where they landed southward along the Sea West where Mormon tells us the land of first inheritance (landing site) was located.

“yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore”

In fact, Nephi tells us he did not teach Jewish customs to his people at all, other than the law of Moses, which they lived as they looked forward to the coming of the Christ (Alma 26:15), and after his appearance to them, they no longer lived that law (4 Nephi 1:12). It is doubtful the Nephites knew much about the Jews, “for I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:2, 6)—and they would not have known the rationale of the Jews regarding why they named directions by certain words. In Alma 11:4, we are told that the Nephites “did not reckon after the manner of the Jews,” neither “did they measure after the manner of the Jews,” but, in fact, “they altered their reckoning and their measuree, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges.” That is, from Nephi down to Mosiah, the Nephites “according to their minds” determined value by their own reckoning—not until Mosiah was a standard set, which is outlined in Alma 11:5-19. The point is, the Nephites did not use the Hebrew system in place in Jerusalem when Lehi left there. They established their own. So why would they use ancient and unuseful definitions for directions as so many Theorists claim to try and disorient the scriptural account of north and south with that of Mesoamerica being east and west.

It seems disingenuous to claim ancient Hebrew word meanings were couched in their usage of the Reformed Egyptian, which is all we have of the Nephite record as translated by Joseph Smith. Certainly, Joseph Smith knew north, east, south, and west, and when he worked out the translation of one of these words, and it was verified by the spirit, then the translation would be correct as we would understand it today.

(See the next post The Word Sea—What Did it Mean? to gain a better understanding of the use of this word in the Book of Mormon—it did not mean what Theorists claim)

The Way Theorists Think Regarding Their Predetermined Models – Part IV

In another attempt to change the meaning and literal reading of the Book of Mormon to fit a preconceived model, the concept of skin color between the Nephites and Lamanites has been brought to the fore by one Theorist. In writing about an exchange of prisoners in Alma 54, between the Lamanites and Nephites, Moroni tersely answers Ammoron’s request for such an exchange. After setting down the parameters by which he would exchange, Moroni angrily makes it clear he will destroy every Lamanite if Ammoron does not accept his terms for exchange. When Ammoron rejects Moroni’s exchange parameters with lies, Moroni decides to mount a rescue operation of the captive Nephites, men, women and children.
In order to mount such a rescue, Moroni knew he must have a man that looked like, and would be accepted as, a Lamanite. So “he caused that a search be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them” (Alma 54:4). Now why would he need a Lamanite to convince the Lamanite guards that he was a Lamamite? Because they would obviously recognize a Nephite. But what of the men this man, named Laman, took with him? Obviously, they hung back and since it was night (Alma 55:8), they would have been indiscernible at a distance as is shown when Laman approached, for the guards could not see him clearly and challenged him to which he replied, no doubt still at some distance, “Fear not, behold, I am a Lamanite” (Alma 55:8), and he goes on to say they had escaped from the Nephites and stole their wine. It should also be kept in mind that this was war time and both Nephites and Lamanites were about in great numbers. In addition, there is no mention in any of the verses regarding this matter that the men with Laman came close, or had any contact with, the Lamanite guards.

Of course, such a ruse in war is all too common, yet this Theorist claims that such an activity “makes no sense” and claims that a single Lamanite with a group of Nephites should be easy to spot. However, having been in the military, and on night maneuvers and stealth penetration, which obviously this Theorist has not, such observation is extremely difficult at night, and in 63 B.C. there were no street lights, city aura of light, or other illumination—night in the wilderness is extremely dark with often only dim starlight available to see. Besides, while we are speculating about this incident, one might suggest that the other Nephites with Laman had darkened their faces, or in other ways camouflaged themselves, which would have certainly made their true appearance difficult to recognize.

The point of all this is simply that trying to change the meaning of skin color in this incident, or in the Book of Mormon in general, as this Theorist does, one has to go way afield to try and make a point—a point that would certainly have been understood by the Spirit who testified to Joseph Smith during his translation that the Lamanites had a dark or black skin. “Wherefore, as they were white and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21). “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark according to the mark which was set upon their fathers…that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6) And why was this darkness or blackness placed upon the Lamanites? “And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the see of their brethren” (Alma 3:8) and “that they might not be enticing unto my people” (2 Nephi 5:21). In addition, all who mixed with the Lamanites brought the same curse upon his seed (Alma 3:9).

Mormon adds to this in speaking of the unrighteous Nephites, when he wrote: “for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been among us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites” (Mormon 5:15).

Theorists can claim all they want that a scripture does not mean what it says, but the truth of the matter is, Joseph Smith translated the words from the plates according to his own understanding and for the understanding of those who would read it, and the Spirit testified to the accuracy of his translation. I believe that is all that needs to be said. Therefore, this passage not only makes sense, but shows that there was a distinct visual difference between Nephite and Lamanit, as Nephi and others described.

(See the next post on "The Way Theorists Think - Part IV" regarding Hebrew words not on Gold Plates)

How Theorists Think Regarding Their Predetermined Models – Part III

In trying to limit the location of the Lamanite people in the early days of the Church in order to justify his land of promise model, Rod L. Meldrum, as reported in our last post, was quoted as writing on his website:

7. D&C 54:8 states “And thus you [Newel Knight] shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.” Even if Joseph was confused (which he wasn’t) do you think that GOD is confused about where the remnants of the Lamanites are located?”

It is always interesting when someone today tries to limit the scope of what was generally known and understood throughout the realm of the early church and the directions the Lord gave to his early Saints.
Orson Pratt, in a talk in the new Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, on July 18, 1875 (Journal of Discourses, vol 18, pp 166-167) said:

“…and the voice of warning went forth to the Gentile nations, that God, in his mercy and power, should commence a work among this remnant of the house of Joseph, that wander as a multitude of nations upon the face of this continent. Recollect what Jacob said, concerning the seed of Joseph, in the 48th chapter of Genesis—they were to become a multitude of nations. They never were a multitude of nations in Palestine, neither in Asia, Europe, nor Africa, and if the prophecy is not fulfilled upon the great western continent, it will not be fulfilled at all. But it has been fulfilled on the continent of America; and we behold throughout the whole of its vast extent, from the frozen regions of the north, to Cape Horn in the south, a multitude of nations. Who are they? They are principally the remnants of one tribe, the remnants of the tribe of Joseph, and they are a multitude of nations in the midst of the earth.”

Elder Pratt goes on in this talk to name “The Indians, the Lamanites, who will take hold in this great latter-day work” and refers to Moses who saw this continent in a vision and called it “the ends of the earth” and “the land of everlasting hills” which was promised to Joseph—to Ephraim and Menasseh for Joseph’s portion of the blessings pronounced upon the tribes. He also quoted Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, who referred to this land as “a land afar off” and a land of “the everlasting hills” which, by the way, refers to the longest cordillera of a continuous mountain chain in the world that begins in the southern tip of South America, moves northward through the Andes, through Central America and Mexico, up across the United States and Canada in the Rocky Mountains, and to the Aleutians in the tip of Alaska—truly, a “land of everlasting hills.”
Note that Elder Pratt refers to both North and South America (“western hemisphere”) as the American continent—a word that, in the 19th century, was used as Noah Webster describes it: ”a great extent of land, not disjoined or interrupted by a sea; a connected tract of land of great extent; as the Eastern and Western continent.” A continent, then, meant the entire western hemisphere, that is, North, Central and South America, which is “a great extent of land not disjoined or interrupted by a sea.” The western hemisphere, at the time was called the Western Continent. Thus, it can only be concluded that the Lamanites, as understood in the early days of the Church, as now, occupied the entire western hemisphere—what is now referred to as the North American and the South American continents, but in the 1800s as the Western continent as Elder Pratt called it.

(See the next post on How Theorists Think - Part IV)

The Way Theorists Think Regarding Their Predetermined Models – Part II

Continuing with his theme about the Lamanites being originally in the Great Lakes Area, and showing that they were the first to be preached to, Rod L. Meldrum writes on his website:

“6. Where did Joseph Smith himself go to “preach unto the Lamanites”? From History of the Church, Vol. 4 p 401-402 on Thursday, August 12th, 1841, Joseph wrote “I accordingly went down, and met Keokuk, Kis-ku-kosh, Appenoose, and about one hundred chiefs and braves of those tribes (Sac and Fox tribes), with their families.” He went on to say “I conducted them to the meeting grounds in the grove, and instructed them in many things which the Lord had revealed unto me concerning their fathers, and the promises that were made concerning them in the Book of Mormon.”
7. D&C 54:8 states “And thus you [Newel Knight] shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.” Even if Joseph was confused (which he wasn’t) do you think that GOD is confused about where the remnants of the Lamanites are located?”
It should be kept in mind that the division of people in the United States between white Europeans and original American Indians was specific. By an Act of Congress in 1825, there was a division line designating an area of land identified as “Indian Territory.” White settlers in this colonization zone were required to vacate. It was located west of Missouri and Arkansas extending to the 100th Meridian, and was bounded on the north by the Platte River and on the south by the Red River. The first Lamanite missions were into this “Indian Territory,” and is why Newel Knight was told to “take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.”

As evidenced by the presence of mounds and trade-good manufacture, the Hopewell Indians dispersal reached Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, New York, the Northeast and eastern Rocky Mountain states and into the deep south. The US removal in the 1830s of most American Indians from the mound builder regions, by means of the forced Trail of Tears—a phrase originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831—by the 1830’s nearly all Hopewell Indian tribes living along the southern areas of the Great Lakes, from Ohio to the Missouri, had been fragmented or dispersed.

It seems unlikely that any claim, that questionable DNA or otherwise, could isolate a very small portion of these closely related Indians to a single location when such an original dispersal of them is recorded as stated above, and later Congressional-ordered dispersal that took place in the 1830s. To say that missionaries were sent specifically to where a DNA group was located under these circumstances is suspect at best.

Besides, the culture and history of these Indians along the southern regions of the Great Lakes do not suggest a Nephite caliber culture. The most important large-scale works of the early Hopewell Indians were the 23 earthen mounds claimed to have been built between 200 BC and AD 500. Some were walls, other small areas of raised earth, some were serpentine designs, and some were pyramidal. But in the end, they were nothing more than earthen mounds, not unlike earthen mounds found elsewhere in the world.
That the Hopewell built such earthen edifices is interesting, but by no means equals the work of the Nephites of whom Nephi said: “And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. And I did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious thing…but the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine” (2 Nephi 5:15-16). In addition, the Land of Promise had many miles of highways and roads “that led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place” (3 Nephi 6:8), which highways were “broken up” and “the level roads spoiled” (3 Nephi 8:13), which were later built up again when the cities were rebuilt (4 Nephi 1:7-8).

According to one archaeologist, after more than 30 years of archeological work in this area, “The few small domestic Ohio Hopewell sites that have been excavated have not produced any evidence for prolonged occupation.”

This hardly sounds like the 1,000 year history of the Nephites, and the continuing occupation of the Lamanites for another thousand years before Columbus came to the Western Hemisphere.

The Way Theorists Think Regarding Their Predetermined Models – Part I

In further discussion of Rod L.Meldrum’s “Heartland Model,” one cannot wonder at his interpretation of bits and pieces of Church lore and recorded history. In trying to show that the mound-building Hopewell Indians of the Great Lakes area were the descendants of the Nephites-Lamanites, Meldrum writes on his website:
"Even more importantly than what Joseph said is what he personally wrote. But even more important than what he wrote is what he DID. When commanded by God to send missionaries to preach the gospel “unto the Lamanites” (see D&C 28:8 Sept. 1830) Joseph immediately dispatched three men. Oliver Cowdrey (D&C 28:8), Peter Whitmer Jr. (D&C 30:5-6) and Parley P. Pratt (D&C 32:1-2). Parley P. Pratt recorded in his autobiography, p 56-61, “Thus ended our first Indian Mission, in which we had preached the Gospel in its fullness and distributed the record of their forefathers among three tribes…” And where did the prophet Joseph send those missionaries? To Buffalo New York, Ohio, and west of Missouri. And isn’t it ironic that he just happened to send these first missionaries to the very tribes that today have Haplogroup X (European) DNA…how did Joseph know that? How many missionaries did Joseph Smith send to Guatemala?”

While I am not a fan of the Mesoamerican scene, it must be pointed out in answer to such a wild claim that:

1. The Hopewell Indians, or the Lamanites of Buffalo, New York, Ohio, and West Missouri, were the closest Indian tribes to where the Church was located. They were also peaceful tribes, and those in which the Latter-day Saints had already made contact through their travels. It would stand to reason, unless directed otherwise, that the Lamanites nearest to them would be the first Lamanites to receive missionaries. There were also missionaries sent to the eastern U.S. and into Canada in those early days—these were missions close to home.

2. The conditions in Guatemala, in fact, all of Latin America, was not conducive to missionary work in the 1830s or even up until the 1870s. In 1821, Guatemala gained independence from Spain, and in 1824 joined the Central American Federation, but in 1838, the Federation disbanded, due to a revolt against it led by an indigenous general, Rafael Carrera, who then seized control of the newly independent nation of Guatemala. Following Carrera, Guatemala was ruled by a military dictator Justo Rufino Barrios, who was followed by many military dictators. In the 1850s, Parley P. Pratt was sent to preach in Chile, but not until the 1870s, after Meliton Trejo and Daniel Jones had translated the Book of Mormon into Spanish that missionary work began on a permanent footing in Mexico. Missionaries were not sent to Guatemala until 1947 (today membership stands at over 700,000 after 50 years of preaching there). It is obvious that the conditions for preaching to the Lamanites in the eastern U.S. was far more conducive than Guatemala (or all of Latin America) in the early days of the Church.
3. Meldrum wrote: “The very tribes that today have Haplogroup X (European) DNA.” It is interesting when someone begins to use DNA as a proof of a certain ancestry. The trouble is, there are as many interpretations of DNA origination in native American populations as there are tests. The Center for Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA., research shown in the article “mtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?” does not center any percentage among the Mediterranean area, as Muldrum claims. However, DNA is suspect in any test, since its value hinges on the interpretation and evaluation of the tester. As stated in an earlier post, certainly no Lamanite DNA can be found to be consistent with that of Lehi’s progenitors since the Lord changed the overall appearance of the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:21). And how would the creator of all DNA, the building blocks of our entire physical being, change the Lamanites’ appearance? Obviously through changing their DNA. Thus, Lamanite DNA would not match any Old World DNA found within Lehi’s or Ishmael’s originations. And any DNA testing done today to show ancient ancestry must be suspect since all races and peoples have intermarried and mixed DNA measurement over a widespread region.

One thing is certain, though. Lehi’s descendants through Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ismael (Lamanites) should and will be found throughout the Western Hemisphere. On that there can be no question. To try and limit that descendency to a certain region is nothing more than being disingenuous.

(See the next post -- The Way Theorists Think Regarding Their Predetermined Models – Part II)

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

When people use the 125th section of the Doctrine and Covenants to try and prove the city of Zarahemla, Iowa, was inspired as to have a physical (location) connection to the original site of Zarahemla, one needs to learn a little about the origination of that city in Iowa.
The first LDS members to settle in Montrose and Nashville, Iowa, along the western bank of the Mississippi (across from where Nauvoo would be built), did so in May 1839. The Saints had been expelled from Missouri and many of them took refuge in Quincy, Illinois (on the east bank of the Mississippi just south of the Iowa line), for the remainder of the winter. Among the first to move north to Montrose from Quincy was Brigham Young and his family. They moved into one of the barracks' rooms in the deserted Fort Des Moines and were shortly followed by the families of John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and others. They each lived in the abandoned fort until later moving to Nauvoo

In January 1839, Montrose had only a handful of residents but an abundance of ready-to-occupy housing. The barracks of the abandoned Ft. Des Moines had once quartered 180 soldiers but now provided shelter for several Mormon refugee families from Missouri. Israel Barlow provided Church leaders wintering in Quincy, information about land available in Lee County, as well as the site that became Nauvoo. When Joseph Smith approved the purchase, most of the refugees then in Quincy moved north. Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff, all future presidents of the Church, were among those taking rooms in the barracks.

Since land in Montrose itself could not be bought because of prolonged litigation over Tesson’s grant, trustees for the Church had bought from Isaac Galland some twenty thousand acres stretching westward from the village. Joseph Smith crossed the river to look over the land in 1839. He said that a town for Mormons should be developed just west of Montrose and given the name Zarahemla, though no action was taken for two years. The 1840 census did not delineate the village of Montrose and the township, but the population of the area was about a thousand. In October 1839, an “Iowa Stake” of the Church had been organized with Joseph Smith’s uncle, John Smith, as president. As a stake, the Iowa dwellers were on an ecclesiastical par with Nauvoo.

In March 1841, Joseph Smith received the 125th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, wherein the Lord acknowledged the name of Zarahemla, already given to the town, and declared that it was now time to build up Zarahemla. The Iowa Stake changed its name in August 1841 to the Zarahemla Stake, which included branches at the Ambrosia community west of Montrose, the Nashville community to the south, a handful of people at Keokuk (which then had a population of possibly 150), and the main branch called Zarahemla, consisting mostly of Montrose residents. Thirty houses may have been built at Zarahemla, but only one lot was recorded as sold, and no trace of the community remains.

In August 1842, Joseph Smith declared that the Mormons would become a mighty people in the Rocky Mountains. A few days later, the prophet crossed again to Montrose, this time to avoid Missourians trying to implicate him in the assassination of Lilburn Boggs, who as governor had expelled the Mormons from Missouri.

Two years later, tension was growing in Hancock County, and rumors flew about the state militia marching on Nauvoo. Joseph and Hyrum Smith again crossed the river to hide at the home of William Jordan, up the creek valley from Nashville. Emma Smith sent a message urging them to return, as the Nauvoo Saints felt threatened by persecution. Doing so led to the untimely deaths at Carthage.

It seems obvious, that such statements (last post) by Meldrum are meant to mislead when it is realized that Joseph Smith named the area in Iowa Zarahemla two years before receiving the revelation Meldrum claims was so significant. More likely, the Lord was telling Joseph to tell the Saints in Zarahemla, Iowa, and all those who would move there, that they should build up the stakes of Zion wherever they lived.

(Some of the foregoing is from Professor Fred C. Woods’ work. In 2001, Woods, a professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University, took a five-month leave of absence from BYU to accept a research-teaching fellowship at the University of Missouri-St. Louis where he taught an honors course in nineteenth-century Mormon emigration history)