Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Zarahemla in Iowa? Part IV

Continuing with Eric Checketts comment on an earlier blog about present-day Zarahemla in Iowa, the following covers another of his points of disagreement:

He wrote further: “It does actually matter where the Book of Mormon took place.”

I whole heardedly agree! As has been stated in numerous blogs on this site over the years, I believe it is essential to further understand the circumstances surrounding the Nephites and their society and wars when one knows and understands where the Land of Promise was located. However, that does not mean that any site is evidence of the Book of Mormon just because someone says it is.

On this subject, Meldrum claims the heartland area is the Land of Promise. His map shown below really violates most of the description in the Book of Mormon written by Mormon and the other prophets.
Even a cursory glance shows that 1) the Land of Bountiful is to the east of the Land of Zarahemla, 2) the Land of Nephi is south of the Land of Bountiful, but not south of the Land of Zarahemla, 3) there are no separate Lamanite Lands to the east, and 4) the Land of Desolation is not north of the Land of Zarahemla—all this in opposition to the scriptural account. In addition, the seas of his map do not make any sense. Why would the Nephites call a sea the Sea SOUTH when it is to the EAST of where they were in the Land Southward? And the Sea EAST is to the NORTH of the Land of Bountiful? Since the Nephites obviously named their seas as directional bodies of water, does Meldrum's placement of seas make any sense?

A researcher/historian cannot be taken seriously who violates such simple understandings and descriptions of the land as outlined by Mormon in Alma 22:27-33, as well as elsewhere. A little deeper knowledge of the geography would show that Meldrum has his four seas surrounding the Land of Desolation, but Mormon tells us the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water except for the narrow neck of land.

Any number of additional errors could be pointed out in Meldrum’s claims, but so many have already been shown that they should be sufficient for the honest researcher and seeker after truth.

Eric Checketts’ last disagreement and point is: “But my biggest beef with your post here is that you speak with a tone that suggests a total authority on the subject, while using one single argument - a very weak argument - that actually strengthens the opposite view. And finally, you use this weak argument to attack the character of a man who appears to be doing nothing less than searching for truth and right.”

To repeat myself, the one article out of the thousands that have been posted on this website covered the material Checketts read. There were other articles at the time covering other points. I have tried to reestablish those points in these five articles. The point being, the argument against Meldrum’s viewpoint is not based upon a single issue, as would have been apparent had the man read more than one brief article which, by intent, was about only one of Meldrum’s statements. But as has been pointed out in these current articles, each of Meldrum’s points will not hold water when compared with accurate understanding of the issues he raises.

In addition, regarding a tone that suggests a total authority on the subject, let me submit just three of scores of comments Meldrum has made about himself and his work:

1) He repeatedly refers to his theory as having “proved” prophetic status; 2) his theory is “irrefutable,” and 3) his theory is an “unshakable” foundation upon which all truth is based.

If I sound totally authoritative, it is because of my zeal for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon—every word, and that no modern-day Apostle or Prophet is going to make any statement contrary to what is written there. The Book of Mormon has been translated accurately, and is “the most perfect book” on the subject. I dislike people of letters and other status that continually try to say the Book of Mormon says something it does not, or means something not clearly stated. Far too many people today have written books, given lectures, made videos, claimed theories, etc., etc., etc., that are contrary to the simple language of the Book of Mormon that Nephi so dearly loved.

When Checketts says, “to attack the character of a man who appears to be doing nothing less than searching for truth and right,” he misses the point. I am not attacking Meldrum. I do not even know the man. I am attacking the inaccuracy of his work and claims about the location of the Book of Mormon Land of Promise and more specifically, the location of the Nephite city of Zarahemla being in Iowa. His claim is erroneous, does not meet scriptural references and descriptions, and is totally misleading.

1 comment:

  1. I don't know which model is correct. I don't know where the Book of Mormon took place. But I find it very difficult to believe that the Lord is pleased with the contention that has surrounded this subject.