Can a Florida Landing and Heartland of America Land of Promise Be Compared to Andean South America? – Part I

Evidently, floodgates about the Heartland are opening all over the place. It is amazing that while Rod L. Meldrum, Wayne May, and other theorists have been touting the Heartland of America as the Land of Promise, they seem to neglect to use scriptural evidences and Mormon’s descriptions in doing so but rely on modern Church leaders opinions as their source.
    They also believe that their theory is superior to all other views, and often neglect to consider their own views in the light of reality, history, and the scriptural record. Take this last inquiry we received from a reader who uses opinions and speculations and personal feelings as his criteria.
    • Reader: “Your opinions about South America is just your belief and theory. It is no different from any other theory about the land of promise, just as my theory about the Heartland of North America is my belief and theory”

Response: A theory is defined as “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” Nearly 200 years ago the meaning was about the same: “a speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice.”
    Our statements relating to South America are neither based on supposition nor speculation, but completely based on the scriptural record. They are not theories. At best, it could be said that our comparison between the scriptural record and Andean South America’s history is subject to our interpretation and understanding; however, we explain quite thoroughly with our lengthy connection between the description of Mormon, Nephi, Jacob and Moroni, as well as the other ancient prophets, to show that the interpretation and comparison is based on factual information and knowledge and not opinion and speculation, as is the Heartland Theory, and supported by numerous comparisons within the scriptural record itself.
• Reader: “Clearly you believe in your theory,”
Response: Our statements relating to South America are all based on the scriptural record, while those of North America and the Heartland Theory, are not based on scriptural descriptions and information, but peripheral descriptive information not contained within the scriptural record and written or stated by those who were not present at any time in the Land of Promise where the Jaredites and Nephites dwelt. Thus, we do not have a theory. We take an exact scriptural statement and apply it to a real place in a real manner that is quite factual historically, as well as descriptively as Mormon wrote it. The Heartland location, on the other hand, is a theory.
• Reader: “You give a good defense of your south American theory, with all your reasoning and interpretations, but it is still just your opinions and theory.”
Response: Obviously, you do not seem to know what a theory is, and it is this type of dogged-unknowledgeable responses we often find from Heartland theorists. It’s like “To heck with the actual scriptures, to heck with the meaning of words, I’ll just state my feelings and opinions as though they are facts and above reproach and not investigate anything that challenges them.”  
    It would be better to study and know of your own volition rather than take Meldrum’s word for things, before one speaks and writes.
    The reason we make such a good defense of our South American location is that everything about it matches the exact wordage or descriptions of Mormon’s writings, as well as the other ancient prophets, just as we have shown in many articles we have posted in this blog. As for your view, we might be more impressed with it if that view was stated along with scripture and verse, and show how it matches—just your opinions, feelings and speculations have little value in the factual pursuit of truth. Mirroring what Wayne May and Rod L. Meldrum write and state is of little value to seeking the truth unless you search out the information yourself—try comparing their information with the Book of Mormon scriptural record, not their interpretation of it.
• Reader: “Lehi landing in Florida makes a lot more sense than his sailing to South America, and more importantly, Florida is a better match for Nephi’s descriptions of the landing site.”

Rod L. Meldrum’s locations within his Land of Promise. Note a landing (Red Arrow) at Crystal River, Florida, along the Gulf Coast, which is not his Sea West (which is Lake Michigan), nor is his West Sea to the West of Zarahemla; nor his East Sea (Lake Ontario) near his Land of Nephi, and his South Sea (Lake Erie) is north of Bountiful); in addition, his Land of Bountiful is east of his Land of Zarahemla, and his land of Bountiful borders on the north with his Land of Nephi—all of these points are contrary and opposed to Mormon’s descriptions in Alma 22:27-34)

Response: Meldrum’s Heartland theory has Lehi landing in Crystal River, Florida, about 79 miles north of Tampa Bay. Crystal River is the northern arm of an inland water system around this area between King’s Bay and the Gulf waters, an area crowded with hundreds of large and small islands, swamps, marshes, quags and seeps. From there Meldrum says the party walked 412 miles to an area near present-day Mobile, Alabama, where they settled into their first home in the Land of Promise.
    Now that walk would have been quite taxing for old people, which Nephi described his parents at the time, and before landing, said of them, “my parents being stricken in years, and having suffered much grief because of their children, they were brought down, yea, even upon their sick-beds.” It seems highly unlikely that they would have been able to trek over 400 miles just for a place to settle. Why not just sail there in the first place? If a ship could get from Oman to Crystal River, Florida, it certainly could have sailed another few hundred miles to Pensacola Bay or Mobile Bay, both better landing sites than Crystal River.
    Still, even reaching Florida would have been a problem for Lehi since they would have passed the many Caribbean Bahama Islands which beckoned a landing of Columbus, who never sailed further north to find Florida and the entire North American continent. To have kept Laman, Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael from taking over the ship once they came in sight of substantial land.
    In addition, as we have pointed out in previous articles, the distance from the Indian Ocean to Florida is longer than the distance from the Indian Ocean to South America, because of the shrinking distance around the globe at that point as well as the swiftness of the winds and currents to drive a vessel much quicker than a route up the Atlantic to Florida.
• Reader: “In my opinion, Florida meets the needs for climate and animals, and ores, as you claim South America does”

Map showing the Climate areas of the United States. Note the Red Circle showing the area of Meldrum’s landing for Lehi and the area of First Inheritance where Lehi and his party first settled and where Lehi died

Response: The problem is, and it cannot be denied merely because one chooses to do so, that the climate of northern Florida along the Gulf (Humid Subtropical Climate) where it is claimed Lehi landed and Nephi planted the seeds they brought from Jerusalem (1 Nephi 18:24), is neither the same nor matches in any way other than being and providing pleasant weather, the Mediterranean Climate of Jerusalem or La Serena, Chile.
(See the next post, “Can a Florida Landing and Heartland of America Land of Promise Be Compared to Andean South America? – Part II,” for more answers to Heartland and North American theorists, and continuing with the differences between the flora and fauna of the Mediterranean and Humid Subtropical climates)