A response to a Book of Mormon “Heartlander”

I really, really, don’t like to see the Saints divide over questions of Book of Mormon geography.  They’re not actually that important.  They make for interesting discussion and even debate, but they shouldn’t be occasions for impassioned argument, let alone for breaking fellowship or even for  schism.

In all candor, I suppose that I should be counted among the “Mesoamericanists.”  Not only because I like what I’ve read from John Sorenson, Mark Wright, David Palmer, Brant Gardner, John Clark, and others, but also because the “Heartland” models on offer thus far as alternatives to the Mesoamerican proposals are far less persuasive to me — to the very limited extent that they’ve even actually been developed.

I also have to say that, in my experience (which includes literally scores and scores of specimens of what can only be described as personal hate mail attacking me as an apostate, an arrogant unbeliever, an enemy of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a traitor to the General Authorities, and so forth), it’s been the “Heartlanders,” not the “Mesoamericanists,” who’ve been more than willing to metaphorically excommunicate their fellow Latter-day Saints.

Some “Mesoamericanists” have responded to their “Heartlander” critics with some fairly hard-hitting critiques of “Heartlander” arguments.  But they’ve been far less inclined than the “Heartlanders,” from what I’ve seen, to declare those who differ with them on the (relatively) unimportant issue of Book of Mormon geography apostates, destroyers of testimonies, and unbelievers.

Here’s a rather strong response to one currently prominent “Heartlander” from Neal Rappleye:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2015/09/book-of-mormon-geography-in-neville.html