Here is a list of a few of the many problems with the Heartland model when compared to the Book of Mormon text: https://2bc.info/Misc/heartland2.pdf
An ocean voyage from Arabia to North America, only powered by winds and currents (1 Nephi 18:8-9), requires going directly against ocean currents called "gyres" that are known about today. But a voyage from Arabia to 30 degrees south latitude in Chile follows the known gyres and currents all the way..
The Three Witnesses in 1830 told a local newspaper that the Lehites landed on the coast of Chile. In 1836 Frederick G Williams wrote what seems to be a revelation saying they landed there. Some of his descendants claim this was a revelation given to FG Williams in the Kirkland Temple dedication.
If the BoM account took place in the Andes of South America, then there still will be evidences of BoM people in Meso and North America. Why? Because BoM people went in Hagoth's ships to lands north of them.
There are more than one Andes model. Gatekeepers try to dismiss the many scriptural evidences that support any Andes model by finding and ridiculing with one simple issue. But the issues are not any more unbelievable than the North American model's hill Cumorah being South of the narrow neck of land, or the river Sidon running South which everyone else sees as contradictions to the BoM text.
I don't think I mentioned anything about a "Heartland" model. But a North American setting for the Book of Mormon makes a lot more sense to me for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Joseph Smith retrieved the plates in New York. As for ocean voyages, the last time that I read the account and I considered the storm that the Lehites encountered, it made all kinds of sense that they could have encountered such a storm, the kind that are frequent in the Atlantic and off the coast of Florida and the Eastern United States. Of course we don't know yet where the Lehites landed, but there's a nice current that leads right to Florida. Who knows? I'll take what Joseph Smith and Oliver said over FG Williams any day. I'm open to considering evidence for South and Central America, but just working from the text itself, North America makes much more sense to me. Geographically speaking, the Hill Cumorah in New York is probably the most solid starting point. And of course rivers run in all kinds of directions.
Here is a list of a few of the many problems with the Heartland model when compared to the Book of Mormon text: https://2bc.info/Misc/heartland2.pdf
An ocean voyage from Arabia to North America, only powered by winds and currents (1 Nephi 18:8-9), requires going directly against ocean currents called "gyres" that are known about today. But a voyage from Arabia to 30 degrees south latitude in Chile follows the known gyres and currents all the way..
The Three Witnesses in 1830 told a local newspaper that the Lehites landed on the coast of Chile. In 1836 Frederick G Williams wrote what seems to be a revelation saying they landed there. Some of his descendants claim this was a revelation given to FG Williams in the Kirkland Temple dedication.
If the BoM account took place in the Andes of South America, then there still will be evidences of BoM people in Meso and North America. Why? Because BoM people went in Hagoth's ships to lands north of them.
There are more than one Andes model. Gatekeepers try to dismiss the many scriptural evidences that support any Andes model by finding and ridiculing with one simple issue. But the issues are not any more unbelievable than the North American model's hill Cumorah being South of the narrow neck of land, or the river Sidon running South which everyone else sees as contradictions to the BoM text.
If the Book of Mormon took place in the Andes believers need to focus there. https://2bc.info/Misc/Evidences.pdf
I don't think I mentioned anything about a "Heartland" model. But a North American setting for the Book of Mormon makes a lot more sense to me for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Joseph Smith retrieved the plates in New York. As for ocean voyages, the last time that I read the account and I considered the storm that the Lehites encountered, it made all kinds of sense that they could have encountered such a storm, the kind that are frequent in the Atlantic and off the coast of Florida and the Eastern United States. Of course we don't know yet where the Lehites landed, but there's a nice current that leads right to Florida. Who knows? I'll take what Joseph Smith and Oliver said over FG Williams any day. I'm open to considering evidence for South and Central America, but just working from the text itself, North America makes much more sense to me. Geographically speaking, the Hill Cumorah in New York is probably the most solid starting point. And of course rivers run in all kinds of directions.