Where Is The Bom Cumorah?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL

Indeed. Here is what you said

Might I suggest you avoid the subject and not interfer with those who know it is of utmost importance so you're not caught "fighting against Zion.

To which I responded some time latter with

You think it is spiritual and if something does not match up on geography then one must be apostate.

to which you replied

and if you are claiming that BoM lands are outside of Zion, then sure, you are an apostate of Zion (your words)

I no were inferred that one is an apostate if you do not conform to one model of BoM geography. And those really are not my words you were projecting. You on the other hand implied it with "so you're not caught "fighting against Zion" which is equivalent to apostasy and you even tried to agree with a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

If a Mesotheorist incorporated prophecy into his or her model, he or she would have to admit:

a. Missouri is not in their Land Northward.

yes it is. MO is northward of Mesoamerica is it not?

b. Joseph was wrong, they are wrong, or they are two separate NJs.

JS made contradictory claims on were teh BoM took place. You choose to ignore those quotes because the do not fit your model.

b. A NJ will yet be built in Mesoamerica, wherever their Land Northward is.

The land northward is vague and it MO is certainly northward of Mesoamerica. This is really simple.

You should publish what you know about fulfilled land prophecies as in the field of BoMG there is a dearth of information.

I have 0 reason to publish any of the things I write about on this board. It is of no interest to me. And in case you misread me, I have 0 interest in publishing my writings. I have great interest in all things LDS.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

(NOTE: In case you did not notice, Missouri is not part of the state of New York. Your logic is flawed.)

This is the whole reason I brought it up. This is a huge bump in BOMG theory. How does he explain it? I have no idea he has entirely dodged this issue. And MO is certainly not northward of NY.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not under "condemnation" as reported by Benson et.al. for not following the BoM and so it's not my mind that has been "darkened."

54 And your

minds

in times past have been

darkened

because of unbelief, and because you have

treated lightly

the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the

whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they

shall remain under this condemnation

until they repent and

remember

the new covenant, even the

Book of Mormon

and the former commandments which I have given them,

not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

(D&C 84)

What does the D&C say about the age of accountability of Children? What does "little children" mean in the BoM?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot go to the D&C when it suites your agenda and then ignore it when something goes against your view.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

47 And I said unto them, that it should be granted unto them according to their faith in their prayers; 48 Yea, and this was

their faith

—that

my gospel

, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days,

might come unto their brethren the Lamanites

, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. 49 Now,

this is not all

—their faith in their prayers was that

this gospel

should be made known also, if it were possible that other nations should possess

this land

;

50 And thus

they did leave a blessing upon

this land

in their prayers, that

whosoever should believe in

this gospel

in

this land

might have eternal life; (D&C 10, date Summer 1828)

I want to bring up these verse of scripture that you quoted. It is important to note what a Lamanite was.

and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions

This makes it quite clear that not everyone that was in the Americas was a literal descendant of Laman. All became Laminates because they dissented.

This is important because now we have a much broader term and geography to look at in the context of this verse and thread. To use these verse to box in a certain geography is futile. IT does not work

[BOMG]

You on the other hand implied it with "so you're not caught "fighting against Zion" which is equivalent to apostasy

As I said parenthetically, those were "your words" not mine!

[BOMG]

JS made contradictory claims on were teh BoM took place. You choose to ignore those quotes because the do not fit your model.

The Western New York model is not contingent upon a statement by Joseph, it does however poke holes in those models that do. And I suggest that the closer the statements are to his beginning, the more reliable they are - if one must rank their worth.

MO is northward of Mesoamerica is it not? The land northward is vague and it MO is certainly northward of Mesoamerica. This is really simple.

Thank you for agreeing that the NJ should be on ancient BoM land. Even though MO is north of Mesoamerica, those Mesotheorists subscribe to a "limited" geographical area making your case mute.

I have 0 reason to publish any of the things I write about on this board. It is of no interest to me. And in case you misread me, I have 0 interest in publishing my writings. I have great interest in all things LDS.

Too bad, there is a famine in the land reg. land prophecies and how they were fulfilled!

This is the whole reason I brought it up. This is a huge bump in BOMG theory. How does he explain it? I have no idea he has entirely dodged this issue. And MO is certainly not northward of NY.

The Western New York model is not based on the D&C or statements by Joseph, and for that reason I have the most congruent model, point in fact.

What does the D&C say about the age of accountability of Children? What does "little children" mean in the BoM?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot go to the D&C when it suites your agenda and then ignore it when something goes against your view.

Ummm....hugh?

[BOMG]

I want to bring up these verse of scripture that you quoted. It is important to note what a Lamanite was.

47 And I said unto them, that it should be granted unto them according to their faith in their prayers; 48 Yea, and this was

their faith

—that

my gospel

, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days,

might come unto their brethren the Lamanites

, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. 49 Now,

this is not all

—their faith in their prayers was that

this gospel should be made known also, if it were possible that other nations should possess this land;

50 And thus

they did leave A BLESSING UPON

THIS LAND

in their prayers, that

whosoever should believe in this gospel in this land

might have eternal life; (D&C 10, date Summer 1828)

This makes it quite clear that not everyone that was in the Americas was a literal descendant of Laman. All became Laminates because they dissented.

This is important because now we have a much broader term and geography to look at in the context of this verse and thread. To use these verse to box in a certain geography is futile. IT does not work

The understanding of who the Lamanites were IS important, how you can to that conclusion however is pointless, no offense. The blessing, as it says goes with the land - sorry. If you want to discuss who the Lamanites were I would love to. So much has been presumed and misunderstood imo.

[Mark Beesley]

Well, I have to say that it took you long enough to conclude this. I think I detected the rank odor of apostasy about five pages back. Anyone who claims that denying the "true geography" is going to lead to being cut off from God has clearly lost it.

Last I heard it was the testimony of Christ that led to salvation and not knowldege or belief concerning the general location of Zarahemla.

I wasn't quite sure where this guy was coming from because I was not really reading all of the posts that carefully. However, when I took a closer look, it became obvious that BOMG has an agenda. I'm curious as to what drives that agenda, but not curious enough to beat my head against the wall trying to find out. (Maybe he owns lots of land in Western New York that he wants to develop as a BofM Theme Park? ) Anyway, his commitment to his aganda has seemingly impinged on his analytical skills.

[BOMG]

(Maybe he owns lots of land in Western New York that he wants to develop as a BofM Theme Park? ) Anyway, his commitment to his aganda has seemingly impinged on his analytical skills.

True, most (if not every) modeler in the field of BoM geography is agenda driven whether they admit it or not. I tell the public to ask the modeler a few questions like:

a. The land in your model, did you serve a mission there, vacation there, or go on a business assignment there?

b. Do you have a friend who meets "a"?

c. Do you currently, or are you planning to sell a book, DVD or offer tours to the area in your model?

d. Did you create an Internal Map before picking the land in your model?

e. Do you believe that the Land Northward was surrounded by FOUR SEAS as the text says?

f. Do you feel spiritual driven by "the Spirit" or some messenger to pursue the field of BoM geography?

["e" proves whether they are honest about "d"]

Half of those questions will weed out every BoM geography model except one - the Western New York. That should set your mind at ease regarding your imagined theme park agenda.

[BOMG]

...If it's not in New York where the gold plates were found, where is it?

Wanted to thank you for starting the thread.

[ozpoof]

So is the Hill in Upstate NY with the visitor's center and the huge word CUMORAH on its side a lie?

[Calm]

So is the Hill in Upstate NY with the visitor's center and the huge word CUMORAH on its side a lie?

Is the city in upstate NY with the welcome to sign with the name of Palmyra on it a lie?

[BOMG]

So is the Hill in Upstate NY with the visitor's center and the huge word CUMORAH on its side a lie?

Those ignorant of Official Church History, Canon and other references like a Nephite angel to David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith plus on what land prophecy says the record would be buried and on which land the record would come forth - would say to justify their distant Limited Geography models something like: "What's in a name"? or "There are two of them," etc.

Those theorists are confusing the field, weakening people's faith and imo fighting against Zion.

With so much no confirming evidence where evidences remain in Mesoamerica, they try and connect non-geographical dots like "culture" a "writing system" and add geographical features not in the record like volcanoes. Their focus on culture has no bearing on geography whatsoever and it is misdirection imo.

Using their approach, the Malay model beats them hands down which model ignores land prophecies and in fact is based in the Islamic State of Malaysia.To incorporate fulfilled land prophecies like Jesus will be their king and where the mother countries came to war, etc. can prevent such nonsensical models.

[Deborah]

From Joseph F. Smith Josph F. Smith :

Brethren and sisters, don’t have [religious] hobbies. Hobbies are dangerous in the Church of Christ. They are dangerous because they give undue prominence to certain principles or ideas to the detriment and dwarfing of others just as important, just as binding, just as saving as the favored doctrines or commandments....

We have noticed this difficulty: that Saints with hobbies are prone to judge and condemn their brethren and sisters who are not so zealous in the one particular direction of their pet theory as they are.

It seems this topic is a religious hobby that can be carried to an extreme.

[BOMG]

It seems this topic is a religious hobby that can be carried to an extreme.

If only early dabblers followed that advice I would not be here now trying to undo the misdirection and confusion they began.

[Deborah]

If only early dabblers followed that advice I would not be here now trying to undo the misdirection and confusion they began.

A "dabbler" isn't exactly someone who "gives undue prominence". And most dabblers aren't so obsessed that they judge others' worthiness for not agreeing with them.

[thesometimesaint]

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=34

Church leaders have generally declined to give any opinion on issues of Book of Mormon geography. When asked to review a map showing the supposed landing place of Lehi´s company, President Joseph F. Smith declared that the "Lord had not yet revealed it" (Cannon, p. 160 n.). In 1929, Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, added, "There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]…. We are just waiting until we discover the truth" (CR, Apr. 1929, p. 16). While the Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places, the authorities do not discourage private efforts to deal with the subject (Cannon).

[BOMG]

A "dabbler" isn't exactly someone who "gives undue prominence". And most dabblers aren't so obsessed that they judge others' worthiness for not agreeing with them.

Over 100 models (and counting), I consider the majority of those to be "dabblers" as they came and left. I understand your concern, and please refrain from replacing my words with yours.I called no one an "apostate" for example, yet you are silent on those who used the term on me. I guess your concern goes so far.

[BOMG]

http://ldsfaq.byu.ed....aspx?number=34

Church leaders have generally declined to give any opinion on issues of Book of Mormon geography. When asked to review a map showing the supposed landing place of Lehi´s company, President Joseph F. Smith declared that the "Lord had not yet revealed it" (Cannon, p. 160 n.). In 1929, Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, added, "There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]…. We are just waiting until we discover the truth" (CR, Apr. 1929, p. 16). While the Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places, the authorities do not discourage private efforts to deal with the subject (Cannon).

Thousands of early church investigators and converts read the many church publications that stated emphatically that the hill in Palmyra where Joseph retrieved the plates was in fact where the final battles occurred. Under the tutelage of Joseph Smith, that was the mindset and I am requesting that the same statements be reprinted in the Ensign and Church News. It was good enough then, why not now?

Because students of BoM geography now (for the most part) understand that all events spoken of in the New World were in a small geographical area, meaning it was "limited" you can't have a final battle in Palmyra + a Limited Model in Mesoamerica. Omer passed through Cumorah, so the land around Palmyra is the Jaredite Land Northward, not Mexico.

[BOMG]

There was this attempt by Cecil McGavin and Willard Bean (the caretaker of the Smith farm for many years in Palmyra) in 1948 to stop the confusion:

"In recent years there has been a tendency among certain students of the Book of Mormon to orientate Book of Mormon cultures far to the south."

"For many years the Book of Mormon carried footnotes explaining that 'the land of many waters,' 'the large bodies of water,' 'Ripliancum,' etc., had reference to the Great Lakes, while Ramah and Cumorah were the identical hill, near Palmyra, New York."

"The following pages are a plea in defense of the old theory - the interpretation of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, and a countless number of the Authorities of the Church. It is our humble opinion that there is no occasion to fling aside the old interpretation and accept the new." (

The Geography of the Book of Mormon

, )

Though Sorenson corrected their hemispheric mindset by showing that BoM lands were small with boundaries, McGavin and Bean did a good job scouring the evidence in Western New York of which there is plenty as cited by Governor Clinton in 1820:

"I am persuaded that enough has been said to demonstrate the existence of a vast population, settled in towns, defended by forts, cultivating agriculture, and more advanced in civilization than the nations which have inhabited the same countries since the European discovery."

(Governor Dee Witt Clinton,

Memoir on the Antiquities of the Western Parts of the State of New York,

1820)

Gov. Clinton tried to protect the antiquities of WNY, but the Gentiles overran the land, looting as they went and destroying what remained just as the BoM said would happen.

[thesometimesaint]

BOMG:

From all appearances JS himself had no clear idea as to where the BoM lands were.

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=34

Three statements sometimes attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith are often cited as evidence of an official Church position. An 1836 statement asserts that "Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic ], thirty degrees, south latitude" (Richards, Little, p. 272). This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, but insufficient evidence exists to clearly attribute it to Joseph Smith ("Did Lehi Land in Chili [sic]?"; cf. Roberts, Vol. 3, pp. 501–503, and Widtsoe, Vol. 3, pp. 93–98).

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that "Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" (T&S 3 [sept. 15, 1842]:921–22). This would move the location of Lehi´s landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile. Although Joseph Smith had assumed editorial responsibility for the paper by this time, it is not known whether this statement originated with him or even represented his views. Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that "it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens´ ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one" (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

[BOMG]

From all appearances JS himself had no clear idea as to where the BoM lands were. http://ldsfaq.byu.ed....aspx?number=34

Three statements sometimes attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith are often cited as evidence of an official Church position. An 1836 statement asserts that "Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic ], thirty degrees, south latitude" (Richards, Little, p. 272). This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, but insufficient evidence exists to clearly attribute it to Joseph Smith ("Did Lehi Land in Chili [sic]?"; cf. Roberts, Vol. 3, pp. 501–503, and Widtsoe, Vol. 3, pp. 93–98).

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that "Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" (T&S 3 [sept. 15, 1842]:921–22). This would move the location of Lehi´s landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile. Although Joseph Smith had assumed editorial responsibility for the paper by this time, it is not known whether this statement originated with him or even represented his views. Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that "it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens´ ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one" (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

Correct! No offense but the fact is, after he dictated the English, he rarely used the BoM and was ignorant of specifics. It is not possible to have a congruent BoMG model based on statements by Joseph imo and that has led to the multitude of models and confusion. If Stephens book did not come out until after the death of Joseph and Hyrum I doubt out of the blue Joseph would have made those comments. If I had to rank which statements were most reliable by Joseph I would start with the oldest and certainly I would not base my model on any of them.

[Anijen]

I called no one an "apostate" for example, yet you are silent on those who used the term on me. I guess your concern goes so far.

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59).

see here. Are you now a current member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Have you left it? How and why? I am not asking for an exit story, as that is against the board rules. Just a quick explanation, if I have used the term wrongly I am deeply sorry and apologize.

[Anijen]

If I had to rank which statements were most reliable by Joseph I would start with the oldest and certainly I would not base my model on any of them.

"most reliable"? I would think the statements of Joseph said in 1830 and statements said in 1840 are both reliable. If they were made by Joseph then no matter when he said them makes them reliable. His information and knowledge grew as he learned more. It appears to me that Joseph changed his view on geography of the Book of Mormon as he learned more. This to me tells me he did not have a set in stone geographical model nor had revelation on the where it took place.

From reading your post it seems you put a lot of weight in the verses with "promised land" or "this land" in them. It is only an observation on my part but it seems you ignore quotes from the early church leaders who are contrary to your theory. Many of these quotes ["promised land" or "this land"] if taken literally, would rule out some of the areas you posit because for one reason they were not part of the US at the time they were uttered. If they were not part of the US then you cannot use US borders to determine that.

Another thing is the word "continent" is used in many of these quotes. Joseph was very much aware the difference between the area comprising western New York and the area of a continent, yet he used the word continent.

[BOMG]

...if I have used the term wrongly I am deeply sorry and apologize.

You should have inquired prior to sending down your verdict and making it a public sensation. It shows the double standard around here, so it was worth it I guess.