Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[cursor]

I have just been reading the series of three articles written by Professor John L. Sorenson for the Ensign magazine in 1984, titled “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture”. I found them to be extremely well written and well presented, and partaking of a very high level of good scholarship. Sorenson is a professor of archaeology, and he has done a fantastic job of articulating the nature of archaeological evidences and their limitations, and bringing that to bear on the validation of the Book of Mormon. (They can be found here, here, and here.)

[reference link]

I note that the three referenced digital recreations at LDS.org do not sport the original magazine layouts, and only some of the illustrations. I have original copies of the first two Ensign issues. I would be willing to scan them to PDFs and attach them here, if 1) folks are interested, and if 2) there are no copyright related problems.

Feedback?

Edited July 16, 2012 by cursor

[cursor]

Bump.

I located the original first two (of three) issues of the Ensign series, then edited the text in this thread's initial post above.

Edited July 16, 2012 by cursor

[rodheadlee]

I'd love to read those if you post them.

[cursor]

When I first read zerinas' post above regarding a 3-part series in the Ensign, I was a little confused. As far as I could recall, there were only two parts. I just finished comparing the text of Part 3 (at LDS.org) with the previous 2 parts, and found that Part 3 totally repeats Part 1! I have no idea why they would have reprint Part 1 (eight months later) and call it Part 3 in the heading.

[cinepro]

Cursor, I've seen those articles come up in discussions over the One/Two Hill Cumorah theories. While the first article alludes to the necessity of there being two "Cumorahs", the issue doesn't get much explicit discussion. And getting people used to the idea that the "Cumorah" in New York isn't the "Cumorah" in The Book of Mormon is a pretty basic concept for the Mesoamerican theories.

Were there earlier versions of the article where that issue was discussed in more detail, or was it always presented as it is now?

Here's how it appears in the first article:

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land”¹¹ to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light. One obvious possibility is that Moroni himself may have carried the records to New York during his thirty-six years of wandering between the extermination of the Nephites and when he last wrote on the plates. (See Morm. 6:6; Moro. 1:1–4; Moro. 10:1.) Or he may have taken them there as a resurrected being. We only know that, whatever the means, in 1827 the plates were in the “hill of considerable size” near young Joseph Smith’s home at Palmyra, New York, where Moroni delivered the sacred record to him.

Oddly, the word "Cumorah" is never used anywhere in the article.

Edited July 16, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

When I first read zerinas' post above regarding a 3-part series in the Ensign, I was a little confused. As far as I could recall, there were only two parts. I just finished comparing the text of Part 3 (at LDS.org) with the previous 2 parts, and found that Part 3 totally repeats Part 1! I have no idea why they would have reprint Part 1 (eight months later) and call it Part 3 in the heading.

It looks like the third one is The Liahona (and they never printed the 2nd article)?

[cursor]

Good eye, cinepro, on noticing that the Part 3 article was in the Liahona.

I don't know whether or not the in-print publications had errors. However, while they appear to have digitally published the two Parts for both the Liahona and the Ensign at LDS.org, they messed up on both the titles and on the order for the Liahona versions:

L i a h o n a

04-1985 – "Part 2"

05-1985 – "Part 3" (actually is Part 1)

http://www.lds.org/s...n=global-search

Edited July 16, 2012 by cursor

[theplains]

While the first article alludes to the necessity of there being two "Cumorahs", the issue doesn't get much explicit discussion. And getting people used to the idea that the "Cumorah" in New York isn't the "Cumorah" in The Book of Mormon is a pretty basic concept for the Mesoamerican theories.

Would you provide some authoritative sources indicating why it is theologically correct to believe in two Cumorahs and

wrong for the location in New York to be the one and only Cumorah?

Thanks,

Jim

[ERayR]

Would you provide some authoritative sources indicating why it is theologically correct to believe in two Cumorahs and

wrong for the location in New York to be the one and only Cumorah?

Thanks,

Jim

The location is of no theological importance at all.

[zerinus]

I note that the three referenced digital recreations at LDS.org do not sport the original magazine layouts, and only some of the illustrations. I have original copies of the first two Ensign issues. I would be willing to scan them to PDFs and attach them here, if 1) folks are interested, and if 2) there are no copyright related problems.

Feedback?

The focus of the articles, as far as I can recall, were not LGT (although it plays a part in it), but the nature and reliability of archaeological evidence for or against the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 17, 2012 by zerinus

[cursor]

Cursor, I've seen those articles come up in discussions over the One/Two Hill Cumorah theories. While the first article alludes to the necessity of there being two "Cumorahs", the issue doesn't get much explicit discussion. And getting people used to the idea that the "Cumorah" in New York isn't the "Cumorah" in The Book of Mormon is a pretty basic concept for the Mesoamerican theories.

Were there earlier versions of the article where that issue was discussed in more detail, or was it always presented as it is now?

I've now scanned the articles and will be creating the PDFs today (then posting them).

As far as your question goes, I'll refresh my memory by reading both articles today. Note that this 2-part set was published in 1984. For all intents and purposes the author's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was complete and being edited for publication (in 1985). Certainly this Ensign presentation served as a great introduction to the LGT.

Edited July 17, 2012 by cursor

[DBMormon]

Cursor, I've seen those articles come up in discussions over the One/Two Hill Cumorah theories. While the first article alludes to the necessity of there being two "Cumorahs", the issue doesn't get much explicit discussion. And getting people used to the idea that the "Cumorah" in New York isn't the "Cumorah" in The Book of Mormon is a pretty basic concept for the Mesoamerican theories.

Cinepro and others... this to me along with some other similar concepts are a small testimony to the truth of Joseph's story.

I believe In Joseph's translation he picked up many incorrect ideas that he thought were part of the story but when one reads it finds it is not so.

Ex: Joseph dictates the BOM and think he has understood that the Hill Cumorah is where the plates are buried but in actuality it is where all other plates not consisting of the final record that is the BOM were buried. If the story is a fraud Joseph should have known better what story he was trelling. At least it is a given, that it is more likely that he would know the details if he made up the book himself rather then simply verbalize someone else's account.

I see this same issue in the Hemispheric vs LGT

I am sure there are others but it appears Joseph made some bad assumptions about what the BOM was saying and this seems more likely if the book is what he says it is and not his creation.

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately BOM scholarship has never been my forte, and as yet this thread has not really gotten going.

Does anyone know what's wrong with the idea that the "narrow neck of land" was the area between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario- which is near where Joseph found the plates?

I suppose it is because there is no evidence of large pre-columbian cities and the use of cement etc in that area?

Edited July 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cursor]

Does anyone know what's wrong with the idea that the "narrow neck of land" was the area between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario- which is near where Joseph found the plates?

The author of the 2-part Ensign article, John L. Sorenson, published (in 1990) a 415 page text entitled The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book wherein he compiles and examines all potential geographic references within the Book of Mormon. As part of the comprehensive effort, he examines 70 distinct, established theories of where the BofM events might have taken place. I'll peek at my copy to see what reference there might be to "the 'narrow neck of land' [being] the area between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario."

[cursor]

Would you provide some authoritative sources indicating why it is theologically correct to believe in two Cumorahs and

wrong for the location in New York to be the one and only Cumorah?

In order to respond to that question, I'd need to know what you might mean by "theologically correct."

[livy111us]

Unfortunately BOM scholarship has never been my forte, and as yet this thread has not really gotten going.

Does anyone know what's wrong with the idea that the "narrow neck of land" was the area between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario- which is near where Joseph found the plates?

I suppose it is because there is no evidence of large pre-columbian cities and the use of cement etc in that area?

Because Cumorah is supposed to be far north of the narrow neck of land, not East of it. The land northward should have been devoid of trees at one time from over logging the area. There weren't even enough Indians in that area to put a dent in the trees if they spent their entire lives, 24/7 cutting down trees. The Hopewell lived in small villages, not big cities that numbered on the high end of the spectrum, about as many active people in your ward.

There had to have been a snake infestation so thick to cut off any inhabitants from traveling through the narrow neck. Highly unlikely in the cold climate of that area. Speaking of cold climate, the weather patterns in that area do not align with BOM climates. It is WAY too cold. Joseph Smith statements also place the narrow neck of land way south of that area.

John Clark has said

“the narrow neck of land. Was it an isthmus or a corridor? The Book of Mormon indicates that "it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32). An east sea is not explicitly mentioned. Elsewhere we learn that the Nephites fortified the narrow-neck area that ran "from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country" (Helaman 4:7). An east sea is not explicitly mentioned here either.” John Clark Revisiting A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies."

This is also a pretty cool explanation of it:

Edited July 17, 2012 by livy111us

[cursor]

Does anyone know what's wrong with the idea that the "narrow neck of land" was the area between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario- which is near where Joseph found the plates?

I found reference to this theory on pages 59-61 of The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (John L. Sorenson). It was proposed by Delbert W. Curtis in his 40 page booklet (1988) entitled The Land of the Nephites. A pair of measurements offered by JLS of the theory:

Use of Past Book of Mormon Scholarship: Essentially none.

Use of Current External Scholarship: Essentially none.

Here is a review of The Land of the Nephites, by David A. Palmer: [hyperlink]

[robuchan]

There had to have been a snake infestation so thick to cut off any inhabitants from traveling through the narrow neck.

What is this reference to?

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the answers guys!

[livy111us]

What is this reference to?

Ether 9:31-33. 31 And there came forth ^apoisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land ^bsouthward, which was called by the Nephites^cZarahemla.

32 And it came to pass that there were many of them which did perish by the way; nevertheless, there were some which fled into the land southward.

33 And it came to pass that the Lord did cause the ^aserpents that they should pursue them no more, but that they should hedge up the way that the people could not pass, that whoso should attempt to pass might fall by the poisonous serpents.

[cursor]

What is this reference to?

Ether 9:31-33 and Ether 10:19

[robuchan]

Ether 9:31-33 and Ether 10:19

Interesting. Never noticed that before.

[theplains]

In order to respond to that question, I'd need to know what you might mean by "theologically correct."

When I look at the 4 mentions of the word "Cumorah" in the church's official history (volume 1), it seems to mention

only the one Cumorah in New York State. I haven't seen anything on this historical level to mention even the

remotest idea that a second one ever existed.

So, would there be anything wrong in teaching "one Cumorah"?

Regards,

Jim

[ERayR]

When I look at the 4 mentions of the word "Cumorah" in the church's official history (volume 1), it seems to mention

only the one Cumorah in New York State. I haven't seen anything on this historical level to mention even the

remotest idea that a second one ever existed.

So, would there be anything wrong in teaching "one Cumorah"?

Regards,

Jim

iMNSHO one Cumorah or two makes no difference to the theology of the BoM. For me it is in the interesting to think about column. I think it would be wrong to teach the one Cumorah model as truth and doctrine because we don't know if it is true and it is not doctrine.

[cinepro]

Hmmm...I wonder if the students in Religion 122 at BYU-I are still getting this handout?

Edited July 17, 2012 by cinepro