How does the Local Geographic Theory

[BCSpace]

The problem is that antiMormons want us to admit that our prophets were or are wrong in areas that they were or are not wrong at all.

Actually, I think they are more interested in showing that your prophets are not divinely inspired.

Precisely. That is merely their modus operandi.

[Laban the Younger]

Jaybear:

Unfortunately for the critics. The Church readily admits that EVERYTHING that is said by a Prophet is not "Inspired".

When has the church admitted this? I have never once heard any faithful mormon suggest EVERYTHING the prophet says is not inspired. And if it is indeed true, that the church has admittied to this, why would that be unfortunate for the critics? The critics have been arguing from the beginning that everything the mormon prophet says is uninspired, and simply opinion, and if the church now admits that everything a prophet says is uninspired, it proves the critics have been corect all along.

BTW, when mormons and critics say "the church" who are they talking about? When "the church" says this, and "the church" says that, who is "the church"?

[Rollo Tomasi]

For instance, he knew that Cumorah and the Jaredite Ramah were the same hill. His travels take him from the land north, to the south, and back. So he has personal acquaintence with pre-destruction records, and post-destruction locations.

I think the LGT for the BofM suffers from many problems, but the biggest one (for me, at least) is the issue of the location of the BofM Cumorah/Ramah in NY State. Putting aside the ongoing debate surrounding what early Church leaders taught on this particular issue, there are at least 3 instances of where the NY hill was named "Cumorah" seemingly by divine sources:

1. In her 1845 bio of her son, Lucy Mack Smith writes that as early as Jan. or Feb. 1827, before Joseph had received the plates (let alone translated them), Joseph expressly referred to the NY hill as "Cumorah." The only source, imo, where he could have gotten this name for that hill at that time in history was from his many instructions from Angel Moroni. (source: Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p. 100).

2. David Whitmer's 1878 recollection of his 1829 transport of Joseph and Oliver from Harmony, PA to Fayette, NY, and meeting the stranger on the road (carrying a knapsack that appeared to hold the plates) who declined their offer of a ride because he was "going to Cumorah," a name Whitmer had never heard before (source: Interview of David Whitmer by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, reported in Millennial Star, vol. 40, pp. 771-77 (Dec. 9, 1878).

3. Of course, as mentioned above, Joseph's 1834 vision of Zelph, wherein the "hill Cumorah" was used as the eastern reference point ("east sea") and the Rocky Mountains as the western reference point, to describe the scope of Zelph's (or Onandagus's) fame -- Zelph's bones were found in Illinois, smack dab in the middle of these two reference points (if "Cumorah" refers to the NY hill and "east sea" refers to the relatively close Atlantic Ocean) (source: Wilford Woodruff Journal).

Based on the above, I don't believe the NY hill was named "Cumorah" by early Church members -- I believe the members called the hill "Cumorah" because that designation originated from divine statements.

Throw in D&C 128:20 (an epistle from JS, not the actual words of the Lord like in other D&C sections, but canon nevertheless), and the innumerable sermons by Church leaders on this subject, and the cumulative evidence (imo) is overwhelming that the BofM Cumorah/Ramah is the same as the NY hill.

As far as I understand it, the LGT requires two Cumorahs -- one in Mesoamerica (the BofM Cumorah/Ramah) and a second in NY State (also named Cumorah). Unless the divine sources I discuss above used "Cumorah" for the NY hill simply to honor the original Cumorah/Ramah in Mesoamerica (and I see absolutely no evidence to suggest this), I think Church leaders have correctly taught (rather than simply assumed or opined) that the NY hill is the BofM Cumorah/Ramah.

[thesometimesaint]

Laban the Younger:

Here is just a few.

A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.

The only perfect person to ever live on this earth was Jesus the Christ

The prophets are NOT infallible.

There are literally hundreds of such quotes.

It is unfortunate for the critics BECAUSE we readily admit to being imperfect, and highly fallible. But our critics want to put EVERYTHING any Prophet says as infallible. Then all they have to show is a case(however small and inconsequential)

that prophets are not infallible and bingo the Church crumbles before the Glorious Imperium of self-appointed critcs.

The Church in not a who is it a what. It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Mortimer]

I think Church leaders have correctly taught (rather than simply assumed or opined) that the NY hill is the BofM Cumorah/Ramah.

I agree. A simpleton's reading of TPJS, which was edited by Joseph Fielding Smith, puts the limited geography theory to the test, and it fails as a matter of doctrine.

The LGT is interesting to read, but false doctrine. No general authority has ever adopted it whereas there are plenty of evidence that general authorities have adopted the hemispheric view.

I would be interested in somebody citing to me the LGT in any First Presidency-authorized manual, or in any conference talk.

The LGT evolved as a way to explain away steel, horses, and now DNA, but I don't think such explanation was ever necessary.

[thesometimesaint]

Mortimer:

Please show me where a Revelation by the Church has EVER identified the hill in NY as THE Hill Cumorah.

[USU78]

In that vein of the hill, it seems that unless there is specific knowledge of the location of the hill that is alleged to be Rama in Central America, that Cumorah is the proper one in New York. I think that the bodies of water referred to there are the Finger Lakes very nearby.

What river flows north into the Finger Lakes, or even any of the two eastern Great Lakes, that is sufficiently broad, deep and swift that bodies thrown into it would be carried without much difficulty into the "sea?"

This we know from the first series of wars involving the first Moroni about Sidon: their Sidon was such a river.

[Donald]

"The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it

[Rollo Tomasi]

Please show me where a Revelation by the Church has EVER identified the hill in NY as THE Hill Cumorah.

I think Joseph Smith's vision regarding Zelph (if accurately recorded by Wilford Woodruff) would certainly seem to qualify as a revelation from God on the matter. And Moroni's designation of the NY hill as "Cumorah" (based on knowledge he gained while as a living Nephite or as God's messenger) would seem pretty divine as well. As concerns the canon, D&C 128:19-21 seems to place "Cumorah" in western New York state (although that section is in the form of an "epistle," rather than a revelation -- still, it is part of the canon).

[Kevin Christensen]

Why study things in our own minds when we can defer to what we suppose an 'authority' thinks? And never mind whether the Book of Mormon might have something to provide to the topic relevant to the location of Cumorah. Nevermind whether the statement of authority is accurate or relevant. Nevermind D&C 1's express warnings about the fallibility of LDS leadership.

As usual, Rollo shows no interest in testing his hypothesis against the 1,000 or so bits of interlocking details that could be found in the Book of Mormon text, and of course, addresses nothing from previous go rounds on the same topic. You can count on Rollo to reset to zero and start from his initial position, totally ignoring everything that came up in previous discussions on the same topic.

John Tvedtnes, Matt Roper and John Sorenson have provided detailed, well documented information regarding the origins of the LGH. (FAIR, FARMS Review and Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and MeridianMagazine.) It has nothing whatsover to do with explaining way horses, steel, and DNA. It has everything to do with nothing actual travel times in the text.

Contrary to Mortimer's pronouncement that "no general authority has ever adopted it," LDS apostle Dallin Oaks has publically approved of the LGH, reporting that he was taught it at BYU in the 1950s. (See his essay in in the recent volume from BYU Religious Studies, "Historicity and the LDS Scriptures.") John Sorenson published two essays on the LGH in the Ensign in the fall of 1984. These are available on the lds.org website. LDS President Hinkley invited FARMS to become part of BYU in 1996, and had made no effort whatsoever to curtail or influence the scholarship they have produced. To me, it looks rather like an endorsement of our approaches.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

And I can find the "revelation by the Church" concern Zelph and the Hill Cumorah of being in upstate N.Y. exactly where in my D&C?

PS. It doesn't matter to me whether it is upstate N.Y. or Central America. If God to the Church today said that it is N.Y. that is fine with me. Conversely if Central America is the right place fine too. I would suggest that Central America is a better choice for a number of reasons. But not because of any specific revelation.

[Rollo Tomasi]

As usual, Rollo shows no interest in testing his hypothesis against the 1,000 or so bits of interlocking details that could be found in the Book of Mormon text, and of course, addresses nothing from previous go rounds on the same topic. You can count on Rollo to reset to zero and start from his initial position, totally ignoring everything that came up in previous discussions on the same topic.

As I mentioned in my prior post, I think the LGT suffers from many problems, including some in the BofM text. The focus of that post, however, was the particular issue that I believe is the most serious flaw in the LGT -- the divine sources that place "Cumorah" in western New York state, and not in or near Mesoamerica. I wasn't ignoring everything else, as you claim (otherwise why did I mention other problems with the LGT?), but just focusing on that issue.

John Tvedtnes, Matt Roper and John Sorenson have provided detailed, well documented information regarding the origins of the LGH.  (FAIR, FARMS Review and Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and MeridianMagazine.)  It has nothing whatsover to do with explaining way horses, steel, and DNA.  It has everything to do with nothing actual travel times in the text.

But, as I read their materials and arguments, all have failed at moving the BofM "Cumorah" from western New York state to Mesoamerica. They can use travel data all they want, but it's darn impossible to overcome the divine designations like we have for "Cumorah" in NY state. Empirical and other data just can't do it, much as they would like them to.

Contrary to Mortimer's pronouncement that "no general authority has ever adopted it," LDS apostle Dallin Oaks has publically approved of the LGH, reporting that he was taught it at BYU in the 1950s.  (See his essay in in the recent volume from BYU Religious Studies, "Historicity and the LDS Scriptures.")  John Sorenson published two essays on the LGH in the Ensign in the fall of 1984.  These are available on the lds.org website.  LDS President Hinkley invited FARMS to become part of BYU in 1996, and had made no effort whatsoever to curtail or influence the scholarship they have produced.  To me, it looks rather like an endorsement of our approaches.

I've seen no official Church endorsement of the LGT, although I agree the Church seems to be heading in that direction (after teaching pretty much the opposite for 175 years or so). But one thing I haven't seen is Oaks or any other authority claim that the NY "Cumorah" is not the BofM "Cumorah." I think this is because there is simply too much evidence (including the divine sources discussed above) on this particular point to be brushed aside as mere erroneous assumption or opinion by early Church leaders.

Plus, we still have that pesky problem with official Church curriculum, which quotes Marion G. Romney in placing the BofM Cumorah/Ramah "n the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra ...." (CES Student Manual for the Book of Mormon, Religion 121 & 122, p. 136). Would someone please get the Church Curriculum Department under control! They are making life very difficult for the apologists who promote the LGT!

[Rollo Tomasi]

And I can find the "revelation by the Church" concern Zelph and the Hill Cumorah of being in upstate N.Y. exactly where in my D&C?

Go to D&C 128:20 for the designation of "Cumorah" in western New York state. The Zelph vision is not in the D&C, but it was a vision from God nonetheless (according to Wilford Woodruff, who was there).

[Kevin Christensen]

But, as I read their materials and arguments, all have failed at moving the BofM "Cumorah" from western New York state to Mesoamerica. They can use travel data all they want, but it's darn impossible to overcome the divine designations like we have for "Cumorah" in NY state. Empirical and other data just can't do it, much as they would like them to.

Here, you are presuming the very thing to be tested. Since I accept the Book of Mormon as a divine translation, I consider it valid methodology to test the claim that the various and conflicting accounts of the Zelph business have anything to do with the Book of Mormon narrative. Not all of the various reports can be accurate since they differ significantly on several key points. It won't do to arbitrarily designate one as an official canonized, divine revelation when none of the journal accounts have offical status. The differences in the accounts should be acknowledged in any discussion.

Since I consider the Book of Mormon to be a divine revelation, I consider it valid to test the claims of Joseph Fielding Smith in 1953 or President Romney or CES a manual. The scriptures are the "standard" works, which means, we are not only allowed, but encouraged, repeatedly, and explictly to measure such things. What scriptures from the Book of Mormon do Mother Smith, President Romney, President Smith, or CES cite in support of the identifications? Rollo has cited nothing from the Book of Mormon, a quite conspicuous omission in dealing with the question.

It is valid to ask where they got their information. Eugene England tells the story of going to talk with Joseph F. Smith about the priesthood policy. President Smith said, "The doctrine is scriptural. England says, "Then show me from the scriptures." After some exploring, President Smith admitted that the teaching was not in fact scriptural, but that he had always assumned that is was. This, was I submit, an impressive, and significant admission from a noted scriptorian. If a CES manual quotes President Romney, I am permitted to ask not only where the CES manual got its information, but where President Romney got it, and where his source got it. It is not good practice to assume that any particular practice, belief or attitude becomes divinely inspired because it was held at one time by a General Authority. Where did the idea come from? To say, "A tradition!" does not answer the question. Nor to say, "!75 years!" Who actually studied the question out, and provided evidence from the Book of Mormon itself? If the idea of a New York Cumorah is demonstrably inconsistent with the claims of the Book of Mormon on a host of interconnected issues relevent to the location of Cumorah (as has been demonstrated with extensive reference to the Book of Mormon text by Sidney Sperry, David Palmer, John Sorenson, and John Clark), what reason is there to presume that such designation ought be called Divinely Revealed?

However impossible it is for Rollo be reconciled on this point, others find it quite simple, and quite compelling. As with so many other questions, its a matter of the soil chosen, and the care taking in nourishing a seed that influences the harvest.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

I tend to stick with my D&C for what is Official. But I tend to believe that JS was very fluid on the exact location of the events described in the Book of Mormon. Maybe he knew maybe he did not know. But as far as I know its location has never been been confirmed by the Church.

[Bob Bennett]

I was raised with the tradition that the hill in New York was the very Hill Cumorah where the Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred. As I've studied the matter, I've come to the firm conviction that this is not the case, but that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah was likely in Mesoamerica. David Palmer makes a compelling case for this, and additionally analyzes possible origins of the belief that the Book of Mormon Cumorah was in New York. I find it impossible to reconcile the text of the Book of Mormon with a New York Cumorah. At the same time, I don't have any trouble with the likelihood that Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney and the CES manual are mistaken on this matter, while at the same time affirming my conviction that Presidents Smith and Romney were prophets, seers and revelators. The callings that they had do not include omniscience nor infallability.

[Mortimer]

Mortimer:

Please show me where a Revelation by the Church has EVER identified the hill in NY as THE Hill Cumorah.

Mark E Peterson:

"As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York." Oct. 1978 Conference Report.

Marion G. Romney:

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the

[thesometimesaint]

Mortimer:

Good, wise, and honorable men all. But there is a well establish method for what is Revelation to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. NONE of the above statements has met the conditionality.

Please try again with an Official Revelation as found in the D&C stating where the Book of Mormon events took place.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Here, you are presuming the very thing to be tested. Since I accept the Book of Mormon as a divine translation, I consider it valid methodology to test the claim that the various and conflicting accounts of the Zelph business have anything to do with the Book of Mormon narrative.

I'm fine with testing everything and anything; I'm nothing if not inquisitive, and, as all here are aware, I question everything.

Not all of the various reports can be accurate since they differ significantly on several key points.

I disagree. On the Cumorah point in Wilford Woodruff's account, there is no inconsistency because no other accounts by those present include this point (Reuben McBride's June 3, 1834 journal entry of the same episode backs up the interpretation of WW's reference to "east sea" as the Atlantic Ocean; McBride's journal does not mention Cumorah, however), much like apologists argue that there is no inconsistency in the various First Vision accounts simply because God the Father was not there in the 1832 history.

It won't do to arbitrarily designate one as an official canonized, divine revelation when none of the journal accounts have offical status.

I simply offered it up among the evidences I know of where the NY hill is designated as "Cumorah" by divine communication, that's all (btw, I know of no account of divine communication placing "Cumorah" in Mesoamerica, or anywhere other than western NY state -- do you?).

Since I consider the Book of Mormon to be a divine revelation, I consider it valid to test the claims of Joseph Fielding Smith in 1953 or President Romney or CES a manual.

I have no problem with this statement; as you know, I question everything. I have simply found the "testing" on the Cumorah issue to miss the mark when it comes to placing the BofM Cumorah anywhere other than in western NY state.

The scriptures are the "standard" works, which means, we are not only allowed, but encouraged, repeatedly, and explictly to measure such things.

Where exactly in the BofM (or other scripture) does it state "Cumorah" is in Mesoamerica?

What scriptures from the Book of Mormon do Mother Smith, President Romney, President Smith, or CES cite in support of the identifications?

Last time I looked, neither NY state nor Palmyra existed when Cumorah/Ramah was written about on the plates. Alas, those places did exist when the Angel Moroni talked to Joseph of the hill in western NY state and south of Palmyra as "Cumorah," and when Cumorah was given as the eastern reference point in Joseph's vision of Zelph, and when both Cumorah and places in NY and Pennsylvania are mentioned in D&C 128:20, and when the stranger mentioned going to Cumorah while on the road between Harmony, PA and Fayette, NY. It seems, given the relatively new names and locations within the boundaries of the present-day U.S., that divine communications on present-day locations of BofM places, such as Cumorah, should be particularly relevant to us.

Rollo has cited nothing from the Book of Mormon, a quite conspicuous omission in dealing with the question.

Who wrote the BofM? In large part, Nephite prophets, right? Who was the Angel Moroni? A former Nephite prophet well familiar with the BofM Cumorah, and later a divine messenger from God, sent by the Lord to Joseph "to reveal the Book of Mormon ...." (D&C 27:5). So, as I understand your argument, it was ok for Moroni to be on God's errand "to reveal the BofM" to Joseph, but Moroni was not allowed to "reveal" the location of Cumorah discussed in that same book, right? Hmm, we know that Joseph was tutored for years by Moroni -- perhaps they only talked about the weather?

It is valid to ask where they got their information.  Eugene England tells the story of going to talk with Joseph F. Smith about the priesthood policy.

What "priesthood policy"? I'm not familiar with this story. Btw, I never said JFS was infallible -- one only need look to his claim that God will never let man travel to the moon, to figure that out.

If a CES manual quotes President Romney, I am permitted to ask not only where the CES manual got its information, but where President Romney got it, and where his source got it.

I have no problem with this. It sure seems like lately a lot of apologists here have problems with the official Church curriculum -- perhaps you all should get together and contact the Church Curriculum Dept. and let them know about your beefs, which are starting to seem legion.

Nor to say, "175 years!"

Maybe it's just me, but to jettison a nearly universal teaching for 175 years by innumerable of the Brethren about the BofM Cumorah's location in western NY state, is pretty drastic and guts the entire concept of "continuing revelation."

If the idea of a New York Cumorah is demonstrably inconsistent with the claims of the Book of Mormon on a host of interconnected issues relevent to the location of Cumorah (as has been demonstrated with extensive reference to the Book of Mormon text by Sidney Sperry, David Palmer, John Sorenson, and John Clark) ....

This is utterly false; see Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of a Limited Geography for Book of Mormon Events," Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 161-97 (Fall 2002).

As with so many other questions, its a matter of the soil chosen, and the care taking in nourishing a seed that influences the harvest.

And the "soil" LGT proponents have apparently chosen is their reason and purported empirical data (based on various starting point interpretations), casting aside, as misguided assumptions and opinions, the divine and prophetic statements over 175 years on this very issue. It will be interesting to see what kind of a "harvest" comes from this "soil chosen," given the Church hierarchy's inching closer and closer to endorsing an LGT explanation for the BofM.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But as far as I know its location has never been been confirmed by the Church.

I submit that the Church came awfully close to doing just that. See letter linked below:

http://www.utlm.org/images/cumorahletter.gif

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

I eagerly await for that letters' inclusion in my D&C. Mind if I don't hold my breath?

[Rollo Tomasi]

I eagerly await for that letters' inclusion in my D&C. Mind if I don't hold my breath?

Hang in there. The polygamy revelation (D&C 132) didn't make into the D&C until the 1876 edition (some 45 years after the revelation was first given, and 24 years after the Church publicly announced its practice of polygamy). These things take time.

[Mortimer]

I eagerly await for that letters' inclusion in my D&C. Mind if I don't hold my breath?

I reiterate. The LGT theory is hooey. It is contrary to the very heavy weight of general authority interpretation, as well as Joseph Smith's comments himself.

Don't let the DNA issue scare you into retreating with the long-held views.

[thesometimesaint]

Mortimer:

I've supported the LGT long before the DNA issue raised their microscopic little anneals.

[Pokatator]

Thanx Rollo for your great posts, your logic seems the same as mine. I have read all sides of this issue, I wish I could express myself as well as you consistantly do. I have to say I have been taught all of my 53 years that Cumorah was in New York and that the last battle took place there, it's a little hard to erase from my mind just for convenience.