Here's A Photo Of The Original Cumorah

[poulsenll]

>I'm particularly interested in reviewing those statements from those prophets who said it was the right hill.

1. We all agree that there is a hill in NY called the "Hill Cumorah". The issue is whether there is also a hill in Mesoamerica by the same name where the last battle was fought. Many of these statements simply call it the Hill Cumorah in regards to where the plates were buried rather than whether it was the location of the last battle.

2. Based on the BOM text, the NY hill simply does not fit.

So, either the BOM is incorrect, or the statements by GAs are incorrect.

Which are you going to choose?

I usually try to find harmony between the two.

Why do you or others think the area around the hill in New York just doesn't fit?

Can you cite the sources which show what our Presidents in the Church thought about this?

Check out Waye May's writings on this. He is the only one I know who still seriously thinks the NY hill is the same as the one in the BoM.

http://www.ancientamerican.com/articles.htm

Also check out FARMS articles and reviews.

Larry P

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray:

I usually try to find harmony between the two.

So do I. But as there is no official BoM geography accepted by the Church. We will have plenty of speculation for a while longer.

With the understanding that the Church is in fact the people, and some of the people accept different beliefs... including different beliefs about this issue... I do not agree that the Church doesn't accept certain beliefs regarding this issue.

Paul: Why do you or others think the area around the hill in New York just doesn't fit?

thesometimesaint: A close reading of the geoghraphy, and culture described in the BoM does not fit with anything we know of the area around the N.Y. hill and being The Hill Cumorah of the last battle.

If I could find the specific quotes I was referring to, which I know I once read once upon a time in the past, I could show you some statements from certain Presidents of the Church who disagreed with that opinion.

And if my memory is serving me correctly, I'm thinking that some of the quotes I am thinking of were from President Joseph Fielding Smith's book titled 'Answers to Gospel Questions, and some of them were from the Prophet Joseph Smith, either somewhere in his volumes of Church history or possibly from his teachings which were compiled later by President Joseph Fielding Smith in another one of his books.

Ray: Can you cite the sources which show what our Presidents in the Church thought about this?

thesometimesaint: Some have thought one way some another. But again there is nothing ofiicial.

My idea of official may be something a little bit different than your idea:

When a President of the Church says something I will usually consider his words to be officially scripture just as soon as the power of the Holy Ghost assures me that his words are in fact the truth... whether or not anyone else will acknowledge that fact.

Does anyone know where those quotes are that can show what Presidents of the Church thought about this?

I think their comments should be included in this discussion. And if nothing else I think I should bring up the idea that they said something.

[poulsenll]

Paul Ray:

I usually try to find harmony between the two.

So do I. But as there is no official BoM geography accepted by the Church. We will have plenty of speculation for a while longer.

With the understanding that the Church is in fact the people, and some of the people accept different beliefs... including different beliefs about this issue... I do not agree that the Church doesn't accept certain beliefs regarding this issue.

Paul: Why do you or others think the area around the hill in New York just doesn't fit?

thesometimesaint: A close reading of the geoghraphy, and culture described in the BoM does not fit with anything we know of the area around the N.Y. hill and being The Hill Cumorah of the last battle.

If I could find the specific quotes I was referring to, which I know I once read once upon a time in the past, I could show you some statements from certain Presidents of the Church who disagreed with that opinion.

And if my memory is serving me correctly, I'm thinking that some of the quotes I am thinking of were from President Joseph Fielding Smith's book titled 'Answers to Gospel Questions, and some of them were from the Prophet Joseph Smith, either somewhere in his volumes of Church history or possibly from his teachings which were compiled later by President Joseph Fielding Smith in another one of his books.

Ray: Can you cite the sources which show what our Presidents in the Church thought about this?

thesometimesaint: Some have thought one way some another. But again there is nothing ofiicial.

My idea of official may be something a little bit different than your idea:

When a President of the Church says something I will usually consider his words to be officially scripture just as soon as the power of the Holy Ghost assures me that his words are in fact the truth... whether or not anyone else will acknowledge that fact.

Does anyone know where those quotes are that can show what Presidents of the Church thought about this?

I think their comments should be included in this discussion. And if nothing else I think I should bring up the idea that they said something.

Ray

Some Apostles have expressed opinions prior to becoming the Prophet but have seldom said anything after becoming the Prophet and spokesman for the Church..

Joseph Fielding Smith was a staunch believer in the New York Cumorah. However his statements on this issue are no different than his son in laws, Bruce R McConkie, relative to when the blacks would recieve the priesthood. Most if not all of them were made before he became the prophet. He did not become the Prophet until 1970. A close study of his answers to Gospel questions as published in the Improvement Era, not as collected and published by BRM, show that as time passed he changed his opinion on numerous occasions even as each of us do. He was also author of the series of volumes of Church History and chose to include words that had been specifically crossed out by Joseph Smith, in order to support his view. He preached a sermon sometime before 1956 in which he used the Zelph incident, the very one he had modified, to support his claim that the Book of Mormon took place in New York.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, comp. Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), see 3:232â??36.

Documented by Kenneth W Godfrey

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=202

After becoming prophet, he was much less inclined to express opinions and stuck to what the scripture said.

The final word is that the church has no official document or revelation relative to Book of Mormon geography and whether there are one or two Cumorahs.

In addition, we as LDS should be committed to following a "Living Prophet" who speaks for God to us in our day.

Larry P

[Cold Steel]

There are two other interesting websites regarding the Mesoamerican approach:

http://www.mormongeography.com/

http://www.geocities.com/jwarr87480/frame1.html

I have to say that I once just took it for granted that the New York site was the right one. But then I had to admit I couldn't envision tens of thousands of Nephites encamped around it. It just doesn't fit. There are three really great Cumorah candidates, all of which are in Mesoamerica.

Another niggling thing for years with me was, how could the many tens of thousands of Nephites and even more Lamanites have survived the bitter cold of upstate New York. The life expectancy in that area must have been somewhere in the thirties!

[cdowis]

>When a President of the Church says something I will usually consider his words to be officially scripture just as soon as the power of the Holy Ghost assures me that his words are in fact the truth... whether or not anyone else will acknowledge that fact.

You might want to read what the prophet Brigham Young has to say on this.

Do you think that the location of the Hill Cumorah is official doctrine of the church, and the prophets have given us a doctrinal statement on this? For me BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a matter of historical research.

[Cold Steel]

I don't think there's anything scandalous about saying the early church authorities were wrong about the New York hill being Cumorah. If the Lord thought it was important for us to know the locations of the Book of Mormon lands, He would have made it manifest. General Authorities are going through the same process that the rest of us are going through. They have opinions just as we do and they can be wrong just as we are wrong. One of the central messages of Joseph Smith is that anyone can be a prophet by following the Spirit of God. That means the heavens can be open to them and they can know things that only God can reveal, though this doesn't mean they're free to teach outside the bounds set by the church.

Church authorities are just as capable of being wrong in some areas as anyone else. A prophet is only a prophet when acting under the influence of the Spirit of God. I've read Joseph Fielding Smith's defense of the New York Cumorah as being the one mentioned in the BoM and it's clear to me that he's in error on this point. There is too much that doesn't fit.

We'll eventually know where these lands were and I'm guessing at that point that it will confirm what someone else has already figured out. Just a cursory reading of the BoM shows that the land was undoubtedly warm in climate, most likely tropical. Recognizing this, simple logic would put one in another part of the hemisphere altogether.

Wherever the real Cumorah is, this is not it.

[Paul Ray]

>When a President of the Church says something I will usually consider his words to be officially scripture just as soon as the power of the Holy Ghost assures me that his words are in fact the truth... whether or not anyone else will acknowledge that fact.

You might want to read what the prophet Brigham Young has to say on this.

What exactly are you referring to? I have read all of his words I have found.

And yes, I do know how to know when something is true.

Do you think that the location of the Hill Cumorah is official doctrine of the church, and the prophets have given us a doctrinal statement on this? For me BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a matter of historical research.

As I was trying to explain before, I consider a President of the Church to be an "official" of the Church and whenever he speaks he is speaking as an official of the Church. And since "doctrine" refers to what someone teaches when he/she shares what he/she believes, our Presidents of the Church have always given us official doctrine.

Or in other words, I'm not one of those that picks and chooses which statements were made "officially" and which ones were "just his opinion".

As far as I'm concerned, a President of the Church is always speaking as a President of the Church.

And again, I'll repeat this: I know how to know when something is true, so don't get cocky and think I am simply going to believe what you say.

And I am NOT inferring that none of you know how to know what is true.

[cinepro]

If the Lord thought it was important for us to know the locations of the Book of Mormon lands, He would have made it manifest.

Apart from the specious nature of this argument to begin with, it totally disregards the fact that Moroni, Joseph Smith and inspired others repeatedly referred to the New York drumlin as "The Hill Cumorah", equating it to the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Obviously, supporters of the two, three or four-Cumorah theories have come to peace with this fact, and that is great. Moroni, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others to this day are just mistaken when they refer to the New York drumlin as the Cumorah from the Book of Mormon. But that is a far, far cry from arguing that God's servants and angelic messengers have never identified any geographic features with Book of Mormon locations. Wouldn't it be a more formative argument to say:

"If the Lord wanted us to know about there being more than one Cumorah, he would tell us through his angels, prophets, and apostles."

or

"If the Lord wanted us to know Moroni, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and other Church leaders were mistaken in referring to the New York drumlin as "Cumorah", he would correct them through His apostles and prophets, and not rely on others."

Obviously, any argument that starts with the premise "If the Lord..." has dubious value to begin with. Except when I tell my kids that if the Lord wanted rocks to fly, he would have given them wings. That totally makes sense.

[SolarPowered]

Apart from the specious nature of this argument to begin with, it totally disregards the fact that Moroni, Joseph Smith and inspired others repeatedly referred to the New York drumlin as "The Hill Cumorah", equating it to the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

With all due respect, can you support that statement? As far as I know, Moroni never referred to the hill in New York as "The Hill Cumorah," and Joseph Smith only referred to it as "Cumorah" after long usage by other people had made "Cumorah" the established name of the hill in New York. I am unaware of any statement by Joseph that the hill in New York is the hill referenced in the Book of Mormon.

[Paul Ray]

Apart from the specious nature of this argument to begin with, it totally disregards the fact that Moroni, Joseph Smith and inspired others repeatedly referred to the New York drumlin as "The Hill Cumorah", equating it to the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

With all due respect, can you support that statement? As far as I know, Moroni never referred to the hill in New York as "The Hill Cumorah," and Joseph Smith only referred to it as "Cumorah" after long usage by other people had made "Cumorah" the established name of the hill in New York. I am unaware of any statement by Joseph that the hill in New York is the hill referenced in the Book of Mormon.

Let me put this simply:

What did Joseph Fielding Smith teach about this?

Do you agree or not agree?

There is no other option... if you know.

If you don't know I think you know how to know how to know.

[thesometimesaint]

Paul Ray:

With all due deference. "A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such." We allow ALL men including Prophets to be wrong in their personal opinions.

We have a well established method of determining what is Scripture and binding on the Church. The exact location of the Book of Mormon lands does not meet that test.

[cinepro]

Apart from the specious nature of this argument to begin with, it totally disregards the fact that Moroni, Joseph Smith and inspired others repeatedly referred to the New York drumlin as "The Hill Cumorah", equating it to the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

With all due respect, can you support that statement? As far as I know, Moroni never referred to the hill in New York as "The Hill Cumorah," and Joseph Smith only referred to it as "Cumorah" after long usage by other people had made "Cumorah" the established name of the hill in New York. I am unaware of any statement by Joseph that the hill in New York is the hill referenced in the Book of Mormon.

Obviously, the most official reference is the revealed, canonized and scriptural salutation in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 128

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophetsâ??the book to be revealed.

Supporters of the multiple-cumorah theories absolutely must believe that the New York drumlin is not the Hill Cumorah/ Ramah in the Book of Mormon narrative, so it is here that the privilege of "mistaken opinion" is invoked most heavily when it comes to the words of early and recent Prophets, Apostles, and Church leaders.

It is a well-worn excercise (and one that will continue to wear thinner and thinner as the years go by), so I will acknowledge that supporters of such theories are well beyond any discomfort with the statements of early Church leaders or current scriptures, and we can comfortably file such discongruities away with global floods, the Earth falling through space to it's current orbit at the fall of Adam, the Jaredites being the first to the New World after Noah's flood, Joseph Smith being able to translate Egyptian, and other vestiges of chapel mormonism.

[SolarPowered]

Apart from the specious nature of this argument to begin with, it totally disregards the fact that Moroni, Joseph Smith and inspired others repeatedly referred to the New York drumlin as "The Hill Cumorah", equating it to the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

With all due respect, can you support that statement? As far as I know, Moroni never referred to the hill in New York as "The Hill Cumorah," and Joseph Smith only referred to it as "Cumorah" after long usage by other people had made "Cumorah" the established name of the hill in New York. I am unaware of any statement by Joseph that the hill in New York is the hill referenced in the Book of Mormon.

Let me put this simply:

What did Joseph Fielding Smith teach about this?

Do you agree or not agree?

There is no other option... if you know.

If you don't know I think you know how to know how to know.

Paul,

I am well aware that Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the hill in New York known as "Cumorah" is the hill of the same name in the Book of Mormon. As far as I can tell, that was simply his opinion--nowhere have I seen any statement by him, as president of the Church, that he was prophetically declaring that it had been revealed to him that the BoM Cumorah is in New York.

The only person so far mention who would in fact know where the hill is is Moroni. I am unaware of any statement by Moroni regarding this subject.

Joseph Smith, with all the information he was given, might possibly have had the information revealed to him. As I stated, above, it appears that he never referred to the hill in New York as "Cumorah" until common usage had established that as the establish name for the that place. I am unaware that he ever made any identification of the New York hill as the hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

[poulsenll]

With all due respect, can you support that statement? As far as I know, Moroni never referred to the hill in New York as "The Hill Cumorah," and Joseph Smith only referred to it as "Cumorah" after long usage by other people had made "Cumorah" the established name of the hill in New York. I am unaware of any statement by Joseph that the hill in New York is the hill referenced in the Book of Mormon.

Let me put this simply:

What did Joseph Fielding Smith teach about this?

Do you agree or not agree?

There is no other option... if you know.

If you don't know I think you know how to know how to know.

Joseph Fielding Smith was only The Prophet" and thus Spokesman for the entire Church from 1970 to 1972.

Prior to that time he spoke for himself and not for the Church. As I pointed out previously, while serving as an Apostle, Bruce R McConkie expressed opinions which he was required to retract after later revelation proved him to be incorrect. Until such revelation occurs, in the case of Book of Mormon geography, there is no doctrinal support for any proposed theory of Book of Mormon geography, including mine, JFSs or anyone elses.

Larry P

[SolarPowered]

Obviously, the most official reference is the revealed, canonized and scriptural salutation in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 128

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that does not state that the Cumorah referred to is the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. Section 128 was given in 1842, long after common usage had established "Cumorah" as the common name of the hill in New York. This revelation simply reflects the common usage, and says nothing at all about the location of the hill described in the Book of Mormon.

[poulsenll]

Obviously, the most official reference is the revealed, canonized and scriptural salutation in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 128

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophetsâ??the book to be revealed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that does not state that the Cumorah referred to is the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. Section 128 was given in 1842, long after common usage had established "Cumorah" as the common name of the hill in New York. This revelation simply reflects the common usage, and says nothing at all about the location of the hill described in the Book of Mormon.

And it was from the Hill Cumorah in New York that Moroni delivered the plates to Joseph Smith. The Glad Tidings came from that hill and not the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon which was a scene of carnage and destruction of a once great people.

Larry P

[Beowulf]

"Glad tidings from Cumorah" is a reference to Moroni and his Book, NOT to where the hill was located.

It is not your smoking gun, Cinepro.

Yes, there were GAs who believed that Cumorah was in New York. Most recently was Pres. Romney, then a member of the First Presidency, waxing lyrical about the Battle in front of Cumorah, while standing on that hill in New York during an outdoor conference in the 1970s.

But I prefer the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon. And it convinced me differently decades ago. As to which hill in Mexico, I have no idea. Cumorah3 likes a certain hill. Great. (But he doesn't help his agenda with constant snide remarks about being "ignored" by the professionals...)

Beowulf

[cinepro]

This is another favorite story of mine. I especially think of it every time I see the Church video illustrating the "gold plates in the barrel of beans" story:

The day following David Whitmer's arrival at Harmony the plates were packed up and delivered into the care of the Angel Moroni, that they might be safely conveyed to Fayette. "When I was returning to Fayette," says David Whitmer, "with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old fashioned, wooden spring-seat, and Joseph behind us, when traveling along in a clear, open place, a very pleasant, nice looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, 'Good morning; it is very warm;' at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph, I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, 'No, I am going to Cumorah.' This name was somewhat new to me, and I did not know what 'Cumorah' meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round inquiringly of Joseph, the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again."

Replying to the question, "Did you notice his appearance?" David Whitmer replied: "I should think I did. He was, I should think, about five feet eight or nine inches tall and heavy set, about such a man as James Cleve there (a gentleman present at the Whitmer, Pratt and Smith interview), but heavier. His face was as large; he was dressed in a suit of brown woolen clothes, his hair and beard were white, like Brother Pratt's, but his beard was not so heavy. I also remember that he had on his back a sort of knapsack with something in it shaped like a book. It was the messenger who had the plates, who had taken them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony."

B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, Ch.6, p.103 - p.104

There are so many facets to this story, it's difficult to figure out which parts to ignore, and which to believe.

If there wasn't an angelic messenger, how did the plates get from Harmony to Fayette? Did Joseph just carry them? If so, why would Whitmer make up the messenger? If the Lord could zip the plates around using angels, why the unnecessary drama with the barrel of beans when Joseph went to Harmony?

Did an angel really carry the plates, but did Whitmer make up the story about the encounter? Or did Whitmer just add the details about "Cumorah"? If so, why? Did the angelic messenger refer to the New York drumlin as "Cumorah" because he knew that would become the common usage of that time and culture (even though he knew it was incorrect), and he just didn't want to explain the Limited Geography/ 2-Cumorah theory to them because it was hot? Why would an angelic messenger sweat?

So many questions...

[Paul Ray]

With all due respect, can you support that statement? As far as I know, Moroni never referred to the hill in New York as "The Hill Cumorah," and Joseph Smith only referred to it as "Cumorah" after long usage by other people had made "Cumorah" the established name of the hill in New York. I am unaware of any statement by Joseph that the hill in New York is the hill referenced in the Book of Mormon.

Let me put this simply:

What did Joseph Fielding Smith teach about this?

Do you agree or not agree?

There is no other option... if you know.

If you don't know I think you know how to know how to know.

Joseph Fielding Smith was only The Prophet" and thus Spokesman for the entire Church from 1970 to 1972.

Prior to that time he spoke for himself and not for the Church. As I pointed out previously, while serving as an Apostle, Bruce R McConkie expressed opinions which he was required to retract after later revelation proved him to be incorrect. Until such revelation occurs, in the case of Book of Mormon geography, there is no doctrinal support for any proposed theory of Book of Mormon geography, including mine, JFSs or anyone elses.

Larry P

Do you know how to receive revelation?

It ain't that hard.

And to show you that I am still listening:

Were the teachings from JFS ever retracted, or corrected?

... by anyone who had/has the authority to do that, I mean?

If not then I do not see why you should dismiss them.

[SolarPowered]

Do you know how to receive revelation?

It ain't that hard.

Perhaps I don't. Since you seem to know how to get revelations on this subject, perhaps you can get a revelation and tell us all where the River Sidon and Zarahemla are?

[Paul Ray]

Obviously, the most official reference is the revealed, canonized and scriptural salutation in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 128

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophetsâ??the book to be revealed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that does not state that the Cumorah referred to is the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. Section 128 was given in 1842, long after common usage had established "Cumorah" as the common name of the hill in New York. This revelation simply reflects the common usage, and says nothing at all about the location of the hill described in the Book of Mormon.

And it was from the Hill Cumorah in New York that Moroni delivered the plates to Joseph Smith. The Glad Tidings came from that hill and not the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon which was a scene of carnage and destruction of a once great people.

Larry P

For those of us who may have missed it, can you show us why you believe the hill in New York is not the one near where Moroni and those others once died?

And I'd still like to hear what our Presidents have had to say about this.

... preferably through you.

[thesometimesaint]

SolarPowered:

Then get it accepted by the Church.

[Paul Ray]

Do you know how to receive revelation?

It ain't that hard.

Perhaps I don't. Since you seem to know how to get revelations on this subject, perhaps you can get a revelation and tell us all where the River Sidon and Zarahemla are?

I was specifically referring to receiving the revelations received by our prophets... or Presidents.

[cinepro]

Do you know how to receive revelation?

It ain't that hard.

And to show you that I am still listening:

Were the teachings from JFS ever retracted, or corrected?

... by anyone who has the authority to do that, I mean?

If not then I do not see why you should dismiss them.

For those who are trying to follow along, here is the problem.

In the 1950's, someone asked Joseph Fielding Smith, then an apostle, about the possibility that there were two Cumorah's. His response was printed in the Church News section of the Deseret News, and then reprinted and published in his seminal book "Personal Opinions about Church Stuff, Subject To Correction by Future Scholars".

Actually, the book is called "Doctrines of Salvation". So here is what an Apostle of the Church (who was also the Church Historian) had to say in a book called "Doctrines of Salvation"

SPECULATION ABOUT BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Within recent years there has arisen among certain students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites were confined almost entirely within the borders of the territory comprising Central America and the southern portion of Mexicoâ??the isthmus of Tehauntepec probably being the "narrow neck" of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon rather than the isthmus of Panama.

This theory is founded upon the assumption that it was impossible for the colony of Lehi's to multiply and fill the hemisphere within the limits of 1,000 years, or from the coming of Lehi from Jerusalem to the time of the destruction of the Nephites at the Hill Cumorah. Moreover, they claim that the story in the Book of Mormon of the migrations, building of cities, and the wars and contentions, preclude the possibility of the people spreading over great distances such as we find within the borders of North and South America....

LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case. It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery. Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history....

NEPHITE AND JAREDITE WARS IN WESTERN NEW YORK. In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America. Neither can we say that the great struggle which resulted in the destruction of the Nephites took place in Central America. If Zelph, a righteous man, was fighting under a great prophet-general in the last battles between the Nephites and Lamanites; if that great prophet-general was known from the Rocky Mountains to 'the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea,' then some of those battles, and evidently the final battles did take place within the borders of what is now the United States....

CUMORAH ONCE SITE OF CARNAGE AND DESTRUCTION. As I stood upon the summit of the Hill Cumorah, in the midst of a vast multitude, only a few of whom belonged to the Church, I tried to picture the scenes of former days. Here were assembled vast armies filled with bitterness and bent on destruction....

IMPORTANCE OF CUMORAH UNKNOWN TO WORLD. . . ."Here it was that Moroni, commanded by the Lord, hid up the sacred records of his people. Here it was. 1,400 years later, that he, then a resurrected being, came to Joseph Smith and committed these same records to the young man's care. At the time of the Prophet's first visit to the hill, it was covered with trees; today (1923) it is stripped and bare, save for the grass which grows abundantly. " (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43. Emphasis added)

[SolarPowered]

Were the teachings from JFS ever retracted, or corrected?

... by anyone who has the authority to do that, I mean?

If not then I do not see why you should dismiss them.

Essentially, yes. A recent thread goes into long discussion about a letter from President Hinckley's office stating that the Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography. (I think the thread had a name something like "Now there can be no doubt--Book of Mormon Cumorah located in New York.")