BofM Hill Cumorah?

[Noggin]

This is simply silly. The stories of Teancum in the BoM and of Tecumsah have very little in common. Teancum went alone, at night, in secret, with a cord, and actually did it twice. The fact that two men both died in battle and who have names with the same number of syllables is not evidence.

Ever heard of Masada? How about the Alamo? You can find similarities easily, but the differences far outweigh them.

Sargon

You're right.. about the Alamo. But it really is not that silly. I look further.

For me, it's the historical location of Tecumseh's death in relation to Moraviantown's key prominence in the war of 1812 (Battle of Thames was also known as the Battle of Moraviantown), the time period in relation to Joseph Smith's formidable youth that Tecumseh died (1812, Smith was 8 years old), what the death of Tecumseh meant (end of the united Indian resistance against Americans), what the death of Teancum meant after Teancum killed the Lamanite general Ammoron (the Nephites made a huge victory the very next day), the sensationalistic nature of Tecumseh the war heroe's death (it was in every newspaper in America so Smith was exposed to it), and the fact that this major pivitol war event (death of Tecumseh) occurred so close to Palmyra New York.

Teancum is a major player in the Nephite wars as was Tecumseh, is connected to the "Land of Morianton" (Tecumseh connected to Moraviantown), Teancum is also connected to "the people of Morianton", Teancum is killed after performing a major war act that changed the outcome of the Nephite/ Lamanite war. Tecumseh's death is the key event that changes the war of 1812.

Stack that against and in conjuction with the river Kiskimenitas (Kishkumen), Oneidah (Onida) and the other three or four dead ringers and it all starts to sound fishy.

Noggin

[Doctor Steuss]

Warship, I hope I made it clear that I'm a Central American Google Expert, which is my humorous way of saying I'm no expert at all.

Logic tells me that Central American cities weren't originally named Jerusalem or Moriancumur. Nor Orgath or Argathe...or whatever.

Now, I realize that my logic is an argument from silence (based on limited readings of such things), but I feel obliged to point out that your's is as well.

Your reasoning seems to fall along the lines of: "well, they might have been renamed."

At this point I still see a great many similarities between the cities of Holley's map and I'm wondering why you dont.

[Russ], pretend you're in a classroom with those who study such things. Do you really think your defense will be found sufficient? Seriously. Forget [Warship] as a [Mormon]

[...]

And then the [apologists] will say, "Sorry, argument from silence."

[Sargon]

The hill Ramah, where 2.23 million died.

Has it crossed your mind, as it has mine, why the First Presidency doesn't initiate the greatest North American dig of all times?

No Russ. You claimed quite clearly that the Book of Mormon itself tells us that it's battles happened in the state of New York. The CFR was for that, and you did not give a reference. Why doesn't the First Presidency initiate a dig? Because they don't know where to dig. Your agreement with us certainly could not count as an argument against the BoM.

"Apparently the church is not so convinced that is where the events took place, since the movie "The Testaments" was filmed in a pretty Meso-American looking setting."

Or, could it be as LDS anthropologist Thomas Murphy states, "it never happened anywhere." In other words, it could be that the LDS Church knows nothing will be found at Ramah (Cumorah), even though 2.23 million died there, so in order to "keep the faith" they send teams to unlikely locations?

"LDS" anthropologist. Sheesh Russ, Murphy is about as LDS as you are. That type of cheap trick might work with your pals over at CARM, but we know better over here. Do you have any evidence that the LDS church has sent "teams" to any locations, and can you provide evidence for why these locations should be deemed "unlikely"?

Russ, we really enjoy a good critic over here at MADB. We have friends here who disagree on just about ever level with us, and we don't want them to leave. But what we don't like very much are critics like Johnny who just say things that are outrageously false and don't have the slightest intention to back up their words with any evidence.

I think you can actually enjoy this place more than CARM, since actual discussion goes on here instead of the constant bitterness embedded in every word over there. Even if we disagree with you we don't mind being your friend, so long as you don't waste our time.

Sargon

[Sargon]

You're right.. about the Alamo. But it really is not that silly. I look further.

For me, it's the historical location of Tecumseh's death in relation to Moraviantown's key prominence in the war of 1812 (Battle of Thames was also known as the Battle of Moraviantown), the time period in relation to Joseph Smith's formidable youth that Tecumseh died (1812, Smith was 8 years old), what the death of Tecumseh meant (end of the united Indian resistance against Americans), what the death of Teancum meant after Teancum killed the Lamanite general Ammoron (the Nephites made a huge victory the very next day), the sensationalistic nature of Tecumseh the war heroe's death (it was in every newspaper in America so Smith was exposed to it), and the fact that this major pivitol war event (death of Tecumseh) occurred so close to Palmyra New York.

Teancum is a major player in the Nephite wars as was Tecumseh, is connected to the "Land of Morianton" (Tecumseh connected to Moraviantown), Teancum is also connected to "the people of Morianton", Teancum is killed after performing a major war act that changed the outcome of the Nephite/ Lamanite war. Tecumseh's death is the key event that changes the war of 1812.

Stack that against and in conjuction with the river Kiskimenitas (Kishkumen), Oneidah (Onida) and the other three or four dead ringers and it all starts to sound fishy.

Noggin

Let me ask you Noggin, of the hundreds of battles that Joseph might have been aware of, why did he choose only this one to mirror and why did he choose the level of detail that he did to mirror it, and not more or less detail? It would seem there is absolutely no pattern in the BoM of major events mirroring 19th century battles, and that this alleged instance is nothing more than a weak coincidence.

Sargon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Russ

I noticed you missed my 2 posts. Oh well.

[Gervin]

No Russ. You claimed quite clearly that the Book of Mormon itself tells us that it's battles happened in the state of New York. The CFR was for that, and you did not give a reference. Why doesn't the First Presidency initiate a dig? Because they don't know where to dig. Your agreement with us certainly could not count as an argument against the BoM.

It's clear to me that the church has taught - and still teaches - that the battles took place in New York.

[SolarPowered]

The hill Ramah, where 2.23 million died.

Has it crossed your mind, as it has mine, why the First Presidency doesn't initiate the greatest North American dig of all times?

You didn't answer the question. The question was, "Where, exactly, does 'the Book of Mormon tell us New York'?"

[cdowis]

It's clear to me that the church has taught - and still teaches - that the battles took place in New York.

Please give us the citations for those "teachings". Please note the difference between opinion/speculation and teaching. I know the difference between the two so don't give us baloney. You specifically said "teaching", as in teachings about the Atonement, baptism, doctrines, etc.

I have heard very silly things but this really takes the cake. Looking forward to your response.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's clear to me that the church has taught - and still teaches - that the battles took place in New York.

That's not clear to me. And I think I would have noticed it.

Further:

If it were an official "Church teaching" that the New York Cumorah is the site of the final battles, I doubt very much that Deseret Book, the Church-owned publisher and bookstore chain, would have published and distributed John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which argues for a Mesoamerican site for those battles. And it's extraordinary unlikely that the Church's official magazine, the Ensign, would have published two substantial articles in which Professor Sorenson laid out his geographical model. And it's virtually inconceivable that FARMS, now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which has for years been an official part of Church-owned Brigham Young University, would be permitted, as it clearly has been, to publish articles and books and to distribute films advocating a Mesoamerican site for those final battles.

Does anybody seriously imagine that Deseret Book would publish and sell volumes arguing against the deity of Christ or advocating gay marriage or questioning the necessity of temple ordinances? Does anybody actually think that the Ensign would carry an article denying the restoration of the priesthood? Is there anyone out there who can conceive of an official unit of Brigham Young University being permitted to argue consistently for the ordination of women or the fraudulence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or the impotence of the Atonement?

[Gervin]

Please give us the citations for those "teachings". Please note the difference between opinion/speculation and teaching. I know the difference between the two so don't give us baloney. You specifically said "teaching", as in teachings about the Atonement, baptism, doctrines, etc.

I have heard very silly things but this really takes the cake. Looking forward to your response.

The official web site of the LDS Church (www.lds.org) has a page called PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHURCH HISTORY SITES. The introduction states (my emphasis):

These photographs of important Church history sites portray the lands where early Latter-day Saints walked, where modern prophets have lived and taught, and where many scriptural events took place. To help you better use the photographs in your study, each photograph is accompanied by a short description. The first paragraph following the title of the description explains the setting of the photograph, including important things to look at and often which direction the photographer was facing. Significant scriptural events from that area are then listed, along with scripture references so that you can know where to read more about those events.

There is a link to a picture of the Hill Cumorah in New York. There are scripture references under the photo. One scripture reference is to Mormon 6:6 - "And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni."

The official church website shows a picture of the hill Cumorah in New York. Beneath the picture is a reference to a scripture that "all our people" gathered in the land of Cumorah, where the plates are hidden. The very next verse (7) begins the description of the battle. Where would you place the location of the battle based on this reading? Is the LDS web site wrong?

[cdowis]

I don't see the map as literal points of geography. I see the map as striking insofar that Smith (or whoever penned the Book of Mormon) most certainly had in mind the U.S. as the setting for the BoM.

All one has to do is look for 2.23 million sets of bones or steel swords or a vast civilization.

What happens to bones after 2000 years in the rainforest? What happens to steel? Outside of 2 Nephi, where are steel swords mentioned in the BOM? Regarding a vast civilization, you might start your education by reading the book "1491", which precisely addresses this issue.

But even that is easily discarded. Who was it?

Ignorance is very difficult to discard. May I suggest that you do your homework before posting here. We are not childish fools.

"People underestimate the ability of things to disappear." Nibley? Beck's book? (I think it was.)

Especially after 2000 years in a rainforest.

In Living Hope's Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, one of them there smart fellas said it's impossible for that many people to up and vanish and leave not a shred of evidence. Especially when we know exactly where to look.

The issue is not whether we can find them, but identifying what we have found.

Please tell us, for example, when we find a jade necklace, how do we know whether it is Nephite, Lamanite, or some other group?

Again, don't take us for fools. We have discussed this many many many times. Are you just joining us?

All the Church need do is excavate Cumorah. (The one in New York mentioned in the Watson letter.)

Watson is not a general authority, and has no authority to declare doctrine.

You still take us for fools, do you?

You folks have a nice night.

Well, hombre, then for you the fat lady has sung.

Nitey nite.

[Russ]

That's not clear to me. And I think I would have noticed it.

Further:

If it were an official "Church teaching" that the New York Cumorah is the site of the final battles, I doubt very much that Deseret Book, the Church-owned publisher and bookstore chain, would have published and distributed John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which argues for a Mesoamerican site for those battles. And it's extraordinary unlikely that the Church's official magazine, the Ensign, would have published two substantial articles in which Professor Sorenson laid out his geographical model. And it's virtually inconceivable that FARMS, now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which has for years been an official part of Church-owned Brigham Young University, would be permitted, as it clearly has been, to publish articles and books and to distribute films advocating a Mesoamerican site for those final battles.

Does anybody seriously imagine that Deseret Book would publish and sell volumes arguing against the deity of Christ or advocating gay marriage or questioning the necessity of temple ordinances? Does anybody actually think that the Ensign would carry an article denying the restoration of the priesthood? Is there anyone out there who can conceive of an official unit of Brigham Young University being permitted to argue consistently for the ordination of women or the fraudulence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or the impotence of the Atonement?

Dan, LDS-owned Deseret still offers for sale the Journal of Discources and the Book of Commandments, do they not?

So if you're going to tell me that something being sold by Deseret is good enough to be considered doctrine, well....

[TAK]

That's not clear to me. And I think I would have noticed it.

Further:

If it were an official "Church teaching" that the New York Cumorah is the site of the final battles, I doubt very much that Deseret Book, the Church-owned publisher and bookstore chain, would have published and distributed John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which argues for a Mesoamerican site for those battles. And it's extraordinary unlikely that the Church's official magazine, the Ensign, would have published two substantial articles in which Professor Sorenson laid out his geographical model. And it's virtually inconceivable that FARMS, now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which has for years been an official part of Church-owned Brigham Young University, would be permitted, as it clearly has been, to publish articles and books and to distribute films advocating a Mesoamerican site for those final battles.

Does anybody seriously imagine that Deseret Book would publish and sell volumes arguing against the deity of Christ or advocating gay marriage or questioning the necessity of temple ordinances? Does anybody actually think that the Ensign would carry an article denying the restoration of the priesthood? Is there anyone out there who can conceive of an official unit of Brigham Young University being permitted to argue consistently for the ordination of women or the fraudulence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or the impotence of the Atonement?

Well there you go.. its official.. The Church espouses the Mesoamerica location.

BTW, I seem to recall Will Bagleyâ??s Blood of Prophet is on the shelves at Deseret Book stores.. is that true? .. If so, then by DCPâ??s logic that must also have been embraced by the Brethren..

[Russ]

That's not clear to me. And I think I would have noticed it.

Further:

If it were an official "Church teaching" that the New York Cumorah is the site of the final battles, I doubt very much that Deseret Book, the Church-owned publisher and bookstore chain, would have published and distributed John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which argues for a Mesoamerican site for those battles. And it's extraordinary unlikely that the Church's official magazine, the Ensign, would have published two substantial articles in which Professor Sorenson laid out his geographical model. And it's virtually inconceivable that FARMS, now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which has for years been an official part of Church-owned Brigham Young University, would be permitted, as it clearly has been, to publish articles and books and to distribute films advocating a Mesoamerican site for those final battles.

Does anybody seriously imagine that Deseret Book would publish and sell volumes arguing against the deity of Christ or advocating gay marriage or questioning the necessity of temple ordinances? Does anybody actually think that the Ensign would carry an article denying the restoration of the priesthood? Is there anyone out there who can conceive of an official unit of Brigham Young University being permitted to argue consistently for the ordination of women or the fraudulence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or the impotence of the Atonement?

Dan, LDS-owned Deseret still offers for sale the Journal of Discources and the Book of Commandments, do they not?

So if you're going to tell me that something being sold by Deseret is good enough to be considered doctrine, well....

P.S. Oops, double post.

Sorry.

[cdowis]

There is a link to a picture of the Hill Cumorah in New York. There are scripture references under the photo. One scripture reference is to Mormon 6:6 - "And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni."

The official church website shows a picture of the hill Cumorah in New York. Beneath the picture is a reference to a scripture that "all our people" gathered in the land of Cumorah, where the plates are hidden. The very next verse (7) begins the description of the battle. Where would you place the location of the battle based on this reading? Is the LDS web site wrong?

Yes, there is a hill in NY called the Hill Cumorah. And, yes, that hill was where the records were buried. As mentioned elsewhere, "Cumorah" may have been a term, like the name "fort knox", with a specific meaning regarding the safe-keeping of the records, and can be applied to other locations. The caption makes no mention that this same hill is where the battle took place.

Finally, may I suggest that the church web site, "Historic Sites" is not teaching doctrine. It is a visual representation of various events as interpreted by various historians. I'm certain that if I had the time and inclination, I could contact the webmaster, and have him correct this caption so people like yourself don't have a litter of kittens. It is no big deal, and only certain individuals strain at a gnat to make it so.

[Russ]

Well there you go.. its official.. The Church espouses the Mesoamerica location....

Good point.

Which leads me to believe that the LDS church is now officially endorsing the likes of FAIR, FARMS (NMI) and perhaps even Lindsay.

[thesometimesaint]

Russ:

No it doesn't.

[Russ]

"Watson is not a general authority, and has no authority to declare doctrine.

You still take us for fools, do you?"

I never called you a fool.

If you're going to insist that I did, or that I think that of you, I have no reason to discuss anything at all with you.

[SolarPowered]

There is a link to a picture of the Hill Cumorah in New York. There are scripture references under the photo. One scripture reference is to Mormon 6:6 - "And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni."

The official church website shows a picture of the hill Cumorah in New York. Beneath the picture is a reference to a scripture that "all our people" gathered in the land of Cumorah, where the plates are hidden. The very next verse (7) begins the description of the battle. Where would you place the location of the battle based on this reading? Is the LDS web site wrong? [Emphasis added]

It would appear that whoever put together that section of the web site made the same mistake as I commented on earlier in this thread. Mormon 6:6, which he quotes, states that Mormon hid up the "the records which had been handed down by our fathers." These are the records that Mormon on several occasions states are so massive that he could not included even the "hundredth part" of them in the Book of Mormon. "[T]hese few plates", that is, that Book of Mormon, he gave to his son Moroni, and did not hide them up in the Hill Cumorah. Moroni then wandered with the plates for 30-odd years before he finally buried them in the hill in New York.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon to suggest that Moroni buried the Book of Mormon in the same place as his father hid up the records that had been handed down to him.

As has been vividly demonstrated earlier on this thread, people don't read what Mormon 6:6 actually says, and jump to the conclusion that Mormon buried the Book of Mormon in the Hill Cumorah, and then assume that the hill in New York is the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Saints early on started calling that hill in New York, "Cumorah", leading to the situation we have today where many members of the Church are under the mistaken assumption that Mormon 6:6 says that the hill in New York is the Hill Cumorah, when it is in fact that case that it does not say that.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, LDS-owned Deseret still offers for sale the Journal of Discources and the Book of Commandments, do they not?

So if you're going to tell me that something being sold by Deseret is good enough to be considered doctrine, well....

I didn't say that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is doctrine.

I say that there is no official Church doctrine on the topic.

I say that clear and overt contradictions of settled Church doctrine are not typically published and distributed by Deseret Book, repeatedly advocated by units of Brigham Young University, and featured in the Ensign.

I say that if a New York Cumorah were settled and official Church doctrine, clear and overt contradictions of that doctrine would not have been published and distributed by Deseret Book, repeatedly advocated by units of Brigham Young University, and featured in the Ensign.

Well there you go.. its official.. The Church espouses the Mesoamerica location.

I didn't say that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is doctrine.

I say that there is no official Church doctrine on the topic.

BTW, I seem to recall Will Bagleyâ??s Blood of Prophet is on the shelves at Deseret Book stores.. is that true?

Yes, it has been. Perhaps by mistake. Perhaps not.

Deseret Book carries a number of books, including many by non-LDS authors and from non-LDS publishers. Non-LDS books by non-LDS authors published by non-LDS publishers are not official statements of Church doctrine.

I didn't specify materials "published and distributed by Deseret Book" merely because I like phrases beginning with the same letter as my last name.

And I didn't throw the fact in that the notion of a Mesoamerican Cumorah and a Mesoamerican geographical model has been "repeatedly advocated by units of Brigham Young University, and featured in the Ensign" just because I wanted three clauses instead of one.

These statements have actual meaning. They're not just assemblies of sounds.

Did Deseret Book publish Will Bagley's volume? Has he advocated his views in the Ensign? Does any college, department, or institute at BYU regularly publish in support of his opinions?

If so, then by DCPâ??s logic that must also have been embraced by the Brethren.

When you actually follow my logic, you'll be in a considerably better position to extrapolate from it.

[SolarPowered]

Russ, I'm still waiting for an answer on the CFR for "Where, exactly, does 'the Book of Mormon tell us New York'?"

[Gervin]

Yes, there is a hill in NY called the Hill Cumorah. And, yes, that hill was where the records were buried. As mentioned elsewhere, "Cumorah" may have been a term, like the name "fort knox", with a specific meaning regarding the safe-keeping of the records, and can be applied to other locations. The caption makes no mention that this same hill is where the battle took place.

The picture of the Hill Cumorah in NY is linked with verse 6 where all the people are gathered. Verse 7 states that all the gathered people behold the armies of the Lamanites marching toward them. I'm not really interested in your "may have been a term" speculation. You wanted evidence that the church endorses the NY hill as the location of the battle. I've done that. It's not to your liking so you opine on words that "may have been" used differently.

Finally, may I suggest that the church web site, "Historic Sites" is not teaching doctrine. It is a visual representation of various events as interpreted by various historians.

A "teaching doctrine?" That's your phrase, not mine. If you think the church web site is wrong to reference Mormon 6:6 that's your perogative. It's clear to me, in picture and verse, that the church is showing the NY hill as the location of Mormon 6:6. You provide no compelling argument for why it is not the location of Mormon 6:7.

I'm certain that if I had the time and inclination, I could contact the webmaster, and have him correct this caption so people like yourself don't have a litter of kittens. It is no big deal, and only certain individuals strain at a gnat to make it so.

Correct the caption to read what? A "litter of kittens"? I'm not sure I know what that means - it sounds like you're attacking me when your beef is with the church web site and the corrections you might/might not suggest be be made.

All of the Nephites gather together in the land of Cumorah (verse 5).

The plates are hidden in the Hill Cumorah (verse 6 - see picture of NY).

All the people of the behold the armies of the Lamanites marching toward them (verse 7).

So, what is your basis for geographically disconnecting verses 6 and 7 in Mormon Chapter 6? Are you saying that between verse 6 and 7 there was a mass exodus of everyone to Central America?

[TAK]

DCP:

I didn't say that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is doctrine.

I say that there is no official Church doctrine on the topic.

No official doctrine today..

While you can parse all day what "Church doctrine" means or is, do you deny that Church leaders from the time of Joseph Smith to President Hinkley have taught in the past that "the "Hill Cumorah in NY - is the site of the last great BofM battle?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Russ, I'm still waiting for an answer on the CFR for "Where, exactly, does 'the Book of Mormon tell us New York'?"

Ill answer for Russ. Since Russ cant or wont.

It doesnt say any were in the text specifically were it is. Argument from silence.

[SolarPowered]

No official doctrine today..

While you can parse all day what "Church doctrine" means or is, do you deny that Church leaders from the time of Joseph Smith to President Hinkley have taught in the past that "the "Hill Cumorah in NY - is the site of the last great BofM battle?

Clearly, Church leaders have taught that. As I just wrote, people didn't read what Mormon 6:6 actually says, and jumped to the conclusion that the hill in New York is the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the Book of Mormon. That appears to be the case for some leaders of Church, as well.