we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words...

[Sevenbak]

As we've discussed these many geography threads, the thought that keeps coming back to me is that the BOM was written as a spiritual guide, not an historical one. Those who have advocated theories contrary to church teachings do so admittedly because of textual interpretations and supposed discrepancies in the record itself. I think we need to be careful that we don't put so much focus on specific textual variables that are in conflict with what has clearly been taught since the Church began. Here's why I think so:

Mormon 9:

31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Ether 12: 25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

Title Page:

...And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.

First English edition published in 1830

[orion88]

As we've discussed these many geography threads, the thought that keeps coming back to me is that the BOM was written as a spiritual guide, not an historical one.

Is that your way of saying you will still believe in the spiritual teachings

of the Book of Mormon even if its mentioned historical events never

actually happened on the American continent?

Tony

[Sevenbak]

Is that your way of saying you will still believe in the spiritual teachings

of the Book of Mormon even if its mentioned historical events never

actually happened on the American continent?

Tony

Ah contraire, it's been mentioned for 180 years, too numerous to mention. Plus, if what you are proposing were to occur, part of our scriptures would have to be thrown out the window. Namely these.

JS-H 1: 34

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the bfulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

Ether 13: 4, 6

4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.

6 And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type.

A of F 1: 10

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

[Brenda]

It is a spiritual guide and a historical guide. We can learn alot from the history and not to repeat its mistakes. The BoM is perfect for this. We do know it happened somewhere on the American continent, but where exactly, is unimportant. I think the Lord keeps these things a mystery to force us to accept it on faith. We are here on this earth to, among other things, learn faith. If the exact location was known and proven through scientific evidence, then no faith is needed. Someday we'll have all the evidence. Until then, we MUST use our faith/trust. We must gain our own testimony by following the teachings in the book, rather than seeing the physical proof.

[Kevin Christensen]

Sevenback says:

Those who have advocated theories contrary to church teachings do so admittedly because of textual interpretations and supposed discrepancies in the record itself.

The official church teaching on geography is that there is no offical church teaching. So those who insist that there is a "church teaching" to which all should unquestioningly adhere do so in contradiction of official church teaching. Ironic, isn't it? You've got it exactly backwards.

Those who have advocated a different geography than the traditional (but unoffical) hemispheric geography, with a New York Cumorah do so because they have read the text closely. They believe it, and take it seriously as the word of God, brought by an angel, translated by inspiration.

It's not discrepancies in the record, but consistencies. The text consistently places Cumorah near the narrow neck. The discrepancies are not within the Book of Mormon, but outside of it. That is, the assumption that the New York hill by whatever name must be with same as the Book of Mormon hill despite that evidence from the Book places it elsewhere. Oddly, that the Bountiful in the Old World from which Lehi sailed is never confused with the Bountiful in the New World where the Lord appeared at the Temple. Despite their having the same, name, the description makes it clear to everyone that the two places are different.

They do not assume that the Zelph stories from Zion's Camp gossip have superior insight to Mormon's book, noting that Zelph never appears in the Book of Mormon narrative. We have no Book of Zelph. We have no mention of Zelph anywhere except as contradictory and inconsistent camp gossip. The advocates of a LGH know that "lamanite" becomes a political designation very early in the Book of Mormon. Remember that the first serious attempt to piece together all internal geographic statements was published in 1938 by the Washburns. Joseph Fielding Smith, in responding to this emerging work an editorial in the Church News in the 1950s, appealed to "tradition" and nowhere provides an analysis of the relevant Book of Mormon passages. He did not provide a comprehensive reading of the passages that led LDS scholars to change their views on the scale of events, and the implication that Cumorah had to be near the narrow neck. Dismissing the problems that the text presents for the tradition is not the same thing as resolving those problems. Reading IS interpretation. There is no getting away from interpretation. The idea is to do it better.

Remember that Jesus said "No man also having drunk old wine straight away desireth the new: for he saith The old is better." (Luke 5:39)

Joseph Smith's language on the same topic is very colorful, on the difficulty in getting the Saints to accept new ideas, their tendency to resist, and to be so brittle as to shatter. But quoting that seems to have done no good.

Sperry's essay on "Were their Two Cumorah?" includes his admission that he used to defend the New York Cumorah idea, but goes on to discuss passages in the Book of Mormon that changed his mind when he actually got round to reading them and thinking a bit. That is, he shares the wine and explains exactly why he thinks the new understanding is better.

Sorenson, Clarke, and others have built on the Washburns' work, identifying around 1000 passages with geographic information. Rather than assuming that the Book of Mormon has "discrepancies" that allow a different reading, they read comprehensively. Rather than isolate a few "proof texts" they provide meaningful contexts for each passage. They build their case on those sets of related passages that have the least ambiguity of meaning, rather than generalizing from a few passages that are pregnant with ambiguity (for example, reading "the "land" as meaning the North American continent.)

But... as Joseph Smith said, "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine." It is rather frustrating, nevertheless.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Notquitewetyet]

We have no Book of Zelph.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Yes we do.

[shrff]

Those who have advocated theories contrary to church teachings do so admittedly because of textual interpretations and supposed discrepancies in the record itself. I think we need to be careful that we don't put so much focus on specific textual variables that are in conflict with what has clearly been taught since the Church began.

I call Meldrum on this.

The only person who is advocating anything contrary to Church teachings is you. The Church has no official policy on where the BOM took place, other than to say it was in the Western Hemisphere. In saying that the Church teaches anything else, you are setting yourself in opposition to official Church policy.

If you want to say that some General Authorities prior to about 1980 made statements indicating that some BOM events took place in North America, by all means do so. Please stop misrepresenting the official policy of the Church. Rod Meldrum has come around to this, and if you would do the same, you would have a lot more credibility.

Again, I wish that you or someone else would compile ALL of the GA statements that give some indication as to where the BOM took place (not just the statements that support your pet theory). This would go a long way in helping us to understand the historical development of ideas about where the BOM took place within the Church.

[shrff]

The advocates of a LGH know that "lamanite" becomes a political designation very early in the Book of Mormon.

I'd be interested in a CFR on this. I'd like to read more about this issue.

I don't want to steer this into another Zelph thread, but one of the things that I think has always been missing from Zelph discussions is an in-depth analysis of Lehite group identity. What was a Nephite or a Lamanite? What did Joseph consider to be a Nephite or a Lamanite? To his credit, Godfrey identifies the need for such a study when he said

Zelph was identified as a "Lamanite," a label agreed on by all the accounts. This term might refer to the ethnic and cultural category spoken of in the Book of Mormon as actors in the destruction of the Nephites, or it might refer more generally to a descendant of the earlier Lamanites and could have been considered in 1834 as the equivalent of "Indian" (see, for example, D&C 3:18, 20; 10:48; 28:8; 32:2). Nothing in the accounts can settle the question of Zelph's specific ethnic identity.

The study that I know of that examines Lehite group identity based on a reading of the BOM text was done by Johnson, and she focused on the Zoramites. I am finally getting around to reading some of the apologist books in addition to articles, however, and maybe I'll come across something buried in Sorenson's CV.

Until this issue is explored in more detail, I think it is impossible to situate Zelph and the various accounts of the Zelph incident in any kind of reasonable cultural context.

[Brant Gardner]

What was a Nephite or a Lamanite? What did Joseph consider to be a Nephite or a Lamanite?

The best definition comes from Jacob:

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. (Jacob 1:13 - 14)

There were lineage designations, which were available as genealogical categories later in the Book of Mormon, but two of those took on particular meanings, Lamanite and Nephite. Nephite is "us" --defined as a religio-political entity. Lamanite was "not-us, therefore enemy".

The question of what Joseph thought a Lamanite is very different. His definition doesn't really accord with Jacobs. He certainly began by assuming that Lamanites were the Native Americans in the west of "civilization." However, it appears that he expanded that definition, probably hemispherically.

The best discussion of the social definition of Lamanite is in Armand Mauss' All Abraham's Children. He covers the way the term changed meanings in the LDS community after the Book of Mormon. It is not useful, however, for a discussion of the meaning internal to the text.

[shrff]

The best definition comes from Jacob:

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. (Jacob 1:13 - 14)

There were lineage designations, which were available as genealogical categories later in the Book of Mormon, but two of those took on particular meanings, Lamanite and Nephite. Nephite is "us" --defined as a religio-political entity. Lamanite was "not-us, therefore enemy".

I think that there is probably more to this issue. My reading of the text seems to indicate that the terms Nephite and Lamanite meant different things in different times and places. Certainly Jacob makes things fairly clear in his day, but in other times and places I think that the terms meant other things. I think the terms could have some of the same latitude as "Jew" and "Gentile". Of course, only a comprehensive analysis of the entire text could determine this with any degree of certainty.

Maybe when my dissertation is done...

[Sevenbak]

Yes we do.

OK, that's funny.

But seriously, I notice that most LGT folks mock at Zelph and discount the statements and journals, including Joseph's to Emma the next day about the "plains of the nephites". Zelph becomes a thorn, more sharp and dangerous than the "lamanitish arrow" that killed him.

[Sevenbak]

I call Meldrum on this.

The only person who is advocating anything contrary to Church teachings is you. The Church has no official policy on where the BOM took place, other than to say it was in the Western Hemisphere. In saying that the Church teaches anything else, you are setting yourself in opposition to official Church policy.

If you want to say that some General Authorities prior to about 1980 made statements indicating that some BOM events took place in North America, by all means do so. Please stop misrepresenting the official policy of the Church. Rod Meldrum has come around to this, and if you would do the same, you would have a lot more credibility.

Again, I wish that you or someone else would compile ALL of the GA statements that give some indication as to where the BOM took place (not just the statements that support your pet theory). This would go a long way in helping us to understand the historical development of ideas about where the BOM took place within the Church.

I guess it's Meldrum all around then. The Chruch's stance and statements since the beginning have been consistent. In recent years, there has been NO statements on actual places, but the Church has NOT discounted all that has been stated by so many over so long a time. If they do accept Sorenson's theories, and throw everything else out as conjecture, then I'll be more apt to take it seriously.

[Brant Gardner]

I think that there is probably more to this issue. My reading of the text seems to indicate that the terms Nephite and Lamanite meant different things in different times and places. Certainly Jacob makes things fairly clear in his day, but in other times and places I think that the terms meant other things. I think the terms could have some of the same latitude as "Jew" and "Gentile". Of course, only a comprehensive analysis of the entire text could determine this with any degree of certainty.

Maybe when my dissertation is done...

Jacob is actually making the same distinction as Jew and Gentile. It is the quintessential insider/outsider vocabulary. If you are part of us, you are Nephite, if not you are Lamanite. What changes is that in later times, the insider/outsider is polity related rather than religion. This is unusual, because typically if you were in the Nephite polity your were part of their religion (until the schisms, of course) and if you were of the Nephite religion, you were in the Nephite polity.

This changes late in the Book of Mormon and we have righteous Lamanites who are outside of the Nephite polity. That didn't typically happen (the Anti-Nephi-Lehies move to the Nephite polity). Mormon uses them much as Jacob used the concept of "Lamanites more righteous than Nephites." It is a slap in the face to Nephite religious identity.

[Brant Gardner]

I guess it's Meldrum all around then. The Chruch's stance and statements since the beginning have been consistent. In recent years, there has been NO statements on actual places, but the Church has NOT discounted all that has been stated by so many over so long a time. If they do accept Sorenson's theories, and throw everything else out as conjecture, then I'll be more apt to take it seriously.

I'm confused. You are correct that the official church stance has always been neutral. It is also true that to maintain neutrality, they don't specifically endorse what people have said (historically or in more modern times).

What I don't see is your last sentence. You know that they won't officially accept the LGT (and specifically not the particular flavor of a particular person - wise, I believe). They also, for the same reason, won't "throw everything else out as conjecture." They remain neutral.

I don't understand quite how you make the move from neutral to doctrinaire only on older statements, but not newer ones. Since neither are official, and some were au courant in the late 1800's and different ones were au courantin the late 1900's, why were the early ones inherently correct and the later ones incorrect--when the church has exactly the same relationship to them?

[Sevenbak]

I'm confused. You are correct that the official church stance has always been neutral. It is also true that to maintain neutrality, they don't specifically endorse what people have said (historically or in more modern times).

What I don't see is your last sentence. You know that they won't officially accept the LGT (and specifically not the particular flavor of a particular person - wise, I believe). They also, for the same reason, won't "throw everything else out as conjecture." They remain neutral.

I don't understand quite how you make the move from neutral to doctrinaire only on older statements, but not newer ones. Since neither are official, and some were au courant in the late 1800's and different ones were au courantin the late 1900's, why were the early ones inherently correct and the later ones incorrect--when the church has exactly the same relationship to them?

When did the "official" stance become neutral? The church stance has certainly been more aggressive than in recent times. Why do you think it's being more careful now in neutrality? Does that mean it's long held stance is not there, or does it mean they are not putting any new teachings out? They certainly haven't repudiated any teachings about it's location.

[Brant Gardner]

When did the "official" stance become neutral?

At least by 1890, probably earlier. Here is something I wrote as part of a review for FARMS Review:

Various opinions about where the Book of Mormon occurred developed relatively early. It is important to remember in our discussions of geography and the Book of Mormon that this has been left in the hands of the researchers and is not a matter of official church doctrine or definition. There were sufficient differences of opinion that George Q. Cannon felt it important to address the issue in 1890. Cannon personally knew Joseph Smith and lived with his uncle, John Taylor, during the terrible time when Taylor accompanied Joseph and Hyrum to Liberty jail. (“George Q. Cannon,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Q._Cannon, retrieved Sept. 2008) He worked with his uncle at the Times and Seasons, and was certainly in a position to know whether there was an established geography. Later, as a member of the First Presidency, he noted:

The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared to even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now obscure . . . . Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go. . . .(George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor (January 1, 1890); reprinted in The Instructor 73/4 [April 1938]: 159-60. Quotation copied from research by Matthew Roper, posted on the FAIR Blog, Sept. 13, 2008, http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/03/examini...side/#comments)

[Sevenbak]

At least by 1890, probably earlier. Here is something I wrote as part of a review for FARMS Review:

Various opinions about where the Book of Mormon occurred developed relatively early. It is important to remember in our discussions of geography and the Book of Mormon that this has been left in the hands of the researchers and is not a matter of official church doctrine or definition. There were sufficient differences of opinion that George Q. Cannon felt it important to address the issue in 1890. Cannon personally knew Joseph Smith and lived with his uncle, John Taylor, during the terrible time when Taylor accompanied Joseph and Hyrum to Liberty jail. (â??George Q. Cannon,â? Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Q._Cannon, retrieved Sept. 2008) He worked with his uncle at the Times and Seasons, and was certainly in a position to know whether there was an established geography. Later, as a member of the First Presidency, he noted:

You are confusing a "map of geography" with the teachings about the location of Cumorah, which have been taught constantly before and since 1890. I would agree that other than that location, no others have been readily taught. Nor do I think they have been revealed.

Here's a few who have taught the Cumorah location since 1890.

Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928, Morning Session - "The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them.

"The Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, Volume 2, Number 2, page 221 - "Cumorah, the artificial hill of north America, is well calculated to stand in this generation, as a monument of marvelous works and wonders. Around that mount died millions of the Jaredites; yea, there ended one of the greatest nations of this earth. In that day, her inhabitants spread from sea to sea, and enjoyed national greatness and glory, nearly fifteen hundred years. -- That people forsook the Lord and died in wickedness. There, too, fell the Nephites, after they had forgotten the Lord that bought them. There slept the records of age after age, for hundreds of years, even until the time of the Lord."

James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith , chapter 14 - "The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York ."

Marion G. Romney, General Conference, October 4, 1975. Ensign November. 1975 page 35 - "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. 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.... In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the â??hill Cumorah.â? On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries agoâ??events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation."

LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, chapter 7 - "Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the State of New York."

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966 - "Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us a pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.

"B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, page 277 - "This time it will have to do with so important a matter as a war of extinction of two peoples, the Nephites and the Jaredites, on the self-same battle site, with the same 'hill' marking the axis of military movements. By the Nephites this 'hill' was called the 'Hill Cumorah,' by the Jaredites the 'Hill Ramah'; it was that same 'hill,' in which the Nephite records were deposited by Mormon and Moroni, and from which Joseph Smith obtained the Book of Mormon, therefore the 'Mormon Hill,' of todayâ??since the coming forth of the Book of Mormonâ??near Palmyra, New York.

B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Volume 3, Chapter 34, page 67 - "According to the Book of Mormon the Hill Cumorah of the Nephites--the Ramah of the Jaredites--must be regarded as a natural monument overlooking ancient and extensive battle fields. Around it early in the sixth century B.C., the Jaredites were destroyed. Here, also, a thousand years later, at the close of the fourth century A. D., the Nephites met with practical annihilation in a battle which, whether judged by the importance of the changes it wrought in the affairs of one of the world's continents, or the number slain, ranks as one of the world's great battles. In view of these Book of Mormon facts one would naturally expect to find some evidences in this section of the country for such wonderful historical events. Here one has a right to expect the evidences of military fortifications; for, though a thousand years had elapsed between the destruction of the Nephites and the discovery of America by the Europeans, still some military monuments would doubtless survive that length of time."

George Reynolds, The Story of the Book of Mormon, Chapter 69, page 325 - "One of the most noted places in ancient American history was the land in which was situated the hill known to the Jaredites as Ramah and to the Nephites as Cumorah. In its vicinity two great races were exterminated; for it was there that the last battles were fought in the history of both peoples. There also the sacred records of the Nephites found their final resting place."

[Brant Gardner]

You are confusing a "map of geography" with the teachings about the location of Cumorah, which have been taught constantly before and since 1890. I would agree that other than that location, no others have been readily taught. Nor do I think they have been revealed.

Then we agree. There is no geography. There have been a large number of people who taught that the New York drumlin was the very Cumorah of scripture.

Now the only problem is discovering if they were right. The tradition of equating the NY hill with the Book of Mormon hill happened very early and was widely accepted. Even when geographies were speculated, that one one stayed fixed. However, the question is how the connection was made in the first place. The Book of Mormon only tells us that its hill didn't have Moroni's plates buried in it. We might speculate that it happened later, but that is speculation. What the text says, the only thing it says, is that they were not.

The text also tells us that the Jaredite Ramah was the same hill as the Nephite Cumorah. That is fixed. Wherever Cumorah is, then, we should be able to find Jaredites. When we take the text's reuquirements to the real world, the NY hill has real problems in being the one in the Book of Mormon.

If the NY hill has problems fitting the text (which should be the highest arbiter of its own world) why did the tradition begin so early and become so strong? I have been looking at the early group of saints and there is some evidence that the association of the NY hill with Cumorah was part of a general process of associating the exciting new story with their own understanding. In another very strong tradition, we know that the urim and thummim were used to translate the Book of Mormon (and it has been preached by as many authorities for as long as the NY Cumorah). The problem is that it isn't technically true. The Urim and Thummim are prophetic devices from the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon has interpreters, not the Urim and Thummim. Early, someone equated the interpreters with the Urim and Thummim, and the equation was sufficiently strong to carry over to the seer stone, which also became called the Urim and Thummin.

In the case of the Urim and Thummim, we have enough information to trace out some of the trajectory of this labeling phenomenon. We can see that both the interpreters and the seer stone, known to be two distinct objects, became labeled Urim and Thummim, even though there was no reason, from the text, to do so. It becomes very difficult, were one to assume that they were the very Urim and Thummim of the Israelite priests, to find a way to have them show up in the New World with the Jaredites (where we have reference to the interpreters).

If we can tell that Urim and Thummim was a label applied (in faith, but in error) to the interpreters and seer stone, why should be surprised that Cumorah would also be a label applied in faith, but in error, to the NY hill?

[Kevin Christensen]

Sevenbak cites President Romney, which contains this interesting bit:

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.

Most of case depends on appeals to authority and tradition of course, and the assumption that the early association with the New York hill works. But part of the argument in this case involves a limited appeal to the Book of Mormon text description. Finally. But the issue remains that this very limited use of a Book of Mormon description does not uniquely identify the hill. Other place in the Americas have many rivers and fountains. Indeed, Sorenson offers a good candidate. Nor does the Book of Mormon contain any specific description that would identify Lake Erie, such as a description of Niagra falls, nor the heavy snows caused by the Lake effects. If the rest of North and South America were desert, and the Palmyra area contained the only lakes and fountains, the case would be stronger. But that passage alone doesn't settle the issue. So the appeal goes not to the Book of Mormon, but to tradition, making the Word of God (in this case, the Book of Mormon) of none effect.

I'm still waiting for a sensible reading of the Limihi story that could at least account for the same kinds of things that Sorenson (distances), and Gardner (linguistic and cultural issues) and Poulsen do (explaining exactly how Limhi's explorers could get list by looking at the Usumacinta river, the Jaredite travels that Sperry mentions, something that makes sense of the military movements, as Sorenson discusses in Mormon's Map.

Rather that address these issues, we just get more multiplying authorities who show no evidence anywhere of having addressed the issues raised by the text. When the text is not the foundation, what are you building upon? If the tradition is based on revelation, why doesn't it fit the text? However, if the tradition is just that, we can look to the text first.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA