Prophet and Apostle statements on Cumorah location

[thesometimesaint]

AndyOne:

There is nothing special about the word "country" that it need only apply to Upper State New York of the mid 1800's. It all depends on context.

[AndyOne]

AndyOne:

There is nothing special about the word "country" that it need only apply to Upper State New York of the mid 1800's. It all depends on context.

Yes, and when the obvious context doesn't fit the facts - just find another one that does, I get it. Wouldn't it be easier if we could just rely on the plain English meaning of things said by past leaders?

[T-Shirt]

It would be helpful to the discussion to know by whom and where they said the hill was.

Helpful for what? Why does this matter at all? Does it really trouble you that much to consider the possibility that a General Authority could be mistaken?

Best,

T-Shirt

[ERayR]

I'm assuming that JS was "informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, ..."

Why? Because he said so. If Moroni lived in Mesoamerica, why waste time talking about the aboriginal inhabitants of the US?

You are making huge assumptions from this little bit of information. Joseph says he was "...shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, ...". Joseph does not say this country was the place where the BoM took place only who they were etc.

I am not arguing either theory only that you are assuming things that are not in evidence. You are attaching your own interpretation to the information. My interpretation (without any more evidence than you have) is he was shown the above but not in a geographical context and his assumptions were this country. My evidence for this is that he later became interested in mesoamerica and indicated that the exploration there should produce BoM evidences. If he had revelation that the geography was the US why was he interested in Mesoamerican archeology?

[thesometimesaint]

AndyOne;

Unfortunately common usage may or may not be the one that we think the author is using. Plus the same word my have more than one definition. For example I live in the Country of the United States of America, but the country about which I live is hilly Chaparral

[AndyOne]

You are making huge assumptions from this little bit of information. Joseph says he was "...shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, ...". Joseph does not say this country was the place where the BoM took place only who they were etc.

I am not arguing either theory only that you are assuming things that are not in evidence. You are attaching your own interpretation to the information. My interpretation (without any more evidence than you have) is he was shown the above but not in a geographical context and his assumptions were this country. My evidence for this is that he later became interested in mesoamerica and indicated that the exploration there should produce BoM evidences. If he had revelation that the geography was the US why was he interested in Mesoamerican archeology?

Well, let's read what else he says:

"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

Why the multiple references to "this country" in a letter written to someone in Chicago?

[BCSpace]

1. Where you think it is.

2. GA statements supporting your viewpoint.

Considering the nature of doctrine (all 15 apostles must agree), why must there be GA statements? What does that prove? More interesting I think would be something from an official Church publication (which of course can contain GA statements).

Having said that, I think the BoM Cumorah is in Mesoamerica and the JS Cummorah (two Cumorah's) is in New York. The Church seems to allow for this based on the 1984 Ensign articles by Sorenson.

[thesometimesaint]

AndyOne:

Because there is ambiguity in what "country" JS was in reference to.

[AndyOne]

AndyOne:

Because there is ambiguity in what "country" JS was in reference to.

Do you think Mr. Wentworth found it ambiguous? Doubt it.

[ERayR]

Well, let's read what else he says:

"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

Why the multiple references to "this country" in a letter written to someone in Chicago?

See sometimessaint's posts above concerning this country.

From his post above "Unfortunately common usage may or may not be the one that we think the author is using"

Yes, and when the obvious context doesn't fit the facts - just find another one that does, I get it. Wouldn't it be easier if we could just rely on the plain English meaning of things said by past leaders?

Unfortunatly English isn't always that plain. Unfortunatly we all speak and opine with the information we have available at the time. Unfortunatly that information is not always complete or correct. So it behooves us, in cases like this, to refrain from taking a single statement but to look at the progression of the statements on the issue. In this case Joseph may have started out believing it was North America but the evidence suggests that before he was killed he was leaning toward Mesoamerican. Other people including church leaders reading his early ideas and not his later progression formulated their own ideas to aline with the early statements.

As I stated before it does not seem likley that Moroni or any other visitor spent much if any time on geography.

[AndyOne]

"As I stated before it does not seem likley that Moroni or any other visitor spent much if any time on geography."

If the evidence were more favorable to the traditional model, I suspect things would seem otherwise ... Ambiguity seems a nice remedy for facts that aren't helpful.

[Anijen]

This whole thread is worded to the advantage of a final battle in Cumorah of New York. It is biased in its conception. I find it interesting that the same people who advocate a great lakes area or NY as final battle always quote the same people even some who have had changed their mind later (BH Roberts, yet they still use only his earlier quotes that side with their position). I also find it interesting the quotes are asked for, many are given but immediately dismissed because they go against the desired target of this thread (like Ray Agustini post was dismissed by Sevenbak).

This thread serves IMO no purpose but to slam the LGT and those who advocate it. They dismiss logical argument and not allow discussion or debate.

One latter day President of the Church says the tomb of Christ is one place another President of the church says it is another place. This only proves that at the highest level of the church it is their opinion only and every single quote given by advocates for either side are quoting opinion and nothing close to doctrine as far as geography goes. Or I could use Sevenbaks logic and say that the first Prophet who said the tomb was in place "A" is true because he declared a place before a later Prophet did.

I also note that those who are for NY hill Cumorah as the final battle place, their best argument is these old quotes and very little if not nothing from archeology or anthropology, etc. Why is this? Because the LGT in Mesoamerica theory is much stronger in matching up with the Book of Mormon.

I believe the Hill Cumorah was the very hill that Moroni deposited Mormon's abridged portion of the plates, the Sword of Laban, U&T and Liahona. It is the same Hill that Joseph recieved the plates. It is a sacred place in our history and I hold it to be so. However there is no proof that it is the hill of the final battle.

Geography by tradition is weak

Anijen~ who if you cant guess is a advocate of the LGT

[ERayR]

"As I stated before it does not seem likley that Moroni or any other visitor spent much if any time on geography."

If the evidence were more favorable to the traditional model, I suspect things would seem otherwise ... Ambiguity seems a nice remedy for facts that aren't helpful.

You would be wrong in your assumption. You see the geography of the BoM is immaterial. It doesn't matter where it took place it is the message. It is the same with the Bible. It's geographic location is simply interesting information.

But then again if you have chosen to reject it you would be looking for any excuse to do so.

[Anijen]

You would be wrong in your assumption. You see the geography of the BoM is immaterial. It doesn't matter where it took place it is the message. It is the same with the Bible. It's geographic location is simply interesting information.

But then again if you have chosen to reject it you would be looking for any excuse to do so.

You are right geography doesn't matter. The book and its message is to bring us to Christ.

[Rob Osborn]

Huh!! Sure it says Cumorah but it doesn't say anything about it being BoM lands. I live in Idaho and when someone says they are going to Moscow we assume they are going to north Idaho but they just might be going to Russia.

Ya I suppose you may be right in some technical sense. However, I would find it very very strange if the "land of Cumorah" as mentioned in the D&C is different than the "land of Cumorah" as found in the Book of Mormon-

1 AND now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites.

2 And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

3 And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites did grant unto me the thing which I desired.

4 And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of amany waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.

5 And *when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah.

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.

(Book of Mormon | Mormon 6:1 - 6)

From the "Guide to the Scriptures"-

CUMORAH, HILL. See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr.

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

(Guide to the Scriptures | C Cumorah, Hill.:Entry)

NowI suppose one could debate that there were two hill cumorahs, two land os cumorah, etc. But the area surrounding the Hill Cumorah in New York matches up very well with the land od Cumorah in the boM. It was in a land of many waters, rivers and fountains. That is precisely what one finds in the area--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Lakes

Here is a good site regardingt he evidence of ancient hill cumorah and surrounding area.-

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/link%20two.htm

[AndyOne]

You would be wrong in your assumption. You see the geography of the BoM is immaterial. It doesn't matter where it took place it is the message. It is the same with the Bible. It's geographic location is simply interesting information.

But then again if you have chosen to reject it you would be looking for any excuse to do so.

We are in complete agreement on the bolded portion above.

[ERayR]

We are in complete agreement on the bolded portion above.

It is, I think, good that we can agree on at least one thing.

[AndyOne]

It is, I think, good that we can agree on at least one thing.

It is - you'll rarely find me critical of the doctrinal value of the BoM.

[ERayR]

Ya I suppose you may be right in some technical sense. However, I would find it very very strange if the "land of Cumorah" as mentioned in the D&C is different than the "land of Cumorah" as found in the Book of Mormon-

1 AND now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites.

2 And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

3 And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites did grant unto me the thing which I desired.

4 And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of amany waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.

5 And *when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah.

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.

(Book of Mormon | Mormon 6:1 - 6)

From the "Guide to the Scriptures"-

CUMORAH, HILL. See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr.

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

(Guide to the Scriptures | C Cumorah, Hill.:Entry)

NowI suppose one could debate that there were two hill cumorahs, two land os cumorah, etc. But the area surrounding the Hill Cumorah in New York matches up very well with the land od Cumorah in the boM. It was in a land of many waters, rivers and fountains. That is precisely what one finds in the area--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Lakes

Here is a good site regardingt he evidence of ancient hill cumorah and surrounding area.-

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/link%20two.htm

You are very welcome to find it any way you want. I have researched this question quite a bit but not exhaustivly and I have reached my own conclusions which too are of little value to anybody but me. As I stated above the geography is just plain immaterial. It just doesn't make any difference.

[Obiwan]

So, with all the back and forth on this topic, I thought it might be a good idea to bring any and all GA statements on Cumorah's location to light.

No matter which camp you are in, please add to this discussion by stating the following:

1. Where you think it is.

2. GA statements supporting your viewpoint.

Please, this is not a discussion of overall BOM lands, but where the final battle took place and where Mormon hid up all the records.

I'll start. I realize there are many, so here's just a few supporting this view. I may add more as needed, but feel free to add more with additional posts.

I don't have the quotes, but Joseph Smith himself said a time or two indicating a South American setting, even saying Lehi landed some 30 degrees south of the equator.

And I know other leaders have said similar....

Of course, your anti-mormon out of context quoting doesn't help with the real truth you know as to what these men actually believed.

Ever think that maybe most of them weren't talking about BOM events, but just the Cumorah we know?

Anyway....

[Ray Agostini]

Rather than go off chasing Bigfoot, can we keep the discussion on track. It's a simple request. Rather than implying that such men like Talmage, McConkie, etc, or others that don't hold your view, aren't capable of reading the text of the BOM critically, please give General Authority statements on the location of Cumorah, that match your view, if you please.

Bigfoot is the search for Book of Mormon lands, because they dont exist. Dont ask me for General Authority statements to back up your clear bias, either. Talmage and Mc Conkie were not archaeologists. One might loosely grace Talmage with the term theologian, and he clearly did not understand the Book of Mormon as well as scholars in the last 30 years have come to understand it. Do you think Talmage would have known what chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is? Mc Conkie, IMO, cannot even be termed a theologian. He died one year after Sorensons Ensign article was published. He would have had a very limited understanding, if any, of what Sorenson was proposing, as his book came out the year Mc Conkie died.

Now, I should make something clear to you. I am not a believer in Mormonism. I do not believe Joseph Smith was a divine prophet. I do not believe that the Church General Authorities speak to God anymore than any ordinary person can or does. I categorically do not believe that the Book of Mormon is history. And finally, I dont believe you belong to the only true Church on earth.

I entered this thread because any objective observer can see that even in this hypothetical historical Book of Mormon scenario, the General Authorities of the past did not understand it. Being historical is not necessary for any observer to see where they were wrong, and clearly misunderstood it. If it were a work of fiction by, say, Tolkien, then they did not even understand the fiction they were reading, as far as scrutiny of its geography is concerned. The evidences for this have been presented, but its apparent to me that all you are interested in is vindicating your prophets, even though they were wrong, in regard to the internal setting for the Book of Mormon (which supposedly reflects a real external setting, but good luck with proving that to non-Mormon archaeologists). And you have refused to look at possible reasons why they were wrong, and why, in reality, by the statements of later leaders themselves, they did not need to be right while traversing the Valley of Opinion. I thought those statements were very clear, but by all means, don't let me stop you shooting yourself in the foot.

And on that qualifier I exit this thread.

[Duncan]

"There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true".

President Anthony W. ivins

April 1929 General Conference

[Sevenbak]

This could be an interesting exercise, although, it will not establish whether any events described in the BOM actually took place in the Palmyra area. As has been reiterated many, many, oh so many times, individual GA statements do not define church doctrine. No matter how many GA statements the proponents of any geographic setting trot out, the statements will never constitute a doctrinal statement on this matter.

I would be interested to see a complete list of GA statements on where the BOM took place with the year of the statement attached. These data would go a long way in helping to establish the historical development of where people in the Church thought the BOM took place.

I don't think this is a matter of doctrine, it's a matter of knowledge and understanding.

[Sevenbak]

This seems like an odd exercise. The "camp" that supposes Cumorah/Ramah to have been elsewhere already concedes the views you're in the process of collecting. The other "camp" doesn't need them. Although I suppose it may serve to nourish the reserve of those already in the second "camp," as per the argument Elizabeth makes to Darcy in Pride and Prejudice:

And so ended his affection, said Elizabeth impatiently. There has

been many a one, I fancy, overcome in the same way. I wonder who first

discovered the efficacy of poetry in driving away love!

I have been used to consider poetry as the _food_ of love, said Darcy.

Of a fine, stout, healthy love it may. Everything nourishes what is

strong already. But if it be only a slight, thin sort of inclination, I

am convinced that one good sonnet will starve it entirely away.

Regards

Actually there are many camps, but only one founded upon the words of prophets and apostles. At least as far as I can tell from reading all the answers here showing everything except supporting GA statements on their theory.

[Sevenbak]

Some take issue with a plain English reading of this statement by JS concerning his communications with Moroni:

"I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me ..."

I'm just saying that one should expect JS to have had a pretty informed view about the location of BoM events.

I agree. Then add the words recorded in the PoGP.

Joseph Smith History 1:34

"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."

Both Continent and Country are mentioned, but the OP question had to do with Cumorah, not general BOM lands. Sorry for the digression...