Prophet and Apostle statements on Cumorah location

[Sevenbak]

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

All General Authorities who have every spoken on the subject? Are you saying all are wrong because they don't fit into your theory?

I'm still waiting on a single GA that says Cumorah wasn't in NY. Anyone?

Why on earth should I put the words of Sorrenson above the words of the brethren. It absolutely makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Sevenbak]

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.

This isn't a doctrinal question. It's a simple inquiry to show all GA statements on the location of Cumorah. So far, we've only seen NY. I had assumed there would be dissenting ones, given the big belief in the LGT. Can someone provide any?

The article was by Sorenson, not a GA, and I know of no GA who teaches his view. In fact, the opposite is true. The correlated CES curriculum still teaches a single Cumorah.

[Sevenbak]

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

Yes, the whole thread is asking a specific question... Where was Ramah / Cumorah according to the brethren. There can be only one. And these aren't just old quotes either, I don't know where you are getting that from. And as near as I can tell, only one location has every been pinpointed by so many statements by the Brethren. Feel free to correct me.

[T-Shirt]

All General Authorities who have every spoken on the subject?

Well, so far, you have mentioned only eight. That is not very many in comparison to the total number of General Authorities since 1830.

Are you saying all are wrong because they don't fit into your theory?

No, it has nothing to do with "my theory". I think they are wrong because that is what the evidence suggests. I would be perfectly happy for the real Hill Cumorah to be in New York, but the evidence suggests otherwise. It doesn't matter to me that some General Authorities have indicated that they thought the hill is in New York, none of them have claimed their believe to be inspired and there is no reason that any member should be required to accept their statements as absolute truth.

I'm still waiting on a single GA that says Cumorah wasn't in NY. Anyone?

Who cares? Why does it matter?

Why on earth should I put the words of Sorrenson above the words of the brethren.

Why should anyone feel obligated to believe one way or another when no General Authority has ever made an authoritative statement, nor claimed inspiration on the matter ?

It absolutely makes no sense to me whatsoever.

To me either....only in reverse.

Best,

T-Shirt

[Sevenbak]

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

Huzzah good brother!!

[J Green]

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.

Do the authors of the text in question count as prophets and apostles too?

Just checking.

[dblagent007]

Why on earth should I put the words of Sorrenson above the words of the brethren. It absolutely makes no sense to me whatsoever.

You have to accept Sorensen or it all falls apart. It is not even plausible for the BOM to have been set in the great lakes region.

[cinepro]

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.

No, but the newsroom statement doesn't say that they have to utter it. It only says they "counsel together" to determine what is consistently proclaimed in Church materials.

So instead of asking whether the apostles or prophets are declaring it from the pulpit, we should be asking whether it is "consistently proclaimed in Church publications".

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the idea that the upperstate New York drumlin = BoM "Cumorah" might have consistent support in Church publications. Perhaps we should expand the scope of this thread to include official Church publications to see if it meets the standard set by the LDS newsroom?

[Anijen]

No, but the newsroom statement doesn't say that they have to utter it. It only says they "counsel together" to determine what is consistently proclaimed in Church materials.

So instead of asking whether the apostles or prophets are declaring it from the pulpit, we should be asking whether it is "consistently proclaimed in Church publications".

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the idea that the upperstate New York drumlin = BoM "Cumorah" might have consistent support in Church publications. Perhaps we should expand the scope of this thread to include official Church publications to see if it meets the standard set by the LDS newsroom?

Then I would include in that all the church videos that portray a tropical climate for the BoM, Actual temple dedicatory prayers of temples in Mexico. These all support that the BoM was in Mesoamerica and not in a frozen upstate New York. Perhaps they counseled together and determined now the thinking is more in line with the LGT scholars huh?

[J Green]

No, but the newsroom statement doesn't say that they have to utter it. It only says they "counsel together" to determine what is consistently proclaimed in Church materials.

So instead of asking whether the apostles or prophets are declaring it from the pulpit, we should be asking whether it is "consistently proclaimed in Church publications".

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the idea that the upperstate New York drumlin = BoM "Cumorah" might have consistent support in Church publications. Perhaps we should expand the scope of this thread to include official Church publications to see if it meets the standard set by the LDS newsroom?

Perhaps we could also include the following sentence in the statement as well so we could better focus our efforts:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

You seem to be suggesting that there has been some sort of "counsel" of Church leadership on the topic of Cumorah's location similar to that which resulted in OD 2 and that this "counsel" has led to various brethren opining on the subject over the years individually instead of collectively as in The Proclamation on the Family, etc. I'm very curious to hear the details of this counsel.

But at least you're using the statement in part. For that I'm grateful. The last time we talked about what is official doctrine that is binding on the Church you didn't seem too enthusiastic about accepting the statement at all. At least you're halfway there now.

[Rob Osborn]

You have to accept Sorensen or it all falls apart. It is not even plausible for the BOM to have been set in the great lakes region.

Who says the BoM takes place in the Great Lakes region? Sure, maybe part of it takes place there- the final battles, but the BoM does not state a reference of distance from their main land to the Great Lakes region. We absolutely do not know how far away the land of Cumorah was from Zarahemla, The land of Desolation, the land of Nephi, etc. All we have is that it was an exceedingly far distance.

We do not know where for sure the main BoM lands even take place other than it was somewhere on the North and/or South American Continents.

Personally the American historical accounts of Western New York tell many the story of great ancient battles. It is not a question of "if" these battles took place in New York, it is only a question of who built all the fortifications topping the hills, the millins of war artifacts and piles of bones that showed up everywhere causing everyone to wonder what great battle had taken place where they were now trying to farm and cultivate the land.

[BCSpace]

Does Sorensen's Ensign article supercede countless GA statements? How does an academic's opinion, even if published in the Ensign, supercede the statements of so many apostles and prophets?

It would certainly superceed anything not found in an official publication because the Ensign itself is an official publication.

[cinepro]

Perhaps we could also include the following sentence in the statement as well so we could better focus our efforts:

You seem to be suggesting that there has been some sort of "counsel" of Church leadership on the topic of Cumorah's location similar to that which resulted in OD 2 and that this "counsel" has led to various brethren opining on the subject over the years individually instead of collectively as in The Proclamation on the Family, etc. I'm very curious to hear the details of this counsel.

But at least you're using the statement in part. For that I'm grateful. The last time we talked about what is official doctrine that is binding on the Church you didn't seem too enthusiastic about accepting the statement at all. At least you're halfway there now.

The statement itself implies that the things that are taught "consistently" in official Church publications should be considered doctrinal. It doesn't say that such teachings need to be formalized to the level of an Official Declaration or Proclamation. It just says that the things which are "consistently proclaimed" in the Church publications. If we limited our "doctrine" to only those things which were found in Official Declarations and Proclamations, it would be a small volume indeed. As for things which are found in the Standard Works, it has already been noted that there are scriptures that refer to the New York drumlin as "Cumorah". Whether it was being referred to as the same Cumorah as that in the Book of Mormon, or another hill by the same name, is an argument for apologists to make.

As for the Newsroom statement itself, other than questioning the validity of anonymous, non-doctrinal statements and their power to define LDS doctrine to begin with, I think it is a rather fine statement. Considering the number of apologetic arguments that rely on unpublished, unofficial sources, (or ask us to ignore consistently published teachings), I predict the statement will become much more annoying to defenders of the faith than to any critic. I suspect it will be "reinterpreted", downplayed or ignored by apologists in coming years as the reality of what has been consistently, officially taught (see my sig) becomes more clear.

[J Green]

cinepro:

The statement itself implies that the things that are taught "consistently" in official Church publications should be considered doctrinal. It doesn't say that such teachings need to be formalized to the level of an Official Declaration or Proclamation. It just says that the things which are "consistently proclaimed" in the Church publications.

I think we're going to disagree on what part the second sentence plays here, so I'll take a pass on trying to press the point. I'll simply point out that if we focus on the only sentence that seems to matter to you, that you have now changed the argument since your last post. The sentence in question reads as follows:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

The important part here is that actual discussion takes place with united leadership on a given topic that is then consistently reflected in official church publications. In this post you have put great weight on the second part of the formula while completely ignoring the first. You assume that we can turn a given number of occurrences on topic x into gold by some alchemical slight of hand. But this leaves out the united discussion that is the main point. Yet you acknowledged this aspect in your previous post, where you stated:

No, but the newsroom statement doesn't say that they have to utter it. It only says they "counsel together" to determine what is consistently proclaimed in Church materials.

To which I asked what counsel you could point to where the brethren discussed the location of Cumorah and came to some kind of conclusion. But you ignored this entire line of thought in your reply. Instead, you chose to focus on the second part of the sentence about what is published. You have changed your argument from acknowledging the necessity of both a group discussion followed by consistent articulation in official publications to only stipulating the latter.

However, in this case, even if we were to waive the first part, you can't prove the second. Between the "Times and Seasons," the "Juvenile Instructor," "The Instructor," and other official publications, there are enough statements from George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, John A. Widtsdsoe, and others to the effect that the official location of Cumorah has not been revealed. These kind of quotes are going to take the "consistency" out of any other quotes you marshal to create your own doctrine for the Church.

Regards

[Freedom]

I have a book called 'Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon'. Edited by Donald Parry and Daniel Peterson. The first chapter is an article by Niel A Maxwell, taken from the January 1997 Ensign. The editors, I presume, would need to receive permission from the Church to use this article. I do not know of a single publication from the past 20 years that has a general authority contribution that promotes anything but the Mezzo American model. Why is that?

I have another question, I know of several statements by general authorities that condemn card games. Are card games therefore forbidden in LDS doctrine? Or to rephrase the question, are all statements by general authorityâ??s doctrine?

[Mortal Man]

I suspect if you got all these brethren in a room, ordered pizza and locked the door until everyone reached a consensus, that they would change their views about the New York location.

That's exactly what they did on 4 January 1922 from 10 AM to 6 PM and again on 5 January 1922 from 10 AM to 8 PM. They did not reach a consensus. I don't know what kind of pizza they ate.

the LGT in Mesoamerica theory is much stronger in matching up with the Book of Mormon.

Is it really?

While you're busy comparing geological features, orienting your compass and counting trees, are you losing sight of the forest?

Recently my attention was drawn to this article, which brought me back to the Book of Mormon I believed in as a child.

That was when I believed we had a divine calling to teach the Lamanites who their ancestors were; i.e., before their DNA got lost among the Asian immigrants.

That was when I believed that God had always kept America from the knowledge of other nations; so they wouldn't overrun the land, and thus leave it available for a place of inheritance.

That was when I believed that those whom the Lord God brought here should keep his commandments so that they could prosper and be kept from all other nations and possess this land unto themselves, with none to molest them.

That was when I believed that dwindling in unbelief was a bad thing. Because then God brought in other nations and gave them power to take away the lands of your possessions and you pretty much got scattered and smitten.

What is the point of driving and smiting a people who's DNA is already diluted to oblivion through interbreeding with other inhabitants?

The LGT may be an entertaining left-brain exercise, but it's cutting the heart and soul out of the book.

[Daniel Peterson]

Speaking of "losing sight of the forest":

The heart and soul of the Book of Mormon reside in the visit of the risen Savior to the New World and in its character as a second witness of Christ, not in its contribution to pre-Columbian ethnography, let alone in the data it supplies as a supposed treatise on Amerindian genetics.

Its heart and soul are wholly unaffected by limited-geography theories.

[Sevenbak]

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....

I agree completely with Joseph's statements about Mesoamerica. That's not what this thread is about. The land of the last battle was described by Mormon as "an exceedingly great distance" from the Nephite homeland, which I agree was in Mesoamerica.

What I'm asking for is any statements GA to the contrary of what has been taught by the brethren.

And no, I am not anti Mormon, nor are my quotes out of context. Far from it. I relish the Book of Mormon as the word of God. President Benson is my hero with his mission to flood the earth with its truth.

[Sevenbak]

â??Bigfootâ? is the search for Book of Mormon lands, because they donâ??t exist. Donâ??t 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 â??theologianâ?, 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 â??theologianâ?. He died one year after Sorensonâ??s 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 â??divine prophetâ?. I do not believe that the Church General Authorities â??speak to Godâ? anymore than any ordinary person can or does. I categorically do not believe that the Book of Mormon is history. And finally, I donâ??t believe you belong to â??the only true Church on earthâ?.

I entered this thread because any objective observer can see that even in this hypothetical â??historicalâ? Book of Mormon scenario, the General Authorities of the past did not understand it. Being â??historicalâ? 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 itâ??s 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 â??realâ? 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 â?? I exit this thread.

Thanks for that qualifier that you are not LDS. I'm interested in feedback from believing Mormons who believe not only in what Joseph Smith said, but also in modern day prophets and apostles.

[Areabird]

Speaking of "losing sight of the forest":

The heart and soul of the Book of Mormon reside in the visit of the risen Savior to the New World and in its character as a second witness of Christ, not in its contribution to pre-Columbian ethnography, let alone in the data it supplies as a supposed treatise on Amerindian genetics.

Its heart and soul are wholly unaffected by limited-geography theories.

I believe it does cut the heart and soul out of the book. I believe one of the most important aspects about the Book of Mormon is how it ties the Americas and American Indians to the time of Jerusalem, and that the Gospel came with them. If you say that the link to the American Indians and geography in general is not important, then there is really nothing unique about our church. We're just like any other Christian denomination--except we claim to have the actual priesthood that Christ had--except that nothing in the Book of Mormon describes all the Priesthood ordinance that we hold unique to Mormonism....

[Ray Agostini]

Thanks for that qualifier that you are not LDS. I'm interested in feedback from believing Mormons who believe not only in what Joseph Smith said, but also in modern day prophets and apostles.

Sorry to disturb your party. The Book of Mormon should really absolutely have no meaning to apostates like me. I should really burn and disown it.

But I kinda like it.

[Sevenbak]

"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

Interesting that you would bring up Anthony Ivins. His statement is on general BOM geography, not the known and taught belief about the location of the Cumorah and the battles fought there.

I didn't include Elder Ivins statement about Cumorah in my initial post, as there are many more, but since you bring him up, here's what he has to say about Cumorah. Same as all the rest...

"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. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

[Mortal Man]

Its heart and soul are wholly unaffected by limited-geography theories.

Zelph would disagree.

So would Coriantumr.

And I'm pretty sure Lehi wouldn't be too happy about it either.

[Sevenbak]

Well, so far, you have mentioned only eight. That is not very many in comparison to the total number of General Authorities since 1830. There are plenty more than 8. Do we want to name them all? Can anyone provide a single rebutting GA statement?

No, it has nothing to do with "my theory". I think they are wrong because that is what the evidence suggests. I would be perfectly happy for the real Hill Cumorah to be in New York, but the evidence suggests otherwise. It doesn't matter to me that some General Authorities have indicated that they thought the hill is in New York, none of them have claimed their believe to be inspired and there is no reason that any member should be required to accept their statements as absolute truth.

The evidence suggests no such thing. There are a myriad of statements made by early explorers and historians that tell of a huge ancient battle fought in the region of Western New York.

Who cares? Why does it matter? It matters to me, because I think the modern view somehow diminishes from the truths known and taught by the prophets, as if they couldn't possibly know, and we are so much smarter than them because we have "modern science".

Just a pet peeve of mine...

Why should anyone feel obligated to believe one way or another when no General Authority has ever made an authoritative statement, nor claimed inspiration on the matter ? Because I tend to believe what is taught from God anointed servants. I assume they know what they are talking about, and deal with the exceptions, not the reverse.

To me either....only in reverse.

Best,

T-Shirt Best to you too.

[Sevenbak]

Do the authors of the text in question count as prophets and apostles too?

Just checking.

Not that I'm aware of, which is the reason for my repeated asking... I know of no authors of the LGT that are prophets or apostles.