In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[beastie]

Did or did not the linked quote make do the following:

state that the hill in NY is where: Moroni hid his plates, JS got the plates, the Nephites gathered, in many waters, Mormon hid his records, all but 24 Nephites were slain.

Please show me the phrase or words that indicates that a different hill is being linked to part of this list.

Let me put it this way. You would have an argument if all the quote did was link the hill in NY to where Moroni buried the plates. It did make that association, but it didn't stop there. It went on to link the same hill to the last battle, etc etc.

[SlackTime]

Slacktime:

Your stance seems to be

[beastie]

Slacktime,

I don't spend anytime on RFM.

I'm disappointed that you had nothing substantial to say about BH Robert's story. I spent quite a bit of time copying that section in the hopes of helping you understand why some members would prefer that their prophets seek revelations about certain matters, versus continually relying on the "arm of flesh."

[Zakuska]

Did or did not the linked quote make do the following:

state that the hill in NY is where: Moroni hid his plates, JS got the plates, the Nephites gathered, in many waters, Mormon hid his records, all but 24 Nephites were slain.

Please show me the phrase or words that indicates that a different hill is being linked to part of this list.

Let me put it this way. You would have an argument if all the quote did was link the hill in NY to where Moroni buried the plates. It did make that association, but it didn't stop there. It went on to link the same hill to the last battle, etc etc.

Did not...

Your premis is flawed from the get go.

It specifically said Mormon hid boat loads of plates in the Hill Cumorah. But it specifically excludes the plates that Mormon gave to his son Moroni. (ie What now is the book of Mormon. See Mor. 6:6) It never tells us were Moroni hid his plates. You are conflating two events Beastie.

[SlackTime]

Slacktime,

I don't spend anytime on RFM.

I'm disappointed that you had nothing substantial to say about BH Robert's story. I spent quite a bit of time copying that section in the hopes of helping you understand why some members would prefer that their prophets seek revelations about certain matters, versus continually relying on the "arm of flesh."

The thing about that quote, and it was very interesting, is that it is essentially meaningless. Science advances and what is at one time thought a discrepancy, is later found to be not so much. Horses a terrible problem? Must have seemed so I guess to Brother Roberts, but today?

Mammoths lived later than previously thought

Maybe not so much.

The person who chooses to let their faith fail them for transient theories is foolish. Ultimately, the source of truth is the Holy Spirit, and I think I said that earlier. We want to be as educated as we can be, but when our Science seems to contradict our religion, it has never even been a contest for me which to "hold fast" to. But it also doesn't stop me from learning. You never know when the apparent contradictions will fade as yesterday's mists.

- SlackTime

[Scott Lloyd]

Did or did not the linked quote make do the following:

state that the hill in NY is where: Moroni hid his plates, JS got the plates, the Nephites gathered, in many waters, Mormon hid his records, all but 24 Nephites were slain.

Please show me the phrase or words that indicates that a different hill is being linked to part of this list.

Let me put it this way. You would have an argument if all the quote did was link the hill in NY to where Moroni buried the plates. It did make that association, but it didn't stop there. It went on to link the same hill to the last battle, etc etc.

The quote is from Guide to the Scriptures which is sort of concordance, not a comprehensive work. The portion about Moroni burying the plates is in a separate paragraph from the one containing the other things you mention, which contains scriptural references one may look up to read more about each item. In that respect, that paragraph is more like an entry in the Topical Guide or Bible Dictionary than it is like the narrative history you are trying to make it out to be.

In short, there is nothing here that binds the reader to believe the hill in New York is the hill mentioned in the Nephite record. I know you desperately want to read it that way, but that is your problem.

Again, at least one and probably two communications from the First Presidency's office, a quasi-official work and my personal conversations with Church Correlation confirm the Church espouses no detailed or specific geography for the Book of Mormon.

[beastie]

Did not...

Your premis is flawed from the get go.

It specifically said Mormon hid boat loads of plates in the Hill Cumorah. But it specifically excludes the plates that Mormon gave to his son Moroni. (ie What now is the book of Mormon. See Mor. 6:6) It never tells us were Moroni hid his plates.

Zak, I am talking about this quote, that 007 helpfully shared from

http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/c/79

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

CUMORAH, HILL

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.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59.

This quote explicitly links the hill in NY to the place where Moroni hid his plates,the place where Mormon hid his plates, the place where the Nephites gathered, the place were the Nephites were slain, the place where JS got his plates.

The thing about that quote, and it was very interesting, is that it is essentially meaningless. Science advances and what is at one time thought a discrepancy, is later found to be not so much. Horses a terrible problem? Must have seemed so I guess to Brother Roberts, but today?

Mammoths lived later than previously thought

Maybe not so much.

The person who chooses to let their faith fail them for transient theories is foolish. Ultimately, the source of truth is the Holy Spirit, and I think I said that earlier. We want to be as educated as we can be, but when our Science seems to contradict our religion, it has never even been a contest for me which to "hold fast" to. But it also doesn't stop me from learning. You never know when the apparent contradictions will fade as yesterday's mists.

As I said, I understand this type of thing doesn

[Zakuska]

The thing about that quote, and it was very interesting, is that it is essentially meaningless. Science advances and what is at one time thought a discrepancy, is later found to be not so much. Horses a terrible problem? Must have seemed so I guess to Brother Roberts, but today?

Mammoths lived later than previously thought

Maybe not so much.

The person who chooses to let their faith fail them for transient theories is foolish. Ultimately, the source of truth is the Holy Spirit, and I think I said that earlier. We want to be as educated as we can be, but when our Science seems to contradict our religion, it has never even been a contest for me which to "hold fast" to. But it also doesn't stop me from learning. You never know when the apparent contradictions will fade as yesterday's mists.

- SlackTime

Science pushes it even further than that... Cuverionius (A cousin of the Mammoth) is said by the British Museum of Natural History to have possibly survived until 400AD.

In the suborder Mastodontoidea, the family Gomphotheriidae comprises 15 genera, including the earliest members of the order, Phiomia and Palaeomastodon. The former were the size of donkeys, but the latter were as large as a modern Asian cow elephant. In this family the skull and neck are elongated, and the teeth low crowned. The second incisors are enlarged; the upper ones are compressed and vertical, and they retain a band of enamel. In the later evolved genera, the lower pair are bent forward, depressed, and expanded into shovellike structures that do not meet the upper tusks. The canines are absent. Among this family are Cordillerion of North America and Cuvieronius of South America. The latter became extinct as recently as AD 200 to 400.

[beastie]

The quote is from Guide to the Scriptures which is a small, concise, encyclopedic type reference book, not a comprehensive work. The portion about Moroni burying the plates is in a separate paragraph from the one containing the other things you mention, which is in the form of a sort of concordance with scriptural references one may look up to read more about each item. In that respect, that paragraph is more like an entry in the Topical Guide or Bible Dictionary than it is like the narrative history you are trying to make it out to be.

In short, there is nothing here that binds the reader to believe the hill in New York is the hill mentioned in the Nephite record. I know you desperately want to read it that way, but that is your problem.

Then why, in an entry named "The Hill Cumorah", that begins with the words "A small hill located in western New York", would they proceed to list "Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59. "

Is there anything you can say to support your premise other than to accuse me of cognitive bias?

[Zakuska]

Zak, I am talking about this quote, that 007 helpfully shared from

http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/c/79

This quote explicitly links the hill in NY to the place where Moroni hid his plates,the place where Mormon hid his plates, the place where the Nephites gathered, the place were the Nephites were slain, the place where JS got his plates.

As I said, I understand this type of thing doesn

[beastie]

Slacktime,

A Young Earther who is convinced the world is 6,000 years old could use your same argument to support his belief, and to criticize those who are skeptical of the claim due to scientific findings.

Zak

And "Guide to the Scriptures" is cannonized and innfallible?

Ah, progress! At least we've moved forward from the denial that the quotation does explicitly associate the hill in NY with the last battle, etc.

Now, go back and reread 007's point on the topic. He wasn't arguing that the guide to scriptures is canonized and infallible. He was arguing that there is more support for the one Cumorah in NY than there is for the Ogden assertion in terms of church teachings.

[Scott Lloyd]

Slacktime,

A Young Earther who is convinced the world is 6,000 years old could use your same argument to support his belief, and to criticize those who are skeptical of the claim due to scientific findings.

Zak

Ah, progress! At least we've moved forward from the denial that the quotation does explicitly associate the hill in NY with the last battle, etc.

Now, go back and reread 007's point on the topic. He wasn't arguing that the guide to scriptures is canonized and infallible. He was arguing that there is more support for the one Cumorah in NY than there is for the Ogden assertion in terms of church teachings.

By "support ... for the Ogden assertion," I take it you mean support for the communication from the office of the First Presidency.

The currently stated position of the Church trumps anything that may have appeared in the past in ancillary study aids to the scriptures, regardless of how one chooses to interpret them.

[beastie]

By "support ... for the Ogden assertion," I take it you mean support for the communication from the office of the First Presidency.

The currently stated position of the Church trumps anything that may have appeared in the past in ancillary study aids to the scriptures, regardless of how one chooses to interpret them.

Which takes us full circle to one of the issues. An unsigned fax from the secretary to the secretary is supposed to trump what the LDS church has on its official website. While this may satisfy you and many others, perhaps you can understand why it is distinctly unsatsifactory to many others and feels like a "victory" to critics.

[Scott Lloyd]

Which takes us full circle to one of the issues. An unsigned fax from the secretary to the secretary is supposed to trump what the LDS church has on its official website.

What the Church "has on its official Web site" in this instance "Guide to the Scriptures," is simply a reprint of prototype material in English that the Church publishes in its non-English editions of the scriptures. Such study aids are always subject to revision, and they will never be paramount to the position of the Church as defined by the First Presidency and articulated to managers in Church Correlation.

And it is more than just an unsigned fax. We have two scholars who are eyewitnesses that a letter was sent from the secretary to the First Presidency correcting an earlier misunderstanding.

While this may satisfy you and many others, perhaps you can understand why it is distinctly unsatsifactory to many others and feels like a "victory" to critics.

I can understand that the critics are misguided in declaring such "victory." It is a vacuous victory if they are wrong in their conclusion.

[SlackTime]

Slacktime,

A Young Earther who is convinced the world is 6,000 years old could use your same argument to support his belief, and to criticize those who are skeptical of the claim due to scientific findings.

And as far as I am concerned he is welcome to do so, up until the time he finds his personal beliefs so shattered that he supposes that his interpretation is the "right" and "only true" interpretation and proceeds to decide that the Church is false.

Taking the horse question as an example.

1. I am more than willing to suppose that horses were here in the Americas that science may someday discover.

2. I am also more than willing to suppose that "horses" in the Book of Mormon might have been "horse-like" animals that Joseph "translated" into horses.

So while I find links of the sort I posted earlier interesting, the problem has no effect whatsoever on my testimony, neither building it, nor hurting it, for my testimony is founded upon a conviction of the truths given to me by the Spirit.

I could show you similarly my thoughts on the flood. Things that have not been fully revealed should not be the basis of testimony, to rest your faith so, is to build your house upon sand. My faith is on Christ, and on the restoration, both events, the atonement of Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel, I know to be truth.

- SlackTime

[Wiki Wonka]

Then why, in an entry named "The Hill Cumorah", that begins with the words "A small hill located in western New York", would they proceed to list "Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59. "

Is there anything you can say to support your premise other than to accuse me of cognitive bias?

It is likely written this way simply because it is generally assumed by most Church members, and possibly leaders, that the New York hill is the same hill at which the final battle was fought. I believe that this will continue to be the thinking for years to come, and that the "two Cumorah" theory will only remain primarily in the realm of those who really want to research such things. I don't even think that it is important to convince anyone that there are "two Cumorahs," because it doesn't really make any difference to most members. My own thinking, up until just a few years ago, was that BoM geography was hemispheric. I didn't really know much about the New York hill - I didn't know that it was a drumlin (a pile of glacial gravel), and that no significant cave could exist there. Yet, when I was on my mission in the 70s we showed a filmstrip which showed this geography:

Now it never occurred to me to question why Cumorah wouldn't be on this map. I have a 1970 edition of the Book of Mormon that contains many color photos of Central and South American locations and artifacts. I assumed that Moroni traveled to New York over the 30 or so years that he wandered around before burying the plates. My thinking on where the "real" Cumorah is has changed, but it hasn't altered my beliefs in the things that matter. I believe that Moroni did bury his record in the New York hill, but I now believe that the "wagonloads" of records are hidden elsewhere.

So, when I read the passage that you quoted above, a few years ago I would have read it the way that you do. Now, I have no problem seeing it as listing all of the definitions of "Cumorah, Hill" that exist. The net effect of this change in my thinking upon how I practice my religion is zero. The discussion about where Cumorah is located is always interesting, but to me it is simply an academic exercise.

WW

[gtaggart]

Did or did not the linked quote make do the following:

state that the hill in NY is where: Moroni hid his plates, JS got the plates, the Nephites gathered, in many waters, Mormon hid his records, all but 24 Nephites were slain.

Please show me the phrase or words that indicates that a different hill is being linked to part of this list.

Let me put it this way. You would have an argument if all the quote did was link the hill in NY to where Moroni buried the plates. It did make that association, but it didn't stop there. It went on to link the same hill to the last battle, etc etc.

Beastie--the sweet scholar that you are--you have a point, but you exaggerate once again, adding words to the quote that are not there. Nowhere in the quote will you find the words "the same." Granted, yours is one logical inference, but another--in light of the First Presidency's position on Book of Mormon geography--is that whoever wrote the brief statement mistakenly failed to take into account the two Cumorah theory.

You're not arguing, are you, that this brief statement constitutes some sort of final statement on Book of Mormon geography?

[wenglund]

Which takes us full circle to one of the issues. An unsigned fax from the secretary to the secretary is supposed to trump what the LDS church has on its official website. While this may satisfy you and many others, perhaps you can understand why it is distinctly unsatsifactory to many others and feels like a "victory" to critics.

Since this ignores the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry (see below), overseen by at least two members of the Quorum of the Twelve, you can understand why apologist might see the critics feelings of "victory" as without basis, if not petty.

I found this in my 1997 version of "LDS Collectors Library", Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY:

RECONSTRUCTING INTERNAL BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Although Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography in order to focus attention on the spiritual message of the book, private speculation and scholarship in this area have been abundant. Using textual clues, laymen and scholars have formulated over sixty possible geographies. Dissimilarities among them stem from differences in (1) the interpretation of scriptural passages and statements of General Authorities; (2) procedures for reconciling scriptural information; (3) initial assumptions concerning the text and traditional LDS identification of certain features mentioned (especially the hill Cumorah and the "narrow neck of land," which figure prominently in the text); and (4) personal penchants and disciplinary training.

The relative location of the hill Cumorah is most tenuous, since travel time from Bountiful, or the narrow neck, to Cumorah is nowhere specified. Cumorah was near the east sea in the land northward, and the limited evidence suggests that it was probably not many days' travel from the narrow neck of land (Mosiah 8:8; Ether 9:3). It is also probable that the portion of the land northward occupied by the Jaredites was smaller than the Nephite-Lamanite land southward.

Allen, Joseph L. Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon. Orem, Utah, 1989.

Cannon, George Q. "Book of Mormon Geography." Juvenile Instructor 25 (Jan. 1, 1890):18-19; repr., Instructor 73 (Apr. 1938):159-60.

Clark, John E. "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies." Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (1989):20-70.

Hauck, F. Richard. Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, 1988.

Palmer, David A. In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico. Bountiful, Utah, 1981.

Richards, F., and J. Little, eds. Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, rev. ed. Salt Lake City, 1925.

Roberts, B. H. New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. Salt Lake City, 1909.

Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, 1985.

Sorenson, John L. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Book of Mormon Geographies: A History of the Ideas. Salt Lake City, 1991.

Warren, Bruce W., and Thomas Stuart Ferguson. The Messiah in Ancient America. Provo, Utah, 1987.

Washburn, J. Nile. Book of Mormon Lands and Times. Salt Lake City, 1974.

Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations, 3 vols. Salt Lake City, 1951.

JOHN E. CLARK

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Lest it gets lost in the slight change in subject, may I just state again for the record: what I find disturbing about the issue of this thread, besides the sheer mind-numbing pettiness of it all (that it has gone on for 15 years ought to engender rightful disgust on the part of good and decent people--thank you Uncle Dale), but the seemingly flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental social contracts (what in jurisprudence is known as the "Golden Thread"--i.e the presumption of innocence).

For good reason, it is customary to take a person at their word, and this until empirical evidence gives REASONABLE cause to think otherwise. Societal trust and protection of the innocent is critically dependant thereon.

Yet, in the case of Dr. Hamblin and his footnoted statement a number of years back, it appears that certain critics have presumed him guilty of either lying or misrepresenting the truth. He is presumed guilty because he wasn't able to prove his innocence by producing a second Watson letter.

I say "flagrant violation" because not only is he presumed guilty, but he is presumed guilty in spite of the guilty presumption making little sense (it makes not sense for Dr. Hamblin to so publically put his membership in jeopardy in a Church he was vigorously defending), and also because of the alarming resistence to REASONABLE explanations suggesting his innocence.

And, to think that some of these critics have the gall to speak of "modus operandi" and "confirmation bias".

Yet, when one of their own is called into question (as when Scott Lloyd took issue with Brent regarding the familiar term "Mike"), they bristled at the very thought, and fully expected, and rightly so, that Brent would be taken at his word when explaining that "Mike" was a long-time friend of Brent's family.

I am sorry, but it just makes me shake my head. Certainly, there are issue to fuss and fret over for years, which will actually produce some semblence of good. Why not give yourself a gift for Christmas of taking on an actual worthy cause? :goog:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Did or did not the linked quote make do the following:

state that the hill in NY is where: Moroni hid his plates, JS got the plates, the Nephites gathered, in many waters, Mormon hid his records, all but 24 Nephites were slain.

Please show me the phrase or words that indicates that a different hill is being linked to part of this list.

Let me put it this way. You would have an argument if all the quote did was link the hill in NY to where Moroni buried the plates. It did make that association, but it didn't stop there. It went on to link the same hill to the last battle, etc etc.

Whoa! Wait a minute! This thread is just flying!

1- Who conceded that the quote was a doctrinal statement? Was it published by the church? Was it in the standard works? It was lifted out of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism by someone- or perhaps his secretary -- we everyone concedes did NOT have the authority to even state what doctrine IS. It was essentially a form letter.

2- Regarding the apologists leading the brethren, that is absurd! If anything apologists are the "bird dogs" of what is happening right now on the internet.

Were I a member of the brethren, I would watch all areas of the church looking for problems. If problems arise, and I had the authority, I would go to the Lord for an answer.

The church adapts to the times-- since when is that new?

3-And what in this incident gives ANY evidence whatsoever that in fact the brethren are influenced by apologists?

Please note that Watson, at the time he wrote the letter, was not in any position of authority.

How is that an "apologist influencing the brethren"? This is just absurd!

[gtaggart]

Zak, I am talking about this quote, that 007 helpfully shared from

http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/c/79

This quote explicitly links the hill in NY to the place where Moroni hid his plates,the place where Mormon hid his plates, the place where the Nephites gathered, the place were the Nephites were slain, the place where JS got his plates.

As I said, I understand this type of thing doesn

[gtaggart]

Just so there's no mistaking motives: One reason critics are trying to discredit the Watson letter is that they very badly want to stuff their DNA Genie back into the Hemispheric Geography Bottle.

[Greg Smith]

Look again at the quote from the link:

This explicitly says the hill in NY is where Moroni buried the plates. There is absolutely nothing in this quote that would even hint at the two Cumorahs theory. The second paragraph notes that this is the same hill where Mormon buried his plates, and where the final battle was held.

And yet, Bruce R. McConkie was pretty clear about how those of his era regarded the scriptural "helps" and the like:

As for the] "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. - Bruce R. McConkie, cited in Mark McConkie (editor), Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989), 289

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet, Bruce R. McConkie was pretty clear about how those of his era regarded the scriptural "helps" and the like:

Did many people think Cumorah = hill in New York? Of course. No one denies this. Does this make it revealed doctrine, or unsubject to later reflection or insight from the scriptural text? Hardly.

GLS

The McConkie quote is all the more significant as he, himself, took a primary role in the preparation of the study aids in the current editions of the Bible and the triple combination.

[Uncle Dale]

...Does this make it revealed doctrine, or unsubject to later reflection

or insight from the scriptural text? Hardly.

...

Of course not. But when Mormons of the 1880s opened the Holy Word of God,

containing the fulness of the everlasting gospel, they probably trusted

Apostle Pratt's annotations as being at least inspired, if not revelatory.

To now be told that God allowed the Book of Mormon of that era to be published,

with fundamentally incorrect statements about the Nephites, can only make us all

wonder whether modern editions of the Standard Works might not include even

greater mis-statements -- in the text proper, or in the critical apparatus.

At least a few people must join the LDS Church with the expectation of its

being the one true church, administered by prophets and apostles, who provide

editions of fully reliable latter day scriptures.

Remove Pratt's notes one day -- remove the Lectures on Faith some other day --

one can only wonder where it all ends. What cannot be removed or changed?

UD