Joseph's view about Cumorah

[Sevenbak]

And "which" beliefs of his should we then accept on a particular subject???

Is it his beliefs when he himself was new to the Book of Mormon, or is it his beliefs prior to his death when for example on this subject he believed BOM events took place in Central/South America???

You should learn the difference between "The Church" (i.e. the Restored Gospel of Christ, or "Religious Fact" as you say), and Scientific issues in which God hasn't yet uttered a word on. People including prophets have all kinds of opinions on subjects that aren't "Gospel Truth", and those opinions sometimes change as more information is learned.

Thus, it is more "disingenuous" for people like you to demand from us to except anything and everything someone says, even he be a Prophet. Especially when there is no such demand in LDS theology, contrary to anti-mormon out of context claims of such. The Gospel is a tapestry of ideas and concepts blended into one perfect and divine whole. Take something out of it's context Gospel or not, and people make foolish statements as you just did.

"Is it his beliefs when he himself was new to the Book of Mormon, or is it his beliefs prior to his death when for example on this subject he believed BOM events took place in Central/South America???"

That, in and of itself seems like a disingenuous statement. Joseph never changed his view about Cumorah, the mound builders, Zelph or anything else. He said Central America was the location of Zarahemla and the Nephite homeland, not the Land Northward to where they migrated later.

In the very same statement that he makes about the claims of Mesomarican ruins, he also reaffirmed the mounds and structures along the Mississippi river valley as equally being Book of Mormon lands.

"If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c.-were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized-that a great and a mighty people had inhabited this continent-that the arts sciences and religion, had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia. Babylon, Ninevah, nor any of the ruins of the Levant could boast of more perfect sculpture, better architectural designs, and more imperishable ruins, than what are found on this continent. Stephens and Catherwood's researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatamala [Guatemala], and other cities, corroborate this statement, and show that a great and mighty people-men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen [Mormon] unfolds their history."

[Kevin Christensen]

That, in and of itself seems like a disingenuous statement. Joseph never changed his view about Cumorah, the mound builders, Zelph or anything else. He said Central America was the location of Zarahemla and the Nephite homeland, not the Land Northward to where they migrated later.

In the very same statement that he makes about the claims of Mesomarican ruins, he also reaffirmed the mounds and structures along the Mississippi river valley as equally being Book of Mormon lands.

"If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c.-were to examine the Book of Mormon,

Notice that in the quoted statement Joseph says "If men ... were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book."

The "If" is significant. The Book of Mormon contains the relevant information, spread through a thousand relevant passages. But the first serious attempt to gather the relevant information regarding internal Book of Mormon geography did not appear until 1938. Joseph's Times and Seasons comments here demonstrate general impressions of the Book of Mormon in relation to amateur observations of the North American mounts, and the new light on Mesoamerica provided by Stephens and Catherwood. But throughout the 19th century LDS commentators left no evidence of serious inquiry, extractign and piecing together all the relevant clues. Even Orson Pratt's chapter headings in the 1870s edition of the Book of Mormon do not demonstrate close examination of internal Book of Mormon geography, and were removed because they did not make sense upon close examination.

In reviewing General Authority statements on the topic, from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith's oft quoted statements from the 1950s, the lack of serious examination of the actual Book of Mormon statements relevant to geography should be one of the most self evident facts. Where the arguments from the Washburns and Sidney Sperry discuss travel narratives in the Book of Mormon, and review their implications, the Joseph Fielding Smith statement relies almost entirely on unquestioned received tradition, assuming that someone, somewhere along the line, MUST have done the work or received revelation, and nowhere showing either the work or the revelation. The one Book of Mormon passage that JSF quotes is about the "land of many waters" which to him "perfectly" describes the Great Lakes region. He never considers whether the text and geography match is sufficient or exclusive. And he never ever anywhere engages the scriptural arguments that raised the questions about the New York location for the Book of Mormon Ramah/Cumorah in the first place.

That is, he never seriously engages the text in ways that might overrule his conjectures, or alter his opinions. The "If..." conditions that Joseph Smith spelled out have never been demonstrated by those claiming a New York Cumorah.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Anijen]

Notice that in the quoted statement Joseph says "If men ... were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book."

The "If" is significant. The Book of Mormon contains the relevant information, spread through a thousand relevant passages. But the first serious attempt to gather the relevant information regarding internal Book of Mormon geography did not appear until 1938. Joseph's Times and Seasons comments here demonstrate general impressions of the Book of Mormon in relation to amateur observations of the North American mounts, and the new light on Mesoamerica provided by Stephens and Catherwood. But throughout the 19th century LDS commentators left no evidence of serious inquiry, extractign and piecing together all the relevant clues. Even Orson Pratt's chapter headings in the 1870s edition of the Book of Mormon do not demonstrate close examination of internal Book of Mormon geography, and were removed because they did not make sense upon close examination.

In reviewing General Authority statements on the topic, from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith's oft quoted statements from the 1950s, the lack of serious examination of the actual Book of Mormon statements relevant to geography should be one of the most self evident facts. Where the arguments from the Washburns and Sidney Sperry discuss travel narratives in the Book of Mormon, and review their implications, the Joseph Fielding Smith statement relies almost entirely on unquestioned received tradition, assuming that someone, somewhere along the line, MUST have done the work or received revelation, and nowhere showing either the work or the revelation. The one Book of Mormon passage that JSF quotes is about the "land of many waters" which to him "perfectly" describes the Great Lakes region. He never considers whether the text and geography match is sufficient or exclusive. And he never ever anywhere engages the scriptural arguments that raised the questions about the New York location for the Book of Mormon Ramah/Cumorah in the first place.

That is, he never seriously engages the text in ways that might overrule his conjectures, or alter his opinions. The "If..." conditions that Joseph Smith spelled out have never been demonstrated by those claiming a New York Cumorah.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks Kevin, very well put. Has Matthew Ropers last FAIR conference lecture made it to video yet or to a paper for a link?

[poulsenll]

Thanks Kevin, very well put. Has Matthew Ropers last FAIR conference lecture made it to video yet or to a paper for a link?

Not yet.

But I have the main figure showing the wordprint results and the text of his presentation. It will be in the next inssue of FARM's review I think.

Larry P

[Sevenbak]

Notice that in the quoted statement Joseph says "If men ... were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book."

The "If" is significant. The Book of Mormon contains the relevant information, spread through a thousand relevant passages. But the first serious attempt to gather the relevant information regarding internal Book of Mormon geography did not appear until 1938. Joseph's Times and Seasons comments here demonstrate general impressions of the Book of Mormon in relation to amateur observations of the North American mounts, and the new light on Mesoamerica provided by Stephens and Catherwood. But throughout the 19th century LDS commentators left no evidence of serious inquiry, extractign and piecing together all the relevant clues. Even Orson Pratt's chapter headings in the 1870s edition of the Book of Mormon do not demonstrate close examination of internal Book of Mormon geography, and were removed because they did not make sense upon close examination.

In reviewing General Authority statements on the topic, from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith's oft quoted statements from the 1950s, the lack of serious examination of the actual Book of Mormon statements relevant to geography should be one of the most self evident facts. Where the arguments from the Washburns and Sidney Sperry discuss travel narratives in the Book of Mormon, and review their implications, the Joseph Fielding Smith statement relies almost entirely on unquestioned received tradition, assuming that someone, somewhere along the line, MUST have done the work or received revelation, and nowhere showing either the work or the revelation. The one Book of Mormon passage that JSF quotes is about the "land of many waters" which to him "perfectly" describes the Great Lakes region. He never considers whether the text and geography match is sufficient or exclusive. And he never ever anywhere engages the scriptural arguments that raised the questions about the New York location for the Book of Mormon Ramah/Cumorah in the first place.

That is, he never seriously engages the text in ways that might overrule his conjectures, or alter his opinions. The "If..." conditions that Joseph Smith spelled out have never been demonstrated by those claiming a New York Cumorah.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

It seems like you're playing semantics and saying "it depends of what is, is"... so to speak. I find it problematic to the faithfulness of the saints in days gone by that they are accused time and time again of "not seriously studying the text". I think they deserve much more credit than that. Much more!

[cdowis]

It seems like you're playing semantics and saying "it depends of what is, is"... so to speak. I find it problematic to the faithfulness of the saints in days gone by that they are accused time and time again of "not seriously studying the text". I think they deserve much more credit than that. Much more!

We can give them credit for their reading and studying of the BOM, but their interpretation of the text was colored by the *assumption* that the NY Hill Cumorah was the same as the hill in the BOM text. It was an unquestioned assumption, and led to an incorrect conclusion.

[Kevin Christensen]

It seems like you're playing semantics and saying "it depends of what is, is"... so to speak. I find it problematic to the faithfulness of the saints in days gone by that they are accused time and time again of "not seriously studying the text". I think they deserve much more credit than that. Much more!

President Benson had the impression that the LDS had not studied the Book of Mormon enough. Do you think he didn't give them enough credit?

It's a matter of emphasis. The Saints weren't doing nothing. They were emphasizing other things. People can read the Book of Mormon daily for doctrinal issues and completely overlook cultural and geographic information. Some LDS have written multi-volume commentaries devoted to that approach.

Scholars like the Washburns and Sperry and Sorenson and Palmer and Poulson and Clark and Gardner show me the work.

On the other side, where is the early work on the specific topic of Book of Mormon geography? Were the early Saints so faithful and so systematic in studying the Book of Mormon text on geographical and cultural issues that they've left nothing for anyone else to do? Did they extract bit of geographic information, and construct detailed internal maps, and then carefully correlate those internal details to specific external locations and cultures? If so, where is that work? Let's see it. Or if it doesn't exist, or wasn't comprehensive or careful or systematic, why not admit it?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Sevenbak]

We can give them credit for their reading and studying of the BOM, but their interpretation of the text was colored by the *assumption* that the NY Hill Cumorah was the same as the hill in the BOM text. It was an unquestioned assumption, and led to an incorrect conclusion.

You're making assumptions that they assumed. That's assuming quite a lot.

[Sevenbak]

President Benson had the impression that the LDS had not studied the Book of Mormon enough. Do you think he didn't give them enough credit?

It's a matter of emphasis. The Saints weren't doing nothing. They were emphasizing other things. People can read the Book of Mormon daily for doctrinal issues and completely overlook cultural and geographic information. Some LDS have written multi-volume commentaries devoted to that approach.

Scholars like the Washburns and Sperry and Sorenson and Palmer and Poulson and Clark and Gardner show me the work.

On the other side, where is the early work on the specific topic of Book of Mormon geography? Were the early Saints so faithful and so systematic in studying the Book of Mormon text on geographical and cultural issues that they've left nothing for anyone else to do? Did they extract bit of geographic information, and construct detailed internal maps, and then carefully correlate those internal details to specific external locations and cultures? If so, where is that work? Let's see it. Or if it doesn't exist, or wasn't comprehensive or careful or systematic, why not admit it?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

No, he was right, we didn't and still don't read it enough. Do you think he read it enough? He certainly believed in a Hemispheric view.

What about McConckie, Talmage, and other Apostolic scholars who knew and studied the BoM? They didn't buy into the modern idea. The idea that our generation knows it better than they did is a big problem for me.

[cdowis]

You're making assumptions that they assumed. That's assuming quite a lot.

I see no need to read your posts in the future if this is your idea of an intelligent comment.

[Kevin Christensen]

No, he was right, we didn't and still don't read it enough. Do you think he read it enough? He certainly believed in a Hemispheric view.

What about McConckie, Talmage, and other Apostolic scholars who knew and studied the BoM? They didn't buy into the modern idea. The idea that our generation knows it better than they did is a big problem for me.

Fine. But where is their detailed work on this specific question? I've read Jesus the Christ and The Great Apostasy. Good books, but not the final word on their topics. A lot of important material has become available since Talmage's time. He wasn't providing the final word, but rather, giant shoulders upon which to gain some perspectives. Neither of those important and influential works contains detailed discussion of Book of Mormon geography. Neither was intended to provide it.

An argument should not be just the conclusions, or the authoritative pronouncements, or the cultural common places passed along without consideration of the actual text. Where are detailed examination of the relevant Book of Mormon passages? Where is a coherent explanation of story of Limhi's explorers, and the geographical specifics in the description of Cumorah/Ramah? Where is evidence that they rejected the modern idea based close analysis of Book of Mormon passages, and not simply because "this is what we've always thought, and therefore, this is we should always think"?

The LGT is a paradigm shift. Kuhn observed that there are no rules for paradigm choice, but there are values. One that value comes up involves the prestige of key authorities. An appeal to authority, rather than to specific work, carries an implicit assumption that the work has been done. The more important values that weigh in on paradigm choice are things like puzzle formulation and solution (that is, testable propositions), accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence (see Larry Poulson's website on how a specific geographic setting explains not only the travel times in the Limhi explorer account, but also how they could have gotten lost and missed Zarahemla), fruitfulness (look at Sorenson and Gardner and Poulson and Christenson, John Clark and Mark Wright), simplicity and aesthetics (Poulson has shown that the Grijalva is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that fits the Book of Mormon description of the Sidon. One candidate simplifies the issue admirably.), and future promise (Mesoamerica has emergence of civilizations in the right times and places, for instance. New York, no.)

Paradigm choice involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm is better? An appeal to traditional thought, as such contains no actual engagement with the problem of which paradigm is better. It rather demonstrates that for the one making the appeal, authority as such is the most significant problem to have solved.

Compared to "What must I do to be saved?" Book of Mormon geography is not the most important problem to have solved. But adherents of the LGH aren't offering a different answer to the question of salvation.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Sevenbak]

I see no need to read your posts in the future if this is your idea of an intelligent comment.

You're basically saying they assumed as if it was fact. I disagree completely. I tried to lighten things up a bit, if you don't like my posts, don't read or respond.

[Sevenbak]

Fine. But where is their detailed work on this specific question? I've read Jesus the Christ and The Great Apostasy. Good books, but not the final word on their topics. A lot of important material has become available since Talmage's time. He wasn't providing the final word, but rather, giant shoulders upon which to gain some perspectives. Neither of those important and influential works contains detailed discussion of Book of Mormon geography. Neither was intended to provide it.

An argument should not be just the conclusions, or the authoritative pronouncements, or the cultural common places passed along without consideration of the actual text. Where are detailed examination of the relevant Book of Mormon passages? Where is a coherent explanation of story of Limhi's explorers, and the geographical specifics in the description of Cumorah/Ramah? Where is evidence that they rejected the modern idea based close analysis of Book of Mormon passages, and not simply because "this is what we've always thought, and therefore, this is we should always think"?

The LGT is a paradigm shift. Kuhn observed that there are no rules for paradigm choice, but there are values. One that value comes up involves the prestige of key authorities. An appeal to authority, rather than to specific work, carries an implicit assumption that the work has been done. The more important values that weigh in on paradigm choice are things like puzzle formulation and solution (that is, testable propositions), accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence (see Larry Poulson's website on how a specific geographic setting explains not only the travel times in the Limhi explorer account, but also how they could have gotten lost and missed Zarahemla), fruitfulness (look at Sorenson and Gardner and Poulson and Christenson, John Clark and Mark Wright), simplicity and aesthetics (Poulson has shown that the Grijalva is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that fits the Book of Mormon description of the Sidon. One candidate simplifies the issue admirably.), and future promise (Mesoamerica has emergence of civilizations in the right times and places, for instance. New York, no.)

Paradigm choice involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm is better? An appeal to traditional thought, as such contains no actual engagement with the problem of which paradigm is better. It rather demonstrates that for the one making the appeal, authority as such is the most significant problem to have solved.

Compared to "What must I do to be saved?" Book of Mormon geography is not the most important problem to have solved. But adherents of the LGH aren't offering a different answer to the question of salvation.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Your final sentence sums it up nicely, it's not that important. This is why Talmage didn't write a complete treatise on the matter, like he did Jesus the Christ. But he certainly mentions it in his doctrinal works. Same thing with McConkie for that matter. But I think it's a stretch to say that because they didn't focus on it in detail, they didn't study it.

They certainly were firm in their statements on the issue.

In The Articles of Faith by Talmage, we read:

"The final struggles between the Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York, resulting in the destruction of the Nephites as a nation, about 400 A.D. The last Nephite representative was Moroni, who, wandering for safety from place to place, daily expecting death from the victorious Lamanites, wrote the concluding parts of the Book of Mormon, and hid the record in Cumorah. It was the same Moroni who as a resurrected being, gave the records into the hands of Joseph Smith in the present dispensation." (The Articles of Faith, ch. 14, p. 260.)

Further, Talmage was pretty specific in warning (and encouraging) study of the text for geography issues. It's not the end all.

"I sometimes think we pay a little undue attention to technicalities, and to questions that cannot be fully answered with respect to the Book of Mormon. It matters not to me just where this city or that camp was located. I have met a few of our Book of Mormon students who claim to be able to put their finger upon the map and indicate every land and city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The fact is, the Book of Mormon does not give us precise and definite information whereby we can locate those places with certainty. I encourage and recommend all possible investigation, comparison and research in this matter. The more thinkers, investigators, workers we have in the field the better; but our brethren who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must speak with caution and not declare as demonstrated truths points that are not really proved. There is enough truth in the Book of Mormon to occupy you and me for the rest of our lives, without giving too much time and attention to these debatable matters."

[cdowis]

You're basically saying they assumed as if it was fact. I disagree completely.

Okey dokey. Please give us ONE reference prior to 1950 that refers to the Hill Cumorah in the BOM text as situated somewhere besides NY -- the second Hill Cumorah theory.

Let's see whether you are able to intelligently continue this conversation or if this is all blah blah blah.....

Let's see what you got.

[Sevenbak]

Please give us ONE reference prior to 1950 that refers to the Hill Cumorah in the BOM text as situated somewhere besides NY -- the second Hill Cumorah theory.

Let's see whether you are able to intelligently continue this conversation or if you are all blah blah blah.....

Let's see what you got.

I thought you weren't going to post to me anymore or even read my posts?

You're still assuming they were assuming.

If you can give me one reference, of Church leaders that support a LGT or 2 Cumorah's AFTER 1950 that says they changed their minds, then this conversation might be worth pursuing. No Church leader has bought into the modern theory.

[cdowis]

That's what I thought.

[Sevenbak]

That's what I thought.

I think you mean assume.

Don't be mad. I think we can disagree without getting hostile or mocking.

When General Authorities are unanimous in their teachings, and when we say their teachings are mere assumptions, I find that very problematic. We don't have to agree, but we don't need be snarky about it either.

[Anijen]

There is enough truth in the Book of Mormon to occupy you and me for the rest of our lives, without giving too much time and attention to these debatable matters.

The Savior wants us not only to continue studying doctrinal issues but theory as well.

D&C 88: 78

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

Since we agree on many things, I trust we can amicably disagree on a few such as the location of the Hill Cumorah.

If you can give me one reference, of Church leaders that support a LGT or 2 Cumorah's AFTER 1950 that says they changed their minds, then this conversation might be worth pursuing. No Church leader has bought into the modern theory.

This is as pointed out a appeal to authority. It is also a cheap and easy deflection of the argument. You can say this but it really holds no weight because we know from the writings and speeches of the Apostles these days that they rarely venture out and give their opinions anymore. Their time is more precious to them than to open up debatable theories, They would rather teach us what the Savior wants us to hear that will improve the quality of our lives and spirituality.

When you say that "no church leader has bought into the modern theory." is your assumption. I know of personally two that do believe the same things as I do. I made the mistake of sharing them in the past only to be mocked and scoffed at, I will not make the same mistake again and keep their opinions to myself.

[Kevin Christensen]

But I think it's a stretch to say that because they didn't focus on it in detail, they didn't study it.

In exploring Book of Mormon geography, the details are what matters. Accounting for the all the details is the whole point. It was a closer look at the details that raised the questions that led to Mesoamerica in the first place. What about the story of Limhi's explorers? What about the 22 days of Alma's move from Nephi to Zarahemla? What about the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from a sea east to a sea west? What about a Sidon that begins in that narrow strip of wilderness, flows first from east to west, then north, then east? What about the possibility of fording that river? What about a current that can carry bodies to the sea? What about the presence of a parallel river with nearby source in the same wilderness that could account for just and the explorers could possibly have missed Zarahemla coming and going? What about not only the details spread over a thousand passages, but about how they interrelate with geography and culture?

The same details are available to anyone with a copy of the Book of Mormon. And thanks to Sorenson's sourcebook, and Mormon's Map, the reviews in FR, they are easy to access. If Talmage and McConkie saw something in the text that justified the traditional conclusions about the New York drumlin, which they never committed to paper, any purely mental calculations that they did could be followed by anyone who read the text.

You, for example, instead of calling for more deference to authority, could address specific arguments and passages that have been discussed increasingly since the critic Lamb pointed out that the distances described in the text don't make sense when viewed against a hemispheric conception. Instead of repeating opinions, support them with detailed, comprehensive arguments from the text. I presume that if McConkie and Talmage and JSF had a substantial argument to make, comprehensively based on Book of Mormon details, they would have made it and you would pass it along.

Why not count Alma and Helaman and Mormon and Moroni as the authorities to ask? They were prophets, were they not? And the ones who actually do provide the eyewitness details?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburg, PA

[cinepro]

You're still assuming they were assuming.

If you can give me one reference, of Church leaders that support a LGT or 2 Cumorah's AFTER 1950 that says they changed their minds, then this conversation might be worth pursuing. No Church leader has bought into the modern theory.

As far as I can tell, the 2 Cumorah theory has only been alluded to once in any official Church publication. It was in Sorenson's series of Ensign articles back in 1984:

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the

[Anijen]

As far as I can tell, the 2 Cumorah theory has only been alluded to once in any official Church publication. It was in Sorenson's series of Ensign articles back in 1984:

The footnote (11) says:

11. Consider the following reasoning: (1) The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11). (2) This area, covered with bones (Omni 1:22; Mosiah 8:8; Mosiah 21:26

[Sevenbak]

The Savior wants us not only to continue studying doctrinal issues but theory as well.

Right, but the new theories put all their basis in the understanding men, none of which are leaders of the Church, who have stated over and over their teachings on the matter. I just don't understand why there is a need to think we are smarter then they ever were when it comes to reading the text. It doesn't make sense to me, and I find it problematic.

Since we agree on many things, I trust we can amicably disagree on a few such as the location of the Hill Cumorah. Of course.

This is as pointed out a appeal to authority. It is also a cheap and easy deflection of the argument. You can say this but it really holds no weight because we know from the writings and speeches of the Apostles these days that they rarely venture out and give their opinions anymore. Their time is more precious to them than to open up debatable theories, They would rather teach us what the Savior wants us to hear that will improve the quality of our lives and spirituality.

And yet, the teachings of a single Cumorah continue to be taught church wide in the seminary and Institute programs. If the absence of statements within the last few years by General Authorities speaks to a shift in understanding, why does the Church still teach it? Why are the new pageants continuing to teach it?

When you say that "no church leader has bought into the modern theory." is your assumption. I know of personally two that do believe the same things as I do. I made the mistake of sharing them in the past only to be mocked and scoffed at, I will not make the same mistake again and keep their opinions to myself.

No one mocked or scoffed at you for your interpretation. I merely pointed out that it was heresay, 2nd party info. The GA's have always taught that Mesoamerica was among the BoM lands, but not isolated to them. So when I hear of a 2nd party account that limits them to that area, I can't help but think they misinterpreted. Again, if there is something written by Monson and documentable, then let's discuss it. Your source was high up in the CES program. That's fine. But CES still teaches a New York Cumorah, so can you see we have a problem?

[cdowis]

Right, but the new theories put all their basis in the understanding men, none of which are leaders of the Church, who have stated over and over their teachings on the matter. I just don't understand why there is a need to think we are smarter then they ever were when it comes to reading the text. It doesn't make sense to me, and I find it problematic.

They assumed there was only one Hill Cumorah. We are not smarter, just that we no longer make that assumption.

And yet, the teachings of a single Cumorah continue to be taught church wide in the seminary and Institute programs. If the absence of statements within the last few years by General Authorities speaks to a shift in understanding, why does the Church still teach it? Why are the new pageants continuing to teach it?

CFR, that the church currently teaches that the hill Cumorah in NY is the same as the hill in the BOM. The lesson manuals may quote previous church leaders who had made that assumption, but I am not aware of any church leader that teaches that today.

But you made that claim, so let's see what you got.

Finally, BOM geography is not a doctrine of the church. It is a factual issue which is subject to research.

[Sevenbak]

In exploring Book of Mormon geography, the details are what matters. Accounting for the all the details is the whole point. It was a closer look at the details that raised the questions that led to Mesoamerica in the first place. What about the story of Limhi's explorers? What about the 22 days of Alma's move from Nephi to Zarahemla? What about the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from a sea east to a sea west? What about a Sidon that begins in that narrow strip of wilderness, flows first from east to west, then north, then east? What about the possibility of fording that river? What about a current that can carry bodies to the sea? What about the presence of a parallel river with nearby source in the same wilderness that could account for just and the explorers could possibly have missed Zarahemla coming and going? What about not only the details spread over a thousand passages, but about how they interrelate with geography and culture?

The same details are available to anyone with a copy of the Book of Mormon. And thanks to Sorenson's sourcebook, and Mormon's Map, the reviews in FR, they are easy to access. If Talmage and McConkie saw something in the text that justified the traditional conclusions about the New York drumlin, which they never committed to paper, any purely mental calculations that they did could be followed by anyone who read the text.

You, for example, instead of calling for more deference to authority, could address specific arguments and passages that have been discussed increasingly since the critic Lamb pointed out that the distances described in the text don't make sense when viewed against a hemispheric conception. Instead of repeating opinions, support them with detailed, comprehensive arguments from the text. I presume that if McConkie and Talmage and JSF had a substantial argument to make, comprehensively based on Book of Mormon details, they would have made it and you would pass it along.

Why not count Alma and Helaman and Mormon and Moroni as the authorities to ask? They were prophets, were they not? And the ones who actually do provide the eyewitness details?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburg, PA

The only relevant argument concerning distances that needs to be addressed is related to King Limhi's explorers. All the rest happened much father south. The final flight of Mormon's people to Cumorah took place over 4 years, and none of the existing geographic references are mentioned when that happened. In fact, only new locals are mentioned after that, one's we haven't heard about in the text yet.

As to Limhi, I've always considered it a big leap of understanding to claim they went all the way to Cumorah or Ramah. The text doesn't say that. It says they found large battle scenes with bones and armor in the land of many waters. That's a huge area, if you look at the maps of Eastern N. America. (Even if we knew that the current maps represented the actual geography that long ago).

We know that millions of the Jaredites had been killed in battle previous to the last gathering at Ramah, the whole land was covered with the dead. That location could have been anywhere. Further, Ether hid the plates specifically "in a manner" where Limhi could find them. It doesn't say he did them at Ramah.

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak wanted something from the leaders of the church, how about the original ones in America; As pointed out by 1st hand eyewitness, the very writers of the Book of Mormon,

(Yes, and those very writers appeared to Joseph Smith and told him many things in vision. We know from Josephs mother that he was familiar with even minute detail: "He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, their manner of traveling, the animals which they rode, the cities that they built, and the structure of their buildings with every particular, their mode of warfare, and their religious worship as specifically as though he had spent his life with them" (Proctor, ed., p. 112).s,)

we know from the above verses that cinepro quoted that Cumorah was in the land of desolation. Now lets juxtapose that with Joseph Smiths statement here;

Yes, Cumorah was in the land of Desolation. But you know what else was in the "Land of Desolation"? Illinois. So also said Joseph. The Land of Desolation was not a small place, nowhere does it say that. The text speaks of the border or line of Desolation being near Bountiful, not the entire land.

Here's the rest of the verses that preceded what you quoted. I think they are important to the discussion.

Alma 22:

30 And it bordered upon the land which they called aDesolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bbones we have spoken, which was discovered by the cpeople of Zarahemla, it being the place of their dfirst landing.

31 And they came from there aup into the south wilderness. Thus the bland on the northward was called cDesolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

32 And now, it was only the adistance of a day and a half