Cumorah_Ramah revisited

[LeSellers]

I know you guys all realize that the church officially places the hill Cumorah in upstate New York but I am always drawn to the idea of "why" members insist that it wasn't?

We resist the notion because it is not true.

There is no official policy or statement that Cumorah/Ramah was any specific place. As we cannot prove a negative, it is up to those who make the positive claim as you did her, to show us you are correct.

You are far from the first person to make the claim, and, so far, no one has been able to back it up.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I feel confident that when it says "ten thousand" in the BoM that it pretty much meant exactly that- ten thousand individual souls.

Your coinfidence aside, there is no reason to assume this to be the case.

There is no reason to believe anything else.

I gave a set of reasons.

The Bible has a couple of examples where the number of men was used to identify the unit, but the number of "individual souls" was far lower.

The Romans were not the only ones to use a number as a unit designator. The Greeks did it, too. Why not the Nephites?

The BoM is pretty consistant with using numbers of actual counts of peoples in battles. Think of the Jaredites- at one time in their warring battles at the end there were "millions" slain.

Not a parallel example, as the Jaredites were not Israelites.

Lehi

[Rob Osborn]

We resist the notion because it is not true.

There is no official policy or statement that Cumorah/Ramah was any specific place. As we cannot prove a negative, it is up to those who make the positive claim as you did her, to show us you are correct.

You are far from the first person to make the claim, and, so far, no one has been able to back it up.

Lehi

Is this good enough-

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

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

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2

[Rob Osborn]

Your coinfidence aside, there is no reason to assume this to be the case.

I gave a set of reasons.

The Bible has a couple of examples where the number of men was used to identify the unit, but the number of "individual souls" was far lower.

The Romans were not the only ones to use a number as a unit designator. The Greeks did it, too. Why not the Nephites?

Not a parallel example, as the Jaredites were not Israelites.

Lehi

You have to give far better proof that "ten thousand" does not mean exactly that in the BoM. How could you possibly prove it wrong? And why would you seek to do such anyway?

[mapman]

never mind

[againandagain]

This is the basis for a lot of confusion..."Ten thousand" was not necessarily a number>>Lehi

Based on other numbers given throughout the Book of Mormon, I think the numbers are accurate. In any case, how does it lead "to confusion"? The point is, in a model, one must explain:

• The reason they picked Cumorah?
• What was the wisdom is having multiple water ways there?
• Where the front line(s) were and why?
• Where they were not and why?
• Why survivors only escaped south?

I know you guys all realize that the church officially places the hill Cumorah in upstate New York but I am always drawn to the idea of "why" members insist that it wasn't? Very few scriptures give any certain data as to its location on the land. Only vague descriptions of it abound in scripture. We only know it was in the north country and that it was in a place of many waters.
I think what one must do is to positively first show that it wasn't in New York before they can honestly start looking elsewhere. Why doesn't New York fit? Was it too far away? But too far away from what? Was it too cold of a place? Was it not geographically in line with the text? But in comparison to what? We are not sure exactly where either the Jaredites or the Nephites reigned and had their cities of importance. How can we be sure that any ruin or ruins is from BoM peoples? Are we trying to make a shoe fit or are we truly trying to find the right shoe?

Good questions. But here are better ones:

• If the final battle was somewhere else, why did not Moroni (or some mystery agent) bury them in Vermont?
• If land promises have zero relevance, then why weren't they buried wherever you believe the final battle was?

Don't hold your breath Rob.

[Brant Gardner]

And why did survivors only escape south?

An interesting possibility, given the linguistic geography of the area, is that they went south because that was where they spoke the language. It would be an unintelligible language in any city to the north.

[Brant Gardner]

I feel confident that when it says "ten thousand" in the BoM that it pretty much meant exactly that- ten thousand individual souls. There is no reason to believe anything else.

Except known history. The military records we have for the Romans and for the Aztecs indicate that there were military groupings based on a particular number, but that number was not always the count of men in the division (frequently quite a few less). The Aztec "division" was 8,000, but rarely had 8,000 warriors.

[Brant Gardner]

You have to give far better proof that "ten thousand" does not mean exactly that in the BoM. How could you possibly prove it wrong? And why would you seek to do such anyway?

You don't try to prove it wrong to prove it wrong: you examine the listed numbers to try to understand them. I went though them and tried to see whether they indicated counts or estimates (or military units). The nature of the numbers strongly suggests that they are not counts (and not simply because it is virtually impossible to count a crowd that large). The numbers simply behave in ways that do not lend themselves to accurate counts.

I put the results in some volume of my commentary. I don't remember where.

[againandagain]

An interesting possibility, given the linguistic geography of the area, is that they went south because that was where they spoke the language. It would be an unintelligible language in any city to the north.

Where is that in the BoM? Oh, I forgot, you're one of those reverse engineers defending unscriptural models. Fyi readers, if a commenter has invested countless this that and the other for unsupported models, they'll die before admitting error.

[Kevin Christensen]

I know you guys all realize that the church officially places the hill Cumorah in upstate New York but I am always drawn to the idea of "why" members insist that it wasn't?

Those who insist that it wasn't are those who read the Book of Mormon descriptions, comprehensively, and considering how all the details must interlock. In engineering, as in biology, as in society, hierarchy is a strategy for dealing with complexity. In a schematic, something that says "CPU" can be a box that represents a Central Processing Unit. Fine. Some people need and want to understand what is in the box. Others simply trust that expert authorities somewhere have done the work, and that somehow the work to understand and reliably operate that complexity underneath the simple name has been done, whether CPU or optic nerve or Cumorah/Ramah. The problem is, those who have opened the box regarding Cumorah/Ramah, who looked underneath the so-called "authoritative teaching" regarding the New York Hill have found that by and large, it has all been people who quote people who quote people who quote other people ad infinitum without ever looking inside the box, at where and how the tradition started, and more importantly, without explaining how the tradition fits with the eye-witness accounts in scripture, and how both compare with real-world locations, without understanding the full range of complexity, accounting for the range of clear, interlocking details.

In a recent discussion here, I kept asking "where's the beef?" and all I get is authority quotes that provide a conclusion, but never open the actual scripture, never going to the eyewitness accounts.

Offically, D&C 1:24-28 says of LDS leadership, "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest... inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed... and blessed with knowledge from time to time." That means, it is all right to ask questions and read for ourselves on this topic. If the official answer truely has "authority" regarding the question of Cumorah, it ought to be consistent with the content of the Book of Mormon, and the content of the Book of Mormon ought to be consistent with a real world location. If the static truth were already known, then we should have all the answers and locations labeled on the Only Truth shelf. Even if we go through a process of studying things out in our minds, then the process ought to be one that shows a tendency to convergence, accounting for more and more details.

Very few scriptures give any certain data as to its location on the land. Only vague descriptions of it abound in scripture. We only know it was in the north country and that it was in a place of many waters.

Actually we have a lot more than that.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/333

And the Book of Mormon including details about other locations which, particularly the Sidon, which Larry Poulson has demonstrated, presents enough detail to uniquely describe a single river in the entire Western Hemisphere. That specifity is the opposite of vagueness. And there is more.

Look at Sorenon's A Whole Bunch of Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography Could not Have Included North America.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/243

And this, following up on Poulson's work on the Sidon.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/180

I think what one must do is to positively first show that it wasn't in New York before they can honestly start looking elsewhere. Why doesn't New York fit? Was it too far away? But too far away from what? Was it too cold of a place? Was it not geographically in line with the text? But in comparison to what?

Read the linked articles. And if those arguments are not valid, how about something from an official source that deals with the specific questions raised, and provides better solutions? And "Joseph F. Smith said so" is not an argument. It is an appeal to an authority who never looks inside the box, who just asserts without either questioning or answering the questions that had been raised. Where is a candidate for the cement cities in the land north, that is North of the New York hill? Where is any evidence of high cultures that date to the right time? Can you make sense of the story of Limhi's explorers at all, let alone better than Larry Poulson's approach? And how about Gardner's FAIR essay on Gaddianton candidates from a specific time and place that actually fits?

And yes, the Book of Mormon texts notably lack any description of Lake Effect winters. It describes the crippling heat of the New Year.

We are not sure exactly where either the Jaredites or the Nephites reigned and had their cities of importance. How can we be sure that any ruin or ruins is from BoM peoples? Are we trying to make a shoe fit or are we truly trying to find the right shoe?

How about the Jaredite City of Lib?

http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/3yw5nrh2/06.%20SAN%20LORENZO%20AS%20THE%20JAREDITE%20CITY%20OF%20LIB.htm?n=0

You may not agree with the candidate, but do you have a better one (that is, that accounts for the eye-witness accounts in the text), as well as any archeology whatsoever?

Sorenson and Poulson and Clark and company are at least taking measurements. Sorenson's Sourcebook, for instance, is a valuable resource. I noticed that in Mormon's Map, at the end, Sorenson lamented that none of the alternate geographies that have emerged since have bothered to use his Source Book "report card" of scriptural details that can and should be accounted for by any external geographic model, particularly any that claims to be better.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

In a recent discussion here, I kept asking "where's the beef?" and all I get is authority quotes that provide a conclusion, but never open the actual scripture, never going to the eyewitness accounts.

Perhaps it is an easy way to dispose of an argument by calling it conclusory All arguments are conclusory.

Offically, D&C 1:24-28 says of LDS leadership, "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest... inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed... and blessed with knowledge from time to time."

Arguing from the point of view that the Brethren are in error puts you in a weak position, not strong.

Look at Sorenon's A Whole Bunch of Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography Could not Have Included North America.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/243

I have a lot of problems with this. Massive earthworks and armor and weaponry have, indeed, been found far to the north. [With all your reading of Mesoamerican-LDS works, I wonder if you've cracked many books about the Northern American Indian, cities along the Mississippi and Ohio, the mounds, the Great Lakes. For instance, perhaps the largest pre-conquest copper mine in the world was located in the Great Lakes area, and the measured output from that mine does not compute when compared to local copper products; it demonstrates significant civilization and trading.]

And, large-scale burials.

What puts the north to a supreme disadvantage in the debate is that its population nearly vanished by the time Europeans arrived,[note1] and then much of the highly-fertile areas was ploughed up. A point may archaeologists have noted. Moreover, LDS anthropologists and archaeologists have spent almost no time in the Ohio Valley.

And "Joseph F. Smith said so" is not an argument. It is an appeal to an authority

I don't think this standard rhetorical device works in the context of dealing with the statements of the President of the Quorum of Twelve. Latter-day Saints naturally appeal to authority because that is what we are taught to do. Moreover, we are taught to question secular conclusions at odds with the statements of prophets and apostles. Moreover, President Smith wasn't dealing with the computed distance from the Earth to the Moon, but with the location of the Hill Cumorah, which is a scriptural matter alone, a venue in which apostles and prophets (and not social scientists) reign supreme.

[note1] The debate over this population decline is a hot one. First, one has to deal with the competing schools of thought which say there wasn't a large population with the one that says that there was. Then, one has to analyze how it could be that there could have been a population fall-off before the Europeans.

[Bob Crockett]

There is no official policy or statement that Cumorah/Ramah was any specific place. As we cannot prove a negative, it is up to those who make the positive claim as you did her, to show us you are correct.

I say there is an official policy. It was announced by Q12 President Joseph F. Smith in a manual which became a priesthood manual, which is still in print, and which Deseret Books says is "authoritative."

Sure, I've seen the Watson fax statement saying there is no official policy, but given the equal dignities doctrine (a statement in a priesthood manual still in circulation vs. an unsigned fax from a person not a General Authority) I'd say it as official as things get in the Church. What is "official" anyways? I mean, the location of Cumorah/Ramah has been announced several times in General Conference, and republished in official conference reports after the First Presidency has approved their publication. Why isn't that "official?"

Having offered these two posts, let me offer my actual views of things. I don't think it matters one whit where Hill Cumorah is located or where the final battle took place. I merely question a few things: (1) the highly speculative work of Dr. Sorenson, and (2) the substantial ink and effort spilled in pinning the whole story to Mesoamerica -- if it doesn't matter and there is no official policy, then why? [i believe I know the answer but it is not received well.]

[Rob Osborn]

Those who insist that it wasn't are those who read the Book of Mormon descriptions, comprehensively, and considering how all the details must interlock. In engineering, as in biology, as in society, hierarchy is a strategy for dealing with complexity. In a schematic, something that says "CPU" can be a box that represents a Central Processing Unit. Fine. Some people need and want to understand what is in the box. Others simply trust that expert authorities somewhere have done the work, and that somehow the work to understand and reliably operate that complexity underneath the simple name has been done, whether CPU or optic nerve or Cumorah/Ramah. The problem is, those who have opened the box regarding Cumorah/Ramah, who looked underneath the so-called "authoritative teaching" regarding the New York Hill have found that by and large, it has all been people who quote people who quote people who quote other people ad infinitum without ever looking inside the box, at where and how the tradition started, and more importantly, without explaining how the tradition fits with the eye-witness accounts in scripture, and how both compare with real-world locations, without understanding the full range of complexity, accounting for the range of clear, interlocking details.

In a recent discussion here, I kept asking "where's the beef?" and all I get is authority quotes that provide a conclusion, but never open the actual scripture, never going to the eyewitness accounts.

Offically, D&C 1:24-28 says of LDS leadership, "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest... inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed... and blessed with knowledge from time to time." That means, it is all right to ask questions and read for ourselves on this topic. If the official answer truely has "authority" regarding the question of Cumorah, it ought to be consistent with the content of the Book of Mormon, and the content of the Book of Mormon ought to be consistent with a real world location. If the static truth were already known, then we should have all the answers and locations labeled on the Only Truth shelf. Even if we go through a process of studying things out in our minds, then the process ought to be one that shows a tendency to convergence, accounting for more and more details.

Actually we have a lot more than that.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/333

And the Book of Mormon including details about other locations which, particularly the Sidon, which Larry Poulson has demonstrated, presents enough detail to uniquely describe a single river in the entire Western Hemisphere. That specifity is the opposite of vagueness. And there is more.

Look at Sorenon's A Whole Bunch of Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography Could not Have Included North America.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/243

And this, following up on Poulson's work on the Sidon.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/180

Read the linked articles. And if those arguments are not valid, how about something from an official source that deals with the specific questions raised, and provides better solutions? And "Joseph F. Smith said so" is not an argument. It is an appeal to an authority who never looks inside the box, who just asserts without either questioning or answering the questions that had been raised. Where is a candidate for the cement cities in the land north, that is North of the New York hill? Where is any evidence of high cultures that date to the right time? Can you make sense of the story of Limhi's explorers at all, let alone better than Larry Poulson's approach? And how about Gardner's FAIR essay on Gaddianton candidates from a specific time and place that actually fits?

And yes, the Book of Mormon texts notably lack any description of Lake Effect winters. It describes the crippling heat of the New Year.

How about the Jaredite City of Lib?

http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/3yw5nrh2/06.%20SAN%20LORENZO%20AS%20THE%20JAREDITE%20CITY%20OF%20LIB.htm?n=0

You may not agree with the candidate, but do you have a better one (that is, that accounts for the eye-witness accounts in the text), as well as any archeology whatsoever?

Sorenson and Poulson and Clark and company are at least taking measurements. Sorenson's Sourcebook, for instance, is a valuable resource. I noticed that in Mormon's Map, at the end, Sorenson lamented that none of the alternate geographies that have emerged since have bothered to use his Source Book "report card" of scriptural details that can and should be accounted for by any external geographic model, particularly any that claims to be better.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on archaeology and am not sure on anything as far as where any lands were. That said, I have read the BoM texts and see nothing in not believing that the hill in New York is the very Hill Cumorah as spoken of in the BoM. Early historical records of America tell accounts of great tragedy up the Mississippi and Ohio valley culminating in the New York area close to where the Hill Cumorah is. Digging up skeletons on mass scale which show signs of war and carnage was an everday scenerio in the 1800's. Distance is not a factor as some think. Many LDS scholars think it all had to take place ina small geographical area. But why? It's because they cannot conceive of any reality outside of what they want it to look like. They are trying to make a shoe fit and it aint fittin!

To me, the evidence shows that the hill in New York is very much the very hill Cumorah from the BoM.

[Anijen]

rcrocket

I have a lot of problems with this. Massive earthworks and armor and weaponry have, indeed, been found far to the north. [With all your reading of Mesoamerican-LDS works, I wonder if you've cracked many books about the Northern American Indian, cities along the Mississippi and Ohio, the mounds, the Great Lakes.

Hi rcrocket, I have studied some of the cultures and have "cracked" a few books on the topic. It is true the Hopewell Tradition share some of the time similarities with the the Nephites but the Adena culture was established a little too late to be compared to the Jaredites. Every mound I studied were for burial purposes, not counting the effigy mounds (which are pretty cool by the way especially serpent mound). The mounds have more of a religious theme to them such as the Creil Mound were the men were buried in a circle around another man. These seem to be more spiritually motivated than for strategic or military use although it has been posited that they were watchtowers but that seems to be a tiny bit sacrilegious to have a watch tower on top of your buried revered leader (the average Hopwell or Adena person was cremated). My biggest criticism is the population differences required by the Book of Mormon, Robert Silverberg (the Mound Builders)is the most quoted authoritarian by Meldrum. He (Silverberg) says they might have existed in the "thousands" but gives no resources to back up that claim, he is not an archeologist nor an anthropologist, he is a science fiction writer. His book does say he has a B.A in English Literature. I have to admit I only have three books concerning the mound builders, but I have read many papers and every book and paper I have read said that both Adena and Hopewell were foragers with just rudimentary skills as farmers (mostly squash and beans)and were no where considered remotely as having a domesticated agriculture which would be required for large populations as required to match with those of the Book of Mormon. Now I do believe that they could have traded and probably did incrementally (from group to group etc)with the Mesoamerican people because of their vastly established trade routes. I also believe they could have been one of the other sheep that the Savior visited.

Now let me explain why I put more credence for Mesoamerica than I do for a Great Lakes area. I have many many reason to believe this but mainly for population reasons and also because Joseph did say that "the city of Zarahemla ... stood upon this land" he also thought that perhaps that Palenque was a Nephite city (the Times and Seasons vol III #22-23). Having said that I do belive it was his idea that it was a Nephite city and although he very excited about these sites he wasnt speaking as thus sayeth the Lord type of statement. Another reason was the Mulekites who did encounter Coriantumr (a Jaredite) so I think basically the Mulekites and Jaredites lived in or near the same area and we know that the Mulekites or the People of Zarahemla lived about 22-24 days from the Nephites (See in Mosiah when the migration/departures North they run into the Mulekites). I also admit I have well near a hundred books on Mesoamerica compared to my three on the Hopewell and Adena so I am a little biased.

On the location of the Hill Cumorah it is in NY it is where Moroni buried the plates and it is where Joseph retrieved the plates. But that does not mean there isn't another one and it doesn't prove that is where the final battle was (I agree tradition puts it there). I like how Kevin Christensen puts it;

it has all been people who quote people who quote people who quote other people ad infinitum

and lastly although it is not over the pulpit and was not publicly spoken but last year I had a chance to speak with President Hinckley's daughter for quite some time and she agrees with two Cumorahs.

[Anijen]

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on archaeology and am not sure on anything as far as where any lands were. That said, I have read the BoM texts and see nothing in not believing that the hill in New York is the very Hill Cumorah as spoken of in the BoM. Early historical records of America tell accounts of great tragedy up the Mississippi and Ohio valley culminating in the New York area close to where the Hill Cumorah is. Digging up skeletons on mass scale which show signs of war and carnage was an everday scenerio in the 1800's. Distance is not a factor as some think. Many LDS scholars think it all had to take place ina small geographical area. But why? It's because they cannot conceive of any reality outside of what they want it to look like. They are trying to make a shoe fit and it aint fittin!

To me, the evidence shows that the hill in New York is very much the very hill Cumorah from the BoM.

Not being snarky here I am truly curious, what evidence are you speaking of and how and why do you feel it outweighs the Mesoamerican evidence? Yes there are mounds with bones but "digging up skeletons on mass scale" I would like a CFR. I have read about this pretty extensively and have not read of a single account where it all came to a culmination in NY where there were "skeletons found on a mass scale"

[Brant Gardner]

Where is that in the BoM?

Inside the Book of Mormon it is the logical inference from the fact that Nephites from the south did not speak the same language and Mulekites who had migrated down from the the north. The final battles take place in the region in which there was that unintelligible language.

Oh, I forgot, you're one of those reverse engineers defending unscriptural models.

You must have forgotten more than that. For example you suggest that I defend an "unscriptural" model. I find that amusing, and really quite easy to disprove. That someone else might not agree with the way I read the scriptures is also true, but that fact that two people read them differently doesn't make the one you disagree with "unscriptural."

Fyi readers, if a commenter has invested countless this that and the other for unsupported models, they'll die before admitting error.

Once again, it seems rather simple to disprove this particular assertion. From the fact that you make it, I assume that you really don't know me or my work at all. I suggest that it is wiser to speak from a position of knowledge than to theorize from ignorance.

[againandagain]

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on archaeology and am not sure on anything as far as where any lands were. That said, I have read the BoM texts and see nothing in not believing that the hill in New York is the very Hill Cumorah as spoken of in the BoM. Early historical records of America tell accounts of great tragedy up the Mississippi and Ohio valley culminating in the New York area close to where the Hill Cumorah is. Digging up skeletons on mass scale which show signs of war and carnage was an everday scenerio in the 1800's. Distance is not a factor as some think. Many LDS scholars think it all had to take place ina small geographical area. But why? It's because they cannot conceive of any reality outside of what they want it to look like. They are trying to make a shoe fit and it aint fittin!

To me, the evidence shows that the hill in New York is very much the very hill Cumorah from the BoM.

On the first part, you're right. On the distance part, you're wrong. Distances are given, and are clear, it was a relatively small area, with borders and boundaries. For example, from the Land Bountiful to the head of the River Sidon was a day to walk. The width of the Land Bountiful and Land Desolation was only a 1.5 day walk. It's not rocket science, unless you have an agenda that filters the text causing you to ignore what does not fit your agenda - no offense!

...the Adena culture was established a little too late to be compared to the Jaredites...I have to admit I only have three books concerning the mound builders...very book and paper I have read said that both Adena and Hopewell were foragers with just rudimentary skills as farmers (mostly squash and beans)and were no where considered remotely as having a domesticated agriculture which would be required for large populations as required to match with those of the Book of Mormon...I also admit I have well near a hundred books on Mesoamerica compared to my three on the Hopewell and Adena so I am a little biased.

Thank you for admitting ignorance. And those three books, you remember what they say? I suggest you revisit those and look for the words "corn" and "copper."

On the location of the Hill Cumorah it is in NY it is where Moroni buried the plates and it is where Joseph retrieved the plates. But that does not mean there isn't another one and it doesn't prove that is where the final battle was (I agree tradition puts it there). I like how Kevin Christensen puts it; and lastly although it is not over the pulpit and was not publicly spoken but last year I had a chance to speak with President Hinckley's daughter for quite some time and she agrees with two Cumorahs.

Prior to going to battle, Mormon secured ALL records as both he and his son knew they would be destroyed, i.e. not survive. You knew that right? And Moroni had a few blank leaves in case he survived?

Lets put the lie "no official position" to rest once and for all. Official church history, read it and weep:

LATTER DAY SAINTS' MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, Volume I. No. 1. KIRTLAND, OHIO, OCTOBER, 1834, p. 157-158

Btw, this church history was reprinted in the Times and Seasons (1840), and Gospel Reflector (1841) and Letters by Oliver, Liverpool (1844).

The following WAS given over the pulpit by an APOSTLE:

We visited the Hill Cumorah and were accorded the courtesy of going thereon by the wife of Mr. George Sampson, a brother of Admiral Wm. Sampson, who before his death owned the property. When we went up there and looked around, we felt that we were standing on holy ground. The brethren located, as near as they thought was possible, the place from which the plates of the Book of Mormon were taken by the Prophet. We were delighted to be there. Looking over the surrounding country we remembered that two great races of people had wound up their existence in the vicinity, had fought their last fight, and that hundreds of thousands had been slain within sight of that hill. Evidence of the great battles that have been fought there in days gone by are manifest in the numerous spear and arrow-heads that have been found by farmers while plowing in that neighborhood. We were fortunate enough to obtain a few of the arrowheads. (George Albert Smith, Conference Report, April 1906, Third Day

[Anijen]

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism;

Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.

That includes New York

the EoM has been quoted by Elder Cook, Elder Perry, Elder Maxwell and many others.

The church has no official view on the geography of the Book of Mormon. They emphasize its purpose to bring people to Christ not where it happened. You can quote the old books as much as you want it wont change the fact. If the church viewed NY as the location of the final battle ask yourself why did the updated seminary and institute manuals take that out and put in this;

Possible relationships of sites in the Book of Mormon based on internal evidence. No

effort should be made to identify points on this map with any existing geographical

location. Originally prepared by Daniel H. Ludlow and used by his permission

map here

[againandagain]

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism;

That includes New York

the EoM has been quoted by Elder Cook, Elder Perry, Elder Maxwell and many others.

The water is always better upstream - no offense.

[Anijen]

The water is always better upstream - no offense.

I'm sorry I would have to understand what this means before I can take offense or not.

[againandagain]

I'm sorry I would have to understand what this means before I can take offense or not.

Here's another one, from which branch is it better to pick cherries. Lower down, or higher up?

[Anijen]

Here is a link to what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism has to say on the geography of the Book of Mormon. It seems quite clear they have no stand on any official location. But reading suggests that Mesoamerica is a stronger likelihood.

[Anijen]

Here's another one, from which branch is it better to pick cherries. Lower down, or higher up?

I'm sorry but wouldn't it be easier just to say what you mean and not trying to be so esoteric?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Here are some reasons why I favor Mesoamerica, and even the Andean region, over the Great Lakes theory...

Mesoamerica filled with precious metals such as gold, silver, copper, and the like. And though this be on pure conjecture, I think the ziff mentioned in the Book of Mormon is jade.

Unparalleled writing systems, which were nonexistent in North America, and virtually nonexistent in the Andean region (albeit they did communicate via the quipu strands).

Multiple culture zones, influenced in big part by a mother culture that parallels the Olmec civilization.

Multiple, elaborate ruins that date back to the times of the Book of Mormon, extending 750 miles from north to south.

Human sacrifice mentioned as an abomination in the end of the Book of Mormon (NOT practiced by North American Indians except for a few instances of cannibalism among a couple of tribes in southern Texas, yet practiced a bunch among the Mesoamerican Indians, and to a certain degree, the Andeans too).

Legends of a white bearded God that lived among them center in that region, and have very interesting parallels, be it Quetzalcoatl, Kukulkan, or Gucumatz. Found also among the Andeans in the personage of Viracocha. Found as well in sporadic instances in North American tribes but with more vague storylines.