Jon63 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Another thread talked about evidences of the Book of Mormon and the importance of looking for the right things.I agree with that sentiment, and looking for the Hill Cumorah seems a very simple thing to do because we know where it is:''CUMORAH, HillA 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''(taken from the official LDS website 10th January 2011)or do we?''The Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is the same hill in New York from which Joseph retrieved the plates.This claim is problematic on several levels''(taken from an article by Mike Ash on the official LDS outlet for 'trusted news' Mormon Times)In his article entitled 'Cumorah claims can't sustain Great Lakes Model' it would seem that Mr Ash is attemting to say that the Church (and therefore the First Presidency) is wrong about this.I think this is worthy of discussion because the location of the Hill Cumorah and the undoubted wealth of archeological evidence that must abound in and around it's vicinity would undoubtedly provide proof of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Another thread talked about evidences of the Book of Mormon and the importance of looking for the right things.I agree with that sentiment, and looking for the Hill Cumorah seems a very simple thing to do because we know where it is:''CUMORAH, HillA 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''(taken from the official LDS website 10th January 2011)or do we?''The Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is the same hill in New York from which Joseph retrieved the plates.This claim is problematic on several levels''(taken from an article by Mike Ash on the official LDS outlet for 'trusted news' Mormon Times)In his article entitled 'Cumorah claims can't sustain Great Lakes Model' it would seem that Mr Ash is attemting to say that the Church (and therefore the First Presidency) is wrong about this.I think this is worthy of discussion because the location of the Hill Cumorah and the undoubted wealth of archeological evidence that must abound in and around it's vicinity would undoubtedly provide proof of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.Just because they called the hill "Cumorah" doesn't mean it is the Cumorah where the final battle was fought. Just because Portland, Maine exists does not mean Portland , Oregon does not exist. Locations are named in honor of other locations all the time.CFR where Moroni ever claims to bury the plates at the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, or anywhere close to it.,Yours is a tired, easily refutable argument.
Jon63 Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 Just because they called the hill "Cumorah" doesn't mean it is the Cumorah where the final battle was fought. Just because Portland, Maine exists does not mean Portland , Oregon does not exist. Locations are named in honor of other locations all the time.CFR where Moroni ever claims to bury the plates at the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, or anywhere close to it.,Yours is a tired, easily refutable argument.I wasn't making an argument.I just wanted to know why Mike Ash was saying the Hill Cumorah where the plates were found and where they have the monument and the pageant, wasn't the Hill Cumorah that is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.At least we know your take on it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I wasn't making an argument.I just wanted to know why Mike Ash was saying the Hill Cumorah where the plates were found and where they have the monument and the pageant, wasn't the Hill Cumorah that is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.At least we know your take on it.IT might do you well to learn that the place that the plates were burried was never called Camoriah until years latter by someone else other than JS. Does that help us out at all? Maybe?
cinepro Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Just because they called the hill "Cumorah" doesn't mean it is the Cumorah where the final battle was fought. Just because Portland, Maine exists does not mean Portland , Oregon does not exist. Locations are named in honor of other locations all the time.Why did you say "Portland, Maine" and "Portland, Oregon" instead of just calling them both simply "Portland"?
cdowis Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Why did you say "Portland, Maine" and "Portland, Oregon" instead of just calling them both simply "Portland"?Because that refers to a particular type of cement.
Anijen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Mormon 6:6...therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.By this scripture we know that it is very likely that Mormon gave a portion of the plates of Mormon to Moroni and then sometime after this verse was written, The remaining large portion of all the plates (the plates of Nephi, small and large, the plates of Ether and the plates of brass) were hidden in the hill Cumorah. We then know that Moroni fled the Lamanites and wandered approximately 37-38 years(dedicating future temple sites along the way)and more than likely arrived in upstate New York where he at some point buried the plates he had and 1430 years later Joseph retrieved them. This to me is the most plausible theory and supports a Mesoamerican model very well. Reasons NY does not fit;1.If one is to believe the hill Cumorah is in New York, where Mormon hid the majority of the plates, it becomes very problematic. IMO it is highly unlikely that Moroni wandered those long years fleeing Lamanites just to end up back in the same area from which he first fled.2. The hill Cumorah in NY does not have any cavities or caves to hide the plates and there is no evidence of large populations nor of warfare on a grand scale that the text of the Book of Mormon requires.3. Climate of the Book of Mormon suggests tropical which NY is not.4. Other verses suggests volcanic activity The great Lakes model has only had three volcanoes ever erupt in that proposed area but the last eruption was over 65 million years ago, long before the BofM time.5. The East sea (Atlantic Ocean) is not close as the Book of Mormon suggests. The BofM implies it is very close to the hill probably within fifteen to thirty miles would be a good estimate, Palmyra is hundreds of miles from the Atlantic.6. There is no city of cement North of Palmyra (it least we haven't found one as yet).7. The Hopewell tradition's population in that area of the hill was very sparse probably 1000 max (and I am being generous) around the time of the Book of Mormon.8. other mismatching criteria.I want to point out that Mesoamerica fits all of these criteria exceptionally well against all the available models put forth. It is my opinion that Mesoamerica is the only place that fits and is corroborated by the text of the Book of Mormon and the present available archeological evidence.
Rob Osborn Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 In my studies I have found that the hill in NY fits amazingly well. It was an area of last retreat. It was also an area that wasn't accessed very much in typical day to day operations in BoM times. It was an area of exceedingly great distance from the land of Bountiful and Zarahemla. In Nephite times it wasn't even discovered for hundreds of years. No 300 by 400 mile area is going to go unoticed for that long.What many people do not know is that American antiquities researchers in the 1800's found the area of wetern NY to be the site of a great extermination of peoples- where an ancient civilization came to extinction by massive warfare. It was common in those early frontier days to plow up large masses of skeleton fragments many of which showed signs of warfare. Countless spearpoints and arrowheads were brought up from the earth. The massive scale upon which were found mounds and mounds of quickly deposited skeletins who had died in large battles. Many of the hundreds and hundreds of earthen defensive works were plowed away but many still exist.We know through archeological excavations that the great lakes area was a place rich in ore and that the land was heavily mined thousands of years ago. The ore was worked and traded down the Ohio and Mississippi valleys and down into the Gulf of Mexico and central America. This was of course prime land for the Nephites to gather their people, have an unlimited supply of ore, massive water-way system for travel and trade.The evidence speaks for itself http://www.archive.org/stream/antiquitiesofsta00squirich#page/n7/mode/2up. Western New York was indeed the spot of a race of people who were exterminated- it was the Nephites!
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 All this tells us is that JFS held an opinion that that is were it is/was. No, this tells us that an Apostle of the Lord gave an inpsired public discourse about the location of the Hill Cumorah.You have to accept that either:a. The Apostles speak publically to congregations of Saints only by inspiration and on behalf of the Lord orb. The Apostles can speak publically without inspiration and get things wrong (in your opinion)If it is option b. then how can we trust anything an Apostle says as being 'correct'?
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Rob Osborn:I believe Brother Sorenson makes a better case for a Mesoamerican BoM.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 No, this tells us that an Apostle of the Lord gave an inpsired public discourse about the location of the Hill Cumorah.You have to accept that either:a. The Apostles speak publically to congregations of Saints only by inspiration and on behalf of the Lord orb. The Apostles can speak publically without inspiration and get things wrong (in your opinion)If it is option b. then how can we trust anything an Apostle says as being 'correct'?Or, how about c. Apostles can offer their own good and bad opinions, and also speak by inspiration, and listeners have both the opportunity and responsibility to find out for themselves. D&C 1 does not mince words on the topic:Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 25And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.In this God acknowledges that his servant (LDS leaders) recieve his commandments in their weakness, and go through a process of coming to understanding, not instaneous omniscience in all things.That when they err, it can be made known.That instruction is continegent on their seeking wisdom.That knowlege comes from time to time.Those who quote this JFS passage always neglect other important prophets who have spoken on the topic. Alma, Helaman, Mormon, Moroni, Helaman, later Nephis. JFS is interpreting a very limited set of passages, only quoting one. Alma, Helaman, Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, and company are eye-witnesses. The eye witness testimony should fit with any later interpretation. And if later interpretations conflict with the prophetic eye witness testimony, LDS members have the right to ask questions. Sorenson and company have located around 1000 Book of Mormon passages with geographic information significant for locating Book of Mormon events. They all must fit together like a jig saw puzzle. Until 1938 NO LDS scholar or leader made a serious effort to locate, study, and account for all of them. That kind of close study is what JFS was responding to, and it happens that he nowhere actually responds to the passages that raise the questions. For instance, Sidney Sperry describes some of the issues that a closer reading of the Book of Mormon raises here:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=98Rather than directly deal with the specific passages that raises the questions, JFS turned to tradition. If you can defend the New York Hill as the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah/Ramah, try doing so by accounting for the eyewitness descriptions of the participants, not the late interpretations that demonstrably ignore them.Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA
High Priest Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 2. The hill Cumorah in NY does not have any cavities or caves to hide the plates and there is no evidence of large populations nor of warfare on a grand scale that the text of the Book of Mormon requires.Per Brigham Young, the hill opened up and a cave appeared. So it does not appear to have been a natural cave, or even one in this plane of existance or it would have been found by now.Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls." (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 19:38)
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God." Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign) "The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862. "I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: 'There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord'." L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over". N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3It doesn't sound like the Church Leaders want us to do too much thinking for ourselves
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It doesn't sound like the Church Leaders want us to do too much thinking for ourselvesWhen exactly did you join the Church as that you could be called "US"?
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 In my studies I have found that the hill in NY fits amazingly well. It was an area of last retreat. It was also an area that wasn't accessed very much in typical day to day operations in BoM times. It was an area of exceedingly great distance from the land of Bountiful and Zarahemla. In Nephite times it wasn't even discovered for hundreds of years. No 300 by 400 mile area is going to go unoticed for that long.What many people do not know is that American antiquities researchers in the 1800's found the area of wetern NY to be the site of a great extermination of peoples- where an ancient civilization came to extinction by massive warfare. It was common in those early frontier days to plow up large masses of skeleton fragments many of which showed signs of warfare. Countless spearpoints and arrowheads were brought up from the earth. The massive scale upon which were found mounds and mounds of quickly deposited skeletins who had died in large battles. Many of the hundreds and hundreds of earthen defensive works were plowed away but many still exist.We know through archeological excavations that the great lakes area was a place rich in ore and that the land was heavily mined thousands of years ago. The ore was worked and traded down the Ohio and Mississippi valleys and down into the Gulf of Mexico and central America. This was of course prime land for the Nephites to gather their people, have an unlimited supply of ore, massive water-way system for travel and trade.The evidence speaks for itself http://www.archive.o...ge/n7/mode/2up. Western New York was indeed the spot of a race of people who were exterminated- it was the Nephites!Warfare in the Book of Mormon happens during the winter months. Anyone who wants to wage war with shaved heads and loincloths in NY State is out of their gourd, and would freeze to death or fall prey to the elements in some other fashion. There is no way that anyone would want to wage war in the winter months in NY.I lived in NY State several years ago, I moved out one cold day near the end of Jan. The day I left, there were three feet of SNOW in my front yard. I don't mean that if you take all the snow and pile it up, it would be three feet of snow. I mean that there was THREE FEET DEEP of snow all over my yard.Trust me, snow is mighty cold on the loin cloth.
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 Warfare in the Book of Mormon happens during the winter months. Now that's an interesting point that I haven't heard before.Can you point me in the direction of where it shows that BofM warfare takes place in the winter months?
Kevin Christensen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It doesn't sound like the Church Leaders want us to do too much thinking for ourselvesPropaganda is all about selection and emphasis. A broader perspective provides correction and clarity.Letter of President George Albert SmithChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsOffice of the First PresidencySalt Lake City, UtahDecember 7, 1945Dr. J. Raymond CopeFirst Unitarian Society13th East at 6th South StreetSalt Lake City, UtahMy dear Dr. Cope:I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled 'Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:"Know this, that every soul is free To choose his life and what he'll be, For this eternal truth is given That God will force no man to heaven."Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.Faithfully yours,Geo. Albert Smith [signed] Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA
Kevin Christensen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Now that's an interesting point that I haven't heard before.Can you point me in the direction of where it shows that BofM warfare takes place in the winter months?http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=72&chapid=877Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 http://maxwellinstit...d=72&chapid=877Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PAFrom the link to the article by John L Sorenson''Unfortunately, all these dates are given only in terms of the Nephite calendar of that time. We would like to know a great deal more about that calendar than the statements about it in the Book of Mormon reveal. But at least we do learn some things and can infer other things. For example, the highest numbered month mentioned is the eleventh (see Alma 49:1). And the highest numbered day mentioned is the twelfth (see Alma 14:23). How many months were there in one year, and how many days did one month contain? If we are to answer those questions and construct a picture of what their calendar was like overall, we must look outside the scripture at the cultural background from which they came. (Keep in mind that the Nephites, and the Lamanites separately, could have made changes in their system over the years. Furthermore, they may have used more than one calendar at a time, as many other ancient peoples did.)''I haven't read this before and whilst Mr Sorenson puts forward an interesting theory it seems to be based on rather too many if's but's and maybe's for us to treat it as anything other than speculation.Has any more study been done on the calendars used in Pre Columbian times?I have to also admit that I am influenced by it being written by someone who I think makes a living from the Mesoamerican model for the location of the Book of Mormon.
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 From the link to the article by John L Sorenson''Unfortunately, all these dates are given only in terms of the Nephite calendar of that time. We would like to know a great deal more about that calendar than the statements about it in the Book of Mormon reveal. But at least we do learn some things and can infer other things. For example, the highest numbered month mentioned is the eleventh (see Alma 49:1). And the highest numbered day mentioned is the twelfth (see Alma 14:23). How many months were there in one year, and how many days did one month contain? If we are to answer those questions and construct a picture of what their calendar was like overall, we must look outside the scripture at the cultural background from which they came. (Keep in mind that the Nephites, and the Lamanites separately, could have made changes in their system over the years. Furthermore, they may have used more than one calendar at a time, as many other ancient peoples did.)''I haven't read this before and whilst Mr Sorenson puts forward an interesting theory it seems to be based on rather too many if's but's and maybe's for us to treat it as anything other than speculation.Has any more study been done on the calendars used in Pre Columbian times?I have to also admit that I am influenced by it being written by someone who I think makes a living from the Mesoamerican model for the location of the Book of Mormon.I found the following paragraphs to be rather convincing myself...In the civilizations of Mesoamerica (southern Mexico and northern Central America)
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 I found the following paragraphs to be rather convincing myself...John L Sorenson states that the Book of Mormon only mentions up to the eleventh month and only up to the twelfth day of the month.To impose the current calendar of twelve months and 28 - 31 days per month onto the Book of Mormon is pure speculation.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I haven't read this before and whilst Mr Sorenson puts forward an interesting theory it seems to be based on rather too many if's but's and maybe's for us to treat it as anything other than speculation.Has any more study been done on the calendars used in Pre Columbian times?I have to also admit that I am influenced by it being written by someone who I think makes a living from the Mesoamerican model for the location of the Book of Mormon.Sorenson does not make his living from the Mesoamerican model. Now retired, he made his living as a Professor of Anthropology. He does not make his living from his books. Rather his books and articles grow from his passion for the Book of Mormon.Sorenson does not make money from his research in the way that Rodney Meldrum does, as a full time job, selling DVDs, or pimping seminars and tours, taking out full page ads, and casting aspersions on his professionally educated rivals as "profiting" while splitting with his own partner on grounds that he can make more money on his own. Speculation that attempts to comprehensively account for all of the available information in the Book of Mormon strikes me as far more useful than speculation that selectively exploits a few ambiguous passages, and selective quotations from Authority figures without ever considering the quality of work that those Authority figures did, and very often, demonstrably did not bother to do.Sorenson, on Wikipedia:John L. Sorenson (born 1924)[1] is an emeritus professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University (BYU) and the author of An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon as well as many other books and articles on the Book of Mormon and archaeology.Sorenson first did archaeological work in Meso-America while pursuing a masters degree at BYU. From January until June 1953 he was involved in the New World Archaeological Foundation's initial fieldwork (under the direction of Pedro Armillas) in the state of Tabasco in Mexico.[2]Sorenson holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles. He began teaching at BYU in 1963, and he later established the BYU's anthropology department. He also served as head of Social Sciences for General Research Corporation based in Santa Barbara, California, and was the founder of Bonneville Research Corporation.For a time he served as editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.While being a proponent of the historicity of the Book of Mormon,[3] Sorenson has also attacked the shoddy scholarship that some have used in defending the Book of Mormon.[4]Sorenson is the father of nine children. He has served as bishop of the BYU 99th Ward.For more on Book of Mormon calendars compared to others see Spackman:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=170Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.