Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[SkepticTheist]

As far as I understand and have read, the Hill Cumorah in New York is not the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where the last battles of the Jaradites and Nephites took place. As far as I know the Hill Cumorah was never called Cumorah till well after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. This is a not a title given through scripture or by ancient prophets but by the modern Church for the sacred site of when Moroni buried the golden plates.

So says you. As far as I know, there are many rational reasons to believe in a New York Cumorah. If we confine ourselves to the Book of Mormon text and leave out of the discussion everything any prophet ever said, then we can actually have a real discussion. Everything that regular Mesoamericanists use to refute it are just private interpretations of scripture that cannot refute other reasonable interpretations of the same verses. If other reasonable interpretations exist, then they are reasonable by virtue of the ability to give a rational reason for the interpretation. Just because a Mesoamericanist says it aint so or that it is irrational doesn't mean that the people who believe differently do not have rational beliefs just the same as they do. So you guys, I think that it is not asking too much that you give me the respect of being a rational and reasonable human being and don't play games with me in the sense of telling me that I don't have good enough reasons to believe logically and rationally as I do.

Ed Goble

[cinepro]

As far as I understand and have read, the Hill Cumorah in New York is not the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where the last battles of the Jaradites and Nephites took place. As far as I know the Hill Cumorah was never called Cumorah till well after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. This is a not a title given through scripture or by ancient prophets but by the modern Church for the sacred site of when Moroni buried the golden plates.

D&C

Section 128

An epistle from Joseph Smith the Prophet to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing further directions on baptism for the dead, dated at Nauvoo, Illinois, 6 September 1842 (see History of the Church, 5:148

[LeSellers]

As far as I understand and have read, the Hill Cumorah in New York is not the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where the last battles of the Jaradites and Nephites took place. As far as I know the Hill Cumorah was never called Cumorah till well after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. This is a not a title given through scripture or by ancient prophets but by the modern Church for the sacred site of when Moroni buried the golden plates.

An epistle from Joseph Smith the Prophet to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing further directions on baptism for the dead, dated at Nauvoo, Illinois, 6 September 1842 (see History of the Church, 5:148

[SkepticTheist]

I'm withdrawing from this particular conversation because I'm too passionate on this issue. I apologize for my contentious demeanor on this thing. Its better for me to drop off at this point.

Ed Goble

[cinepro]

Notice the date. Although well before the martyrdom in 1844, it's long after the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1829/30, and that's when Oliver started talking about "Cumorah" and pointing to the hill outside of Palmyra. By 1842, Oliver's appellation of Cumorah was widely accepted by the Saints (and others, too) as a name for the drumlin in New York.

As noted in my post, I was merely responding to LDS Guy's comment "As far as I know the Hill Cumorah was never called Cumorah till well after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith."

Now he knows.

Why so many are convinced that any reference to "Cumorah" in New York indicates that the Cumorah of Mormon/Ether/Moroni was that one eludes me.

It shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

When names are given in such a way that there may be confusion, it is customary to distinguish them in some way. Even in the Book of Mormon efforts are taken to distinguish between the different Nephis and Almas.

For example, if you look in the "The Guide to the Scriptures" on the Church website, you'll see that there are several different possible entries for the name "Nephi":

# Nephi, Son of Helaman

# Nephi, Son of Lehi

# Nephi, Son of Nephi, Son of Helaman

So that's one name, but pretty clearly applied to three different people.

But when we look at Cumorah, it's a different matter entirely:

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

[LeSellers]

When names are given in such a way that there may be confusion, it is customary to distinguish them in some way. Even in the Book of Mormon efforts are taken to distinguish between the different Nephis and Almas.

So that's one name, but pretty clearly applied to three different people.

As I pointed out with the example of "Paris", most of these uses are unmodified, even when there is the probability of misidentifying the Nephi (or Alma or Mosiah) being named.

But when we look at Cumorah, it's a different matter entirely: [Cites LDS.org on "Cumorah".]

So the reason people think the New York Cumorah is the same Cumorah as the one mentioned in the Book of Mormon might be because that is what the Church has been plainly teaching for the least 100+ years. Those teachings may be in error, but it would explain why so many people believe the error.

Perhaps, but the Brethren do not have an official position on this except to say they do not have an official position (much like the official non-position on evolution). So, whatever the internet or even the Bible Dictionary may say, it is not settled doctrine, and because it's not, no one is justified in claiming that any specific hill or valley is 'Cumorah'. This is why I said that t puzzles me when someone claims that the New York LDS Church historic site is the same place that Mormon marshaled his forces against the Lamanites. People are free to believe what they will, but they have no reasonable basis for making the claim. It's the same, btw, for those who insist that some Central American high point is Cumorah. We don't know, and we cannot stake out any spot and demand that others accept it as "the one, true Cumorah".

Lehi

[LDS Guy 1986]

As noted in my post, I was merely responding to LDS Guy's comment "As far as I know the Hill Cumorah was never called Cumorah till well after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith."

Now he knows.

I thank you for helping me learn something new today!

I was incorrect that the naming of Cumorah was after Smiths martyrdom, but the point still stands that the hill that Jospeh Smith took the plates from was only called Cumorah year after the BoM was translated and by the popular use of the name for the hill, not by revelation.

[Bob Crockett]

Perhaps, but the Brethren do not have an official position on this except to say they do not have an official position (much like the official non-position on evolution).

Untrue. The Brethren took an official position in 1928, immediately after the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah. Pres. Ivins said "we positively know" the old Cumorah is the same as the modern Cumorah. He was an official in the executive body of the Church and made the statement in General Conference. That makes it "official."

There is no statement anywhere issued officially by the Church that the Church takes no position.

[mapman]

The First Presidency apparently doesn't think that there is an official sight for Ramah/Cumorah. They even think that the hill in New York doesn't fit the Book of Mormon geography.

http://en.fairmormon...esidency_Letter

[Anijen]

Untrue. The Brethren took an official position in 1928, immediately after the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah. Pres. Ivins said "we positively know" the old Cumorah is the same as the modern Cumorah. He was an official in the executive body of the Church and made the statement in General Conference. That makes it "official."

There is no statement anywhere issued officially by the Church that the Church takes no position.

Funny you quote pres Ivin's as making it Cumorah official, yet the same Pres Ivins said this in conference;

[Bob Crockett]

The First Presidency apparently doesn't think that there is an official sight for Ramah/Cumorah. They even think that the hill in New York doesn't fit the Book of Mormon geography.

You cite no official statement. The telecopy cover sheet -- I challenge its provenance. In any event, it isn't an official statement. A secretary is not an "official" for purpose of stating official positions.

Mark E Peterson:

[Anijen]

You are quoting this for the opposite for which it was intended.

How convenient for you to be able to read the mind of our GAs and know exactly how it is intended. As far as I am I will take it in context and what it plainly says.

I suppose even the faithful can be deceived into gnashing their teeth against the Brethren. A sign of the times -- even the very elect can be deceived, etc etc.

So you are saying the GAs are deceived or anyone who disagrees with your opinion.? I agree even the elect can be deceived but I am not about to accuse an anonymous member on this thread that he has been deceived for disagreeing with my opinion.

If I am wrong I do not feel the Lord will suffer my exaltation to be taken away because I did not subscribe to the hill Cumorah of NY as the final battle hill.

I think their is no official church stand as backed by what the leaders have said, we will just have to agree to disagree then.

[Bob Crockett]

How convenient for you to be able to read the mind of our GAs and know exactly how it is intended. As far as I am I will take it in context and what it plainly says.

So you are saying the GAs are deceived or anyone who disagrees with your opinion.? I agree even the elect can be deceived but I am not about to accuse an anonymous member on this thread that he has been deceived for disagreeing with my opinion.

If I am wrong I do not feel the Lord will suffer my exaltation to be taken away because I did not subscribe to the hill Cumorah of NY as the final battle hill.

I think their is no official church stand as backed by what the leaders have said, we will just have to agree to disagree then.

I don't think much of anonymous statements, now you bring it up as some sort of defense. I can't imagine Christ or the apostles or any major apologist using anonymity to advance his or her position.

I am not reading Elder Peterson's mind. I can only form my conclusions upon what Elder Peterson was saying. Let me more accurately restate my view that you are misusing the quote for the opposite of the position advanced.

Maybe your exaltation won't fall or rise on the Hill Cumorah issue but I think Thomas Stuart Ferguson probably felt the same way about what he was doing before he lost it all.

[Anijen]

I don't think much of anonymous statements, now you bring it up as some sort of defense.

You must be a crafty lawyer. I see how you twist my words I did not quote any "anonymous statements" but said "anonymous member" (me)

I can't imagine Christ or the apostles or any major apologist using anonymity to advance his or her position.

First you set up the straw man then attack it. Once again I never said or implied that.

I am not reading Elder Peterson's mind. I can only form my conclusions upon what Elder Peterson was saying.

Lets review what he said; "if a General Authority has speculated on Book of Mormon geography he did not represent the view of the Church while doing so"

Let me more accurately restate my view that you are misusing the quote for the opposite of the position advanced.

says the person who set up a straw-man then attacked it.

Maybe your exaltation won't fall or rise on the Hill Cumorah issue but I think Thomas Stuart Ferguson probably felt the same way about what he was doing before he lost it all.

Um, wow. You do not even know me and are presumptuous enough to judge and compare.

[Bob Crockett]

Um, wow. You do not even know me and are presumptuous enough to judge and compare.

I said nothing about you personally except that your posts were anonymous. I said nothing to infer that you were quoting from anonymous sources. My post was clear. I wonder about people who take positions contrary to the Brethren and are anonymous while doing so. You have me at a disadvantage. I'm willing to put my name next to my beliefs, and they are simply that a Mesoamerican focus for the Book of Mormon events, as opposed to a greater geographic area encompassing both continents, is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren and an impossible gospel hobby.

Your use of Elder Peterson's statement might be an outright abuse of what his talks conveyed. As he said elsewhere: "I do not believe we should give credence to highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central American to get the gold plates." (CR April 1953.) So you see, when Elder Peterson condemned elsewhere speculative Book of Mormon geography he was condemning the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory.

But before I get too tough with you on the specific quote you offer from Elder Peterson, I'd like to look more closely at the Peterson quote you offer. Please provide a specific cite.

Like you say, we don't know really whether such a thing is all that important to know, but I call it the Thomas Stewart Ferguson gospel hobby. But I will admit and concede that it is a very significant hobby enjoyed by many good people in the Church. But so was the John Birch Society.

[Anijen]

I said nothing about you personally except that your posts were anonymous. I said nothing to infer that you were quoting from anonymous sources. My post was clear. I wonder about people who take positions contrary to the Brethren and are anonymous while doing so. You have me at a disadvantage.

I pm you my name, there any disadvantage you have had (I do not see it) has been taken away. I have stated many times why I remain anonymous on this board

I'm willing to put my name next to my beliefs, and they are simply that a Mesoamerican focus for the Book of Mormon events, as opposed to a greater geographic area encompassing both continents, is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren and an impossible gospel hobby.

I am as well.

Your use of Elder Peterson's statement might be an outright abuse of what his talks conveyed.

You keep saying this but never demonstrate how I am abusing the simple words he said. It is my opinion that Elder Peterson had a hemispheric view and he has stated that view publicly in the past that does not make it an official church position. I use Elder Peterson's words here to show that even he realizes that when GAs speak concerning matters of book of Mormon geography that thus far it has been their own opinions and not of the church. I do not misstate his words in any sense.

As he said elsewhere: "I do not believe we should give credence to highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography.

credence as far as to preach that they are a church officially held position. You have did this I have not. You are the one who says the church position is bold and out there I have stated my opinion that BofM geography has occurred in Mesoamerica. I have never claimed any type of opinion other than that. I have offered up reason and I support those findings with archeological findings. There are plenty of Opinion out there about who thinks what and where.

I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one in New York,

Yes I have gathered that. We disagree on this, that disagreement does not make me weak in my faith, or an apostate.

for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central American to get the gold plates.

You dumb down my opinion in a condescending manner, (I am sure unintentional, it least I hope so). I have never claimed this however nothing is too hard for the Lord and sometimes he asks his people to walk along ways sometimes He asks whole groups of people to do this.

so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central American to get the gold plates

yet you believe two massive armies agreeing on going from Mesoamerica to New York to fight a battle. And I might add there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

(CR April 1953.) So you see, when Elder Peterson condemned elsewhere speculative Book of Mormon geography he was condemning the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory.

So you think so. And because of those remarks perhaps he was told by those higher than him at the time to clarify it was his opinion, hence his following statement that even GAs speak their opinions and that in matters of geography it is speculation and not an official doctrine of the church.

But before I get too tough with you

You haven't yet. I think I am doing fine.

But before I get too tough with you on the specific quote you offer from Elder Peterson, I'd like to look more closely at the Peterson quote you offer. Please provide a specific cite. Like you say, we don't know really whether such a thing is all that important to know, but I call it the Thomas Stewart Ferguson gospel hobby. But I will admit and concede that it is a very significant hobby enjoyed by many good people in the Church. But so was the John Birch Society.

I will try to track down the source. Yes I agree it is a hobby and one that I feel is not discouraged by the church see D&C 88:78 here.

[Bob Crockett]

"I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one in New York,"

Yes I have gathered that. We disagree on this, that disagreement does not make me weak in my faith, or an apostate.

You're intentionally misreading my post, it seems. The quoted material is not my words.

[Calm]

Yes I agree it is a hobby and one that I feel is not discouraged by the church see D&C 88:78 here.

And even encouraged it would appear by their support of the Maxwell Institution and thus the publications it produces.

What is strange to me is if the Church holds an official position in geography why one of the brethren in their occasional face to face meetings with MI executives (such as during the dedication of the Institute) hasn't simply mentioned this and told them it probably would be a good idea to at least avoid having a majority of Mesoamerican articles so as not to confuse the general membership. And it's not as if there are no phones around to have this conversation with people they are relatively familiar with as well.

The hands off behaviour makes sense to me if there is no official geography, it doesn't if there isn't.

[Bob Crockett]

And even encouraged it would appear by their support of the Maxwell Institution and thus the publications it produces.

What is strange to me is if the Church holds an official position in geography why one of the brethren in their occasional face to face meetings with MI executives (such as during the dedication of the Institute) hasn't simply mentioned this and told them it probably would be a good idea to at least avoid having a majority of Mesoamerican articles so as not to confuse the general membership. And it's not as if there are no phones around to have this conversation with people they are relatively familiar with as well.

The hands off behaviour makes sense to me if there is no official geography, it doesn't if there isn't.

That is hardly an endorsement and a revocation of the official church position.

Your comment seems to suggest that FARMS Review is a model of perfection if the Brethren don't comment upon it. That's not evidence of official endorsement by any means. What troubles me about your argument is that it relies upon hidden and undisclosed information among the elite of Mormon thinkers and academics when, instead, the lay members of the Church are required to rely upon statements made in General Conference addresses, things said on the Church website and major semi-canonical works such as Doctrines of Salvation and Talmages's Articles of Faith.

Look, I don't deny that there has been interest in the Sorenson model; otherwise, the Ensign wouldn't have published a 1984 article about it. (Again, I point out, Sorenson carefully skirts the two-Cumorahs theory although from the text of his article one can tell that he is sensitive to prior statements about it.) I just think it is speculative nonsense.

[Pahoran]

That is hardly an endorsement and a revocation of the official church position.

Since there is no "official church position" to revoke, your point is moot.

You need to come to grips with the fact that President Ivins was not a lawyer, and his talk was not a legal document. He did not parse his words as carefully as you do, trying to see if an "official position" can be parlayed from them. However convinced he may have been that the New York drumlin was Mormon's Cumorah, his conviction did not rise to the level of an "official position."

You will do yourself a favour if you stop trying to argue that it did.

You will further do yourself a favour if you accept the fact that you have not the slightest reason to suppose that advocates of a Mesoamerican Cumorah are in any regard less faithful Latter-day Saints than you are; and furthermore, not one General Authority has said that they are.

Therefore, I believe the discussion will proceed, if not more profitably, then at least more amicably, if we all agree to these non-controversial facts:

1. This is a discussion among faithful Latter-day Saints who believe in the Book of Mormon;
   
2. Neither position has the high ground in terms of faithfulness to the Church and its teachings; and
   
3. Nobody is opposing any Church position by holding that Cumorah, or any other Book of Mormon geographical feature, is located in one place or another.
   

These are facts, Rob. And it seems to me that if either side tries to shore up its argument by fallacious appeals to authority, that can reasonably be taken as a tacit admission that the arguer's position is weak.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

That is hardly an endorsement

Definitely not saying it's anything like an endorsement.

and a revocation of the official church position.

Perhaps not, but it's allowing for a lot of wasted time of church employees (admittedly just a few) and wasted church resources (assuming that the MI publications require subsidizing to some extent as IIRC they have in the past) or at least other resources from fundraising, etc. that could be put to better use if there were simply a few words spoken that those at the Maxwell Institute would be better off directing supporters' interested into other areas since that area of pursuit contradicted the official church position.

Your comment seems to suggest that FARMS Review is a model of perfection if the Brethren don't comment upon it.

I think that is a huge leap to make from what I said. What I am suggesting is that the reason the Brethren don't comment upon it is that there is no contradiction of an official position, not because they are endorsing what is being done....after all, if the position is that there is no official geography, there is nothing to endorse.

An analogy---my kids decide to watch TV before doing homework, I say nothing about their decision. Is it more likely that I've made it a family rule that there is to be no TV watching until homework is done or that I haven't made a rule? It seems to me the greatest likelihood is the second though that doesn't imply in any sense that I personally agree with their decision....I just haven't made a rule about it....yet.

[Bob Crockett]

And it seems to me that if either side tries to shore up its argument by fallacious appeals to authority, that can reasonably be taken as a tacit admission that the arguer's position is weak.

That is one of the silliest possible arguments to make in this circumstance. A point I've made before.

When the discussion concerns what the Brethren have said in the past, of course I'm going to be citing from them. There is no other evidence. Certainly, Sorenson offers only speculation.

[SkepticTheist]

Neither position has the high ground in terms of faithfulness to the Church and its teachings; and

Well, its just that one of the camps thinks that it has the high ground in terms of rationality to the point of absolute arrogance. That is the biggest problem.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Since there is no "official church position" to revoke, your point is moot.

You need to come to grips with the fact that President Ivins was not a lawyer, and his talk was not a legal document. He did not parse his words as carefully as you do, trying to see if an "official position" can be parlayed from them. However convinced he may have been that the New York drumlin was Mormon's Cumorah, his conviction did not rise to the level of an "official position."

You will do yourself a favour if you stop trying to argue that it did.

You will further do yourself a favour if you accept the fact that you have not the slightest reason to suppose that advocates of a Mesoamerican Cumorah are in any regard less faithful Latter-day Saints than you are; and furthermore, not one General Authority has said that they are.

Therefore, I believe the discussion will proceed, if not more profitably, then at least more amicably, if we all agree to these non-controversial facts:

1. This is a discussion among faithful Latter-day Saints who believe in the Book of Mormon;
2. Neither position has the high ground in terms of faithfulness to the Church and its teachings; and
3. Nobody is opposing any Church position by holding that Cumorah, or any other Book of Mormon geographical feature, is located in one place or another.

These are facts, Rob. And it seems to me that if either side tries to shore up its argument by fallacious appeals to authority, that can reasonably be taken as a tacit admission that the arguer's position is weak.

Regards,

Pahoran

This reminds me of something I hear somewhat frequently in the Church, the Preisthood Leadership is here on Earth to direct things of Spiritual Importance. There mission is to reach lost people in the world and bring them to the Body of Christ, things like BoM geography is important to scholars and to venerate our holy scriptures in the eyes of man. But besides that is has not one drop of spiritual importance to us at all, we are to believe on faith not on what we can see and feel.

The Church takes not position on the issue, because it has no impact whatsoever on anyones eternal progression nor will an official potion on this matter effect the conversion of any investigator.

The Church handles spiritual matters and leaves temporal things like this up to scholars and scientists.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Since there is no "official church position" to revoke, your point is moot.

You need to come to grips with the fact that President Ivins was not a lawyer, and his talk was not a legal document. He did not parse his words as carefully as you do, trying to see if an "official position" can be parlayed from them. However convinced he may have been that the New York drumlin was Mormon's Cumorah, his conviction did not rise to the level of an "official position."

You will do yourself a favour if you stop trying to argue that it did.

You will further do yourself a favour if you accept the fact that you have not the slightest reason to suppose that advocates of a Mesoamerican Cumorah are in any regard less faithful Latter-day Saints than you are; and furthermore, not one General Authority has said that they are.

Therefore, I believe the discussion will proceed, if not more profitably, then at least more amicably, if we all agree to these non-controversial facts:

1. This is a discussion among faithful Latter-day Saints who believe in the Book of Mormon;
2. Neither position has the high ground in terms of faithfulness to the Church and its teachings; and
3. Nobody is opposing any Church position by holding that Cumorah, or any other Book of Mormon geographical feature, is located in one place or another.

These are facts, Rob. And it seems to me that if either side tries to shore up its argument by fallacious appeals to authority, that can reasonably be taken as a tacit admission that the arguer's position is weak.

Regards,

Pahoran

This reminds me of something I hear somewhat frequently in the Church, the Priesthood Leadership is here on Earth to direct things of Spiritual Importance. There mission is to reach lost people in the world and bring them to the Body of Christ, things like BoM geography is important to scholars and to venerate our holy scriptures in the eyes of man. But besides that is has not one drop of spiritual importance to us at all, we are to believe on faith not on what we can see and feel.

The Church takes not position on the issue, because it has no impact whatsoever on anyones eternal progression nor will an official potion on this matter effect the conversion of any investigator.

The Church handles spiritual matters and leaves temporal things like this up to scholars and scientists.