Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[Pahoran]

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.

Well that, if true, may be a problem. But for my money, the biggest problem is that one of the camps thinks that it has the high ground in terms of "what the brethren said," to the point of the absolute arrogance of insisting that those (selected) statements amount to an "official position," and anyone who disagrees is "weak in the faith." That is, without doubt, the greatest barrier to any reasonable discussion of this issue.

And since that particular camp has, up to now, relied almost exclusively upon "what the brethren said," and made almost no attempt to engage the Book of Mormon text, it seems little wonder that the other camp should conclude that it does indeed hold the high ground in terms of rationality.

Regards,

Pahoran

[SkepticTheist]

Well that, if true, may be a problem. But for my money, the biggest problem is that one of the camps thinks that it has the high ground in terms of "what the brethren said," to the point of the absolute arrogance of insisting that those (selected) statements amount to an "official position," and anyone who disagrees is "weak in the faith." That is, without doubt, the greatest barrier to any reasonable discussion of this issue.

And since that particular camp has, up to now, relied almost exclusively upon "what the brethren said," and made almost no attempt to engage the Book of Mormon text, it seems little wonder that the other camp should conclude that it does indeed hold the high ground in terms of rationality.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, it seems little wonder that those that conclude that they have more rationality for that particular reason would lump anyone they are talking to into that other camp that makes that kind of argument from authority, appealing to the statements of the past brethren. And thus resulting in overconfidence, and not listening to the arguments of that opposition for the mere reason that they have no clue about the nature of the argumentation made by their opposition, thinking that everybody that believes in the NY Cumorah uses the same old same old in argumentation.

Ed

[Anijen]

I thought this article interesting;

Before one of my trips, I received the name of a man from a friend. His name was J. [sheldon] Fisher, an 86-year-old retired New York State archaeologist. He owns what is called the Valentown Museum. It is a large three story barn just full of antiques and all kinds of prehistoric artifact. He is not a member of the church, but asked him about Mormonism in that area of Cumorah. It is unbelievable what he knows about history, etc. He stated that he had a standing agreement with all of the bulldozer and backhoe guys. They would be doing jobs in the general area. Many times, he said, "I would beat them to the job." But, of all these years he had never found any kind of artifact around the hill [Cumorah] area. He had read the Book of Mormon trying to figure it out. I have spent several hours talking s him on the area's history. His comments always come down to, "There just aren't any artifacts of the kind spoken of in that book around that hill. Oh, I hope this doesn't shake your faith." My remarks were, "It sure doesn't. The Church is still true. The Book is the second witness, and it came from that hill. But the battle, well, it must have been fought at some other hill."

source here

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I thought an appeal to authority is a fallacy, unless that authority speaks with one voice to the faithful. Of course they do not speak with one voice, and there is lots of other evidence, much of it having objective status (archeology, chronology, etc.). We are not called to live on borrowed light, but to think for ourselves. Otherwise we would be slothful servants of our Lord and Master.

As to where the real Hill Cumorah might be, have a look at a more pointed discussion at http://www.mormondia...ng-for-the-bom/

[SkepticTheist]

I thought this article interesting;

source here

It is interesting that you guys use a mere surface survey by an amateur that is not even an archaeological specialist in the area in question to dictate the status of the Hill Cumorah when no serious subsurface dig, layer by layer, has been done in the area by real qualified experts to determine the real status of the area in question.... And don't try to tell me that BYU archaeologists are specialists in the area in question. Don't quote to me another quote argument from authority, color of academic authority, from guys at the BMAF saying that their take on Hopewell archaeology and the NY natives settles the issue.... I demand a comprehensive subsurface dig by qualified experts to be done in the Cumorah area with a comprehensive sampling from many pits. Nothing less will do to settle the question.

Ed Goble

[Nofear]

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. [book of Mormon geography] 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.

I, for one, heartily endorse these rules.

[Nofear]

It is interesting that you guys use a mere surface survey by an amateur that is not even an archaeological specialist in the area in question to dictate the status of the Hill Cumorah when no serious subsurface dig, layer by layer, has been done in the area by real qualified experts to determine the real status of the area in question.... And don't try to tell me that BYU archaeologists are specialists in the area in question. Don't quote to me another quote argument from authority, color of academic authority, from guys at the BMAF saying that their take on Hopewell archaeology and the NY natives settles the issue.... I demand a comprehensive subsurface dig by qualified experts to be done in the Cumorah area with a comprehensive sampling from many pits. Nothing less will do to settle the question.

Ed Goble

Anijen can of course speak for himself... but for my part I believe you grossly overstate the nature of his post. The absence of this guy would in no way, whatsoever, alter his position.

[SkepticTheist]

Anijen can of course speak for himself... but for my part I believe you grossly overstate the nature of his post. The absence of this guy would in no way, whatsoever, alter his position.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I'm not saying that Anijen was asserting this. I'm saying that the thing that he posted a link to was treated by John Clark in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies as the last nail in the coffin for Cumorah, and that it casts serious doubt on the Hill. the BMAF host that on their site as if it is significant. I'm saying that it is evidence of nothing, and I demand from both the Maxwell Institute as well as the BMAF much more objective and comprehensive look at the current archaeology of the hill, and to stop using amateurish crap as evidence against the hill. I'm demanding that they raise the bar on their scholarship and step it up if they wish to truly cast doubt on the hill in a non-fallacious manner.

Ed Goble

[Anijen]

I just posted it because I found it interesting, nothing more.

I actually agree with you Ed that professionally done soil sampling not just at Cumorah but in other places as well around upstate NY would be beneficial.

Anijen

side note; I am currently studying in the Book of Mormon every instance the word "exceedingly" is used. I would like to better understand Mormons use of the word and perhaps learn what he defined it as. I do not know if it will go anywhere but it is little things like these which I enjoy doing.

[SkepticTheist]

I just posted it because I found it interesting, nothing more.

I actually agree with you Ed that professionally done soil sampling not just at Cumorah but in other places as well around upstate NY would be beneficial.

Anijen

side note; I am currently studying in the Book of Mormon every instance the word "exceedingly" is used. I would like to better understand Mormons use of the word and perhaps learn what he defined it as. I do not know if it will go anywhere but it is little things like these which I enjoy doing.

Soil sampling I think at this point would not be taken seriously by Mesoamericanists, as it has heretofore been dismissed. I think that a real dig down in various subsurface layers is the answer, as the historical quotes stating that everything on the surface such as arrowheads were removed should be taken into account, not for evidence that such is the case. But to establish the fact that the proposition that it is in subsurface layers where things may turn up. The idea that things can be found on the surface I think has already been established as not very fruitful. But again not finding things on the surface in an amateurish surface survey, is not an excuse for denial of the need for a subsurface investigation.

I am not against you guys believing what you want to believe. Nor am I stating that your reading of the text is not plausible. I'm against you guys telling other people that their points of view are irrational and that their readings of the text are not plausible when they are reasonable. Believe what you want about the word exceedingly. Just don't tell me that I can't take for granted that exceedingly means what it says.

Ed Goble

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, it seems little wonder that those that conclude that they have more rationality for that particular reason would lump anyone they are talking to into that other camp that makes that kind of argument from authority, appealing to the statements of the past brethren. And thus resulting in overconfidence, and not listening to the arguments of that opposition for the mere reason that they have no clue about the nature of the argumentation made by their opposition, thinking that everybody that believes in the NY Cumorah uses the same old same old in argumentation.

Ed

This appears to be derail and holds no relevant information to the thread at hand. If you think Pahorans post did what you just out lined here I think your post holds the greatest sense of irony.

Any way carry on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You cite no official statement.

Here is clue for you, you have not sited any offical statements either with regards to the location of the HC.

The church currently does not take a position on were the hill is. That tells me that any quotes from any brothern is isolated even if it correlates to my POV and is mer opinion.

Until the church makes a statement such as "We believe that there is only one HC and it is in NY", quotes from the brothern don't amount to much more than speculation and opinion.

[cinepro]

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.

And yet...

The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

..........

The Prophet is not limited by men

[SkepticTheist]

This appears to be derail and holds no relevant information to the thread at hand. If you think Pahorans post did what you just out lined here I think your post holds the greatest sense of irony.

Any way carry on.

I am speaking in the most general of terms about the general Mesoamericanist attitudes.

Ed Goble

[Robert F. Smith]

And yet...

The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

The Prophet is not limited by men

[Robert F. Smith]

Soil sampling I think at this point would not be taken seriously by Mesoamericanists, as it has heretofore been dismissed. I think that a real dig down in various subsurface layers is the answer, as the historical quotes stating that everything on the surface such as arrowheads were removed should be taken into account, not for evidence that such is the case. But to establish the fact that the proposition that it is in subsurface layers where things may turn up. The idea that things can be found on the surface I think has already been established as not very fruitful. But again not finding things on the surface in an amateurish surface survey, is not an excuse for denial of the need for a subsurface investigation.

I am not against you guys believing what you want to believe. Nor am I stating that your reading of the text is not plausible. I'm against you guys telling other people that their points of view are irrational and that their readings of the text are not plausible when they are reasonable.

Ed Goble

I'm not sure what you mean by "amateurish surface survey," but among professional archeologists, the surface survey is an important first step. Regular soil erosion exposes various types of artifacts, which can be "read" by the archeologist. Then having established the probable extent of the ancient site, drawings can be made, and decisions taken whether and where to dig sample pits (usually by formal random sampling via a random number generator). All this with the aid of topographical maps and possibly even of aerial photos -- perhaps even of ground penetrating radar. The results are anything but amateurish.

However, textual studies are also important, as was the case with Yohanan Aharoni's classic The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2nd ed. (Phila.: Westminster, 1979). An excellent example of the same type of systematic reasoning which is required was recently produced by Matt Roper, "Plausibility, Probability, and the Cumorah Question," The Religious Educator, 10/2 (2009), 135-158. It is followed by a contrary view/response by Andrew Hedges.

[Bob Crockett]

Does this mean that when President Monson wiggles his ears, he is receiving revelation?

This is a variation on the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach. Throw the Bible out entirely because Paul made derogative comments about women speaking in Church, or because Paul cited Jewish mythology as if it were scripture, or because the Bible advocates burning witches. Throw out what the Brethren say in General Conference because President Monson wiggles his ears.

What is the basis for determining whether the Prophet is speaking ex cathedra as it were?

1. Is the statement made in General Conference in an authoritative manner by the President of the Church or a member of the First Presidency? For the one Cumorah revelation, the answer is yes. President Ivins, President Romney.

2. Is the statement made in General Conference by other general authorities? For the one Cumorah revelation, the answer is yes.

3. Is the statement made in an authoritative manner by general authorities in writings sanctioned and/or published by the Church itself? The answer is, yes -- Articles of Faith; Doctrines of Salvation, both of which are still in publication.

4. Does an authority take on the dispute head on; acknowledge contrary views, and assert that those who offer contrary views are heterodox? Yes -- Joseph Fielding Smith and Mark E. Peterson.

5. Is the statement supported by the prophet Joseph Smith? Here, yes -- the Wentworth letter and "Glad Tidings from Cumorah," as well as the naming of the Hill Cumorah itself.

6. Is there an absence of contrary authoritative statements? Here, it is not so certainly a yes, but those rather vague contrary statements are (and thus which fail completely under the equal dignities doctrine):

-----a. Claims people have that apostles secretly support the two Cumorahs theory but are unwilling to go public about it.

-----b. A statement on a telecopier cover sheet from a secretary that says the Church takes no position.

-----c. A vague statement by Harold B. Lee that really takes no position one way or the other.

7. Are contrary claims based upon secularism rather than faith and revelation? Yes.

8. When contrary views are floated in official church organs, do the proponents hold back the more controversial portions of the claims? Here, the answer is yes. John Sorenson, in his 1984 Ensign article, held back his two Cumorahs view.

9. Is there an absence of true public dispute between the brethren? The answer is yes here. Contrast to the controversy behind evolution. Two competing camps of authorities went public with their views, resulting in official pronouncements that the Church takes no view. That did not happen in the two Cumorahs case.

10. Is the orthodox view, advanced by the Brethren, denigrated by "diabolical mimicry," i.e., false close approximations of the orthodox view which holds the orthodox view in derision? Here, yes, with Porter and Meldrum.

11. Are proponents of the orthodox view treated politely or are they savaged or persecuted by the minority view?

Finally, let me conclude by excerpts from one of my favorite apostles, Orson Pratt:

"I wish to call your attention for a few moments to a subject closely connected with those days that I have been speaking of -- the rise of the Church. It will be, next Thursday night, 54 years since the Prophet Joseph Smith, then but a lad, was permitted by the angel of the Lord to take the gold plates of the Book of Mormon from the hill Cumorah, as it was called in ancient times, located in the State of New York. This I consider one of the most marvelous occurrences which has taken place for the past eighteen centuries." JD 22:223-26. "A great and terrible war was commenced between them, which lasted for many years, and resulted in the complete overthrow and destruction of the Nephites. This war commenced at the Isthmus of Darien, and was very destructive to both nations for many years. At length, the Nephites were driven before their enemies, a great distance to the north and north-east; and having gathered their whole nation together, both men, women, and children, they encamped on, and round about the hill Cumorah, where the records were found, which is in the state of New York." Orson Pratt, Interesting Account, etc. (1840) published in the Essential Orson Pratt, p. 15.

The Hill Cumorah is a sacred spot, bathed in Nephite blood and sanctified for the events of the restoration. At least most of us believe that.

OK. I'm intentionally overstating things and poking a little fun here with some hyperbole and self-defining rules. But I want you folks to see that your views have real problems with most of us who have been taught what we believe is true doctrine at our mothers' knee. Your view is imperiled by secularism and speculation.

[SkepticTheist]

I'm not sure what you mean by "amateurish surface survey," but among professional archeologists, the surface survey is an important first step. Regular soil erosion exposes various types of artifacts, which can be "read" by the archeologist. Then having established the probable extent of the ancient site, drawings can be made, and decisions taken whether and where to dig sample pits (usually by formal random sampling via a random number generator). All this with the aid of topographical maps and possibly even of aerial photos -- perhaps even of ground penetrating radar. The results are anything but amateurish.

However, textual studies are also important, as was the case with Yohanan Aharoni's classic The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2nd ed. (Phila.: Westminster, 1979). An excellent example of the same type of systematic reasoning which is required was recently produced by Matt Roper, "Plausibility, Probability, and the Cumorah Question," The Religious Educator, 10/2 (2009), 135-158. It is followed by a contrary view/response by Andrew Hedges.

So, an amateur arrowhead hunter who isn't a Hopewell/Adena archaeologist goes around the Cumorah area looking for stuff, and you don't call that amateurish?

And doesn't find anything, and you call that anything but amateurish, when he doesn't take into account the folklore claims that everything has been carried away? I'm not saying that the folklore claims are evidence, but to not take them seriously in the sense of our expectations for what can possibly be found on the surface, because we already had some warning ahead of time that there would be nothing on the surface to find? So his amateurish survey finds nothing, just strengthening the denialism coming from the Maxwell Institute and the BMAF, and strengthens their resolve to not take an archaeological examination to the next levels. I'm sorry but ground penetrating radar and digs HAVE NOT BEEN DONE, and once again, the amateurish surface survey just simply strengthens the resolve of those of your paradigm to simply dismiss Cumorah once again. The folklore accounts said it was all carried away, and woah, how about that! He found nothing!

Ed Goble

[Anijen]

Deciding what is official and what is not and basing that opinion on what was said by a church leader. Then disregarding anything that even hints at a different view other than your own is simply pride. I think those early leaders that are quoted did believe as rcrocket does now. These opinions that although held as true to them does not equal or become the voice of doctrine neither do their own opinions uttered at conference do not make it the church's official stand. The leaders that are often quoted even say this themselves.

I am probably older than rcrocket and I remember Mark E Peterson. I remember listening to him in many conferences. He passed away while I was on my mission. I also know that Elder Peterson made some remarks on race over the pulpit. Those remarks even then said by an Apostle of the Lord over conference or to church leaders or addressing students or written in a book were believed by him (and many others) although said by an apostle it does not make them official or where official views of the church. Those same remarks would (and are) highly controversial today and are used often by anti's. I only bring this up to focus attention on that what our leaders say even at conference although they sincerely believed in them does not make it official neither the view of the church.

I love Mark E Peterson I sustained him as an Apostle of the Lord and I still do today.

[Anijen]

What is all this talk on amateurs? It appears the quote or site I sourced has not been read.

J.S. Fisher, was a professional archaeologists he is now retired and owns the the Valentown Museum. He was an expert archeologist and specialized in the New York area.

[SkepticTheist]

What is all this talk on amateurs? It appears the quote or site I sourced has not been read.

J.S. Fisher, was a professional archaeologists he is now retired and owns the the Valentown Museum. He was an expert archeologist and specialized in the New York area.

I quote this article in Resurrecting Cumorah, my book, and have scoured it over and over again. Please, you guys, don't think that I haven't been through this over and over and over again.

"The following account of artifact hunting in the fields surrounding Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, is from a letter by Langdon Smith of New Haven, Vermont"

Langdon Smith is not a hopewell archaeologist. He went to talk to the archaeologist fisher who would examine stuff dug up by a backhoe. Still no dig at Cumorah, still more excuses.

If I'm wrong, then I will simply admit defeat and go down into my little bitter place once again. But I will continue with my defensive posture so long as a cloud of bewilderment hangs over the issue of Cumorah, where people continue to make up contrived reasons for why it can't be the actual hill and why they shouldn't have to do anything real to demonstrate anything real.

Ed Goble

[Anijen]

Sorry Ed, I was speaking about JS Fisher and not Langdon. You may have written all that in your book and I agree with it that no dig has ever been done at Cumorah and I doubt that there will ever be one in the future. But this does not take away the fact that Fisher is/was an expert in the area of archeology of New York.

[SkepticTheist]

Sorry Ed, I was speaking about JS Fisher and not Langdon. You may have written all that in your book and I agree with it that no dig has ever been done at Cumorah and I doubt that there will ever be one in the future. But this does not take away the fact that Fisher is/was an expert in the area of archeology of New York.

This is not specifically about New York archaeology, although New York archaeology plays into it. This is not about a long term habitation site in New York. This is about a short term site where people met for a battle, where a bunch of bodies rotted away and where erosion from the drumlin hill, being a big pile of sediment, has since buried stuff, where nobody has dug. Its just something that people continue to talk about, even those styled "archaeologists" who pontificate about it.

Ed Goble

[Bob Crockett]

If I'm wrong, then I will simply admit defeat and go down into my little bitter place once again. But I will continue with my defensive posture so long as a cloud of bewilderment hangs over the issue of Cumorah, where people continue to make up contrived reasons for why it can't be the actual hill and why they shouldn't have to do anything real to demonstrate anything real.

Ed Goble

Isn't this just the Thomas Stuart Ferguson story once again?

[SkepticTheist]

Isn't this just the Thomas Stuart Ferguson story once again?

No, because he entirely gave up. I just move on to some other field of study that is a greener pasture and not give up on my testimony. Itsnot like I'm not writing things on other subjects. Besides this life just sucks anyway the state things are in. So what if nothing is found at Cumorah? Then it just sucks a little bit more than it already sucks. And that would be the second time I committed my name to print in a book that didn't turn out. I've had bigger disappointments in life than that before.