Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[Bob Crockett]

Your desire to pin it as official from the church has not been thus far successful.

Would you say that a member of the Church who is educated and familiar with the Book of Mormon, but perhaps unfamiliar with the Sorenson view, might read that Church's entry on the Hill Cumorah and conclude that there is a possibility of a two Cumorahs but the Church takes no official position on it?

Or do you think that a reasonable person, in reading this list description of the Hill Cumorah, would come to the conclusion that they are one and the same hill?

[Nofear]

I wonder why the Church hasn't been more explicit in denouncing these "Sorenson heresies"?

I think we should just write a collective letter from the Mormon dialogue & discussion board to the office of the First Presidency for an outright clarification on the Church's position on the issue.

[Danite3459]

And, why isn't a statement in Doctrines of Salvation from Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith enough? There, he condemns your view and says your view demonstrates weakness in the faith.

Robert,

Joseph Fielding Smith was not President of the Church when he wrote on the Cumorah issue in 1938, nor was he President of the Church when that article was reprinted in 1954, nor was he President of the Church when Doctrines of Salvation was published in 1956. Your are giving Joseph Fielding Smith's views an official veneer which is not warranted and the comments by his fellow apostle John A. Widtsoe shows that others did not share his point of view on this matter as to the question being officially settled.

[Bob Crockett]

Robert,

Joseph Fielding Smith was not President of the Church when he wrote on the Cumorah issue in 1938, nor was he President of the Church when that article was reprinted in 1954, nor was he President of the Church when Doctrines of Salvation was published in 1956. Your are giving Joseph Fielding Smith's views an official veneer which is not warranted and the comments by his fellow apostle John A. Widtsoe shows that others did not share his point of view on this matter as to the question being officially settled.

We've been through this on the board before. When DoS was published he was Q12 President. He was also Church Historian.

And DoS is considered authoritative -- one of the most authoritative works we have. Heavily cited today in General Conference. Heavily cited in instructional manuals. Still in publication. I'd say the veneer is deep.

I wonder why the Church hasn't been more explicit in denouncing these "Sorenson heresies"?

I'd say it has been denounced. By the Q12 President and Church Historian.

[Anijen]

Nofear says;

I wonder why the Church hasn't been more explicit in denouncing these "Sorenson heresies"?

the reply;

I'd say it has been denounced. By the Q12 President and Church Historian.

I answer;

The heresies where denounced even before they were published in the Ensign? If so then why did they publish known said heresies?

[Nofear]

I'd say it has been denounced. By the Q12 President and Church Historian.

And yet, his heresies continue to be taught openly and publicly. Let's pull out the disciplinary councils already.

Seriously though, draft a letter to the office of the First Presidency inquiring on the position. I'll sign it as an interested party (though I already know what the answer is).

[Anijen]

I would imagine the response would be similar to the following;

I am much more concerned about understanding the admonitions of Samuel the Lamanite as he stood on the walls of the city of Zarahemla and called the rebellious Nephites to repentance than I am about identifying the location of that city in today

[Bob Crockett]

I would imagine the response would be similar to the following;

I would have to agree with this. I admit I have a strong curiosity on location theories of the Book of Mormon but in the grand scheme of all of my interests it probably doesn't rate in the top and not even close to my love for the message of the Book of Mormon and the study of it. The proposed geography is just a small almost tasteless bland dessert compared to feasting on its words.

yet I admit at times it is fun to consider the mysteries and learn from such.

I think we can agree upon that as well.

I was contemplating the richness of the BoM's message the other day. The repeated clarion call to free agency as part of the atonement, the requirement to keep the commandments; these doctrines flew in the teeth of the very popular and emerging neo-evalengical doctrine at the time of salvation by grace and its more pernicious cousin, predestination. When Joseph Smith said that the BoM was written for our day, he wasn't kidding. These essential doctrines of the atonement hit these evangelical doctrines like a two-by-four, and you just can't explain them away by saying that Alexander Campbell had these doctrines first.

[Bob Crockett]

Nofear says;

the reply;

I answer;

The heresies where denounced even before they were published in the Ensign? If so then why did they publish known said heresies?

We've been through this many times; including on this very page.

[Danite3459]

And then, as we've learned from this thread, the Ensign forced Sorenson to edit out of his 1984 Ensign article the two Cumorahs view. . . .

And so the question remains, if the Ensign forced Sorenson to edit out this theory, then why isn't it one of the following (1) an inappropriate gospel hobby, (2) heterodoxy, (3) heresy, or (4) apostasy?

Robert,

A point of clarification on what Sorenson said in his 1984 Ensign article. Here is the relevant reference:

[Nofear]

We've been through this many times; including on this very page.

And yet, nobody seems to agree with you. Write a letter. Put all our skepticism to rest and disillusion us from our Sorenson heresies!

[Bob Crockett]

So regardless of how Sorenson was edited previous to publication, the article was allowed to stand in such a way as to express the idea that the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites which took place at or near the hill Cumorah was not in New York, but somewhere in Mesoamerica. That is what Sorenson said in the article and that is what the editors of the Ensign allowed to be published.

I think if you'll check the posts above, from Brant and from Robert Smith, you'll find something I didn't realize before, and that is that Sorenson was forced to take out his two Cumorahs theory from his 1984 Ensign article. So you can read it the way you'd like but the actual facts are more compelling. Unless the two of them were just making it up.

And yet, nobody seems to agree with you. Write a letter. Put all our skepticism to rest and disillusion us from our Sorenson heresies!

I don't consider this to be an effective parry of my points. One must ask one's self instead, who is the skeptic? Who is being disbelieved? What general authorities are being assigned to the ash-heap with their general conference statements in favor of a "science" (I put this in quotes because it isn't science at all) approach to discrediting the Brethren. There I go waxing hyperbolic on a completely meaningless topic. I revert to my position -- spending so much time on a Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon is like angels dancing on the head of pin.

Do you think the Church has somewhere said that the question of the two Cumorahs is one for which the Church takes no position? I keep asking Robert Smith. He won't answer. Will you?

[Danite3459]

I think if you'll check the posts above, from Brant and from Robert Smith, you'll find something I didn't realize before, and that is that Sorenson was forced to take out his two Cumorahs theory from his 1984 Ensign article. So you can read it the way you'd like but the actual facts are more compelling. Unless the two of them were just making it up.

Robert,

Sorenson's original articles underwent many revisions from the time he was invited to prepare them in 1975 until the time they were published in 1984. In the final version of these he focused generally on a Mesoamerica setting and did not discuss the details of his particular model--Cerro Vigia as the possible Cumorah for example.

But I am talking about what was eventually and actually published in the Ensign and in particular what I have just cited which in which Sorenson distinguishes between the "final battlefield" and the place in New York.

No. Sorenson does not mention the "two-Cumorah theory" in his published version. Some might argue that the label itself is a misnomer. The idea that the final battlefield at Ramah or Cumorah was in Mesoamerica and not in New York is clearly advanced in the article, as shown in the statement I provided, which was carefully vetted and finally allowed to be published in the Ensign.

[Nofear]

I don't consider this to be an effective parry of my points. One must ask one's self instead, who is the skeptic? Who is being disbelieved? What general authorities are being assigned to the ash-heap with their general conference statements in favor of a "science" (I put this in quotes because it isn't science at all) approach to discrediting the Brethren. There I go waxing hyperbolic on a completely meaningless topic. I revert to my position -- spending so much time on a Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon is like angels dancing on the head of pin. I'd rather have needles poked in my eye than have to give credit to the speculation in Sorenson's book.

Yes, but you are espousing a position as being authoritative from the Church when that position is decidedly not authoritative. This is an avenue of apostasy and were you to engage in this behavior in the wrong places (like Church meetings) could subject you to Church discipline (though I doubt it would unless you were particularly ornery with it).

Do you think the Church has somewhere said that the question of the two Cumorahs is one for which the Church takes no position? I keep asking Robert Smith. He won't answer. Will you?

Sure. Though it's been quoted many times.

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

[Bob Crockett]

Sure. Though it's been quoted many times.

That thing's bogus. It purports to be signed by a mere secretary. It isn't official. Under the equal dignities doctrine it is meaningless, compared to my wealth of website material, general conference statements and like. Plus, I doubt its authenticity because it hasn't surfaced in any officially-sanctioned site; it is no better than the Hoffman forgeries. It doesn't match Bill Hamblin's prior description of a "second letter." Plus, it directly contradicts a Michael Watson letter signed by him on official stationery directly to the contrary. Plus, it is a negative slam against the Sorenson heresy. Somebody is pulling your leg. Nothing else?

[Danite3459]

I think if you'll check the posts above, from Brant and from Robert Smith, you'll find something I didn't realize before, and that is that Sorenson was forced to take out his two Cumorahs theory from his 1984 Ensign article. So you can read it the way you'd like but the actual facts are more compelling. Unless the two of them were just making it up.

I don't consider this to be an effective parry of my points. One must ask one's self instead, who is the skeptic? Who is being disbelieved? What general authorities are being assigned to the ash-heap with their general conference statements in favor of a "science" (I put this in quotes because it isn't science at all) approach to discrediting the Brethren. There I go waxing hyperbolic on a completely meaningless topic. I revert to my position -- spending so much time on a Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon is like angels dancing on the head of pin.

Do you think the Church has somewhere said that the question of the two Cumorahs is one for which the Church takes no position? I keep asking Robert Smith. He won't answer. Will you?

Robert,

My read of the evidence suggests that it is a matter about which a difference of opinion has been held and expressed by Church leaders and hence a matter about which there has not been unanimity.

[Bob Crockett]

Robert,

My read of the evidence suggests that it is a matter about which a difference of opinion has been held and expressed by Church leaders and hence a matter about which there has not been unanimity.

That is a generous read of the evidence. I think if you'll look at the Encyclopedia entry on the Hill Cumorah you'll see that the Church PR department and the correlation committee take a dim view of the two-Cumorahs theory and it is just considered a slim minority viewpoint.

This all comes down to my view of Sorenson's book. I've read it several times. On my mission and since then, and I've been part of a year-long study group focusing on it. It troubles me. It lacks the rigor of science. It constitutes in large part wholesale speculation. It gives Mormon academia a bad name. I can see why President Smith did not like the theory.

[Nofear]

That thing's bogus. It purports to be signed by a mere secretary. It isn't official. Under the equal dignities doctrine it is meaningless, compared to my wealth of website material, general conference statements and like. Plus, I doubt its authenticity because it hasn't surfaced in any officially-sanctioned site; it is no better than the Hoffman forgeries. It doesn't match Bill Hamblin's prior description of a "second letter." Plus, it directly contradicts a Michael Watson letter signed by him on official stationery directly to the contrary. Plus, it is a negative slam against the Sorenson heresy. Somebody is pulling your leg. Nothing else?

Please write your own version. I fear if I did so that it would likewise be discounted as a forgery. Here, I'll get you started:

Dear Pres. Monson,

The Book of Mormon is something of an interest to us. While we recognize that the message of the Book of Mormon is its true importance, nonetheless, does the Church also have an official and definitive position on whether or not the drumlin in New York which we presently call Hill Cumorah is indeed the very same geographical location as the final battle of the Nephites as described by Mormon and Moroni?

Sincerely,

[insert names]

participants on the Mormon dialogue & discussion board

[Bob Crockett]

Please write your own version. I fear if I did so that it would likewise be discounted as a forgery. Here, I'll get you started:

Like I say, I don't consider this to be a very effective argument. In gospel discussions focusing upon what is and what is not the official policy of the Church it isn't generally considered an option to write the authorities themselves and ask them; indeed, we are counseled not to do so. So, if you don't mind, I'll stick to my First Presidency statements and you stick to -- well, Dr. Sorenson.

I do not doubt what my mother told me.

[Nofear]

Like I say, I don't consider this to be a very effective argument. In gospel discussions focusing upon what is and what is not the official policy of the Church it isn't generally considered an option to write the authorities themselves and ask them; indeed, we are counseled not to do so. So, if you don't mind, I'll stick to my First Presidency statements and you stick to -- well, Dr. Sorenson.

You don't consider having a letter from the office of the First Presidency to settle all the disagreement about the Church's official position on the matter a "very effective argument"? \sigh

Mind you... you have no official statement from the Church about the matter and yet assert that it is (despite evidence to the contrary). One of the qualifying attributes of members who are in a state of apostasy are those who persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority. While you are certainly welcome to your opinion on Book of Mormon geography, claiming that the Church has adopted a position on the matter is decidedly wrongful behavior.

[Bob Crockett]

You don't consider having a letter from the office of the First Presidency to settle all the disagreement about the Church's official position on the matter a "very effective argument"? \sigh

Tad disingenuous? Yes, such a letter would be helpful. Arguing that I should go get one is not, as we are counseled not to do such things and that isn't the way members traditional resolve disputes about doctrine.

Mind you... you have no official statement from the Church about the matter and yet assert that it is (despite evidence to the contrary).

Pres. Ivins, CR 1928 "We know positively" statement about the NY Cumorah being the same as the BoM Cumorah. Made in an official proceeding, by an official, reprinted in an official proceeding, explaining officially why the church spent money buying the hill. The LDS Website definition of "Cumorah." Among others. I think I have repeated this several times. It doesn't get any more official than that.

One of the qualifying attributes of members who are in a state of apostasy are those who persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority. While you are certainly welcome to your opinion on Book of Mormon geography, claiming that the Church has adopted a position on the matter is decidedly wrongful behavior.

Not nice.

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: It appears discussion has deteriorated on an already speculative topic.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff