Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[Pahoran]

If only your grand study of logic hadn't replaced your common sense........

"Common sense" is so often nothing more than intellectual laziness.

And I would like you to reference the "fact" that Joseph did not kill two of his attackers at Carthage........please?

My pleasure.

See this Wikipedia article, from which I post an excerpt:

Injuries to mob members

There have been conflicting reports about to what extent members of the mob were injured during the attack, and whether any of them were killed. Shortly after the events occurred, John Taylor wrote that he had heard that two of the attackers that Joseph Smith had shot with his pistol had died.[1]

Most accounts seem to agree that at least three mob members were wounded by Joseph

[cinepro]

If there is a point here, I'm missing it.

I agree.

[ELF1024]

I agree.

You agree that I'm missing the point...

wait... that's a good thing right?

[High Priest]

Assuming the Hill Cumorah is not the one in NY, are there any hills that have been found anywhere in the Americas that have the remains of gigantic ancient battles of the magnitude mentioned in the BofM - 2 million Jaredite men (plus their wives and children) and 200,000 Nephites/Lamanites?

Ether 15:2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.

No takers? Anyone, anyone.....Bueller?

[ELF1024]

No takers? Anyone, anyone.....Bueller?

If I had an answer I'd take you up on it, but I have no clue if there is or isn't one. I just figured for once, I'd keep my ignorance to myself.

[morgan.deane]

No takers? Anyone, anyone.....Bueller?

If your post was ignored its probably because nobody really cared. Or you haven't proven you aren't a troll.

But here we go anyway:

I've explained this in greater detail on my blog but Ether 15:2 actually describes a series of battles ranging over the previous few years across Jaredite lands. Next battles are harder to find than cities. Military historians still debate the exact location of Hastings, the Battle of Teutonburg Forest and the Battle of Luoyang to cite a few examples. Plus I would be suspect of the numbers in Mormon 6. A military historian from West Point has argued that "ten thousand" were unit names and not actual numbers, plus Mormon 6:7 argues that women and children were included in the numbers, making this 210,000 people with only 30 thousand actual soldiers. Which also matches the size of Nephite armies previously given by Mormon. Again, these are on my blog and attested by other ancient conflicts. Finally, John Sorenson has shown however that the warfare in the BoM is well attested in the fortifications of Mesoamerica. This was a quick post because I'm dubious that my time will be well spent.

So in short: None found, partially based on faulty reading and doesn't matter.

[Palerider]

"Common sense" is so often nothing more than intellectual laziness.

My pleasure.

See this Wikipedia article, from which I post an excerpt:

But as I said, had all four of them died, it would still say nothing at all about Joseph's religious claims. The argument that self-defence somehow invalidates his standing as a martyr is a notorious anti-Mormon canard.

And now that I have answered your CFR, please be so kind as to answer mine, which after all came first.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ELF1024]

RE: CFR

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

CFR that JS said that the hill in NY is the same one spoken of in the BoM.

Knowing that I first learned of the errant legend of the two men actually being killed from the LDS Church History, I promise faithfully to view everything that issues forth from the church even more skeptically than before (if that were possible).

CFR that the church history reported that 2 men were killed in the shooting.

And of course the church is the one that get to declare what is and what is not authrotive not you. So were indo we learn that the JoD and the DoS are indeed authortive? I will be waiting.

I just learned this about the DoS

(1954-1956). Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, 3 vols. compiled by Bruce R. McConkie

So it was compiled by BRM in the 50's before he was even an apostle.

[Rob Osborn]

It may say something about your knowledge of the experts. Mark Wright, who occasionally posts here as Hashbaz is a doctoral candidate in Mesoamerican studies. He has mentioned that the husband and wife archeologists in charge of the site of Teotihuican converted to Mormonism. He even offers to introduce them to visitors. Though of course, in these matters, no matter how expert, the LDS don't count, do they?

And there is Margaret Barker, who famously spoke on the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress in 2005. Her talk has been published in the BYU Studies volume.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I will agree that there are mormon experts who see the BoM as a historical record. But, and here is the big but, no non-mormon experts that I have heard of use the BoM as any historical text. As far as I know experts have called the BoM a nonhistorical piece of work.

[ELF1024]

I will agree that there are mormon experts who see the BoM as a historical record. But, and here is the big but, no non-mormon experts that I have heard of use the BoM as any historical text. As far as I know experts have called the BoM a nonhistorical piece of work.

This is going to sound like I'm being a snot... I'm really not. It just seems logical to me that if an expert accepts the Book of Mormon as historical, that they would end up joining the Church.

So, how many experts have join the Church, because of they accepted the Book of Mormon as historical?

[Pahoran]

You

[Palerider]

And I'm sure your other reasons are equally as strong.

I regret that circumstances make it difficult for me to accept the sincerity of your last remark; especially since it is clearly an attempt at manipulation.

Having read Elder Petersen's remark, as quoted by you, I fail to see that he made any serious attempt to engage the issues. The whole tone of it is dismissive, if not flippant.

That said, I am confident that my respect for his views is not beneath yours, in much the same way as the clouds are not beneath the ocean.

I interrupt your quotation to note that Elder Smith is using the methodology which serious Book of Mormon students (as opposed to opportunistic critics) have followed ever since: he compares the Book of Mormon description to actual geographical features, and attempts to find correlations. He does not at any time claim that this is the result of revelation, but of study. Therefore, if the same methodology finds better correlations elsewhere, we ought to revise our conclusions, oughtn't we?

Indeed, and where is this record found?

I note that you chose to highlight this, as if it nailed the argument for you. Certainly it would carry some weight, if the record in question could be shown to exist; but it cannot. Thus, this is an unconfirmed second-hand report, and carries no weight at all.

A conclusion that you should bring up with Elder Smith. It is his quote.....not mine. So, does "the record in question" exist, stashed away somewhere in a vault perhaps? Or was Elder Smith prevaricating? Or do you have some other smooth alternative? Perhaps he is referring to that pesky D&C quote referred to earlier? Please ask him regarding the location of the record .....not me.

The rest of your reply is painfully close to what I had anticipated. I had hoped for better. but as you say.."You tried".

Oh and by the way.....clouds are the ocean, just in a hot gaseous form..........

[cinepro]

This is going to sound like I'm being a snot... I'm really not. It just seems logical to me that if an expert accepts the Book of Mormon as historical, that they would end up joining the Church.

So, how many experts have join the Church, because of they accepted the Book of Mormon as historical?

Sami Hanna?

[Pahoran]

A conclusion that you should bring up with Elder Smith. It is his quote.....not mine. So, does "the record in question" exist, stashed away somewhere in a vault perhaps? Or was Elder Smith prevaricating? Or do you have some other smooth alternative? Perhaps he is referring to that pesky D&C quote referred to earlier? Please ask him regarding the location of the record .....not me.

The smugness with which you sneer is noted.

As you know, Joseph Fielding Smith died almost forty years ago. He is therefore unavailable to be cross-examined about a talk he gave sometime prior to being compiled into a book by someone else over fifty years ago. We are therefore left to evaluate his statement upon its merits. Since no such record has appeared in the intervening half-century, it is therefore not in the category of evidence. It's just as simple as that.

And it seems to me that if you were an honest debater, honestly arguing for a position you honestly hold, you would be able to admit this fact.

The indecent eagerness with which you are willing to insinuate that LDS sources are "prevaricating" suggests an immediate awareness of dishonesty in this discussion that is consistent with said dishonesty originating with yourself. Indeed, your posts provide continuing evidence that anti-Mormonism is a dishonest enterprise; and that this dishonesty is fundamental, structural and pervasive.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

A conclusion that you should bring up with Elder Smith. It is his quote.....not mine. So, does "the record in question" exist, stashed away somewhere in a vault perhaps? Or was Elder Smith prevaricating? Or do you have some other smooth alternative? Perhaps he is referring to that pesky D&C quote referred to earlier? Please ask him regarding the location of the record .....not me.

Further to my reply above, I point out the following:

In 1938 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote an article published in the Deseret News arguing against what he then termed the "modernist" theory that the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites may have been in Central America rather than in New York.10 In 1956 this article was included in a selection of Elder Smith's writings compiled by his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie.11 Although Elder Smith would later become president of the church in 1970, his article arguing for a New York location as the scene of the final battlefield was written many years before he assumed that position, and he apparently never revisited the question as president of the church. There is evidence that Elder Smith may have softened his opposition on the Cumorah question. In a letter written to Fletcher B. Hammond, who argued emphatically for a Central American location and had sent Elder Smith a copy of his findings, the apostle explained, "I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid any attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork."?12 Apparently, he did not consider his 1938 argument as settled and definitive or as a measure of doctrinal orthodoxy. (See here.)

That doesn't stop unscrupulous anti-Mormons from misusing his article though, does it? Roper continues:

Sidney B. Sperry, after whom an annual Brigham Young University symposium is named, was also one who initially supported the New York Cumorah view (that is, an area of New York as the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites).13 During the 1960s, as he began to explore the issue, he came to a different conclusion. For several years Sperry circulated a handout for his Religion 622 class on the Book of Mormon that outlined key information in that scripture suggesting that the final battlefield was within or near the land of Desolation, which bordered the narrow neck of land.?14 Sperry encouraged his students to address the question and try to reconcile a New York location for those events with the data in the Book of Mormon text. In 1968 he published these conclusions in his Book of Mormon Compendium.15 Reversing his earlier position, he wrote: "It is now my very carefully studied and considered opinion that the Hill Cumorah to which Mormon and his people gathered was somewhere in Middle America. The Book of Mormon evidence to this effect is irresistible and conclusive to one who will approach it with an open mind. This evidence has been reviewed by a few generations of bright students in graduate classes who have been given the challenge to break it down if they can. To date none has ever been able to do so."?16 Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it."?17

So, someone beat me to the punch: they took it up with Joseph Fielding Smith, who not only did not continue to maintain the position of his 1938 article, but he explicitly consented to its being publicly contradicted.

Oh and by the way.....clouds are the ocean, just in a hot gaseous form..........

Clouds are hot and gaseous? Your knowledge of science is almost as reliable as your knowledge of Mormon things.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Eldwynn]

Sami Hanna?

I thought that while the story is basically true, that version of it is not correct.

EDIT: after a little digging I found something odd.

http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/7m8thtdi/Feed%20Back%20of%20Sami%20Hanna%20article.htm?n=0

[Palerider]

The smugness with which you sneer is noted.

Pahoran! Do you have control issues with your emotions? You seem to be making some angry conclusions here and taking this quite personally.......

As you know, Joseph Fielding Smith died almost forty years ago. He is therefore unavailable to be cross-examined about a talk he gave sometime prior to being compiled into a book by someone else over fifty years ago. We are therefore left to evaluate his statement upon its merits. Since no such record has appeared in the intervening half-century, it is therefore not in the category of evidence. It's just as simple as that.

And it seems to me that if you were an honest debater, honestly arguing for a position you honestly hold, you would be able to admit this fact.

And what position would that be Pahoran? What position is it that you assume I am arguing for?

The indecent eagerness with which you are willing to insinuate that LDS sources are "prevaricating" suggests an immediate awareness of dishonesty in this discussion that is consistent with said dishonesty originating with yourself. Indeed, your posts provide continuing evidence that anti-Mormonism is a dishonest enterprise; and that this dishonesty is fundamental, structural and pervasive.

In your mind I doubt that any LDS leader has ever told a fib and even if so it was certainly justified for a higher cause. I suggest you look to your own when seeking patterns of obfuscation and dishonesty. Paul H. Dunn ring any bells? How about this letter from Charles W. Penrose to John taylor concerning the concealment of polygamy in 1887:

"the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose ... threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers."

I find your lack of honest self analysis unfortunately common among those who would be the grand arbiters of the Lord's truth here on earth. Your high horse is nothing more than a shetland pony and your defense of your masters similar to what he evacuates.

[Chronos]

Palerider has been suspended for 2 days, please move on with the discussion.

~Chronos (astride Peaches the Pegasus)

[High Priest]

If your post was ignored its probably because nobody really cared. Or you haven't proven you aren't a troll.

But here we go anyway:

I've explained this in greater detail on my blog but Ether 15:2 actually describes a series of battles ranging over the previous few years across Jaredite lands. Next battles are harder to find than cities. Military historians still debate the exact location of Hastings, the Battle of Teutonburg Forest and the Battle of Luoyang to cite a few examples. Plus I would be suspect of the numbers in Mormon 6. A military historian from West Point has argued that "ten thousand" were unit names and not actual numbers, plus Mormon 6:7 argues that women and children were included in the numbers, making this 210,000 people with only 30 thousand actual soldiers. Which also matches the size of Nephite armies previously given by Mormon. Again, these are on my blog and attested by other ancient conflicts. Finally, John Sorenson has shown however that the warfare in the BoM is well attested in the fortifications of Mesoamerica. This was a quick post because I'm dubious that my time will be well spent.

So in short: None found, partially based on faulty reading and doesn't matter.

Thank you for answering.

[Kevin Christensen]

This is going to sound like I'm being a snot... I'm really not. It just seems logical to me that if an expert accepts the Book of Mormon as historical, that they would end up joining the Church.

So, how many experts have join the Church, because of they accepted the Book of Mormon as historical?

From the archives, Mark Wright posted this on 1 March, 2008.

I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.

As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding).

As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.

And Margaret Barker is not LDS. She is Methodist. When editing John Welch's book on the Sermon on the Mount and the Temple, she insisted that he mention that his insights began with 3 Nephi.

http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&isbn=9780754651642〈=cy-GB

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bob Crockett]

I just learned this about the DoS

(1954-1956). Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, 3 vols. compiled by Bruce R. McConkie

So it was compiled by BRM in the 50's before he was even an apostle.

I come from a different perspective, that of a faithful member. Let's revisit:

What President Smith said:

In the quote below, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (at the time, President of the Q12, the Church Historian, the last GA to hold that position until Elder Marlin Jensen) points out that those who hold to the Mesoamerican view are weak in the faith. So it isn't like the Mesoamerican view has just crept in amongst the Brethren; they've [and there has been no "they" to the contrary, other than one oblique reference by Elder Oaks] discussed it and disposed of it.

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

This was published in what would later become a Priesthood Manual. It is still in publication; the Deseret Book website lists it as "authoritative," and Doctrines of Salvation is one of the most frequently-cited GA treatises in General Conference. So, here we have a Church publication, a priesthood manual nonetheless, disposing of the LGT which was in currency at the time and calling those who adhere to it weak in the faith. I don't necessarily go so far as to call LGT adherents weak in the faith, but Pres. Smith's brief against them is interesting. What makes President Smith's brief against the two-Cumorah theory is that he was fully apprised of the arguments for and against it, and specifically condemned the view.

How Significant is President Smith's Statement?

By all considerations when dealing with centralized authorities, President Smith's statement is "Official." He was one of the highest ranking officials when he made the statement. Under what lawyers call the "equal dignities doctrine" it has never been criticized, withdrawn or countered by any equivalent authority. A fax cover sheet from Michael Watson taking no position does not qualify.

On the other hand, and arguing against myself, I note that DoS was originally published by Bookcraft. Although you younger folks probably don't know the distinction, back in the old days a book authored by a general authority published by Bookcraft did not and had not gone through any kind of correlative review. A book published by Deseret Books was likely to have. Cutting against that argument is the fact that Deseret Books now publishes the book.

What about the Appeal to Authority Argument?

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

How Can You Reconcile Pres. Smith's Opinion with Other Weird Things He Has Said?

I have sometimes been confronted by this argument on this board. This is the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument or, put it another way, "you must accept everything he has said or nothing at all." Neither of these are acceptable rejoinders to President Smith. One must look at the quality of his condemnation of the limited view and of two Cumorahs. Is it the same (published still by Deseret Books, pronounced authoritative) as other off-hand statements about going to the moon, "darkies," or Cain? Nope; apostles aren't perfect

Do the Local Environs Support Cumorah as the Situs for the Last Battle?

The facts are, however, that the Eastern and Ohio Valley mounds betray an extensive culture and population. As John Haywood wrote in his 1823 work, "The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee," referring to one of many finds he discusses: "Very large burying grounds once lay between the mounds and the river . . . . Vast numbers of bodies have been interred." (128.) He also describes finds of iron swords in these mounds. (306). Stone tablets with writing. (307). On page 308: "Near Wheeling . . . in the interior of this mound human bones were found of uncommonly large size. . . . Here also were found mixed with bones two or three plates of brass with characters inscribed upon them resembling letters . . . . " Page 309: "In the mounds near Natchez, on the earthenware there found are characters or letters." Indeed, this work is so significant that Sandra Tanner has cited it as proof that Joseph Smith cobbled the Book of Mormon from the statements of Heywood's book as it came out in 1823 and was likely in circulation in the Palmyra area (although I don't have a cite to Tanner's statement).

As mounds experts today moan, so much of the mounds culture is lost. It went under the plough; it was easy to pillage and to level; there were no museums around to receive the various finds; they were excavated in large part without modern scientific means; only a tiny fraction of the mounds remain today. But, they indicate high population counts.

I also direct your attention to Smithsonian publications: E.G. Squire, Observations on the Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (New York: Bartlett & Welford 1847); E.G. Squire, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley: Comprising the Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations (1848). I possess only the first publication, but Squire documents finds of instruments of copper, silver, "some of which evince great skill of art." (36). He uses the term "vast amount of labor" to describe mound construction. (44). He mentions finds of iron tools, but disputes the provenance of such finds. (45.) But he does remark that the Natives were so skilled in the hardening of copper tools that they approached the utility of iron. (46.)

Wiki has the following observation of Squire's work: "Since many of the features which the authors documented have since been destroyed or diminished by farming and development, their surveys, sketches, and descriptions are still used by modern archaeologists." http://en.wikipedia....builder_(people). I have seen comments like this -- that mound archaeology is gone and lost due to farming repeated many times in modern publications on the topic.

Also, the Atlantic discusses documented finds of brass (not copper) technology in the Lake Superior region. Interestingly, the Atlantic quotes from Sorenson's significant work Pre-Columbian Contact With the Americas Across the Oceans. http://www.theatlant...001stengel2.htm

Patrick Huyghe discusses the extensive pre-Columbian copper works in on the north shore of Lake Superior. He says there are about 5,000 different ancient mines, and says that approximately 500 million to 1 billion pounds of copper ore were removed before Columbus. (Patrick Huyghe, Columbus Was Last, p. 64.)

This, of course, points towards the Joseph Smith model of Nephite civilization.

Summary

My personal view is that the Sorenson model is hopelessly speculative. Two Cumorahs runs directly afoul of official statements.

[Pahoran]

I come from a different perspective, that of a faithful member.

I'm sorry Rob, would you care to clarify that statement? The perspective of a "faithful member" is "different" from what, precisely? The perspective of those who hold a Mesoamerican LGM as a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon?

Perhaps that's not the aspersion you intended to cast, but it looks like that. If it's not, then I suppose it just illustrates the fact that we all need to be careful about how we word things, don't we?

Let's revisit:

What President Smith said:

In the quote below, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (at the time, President of the Q12, the Church Historian, the last GA to hold that position until Elder Marlin Jensen) points out that those who hold to the Mesoamerican view are weak in the faith.

Please note:

1. The article was written in 1938. Elder Smith did not become President of the Twelve until 1951, when President David O. McKay became President of the Church.
   
2. You have misunderstood what he was saying; see below.
   
3. Even if you had not, his argument would still be an example of a fallacy of Argumentum Ad Consequentiam. While it is important for Church leaders to concern themselves with influences that may or may not weaken faith, the fact remains that that is not a material consideration in determining whether something is true or not.

So it isn't like the Mesoamerican view has just crept in amongst the Brethren; they've [and there has been no "they" to the contrary, other than one oblique reference by Elder Oaks] discussed it and disposed of it.

So a 1938 article "disposed of" all subsequent scholarship on the subject, did it?

Really?

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

Emphasis added by me. As I mentioned above, you have misunderstood Elder Smith's concern, as of 1938. He is not at all claiming that LGT proponents are "are weak in the faith" at all. He is saying something quite different, namely that exposure to this theory has weakened the faith of some people who were previously unconcerned about it. Thus, he is not claiming that the LGT is the product of weak believers; he is worried that hearing about it has caused doubt and confusion. Still a bad thing, of course, but not what you thought he was saying.

Now if there exists an idea that causes people to lose faith, then I can see why some might want to keep that idea from gaining too wide a circulation. But that has nothing whatever to do with whether that idea is right or wrong.

This was published in what would later become a Priesthood Manual. It is still in publication; the Deseret Book website lists it as "authoritative," and Doctrines of Salvation is one of the most frequently-cited GA treatises in General Conference. So, here we have a Church publication, a priesthood manual nonetheless, disposing of the LGT which was in currency at the time and calling those who adhere to it weak in the faith. I don't necessarily go so far as to call LGT adherents weak in the faith, but Pres. Smith's brief against them is interesting. What makes President Smith's brief against the two-Cumorah theory is that he was fully apprised of the arguments for and against it, and specifically condemned the view.

Again, you are simply wrong about Elder Smith's argument. Furthermore, and I'm sorry to say this to a fellow believer, but suggesting that someone in 1938 could be "fully apprised of" scholarship that had by no means fully emerged at that time, to the extent that he was able to "dispose of" it -- and that without any claim of specific revelation on the topic -- appears to rise perilously close to idolatry.

Incidentally, Hugh W. Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon also subsequently became a Priesthood manual, and it argues for a Mesoamerican LGM.

How Significant is President Smith's Statement?

That's a very good question, Rob. Matt Roper reviewed Porter and Meldrum's Prophecies and Promises and asked the same question. He places Elder Smith's 1938 statement in the context of other statements he made on the topic. You can read the entire review here, but I'd like to draw your attention to three excerpts therefrom:

In 1903 President Joseph F. Smith taught that regarding Book of Mormon geography, the question, for instance, of the location of the city Zarahemla "was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people: and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel" and cautioned them against making questions of Book of Mormon geography "of equal importance with the doctrines contained in the Book."?9

I hear you saying: but he wasn't an apostle in 1903. You are quite right; but he was an apostle -- in fact, he was the President of the Twelve -- in 1959.

Although Elder Smith would later become president of the church in 1970, his article arguing for a New York location as the scene of the final battlefield was written many years before he assumed that position, and he apparently never revisited the question as president of the church. There is evidence that Elder Smith may have softened his opposition on the Cumorah question. In a letter written to Fletcher B. Hammond, who argued emphatically for a Central American location and had sent Elder Smith a copy of his findings, the apostle explained, "I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid any attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork."?12 Apparently, he did not consider his 1938 argument as settled and definitive or as a measure of doctrinal orthodoxy.

Footnote 12 goes to a quotation from President Smith in Hammond's book, published 1964. If President Smith thought he was misquoted or misrepresented in any way, he seems not to have taken the opportunity to say so.

And then there is this:

Sidney B. Sperry, after whom an annual Brigham Young University symposium is named, was also one who initially supported the New York Cumorah view (that is, an area of New York as the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites).13 During the 1960s, as he began to explore the issue, he came to a different conclusion. For several years Sperry circulated a handout for his Religion 622 class on the Book of Mormon that outlined key information in that scripture suggesting that the final battlefield was within or near the land of Desolation, which bordered the narrow neck of land.?14 Sperry encouraged his students to address the question and try to reconcile a New York location for those events with the data in the Book of Mormon text. In 1968 he published these conclusions in his Book of Mormon Compendium.15 Reversing his earlier position, he wrote: "It is now my very carefully studied and considered opinion that the Hill Cumorah to which Mormon and his people gathered was somewhere in Middle America. The Book of Mormon evidence to this effect is irresistible and conclusive to one who will approach it with an open mind. This evidence has been reviewed by a few generations of bright students in graduate classes who have been given the challenge to break it down if they can. To date none has ever been able to do so."?16 Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it."?17

Now the last-quoted conversation is cited from a second-hand source; the fact remains, however, that Professor Sperry did publish his opinion in his 1968 Book of Mormon Compendium, and that President Smith did not then, or subsequently, denounce or challenge that book.

I'm going to snip right down to:

This, of course, points towards the Joseph Smith model of Nephite civilization.

Sorry Rob, but this is question-begging in fine style. There is no "Joseph Smith model" in view.

Summary

My personal view is that the Sorenson model is hopelessly speculative. Two Cumorahs runs directly afoul of official statements.

I don't agree.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Incidentally, Hugh W. Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon also subsequently became a Priesthood manual, and it argues for a Mesoamerican LGM.

There is also the publication of Sorenson's theory in the Ensign (website is down, can't link to it). If the theory had been completely discarded by the Brethren at some time prior to this, it is very strange that they would allow for the publication of this material, especially if rcrocket's interpretation of JFS's comments about those of weak faith was correct (I read it as Pahoran does and always have, if anyone is interested).

The leaders are supposed to be protect the membership from errors in doctrine. While not demanding either infallibility or complete coverage of every question that might arise, why allow a known and identified error to be published in a church publication knowing that there would be many members who would read the article as potential support for a local Mesoamerican location (especially when coupled with the use of Mesoamerican architecture in many of the church's art works, including the dioramas introducing the Book of Mormon to the many visitors to Temple Square.)

The story behind the publication of the article is well known enough, I believe, that it is accepted that the article was published with the brethren's full knowledge and grasp of both the material and the implications of publishing of that material, one cannot claim that it somehow slipped passed uncensored by leadership as had the older article that stated "when the Prophet speaks, the thinking is done". (see http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/When_the_Prophet_Speaks_is_the_Thinking_Done.html )

OTOH, allowing another theory about geographical location to be published even if they as a group or perhaps even as individuals didn't agree with it because they viewed geographical location as both nondoctrine and unspecified makes sense to me.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm sorry Rob, would you care to clarify that statement? The perspective of a "faithful member" is "different" from what, precisely? The perspective of those who hold a Mesoamerican LGM as a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon?

Perhaps that's not the aspersion you intended to cast, but it looks like that. If it's not, then I suppose it just illustrates the fact that we all need to be careful about how we word things, don't we?

Fair comment. My remark has nothing to do with defenders of the LGT theory, but pertains to folks who use Pres. Smith's statement as a means to sow discord and who really believe in no Cumorah.

Now the last-quoted conversation is cited from a second-hand source; the fact remains, however, that Professor Sperry did publish his opinion in his 1968 Book of Mormon Compendium, and that President Smith did not then, or subsequently, denounce or challenge that book

That is no endorsement.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

"Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and hear the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites called it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester . . . . Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many of the early brethren . . . have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah." (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed, 17 4.)

Elder Mark E. Peterson:

"As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York." -- Elder Mark E. Peterson, "The Last Words of Moroni." CR Oct. 197 8.

President Anthony Ivins (at the time, member of the FP), in his "we know positively" sermon:

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them." -- President Anthony Ivins, CR Apr. 1928. This address was Pres. Ivin's report to the Church about the purchase of the Hill Cumorah; thus, as the Church deliberated the purchase of Cumorah these discussions must have been had amongst the Brethren.

James E. Talmage:

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient people as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York." (Articles of Faith, p. 231 .)

"The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York . . . ." (Articles of Faith, p. 235.)

Articles of Faith was published by the Church under the direction of the First Presidency, and the copyright has been held successively by Presidents of the Church. This book, in my view, approaches canonized thought in LDS theology.

Elder B.H. Roberts (Church Historian):

"Only three weeks ago, about now, I had the pleasure of standing upon the summit of the Hill Cumorah in company with President Grant. Being there upon that height of land, which so splendidly commands a view of the whole surrounding country, I could not refrain from recalling the time when Moroni stood upon the crown of that hill with the evidence of the ruins of the civilization of his people about him." -- Elder BH Roberts CR Oct. 1927 .

Orson Pratt:

Sept. 22, 187 2: "Moroni . . . hid the records from which he made this abridgment in a hill, called the hill Cumorah, that being its ancient name . . . ." (JD 15:183.)

April 6, 187 4: "the Nephites, gathered their entire people around the hill Cumorah, in the State of New York . . . ."

Moses Thatcher, Nov. 11 , 1888:

"The signal stations of this retreating people can be traced through Central America, the heart of Mexico, crossing the Mississippi River, thence on across the Red River and up through Ohio, until the people made their weary march to the hill Cumorah, in the State of New York, where 230,000 brave should drew their last breath of life in one day ."

Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry on Cumorah:

The entry on "Cumorah" says that Cumorah is the "hill and surrounding area where the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place." "Mormon . . . concealed the plates . . . in a hill called Cumorah . . . ." The annual pageant "has reinforced the common assumption that Moroni buried the plates of Mormon in the same hill where his father had buried the other plates, thus equating this New York hill with the Book of Mormon Cumorah. Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for . . . Mesoamerica." (Encyclopedia, p. 346.)

I would suggest that this entry alone constitutes the Church's current thinking on the matter. "Some Latter-day Saints have looked for . . . Mesoamerica," is kind of like saying, "After Nauvoo, some Latter-day Saints went to Texas under the leadership of Amasa Lyman."

The Equal Dignities Doctrine

As in any faith like ours where everyone esteems himself a prophet and a scholar, there's going to be differences of opinion on things. But, in the LDS Church there are certain things which arise to the level of officialdom. Latter-day Saints think that things said in General Conference sermons are entitled to great weight. Here, I've cited several general conference sermons on the subject. Is there anything, of equal dignities, to the contrary?

Now, I truly admit that the Ensign has published speculation as to the limited view. Did that published speculation involve two Cumorahs? Did it ever have the positive affirmation by an Apostle?

Disparaging an Apostle because of Passage of Time

Is it a legitimate thing to say that more modern pronouncements by non-General Authorities and non-members-of-the-First-Presidency who happen to be specularists trump older statements by General Authorities? I mean, isn't that the paradigm of false doctrine?