Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[Anijen]

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."

Hi rcrocket, I wanted to touch briefly on your two posts. I will hold off on your first post because I am waiting some validation of my remarks from a few Anthropologist I have been in contact with. I also want to stay away from quotes of our church leaders new or old. I have never liked playing the my General Authority quote outranks your General Authority quote game, it is silly and there are strong arguments from both sides... I would like to touch on your usage of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism comment. I feel you are reading it wrong and thus stating its meaning wrong here. For those following along you can read the full quote here and see who you might feel is portraying it correctly. When it says it is the hill where the final battle took place they are using the Book of Mormons text as its reference not speaking of the New York hill. it goes on to say which you fail here to be objective by not also placing it in your post; "who [Moroni] continued writing on them before burying them in an unmentioned site more than thirty-six years later (Moro. 10:1-2)." Note that the TEofM entry has no problem with Moroni burying the plates there in New York or where Joseph retrieved them from but as New York being the site for the last battle it does not say what you claim it means, in fact it goes out of its way to make that distinction which we can read; "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 other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested." Your use of the quote is frankly biased. If you do not be objective in your posting those who do study this will not take you as a serious contributor. The way you have used the quote seems like a deliberate twist of what the content is trying to convey.

One other thing I would like those who read this to know, out of all the pageants the church sponsors, only the Nauvoo Pageant (not Palmyra) has been commissioned by the church, the rest were written by local church members but who were not commissioned by the church. These members incorporated into the Pageant theme the final battle scene because that is the traditional view. However to say the church backs up the final battle being in New York is not true and goes against TEofM entry. How do I know this because I have been to every Nauvoo pageant and me and my family have been in the pageant the last two years. While there we are told the history of the pageant and how it is the only one that was written by a commission formed by the GAs and the script approved by President Hinckley. The Savior of the world play was also commissioned but is not considered a pageant at this point perhaps later on...

Summary

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism does not imply the final battle was in New York as rcrocket has implied nor does the church have a say on where it is, in fact the church tends to go out of its way to reinforce the fact that they have no stand of geographical location of the final battle.

[Bob Crockett]

I also want to stay away from quotes of our church leaders new or old. I have never liked playing the my General Authority quote outranks your General Authority quote game, it is silly and there are strong arguments from both sides...

When you're dealing with matters of faith in a hierarchical religion, one quite naturally resorts to the statements of General Authorities. And, I don't think one can fairly say that there is "strong argument" from the authorities for a two Cumorahs/LGT theory. As the Encyclopedia puts it, "some" Latter-day Saints favor such a theory. That is hardly "strong" argument.

Regarding the Encyclopedia, I didn't misquote it or leave out important material by shortening it to what I did. I don't think the Encyclopedia takes much of a position but the reference to "some" Latter-day Saints favoring the LGT theory is sort of negative pregnant, in my opinion. Maybe I've overstated it by comparing it to "some" Latter-day Saints following Amasa Lyman, but surely in my view Dr. Sorenson's work is sheer unmitigated speculation when his book transcends the fabulous internal geography to try and place it in a real-world setting.

Your use of the quote is frankly biased. If you do not be objective in your posting those who do study this will not take you as a serious contributor. The way you have used the quote seems like a deliberate twist of what the content is trying to convey.

Well, I have a boatload of General Authorities in my wake.

[Anijen]

When you're dealing with matters of faith in a hierarchical religion, one quite naturally resorts to the statements of General Authorities. And, I don't think one can fairly say that there is "strong argument" from the authorities for a two Cumorahs/LGT theory. As the Encyclopedia puts it, "some" Latter-day Saints favor such a theory. That is hardly "strong" argument.

Regarding the Encyclopedia, I didn't misquote it or leave out important material by shortening it to what I did. I don't think the Encyclopedia takes much of a position but the reference to "some" Latter-day Saints favoring the LGT theory is sort of negative pregnant, in my opinion. Maybe I've overstated it by comparing it to "some" Latter-day Saints following Amasa Lyman, but surely in my view Dr. Sorenson's work is sheer unmitigated speculation when his book transcends the fabulous internal geography to try and place it in a real-world setting.

Well, I have a boatload of General Authorities in my wake.

As do I. I even have some personal confirmation but they have not spoke about it in public. This includes President Monson remarks he made at a zone conference in Guatemala (he was an Apostle at the time) confirmed to me by three missionaries and the Mission President and by President Hinckley confirmed to me by his daughter. But there is no way I can prove this so I guess your boatload beats the GA statements I have accumulated but since they were not publicly announced allows you and those who follow Meldrum the convenience of using it as a gotcha for all us mesoamericanist. But As I mentioned held opinions is not support for a heartland model however the anthropological and archeological research in Mesoamerica wins hands down over the Great Lakes model.

sincerly

anijen

[Bob Crockett]

As do I. I even have some personal confirmation but they have not spoke about it in public. This includes President Monson remarks he made at a zone conference in Guatemala (he was an Apostle at the time) confirmed to me by three missionaries and the Mission President and by President Hinckley confirmed to me by his daughter. But there is no way I can prove this so I guess your boatload beats the GA statements I have accumulated but since they were not publicly announced allows you and those who follow Meldrum the convenience of using it as a gotcha for all us mesoamericanist. But As I mentioned held opinions is not support for a heartland model however the anthropological and archeological research in Mesoamerica wins hands down over the Great Lakes model.

sincerly

anijen

I have never read one word written by Mr. Meldrum.

I don't use "gotchas" to make my point. I use General Conference addresses. If you have one I'll read it.

[cdowis]

Well, I have a boatload of General Authorities in my wake.

You have a boatload of GA's whose statements are mallable enough for you to quote them in the same manner as you quoted the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to meet your agenda.

Yes, there is indeed a hill in NY call Cumorah. Everyone agrees with that. The issue is whether your boatload includes those who have personal knowledge of the location, or just based on assumption/speculation'/opinion. And finding statements from those who speak with personal knowledge, rather than assumption, and that boatload vanishes. Perhaps, since you quoted McConkie, you should read what he said about his previous statements regarding blacks and the priesthood.

Just another innocent omission? I know it really bothers you to hear this, but BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue of factual investigation. Everyone is free to express their opinions, but they need to be based on facts. Each of the statements that you quoted give no indication of any special knowledge, or revelation, outside personal opinion, no matter how strongly felt.

This boatload of General Authorities have made no pretense of any special, personal knowledge superior to those who disagree with them. 500 statements on one side to 50 on the other is meaningless, without that certain knowledge.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed and falls flat on its face.

[Bob Crockett]

You have a boatload of GA's whose statements are mallable enough for you to quote them in the same manner as you quoted the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to meet your agenda.

My agenda? To do what?

Perhaps, since you quoted McConkie, you should read what he said about his previous statements regarding blacks and the priesthood.

Just another innocent omission?

You mean I should have discussed blacks and the priesthood in the same context as Book of Mormon geography? I used to be somewhat careful about Elder McConckie until I had a conversion; I went to a stake priesthood meeting where he spoke and I came away a big believer in his apostolic calling. So, yes, I tend to give some weight to his statements. And, no, I don't think it a disingenuous omission not to mention his views of blacks and the priesthood the same time I am quoting him on Cumorah matters.

I know it really bothers you to hear this, but BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue of factual investigation. Everyone is free to express their opinions, but they need to be based on facts. Each of the statements that you quoted give no indication of any special knowledge, or revelation, outside personal opinion, no matter how strongly felt.

Thank you. I'm not bothered, really. And I do think to some extent that it is a doctrinal matter. At least, I am coming to think that. But, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of the Meldrumites who claim that the two-Cumorah believers are heterodox. All that I am willing to say is that I think Dr. Sorenson's book is sheer speculation.

However, in that vein, I should remark that Dr. Sorenson is widely respected as a diffusionist and I own one of his technical works. A great intellect and his knowledge of transoceanic connections is world-class.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed and falls flat on its face.

Oh well; I know I'm in difficult company here with my views. But, I'm curious; do you have any general conference addresses that hint at a two-Cumorah view?

[Nofear]

My agenda? To do what?

While I certainly can't speak to your agenda, it is a common ploy for those who oppose the Church to paint the Church into a corner that is indefensible. And once there, to rigorously attack the position*. Unfortunately, many faithful members are unwittingly complicit in setting up these kind of traps from the Adversary.

I view apologetics as serving a very useful and important function of identifying and defusing these kind of traps -- from naysayers and faithful alike.

* Example: Naysayer will argue that the Church teaches that all of North and South America are the direct decedents of the Jaredites and Lehites. Were a faithful member to concede such a position, their faith would then be placed in contradiction to significant evidence which shows a different genetic heritage.

[Bob Crockett]

While I certainly can't speak to your agenda, it is a common ploy for those who oppose the Church to paint the Church into a corner that is indefensible. And once there, to rigorously attack the position*. Unfortunately, many faithful members are unwittingly complicit in setting up these kind of traps from the Adversary.

I view apologetics as serving a very useful and important function of identifying and defusing these kind of traps -- from naysayers and faithful alike.

* Example: Naysayer will argue that the Church teaches that all of North and South America are the direct decedents of the Jaredites and Lehites. Were a faithful member to concede such a position, their faith would then be placed in contradiction to significant evidence which shows a different genetic heritage.

In matters of faith, the arm of the flesh is very weak.

[cdowis]

You mean I should have discussed blacks and the priesthood in the same context as Book of Mormon geography? I used to be somewhat careful about Elder McConckie until I had a conversion; I went to a stake priesthood meeting where he spoke and I came away a big believer in his apostolic calling. So, yes, I tend to give some weight to his statements. And, no, I don't think it a disingenuous omission not to mention his views of blacks and the priesthood the same time I am quoting him on Cumorah matters.

You know exactly what I mean. McConkie made it pointed clear that he had expressed an opinion, and that opinion was wrong. You quote "boatloads" of GA without mentioning the minor issue that they are simply expressing an opinion, which can change, as demonstrated by McConkie.

snip

Oh well; I know I'm in difficult company here with my views. But, I'm curious; do you have any general conference addresses that hint at a two-Cumorah view?

Sigh.

You still don't get it, with your infantile logic. We need to look at what the BOM itself says.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, I think you're being a little harsh.

I am a true believer. I'm not some nay-sayer trying to paint the apologists into an indefensible position to mow the Church down. I've made a detailed study of this and have consulted with fairly knowledgeable folks. John Welch, for whom I was a research assistant so long ago, likes to poke fun at me by asking me to point to where cement can be found north of the Rio Grande. So, I'm in the middle of the discussion with some pretty fine folks, and to paint me as pathetic is too harsh.

I'll stick to my views that Dr. Sorenson's book is too speculative for the scientific method, and I take on faith what I can read for myself in General Conference. I do accept the position that the Brethren can have opinions on unimportant matters, and I do accept the possibility that the location of the real Hill Cumorah is not all that important (but the more one argues that, the more one approaches the view that the Book of Mormon is mere allegory.)

I think that I am entitled to an answer to my question though, as to whether there is any mention of the Mesoamerican theory in General Conference addresses. I'd like to say that I don't think there is, but I haven't searched for them. It seems that Rod Meldrum has the upper hand in this argument, although again I've never read a single word of what he has said -- just what people say about him. Sort of like reading Origen to figure out the doctrine of the heretics.

[Skylla]

Telling someone they have "infantile logic" isn't in line with the board guidelines. Please read them.

Skylla

[Nofear]

I think that I am entitled to an answer to my question though, as to whether there is any mention of the Mesoamerican theory in General Conference addresses. I'd like to say that I don't think there is, but I haven't searched for them. It seems that Rod Meldrum has the upper hand in this argument, although again I've never read a single word of what he has said -- just what people say about him. Sort of like reading Origen to figure out the doctrine of the heretics.

Participants on MADB (now MDDB?) have generally been hostile to Meldrum. I know that I personally am not a fan of Medrum and believe that his influence is a negative one for the Church. But you can see for yourself. Meldrum's website is: bookofmormonevidence.org

The testimonials section is fun.

[Pahoran]

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.

Thank you for that clarification. While I disagree with your position, you at least have a legitimate dog in this fight, unlike others.

That is no endorsement.

Of itself it is not an endorsement. But it is circumstantial evidence in favour of the report that President Smith did indeed give Professor Sperry permission to publish his views, and described his own as "opinion."

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 . . . ."

Everybody please join in:

"Tradition, tradition, tradition!

Tradition, tradition, tradition!" (From Fiddler on the Roof.)

The Church is a conservative institution, Rob. Its leaders have no right to introduce innovations without revelation; therefore it is natural and normal that they would essentially uphold the tradition. But it is not the case -- and you ought not to argue as if it were the case -- that they each represent independent witnesses to the veridicality of that tradition. Rather they each repeat it because their predecessors repeated it; that's what tradition is, after all.

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 ."

And this is a particularly interesting one, although it is unlikely to give much aid and comfort to your Meldrumite friends. Thatcher is describing a limited Mesoamerican geography with a long retreat to a New York Cumorah. This particular LGM variant had legs for a fairly long time.

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."

While "the common assumption that Moroni buried the plates of Mormon in the same hill where his father had buried the other plates" is kind of like saying, "the common assumption that Mormons aren't Christians."

The Equal Dignities Doctrine

I'll grant that the "tradition of the fathers" that equates the New York drumlin with the Book of Mormon Cumorah is a very dignified one; venerable, even. But it is only a tradition.

Now, I truly admit that the Ensign has published speculation as to the limited view. Did that published speculation involve two Cumorahs?

You could say that, although I reject the expression "two Cumorahs." The Book of Mormon mentions only one, and it's clearly a long way from the New York Drumlin. Here is the pertinent quote:

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the

[Nofear]

Everybody please join in:

"Tradition, tradition, tradition!

Tradition, tradition, tradition!" (From Fiddler on the Roof.)

Bah -- didn't actually embed the video.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, it is one paradigm of false doctrine. Here is another: clinging to old statements that have no basis in revelation, simply because of the prominence of those who said them.

You probably realize that there's more at stake with this controversy than the Hill Cumorah. I have a fond hope for the blessings of Cumorah because it features so strongly in the poetry and hymns of the last century, and without exception in that century the Saints all viewed the Hill as I'd like to do.

But, there's more at stake because to be wedded to the traditional statements of the past it is implicitly felt that we'd have to be wedded to other things -- Adam God, who is Jehovah, the blacks and all that stuff. To be forced to concede the Hill Cumorah tradition kind of opens the door to the rest of that. For that reason, cdowis wanted to force me to sign onto Elder McConkie's other controversial statements as a condition to signing on to his view of Cumorah.

I just take one issue at a time, really. It is a significant thing that there was an Ensign article on the subject. I don't doubt that at all. But hearts will be broken if anybody tries to stick to one particular theory and goes looking for proof. Just ask Thomas Stuart Ferguson.

But, it is certainly a documented fact that many early Christians fell away from the Church because they believed the story that the disciples stole the Body. So will people kick the Church to the curb today; if over Cumorah that is a silly thing.

[Calm]

But, it is certainly a documented fact that many early Christians fell away from the Church because they believed the story that the disciples stole the Body. So will people kick the Church to the curb today; if over Cumorah that is a silly thing.

This is what troubles me about Meldrum's LGT version. In his drive to keep the prophecies and promises solely for the US and its citizens, he has defined Nephites and Lamanities to a limited part of the US, excluding many who have been proud to treasure that heritage for years, taught that they were of Lehi's family from the mouth of prophets through dedicatory prayers and other utterances.

Those who support the LGT Mesoamerican have never expressed to my knowledge a belief that because the main events took place in that location that it excludes other Native Americans from sharing in that heritage, rather they see the likelihood that with any survivors of that bloodline that long ago that pretty much every inhabitant of this continent in this age can trace back to Father Lehi and his sons (think of Charlemagne and Europe for the same effect) even if actual DNA can't be traced (not having someone 's DNA does not somehow make them disappear on one's pedigree chart, after all).

OTOH, from certain things I've read Meldrum and some of his followers seem to gloat that those they see as outsiders to the US have no spiritual or legitimate (in their eyes) claims on God's special promises spoken of in the BoM. Running into that attitude could cause some harsh feelings including of being betrayed and deceived (there are some who don't understand the actual position of the majority of Mesoamericans fans who have expressed disappointment too even though it's only something they've read into the argument, I can just imagine what would happen if they read something that promoted the idea of rejection), I believe this is one of the reasons so many have strong negative feelings toward Meldrum (if he didn't use the geographical theory to promote this and other agendas and instead just explored the location possibilities it would be treated like most other theories I believe).

[Bob Crockett]

Being a libertarian I have a somewhat unorthodox view of borders and immigration; I won't get into that because it will just inflame passions.

But, the whole George P. Lee affair several years ago taught me a small principle -- the blessings to the Lamanites extend to all Native Americans and their descendants on this continent, and not just Indians living on U.S. reservations.

So, to the extent the Meldrumites have a U.S.-centric understanding of the Lamanites, well, the Book of Mormon doesn't support that.

Now, I must go back to my trinket sales shop at the foot of the Hill Cumorah.

[sunstoned]

Well, there have been over one hundred and seventeen posts in this thread. It has been demonstrated (at least to me anyway) that Joseph Smith and all of the prophets that followed him have stated that the hill Comorah has identified in the Book of Mormon is in New York State. It is beyond me how anyone who claims to follow the modern prophets of the LDS faith can claim otherwise. The only reason this argument comes up is because of archeological and scientific evidence. I agree with rcrocket on this one. If you are a true believing Mormon, then own your beliefs. Back your prophets and say stick it to the so called archeological evidence. This is religion for hecks sakes, it

[Bob Crockett]

because of archeological and scientific evidence.

There isn't any. Either way. At least anything direct.

[sunstoned]

There isn't any. Either way. At least anything direct.

I agree with you on this Dave. This "where is Cumorah" is an argument that is internal to the LDS community only.

[Calm]

Now, I must go back to my trinket sales shop at the foot of the Hill Cumorah.

;)

[Palerider]

Well, there have been over one hundred and seventeen posts in this thread. It has been demonstrated (at least to me anyway) that Joseph Smith and all of the prophets that followed him have stated that the hill Comorah has identified in the Book of Mormon is in New York State. It is beyond me how anyone who claims to follow the modern prophets of the LDS faith can claim otherwise. The only reason this argument comes up is because of archeological and scientific evidence. I agree with rcrocket on this one. If you are a true believing Mormon, then own your beliefs. Back your prophets and say stick it to the so called archeological evidence. This is religion for hecks sakes, it

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My endorsement may not be valued here Sunstoned, but I believe you are correct. This is the only way to view this issue with intellectual honesty.

Oh Palerider speaks again, we are all just intellectually dishonest. I disgaree that "This is the only way to view this issue with intellectual honesty". Others have laid out a complelling case.

[ELF1024]

My endorsement may not be valued here Sunstoned, but I believe you are correct. This is the only way to view this issue with intellectual honesty.

Yeah, and the pope is infallible because he wears a big freaking hat.

Is the Hill in NY the Hill Cumorah? Sure it is...

Is the Hill in NY the same Hill Cumorah that Moroni spoke of in the BoM? I don't think so....

[Pahoran]

Well, there have been over one hundred and seventeen posts in this thread. It has been demonstrated (at least to me anyway) that Joseph Smith and all of the prophets that followed him have stated that the hill Comorah has identified in the Book of Mormon is in New York State.

Really? Since we haven't had statements from all of the prophets, it clearly doesn't take much to "demonstrate" such to your satisfaction.

It is beyond me how anyone who claims to follow the modern prophets of the LDS faith can claim otherwise. The only reason this argument comes up is because of archeological and scientific evidence. I agree with rcrocket on this one.

There you are Rob; it's unanimous. All the anti-Mormons agree with you.

If you are a true believing Mormon, then own your beliefs. Back your prophets and say stick it to the so called archeological evidence. This is religion for hecks sakes, it