Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[Kevin Christensen]

I tend to disagree on where Cumorah may be and why. I am not arguing here where the main cities were in the BoM as you keep implying.

My immediate argument is about making sense of specific stories, specific texts, and the interrelation between lands. A recurring theme is that none of the parade of GAs who testified regarding the New York Hill as identical with the one in the Book of Mormon narrative have ever bothered to examine or account for these narratives.

It is not hard for me to picture the battles stretching out over a greater area as the decades pass away. Take the American civil war for example. It was not fought in some tight close geographical area. It spanned a lot of area- that is the nature of these kind of wars.

Steam trains, horse drawn wagons, extensive use of calvary, terrain, climate, telegraph for communication, observation balloons, steam ships even on rivers, and a lot more infrastructure, international trade, not to mention the weapons involved make a huge difference.

The destruction of the Nephite and Jaredite nations are really no different.

In a hundred distinct mentions of wars, there is not one mention of calvary. It is all marching. So much so that they did not wear armour on their legs. (Note the wounds on the stripling warriors, for instance.)

What we must try to do here is not read things into the text but to examine whats there and be carful not to rule things out.

We ought to be able to read carefully enough to recognize the constraints and requirements that the text offers, so as to make sure we are not just selectively proof-texting our own opinions, and ignoring anything and everything that raises questions.

From what I have read, we can't know the distance of Cumorah from the hill Shim, and we can't know the distance of the hill Shim from the narrow neck. Without knowing the placement of the hill Shim we cannot know it's relation from that point to the other areas.

The last wars of the Nephites spanned the entirety of Mormon's life. Continually he was pushed further and further north until finally the numbers of the Lamanites were so great that they were about to over-run the land northward. At this point Mormon asks for a retreat of his people into a land called Cumorah.

My post points to stories in the text that have implications for the location of Cumorah. Definite location the Sidon, unless the best way to read that is to ignore the prophets that provided that. Definite location for the use of cement for cities at a specific time. Unless we should just ignore the prophets who wrote that. The stories of Limhi's explorers, the relationship of the Nephite and Mulekite land falls, Coriantumr, the relationship between Desolation, Bountiful, and the narrow neck, patterns in Nephite defensive citys (in Clark's essays), and more. Most of the battles that Mormon describes are at the Narrrow Neck, Bountiful and the bordering Desolation. That is not vague.

It is vague but, it appears from the text that he spends about 4 years gathering the remainder of his people to this land of Cumorah. Now, if Cumorah was such a short distance away from the narrow neck and the land they were defending, why take 4 years to gather in your people to this land? To me it doesn't make sense.

It makes sense if both sides have suffered terrible losses in battle. And if Mormon wants to recover and build, why not the Lamanites? Training and provisioning large armies takes time, if you can get it. It also makes sense of the archeological presence of the emereging Teotuihican empire to the North, cement ruins and all, being in the way. If we count the evidence of their existence on the route to the North, and the obstacle and complications they present to a quarter million Nephites, let alone the larger Lamanite armies, we recognize that Nephites cannot retreat that far without running into more trouble. They are between hammer and anvil, and have no place to run. If they could have run, why didn't they?

It is far less vague if we consider the real constraints that the text puts on our reading, particularly if we are willing to let go our preconceptions when we read, to let the whole text speak, and not just the parts we can fit to our preconceptions, as though "many waters" was an exclusive fit to one specific location, and everything else fit nicely around that.

If we're right about a Mesoamerican Cumorah, all that means ultimately is that the Book of Mormon account fits a real world location. Not the end of faith.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

And, further:

1. Although the Book of Mormon says nothing about weather, causing some to infer that battles occurred where weather was not a factor (i.e., warm climate), so does the Old Testament say nothing about weather where seasons change and weather is a factor.

2. Why was weather not mentioned? According to sources pertaining to ancient warfare, battles were a seasonal affair. Armies would not fight during the winter months. That does not mean that Book of Mormon battles were not fought in the winter, but the pattern of seasonal warfare was well-known and followed throughout history. Even during the Revolutionary War, armies hunkered down into winter quarters.

3. For those who wish to minimize modern day Cumorah as an insignificant hill compared to much larger hills or mountains in the area, according to the patterns of ancient warfare, battles rarely occurred on high mountains. This was due to a number of factors, probably, dealing with the length an arrow travels, gravity, the need to locate water and food conveniently and remaining available to supply transports. Sure, height had an advantage, but it also has its disadvantages.

4. Large battles consume huge amounts of space. As the prior post indicates, the Civil War spanned huge areas. There are several reasons for this. One, obviously, is the need to control waterways, defensive positions, towns where combatants congregate. The other is that huge areas are needed for support if the armies are required to live off the land.

Kevin makes the comment:

"Steam trains, horse drawn wagons, extensive use of calvary, terrain, climate, telegraph for communication, observation balloons, steam ships even on rivers, and a lot more infrastructure, international trade, not to mention the weapons involved make a huge difference. "

But, a study of ancient warfare shows that huge armies consume huge amounts of real estate no matter what the age, for reasons I've mentioned.

5. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or defective about the final battle occurring in the New York area, given that similar battles had occurred in similar geographical arenas and climates in Europe. The faint of heart might have fears that without archaeological finds in New York or the upper Ohio, there's just no on the ground support for huge battles. But, do you really find such overwhelming support of graveyards and buried weaponry for the Roman Germanic battles? In truth, Mounds scholars have long argued that the Mounds support the notion of large-scale populations and warfare.

6. Although it may be indeed that Church authorities have taken no position on Book of Mormon geography in general (see, Roper, FR 22:2:16), they have taken a position on the location of the Hill Cumorah, for sacred and theological reasons. Whereas Roper cites Ivin's statement that "it does not matter to us" as to the location of the land of Zarahemla "and other geographic matters" (FR 22:2:17), Roper fails to cite or critique Ivin's statement about the Hill Cumorah.

After referring to the last battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, Pres. Ivins said: "All of these incidents to which I have referred, my brothers and sisters, are very closely associated with this particular spot in the State of New York. Therefore I feel, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, that the acquisition of that spot of ground is more than an incident in the history of the Church." After referring to the hill as the same as Ramah and the site of the final Nephite battle, "[w]e know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abrigement . . . ." Pres. Anthony Ivins, CR April. 1928, p. 13.

7. Kevin remarks:

A recurring theme is that none of the parade of GAs who testified regarding the New York Hill as identical with the one in the Book of Mormon narrative have ever bothered to examine or account for these narratives.

But, as I point out in my prior paragraph, Cumorah is different. There, things have been revealed, not discovered in the ground. There, we have general authority after general authority linking new Cumorah to old Cumorah and Ramah, with absolutely nothing of remote equivalence (general conference addresses) to the contrary. It is one thing to dispense, as Roper does, with the notion that the Book of Mormon settles on a particular geographical scheme. It is another to toss Cumorah out like so much bathwater.

8. Finally, as Kevin comments;

If we're right about a Mesoamerican Cumorah, all that means ultimately is that the Book of Mormon account fits a real world location. Not the end of faith.

To settle on a Mesoamerican Cumorah requires the surrender of faith to explain away perceived, but wrong, inconvenient truths. (I apologize for the hyperbole of the prior sentence and I don't really believe that, but it is a commonly-held observation.)

[ELF1024]

I tend to disagree on where Cumorah may be and why. I am not arguing here where the main cities were in the BoM as you keep implying. It is not hard for me to picture the battles stretching out over a greater area as the decades pass away. Take the American civil war for example. It was not fought in some tight close geographical area. It spanned a lot of area- that is the nature of these kind of wars. The destruction of the Nephite and Jaredite nations are really no different. What we must try to do here is not read things into the text but to examine whats there and be carful not to rule things out. From what I have read, we can't know the distance of Cumorah from the hill Shim, and we can't know the distance of the hill Shim from the narrow neck. Without knowing the placement of the hill Shim we cannot know it's relation from that point to the other areas.

I would suggest that you do some research on modern logistics. I think that you will find that the modern ability to move food and supplies over great distances will be directly relevant to Book of Mormon Warfare.

Today, as in every other time in history, an Army marches on it's stomach. Supplies must either be obtained locally, or they must be brought with.

If we assume that the cement cities in MezoAmerica are indeed the cities spoken of in the BoM; it is very unlikely that the Lehites could have supported supply lines that streched to NY from MezoAmerica. Even if the Army traveled north, gathering it's own supplies and taking everyone with it, the logistics involved would have been staggering.

You also may want to do some reading of Vauban on military fortifications in 17th Century France.

[Rob Osborn]

My immediate argument is about making sense of specific stories, specific texts, and the interrelation between lands. A recurring theme is that none of the parade of GAs who testified regarding the New York Hill as identical with the one in the Book of Mormon narrative have ever bothered to examine or account for these narratives.

Steam trains, horse drawn wagons, extensive use of calvary, terrain, climate, telegraph for communication, observation balloons, steam ships even on rivers, and a lot more infrastructure, international trade, not to mention the weapons involved make a huge difference.

In a hundred distinct mentions of wars, there is not one mention of calvary. It is all marching. So much so that they did not wear armour on their legs. (Note the wounds on the stripling warriors, for instance.

We ought to be able to read carefully enough to recognize the constraints and requirements that the text offers, so as to make sure we are not just selectively proof-texting our own opinions, and ignoring anything and everything that raises questions.

My post points to stories in the text that have implications for the location of Cumorah. Definite location the Sidon, unless the best way to read that is to ignore the prophets that provided that. Definite location for the use of cement for cities at a specific time. Unless we should just ignore the prophet wrote that. The stories of Limhi's explorers, the relationship of the Nephite and Mulekite land falls, Coriantumr, the relationship between Desolation, Bountiful, and the narrow neck, patterns in Nephite defensive citys (in Clark's essays), and more. Most of the battles that Mormon describes are at the Narrrow Neck, Bountiful and the bordering Desolation. That is not vague.

It makes sense if both sides have suffered terrible losses in battle. And if Mormon wants to recover and build, why not the Lamanites? Training and provisioning large armies takes time, if you can get it. It also makes sense of the archeological presence of the emereging Teotuihican empire to the North, cement ruins and all, being in the way. If we count the evidence of their existence on the route to the North, and the obstacle and complications they present to a quarter million Nephites, let alone the larger Lamanite armies, we recognize that Nephites cannot retreat that far without running into more trouble. They are between hammer and anvil, and have no place to run. If they could have run, why didn't they?

It is far less vague if we consider the real constraints that the text puts on our reading, particular if we are willing to let go our preconceptions when we read, to let the whole text speak, and not just the parts we can fit to our preconceptions, as though "many waters" was an exclusive fit to one specific location, and everything else fit nicely around that.

If we're right about a Mesoamerican Cumorah, all that means ultimately is that the Book of Mormon account fits a real world location. Not the end of faith.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Look, if you want to debate the typical geographical placements we can. I do not know what relevence if any this has to do with where Cumorah is. You tend to think their entire nation can all be summed up in a 300x400 suqare mile area. That is fine if you want to think such. I for one am thinking more realistically that they utilyzed the entire continents of Both North and South America. Saying this I believe most of the stories from the BoM take place in South America where Zarahemla, Land of Nephi, Bountiful all exist. The river Sidon in my opinion was in Colombia to what is now called the Magdalena River. I further believe the narrow neck was the isthmus of Panama. Heading further north I believe most of the ancient pyramids of Central America and Mexico were those of the Jaredites. This is the land desolation. Heading further north we come to Teotihuacan which in my opinion was the Jaredite city of the kings- the city of Moron.

One interesting fact about the Mayan glphs is it portrays the relentless pursuit of overthrowing and bringing into captivity the neiboring kingdom and king to dwell in captivity. This is basic Jaredite life.

The nephites who went into the North countries and built with cement were the Pueblo indians who built by cementing with adobe. These were basically peaceful peoples who survived for hundreds of years and lived their peaceful simple lives. Spanning both the Jaredites and Nephites times, the Great Lakes area was a major center for oreing copper. Copper was traded up and down the Mississippi and into the gulf down into Mexico and Central America. In order to understand the magnitude of their societies we must realize that they had hundreds and hundreds of years to expand, explore and build cities in far remote areas such as the Great lakes to the north and to the south in Bolivia bordering into Chile.

Its a mighty tall order to fit all these great civilizations into a small geographical area especially when you go to battle and begin killing off millions of souls in countless cities and lands.

I am sorry but the order of a strict meso-american setting don't fit the text very well at all.

It really all comes down to the distances. You think it near impossible to march around for thousands of miles and yet when the Gentiles came to America and started conquering the Indians we forced them into marching thousands of miles all over the United States. Even the early Mormons "marched" thosands of miles in search of establishing Zion. You do not have to have telegraphs, trains, etc, to march around and battle.

[Calm]

Are there any ancient wars that encompassed that amount of area in that amount of time?

[Rob Osborn]

I would suggest that you do some research on modern logistics. I think that you will find that the modern ability to move food and supplies over great distances will be directly relevant to Book of Mormon Warfare.

Today, as in every other time in history, an Army marches on it's stomach. Supplies must either be obtained locally, or they must be brought with.

If we assume that the cement cities in MezoAmerica are indeed the cities spoken of in the BoM; it is very unlikely that the Lehites could have supported supply lines that streched to NY from MezoAmerica. Even if the Army traveled north, gathering it's own supplies and taking everyone with it, the logistics involved would have been staggering.

You also may want to do some reading of Vauban on military fortifications in 17th Century France.

You tend to underestimate the power and reach of the Nephite and Lamanite nations. They were around for a lot longer time than this nation has been around- about 3 times longer! They had written language, ships for trading, and peoples as it were- countless as sand upon the seashore from one sea to the other.

We shouldn't be so quick to underestimate the power and magnitude of their vast and far reaching civilizations.

[ELF1024]

You tend to underestimate the power and reach of the Nephite and Lamanite nations. They were around for a lot longer time than this nation has been around- about 3 times longer! They had written language, ships for trading, and peoples as it were- countless as sand upon the seashore from one sea to the other.

We shouldn't be so quick to underestimate the power and magnitude of their vast and far reaching civilizations.

... and that's a huge number of mouths to feed; and a huge distance to cross while doing it.

It is far more likley (Occam's Razor) that the Hill Cumorah is located near to the sites of the cement cities. The logistics required to feed and move that many people, that far north... I think you over-estimate their capabilties.

[livy111us]

I just got this from the BMAF newsletter on soil tests done around Cumorah that a few people here might find interesting:

BMAF encourages feedback and questions from you, our readers. We have

received several queries asking if anyone has ever taken soil samples

around the New York Hill Cumorah looking for evidence of massive human

burials. We did some search and research and found the following:

Wayne May, author of Ancient American Magazine and promoter of the

Heartland geography model for the Book of Mormon has stated that a man

named J. Golden Jensen wrote a letter to Elder [Apostle] James E.

Talmage in which Jensen said he [Elder Talmage] stood on the crest of

the hill near Palmyra, New York in Jensen's presence in 1920. May

claims that he [Talmage] had found as a result of a survey and

extensive analysis he had done while a student in an eastern

university, that the soils of the area adjacent to the Hill Cumorah

are very rich in calcium and phosphate. With further investigation he

discovered that there was a lack of these elements in the land which

lay further than a few miles in radius in any direction from the Hill

Cumorah. To him, this discovery was indicative of the fact that there

was decaying of bones of the Nephite and Lamanite armies that perished

there...."

Duane Dahlem, a BMAF member, has recently written an article called

"Wayne May Distorts Facts about Hill Cumorah." In it, Dahlem shows

these claims centering around Elder Talmage to be spurious. Read the

entire article at: http://www.bmaf.org/node/277 .

Another BMAF scholar who asks to remain anonymous due to family and

friendship complications reports that "other than maybe some typical

farm K, N, and Ph element tests for cropping purposes I don't know of

any soil sample work done at the hill locality. I grew up on a farm,

took ag soils, have farmed and taken those types of samples, but I

leave the details of this subtle soils evaluations to the experts. I

know enough to realize that they can be a good diagnostic tool in some

settings for some types of investigations. The soils experts inform me

that unusually elevated levels of certain elements can indicate human

habitation areas, activity zones, possible burials, etc. There are

currently soils tests being done in the Mountain Meadows area because

they can be useful. There are lots of reasons most serious Mormon

archaeological researchers think the New York Cumorah is not the

battlefield hill and I am certainly one of them. Having done

archaeological work in that area and examined by visual recon etc.

various areas of that and adjacent properties, I fail to find any good

information that suggests a battlefield hill. Now, a record

repository hill for the limited materials Joseph Smith found, that is

another matter. There is a lot of interesting documentary evidence

and a good, known landform match for the limited repository hill

approach but absolutely zip physical evidence for the battlefield

hill."

Once again, "evidence" for the Heartland model proves not to be

convincing.

We invite you to forward this article to your friends and family and

let them know that they can receive our mailings on their own computer

by going to www.bmaf.org and placing their email address in the

[Bob Crockett]

I like the anonymous scholar in contradistinction to Pres. Ivins who stated in general conference that we positively know that Ramah/Cumorah/Cumorah are one and the same.

Anonymity bespeaks fear of being proven wrong.

[mapman]

Look, if you want to debate the typical geographical placements we can. I do not know what relevence if any this has to do with where Cumorah is. You tend to think their entire nation can all be summed up in a 300x400 suqare mile area. That is fine if you want to think such. I for one am thinking more realistically that they utilyzed the entire continents of Both North and South America. Saying this I believe most of the stories from the BoM take place in South America where Zarahemla, Land of Nephi, Bountiful all exist. The river Sidon in my opinion was in Colombia to what is now called the Magdalena River. I further believe the narrow neck was the isthmus of Panama. Heading further north I believe most of the ancient pyramids of Central America and Mexico were those of the Jaredites. This is the land desolation. Heading further north we come to Teotihuacan which in my opinion was the Jaredite city of the kings- the city of Moron.

One interesting fact about the Mayan glphs is it portrays the relentless pursuit of overthrowing and bringing into captivity the neiboring kingdom and king to dwell in captivity. This is basic Jaredite life.

The nephites who went into the North countries and built with cement were the Pueblo indians who built by cementing with adobe. These were basically peaceful peoples who survived for hundreds of years and lived their peaceful simple lives. Spanning both the Jaredites and Nephites times, the Great Lakes area was a major center for oreing copper. Copper was traded up and down the Mississippi and into the gulf down into Mexico and Central America. In order to understand the magnitude of their societies we must realize that they had hundreds and hundreds of years to expand, explore and build cities in far remote areas such as the Great lakes to the north and to the south in Bolivia bordering into Chile.

Its a mighty tall order to fit all these great civilizations into a small geographical area especially when you go to battle and begin killing off millions of souls in countless cities and lands.

I am sorry but the order of a strict meso-american setting don't fit the text very well at all.

It really all comes down to the distances. You think it near impossible to march around for thousands of miles and yet when the Gentiles came to America and started conquering the Indians we forced them into marching thousands of miles all over the United States. Even the early Mormons "marched" thosands of miles in search of establishing Zion. You do not have to have telegraphs, trains, etc, to march around and battle.

People aren't debating that the Nephites were capable of traveling thousands of miles. The text of the Book of Mormon describes journeys as taking a few days, so when you put everything together you come up with a map that covers a few hundred square miles. Even Nephites couldn't cross continents in a few days.

[livy111us]

People aren't debating that the Nephites were capable of traveling thousands of miles. The text of the Book of Mormon describes journeys as taking a few days, so when you put everything together you come up with a map that covers a few hundred square miles. Even Nephites couldn't cross continents in a few days.

The Hopewell cannot fit the order of being the Nephites, but do agree that they very well could have been part of Northward migrations. The Hopewell did not live in anything larger than a small village, while most living in 1-2 family hamlets. They were a culture that had very low population numbers, that equaled to about 1 person per square mile. DURING Book of Mormon times, there were no major wars among them, did not live in cities or even have cities, and didn't even have enough people to equal one major war in The Book of Mormon, let alone the many major wars. The Hopewell do not qualify in any way, as Book of Mormon people. Much of the evidence that Meldrum and his cohorts present to show that they were Nephites, happened centuries after the Hopewell culture dissolved (not came to an end in battle).

[Rob Osborn]

... and that's a huge number of mouths to feed; and a huge distance to cross while doing it.

It is far more likley (Occam's Razor) that the Hill Cumorah is located near to the sites of the cement cities. The logistics required to feed and move that many people, that far north... I think you over-estimate their capabilties.

And yet the Jaredites built barges, transported themselves and their animals and seed from one side of the world to the other. Then, some 2 thousand years later Lehi and his family build a ship and again travel from one side of the world to the other. So, no, it's kind of hard to over-estimate their capabilities when they can do this. Traveling across continents is nothing for these people- they built ships and traversed the oceans!

[Rob Osborn]

People aren't debating that the Nephites were capable of traveling thousands of miles. The text of the Book of Mormon describes journeys as taking a few days, so when you put everything together you come up with a map that covers a few hundred square miles. Even Nephites couldn't cross continents in a few days.

No one is saying they cross continents in days. I am suggesting months and perhaps years. The text supports this.

[Rob Osborn]

The Hopewell cannot fit the order of being the Nephites, but do agree that they very well could have been part of Northward migrations. The Hopewell did not live in anything larger than a small village, while most living in 1-2 family hamlets. They were a culture that had very low population numbers, that equaled to about 1 person per square mile. DURING Book of Mormon times, there were no major wars among them, did not live in cities or even have cities, and didn't even have enough people to equal one major war in The Book of Mormon, let alone the many major wars. The Hopewell do not qualify in any way, as Book of Mormon people. Much of the evidence that Meldrum and his cohorts present to show that they were Nephites, happened centuries after the Hopewell culture dissolved (not came to an end in battle).

The people who migrated northward were not warfaring peoples. As far as we know, war did not reach the north countries until the end of the Nephite record around 350-385 ad. So, how can we tell who they were? They very well could have been Nephites who were destroyed by the Lamanites.

[Pahoran]

After referring to the last battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, Pres. Ivins said: "All of these incidents to which I have referred, my brothers and sisters, are very closely associated with this particular spot in the State of New York. Therefore I feel, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, that the acquisition of that spot of ground is more than an incident in the history of the Church." After referring to the hill as the same as Ramah and the site of the final Nephite battle, "[w]e know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abrigement . . . ." Pres. Anthony Ivins, CR April. 1928, p. 13.

I have wondered why you keep highlighting this point, as if it meant something. After all, the identity of the New York drumlin with Moroni's record repository is not at issue. But now you write:

I like the anonymous scholar in contradistinction to Pres. Ivins who stated in general conference that we positively know that Ramah/Cumorah/Cumorah are one and the same.

And now I see what you are saying.

However, I don't see what you are seeing. President Ivins says: "We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgement." Which hill? He could be referring to the New York drumlin, or he could be referring to the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

If the former, then it's sort of like saying "We know positively that the Statue of Liberty is in New York Harbour." It's not like anyone disputes that fact.

But if the latter, then we have to ask: How do they know? Has it been revealed to them? Is there any record of revelation on the subject?

I'm sorry; but no, there isn't.

Apostles and Prophets don't just magically know stuff; either God gives specific revelation on a subject, or -- more commonly -- they learn things the same way all the rest of us do: from books, by word of mouth, by formal instruction and informal conversation. If indeed President Ivins thought he "knew positively" that Moroni desposited his abridgement in the same hill as his father's record repository, then does his "positive" knowledge arise from revelation, or did he learn it at his Primary teacher's knee?

And if the latter, did it simply never occur to him to seriously question something that everyone just "knows?"

Also note his use of that "we." Is it the royal, or the editorial plural? Or is he referring to the GA's as a body? If so, it seems to have escaped his contemporary, Elder John A. Widtsoe, who appears to have not been quite so sure. Or is he perhaps denoting a group that includes his hearers? If the latter, then he is absolutely not claiming specific revelation, but is appealing to something that is so blindingly obvious to everyone that nobody would ever think of questioning it.

But "common knowledge" is not a source of high authority; and it is fallacious to try to imbue it with additional authority by quoting it coming from the lips of a high Church leader. The Book of Mormon contains a number of important and recurring themes; probably the Pride Cycle and the Atonement of Christ are the two that most students would think of first. Almost as pervasive is the folly of relying upon something called "the traditions of the fathers." But that is exactly what the "New York Cumorah" idea is: a tradition.

The source of this tradition is not hard to find: Mormon deposited his records in the Hill Cumorah; Joseph retrieved Moroni's plates from a hill. There are only two dots to join, and it takes no careful reading of the Book of Mormon to join them! In reality, the only thing that any of us can be said to "positively know" about the New York drumlin is that Joseph retrieved the plates from there. From that we can confidently conclude that Moroni deposited his abridgement there. Since the Book of Mormon reports that all the Nephite records were deposited in Cumorah except for the plates which Mormon handed to Moroni (and which Moroni later gave to Joseph Smith) the popular assumption that the New York drumlin is Mormon's Cumorah turns out to be exactly that: an assumption, nothing more. Was it, for many years, the traditional view of the question? Yes, it was.

Was that traditional view held by many -- or I dare say, most -- of the brethren for many years? Yes, it was.

Does their "dignity" lend any scholarly authority to an unquestioned, unexamined piece of popular folklore?

I put it to you that it does not.

Book of Mormon geography is not a matter of revelation; it is a matter for scholarly investigation. As such, the game of "my authorities can beat up your authorities" is foolish and rather pointless.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

However, I don't see what you are seeing. President Ivins says: "We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgement." Which hill? He could be referring to the New York drumlin, or he could be referring to the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

He is talking about the hill in New York and he identified it as the same as Ramah/Cumorah. Although his statement is very clear, it is even more clear in context. The Church had just purchased the Hill Cumorah and the Brethren, including Pres. Ivins, were reporting on the acquisition in the first general conference thereafter. I could cite from the many other authorities who made similiar comments. Pres. Ivins was not ambiguous.

Is there any record of revelation on the subject?

I'm sorry; but no, there isn't.

The Church doesn't work the way you suggest. Fundamentalists reject OD1 and OD2 because there is no indication there was really a revelation -- thus saith the Lord -- and therefor they are free to reject the words of the prophets. Here, we have the Church making a major purchase and the First Presidency explaining to the Church why the purchase was made. When boot up my XP machine I'll provide further quotes from that conference from my 2006 LDS Library.

If indeed President Ivins thought he "knew positively" that Moroni desposited his abridgement in the same hill as his father's record repository, then does his "positive" knowledge arise from revelation, or did he learn it at his Primary teacher's knee?

When it is a member of the First Presidency speaking on a subject that springs from the Book of Mormon, and he says "we know positively" in General Conference with the prophet sitting behind him, I don't question whether he learned it from his Primary Teacher or from the Lord. It is revelation itself.

Also note his use of that "we." Is it the royal, or the editorial plural?

His quorum. The First Presidency.

Was that traditional view held by many -- or I dare say, most -- of the brethren for many years? Yes, it was.

The tradition stands as an official pronouncement. I will be dissauded by a contrary statement in general conference.

Book of Mormon geography is not a matter of revelation; it is a matter for scholarly investigation. As such, the game of "my authorities can beat up your authorities" is foolish and rather pointless.

It is a matter of revelation. Let's summarize why the dispute has arisen. This is the history of the dispute, but of course all who sign onto a Mesoamerican Cumorah don't necessarily sign onto the reason for the dispute.

Book of Mormon doubters are uncomfortable with the fact that they think there is no or little evidence of massive warfare and armaments in the upper Ohio and New York areas. In more modern terms, they are uncomfortable with the DNA issue. A very limited geography for the Book of Mormon would quite naturally make those problems disappear. A huge cottage industry of Mesoamerican archaeology has arisen as a result. I don't doubt or deny that Book of Mormon events occured in Mesoamerica. I do doubt and challenge the claim that New York's Hill Cumorah is not the sacred hill where the Nephites were destroyed.

Are there any General Conference addresses which claim that the location of Cumorah is revealed doctrine?

You asked this question in response to my question -- are there any general conference addresses that remotely support the location of ancient Cumorah as someplace other than NY, but nobody wishes to answer the question. In answer to your question, however, I'd say the 1928 conference is good enough for most Saints. "We know positively" it to be the case.

[livy111us]

The people who migrated northward were not warfaring peoples. As far as we know, war did not reach the north countries until the end of the Nephite record around 350-385 ad. So, how can we tell who they were? They very well could have been Nephites who were destroyed by the Lamanites.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. The Hopewell culture did not end because of war, whether by "Lamanites" or any other culture. That is not to say that there were "others" who were Nephites who lived in that area, but the more I study the Hopewell, the less likely I see them as being any part of The Book of Mormon.

[Pahoran]

He is talking about the hill in New York and he identified it as the same as Ramah/Cumorah. Although his statement is very clear, it is even more clear in context. The Church had just purchased the Hill Cumorah and the Brethren, including Pres. Ivins, were reporting on the acquisition in the first general conference thereafter. I could cite from the many other authorities who made similiar comments. Pres. Ivins was not ambiguous.

Okay, so "we know positively" that Moroni buried his abridgement in the New York drumlin, and Joseph retrieved them from there.

I agree.

That was never at issue.

The Church doesn't work the way you suggest. Fundamentalists reject OD1 and OD2 because there is no indication there was really a revelation -- thus saith the Lord -- and therefor they are free to reject the words of the prophets. Here, we have the Church making a major purchase and the First Presidency explaining to the Church why the purchase was made. When boot up my XP machine I'll provide further quotes from that conference from my 2006 LDS Library.

This is an apples and oranges comparison. The Official Declarations were put before the Saints as Official Declarations (hence the name) and sustained in Conference assembled. I raised my hand to sustain OD2 myself.

Who ever sustained, as an official declaration, a GC talk that mentioned Cumorah, and just naturally continued to uphold the tradition that had rarely been questioned up till that time?

When it is a member of the First Presidency speaking on a subject that springs from the Book of Mormon, and he says "we know positively" in General Conference with the prophet sitting behind him, I don't question whether he learned it from his Primary Teacher or from the Lord. It is revelation itself.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree.

His quorum. The First Presidency.

I'm sorry, but that is quite ambiguous. The most likely interpretation is "All of us, the Latter-day Saints."

The tradition stands as an official pronouncement. I will be dissauded by a contrary statement in general conference.

This is quite frustrating, Rob.

A member of the First Presidency mentions a tradition that everyone accepts. This is not a new revelation, but simply a tradition that everyone accepts. He is not announcing something that his hearers have never heard, but a tradition that everyone accepts. And suddenly, as the words come out of his mouth, they are magically transformed from a tradition that everyone accepts into canonical doctrine. Is that what you really believe?

What status did this tradition have before President Ivins took it upon him to canonise it by repeating it in Conference?

Did President Ivins know that, by repeating this tradition in Conference, he was elevating to the status of canonical doctrine?

It is a matter of revelation. Let's summarize why the dispute has arisen. This is the history of the dispute, but of course all who sign onto a Mesoamerican Cumorah don't necessarily sign onto the reason for the dispute.

Book of Mormon doubters are uncomfortable with the fact that they think there is no or little evidence of massive warfare and armaments in the upper Ohio and New York areas. In more modern terms, they are uncomfortable with the DNA issue. A very limited geography for the Book of Mormon would quite naturally make those problems disappear. A huge cottage industry of Mesoamerican archaeology has arisen as a result.

I'm sorry Rob, but that's simply false. In every detail.

Those who developed the Mesoamerican LGM were in no sense "Book of Mormon doubters." Calling them that is an exercise in poisoning the well, and I really expected better of you. OTOH, neither were they Book of Mormon idolaters, who put the BofM on a pedestal and genuflect before it. Rather, they were -- and are -- Book of Mormon believers; believing it, they took the time to read it, to study it, and to find out what it has to say. Including, but not limited to, what it has to say on the subject of geography.

And while it makes very few direct assertions, it does give a wealth of incidental detail. The distances travelled all add up to a small area. Climatic indicators consistently show a warm climate. The most important geographical feature is the River Sidon, which rises in a wilderness area and flows north and east. These indicators all consistently point to Mesoamerica, and not the Finger Lakes district.

I repeat: the Mesoamerican LGM arose from a systematic study of the Book of Mormon by believers whose testimonies were strong enough to motivate them to long hours of weary study; perhaps in contrast to their opponents. It has been the dominant view among serious Book of Mormon students for at least the last half century. The claim that it represents some sort of terrified retreat in the face of "modern science" is a notorious and oft-discredited canard. Characterising its supporters as "Book of Mormon doubters" really ought to be beneath you.

I don't doubt or deny that Book of Mormon events occured in Mesoamerica. I do doubt and challenge the claim that New York's Hill Cumorah is not the sacred hill where the Nephites were destroyed.

I'm not certain that being a massacre site makes something sacred. I'm happy that the New York drumlin is a sacred site, and one worth the Church's money to purchase, entirely on the basis of it being the site of Moroni's record repository, and of Joseph's retrieving of the plates.

You asked this question in response to my question -- are there any general conference addresses that remotely support the location of ancient Cumorah as someplace other than NY, but nobody wishes to answer the question. In answer to your question, however, I'd say the 1928 conference is good enough for most Saints. "We know positively" it to be the case.

Again: I don't agree. If President Ivins had taken the trouble to actually address any attempt to separate Mormon's Cumorah from the New York drumlin, that might mean something. Alternatively, if he had told us that the Lord had revealed it to the brethren that Mormon's Cumorah, a hitherto unknown location, was none other than the New York drumlin, then that would certainly settle the matter. As it happens, he did neither; he merely upheld the hitherto unquestioned tradition. Just a few years later, Elder John A. Widtsoe pointed out that the location of Cumorah was not revealed, and that it was a topic worthy of investigation.

Does that make him a "Book of Mormon doubter?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

When it is a member of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference with the prophet sitting behind him, I don't question whether he learned it from his Primary Teacher or from the Lord. It is revelation itself.

The tradition stands as an official pronouncement. I will be dissauded by a contrary statement in general conference.

It is a matter of revelation.

You have a tendency to equivocate General Conference talks as doctrine. How about these then as doctrine;

Harold B. Lee states; Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he

[Kevin Christensen]

Look, if you want to debate the typical geographical placements we can. I do not know what relevence if any this has to do with where Cumorah is.

Historically, the emergence of the notion that Ramah/Cumorah had to be in Mesoamerica rather than the hill from which Joseph Smith obtained the plates has everything to do with the Book of Mormon stories.

Sidney Sperry, as I've mentioned, made much of the story of Limhi's explorers, as Sorenson did, persuading John Clark (who says that when he first heard the "two Cumorah theory, he was offended), and many others. I quoted a partial list of Book of Mormon Cumorah requirements from the text. The basic response has been to quote General Authorities and the single passage about "many waters." In terms of the intellectual history of the idea that Cumorah is near the narrow Neck, the Limhi story has been one of the keystones. So, if you want to persuade those who have been persuaded by arguments that often hinge on its implications, you need to do what Joseph Fielding Smith did not do, and that is, deal directly with it.

So taking your suggestion of the Magdalina River as the Sidon, then from a starting position somewhere about three weeks march south, on the other side of a Narrow Strip of Wilderness that extends from the Sea East to the Sea West, following the kind of verbal description that grandfather who had walked from Zarahemla to Lehi-Nephi with Zeniff would provide, make a diagram that shows the route that Limhi's explorers could have plausibly taken that makes sense. We know that Alma makes the trip in 23 days. (Mormon's Map, p56) Remember they have to completely miss Zarahemla coming and going, but they have to think that they had found the ruins of Zarahelma which they also know to be in the Land South. So in traveling to Desolation, they cannot know that they have passed through the narrow neck into the land North. They have to come back with the 24 plates of Ether, which Ether buried within a few days march from your Cumorah/Ramah candidate. Larry Poulson's website has a brilliant analysis of how this works with the Grijalva. In my essay in FR 16:1, I did some maps which hint at some of the directional and distance obstacles involved in starting in South America.

You also might want to explain how the Magdalina River fits the scriptural description of the Sidon at least as well as the Grijalva. It needs to start in a narrow strip over wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West Sea, flow from West to the East, turning North, must be fordable near Zarahemla, and must have sufficient flow as to be able to carry bodies to the East Sea. (See Poulson's website, and JBMS 1:1)

Then try explaining the military situation during the wars with Amalekiah and Ammoron, showing how it can play out in a way that makes textual and tactical sense. You might need to explain why so much of the coast line East of the Narrow Neck, extends in a Northward direction, making the Sea East appear to be West of that part of the Land South. Sorenson's close analysis of the marches (in Mormon's Map) led him to conclude that the Nephite coastal plain south of the Narrow Neck was about 80 miles long.

You tend to think their entire nation can all be summed up in a 300x400 suqare mile area. That is fine if you want to think such.

Thanks. I do think it is fine.

I for one am thinking more realistically that they utilyzed the entire continents of Both North and South America.

I know that historically, the LDS started thinking this way, and that Orson Pratt wrote some chapter summaries for an edition of the Book of Mormon with this picture in mind, but that they were removed because they were clearly wrong. One of the striking facts of the history of Book of Mormon Study is that the first serious attempt to construct a detailed internal map did not appear unto 1938. Amazing...

Saying this I believe most of the stories from the BoM take place in South America where Zarahemla, Land of Nephi, Bountiful all exist. The river Sidon in my opinion was in Colombia to what is now called the Magdalena River. I further believe the narrow neck was the isthmus of Panama. Heading further north I believe most of the ancient pyramids of Central America and Mexico were those of the Jaredites. This is the land desolation. Heading further north we come to Teotihuacan which in my opinion was the Jaredite city of the kings- the city of Moron.

Dating on these sites poses problems.

One interesting fact about the Mayan glphs is it portrays the relentless pursuit of overthrowing and bringing into captivity the neiboring kingdom and king to dwell in captivity. This is basic Jaredite life.

Dates for Maya and comparisons with the Olmec tradition should be weighed.

The nephites who went into the North countries and built with cement were the Pueblo indians who built by cementing with adobe. These were basically peaceful peoples who survived for hundreds of years and lived their peaceful simple lives.

Dating the Pueblo raises further issues. I've visited Mesa Verde and the Hopi reservation. Fascinating places.

Spanning both the Jaredites and Nephites times, the Great Lakes area was a major center for oreing copper. Copper was traded up and down the Mississippi and into the gulf down into Mexico and Central America. In order to understand the magnitude of their societies we must realize that they had hundreds and hundreds of years to expand, explore and build cities in far remote areas such as the Great lakes to the north and to the south in Bolivia bordering into Chile.

Its a mighty tall order to fit all these great civilizations into a small geographical area especially when you go to battle and begin killing off millions of souls in countless cities and lands.

I am sorry but the order of a strict meso-american setting don't fit the text very well at all.

I'm obviously reading different books.

It really all comes down to the distances. You think it near impossible to march around for thousands of miles and yet when the Gentiles came to America and started conquering the Indians we forced them into marching thousands of miles all over the United States. Even the early Mormons "marched" thosands of miles in search of establishing Zion. You do not have to have telegraphs, trains, etc, to march around and battle.

I don't think it is at all impossible to march around for thousands of miles. I have read a little about Alexander, Napoleon, the Romans, Hannibal, and others. But when military people do march for thousands of miles, their accounts make it abundantly clear how long they have traveled, and what their reasons were for doing so. The longest journey in the New World portion of the Book of Mormon for which time is given is 22 days, Alma's people going from Nephi to Zarahemla. A longer journey was made by Limhi's explorers to the location where they got Ether's plates, but they thought that they had gone from Nephi to Zarahemla. More than twice the 22 days is unreasonable.

If you want more, fine, but justifying from a close and careful reading of the text will be very challenging. Of course, I got my own testimony before I'd read any of the really good scholarship on the Book of Mormon. That I had to change some preconceptions made no difference in my belief in the reality of the history.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Nofear]

I don't think it is at all impossible to march around for thousands of miles. I have read a little about Alexander, Napoleon, the Roman's, Hannibal, and others. But when military people do march for thousands of miles, their accounts make it abundantly clear how long they have traveled, and what their reasons were for doing so. The longest journey in the New World portion of the Book of Mormon for which time is given is 22 days, Alma's people going from Nephi to Zarahemla. A longer journey was made by Limhi's explorers to the location where they got Ether's plates, but they thought that they had gone from Nephi to Zarahemla. More than twice the 22 days is unreasonable.

Tangential tidbit: The Mormon Battalion made one of the longest infantry foot treks in history.

[ERayR]

And yet the Jaredites built barges, transported themselves and their animals and seed from one side of the world to the other. Then, some 2 thousand years later Lehi and his family build a ship and again travel from one side of the world to the other. So, no, it's kind of hard to over-estimate their capabilities when they can do this. Traveling across continents is nothing for these people- they built ships and traversed the oceans!

Not camparable. Much smaller numbers of people involved.

[Rob Osborn]

Historically, the emergence of the notion that Ramah/Cumorah had to be in Mesoamerica rather than the hill from which Joseph Smith obtained the plates has everything to do with the Book of Mormon stories.

Sidney Sperry, as I've mentioned, made much of the story of Limhi's explorers, as Sorenson did, persuading John Clark (who says that when he first heard the "two Cumorah theory, he was offended), and many others. I quoted a partial list of Book of Mormon Cumorah requirements from the text. The basic response has been to quote General Authorities and the single passage about "many waters." In terms of the intellectual history of the idea that Cumorah is near the narrow Neck, the Limhi story has been one of the keystones. So, if you want to persuade those who have been persuaded by arguments that often hinge on its implications, you need to do what Joseph Fielding Smith did not do, and that is, deal directly with it.

So taking your suggestion of the Magdalina River as the Sidon, then from a starting position somewhere about three weeks march south, on the other side of a Narrow Strip of Wilderness that extends from the Sea East to the Sea West, following the kind of verbal description that grandfather who had walked from Zarahemla to Lehi-Nephi with Zeniff would provide, make a diagram that shows the route that Limhi's explorers could have plausibly taken that makes sense. We know that Alma makes the trip in 23 days. (Mormon's Map, p56) Remember they have to completely miss Zarahemla coming and going, but they have to think that they had found the ruins of Zarahelma which they also know to be in the Land South. So in traveling to Desolation, they cannot know that they have passed through the narrow neck into the land North. They have to come back with the 24 plates of Ether, which Ether buried within a few days march from your Cumorah/Ramah candidate. Larry Poulson's website has a brilliant analysis of how this works with the Grijalva. In my essay in FR 16:1, I did some maps which hint at some of the directional and distance obstacles involved in starting in South America.

You also might want to explain how the Magdalina River fits the scriptural description of the Sidon at least as well as the Grijalva. It needs to start in a narrow strip over wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West Sea, flow from West to the East, turning North, must be fordable near Zarahemla, and must have sufficient flow as to be able to carry bodies to the East Sea. (See Poulson's website, and JBMS 1:1)

Then try explaining the military situation during the wars with Amalekiah and Ammoron, showing how it can play out in a way that makes textual and tactical sense. You might need to explain why so much of the coast line East of the Narrow Neck, extends in a Northward direction, making the Sea East appear to be West of that part of the Land South. Sorenson's close analysis of the marches (in Mormon's Map) led him to conclude that the Nephite coastal plain south of the Narrow Neck was about 80 miles long.

Thanks. I do think it is fine.

I know that historically, the LDS started thinking this way, and that Orson Pratt wrote some chapter summaries for an edition of the Book of Mormon with this picture in mind, but that they were removed because they were clearly wrong. One of the striking facts of the history of Book of Mormon Study is that the first serious attempt to construct a detailed internal map did not appear unto 1938. Amazing...

Dating on these sites poses problems.

Dates for Maya and comparisons with the Olmec tradition should be weighed.

Dating the Pueblo raises further issues. I've visited Mesa Verde and the Hopi reservation. Fascinating places.

I'm obviously reading different books.

I don't think it is at all impossible to march around for thousands of miles. I have read a little about Alexander, Napoleon, the Romans, Hannibal, and others. But when military people do march for thousands of miles, their accounts make it abundantly clear how long they have traveled, and what their reasons were for doing so. The longest journey in the New World portion of the Book of Mormon for which time is given is 22 days, Alma's people going from Nephi to Zarahemla. A longer journey was made by Limhi's explorers to the location where they got Ether's plates, but they thought that they had gone from Nephi to Zarahemla. More than twice the 22 days is unreasonable.

If you want more, fine, but justifying from a close and careful reading of the text will be very challenging. Of course, I got my own testimony before I'd read any of the really good scholarship on the Book of Mormon. That I had to change some preconceptions made no difference in my belief in the reality of the history.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Ok, Let's deal with Limhi's lost expedition. We will start with some basic questions- How long was the expedition gone for? Can we tell?

To what extent did they explore the land of the Jaredites? Did they explore part of it or all of it? Can we tell?

Did the expedition find the land of Cumorah? Can we tell?

Where did Ether hide the plates that Limhi's group found? Was it at Cumorah, or some other location?

Addressing the text of "many waters", was Limhi's group speaking of Cumorah, or some other area that also had "many waters"?

Let's address these questions from the text and examine if we can answer them.

[Bob Crockett]

Elder Peterson is definitely not be ambiguous here.

Was Pres. Ivins ambiguous in his statement?

I reiterate a question none of you have answered. Are there any general conference statements supporting the Mesoamerican locale for a Hill Cumorah? I must have asked that question many times on this forum.

Let's recapitulate as to the key sources only -- not hearsay; not rumor. I leave out privately published books, BYU publications, Dr. Sorenson's book. Help me if I've missed something important.

Pro-Mesomerican Cumorah sources -- possibly.

1. When Joseph Smith as an editor of the Times and Seasons, a favorable article appeared about discovered sites in the Yucatan.

2. An Ensign article appeared in the 1980s authored by John Sorenson about Mesoamerican sites.

3. A article appeared in the Improvement Era in 1950 by John Widstoe telling the Saints not to worry about Book of Mormon geography and acknowledging the two Cumorahs controversy.

4. Elder Harold B. Lee told a group of Mormon educators not to worry about Book of Mormon geography.

Anti-Mesoamerican Cumorah sources.

1. A priesthood manual, still in publication, listed as authoritative by Deseret Books, Doctrines of Salvation, disputes the two Cumorahs theory and says that those who advance it are weak in the faith. Published while Joseph F Smith was President of the Church but the statement was penned when he was not. DoS was published when he was Q12 President. Further, Pres. Smith claims Joseph Smith is on record supporting the NY Cumorah position.

2. General Conference addresses -- FP Pres. Ivins ("we know positively"), FP Pres. Romney, Elder Mark E Peterson (a few times), Roberts (while Church Historian), Orson Pratt, Moses Thatcher -- all pointing to Ramah/Cumorah/modern Cumorah.

3. Talmage, Articles of Faith, published under the authority of the FP with the copyright held by the Pres of the Church, two references.

Iffy sources -- not official.

1. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which could be read as acknowledging the two Cumorahs theory as one held by "some."

2. The two Watson letters, one for, one no position.

3. Woodruff's Zelph commment, for one Cumorah.

Anything else?

With this list, who has the upper hand?

[thesometimesaint]

I say let the Prophets and Apostles in the Book of Mormon speak for themselves.