Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

Let's start with John Clark's tidy little summary from RBBM 1.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=1&num=1&id=7

6. King Limhi sent 43 people into the wilderness to search for Zarahemla: "And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind" (Mosiah 8:7-8 ). King Limhi had sent "a small number of men to search for the land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness." They found a land covered with bones and thought it was Zarahemla, so they returned to Nephi (Mosiah 21:25-26). They brought back the Jaredite record as a testimony of what they had seen (Mosiah 8:9).

a. The Limhi party obviously got to the land northward near the area of final destruction of the Jaredite people, or the hill Ramah (the Cumorah of the Nephites).

b. They did not know the route to Zarahemla.

c. They apparently passed through the narrow neck of land without realizing it.

d. They must have traveled through the area the Nephites called the eastern wilderness. Any other northward route would have taken them through the Sidon Basin, near the west sea, or the east sea. They did not know the route to Zarahemla but they must have known at least three key facts concerning it: that it lay to the north, that it was an inland river valley, and that a wide wilderness separated Zarahemla and Nephi.

e. Given the preceding, we suspect that the eastern wilderness was quite wide, and at this time, sparsely populated.

f. Sorenson suggests that the Limhi party must also have had a general idea of the distance between Nephi and Zarahemla,12 in which case they would not have traveled much more than twice the expected distance. This would place the hill Ramah/Cumorah in the southern part of the land northward.

Mosiah 22:25-27 observes that Limhi's explorers believed that they had found Zarahemla.

Now king Limhi had sent, previous to the coming of Ammon, a small number of men to search for the land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness.

26Nevertheless, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed; and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived in the borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon.

27And they brought a record with them, even a record of the people whose bones they had found; and it was engraven on plates of ore.

The account in Mosiah 8 mentions the waters.

8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel.

At this point, having just met Ammon, the emissary from Zarahemla, they now know that they had not found Zarahemla.

Ether says this, after the final five-day carnage which began near the land of many waters and fountains at Cumorah/Ramah.

And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

As I often say, I'm very impressed by Larry Poulson's analysis of how with all works with the Grijalva as the Sidon. One wrong turn in the wilderness, finding the source of another river just a few miles from where they thought they were going, and it all makes sense.

For this to work with the Magdalina river, the explorers can either miss the Magdalina valley to the East, in which case they go and end up far North West of the Narrow Neck, gazing at Caribbean Sea already having traveled much farther than Alma's 22 days from Nephi, and very far from access to the Land Northward of the Jaredites. If they miss the valley to the East, they have to find a suitable river to follow, and if you look at the map, the first few little ones they come upon, lead them to South West, and lovely views of the Pacific Ocean (something that would not have been mentioned in their Grandfather's eye-witness directions, but if they skip these, they can follow one to the Golfo de Uraba. Then what? They've already traveled about as far as they expected to go.

From that point where and how far can they go, and still think that they have found Zarahemla in the Land South?

Sorenson tells of a shipwrecked sailor in the mid-sixteenth century who journeyed by foot from southern Mexico to the St. John River in eleven months, a distance of twenty-five hundred miles. An excursion from southern Mexico to a New York Cumorah and back calls for an almost two-year foot journey in North America, with an additional more than fifteen-hundred-mile journey each way across Panama and Mesoamerica, plus however long it would take to come from whichever point South of the source of the Magdalina you need to put the Land of Nephi.

You seem to hint at a possible solution in having Ether move the plates from the New York Hill, a land of many waters, and covered with Jaredite bones, several thousand miles south to a more convenient land of bones, ruins, battle carnage, and many waters. And incidentally, once you raise the possibility that there might be more than one location that fits the description of a land of many waters, that has implications for the validity of Joseph Fielding Smith's single proof text as useful identifier. With Moroni traveling with his plates, we know that he has the time to wander. With Ether, it's not a simple and elegant solution, and has implications for other aspects of the map, and how the parts interlock.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[beth]

I was reading about this guy named Zelph found in Illinois by Joseph Smith and his group. Also, on that trek Joseph Smith took he said things indicating that they were walking on places in North America that the BofM warriors were at once upon a time. If Zelph was found in Illinois and the remains of many of the BofM warriors were there also, doesn't it mean that the BofM likely took place in North America? There seems to be some evidence of the BofM in North America according to Joseph Smith but did he or later prophets also point to ruins in Central or South America as belonging to BofM people?

I got this information from a BYU website: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/341folder/Zelph%20Revisited%20Cannon.html

[Anijen]

I was reading about this guy named Zelph found in Illinois by Joseph Smith and his group. Also, on that trek Joseph Smith took he said things indicating that they were walking on places in North America that the BofM warriors were at once upon a time. If Zelph was found in Illinois and the remains of many of the BofM warriors were there also, doesn't it mean that the BofM likely took place in North America? There seems to be some evidence of the BofM in North America according to Joseph Smith but did he or later prophets also point to ruins in Central or South America as belonging to BofM people?

I got this information from a BYU website: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/341folder/Zelph%20Revisited%20Cannon.html

Hi Beth, all the Zelph accounts are from 2nd hand sources or 3rd or longer. These accounts were written well after the time it happened and Nothing from Joseph's writings verify the Zelph account. Having said that I still believe in the Zelph account but do not know how much is fact or how much has been merged with urban legend. Also out of all the accounts none say that Zelph was an actual person during the time of the Book of Mormon. He is described in one account as a righteous white Lamanite who died in battle. His body must have been carried from New York to Illinois. Why just his body, out of the hundreds of thousands that died? I think the history of Zelph is in need of some interpretation to say it validates the New York hill as the final battle hill. It is my opinion that Zelph migrated north or his parents did before him and he was born there.

[Anijen]

CFR to Pres Ivins GC address if you have a link would be nice. I would like to read them in context.

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?

I am not in a contest for the upperhand.

Also you never responded to this;

Mark E. Peterson (Council of the Twelve)

[Anijen]

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.

None of these quotes makes the one Cumorah theory the official church stand.

None of these quotes make the hill in New York established doctrine.

All show the opinions of these men at that time.

[Anijen]

Hi rcrocket could you get me a link to this as well. I am having trouble finding it on LDS.org manuals. Thanks.

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.

[Nofear]

If one chooses to ignore all the latter-day opinions by general authorities, which theory do you suppose would have the "upper hand"?

[Rob Osborn]

Let's start with John Clark's tidy little summary from RBBM 1.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=1&num=1&id=7

Mosiah 22:25-27 observes that Limhi's explorers believed that they had found Zarahemla.

Now king Limhi had sent, previous to the coming of Ammon, a small number of men to search for the land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness.

26Nevertheless, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed; and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived in the borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon.

27And they brought a record with them, even a record of the people whose bones they had found; and it was engraven on plates of ore.

The account in Mosiah 8 mentions the waters.

8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel.

At this point, having just met Ammon, the emissary from Zarahemla, they now know that they had not found Zarahemla.

Ether says this, after the final five-day carnage which began near the land of many waters and fountains at Cumorah/Ramah.

And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

As I often say, I'm very impressed by Larry Poulson's analysis of how with all works with the Grijalva as the Sidon. One wrong turn in the wilderness, finding the source of another river just a few miles from where they thought they were going, and it all makes sense.

For this to work with the Magdalina river, the explorers can either miss the Magdalina valley to the East, in which case they go and end up far North West of the Narrow Neck, gazing at Caribbean Sea already having traveled much farther than Alma's 22 days from Nephi, and very far from access to the Land Northward of the Jaredites. If they miss the valley to the East, they have to find a suitable river to follow, and if you look at the map, the first few little ones they come upon, lead them to South West, and lovely views of the Pacific Ocean (something that would not have been mentioned in their Grandfather's eye-witness directions, but if they skip these, they can follow one to the Golfo de Uraba. Then what? They've already traveled about as far as they expected to go.

From that point where and how far can they go, and still think that they have found Zarahemla in the Land South?

Sorenson tells of a shipwrecked sailor in the mid-sixteenth century who journeyed by foot from southern Mexico to the St. John River in eleven months, a distance of twenty-five hundred miles. An excursion from southern Mexico to a New York Cumorah and back calls for an almost two-year foot journey in North America, with an additional more than fifteen-hundred-mile journey each way across Panama and Mesoamerica, plus however long it would take to come from whichever point South of the source of the Magdalina you need to put the Land of Nephi.

You seem to hint at a possible solution in having Ether move the plates from the New York Hill, a land of many waters, and covered with Jaredite bones, several thousand miles south to a more convenient land of bones, ruins, battle carnage, and many waters. And incidentally, once you raise the possibility that there might be more than one location that fits the description of a land of many waters, that has implications for the validity of Joseph Fielding Smith's single proof text as useful identifier. With Moroni traveling with his plates, we know that he has the time to wander. With Ether, it's not a simple and elegant solution, and has implications for other aspects of the map, and how the parts interlock.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

One of the difficult things to discern here is the specific details and being able to sufficiently rule things out. Take Limhi's lost expedition for a case in point-

It doesn't say that they wento to the area of the last Jaredite battle, which would be Ramah/ Cumorah. It may have been and may also not have been. We know that the Jaredites in their final battles trapsed all over the countryside killing off millions of paople and burning cities along the way. We also know that it was a battle, or series of them that extended for years and years. Also from the BoM account we are told that the entire civilization was wiped out- they fought, as far as we know, until every last one of them died except perhaps Coriantumr and Ether. One would imagine that a civilization spanning some 1600-2000 years would spread out quite extensively upon the face of the land. A 300x300 square mile area would in no way be sufficient to hold a population that would come from a civilization such as this one. The entire civilization was destroyed.

One thing i find key here is that the Lord in the last of Ether's account tells him to "go forth". This is intriguing because here we have Ether, alone in the land, now free to wander to where he may and is told to "go forth" and so he went forth and obviously went and searched all their lands- the north country to see the word of the Lord fulfilled.-

33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

(Book of Mormon | Ether 15:33)

Now, at this point it doesn't matter where Ether finishes the record. What is important is that he places the record in a place where it will be found. Now, logically one would think that perhaps he would go to one of the southernmost areas to place these records to be found. Now of course it may not have worked out this way but it is possible. What is important here is that Ether more than likely went forth and wandered the land for quite some time to literally see with his own eyes this literal destruction of every soul. One would assume that the Jaredite nation would be in a quite significant area of land and one that would take some time to see these great destructions. in their aftermath.

Getting back to Limhi's lost expedition, we know to some extent that the distance to be traveled was more than 200 miles and probably closer to 500-700, if not perhaps a little more. Suppose that they headed down the wetsern valley to the Magdelena and came to the area of Panama which I believe to be the narrow neck. From there they head up a short distance more (being lost now, what does it matter, let's go explore) into the bottom edges of Central America and find the ruins and bones. We are not told specifically how long they are gone. From the text we are also not told what general descriptions Limhi's group had in trying to find Zarahemla besides it just being "north" of their location. Perhaps they thought they had found Zarahemla when in fatc they traveled to the northwest instead of the northeast to where Zarahemla really was.

Of note here is that we know that Zarahemla was southward of the land Bountiful and that Bountiful was southward of or near the borders of the narrow neck. We also know that Zarahemla was mor ein the center of the land. So, we know Limhi's lost expedition went far beyond to the north of where Zarahemla was. They also went beyond the narrow neck also. Because this area had not been previously been explored they knew of no "narrow neck" as it would later come to be called. So, on their journey they perhaps suppose that the narrow neck of land leading into the north countries is part of the way to the land of Zarahemla. it is very plausible. When they reached the southern parts of the Yucatan and found all the pyramids and buildings they then supposed they had indeed found Zarahemla. Having had their culture removed so long from the reach of Zarahemla they would have no idea what it was they were indeed looking for. I mean really- they far overshot the land of Zarahemla and ended up clear into the north country. If they had some idea of the distance to Zarahemla they would have known they went way too far to the north. This tells me that they really had no real idea of just how far to the north the land of Zarahemla was from their land in the south territories.

[Anijen]

If one chooses to ignore all the latter-day opinions by general authorities, which theory do you suppose would have the "upper hand"?

All those in favor of this show forth by raising your hand.

[livy111us]

I was reading about this guy named Zelph found in Illinois by Joseph Smith and his group. Also, on that trek Joseph Smith took he said things indicating that they were walking on places in North America that the BofM warriors were at once upon a time. If Zelph was found in Illinois and the remains of many of the BofM warriors were there also, doesn't it mean that the BofM likely took place in North America? There seems to be some evidence of the BofM in North America according to Joseph Smith but did he or later prophets also point to ruins in Central or South America as belonging to BofM people?

I got this information from a BYU website: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/341folder/Zelph%20Revisited%20Cannon.html

I like this explanation of Zelph:

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/04/02/zelph-in-relation-to-book-of-mormon-geography/

[ELF1024]

I'll wait to see when someone from the Great Lakes Model defeats these folks http://www.bookofmormontours.com/ in court for false advertizing...

[Anijen]

Seriously? You belive that Ether traveled down from New York crossing all that territory the deserts of Texas, Mexico many areas of streams, fountains a land of many waters of Mesoamerica down to Panama turn back north toward Central America get lost hides the plates for to be found later, where, (I need to take a big breath here) Mormon eventually gets them makes a deal with the Lamanites to cross many fountains streams, large bodies of water of Mesoamerica then travel over the deserts of Mexico Texas etc and agree to have a last battle in New York on not such a strategically located place (because there were many places in Meso america that would have served 100X better than the Hill Cumorah in New York, and (another breath here) that the Lamanite king agrees to do all this and they the Nephites Lamanites have this mass exodus over two-thousand miles passing plenty of great strategic places along the way to battle and die in New York?

[Rob Osborn]

Seriously? You belive that Ether traveled down from New York crossing all that territory the deserts of Texas, Mexico many areas of streams, fountains a land of many waters of Mesoamerica down to Panama turn back north toward Central America get lost hides the plates for to be found later, where, (I need to take a big breath here) Mormon eventually gets them makes a deal with the Lamanites to cross many fountains streams, large bodies of water of Mesoamerica then travel over the deserts of Mexico Texas etc and agree to have a last battle in New York on not such a strategically located place (because there were many places in Meso america that would have served 100X better than the Hill Cumorah in New York, and (another breath here) that the Lamanite king agrees to do all this and they the Nephites Lamanites have this mass exodus over two-thousand miles passing plenty of great strategic places along the way to battle and die in New York?

It's probably a good thing that Laman and Lemual were not shown how far they would have to travel to find home. Here is how it may have gone-

"You expect us to leave our homeland, return to get plates from Laban, go back out into the desert, return again for some women, (gasp, take a deep breath),travel around the desert for another 7 years being led by some magical compass, get lost, come to the seashore eventually, molten ore out of the rocks to build tools (take a deep breath), then build a ship, cross the ocean and land on the other side of the world (take a deep breath), and buid up a civilization from scratch?

I tell you what, you can have your 300x400 mile piece of land to fit the entire BoM civilizations into. You seem to me that anything outside of this is unbelievable. Let me just say- without the BoM and the witnesses as a witness, the whole story is seemingly unbelieveable, especially when you ask American historical scholars who aren't mormon!

[Nofear]

I tell you what, you can have your 300x400 mile piece of land to fit the entire BoM civilizations into. You seem to me that anything outside of this is unbelievable. Let me just say- without the BoM and the witnesses as a witness, the whole story is seemingly unbelieveable, especially when you ask American historical scholars who aren't mormon!

I know of no mesoamerican advocates who are of the mindset "Mesoamerica or Bust!". We are perfectly willing to adopt alternative models. And would easily entertain discussing the strengths and weaknesses of competing models. Unfortunately, all the non-mesoamerican models presented to this date are so severely broken that such willingness is obscured and we can appear dogmatic.

[Pahoran]

Was Pres. Ivins ambiguous in his statement? 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.

Pardon me for interrupting Rob, but do you actually notice when someone responds to your claims?

You ran this bit of Meldrumite propaganda in post 97 in this thread. I responded to it in Post 98. You recall that you quoted then-Elder Smith thus:

LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.

I then responded:

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

I realise that you will be lost if you cannot marginalise LGT proponents as "weak in the faith," but tough luck; it is simply not the case that all the good Mormons are lined up with you on this issue. Sorry. More importantly, Elder Smith did not say that they were.

And so I must formally request that you cease and desist from the use of this intentional falsehood. If you really must try to claim that your opponents are "weak in the faith," then please find sufficient vertebrae to take responsibility for that accusation yourself, instead of trying to coyly palm it off onto Elder Smith.

With this list, who has the upper hand?

I'm sure Cardinal Bellarmine could make an even stronger argument from lists of authorities.

(Eppur si muove.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

I realise that you will be lost if you cannot marginalise LGT proponents as "weak in the faith," but tough luck; it is simply not the case that all the good Mormons are lined up with you on this issue. Sorry. More importantly, Elder Smith did not say that they were.

And so I must formally request that you cease and desist from the use of this intentional falsehood. If you really must try to claim that your opponents are "weak in the faith," then please find sufficient vertebrae to take responsibility for that accusation yourself, instead of trying to coyly palm it off onto Elder Smith.

"Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

I stand by my observations about what President Smith said. I can have my personal opinion that I don't necessarily agree that that assertion is true today without coyly palming it off. You've confused me with the disingenuous posters who inhabit this board who sow dissension by quoting authorities in a Church and religion in which they have no faith. Once in a while, perhaps, you'll find a strong member of the Church taking exception to an apologetic line here and there; I do on this one and it doesn't make me dishonest. I take exception to some other scattered theories, as well, but I think that if you check my posts on this board you'll only find that I'm a true believer.

I am simply, no more and no less, one of those committed Saints who believes that far too much attention and ink has been spilled to try and find some sort of external in the ground evidence for the Book of Mormon when, instead, the message of the Book is the Book itself.

Edited to add: I can now understand the animus directed my way. I had a chance finally to read Roper's two articles whilst listening to the BYU game tonight. Some of the points I am making are Porter's and Meldrum's in that I keep pointing to General Authority statements. Roper challenges that approach for his particular reasons, on the one hand, while quoting the temple dedicatory prayers to make a different point, on the other hand; I find that analysis rather inconsistent. However, I differ from them in that I don't advocate a heartland model and think that the Mesoamerican site is a likely site for Book of Mormon activities. Where I differ, apparently, from the Mesoamerican agitators/advocates is with respect to the Hill Cumorah.

At this point I say, what's the big deal? Not too much harm in pursuing a gospel hobby, I suppose.

[Anijen]

Edited to add: I can now understand the animus directed my way. I had a chance finally to read Roper's two articles whilst listening to the BYU game tonight. Some of the points I am making are Porter's and Meldrum's in that I keep pointing to General Authority statements. Roper challenges that approach for his particular reasons, on the one hand, while quoting the temple dedicatory prayers to make a different point, on the other hand; I find that analysis rather inconsistent. However, I differ from them in that I don't advocate a heartland model and think that the Mesoamerican site is a likely site for Book of Mormon activities. Where I differ, apparently, from the Mesoamerican agitators/advocates is with respect to the Hill Cumorah.

At this point I say, what's the big deal? Not too much harm in pursuing a gospel hobby, I suppose.

Rcrocket,

I apologize if I have come off too snarky. I truly love the Book of Mormon! I agree we who visit this site seem to have our own little cavities of interest and this site tends to satiate our desire to discuss and explore those interests in greater detail and scope. Whether those interests are geography, etymology, plural marriage etc. we can discuss them here. I want you to know although we differ on our thoughts of the location of the hill Cumorah as the place for the final battle, we do not differ on our love for the Savior and his gospel. I am a very active and faithful member of the church, and from reading your posts I believe you to be too. My love for the BofM comes from reading it and applying its message in my life.Its purpose is what is important to me. The location of where it happened comes in a far second place.

I do believe in study. All my theories of BofM geography do not come from church history and quotes from its leaders but from the the scientific study of past human culture and behavior and the remnants left behind. I match those with the text of the BofM and see if they are congruent with each other. When our leaders and church says there is no statement of geography for the locations in that great book I then as a faithful member place the statements of our great past and present leaders in the category of speculation, for that is what it is (we can see that in Elder Mark E Peterson's quote).

we all have our free agency. God doesn

[Rob Osborn]

My thoughts; based on the archeology/anthropology studies of the hill Cumorah in New York I find nothing to persuade me that is where the battle took place. My faith is not weakened I simply feel if not there then it must be someplace else. If I later find out it was in New York then great I do not feel that the Savior will love me any less for once thinking it to be in Mesoamerica.

I am curious as to what one would expect to find some 1600 years later? As far as I know, studies in meso-america regarding the supposed Cumorah site haven't revealed anything either. Am I wrong?

Of note, No archaeological digs have taken place on or immediately around the hill in New York. It has been well documented however that countless skulls, spear-points and other signs of ancient warfare did take place in New York. How much evidence are we talking that would convince you? And- What evidence of warfare is there in the meso-american cumorah setting that does convince you?

[Nofear]

Edited to add: I can now understand the animus directed my way. I had a chance finally to read Roper's two articles whilst listening to the BYU game tonight. Some of the points I am making are Porter's and Meldrum's in that I keep pointing to General Authority statements. Roper challenges that approach for his particular reasons, on the one hand, while quoting the temple dedicatory prayers to make a different point, on the other hand; I find that analysis rather inconsistent. However, I differ from them in that I don't advocate a heartland model and think that the Mesoamerican site is a likely site for Book of Mormon activities. Where I differ, apparently, from the Mesoamerican agitators/advocates is with respect to the Hill Cumorah.

Another poster here also adopted a similar model -- Sevenbak. He decided that mesoamerica was consistent with the internal evidence of the text but want the New York drumlin to be the site of the last battle. So, the idea was that there was an end game migration in the Book of Mormon that allowed for the last battle to take place in New York.

But why adopt such a model? What would motivate someone to do that? Is it because of some desire to adhere to the opinions of righteous men even though those opinions have been publicly declared as uninformed by our prophets? Is there a single iota of evidence external to uninformed opinions and tradition that motivates such a theory?

[Rob Osborn]

Another poster here also adopted a similar model -- Sevenbak. He decided that mesoamerica was consistent with the internal evidence of the text but want the New York drumlin to be the site of the last battle. So, the idea was that there was an end game migration in the Book of Mormon that allowed for the last battle to take place in New York.

But why adopt such a model? What would motivate someone to do that? Is it because of some desire to adhere to the opinions of righteous men even though those opinions have been publicly declared as uninformed by our prophets? Is there a single iota of evidence external to uninformed opinions and tradition that motivates such a theory?

One question that must be brought up here is if any who propose a strict meso-American model believe that the Nephite and Lamanite nations spread out over more of the general land mass continental area or if they just strictly stayed within the meso-american landscape? We do know that by the time Europeans came to America that there were Indians in the masses upon all parts of the land. If the Nephite and Lamite nations, and also the Jaredites, spread out into all parts of the land, then it would seem logical that if one was proposing a meso-american Cumorah site, then obviously all the people all over the continents would be migrating to this small area in meso-america. Is this why meso-american Cumorah believers do not believe that the people spread out more than just in meso-america?

[Pahoran]

"Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

Exactly. The confusion and disturbance of faith happen because of the theory; they do not give rise to the theory.

Therefore, anyone who quotes the above and smugly announces that Elder Smith accused those who developed the theory of being "weak in the faith" is knowingly, intentionally and with malice aforethought, misrepresenting his statement most outrageously.

Elder Smith is describing a process that looks like this: "Whaddaya mean, the Hill Cumorah is somewhere in Mexico? The Church has been telling us all along that it's outside Palmyra, New York. Has everyone since Joseph Smith got that wrong? Humph, the Church must not be true."

It would be every bit as fair and reasonable to ascribe this disturbance of faith to the "vain and foolish traditions of the fathers," wouldn't it? Because the conflict that disturbs faith is not, as you have claimed, between an unauthorised innovation and revealed doctrine; in fact, it is between a reasonable exegesis of the Book of Mormon, and a hitherto unquestioned tradition that seems to have begun with a misreading -- or an assumption -- and carried on by inertia.

In any event, Elder Smith was in nowise saying that those who developed the theory were "weak in the faith." He was better than that, and imputing the libel to him is an insult to his memory.

I stand by my observations about what President Smith said.

So you intend to continue to misrepresent it.

I see.

I can have my personal opinion that I don't necessarily agree that that assertion is true today without coyly palming it off. You've confused me with the disingenuous posters who inhabit this board who sow dissension by quoting authorities in a Church and religion in which they have no faith. Once in a while, perhaps, you'll find a strong member of the Church taking exception to an apologetic line here and there; I do on this one and it doesn't make me dishonest.

Just like advocating for a Mesoamerican LGT does not now, and did not ever, make anyone "weak in the faith."

I take exception to some other scattered theories, as well, but I think that if you check my posts on this board you'll only find that I'm a true believer.

No need to be defensive on that point; I'm not the one casting aspersions upon anyone else's faith for not agreeing with me.

I am simply, no more and no less, one of those committed Saints who believes that far too much attention and ink has been spilled to try and find some sort of external in the ground evidence for the Book of Mormon when, instead, the message of the Book is the Book itself.

Edited to add: I can now understand the animus directed my way. I had a chance finally to read Roper's two articles whilst listening to the BYU game tonight. Some of the points I am making are Porter's and Meldrum's in that I keep pointing to General Authority statements. Roper challenges that approach for his particular reasons, on the one hand, while quoting the temple dedicatory prayers to make a different point, on the other hand; I find that analysis rather inconsistent. However, I differ from them in that I don't advocate a heartland model and think that the Mesoamerican site is a likely site for Book of Mormon activities. Where I differ, apparently, from the Mesoamerican agitators/advocates is with respect to the Hill Cumorah.

That might be part of the reason. The sole source of any "animus" coming from my direction is that I take strong exception to your adoption of the disreputable Meldrumite tactic of denigrating the faith of those who disagree with you.

At this point I say, what's the big deal? Not too much harm in pursuing a gospel hobby, I suppose.

Until that gospel hobby leads to the conclusion that all the good Mormons agree with you.

You want us to accept that you are "one of those committed Saints" who just happens to disagree with some of us on a point of Book of Mormon geography. Fine; all we ask is that you return the favour.

LGT advocates, in every generation starting with Joseph Smith, have invariably been "committed Saints." And Elder Smith did not say otherwise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Osborn]

As far as distances and travel and how far reaching an empire can be we need look no further than the Inca. Of particular interest is that they had roads leading from city to city and from one ond of the empire to the other spanning nearly 3,000 miles in which their government ruled and fought battles. Considering the idea that they had relatively no new technology that the Nephites in BoM times didn't possess one might be inclined to believe that the Nephite and Lamanite nations ruled in much the same way. It is not fully known if the Inca built the roads in their empire or just used the roads made by previous empires. Of course they had to upkeep the roads but nonetheless it was what kep and bound theur society together- their large empire together. In the BoM in the land southward we read-

8 And there were many highways cast up, and many roads made, which led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 6:

Perhaps the Inca just took over the road system put in place by the previous conquered civilizations. Perhaps the inca roads themselves were indeed the roads spoken of in the verse above. Supposing this were true, getting around from place to place with an army becomes a somewhat easy venture. We know that the Inca army ruled an area of close to 3,000 miles in distance north to south. Now, using some basic logic, knowing the Nephites themselves built roads everywhere, it is not hard to imagine them ruling very extensive land areas including thousands of miles in distance. If any hint of what the europeans found has anything to do with how the ancient Nephites lived, then it is a no-brainer to believe the Nephite and Lamanite nations ruled areas thousands of miles in distance and fought their wars over these broad areas. In this manner, speaking of different lands, we graduate from tens to perhaps hundreds of miles into hundreds of miles into thousands of miles. Obviously the Incan government knew their cities and lands in their empire and probably talked of them daily. Why would it be any different than the ancients?

[Bob Crockett]

Therefore, anyone who quotes the above and smugly announces that Elder Smith accused those who developed the theory of being "weak in the faith" is knowingly, intentionally and with malice aforethought, misrepresenting his statement most outrageously.

You're just splitting hairs with President Smith's statement. There is no possible way, given what he said then, that he would have approved a member of the Church advocating a two Cumorah theory.

He might have changed his views thereafter; I doubt it. But, I'm focusing upon what is still in print.

Accusing me of being a deceiver and a liar is a bit over the top.

I'll go back to my gospel hobby of no chocolate, ground wheat, and the John Birch Society.

[Pahoran]

You're just splitting hairs with President Smith's statement.

No, I am correctly interpreting it. There is no dialect of English of which I am aware in which "Because of this theory" can legitimately be explained to mean, "This theory is the result of." You have exactly reversed the direction of his argument. How can that possibly be called "splitting hairs?"

There is no possible way, given what he said then, that he would have approved a member of the Church advocating a two Cumorah theory.

Perhaps; perhaps not. Certainly he was worried about the consequences of it.

He might have changed his views thereafter; I doubt it. But, I'm focusing upon what is still in print.

He explicitly approved the publication of Sidney B. Sperry's Book of Mormon Compendium after a discussion of this very issue. He may have retained his original opinion about the location of Cumorah, but he saw no need to censor opinions contrary to his own, either by invoking his official standing or by casting aspersions upon Brother Sperry's faith.

Accusing me of being a deceiver and a liar is a bit over the top.

Rob, if you refuse to either engage my argument or acknowledge your error, then blithely maintaining your claim as if it had never been addressed is not consistent with a serious discussion in good faith.

Once again: I have no quarrel with you wanting to hold onto the old traditional notion of a New York Cumorah, if that makes you happy. I only object to you pretending that those who don't hold to that notion are necessarily defective as Latter-day Saints.

I'll go back to my gospel hobby of no chocolate, ground wheat, and the John Birch Society.

Why do I not find that hard to believe?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kevin Christensen]

"Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

This Joseph Fielding Smith quote places blame for troubled faith on an emerging theory. Those troubled by the weakness of some traditional ideas, and impressed by the emerging theory I suppose, being expendable. Joseph Smith put the responsibility elsewhere.

"But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. (Joseph Smith Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith, ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), 331."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA