Just where is the Hill Cumorah?

[SkepticTheist]

D

[Bob Crockett]

No, because he entirely gave up. I just move on to some other field of study that is a greener pasture and not give up on my testimony. Itsnot like I'm not writing things on other subjects. Besides this life just sucks anyway the state things are in. So what if nothing is found at Cumorah? Then it just sucks a little bit more than it already sucks. And that would be the second time I committed my name to print in a book that didn't turn out. I've had bigger disappointments in life than that before.

You're relying upon the arm of the flesh; no different from the LGT Mesoamericanists. No different than Robert F. Smith, Pahoran, other people unhappy that there aren't enough arrowheads in the Cumorah region. The message of the Book of Mormon is much more sublime than bones in the dust.

[SkepticTheist]

You're relying upon the arm of the flesh; no different from the LGT Mesoamericanists. No different than Robert F. Smith, Pahoran, other people unhappy that there aren't enough arrowheads in the Cumorah region. The message of the Book of Mormon is much more sublime than bones in the dust.

So should I just give up and roll over dead without a fight in fear that somehow God will not provide the evidence, or should I fight even going down in defeat knowing that I fought the good fight, even though this is a stupid thing that has nothing to do with salvation, and it is likely that you are just taunting me?

Ed Goble

[Questing Beast]

I sense your frustration. It seems deep and long. But what does any of this mortal stuff matter? We learn things here. That is all that we "take" with us. If religious faith helps us cope with disappointment it is valuable for that alone. It can be much more to someone of course. Or there are many people who either never had it or lost their religious faith. Wanting a thing to be true and have facts to back the truth up is a natural desire. But we actually have very few facts in our possession, especially when we are talking about religious ones. I know that Existence is real and that "God" is the Cause of it. Beyond that I "know" almost nothing about practically everything. And I don't believe that anyone can know much more than I know. Studying a thing your whole life doesn't necessarily result in acquiring more facts/truth....

[Robert F. Smith]

So, an amateur arrowhead hunter who isn't a Hopewell/Adena archaeologist goes around the Cumorah area looking for stuff, and you don't call that amateurish?

And doesn't find anything, and you call that anything but amateurish, when he doesn't take into account the folklore claims that everything has been carried away? I'm not saying that the folklore claims are evidence, but to not take them seriously in the sense of our expectations for what can possibly be found on the surface, because we already had some warning ahead of time that there would be nothing on the surface to find? So his amateurish survey finds nothing, just strengthening the denialism coming from the Maxwell Institute and the BMAF, and strengthens their resolve to not take an archaeological examination to the next levels. I'm sorry but ground penetrating radar and digs HAVE NOT BEEN DONE, and once again, the amateurish surface survey just simply strengthens the resolve of those of your paradigm to simply dismiss Cumorah once again. The folklore accounts said it was all carried away, and woah, how about that! He found nothing!

Ed Goble

I'm not sure who you are replying to. Certainly not to me. I gave you a brief sketch of what professional archeologists do, and what I myself have done on various sites in both America and in the Middle East.. Are you rejecting professional surface surveys as the first step in any archeological excavation, or taking issue with it in some other way? The word "amateur" does apply to yokels who have no idea what they are doing. Perhaps you could give me a thumbnail sketch (with names) of those whom you are accusing of doing some 'amateurish" things on and around that drumlin in New York. What are they supposed to have done? Or not done? When did all this take place?

You also mention my paradigm, even though it is not my paradigm. Howso?

[Robert F. Smith]

1. Is the statement made in General Conference in an authoritative manner by the President of the Church or a member of the First Presidency? For the one Cumorah revelation, the answer is yes. President Ivins, President Romney.

2. Is the statement made in General Conference by other general authorities? For the one Cumorah revelation, the answer is yes.

3. Is the statement made in an authoritative manner by general authorities in writings sanctioned and/or published by the Church itself? The answer is, yes -- Articles of Faith; Doctrines of Salvation, both of which are still in publication.

4. Does an authority take on the dispute head on; acknowledge contrary views, and assert that those who offer contrary views are heterodox? Yes -- Joseph Fielding Smith and Mark E. Peterson.

5. Is the statement supported by the prophet Joseph Smith? Here, yes -- the Wentworth letter and "Glad Tidings from Cumorah," as well as the naming of the Hill Cumorah itself.

6. Is there an absence of contrary authoritative statements? Here, it is not so certainly a yes, but those rather vague contrary statements are (and thus which fail completely under the equal dignities doctrine):

-----a. Claims people have that apostles secretly support the two Cumorahs theory but are unwilling to go public about it.

-----b. A statement on a telecopier cover sheet from a secretary that says the Church takes no position.

-----c. A vague statement by Harold B. Lee that really takes no position one way or the other.

7. Are contrary claims based upon secularism rather than faith and revelation? Yes.

8. When contrary views are floated in official church organs, do the proponents hold back the more controversial portions of the claims? Here, the answer is yes. John Sorenson, in his 1984 Ensign article, held back his two Cumorahs view.

9. Is there an absence of true public dispute between the brethren? The answer is yes here. Contrast to the controversy behind evolution. Two competing camps of authorities went public with their views, resulting in official pronouncements that the Church takes no view. That did not happen in the two Cumorahs case.

10. Is the orthodox view, advanced by the Brethren, denigrated by "diabolical mimicry," i.e., false close approximations of the orthodox view which holds the orthodox view in derision? Here, yes, with Porter and Meldrum.

11. Are proponents of the orthodox view treated politely or are they savaged or persecuted by the minority view?

Finally, let me conclude by excerpts from one of my favorite apostles, Orson Pratt:

"I wish to call your attention for a few moments to a subject closely connected with those days that I have been speaking of -- the rise of the Church. It will be, next Thursday night, 54 years since the Prophet Joseph Smith, then but a lad, was permitted by the angel of the Lord to take the gold plates of the Book of Mormon from the hill Cumorah, as it was called in ancient times, located in the State of New York. This I consider one of the most marvelous occurrences which has taken place for the past eighteen centuries." JD 22:223-26. "A great and terrible war was commenced between them, which lasted for many years, and resulted in the complete overthrow and destruction of the Nephites. This war commenced at the Isthmus of Darien, and was very destructive to both nations for many years. At length, the Nephites were driven before their enemies, a great distance to the north and north-east; and having gathered their whole nation together, both men, women, and children, they encamped on, and round about the hill Cumorah, where the records were found, which is in the state of New York." Orson Pratt, Interesting Account, etc. (1840) published in the Essential Orson Pratt, p. 15.

The Hill Cumorah is a sacred spot, bathed in Nephite blood and sanctified for the events of the restoration. At least most of us believe that.

OK. I'm intentionally overstating things and poking a little fun here with some hyperbole and self-defining rules. But I want you folks to see that your views have real problems with most of us who have been taught what we believe is true doctrine at our mothers' knee. Your view is imperiled by secularism and speculation.

Yes, you are overstating things. Not one of your numbered points is valid, from the false claim that there is a "Cumorah revelation" from Presidents Ivins & Romney, to the false claim that there is some sort of "orthodox view advanced by the Brethren." Moreover, in his 1984 Ensign series, John Sorenson did not hold back anything. You need to think long and hard about what constitutes evidence of absence. You are making uncalled for assumptions -- as Brant Gardner made clear to you.

I do not draw silly conclusions from the fact that Hugh Nibley's 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual is still in print, although I do take seriously the reasons stated by Joseph Fielding Smith in his Preface to that manual. Should we assign some sort of numinous quality to every manual published by the LDS Church? Or should we be more circumspect?

[Robert F. Smith]

If I'm wrong, then I will simply admit defeat and go down into my little bitter place once again. But I will continue with my defensive posture so long as a cloud of bewilderment hangs over the issue of Cumorah, where people continue to make up contrived reasons for why it can't be the actual hill and why they shouldn't have to do anything real to demonstrate anything real.

Ed Goble

Why bother with "contrived reasons" (whatever they are) rather than having a dialogue with serious scholars who engage in reasoned argument? Is it possible that a real dialogue will actually clarify the issues, so that those who are not familiar with them can be edified? Isn't that better than being bitter and resentful?

[SkepticTheist]

I'm not sure who you are replying to. Certainly not to me. I gave you a brief sketch of what professional archeologists do, and what I myself have done on various sites in both America and in the Middle East.. Are you rejecting professional surface surveys as the first step in any archeological excavation, or taking issue with it in some other way? The word "amateur" does apply to yokels who have no idea what they are doing. Perhaps you could give me a thumbnail sketch (with names) of those whom you are accusing of doing some 'amateurish" things on and around that drumlin in New York. What are they supposed to have done? Or not done? When did all this take place?

You also mention my paradigm, even though it is not my paradigm. Howso?

You know precisely what I am talking about. Go read the posts again....

Don't even attempt to try to equate what Langdon Smith did to an archaeological survey under controlled conditions under the authority of real archaeologists.

The BMAF is using this as absolute EVIDENCE, making unsubstantiated archaeological claims with it. They make the claim that the LETTER IN ITSELF IS ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. And I quote:

"Mr. Smith wrote the letter...which presents EVIDENCE that the archaeology of New York does not support the idea that Book of Mormon peoples lived in that region or that New York's Hill Cumorah was the scene of the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites"

The word in CAPS in this quote was capitalized by me. This is A METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM FOR THE BMAF, AND FOR JOHN CLARK OF BYU.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/393

I am going to repeat it again since you seem that you cannot read the previous posts. And I will once again tell you the problem I have with this whole thing since you can't seem to see the core of the problem as I see. It was all in the context of the previous posts. Now don't go trying to distort what I was trying to say or trying to cast doubt on the basics of what I had said. Langdon Smith did a site survey on his own, without anyone else to witness it, without supervision of an archaeologist and others to ensure controlled conditions. It was therefore an amateur thing, without any WITNESSES TO CORROBORATE HIS STORY, without controlled conditions. All we have is this letter to go on, not some actual archaeological report with some stamp of approval of a real archaeologist.

John Clark accepted his letter, without question, without any follow-up. What if a prankster sent him a letter? Would he similarly accept it without question, because it goes along with his paradigm? Would he then publish it in the Journal of Book of Mormon studies? Would the BMAF then plaster that on their site and call it evidence?

Its not like anybody will give the benefit of the doubt to the folklore reports of arrowheads! All we have is similarly their word to go on. Yet why should we call those people liars? But people do all the time. These are people who were good members of the Church that found arrowheads themselves first hand! What about that as a good first step?

It doesn't matter whether this thing that Langdon Smith did is considered a good "first step" because Mesoamericanists are treating it methodologically like it is the LAST STEP! THAT IS A HUGE METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM.

And is it truly a good first step, having no corroboration, and no controlled conditions???

Are you seriously going to compare the digs that you did and the surveys that you did to something without corroboration and that was not done under controlled conditions? Did you or did you not have professional supervision and careful documentation of what was done in that which you were involved with??? If not, you were a mere avocational archaeologist going treasure hunting.

What is YOUR PARADIGM then? Clarify your beliefs with regard to the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Why bother with "contrived reasons" (whatever they are) rather than having a dialogue with serious scholars who engage in reasoned argument? Is it possible that a real dialogue will actually clarify the issues, so that those who are not familiar with them can be edified? Isn't that better than being bitter and resentful?

So, you think that somehow by trying it again, that I would get different results? Because kicking against the pricks for OVER A DECADE AND A HALF, as if you are talking to a rock when trying to have DIALOGUE, with people who are supposed to be reasonable and open-minded, but are hard headed dogmatists who wont give you the time of day kind of does stuff like that to a guy. You seem to assume that the bitterness is somehow not as a result of precisely doing what you are saying that I should be doing...................

Ed Goble

[Bob Crockett]

Moreover, in his 1984 Ensign series, John Sorenson did not hold back anything. You need to think long and hard about what constitutes evidence of absence. You are making uncalled for assumptions -- as Brant Gardner made clear to you.

Yes he did. I said, on 13 Feb. 2011, 9:19 a.m. in New Evidence that Joseph Smith etc.

And then, I might add, when John Sorenson published his piece in the Ensign he was careful to skirt the two Cumorahs theory in his piece.

Brant said, in Post No. 21 in New Evidence that Joseph Smith etc.

Sorenson actually told me the reason for that, but it is his story to tell, not mine. I know that he had not backed away from his understanding that they had to be different. The evidence based on distances did (and does) require that the two hills be different.

I find that significant. Very significant. If you read the Ensign piece you'll see that he carefully avoided saying there were two Cumorahs, and Brant confirmed my suspicion that he did do intentionally.

I call for civility in this discourse. It isn't a matter of me being "false" or misleading or lying. I have carefully documented my sources. I have carefully kept an open mind about your views in the past although they have since hardened against your views.

Gospel hobbyism is a fearsome thing, leads people out of the Church and into apostasy. This was a point made plain by Joseph Fielding Smith about the two Cumorahs theory in a book still in publication and still cited as authoritative.

Where is it the Church says that the location of the Hill Cumorah is a matter of legitimate dispute or that the Church takes no position on it? Don't give me general statements about BoM geography (as I point out, these are used for the exact opposite for what they are intended). I'm looking for the best you can give me about two Cumorahs. Please; I'd like to see it.

[Robert F. Smith]

You know precisely what I am talking about. Go read the posts again....

Don't even attempt to try to equate what Langdon Smith did to an archaeological survey under controlled conditions under the authority of real archaeologists.

The BMAF is using this as absolute EVIDENCE, making unsubstantiated archaeological claims with it. They make the claim that the LETTER IN ITSELF IS ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. And I quote:

"Mr. Smith wrote the letter...which presents EVIDENCE that the archaeology of New York does not support the idea that Book of Mormon peoples lived in that region or that New York's Hill Cumorah was the scene of the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites"

The word in CAPS in this quote was capitalized by me. This is A METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM FOR THE BMAF, AND FOR JOHN CLARK OF BYU.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/393

I am going to repeat it again since you seem that you cannot read the previous posts. And I will once again tell you the problem I have with this whole thing since you can't seem to see the core of the problem as I see. It was all in the context of the previous posts. Now don't go trying to distort what I was trying to say or trying to cast doubt on the basics of what I had said. Langdon Smith did a site survey on his own, without anyone else to witness it, without supervision of an archaeologist and others to ensure controlled conditions. It was therefore an amateur thing, without any WITNESSES TO CORROBORATE HIS STORY, without controlled conditions. All we have is this letter to go on, not some actual archaeological report with some stamp of approval of a real archaeologist.

John Clark accepted his letter, without question, without any follow-up. What if a prankster sent him a letter? Would he similarly accept it without question, because it goes along with his paradigm? Would he then publish it in the Journal of Book of Mormon studies? Would the BMAF then plaster that on their site and call it evidence?

Its not like anybody will give the benefit of the doubt to the folklore reports of arrowheads! All we have is similarly their word to go on. Yet why should we call those people liars? But people do all the time. These are people who were good members of the Church that found arrowheads themselves first hand! What about that as a good first step?

It doesn't matter whether this thing that Langdon Smith did is considered a good "first step" because Mesoamericanists are treating it methodologically like it is the LAST STEP! THAT IS A HUGE METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM.

And is it truly a good first step, having no corroboration, and no controlled conditions???

Are you seriously going to compare the digs that you did and the surveys that you did to something without corroboration and that was not done under controlled conditions? Did you or did you not have professional supervision and careful documentation of what was done in that which you were involved with??? If not, you were a mere avocational archaeologist going treasure hunting.

What is YOUR PARADIGM then? Clarify your beliefs with regard to the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Ed Goble

Ed,

Sorry that I had not read those posts, but thanks for providing that insight on Langdon Smith's absurd account of his galavanting around New York and grabbing up as many arrowheads as he can find. Despite his talk of mapping sites, he sounds like a glorified collector to me, and I don't really have much respect for such people -- disclosure: My father had a nice collection of arrowheads from the Sierras of California, and my mother (thankfully) gave them to a museum in San Bernardino. Collectors and treasure hunters have done untold damage to many potential archeological sites.

I did read John Clark's account in JBMS some time ago, and (although I don't recall the Smith letter) it appeared to me that his conclusions were based largely on what professional historians and archeologists have written about the Amerinds who have inhabited the New York and nearby areas for millennia. Any good encyclopedia article will give you similar information. Clark has not actually done any archeology in that area, so far as I know. His experience has been primarily in Mesoamerica -- though he may have dug elsewhere in his undergraduate years.

I would agree with Clark that it doesn't look very promising to go dig in that drumlin where they hold the Hill Cumorah Pageant. Archeological funds are hard enough to come by without expending them on places which show no great likelihood of hitting paydirt. That notion is not based on the silly stuff Langdon Smith tries to pass off as responsible surveys, but rather on generations of actual excavations and surveys in the region which pretty well tell us what sort of peoples occupied that area for the past several millennia.

[Robert F. Smith]

You're relying upon the arm of the flesh; no different from the LGT Mesoamericanists. No different than Robert F. Smith, Pahoran, other people unhappy that there aren't enough arrowheads in the Cumorah region. The message of the Book of Mormon is much more sublime than bones in the dust.

Wrong again, Crocket,

I'd be unhappy if somebody failed to analyze the paleoethnobotanicals in the area through appropriate sampling and sieving, followed by lab work with microscopes and electron microscopy. I'd be unhappy if a proper excavation found no strata, no human artifacts or animal bones, and no materials for C-14 tests. With all those items present, we could reach some reasonable conclusions, and I would imagine that they would show the long term presence of ancestors of the same Iriquois who lived in that area when the Europeans arrived (although a minority theory maintains that the Algonquians occupied that area first and were later displaced by the Iriquois). See the Handbook of North American Indians, 15:34, 54, 360-361. Hiawatha was a Mohawk chief and prophet of the Iriquois League.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes he did. I said, on 13 Feb. 2011, 9:19 a.m. in New Evidence that Joseph Smith etc.

Brant said, in Post No. 21 in New Evidence that Joseph Smith etc.

"Sorenson actually told me the reason for that, but it is his story to tell, not mine. I know that he had not backed away from his understanding that they had to be different. The evidence based on distances did (and does) require that the two hills be different."

I find that significant. Very significant. If you read the Ensign piece you'll see that he carefully avoided saying there were two Cumorahs, and Brant confirmed my suspicion that he did do intentionally.

No he didn't. Read it again, and then reflect on what Gardner is not permitted to tell you, and use your forensic courtroom logic to grasp who has final control on what appears in print in a Church magazine.

Have you ever been edited? Well, I have, and it can be something less than a pleasant experience. I imagine that, from time to time, you find a judge editing testimony (including your question) out of the official record -- even though it was not your intention. Nuff said?

[Bob Crockett]

No he didn't. Read it again, and then reflect on what Gardner is not permitted to tell you, and use your forensic courtroom logic to grasp who has final control on what appears in print in a Church magazine.

Have you ever been edited? Well, I have, and it can be something less than a pleasant experience. I imagine that, from time to time, you find a judge editing testimony (including your question) out of the official record -- even though it was not your intention. Nuff said?

That even makes things more significant; the Ensign wouldn't let the two Cumorahs nonsense be published.

I'm waiting for an answer to my question. Where is it the Church says that the location of the Hill Cumorah is a matter of legitimate dispute or that the Church takes no position on it? Don't give me general statements about BoM geography (as I point out, these are used for the exact opposite for what they are intended). I'm looking for the best you can give me about two Cumorahs.

Wrong again, Crocket,

I'd be unhappy if somebody failed to analyze the paleoethnobotanicals in the area through appropriate sampling and sieving, followed by lab work with microscopes and electron microscopy. I'd be unhappy if a proper excavation found no strata, no human artifacts or animal bones, and no materials for C-14 tests. With all those items present, we could reach some reasonable conclusions, and I would imagine that they would show the long term presence of ancestors of the same Iriquois who lived in that area when the Europeans arrived (although a minority theory maintains that the Algonquians occupied that area first and were later displaced by the Iriquois). See the Handbook of North American Indians, 15:34, 54, 360-361. Hiawatha was a Mohawk chief and prophet of the Iriquois League.

Well, this reminds me of my freshman writing class at BYU, taught by a graduate assistant. We had to write an essay of a certain length. I inserted a couple of sentences in my essay: "This sentence is here merely for filler." I received an A-.

[Rivers]

Another thread talked about evidences of the Book of Mormon and the importance of looking for the right things.

I agree with that sentiment, and looking for the Hill Cumorah seems a very simple thing to do because we know where it is:

''CUMORAH, Hill

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon''

(taken from the official LDS website 10th January 2011)

or do we?

''The Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is the same hill in New York from which Joseph retrieved the plates.

This claim is problematic on several levels''

(taken from an article by Mike Ash on the official LDS outlet for 'trusted news' Mormon Times)

In his article entitled 'Cumorah claims can't sustain Great Lakes Model' it would seem that Mr Ash is attemting to say that the Church (and therefore the First Presidency) is wrong about this.

I think this is worthy of discussion because the location of the Hill Cumorah and the undoubted wealth of archeological evidence that must abound in and around it's vicinity would undoubtedly provide proof of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

Isn't the hill cumorah supposed to be the place where all the records and artifacts of the nephites were kept. Or is that another hill I'm thinking of.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, this reminds me of my freshman writing class at BYU, taught by a graduate assistant. We had to write an essay of a certain length. I inserted a couple of sentences in my essay: "This sentence is here merely for filler." I received an A-.

Is that an example of your understanding of substantive argument? Or is this your response to cognitive dissonance brought on by your failure to make your case via the accepted rules of evidence? Inventive and neo-orthodox notions won't salvage your claims of semi-canonical argument (since you cannot find any canonical evidence to present). The burden of proof is on you, and your arguments have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Mene, mene, tekel, ufarsin.

Have one of your salvage archeologist associates (preferably non-LDS) take an independent look at these issues and see what he says. Just for your own edification.

[Bob Crockett]

Is that an example of your understanding of substantive argument? Or is this your response to cognitive dissonance brought on by your failure to make your case via the accepted rules of evidence? Inventive and neo-orthodox notions won't salvage your claims of semi-canonical argument (since you cannot find any canonical evidence to present). The burden of proof is on you, and your arguments have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Mene, mene, tekel, ufarsin.

Have one of your salvage archeologist associates (preferably non-LDS) take an independent look at these issues and see what he says. Just for your own edification.

I'm sorry I poked fun at your writing. I have to be very careful here, I acknowledge.

Where is it the Church says that the location of the Hill Cumorah is a matter of legitimate dispute or that the Church takes no position on whether the same hill the Nephites died at was the same hill where the plates were found? Please; I'd like to see it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm sorry I poked fun at your writing. I have to be very careful here, I acknowledge.

Where is it the Church says that the location of the Hill Cumorah is a matter of legitimate dispute or that the Church takes no position on whether the same hill the Nephites died at was the same hill where the plates were found? Please; I'd like to see it.

Here we are on page 16 of this thread and we have all run the course on this issue. I have seen nothing in the course of this which would indicate to me that the Church has taken an official position on where any particular Hill Cumorah must be.

I have tried to point out, and so have others (both here on this Board, and elsewhere) that one cannot take the long-term consequences of the development of folklore as Gospel. The notion that General Authorities cannot make mistakes of interpretation is a huge problem in some quarters. I am reminded of Elder Bruce McConkie telling us to ignore everything he had said on a particular issue before 1978, and I am reminded also of some quite sharp disputes between certain General Authorities on theological matters -- the prevailing view in the late 19th century coming to be completely reversed in the 20th (and I am not speaking of polygyny). We see the same phenomenon among the Apostles of Christ in the book of Acts. These fine men are humans, subject to all the frailties the rest of us are subject to. Joseph used to say that if the Saints would accept his shortcomings, he would accept theirs.

I'm not going to repeat everything which has already been said, but I do want to emphasize the need for caution and a primary dependence on the formal canon of Scripture. That leaves plenty of room for discussion -- provided we restrict ourselves to rational processes. We have brains, presumably so that we can effectively reason, "by study and also by faith." Attempting to gain the upper hand through counterfeit religious argument (fallacy) or intimidation should be entirely off limits.

[Bob Crockett]

Here we are on page 16 of this thread and we have all run the course on this issue. I have seen nothing in the course of this which would indicate to me that the Church has taken an official position on where any particular Hill Cumorah must be.

I have tried to point out, and so have others (both here on this Board, and elsewhere) that one cannot take the long-term consequences of the development of folklore as Gospel. The notion that General Authorities cannot make mistakes of interpretation is a huge problem in some quarters. I am reminded of Elder Bruce McConkie telling us to ignore everything he had said on a particular issue before 1978, and I am reminded also of some quite sharp disputes between certain General Authorities on theological matters -- the prevailing view in the late 19th century coming to be completely reversed in the 20th (and I am not speaking of polygyny). We see the same phenomenon among the Apostles of Christ in the book of Acts. These fine men are humans, subject to all the frailties the rest of us are subject to. Joseph used to say that if the Saints would accept his shortcomings, he would accept theirs.

I'm not going to repeat everything which has already been said, but I do want to emphasize the need for caution and a primary dependence on the formal canon of Scripture. That leaves plenty of room for discussion -- provided we restrict ourselves to rational processes. We have brains, presumably so that we can effectively reason, "by study and also by faith." Attempting to gain the upper hand through counterfeit religious argument (fallacy) or intimidation should be entirely off limits.

I say the Church has taken an official position and I've cited my source(s), including a general conference statement from a member of the First Presidency which says that "we know positively" that the hill where the plates were found was the hill where the Nephite battles occurred. This occurred the general conference after the Church purchased the hill and several authorities spoke about the importance of the purchase.

Many times people have said that the Church says that it takes no position on the location of the ancient Hill Cumorah. I'd like to see the source of that. You keep saying the Church takes no position, but you have nothing to show for your claim. I do.

So, citing from a multitude of official statements by the Brethren in a religion which looks to the Brethren as a source of instruction is "counterfeit religious argument (fallacy)" or "intimidation."

Can you possibly answer my question? Where does the Church say it takes no official position? Are you unwilling to answer?

[livy111us]

Just an observation from someone who doesn't have a strong opinion where Cumorah is, nor cares all that much. But I believe rcrocket is doing a NY cumorah theory a disservice. After reading the thread, the arguments he uses and dismissal of Smiths evidence actually makes me believe that he doesn't have much to work with and persuades me to believe counter to what you are trying to argue. I am sure this is just part of who you are, but be mindful that others are reading this and your tireless argument may be doing the opposite of what you are actually trying to do. Sometimes concession on points will bolster your argument, in my opinion. Smith has made some strong arguments that you continue to dance around, and continue using arguments which have been proven obsolete. That is a red flag to me. I don't mean any offense, but just giving you my 2 cents.

[Robert F. Smith]

I say the Church has taken an official position and I've cited my source(s), including a general conference statement from a member of the First Presidency which says that "we know positively" that the hill where the plates were found was the hill where the Nephite battles occurred. This occurred the general conference after the Church purchased the hill and several authorities spoke about the importance of the purchase.

Many times people have said that the Church says that it takes no position on the location of the ancient Hill Cumorah. I'd like to see the source of that. You keep saying the Church takes no position, but you have nothing to show for your claim. I do.

So, citing from a multitude of official statements by the Brethren in a religion which looks to the Brethren as a source of instruction is "counterfeit religious argument (fallacy)" or "intimidation."

Can you possibly answer my question? Where does the Church say it takes no official position? Are you unwilling to answer?

I repeat, you have cited no official position of the Church on this issue. I am well aware that you claim to have done so, but not one of those statements is official, and in my view you have added additional faulty arguments -- none of which hold water. You have made the claim, and the burden of proof is on you. I think it utterly silly of you to demand that I conjure up some statement that the Church takes no such position. The Church has not taken an official position either way. Asked and answered, counselor.

Your repeated suggestions above that people who don't share your faulty view are in danger of apostasy is a prime example of your intimidation tactics. Those who have no tolerance for a variety of legitimate views on such matters are far more likely to find themselves outside the Gospel. Perhaps your intimidation tactics work in court. You should know better than to try them here.

[J Green]

It's interesting that rcrocket appears to rely mostly on disparate pre-correlation materials. Problematic to me is his insistence that a talk by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference in the 1920s prior to correlation somehow rises to the level of a collective statement signed and endorsed by the entire first presidency. In the spirit of the intent of correlation and the Church's statement on "Approaching Doctrine" (2007), I'd be interested for him to use the Church's primary sources of doctrine and correlated material that has been considered "consistent with doctrine" to make the case that the the New York hill as the same location as the last battle has been received by authority and revelation by the leadership of the church. If he can't make this case, then it sounds more like a gospel hobby to try to make it appear so and I appeal to him to discuss this rationally through logic and textual evidence without the rancor it causes by accusing good members of the Church here with some kind of apostasy.

Regards

[Danite3459]

I repeat, you have cited no official position of the Church on this issue. I am well aware that you claim to have done so, but not one of those statements is official, and in my view you have added additional faulty arguments -- none of which hold water. You have made the claim, and the burden of proof is on you. I think it utterly silly of you to demand that I conjure up some statement that the Church takes no such position. The Church has not taken an official position either way. Asked and answered, counselor.

Your repeated suggestions above that people who don't share your faulty view are in danger of apostasy is a prime example of your intimidation tactics. Those who have no tolerance for a variety of legitimate views on such matters are far more likely to find themselves outside the Gospel. Perhaps your intimidation tactics work in court. You should know better than to try them here.

John A. Widtsoe

[Bob Crockett]

Why isn't the Church's website -- Guide to the Scriptures, enough and officially so?

Cumorah, Hill

See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr..

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

* Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2

[Anijen]

Why isn't the Church's website -- Guide to the Scriptures, enough and officially so?

rcrocket your quote from the church website does not confirm that the hill Cumorah was the final battle hill. You are reading what you want it to say. Notice about the hill in NY it says;

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

But when it speaks of the final battle it is not saying NY but that the hill Cumorah is also a hill in the Book of Mormon and then gives the reference verse to locate it. It is speaking of the context of the BofM here and not NY. If the final battle occurred in NY I would assume it would be placed in the first paragraph where it plainly designates New York and not the book.

CUMORAH, HILL

See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr..

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2