Limited Geography Theories

[SkepticTheist]

-deleted-

This has descended once again to the depths of the nether-places from whence no thread can return...........

[Anijen]

Here is the problem. Your demand for reasonable plausibility is on YOUR terms.

"Aha" (similar to a V-8 moment) moment for me. I finally see why we are butting heads. I really respect your passion and sincere desire for presenting your thoughts of the final battle being in New York. Here is what I see; I believe in the Book of Mormon by faith, by a conviction placed there by the Holy Ghost. I see you believe this too. Where we differ is I am not using faith when I research geographical settings for the Book of Mormon. We differ at this point because you do. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I do not use faith, in this manner, i.e. asking about the geography setting of the BofM allowing the Holy Ghost to confirm my theories. I have not did this because it will not effect my salvation, even if I am wrong, which is possible, I've been wrong many more times than I care to remember. I use the current archaeology and anthropological evidences to support my views. When I use this approach I see more supportable reasoning for a Mesoamerican setting than I do for a Great Lakes model. I also use the text of the Book of Mormon (which I do accept by faith) to show what physical evidences that I need to look for, (what/when/how/why/where archaeology). I hope this makes sense.

I guess I will have to agree, I in that sense look for a secular scientific methodology to support my views of the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon.

I use faith, validated to me in indescribable terms by the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith. I find this to be of much more importance to me than any geographical setting ever could. In fact, in the big eternal picture the where it happened does not matter one bit.

We will have to disagree on location but in eternity we will laugh at our silly selves as you and I will go fishing together in some Celestial lake and we will say "remember when..."

Love ya bro

Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

-- deleted --

There is no point here... laters.

[Anijen]

Ed,

I went out of my way to carefully word my post (#277) as not to cause such an emotional response. I again apologize for doing so. I evidently do not get it. I again will take a timeout from answering your posts. I do not want to be a reason for any wedges caused by this topic. IOW I want us all to get along.

sincerely

Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

--deleted---

Again, no point in continuing the conversation.

Only the mesoamerican/LGT is reasonable. Mine is not. That is all there is in your minds. I get it. Let's just end this.

[Bob Crockett]

We have been over this already. It does not "establish the following facts" What it does is establish that certain people beleived that it was in New York. Since the church currently holds to a "We don't know were it is" possition

That is not the Church's official position. The official position is that that the NY Cumorah is one and the same with BoM Cumorah/Ramah. Reiterated in a priesthood manual, Articles of Faith, General Conference addresses and Michael Watson's letter. Further proof is that Sorenson's theory about Cumorah was removed from his Ensign article. If ever you were to look for "official positions," that is where you'd likely find it. Anything more official would be statements signed by the first presidency or proclamations, of which there are very very few of those things.

why should I put more stock in their words than the church? Oh yeah that is right, because I am faithless? Lol.

The teachings of the Book of Mormon require faith, and should not be buttressed with silly speculations of anthropologists who try and give a reason why there aren't swords, steel, horses and bodies.

[Nofear]

The [Church's] official position is that that the NY Cumorah is one and the same with BoM Cumorah/Ramah.

@readers: rcrocket's claim is definitively and verifiably false*. See FAIR: Book of Mormon Geography Statements

* I could point out that repeatedly making false claims about what constitutes official Church doctrine (after being corrected by their appropriate priesthood authority) is an offense (as per the Church Handbook of Instructions vol I) that can subject one to Church discipline for apostasy, but the last time I did that it got the thread shut down pretty quick so I won't do that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is not the Church's official position. The official position is that that the NY Cumorah is one and the same with BoM Cumorah/Ramah.

Nice assertion. I am sorry but this is false. That is what you think the offical postition is. The church has maintanined in an offical capacity that they do not know were it is. And they make no claims as to were the Hill is. Some leaders in the past certainly spoke on the issue, that much is true, and you have done a nice job at bringing up their quotes.

[SkepticTheist]

Although there is some truth to what Anijen and Nofear said about something being "faith based" in the sense of what one may call "Mormon Secularism" if there is such a thing. Or in other words, if I am to coin such a term, it is the place where believing Mormons meet on the level. It is where we share the common ground in our faith. If that is what Nofear is referring to in saying something is faith based, and something else is not, then I can agree that the NY Cumorah is a thing of faith for some Mormons and others it is not, while all believing Mormons share a common ground in faith in historicity and some real world location somewhere. That is the Mormon believing secularist common ground. On the other hand, the New York Cumorah is an issue of secular Mormon geography, regardless of personal faith motivation, whether you people acknowledge it or not. That really is not called for to bring up my faith in the sense of my testimony and tell me that my geography is entirely testimony based.

My reason for my taking issue with this and making this assertion is because there is a rule on this forum that people do not bear testimony. I take issue with Nofear telling me that my assertions are faith based. This is the exact reverse of someone bearing testimony on this forum, because rather than bearing your own testimony, you have bore my testimony for me when I wasn't going to do that. Because he is telling me that this is my testimony and bearing it for me. Anijen meant no offense, and you are my brother, and you are my friend, but similarly, you bore my testimony for me. That is not your place.

It is uncalled for for someone to bear testimony for someone else and tell them that this is their faith.

It shouldn't matter to you why I value a New York Cumorah. Because in the secularist Mormonism when we are talking secularly, there is no testimony bearing. You value a LACK OF A NEW YORK CUMORAH. I value a New York Cumorah. You shouldn't care why I value that. I shouldn't care why you don't value that. That is not your place to judge why I value it. It was wrong for me to say that you don't value it BECAUSE of your unbelief in it. It only matters that the text supports it and that archaeology can be reasonably used to support it. Similarly, in your worldview, it only matters that the text can be read to support a view WITHOUT the New York Cumorah, and on the mormon secularist playing field, who cares what your testimony is? Leave my faith out of this. My faith has nothing to do with this discussion. You should only care that I value a New York Cumorah, and you do not, and that my personal motivations for that value are out of scope here.

Ed Goble

[Bob Crockett]

Nice assertion. I am sorry but this is false. That is what you think the offical postition is. The church has maintanined in an offical capacity that they do not know were it is. And they make no claims as to were the Hill is. Some leaders in the past certainly spoke on the issue, that much is true, and you have done a nice job at bringing up their quotes.

Where does the Church officially say this?

I've reviewed the FAIR site, which Nofear mentions above. I think using the FAIR site is error for the following reasons.

Don't confuse the Hill Cumorah issue with the broader issue of Book of Mormon geography. When the Brethren in the past have condemned the Book of Mormon being used as a geographic map, it has been part and parcel with a defense of the location of the Hill Cumorah. (Mixing up statements about Zarahemla with a true defense of the location of Cumorah.) In other words, the Brethren would often argue that the Book of Mormon should not be used as a map when critics of the Church's position would argue for a different location for Cumorah. The FAIR site mushes the two concepts together; or perhaps, NoFear uses the FAIR site for what it wasn't intended.

The FAIR site does not, as far as I can tell, reference President Ivin's "we know positively" statement. What makes President Ivin's statement so significant is that it came in a general conference right after the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah. The statement was made with the President of the Church on the stand.

The FAIR site doesn't mention the statements in Articles of Faith. Instead, it cites to a General Conference statement by Talmage which highlights the problems of FAIR's analysis as I have demonstrated above. (Geography vs. the Hill Cumorah.)

The FAIR site doesn't mention that President JF Smith's statements are contained in the most heavily-cited authoritative text still in publication, a priesthood manual.

The FAIR site doesn't mention the fact that Sorenson was asked to drop his Hill Cumorah reference in his Ensign article.

The Church's website continues to post material for the Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah position and absolutely nothing to the contrary. For instance, http://lds.org/new-era/1972/12/after-the-manner-of-their-language?lang=eng&query=cumorah is an essay by Cracroft and Lambert which sets forth the traditional position with much clarity.

See also this 1999 website article, "Mormon and His Teachings." http://lds.org/liahona/1998/02/mormon-and-his-teachings?lang=eng&query=cumorah

Looks pretty official to me.

Perhaps the most significant thing to emerge in recent years is the Michael Watson correspondence. The letter upon which the anti-Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah positionists pin their hopes to is a fax statement on a fax form issued by somebody by the name of Carla Ogden from the Office of the First Presidency. This is a curious document indeed. It is not an "equal dignities doctrine" document in the sense that it isn't signed by Michael Watson on letterhead. It plainly does not remotely qualify as an official church statement. Given that it conflicts with a signed statement by Watson, it could be a forgery. One should keep an open mind about this. I'm willing to consider the possibility that the FP asked Carla Ogden to send this statement, but at the present time the quality of the evidence is lacking.

When the Salamander letters first emerged, I had supreme doubts about them because they so closely mirrored the bogus letters worked up by Hurlbut and Howe. But, I kept an open mind about them. I think the Ogden letter is in the same boat. (Of course, my thinking could change if a Mr. Brent Hall put some flesh on the bones with an explanation as to how he obtained this fax. Perhaps that explanation is out there someplace.)

Where does that lead us? I think hostility between the two camps is really improper. My camp tends to rely upon and trust the statements of inspired prophets. Your camp tends to rely upon "evidence" from the ground that doesn't really exist. I get your position. I have a personal belief as to why your position exists. I'm cool with that and wish you the best with it.

That is what you think the offical postition is.

I guess this is some sort of slam, but really now, I can only write what I think.

[Nofear]

It shouldn't matter to you why I value a New York Cumorah. Because in the secularist Mormonism when we are talking secularly, there is no testimony bearing. You value a LACK OF A NEW YORK CUMORAH. I value a New York Cumorah. You shouldn't care why I value that. I shouldn't care why you don't value that. That is not your place to judge why I value it. It was wrong for me to say that you don't value it BECAUSE of your unbelief in it.

Very big of you to make this statement. [not sarcastic]

You should only care that I value a New York Cumorah, and you do not, and that my personal motivations for that value are out of scope here.

That you value a certain idea should only be relevant to the sensitivity and respect to be present in responses to your arguments. Though, I suspect that it what you meant.

It only matters that the text supports it and that archaeology can be reasonably used to support it.

In many respects you are correct that for a competing model to be seriously treated it need not necessarily be the best but only plausible. I think there is quite some work to be done yet for it to be treated as a plausible alternative of merit. Given your apparent willingness to set aside your disgruntled accusations against your model's critics I can see value in reading your case.

[Nofear]

I've reviewed the FAIR site, which Nofear mentions above. I think using the FAIR site is error for the following reasons.

Feel free to submit your contributions. The wiki is still under edit.

Don't confuse the Hill Cumorah issue with the broader issue of Book of Mormon geography. When the Brethren in the past have condemned the Book of Mormon being used as a geographic map, it has been part and parcel with a defense of the location of the Hill Cumorah. (Mixing up statements about Zarahemla with a true defense of the location of Cumorah.) In other words, the Brethren would often argue that the Book of Mormon should not be used as a map when critics of the Church's position would argue for a different location for Cumorah. The FAIR site mushes the two concepts together; or perhaps, Nofear uses the FAIR site for what it wasn't intended.

The site is fully intended to establish both (as indicated by the linked subarticle Fair: Hill Cumorah).

The FAIR site does not, as far as I can tell, reference President Ivin's "we know positively" statement. What makes President Ivin's statement so significant is that it came in a general conference right after the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah. The statement was made with the President of the Church on the stand.

The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was

published in The Deseret News of March 3 definitely established the following facts: That the hill Cumorah, and the hill Ramah are identical. That it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites fought their great last battles. That it was in this hill

that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill

that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. ("The Hill Cumorah" by President Anthony W. Ivins, Improvement Era, 1928, Vol. Xxxi. June, 1928 No.

Slight misquote with "we know positively" but nonetheless, it is clear Pres. Ivins believed the two were identical. Pretty much everybody thought that in 1928.

The FAIR site doesn't mention the statements in Articles of Faith. Instead, it cites to a General Conference statement by Talmage which highlights the problems of FAIR's analysis as I have demonstrated above. (Geography vs. the Hill Cumorah.)

Pretty much everybody thought that in 1928 and that era.

The FAIR site doesn't mention that President JF Smith's statements are contained in the most heavily-cited authoritative text still in publication, a priesthood manual.

The FAIR site doesn't mention the fact that Sorenson was asked to drop his Hill Cumorah reference in his Ensign article.

The Church's website continues to post material for the Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah position and absolutely nothing to the contrary. For instance, http://lds.org/new-e...g&query=cumorah is an essay by Cracroft and Lambert which sets forth the traditional position with much clarity.

See also this 1999 website article, "Mormon and His Teachings." http://lds.org/liaho...g&query=cumorah

Looks pretty official to me.

/sigh

Perhaps the most significant thing to emerge in recent years is the Michael Watson correspondence. The letter upon which the anti-Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah positionists pin their hopes to is a fax statement on a fax form issued by somebody by the name of Carla Ogden from the Office of the First Presidency. This is a curious document indeed. It is not an "equal dignities doctrine" document in the sense that it isn't signed by Michael Watson on letterhead. It plainly does not remotely qualify as an official church statement. Given that it conflicts with a signed statement by Watson, it could be a forgery. One should keep an open mind about this. I'm willing to consider the possibility that the FP asked Carla Ogden to send this statement, but at the present time the quality of the evidence is lacking.

This is the fax (and the letter than initiated the inquiry) that rcrocket believes to be a hoax perpetuated upon FAIR by Matt Roper and/or Brent Hall of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

I guess this is some sort of slam, but really now, I can only write what I think.

Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

—J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Church Leaders and the Scriptures

Given that you are not the President of the Church or acting under his direction and that the location of the Hill Cumorah is easily shown to be a subject of dispute... well Pres. Clark was less than generous in his view of such individuals.

[Bob Crockett]

/sigh

Sorry that I disappoint you. But I am really not deserving of such treatment. You seem to display no knowledge of me. I write with my own name and not anonymously. People who know me know who I am, what I do for a living, and who are my clients and my present and past role in the Church, with BYU and with FARMS.

This is the fax (and the letter than initiated the inquiry) that rcrocket believes to be a hoax perpetuated upon FAIR by Matt Roper and/or Brent Hall of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

I didn't really say that. What does Brent Hall say on the subject? Has he ever? But my equal dignities doctrine comment yet applies.

And, it isn't helpful to tell me to submit my own edits to FAIR's Wiki. You've cited it as authoritative. I contest that and have pointed out its failing. You tell me to submit my own edits as a rejoinder to my position?

Given that you are not the President of the Church or acting under his direction and that the location of the Hill Cumorah is easily shown to be a subject of dispute... well Pres. Clark was less than generous in his view of such individuals.

I've cited repeatedly to the Brethren, not to my own writings (as you have done by citing to FAIR), for my positions.

I've even shown you material upon the Church's website today which directly refutes the things you are saying about the Hill Cumorah. So, I'm not some apostate riding in here on his tricycle throwing out meritless statements that would lead to Pres. Clark being inhospitable to me. I'm spouting off the very sort of official policy that would receive an atta-boy if offered in a Sacrament meeting talk rather than an edit out as was shown to Dr. Sorenson.

So, again, polite rejoinders are the order of the day on this topic, I would request. I'm hear to learn and obtain the best knowledge you have to offer on the subject.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

See also this 1999 website article, "Mormon and His Teachings." http://lds.org/liahona/1998/02/mormon-and-his-teachings?lang=eng&query=cumorah

Looks pretty official to me.

This is sad. No were in that article does the church endorse the hill in New York as the same hill Camorah.

[Bob Crockett]

This is sad. No were in that article does the church endorse the hill in New York as the same hill Camorah.

Be happy. Yes it does.

Mormon led the Nephites to the land of Cumorah, where they got ready to fight the Lamanites again. Morm. 6:4

He knew that this would be the last battle. He did not want the Lamanites to find the sacred records and destroy them. Morm. 6:6

He gave the plates of Mormon to his son, Moroni, and hid the rest of the plates in the Hill Cumorah. Morm. 6:6

The very "drumlin" where the last struggle occurred is the very "drumlin" in which the plates were buried.

And, what of the Cracroft and Lambert article? I can assure you that I can find many many other website references of the same quality.

This constitutes endorsement, my friend, of the very best quality short of a First Presidency proclamation, of which there are so few. You've find nothing of equivalent value, placing Cumorah in MesoAmerica, anywhere on the Church's website today. Zilch and nada.

[cinepro]

Further proof is that Sorenson's theory about Cumorah was removed from his Ensign article.

Just to be clear, here is what the article actually says. While not calling out the two-Cumorah theory by name, he certainly maps it out pretty clearly:

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land” 11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light. One obvious possibility is that Moroni himself may have carried the records to New York during his thirty-six years of wandering between the extermination of the Nephites and when he last wrote on the plates. (See Morm. 6:6; Moro. 1:1–4; Moro. 10:1.) Or he may have taken them there as a resurrected being. We only know that, whatever the means, in 1827 the plates were in the “hill of considerable size” near young Joseph Smith’s home at Palmyra, New York, where Moroni delivered the sacred record to him.

[Robert F. Smith]

That is not the Church's official position. The official position is that that the NY Cumorah is one and the same with BoM Cumorah/Ramah. Reiterated in a priesthood manual, Articles of Faith, General Conference addresses and Michael Watson's letter. Further proof is that Sorenson's theory about Cumorah was removed from his Ensign article. If ever you were to look for "official positions," that is where you'd likely find it. Anything more official would be statements signed by the first presidency or proclamations, of which there are very very few of those things.

The teachings of the Book of Mormon require faith, and should not be buttressed with silly speculations of anthropologists who try and give a reason why there aren't swords, steel, horses and bodies.

I have read your many posts on this matter on this board, along with the replies and rejoinders, and it is clear that there is no such "official" Church position.

John Sorenson's theory about Cumorah was not removed from his Ensign article, as you know from a previous reply to this false claim which actually quoted from his article.

Also, mischaracterizing what anthropologists do is not only wrong, but vicious. The only reasonable and appropriate discussion of this issue is one which takes into account the broad range of evidence -- rather than taking only one side (in forensic debate fashion) and ignoring contrary evidence. Otherwise, there is no real discussion or learning which can take place.

[Anijen]

I've cited repeatedly to the Brethren, not to my own writings (as you have done by citing to FAIR), for my positions. I write with my own name and not anonymously. People who know me know who I am, what I do for a living, and who are my clients.

Just an FYI. I know Nofear personally, he is a very respected and highly educated physicist. He honors his priesthood, and is a wonderful father. He has a quirky sense of humor but from everything I have heard from him he is dead on accurate. He usually does not post in geography threads but his thoughts are always welcome. Perhaps he feels like coming to my defense I dunno, however he is more than capable to back up everything he writes. He holds a leadership position in his ward and is a hard working person both in his job and in his calling.

I've even shown you material upon the Church's website today which directly refutes the things you are saying about the Hill Cumorah.

As has he. Really what we are seeing is LDS leaders giving their opinions on geography. Some of these quotes contradict another General Authority.

For example here is one you must have missed;

“We all have our free agency. God doesn’t rob anyone of that. And sometimes even a General Authority has used his agency in a wrong direction… Now, a General Authority might speculate, I suppose. We have had speculation, for instance, on the part of some with respect to Book of Mormon geography, and it is plain, unadulterated speculation and not doctrine. And if a General Authority has speculated on Book of Mormon geography he did not represent the view of the Church while doing so ~Mark E. Petersen, "Revelation," address to religious educators, 24 August 1954; cited in Charge to Religious Educators (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints, 1982), 136137; cited in Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth, edited by Dennis B. Horne (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 315.

I'm spouting off the very sort of official policy that would receive an atta-boy

I would hope you would be semi-objective and not just cherry pick the GA quotes that support your view.

if offered in a Sacrament meeting talk rather than an edit out as was shown to Dr. Sorenson.

Yes, I believe this is about the third or fourth time you have mentioned this. IMO geography statements no matter which view taken does not belong in a sacrament talk.

Respectfully

Anijen

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have read your many posts on this matter on this board, along with the replies and rejoinders, and it is clear that there is no such "official" Church position.

Which is why if the church has no offical position it is more accurate to say that they have no idea were it is then to claim that it is in NY.

But saying that it has no offical postion is really what I meant. I should have just said that.

Carfeul, Bob might think you are faithless.

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, the Mesoamerican theory is a paradigm based off of:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

(2) UNBELIEF that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

(3) But having to compensate for #2, by having Moroni travel to NY from Mesoamerica after the Nephite destruction, even though the ultimate burial place of the plates ties the BOM story to New York in the end anyway.

So actually, though it is a "believing" construct in the sense of belief in historicity, it is that was reactionary theory a formulated because of unbelief in something subjectively perceived as unlikely. It was just against the idea of a NY Cumorah to begin with, rather than being for something. It is more easily defendable apologetically. So when you say the NY hill is unnecessary, I counter that the only reason the Mesoamerican theory was invented was apologetic ease, and trying to do away with what Sorenson calls the "philosophical underbrush" that he perceives clutters up the issue. It is reductionism rather than due consideration of multiple options.

There was nothing reactionary in the formulation of a theory centering the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Even Joseph Smith himself speculated on that possibility in the Times & Seasons in Nauvoo. What convinced trained anthropologists such as M. Wells Jakeman and John L. Sorenson that Mesoamerica was the center of the Book of Mormon world was that Mesoamerica had the only advanced civilization in the Western Hemisphere -- meaning writing, astronomy, mathematics, sophisticated calendar, massive population, etc. Once that was clear, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon itself required (by the short distances traveled in all such accounts) that the entire Book of Mormon story take place within an area no larger than Palestine, which in turn led early researchers to understand that the hill in New York was a secondary site. No one "invented" that notion. They merely followed the evidence. This was well-established already in the late 1940s or early 1950s, and Sorenson was already giving firesides on the matter in those days.

As for biblical scholars who think they know where most biblical events took place, such theoretical formulations had nothing to do with unbelief, but rather the opposite. Any meaningful discussion on this matter should focus on the issues rather than on personalities. It should be courteous and proper rather than vituperative and unkind.

[Bob Crockett]

I have read your many posts on this matter on this board, along with the replies and rejoinders, and it is clear that there is no such "official" Church position.

John Sorenson's theory about Cumorah was not removed from his Ensign article, as you know from a previous reply to this false claim which actually quoted from his article.

Also, mischaracterizing what anthropologists do is not only wrong, but vicious. The only reasonable and appropriate discussion of this issue is one which takes into account the broad range of evidence -- rather than taking only one side (in forensic debate fashion) and ignoring contrary evidence. Otherwise, there is no real discussion or learning which can take place.

I think such words, "vicious" and "false claim" are inappropriate and bad Karma. I treat you respectfully.

As to my position that Sorenson's claim about Cumorah was edited out, we've been through all that before. Cinepro is just incorrect. You can see proof for that assertion in this thread: I obtained that information in dialogue with you, my good friend, and Brant. I didn't come up with this on my own.

And if a General Authority has speculated on Book of Mormon geography he did not represent the view of the Church while doing so ~Mark E. Petersen, "Revelation," address to religious educators, 24 August 1954; cited in Charge to Religious Educators

This is such a superb quote. These kinds of quotes, and this one in particular, were offered to refute a second Cumorah claim, a point I have made above. Ivins was one of the first ones to rise to this particular argument. In other words, Anijen is using this quote to support a position for which the quote was offered to refute.

I know Nofear personally, he is a very respected and highly educated physicist. He honors his priesthood, and is a wonderful father.

Yet he posts anonymously. Hey, I take a lot of heat for posting in my own name. On that other board, the trailer park, I've had emails sent to my law partners, my stake president and to the California bar complaining about my statements on that board in defense of Church orthodoxy. I've had information about my wife and children posted on that board. But I choose to make my positions known in my own name. When the Brethren urge us to get involved in the Blogosphere, somehow I don't think they meant we'd resort to anonymous names to hurl insults.

At least Robert F. Smith insults me with his real name so I can complain about him if I choose.

I would hope you would be semi-objective and not just cherry pick the GA quotes that support your view.

Hah! There is no other quote to support Anijen's position; the Mark E Peterson quote he uses was offered to support the NY Cumorah model.

Yes, I believe this is about the third or fourth time you have mentioned this. IMO geography statements no matter which view taken does not belong in a sacrament talk.

Heh! Yet these statements are contained in many general conference addresses! And on the Church's website today!

Carfeul, Bob might think you are faithless.

I have been asked by the mods not to make this argument and so I can't respond except to say I've never really made this particular argument. I've never pointed to a poster and said: "You are faithless because you rely upon" a MesoAmerican model. I've said only that President Joseph Fielding Smith has used words to that effect to describe the two Cumorahs issue and I tend to go along with that assessment.

[SkepticTheist]

I am one of the FAIR wiki editors, though I haven't done a real lot on there, though I'm obviously not representative of the FAIR majority viewpoints.

I can see about getting something added possibly, though the ultimate authority for the permanence of even my own posts on there does not rest in my hands, and those in authority would have to agree obviously.

Ed

Feel free to submit your contributions. The wiki is still under edit.

The site is fully intended to establish both (as indicated by the linked subarticle Fair: Hill Cumorah).

Slight misquote with "we know positively" but nonetheless, it is clear Pres. Ivins believed the two were identical. Pretty much everybody thought that in 1928.

Pretty much everybody thought that in 1928 and that era.

/sigh

This is the fax (and the letter than initiated the inquiry) that rcrocket believes to be a hoax perpetuated upon FAIR by Matt Roper and/or Brent Hall of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

Given that you are not the President of the Church or acting under his direction and that the location of the Hill Cumorah is easily shown to be a subject of dispute... well Pres. Clark was less than generous in his view of such individuals.

[SkepticTheist]

Ok, very well then. The case that I make is published and available for public consumption, so it is out there.

It is NOT my original book that was co-authored by Wayne May which I retracted.

Despite its "disgruntledness" it is very clear what its message is, and it directly answers the major charges of the Mesoamericanist viewpoint.

I am not aware of any other book or work that directly addresses the charges made by the Mesoamericanist viewpoint in this way, with the exception of Brother Hedges' work.

It is the book entitled Resurrecting Cumorah, and is even in the FAIR bookstore, that is they probably only have the First Edition still, although now it is in a second revision.

And certainly it will need further revision after even further feedback from other people.

It directly addresses a great many of the charges that have been leveled, spread across the FARMS/Mesoamericanist literature, including David Palmer's criteria in his book against the NY Cumorah and so forth.

Ed

Very big of you to make this statement. [not sarcastic]

That you value a certain idea should only be relevant to the sensitivity and respect to be present in responses to your arguments. Though, I suspect that it what you meant.

In many respects you are correct that for a competing model to be seriously treated it need not necessarily be the best but only plausible. I think there is quite some work to be done yet for it to be treated as a plausible alternative of merit. Given your apparent willingness to set aside your disgruntled accusations against your model's critics I can see value in reading your case.

[Nofear]

I didn't really say that. What does Brent Hall say on the subject? Has he ever?

From the link I cited above:

Since the text of this letter was published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, some critics have charged the FARMS authors with either manipulating the Church into sending the letter, or forging the letter text altogether.

Matt Roper of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship located a faxed copy of the same statement sent from the Office of the First Presidency, along with its cover page, and sent FAIR a copy with permission to post it. The 1993 fax was sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, to Brent Hall of FARMS. (Sister Ogden continues to serve in this position as of 2009). The text of the fax matches exactly the text reported to have been in the response by Watson as described in the FARMS Review. The cover letter reads as follows:

I thought you would be interested in this FAX from Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency. We have been receiving a number of questions from the Oklahoma, Texas area where anti-Mormons are using a letter from Brother Watson to a Bishop where Brother Watson said that

the Church supports only one location for Cumorah, and that is the New York location. I talked with him on the phone the other day and told him of the questions that were coming to us. He responded that the First Presidency would like to clear up that Issue and he would FAX me

with that clarification.

Thanks

[signed]

Brent [Hall]

If there is a forgery either Matt Roper and/or Brent Hall would have to be involved. So an accusation of forgery is an accusation against them whether or not you mention them by name.

And, it isn't helpful to tell me to submit my own edits to FAIR's Wiki. You've cited it as authoritative. I contest that and have pointed out its failing. You tell me to submit my own edits as a rejoinder to my position?

It is a useful compilation of sources on the subject. Nothing authoritative in of itself (as you indirectly note later in your reply). It might be useful to have some examples of statements by early Brethren who affirm their belief that Cumorah is a New York drumlin included among the various other quotes.

I've cited repeatedly to the Brethren, not to my own writings (as you have done by citing to FAIR), for my positions.

I've even shown you material upon the Church's website today which directly refutes the things you are saying about the Hill Cumorah. So, I'm not some apostate riding in here on his tricycle throwing out meritless statements that would lead to Pres. Clark being inhospitable to me. I'm spouting off the very sort of official policy that would receive an atta-boy if offered in a Sacrament meeting talk rather than an edit out as was shown to Dr. Sorenson.

I'm not sure you understand what Pres. Clark was saying. You might read it again.

So, again, polite rejoinders are the order of the day on this topic, I would request.

[Nofear]

I am one of the FAIR wiki editors, though I haven't done a real lot on there, though I'm obviously not representative of the FAIR majority viewpoints.

I can see about getting something added possibly, though the ultimate authority for the permanence of even my own posts on there does not rest in my hands, and those in authority would have to agree obviously.

Ed

Sweet!