Limited Geography Theories

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you for pointing the proper way. We ALL need to be respectful to each other. Apologists, including mopologists, don't do respect well, it seems to me. So And those of you who chide others for doing sneering, pointless, sniding, and other crap comments that simply do not inform the topic, when you do it yourselves, come close and listen: take a hike, mopologists. One can defend hemispheric or LGT or whatever without being rude. So I will follow the advice of 'thesometimesaint' on this.

Actually out of all the people that have participated on the various threads have been quite respectful. It is your posting style that is the problem. You have insulted quite a few of us and your pretend we are all uninformed rubes, were you are the only one that know what you are talking about. I agree to being respectful, I just have not seen this so called " sneering, pointless, sniding, and other crap comments " from those you accuse. I have seen it from you.

Pot meet kettle.

[bookofmormontruth]

Thank you for pointing the proper way. We ALL need to be respectful to each other. Apologists, including mopologists, don't do respect well, it seems to me. So And those of you who chide others for doing sneering, pointless, sniding, and other crap comments that simply do not inform the topic, when you do it yourselves, come close and listen: take a hike, mopologists. One can defend hemispheric or LGT or whatever without being rude. So I will follow the advice of 'thesometimesaint' on this.

You don't even believe in the Book of Mormon, let alone the geography so who made you God's referee for the two camps of thought?

[MelvinCJohnson]

You don't even believe in the Book of Mormon, let alone the geography so who made you God's referee for the two camps of thought?

Guys, why are you insisting on a double standard. From this point, I will be absolutely meek and mild. Let's see how long those who don't agree with a posting of mine act the way (which many already doing) that you accuse me.

[MelvinCJohnson]

You don't even believe in the Book of Mormon, let alone the geography so who made you God's referee for the two camps of thought?

There you go making a statement that is not so, bookofmormontruth: I am not, and neither are you or anyone else here, 'God's referee.' I read in the BoM weekly. Much is to be commended in it, I believe. Whether I believe it God's word is another matter, and that, simply, is not your business. I do know that several historians LSD and non have told me that the general opinion of mormons in the 1950s and 1960s was that the general thinking was that the expansion of the descendants of Lehi was hemispheric. I have as much right to chime in as anyone else.

[bookofmormontruth]

There you go making a statement that is not so, bookofmormontruth: I am not, and neither are you or anyone else here, 'God's referee.' I read in the BoM weekly. Much is to be commended in it, I believe. Whether I believe it God's word is another matter, and that, simply, is not your business. I do know that several historians LSD and non have told me that the general opinion of mormons in the 1950s and 1960s was that the general thinking was that the expansion of the descendants of Lehi was hemispheric. I have as much right to chime in as anyone else.

Translation: My statement was correct. Thank you, makes complete sense now.

You have the right to "chime in" on something that you apparently have the need to make your own "business" for whatever odd reason, but don't act so surprised and whine about it when several call you out for your blatant hypocrisy.

[MelvinCJohnson]

Translation: My statement was correct. Thank you, makes complete sense now. You have the right to "chime in" on something that you apparently have the need to make your own "business" for whatever odd reason, but don't act so surprised and whine about it when several call you out for your blatant hypocrisy.

Translation: you do not apply the rule to yourself. Thank you for proving my point. The only whining comes from those who do not want the same standard applied equitably to all. I am interested in western American history and that, of course, includes Mormonism, our country's premier indigenous religion. Not strange at all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Guys, why are you insisting on a double standard. From this point, I will be absolutely meek and mild. Let's see how long those who don't agree with a posting of mine act the way (which many already doing) that you accuse me.

Better yet, why don't you just quote the source material for many of the outstanding CFR's you have on this board?

I am not insisting on a double standard. What I have an issue with is your constant labels and innuendo. I also have many issues with how you assert many many things and fail to provide refernces for them. And all you tell us to do is "study up". As if I haven't. And not that I am the most read on the board because I am not, there are others that are probably more versed than you are. And to my knoweldge no one has told you to read up.

[Questing Beast]

No, not by Moroni, but by Oliver. He's the first one I know of to use the word "Cumorah" to name the drumlin in western New York.

Lehi

Isn't this a quibble? Cowdery got "Cumorah" from Joseph Smith. The word is used in the D&C, before Cowdery uses it, iirc. Where else would Joseph Smith have learned the name of the hill if not from "Moroni"? (arguing, of course, from the pov that Joseph Smith did not simply make the name up) ....

[Questing Beast]

I said: Even IF the BoM has a basis in ancient American creation, it is no more reliable history than anything else that has passed through the hands of numerous scribes, chroniclers, redactors and editors.

Except the Book of Mormon did not pass "through the hands of numerous scribes, chroniclers, redactors and editors." The record from the Small Plates were not redacted at all; Mormon just included them in his record. The Large Plates were a redaction, but they were handled by one editor (either Mormon or Moroni). Jospeh translated them and Oliver transcribed his words, but to call three men "numerous" is stretching the term more than a tad. Even if, as we should, add Grandin and his crew, you can't make that case.

Lehi

Nephite history is c. 1,000 years. There were literally tons of records that Mormon had given to him. He was the last redactor, editor, whathaveyou, up to the Book of Mormon itself. The "Small Plates of Nephi" that he stuck on the back of his abridgement was a record passed down for c. 400 years and almost lost. That is the only part of the BoM that fits your objection to what I am asserting as a general truth vis-a-vis histories and their creators. And the Small Plates of Nephi includes precious little history at all. The history that Mormon and his son had handed down to them had already gone through dozens of generations of creation and compiling....

[cdowis]

I said: Even IF the BoM has a basis in ancient American creation, it is no more reliable history than anything else that has passed through the hands of numerous scribes, chroniclers, redactors and editors.

Very good insight -- maybe you do know something about the BOM. I think we should be suspicious on anything that the Nephite record tells us about the Lamanites.

The Lord said that the translation was correct, but made no guarantees about the history itself. Perhaps someday I will talk about my take on Jacob's speech on polygamy.

[Brant Gardner]

Isn't this a quibble? Cowdery got "Cumorah" from Joseph Smith. The word is used in the D&C, before Cowdery uses it, iirc. Where else would Joseph Smith have learned the name of the hill if not from "Moroni"? (arguing, of course, from the pov that Joseph Smith did not simply make the name up) ....

The name Cumorah is in the Book of Mormon, of course. However:

"At what point in modern times this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine. In his account in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith refers to the hill where the plates were buried, but never calls it by any name. In the Doctrine and Covenants the name “Cumorah” only appears one time, in an 1842 epistle written by Joseph Smith: “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!” (D&C 128:20 ). No other uses of “Cumorah” have been found in any other of Joseph Smith’s personal writings. When this name does appear it has been added by later editors or is being quoted from another individual." Reeve, Rex C., Jr., and Richard O. Cowan. “The Hill Called Cumorah.” In Regional Studies in LDS History: New York and Pennsylvania. Edited by Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman Jr., and Susan Easton Black. Provo, Utah: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992, 73–74.

There is no question that the drumlin in New York became known as Cumorah, but it wasn't instantaneous nor unanimous in early literature. It seems pretty clear that it was associated with the name Cumorah because plates were buried in the Book of Mormon Cumorah and the golden plates were retrieved from the NY hill, ergo it was "Cumorah." There is no better source than association, and a later association at that.

[cdowis]

Isn't this a quibble? Cowdery got "Cumorah" from Joseph Smith. The word is used in the D&C, before Cowdery uses it, iirc. Where else would Joseph Smith have learned the name of the hill if not from "Moroni"? (arguing, of course, from the pov that Joseph Smith did not simply make the name up) ....

We all agree that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah. Everybody agrees. There are brochures, it is mentioned in the history of the church. We do not dispute that a hill is located in NY with that name.

Do you follow me, so far?

Nopw, there is a town near me called Athens. There is another one in the same state called Rome.

The "Hill Cumorah" is the name of a dispository for the plates. Have you heard of Ft Knox, which has a special meaning, a safe dispository? Do you find it impossible that these names could occur in multiple locations.

I am having difficulty understanding why this concept is beyond your grasp.

[SkepticTheist]

Indeed. The second watson message by FAX constitutes a retraction of the first letter.

That sounds so magisterially impartial that, for about a nanonsecond, I almost forgot that you were trying to give inordinate weight to a superseded missive.

Here's some additional evidence for you to consider: when the second Watson letter was first quoted by a FARMS scholar, the malice merchants reacted by accusing that scholar of having fabricated it. And yet the Carla Ogden letter, which came some time later, is a verbatim copy of the second Watson letter. Sister Ogden works in the same office as Brother Watson.

Therefore, the Ogden letter is conclusive evidence for the authenticity of the second Watson letter.

And the first Watson letter is thus superseded, and no honest critic of the Church -- if such, indeed, there be -- uses it any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

Yet we have seen those who have smugly denied LGT attacked as if they are apostates, we have seen the testimonies of presidents and apostles denigrated to the status of an arrogant "you weren't there", and we see two wings of faithful LDS attacking like, well, mopologists. Good people, President Cannon was quite correct in suggesting that such disputations were not helpful. They only get you all in an uproar with each other. And if you can't treat your brother and sisters in the church with decency, do you truly expect those outside of the church are much concerned with your mopology?

Stop the insults if you want to remain in the discussion.

What is mopology Mommy? Does it relate to mop, "to make a disappointed or unhappy face; grimace," as in "an unruly child that mops and mows" (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 930)?

[Robert F. Smith]

Here's some additional evidence for you to consider: when the second Watson letter was first quoted by a FARMS scholar, the malice merchants reacted by accusing that scholar of having fabricated it. And yet the Carla Ogden letter, which came some time later, is a verbatim copy of the second Watson letter. Sister Ogden works in the same office as Brother Watson.

Therefore, the Ogden letter is conclusive evidence for the authenticity of the second Watson letter.

And the first Watson letter is thus superseded, and no honest critic of the Church -- if such, indeed, there be -- uses it any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

Are these examples of appropriate terminology? Is this an example of civility -- which the Brethren have been calling for?

[SkepticTheist]

If people are so unbelieving of the FAX, they should contact the Church public relations people for clarification, and I'm sure that they would be willing to respond.

It is difficult for me to understand why people don't believe that Elder Watson would retract this statement.

Pahoran, how can one know that the Carla Ogden fax is a verbatim copy of the Watson letter first quoted by a FARMS scholar? One cannot know that without seeing the Watson letter in question. The fact that Sister Ogden works in the same office as Brother Watson seems irrelevant.

I do not come to the same conclusion as you. I do not, with the evidence presented, see how the Ogden fax (not letter) is conclusive evidence for the authenticity of a Watson letter which I've never read, and which apparently cannot be produced.

I do not find the first Watson letter superseded in any sense, and considering the actual evidence in hand, that is a very reasonable conclusion.

The first Watson letter remains preeminent. According to it, the Brethren were aware of the nature of the inquiry and commended the inquirer. I do not see how that can be disputed without impugning the character of Brother Watson, which I presume no one wants to do. A signed letter on letterhead sent to a Bishop is vastly more authoritative than an unsigned fax sent to a FARMS scholar.

It remains that we have as evidence one letter on First Presidency Letterhead signed by the Secretary of the First President which notes the Brethren's approval of the inquiry, and then we have a fax cover from Brent, and an unsigned fax from Carla Ogden sent to a FARMS scholar which is supposedly a verbatim copy of a letter no one can produce and which no one can read.

[SkepticTheist]

Brant,

I don't agree with you.

I have seen this before where Mesoamericanists try to argue that the Cumorah name being applied to the hill developed over time and was a mere supposition that developed from some theory.

You should simply let it be the 19th century understanding, and leave it at that. Mesoamericanists don't agree with Joseph Smith's and oliver cowdery's beliefs anyway. I think your statement is revisionist history. It is absolutely clear that it was unanimously understood to be Cumorah back then. You should just stick with the fact that you don't agree with it and let it go, and not try to rewrite history.

The name Cumorah is in the Book of Mormon, of course. However:

There is no question that the drumlin in New York became known as Cumorah, but it wasn't instantaneous nor unanimous in early literature. It seems pretty clear that it was associated with the name Cumorah because plates were buried in the Book of Mormon Cumorah and the golden plates were retrieved from the NY hill, ergo it was "Cumorah." There is no better source than association, and a later association at that.

[Robert F. Smith]

You must admit, Kevin, that that is pretty weak evidence in response to mine. The eyewitness testimony of Moroni and Mormon can only come through a prophet, and I've named mine.

You certainly provided a good list of quotes, Counselor, not one of which constitutes official doctrine of the LDS Church.

Kevin's arguments are far more persuasive, resting as they do on primary evidence -- which does not need to be mediated through secondary or tertiary sources. Each reader of the Canon of Holy Scripture must read and interpret for himself, hopefully accompanied by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

[Robert F. Smith]

1. Attempts to narrow Book of Mormon events, including the Hill Cumorah, to a small area in Mesoamerica is often a matter of faithlessness. See the post just above this one where a poster asks about the absence of DNA evidence. That one little post made my entire case. If we don't accept a very limited LGT model, then what explanation we have for the absence of DNA?

Usually people take umbrage at this statement, as if I am questioning their faith or their faithfulness. I don't. I say nothing about an individual persons' faith or faithfulness. I believe that the thinking of the LGT and faithless go hand in hand; see Thomas Stuart Ferguson. Signing on to the LGT theory as a good member of the Church is like falling for Landmark; it doesn't mean that a person is faithless but they are headed down a bad road.

3. I have read Dr. Sorenson's book several times. In fact, when I wanted to read it again and couldn't find it in my library, I bought another copy. I spent several years with another FARMS writer (I am one) in a study group studying only Sorenson's book. I think it valuable for only one thing -- an understanding of the spatial movements of the Book of Mormon characters. Previously, I had really only read the Book of Mormon for doctrine, but an understanding of the spatial movements helped me better understand the doctrinal statements. But, beyond that, Dr. Sorenson's book is laughable for its speculation. I am not an expert in archaeology, but I believe myself to be broadly read in a number of disciplines and I think that Dr. Sorenson's speculation is embarrassing to the work he does otherwise as a credible diffusionist.

5. Yes, an article by Sorenson was published in the Ensign. But, as has been pointed out on this Board by me and others, he was asked to remove from his articles his conclusions about the Hill Cumorah. As published in the Ensign, to me that article is just harmless speculation and not contrary to the teachings of the Brethren. It isn't speculation that would really interest me, however.

6. elitism and gnosticism (the hidden knowledge will save).

10. I think that the personal nastiness that has been directed my way on this board, LoaP calling me a "jerk" and Goble using cuss words (with asterisks, of course) is an implicit proof that the devil is on their side. [That's a joke; I couldn't resist.] I don't think this discussion merits nastiness but forgive me if I don't roll over.

It doesn't sound at all like a joke, and your vicious calumnies here and elsewhere are out of keeping with the kind of civility and dignity required of someone like you, who has not only served in important Church callings requiring even-handed, discerning judgment, but as an attorney you are supposed to maintain very strict adherence to certain canons of ethics -- which you seem to have recklessly abandoned here on this Board.

I realize, of course, that not all California attorneys abide by high ethical and moral standards (I'm sure you know this), and I have had to call one or two of them to account for their improper behavior (even going so far as to have a presiding judge have a private discussion with one). A good policy for you might be to model your behavior on the example of the late Rex Lee, whose enemies in court praised him for his unfailing probity and politeness.

[Brant Gardner]

I don't agree with you.

I have seen this before where Mesoamericanists try to argue that the Cumorah name being applied to the hill developed over time and was a mere supposition that developed from some theory.

Ed, you certainly don't have to agree with me. However, I am not arguing because I think it makes a good case. This is what the evidence says. The NY drumlin could not have been called "Cumorah" before the Book of Mormon was dictated (believe me, if it had been, it would have been counted as too convenient).

It is therefore quite appropriate to attempt to discover when it acquired that label. When you have scholars who have gone through Joseph's statements and don't find the name used for the NY hill, it doesn't suggest that he is the source behind it.

You should simply let it be the 19th century understanding, and leave it at that.

It clearly became the 19th century understanding, eventually becoming the term Joseph used (much later). That doesn't tell us when the connection was made, or how. The evidence indicates that it was an assumption based on the Book of Mormon's use of the term, and the fact that the plates were found there. I strongly suspect that it had to do with the Book of Mormon mentioning that plates were buried in Cumorah. Unfortunately, those who started the naming didn't notice that the text tells us that the records that Joseph received were specifically not buried in Cumorah. Burying records in Cumorah is mentioned once, but those records where all except what Joseph received.

The early readers weren't particularly careful readers.

Mesoamericanists don't agree with Joseph Smith's and oliver cowdery's beliefs anyway.

I think you misunderstand the argument. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am quite aware of what Joseph believed, and how willing he was to not only be flexible, but to have others influence the vocabulary he used to describe foundational events (such as Joseph's use of the term Urim and Thummim when he knew the instruments as the interpreters--or even a seer stone.

I think your statement is revisionist history.

Two points. First, it is two scholars, not me. Second, it is based on historical evidence. Perhaps you may say it is revisionist if it revises misconceptions. In that case, sure. Revisionist is not a four letter word.

It is absolutely clear that it was unanimously understood to be Cumorah back then.

By 1842, certainly. How much earlier? Not in 1828. Somewhere in between. When and how?

You should just stick with the fact that you don't agree with it and let it go, and not try to rewrite history.

Except I am quoted historians who went through the data. Don't you think it would be better to base our opinion on evidence rather than presumption?

[SkepticTheist]

Brant,

Don't start feeding me polemics about how it was impossible for the "drumlin," as you use it as a pejorative, to dismiss the hill. I am a skeptic of the "scholars" as I always have been. And now I know Andrew Hedges of the Joseph Smith Papers project and former editor of the JBMS shares the skepticism towards the LGT readings of the Book of Mormon, and of the historical statements. Hopefully other scholars will similarly start to come to a more objective and balanced understanding of the facts.

It certainly could have been called Cumorah before the translation of the Book of Mormon, based on the fact that Joseph Smith was getting revelation on the ancient inhabitants, their modes of travel and so forth, even before he had the plates. His mind was being prepared. He met Moroni before he had the plates. He had interviews with him for four years previous to getting the plates. It is incredible to me that he did not know the name of the hill before getting the plates, after having all these interviews and intependent revelations on the subject of the ancient inhabitants. You guys make your claims for example, based on the fact that he omitted the name from the Joseph Smith History account in the PGP. Poor argument.

I know the data, and I also know the strained interpretations of the Mesoamericanists of that data irrationally trying to inject antecedents for the LGT into the 19th century. Cumorah in NY was the only Cumorah candidate that existed in the 19th century, period.

I think you misread my words. I didn't say that it was Cumorah based on the 19th century understanding. I'm not saying that the 19th century understanding makes the hill the ancient Cumorah. I'm saying that Mesoamericanists continually try to justify their position by retroactively trying to reinterpret statements out of their historical contexts and so forth. Trying to re-interpret them according to a paradigm that is anachronistic to their context. They should stick to the text of the Book of Mormon as they tell us we all should (and as we should).

On one point we agree, and that is that we need to dismiss everything any prophet ever said as far as treating that stuff as evidence. So don't misread me based on my OLD beliefs. Take what I say according to my new paradigm. My new paradigm is (1) only the text can be considered evidence. (2) The text says it was an exceedingly great distance, and that is not confined to Mesoamerica. Therefore, it is data in the text that makes the New York Hill a candidate, not the 19th century understanding, however much you and Kevin Christiansen and the rest of the Mesoamericanists try to say that the word "exceedingly" doesn't mean what it says. I remember Clinton trying to re-define the word "is." We should let the word exceedingly mean what it says. You guys let the rest of the text mean what it says with regard to the hourglass shape of the land and the cities being relatively close together, and under the neck of land. But as for things above the neck of land, you have to jam it all together when a reasonable reading of the text simply does not demand that.

I don't like the revisionist history on the maps purported to come from Joseph Smith or his influence, where the Mesoamericanists try to say that they indicate the idea of a Cumorah of the Last battles in Mesoamerica. That idea is not found in those maps. And that idea is not found in any other source pre-dating the first decade of the twentieth century. It only exists in the mind of historians that adhere to the LGT model, who, for them the text is not enough, for some reason. Still, they would love to have justification from Joseph Smith to justify their position for whatever reason. Its a weird thing. You guys want us to let go of the words of prophets as far as using them as evidence, but you still want to justify yourselves somehow from something in the past as far back as Joseph Smith for the antecedents of the LGT. They simply don't exist, and you should stick to the present.

Oh, and your contention that the records say that the plates were NOT buried in Cumorah. You should give that one up too. Because Mormon 6:6 mentions a thing that happened decades before Moroni buried the plates in the Hill in New York. It has nothing to do with the act of Moroni burying the plates in New York that happened decades later. For example, the scriptures of Nephi building a ship have nothing to do with the scriptures that talk about things that happened once they got to America. The two things are decades apart. Mormon wrote that decades before Moroni ultimately buried the plates in New York. You cannot conflate the two. Mormon 6:6 has no bearing on whether or not Moroni returned to the same hill to bury the plates. You cannot get mileage out of this to say he did NOT burying the plates in that same hill, just as much as I cannot say that it proves that he did. So please don't try to use that one, because Bill Hamblin tried the same tactic in his article trying to say that certain Anti-Mormons were twisting the text, yet he turns around and then twists the text to try to prove that they twisted the text, trying to get more mileage out of Mormon 6:6 than is justified. the Anti's in question had no LGT belief to defend as Hamblin did.

Ed

Ed, you certainly don't have to agree with me. However, I am not arguing because I think it makes a good case. This is what the evidence says. The NY drumlin could not have been called "Cumorah" before the Book of Mormon was dictated (believe me, if it had been, it would have been counted as too convenient).

It is therefore quite appropriate to attempt to discover when it acquired that label. When you have scholars who have gone through Joseph's statements and don't find the name used for the NY hill, it doesn't suggest that he is the source behind it.

It clearly became the 19th century understanding, eventually becoming the term Joseph used (much later). That doesn't tell us when the connection was made, or how. The evidence indicates that it was an assumption based on the Book of Mormon's use of the term, and the fact that the plates were found there. I strongly suspect that it had to do with the Book of Mormon mentioning that plates were buried in Cumorah. Unfortunately, those who started the naming didn't notice that the text tells us that the records that Joseph received were specifically not buried in Cumorah. Burying records in Cumorah is mentioned once, but those records where all except what Joseph received.

The early readers weren't particularly careful readers.

I think you misunderstand the argument. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am quite aware of what Joseph believed, and how willing he was to not only be flexible, but to have others influence the vocabulary he used to describe foundational events (such as Joseph's use of the term Urim and Thummim when he knew the instruments as the interpreters--or even a seer stone.

Two points. First, it is two scholars, not me. Second, it is based on historical evidence. Perhaps you may say it is revisionist if it revises misconceptions. In that case, sure. Revisionist is not a four letter word.

By 1842, certainly. How much earlier? Not in 1828. Somewhere in between. When and how?

Except I am quoted historians who went through the data. Don't you think it would be better to base our opinion on evidence rather than presumption?

[Anijen]

It certainly could have been called Cumorah before the translation of the Book of Mormon, based on the fact that Joseph Smith was getting revelation on the ancient inhabitants, their modes of travel and so forth, even before he had the plates.

Yes it could but there is no evidence that is was, therefore speculation. The written evidence is that it was not until later. I have researched this and it appears the first mention anywhere of it is from Oliver Cowdery five years after the Book of Mormons publication (1835).

His mind was being prepared. He met Moroni before he had the plates. He had interviews with him for four years previous to getting the plates. It is incredible to me that he did not know the name of the hill before getting the plates, after having all these interviews and intependent revelations on the subject of the ancient inhabitants.

I am of the opinion that he was tutored yes but he was not given every detail and certainly not all at once, for example after years of tutoring by Moroni he still had to ask Emma if there really were walls around Jerusalem.

You guys make your claims for example, based on the fact that he omitted the name from the Joseph Smith History account in the PGP. Poor argument.

It is not a poor argument that we will use history (written accounts). We you and me can only speculate on what is not written?

I'm saying that Mesoamericanists continually try to justify their position by retroactively trying to reinterpret statements out of their historical contexts...

Not true. As a "Mesoamericanist" I use evidence and interpret from that evidence. The simple plain fact is the evidence from the Book of Mormon states that the Plates of Nephi were not buried in Cumorah (Mormon 6:6). It is pure speculation to say they were buried in that same hill 36 years later It does not say that. The evidence from the time of the Prophet Joseph is that not until 1835 was the first mention of Cumorah written. Now I assume others thought the same as Oliver but that would be speculation the evidence is not until 1835 was the name Cumorah written outside of the Book of Mormon. Until a journal entry is found that places it in an earlier time that is what we have.

Trying to re-interpret them according to a paradigm that is anachronistic to their context.

I have never did this.

They should stick to the text of the Book of Mormon

That is what Mesoamericanist do. Saying that the plates of Nephi were reburied by Moroni in the same hill his father buried the other plates, many years later, after running from the Nephites, only to go back to that same dangerous place is purely speculation and not in the text.

2) The text says it was an exceedingly great distance, and that is not confined to Mesoamerica.

You are already breaking your first rule. It does not say this. It says only an exceedingly great distance. I agree 2500+ miles is definitely an exceedingly great distance but that part is speculation on both our parts. Until we know exactly how far we can only offer opinion. Who knows how far in 400 A.D. an exceedingly great distance was, it could have been 400 miles it could have been 40 miles. but the text definitely does not say it was confined to Mesoamerica it does not say it was confined to any place.

Therefore, it is data in the text that makes the New York Hill a candidate

No, it is lack of data that makes any place including New York a candidate.

the Mesoamericanists try to say that the word "exceedingly" doesn't mean what it says.

Yet it is alright for you to do this?

Still, they would love to have justification from Joseph Smith to justify their position for whatever reason.

Yes, this would have been nice for all of us. To condemn a "mesoamericanist" for speculation and leave out those who profess a hemispheric model is simply a double standard.

You guys want us to let go of the words of prophets

I have never wanted this.

Oh, and your contention that the records say that the plates were NOT buried in Cumorah. You should give that one up too. Because Mormon 6:6 mentions a thing that happened decades before Moroni buried the plates in the Hill in New York. It has nothing to do with the act of Moroni burying the plates in New York that happened decades later.

For someone whose first rule is sticking to the text, just a clue this opinion of yours is not in the text. Again the text says the plates of Nephi were not buried in the hill. To say they were later is opinion and not textual.

for example, the scriptures of Nephi building a ship have nothing to do with the scriptures that talk about things that happened once they got to America. The two things are decades apart. Mormon wrote that decades before Moroni ultimately buried the plates in New York. You cannot conflate the two.

Yet again, it is wrong for the mesoamericanist but okay for those who subscribe to a hemispheric model. This again is a double standard.

Mormon 6:6 has no bearing on whether or not Moroni returned to the same hill to bury the plates.

I completely agree!

[Anijen]

I am starting another thread as to not derail this one (Plates of Nephi).

[Calm]

It is incredible to me that he did not know the name of the hill before getting the plates

Which makes it rather strange imo that no one used that name until five years after the book had been published and fifteen years after Joseph had first started having the visions and it was someone not from the locality (and thus less likely to be in the habit of calling it something else) who did so.

If Moroni had simply deposited the records in the hill and it was not an area where his people lived in and hadn't told anyone but Joseph about the hill,, is there any reason to assume that he felt the need to call the hill anything but "the hill where I buried the records" and therefore he hadn't given it a name, thus the only name Joseph would have known it by is whatever the locals currently called it?

[Bob Crockett]

It doesn't sound at all like a joke, and your vicious calumnies here and elsewhere are out of keeping with the kind of civility and dignity required of someone like you, who has not only served in important Church callings requiring even-handed, discerning judgment, but as an attorney you are supposed to maintain very strict adherence to certain canons of ethics -- which you seem to have recklessly abandoned here on this Board.

I realize, of course, that not all California attorneys abide by high ethical and moral standards (I'm sure you know this), and I have had to call one or two of them to account for their improper behavior (even going so far as to have a presiding judge have a private discussion with one). A good policy for you might be to model your behavior on the example of the late Rex Lee, whose enemies in court praised him for his unfailing probity and politeness.

Even Rex Lee can be wrong; I've heard him defend John D. Lee.

There is no possible way the authorities of the Church could have come up with the misplaced Cumorah doctrine on their own.

“Among these was Mormon, who in his day kept the chronicles of the nation. From these extensive records he had compiled on plates of gold an abridged record. This he had given to his son, Moroni, who survived the destruction of the Nephite nation at the hands of the Lamanites. Moroni, prior to his death, buried the record in the Hill Cumorah, where Joseph Smith received it some fourteen centuries later” (Gordon B. Hinckley, What of the Mormons? , p.78)

“When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 19:38).

"This angel delivered a message to Joseph Smith, and told him that in the Hill Cumorah there were buried golden plates containing a record of the forefathers of the American Indians” (Discourse of President Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1919, Morning Session, p.21

I hope that you would cut me some slack about my personal failings. One of the core arguments against the LGT has historically been, and remains, that it springs from faithlessness. At least that is how some have seen it as did President Joseph Fielding Smith. I am merely repeating the argument. Sometimes I agree with the argument and sometimes I don't. Today I do. It seems that if the LGT theorists have the upper hand they'd respond with polite dialog and toe-to-toe general authority statements.