Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[Duncan]

I like this quotation from President Anthony W. Ivins of the then First Presidency in the April 1929 General Conference

"There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true". p15-16 (bolding added)

[Freedom]

Can you point me to the modern name of the ruins where this happened? Sorenson's map shows a pretty small area. I'm sure it's uncovered by now, since he pointed it out in 1985.

The verse I mention is 3 Ne:11:1

1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

The verse mentions, "great multitude" and "temple". Since Bountiful was a gathering place among the 12+ cities which existed (at least a dozen cities were destroyed so I assume there were many others not destroyed and Bountiful was, with a temple, the larger of those). This city should be quite obvious in archaeology, within the placement Sorenson predicts.

I am not clear on what you are getting at. We do not know where any of the cities in the Book of Mormon are located. Only a tiny percentage of locations have been uncovered, and many of them can accommodate great multitudes and temples. Are you suggesting that the locations so far do not accommodate this? Or are you suggesting the church should be secretly funding research to investigate Sorenson's speculations? Archaeology is limited by funding and access. It is not like there is unlimited resources to rip through the jungles.

[livy111us]

I like this quotation from President Anthony W. Ivins of the then First Presidency in the April 1929 General Conference

"There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true". p15-16 (bolding added)

Here are a few I like

“I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid any attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Fletcher B. Hammond, 18 September 1959, in Fletcher B. Hammond, Geography of the Book of Mormon: “Where Is the Hill Cumorah?” (n.p., 1964), 34.

“the First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.” George Q. Cannon, editorial, Juvenile Instructor, 1 January 1890, 18.

FAIR has a wiki page dedicated to statements regarding no revealed geography for The Book of Mormon

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/No_revealed_geography

[Mortal Man]

Dr. Peterson and Mortal Man,

Merry Christmas PP.

Not to worry. I'm headed out in just a few minutes for the evening, and I'll certainly be busy elsewhere much of tomorrow. Merry Christmas to all. And special best wishes (because it's our holiday in a very special sense) to my fellow believers in Christ.

Despite our differences Dan, I wish you a very Merry Christmas.

[Bob Crockett]

Gordon B HInckley: President Hinckley in his prayer at the dedication of the Mexico City temple in December 1983, he stated, "Bless Thy Saints in this great land and those from other lands who will use this Temple. Most have in their veins the blood of Father Lehi" http://www.ldschurch...y

James E Faust: When James Faust gave the dedicatory prayer for the Tuxtla Gutierrez, Mexico temple on March 12, 2000, he stated, "We invoke Thy blessings upon this nation of Mexico where so many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi dwell." (http://www.ldschurch...z)

These are not helpful quotes; similar statements have been made in South America and elsewhere, Northern Mexico, further away than Texas.

And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, using dedicatory prayers is seemingly inconsistent with ignoring statements by members of the First Presidency in general conference to the contrary, a statement made by an Apostle but then published under his authority as a President of the Church, and the like. So why would you use these quotes and ignore the others?

Edited December 24, 2011 by Bob Crockett

[livy111us]

These are not helpful quotes; similar statements have been made in South America and elsewhere, Texas or Arizona.

And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, using dedicatory prayers is seemingly inconsistent with ignoring statements by members of the First Presidency in general conference to the contrary, a statement made by an Apostle but then published under his authority as a President of the Church, and the like. So why would you use these quotes and ignore the others?

Bob, I think you missed the point of my post. I was attempting to show that anyone can take certain quotes to promote their geography and make it seem like an official position, all the while ignoring others. My whole post was produced to show that Meldrum's tactics can be used to support a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon as well. As you know, I do not believe it is appropriate or honest for Meldrum to selectively choose a few quotes which agree with him while ignoring numerous others that contradict it.

[ERayR]

I ran that to ground. Discredited but don't CFR me.

Please if you are going to state that it is discredited provide the information on which you base this conclusion so that we might examine it.

[ERayR]

Let me get this straight. The LDS church has never had a revealed position on location, but you are fairly certain that it happened in Mesoamerica? Can you point to one city that is definitively a BoM city? Why not?

I would agree with your assessment, that the only thing the bible has are authentic places. The BoM doesn't even have that. Both are troubling as far as authentic history. Like a Bond novel, authentic places used as backdrop for fiction doesn't make that fiction real. The BoM doesn't even have a good backdrop as far as I can see. I realize that a lot of time has been spent matching Mesoamerican geography, by the likes of Sorenson. John Sorenson and many here believe that the BoM happened somewhere in Mesoamerica distributed roughly around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec ("narrow neck of land"). The BoM clearly states this narrow neck of land divided the north and south lands. But the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is most definitely positioned East/West. Sorenson puts the Nephite East Sea in the gulf to the north, and the West Sea in the south (Pacific).

Sorenson makes up this fault by giving examples from a number of cultures to demonstrate that human societies handle directionality and the labeling of directions in diverse ways. In his argument, Sorenson points out a strange Hebrew directional scheme which had east as forward, north as left hand, south as right hand, and west as seaward. For Sorenson, Lehi was "confused" (John L's word) by his new American surroundings and "assumed" that west was seaward. Cause that's the way it was back around Jerusalem.Ok. Nephi built a boat. Lehi got a Liahona compass. They sailed accurately between continents. Nephi built a temple with specific directionality of a dawn-facing entry.But they got confused when they got here about which way the sun rose and set.Yeah, that makes so much sense.

Despite Sorenson's Faulty Compass geography and other Tehuantepec variants, I've yet to see another model advanced that fits much of anything real.

Prophets have declared that the best way to know the truth of the restored gospel, the mission of Joseph Smith and the LDS prophets is by discovering the veracity of the BoM. If it is true, the rest is. A revelation on geography is extremely high up on the list, much more important than the origin of the earth, nature of the universe and evolution of humans--all which are being adequately and satisfactorily explained by modern science. On the other hand, BoM geography is being left behind.

As for faith, BoM geography would not prove any of the events or miracles of Jesus' visit to America. But it would corroborate with the claims of an unparalleled 200-year long society of peace, anti-slavery, anti class distinction, living a progressive utopian christian lifestyle. Such a civilization of dozens of cities would stand out in such a way that revelation of their location would be necessary.

[Bob Crockett]

Please if you are going to state that it is discredited provide the information on which you base this conclusion so that we might examine it.

The article makes no sense. Cortes was in Baja by 1535. Drake and Cabrillo in California proper thereafter. The horse found was European., not the Indiginous American stock. Seems the horse and the donkey came from one of those.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

Sorry for the buzzkill on the Rod Meldrum dogpile, but does anyone seriously think for even a nanosecond that non-LDS scholars wouldn't be equally harsh in appraising any theory of BoMor geography? If not, please provide references to the more complimentary articles that I've evidently missed.

Hi Dan,

... hmmm...

As far as I'm concerned, the letter to Bishop Brooks was neutralized by the letter sent by Michael Watson to William Hamblin on 23 April 1993, and published on page 181 of Professor Hamblin's excellent article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," [snip!]

You and Bill—not critics—have clearly established that Michael Watson did not send a letter "to William Hamblin on 23 April 1993" that "neutralized" an earlier "letter to Bishop Brooks."

If you'd like, I can provide links to or repost your and Bill's acknowledgments of this (though it may take me a day or so—holidays and all that).

Kind regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

[livy111us]

Hi folks,

Sorry for the buzzkill on the Rod Meldrum dogpile, but does anyone seriously think for even a nanosecond that non-LDS scholars wouldn't be equally harsh in appraising any theory of BoMor geography?

That is not the issue. No one here (to my knowledge) has filmed non-LDS scholars for an obvious Mormon film which provides "evidence" for The Book of Mormon, while only telling them that it was a video on the history of their expertise. Then editing their comments so they seem to agree with the premise of the video. After that, claiming that these oblivious scholars agree with and support your theory. That is what this thread is about. No one is claiming that Mesoamerican theorists have non-LDS scholars who support them.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi livy11us,

I'm not sure how Meldrum's usage of non-LDS scholars differs much from, say, John Sorenson's use of non-LDS scholars like John B. Carlson—who has voraciously condemned Sorenson's BoMor geography—in support of a Nephite lifeway in Mesoamerica. Filming vs. quoting is a distinction without a difference.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

[livy111us]

Hi livy11us,

I'm not sure how Meldrum's usage of non-LDS scholars differs much from, say, John Sorenson's use of non-LDS scholars like John B. Carlson—who has voraciously condemned Sorenson's BoMor geography—in support of a Nephite lifeway in Mesoamerica. Filming vs. quoting is a distinction without a difference.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

It is one thing to quote someone to legitimately support your theory. It is another thing to misquote someone and then claim that they support your theory. It's apples and oranges.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi livy11us,

The problem is that John Carlson's research doesn't legitimately support Sorenson's theory of a Nephite lifeway or BoMor geography in any way, shape, or form.

I hope you're enjoying the holidays.

All the best,

</brent>

[Edit: Added two commas.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

Edited December 26, 2011 by Brent Metcalfe

[tapirrider]

Is there any relation to you and "Hogle" from the Ex-Mo board? He made a very similar arguments on Sept. 11 of this year that you are making right now.

As you may know, from the time something is filmed to the point it is uploaded on the internet usually is not the same day. I first contacted and filmed Dr. Peterson in 2005, 3 years prior to uploading it on Youtube. I believe the first I heard of the Spencer Lake hoax was through Chris Smith when he posted it on this site in 2008. To my knowledge, there was nothing published on the the results of Jones' work prior to what Chris posted. To date, the only published material on this unfinished project have been by Wade Miller, and his research was un-officially released. To get the results, I would suggest contacting either Chris or Barker. But it may be easier to just ask Dr. Peterson himself when he learned about it, especially since he commented on this thread and is probably following it. But my question would be what would he have to gain from lying about the Spencer Lake skull? If he knew that it carbon dated to only 150 years ago, why would he lie about it if he knew that this information would be made public shortly and he would be caught in a lie? To my, it would seem more likely that a scholar, a Doctor in his field did not know about radio carbon date and was going off of the best information he had at the time. Scholar's tend to want to present the facts as best and accurate as they can, instead of openly lying on camera with absolutely nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. I am a believer in Occams razor and tend to shy away from conspiracy theories so I don't expect you to agree with me. But, why don' you make this easy on yourself and just ask him.

The radiocarbon dating of the horse skull was in print in 2004 in this book: Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. S. Terry Childs (Washington, D. C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004

Page 30 has the radiocarbon testing

http://books.google.com/books?ei=8Uf1Tsv8IIHZgAeDvri1Ag&id=RS5mAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22the+ethics+and+practice+of+archaeological+collections+stewardship%22&q=ams

Only a portion can be read at the online link. With the paper copy it says this:

“In this case those conclusions are testable. In 2002 I was contacted by Dr. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University, a researcher conducting a project on the antiquity of New World horses. He was willing to provide funds for dating the skull using accelerator mass spectrometery (AMS) in order to settle questions regarding the skull’s antiquity. A single sample was removed by MPM staff from the aboral margin of the jaw near the gonion caudale. It was separated into three subsamples, one held as a voucher and the others independently submitted to different radiocarbon labs (Beta Analytic and Stafford Research Laboratories) for AMS dating. The samples were of approximately the same size and yielded results in close agreement. Beta 167209 yielded an uncalibrated date of 110 +- 40 BP; Stafford SR6189 yielded an uncalibrated date of 190 +- 35 BP."

This source can be obtained from a public library, through interlibrary loan if not available locally.

Ask the librarian for: Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, S. Terry Childs, Washington, D. C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004

Page 30 was printed in 2004. It appears that the video was made after that. Dr. Peterson's words are very applicable right now: "For one thing, I think sloppy arguments and abuse of evidence need to be identified as such."

It was sloppy to make such a controversial claim about that horse skull without first checking to see if radiocarbon dating had settled the case. Especially so because from 1964 on, the hoax had been exposed.

[tapirrider]

At the time I made the quoted statement, I believed it to be true. I spoke in good faith. I understand that the horse skull is a focus of controversy, but I haven't read a thing on it since then. If it's been exposed as a hoax since last I read anything about it or in something that I had not read -- which may or may not be the case; that some argue it to be a fraud is not ipso facto proof that it is a fraud -- then that's the way things go. Most academic fields -- this is no exception -- are in a state of constant flux on their margins. If a document proves to be a forgery or an artifact a fake or an experiment misconceived or misconstrued, we make a course correction and move on. I make no claim to infallibility, and am unaware of any scholar who does. If evidence that I relied upon in an earlier statement or publication turns out to be unreliable, and that comes to my attention, I'll try to take that fact into account the next time I speak or write about a topic to which it's germane.

The radiocarbon dating of the horse skull was in print in 2004 in this book: Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. S. Terry Childs (Washington, D. C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004

Page 30 has the radiocarbon testing

http://books.google.com/books?ei=8Uf1Tsv8IIHZgAeDvri1Ag&id=RS5mAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22the+ethics+and+practice+of

+archaeological+collections+stewardship%22&q=ams

Only a portion can be read at the online link. With the paper copy it says this:

“In this case those conclusions are testable. In 2002 I was contacted by Dr. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University, a researcher conducting a project on the antiquity of New World horses. He was willing to provide funds for dating the skull using accelerator mass spectrometery (AMS) in order to settle questions regarding the skull’s antiquity. A single sample was removed by MPM staff from the aboral margin of the jaw near the gonion caudale. It was separated into three subsamples, one held as a voucher and the others independently submitted to different radiocarbon labs (Beta Analytic and Stafford Research Laboratories) for AMS dating. The samples were of approximately the same size and yielded results in close agreement. Beta 167209 yielded an uncalibrated date of 110

+- 40 BP; Stafford SR6189 yielded an uncalibrated date of 190 +- 35 BP."

It was sloppy to make such a controversial claim about that horse skull without first checking to see if radiocarbon dating had settled the case. Especially so because from 1964 on, the hoax had been exposed. Claims of horses in America during the time of Christ are in the pseudo realm. Mainstream science does not support it and did not support that idea when the video was made. It is the same with the Bat Creek stone. Objects and "artifacts" like these two examples are not supported by science. They are part of the world of pseudoscience.

The Lost Civilizations of North America DVD was not made by Meldrum and focusing on him perhaps ignores the larger problem of LDS members making controversial and unsupported claims in sloppy attempts to argue for the Book of Mormon.

[BatCreekCrazy]

Hi livy11us,

I'm not sure how Meldrum's usage of non-LDS scholars differs much from, say, John Sorenson's use of non-LDS scholars like John B. Carlson—who has voraciously condemned Sorenson's BoMor geography—in support of a Nephite lifeway in Mesoamerica. Filming vs. quoting is a distinction without a difference.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

Hear Hear. This is more to the point. The hypocrisy that goes on in cherry picking one's pet theories and quotes (or misquotes as it applies). If apologists are going to pretend to use scientific evidence, then they should be prepared to accept ALL of it, not just the pieces fitting their pets.

Drop the bad attitude if you want to use this board. Do not use apologist as a smear, not all apologists think alike. Don't be sloppy use the names of the people you are criticizing.

[Storm Rider]

Poor scholarship is just poor scholarship regardless of who exhibits it. Deceipt can be practiced by all people regardless of religion or the lack of it. It is unfortunate when anyone falls to these temptations in an effort to win their cause.

[livy111us]

Hi livy11us,

The problem is that John Carlson's research doesn't legitimately support Sorenson's theory of a Nephite lifeway or BoMor geography in any way, shape, or form.

I hope you're enjoying the holidays.

All the best,

</brent>

[Edit: Added two commas.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

Nor does much of the material any scholar quotes in the academic world. It's not the conclusion that they are being quoted for, but the steps taken to come to the conclusion. If he was quoted correctly to back up the claim that Sorenson was trying to make at that particular point of his argument, then Carlson can kick and scream all he wants because he disagrees with the conclusion, but the fact remains that a portion of what Carlson wrote agrees with Sorneson's conclusion. Again, this is apples and oranges. NOWHERE do you see Sorenson dancing around touting that non-LDS scholars agree with a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon. This is the issue that I brought up. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[livy111us]

The radiocarbon dating of the horse skull was in print in 2004 in this book: Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. S. Terry Childs (Washington, D. C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004

Excellent, great find! But this doesn't help your case to show Peterson a liar. First of all, the Spencer Lake Skull was being used as evidence of horses until 2008. Critics and apologists were even unaware of this gem until Chris Smith brought it to light. While it was published, no one knew about it's publication. Second, Dan Peterson answered your question a while back. Perhaps you should go back and read it.

[livy111us]

Claims of horses in America during the time of Christ are in the pseudo realm. Mainstream science does not support it and did not support that idea when the video was made. It is the same with the Bat Creek stone. Objects and "artifacts" like these two examples are not supported by science. T

Yet this same horse project that Steve Jones was head of, now headed by Wade Miller, has carbon dated 7 separate horse remains to Pre-Columbian times, and even within Book of Mormon times. No one is holding onto evidence that has been proved wrong (as evidenced over and over again that I'm not sure why you don't accept), particularly when the same methods used to prove the Spencer Lake skull a hoax is used to prove 7 other specimens to be authentic. You may claim it is pseudo-Science all you want in an attempt to take a jab at the authenticity of The Book of Mormon, but the fact remains, evidence is arising to prove this claim true.

[Minos]

The Lost Civilizations of North America DVD was not made by Meldrum and focusing on him perhaps ignores the larger problem of LDS members making controversial and unsupported claims in sloppy attempts to argue for the Book of Mormon.

If you see a problem then be specific. Do not use a thread about a specific topic to make unspecified accusations. Everyone is also on notice that we do not allow posters to call another poster a liar. Posters who engage in easy cheap shots will be banned from further participation in the thread.

[Mortal Man]

The letter shown above is a letter from the Office of the First Presidency. How much more official can we get?

The only thing more official is D&C 128:20.

And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from ^aCumorah! ^bMoroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the ^cbook to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to ^dbear record of the book! The voice of ^eMichael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the ^fdevil when he appeared as an angel of ^glight! The voice of ^hPeter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the ⁱkeys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!

Here Joseph Smith's identification of the New York drumlin with the Nephite Hill Cumorah is officially canonized. This has agitated a number of specific people (formerly known as apologists) in the FARMS hive, but there was certainly no other candidate for Cumorah when this was written.

MM has left the building because of gratuitous insults.

It is very clear iin what it states, leaving no ambiguity.

Yes, it is. We should keep 2 Nephi 9:28 and Jacob 4:14 in mind as we observe certain specific apologists spending their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

Why is it your opinion that it is something different The letter appears to be in line with what i have been shown from past leaders of the church regarding the location of Hill Cumorah. I was told this from missionaries at the Palmyra pagent as well. That is what started my conversion into the Church. This is the first Ive ever heard that some in the Church beleive the location is not in NY? Other than your opinion, can you point to somethng more official than a letter from the First Presidency's Office?

All we know for certain is that Lehi’s party “sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of south America in Chili thirty degrees south Lattitude”

and that Zelph the white Lamanite was buried in southern Illinois near Griggsville.

It thus appears that the “land northward” and “land southward” in the BoM correspond to the wings of Ethan Smith’s Eagle, according to his interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy.

"Thou land 'shadowing with wings.' The above direction lands the prophetic vision at the point of the western continent, where the two great wings of North and South America meet; as the body of a great Eagle. This at first might furnish the prophetic imagery of a land 'shadowing with wings.' As though the inspiring Spirit had whispered; The continent of those two great wings shall be found at last most interesting in relation to your Hebrew brethren." -- VotH p. 139

Edited December 26, 2011 by Minos

[Sevenbak]

View of the Hebrews wasn't the only publication to make the claim that Isaiah was speaking of both North and South America.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, April 1966, pp. 12-15

Signs of the Lord's Coming President Joseph Fielding Smith

"America was discovered because the Lord willed it. The gospel was restored in America, rather than in some other land because the Lord willed it. This is the land "shadowing with wings" spoken of by Isaiah that today is sending ambassadors by the sea to a nation scattered and peeled, which at one time was terrible in the beginning ( Isa. 18:1-2). Now that nation is being gathered, and once again they shall be in favor with the Lord."

Edited December 26, 2011 by Sevenbak

[livy111us]

I'm generally agnostic on the location of Cumorah, but If you accept the NY Cumorah as THE Cumorah, it brings with it a host of geographical problems if you accept a LGT. The narrow neck is to the West, not to the North as The Book of Mormon requires being one of them. http://www.fairwiki.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Hill_Cumorah

D/C 128 is an epistle written by Joseph Smith in 1842, and seems to be the *only* recorded instance when he refers to it as Cumorah. It began to be called Cumorah by well intentioned men in 1833, and the name stuck. Just as there is a Bountiful, Lehi, and Nephi in Utah which are not the same location as the ancient sites but were named after them, the NY Cumorah was probably named after the ancient one.

"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.

“Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.” Encyclopedia of Mormonism