The Hill Cumorah

[altersteve]

Yes, as evidenced by some teachings of the LDS Church. This is fully documented by

Utah Lighthouse Ministry - which also includes a scanned image of a letter from the

First Presidency.

The Church has no official position on any geographical location in the Book of Mormon.

[SearchDog]

Yes, as evidenced by some teachings of the LDS Church. This is fully documented by

Utah Lighthouse Ministry - which also includes a scanned image of a letter from the

First Presidency.

Does the LDS Church teach this today or only the Lighthouse Ministry?

[cdowis]

Yes, as evidenced by some teachings of the LDS Church. This is fully documented by

Utah Lighthouse Ministry - which also includes a scanned image of a letter from the

First Presidency.

BOM geography is not doctrine ==>> it is not an Article of Faith, nor it is not found in "Gospel Principles". Is an issue of fact, based on research using the text of the BOM and a comparison to geographical features.

There is indeed a hill in NY called Cumorah in NY, and many have assumed that it was the location of the great war. They were mistaken. There are several threads giving details on this issue.

There is no letter from the First Presidency, but only a fantasy of the antimomons. There is, however, several letters from the secretary of the FP. Take at look at the link below.

http://en.fairmormon...esidency_Letter

Edited April 1, 2012 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

As I asked on another thread, didn't Mormon prophets prophecy that "this land" would be a land of freedom, without a king, and that it would be settled by gentiles who would have to fight gentiles from their mother country?

Wouldn't that make "this land" (i.e. the land where the battle took place) the land of North America?

Could this "land of freedom," "choice above all other lands," really be in Venezuela, Mexico, Columbia, or Peru?

Unless the Book of Mormon is referring generally to the entire northern hemisphere (including Mexico), the phrase "this land" is probably not a hemispheric designation, but speaks about the Nephite conception of the Land of Promise. Since the text of the Book of Mormon requires that this be a very small region, and since the internal text can only be related to Mesoamerican cultures, we are left with the conclusion that southern Mexico (and parts of Guatemala) are the "land" being referred to. A careful reading of the history of Mexico (and Guatemala) leaves no doubt about the definition of the Mother Gentiles as Spain of the Conquista (in addition to the short period of interference from the Emperor Maximilian). Mexico has a vast population, is a democracy, and is still developing modern institutions -- even though it is on the verge of becoming a failed state due to powerful drug cartels. The USA went through similar periods of lawlessness and of powerful organized crime institutions. History is not over yet.

[Evergrow]

To add my thoughts to the idea that the "America's" is the Land of Promise, not simply America itself as a Promised Land.

If one looks at the collection of Temples in the America's, such seems to be fulfilling the prophecy.

BTW, since when is a scholarly board as this (and as it's traditionally been in the past), and we mormons now acting like anti-mormon's and anti-mormon forums and banning Links to Anti-Mormon Websites??? I've been watching this forum for many years and I've noticed some disturbing trends with members, good ones even, and free speech??? I know I'm not the only one who's noticed this either.

[Evergrow]

Can't edit..... Just to add, it's something I and others have noticed "of late", last year or two especially.

[Calm]

BTW, since when is a scholarly board as this (and as it's traditionally been in the past), and we mormons now acting like anti-mormon's and anti-mormon forums and banning Links to Anti-Mormon Websites??? I've been watching this forum for many years and I've noticed some disturbing trends with members, good ones even, and free speech??? I know I'm not the only one who's noticed this either.

Should be pretty clear what the limits are in the boardrules. If you have questions about them, PM the mods as they've asked you to. It has always consistently banned links to sites that portray temple content that LDS have chosen not to deal with in a public venue. Other than that you should again pm your questions/complaints to the mods directly.

[Brant Gardner]

Lehi was told that his family was going to be a land of promise (interestingly, not a promised land). Not long after they arrived, there was a Nephite/Lamanite split and the Nephites had to leave. They were in the next location for about 400 years (where they established a king, by the way). They weren't able to continue to be free there, so they left again. The went to a new location (where they established a king, by the way) and were there for perhaps another 400 years, when things started to fall apart again. 150 years later, they had to leave that area again (changing to a chief judge--who inherited position like a king) didn't help them. They had to leave to a new city, and not all that long after that they were pushed out of all of their lands and destroyed.

If we try to define the promise as meaning a land that is always free and doesn't have a king, why couldn't the Nephites enjoy the promise. If we define it as the US (oddly, not Canada), and therefore it must have been the same land as the Nephites, how does that work if the Nephites were not consistently free and had a king for about half of their existence (and someone who functioned much like a king for the rest)?

It seems to me that it is much better to define the land of promise as the text really does, as a promise that belongs to the people, not the land. It depends upon righteousness, not soil.

[zerinus]

It seems to me that it is much better to define the land of promise as the text really does, as a promise that belongs to the people, not the land. It depends upon righteousness, not soil.

Except that the promise relates specifically to the land:

Ether 2:

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

Land means land. I don't see how anyone can read anything else into that except land.

[Log]

Well, Brother Gardner sees "black skin" as metaphorical when used in the Book of Mormon, despite every textual indication to the contrary, so I think it's fair to say "do not underestimate the number of things Brother Gardner can read into any text."

Edited April 1, 2012 by Log

[Brant Gardner]

Land means land. I don't see how anyone can read anything else into that except land.

Of course it speaks of land, but the promise doesn't seem to be fixed to the land, or else God has prevaricated, since the Nephites had kings for half of their history-- and the first half very soon after the promise was given. They were also swept off the land multiple times - including one very decisive time.

It seems that the promise is much more important than the specific land, since that promise is reiterated to the Nephites wherever they were, even after being removed from their land.

Certainly if we believe that the Book of Mormon was written by any ancient people, the very idea that "land" would refer to an entire hemisphere is anachronistic. They had no such concept.

Now, I agree that the Lord can prophetically apply the promise to any land. I rather believe that he does, and that the promise of protection upon righteousness might even apply to the faithful in other lands.

Of course, if we have to assume that the US is the promised land, and that we are protected only by our collective righteousness, there might be more to fear than I would think there is.

[Brant Gardner]

Well, Brother Gardner sees "black skin" as metaphorical when used in the Book of Mormon, despite every textual indication to the contrary, so I think it's fair to say "do not underestimate the number of things Brother Gardner can read into any text."

The problem, of course, is your statement "every textual indication to the contrary." I say that, because I have written up my analysis, and it includes very careful examination of every textual indication. I would like to hear your discussion of why that analysis of what the text actually says and requires must be mistaken simply because you think it says something different.

[Bikeemikey]

Zerinus, the last vs you quoted sums it up well.

This is a land of promise (which seems to be defined by freedom from oppression, not power over others) in as much as we follow the teachings of god.

How does that have anything to do with land independent of our actions? It seems clear the promise is not intrinsic to the land it self but is found in the way we chose to live in/on the land?

(null)

Edited April 1, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Log]

The problem, of course, is your statement "every textual indication to the contrary." I say that, because I have written up my analysis, and it includes very careful examination of every textual indication. I would like to hear your discussion of why that analysis of what the text actually says and requires must be mistaken simply because you think it says something different.

I'm very sorry you feel I have made the claim that "[your] analysis of what the text actually says and requires must be mistaken simply because think it says something different." I did not intend to leave that impression. Please accept my retraction of any such implicit claim.

Also be aware that when I spoke of "every textual indication to the contrary," I am, in context, limiting my considerations to the text of the Book of Mormon.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Log

[Brant Gardner]

I did not intend to leave that impression. Please accept my retraction of any such implicit claim.

Rather than a retraction, I would appreciate exegesis.

Also be aware that when I spoke of "every textual indication to the contrary," I am, in context, limiting my considerations to the text of the Book of Mormon.

As am I. I have gone through every one of them, comparing them to each other and to the contextual meaning. The text does not support your conclusion. Your assertion that it does requires some substance, as does mine. My assertion, however, is documented in print. Where might I find yours?

[Pahoran]

Yes, as evidenced by some teachings of the LDS Church.

That's false.

Orion, some time ago I used to participate on a Catholic forum. I confined myself to defending the Church of Jesus Christ. A number of questions on Catholic matters appeared. On some of those I actually had some information. In fact, I modestly suggest that I was rather better-informed on those subjects than you are upon Mormon things. Nevertheless, I refrained from expressing my opinions for the most part, recognising that I had no standing to do so. Certainly I never was so arrogant as to presume to dogmatically pronounce upon what the Catholic Church's position might be on any subject, esteeming such a contribution, coming from someone who was not a believing Catholic, to be entirely worthless.

I mention that, because you are participating on a forum where dozens of informed Latter-day Saints are regular particpants. Instead of rushing forward to offer your own opinions as if they were definitive statements of the Church's position, how about you learn to exercise just a little humility?

This is fully documented by Utah Lighthouse Ministry - which also includes a scanned image of a letter from the First Presidency.

That's false. The Utah Lighthouse Business (heh heh "Ministry") has a scanned (i.e. purloined) image of someone else's mail that came from the Secretary to the First Presidency. Subsequent correspondence from the same office shows that the Church has no position on any questions of Book of Mormon geography.

Incidentally, and just so you know: people purporting to discuss Mormon things in good faith do not cite ULM in any context except to show what some of the Church's less-principled critics have to say for themselves.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

ULM is a joke.

Feel free to quote me on that.

Edited April 1, 2012 by altersteve

[zerinus]

Of course it speaks of land, but the promise doesn't seem to be fixed to the land, or else God has prevaricated, since the Nephites had kings for half of their history--and the first half very soon after the promise was given. They were also swept off the land multiple times - including one very decisive time.

You are making more than one mistake here. Firstly, the prophecy about there being “no kings” on the land relates to the future, when the Gentiles shall have occupied the land, not to the Nephites’ time:

2 Nephi 10:

10 But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.

11 And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.

Secondly, according to Nephite doctrine, there is nothing wrong with having kings, provided they could always be righteous kings. After all, Jesus is, and will be a king. But since a king cannot be guaranteed to be righteous, an elected form of government is preferred—in mortality at least:

Mosiah 23:

8 Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king.

And thirdly, they were “swept off” because of their wickedness (according to the promises associated with the land), not because of whether they had kings or no knigs.

It seems that the promise is much more important than the specific land, since that promise is reiterated to the Nephites wherever they were, even after being removed from their land.

The “land” refers to the whole of the American continent, not just to the limited geographical area that the Nephites may have been occupying at that time. The context of the promises makes that clear enough. See scriptural references given in a previous post.

Certainly if we believe that the Book of Mormon was written by any ancient people, the very idea that "land" would refer to an entire hemisphere is anachronistic. They had no such concept.

Those who uttered those prophecies were not just ordinary ignorant “ancient people,” but mighty prophets of the Lord who had great visions and revelations given them informing them of what should befall all nations, continents, and the whole earth. You are either ignoring or turning a blind eye to the great visions shown to Nephi, or brother of Jared, or Moroni, who wrote:

Moroni 8:

34 Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

Does that sound like an ignorant “ancient people” who didn’t know what he was talking about?

Now, I agree that the Lord can prophetically apply the promise to any land. I rather believe that he does, and that the promise of protection upon righteousness might even apply to the faithful in other lands.

I am sure that people of all lands will be punished by God when they become wicked. But when God has said something specific about a certain land, I think we had better believe Him.

Of course, if we have to assume that the US is the promised land, and that we are protected only by our collective righteousness, there might be more to fear than I would think there is.

The US is a promised land, because it is part of the greater “promised land” (according to scripture), which is the whole of the American continent:

Articles of Faith:

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes [to the American Continent]; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; . . .

But wait a minute, Joseph Smith was an ignorant little boy as well, wasn't he.

[Anijen]

You are making more than one mistake here. Firstly, the prophecy about there being “no kings” on the land relates to the future, when the Gentiles shall have occupied the land, not to the Nephites’ time:

There were kings when the gentiles occupied the land.

You are either ignoring or turning a blind eye to the great visions shown to Nephi, or brother of Jared, or Moroni,

However you seem to cherry pick which land you can or can not have a king. This land has had kings over after the gentiles came here. How do you say it is the US and take away Canada, Central America, and South America, which all have had kings or Queens after gentiles have came.

I am sure that people of all lands will be punished by God when they become wicked. But when God has said something specific about a certain land, I think we had better believe Him.

I am interested in which country you believe that "land" to be.

The US is a promised land, because it is part of the greater “promised land” (according to scripture), which is the whole of the American continent:

I agree, however I believe that promise could be any land/country that is righteous, they too can reap those blessings. I do not believe it is the U.S. exclusively. Edited April 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Log]

The text does not support your conclusion.

The text is completely consistent with the literal reading of 2 Nephi 5:21, whereas it is not so with the metaphorical "insider/outsider" eisegesis. I guess if you really want me to point out where I feel you have intentionally conflated unrelated things, and engaged in question-begging to avoide certain problems for the interpretations you privilege over the literal readings, then I can put a bit of time into it.

Frankly, since the literal reading does, in fact, make perfect sense, it occurred to me back when you first published your analysis to question why anyone would seek an alternative way of understanding the verses in question. There seems to be no need for such a reading - at least, I don't see one - and it does not throw any additional light and knowledge upon the verses so interpreted. Whence cometh this interpretation?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Canada still has a queen.

[Pahoran]

Canada still has a queen.

Well, more than one...

...But Harvey Milk's profile isn't on the money....

(Runs away)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

I C WAT U DID THAR

[Brant Gardner]

The text is completely consistent with the literal reading of 2 Nephi 5:21

Except that it is not. There is no action in the text that ever hinges on skin color. The situation where Captain Moroni is looking for a Lamanite is the best proof text here. He specifically needs a Lamanite, and sends one with two Nephite to the Lamanite guards. If there were skin color involved, it should have been rather obvious that the two Nephites accompanying the Lamanite were "not like the other" (in Sesame Street language).

When you combine the data with the use of white (and no one has white skin, not even albinos) skin, it is quite obvious that the only textually appropriate solution is metaphorical (this includes the ability to change from a skin of blackness to white with the simple declaration of a change in allegiance, something rather impossible in human biology).

The actual text does not support the literal reading. So far, your evidence is that you say so. I'm sorry, but that just isn't sufficient.

, whereas it is not so with the metaphorical "insider/outsider" eisegesis.

That statement suggests that you have evidence that would counter the arguments (and it isn't insider/outsider, so you are incorrect at least at this beginning point). I would like to see something other than assertion.

I guess if you really want me to point out where I feel you have intentionally conflated unrelated things, and engaged in question-begging to avoide certain problems for the interpretations you privilege over the literal readings, then I can put a bit of time into it.

Yes, please.

Frankly, since the literal reading does, in fact, make perfect sense

I acknowledge that it makes perfect sense to you. However, it makes no sense in the event I mentioned above. It makes no sense in the way even the Old Testament handles black/white metaphors (including the metaporical use of the body to represent internal states). So, while it may make sense to you, it makes to sense in the text, no sense in biology, and no sense that I can find.

it occurred to me back when you first published your analysis to question why anyone would seek an alternative way of understanding the verses in question.

I didn't seek any kind of answer. I was interested in what it meant, so I went through the text attempting to demonstrate what the text said about skin color. The obvious conclusion on the basis of evidence was that there was nothing. I actually began by favoring Sorenson's idea of a natural pigmentation change due to exposure--but the text doesn't even support that.

There seems to be no need for such a reading - at least, I don't see one

I can agree that you do not see the need. I simply don't see your lack of need as a sufficient exegesis of the text.

- and it does not throw any additional light and knowledge upon the verses so interpreted. Whence cometh this interpretation?

Data. It is always possible to assume that the text must mean what we think it means. It is quite another thing to examine the text to see what it is actually saying. Data trumps assumption.

[Log]

The situation where Captain Moroni is looking for a Lamanite is the best proof text here. He specifically needs a Lamanite, and sends one with two Nephite to the Lamanite guards. If there were skin color involved, it should have been rather obvious that the two Nephites accompanying the Lamanite were "not like the other" (in Sesame Street language).

Let's start there.

Moroni specifically needs someone who is "a descendant of Laman." If the reason the lineage matters is truly one of linguistic capacity, as you believe, you are again stuck explaining the presence those accompanying Nephites - they are "not like the other," anymore than if the question is one of skin color. My position is that lineage means literally nothing with respect to the language any individual speaks. Nephite and Lamanite dissenters no doubt had disseminated their respective languages far and wide by this point in the Nephites' national history, so being able to communicate is not the issue - and that's assuming they spoke different languages. The Lamanite king, Amalikiah, is a Nephite dissenter, after all. Since lineage is the sole qualifying factor in Moroni's search, the literal "skin of blackness" is most likely why - it requires the fewest assumptions. The presence of an identifiably ethnic Lamanite with perhaps ethnically ambiguous Nephite dissenters would vitiate the Lamanite guard's natural suspicions, where the presence of ethnically ambiguous Nephite dissenters would not. The text does not say that the men sent with Laman were, in fact, Nephites, and neither does it specify their number, as an aside.

Please drop the simplistic "how white is white / how black is black" trope.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log