Non-Lds Scholars Debunk Meldrum

[Anijen]

I'll take apostle Peterson's testimony of your flimsy resistance any time. Think of whose company you are keeping by continually resisting the facts? Sad.

You are the one cherry picking your facts, and after you carefully pick your facts you mix assumption in there as well (as I have previously showed you).

I will take everything Elder Peterson has said concerning my salvation and spirituality seriously as well. I honor all our church leaders and support and sustain them to be prophets, seers, and revelators. Indeed I believe they are special witnesses of Jesus Christ. Elder Peterson's opinions on Book of Mormon geography are just that and he himself has said as much.

Discussing the theories of the setting place for the Book of Mormon is not disregarding what church leaders have said in the past. In fact we are admonished to do so (see D&C 97:14). Those who are quick to condemn me and question my level of faith because I subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon are being overly judgmental.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Anijen]

I've been in the Great Lakes area many a time without snow.

As have I. Does this mean it never snows in New York? No it does not. His point being that It appears odd that the heat of day is mentioned, but not anything about fighting in cold weather.

Because there have been blizzards or no snow at all in the past does not matter. I think it is reasonably to include that a lack of cold weather not mentioned can help us identify geography. Any professional geographer would agree.

I am not saying it is the smoking gun or hard evidence but it has some merit, more so than simply dismissing it out of hand.

[DWhitmer]

From DWhitmers website ""It is impossible for a Mormon to find the true geography since they are CONDEMNED." (D&C 84:54)"

You cannot argue with him because we are under the curse. He has broken free from the oppression of the Church to find true happiness in BOM geography, instead of the saving ordinances.

Regarding the inane statement that snow did not exist beyond 200 years ago in NE USA, I am curious how you would convince someone from the Great Lakes area that they don't get snow in the winter, especially since they are known for some of the most brutal, freezing winters in the entire country. This is an outlandish claim that is not so glaringly wrong that I should not even have to respond. You may remember last year (I believe, it may have been the year before) when cities had to be shut down due to the enormous amount of snow they got. If anyone has any doubt as to what the winters were like, just google "great lakes winter" and click on images. You will see something quite different than the above claim. Snow shoes have been found in archaeological digs in that area for crying out loud. Why would the ancient indians of the area need snow shoes and warm clothing if they did not have any snow?

“…a climactic trend toward cooler temperatures that began about 3,000 years ago and that in upland regions had an adverse effect on the wild plant and animal resources used by humans. It wasn’t until perhaps 800 A.D. that peoples from the upper Hudson began returning in any substantial numbers to their haunts in the uplands of southwestern Vermont.” The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants, Past and Present, William A. Haviland, Marjory W. Power, pg 131

So not only was it *not* warmer back then, it was actually colder than it is today.

Cognitive Dissonance is real. Weather is a joke of an argument in the first place, and then when it is decimated, defenders can't move on to the 'MORE IMPORTANT ITEMS.' Hello? Those who choose to fight against Zion do so at their own demise, the BoM is clear DON'T DO IT!

Now, praytell, where are all those ancient dirt fortifications as mentioned throught out the BoM? Where are the bones of giants? Where is that land that is greater than all other lands? Mesotheorists can't answer those let alone the fulfilled land prophecies. Show us you're not a one trick pony and answer those questions if you can and tell us why you have not replied to the offical church history account as given by J.Smith, who identified the hill by name and confirmed the last battle was there.

Edited May 3, 2012 by DWhitmer

[DWhitmer]

No offense taken, but the Evangelical notion of the rapture is not scriptural. The earth will be cleansed of sinners and the righteous will be left behind for 1000 years.

If you studied the topic as I have you'd understand why Evangelicals know this. They couple the word of God with testimonies of real prophets who actually do commune with God, and who have been shown the future. But don't worry, more than likely you're going to receive what you so believe.

[Tepui]

We visited the Hill Cumorah and were accorded the courtesy of going thereon by the wife of Mr. George Sampson, a brother of Admiral Wm. Sampson, who before his death owned the property. When we went up there and looked around, we felt that we were standing on holy ground. The brethren located, as near as they thought was possible, the place from which the plates of the Book of Mormon were taken by the Prophet. We were delighted to be there. Looking over the surrounding country we remembered that two great races of people had wound up their existence in the vicinity, had fought their last fight, and that hundreds of thousands had been slain within sight of that hill. Evidence of the great battles that have been fought there in days gone by are manifest in the numerous spear and arrow-heads that have been found by farmers while plowing in that neighborhood. We were fortunate enough to obtain a few of the arrowheads. (George Albert Smith, Conference Report, April 1906, Third Day—Morning Session p. 56)

F.A.R.M.S. has a response to this - called "Looking for Artifacts at New York's Hill Cumorah" (2005) partial quotes below. Note the comments about arrowheads.

.

Arriving at Cumorah, I have asked workers on the grounds around the visitors' center and people inside the center about arrowheads. Their comments were: "Oh yes, people find them around here all the time." I would ask, "Have you found any yourself?" "Well, no." "Do you know anyone who has found some?" "No." "Have you seen any actual pieces found by others?" "No."

See. Do you know anyone who has found some. Not George A. Smith. Next, the author attempts to make these visitor center workers out to be misinformed - by looking himself for arrowheads in a nearby-at least 40-yr old plowed-over farm field:

I have walked to the big meadow east of the hill. I have searched it thoroughly. I was thinking, "There have to be remains here, but where?" No artifacts—not even flint chips of any kind. So I went north to the Clark farm. I stopped and asked the owner's wife if I could walk over the corn field. "What are you looking for?" "Looking for arrowheads—is it okay?" "Well, sure." "You must get pestered a lot by people wanting to go out there looking around." "We've been here over 40 years, and you're the first to come and ask to hunt for arrowheads."

continues later...

He [a resident of the area] said that he had a standing agreement with all of the bulldozer and backhoe people in the county. They would call him when they were about to start jobs in the area. Many times, he said, "I'd beat them to the site—I'd get there before they would." He always watched the soil as they dug it or pushed it around. But he never found any artifacts of any kind. I have spent evenings on both trips to Palmyra talking with him about the area and its history. His comment on my last trip was, "Oh, I hope this doesn't shake your faith." I answered, "No, it doesn't. The Church is still true. The Book of Mormon is true. And those plates came out of that hill. 'The battle'—well, it must have been at some other hill."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=377

So you see, F.A.R.M.S. believe those silly Mormons working in the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center didn't know what they're talking about because the author looked for but didn't find arrowheads in a nearby 40-year old plowed-over corn field and talked with a local resident who did archaeology by following backhoe operators around the county.

Yes, surely this is hard, verifiable evidence that we all can agree upon in a general consensus, that contradicts the statement above made by George Albert Smith. The conclusion by the author: "The battle? - Well, it must have been at some other hill." Yes, it must have been some other hill - in Mesoamerica, of course.

Yes, like I mentioned before, F.A.R.M.S. loves to contradict three main areas:

1. Statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith (and his successors, I'll add)

2. Text/wording in the Book of Mormon

3. History of the LDS Church

And a local NY resident who has a standing agreement to follow backhoe operators around the county is a good reason to do so.

But of course, the Prophet Joseph Smith did believe in mistaken folk views:

Even with Stephens's material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon's story to the newly-found [Maya] ruins. And in the long run, the little blip on the Latter-day Saints' mental screen caused by the explorer's book faded as

the mistaken folk view

reasserted its dominance.

But he did not believe in folk magic:

There are those who wish to contend that Joseph Smith just "made it up," that Mormonism is merely a rather haphazard pastiche of American frontier nostrums, a bit of folk magic, and a few half-understood chunks of popular theology created by a rough-hewn but gifted Yankee bumpkin on the basis of some combination or other of ethical deficiency and a pathological personality. It seems to me that they face an increasingly difficult task.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=1&id=371

Mormon had a map in his mind of 500 x 250 miles for the promised land:

The promised land in which the Nephites’ history played out was on the order of five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide, according to Mormon’s mental map.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=101&chapid=1139

But Joseph Smith had a map in his mind thousands of miles long:

[Zelph] was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the [

hill Cumorah

is crossed out in the manuscript] eastern Sea, to the Rocky Mountains.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571

All quotes from the Maxwell Institute (F.A.R.M.S.)

So you see, both Joseph Smith and Rod Meldrum had & has mistaken folk views on BoM geography. It's fun to read how F.A.R.M.S. treats both Joseph Smith and Rod Meldrum equally. But of course, F.A.R.M.S. has yet to call the Prophet Joseph Smith a miasma with a trendy jingo geography - http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=1&id=789

Even though they claim Joseph Smith was trendy, until he came across a book about the Maya:

..most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=196

Most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography - indicates he did not understand.

[DWhitmer]

F.A.R.M.S...bs

After a while the realization begins to sink in that their agenda precedes truth. Let's be honest, Sorenson admitted his model was faulty by bias, and let's agree so is Meldrum & May. These misinformed individuals put the cart before the horse and did not extract the Internal Map before picking a physical location.

Because of that, their research wrongly filters source material, slanting it in order to force round pegs into square holes.

The only unbiased model is linked below which accurately shows:

1. Great Deep

2. Four Seas

3. Lamanite Line of Possession

4. Land of Nephi side-by-side with Zarahemla

5. etc.

Plus a:

1. Prophecy Fulfilled Map

2. Watershed Map

3. Culture Map

Plus a:

1. Google interactive map.

Western New York has ancient fortifications where they should and should not be; cement homes where they should and should not be; bones of giants where they should and should not be; land fractures from the coming of Christ where they should be; hills, valleys and waterways where they should be and how they should be.

Why was shipping only on the West Sea and not the East or South?

Where is a body of land surrounded by FOUR SEAS with the one on the north being LARGEST to exceed all?

The list goes on and on.

[Bob Crockett]

This has all become incoherent.

[Tepui]

This has all become incoherent.

What's incoherent about it?

F.A.R.M.S. or the Maxwell Institute, believe Book of Mormon geography was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith - two years before his death- by a book written by John Lloyd Stephens of his travels in Central America.

And everything Joseph Smith said or implied about geography, before being given this book, two years before his death, was wrong.

All other disagreements F.A.R.M.S. has are merely appendages thereof. So get with the program, man!

[Anijen]

This has all become incoherent.

I agree. I am bowing out for now. Bob I enjoy your dialogue and although we disagree on some parts your arguments are persuasive and make me think. Thank you for your civility and expertise. DWhitmer you are no where close to most apologetics on this board, those who discuss differing views of the setting for the Book of Mormon. I would kindly suggest reading more experts on both sides before you so hastily dismiss the ones that go against your view. I would also suggest that you tone down the rhetoric i.e.

"Those who choose to fight against Zion do so at their own demise"

It is not productive and just adds contention.

Hopefully I will see more posts from Hashbaz, Brant Gardner, Poulsenll, and livey111us. They are some of my favorite posters to read.

As always just thinking out loud

Anijen

[DWhitmer]

DWhitmer you are no where close to most apologetics on this board..I would kindly suggest reading more experts on both sides before you so hastily dismiss the ones that go against your view. Anijen

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you won't accept either fact or conclusions that are contrary to the establishment. You're accusing me of not having done my homework, nor an familiar with the subject matter. Anyone who has been to the below listed geography site knows that it has more reviewed models than anywhere else.

Don't expect your favs to chime in again, this is the normal flow here: regurgitate the party line, get shot down, run like a dog. Make the BoM your friend and come out from the church wide curse and in no time it will all be clear, no offense.

[Log]

I'm still waiting to hear how you, Dwhitmer, know that the claim that the hill Ramah / Cumorah referred to in the Book of Mormon is the same as the Hill Cumorah in New York is a revealed fact.

Have you received revelation that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the hill Ramah / Cumorah referred to in the text of the Book of Mormon?

If you have not, then you have no grounds for asserting that identification to be a revealed fact, and are instead engaged in mere dogmatism.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Log

[DWhitmer]

I'm still waiting to hear how you know that the claim that the hill Ramah / Cumorah referred to in the Book of Mormon is the same as the Hill Cumorah in New York is a revealed fact.

I certainly do have that witness and you can too if you will study the fulfilled land prophecies there in the BoM. For you Meldrum and May haters, that's your tool for a smack down they won't get up from!

DWitmer has left the building.

[Cold Steel]

I've watched Meldrum's pap on YouTube (in fact, I spent much of last night watching them). As someone who used to believe in the Heartland model, the weight of evidence was simply too great for me to stay with it. What changed my views were climate, population, and geography (where "Cumorah" is in the wrong place, not to mention everywhere else). I also watched

, which was a much higher caliber of research than anything Meldrum's ever produced. In fact, Meldrum seems to prefer applying quotes from general authorities and attribution of scriptures in lieu of actual scholarship. Whereas Mesoamerican researchers can show fairly detailed maps with name/places, Heartland models are more ethereal in nature.

There's also the issue of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. It's not the book that's remarkable, but Joseph Smith's reaction to it. As someone who was intimately familiar with the Nephite culture, the modes of dress, the buildings, roads and so forth, Joseph Smith seemed to recognize something in the illustrations in the book -- and that also impressed me. Had he tossed it aside with but little comment, I might have dismissed it. But the illustrations in that book were intricately produced. But Meldrum is far less impressed with it than was the Prophet.

As someone who lives in the East United States, the cold and ice each winter (until fairly recently) has always been on the bitter side. And especially in the northern states. George Washington certainly mentioned the snow and ice of Valley Forge in his writings, yet we're to believe that not one of the Book of Mormon prophets mention it. In all the battles there are no casualties caused by the intense cold, no crossing of frozen rivers or trying to entrench themselves in frozen ground.

Meldrum and others also believe that the little drumlin in New York could be of such tactical significance that literally tens of thousands of Nephites could spend several years traveling to it and encamping around it. Mormon and his armies awaited the Lamanite armies and atop that little hill, he thought he would be able to find an advantage. There are hills larger than that within walking distance of my home, and yet we're to believe that drumlin was the great Ramah, where the armies of two great cultures perished. I've also looked at maps and seen where that little hill was located, and there are no narrow necks of land to the south of it. Why isn't it where it should be?

I'm not so close-minded that I can't change my views, it's just that no one has shown anywhere near the level of scholarship as those scholars who embrace the Mesoamerican Model. I've read Phyllis Olive's website and watched Rodney Meldrum's YouTube programs. So far I'm not impressed. I'd love for the Land of Nephi to be in my back yard, but it doesn't appear that's going to pan out!

Edited May 3, 2012 by Cold Steel

[Log]

I certainly do have that witness....

What witness do you actually have? What were the words?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Log

[Tepui]

There's also the issue of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. It's not the book that's remarkable, but Joseph Smith's reaction to it. As someone who was intimately familiar with the Nephite culture, the modes of dress, the buildings, roads and so forth, Joseph Smith seemed to recognize something in the illustrations in the book -- and that also impressed me. Had he tossed it aside with but little comment, I might have dismissed it. But the illustrations in that book were intricately produced. But Meldrum is far less impressed with it than was the Prophet.

Unfortunately, Stephen's book was about the Maya and the ruins he and Catherwood illustrated were after the Book of Mormon timeframe, though I believe the Maya cities were founded before then. Also, F.A.R.M.S. has admitted the Nephites were not the Maya http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=738 thus implying the Prophet's excitement about it was in error. At the same time the Times and Seasons was publishing articles about Stephen's book, it was also mentioning mummies discovered in caves in Kentucky and even a reference to the now called Casa Grande Ruins Nat'l Monument south of Phoenix - as well as to mounds in the US Midwest. Stephen's book about Central America, also mentions the mid-west mounds in the US.

Since the Nephites are not considered the Maya - discovered through research about the Maya in recent decades - the LGT theory has changed to the "Nephites living among the Maya." This contradicts with the text of the Book of Mormon. There is no mention of others in the text besides the Lamanites, Mulekites, Nephites and the extinct Jaredites - though some of these scholars would try to convince you otherwise. But that is but a recent attempt to explain the contradiction that the Nephites were never the Maya - but lived among them. This wasn't even mentioned by Joseph Smith or those around him. Joseph Smith, if he wrote it, said Stephen's book helped "support the testimony of the Book of Mormon." But the Book of Mormon also talks of other sheep besides the Jews in Jerusalem and the Nephites in the Americas. See also Jacob 5 of other branches of Israel sent to the nethermost parts of the vineyard, with the Nephites/Lamanites being the last. Also, discovering buried gold plates in the Mediterranean helps support the testimony of the Book of Mormon - but doesn't mean it occurred in the Mediterranean. I believe the Ensign published some discovery similar.

As someone who lives in the East United States, the cold and ice each winter (until fairly recently) has always been on the bitter side. And especially in the northern states. George Washington certainly mentioned the snow and ice of Valley Forge in his writings, yet we're to believe that not one of the Book of Mormon prophets mention it. In all the battles there are no casualties caused by the intense cold, no crossing of frozen rivers or trying to entrench themselves in frozen ground.

No one is claming the Nephites lived among cold and ice. The Nephites gradually were forced northward over time by the encroaching Lamanites. The only time "weather" is mentioned in the Book of Mormon is when it was unusual - such as extended droughts, strong whirlwinds. It's not a primer on meteorology or to express a person's personal discomforts, such as fleas, ticks, or cold. The only real time when it became so is when Moroni recorded his Father's epistles. Heat wasn't mentioned when crossing Arabia. Joseph Smith didn't mention in his personal history the reason why his Father moved from Vermont to New York. It was due to crop failure due to "The Year Without a Summer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer The links mentions the Smiths move because of it. So the Smiths and many others lived in the cold and survived. Weather is a non-issue.

Meldrum and others also believe that the little drumlin in New York could be of such tactical significance that literally tens of thousands of Nephites could spend several years traveling to it and encamping around it. Mormon and his armies awaited the Lamanite armies and atop that little hill, he thought he would be able to find an advantage. There are hills larger than that within walking distance of my home, and yet we're to believe that drumlin was the great Ramah, where the armies of two great cultures perished. I've also looked at maps and seen where that little hill was located, and there are no narrow necks of land to the south of it. Why isn't it where it should be?

This is likely because it was the nearest strategic location in which the Nephites/Mormon could assemble his people-after given permission in an epistle by the Lamanite King. Nor does the text indicate the battle was on that hill. The Nephites encamped around it. It was used an observation point. After the battle, Mormon fled south with 24 Nephites. This is likely because the Lamanites had already obtained the narrow neck or passage now north of them, entrapping them. (Note the text about the tower of sherizzah and how a Nephite army was separated from Mormon's army.) Captain Moroni, centuries earlier, noted the importance of that strategic point. It was probably lost before the last great battle - thus Mormon knew it to be the last struggle of his people.

I'm not so close-minded that I can't change my views, it's just that no one has shown anywhere near the level of scholarship as those scholars who embrace the Mesoamerican Model. I've read Phyllis Olive's website and watched Rodney Meldrum's YouTube programs. So far I'm not impressed. I'd love for the Land of Nephi to be in my back yard, but it doesn't appear that's going to pan out!

I'm not impressed with argumentum verbosium by scholars who contradict themselves, are still arguing over two rivers flowing north in Mesoamerica as being Sidon yet their main geography runs east-west which is really supposed to be north-south-contradicting the direction of their rivers, that the Nephites knew they were in a narrow neck of land despite never leaving it to observe a non-narrow neck of land, claim it all happened in a 500 x 200 mile area over 1,000 years (including the Jaredites) when it took 8 years to travel the length of the Arabia - which is the size of Western Europe, changed their theory due to recent evidence about the Maya (as pointed out), claim Smith discovered the geography from a book about the Maya who were not Nephites, when all major prophets from Adam, Enoch, Moses, Brother of Jared, Abraham, Mormon, Nephi, John the Revelator, etc - all had visions of the history of the earth. Yet, the logic is Joseph Smith needed a book of travels with neat-looking illustrations-because he allegedly didn't know.

Thank you for your time.

[Brant Gardner]

Just a couple of clarifications.

Also, F.A.R.M.S. has admitted the Nephites were not the Maya http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=738 thus implying the Prophet's excitement about it was in error. At the same time the Times and Seasons was publishing articles about Stephen's book, it was also mentioning mummies discovered in caves in Kentucky and even a reference to the now called Casa Grande Ruins Nat'l Monument south of Phoenix - as well as to mounds in the US Midwest. Stephen's book about Central America, also mentions the mid-west mounds in the US.

What is quite well understood by an scholar looking at the history of ideas about the geography of the Book of Mormon, is that the original vague geography was hemispheric and incredibly inclusive. Of course the spoke about Central America and Kentucky. There was no sophistication in the early ideas. The point about Incidents of Travel in Yucatan is that it shows an openness to new information and a willingness to see Central America as an important part of the story. That contradicts the Heartland Model, but not the hemispheric one.

I'm not impressed with argumentum verbosium by scholars who contradict themselves. . .changed their theory due to recent evidence . . .

There is a significant difference between the way revelation works and the way scholars work. I expect scholars to argue amongst themselves and to change based on evidence. If they don't, we aren't advancing in understanding. Revelation is cleaner and more sure. Of course, that is precisely the point in these discussions. Has there been revelation? There is obviously the weight of tradition. There are clearly statements that Joseph made. There are also very clear statements from modern prophets indicating that there is no revelation. If I am to believe them, then I am to believe that not everything Joseph said about anything is revelation--which squares with what he himself said about the process.

Lacking revelation, the Lord seems to be content with leaving this to the scholars. Therefore, we are left with changing opinions as new evidence refines information. That takes time and perhaps new perspectives.

For those interested, I believe that I can resolve the directions issue for the Book of Mormon. It is being edited for the Mormon Studies Review, I don't know which number. The basic information is based on Larry Poulsen's perceptive application of Mesoamerican directional concepts to the text. There are some refinements, but I believe I can show that those Mesoamerican concepts underlie Joseph's translation in subtle but detectable ways.

[cdowis]

And everything Joseph Smith said or implied about geography, before being given this book, two years before his death, was wrong.

Interesting. I find it unlikely, but please be specific.

Please note that there is a hill in NY with the name Cumorah, but that does not make it the location of the war of extinction. There is also Rome and Athens within a few hours of each other in the state of Georgia.

[cdowis]

Unfortunately, Stephen's book was about the Maya and the ruins he and Catherwood illustrated were after the Book of Mormon timeframe, though I believe the Maya cities were founded before then. Also, F.A.R.M.S. has admitted the Nephites were not the Maya http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=738 thus implying the Prophet's excitement about it was in error.

An interesting admission that he did not know the location of the BOM geography. There are many hemispheric model adherents that suppose otherwise. Now if JS did not know, what about all the other apostles and prophets who expressed "official" statements.

May I again point out that BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a factual issue, subject to research and scientific investigation, and even speculation. Indeed, scholars can disagree among themselves, such as the location of rivers and cities. You may be unimpressed but that is the nature of scientific investigation.

Edited May 3, 2012 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

May I again point out that BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a factual issue, subject to research and scientific investigation, and even speculation.

And I submit no, for the location of the Hill Cumorah. Scientific investigation cannot change what God has declared to his prophets. I drag out my list again, focusing on Pres. Ivin's "we know positively" statement. As to the location of the other parts of the Book of Mormon, God has seen fit to declare only that they are in the Americas. Who knows if those sites still exist, or whether they are at the bottom of the ocean?

Note further that when the Brethren condemn speculative Book of Mormon geography, they do so in the context of defending the New York location for Cumorah.

So, my views such as they are is that it is wrong to engage in attempts to move Cumorah to some other location and to try and pin Zarahemla and other parts of the Book of Mormon to particular places.

The question thus becomes are my points official? Yes; they come from "official" sources; namely, CR reports mostly. JF Smith's came in a priesthood manual, and is contained in a reference book still in publication. In particular, Ivin's statement was made in the General Conference following acquisition of the Book of Mormon.

Are the points doctrinal? Who knows.

The one defect in my position is that the Brethren allowed publication of Sorenson's piece in the Ensign but, as I point out, asked him to edit out his theories about Cumorah.

But, to me, the more fascinating question is why there is a need for an LGT. That is a sociological question meriting debate and analysis.

Anthony Ivins

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

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. ( Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1929, 15-16, retrieved from GospeLink 2001, CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000)

Mark E Peterson

"I do not believe we should give credence to highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central American to get the gold plates." (Mark E Peterson, CR April 1953.)

John H. Vandenberg

Mormon made an abridgment of these records, which contained the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The record was engraved on gold plates and deposited in a hill known as Cumorah, located in what we now know to be the state of New York. (CR April 1974).

Joseph Fielding Smith (church historian)

“ . . . This modernist theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America , not withstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years . . .”

“It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Wittmer, and others, could speak frequently of the spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact.”

(Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, pp. 233-234.)

Marion G. Romney

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the "hill Cumorah." (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity which occurred some twenty five centuries ago--events which brought to and end the great Jaredite nation." October General Conference, 1975.

Oliver Cowdery

"After describing the location of the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, Oliver Cowdery writes in the Messenger and Advocate, July, 1835, 'At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful vale between. The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed." Messenger and Advocate, July, 1835.

Bruce R. McConkie

“Both the Nephite and the Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is locatedâ?¦in the western part of the state of New York ... Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many early brethren, who were familiar with the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.” (Mormon Doctrine; pg. 174.)

James E. Talmage

On the occasion of his first visit to Joseph Smith, Moroni told of the existence of the record, which, he said, was engraved on plates of gold, at that time lying buried in the side of a hill near Joseph's home. The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York." Articles of Faith, Ch. 14, Pg. 255-256.

"The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York, resulting in the destruction of the Nephites as a nation, about 400 A.D. The last Nephite representative was Moroni, who, wandering for safety from place to place, daily expecting death from the victorious Lamanites, wrote the concluding parts of the Book of Mormon, and hid the record in Cumorah. It was the same Moroni who as a resurrected being, gave the records into the hands of Joseph Smith in the present dispensation." Articles of Faith, Ch 14, Pg. 260.

B.H. Roberts (Church historian)

"This time it will have to do with so important a matter as a war of extinction of two peoples, the Nephites and the Jaredites, on the self same battle site, with the same 'hill' marking the axis of military movements. By the Nephites this 'hill' was called the 'Hill Cumorah,' by the Jaredites the 'Hill Ramah'; it was that same 'hill,' in which the Nephite records were deposited by Mormon and Moroni, and from which Joseph Smith obtained the Book of Mormon, therefore the 'Mormon Hill,' of today—since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon—near Palmyra, New York. (B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.277)

George Albert Smith

"We visited the Hill Cumorah and were accorded the courtesy of going thereon by the wife of Mr. George Sampson, a brother of Admiral Wm. Sampson, who before his death owned the property.....We were delighted to be there. Looking over the surrounding country we remembered that two great races of people had wound up their existence in the vicinity, had fought their last fight, and that hundreds of thousands had been slain within sight of that hill."(Elder George Albert Smith, Conference Report, April 1906, p.56)

Orson Pratt

"The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Feb. 11, 1872 Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331)

"Thirty-six years prior to this time his nation was destroyed in what we term the State of New York, around about a hill, called by that people the Hill of Cumorah, when many hundreds of thousands of the Nephites-men, women and children, fell, during the greatest battle that they had had with the Lamanites." (Apostle Orson Pratt, Aug. 25, 1878 Journal of Discourses Vol. 20, pg. 62)

"These records were carried by Ether from the hill Ramah, afterwards called Cumorah, where the Jaredites were destroyed, as well as the Nephites." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, May 18, 1873 Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, pg. 50

Edited May 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Log]

Yep, that's a whole lotta dogmatism going on there.

[Bob Crockett]

Yep, that's a whole lotta dogmatism going on there.

When we're dealing with a hierarchical religion which asserts that God directs its highest leaders, and in particular the First Presidency and the Q12, dogma is, of course, the established statements of its leaders and is not to be disputed by adherents. In terms of religion, the word "dogma" does not have negative connotations except to unbelievers who wish to ridicule a church's positions.

Thus, in terms of dogma, scientific principles are simply inadmissible in the main and of much lesser quality than dogma. For instance, if we believe in the resurrection, all the scientific studies about the likelihood of the resurrection is pointless and counterproductive. If we believe that angels appear to modern man, all the scientific studies in the world to measure the likelihood of angelic existence is pointless and counterproductive.

If we believe, on the basis of revealed fact (not to me, but to the men above) that the Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred at the foot of the Hill Cumorah, then scientific studies which complain about the absence of arrowheads and spearpoints in the area have as much value as reports disputing the resurrection.

[Log]

If we believe, on the basis of revealed fact (not to me, but to the men above) that the Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred at the foot of the Hill Cumorah, then scientific studies which complain about the absence of arrowheads and spearpoints in the area have as much value as reports disputing the resurrection.

You have no such revelatory basis, as I keep pointing out. What you have is dogmatism.

[Bob Crockett]

You have no such revelatory basis, as I keep pointing out. What you have is dogmatism.

As to the revelatory basis, I dispute the need to prove my assertions about theology and dogma by saying also that God has revealed such to me. I don't think it necessary to say that nor should I be saying that.

As to "dogma," you are absolutely correct. Dogma is that which cannot be disputed as to what a religion teaches. Of course, you may be using some other definition for dogma.

If God has revealed to one of the Brethren that possibility that the Hill Cumorah is somewhere else, perhaps you can point that out to me. I won't pretend to find it necessary to ask you if God has revealed such to you.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Log]

As to the revelatory basis, I dispute the need to prove my assertions about theology and dogma by saying also that God has revealed such to me. I don't think it necessary to say that nor should I be saying that.

You can dispute it till the cows come home, but until you have a revelatory basis for asserting a revelatory fact, your revelatory fact is naught but dogmatic assertion.

[Kevin Christensen]

I admit to prefer lists that include and account for all relevant comments by Mormon and Moroni. If the idea is to settle a question by appeal to an authority, or even a succession of authorities, the most direct and relevant authorities ought to weigh in the balance. I prefer arguments that address the issues raised in consideration of their first-hand eye-wtiness accounts, to those that simply label them as "speculation" or some variation of "not what I was taught." If we are to trust authorities because "they must have known" I think we ought to favor the ones with the strongest claim to actually knowing, that being Mormon and Moroni. If these modern authorities really know, and are not just repeating and passing along some unexplored and unquestioned supposition, then lets see some demonstration of both how they know and how what they say consistently fits with what Mormon and Moroni had to say. Lets see some demonstration of how what they know accounts for the textual issues that raised the suggestion of a Mesoamerican Cumorah in the first place. (Sperry's essay for instance, or Palmer's In Search of Cumorah, or Larry Poulsen's suggestions.) No one worries about the Book of Mormon containing four Nephis (not counting the throne name so some early Kings, which would add to the number.) No one worries about a land Bountiful on both sides ot the sea voyage. No one worries about two Jerusalems. In all of these cases, no one is confused because we take the descriptions in the text seriously. The context in which the names appear resolves any possible confusion about whether the Old World Jerusalem or Bountiful is the same as the New World ones. How well does the scriptural account actually fit with the physical location? Is consistency too much to ask for?

Arguments that God would not permit mistakes of this nature ought to also account for passages in D&C 1 (inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest), D&C 3 (the loss of 116 pages) and 3 Nephi (Jesus explaining that the disciples supposed they they understood who the other sheep were, and as a consequence, did not ask, and were not told the correct interpretation).

And if George Albert Smith, for example, did find some arrowheads in the vicinity, I'd like to know if he knew the difference between an Iriquois or a Mohawk arrow head, and how they differed from Nephite or Lamanite or Gaddianton. And how he dated them. I've mentioned several times how noticable it is that Joseph Fielding Smith never addresses the textual issues that raised the question. He answers without reference to the relevant observations of Mormon and Moroni.

I've mentioned before, in these disagreements, that I work as a technical writer in the electronics engineering field, in which the basic strategy is to deal with complexity by means of hierarchy. Something labeled CPU on a diagram has inputs and outputs, and some kind of logic processing that goes on inside the black box. Someone labeled prophet also has inputs and outputs. Note the plural for both inputs and outputs. It's not purely God in and God out, with no humanity to be found. Prophets also have various kinds of logical processing relative to those diverse inputs and outputs. I believe that the prophets are inspired, but I don't believe that they sock puppets. Sometimes they do ask the right questions, and study things out in their minds, and seek words of wisdom by study and by faith. Those important actions don't accompany an assumption that they know already, and don't have to ask. We have in the D&C very few revelations that came about because the prophet already knew, and did not ask, and discouraged anyone from asking further.

Just my opinion of course. And I am fond of Joseph Smith's comment that "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 3, 2012 by Kevin Christensen