Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[cursor]

This is the publication that 123 referenced:

Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 no. 1

[Calm]

The statement can be found in the Millennial Star, No. 6. Vol. I. October 1840. Parley P. Pratt was the editor.

"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."

So was the Messenger and Advocate from 1841 a reprint or did Oliver copy that phrase?

[cursor]

A cursory (that's a good word =) evaluation tells me that the instance in the October 1840 Millennial Star must have been a reprint/echo of what first appeared in the Messenger and Advocate in October 1834: actual page link (Oliver Cowdery was the editor)

[mfbukowski]

deleted- of no purpose now that 123 is gone

Edited July 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

123 has left the building [banned].

Somehow I bet he will re-incarnate himself. Watch out for more sock puppets.

[Calm]

Keep an eye out for 456!

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited July 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cursor]

Speaking of sock puppets, and one trying to pull the wool over one's eyes: Shari Lewis & Lamb Chop

[i gotta say ... I LOVE a viewer comment at this YouTube video. "I Googled 'south park sucks', and it brought me here"]

edit: corrected name spelling

Edited July 20, 2012 by cursor

[cursor]

Keep an eye out for 456!

Or ... might that be 666?

[Bob Crockett]

I want to comment upon what has been the actual final battle at Cumorah. The battle for the truth.

One of the layers of questions relating to the Hill Cumorah is whether Joseph Smith ever referred to the hill as Cumorah. We read in an Maxwell Institute publication, in the JBMS by Martin Raish (http://maxwellinstit...13&num=1&id=337) in "Encounters With Cumorah: A Selective, Personal Bibliography," JBMS 13:38 (2004) a "selective" collection. Raish tells us that "[t]hroughout the 1830s and '40s, the mount, if named at all, was called "Mormon Hill," "Bible Hill," or "Golden Bible Hill."

One source which Raish missed deserves mention because of its early date. We read in the only official church organ in 1833: "In the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven, the plates came forth from the hill Cumorah, which is in the county of Ontario, and state of New-York, by the power of God." The Evening and The Morning Start Vol I, No. 8 Jan 1833, p. 57. The Star was edited by Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith.

Let's turn to the Church's purchase of the Hill Cumorah in 1928.

The first speaker in the April General Conference was President Grant, who announced the purchase of the Hill Cumorah. I quote from President Anthony W. Ivin's General Conference Address, who was the next speaker:

The purchase of this hill, which President Grant has announced, is an event of more than ordinary importance to the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The memories of the remote past which cluster round this sacred spot, its close association with the opening of the present gospel dispensation, which has resulted in bringing together this congregation of people, for without it this tabernacle would not have been erected, nor would we have been gathered here in worship today, and the thought which we entertain of the possibilities which its bosom may unfold, make the acquisition of this hill almost an epochal accomplishment in the history of the Church.

. . . .

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.

. . . .

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.

. . . .

All of these incidents to which I have referred, my brethren and sisters, are very closely associated with this particular spot in the state of New York. Therefore I feel, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, that the acquisition of that spot of ground is more than an incident in the history of the Church; it is an epoch.

I will further note that when FAIR assembles a grouping of relevant quotes on the issue, it omits this 1928 Ivins statement and instead cites this one from Ivins in the April 1929 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.

But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, when the Brethren referred to speculative Book of Mormon geography it was not in reference to Cumorah, for that point had been affixed. "Speculation" in geography pertained to Zarahemla and other unknown points, which the Brethren have generally condemned. For instance, Mark E. Peterson condemns speculative Book of Mormon geography (see http://en.fairmormon...y#ref_peterson1), as FAIR reports, but FAIR does not further explain that this condemnation is in the context of a two-Cumorah theory. In his 1953 General Conference address, Elder Peterson said:

I do not believe that we should accept every theory advanced by men of science as though it were true. These men change their minds much too often for that. I do not believe that we should give credence to the 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 America to get the gold plates. I do not believe we can be good Latter-Day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith.

I thus submit that when posters cite to General Authority statements who condemn speculation in Book of Mormon geography, these statements are made in the context of those who follow the Sorenson theory, or what it would become.

Oliver Cowdery made a pretty strong statement the ancient Hill Cumorah was the same as in New York.

By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the Book of Mormon you will read Mormon's account of the last great struggle as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah. . . . [Moroni] deposited, as he says, on the 529th page, 22 all the records in this same hill, Cumorah.

President Joseph F. Smith pointed out in Doctrines of Salvation that Joseph Smith edited the work in which this statement was found. (JF Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3, ch. 12.) Those who believe that there are two Cumorahs "have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the book of Mormon." (Id.) Why is that? Pres. Smith explains that this disturbance in the faith comes from supposed difficulties in the Book of Mormon.

There's been reference to a statement made by Harold B. Lee. That appears to be the only statement by one of the Apostles that has some commentary on the Hill Cumorah which is contrary to Oliver Cowdery's. However, you'll note that he seems to be condemning speculation that puts the Hill Cumorah in Mexico, rather than endorsing it.

Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he'd have given us latitude and longitude, don't you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?

This, once again, is being cited for the wrong purpose. People who suggest there are two Cumorahs fall under the condemnation of Pres. Smith and the disapproval of Elder Lee.

Further, what are we to make from the off-hand, private statements claimed by some here that General Authorities make? I hear them often. So-and-so apostle who's a relative tells a poster here that the Sorenson model finds approval amongst the Brethren. For example, there's the claim that Elder Abrea had some advertising copy changed for the Cumorah Pageant. Private, non-public statements claimed by certain posters here to contravene general instruction from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve seems rather offensive to me. Inside knowledge cannot trump official statements.

What is the lesson to be learned here?

It doesn't really matter to me whether Cumorah is in New York or Mexico. That's not my point. My point is that to spend time publishing theories about a Cumorah in Mexico is to run directly afoul of every single General Authority who has ever spoken publicly on the subject, Elder Lee being the last prime example. You may argue that the Church takes "no position." Instead, the Church condemns speculative geography. (What to make of the Ensign 1994 article? I'm not sure, but the prior quotes in this thread suggest strongly that reference to two Cumorahs was jettisoned.)

Do those of us who believe this way deserve venom? I would urge a negative here. By simply quoting from Pres. Smith that those who follow a two-Cumorah theory are disturbed isn't to make an ad hominem. We're just quoting what an Apostle said. There's a difference between faithful members of the Church who believe that Ancient America Speaks is contrary to the Brethren, on the one hand, and apostates who like to beat the LGT apologists over the head with statements from the Brethren. I happen to fall in the former camp. I don't think speculation masquerading as science should trump revelation.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

It doesn't really matter to me whether Cumorah is in New York or Mexico.

Do those of us who believe this way deserve venom? I would urge a negative here. There's a difference between faithful members of the Church who believe that Ancient America Speaks is contrary to the Brethren, on the one hand, and apostates who like to beat the LGT apologists over the head with statements from the Brethren.

Do those of us who believe this way (LGT) deserve venom? I would urge a negative here.

There's a difference between faithful members of the Church who believe that Ancient America Speaks is contrary to the Brethren, on the one hand, and apostates who like to beat the LGT apologists over the head with statements from the Brethren.

In this thread you have done a remarkable imitation of what you say the apostates do.

My participation has not been about which model is right but this kind of rhetoric bothers me a lot.

Your Post #27 I think that those who teach otherwise in a church setting have apostatized.

Your Post #30 No big deal. I've heard it also said by people that Chocolate violates the Word of Wisdom, and I think they're in a state of apostasy.

Your Post #113 Be that as it may, this is really the best possible quote for the anti-Joseph Smith version of the Hill Cumorah

[cursor]

But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, when the Brethren referred to speculative Book of Mormon geography it was not in reference to Cumorah, for that point had been affixed.

This is hardly universally true. There are GAs who subscribe to the idea that final battleground of the Jaredites & Nephites is not in NY state.

While you seem to hang on to every word that Elder Mark E. Peterson might have expressed, it is a fact that we all [rightly] have our personal opinions (some better informed than others). Just because someone is a General Authority of the Church does NOT mean that they are in a position to speak for the Church, alone.

Again, you quoted Joseph F. Smith (Doctrines of Salvation) as support in your cause. When he wrote the text, he was not in an authoritative position to speak for the Church, alone.

Private, non-public statements claimed by certain posters here to contravene general instruction from the First Presidency and Quorum of he Twelve seems rather offensive to me. Inside knowledge cannot trump official statements.

Offensive to you?! GeeWilliquers ...

I find the the publicly broadcast accusation that others are "on the road to apostasy," because they see alternatives that you don't, well ... repugnant.

Now, are you willing to discuss Mosiah 8 and it's overreaching clarification on the scope of Book of Mormon geography? Let's set 19th and 20th century statements aside for the moment -- let's get to the meat. What does Mormon tell us, in his codex? I'm game. Are you?

[Bob Crockett]

In this thread you have done a remarkable imitation of what you say the apostates do.

My participation has not been about which model is right but this kind of rhetoric bothers me a lot.

Well, we all have room for improvement. Let's focus on the authorities. What is the best General Authority public statement that suggests there might be two Cumorahs?

[ERayR]

Again, you quoted Joseph F. Smith (Doctrines of Salvation) as support in your cause. When he wrote the text, he was not in an authoritative position to speak for the Church, alone.

Offensive to you?! GeeWilliquers ...

I find the the publicly broadcast accusation that others are "on the road to apostasy," because they see alternatives that you don't, well ... repugnant.

It was in Doctrines if Salvation that Joseph Fielding Smith made the authoritative statement that man would never set foot on the moon. He later apologized for that statement noting he was speaking for himself and not authoritatively.

If he spoke for himself about that in his books I must assume all his Doctrines of Salvation were his own opinion.

Edited July 20, 2012 by ERayR

[cursor]

Let's focus on the authorities.

I repeat myself (please excuse me) ... ("at the risk of being crude" [Paul Simon] ... "there must be fifty ways ...")

Now, are you willing to discuss Mosiah 8 and it's overreaching clarification on the scope of Book of Mormon geography? Let's set 19th and 20th century statements aside for the moment -- let's get to the meat. What does Mormon tell us, in his codex? I'm game. Are you?

I strongly suggest that we focus on the premier authority (Mormon) -- which would be the man who abridged the records (Mormon), and who was cognizant of the geographical world of the Jaredite and the Nephite nations. (um, wait ... that would be Mormon). Dude, can we talk ... seriously?

edit: Sorry, but I just had to correct Paul Simon's lyrics.

Edited July 20, 2012 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

It was in Doctrines if Salvation that Joseph Fielding Smith made the authoritative statement that man would never set foot on the moon. He later apologized for that statement noting he was speaking for himself and not authoritatively.

If he spoke for himself about that in his books I must assume all his Doctrines of Salvation were his own opinion.

One way to gauge an authority is whether it is contradicted or supported by other authorities of equal or greater weight.

There is also the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gays want to throw out Paul's uncontradicted statements about homosexuality because he said an odd thing about women not speaking in church.

So we look for support and lack of contradiction. Really.

[cursor]

...

Edited July 21, 2012 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

In this thread you have done a remarkable imitation of what you say the apostates do.

When there are dueling apostate positions it is hard to see which has the better argument, I am sure. I use the word apostate advisably. The church tends not to use words like orthodoxy or heresy. Apostasy seems to mean the opposite of accepting the counsel of the Brethren. Like I say I have my private little apostacies.

Since the church seems to allow discussion of the LGT MesoAmerican theory in its Ensign and Education Weeks, I could be wrong as well.

[ERayR]

One way to gauge an authority is whether it is contradicted or supported by other authorities of equal or greater weight.

There is also the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gays want to throw out Paul's uncontradicted statements about homosexuality because he said an odd thing about women not speaking in church.

So we look for support and lack of contradiction. Really.

One way to gauge an authority is by the accurateness of information coming from the same source. Doctrines of Salvation has some problems with authoritativeness. I think I have all those volumes. I probably couldn't find them now it has been years since I last looked at them. I do not judge President Smith on those works. He was expounding his best understanding with what he had available. He corrected errors as new information was received. I have no doubt that he would have corrected others as new information became available.

[Bob Crockett]

Now, are you willing to discuss Mosiah 8 and it's overreaching clarification on the scope of Book of Mormon geography? Let's set 19th and 20th century statements aside for the moment -- let's get to the meat. What does Mormon tell us, in his codex? I'm game. Are you?

Nope. Can't. It would be contrary to my argument here.

[theplains]

Let's turn to the Church's purchase of the Hill Cumorah in 1928.

The first speaker in the April General Conference was President Grant, who announced the purchase of the Hill Cumorah. I quote from President Anthony W. Ivin's General Conference Address, who was the next speaker ...

Thanks for that mention. After some searching, I found it online at the Internet Archive. See the April 1928 General

Conference Report. I searched for Cumorah and Ramah after downloading the pdf file.

Jim

[Bob Crockett]

One way to gauge an authority is by the accurateness of information coming from the same source. Doctrines of Salvation has some problems with authoritativeness. I think I have all those volumes. I probably couldn't find them now it has been years since I last looked at them. I do not judge President Smith on those works. He was expounding his best understanding with what he had available. He corrected errors as new information was received. I have no doubt that he would have corrected others as new information became available.

I'd say my test is much more reliable.

DoS is still in publication. One of the most heavily cited works in GC. Declared by Deseret Book to be authoritative. Ancient America Speaks is not cited in GC as far as I can tell.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[robuchan]

What did 123 say to get banned?

Hope I don't get ib trouble for asking, but why is this board so heavily moderated?

[ERayR]

I'd say my test is much more reliable.

DoS is still in publication. One of the most heavily cited works in GC. Declared by Deseret Book to be authoritative. Ancient America Speaks is not cited in GC as far as I can tell.

Deseret Book is now the decision maker on what is authoritative?

[mfbukowski]

What did 123 say to get banned?

Hope I don't get ib trouble for asking, but why is this board so heavily moderated?

Think about it a minute.

Who precisely is supposed to answer this question? Do you actually think a moderator will answer this?