Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[Bob Crockett]

Answer the question.

I don't answer hypotheticals about religious faith. I hope you don't mind. I won't insist that you answer my question, because I already know the answer.

[Bob Crockett]

Perhaps you have not seen the discussions we have had here concerning what constitutes "doctrine".

It is clearly a debatable point and obviously many of the kinds of sources you cite contradict each other. Are you saying that there are no Conference sermons which contradict each other?

Not on the issue of the location of the Hill Cumorah. None.

I've been here for years, even though I have a low posting count. I've seen the threads about doctrine. It is church doctrine that the ancient Hill Cumorah is located today in New York.

[mfbukowski]

Not on the issue of the location of the Hill Cumorah. None.

I've been here for years, even though I have a low posting count. I've seen the threads about doctrine. It is church doctrine that the ancient Hill Cumorah is located today in New York.

Unless you think of course that doctrine is only found in the scriptures, based on an alternative reading of the press release.

But I am not going to debate the issue with you- there is no point to that. It is an issue open to interpretation just as the two Cumorah theory is. I just wanted to make the point that others may disagree on what constitutes "doctrine".

[Anijen]

New York Cumorah as the ancient hill in the Book of Mormon is a traditional and well held belief, but it is not official church doctrine.

The New York hill is very significant in church history and a sacred place where the plates were buried by Moroni and retrieved by Joseph Smith. It is a place of reverence and historic value. It is probably thought by most members of the church to be the place of the final war, but that has not ever been made official doctrine, even with opinions of past church leaders.

Opinions given in General Conference are still opinions. From the church news May 4, 2007 (see here)

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Emphasis mine. Edited July 18, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[mfbukowski]

Yes, that was the "press release" I was talking about. This is the way I see it:

...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Underlining added.

Let me write that the way I understand it-

They meet together and guide the interpretation of doctrine so it can be officially proclaimed in Church publications.

So the doctrine "resides" in the standard works, and the GA's counsel together to consistently interpret and proclaim it, but that is not where the doctrine IS. It is in the Standard Works.

That is the way I understand those words.

The problem is the statement is horribly ambiguous. How can they "establish" doctrine which "resides" in the Standard Works?

Are they establishing it or does it reside in the SW? The two are inconsistent.

Edited July 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[blackstrap]

I suppose that it is possible that Moroni,with the faith of a mustard seed,said unto the ancient Hill Cumorah, "Be thou removed to New York State( or whatever it was called back then) " , and it was so,even as he spoke.

[blackstrap]

My problem with the New York hill being the ancient Cumorah,is what do we do with the hill Shim?

[Calm]

Plus why did Moroni hang around Cumorah for thirty plus years IIRC considering the Lamanites were out for blood? He seems much too much a sensible sort of guy and would, imo, head out as far and as fast as he could carrying only the plates he needed to finish the record, trusting to the Lord to ensure they got where they were meant to go eventually. Perhaps he was even told immediately where to head as long as he was leaving the area.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Anijen]

The Church has taken an official position that the NY Hill Cumorah is the same as the Book of Mormon's Cumorah. I think that those who teach otherwise in a church setting have apostatized.

A very strong opinion, and only an opinion. I am glad you are not my Bishop or Stake President.

In the first quote below, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith points out that those who hold to the Mesoamerican view are weak in the faith.

After personally speaking with two GAs, one Apostle, and the daughter of President Hinckley President Smith would view them as weak in their faith. This quote by President Smith is an opinion, and only opinion. It does not matter if quoted in a priesthood manual or spoken at general conference it is opinion. This is also from the church web site, ahem, the official church newsroom; "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. a statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

"Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and hear the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites called it), which hill is located between Palymra and Manchester . . . . Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many of the early brethren . . . have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah." (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed, 17 4.)

This is his opinion, same as the entire contents of his book Mormon Doctrine, (which I love by the way).

Elder Mark E. Peterson:

"As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New Y ork." -- Elder Mark E. Peterson, "The Last Words of Moroni." CR Oct. 197 8

This is his opinion.

.

President Anthony Ivins (at the time, member of the FP), in his "we know positively" sermon. This is "official" as far as the church is concerned:

"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 fromthis hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them." -- President Anthony Ivins, CR Apr. 1928.

Still only opinion

This address was Pres. Ivin's report to the Church about the purchase of the Hill Cumorah; thus, as the Church deliberated the purchase of Cumorah these discussions must have been had amongst the Brethren

I agree that "these discussions" of the purchase of the hill was discussed by the brethren. I bet you can not find a single document that says the discussion of it being the final battle location was discussed, and that part of your statement is opinion.

James E. Talmage:

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient people as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palymra in the State of New Y ork." (Articles of Fatih, p. 231 .) "The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the v icinity of the HIll Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York . . . ." (Articles of Faith, p. 235.)

His opinion,

Articles of Faith was pubilshed by the Church under the direction of the First Presidency, and the copyright has been held successively by Presidents of the Church. This, too, is "official."

It is true it was published by the Church and copyrighted by the Presidents of the Church. That does not make everything inside that great book by Talmage official doctrine.

Elder B.H. Roberts (Church Historian):

"Only three weeks ago, about now, I had the pleasure of standing upon the summit of the Hill Cumorah in company with President Grant. Being there upon that height of land, which so splendidly commands a view of the whole surrounding country, I could not refrain from recalling the time when Moroni stood upon the crown of that hill with the evidence of the ruins of the civilization of his people about him." -- Elder BH Roberts CR Oct. 1927 .

Elder Roberts opinion.

Well you get the picture.

It is Official Doctrine:

Is the above official doctrine? Yes,

No it is not. It is opinion, it is also your opinion that the above is official doctrine.

insofar as one understands the common English meaning of the phrase, "official doctrine."

So IOW if I disagree with you I do not understand English? Come on Bob why are you so judgmental at times?

Pronouncements on the topic have come from the highest officials of the church, at official meetings organized for the purpose of instructing the Saints.

Yes they have. They have because it was the common held belief by them at that time and those beliefs although held by church leaders do not make it official. You know as well as I do that our present day leaders do not reinforce these statements made in the past. If they were really and truly official show me were a a church leader living today has said something to that affect. They do not because it has not been declared and they have kept there opinions out of the public. There goal is to bring people to Christ and proclaim the will of the Lord. In privacy some have expressed their opinions that there are two hills named the same. I have personally heard from some church leaders., but you already think I am lying and an apostate for having these opinions. Edited July 18, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Calm]

I don't answer hypotheticals about religious faith. I hope you don't mind.

The Church has taken an official position that the NY Hill Cumorah is the same as the Book of Mormon's Cumorah. I think that those who teach otherwise in a church setting have apostatized.

I realize this is also a hypothetical but perhaps it is not too hypothetical to answer....I am curious if you held the position would refuse a temple recommend to someone who taught otherwise in a church setting since you believe they have apostatized and apostasy is considered grounds for excommunication so it seems like pulling a temple recommend would be the minimum you would do to encourage them to reconsider their position. Would you attempt to get them dismissed as a teacher in any case? I am asking because I want to understand how serious you view this apostasy. Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Anijen]

Bob likes quoting past church leaders and proclaims victory by the opinions they held at that time. Please note he does not quote any living General Authority nor living Apostle nor any in the First Presidency today.

Why if the New York Hill is the very same hill were the Nephites were annihilated is it not spoken by our church leaders today?

Why do the dedicatory prayers in Mexico have an abundance of references to the descendants of Lehi but the New York, Massachusetts, Ohio (were many of the mound builders were located), Michigan, Illinois (great lakes area), do not have a single reference to a descendant of Lehi?

Palmyra dedicatory Prayer here Note how in this wonderful prayer many topics of what had happened around the Palmyra area but not one mentioning it as a setting for Lehi's descendants nor of any final battle.

Quetzaltenango Guatemala dedicatory prayer here. Note on almost all dedicatory prayers in Mexico the often references to Lehi and his descendants but none in Palmyra or any of the great lake temples.

These are the closest quotes we can get from living General Authorities today on the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cdowis]

It is doctrine.

Oh dear, another chocolate cake fanatic.

We have hymns and scripture on the topic of Cumorah. We had an entire General Conference dedicated to the purchase of the Hill Cumorah. I may be mistaken but I believe the conference occurred at the foot of the monument.

We all agree that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah. For some reason your brain is incapable of comprehending that there are two hills with that name.

I live near Rome and Athens, and Georgia, but I live in the United States. Does that help?

Cumorah in NY is important because that is where JS got the plates.

We have many general authorities who have declared it from the general conference pulpit. In a revealed religion, an appeal to the authority of the Twelve and the FP is an appeal to the source of ultimate truth beyond personal revelation. Not an appeal to science.

It is doctrine because it is official.

I guess the priesthood ban is still in effect, because it was not going to be changed until the Millenium.

Anyway, I am clearly a disbeliever and an apostate, so you win. I give up.

Edited July 18, 2012 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

I think my brain is OK except I can't remember who my Alzheimer's doctor is.

[Bob Crockett]

Part of the problem with the Cumorah question is that some members go beyond the misguided statement that it isn't doctrine to actually advance the view that the Hill Cumorah is somewhere else.

So, if it is really a matter of opinion and conflicting opinion at that, then perhaps you can point me to an expression of an opinion of two Cumorahs that is held in the pulpit of General Conference, or a work copyrighted by the First Presidency, or in a priesthood manual. Just one?

I mean, if there are conflicting opinions, then in what official place might I read about the conflict?

The only reason I assert strong views about the orthodoxy of my position is because I have read what Pres. Smith has said about those who believe in two Hills.

Why do the dedicatory prayers in Mexico have an abundance of references to the descendants of Lehi but the New York, Massachusetts, Ohio (were many of the mound builders were located), Michigan, Illinois (great lakes area), do not have a single reference to a descendant of Lehi?

How reliable is this argument, really? On the one hand, you don't think much of a First Presidency statement in General Conference that "we know positively" that the hill is the hill is the hill, and on the other hand you quote dedicatory prayers.

What do you think of think of this statement in a dedicatory prayer? Mesa [from a President of the Church]:

We beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou wilt stay the hand of the destroyer among the descendants of Lehi who reside in this land and give unto them increasing virility and more abundant health, that they may not perish as a people but that from this time forth they may increase in numbers and in strength and in influence, that all the great and glorious promises made concerning the descendants of Lehi may be fulfilled in them; that they may grow in vigor of body and of mind, and above all in love for Thee and Thy Son, and increase in diligence and in faithfulness in keeping the commandments which have come to them through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that many of them may have the privilege of entering this holy house and receiving ordinances for themselves and their departed ancestors.

Or Sao Paulo:

We thank Thee that Thou didst bring Father Lehi and his family to this land of promise and Thou didst establish Thy people, the Nephites and the Lamanites and their Book of Mormon.

Or Colonia Juarez:

May the sons and daughters of father Lehi grow in strength and in fulfillment of the ancient promises made concerning them.

Or Cardston [from a President of the Church]:

We beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou wilt stay the hand of the destroyer among the descendants of Lehi, who reside in this land, and give unto them increasing virility and more abundant health, that they may not perish as a people, but that from this time forth they may increase in numbers and in strength and in influence, that all the great and glorious promises made concerning the descendants of Lehi, may be fulfilled in them; that they may grow in vigor of body and of mind, and above all in love for Thee and Thy Son, and increase in diligence and in faithfulness in keeping the commandments which have come to them through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that many of them may yet have the privilege of entering this holy house and receiving ordinances for themselves and their departed ancestors.

This is very problematic:

Bob likes quoting past church leaders and proclaims victory by the opinions they held at that time. Please note he does not quote any living General Authority nor living Apostle nor any in the First Presidency today.

I quote Church leaders because the matter of the HIll Cumorah is a matter revealed fact, not scientific fact. If it were true that the concept of the Hill Cumorah is weak and fluid, we'd see some inroads into the statements of other general authorities. There aren't any.

It is very troublesome to jettison the firm statements of past church leaders, especially when they are not contradicted. Keep in mind Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's views on this. The theory for two Cumorahs is one held by people weak in the faith, he maintains. I think the rationale for his view is that folks are troubled by what they see is a lack of on-the-ground evidence for a battleground around the Hill Cumorah.

The Book of Mormon stands on its own as a revealed text. Part of the story of the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith has said about its production, and the Hill Cumorah is part of that story. When you start questioning the uncontradicted statements[FN1] of the Brethren on an important topic merely because it isn't convenient to your objective senses, then I guess you can feel free to ignore as inconvenient a lot of what they say on other issues.

[FN1]. By contrast, the following topics have received contradictory treatment by the Brethren: Adam is our God; Jehovah is Jesus Christ; Evolution; whether God really has a body or is something that fills every particle; whether the sealing ceremony should be published; plural marriage after the manifesto.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

Bob I think the answer why the General Authorities do not speak about it today is because it is controversial. It could only help a very, very, very small amount of members (and only half of those because if a side is taken it will obviously make one side wrong). They have said that speaking of geography is not the main message (or any part of the message). These men will speak of how the Book of Mormon can strengthen us and bring us closer to the Savior.

When I have had the chance to meet some of our leaders in a one on one setting, I have asked them and so far the answers have been; 1) two Cumorahs, or, 2) not geography but how the Book of Mormon can strengthen us and bring us closer to the Savior. Not one whom I have spoken with has subscribed to Cumorah as the final battle place between the Lamanites and Nephites.

There are no statements today because it is not important and takes away from the message they want to give. Not because as you write "the concept of the Hill Cumorah is weak and fluid"

Edited July 18, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Bob Crockett]

When I have had the chance to meet some of our leaders in a one on one setting, I have asked them and so far the answers have been; 1) two Cumorahs, or, 2) not geography but how the Book of Mormon can strengthen us and bring us closer to the Savior. Not one whom I have spoken with has subscribed to Cumorah as the final battle place between the Lamanites and Nephites.

I don't think much of that evidence, that there is some secret inside track to the General Authorities where additional knowledge is conveyed to explain or contradict what the rest of us get over the pulpit. I don't think you'd like it if I quoted from one of my close relatives on this very topic who until his death in 1988 was in the First Presidency.

When it comes to revealed religion and an established hierarchy, members get their doctrine from (1) official publications, (2) statements by ranking officials in general gatherings, and (3) official study guides. All of these sources have said that the Hill Cumorah is the same as old Cumorah and Ramah. None of these sources say otherwise.

And, as painful as it is to point this out, in prior discussions on this board, it was revealed by those in the know that when John Sorenson went to publish his 1994 Ensign article, he was asked to remove his statements about two Cumorahs.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

I don't think much of that evidence, that there is some secret inside track to the General Authorities where additional knowledge is conveyed to explain or contradict what the rest of us get over the pulpit. I don't think you'd like it if I quoted from one of my close relatives on this very topic who until his death in 1988 was in the First Presidency.

I agree with you here. My wife had a relative in the Quorum of the Twelve, and a Seventy cousin, having said that, I still agree.

When it comes to revealed religion and an established hierarchy, members get their doctrine from (1) official publications, (2) statements by ranking officials in general gatherings, and (3) official study guides. All of these sources have said that the Hill Cumorah is the same as old Cumorah and Ramah. None of these sources say otherwise.

This is where I disagree (somewhat). Yes doctrine is given via these mediums yet that does not mean everything from these is official doctrine. Hopefully in the future some of these statements will be corrected, some already have been. Corrections have happened in all of these sources that you mention, one example in the Book of Mormon the term coinage was removed from the headings. That does not mean it was ever official doctrine because it was printed in the Book of Mormon but because it was opinion. I have taught seminary off and on (in my home, in our chapel, and on my mission) I have seen changes in the manuals from going from one Cumorah to not even being mentioned and has become a vague reference to its location as north. Cumorah mentioned in the seminary manuals now only speak of it as were Joseph received the plates.

And, as painful as it is to point this out, in prior discussions on this board, it was revealed by those in the know that when John Sorenson went to publish his 1994 Ensign article, he was asked to remove his statements about two Cumorahs.

CFR you say this often. I would like to know if it was edited out due to size and it needed to be smaller. Could you please provide a citation that Sorenson was asked to remove the two Cumorah part because it was not official, or untrue. IOW I believe he could have been asked to remove this part, but I haven't yet seen anything that says he was asked because it was untrue.

[Anijen]

I don't think you'd like it if I quoted from one of my close relatives on this very topic who until his death in 1988 was in the First Presidency.

Even today we have President Eyring in the First Presidency whose dad disagreed with President Smith on some doctrine. Yet President Smith did not feel he was weak in his faith for holding different ideas.

[Bob Crockett]

CFR you say this often.

The FIRM Wobbles thread.

[Anijen]

The FIRM Wobbles thread.

I did a search for "FIRM Wobbles" the only thing that comes up is your post. On google search the many banking failures come up. I don't mind doing the research but can you give me another hint were to go?

[Bob Crockett]

The thread's been deleted. I didn't save my reference, but somebody on this board worked with Sorenson on that 1994 paper and commented upon the fact that the two Cumorah material had been deleted. Either Brant Gardner or Kevin C. if I were making an educated guess. But until I can get one of them to repeat his statement, I'm going to have to withdraw that little gem of outstanding evidence.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

The thread's been deleted. I didn't save my reference, but somebody on this board worked with Sorenson on that 1994 paper and commented upon the fact that the two Cumorah material had been deleted. Either Brant Gardner or Kevin C. if I were making an educated guess. But until I can get one of them to repeat his statement, I'm going to have to withdraw that little gem of outstanding evidence.

You do not have to withdraw it, I believe that someone did say it. Did Brant or Kevin say that the two Cumorah material was edited out for the reason it was not doctrine? Could it have been another reason.

[Bob Crockett]

You do not have to withdraw it, I believe that someone did say it. Did Brant or Kevin say that the two Cumorah material was edited out for the reason it was not doctrine? Could it have been another reason.

You're risking a lot by asking me. As I recall, the explanation given Dr. Sorenson was that it was overreaching, or controversial, or something like that.

[mfbukowski]

I quote Church leaders because the matter of the HIll Cumorah is a matter revealed fact, not scientific fact.

AHA! We have discovered the problem! Here is the conflict: you are taking the revealed "fact" to BE scientific fact.

There are no revealed "facts"- there are only revelations about spiritual matters. You are seeking a revelation about a historical, scientific fact, the location of the "true" Hill Cumorah.

By your own admission, that is contradictory.

But I wouldn't worry about it. Most here make the same confusion.

[mfbukowski]

There are no statements today because it is not important and takes away from the message they want to give. Not because as you write "the concept of the Hill Cumorah is weak and fluid"

I think it is wisdom- they at last have understood that the gospel is not about science or scientific fact. We call those who take religious statements to be science "fundamentalists".

I honestly do not think the world was created in 6 days. If others want to take spiritual statements to be scientific facts, that is their business.

Edited July 18, 2012 by mfbukowski