Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[Bob Crockett]

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.

I take it as a revealed fact the earthly mission of the Savior, of His resurrection. These are "facts" known only by believing the statements of prophets.

Similarly, the fact that today's Hill Cumorah is the same as the Nephite Hill Cumorah and the Jaredite Ramah comes not from looking at current maps on the area, but from statements contained in the Book of Mormon, the D&C, JS History, Oliver Cowdery, and of most significance, the First Presidency in the 1920s when the Hill Cumorah was acquired.

These fellows and sources obtained their "facts" from revelation.

So, to claim that the Hill Cumorah is in Guatemala is like saying that Noah's Ark really was found in Russia because the most logical place to land the ark was a place that made better sense on the maps.

Or that the story of Christ on the Cross is true because St. Helena unearthed the crux vera.

Or that the story of the Gold Plates is true because metal flakes of gold have been found in the David Whitmer home.

And so forth. Scientific fact to explain revealed fact is bound to result in ridicule, mistakes and supposition.

And so it is here with the Mesoamerican nonsense.

I don't really care about the Cumorahs issue, really, The focus on Mesoamerican studies and such is symptomatic of a greater sin, and let me just call it the "Vain Striving of Thomas Stuart Ferguson Sin." Or even better yet, "Building the Tower of Babel." Because that's all that Ancient America Speaks is, to split infinitives.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

As I recall, the explanation given Dr. Sorenson was that it was overreaching, or controversial, or something like that.

In the absence of other sources, I've asked my father directly (via email).

[ERayR]

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 ERayR

[cursor]

(thanks for that clarifying post, ERayR)

I wrote JLS:

I just read your Ensign articles again. Nice stuff! =)

I note that there is not one mention of the hill Cumorah/Ramah by name. You do say, however, that

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land” 11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light.

'Bob Crockett' insists that as your "Digging into the Book of Mormon" article-set was being prepared for publication, you were

required

to remove specific mention that the hill Cumorah in NY might

not

be the final battleground of the Jaredites and the Nephites. He hints that his source is Brant Gardner or Kevin Christensen. While those two are

not

participating in this particular thread/topic, they are both active members of MormonDialogue.com.

Do you remember how things developed leading up to 1984? Sounds kinda Orwellian, doesn't it?

My father replied:

Pooh! There is no truth whatever in this supposed account of what took place. I was never asked by anyone at The Ensign to make any change at all to what I submitted to them. Neither of the men mentioned had anything to do with the editing process, and I cannot imagine where either of them (both are scholars I respect), or any other person, came up with this cockamamy idea.

That sounds pretty darn clear and decisive to me.

Edited July 18, 2012 by cursor

[Calm]

You are so convenient to have around.

[cursor]

I'm glad that JLS makes himself so available to me. He's certainly a great guy to have on one's team.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

You're right, Bob,

You were here on this Board for many of those discussions, and you lost the debate each time. Perchance you are back yet again, to even the score? You figure perhaps on wearing everybody down? Or, are you really putting us all on? I can't really tell, but I believe in person that you are a peach of a guy. Maybe just a little bored.

Bob Smith

[mfbukowski]

I take it as a revealed fact the earthly mission of the Savior, of His resurrection. These are "facts" known only by believing the statements of prophets.

No, they are not. You would not even know that some guy who wrote something 3 thousand years ago in some language long dead was a "prophet" unless God himself told you that in your heart.

Based on historical "evidence" and "facts" you could not possibly know that stories about a carpenter's son from Nazareth who did fabled miracles too phenomenal to believe were "true" or that indeed this person took upon himself the sins of all who ever lived or will live by being crucified on a Roman cross 2000 years ago near some backwater village with just a few witnesses to even back up the story.

Without a testimony, the story that this person actually came back to life after 3 days in the tomb is the most preposterous yarn ever told, and the fact that such a large portion of humanity actually believes that would be among the greatest tragedies of mankind- that so many have lost their lives in wars over such a preposterous story would be enough to qualify such a lie as perhaps THE greatest crime perpetrated on humanity.

Trust me. As a former atheist, I know. There is NO possibility that you can prove spiritual truths objectively by science or history to be "facts".

If you think there are, you are deluding yourself.

[mfbukowski]

And so forth. Scientific fact to explain revealed fact is bound to result in ridicule, mistakes and supposition.

Exactly - so why can you not see that this is what you are doing??

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind. I don't even live in Utah much less have family who are GA's.

I actually have to believe this stuff based on testimony. Pretty weird, huh?

Edited July 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'm glad that JLS makes himself so available to me. He's certainly a great guy to have on one's team.

The thread would be a lot more interesting if we said things understandable to the general audience. Not all of us are in the "in crowd".

[Calm]

cursor is Brother Sorenson's son.

[mfbukowski]

Never mind again.

[mfbukowski]

cursor is Brother Sorenson's son.

Aha. Ok I missed that I guess-

[Bob Crockett]

You're right, Bob,

You were here on this Board for many of those discussions, and you lost the debate each time. Perchance you are back yet again, to even the score? You figure perhaps on wearing everybody down? Or, are you really putting us all on? I can't really tell, but I believe in person that you are a peach of a guy. Maybe just a little bored.

Bob Smith

I don't recall ever losing a debate here. I don't always know the facts because I am an outsider and a Californian to boot.

It isn't a personality defect to believe that that sacred Hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon is today in New York, or that Asherah is a damnable heresy.

I'm glad to hear the real scoop from Dr. S. I wish I had that old thread to see who was telling me that that one change was required in the editorial process. I certainly don't have first-hand knowledge, even though I work for .

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

ts that as your "Digging into the Book of Mormon" article-set was being prepared for publication, you were required to remove specific mention that the hill Cumorah in NY might not be the final battleground of the Jaredites and the Nephites. He hints that his source is Brant Gardner or Kevin Christensen. While those two are not participating in this particular thread/topic, they are both active members of MormonDialogue.com.

Actually if I have been successful in my detective work, I think Bob has drawn a conclusion based on incomplete evidence. He made an assumption based on something Brant said that declined to state why the two Cumorahs was not more specified in Dr. Sorenson's Ensign article and has since then repeated it as a proven conclusion:

I think if you'll check the posts above, from Brant and from Robert Smith, you'll find something I didn't realize before, and that is that Sorenson was forced to take out his two Cumorahs theory from his 1984 Ensign article. So you can read it the way you'd like but the actual facts are more compelling. Unless the two of them were just making it up.

But I went and read the above posts by both and did not see that at all. In fact Robert Smith says:

Moreover, in his 1984Ensign series, John Sorenson did not hold back anything. You need to think long and hard about what constitutes evidence of absence. You are making uncalled for assumptions -- as Brant Gardner made clear to you.

He also states (and this is where I think Bob picked up that it was the editors who removed it):

No he didn't. Read it again, and then reflect on what Gardner is not permitted to tell you, and use your forensic courtroom logic to grasp who has final control on what appears in print in a Church magazine.

Have you ever been edited? Well, I have, and it can be something less than a pleasant experience. I imagine that, from time to time, you find a judge editing testimony (including your question) out of the official record -- even though it was not your intention. Nuff said?

http://www.mormondia...h/page__st__300

This is Brant's comment that Bob Crockett states supports his claim (I am trying to find the original thread for context):

Sorenson actually told me the reason for that, but it is his story to tell, not mine. I know that he had not backed away from his understanding that they had to be different. The evidence based on distances did (and does) require that the two hills be different.

http://www.mormondia...entry1208975319

Here is the original post: which was in response to this comment of Bob's:

And then, I might add, when John Sorenson published his piece in the Ensign he was careful to skirt the two Cumorahs theory in his piece.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[cursor]

The thread would be a lot more interesting if we said things understandable to the general audience. Not all of us are in the "in crowd".

So sorry for not being more clear, mfbukowski. As calmoriah explains, JLS is John L. Sorenson, and he is my father.

[Calm]

Aha. Ok I missed that I guess-

You were gone when he showed up (your recent break from the board for a few days). By the time you came back he was an oldtimer.

[Bob Crockett]

Here is the original post: which was in response to this comment of Bob's:

Thank you so much for finding that. I can't understand why I couldn't but my C.S. minor is worthless today.

[mfbukowski]

You were gone when he showed up (your recent break from the board for a few days). By the time you came back he was an oldtimer.

Thanks. You doze off for a few days, and when you wake up you feel like Rip Van Winkle

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't recall ever losing a debate here. I don't always know the facts because I am an outsider and a Californian to boot.

It isn't a personality defect to believe that that sacred Hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon is today in New York, or that Asherah is a damnable heresy.

I'm glad to hear the real scoop from Dr. S. I wish I had that old thread to see who was telling me that that one change was required in the editorial process. I certainly don't have first-hand knowledge, even though I work for the Church.

A lot of us work for the Church in one fashion or another. Why just a couple weeks ago I was hoeing weeds in an expansive Church vegetable garden here in Utah Valley. Work we must, Bob, but the lunch is free.

[Calm]

Thank you so much for finding that. I can't understand why I couldn't but my C.S. minor is worthless today.

No problem, makes me feel like I've done something worthwhile today even though I haven't yet left my bedroom (it is about 10 degrees cooler than the rest of the house, do you blame me?)

[Calm]

Thanks. You doze off for a few days, and when you wake up you feel like Rip Van Winkle

That is why I never sleep for more than a few hours at a time.

[mfbukowski]

So sorry for not being more clear, mfbukowski. As calmoriah explains, JLS is John L. Sorenson, and he is my father.

No problem- we all have our specialties and then assume everyone knows them as well as we do. When I post something on philosophy and I think it is perfectly clear and totally obvious, I usually find out very quickly that no one understood me at all.

I think it is an occupational hazard of knowing a narrow area well.

[cursor]

I don't recall ever losing a debate here.

Um, you're kidding ... right?

I don't always know the facts because I am an outsider and a Californian to boot.

Join the club, brother.