Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[cursor]

hen I post something on philosophy and I think it is perfectly clear and totally obvious.

Wait ... what exactly do you mean? [JK]

[cdowis]

I don't recall ever losing a debate here.

We are very much aware of that, based on your assumption that "BOM geography is doctrine, a fundamental principle of the Gospel, as declared by the leaders of the church in official statements in General Conference, as canonized by the church each time we sustain the church leaders. Only one who is weak in the faith would ever disclaim it."

Clearly we cannot change your assumption, so you have indeed "never lost a debate."

I remember someone said that if you assume that the Catholic church is the only true church, there is no argument that can prove it otherwise. You merely continue to repeat your assumption, and that gives you strength that makes you invincible to any argument.

It's impossible to lose the debate.

Edited July 18, 2012 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

Clearly we cannot change your assumption, so you have indeed "never lost a debate."

You merely continue to repeat your assumption, and that gives you strength that makes you invincible to any argument.

I don't claim it as an assumption. My statements are backed up by innumerable general authority statements and official publications. There is nothing of equal dignity to contradict my statement, that is, that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the same as the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah.

An assumption is an a priori conclusion without citing any authority.

In a revealed faith where the revelations of prophets and apostles rank as the highest authority, even perhaps more than the scriptures themselves, I'd say my case has been made on the highest authority.

I will retract it all if you'll tell me whether there is any official church publication or general conference statement that says that there are two Hill Cumorahs. The absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

In a revealed faith where the revelations of prophets and apostles rank as the highest authority, even perhaps more than the scriptures themselves, I'd say my case has been made on the highest authority.

I sincerely hope that your courtroom arguments are more credibly presented.

Tell me, if you will, which prophetic statement(s) (that would be by the President of the Church, by the First Presidency (as a collective body), or by the Council of the Twelve) support(s) your position that there cannot be any alternative to the hill Cumorah/Ramah (in NY) as the final battleground of the Nephites and the Jaredites,

Edited July 19, 2012 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

I sincerely hope that your courtroom arguments are more credibly presented.

Tell me, if you will, which prophetic statement(s) (that would be by the President of the Church, by the First Presidency (as a collective body), or by the Council of the Twelve) support(s) your position that there cannot be any alternative to the hill Cumorah/Ramah (in NY) as the final battleground of the Nephites and the Jaredites,

Sure.

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

This is an excerpt from General Conference, an entire conference oriented around the Church's recent purchase of the Hill Cumorah. Pres. Grant? or whoever was president was on the stand at the time. Ivins was a member of the First Presidency. "We know positively" does not admit any other possibility. "We" means that he is speaking for the church and the First Presidency.

Then there's President Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation which was approved by the Q12 as a priesthood manual, still in print, which condemns specifically the two-Cumorah theory.

Look, I'm willing to admit to the possibility of a countervailing view if there has been one expressed in public by one of the Brethren. Has there been?

By the way, I do take exception to somebody referring to some personal attribute of mine. I get enough of that on anti-Mormon boards, that somehow because I'm a lawyer I should be disregarded. You can probably check my reputation with people here who may know who I am and what type of work I do, bad or good, little or small. I don't even tell anybody here that I'm a lawyer (well, I do cite to the rules of evidence frequently) so I'm curious as to how you'd know that. But it has nothing to do with this particular issue, as a lawyer has no more inability or ability to weigh forth than an accountant.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[webbles]

Look, I'm willing to admit to the possibility of a countervailing view if there has been one expressed in public by one of the Brethren. Has there been?

I was browsing the FAIR wiki and I noticed a quote from Harold B. Lee in 1966 (http://en.fairmormon...on_of_Zarahemla)

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?

Instead of being absolutely certain where the Hill Cumorah is, he instead said that we don't have the latitude and longitude for it. Is that good enough?

Edited to add:

I found another quote from Mark E Peterson (In the 1950s section of this page: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century)

…we all have our free agency. God doesn’t rob anyone of that. And sometimes even a General Authority has used his agency in a wrong direction…Now, a General Authority might speculate, I suppose. We have had speculation, for instance, on the part of some with respect to Book of Mormon geography, and it is plain, unadulterated speculation and not doctrine. And if a General Authority has speculated on Book of Mormon geography he did not represent the view of the Church while doing so

Edited July 19, 2012 by webbles

[Calm]

I was browsing the FAIR wiki and I noticed a quote from Harold B. Lee in 1966 (http://en.fairmormon...on_of_Zarahemla)

Instead of being absolutely certain where the Hill Cumorah is, he instead said that we don't have the latitude and longitude for it. Is that good enough?

Also:

One review of this topic notes: In 1938 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote an article published in the Deseret News arguing against what he then termed the "modernist" theory that the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites may have been in Central America rather than in New York. In 1956 this article was included in a selection of Elder Smith's writings compiled by his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie. Although Elder Smith would later become president of the church in 1970, his article arguing for a New York location as the scene of the final battlefield was written many years before he assumed that position, and he apparently never revisited the question as president of the church. There is evidence that Elder Smith may have softened his opposition on the Cumorah question. In a letter written to Fletcher B. Hammond, who argued emphatically for a Central American location and had sent Elder Smith a copy of his findings, the apostle explained, "I am sure this will be very interesting although I have never paid any attention whatever to Book of Mormon geography because it appears to me that it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of guesswork."  Apparently, he did not consider his 1938 argument as settled and definitive or as a measure of doctrinal orthodoxy. Sidney B. Sperry, after whom an annual Brigham Young University symposium is named, was also one who initially supported the New York Cumorah view (that is, an area of New York as the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites). During the 1960s, as he began to explore the issue, he came to a different conclusion... Reversing his earlier position, he wrote: "It is now my very carefully studied and considered opinion that the Hill Cumorah to which Mormon and his people gathered was somewhere in Middle America. The Book of Mormon evidence to this effect is irresistible and conclusive to one who will approach it with an open mind. This evidence has been reviewed by a few generations of bright students in graduate classes who have been given the challenge to break it down if they can. To date none has ever been able to do so."  Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it." ^[3]

It seems clear, then, that Elder (later President) Smith did not regard his views as the product of revelation, nor did he regard it as illegitimate to have a different view of the matter.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Hill_Cumorah

[ANACO]

After reading this discussion thread, I'm relieved to learn that the Head of our Church, bypassed the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles and revealed the location of the original Hill Cumorah to Dr. John L. Sorenson, who was born in the 1920s. To think of how long the Church had to wait on this topic.

Should I take a pair of scissors and remove this verse from the scriptures?

Doctrine and Covenants 128:20

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!

The Prophet, Seer and Revelator, was talking of the Land of Cumorah, in the above verse. If you have access to a mapping program, maybe you can map, if partially, the Land of Cumorah. But if you believe this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants only contains an opinion, your hesitation is understandable.

Kind regards.

[Bob Crockett]

I found another quote from Mark E Peterson (In the 1950s section of this page: http://en.fairmormon...entieth_century)

As I have pointed out in the past, Mesoamericanists and Sorensonists (not Sorenson himself) abuse these quotes for the exact opposite of what they are intended. There is a long history of the brethren condemning Book of Mormon geographic speculation which conflicts with the notion that the Hill Cumorah is the Hill Cumorah of New York. You're quoting directly from that thread. I have made that point several times with specific references.

As to the Sidney Sperry quote, I wonder how that could possibly trump official church statements. I mean, I could quote from a close relative of mine in the First Presidency directly to the contrary and which probably postdates the quote. But why do I need to do so? I have it in official communications. The church does not run on special knowledge spoken secretly to persons with an agenda.

Let's be real here. Are you going to pick and choose from the Brethren's teachings which are uncontradicted?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[webbles]

After reading this discussion thread, I'm relieved to learn that the Head of our Church, bypassed the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles and revealed the location of the original Hill Cumorah to Dr. John L. Sorenson, who was born in the 1920s. To think of how long the Church had to wait on this topic.

Should I take a pair of scissors and remove this verse from the scriptures?

Doctrine and Covenants 128:20

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!

The Prophet, Seer and Revelator, was talking of the Land of Cumorah, in the above verse. If you have access to a mapping program, maybe you can map, if partially, the Land of Cumorah. But if you believe this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants only contains an opinion, your hesitation is understandable.

Kind regards.

What is the problem with this verse and 2 Cumorahs? The hill in New York is definitely called Hill Cumorah and the Book of Mormon was revealed from that hill.

Edited July 19, 2012 by webbles

[webbles]

As I have pointed out in the past, Mesoamericanists and Sorensonists (not Sorenson himself) abuse these quotes for the exact opposite of what they are intended. There is a long history of the brethren condemning Book of Mormon geographic speculation which conflicts with the notion that the Hill Cumorah is the Hill Cumorah of New York. You're quoting directly from that thread. I have made that point several times with specific references.

As to the Sidney Sperry quote, I wonder how that could possibly trump official church statements. I mean, I could quote from a close relative of mine in the First Presidency directly to the contrary and which probably postdates the quote. But why do I need to do so? I have it in official communications. The church does not run on special knowledge spoken secretly to persons with an agenda.

What about the Harold B. Lee quote? And I'm not quoting from any thread so I don't know the context you are talking about.

[ANACO]

Also:

http://en.fairmormon...gy/Hill_Cumorah

Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it."

FAIR doesn't get it. They appeal to the authority of President Smith, but ignore President's Smith's opinions, which were contrary to Brother Sperry's. And being a Leader of the Church who believed the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, why would President Smith even hint that Brother Sperry was never entitled to his opinion?

Kind regards

[Bob Crockett]

What about the Harold B. Lee quote? And I'm not quoting from any thread so I don't know the context you are talking about.

When I first started defending my position, I challenged this quote and asked the promoters of it to post the entire talk from which this quote is lifted. Finally, Dan Vogel came on to demonstrate that the quote was misused and garbled. It appears that the FAIR source for this quote is a multiply-garbled source when Vogel had something more direct. I can't figure out any more how this Board's index works to find that.

Be that as it may, this is really the best possible quote for the anti-Joseph Smith version of the Hill Cumorah, and it isn't very much, really. It wasn't public. It wasn't published in church proceedings. It wasn't stated in General Conference with the talks to be later circulated in published form to the members. The FAIR source is not from an official publication.

[ANACO]

What is the problem with this verse and 2 Cumorahs? The hill in New York is definitely called Hill Cumorah and the Book of Mormon was revealed from that hill.

Because according to LDS Apologists for Mesoamerica, Joseph Smith didn't know anything about Mesoamerica until two years before his death when he was given a travel book about it. So Joseph Smith was lying in that verse about the location of the Land of Cumorah.

What may startle some about this situation is that 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. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas.

http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

So you have these LDS Apologists claiming canonized scripture is inaccurate, because they place the Land of Cumorah in Mesoamerica.

D&C 128 was given in 1842. The Travel Book was received in 1842:

There was one brief episode in Nauvoo when Nephite geography received new attention. A phenomenally popular book by John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan (New York, 1841), came into the possession of Church leaders in Nauvoo in 1842 http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

Sort of makes LDS Apologists for Mesoamerica appear to be weak in the faith.

But what do I know. I just read articles at NAMI.

Kind regards.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ANACO

[Calm]

They appeal to the authority of President Smith, but ignore President's Smith's opinions, which were contrary to Brother Sperry's.

No, they are not appealing to authority, they are pointing out that President Smith regarded his viewpoint that he has published as an opinion, not revealed fact.

[webbles]

Because according to LDS Apologists for Mesoamerica, Joseph Smith didn't know anything about Mesoamerica until two years before his death when he was given a travel book about it. So Joseph Smith was lying in that verse about the location of the Land of Cumorah.

What may startle some about this situation is that 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. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas.

http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

So you have these LDS Apologists claiming canonized scripture is inaccurate, because they place the Land of Cumorah in Mesoamerica.

D&C 128 was given in 1842. The Travel Book was received in 1842:

There was one brief episode in Nauvoo when Nephite geography received new attention. A phenomenally popular book by John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan (New York, 1841), came into the possession of Church leaders in Nauvoo in 1842 http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

Sort of makes LDS Apologists for Mesoamerica appear to be weak in the faith.

But what do I know. I just read articles at NAMI.

Kind regards.

I'm sorry, but I must be really dense. What you said still doesn't show how that verse has a problem with 2 Cumorahs.

[Calm]

When I first started defending my position, I challenged this quote and asked the promoters of it to post the entire talk from which this quote is lifted. Finally, Dan Vogel came on to demonstrate that the quote was misused and garbled. It appears that the FAIR source for this quote is a multiply-garbled source when Vogel had something more direct. I can't figure out any more how this Board's index works to find that.

Don't mean to be offensive (yes, I know that generally means I really do mean to be), but considering what I came across when I research your claim that Brant Gardner had been the one who had stated that Sorenson had been required to be edited, I really would need to see the actual comment and I haven't been able to find it on the site yet nor has Vogel connected with the Harold B Lee quote (nothing came up taking a short coherent phrase in conjunction with Vogel's name). I will keep looking, but until then I trust your memory as much as I trust mine, IOW I don't trust it to be precise enough.

I have found one source that lists the quote as available in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 156; if the quote is garbled, it is probably from this book rather than the original talk.

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[ANACO]

I'm sorry, but I must be really dense. What you said still doesn't show how that verse has a problem with 2 Cumorahs.

Go to NAMI's website. It has a great search engine. Search by topic. Searching for "cumorah" returns this among many:

"There is also general agreement that the probable site of the Hill Ramah/Cumorah was at the hill called Vigia, in Veracruz, Mexico."

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=29

D&C 128:20 is completely ignored. The scriptures? phooey! Joseph Smith learned from a travel book! It's scholarly after all.

To re-emphasize, The Prophet noted the land of Cumorah in the New York area.

LDS Apologists ignore this and place Cumorah in Mexico.

This isn't about two hills, it's about the Land of Cumorah which would identify the location of the original hill.

King regards.

edit: quotes, italics

Edited July 19, 2012 by ANACO

[webbles]

Go to NAMI's website. It has a great search engine. Search by topic. Searching for "cumorah" returns this among many:

"There is also general agreement that the probable site of the Hill Ramah/Cumorah was at the hill called Vigia, in Veracruz, Mexico."

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=29

D&C 128:20 is completely ignored. The scriptures? phooey! Joseph Smith learned from a travel book! It's scholarly after all.

To re-emphasize, The Prophet noted the land of Cumorah in the New York area.

LDS Apologists ignore this and place Cumorah in Mexico.

This isn't about two hills, it's about the Land of Cumorah which would identify the location of the original hill.

King regards.

edit: quotes, italics

When I read that verse, I see that Joseph Smith is talking about the hill from which he retrieved the plates. That hill is called Hill Cumorah. But he is not associating that hill with the hill that is actually mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That is why I don't see a problem with that verse and 2 Cumorahs.

[Bob Crockett]

Don't mean to be offensive (yes, I know that generally means I really do mean to be), but considering what I came across when I research your claim that Brant Gardner had been the one who had stated that Sorenson had been required to be edited, I really would need to see the actual comment and I haven't been able to find it on the site yet nor has Vogel connected with the Harold B Lee quote (nothing came up taking a short coherent phrase in conjunction with Vogel's name). I will keep looking, but until then I trust your memory as much as I trust mine, IOW I don't trust it to be precise enough.

I have found one source that lists the quote as available in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 156; if the quote is garbled, it is probably from this book rather than the original talk.

I thought your quotes found earlier today completely vindicated my recollection that something less that what Sorenson wanted published was published.

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . there are two Hill Cumorahs. The absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence.

Are you sure that you didn't intend to say "two Hills Cumorah"?

Or are you just baiting someone?

[Calm]

I thought your quotes found earlier today completely vindicated my recollection that something less that what Sorenson wanted published was published.

I didn't see your recollection as being completely accurate.

[Bob Crockett]

I didn't see your recollection as being completely accurate.

Now we're debating what I said. Well, I'm the best judge of that, I hope.

Are you sure that you didn't intend to say "two Hills Cumorah"?

Or are you just baiting someone?

Ho ho! You can't bait me!

[Calm]

Now we're debating what I said. Well, I'm the best judge of that, I hope.

Did you claim or did I misunderstand you that Brant or Kevin or someone told you that Sorenson had been forced to edit his article or it was edited for him and "As I recall, the explanation given Dr. Sorenson was that it was overreaching, or controversial, or something like that"? What Brant actually said was simply that the story about the two Cumorahs in regards to the article was Sorenson's to tell, but that "he had not backed away from his understanding that they had to be different". It was Robert Smith who referred to editors interfering, but he never stated he knew this had happened in Sorenson's case that I saw and since Sorenson stated this didn't happen, he couldn't have.

edited to remove suggested confrontational tone.

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[webbles]

I have found one source that lists the quote as available in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 156; if the quote is garbled, it is probably from this book rather than the original talk.

The quote from The Teachings of Harold B. Lee is:

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? (66-07)

It cites ""Loyalty." Address to Seminary and Institute Faculty, Brigham Young University, 8 July 1966."