Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[Calm]

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

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

Thank you. That is what I thought. I am now trying to track down a copy of that. Have one lead. It is unfortunately not online that I can find.

[ANACO]

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.

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!

I can understand where you're coming from, since there's not much emphasis about the "land of cumorah." When one hears "cumorah," one normally thinks of a hill, not the land. Both have the same name. (Mormon 6:2,4)

Joseph Smith didn't mention a hill in this verse. He was referring to "cumorah."

"Glad tidings from cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven declaring..the book to be revealed" refers to the angel's 4 visits to Joseph Smith at his home - when the angel declared the book to be revealed.. Similar to the other mentioned heavenly visitors in cumorah concerning the key events in the restoration of the priesthood and the church.

Kind regards.

[livy111us]

Here are some interesting thoughts:

“the hill from which the Book of Mormon plates were obtained by Joseph Smith is definitely known. In the days of the Prophet this hill was known among the people as Cumorah. This is a fixed point in Book of Mormon later history. There is a controversy, however, about the Hill Cumorah—not about the location where the Book of Mormon plates were found, but whether it is the hill under that name near which Nephite events took place. A name says one, may be applied to more than one hill; and plates containing the records of a people, sacred things, could be moved from place to place by divine help.” John A. Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547; reprinted in John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 3:94.

Here is the quote and sources I have. I'll see what else I can find

“ 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?” Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172–173.

Angel Abrea: "I have been asked to respond to your earlier letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley regarding a Hill Cumorah Pageant advertisement. You expressed concern that the ad was misleading because it stated, 'The Hill Cumorah, where a great battle was fought in ancient America. . . .' We appreciate your concern and have directed those responsible for the pageant to remove the phrase from the advertisements for all future products of the Hill Cumorah Pageant." (LDS Church Missionary Department letter to Al Shumate, February 12, 1990)

Dan Peterson might have some insights. He said on this board in the past: “we have books published by the Church's wholly owned publishing company arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have articles published in the Church's official magazine arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have scholars at the Church's wholly-owned and closely-managed university arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have an Institute at that university that is publicly and openly associated with the view that those battles took place elsewhere. And, for what it's worth, I've spoken directly with General Authorities of the Church who believe that those battles took place elsewhere. If a New York location for the final battles were truly a binding and official doctrine of the Church, it's unthinkable that the leaders of the Church would permit vocal and public dissent from that view in the Church's own magazines, in books published by its publishing company, and in its own university.”

[ANACO]

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.

I see. So we have the admittance that Sperry's opinion is not revealed fact. So why does it take precedence over President Smith's opinion? Because Sperry spoke with more authority than did President Smith?

[Calm]

I see. So we have the admittance that Sperry's opinion is not revealed fact. So why does it take precedence over President Smith's opinion? Because Sperry spoke with more authority than did President Smith?

It doesn't. I'm not claiming Sperry spoke with more authority, neither is FAIR. FAIR is not claiming either opinion. FAIR's stated position is that the Church does not have any position so FAIR itself does not endorse any opinion.

See this for example:

Some have used scripture to support the view that the New York drumlin is not the same hill as the place of the Nephite destruction (since that is the majority view among scholars). While that is one plausible view based on this scripture, that point is left ambiguous. During his 36-year wandering to escape the Lamanites, Moroni could have traveled a great distance. If the Nephite Cumorah was not in New York, Moroni could easily have eventually come to modern New York state where he buried the plates. On the other hand, he could have easily remained in the general area of the Nephite destruction in his wanderings.....

The Church has no official position on any New World location described in the Book of Mormon. There is no official revelation in the Church establishing the drumlin in New York as the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where two nations were destroyed. It is true that a number of Church leaders in the past expressed the opinion that the hill in New York is the same hill described in the Book of Mormon. Whether that opinion was based on personal revelation to those individuals cannot be known. And even if so, personal testimony on points such as this are contradictory, and are not binding on the Church, regardless of how high the position was of the person making the assertion. Only new revelation following proper procedure, and being accepted by the Church as a whole as binding can clear up this point. Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists.

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

[ANACO]

According to this article at NAMI, one reason Martin Harris believed the Prophet's claims of the "book" is not only of Dr. Anthon, but of Dr. Mitchell (JSHistory 1:65). Also spelled "Mitchill" - Mitchill was a professor who believed:

"that the final battles of extermination were fought in upstate western New York not too far south of Lake Ontario."

Of admirers of "Mitchill" it states:

De Witt Clinton—a student and admirer of Mitchell, a keen observer of the Iroquois and the other Five Nations Indian tribes, New York City mayor, later governor of New York, and one-time candidate for president of the United States—ardently subscribed to this theory. He was particularly interested in Indian burial sites and fortifications, in their monuments and relics, languages, treaties, and in the biographies of great Indian leaders. After making an extended tour of western New York in 1810 during which he gained inspiration for the Erie Canal, Clinton also "proceeded to his favorite theory . . . that the ancient forts in central New York [several of which he had personally studied] and in the Western territory, from the Ohio westward beyond the Mississippi, were the work of a civilized people, preceding the Iroquois as well as the Spanish and French explorers."⁵⁵ Such fortifications were beyond the ability of the Iroquois to erect. Ancient fortifications and battle sites dotted the Finger Lakes District, including Boughton's Hill in Ontario County, "where a bloody battle is said to have been fought"; Sandy Creek near Sackett's Harbour; Pompey in Onondaga County; Scipio and Ridgeway in Genesee County; and several places near Canandaigua. Leaning heavily on his mentor, Professor Mitchill, Clinton believed the Iroquois, upon migrating south of the Great Lakes, "extirpated" those people who occupied the region. "I am persuaded," he wrote in 1817, "that enough has been said to demonstrate the existence of a vast population, settled in towns, defended by forts, cultivating agriculture, and more advanced in civilization than the nations which have inhabited the same countries since the European discovery."⁵⁶ The town of Camillus provided further evidence; there excavators, upon discovering an ancient well, found human bones that "pulverized on exposure to the air—evidence, Clinton believed, of an ancient settlement."⁵⁷ Building on his interest in Indian antiquities, Clinton became a strong supporter for more humanitarian concern and aid for the Indians and in safeguarding their rights.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=20&num=2&id=609

[small font to save space]

In other words, Mitchell's opinions helped convince Martin Harris.

But Martin Harris, was lied to, of course. Because it all really happened within the confines of Mesoamerica.

Isn't it amazing how the Lord deceives men to hasten his work?

[webbles]

Thank you. That is what I thought. I am now trying to track down a copy of that. Have one lead. It is unfortunately not online that I can find.

I found a copy of the "Charge to Religious Educators, Second Edition" at the Harold B. Lee library. This is published by the church and is prepared by the Church Education System. The talk "Loyalty" is written out completely and I found the quote in question. It read:

Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still further) and not in western New Yok. 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?

To give some context of why he said that: the talk was pretty much about teaching the doctrine so plainly that any one can understand it. In the surrounding paragraphs, he talked about meeting with the missionaries after their endowment on the fifth floor of the temple and answering any questions they have. He mentioned how some would ask useless questions, such as "Does the church still have the Urim and Thummim?". He mentioned how this was usually caused by a teacher teaching their own pet ideas. In the vein of giving these pet ideas and why they shouldn't be taught in CES, he said the above statement.

[webbles]

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!

I can understand where you're coming from, since there's not much emphasis about the "land of cumorah." When one hears "cumorah," one normally thinks of a hill, not the land. Both have the same name. (Mormon 6:2,4)

Joseph Smith didn't mention a hill in this verse. He was referring to "cumorah."

"Glad tidings from cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven declaring..the book to be revealed" refers to the angel's 4 visits to Joseph Smith at his home - when the angel declared the book to be revealed.. Similar to the other mentioned heavenly visitors in cumorah concerning the key events in the restoration of the priesthood and the church.

Kind regards.

Ok, so they decided to call the land around the hill "Land of Cumorah" as well. That still doesn't mean that there can not be 2 "Land of Cumorah"s. Where does that verse state that the Cumorah that it is talking about is the same as the Cumorah that the Nephites fought and died at?

[webbles]

In other words, Mitchell's opinions helped convince Martin Harris.

I think we all pretty much knew that Mitchell helped ease the anxiety of Martin Harris. Reading that article was fascinating to learn how much Mitchell would have loved the basic premise of the Book of Mormon (seafaring group, two nations, one destroys the other). I doubt he would have agreed with the final text, though.

But Martin Harris, was lied to, of course. Because it all really happened within the confines of Mesoamerica.

Isn't it amazing how the Lord deceives men to hasten his work?

I'm not sure how you get the idea that Martin Harris being deceived. As the article states:

How much Harris knew then about the account of ancient Book of Mormon warring peoples in the Americas is not known. However, it seems plausible that Joseph Smith had told him about the coming of the angel Moroni five years before and about the record of ancient American peoples, and also that Moroni represented a stock of peoples entirely destroyed by another ancient warring people also written of extensively in the plates.

Martin Harris probably had no idea of where the destruction took place. And he wouldn't even need to bring it up since Mitchell could assume that it was in New York since the plates were found in New York.

[Calm]

I found a copy of the "Charge to Religious Educators, Second Edition" at the Harold B. Lee library. This is published by the church and is prepared by the Church Education System. The talk "Loyalty" is written out completely and I found the quote in question. It read:

To give some context of why he said that: the talk was pretty much about teaching the doctrine so plainly that any one can understand it. In the surrounding paragraphs, he talked about meeting with the missionaries after their endowment on the fifth floor of the temple and answering any questions they have. He mentioned how some would ask useless questions, such as "Does the church still have the Urim and Thummim?". He mentioned how this was usually caused by a teacher teaching their own pet ideas. In the vein of giving these pet ideas and why they shouldn't be taught in CES, he said the above statement.

The quote then is not garbled at all.

So in reading the FAIR commentary surrounding the text, do you see it as correct in interpretation or taking the quote out of context?

Really appreciate you doing this, btw.

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

According to this article at NAMI, one reason Martin Harris believed the Prophet's claims of the "book" is not only of Dr. Anthon, but of Dr. Mitchell ......

But Martin Harris, was lied to, of course. Because it all really happened within the confines of Mesoamerica.

Isn't it amazing how the Lord deceives men to hasten his work?

Remarkable that you found it on NAMI who are so proMesoamerican and in apostasy that they never consider anything else.

[webbles]

The quote then is not garbled at all.

So in reading the FAIR commentary surrounding the text, do you see it as correct in interpretation or taking the quote out of context?

Really appreciate you doing this, btw.

I see it as a correct interpretation. He is basically saying, don't teach Book of Mormon geography as it is not of doctrinal importance. And in doing so, he is stating that we do not know the location of the Hill Cumorah and the city of Zarahemla.

[Calm]

I'm not sure how you get the idea that Martin Harris being deceived.

He is being sarcastic. He claims that those scholars who believe in a Mesoamerican setting believe that Martin Harris, Joseph Smith, and all the other prophets have been deceived....that is if I am reading him right. I would love to be wrong.

[Calm]

I see it as a correct interpretation. He is basically saying, don't teach Book of Mormon geography as it is not of doctrinal importance. And in doing so, he is stating that we do not know the location of the Hill Cumorah and the city of Zarahemla.

Thank you. Always nice to find out I don't need to point out something to FAIR to correct (usually it's only broken links).

[Anijen]

Isn't it amazing how the Lord deceives men to hasten his work?

Have a little respect please. You would probably be taken seriously if you weren't so condescending.

[robuchan]

Anaco:

Isn't it amazing how the Lord deceives men to hasten his work?

Have a little respect please. You would probably be taken seriously if you weren't so condescending.

People seem to have little patience for this. I got banned for a week for making a comment similar to this. I think it's a real issue that should be addressed.

The Lord is authoring all this. He's intervening fairly intimately at times in the restoration, so it's clear He could and would intervene if necessary. Why did he allow so much trickery and confusion in restoration events: two hill Cumorah's, Joseph's false teachings of hemisphere model, BOM translation with the plates here, there, and nowhere.

A few timely comments from the Angel Moroni or otherwise revealed to Joseph would have gone a long ways on some of these issues.

The bottom line is that two Hill Cumorah's is very confusing and feels like we're being tricked. I don't think God wants his children to feel like he tricks them. So why wouldn't he straighten it out with one line from Angel Moroni to Joseph or hard coded into the BOM or with a D&C revelation?

[Anijen]

Why did he allow so much trickery and confusion in restoration events: two hill Cumorah's, Joseph's false teachings of hemisphere model, BOM translation with the plates here, there, and nowhere.

The Lord does not tell us how to think and what assumptions to make. So lets not blame the Lord on how we interpret history or anthropology.

A few timely comments from the Angel Moroni or otherwise revealed to Joseph would have gone a long ways on some of these issues.

When we are given all the history to satisfy every persons doubts or confusion that takes away the requirement of faith. Besides Moroni's mission was not to give Joseph Smith a geography lesson but in help restoring the Lords church.

The bottom line is that two Hill Cumorah's is very confusing and feels like we're being tricked.

That might be your bottom line, you are the one who controls your feelings. For me and many others I do not felt like I was being tricked by anyone, not by our past leaders, not by the church, certainly not by the Lord. Through my own labors of study and research I do not find it confusing at all. If I did find it confusing I certainly would not be complaining that the Lord tricked me or that Joseph lied. I would research and try to study and find out.

I don't think God wants his children to feel like he tricks them.

I agree

So why wouldn't he straighten it out with one line from Angel Moroni to Joseph or hard coded into the BOM or with a D&C revelation?

Because it is not important for our salvation. Your idea is like going to medical school and having the medical doctors instead teaching you medicine they teach you how to make a waffle. Edited July 19, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[blackstrap]

But waffles are soooo good,especially after working on a cadaver all day. The two Hills Cumorah isn't really confusing ,any more than two Moscows,two Paris', etc. Once a person is aware of the 2 stuff it is no longer confusing.The last battles involved the deaths of a quarter million Nephites. I suspect the were a couple of Lamanites killed also.I would estimate a battlefield involving upwards of a million combatants and support personel. Ask yourself if that oversized pimple of a hill in NY would provide any sort of sanctuary for that population. Perhaps the military historians in the crowd can help us flesh out the scene.

Edited July 19, 2012 by blackstrap

[cursor]

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.

Your profession was strongly intimated in another thread by a very long-term poster (and not at all in a negative way).

It was was certainly not my intent to disrespect your profession (and that isn't at all what I suggested), but I have not appreciated your technique—the intensity of your argumentative style ... and most certainly not your very strong suggestion that my father and I (along with many others, here and elsewhere) are on some road to apostasy because we take intellectual exception to the expressed opinions of others with regard to the location of the Nephites' & Jaredites' final destruction.

[cursor]

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.

If you would provide a link to the transcript of the conference talk, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Bob Crockett]

It was was certainly not my intent to disrespect your profession (and that isn't at all what I suggested), but I have not appreciated your technique—the intensity of your argumentative style ... and most certainly not your very strong suggestion that my father and I (along with many others, here and elsewhere) are on some road to apostasy because we take intellectual exception to the expressed opinions of others with regard to the location of the Nephites' & Jaredites' final destruction.

My posting style is very benign.

Anybody who contradicts the Brethren is on a low road to apostasy, particularly if they call the Brethren's pronouncements "opinions."

But, I consume large quantities of caffeinated beverages, like to work on Sundays and utter cuss words on the golf course. So I have my own issues of apostasy.

[ERayR]

My posting style is very benign.

Anybody who contradicts the Brethren is on a low road to apostasy, particularly if they call the Brethren's pronouncements "opinions."

But, I consume large quantities of caffeinated beverages, like to work on Sundays and utter cuss words on the golf course. So I have my own issues of apostasy.

I strongly suspect, my padawan learner, that when all is revealed that you, me and a great many others will have to reconsider some of our opinions.

[cursor]

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

Kind regards.

Well,that kinda makes me just a bit weak in the gut. No worries, I have Pepto in the medicine cabinet.

Hey ,.. Kind regards, anyway.

[cursor]

Again, might you have a link to the transcript of the President Anthony Ivins General Conference quote? Thanks.

[cursor]

Anybody who contradicts the Brethren is on a low road to apostasy, particularly if they call the Brethren's pronouncements "opinions."

The Bretheren themselves admit that they have varied, differing, and even conflicting opinions.