General Hill Cumorah question

[Fiat Lux]

I know that there is no official BoM geography. But, is it official that there are two Hill Cumorahs, even though we don't know where one of them is? Or is that just a theory?

Thanks.

[tubaloth]

I am sure you can find more about it here in one of the other forms

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5617&hl=

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=4216&hl=

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5528&hl=

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5299&hl=

[Beowulf]

No it is not official, in that there is no official LDS Church stance on whether there is one or two Hill Cumorahs.

[Fiat Lux]

No it is not official, in that there is no official LDS Church stance on whether there is one or two Hill Cumorahs.

Thank you. I was hoping not to have to weed through all the theories searching for that preliminary bit of information.

[Beowulf]

Your welcome.

I personally prefer the two-Cumorah theory. But I would not abandon my faith if it was proved wrong.

[Joey]

In 1990 the LDS Church Office of the First Presidency issued a letter stating that Hill Cumorah located in New York was in fact the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BOM. This letter can be seen here:

http://www.utlm.org/images/cumorahletter.gif

Several of the apologists on this board have stated erroneously that the LDS Church has retracted this statement without providing an ounce of supporting evidence.

I've always believed in letting the facts speak for themself. If you make a claim, you should be able to provide the support.

[Guest yowzaa]

In 1990 the LDS Church Office of the First Presidency issued a letter stating that Hill Cumorah located in New York was in fact the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BOM. This letter can be seen here:

http://www.utlm.org/images/cumorahletter.gif

Several of the apologists on this board have stated erroneously that the LDS Church has retracted this statement without providing an ounce of supporting evidence.

I've always believed in letting the facts speak for themself. If you make a claim, you should be able to provide the support.

Remember, the COB forced Farms to publish an open letter on it's website last summer that stated Farms DID NOT establish church doctrine. You see Farms is a pet project, all for fun.

The church made many claims, Joseph made many claims, etc, etc, etc, the church will NEVER produce anything to support their clams. Because they don't have anything.

[Daniel Peterson]

In 1990 the LDS Church Office of the First Presidency issued a letter stating that Hill Cumorah located in New York was in fact the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BOM.  This letter can be seen here:

http://www.utlm.org/images/cumorahletter.gif

Several of the apologists on this board have stated erroneously that the LDS Church has retracted this statement without providing an ounce of supporting evidence.

I've always believed in letting the facts speak for themself.  If you make a claim, you should be able to provide the support.

How Joey can simply brush aside the 1993 letter written by the same person who wrote his 1990 letter, saying that it doesn't constitute even "an ounce of supporting evidence" for the lack of an official stance on this issue, is something that those with different graduate training than I have will need to answer.

Remember, the COB forced Farms to publish an open letter on it's website last summer that stated Farms DID NOT establish church doctrine.

Fascinating. You would think, with me being one of the principal leaders of FARMS and all, that I would at least have heard something about that incident, instead of having to learn about it from "yowzaa." I'll bet that nobody else at FARMS has ever heard of it, either. Won't they be surprised when I tell them! (I can hardly wait.)

The church made many claims, Joseph made many claims, etc, etc, etc, the church will NEVER produce anything to support their clams. Because they don't have anything.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. But FARMS is all geared up: If we ever find anything, we plan to publish a book or a periodical or a newsletter or give a lecture or sponsor a symposium or something. Just you watch. It's going to happen one of these days. You'll see.

[Fiat Lux]

1993 letter written by the same person who wrote his 1990 letter

Is that letter available somewhere online?

I saw a reference to it in a FARMS article by William Hamblin, but no text from the letter itself.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is that letter available somewhere online?

I saw a reference to it in a FARMS article by William Hamblin, but no text from the letter itself.

Alas, no. I raised the subject with Bill Hamblin, who says it's in an eleven-year-old pile of papers somewhere in his office or at home. Maybe.

Possessing similar organizational gifts myself, I despair, from personal experience, of seeing it again within the next decade.

This is unfortunate because it allows the Joeys of the world to hint that Professor Hamblin (and I) may be lying about the existence of the letter or, despite the crystal clarity of the passage his article cites from it, misrepresenting its content or import. (If you've read Professor Hamblin's article, then you have indeed read text from the letter. In fact, if my memory doesn't deceive me, you've read roughly 50% of the entire thing.)

Oh well.

[Calm]

You know, it could be kind of fun rummaging through Dr. Hamblin's office. If he wants to hire me.....

[smitty]

So why not issue Hamblin's 1993 letter again?

[Kozaru]

You know, it could be kind of fun rummaging through Dr. Hamblin's office.  If he wants to hire me.....

I can see it now:

Bill Hamblin: Did you find that 1993 letter in my office?

calmoriah: No, but I found some funky gold plates with wierd characters on them...

[Joey]

This is unfortunate because it allows the Joeys of the world to hint that Professor Hamblin (and I) may be lying about the existence of the letter or, despite the crystal clarity of the passage his article cites from it, misrepresenting its content or import. (If you've read Professor Hamblin's article, then you have indeed read text from the letter. In fact, if my memory doesn't deceive me, you've read roughly 50% of the entire thing.)

Now it looks like the "correspondence" that Hamblin keeps referring to was a personal email. One was an official letter from the "Office of the First Presidency" of which a photocopy was provided. One was a "personal email" from a buddy!

Daniel, when you're in quick sand, its best not to move around too much!!!

Unbelievable!!!!!

[Fiat Lux]

(If you've read Professor Hamblin's article, then you have indeed read text from the letter.  In fact, if my memory doesn't deceive me, you've read roughly 50% of the entire thing.)

I didn't realize Hamblin was quoting actual text from the letter. At least when viewed in my browser, it isn't indented or otherwise set apart as I would expect quoted text to be. I thought perhaps it was his interpretation of the letter.

[Daniel Peterson]

I didn't realize Hamblin was quoting actual text from the letter.  At least when viewed in my browser, it isn't indented or otherwise set apart as I would expect quoted text to be.  I thought perhaps it was his interpretation of the letter.

Ah. I see the problem.

On page 181 of the PDF version of Professor Hamblin's article, the material quoted from Michael Watson's letter is indented in a block. Unfortunately -- and I didn't realize it until just now -- that formatting has disappeared from the HTML version, which, thus, leaves the quoted material looking as if it represents Professor Hamblin's words rather than Brother Watson's.

I'll see whether I can get this remedied.

[Neal]

I joined the LDS church in 1971, and with fervent zeal went on a 2 year mission to Texas 73-75. While there, I read Sidney Sperry's theory that the battlefield Hill Cumorah was in Central America somewhere. I immediately reacted that he should be exed due to the demonic nature of his obvious heresy.

To confirm the error of his ways, I pulled out my Book of Mormon, JS-History, D&C and quickly discovered that a definitive statement from the standard works was lacking. I revised my personal vindetta against Br. Sperry and instead began to give him my respect. Obviously, Prof. Sorenson's work should carry some weight in this discussion now.

Sometimes it is good to have a open mind and let the Lord reveal things as they are needed. We are here to live by faith. Many years ago I took a Book of Mormon class from Cleon Skousen at BYU working on my BA in history and he said in class one day that the time for getting credit for believing in the Book of Mormon on Faith, was almost over. Too much evidence confirming its authenticity was available. That was over 30 years ago. The final blow to critics of the Book of Mormon may be just around the corner. A geographical setting verified by scholars could be fatal to antis. The Book of Mormon has so many specifics that it would only take one tomb of a known Book of Mormon figure to totally upset the applecart of disbelievers. I don't think it wrong to speculate the response of those critics who are perhaps going to face their worst nightmare.

So much to learn and so little time! NEAL

[sr1030]

Neal: The final blow to critics of the Book of Mormon may be just around the corner.

Isn't it always?

Neal: A geographical setting verified by scholars could be fatal to antis. The Book of Mormon has so many specifics that it would only take one tomb of a known Book of Mormon figure to totally upset the applecart of disbelievers. I don't think it wrong to speculate the response of those critics who are perhaps going to face their worst nightmare.

A geographical setting verified by scholars would not be fatal to anti's. Why should it be? Anti's many times have their own view of a geographical setting for the BOM. The difference is the geographical setting would have been based on information that was available when the BOM was written.

One tomb of a known BOM figure would be welcome, but would not accomplish what you think it should. In a book the size of the BOM, chances are that the writer would have a perfect match on something. What the BOM needs is about the same volume of evidences to show it is ancient, as there is for the bible. If both are the word of God, this should be expected, not required, but expected nonetheless.

Proving the BOM to be true would not be an "anti's" worst nightmare. If the BOM were actually true, I think most people would want to know. I certainly would.

sr

[Guest yowzaa]

The final blow to critics of the Book of Mormon may be just around the corner. A geographical setting verified by scholars could be fatal to antis. The Book of Mormon has so many specifics that it would only take one tomb of a known Book of Mormon figure to totally upset the applecart of disbelievers.

Good grief, and Jesus is returning soon too!

IF there was physical evidence PROVING the historical veracity of the BoM, the church would have a growth problem, i.e. growing too fast.

When I first learned that the original papyrus was rediscovered and in the hands of the church, I thought "Wow, if this vindicates the church with respect to the BoA, I will shout it from the rooftops!" The church will grow by leaps and bounds!

But alas, it did not, and will not. EVER.

Hey, why has NONE of the prophets after David O.McKay use their seering or reverlatoring powers to translate the papyrus? Hint:Because it is all a big lie?

[Paul Osborne]

Hey, why has NONE of the prophets after David O.McKay use their seering or reverlatoring powers to translate the papyrus? Hint:Because it is all a big lie?

Perhaps you might like to open a thread down in the Canon section and express your thoughts on this matter? Let's have a friendly exchange and examine your reasons for calling the Book of Abraham a lie.

I don't think you are being fair.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

I believe the battles were fought at the hill Cumorah in New York.

I don't know of any GA's that had or have the courage and get up in General Conference and say they feel by the Spirit that the battles were not fought in New York.

President Romney had the courage and the Spirit. I believe him.

Paul O

[Markk]

Hi Daniel,

I haven't really studied the "two hills" view, at least not in depth. But as a former member, growing up in the church in the sixties I was taught it was in NY. As the letter by Watson states the GA's reference it as such, it's clear that there

[Calm]

The problem is that it doesn't agree with the text. See Sorenson's The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book for an extensive list of what is required by the text.

[Moxy]

I believe the battles were fought at the hill Cumorah in New York.

I don't know of any GA's that had or have the courage and get up in General Conference and say they feel by the Spirit that the battles were not fought in New York.

President Romney had the courage and the Spirit. I believe him.

Paul O

Paul, didnt Joseph Smith himself state that it was in NY? What will it take to convince the church it was in NY?

I really dont understand here. You have numerous church leaders stating that the Hill is in NY near where the BoM was found. Shouldnt that be the end of the discussion?

So for the future, no matter what any church leader say about anything, we can never belive them? Why is this so?

BTW I am agreeing with you here, but just confused with the confusion!

[Guest yowzaa]

I believe the battles were fought at the hill Cumorah in New York.

I don't know of any GA's that had or have the courage and get up in General Conference and say they feel by the Spirit that the battles were not fought in New York.

If that were so, then there would be so many BYU anthropology students covering the hill Cumorah(and around it), that it would look like an anthill from the air.

But, yet again, nothing. No proof. Poof! make up some magic to 'splain it away.

The church always starts with the conclusion, which in this case, is that the great battles where hundreds of thousands died in a bloody battle with massive armaments and weapons DID INDEED OCCUR.

Now that the OBSERVATIONS are rolling in that don't support that predetermined conclusion, i.e. no archeological evidence AT the NY site, they scramble to come up with things like "we do not know WHERE the real Cumorah is located".. as they think "ha ha you cannot disprove it now!"

Where is Cumorah? IMHO, In the mind of JS.

The same tactic was used at the turn of the century when continued doubts about the BoA came to a head. "Well, since we don't have the originals, you cannot disprove the BoA"

THEN in 1967 when the papyrus was discovered and given to the church They scramble and make claims of the papyrus just being a sort of "catalyst for inspiration" as they think neeener neeener neeener! you cannot disprove the BoA now!!!"

Check your brain at the chapel door please.

Last Sunday, the gospel doctrine instructor in my ward told an amazing tale to a class full of thinking adults.

"Brothers and sisters, we do not know where the actual Cumorah is. There is much thought that there are two Cumorahs. Moroni DID bury the plates in the same hill where the great battles took place." Then he must have asked the adults to turn their brains off with as he 'splained away, "You see brothers and sisters, God physically moved the plates from that Cumorah to the hill near the Smith home for Joseph to discover!"

Magical God powers saved the day on that historical controversy!