General Hill Cumorah question

[Paul Osborne]

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.

Who are we suppose to lean upon to interpret scriptural texts when there are difficulties to be had:

[ ] prophets & apostles

[ ] school teachers

My choice is clear. I believe the vast testimonials given by the prophets & apostles and pretty much disregard the apologists and back peddling of GA's who don't want to go on record for making a clear stand.

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

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!

Moxy,

I was recently involved in a long discussion about this topic and posted a string of references given by GA

[Paul Osborne]

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!!!"

Open a thread down in Canon and we can discuss this.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

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!

I would have stood up and complained right there in the classroom and told the teacher that I think he is wrong as well as church apologists who are pushing the two Cumorahs.

I could care less if Dr. Peterson had been teaching the class. I would have stood up and said that I don't have to stand for this. Then, walk out.

We have brains in this church and don't have to check them in at the door. We don't have to allow the apologists to run our lives or force our beliefs. We can stand up against them when we feel there is a need to do so.

Paul O

[Pahoran]

Joey,

I must admit that I am vastly impressed by your chutzpah. After being thoroughly trounced on this subject before--for example, in this thread--you bounce right back as if nothing had happened.

You even have the effrontery to patronise your betters, acting for all the world as if you had proved them wrong!

You remind me of nothing so much as the knight defending the bridge (John Cleese) in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Come back, you cowards! It's only a flesh wound!"

Sorry Joey, but it's not going to work. The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

It did not have one in 1973, when Harold B. Lee was the Prophet.

It did not have one in 1980, when the Ensign published John Sorenson's Limited Geography material.

It did not have one in 1993, as Michael Watson acknowledged in his letter to Bill Hamblin.

And it did not have one in 1990. If it did, Brother Watson would have had an authoritative statement of that position to refer to, instead of simply relying upon tradition.

But there wasn't one.

Which not only explains the content of the Watson letter, it also explains the persistence thereof; because anti-Mormons have nothing more authoritative to appeal to in order to bolster their false claim that the Church is committed to a hemispheric geography.

The Church has never, in all of its history, staked out a doctrinal position in a letter from a secretary to a private individual. Such letters may report such a position, but they do not initiate it. Therefore the Watson letter does not stake out such a position.

You wrote:

Now it looks like the "correspondence" that Hamblin keeps referring to was a personal email.

According to your fellow anti-Mormon, Brent "Eisegete" Metcalfe.

But how does he know?

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!

Nice job of setting up a false dilemma. And a very cunning way of trying to disguise the fact that the "buddy" was the same person who wrote and signed the letter.

The fact is that the 1993 letter--whether paper or electronic--was written by the same person, holding the same position and acting in the same capacity--as the 1990 letter.

Therefore, the 1993 letter must be of equal authority as the 1990 letter; and since it came after, of course it supersedes it.

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

And when you've lost the argument, it's best not to gloat too loudly.

Unbelievable!!!!!

I guess when you don't have logic on your side, exclamation marks might look like a reasonable substitute.

BTW, did you ever learn what a syllogism is? Inquiring minds want to know!

Regards,

Pahoran

[sr1030]

Pahoran: I must admit that I am vastly impressed by your chutzpah.

Pahoran: After being thoroughly trounced on this subject before--for example, in this thread--you bounce right back as if nothing had happened.

Pahoran: You even have the effrontery to patronise your betters, acting for all the world as if you had proved them wrong!

Pahoran: You remind me of nothing so much as the knight defending the bridge (John Cleese) in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Come back, you cowards! It's only a flesh wound!"

Pahoran: Sorry Joey, but it's not going to work. The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

Pahoran: According to your fellow anti-Mormon, Brent "Eisegete" Metcalfe.

Pahoran: Nice job of setting up a false dilemma.

Pahoran: And a very cunning way of trying to disguise the fact that the "buddy" was the same person who wrote and signed the letter.

Pahoran: And when you've lost the argument, it's best not to gloat too loudly.

Pahoran: I guess when you don't have logic on your side, exclamation marks might look like a reasonable substitute.

Pahoran: BTW, did you ever learn what a syllogism is? Inquiring minds want to know!

Well it looks as though Pahoran spews out insults and hate where ever he goes. Its as though Satan is defending the LDS Church. I wonder why he would do that? Funny thing though, I don't consider Pahoran affiliated with the LDS Church at all, except on certain bulletin boards such as this. He is just so different than any LDS I have encountered. Hate, hate hate. It kind of drowns out the topic, doesn't it?

sr

[Pahoran]

Sr1030,

you wrote:

Well it looks as though Pahoran spews out insults and hate where ever he goes.

Well of course it does--once you get through with your Tanneresque editing. That's why you quoted my post so selectively--to create that false impression.

For instance, by not using the "Quote" facility, you avoided picking up my link to the thread in which Joey was trounced.

You also left out some rather substantive and pertinent material, in order to intentionally misrepresent the content of my post, to wit:

Sorry Joey, but it's not going to work. The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

It did not have one in 1973, when Harold B. Lee was the Prophet.

It did not have one in 1980, when the Ensign published John Sorenson's Limited Geography material.

It did not have one in 1993, as Michael Watson acknowledged in his letter to Bill Hamblin.

And it did not have one in 1990. If it did, Brother Watson would have had an authoritative statement of that position to refer to, instead of simply relying upon tradition.

But there wasn't one.

Which not only explains the content of the Watson letter, it also explains the persistence thereof; because anti-Mormons have nothing more authoritative to appeal to in order to bolster their false claim that the Church is committed to a hemispheric geography.

The Church has never, in all of its history, staked out a doctrinal position in a letter from a secretary to a private individual. Such letters may report such a position, but they do not initiate it. Therefore the Watson letter does not stake out such a position.

Out of all of that, you intentionally omitted all but the first paragraph.

I wonder why you bothered to include that? It doesn't fit your false characterisation of "hate hate hate." But then again, neither did anything in your selective quote.

I guess you were scratching for material to make your false accusation stick.

It kind of drowns out the topic, doesn't it?

While your post added--what, exactly?

The FACT is that the Church has no official position on any Book of Mormon geographic locations.

The FACT is that Joey has participated in a number of threads in which this FACT was comprehensively demonstrated.

I'm sorry if these facts disturb you. I'm sorry if you feel an emotional need to shoot the messenger.

But it doesn't change the facts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tchild2]

I think it would be fun to do an impromptu poll on the subject. Despite the church's official noncommittal to a specific location, it would be enlightening to poll an average ward in the "corridor" and ask each adult member where they thought the hill Cumorah was located and why.

If a cultural belief becomes so pervasive and complete, how does one ever discern the cultural from the core doctrines without the internet and sites like this? At church meetings? I would laugh if some smart poster even proposed that there are actually two dinstinct types of LDS members; internet mormons and chapel mormons. Now that would be a clever observation.

[sr1030]

Pahoran : I'm sorry if these facts disturb you. I'm sorry if you feel an emotional need to shoot the messenger.

I don't consider you a messenger of LDS, and your facts would never disturb me.

Pahoran: You also left out some rather substantive and pertinent material, in order to intentionally misrepresent the content of my post, to wit:

Not at all. I consider most people here intelligent enough to scroll up to see your garbage in its entirety. I only posted your spewing of hate and insults. It would be ludicrus to misrepresent you if my intentions were to show your hate. Accurately representing you would be the way to accomplish that. You Pahoran, are not representative of LDS. You do not represent the LDS Church. You do not answer for them. You are not them. The difference is so very very obvious.

sr

[Pahoran]

Sr1030,

you wrote:

I don't consider you a messenger of LDS, and your facts would never disturb me.

Clearly my facts do disturb you, otherwise you wouldn't be playing your distraction game so diligently.

And Sr? Shocking as it may seem, it isn't all about you. How you "consider" me is irrelevant.

I consider most people here intelligent enough to scroll up to see your garbage in its entirety.

Watch carefully, everyone: any minute now, Sr (of all people) is going to accuse me of insulting others.

I only posted your spewing of hate and insults.

See?

No you didn't.

You posted a few remarks which you chose to intentionally misrepresent as "hate and insults."

You Pahoran, are not representative of LDS. You do not represent the LDS Church. You do not answer for them. You are not them. The difference is so very very obvious.

Wow, Sr.

This is a new height of arrogance even for you! To excommunicate me from a church in which you aren't even a member, let alone an officer.

So sorry, but the smoke screen is blown aside, and here, staring you in the face, is the fact you can't conceal:

The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

Deal with it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sr1030]

Pahoran: Clearly my facts do disturb you, otherwise you wouldn't be playing your distraction game so diligently.

No, generally what you consider worthwhile arguments, I do not.

Pahoran: Watch carefully, everyone: any minute now, Sr (of all people) is going to accuse me of insulting others.

Now that is funny. Ask "everyone".

Pahoran: This is a new height of arrogance even for you! To excommunicate me from a church in which you aren't even a member, let alone an officer.

I didn't excommunicate you from a church. You obviously do not belong to the LDS Church, technicalities aside. This is an observation. You don't resemble most LDS. I would venture to state they do not want to be identified with you.

Pahoran: So sorry, but the smoke screen is blown aside, and here, staring you in the face, is the fact you can't conceal:

The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

The LDS Church is not known for its willingness to take an official stand on doctrinal issues. I am well aware of the standings on Hill Cumorah. You are not informing me of anything new. In fact I could share a few things with you.

Keeping things non-official is a strategy of the LDS Church. Not an attractive one by the way, but the only way they can survive.

sr

[Guest yowzaa]

The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

Deal with it.

Regards,

Pahoran

That can be argued.

It is evident the church will NOW never have an official position on the location of a fictitious hill called Cumorah.

See that is how they play, "God told us it is true" and "Since we will not locate the physical location of the hill, neeeener neeeeener neeeener you cannot dig there and disprove it!"

So for you Pahoran, if you can swallow a story that was built on historical supposed FACTS that has now had that foundation washed away by science, good for you.

[Pahoran]

I previously wrote:

The Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

And the artist formerly and again known as "Yowzaa" wrote:

That can be argued.

Not successfully.

There has never been a time when the Church censured, censored, contradicted or corrected anyone who speculated anything at all about Book of Mormon geography. Not even the oddball in Ethiopia, although various LDS members have critiqued his speculations.

It is evident the church will NOW never have an official position on the location of a fictitious hill called Cumorah.

It is evident to everyone less bigoted than yourself that the Church does not regard the Book of Mormon as "fictitious."

So for you Pahoran, if you can swallow a story that was built on historical supposed FACTS that has now had that foundation washed away by science, good for you.

So for you Yowzaa, if you can swallow the fabrication that the Church's foundations have been "washed away by science," good for you.

Regards,

Pahoran

(Edited to save the mods the trouble. Sorry guys, I didn't know "graffiti" was a naughty word.)

[sr1030]

Pahoran: There has never been a time when the Church censured, censored, contradicted or corrected anyone who speculated anything at all about Book of Mormon geography. Not even the oddball in Ethiopia, although various LDS members have critiqued his speculations.

Lets not forget the revelation by Joseph Smith regarding the route that Lehi's group took. It appeared in the BOM from 1876 to 1920. This has been removed and is now questioned as an authentic revelation. Of course there are obvious drivers for that questioning now, though the evidence available would support it as an authentic revelation by Joseph Smith.

In addition I believe the BOM from 1876 to 1920 has Joseph Smith locating Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, New York. Correct me if I am wrong with this, but I believe this to be the case.

So, these would have to be considered a "correction" about Book of Mormon geography.

sr

[Daniel Peterson]

sr1030 is wrong.

An article by Matthew Roper in the forthcoming issue of the FARMS Review (due out in January) will present a more accurate and reliable picture of these issues.

[sr1030]

Daniel Peterson: sr1030 is wrong.

Wrong about something in particular? Or just wrong about everything? It is hard for me to provide support if you do not tell me exactly what it is that I am wrong about.

Daniel Peterson: An article by Matthew Roper in the forthcoming issue of the FARMS Review (due out in January) will present a more accurate and reliable picture of these issues.

Matthew Roper has done some good work, but he is not considered having the authority to speak for the LDS church. Nothing he states is considered "official". Nevertheless I would be interested in what he has to say if it involves the Chile revelation or alleged revelation.

btw, out of respect for your preferences, if you like, I will avoid addressing you or your posts. Please let me know.

An interesting comment by Nibley concerning the revelation:

Lehi in the Desert

After traveling a vast distance in a south-southeasterly direction (1 Nephi 16:13, 33), the party struck off almost due eastward through the worst desert of all, where they "did wade through much affliction," to emerge in a state of almost complete exhaustion into a totally unexpected paradise by the sea. There is such a paradise in the Qara Mountains on the southern coast of Arabia. To reach it by moving "nearly eastward" (1 Nephi 17:1) from the Red Sea coast, one would have to turn east on the nineteenth parallel. In The Improvement Era for September 1950 the present writer published a map in which his main concern was to make Lehi reach the sea in the forested sector of the Hadhramaut, and no other consideration dictated his sketching of the map. He foolishly overlooked the fact that Dr. John A. Widtsoe had published in the Era some months previously what purports to be a "Revelation to Joseph the Seer," in which it is stated that Lehi's party "traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then nearly east to the sea of Arabia." 16 By an interesting coincidence, the route shown in the author's map turned east exactly at the nineteenth parallel. This correlation of data from two totally different sources is a strong indication that both are correct. The only other possible route would have been down the western shore of the Red Sea from Necho's canal, and on such a course one cannot turn eastward until passing the tenth parallel, and then it is not the Arabian Sea that one finds but the Indian Ocean. Along with this, certain other rigorous conditions must be fulfilled which can only be met on the south coast of Arabia.

sr

[Daniel Peterson]

btw, out of respect for your preferences, if you like, I will avoid addressing you or your posts. Please let me know.

Thank you. I would prefer to have no exchanges with you.

Long prior history, and all that.

[Beowulf]

Yowzaa, what are you doing in church in the first place, where you can snicker at all the fools in Gospel Doctrine class (excepting your own intelligent self, of course)?

Someone here wondered what a poll of Mormons would show: One or Two Cumorahs?

Just for a data point: In my ward here in Oregon, the two Cumorahs were mentioned by the Gospel Doctrine teacher. No one demurred. By which I inferred that the idea is well-entrenched among the adults of the Church, at least around here.

There was no comment about God magically whisking Moroni's plates up to NY, btw. Just that Moroni was wandering for many MANY years alone.

Again Yowzaa and all you other skeptics. READ THE BOOK. And then come back and talk to me about what past leaders have said, or not said.

Beowulf