First Presidency Statement On Hill Cumorah, Or Not?

[Bob Crockett]

So, I've come across on occasion a letter which purports to be a letter from the First Presidency to bishops denouncing the theory that this HIll Cumorah is in Mexico.

 

The full text of this letter is:

 

Bishops

 

“Attention Called To ‘Book of Mormon’ Maps”

 

Our attention has been brought in the past few weeks to certain “Book of Mormon Lands” maps which are being offered

to Church leaders and auxiliary workers by a California organization. They are apparently being distributed free of

charge.

 

We wish to refer bishops to the printed matter at the bottom of the map, which contains an inference that there are two,

rather than one, Hills Cumorah — one in Mexico as well as the one in New York.

 

The Church has never accepted this contention.

 

Bishops are requested to make cognizant of this discrepancy those in their wards who might be sending for these maps or

using them for instructional purposes. This concept of two Cumorahs should not be taught as official Church doctrine.

The citation to this letter is "The Messenger, July 1960, No.51.  However, this is not the Tanner's Salt Lake Messenger.   Although No. 51 is not online, I don't think the Tanners were publishing their Messenger in 1960.  

 

Here is an example of the use of this letter, which is published on a BYU-Idaho website without attribution at http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Cumorah-JFeS-DofS3.pdf.  However, that string contains the word "marrottr" which thus indicates this document was authored by Robert L. Marrott, a history professor at BYU-I and a Church curriculum writer.  He is critical of the view that Cumorah could be in Mexico.

 

Anyhoo, "The Messenger" does not appear as an LDS or RLDS publication on any on-line resource I've found.  I'm curious as to whether anybody knows of a resource where FIrst Presidency letters to bishops are preserved (they are supposed to be destroyed as each new Church Handbook of Instructions comes out -- at least that was the procedure when I saw it ten years ago), or whether anybody has ever heard of The Messenger.   The letter looks suspiciously like an RLDS publication.

 

This letter is frequently cited by folks critical of the MesoAmerican Cumorah theory but I see no indication that anybody has challenged the provenance of this supposed pastoral letter.  If the letter is legit, it is directly supportive of the view the First Presidency has taken an official stand.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[why me]

Unless a GA claims to have received a revelation about where the Hill is, one can only speculate, including a church leader or historian. And this would also include Joseph Smith etc.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm more interested in an answer to my question rather than hearing the notion that we can ignore all general authority statements on doctrine unless they are accompanyied by a "Thus Saith the Lord" pronouncement.  The Church has been fighting that battle with fundamentalists over the Manifesto for over a hundred years.   Probably about 95% of what passes as official church doctrine and procedure is not accompanied with the claim that is was the product of revelation.  The church is guided by the Holy Spirit confirming the direction of the Apostles, in the main, and not by angels or Jesus appearing.  (John 16.)

 

Of course, what is and what is not official doctrine is a matter of frequent debate.   I tend to believe that official church doctrine may be derived from a variety of sources, and letters from the First Presidency are of the highest quality in determining such.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[helaman38]

Unless a GA claims to have received a revelation about where the Hill is, one can only speculate, including a church leader or historian. And this would also include Joseph Smith etc.

 

Sorry, but that patent response must die. In the first official history of the church given by Joseph he made it quite clear that the hill in Palmyra was "the Cumorah" and that the final Nephite battle took place there. Get over it already and stop minimizing the official statements of the prophet.

 

I'm more interested in an answer to my question rather than hearing the notion that we can ignore all general authority statements on doctrine unless they are accompanyied by a "Thus Saith the Lord" pronouncement.  The Church has been fighting that battle with fundamentalists over the Manifesto for over a hundred years.   Probably about 95% of what passes as official church doctrine and procedure is not accompanied with the claim that is was the product of revelation.  The church is guided by the Holy Spirit confirming the direction of the Apostles, in the main, and not by angels or Jesus appearing.  (John 16.)

 

Of course, what is and what is not official doctrine is a matter of frequent debate.   I tend to believe that official church doctrine may be derived from a variety of sources, and letters from the First Presidency are of the highest quality in determining such.

 

Well put; I'll see what I have on this.

[thesometimesaint]

I wouldn't go even that far.

 

As to what is doctrine See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Bob Crockett]

Your quote says:  "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. "   A signed letter from the First Presidency to bishops and stake presidents qualifies as official doctrine.  But, again, I have substantial doubt about the letter I offer and for that reason I'd like people to weigh forth on that letter and not reject it out of hand in a "what is official doctrine" debate.

[rongo]

Bob:

 

You're dipping way back into the 1960s to demonstrate official FP pronouncement on a NY vs. Mesoamerica Cumorah. Doesn't the current Stimmung carry more weight (a lot more weight) than what may have been said over 50 years ago?

 

Do you remember the letter from Michael Watson (secretary to the FP) which dogmatically proclaimed a NY Cumorah, and which was disavowed by the FP? What does that say about the official Stimmung of the First Presidency on this? I think it was in the 1990s.

[rongo]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century/First_Presidency_Letter

[cdowis]

Going back to the OP:

 

I see no letterhead, and no signature.

[telnetd]

Unless a GA claims to have received a revelation about where the Hill is, one can only speculate, including a church leader or historian. And this would also include Joseph Smith etc.

 

See the Conference Report of April 1928. It sheds more light on

what the church taught about Cumorah.  Either they were right

and the current leadership is wrong, or vice versa.

 

Gail

[Brant Gardner]

Either they were right and the current leadership is wrong, or vice versa.

Actually, President Ivins was pretty restrained in how he spoke of the New York hill. He specifically spoke of all of the records that were buried in the Book of Mormon hill -- save those that Joseph received. He indicated that they should still be there. President Joseph Fielding Smith was much more dogmatic that Elder Ivins.

 

Since more recent Presidencies have steered clear of making a comment, it is more difficult to know where they might stand--other than to indicate that they would indicate that there is no official church position. However, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was heavily correlated to make sure that it would properly represent the church. It was intended to be used in non-LDS settings. The article on Cumorah in that volume is written by David A. Palmer, who wrote a volume proposing a the hill Vigia as a candidate for Cumorah. It certainly doesn't authorize any particular hill, but it clearly backs away from the New York hill as a certain Cumorah.

 

Having heard from a couple of people who wrote articles for those volumes about the degree to which their articles were subjected to scrutiny, one would be hard-pressed to assume that an article on Cumorah managed to slip in without official notice.

 

Of course, it isn't official, but when there is official silence, we turn to what evidence we have. The heavily correlated Encyclopedia of Mormonism is pretty consistently staking a position for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, and specifically separating the NY hill from the Book of Mormon hill.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob:

 

You're dipping way back into the 1960s to demonstrate official FP pronouncement on a NY vs. Mesoamerica Cumorah. Doesn't the current Stimmung carry more weight (a lot more weight) than what may have been said over 50 years ago?

 

Do you remember the letter from Michael Watson (secretary to the FP) which dogmatically proclaimed a NY Cumorah, and which was disavowed by the FP? What does that say about the official Stimmung of the First Presidency on this? I think it was in the 1990s.

 I'm interested at this point in determining if the letter I have found is legit.   It is in a paper prepared by a BYU-I History Prof but I can't find any reference to "The Messenger" as being any sort of LDS publication.  I'm more interested in determining if this might be an RLDS publication.  I'm hoping that somebody might shed some light on the authenticity of the letter.

[Bob Crockett]

Going back to the OP:

 

I see no letterhead, and no signature.

Correct.  However, I see it cited frequently.   There must be something to it; i.e., that it is a fraud, that it is RLDS or something.  I'd like to nail it down; surely somebody here might know.   Somebody with an academic account at HBLee library might be able to log on and see if there is such a thing as that 1960 publication, "The Messenger."

Edited September 1, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

All this says is that it should not be taught in church and church leaders should not approve it in any official way. The letter does not say it is wrong.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't get it.   People are willing to discount the letter, or use it as evidence, when there is no apparent provenance.   

[cdowis]

See the Conference Report of April 1928. It sheds more light on

what the church taught about Cumorah.  Either they were right

and the current leadership is wrong, or vice versa.

 

Gail

 

Please give us a citation that Book of Mormon geography is a doctrinal issue, rather than a matter of individual speculation, investigation, and opinion.  I have learned that an assertion is not a doctrinal statement, even by a leader of the church.

 

We patiently await your citation.  Perhaps something in the scriptural canon, a proclamation, in the Articles of Faith.  Even a citation from the Principles of the Gospel manual.

 

I have been in the church long enough to recognize a "gospel twinkie" -- e.g. chocolate cake and the word of wisdom, etc.

Edited September 2, 2013 by cdowis

[cursor]

Even if authenticated as a genuine document from the First Presidency to bishops (and I can't find anything at all regarding it's authenticity, by the way), what exactly might it mean to you and for the rest of us? The content of the letter hardly succeeds in "denouncing the theory that this HIll Cumorah is in Mexico," as you suggest.

 

We wish to refer bishops to the printed matter at the bottom of the map, which contains an inference that there are two, rather than one, Hills Cumorah — one in Mexico as well as the one in New York.

 

The Church has never accepted this contention.

 

Haven't accepted it ... haven't rejected it. It's simply not official, either way.

Edited September 2, 2013 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

I certainly have strong views about what it means when an organization something says something like said in this "letter," but I'd rather reserve my comments until it can be authenticated or disproved.  No sense getting into a dispute over what the letter means until my question is answered.  I'm not going to support a fraud or an RLDS statement.

 

I probably am not going to get an answer on this board, because an answer may not exist, and I will have to continue to suspect that it is not legit.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Please give us a citation that Book of Mormon geography is a doctrinal issue, rather than a matter of individual speculation, investigation, and opinion.  I have learned that an assertion is not a doctrinal statement, even by a leader of the church.

 

We patiently await your citation.  Perhaps something in the scriptural canon, a proclamation, in the Articles of Faith.  Even a citation from the Principles of the Gospel manual.

 

I have been in the church long enough to recognize a "gospel twinkie" -- e.g. chocolate cake and the word of wisdom, etc.

 

Articles of Faith?  You got it.   One of the few publications authorized expressly by the FP.

 

"The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York, resulting in the destruction of the Nephites as a nation, about 400 A.D. The last Nephite representative was Moroni, who, wandering for safety from place to place, daily expecting death from the victorious Lamanites, wrote the concluding parts of the Book of Mormon, and hid the record in Cumorah. It was the same Moroni who as a resurrected being, gave the records into the hands of Joseph Smith in the present dispensation."

Articles of Faith, Ch 14, Pg. 260.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I certainly have strong views about what it means when an organization something says something like said in this "letter," but I'd rather reserve my comments until it can be authenticated or disproved.  No sense getting into a dispute over what the letter means until my question is answered.  I'm not going to support a fraud or an RLDS statement.

 

I probably am not going to get an answer on this board, because an answer may not exist, and I will have to continue to suspect that it is not legit.

Bob,

I have asked a knowledgeable RLDS research in Missouri to check on it for us.

Meantime, it does sound like a bubba meise.  And an LDS one at that.

[cdowis]

I'm not going to waste my time on this.

 

Best of luck to you.

[Robert F. Smith]

Articles of Faith?  You got it.   One of the few publications authorized expressly by the FP.

 

"The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York, resulting in the destruction of the Nephites as a nation, about 400 A.D. The last Nephite representative was Moroni, who, wandering for safety from place to place, daily expecting death from the victorious Lamanites, wrote the concluding parts of the Book of Mormon, and hid the record in Cumorah. It was the same Moroni who as a resurrected being, gave the records into the hands of Joseph Smith in the present dispensation."

Articles of Faith, Ch 14, Pg. 260.

 

Yeh, that's a Church manual all right.  I recall using it maybe 50 years ago.  Good book.  Elder Talmage was a great man.

Of course, if we start asserting that all Church manuals are the official word, then we may have to examine Hugh Nibley's official Church Manual for the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1957, and who knows how many other official Church manuals, in order to extract official doctrine.  And who knows where that will lead -- anyone into talmudic and aggadic development of doctrine?

[Bob Crockett]

Thanks!

[cinepro]

Unless a GA claims to have received a revelation about where the Hill is, one can only speculate, including a church leader or historian. And this would also include Joseph Smith etc.

 

Well, there's always Marion G. Romney:

 

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

 

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)

 

As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11).

 

“The people who were for Coriantumr were gathered together to the army of Coriantumr; and the people who were for Shiz were gathered together to the army of Shiz. …

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

“And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land,” wrote the ancient prophet-historian, “that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God.” (Ether 2:7–10.)

Pursuant to this decree concerning the land of America, the Jaredites were swept off in the manner we have reviewed, because, rebelling against the laws of Jesus Christ—the God of the land—they “ripened in iniquity.”

 

America's Destiny

[why me]

I'm more interested in an answer to my question rather than hearing the notion that we can ignore all general authority statements on doctrine unless they are accompanyied by a "Thus Saith the Lord" pronouncement. 

I am not saying that at all. However, since the book was written by prophets who did not exactly tell us where it is, the most that others can do is to speculate. And that would include general authorities. We can all make an educated guess or an educated assumption. How would Joseph Smith actually know where the Hill is? He could only assume unless he was given a revelation.