First Presidency Statement On Hill Cumorah, Or Not?

[why me]

Well, there's always Marion G. Romney:

And that is my point. How would he know where it is? He could make an educated guess on the matter. He could make an educated assumption on the subject. But who told him where it was? Why is it that GAs can not make an opinion or a speculation or an assumption without people thinking otherwise?

[why me]

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.

 

 

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

Well, if Joseph wrote the book he should know. But if he didn't write the book, how would he know? He too can only guess, make an assumption, or have an opinion. Now of course, the problem comes with the assumption. If it is stated as fact, then we have a problem with deducting from where this assumption as fact came from.

[why me]

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.

And this would be only natural since we are all making an educated guess. The problem has always been that everything a GA must say is from god. If they state an opinion as fact, it must have come from god. The hill debate has been with the lds church for quite some time. As it should be. Since no one really knows where it is.

[Bob Crockett]

No indication at all these are educated guesses. "We know positively" does not so indicate. But religious discourse invokes sophistry. For some strange reason.

[BCSpace]

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.

 

Even if authenticated, the wording does not preclude two Cumorah's.  It merely isn't accepted as doctrine.

[why me]

  If the letter is legit, it is directly supportive of the view the First Presidency has taken an official stand.

As you wrote in this sentence, it is a view. The document that you linked to, mentions an incident about a man appearing on the side of the road and getting a lift. He says, something to the effect, 'welcome to cumorah? And then disappears. The writer offers that this is not conclusive proof that that is the hill but we can almost assuredly say that it is.

 

I see no facts but good educated assumptions.

[why me]

No indication at all these are educated guesses. "We know positively" does not so indicate. But religious discourse invokes sophistry. For some strange reason.

Based on the knowledge that they had, I suppose that they can say that they knew positively. But how would they know that? This is where critical thinking comes into play by the listener or reader.

Edited September 2, 2013 by why me

[Nevo]

 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.

 

I believe the publication in question is The Manti Messenger. The July 14, 1960 issue was number 51. Unfortunately, that particular issue is missing from the online archives at Utah Digital Newspapers, but it can probably be found in a library somewhere.

[why me]

From the OPs linked article:

 

JOSEPH SMITH LOCATES

CUMORAH

IN WESTERN NEW YORK. Perhaps this matter could rest at this

point, but the question of the territory now embraced within the United States having been in possession of Nephites and

Lamanites before the death of Mormon, carries some weight in the determining of this matter.

In the light of revelation

it is absurd for anyone to maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this northern land.

 

So, we are looking for a revelation that has not come yet. So, this article is based on an assumption through the accumulation of facts.

 

And then this from the text:

 

“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!”12

While in this statement it is not positively declared that the Hill

Cumorah is the place where the plates were obtained,

yet the implication that such is the case is overwhelming. Moroni declaring from

Cumorah the book to be revealed

 

I see no statement as fact here. Just an implication.

Edited September 2, 2013 by why me

[Freedom]

There are fundamental doctrines of the church, and they are listed as follows:

1. Godhead

2. Plan of Salvation

3. Atonement of Jesus Christ

4. Dispensation, Apostasy, and Restoration

5. Prophets and revelation

6. Priesthood and priesthood keys

7. Ordinances and covenants

8. Marriage and family

9. Commandments

There are doctrines which are not fundamental to our church and are, arguably, in flux. A doctrine is nothing more than what is taught by the church at any current moment. A doctrine of science used be that space was filled with ether. Scientific discoveries came forth and this 'doctrine' was replaced with something more refined. The church can declare something (the battle took place in New York) and revoke it without any cause for concern. Consider the change in the church's position on homosexuality and African Americans. We do not have dogma. We believe in learning line upon line, precept upon precept. The fullness of the gospel, however, as encompassed in the 9 fundamental doctrines of the church are firm and have not altered in any way since the restoration.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Freedom

[Bob Crockett]

I believe the publication in question is The Manti Messenger. The July 14, 1960 issue was number 51. Unfortunately, that particular issue is missing from the online archives at Utah Digital Newspapers, but it can probably be found in a library somewhere.

That helps. Next time in Utah I'll check.

[Senator]

 The church can declare something (the battle took place in New York) and revoke it without any cause for concern.

 

Eh....I'm not so sure about that.

[Bikeemikey]

Eh....I'm not so sure about that.

I'm sure about that.

It is the same as the church saying it was mistaken.

There are something's which being mistaken about are unacceptable. Most things, including where the BoM took place, are ok for the church to get wrong.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[cdowis]

 

“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!”12

While in this statement it is not positively declared that the Hill

Cumorah is the place where the plates were obtained,

yet the implication that such is the case is overwhelming. Moroni declaring from

Cumorah the book to be revealed

 

I see no statement as fact here. Just an implication.

 

 

We all agree that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah, where the plates were uncovered.

 

The issue is whether this is the same Cumorah of the last Nephite battle.

[cursor]

I believe the publication in question is The Manti Messenger. The July 14, 1960 issue was number 51. Unfortunately, that particular issue is missing from the online archives at Utah Digital Newspapers, but it can probably be found in a library somewhere.

 

Yes. From this listing one can see that the July 14th issue isn't offered.

http://udn.lib.utah.edu/cdm/search/collection/manti!mm2!mm4!mm5!mm6/searchterm/1960!newspaper/field/itemye!type/mode/all!exact/conn/and!and/order/title/ad/asc/cosuppress/

 

That helps. Next time in Utah I'll check.

 

Note that there is a contact form at the Utah Digital Newspapers website. With luck, you might get a response.

Edited September 2, 2013 by cursor

[cinepro]

And that is my point. How would he know where it is? He could make an educated guess on the matter. He could make an educated assumption on the subject. But who told him where it was? Why is it that GAs can not make an opinion or a speculation or an assumption without people thinking otherwise?

 

That's a good point.  I'm going to make a bookmark to keep in my scriptures that says:

 

"And that is my point.  How would he know ___________?  He could make an educated guess on the matter.  He could make an educated assumption on the subject.  But who told him ____________?  Why is it that GAs can not make an opinion or a speculation or an assumption without people thinking otherwise?"

 

Then anytime a GA says something I don't like, even in General Conference, I can refer to my post card and reassure myself that it must have been their "educated assumption".

 

But if I do agree with it, I'll consider it revelation and judge other people accordingly.

[Senator]

There are something's which being mistaken about are unacceptable.

 

Hence my comment. For instance, if my understanding of the some the reactions to the revocation of the practice of polygamy is correct, there were many that experienced great turmoil over the ending of the practice.

 

But I question how conditioned the members of the church are to the notion of their Prophets and Apostles being mistaken to lesser issues let alone major doctrines.

[why me]

Then anytime a GA says something I don't like, even in General Conference, I can refer to my post card and reassure myself that it must have been their "educated assumption".

 

 

I have never believed that everything said in General Conference is straight from God's mouth. I do believe that quite often great advice is given in how to live and do life. But is it straight from god's mouth? Maybe not. When it comes to the hill cumorah, we can make an educated guess where it was. But it will be just a guess. We would definitely need more than what we now have to make it a fact.

 

And Bob's linked article makes the same point. The author is making an educated guess and the only thing that would change his mind is a revelation on the subject.

[Bob Crockett]

There are fundamental doctrines of the church, and they are listed as follows:

1. Godhead

2. Plan of Salvation

3. Atonement of Jesus Christ

4. Dispensation, Apostasy, and Restoration

5. Prophets and revelation

6. Priesthood and priesthood keys

7. Ordinances and covenants

8. Marriage and family

9. Commandments

 

10.  The location of the Hill Cumorah.

[why me]

We all agree that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah, where the plates were uncovered.

 

The issue is whether this is the same Cumorah of the last Nephite battle.

I know. But the author of the piece is assuming that they are one and the same based on his own assumptions. And his assumptions are rather good. But they are still assumptions that only a revelation could change. But if his assumptions are facts, why would he need a revelation to change his mind?

[Senator]

That's a good point.  I'm going to make a bookmark to keep in my scriptures that says:

 

"And that is my point.  How would he know ___________?  He could make an educated guess on the matter.  He could make an educated assumption on the subject.  But who told him ____________?  Why is it that GAs can not make an opinion or a speculation or an assumption without people thinking otherwise?"

 

Then anytime a GA says something I don't like, even in General Conference, I can refer to my post card and reassure myself that it must have been their "educated assumption".

 

But if I do agree with it, I'll consider it revelation and judge other people accordingly.

 

If there's one thing that contemporary apologetics has taught me; it is to be far less uncritical of what our leaders tell us.

[BCSpace]

There are fundamental doctrines of the church, and they are listed as follows:

 

Can't think of any doctrines that would not fall under at least one of these categories.  Hence all doctrines are fundamental.

Edited September 3, 2013 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

Can't think of any doctrines that would not fall under at least one of these categories.  Hence all doctrines are fundamental.

 

Personally I find some interpretations of doctrines not fundamental at all.

[telnetd]

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.

 

My main topic was not the doctrine of the Book of Mormon geography

as a whole. It dealt with the church's teaching of the Hill Cumorah as

was mentioned in the General Conference meeting. I place the same

test on what is spoken there as with these that you mention - either it

is true or it is false. But when you look at what is written in the GC, it

sounds like it is being taught as truth and not as speculation or one's

opinion.

 

If Mormons cannot trust what is spoken at a GC then you may not want

to go. I suspect everything said is allready written down and screened

before the talk is issued. I have not seen any subsequent GC talks that

have labelled the earlier ones as false as it pertains to Cumorah. 

 

But I think our churches are similar in one way. Things of faith believed

years ago may be controversial or outright rejected today ... like an

apostasy. And we tend to use the word 'doctrine' less and substitute the

words 'speculation', 'opinion', or 'gospel principles'. .... but whether it is

false takes a back-burner.

 

Gail

[telnetd]

I have never believed that everything said in General Conference is straight from God's mouth. I do believe that quite often great advice is given in how to live and do life. But is it straight from god's mouth? Maybe not. When it comes to the hill cumorah, we can make an educated guess where it was. But it will be just a guess. We would definitely need more than what we now have to make it a fact.

 

But you need to consider if everything said in GC is true or false.

If you start to use the phrase 'it will be just a guess', then think of

how many statements made at GC will be suffixed by '... but this

is just a guess'.  Jesus did not speak with this type of lack of

authority.

 

Gail