First Presidency Statement On Hill Cumorah, Or Not?

[telnetd]

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.

 

It seems the official notice (maybe by the Presidency or the Twelve

Apostles) viewed the Cumorah statements in 1928 as something to

be edifying to the saints and not deceptive to them.

 

Gail

[Freedom]

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

well, clearly they have. Not all statements by the brethren are proclamations of official doctrines. Many are simply statements of the churches official position at the time. Read, for example, past statements on homosexuality. The church changes their policies from time to time, policies that are official positions of the church. As more information comes out on mental illness, policies in dealing with these situations change. As more information comes out about the history of the ancient Hebrews, this material is incorporated into the teaching material and other outdated material is removed.

[cursor]

 

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.

 

 

LOL!! 

[cinepro]

I have to say I do find it interesting how our views of revelation have "adapted" over time. 

 

In Joseph Smith's day, it seems like Joseph would receive a "Thus saith the Lord..." revelation about almost anything he asked.  He even got a canonized Q&A with (presumably)the Lord about a chapter in the Bible.

 

It would take less than 30 seconds for the matter of Book of Mormon geography to be cleared up by revelation.  If it is a historical book and these events took place at a real time in area real place, then revelation could point out with whatever degree of specificity where some of these locations were. 

 

I suppose the obvious question for those who would seek to justify the lack of such a revelation would be "why is it important?"

 

Here's why it is important: because over the last 100 years, and with a growing rate of frequency, a great many members of the Church have devoted themselves (including their time and money) to studying and promoting an untruth, falsehood, and error.  This includes leaders of the Church too.

 

Take a look at the sum total of time and ink spent promoting and discussing a "Heartland-USA" model of Book of Mormon geography.  Then look at the sum total of time and ink spent promoting and discussing a Mesoamerican model of Book of Mormon geography.  Then consider that one of these groups of people have been totally wasting their time, energy and money promoting something that is totally silly.  False.  Mistaken.

 

There is a theory that "revelation" only comes in response to being asked for.  So why don't we ask?  Why don't we nicely ask that the Prophet take the matter to the Lord and let us know where these events took place, so one of these groups can stop wasting their time and money? 

 

Ultimately, I suspect this won't happen because one of the groups doesn't want the Prophet to speak on this matter, and the other group thinks he already has.

[Tacenda]

I have to say I do find it interesting how our views of revelation have "adapted" over time.

In Joseph Smith's day, it seems like Joseph would receive a "Thus saith the Lord..." revelation about almost anything he asked. He even got a canonized Q&A with (presumably)the Lord about a chapter in the Bible.

It would take less than 30 seconds for the matter of Book of Mormon geography to be cleared up by revelation. If it is a historical book and these events took place at a real time in area real place, then revelation could point out with whatever degree of specificity where some of these locations were.

I suppose the obvious question for those who would seek to justify the lack of such a revelation would be "why is it important?"

Here's why it is important: because over the last 100 years, and with a growing rate of frequency, a great many members of the Church have devoted themselves (including their time and money) to studying and promoting an untruth, falsehood, and error. This includes leaders of the Church too.

Take a look at the sum total of time and ink spent promoting and discussing a "Heartland-USA" model of Book of Mormon geography. Then look at the sum total of time and ink spent promoting and discussing a Mesoamerican model of Book of Mormon geography. Then consider that one of these groups of people have been totally wasting their time, energy and money promoting something that is totally silly. False. Mistaken.

There is a theory that "revelation" only comes in response to being asked for. So why don't we ask? Why don't we nicely ask that the Prophet take the matter to the Lord and let us know where these events took place, so one of these groups can stop wasting their time and money?

Ultimately, I suspect this won't happen because one of the groups doesn't want the Prophet to speak on this matter, and the other group thinks he already has.

And Dr. Sorenson wasn't compensated, was he, from the church that is? LDS Scholars seem to be under appreciated. Is there any evidence that they have been acknowledged by the leaders, this thought hit me out of the blue, please forgive me if it's an easy answer or dumb question. We never hear, it seems from the leaders themselves much. But they are not in the business of apologetics, of course but it would be nice to have the church back their work up with an endorsement and if they need to verify first by going to the Lord, then by all means.

[Freedom]

So we are to suppose that God should reveal to location of the Book of Mormon people simply because a lot of people are spending a lot of time on it? And why would this take precedence over providing the cure for cancer? I would submit to you that a whole lot more time and money is spent on this pursuit. And lets say God provides irrefutable proof of the Book of Mormon. What then? Wouldn't a more reasonable priority be to prove that that the Savior actually did live and die for our sins? As it currently stands, there is no evidence that Jesus ever even existed. But of course, knowing where the Nephites lives is much more important for our welfare.

 

You are also supposing that the question has not been asked. I cannot think of any examples of revelations that establish history, biology, chemistry or any other academic interest. We are told through modern revelation that the flood did indeed occur, why not provide the evidence for this? This has far more reaching significance than a little band of ancient Christians.

[Freedom]

And Dr. Sorenson wasn't compensated, was he, from the church that is? LDS Scholars seem to be under appreciated. Is there any evidence that they have been acknowledged by the leaders, this thought hit me out of the blue, please forgive me if it's an easy answer or dumb question. We never hear, it seems from the leaders themselves much. But they are not in the business of apologetics, of course but it would be nice to have the church back their work up with an endorsement and if they need to verify first by going to the Lord, then by all means.

How would they word that exactly: " we have no official position on where the events took place but John, you are amazing". There is a significant amount of time and energy  put into studying the long term affects of drug abuse. Contrary to the work done by John S, the church actually uses the mental health material. Should they make public statements to thank the producers of this research?

[Tiki]

Just read this entire thread. Here's a quote from GC 2010:

"President Benson continued:
“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture. …"
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng&query=Thus+saith+the+lord+declaration

This is in contrast to this quote by an LDS Apologist (which is not an official Church position) speaking about his apologetics:

"We also believe -- and this is probably more important -- that a lot of ideas that have circulated in the church are just ideas. They may or may not have gone back to authoritative sources. They have to be examined. ... Unless there's a divine "thus sayeth the Lord" attached to them, we don't necessarily feel bound by them."
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/peterson.html

This latter quote has been an excuse to ignore, as admitted, "ideas" about BoM geography that "circulated" in the Early History of the Church, which has been debated here. But it was shot down, if you will, in GC 2010 and earlier by President Benson. I'm astounded that an LDS Apologist whose purpose is to defend the LDS Faith, didnt know of Pres. Benson's quote.

 

"LDS Apologist" is not a source.   Have the courtesy to use names instead of labels if you want to be part of a discussion.

[Bob Crockett]

Certainly one way to test the spirits of a claim counter to long-established tradition repeated in First Presidency statements, books by General Authorities and General Conference statements is to see if the counter claims are given equal dignity. The best the MesoAmerican theorists can do is point to statements which say the Church takes no position on Book of Mormon geography. Certainly that does not justify teaching an alternate view.

 

Perhaps it is harmless to spend so much time and resources on a MesoAmerican story for the Book of Mormon, but I wonder about its value.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Freedom]

Certainly one way to test the spirits of a claim counter to long-established tradition repeated in First Presidency statements, books by General Authorities and General Conference statements is to see if the counter claims are given equal dignity. The best the MesoAmerican theorists can do is point to statements which say the Church takes no position on Book of Mormon geography. Certainly that does not justify teaching an alternate view.

 

Perhaps it is harmless to spend so much time and resources on a MesoAmerican story for the Book of Mormon, but I wonder about its value.

The question is, who is  spending the time and resources? The church isn't, I'm not. I think we have a responsibility to uncover the history of these people, and use the scientific method in the process. Justifying a location based on some 100 year old quote from a church leader does not constitute using the scientific method.

[Freedom]

Just read this entire thread. Here's a quote from GC 2010:

"President Benson continued:

“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture. …"

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng&query=Thus+saith+the+lord+declaration

This is in contrast to this quote by an LDS Apologist (which is not an official Church position) speaking about his apologetics:

"We also believe -- and this is probably more important -- that a lot of ideas that have circulated in the church are just ideas. They may or may not have gone back to authoritative sources. They have to be examined. ... Unless there's a divine "thus sayeth the Lord" attached to them, we don't necessarily feel bound by them."

 

He is using this expression as a figure of speech. The church has made it very clear what constitutes doctrine, and random speeches do not qualify. It is not our doctrine, for example, that board games are evil, that blacks descend from Cain, that the democratic party is evil, that Winter Quarters is a  terrible place to live and a host of other claims that have been made by apostles  at general conference. Stop cherry picking and put it all into context. Scriptures and official proclamations determine doctrine. Revelation is not canonized scripture either. Revelation comes in the forms of thoughts and ideas, how we express those thoughts and ideas are up to us and are often adversely affected by our own perspectives. When a prophet speaks, we are looking for the principles and not for new doctrines.

[Bob Crockett]

The question is, who is  spending the time and resources? The church isn't, I'm not. I think we have a responsibility to uncover the history of these people, and use the scientific method in the process. Justifying a location based on some 100 year old quote from a church leader does not constitute using the scientific method.

Who?   Dr. Sorenson.  Rodney Meldrum.  Thomas Stuart Ferguson.  Old FARMS (which had as a logo a MesoAmerican figure).  Milton R. Hunter.   Firesides I've attended.  Priesthood discussions to which I've listened.  I could go on.  The answer is obvious. 

 

I think we have a responsibility to uncover the history of these people, and use the scientific method in the process. 

 

I think it foolish to use the Book of Mormon as a map to explain MesoAmerica, or vice versa.  That isn't the scientific method.  That's no more different than using science with the Shroud of Turin to justify the Resurrection, or ground-penetrating radar to support the story of Noah's ark.  

 

Justifying a location based on some 100 year old quote from a church leader does not constitute using the scientific method.

 

The fact that NY Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah are one and the same is a "revealed" fact.  It is revealed in the inspired statements of members of the First Presidency (including during Joseph Smith's time).  There is no need to use the scientific method to support such.

 

If I want to say that the Word of Wisdom applies to coffee and tea, the source for my statement is all "revealed" fact.   There is no "thus saith the Lord" support linking coffee and tea, but excluding hot chocolate or hot apple juice, from the Word of Wisdom.  The statement is attributed to the First Presidency.  Science has shown that tea and alcohol, in moderation, are beneficial to human health.  So, should we conclude that statements by Hyrum Smith on the subject should be discarded because science doesn't support the Word of Wisdom as now interpreted?

 

I could cite innumerable examples where church doctrine is based upon attributive statements from members of the First Presidency without a "thus saith the Lord" qualifier, and where the "scientific method" is a useless exercise to support, justify or criticize the doctrine.   (Some examples;  Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible; Paul wrote Hebrews; the Book of Isaiah is found completely on the brass plates; Adam and Eve are real people.)

 

I note as an aside that the "thus saith the Lord" challenge is exactly the challenge fundamentalists have hurled against OD 1 and 2.  MesoAmerican theorists think they want to define for us how the Brethren issue inspired statements.

 

So, I see nothing wrong with studying MesoAmerica.  Nothing at all.  But publishing books describing how Book of Mormon geography lines up with MesoAmerica (or any other locale) is udder foolishness and contrary to direction that we do not do so.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

The fact that NY Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah are one and the same is a "revealed" fact.

 

Uh ... nope.

 

Didn’t church leaders long ago settle the question of Nephite geography?

[ from John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Map ]

 

The simple answer to this question is no. Historical documents fail to indicate that church authorities have ever claimed that the lands of the Nephites were located in any particular place.

 

To explain more thoroughly, more than one view of where the Nephites lived was held in the early days of the church. It is possible to conclude that to the first readers of the Book of Mormon it seemed obvious that North America was the land northward and South America was the land southward, with the narrow neck of land at Panama. Because the angel Moroni first showed the plates to Joseph Smith at the hill near Joseph’s home in New York State, church members supposed that the final battle between the Nephite and Lamanite armies occurred there too.[6] (Actually, what the account says is that while Mormon buried all the other records of the Nephite people in the hill Cumorah of the final battle, he gave the set of plates on which he had written his abridged history to his son Moroni2 [see Mormon 6:6]. Moroni2 still had those records in his possession thirty-five years later, after wandering “whithersoever I can” [Moroni 1:3] for safety from his enemies [see Mormon 8:4, 14; Moroni 10:1–2]. Moroni2 did not tell us where he finally buried them. Perhaps the primary reason that he lived so long after the final battle was to deliver the plates to New York personally.)

 

In 1842, the church leaders in Nauvoo were presented with a newly published book[7] that spurred a new interpretation of Book of Mormon geography. A best-selling volume by explorer John Lloyd Stephens reported his dramatic discovery of great ruins in Central America, and it was reviewed enthusiastically in the Times and Seasons, Nauvoo’s newspaper.[8] The author of the review is not known, but John Taylor was managing editor of the paper and Joseph Smith had declared six months before that “I alone stand responsible for it [the paper].”[9] The Nephites, the newspaper said, “lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America.” Furthermore, “the city of Zarahemla . . . stood upon this land.” Of course, that would make the land southward, which included Zarahemla, a part of Central America (“several hundred miles of territory from north to south”),[10] not South America as had been thought.

 

Can this enthusiastic pronouncement be considered a revelation that defines the geography once and for all? No such claim was made. The active minds among the leaders were simply doing research. “We are not agoing to declare positively,” the article said, “that the ruins of Quirigua [Guatemala] are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion,” that is, they inferred, that the site must be “one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.”[11] Additional comment in the next issue of the paper further reflects the intellectual ferment at work: “We have found another important fact.” Clearly, they did not think that this new interpretation of the geography, or the original one, had settled matters, let alone been a revelation. They were doing what the Lord had instructed Oliver Cowdery to do in 1829: “You must study it out in your mind” (D&C 9: . Apparently, they never reached a conclusion that satisfied everyone, because some of the leaders and most of the Saints, who were not privy to the thinking Stephens’s book stirred among the small group around Joseph, continued to hold the two-continents interpretation.[12]

 

The fact that the geography question had not been settled authoritatively was confirmed by an 1890 statement from George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency: “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.”[13] Around 1918 or a little before, church president Joseph F. Smith underlined the point. He "declined to officially approve of [any map], saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it."[14] By 1950 nothing had changed; apostle John A. Widtsoe said, "As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know. However, certain facts and traditions of varying reliability are used as foundation guides by stoudents of Book of Mormon geography."[15]

 

No, the geography question has not been answered by church authorities, nor have the opinions worked out by geography hobbyists yet led to agreement. In 1947 it was still possible to hope that "out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet come a unity of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography," as Elder Widtsoe put it.[16] But in the half century since, confusion has grown. Few have sought consensus, while many have defensively adhered to individual notions based on selected "facts and traditions of varying reliability.”

 

A different approach seems to be called for if we are to gain a better understanding of Book of Mormon geography and the benefits associated with that.

 

 

N o t e s

 

6. See Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Liverpool: R. James, 1850), 22; Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses, 14:298. See also Orson Pratt's footnotes in the 1875 edition of the Book of Mormon, particularly 1 Nephi 18:23 n. k.; Omni 1:12 n. g; and Omni 1:13 n. h.

 

7. See John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan (London: John Murray, 1841).

 

8. See "Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America,'" Times and Seasons 3 (15 September 1842): 914–15, 921–22.

 

9. "To Subscribers," Times and Seasons 3 (15 March 1842): 710.

 

10. "Zarahemla," Times and Seasons 3 (1 October 1842): 927. Elder John A. Widtsoe observed, "The interesting fact . . . is that the Prophet Joseph Smith at this time was editor . . . and had announced his full editorial responsibility for the paper. This seems to give the . . . article an authority it might not otherwise possess." Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 3:96.

 

11. "Zarahemla," 927.

 

12. For example, Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology: A Voice of Warning (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 15, said that "Lehi and Nephi came out with a colony from Jerusalem . . . and finally landed in safety on the coast of what is now called Chile, in South America." Pratt was absent from Nauvoo in the fall of 1842, and at that same time his brother Orson was also out of touch by virtue of his brief excommunication over the issue of polygamy.

 

13. George Q. Cannon, "Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography," Juvenile Instructor 25/1 (1 January 1890): 18.

 

14. George D. Pyper, "The Book of Mormon Geography," The Instructor 73 (April 1938): 160.

 

15. John A. Widtsoe, "Evidences and Reconciliations: Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?" The Improvement Era 53 (July 1950): 547.

 

16. John A. Widtsoe, foreword to Cumorah—Where? by Thomas Stuart Ferguson (Oakland: Author, 1947).

[thesometimesaint]

Who?   Dr. Sorenson.  Rodney Meldrum.  Thomas Stuart Ferguson.  Old FARMS (which had as a logo a MesoAmerican figure).  Milton R. Hunter.   Firesides I've attended.  Priesthood discussions to which I've listened.  I could go on.  The answer is obvious. 

 

I think it foolish to use the Book of Mormon as a map to explain MesoAmerica, or vice versa.  That isn't the scientific method.  That's no more different than using science with the Shroud of Turin to justify the Resurrection, or ground-penetrating radar to support the story of Noah's ark.  

 

The fact that NY Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah are one and the same is a "revealed" fact.  It is revealed in the inspired statements of members of the First Presidency (including during Joseph Smith's time).  There is no need to use the scientific method to support such.

 

If I want to say that the Word of Wisdom applies to coffee and tea, the source for my statement is all "revealed" fact.   There is no "thus saith the Lord" support linking coffee and tea, but excluding hot chocolate or hot apple juice, from the Word of Wisdom.  The statement is attributed to the First Presidency.  Science has shown that tea and alcohol, in moderation, are beneficial to human health.  So, should we conclude that statements by Hyrum Smith on the subject should be discarded because science doesn't support the Word of Wisdom as now interpreted?

 

I could cite innumerable examples where church doctrine is based upon attributive statements from members of the First Presidency without a "thus saith the Lord" qualifier, and where the "scientific method" is a useless exercise to support, justify or criticize the doctrine.   (Some examples;  Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible; Paul wrote Hebrews; the Book of Isaiah is found completely on the brass plates; Adam and Eve are real people.)

 

I note as an aside that the "thus saith the Lord" challenge is exactly the challenge fundamentalists have hurled against OD 1 and 2.  MesoAmerican theorists think they want to define for us how the Brethren issue inspired statements.

 

So, I see nothing wrong with studying MesoAmerica.  Nothing at all.  But publishing books describing how Book of Mormon geography lines up with MesoAmerica (or any other locale) is udder foolishness and contrary to direction that we do not do so.

 

The Church takes no position on the location for the Book of Mormon events, other than it was somewhere in the America's.

 

Locations can be determined what the text does say. The best candidate so far is Mesoamerica. That is part a parcel of the Scientific Method. What isn't part and parcel of the Scientific Method is the Truth Claims of ancient works, or even modern ones for that matter. IE; We can reasonably point out that Homer was a real person and that Troy existed(Today in ruins) what Science can't do is posit that Homer's ancient Greek Gods exist(ed).

 

No there is no reveled "fact" about any location for the events described in the Book of Mormon. Much speculation but no revelation so far.

 

Smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol aren't particularly good for you either. The detriments far outweigh the benefits in either case. As members of the Church we have covenanted with God not to partake of them. It therefor isn't about any health benefits, or lack thereof, that is the issue, but our covenants with God.

 

Correct in that it doesn't have to be "Thus saith the Lord". False in that there is no established method for determining what is Church Doctrine and what is not.

 

As long as it doesn't contradict stated Church Doctrine, after correction by those in authority. Any member of the Church(high or low), can, if the want to, write of any subject they want to.

[Bob Crockett]

The Church takes no position on the location for the Book of Mormon events, other than it was somewhere in the America's.

 

The exception: The Hill Cumorah.   The First Presidency has announced this doctrine several times.

 

What a waste of time Book of Mormon geograpy is; you say the Church takes no position; then why do I have to be browbeaten by MesoAmerican proponents?  Why not just debate the Shroud of Turin?

 

I continue to believe that folks who insist upon the MesoAmerican analysis are bothered by the claimed lack of archaeological evidence for widespread battles in New York.   This is exactly the kind of lack of faith in the Book that President Joseph Fielding Smith criticized.  I also believe that it shows a fundamental lack of interest in Native American techology and archaeology in the Great Lakes area.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

The exception: The Hill Cumorah.   The First Presidency has announced this doctrine several times.

 

What a waste of time Book of Mormon geograpy is; you say the Church takes no position; then why do I have to be browbeaten about the subject to defend a MesoAmerican theory?

 

No they haven't. So CFR for any location from the First Presdiency.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Cumorah

 

You don't have to do anything. I think the better case is for a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon events. But I have never claimed it is doctrine.

[Bart Burk]

Does this letter carry any weight?

 

http://www.josephsmithforum.org/doc/first-presidency-letter-on-location-of-hill-cumorah/

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Office of the first Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

 

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrell L. Brooks

Moore Ward

Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stoke

1000 Windemere

Moore, OK. 73160
Dear Bishop Brooks:

 

l have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

F. Michael Watson

Secretary to the First Presidency

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bart Burk

[thesometimesaint]

The Watson letter has been rejected.

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

Edited September 5, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cursor]

What a waste of time Book of Mormon geograpy is; you say the Church takes no position; then why do I have to be browbeaten by MesoAmerican proponents?

 

1. Because you wrongly insist that the location of the final battles for the Nehites and the Jaredites has been revealed ("the First Presidency has announced this doctrine several times").

2. Because you wrongly insist that faithful saints who pursue alternative solutions, based on Mormon's words, are lacking in faith and on the road to apostasy.

 

Those two elements are bound to draw some attention.

[Bob Crockett]

The Watson letter has been rejected.

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

This is not a rejection.   One letter is on the letterhead of the First Presidency and contains a signature, and is specific.  The second is a fax from somebody else, is not on letterhead, is not signed.  The second is not a retraction of the first.  I've discussed the "equal dignities" doctrine several times on this board.   The mere fact the first letter was sent says a lot about what the First Presidency assumed and thought.  

 

I suppose that the much weaker second communication can give some pause, but not much.  If we're looking at the strength of documentary evidence, I think a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that is different than yours.  

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

No they haven't. So CFR for any location from the First Presdiency.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Cumorah

 

You don't have to do anything. I think the better case is for a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon events. But I have never claimed it is doctrine.

I've provided these references many times; there is one on this thread, apparently.  It looks like the Manti Messenger published a pastoral letter from the McKay administration.  Also, Oliver Cowdery; John Widstoe.  Doctrines of Salvation was published by the Church and it is quite explicit.  

[Freedom]

Who?   Dr. Sorenson.  Rodney Meldrum.  Thomas Stuart Ferguson.  Old FARMS (which had as a logo a MesoAmerican figure).  Milton R. Hunter.   Firesides I've attended.  Priesthood discussions to which I've listened.  I could go on.  The answer is obvious. 

 

I think it foolish to use the Book of Mormon as a map to explain MesoAmerica, or vice versa.  That isn't the scientific method.  That's no more different than using science with the Shroud of Turin to justify the Resurrection, or ground-penetrating radar to support the story of Noah's ark.  

 

The fact that NY Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah are one and the same is a "revealed" fact.  It is revealed in the inspired statements of members of the First Presidency (including during Joseph Smith's time).  There is no need to use the scientific method to support such.

 

If I want to say that the Word of Wisdom applies to coffee and tea, the source for my statement is all "revealed" fact.   There is no "thus saith the Lord" support linking coffee and tea, but excluding hot chocolate or hot apple juice, from the Word of Wisdom.  The statement is attributed to the First Presidency.  Science has shown that tea and alcohol, in moderation, are beneficial to human health.  So, should we conclude that statements by Hyrum Smith on the subject should be discarded because science doesn't support the Word of Wisdom as now interpreted?

 

I could cite innumerable examples where church doctrine is based upon attributive statements from members of the First Presidency without a "thus saith the Lord" qualifier, and where the "scientific method" is a useless exercise to support, justify or criticize the doctrine.   (Some examples;  Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible; Paul wrote Hebrews; the Book of Isaiah is found completely on the brass plates; Adam and Eve are real people.)

 

I note as an aside that the "thus saith the Lord" challenge is exactly the challenge fundamentalists have hurled against OD 1 and 2.  MesoAmerican theorists think they want to define for us how the Brethren issue inspired statements.

 

So, I see nothing wrong with studying MesoAmerica.  Nothing at all.  But publishing books describing how Book of Mormon geography lines up with MesoAmerica (or any other locale) is udder foolishness and contrary to direction that we do not do so.

My question is, why do you care if other people spend money and time on interest that do not appeal to you? Some people spend time and money on learning about mythology, others on golf clubs. This is one area of research of thousands. You are focusing on a tiny discipline that few pay attention to, but those who do spend their own money and time to learn about it. You know full well what constitutes doctrine, you have been reminded of it time and time again but you choose to ignore it, ironically, in order to spend time and resources on your own particular interests. The Book of Mormon is not a map of any location, so those who care look at the book and then apply proven scientific techniques to uncover its location. there is no amount of science that will justify a New York placement for the events in the Book of Mormon.  

The church has official positions on things, but this positions do not constitute absolute doctrine. The church changes is policies and points of view when ever more research comes forth. The official position on the Word of Wisdom is quite clear - it includes tea and alcohol. For every peace of research you find that shows these products are good for you, I can find 10 that disagree; nevertheless there is more to the Word of Wisdom than simple health. It deals with setting us apart, and avoiding foods that are a danger to even the weakest among us. So your challenge is a matter of misunderstanding church doctrine.

[Bart Burk]

This is not a rejection.   One letter is on the letterhead of the First Presidency and contains a signature, and is specific.  The second is a fax from somebody else, is not on letterhead, is not signed.  The second is not a retraction of the first.  I've discussed the "equal dignities" doctrine several times on this board.   The mere fact the first letter was sent says a lot about what the First Presidency assumed and thought.  

 

I suppose that the much weaker second communication can give some pause, but not much.  If we're looking at the strength of documentary evidence, I think a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that is different than yours.  

It does seem to me that a fax from a person named Carla Ogden would carry no weight as compared to a letter from Michael Watson who was the Secretary to the First Presidency.  Maybe someone should send them another letter to get a clarification.

[Freedom]

I've provided these references many times; there is one on this thread, apparently.  It looks like the Manti Messenger published a pastoral letter from the McKay administration.  Also, Oliver Cowdery; John Widstoe.  Doctrines of Salvation was published by the Church and it is quite explicit.  

There is a difference between being published by the church and being published by a publishing company that is owned by the church. You can post a thousand opinions expressed by church leaders, but if it does not follow the standard set out by the church, it is not doctrine. It is their opinion. And opinions change because we are a church that believes in learning line upon and precept upon precept. Consider this quote by George Q Cannon AS CITED IN AN ARTICLE CURRENLTY POSTED ON THE CHURCH WEBSITE: (sorry, was I yelling?)

"The first presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so....The reason is, that without further information they are not prepare even to suggest [a map]." and we can read John A Widstoe declare "As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/assets/pdf/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf

 

Again, here is the standard for determining doctrine: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

You would say that a private letter signed by a secretary constitutes an official proclamation, I say a letter signed by the first presidency distrusted to the entire membership constitutes an official proclamation.

[Bart Burk]

I must say that speculation about two Cumorahs is certainly creative even more than speculating that tapirs are horses.     

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bart Burk