Cumorah ... Has Time Changed Your Mind?

[Bob Crockett]

Fair question. I majored in History and Anthropology (all Archaeologist are anthropologist but not all anthropologist are archaeologist). IOW Archaeology is the subset of Anthropology. I was the recipient of the Outstanding Student of Anthropology at my college (Wayne State College), where only one student is selected for that award. I graduated with honors. I will be attending grad school at the University of South Dakota this Fall, where they have one of the best Native American Indian studies in the United States. I have participated in some excavation at Ash fall Nebraska, studied the mound builders, and continue to do so every Summer when I go to Columbus Ohio for business (I spend extra time to study the mounds there). I also visit St. Louis every year and drive 10 minutes across the river to Illinois and study at Cahokia. I have wrote many papers (most on the subject of Celtic, Myths, Celtic Symbolism, Celtic Origins, the Celtics in general), I wrote on the environmental impact the handcart had on the Mormon trail and the forced migration of the Marshallese from the atoll of Bikini. Some of those will be published soon. I am working on a paper for the BMAF and at one point was invited to be a presenter there. I will be presenting at the Missouri valley History Conference sponsored by Phi Alpha Theta in March. I have personally consulted with Dr. Kenneth Feder, Dr. William Iseminger, Dr. Bradley Lepper, and many others regarding the Hopewell and Adena, Clovis etc.. Hope that helps answer your question on some of my training.

Impressive. 

 

But, irrelevant.  As is any heartland or mound theory.  Once we come to understand that the Lord has not revealed any particular facet of Book of Mormon geography except the location of the Hill Cumorah, we should understand that He is not likely to do so because it isn't important. [And it is fascinating that those who triumph their particular brand of MesoAmericanism reject the singular example of revealed Book of Mormon geography.]  And, as the Brethren have universally stated who have commented on the issue, the study of real-world Book of Mormon geography is counter-productive to the objectives of the Gospel. 

 

Having said my part, I think it is all silly angelic dancing on the head of a pin.  It reminds me so much of the Catholic theological debates as to whether saints have normal bathroom habits.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

Impressive. 

 

But, irrelevant.  As is any heartland or mound theory.  Once we come to understand that the Lord has not revealed any particular facet of Book of Mormon geography except the location of the Hill Cumorah, we should understand that He is not likely to do so because it isn't important. [And it is fascinating that those who triumph their particular brand of MesoAmericanism reject the singular example of revealed Book of Mormon geography.]  And, as the Brethren have universally stated who have commented on the issue, the study of real-world Book of Mormon geography is counter-productive to the objectives of the Gospel. 

 

Having said my part, I think it is all silly angelic dancing on the head of a pin.  It reminds me so much of the Catholic theological debates as to whether saints have normal bathroom habits.

I did not post that to impress, in fact I feel it isn't what it should be. Tiki asked my training, I posted it to show I am not just blowing hot air, it is what I study.

 

I notice you continue to express your opinion of the irrelevance of studying the geography of the Book of Mormon yet you yourself will usually put in your two cents i.e. "except the location of the Hill Cumorah"  That argument has not yet, as you think been settled.

 

If members follow a theory and that theory turns out to be wrong and when these members feel they have been deceived some then leave the church instead of looking for other answers. I do not think that study is "counter productive" as you suggest. I whole heartily agree with you that it is not as important as the "objective of the Gospel."  If I can help one dissatisfied brother or sister from having their testimony weakened I feel it is a worthy endeavor. 

 

Although I lean heavily toward a Mesoamerican setting, most my posts are not as much advocating that region, but are composed to correcting false assumptions. I do so on the part of the world I have studied the most; that being Ancient Americans (Clovis, Adena, and Hopewell) and their culture.

[Bob Crockett]

Often, when the Brethren criticize people who work on Book of Mormon geography, it is in response to those who theorize there are two Cumorahs.  So if you want to accuse folks of being inconsistent, point to them.

[Anijen]

I do not recall accusing anyone of being inconsistent, I have pointed out inaccuracies of ideas that people hold as true. I was not saying you were inconsistent, if anything I was pointing out how consistent you are about harping on the silliness of geography, yet you keep reminding me and others of the opinion of church leaders about a single Cumorah.

 

Some of "the Brethren" hold to a two Cumorah theory and as you suggest some have not. We can have different views and opinions that are contrary to our beloved church leaders. Even some slightly radical views such as Dr. Henry Eyring had with President Joseph Fielding Smith, or B.H. Roberts had with Joseph Fielding Smith or James E. Talmage had with Joseph Fielding Smith. The brethren have their own opinions on the matter, and we can as well.

 

 

From Wikipedia.

Another of the apostles, geologist James E. Talmage, pointed out that Smith's views could be misinterpreted as the church's official position, since Smith's views were widely circulated but Roberts's views were limited to an internal church document.^[7][19] As a result, the First Presidency gave permission to Talmage to give a speech promoting views that were contrary to Smith's.^[7] In his speech on August 9, 1931 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Talmage taught the same principles that Roberts had originally outlined in his draft manual.^[23] Over Smith's objections, the First Presidency authorized a church publication of Talmage's speech in pamphlet form.^[7] In 1965, Talmage's speech was reprinted again by the LDS Church in an official church magazine.^[24] As Talmage points out in the article, "The outstanding point of difference ... is the point of time which man in some state has lived on this planet." With regards to evolution in general, Talmage challenged many of its aspects in the same speech.

 

I realize Wikipedia is not the best of sources, but it was good enough to help me make my point.

[Freedom]

Often, when the Brethren criticize people who work on Book of Mormon geography, it is in response to those who theorize there are two Cumorahs.  So if you want to accuse folks of being inconsistent, point to them.

Often when the brethren USED TO criticize people you mean. Now that more research has come out, the leadership of the church has leaned to stop expressing their uninformed opinions about matters that have nothing to do with our salvation. 

[Bob Crockett]

I do not recall accusing anyone of being inconsistent, I have pointed out inaccuracies of ideas that people hold as true. I was not saying you were inconsistent, if anything I was pointing out how consistent you are about harping on the silliness of geography, yet you keep reminding me and others of the opinion of church leaders about a single Cumorah.

 

Some of "the Brethren" hold to a two Cumorah theory and as you suggest some have not. We can have different views and opinions that are contrary to our beloved church leaders. Even some slightly radical views such as Dr. Henry Eyring had with President Joseph Fielding Smith, or B.H. Roberts had with Joseph Fielding Smith or James E. Talmage had with Joseph Fielding Smith. The brethren have their own opinions on the matter, and we can as well.

 

 

From Wikipedia.

I realize Wikipedia is not the best of sources, but it was good enough to help me make my point.

Your quote pertains to evolution, not the teaching of Book of Mormon geography.   On the first subject, the church has taken no position.  On the second subject the Church has officially said not to engage in public speculation.

 

Perhaps finding Zarahemla can give you and others great peace.  But it isn't the peace the Book of Mormon authors intended. 

Edited January 29, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Often when the brethren USED TO criticize people you mean. Now that more research has come out, the leadership of the church has leaned to stop expressing their uninformed opinions about matters that have nothing to do with our salvation. 

Of course, there is absolutely no evidence for this.   You suppose this to be the case, but then we have official church statements as late as 1978 telling us not to engage in Book of Mormon geography speculation.

[Anijen]

I know it pertains to evolution, it is quite obvious.

 

Did you perhaps missed the reason I posted it? I posted it to show that it is alright to have a difference of opinion with the church leaders. Even our church leaders had differing opinions with each other. I posted it to show that very point. Unless you are inferring that concerning the geography of the BofM that subject is off limits and members are not allowed to have a different opinion than our church leaders?

 

 Since Elder Mark E. Peterson was in the Quorum of the Twelve some theories have changed more than a few opinions in that quorum. This has been mainly due to remarkable advancements in technology and as the skill levels of Archaeologist have increased naturally the analysis of information has been better. Those studies have made the Mesoamerican setting much more plausible while at the same time a heartland theory less plausible. One example of this is on pollen studies; Archaeologist can actually trace the migration pattern of corn (or if you wish to call it Maize or Teosinte) from Central America into the the Southwest area of the U.S. and then to the East coast.

 

As Freedom has posted previously you will not hear our current leaders speak about these lesser matters that one can glean from the Book of Mormon, but they will speak of spiritual gains from coming closer to Christ as a result of study from that book. That does not mean we should not glean other interesting tid-bits that pertain to other things within the BofM. And that does not mean that our leaders can not have different opinions from some leaders from the past and the present.

 

I notice you like to pound in the subject of only one Cumorah as doctrine, it is not. It always has been a very strong held opinion of some of  our leaders in the past such as Elder Peterson and President Romney, yet I know it is not as prevalent today as it was back then, and that it is still not doctrine. I truly would be amazed if the church will come out and make doctrine a subject with so little importance as the setting of the Book of Mormon or as you put it as little as making doctrine on something compared to the level of our bathroom habits. I agree they would not and have not, but they will and have speculated on the matter.

 

we have official church statements as late as 1978 telling us not to engage in Book of Mormon geography speculation.

 

We have? CFR, I have read some of what they have said on the matter and I believe you are taking it out of context, (such as publishing maps and claiming as factual locations). But the church has never given us the commandment "thou shalt not speculate in matters of geography of the Book of Mormon." I know that sounds silly, but they way you posted it, and that is how one can read your interpretation on it. Again I seriously doubt that our church leaders would give a decree stating geography is off limits, so don't you dare speculate about it. Or perhaps again you are stating it is against church law (doctrine) that we can not have a different opinion from our leaders, even though they among themselves have different opinions one from another?

[ALarson]

Has anyone addressed answering in the affirmative regarding this question in the poll?  

 

"Do You Believe There is presently STRONG EVIDENCE for the Book of Mormon?"

 

There are 30 who've voted "yes" (so far).  What is this "strong evidence"?

[Kevin Christensen]

Has anyone addressed answering in the affirmative regarding this question in the poll?  

 

"Do You Believe There is presently STRONG EVIDENCE for the Book of Mormon?"

There are 30 who've voted "yes" (so far).  What is this "strong evidence"?

How much of this have you read, or not read?

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-nephis-neighbors-book-of-mormon-peoples-and-pre-columbian-populations

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural-role-and-plausible-identification

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-arabia-and-the-book-of-mormon

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-case-for-historicity-discerning-the-book-of-mormons-production-culture

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Just for starters.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 29, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Kevin Christensen]

From a Church News Editorial.   I admit that I cut and paste this from a Tanner source:

GEOGRAPHY PROBLEMS

THE GEOGRAPHY OF the Book of Mormon has intrigued some readers of that volume ever since its publication. But why worry about it?

Given the high profile criticisms of the Book of Mormon ever since its publication, why not worry about it? What about those whose faith has been challenged by those unanswered questions? Don't they count?

 

Efforts to pinpoint certain places from what is written in the book are fruitless because the record does not give evidence of such locations in terms of our modern geography.

As I recall this Church News editorial (that is, not a revelation in the D&C) was originally written in the 1950s. Does "fruitless" still accurately describe the situation? Even since the mid 70s, look at the subsequent work of John Clark, John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, Diane Wirth, Allen Christenson, Larry Poulson, and Mark Wright, for example. Doesn't that kind of thing change the scene considerably? At least, if you read it?

 

Attempts to designate certain areas as the Land Bountiful or the site of Zarahemla or the place where the Nephite city of Jerusalem sank into the sea ‘and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof’ can bring no definitive results. So why speculate?

At the time of this Church News writing on this question, this essay at had not been written.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1291&index=2

 

To guess where Zarahemla stood can in no wise add to anyone’s faith.

Compare this absolute statement with this presentation and its effect on those who consider it.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

 

But to raise doubts in people’s minds about the location of the Hill Cumorah, and thus challenge the words of the prophets concerning the place where Moroni buried the records, is most certainly harmful. And who has the right to raise doubts in anyone’s mind?

And of course, the Tanners find the essay useful because raising doubts is the furthest thing from their minds.

Given that Mormon and Moroni were prophets, and unlike their modern counterparts, eye-witnesses of Book of Mormon events, don't their words count? I have pointed out many times before, Robert, that in treating the question of Cumorah, neither you, nor any of the authorities you cite, ever show any evidence or even interest in a comprehensive accounting for their description of Cumorah.

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/hill_vigia_cumorah__woolley

And since a New York location has problems that raise doubts in my mind, who has the right to refuse me, or anyone, information and arguments that help me resolve those doubts, particularly when the root of the resistance to the argument is assumption?

 

Our position is to build faith, not to weaken it, and theories concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon can most certainly undermine faith if allowed to run rampant.

The point of using the 1000+ bits of geographic information provided by Mormon and Moroni is specifically to prevent theories of Book of Mormon geography from running rampant. See, for instance, John Clark's and John Sorenson's attempts to build a purely internal geography first. Such models to provide viable checks any model.

 

Why not leave hidden the things that the Lord has hidden? If He wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point.

We're told to "Seek and ye find, ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you."

And why presume that those who seriously seek will be utterly lacking in inspiration?

 

SOME AUTHORS have felt ‘called upon’ to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.(Deseret News, July 29, 1978, Church News Section, p.16)

The difference between strictly private views and something that is "only personal speculation" is in the amount of serious research done in support. Joseph Smith's essays on the Times and Seasons, encouraging comparisons of Book Mormon geography to Mr Stephens discoveries are not mentioned here. Why not, do you think?

I long felt that this Church News essay is interesting as an appeal to authority without considering the underpinnings of that authority relative to these questions, nor what has been learned relative to the questions since it was first published in the 1950s.

Citing it so uncritically and so frequently does nothing to establish faith, nor to support authority, nor to resolve any questions that can be raised by close reading of the Book of Mormon. If God didn't want us to think about Book of Mormon geography, why provide so much telling information in the text? Why do prophets describe the Sidon in such detail that only one river in the Western Hemisphere fits the description? Why do prophets describe Cumorah in so much detail as to rule out the New York drumlin? Why not just give us the D&C, tell us what to think about doctrine, and be done with it? We could just spend all of our time setting up chairs, nodding like sponges in a coral reef for a few hours, and then fold chairs and go home without all this bothersome inquiry.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 29, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

Citing the Church's official stance, as contained in a Church News editorial, is not an appeal to authority.  I've certainly heard you and others assert this claimed fallacy before; it is the wrong application of the fallacy, but I think all those fallacies absurd.  

Edited January 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

Church news editorial==

 

Yes, I do remember an editorial that said "When the brethren have spoken, the thinking has been done"  I  guess on BOM geography, the thinking has already been done, at least for some members of this forum.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm ready to be persuaded by contra statements by the Brethren.  Oops.  There are none.  I win.  It seems.  

[ERayR]

Impressive. 

 

But, irrelevant.  As is any heartland or mound theory.  Once we come to understand that the Lord has not revealed any particular facet of Book of Mormon geography except the location of the Hill Cumorah, we should understand that He is not likely to do so because it isn't important. [And it is fascinating that those who triumph their particular brand of MesoAmericanism reject the singular example of revealed Book of Mormon geography.]  And, as the Brethren have universally stated who have commented on the issue, the study of real-world Book of Mormon geography is counter-productive to the objectives of the Gospel. 

 

Having said my part, I think it is all silly angelic dancing on the head of a pin.  It reminds me so much of the Catholic theological debates as to whether saints have normal bathroom habits.

 

If you are saying Book of Mormon geography is irrelevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon then I agree.  I however do not agree that the Lord has revealed the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah. 

[ERayR]

I'm ready to be persuaded by contra statements by the Brethren.  Oops.  There are none.  I win.  It seems.  

Don't break your arm.

[Bob Crockett]

If you are saying Book of Mormon geography is irrelevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon then I agree.  I however do not agree that the Lord has revealed the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah. 

 

"That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

 

This basically ex cathedra statement from a member of the First Presidency came after the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah. 

 

I'd be curious to know, once again I ask, which of the Brethren have ever spoken out in conference or in a book they've authored, where they concede the possibility that the LGT theory is legit?

 

I really don't care one way or the other if there is one or two Cumorahs, or whether the LGT theory is correct, but I do find it fascinating that the Brethren have, many times, counseled against the study of Book of Mormon geography (at least, real-world geography) and yet we have so much work being spent upon it.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

I'm ready to be persuaded by contra statements by the Brethren.  Oops.  There are none.  I win.  It seems.  

 

 

 

This basically ex cathedra statement from a member of the First Presidency came after the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah. 

You are clearly convinced that BOM geography is a doctrinal issue.  Can you demonstrate where the "brethren" has declared it as doctrine, such as baptism, the atonement, tithing, faith, repentance.

 

Utterwise, it is a factual issue, and President Ivans and others of the brethren were mistaken, regardless of their position in the church if they contradict a FACT.

Edited February 17, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

The location of Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah is a revealed fact. Much like it us a revealed fact that somebody named Moroni deposited the plates

it isn't necessarily doctrine.

No amount of the arm of the flesh can contravene these facts unless one is willing to reject the revealed narrative.

The whole story of Cumorah becomes central to the narrative.

To challenge a revealed fact is to attempt to impeach the narrator.

I don't really care about the location of the narrative. I do think that geographic studies of the Book of Mormon ascend the heights of human folly.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

The location of Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah is a revealed fact. Much like it us a revealed fact that somebody named Moroni deposited the plates

 

Can you quote the specific revelation, vision.

it isn't necessarily doctrine.

 

OK, we agree on this one thing.

No amount of the arm of the flesh can contravene these facts unless one is willing to reject the revealed narrative.

 

Please give us the exact revelation.

The whole story of Cumorah becomes central to the narrative.

 

Hmmm... yes there is a hill in NY called Cumorah and it played a central role in church history.  Again we are in agreement.

To challenge a revealed fact is to attempt to impeach the narrator.

 

Well, you agree it is not doctrine but an issue of fact.  So it is heresy to question an issue of fact.  By your own admission there is little factual evidence either in the Book of Mormon or on the ground to support your view.  You always fall back on "the brethren", which implies that this is a doctrinal issue.

I don't really care about the location of the narrative. I do think that geographic studies of the Book of Mormon ascend the heights of human folly.

 

Calling me a heretic does not advance your argument.

[Bob Crockett]

I didn't call you a heretic. I don't even know who you are or what you believe.

Heresy isn't really a church term although I use it to describe the LGT. I think relevant expressions would be apostasy or not being in harmony; I'm not asserting those things.

[Judd]

Have read any of the replies besides the OP. My opinion has changed, but in different ways. First, I only believe in one Cumorah -- the one of the final Jaredite battle and the one where Mormon hid the plates. I think we've always just assumed that Moroni buried the plates in Cumorah, when in fact, to my knowledge, we're not even certain that it was Moroni that actually buried the plates, or that they were even buried in the 400s. We assume that since Moroni implies he's alone spiritually that it means he was literally alone. I'm not sure on that and I'm also not sure what he meant when he refers to himself wandering. Did he have family and was using that term generally? I think since he's the last to write in the record that we assume 1. he buried it and 2. he buried it in Cumorah.

[Bob Crockett]

Have read any of the replies besides the OP. My opinion has changed, but in different ways. First, I only believe in one Cumorah -- the one of the final Jaredite battle and the one where Mormon hid the plates. I think we've always just assumed that Moroni buried the plates in Cumorah, when in fact, to my knowledge, we're not even certain that it was Moroni that actually buried the plates, or that they were even buried in the 400s. We assume that since Moroni implies he's alone spiritually that it means he was literally alone. I'm not sure on that and I'm also not sure what he meant when he refers to himself wandering. Did he have family and was using that term generally? I think since he's the last to write in the record that we assume 1. he buried it and 2. he buried it in Cumorah.

The official introduction to the Book of Mormon has the information that Moroni himself buried the plates. The Wentworth Letter says that the Book of Mormon is the history of the indigenous people of "this Country", which he says is "America." Edited February 18, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

The official introduction to the Book of Mormon has the information that Moroni himself buried the plates. The Wentworth Letter says that the Book of Mormon is the history of the indigenous people of "this Country", which he says is "America."

 

Let's get the exact quote.

 

"I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country"

 

"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first

settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the

beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that

America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people."  Wentworth Letter

 

 

 

The Lamanites and Nephites inhabited the American continent (America), which includes North America, South Anerica, and Central America.  The text of the BOM primarily deals with events in Mesoamerica, the center point of their civilization, but also includes a reference to North America (the "land northward") as well as South America (the lands inhabited by the Lamanites).

 

Many have mischaracterized the LGT.  This theory does not preclude a hemispheric model.  See the references to the land northward.

Edited February 18, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

Rather expansive reading of the Wentworth letter. Inconsistent with contemporaneous statements in JSP.

Certainly an interesting topic. The LGT has legs, I will grant you that. I was Jack Welch's research assistant and he is a big fan and teases me for my views.