Joseph Smith Papers: The Hill Cumorah

[Bob Crockett]

The following are excerpts from material produced by Oliver Cowdery and Orson Pratt on the subject of the Hill Cumorah, as found in the JSP.  The JSP website says the JS History is a “jointly authored document” [with Joseph Smith] while Cowdery was ordained as assistant president of the Church and Joseph Smith’s scribe.  The following is text from the JSP website, with spelling intact.

 

 

"He, however, by divine appointment, abridged from those records, in his own style and language, a short account of the more important and prominent items, from the days of Lehi to his own time, after which he deposited, as he says, on the 529th page, all the records in this same hill, Cumorah . . . .

 

[T]he land was left to the possession of the red men, who were without inteligence, only in the affairs of their wars; and having no records, only preserving their history by tradition from father to son, lost the account of their true origin, and wandered from river to river, from hill to hill, from mountain to mountain, and from sea to sea, till the land was again peopled, in a measure, by a rude, wild, revengful, warlike and barbarous race.— Such are our indians.

 

This hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah: . . ."

 

Joseph Smith History, 1834-1835, pp. 121 to 122.

 

"I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round, and I am  certain that its appearance, as it rises so suddenly  from a plain on the north, must attract the  notice of the traveller as he passes by.  At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former,  leaving a beautiful vale between."

 

Id. 119.

 

"In this vale lie commingled, in one mass of ruin the ashes of thousands . . . ."

 

Id., p. 124

 

"The hill of which I have been speaking, at the time mentioned, presented a varied appearance: the north end rose suddenly from the plain, forming a promontory without timber, but covered with grass. As you passed to the south you soon came to scattering timber, the surface having been cleared by art or by wind; and a short distance further left, you are surrounded with the common forest of the country. It is necessary to observe, that even the part cleared was only occupied for pasturage, its steep ascent and narrow summit not admitting the plow of the husbandman, . . . ."

 

Id. p. 125

 

"It was at the second mentioned place where the record was found to be deposited, on the west side of the hill, not far from the top down its side; and when myself visited the place in the year 1830 . . . .

Another circumstance would prevent a wearing away of the earth: in all probibility, as soon as timber had time to grow, the hill was covered, after the Nephites were destroyed, and the roots of the same would hold the surface."

 

Id.

 

"I have now given sufficent on the subject of the hill Cumorah—it has a singular and imposing appearance for that country, and must ex[c]ite the curiosity curious enquiry of every lover of the book of Mormon . . . ."

 

Id. p. 126.

 

"At length, the Nephites were driven before their enemies, a great distance to the  north, and north-east; and having gathered their whole  nation together, both men, women, and children, they encamped on, and round about the hill Cumorah, where the  records were found, which is in the State of New York,  about two hundred miles west of the city of Albany. Here they were met by the numerous hosts of the Lamanites,  and were slain, . . . ."

 

Appendix, Orson Pratt, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, 1840, p. 19 (ID No. 6554).

 

"At length, the Nephites were driven before their enemies, a great distance to the north, and north-east; and having gathered their whole nation together, both men, women, and children, they encamped on, and round about the hill Cumorah, where the  records were found, which is in the State of New York,  about two hundred miles west of the city of Albany.  Here they were met by the numerous hosts of the Lamanites, and were slain, . . . ."

 

Id. p. 20.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

Thanks Bob. Very interesting. When you combine this with Joseph Smith's letter to Emma where he talks of walking the "plains of the Nephites" (on the same trip as the Zelph discovery) I'm left in absolutely no doubt that the man who dictated the Book of Mormon believed he was living in the lands of the Nephites.

[ERayR]

Thanks Bob. Very interesting. When you combine this with Joseph Smith's letter to Emma where he talks of walking the "plains of the Nephites" (on the same trip as the Zelph discovery) I'm left in absolutely no doubt that the man who dictated the Book of Mormon believed he was living in the lands of the Nephites.

 

I am glad you are left with no doubts but there are some of us who have found information which leads us to different conclusions.

[Anijen]

Thanks Bob. Very interesting. When you combine this with Joseph Smith's letter to Emma where he talks of walking the "plains of the Nephites" (on the same trip as the Zelph discovery) I'm left in absolutely no doubt that the man who dictated the Book of Mormon believed he was living in the lands of the Nephites.

 

Please notice that the quotes Bob uses are before Joseph read Stephens and Calderwoods book [Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan].  Bob uses quotes from 1830 up to 1840 which by themselves support his opinion, but when coupled with later quotes by these same apostles and prophets they show how their opinions had changed. From 1841 through 1843 Joseph and other leaders enthusiastically had accepted a Mesoamerican setting.

 

Does this mean the Book of Mormon is not true because church leaders have waffled on their concept of where the Nephites and Lamanites lived? No, not at all. What it does show is that as more knowledge was gathered their pinpointing of an area also became more accurate. For example instead of having the Lamanites way down in South America The Nephites in North America and the narrow neck of land being Panama, a more detailed theory started to come into focus, one that had both Nephites and Lamanites in Central America. This view did not take one iota of truth away from the Book of Mormon, yet it added physical evidence to what the book had already published within its own pages. This also shows a very important concept that although truth could be found within its pages that matched archaeological evidence just being discovered, it also showed that church leaders were relying on their own ideas and theories rather than direct personal revelation.

 

This has been well researched and studied out, for example John Taylor remarked speaking about the book  Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan,he writes; '"This is a work that ought to be in the hands of every Latter Day Saint; corroborating, as it does the history of the Book of Mormon. There is no stronger circumstantial evidence of the authenticity of the latter book,"  can be given, than that contained in Mr. Stephens' works. ~Times and Seasons John Taylor editor.

 

There have been many quotes from Joseph and others which clearly show their acceptance of Central America as a setting for the Book of Mormon. When studying this topic it is unfair to cherry pick only the quotes that support ones ideas and opinions while disregarding just as strongly the quotes made by the same leaders years later. In fact I would posit that later statements have more weight than previous ones simply because as time goes on new discoveries are made.

 

Another thing we might learn is that studying of the supposed geography of the Book of Mormon was done by our early church leaders even to the extent of them encouraging us to have certain books about said geography. So when I disagree with anyone who advocates a different view I hope they can do so without the occasional ad hominem i.e. I am weak and unfaithful just because I enjoy studying the geography, which I do, but more importantly I study it for the spiritual aspect.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Anijen

[Bob Crockett]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, those who adhere to a single Cumorah theory don't exclude, and probably embrace (such as I do), the idea that Lamanite history includes central America.  So, Joseph Smith's enthusiastic comments about Stephens and Catherwood's work do absolutely nothing to contravene Joseph Smith's position that the final battle(s) occurred in New York.  And, as I have pointed out many times before, in 1928, Pres. Ivins announced that "we know positively" that the New York Cumorah is the Cumorah of ancient times; thus, this demostrates that the Stephens and Catherwood finds had zero impact upon the Church's teachings about the Hill Cumorah.

 

And, to revisit my position on this, it is my position that folks who insist upon a double Cumorah theory are troubled by the lack of evidence of thousands of military deaths at the foot of New York's Cumorah, and that to resolve that dissonance they must move Cumorah to central America.   This is what Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith calls faithlessness, which I've paraphrased somewhat.  

 

I wonder what might be your opinion of members who insist that the New York Cumorah is the Cumorah of ancient days?   Do you think they are deluded?  Do you think they hold a position contrary to the Brethren?  Do you think they hold a position contrary to the truth?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, those who adhere to a single Cumorah theory don't exclude, and probably embrace (such as I do), the idea that Lamanite history includes central America.  So, Joseph Smith's enthusiastic comments about Stephens and Catherwood's work do absolutely nothing to contravene Joseph Smith's position that the final battle(s) occurred in New York.

 

And, to revisit my position on this, it is my position that folks who insist upon a double Cumorah theory are troubled by the lack of evidence of thousands of military deaths at the foot of New York's Cumorah, and that to resolve that dissonance they must move Cumorah to central America.   This is what Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith calls faithlessness, which I've paraphrased somewhat.  

 

But I am repeating myself.

I respect your opinion and find value in it, at the same time it encourages me to greater study and that is not a bad thing.

 

I realize you adhere to a Mesoamerican setting with the caveat that the final battle took place in New York. I believe this is similar to others opinions whom have also shared their ideas about such. I would like to clarify that no evidence of such a great battle is only important to me because it supports my theory, but it does not trouble me nor does it resolve any dissonance one may perceive that I might have (I do not believe that I have such). In regards to a wonderful prophet and leader of our church [President Joseph Fielding Smith], he did not know me nor do I believe if he did know me that he would label me faithless. 

[Bob Crockett]

There are many references in the JSP to Joseph Smith's beliefs that Nauvoo was on the edge of Lamanite territory, including references after 1842.   
 
This reference, in 1836, shows that Joseph Smith believed the Lamanites lived within the territorial limits of the United States, although I don't think the quote is intended to say that Lamanites are found exclusively within the United States:
 

Much has been said and done of late, by the United <States> Government, in relation to the Indians (Lamanites) within Her territorial limits, and one of the most important points in the faith of the church of the Latter Day Saints, is, through  the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, the gathering of Israel;  (of whom the Lamanites constitute a part)

JSP, History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], Jan. 6, 1836.
 

It doesn't seem to me that Joseph Smith ever believed in anything remotely approaching an LGT.  

 

I wonder, do LGT theorists admit that "Lamanites" have filled the Americas from the Bering Sea to Tierra del Fuego?

 

 I'm also interested in having an LGT theorist or a Sorenson adherent weigh in on the question of whether a member of the Church would not have a truthful understanding of the Book of Mormon if he or she believed that the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred in what is now present-day New York? 

 

Is it really a fallacious appeal to authority to cite Joseph Smith and other members of the First Presidency on this subject?

Edited February 9, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

Is it really a fallacious appeal to authority to cite Joseph Smith and other members of the First Presidency on this subject?

Of course. All these experts have got it all worked out. They know exactly when a prophet was speaking as a prophet and when he wasn't.

It tends to be the former when what he says supports their personal perspective and the latter when it doesn't.

Consider how they leap on the passing references Joseph made to Central America after he'd read a travel book but how they impressively ignore over a decade of references to North East USA, including some in canon.

I suppose I do the same. I'm constructing my own version of the gospel too. I've over 150 LDS quotes collated (see link in my signature) from prophets and apostles that describe the approach to the gospel that works for me.

[Kevin Christensen]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, those who adhere to a single Cumorah theory don't exclude, and probably embrace (such as I do), the idea that Lamanite history includes central America.  So, Joseph Smith's enthusiastic comments about Stephens and Catherwood's work do absolutely nothing to contravene Joseph Smith's position that the final battle(s) occurred in New York.  And, as I have pointed out many times before, in 1928, Pres. Ivins announced that "we know positively" that the New York Cumorah is the Cumorah of ancient times; thus, this demostrates that the Stephens and Catherwood finds had zero impact upon the Church's teachings about the Hill Cumorah.

 

And, to revisit my position on this, it is my position that folks who insist upon a double Cumorah theory are troubled by the lack of evidence of thousands of military deaths at the foot of New York's Cumorah, and that to resolve that dissonance they must move Cumorah to central America.   This is what Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith calls faithlessness, which I've paraphrased somewhat.  

 

I wonder what might be your opinion of members who insist that the New York Cumorah is the Cumorah of ancient days?   Do you think they are deluded?  Do you think they hold a position contrary to the Brethren?  Do you think they hold a position contrary to the truth?

 

Bob, I've repeatedly stated that my issue with the New York Cumorah comes from the problem of matching it to the Book of Mormon description of the hill in relation to several other geographic features.  Mormon and Moroni were prophets too.  It would be nice if their humble observations were weighed in the balance, rather than ignored as of little or no consequence.  The Book of Mormon is part of the Joseph Smith papers.  Close reading of the Book of Mormon is the root and source of the Mesoamerican correlation.  See Sidney Sperry, and David Palmer, for instance. The discussion of Catherwood and Stephens in the Times and Seasons is frosting on the hypothesis, not the root.  The Church News editorials from the 50s in which Joseph Fielding Smith attacks the two Cumorah hypothesis are notable for making no reference whatsoever to the Book of Mormon text, and for showing no concern whatsoever for those whose faith in the Book of Mormon is aided by that reading, and no concern for those whose faith might be troubled by the weaknesses of the New York approach. I presume that if you had an argument based on a close reading of the Book of Mormon, we'd have heard it by now.

 

As long as the New York Cumorah looks like a mistake to some faithful LDS, D&C 1:25-26 spells out exactly the "authority of my servants" that upholds arguments based solely on authority, certainty, sure knowledge claims that never address the Book of Mormon scriptures that raise the question.  "Inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known. Inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."  From my perspective, quotes from authorities that show no evidence of having searched the scriptures provided by eye-witnesses (Mormon and Moroni) are fair game for a supposition that they have not sought wisdom on the topic, and are therefore subject to err.

 

Just saying, FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

that upholds arguments based solely on authority,

And, again, the only possible answer here is from a legitimate authority, that is, the founding prophet of our faith.   Our religion is based upon the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith, who obviously taught that the last Nephite battle occurred in New York.  I realize that my argument isn't new, and I'm not really improving upon it, but the Joseph Smith Papers plainly show what Joseph Smith taught.

 

As Latter-day Saints, we should spend far less time trying to create a speculative apologetic argument where the on-the-ground facts don't neatly fit Joseph Smith's teachings.  There's a lot of anomaly in North America; Roman coins found in deep mound strata, Chinese influence that predates Columbia and so forth.  I just think you're (the collective "you") going to find neat explanations for everything.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

And, again, the only possible answer here is from a legitimate authority, that is, the founding prophet of our faith.   Our religion is based upon the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith, who obviously taught that the last Nephite battle occurred in New York.  I realize that my argument isn't new, and I'm not really improving upon it, but the Joseph Smith Papers plainly show what Joseph Smith taught.

 

As Latter-day Saints, we should spend far less time trying to create a speculative apologetic argument where the on-the-ground facts don't neatly fit Joseph Smith's teachings.  There's a lot of anomaly in North America; Roman coins found in deep mound strata, Chinese influence that predates Columbia and so forth.  I just think you're (the collective "you") going to find neat explanations for everything.

Which mound had Roman coins? and yes there is some (all be it arguable) evidence of pre-Columbian Chinese. I think there is even a better argument for pre-Columbian Japanese influence in South America.

 

As far as the JSP I agree it shows what Joseph taught. Is everything he taught from revelation? Could not some of it have been his opinion acquired from other relating revelation? For example, when Joseph read Stephens and Calderwoods book he was excited enough to make the connection with the ruins in Central America with the people of the Book of Mormon. The BofM being the revelation and the connection of the Mesoamerican people, that and from his studying with Moroni molds Josephs opinion about Mesoamerica. IOW there is the revealed word [bofM] and his opinion of Stephens and Calderwoods book, ergo  could not Joseph have formed his opinion of the final battle being in New York because that is where he assumed it was because he received the plates there?  And finally approximately 180 years later when we read from the JSP we are reading both his revelations and his opinions of what he thought at that time and we also see his views change 13 years after that.

 

The revelations did not change, but some of his opinions certainly did.

[Alan]

Thanks Bob. Very interesting. When you combine this with Joseph Smith's letter to Emma where he talks of walking the "plains of the Nephites" (on the same trip as the Zelph discovery) I'm left in absolutely no doubt that the man who dictated the Book of Mormon believed he was living in the lands of the Nephites.

 

As he was, in my view.

[Bob Crockett]

As he was, in my view.

 

Which mound had Roman coins? and yes there is some (all be it arguable) evidence of pre-Columbian Chinese. I think there is even a better argument for pre-Columbian Japanese influence in South America.

 

As far as the JSP I agree it shows what Joseph taught. Is everything he taught from revelation? Could not some of it have been his opinion acquired from other relating revelation? For example, when Joseph read Stephens and Calderwoods book he was excited enough to make the connection with the ruins in Central America with the people of the Book of Mormon. The BofM being the revelation and the connection of the Mesoamerican people, that and from his studying with Moroni molds Josephs opinion about Mesoamerica. IOW there is the revealed word [bofM] and his opinion of Stephens and Calderwoods book, ergo  could not Joseph have formed his opinion of the final battle being in New York because that is where he assumed it was because he received the plates there?  And finally approximately 180 years later when we read from the JSP we are reading both his revelations and his opinions of what he thought at that time and we also see his views change 13 years after that.

 

The revelations did not change, but some of his opinions certainly did.

Or could it be that the whole two-Cumorahs thing and the LGT thing is a subtle means to discredit the prophet Joseph Smith and the Brethren who relied upon him? I many times wonder that, although I don't think the chief proponents have that in mind.

 

It seems to be an emerging theme. That is, given today's cyncism of the supernatural, some of the more difficult-to-believe things the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke about which requires faith and a belief in doctrine must fall with the advance of "logical fallacies," science, archaeology, anthropology, psychology.   No, Lamanites, don't sweep the entire continent because DNA just isn't there.  No, there must be two Cumorahs because it is quite impossible to have had a battle in NY where there are insufficient finds of military action. No, we really don't have to accept much the Brethren ever said because they had the race thing wrong, Adam-God wrong.  The Bible's totally suspect on any possible doctrine dealing with morality because of the strange things it says about burning witches.  The Bible's monotheism is totally suspect because we can see that the Israelites also worshiped a female fertility Goddess.  With this thinking perhaps the Community of Christ would be a good option.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[T-Shirt]

I view this whole thing in the same way I see another experience I have had several times, and I am sure most of you have as well.  On the rare occasion when my eight siblings and I have a chance to get together, we always resort to sitting around and recalling family stories that happened forty or fifty years ago.  We have a great time and our family bond gets stronger.  These gab sessions will often last several hours.  The interesting thing, however, is that many times the experiences we discuss are remembered differently.  Sometimes significantly different.  We may have brief, good natured arguments about who is right, but in the end, we are simply glad that these experiences were real and they brought us to the point we are at now with our family bond stronger than ever.

 

Ultimately, it does not matter where the real Hill Cumorah is found.  What matters is that the events in the Book of Mormon are real and that the Book of Mormon has the power to unite us in one great faith.

 

I do not understand the anger, bitterness and dogmatism we often see displayed on this topic. I don't understand when proponents of one theory or another result to claiming the other side to be less informed or less faithful.  I view the whole evolution argument the same way.  In the end, it makes no difference who is right and who is wrong, unless of course, those differences drive us apart.  I have no problem with the debate, but when the debate deteriorates and drives a wedge between otherwise faithful Latter-day Saints, there is a problem.  I tend to believe in the "two Cumorahs" theory, and I don't demand that everything taught or spoken by Joseph Smith was based on revelation, but I recognize there are those who disagree with me and I enjoy a friendly debate on the topic.  In the end, I am completely comfortable with the fact that I could be wrong, and if I am, I will be happy to admit I was wrong.

Edited February 10, 2014 by T-Shirt

[Bob Crockett]

I do not understand the anger, bitterness and dogmatism we often see displayed on this topic. I don't understand when proponents of one theory or another result to claiming the other side to be less informed or less faithful.  I view the whole evolution argument the same way.  In the end, it makes no difference who is right and who is wrong, unless of course, those differences drive us apart.  I have no problem with the debate, but when the debate deteriorates and drives a wedge between otherwise faithful Latter-day Saints, there is a problem.  I tend to believe in the "two Cumorahs" theory, and I don't demand that everything taught or spoken by Joseph Smith was based on revelation, but I recognize there are those who disagree with me and I enjoy a friendly debate on the topic.  In the end, I am completely comfortable with the fact that I could be wrong, and if I am, I will be happy to admit I was wrong.

All in the eye of the beholder.   I'm accused of being divisive and labeling other as unfaithful.   Those on the other side are accused of being unfaithful and usuing science and logic instead of faith.   Even you dip your toe in that derision.

 

Although I don't ask you to recall my points made on this topic in other threads, my essential point is that when it comes to Book of Mormon geography, we shouldn't be taking particular speculative "scholarly" positions.   I, of course, would excise from LDS publications anything Dr. Sorenson has written on this topic. 

[T-Shirt]

All in the eye of the beholder.   I'm accused of being divisive and labeling other as unfaithful.   Those on the other side are accused of being unfaithful and usuing science and logic instead of faith.   Even you dip your toe in that derision.

Dogmatism is dogmatism.  It exists in science and religion.  I don't care for it on either side, but that is me.  If I am ever guilty of derision, then I am just as wrong as those of whom I speak.  I try not to do that, but I am far from perfect.

 

Although I don't ask you to recall my points made on this topic in other threads, my essential point is that when it comes to Book of Mormon geography, we shouldn't be taking particular speculative "scholarly" positions.   I, of course, would excise from LDS publications anything Dr. Sorenson has written on this topic. 

 

Both sides are speculative.  You tend to hang on the words of Joseph Smith as though every word was divine revelation.  If that works for you, that is fine, I have a different opinion.  At the same time, there are those who demand that every teaching of the Church line up with the current position of scientific theory, and if it doesn't it can't be believed and those who believe it are somehow uninformed or naive.  I don't agree with this position either.  I dislike dogmatism, wherever it is found. It seems to me that you  embrace dogmatism in matters of religion but have disdain for the dogmatists in matters of science.  I apologize if I misread you.  There is much with which we agree.  I enjoy your contributions.

Edited February 10, 2014 by T-Shirt

[Bob Crockett]

 You tend to hang on the words of Joseph Smith as though every word was divine revelation.  If that works for you, that is fine, I have a different opinion.  At the same time, there are those who demand that every teaching of the Church line up with the current position of scientific theory, and if it doesn't it can't be believed and those who believe it are somehow uninformed or naive.  I don't agree with this position either.  I dislike dogmatism, wherever it is found. It seems to me that you  embrace dogmatism in matters of religion but have disdain for the dogmatists in matters of science.  I apologize if I misread you.  There is much with which we agree.  I enjoy your contributions.

One person's dogmatism is another's discussion.  I wouldn't take offense to my comments.  I am guilty of stating things directly without a lot of softening.  The best people I know are big Dr. Sorenson fans.

 

No, I don't hang on to every word of Joseph Smith.  I do hang on what passes for revelation. In this case, not only do we have Joseph Smith expressing his position, in the jointly-authored History of the Church, an official Church document required by divine mandate, we see that the First Presidency authorized the acquisition of the Hill Cumorah and then announced that "we positively know" that this is is the site of the last Nephite battle.  

And then we have President Joseph Fielding Smith's statement on the geography and Cumorah issue, indicating issues with people who disagree with Joseph Smith on this point.   Doctrines of Salvation remained in print when Pres. Smith became President of the Church and remains in print today.  As Deseret Books says on its website, it is "authoritative." 

 

All these things, as well as a complete absence of a two-Cumorah theory in any Church website, First Presidency-authorized publication, any General Conference statement and the Ensign indicates only one correct conclusion.  

 

On top of that, in the FIRM Wobbles thread, which no longer appears to be in the archives on this Board, somebody stepped forward and said that they were familiar with the editing process of Dr. Sorenson's 1986 Ensign article, and references to a two-Cumorah theory were edited out.  I apologize for not keeping a copy of that thread; I assumed it would be archived with the rest.  Or, I apologize for not being able to find it.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

.

On top of that, in the FIRM Wobbles thread, which no longer appears to be in the archives on this Board, somebody stepped forward and said that they were familiar with the editing process of Dr. Sorenson's 1986 Ensign article, and references to a two-Cumorah theory were edited out. I apologize for not keeping a copy of that thread; I assumed it would be archived with the rest. Or, I apologize for not being able to find it.

Incorrect, Brant stated that it was not discussed, not that it was removed....according to your own quotes here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52845-just-where-is-the-hill-cumorah/?p=1208975319

You also seemed to have forgotten Sorenson's own account:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/?p=1209149081

Posted by his son:

"I wrote JLS:

I just read your Ensign articles again. Nice stuff! =)

I note that there is not one mention of the hill Cumorah/Ramah by name. You do say, however, that

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land” 11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light.

'Bob Crockett' insists that as your "Digging into the Book of Mormon" article-set was being prepared for publication, you were required to remove specific mention that the hill Cumorah in NY might not be the final battleground of the Jaredites and the Nephites. He hints that his source is Brant Gardner or Kevin Christensen. While those two are not participating in this particular thread/topic, they are both active members of MormonDialogue.com.

Do you remember how things developed leading up to 1984? Sounds kinda Orwellian, doesn't it?

My father replied:

Pooh! There is no truth whatever in this supposed account of what took place. I was never asked by anyone at The Ensign to make any change at all to what I submitted to them. Neither of the men mentioned had anything to do with the editing process, and I cannot imagine where either of them (both are scholars I respect), or any other person, came up with this cockamamy idea.

That sounds pretty darn clear and decisive to me.

Edited by cursor, 18 July 2012 - 02:38 PM."

Bob, it seems to me that after all these years of making this claim without evidence, you should retire it.

Edited February 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

Incorrect, Brant stated that it was not discussed, not that it was removed....according to your own quotes here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52845-just-where-is-the-hill-cumorah/?p=1208975319

Not correct.  The discussion where I got this information was in the FIRM Wobbles thread.  I don't appear to make the concession you say I do.

 

My errors of recollection, and I haven't seen it yet, have nothing to do with whether we accept what Joseph Smith said on the subject or don't.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Bob, you are wrong. See the addition to my post.

[Calm]

Not correct. The discussion where I got this information was in the FIRM Wobbles thread. I don't appear to make the concession you say I do.

My errors of recollection, and I haven't seen it yet, have nothing to do with whether we accept what Joseph Smith said on the subject or don't.

I am not saying you made any concession. I am pointing to what Brant said which is who you've claimed in the past stated it was removed. The FIRM Wobbles thread was not the only place this was discussed. He didn't say that.

Besides all that really shouldn't matter now Sorenson has stated it didn't happen.

And I am just dealing with your claim of editing that you have been bringing up every now and then since at least 2011 for various reasons. It is wrong.

Edited February 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I am not saying you made any concession. I am pointing to what Brant said which is who you've claimed in the past stated it was removed. The FIRM Wobbles thread was not the only place this was discussed. He didn't say that.

Besides all that really shouldn't matter now Sorenson has stated it didn't happen.

And I am just dealing with your claim of editing that you have been bringing up every now and then since at least 2011 for various reasons. It is wrong.

I'm not wrong.  The specific information about editing was made in FIRM Wobbles.   Sorenson has never come on this board to say anything.

 

But, your post does reveal that theory that Sorenson chose not to include the two Cumorahs theory in his 1986 digging paper.  And why?  The reason is obvious.  It is time to concede that the two Cumorahs theory is not an acceptable position for a Latter-day Saint to take in public.

 

Again, whether there is one or two Cumorahs is a meaningless question to me.  I don't care.  Rather, when do we reject the words of Joseph Smith?  When speculative theories seem to make greater sense?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

So you are saying his son is lying about it?

[Bob Crockett]

So you are saying his son is lying about it?

Do you think Joseph Smith got it wrong?  I offer the question as it is relevant to the thread.

 

Forgive me for not rising to the bait, but differences of recollection do not a liar make.  An editor says that Sorenson was asked to take the two Cumorahs references out; Dr. Sorenson says he carefully skirted the issue in his 1986 article.  Seems there are indeed some consistencies in those stories without making one or the other, or me, or Sorenson's son, a liar, don't you think?  Is it helpful in religious discussion to force the accusation of lying?

 

This is quite significant to me to know that in publishing his 1986 article Dr. Sorenson was either asked to take his page out about two Cumorahs or he intentionally chose to avoid discussing it.  Under either scenario, it shows that he knew (and under both scenarios, was told) that the two Cumorah theory is not acceptable.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

I am not talking about JS at all, only your claim that Sorenson was required to edit the two Cumorah theory out of his article.

Do you believe Sorenson's son was lying when he posted an email he said was from his father?

I am perfectly happy to state we cannot know for sure if yours or my recollection of the original thread is correct.

However, at best that was a secondhand story and no matter what was said that person may have been wrong. We have a description straight from Sorenson which states there was no editing involved. Can we agree that in the future repeating a claim for whatever reason that Sorenson was required to edit his article would be inappropriate?

Edited February 10, 2014 by calmoriah