Joseph Smith Papers: The Hill Cumorah

[T-Shirt]

Do you think Joseph Smith got it wrong?

I don't know if he got it wrong, but I think it is certainly possible that he did.  He dictated the Book of Mormon, he did not write it.  I don't think he had a deep knowledge of every detail in the book, especially the minutia.  No where in the book does it say that the plates were buried in the Hill Cumorah, but one can easily make that assumption.  Heck, even today, many make that assumption even though it is not specifically stated.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know if he got it wrong, but I think it is certainly possible that he did.  He dictated the Book of Mormon, he did not write it.  I don't think he had a deep knowledge of every detail in the book, especially the minutia.  No where in the book does it say that the plates were buried in the Hill Cumorah, but one can easily make that assumption.  Heck, even today, many make that assumption even though it is not specifically stated.

As published on the Church's website, at present:

 

Elder Peterson:  "As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York."  

 

The Guide to the Scriptures:  Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah; Morm. 6:6.

 

Elder Romney:  "In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah" . . . As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” Ether 15:15—gathered about that hill Cumorah"

 

I subscribe to the theory that the best place to determine applicable and current "doctrine" is to inspect what the Church presently publishes on its website.   And now, with the release of the Joseph Smith Papers which contain much more specific statements by Joseph Smith on the topic, and the complete absence of statements to the contrary by the Brethren in official settings, I'm convinced more than ever.  Is it a fallacious appeal to authority to cite Joseph Smith?  

Edited February 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

As published on the Church's website, at present:

 

Elder Peterson:  "As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York."  

 

The Guide to the Scriptures:  Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah; Morm. 6:6.

 

Elder Romney:  "In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah" . . . As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” Ether 15:15—gathered about that hill Cumorah"

 

I subscribe to the theory that the best place to determine applicable and current "doctrine" is to inspect what the Church presently publishes on its website.   And now, with the release of the Joseph Smith Papers which contain much more specific statements by Joseph Smith on the topic, and the complete absence of statements to the contrary by the Brethren in official settings, I'm convinced more than ever.  Is it a fallacious appeal to authority to cite Joseph Smith?  

Because it is on the Church website does that mean it is revelation? No it does not. It means when they toured and visited the hill Cumorah and during the dedication they voiced their opinions of what they thought happened there.

 

Every utterance over the pulpit, written in the Ensign, or passed down as letters to the Bishops of the church does  not mean it is from revelation, nor does it make it doctrine. They are sometimes the opinions of are leaders.

 

If the hill Cumorah is the final battle hill and it is supported by revelation by the Prophet then it would be included in the cannon of scripture. For example the age to serve missions is not doctrine but a sign of the time of the hastening of the work. I know many missionaries that I served with who served when they turned 18 and this was 1983-1985. 

 

Bob I understand your view and I have read the talks by President Iverson, Elder Peterson, President Romney and others I just do not agree that all their utterances are revelation from God concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon. They simply were the opinions of very holy men who wanted to place the importance of the Book of Mormon back to the purpose of that book, which is to bring men unto Christ.

 

I have also been taught in Institute the two hill Cumorah theory by a Stake President who heard it personally from President Monson, I heard it also from Virginia Pearce (President Hinkley's daughter). Now you win, because the brethren haven't spoke about the secular nature of the Book of Mormon in a public event, and my sources were for me and not from a public event, furthermore you can call me a liar liar tell my pants catch on fire, but it doesn't make it less true for me. 

 

In the end it was Elder Peterson who said all conversation about the geography of the Book of Mormon is speculation. I do not believe he thought himself any higher than other authorities, and I think Elder Peterson included himself when he made that statement.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Anijen

[Anijen]

 I'm convinced more than ever.  Is it a fallacious appeal to authority to cite Joseph Smith?  

Yet from that very same post you leave links that appeal to authority. And I include myself, we all appeal to authority, don't we? It certainly is a juxtaposition. It appears when an idea is desirable to one person or group, but deplorable to another person or group a double standard exist. 

 

Now I certainly support and sustain our church leaders and I strive to be unquestionably obedient, but I recognize that our leaders are human too, and that in itself gives me comfort.

 

 

“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”~ Apostle Hugh B. Brown, “A Final Testimony,” from An Abundant Life, 1999

 

 

 

“We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.” ~President Uchtdorf

Edited February 11, 2014 by Anijen

[livy111us]

Didn't John Sorenson's son come on here and rebut the claim that John was asked to remove the 2 Cumorah reference a while ago? 

[Calm]

Yes, I posted the email he received from his dad. I am hoping that will be sufficient to put that variation of the argument to bed. Of course it leaves open asking why Sorenson did not put the two Cumorah theory in his article, but if one is going to debate, one should IMO use the most accurate information available...in this case the first person account by Sorenson.

Here is Dr. Sorenson's reply again....I don't know how Brother Crockett is getting that Dr. Sorenson is describing himself as "carefully skirting the issue" ["Dr.. Sorenson says he carefully skirted the issue in his 1986 article"] when there is nothing in it referring to how he went about choosing to write save that there was no interference with his choice, but I would not be surprised if it was a conscious choice to leave it out, whether because he thought it was irrelevant to the specific topic, too complicated to get into with the amount he was already dealing with, imagined that it would be rejected if he did put it in or something else entirely....

"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."

There is also no suggestion in what the Doctor said that suggests he was told it would be unacceptable [as claimed here " it shows that he knew (and under both scenarios, was told) that the two Cumorah theory is not acceptable"]. I myself infer (and I use that word to indicate there is no stronger statement supporting my view) from the tone that the Doctor uses that it was more of a hands off process, as in he wrote what he wanted without specific direction from editors or anyone else at the Ensign.

Edited February 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Anijen]

Many of our early church leaders have published their opinions on the geography of the Book of Mormon. I would like to quote a few just to show how their opinions have changed over time.

 

1.  In the Millennial Star (15 November 1848), Orson Pratt said that the Jaredites were the "first great nation that anciently inhabited Yucatan." 

Later in Salt Lake City 1868, Elder Pratt said: "They [the Jaredites] landed to the south of this, just below the Gulf of California, on our western coast. They inhabited North America..."

 

2. In the Times and Season (Oct. 1, 1842) Zarahemla was placed in Central America and some Apostles opined that the city of Quirigua was Zarahemla.

Yet in 1872 Elder Pratt placed Zarahemla in the United States of Columbia (this is south of Panama and into the northern portion of South America.

 

3. Between 1831 and 1834 Joseph never once mentioned Central America or South America as lands from the Book of Mormon, yet he mentions Missouri and Illinois as such. After reading Stephens and Catherwoods book He states that; "I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.." (emphasis mine).

 

4. Bob is correct that Joseph and most other church leaders believed that the Hill Cumorah was in New York, yet in the notorious Zelph story one author reports that Joseph said that Zelph died in the last battle between the Lamanites and Nephites. If this account is correct that places the final battle in Illinois.

 

Why do the brethren today not discuss it? Because there was so much guessing going on it became a distraction from the books purpose. Then we started seeing statements by the brethren such as this;

    ​By 1890, there were so many different interpretations [ of where Zarahemla and other Mormon cities] that George Q. Cannon, who was a member of the First Presidency, was forced to state: "When, as is the case, one student places a certain city at the Isthmus of Panama, a second in Venezuela, and a third in Guiana or northern Brazil, it is obvious that suggestive maps prepared by these brethren would confuse instead of enlighten . . . . For these reasons we have strong objections to the introduction of maps and their circulation among our people which profess to give the location of the Nephite cities and settlements" (Reynolds and Sjodahl 1958, 3:310).

 

Again I know that our church leaders are inspired men who received and continue to receive revelation, but on such secular or unrelated matters that do not relate to the spiritual purpose of the Book of Mormon then the Lord lets them think for themselves.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Anijen

[MDalby]

What do any of you think about the following?  

 

1. According to Mormon 6:6 - Mormon hid up all the records in the Hill Cumorah except for the gold plates and gave those to Moroni.  Moroni wouldn't then turn around and then bury the plates in the same Hill that Mormon did not, since that wouldn't make much sense, due to the area being overrun by the Lamanites.
2. According to Oliver Cowdery - Joseph and Oliver had some kind of visit to a Hill that had wagon loads of plates.  Did Joseph and Oliver visit a different Hill Cumorah than the one in NY?

 

 6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

(Mormon 6:6)

 

Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: "This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ." I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understand coming to this meeting. . . . [Don] Carlos Smith was a young man of as much veracity as any young man we had, and he was a witness to these things. Samuel Smith saw some things, Hyrum saw a good many things, but Joseph was the leader

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17 June 1877)

Edited February 11, 2014 by MDalby

[BCSpace]

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."

 

But not in terms of official doctrine. One would have to find the relevant quotes in something actually published by the Church.

[Anijen]

@Mdalby,

 

  That is a good question and one that is brought up from time to time. We can read in the Book of Mormon when Prophets have been taken away to different places (I think of Nephi). If this account is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't. Perhaps it was done in the same fashion that it was done to Nephi. When Nephi was taken away it was in a vision, my answer would be this is how Oliver Cowdrey saw the plates (in vision).

 

   Another answer could be that the Lord made it possible for a cave to be in a hill where a cave would otherwise be impossible and then perhaps the Lord brought all those plates etc and placed them in the hill. Impossible for man, but not for the Lord. Having said that I subscribe to my first theory.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Anijen

[Bob Crockett]

I have also been taught in Institute the two hill Cumorah theory by a Stake President who heard it personally from President Monson, I heard it also from Virginia Pearce (President Hinkley's daughter).

The name of the stake president, and his stake, is?

Of course I don't expect it. This is frivolous evidence.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Gohan]

The name of the stake president, and his stake, is?

Of course I don't expect it. This is frivolous evidence.

Bob, you've got to work on your tone mate. You're alienating just about everyone on this thread. And for what?

 

I don't care if you hold to one-Cumorah, and I doubt the people here really do either. But to attack the faithfulness of those who don't agree with you? Especially when it's a matter not pertaining to our salvation? That's just wrong man. And it's not an attitude that befits you.

 

My .02.

[MDalby]

I think it is interesting to discuss but I agree with Gohan that this question isn't really that important.

 

Don't be concerned over Book of Mormon geography. Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was or where Zarahemla was, He'd have given us latitude and longitude, don't you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?

The witness of the Book of Mormon is not found in the ruins of Central and South America. They may be outward evidences of a people long since disappeared. The real witness is that which is found in the Book of Mormon itself. 

(Harold B Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 156)

Edited February 11, 2014 by MDalby

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, you've got to work on your tone mate. You're alienating just about everyone on this thread. And for what?

I don't care if you hold to one-Cumorah, and I doubt the people here really do either. But to attack the faithfulness of those who don't agree with you? Especially when it's a matter not pertaining to our salvation? That's just wrong man. And it's not an attitude that befits you.

My .02.

I've been plain that it has nothing to do with individual faithfulness. Whereas President Joseph Fielding Smith has said that a two-Cumorahs theory is prone to hurt one's testimony or whatever he said, I think that the MesoAmerican Mormon subculture has evolved to the point where it has legs of its own with all sorts of persons jumping on and agreeing with it, who haven't given much thought to its genesis or even if they did, would disagree that it is rooted in faithlessness.

I had a recent meal with one of my former business partners, a member of s stake presidency, who is convinced that the MesoAmerican model is correct. He has only lightly read Dr. Sorensen's stuff. I imagine that he's a lot like many other knowledgeable Saints who read the general stuff and don't get in the apologetic weeds.

Two theories collide. What is the right evidence? To tell me that the opinions of Joseph Smith have to give way to science, and then quote an unnamed stake president, is just rather odd.

I have said that it matters not that there is one or two Hills. I am opposed to the subculture of MesoAmerican Mormon studies. Or the Heartland subculture. Or any other subculture except one that relies solely on the Book of Mormon for its message, not its geography.

I certainly apologize for my tone. It is just rather coldly matter-of-fact. Time for dispassioned analysis of this whole thing, as more information is coming out of the Joseph Smith Papers. Don't take personal offense when I haul out my little proofs.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Yes, I posted the email he received from his dad. I am hoping that will be sufficient to put that variation of the argument to bed. Of course it leaves open asking why Sorenson did not put the two Cumorah theory in his article, but if one is going to debate, one should IMO use the most accurate information available...in this case the first person account by Sorenson.

Here is Dr. Sorenson's reply again....I don't know how Brother Crockett is getting that Dr. Sorenson is describing himself as "carefully skirting the issue" ["Dr.. Sorenson says he carefully skirted the issue in his 1986 article"] when there is nothing in it referring to how he went about choosing to write save that there was no interference with his choice, but I would not be surprised if it was a conscious choice to leave it out, whether because he thought it was irrelevant to the specific topic, too complicated to get into with the amount he was already dealing with, imagined that it would be rejected if he did put it in or something else entirely....

"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."

There is also no suggestion in what the Doctor said that suggests he was told it would be unacceptable [as claimed here " it shows that he knew (and under both scenarios, was told) that the two Cumorah theory is not acceptable"]. I myself infer (and I use that word to indicate there is no stronger statement supporting my view) from the tone that the Doctor uses that it was more of a hands off process, as in he wrote what he wanted without specific direction from editors or anyone else at the Ensign.

I don't have anything more to add than what I have said above in terms of what I have learned about the editorial process, except to say that the two Cumorahs theory is, for whatever interesting reason, is not in the 1986 article. To restate my proofs would be unnecessary.

But this whole study of Book of Mormon geography, and the question of the role it should play in teaching or belief is certainly a fascinating one indeed. I have Dr. Sorenson's new book and have very much enjoyed it, using it in my seminary class for various items.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Anijen]

The name of the stake president, and his stake, is?

Of course I don't expect it. This is frivolous evidence.

I messaged you his info. It is of course not frivolous evidence as an attorney you should know this. 

[cinepro]

I don't have anything more to add than what I have said above in terms of what I have learned about the editorial process, except to say that the two Cumorahs theory is, for whatever interesting reason, is not in the 1986 article. To restate my proofs would be unnecessary.

 

 

Interestingly, the "Two Cumorahs" isn't named specifically but is alluded to in the 1984 Ensign series "Digging Into the Book of Mormon":

 

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. One obvious possibility is that Moroni himself may have carried the records to New York during his thirty-six years of wandering between the extermination of the Nephites and when he last wrote on the plates. (See Morm. 6:6; Moro. 1:1–4; Moro. 10:1.) Or he may have taken them there as a resurrected being. We only know that, whatever the means, in 1827 the plates were in the “hill of considerable size” near young Joseph Smith’s home at Palmyra, New York, where Moroni delivered the sacred record to him.

[theplains]

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. 

 

See also Doctrines of Salvation. Posted to scribd.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Bob Crockett]

I messaged you his info. It is of course not frivolous evidence as an attorney you should know this. 

My profession is not relevant.   I say my authorities are Joseph Smith and other members of the First Presidency.  I quote them chapter and verse.  You cite a stake president, whom you won't name publicly, and the child of a church president.  Maybe you'd want to consider the strength your assertions, perhaps.

[Anijen]

My profession is not relevant.   I say my authorities are Joseph Smith and other members of the First Presidency.  I quote them chapter and verse.  You cite a stake president, whom you won't name publicly, and the child of a church president.  Maybe you'd want to consider the strength your assertions, perhaps.

I already told you that you had the winning hand, only because the brethren have stopped speculating on such mundane matters. The brethren have not spoken of BofM geography for a long time for the precise reason I gave which I will repeat here; They will speak of how the Book of Mormon helps one get closer to Christ not Zarahemla. I do believe some of the brethren have the same opinion as you do and perhaps some do not. 

 

You do not quote from chapter and verse, but from opinions given over general conference or at some other event. I do not hold every utterance to be personal revelation but for our own gain and to be closer to the Savior. 

[guerreiro9]

Hello Bob,

 

I am joining the conversation late (several years late from the links to previous threads) and I do not mean to offend, but I find your position odd.

 

You are trying very hard to defend the position that the hill where Joseph Smith unearthed the golden plates is the same hill where the Nephites and Jaredites fought their nation ending battles.  My questions is why?  Why do you want this to be true?  The Church is not interested in defending this position, in fact the Church does not even teach this position.  Why do you need this position to be true?

 

Perhaps at some point this was taught in the Church (as your old quotes seem to indicate), but it was a long time ago.  I was never exposed to this growing up.  The Nephites and Lamanites (and Jaredites) fought a battle at a hill, the golden plates were buried in a hill, but there is nothing in the Book of Mormon to indicate that it was the same hill.  If anything the Book of Mormon indicates that it was not.

 

I never connected the two growing up, it wasn't until later when I began to be interested in Book of Mormon geography that I was presented with the idea that the final Nephite battle took place in New York.  That doesn't make any sense at all unless you are proposing that the Nephites were confined to a small geographical area near New York.  And that doesn't make any sense because there are no statements by old or modern prophets indicating this, and this is no archaeological evidence to encourage this belief.

 

Just so I make sure I am understanding you correctly I will restate your theory as I understand it.

 

The Nephites lived predominantly in the land southward (which from old church leader statements would be either in South America or Mesoamerica).  

 

They were driven from the Land Southward to the Land of Desolation "to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward" in about AD 360.  I read this as meaning they were still VERY near the land Southward.  If you read it differently please indicate.

 

15 years later in about AD 375 the Lamanites finally succeeded in driving them from the Land of Desolation, and Mormon worrying that the Lamanites would overthrow the land went to the Hill Shim and gathered all of the Nephite records.

 

9 years later in about AD 384 Mormon hides all the Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah except for the golden plates which were given to Moroni.  Mormon after spending an entire lifetime fighting in either South America or Mesoamerica specifically chose to gather his people at the Hill Cumorah, because "here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites".  Wherever the Hill Cumorah was it must have been known intimately to Mormon and must have provided a strong tactical advantage or there would have been no hope of gaining an advantage over the Lamanites who were vastly more numerous.

 

In AD 385 all the remaining Nephite nation was killed at the Hill Cumorah except for 24 people among whom was Moroni.  

 

Moroni then wanders for about 36 years fleeing from the Lamanites and in about AD 421 Moroni “hides up the records in the earth” but does not say where.

 

Let’s examine your proposition.  Let us assume that Zarahemla was in Mexico City.  I do not believe it was, but this gives us a conservative estimate as Zarahemla would have to have been to the south of Mexico City to have been in Mesoamerica or South America.

 

Palmyra New York is roughly 2500 miles from Mexico City (and farther from any speculated Zarahemla).  To get there the Nephites would have had to cross vast deserts, mountain ranges, swamps, and the Mississippi River among other things.  All while being chased by the Lamanites.  The Lamanites would have had to care enough to chase the Nephites across these same physical barriers.

 

Mormon, who was accounted a great war captain, and spent his lifetime fighting in either Mesoamerican or South America (according to traditional beliefs) would have had to have been intimately familiar with some obscure drumlin 2500 miles away.  He also would have had to believe that out of all the possible places (in a 2500 mile radius from Zarahemla apparently) the Hill in New York provided the most strategic location.  Apparently the King of the Lamanites (who presumably spent most of his life to the South of Zarahemla) was also familiar with some obscure drumlin 2500 miles away.  In fact apparently the entire Nephite nation was able to separately gather themselves to a hill at least 2500 miles away from Zarahemla crossing deserts, mountain ranges, swamps, and rivers.  Disregarding the fact that a few centuries earlier scouts had difficulty finding the land of Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi which given the traveling times in the text couldn't have been more than about a hundred miles apart (not to mention all you had to do was follow a river.)

 

And all this time Mormon had all of the Nephite Records in tow, because he knew if he could just get to this hill in New York he had hope of keeping them safe.

Is this what you are saying?  If you are saying that Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica or South America then this is what you are saying.  If you are saying that Zarahemla was near Palmyra, New York then you are certainly ignoring a lot of statements from early members of the church (and all archaeological evidence).

 

I believe Mormon was a real person, and a real war chief.  I cannot imagine anyone in ancient America behaving in this manner.  I cannot believe anyone in our day and age even with all the technological advantages we have behaving like this.  If you go ask a random person in Mesoamerica or South America today if they are aware of the drumlin in New York (unless they are a member of the Church) the answer will be no.  And this with nearly every person having some access to the internet, maps, books, and satellite guidance systems.  But if I am understanding you correctly you believe that all the Nephites (and Lamanites apparently) did?

 

What am I missing?

 

-guerreiro9

[Bob Crockett]

You are trying very hard to defend the position that the hill where Joseph Smith unearthed the golden plates is the same hill where the Nephites and Jaredites fought their nation ending battles.  

 

[snip]

 

What am I missing?

No I don't. I've been careful to reiterate that I don't care where the final battle Hill might be. Rather, it is my position that the huge LDS apologetic subculture of creating a MesoAmerican setting for the Book of Mormon, along with a MesoAmerican setting for the Hill Cumorah, is quite contrary to the official position of the Church. And, it is damaging.

When I cite the First Presidency for it statement that "we know positively" that the modern location of the Hill Cumorah is the same location for the final battle of the Jaredites and the Nephites, I do so not out of a concern that people know exactly where the Hill Cumorah might be, but out of concern that gospel hobbyism is deflecting membership from the authoritative statements of the Brethren and the essential religious message of the text.

Rod Meldrum's efforts to pin the Nephites to the confines of the United States, with a sort of uber-patriotic spin, is as speculative and wrong as Dr. Sorenson's efforts in MesoAmerica.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Peppermint Patty]

Bob,

 

I agree that gospel hobbyism, once it becomes contentious is not a good thing and runs contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen much contention from members on both sides of the geography argument.  It needs to stop.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Peppermint Patty

[guerreiro9]

No I don't. I've been careful to reiterate that I don't care where the final battle Hill might be. Rather, it is my position that the huge LDS apologetic subculture of creating a MesoAmerican setting for the Book of Mormon, along with a MesoAmerican setting for the Hill Cumorah, is quite contrary to the official position of the Church. And, it is damaging.

When I cite the First Presidency for it statement that "we know positively" that the modern location of the Hill Cumorah is the same location for the final battle of the Jaredites and the Nephites, I do so not out of a concern that people know exactly where the Hill Cumorah might be, but out of concern that gospel hobbyism is deflecting membership from the authoritative statements of the Brethren and the essential religious message of the text.

Rod Meldrum's efforts to pin the Nephites to the confines of the United States, with a sort of uber-patriotic spin, is as speculative and wrong as Dr. Sorenson's efforts in MesoAmerica.

OK, so what is your position then?

If you do not believe Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica or somewhere further south where do you believe it to be. The few statements we have from early church leaders all place Zarahemla in Mesoamerica or South America, which is where there is also the most archeological evidence.

At one point it may have been the official position of the church that the hill in New York called Cumorah is the same hill as the one called Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, but this is no longer the Church's position and hasn't been so in my lifetime.

The church also used to teach that those of African descent could not receive the priesthood because of unrighteousness in the pre-existence.

I see about as much value in defending one principle as the other and the church has no desire to defend either and hasn't in my lifetime.

Again I find your position odd. You are defending a position that the church has no desire to defend or teach, has no scriptural basis, has no archaeological basis, and doesn't make any logistical sense.

Again my question is why? What is in it for you? Why do you want this position to be the position of the church?

-guerreiro9

[Bob Crockett]

I can only point you to my immediate past post for my position.

But I don't think that the brethren intended for us to ignore doctrine or official positions merely because they published their statement on race.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Bob Crockett