Joseph Smith Papers: The Hill Cumorah

[guerreiro9]

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.

The Church's official position is that "The Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography except that the events occurred in the Americas".

Is this the official position you are advocating? If not then you are ignoring the official position of the Church.

Certainly you wouldn't want to do that as it seems to be something you deplore

-guerreiro9

[Bob Crockett]

You are catching on.

[Tiki]

The LGT is based on the claim that Joseph Smith, two years before being killed by a murderous mob that murdered him because they didn't believe his words, read a travel book written by John Lloyd Stephens (born in the same year as Joseph Smith) said travel book given to him by an LDS Bishop in New York City, because said New York City, had at the time, more bookstores than Nauvoo.

This is of course backed up by current adherents of the LGT who also don't believe in Joseph Smith's earlier words about Book of Mormon geography - which quotes can easily be found at the MI/F.A.R.M.S. web site mess.

This is of course how the Order of the Priesthood works: LDS Bishops in cities with more bookstores than in Salt Lake City receive more revelation than the current Prophet and Earthly presiding authority over the Lord's Church. And LDS Bishops teaching at BYU also know more than the Prophet because the Harold B. Lee library - named after a prophet - is really big.

Of course, the LGT's real Prophet is Juan Galindo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Galindo

Born in 1802 in Ireland, as one can read, Juan Galindo settled in Central America and wrote about the ruins of Copan.

A copy of Juan Galindo's book, written in Spanish of course, was read by Stephens and the illustrator Catherwood, while they were in London, said book by Galindo being in the London public Library - which is really big.

Being a famous author of previous travel books, Stephens was called to be an US Ambassador to Central America by US President Martin Van Buren, who as we all know, also did not believe the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith because he feared to lose the vote of the State of Missouri.

Van Buren sent Stephens to Central America to determine which murderous despot, was in charge of the geography, due the ongoing Civil War there, after Central America had split off from Mexico, as Stephens notes in his book. This information would ultimately allow the United Fruit Company of America to exploit this region because it is The Land of Promise as noted by the LGT adherents, allowing you to have your breakfast banana.

Being a man of a brilliant mind and inspired by Juan Galindo's writings and undoubtedly US taxpayer money, Stephens with Catherwood made a side-trip to Copan and wrote of / illustrated the ancient Maya ruins. This information was published by Stephens in English, said book making its way to New York City bookstores, which became revelation for the Church because an LDS Bishop made a copy of one as a gift, and the Prophet's kind reply, for the gift, is noted as scripture by LGT adherents.

The same LGT adherents have claimed that Joseph Smith never called the hill in Western New York "Cumorah," so a big thanks to Bob Crockett for pointing out otherwise from the Joseph Smith Papers web site.

But the LGT adherents on this discussion thread, still believe Juan Galindo is the Prophet of Book of Mormon geography.

Thank you, Mr. Juan Galindo, for your revelatory writings.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Tiki

[Bob Crockett]

The LGT is a heresy. It isn't an important one however. It is like preaching that chocolate is against the Word of Wisdom. A fun and interesting theory.

[Tiki]

The LGT is a heresy. It isn't an important one however. It is like preaching that chocolate is against the Word of Wisdom. A fun and interesting theory.

What do you mean? It was an exciting book! A sensation! Even the depressed Mr. Edgar Allan Poe was excited in his review of the Book. In fact, Mr. Poe didn't even read it before giving it a wonderful review:

http://www.eapoe.org/works/criticsm/gm41083.htm

"We have not yet received from the Messieurs Harper a copy of the book, and can only speak of its merits from general report and from the cursory perusal which has been afforded us by the politeness of a friend. The work is certainly a magnificent one — perhaps the most interesting book of travel ever published. An idea has gone abroad that the narrative is confined to descriptions and drawings of Palenque; but this is very far from the case. Mr. S. explored no less than six ruined cities. The “incidents,” moreover, are numerous and highly amusing. The traveller visited these regions at a momentous time, during the civil war, in which Carrera and Morazan were participants. He encountered many dangers, and his hair-breadth escapes are particularly exciting."

- Mr. Edgar Allan Poe

I would imagine many LDS LGT adherents haven't read the book either, but it's the basis for their LGT theory.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Tiki

[Rob Osborn]

What troubles me the most with BoM geography theories is tha most of it seems based upon opinions rather than fact. With the Cuorah location its no different. A lot of conjecture goes in to discredit the New York location. Distance seems to be the biggest issue followed by the seeming lack of evidence of ancient warfare around the hill. There are other reasons but all of them hinge off opinion and not real evidence.

From the text alone we have no idea how far or close Cumorah was from the narrow neck of land. We also have no clear text showing how far or close Mormon was from Cumorah when he wrote his last epistle to the Lamanites asking to gather his people to Cumorah. During all this war we also have no clear picture as to how many miles Mormon was being pushed back from the narrow neck. Was it a 100 miles or 2000 miles? We cannot be sure and as such we cannot rule out great distances involved. We know from recorded history that wars on foot and horseback often took place over distances greater than a 1000 miles.

Of interest to me is that most discredit the New York location because of a lack of warfare evidence. But, this must be noted that no archaeology dig has ever been conducted at or immediately around the hill in New York. Ironically, hills proposed in Mexico as the hill Cumorah have never had archaeology digs either yet people tend to use "no evidence of warfare" to discredit the one but not the other. Most people are not aware that Western New York does indeed have evidences of defensive earthworks and warfare. But because it doesn't fit with what they imagine it is discarded.

The evidences in the BoM texts tell me from logic that the hill Cumorah was not in close proximity to the narrow neck but rather a greater distance. The text also speaks to me that the ancient BoM wars were spread out over a far greater distance than just 50-100 miles. Batlles of extinction take on different vast measures. When one nation is in the process of destroying another nation into entire destruction it is nothing to be pushed around thousands of miles,

[Bob Crockett]

All good points. But I don't think there are any "facts" about Book of Mormon geography with the singular exception of what Joseph Smith called the Hill Cumorah and what LGT theorists call "that drumlin."

[Tiki]

All good points. But I don't think there are any "facts" about Book of Mormon geography with the singular exception of what Joseph Smith called the Hill Cumorah and what LGT theorists call "that drumlin."

Oh, there's that location called the New Jerusalem...those of you who've attended a Ward Correlation meeting, might understand the concept that the Book of Mormon and the D&C correlate on its location.

Then that concept of a Great Nation raised among the Gentiles sort of correlates with modern history.

But nah, it all occurred in a 500 x 200 mile box, known today colloquially as an Indian Reservation, within the confines of a narrow neck of land within Mesoamerica, and the Nephites knew all about the narrow neck of land because they never left it in some 1,000 years (the Jaredites too). Thus is "Mormon's Map."

[Anijen]

The LGT is a heresy. It isn't an important one however. It is like preaching that chocolate is against the Word of Wisdom. A fun and interesting theory.

Chocolate also originated in Mesoamerica.  I admit the LGT chocolate is not as good as the hemispheric Pennsylvania chocolate. Also by way of the rumor mill the chocolate river in Willy Wonka runs South to North, hmmm, hmmm, could it be?

[Anijen]

I would imagine many LDS LGT adherents haven't read the book either, but it's the basis for their LGT theory.

Tiki, just an FYI Stephens and Calderwoods book is not the basis for an LGT. Just to set the record straight (or is that strait, I will have to ask Brother Welch).

 

The LGT was theorized directly from the text of the Book of Mormon. Now you know.

[ERayR]

What appears evident to me is that if your testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon hinges on it being at a particular geographic location then it is indeed on shaky ground. 

[ERayR]

The LGT is a heresy. It isn't an important one however. It is like preaching that chocolate is against the Word of Wisdom. A fun and interesting theory.

 

Then why do you get so exercised over it?

[Bob Crockett]

What appears evident to me is that if your testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon hinges on it being at a particular geographic location then it is indeed on shaky ground.

As I have said, I don't give a hoot where the true Hill Cumorah might be.

[Bob Crockett]

Then why do you get so exercised over it?

I am sorry if it appears that way. I thought my posts are rather deadpan. That is what I intend.

Does one get "exercised" if one offers the opinion that the LGT is the greatest example of false Mormon hobbyism in modern times, with the Meldrum model a distant runner up?

I reviewed the Wentworth Letter again to make sure I wasn't crazy. Sure enough, he refers to the Book of Mormon as the record of the "remnant" of the inhabitants of "this country," which he defines as America. In contradistintcion, he uses the word "continent" elsewhere. Given that the Book of Mormon is a record of the inhabitants of "this country," it would exclude MesoAmerica.

I was burned by Jack West after using him in the mission field (how would a missionary know better?) and I see little difference with Dr. Sorenson's methodology. It is not science. Why should anybody think so? Trust in the text and its true author and not in anthropology.

Hugh Nibley taught that concerns about the distance between MesoAmerican and the New York Hill Cumorah have caused "some [to make] this a major stumbling-block to accepting the Book of Mormon. (1980 lecture notes, "The Book of Mormon and the Ruins: The Main Issues" at http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NibleyOC/id/4.) "From the northern limit of the Incan Empire to Mexico City is almost as far as from Mexico City to Cumorah in New York state. Incan armies, which marched from end to end of the Empire through the Andes covered more distance and a far more difficult terrain than the stretch between Mexico and New York state covered in the great military withdrawal occupying many years." Id. "Critics within the church and outside have often asked where are the great heaps of evidence that should confirm the book of Mormon? The answer is that they are there for anyone who will take the trouble to look for them or at them." Id.  

 

Now there seems to be some disagreement as to whether Nibley ever agreed with Sorenson (they were certainly in overlapping years, professionally), this quote shows that Nibley was not sympathetic to the view tha the traditional situs of the Hill Cumorah should be abandoned.  Indeed, he calls the alternative Cumorah view a "stumbling block" of critics both within and without the Church.   Food for thought, really.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Gray]

I would submit that the location of the hill is immaterial to the value of the book.

[jkwilliams]

I would submit that the location of the hill is immaterial to the value of the book.

 

That's why I don't understand the insistence on it being a literal history. Its value is not derived from its historicity, is it?

Edited February 18, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Gray]

That's why I don't understand the insistence on it being a literal history. Its value is not derived from its historicity, is it?

 

Not at all! In fact assuming that Lehi and company set sail from Jerusalem in 600 BC, we would not expect even an authentic Nephite record to be historically accurate. The value of scripture is the message it imparts, not whether or not the events really happened.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

Not at all! In fact assuming that Lehi and company set sail from Jerusalem in 600 BC, we would not expect even an authentic Nephite record to be historically accurate. The value of scripture is the message it imparts, not whether or not the events really happened.

 

From my perspective, there's no evidence there were any Nephites, so expecting an authentic record would be pointless. But like others here, I still do see some value in the Book of Mormon's message. It's just not enough to get my butt in the pews anymore.

[Gray]

From my perspective, there's no evidence there were any Nephites, so expecting an authentic record would be pointless. But like others here, I still do see some value in the Book of Mormon's message. It's just not enough to get my butt in the pews anymore.

 

It does seem unlikely that there were ever any Nephites, but of course that does not mean the Book of Mormon isn't scripture, in the same way that Genesis is scripture and relates its messages using stories about people and events that are most likely fictional (despite the fact that it was written by authentic Hebrew people). The point of scripture is the message. A revelation is true if it leads to greater kindness and love. 

 

Unfortunately an orthodox view of Mormonism teaches that scriptural value and historicity are somehow intertwined. That viewpoint has lead to a lot of disappointment.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

It does seem unlikely that there were ever any Nephites, but of course that does not mean the Book of Mormon isn't scripture, in the same way that Genesis is scripture and relates its messages using stories about people and events that are most likely fictional (despite the fact that it was written by authentic Hebrew people). The point of scripture is the message. A revelation is true if it leads to greater kindness and love. 

 

Unfortunately an orthodox view of Mormonism teaches that scriptural value and historicity are somehow intertwined. That viewpoint has lead to a lot of disappointment.

I suppose the problem is that, if there were no Nephites, who was Moroni, and what was the point of the gold plates? Seems to me the historicity is a built-in part of the church's truth claims. I know people who accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, but do not believe the people in it actually existed; I respect that, but I don't know how I would make that work.

[Gray]

I suppose the problem is that, if there were no Nephites, who was Moroni, and what was the point of the gold plates? Seems to me the historicity is a built-in part of the church's truth claims. I know people who accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, but do not believe the people in it actually existed; I respect that, but I don't know how I would make that work.

 

Yes, that's really what prevents a lot of members of the church from taking a realistic view of scripture and at the same time staying in the church.

 

For me, the two could never be resolved until I let go of literalism, ideas about exclusivity, and most of my assumptions about God. Not that I purposefully changed those things to make it all fit - it just never fit until I  let go of the idea that we know much of anything about anything regarding God. 

 

So yes, to me the Book of Mormon is scripture to the extent that it preaches love and kindness. The character of Joseph Smith is irrelevant - it's about the content of the book. 

 

I would say the same for any book of scripture, including those outside LDS canon. If a revelation leads to kindness it's true, if it leads to unkindess it's false. 

 

I'm highly unorthodox of course - I'm more of a universalist and an agnostic, but I'm also an active Mormon. I don't claim to know much about the divine - it's more experiential for me than anything else. But my stake president seems not to be troubled by it.

[jkwilliams]

So yes, to me the Book of Mormon is scripture to the extent that it preaches love and kindness. The character of Joseph Smith is irrelevant - it's about the content of the book. 

 

I would say the same for any book of scripture, including those outside LDS canon. If a revelation leads to kindness it's true, if it leads to unkindess it's false. 

 

I'm highly unorthodox of course - I'm more of a universalist and an agnostic, but I'm also an active Mormon. I don't claim to know much about the divine - it's more experiential for me than anything else. But my stake president seems not to be troubled by it.

I very much like that attitude. I tried to do that for a while, but it just didn't work. My guess is that the difference between us is that activity in the church makes you happy.

[Gray]

I very much like that attitude. I tried to do that for a while, but it just didn't work. My guess is that the difference between us is that activity in the church makes you happy.

 

I don't like church meetings much, but I'm pretty sure everyone, regardless of belief level, feels the same way (whether they're willing to admit that or not!). I do live in a very liberal ward, which makes it easier for me to be me. There are a lot of great people there whose company I enjoy.

 

For some people going to church meetings adds a great deal of stress to their lives. I absolutely think if it doesn't make you happy, you shouldn't do it. Life is too short, and I don't believe that one size can ever fit all. 

Edited February 18, 2014 by Gray

[ERayR]

I am sorry if it appears that way. I thought my posts are rather deadpan. That is what I intend.

Does one get "exercised" if one offers the opinion that the LGT is the greatest example of false Mormon hobbyism in modern times, with the Meldrum model a distant runner up?

 

No one is exercised when they question someones fidelity in the Church because the subscribe to the LGT.

[jkwilliams]

I don't like church meetings much, but I'm pretty sure everyone, regardless of belief level, feels the same way (whether they're willing to admit that or not!). I do live in a very liberal ward, which makes it easier for me to be me. There are a lot of great people there whose company I enjoy.

 

For some people going to church meetings adds a great deal of stress to their lives. I absolutely think if it doesn't make you happy, you shouldn't do it. Life is too short, and I don't believe that one size can ever fit all.

Church meetings are no fun, but I'd still be sitting through them if the church's teachings and practices had been a net positive thing in my life. I like myself a lot better now.