Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[MormonFreeThinker]

[Bob Crockett]

Great quote, once again, MFT.   Of course, he excepts Cumorah from that rule, as did many others as my paper documents.

[Robert F. Smith]

"LDS scholars who draw connections with specific geographies and cultures presume the Book of Mormon to be historically correct."

 

Is this a correct premise?

Only if you are using the word "scholars" in a particularly stringent way, along with the assumption that they are not merely engaging in modeling -- a scientific method of testing a proposition.  Dan Ludlow, John Sorenson, and others attempting to make sense of Book of Mormon geography, often created models first and then checked to see if any of that modeling (derived from the internal descriptions of the Book of Mormon) applied to the known world geography, or to chronology for that matter.

 

However, even anti-Mormons and non-Mormons who are not antagonistic can engage in modeling of that same kind.  Indeed, anyone can do that sort of modeling with any narrative account:  The Iliad, the Odyssey, the Bible, the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Winnie the Pooh, etc.  One need not believe in the historical legitimacy of a story in order to model it.

[bcuzbcuz]

I don't follow your point here about "a thousand year gap."  What sort of "error" are you talking about?  Maybe you'd like to give me an example.

 

You might try rereading my reply to Gervin.  I did not say that we should play tiddly-winks with history or chronology, which may be the problem with your approach.

 

Try reading Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, and then get back to me on the actual problems you discern with his systematic correlations.

Gap may have been the wrong word. I mean there was a thousand year period that Nephite history should probably cover. Merely placing an event somewhere within a thousand year period doesn't count as accuracy. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Gap may have been the wrong word. I mean there was a thousand year period that Nephite history should probably cover. Merely placing an event somewhere within a thousand year period doesn't count as accuracy. 

Again.  If that were what Sorenson had done, he would be in effect playing tiddly-winks with history and chronology.  Only a 7-year-old would count that as accuracy.

 

Since you refuse to give me an example, I'll give you one:

The Jaredites exist and then disappear in the New World over a period of maybe 2600 years.  One can estimate that they arrive as early as 3100 BC (though some place them much later) and meet their demise at Ramah sometime after the 6th century BC.  We can tell when their period of greatest floresence comes during the 2nd millennium BC.  Only one civilization in the Western Hemisphere matches that chronology and cultural height, that of the Olmec (a late designation, since the actual one is unknown).

 

If you haven't bothered to read Mike Coe about the Olmec, you won't know whether anything I am saying is correct.  The problem one has to deal with is this:  How is it that the chronology and culture of the Olmec fit the rise and fall of Jaredite civilization?  The details of that long-gone culture are crucial to understanding what Sorenson and others have said in making their comparisons.  But if you don't know those details, how can you pass judgement?

 

From your own reading of the book of Ether, do you have any idea of what cultural requirements we would have to make upon the Olmec (or any other culture then extant)?  Writing, iron-working, major cities, large population, etc.?  Both the Olmec & Jaredites had each.  Notice the absence of by-gosh-and-by-golly thinking in such matters.

[JDave]

I think you are misreading Ivins.   As I have said, the purchase of the Hill Cumorah was a major event for the Church, based upon inspiration and prayer and the understanding based upon revelation that it was the site of ancient happenings.  As Ivins said.

Can you point, then, to what gives you your understanding? That is why I asked in the first place, so that I could see why you state your opinion thus. I see nothing in what President Ivins said that indicates anything about the purchase being due to "inspiration and prayer and the understanding based upon revelation". What is this inspiration and revelation you are referring to?

 

To parse a member of a First Presidency's statement on such a matter as Book of Mormon events, when he says "we positively know", by concluding he wasn't inspired at the time, I suppose that might work if there are countervailing statements by the inspired First Presidency or Apostles in General Conference.  But there aren't and, instead, the statements unilaterally and without exception are in support of the New York Hill Cumorah.   You would have disabused me of that view by now, otherwise.

I never concluded that he "wasn't inspired", but I did point out that a very straightforward reading of his address shows that he relies on arguments, including B.H. Roberts' arguments such as comparing the many waters around the New York hill, including the Great Lakes, to the description of Ripliancum. So rather than make any conclusions about inspiration, I would point out that Anthony Ivins was very comfortable referring to and relying on arguments (rather than revelation) to settle the issue of where Cumorah is.

What is wrong with the countervailing statements that you reference from President Harold B. Lee and Elder Oaks?  Doesn't the statement from President Lee, "Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where [Cumorah] was ... he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think?", basically contradict Ivin's assertion that we "positively know"?

 

I don't necessarily rule out secular studies to come up with a geography of the Book of Mormon.

That is definitely an appreciated change.

 

A subculture driven by a desire for prestige and money, however small:  Books, tours, tour groups, seminars, firesides -- all outside the priesthood structure of the church and nowhere heard over the pulpit or found in any manual.  And if it were stated over the pulpit, that Ramah and old Cumorah are not in present-day New York, you'd be looking at censure if it became your gospel hobby.

Well, you did quote from Mark Petersen who asked people to keep such things away from the pulpit. You would likely be censured by getting a gospel hobby of stating over the pulpit how the Hill Ramah/Cumorah must be in New York.

 

So, no matter how many times you ask me the question, my answer is:  No, I do not believe and I don't think there is any justification for the view that Ivin's address was uninspired or that when he uttered it he thought he was speaking from secular opinion.

Believing that his address is inspired is fine; that's your own personal belief. Claiming that President Ivins in his address was "critical of Book of Mormon geographic studies" goes beyond what the text supports.

Your description of Mark Petersen's statement also goes beyond what the text supports. 

[Bob Crockett]

 

I never concluded that he "wasn't inspired", but I did point out that a very straightforward reading of his address shows that he relies on arguments, including B.H. Roberts' arguments such as comparing the many waters around the New York hill, including the Great Lakes, to the description of Ripliancum. So rather than make any conclusions about inspiration, I would point out that Anthony Ivins was very comfortable referring to and relying on arguments (rather than revelation) to settle the issue of where Cumorah is.

I disagree.  Merely because a speaker cites an authority does not mean he bases his entire opinion on it.  A reading of Ivins' sermon as a whole shows that he believed that the acquisition of the Hill Cumorah came about because the First Presidency believed it was the ancient HIll.   It must be presumed that the acquisition came about through prayer and inspiration.   

 

Again, I don't care one way or the other where the Hill Cumorah really is.  That isn't my interest.  I'm interested in the sociological questions and conflicts posed by LGT theorists.  I see inconsistency between Meldrum and Sorenson's "hobbies" and what the Church has said in the past, but I also note some creeping acceptance of the Sorenson view.  I don't criticize or condemn that creeping acceptance but just note it as a matter of historical fact.  I also document with some interest the need of LGT theorists to call upon Joseph Smith to support their views; I can understand Meldrum doing that because he relies in large part upon the wording of revelations, but I see some dissonance in Dr. Sorenson's efforts to do so.

 

I just can't continue to go in circles with you on this.  When I give you the basis for my views you just come back and ask me for the basis for my views.  I think I've fully stated them.  You're just anonymous, unwilliing to buttress your views with your name.   I don't contest your right to post anonymously, but I am entitled to discount your posts to negligible value.  Do you find it significant that Sorenson LGT advocates who post with their own name you can list one one hand?

Edited October 2, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Peppermint Patty]

Here's a very clear and definite statement made by an Apostle in General Conference that the final battle in the Book of Mormon took place in the Western U.S. at what we now know is the Hill Cumorah:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=q72XpbrZi3E#t=85

[JDave]

I just can't continue to go in circles with you on this.  When I give you the basis for my views you just come back and ask me for the basis for my views.  I think I've fully stated them.

This is what I have heard

• Since the Church purchased the hill in New York and talked about it at General Conference, we should assume that inspiration and prayer and revelation were involved.
  • Furthermore, the assumed inspiration and revelation for the purchase should also be seen as inspiration and revelation that the hill is the same as the Book of Mormon Cumorah
• You believe Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation, not secular deduction
• There is a Hill Cumorah pageant, which should be seen as the Church indicating that the hill in New York is the same as the Book of Mormon Cumorah.
• Many General Authorities have said the Book of Mormon Cumorah is the one in New York (though you neglect to mention how President Lee said we didn't know).

If this is the entire basis for why you believe that Ivins stated we "positively know", then you should retract your statement that the reason why should be found in Ivins' words. 

 

You're just anonymous, unwilliing to buttress your views with your name.  I don't contest your right to post anonymously, but I am entitled to discount your posts to negligible value.

You are unwilling to buttress your views with any actual statements from historical sources, even after stating that they should be used.  And when it is pointed out that the historical sources do not support your statements regarding them, your reply is that my anonymity allows you to ignore the problem.  The problem of ascribing unsupported views to Anthony Ivins and Mark Petersen has nothing to do with whether your name is Bob Crockett or my name is JDave (which it is, by the way).

[Robert F. Smith]

Here's a very clear and definite statement made by an Apostle in General Conference that the final battle in the Book of Mormon took place in the Western U.S. at what we now know is the Hill Cumorah:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=q72XpbrZi3E#t=85

He said Western New York, but your point is well taken, Patty.  And Elder Petersen surely believed what he said.  So that settles it, right?  Is this the official, final word?  And so now we can all go home, having been set straight.    

[Peppermint Patty]

He said Western New York, but your point is well taken, Patty.  And Elder Petersen surely believed what he said.  So that settles it, right?  Is this the official, final word?  And so now we can all go home, having been set straight.    

 

It's strange, but it appears there are some misinformed people in the Church who actually believe that when an Apostle makes a definitive statement on something in General Conference that it's doctrine, or at the very least trumps what other individuals have said on the same issue.

 

Further, there seems to be some mistaken members who feel that what's spoken at General Conference by our leaders is directly guided by the Spirit: 

 

We only say what the Spirit directs us to say at conference. I invite you to listen Oct. 4-5. http://gc.lds.org

 

 

https://twitter.com/OaksDallinH

 

 

Finally, this isn't the only statement made at General Conference by our leaders confirming the Hill Cumorah in New York is indeed the place where the last battle in the Book of Mormon took place. I'm certainly open to changing my position if you can show me similar statements by our Apostles at General Conference contradicting the above.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Peppermint Patty

[Robert F. Smith]

It's strange, but it appears there are some misinformed people in the Church who actually believe that when an Apostle makes a definitive statement on something in General Conference that it's doctrine, or at the very least trumps what other individuals have said on the same issue.

 

Further, there seems to be some mistaken members who feel that what's spoken at General Conference by our leaders is directly guided by the Spirit: 

 

 

https://twitter.com/OaksDallinH

 

 

Finally, this isn't the only statement made at General Conference by our leaders confirming the Hill Cumorah in New York is indeed the place where the last battle in the Book of Mormon took place. I'm certainly open to changing my position if you can show me similar statements by our Apostles at General Conference contradicting the above.

I can't prove it, Patty, but I am of the opinion that the Brethren often speak of matters not central to our salvation from the same position of sincere naivete that the rest of us often exhibit.  Common assumptions can be expressed without committing the Church to some particular doctrine or geographic position.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[JDave]

It's strange, but it appears there are some misinformed people in the Church who actually believe that when an Apostle makes a definitive statement on something in General Conference that it's doctrine, or at the very least trumps what other individuals have said on the same issue.

 

Further, there seems to be some mistaken members who feel that what's spoken at General Conference by our leaders is directly guided by the Spirit

 I would fall within that group of mistaken members and my default position is that what is said in General Conference is guided by the Spirit and reflective of current Church doctrine.  I do echo what Robert said above, though I believe that we become somewhat committed to doctrine -- I just view that committment as fairly weak with regards to non-central doctrines that tend to be more open to change.

 

Finally, this isn't the only statement made at General Conference by our leaders confirming the Hill Cumorah in New York is indeed the place where the last battle in the Book of Mormon took place. I'm certainly open to changing my position if you can show me similar statements by our Apostles at General Conference contradicting the above.

Bob Crockett quotes in his paper from President Harold B. Lee who said we don't know where Cumorah is.  It wasn't in General Conference, so maybe you would say that his statement doesn't change previously established doctrine.  Personally I think the Church once had a doctrinal position on the location of Cumorah but no longer does.  However, if the Church still has the same doctrinal position then I still see no problem with people who disagree. 

 

My strong opinion is that we shouldn't judge people who have differing views as being less faithful or even opposing what Church leaders have suggested.  We are encouraged to use our intellect and study things out, not discouraged.

[Bob Crockett]

This is what I have heard

• Since the Church purchased the hill in New York and talked about it at General Conference, we should assume that inspiration and prayer and revelation were involved.
  • Furthermore, the assumed inspiration and revelation for the purchase should also be seen as inspiration and revelation that the hill is the same as the Book of Mormon Cumorah
• You believe Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation, not secular deduction
• There is a Hill Cumorah pageant, which should be seen as the Church indicating that the hill in New York is the same as the Book of Mormon Cumorah.
• Many General Authorities have said the Book of Mormon Cumorah is the one in New York (though you neglect to mention how President Lee said we didn't know).

If this is the entire basis for why you believe that Ivins stated we "positively know", then you should retract your statement that the reason why should be found in Ivins' words. 

 

You are unwilling to buttress your views with any actual statements from historical sources, even after stating that they should be used.  And when it is pointed out that the historical sources do not support your statements regarding them, your reply is that my anonymity allows you to ignore the problem.  The problem of ascribing unsupported views to Anthony Ivins and Mark Petersen has nothing to do with whether your name is Bob Crockett or my name is JDave (which it is, by the way).

I am confident that my paper, in my signature line, is full of "actual statements from historical sources."   I am also confident that my paper mentions President Lee's statement, rather than neglects to mention it.  I am also confident that I don't "believe Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation," as I have made it plain that my interest is academic and I don't give a hoot one way or the other.  I note the conclusion amongst the brethren that they appear to believe it is a matter of revelation, but then I also quote from the Encyclopedia and, yes, from Elder Lee, which both suggest the contrary.

 

And, no, I don't demand retractions and apologies from people on this board.   And, yes, I think that you are anonymous.  Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, anonymously, I imagine. 

 

And, again, I continue to maintain that any particular LGT theory taught as "plausible truth" conflicts with statements of the Brethren, and there isn't any suggestion in General Conference talks or books written by the Brethren that the MesoAmerican LGT model has any legs whatsoever.  I've studied much of Elder Milton R. Hunter and he was quite a champion of MesoAmerican archaeology, but I can't detect any hint of an LGT from him.  

 

So, you and I can continue to go round and round in circles on this, but I think you can bring me to the retraction you'd like if you can point to any General Conference statement or Church manual statement giving any hint of any belief in a MesoAmerican LGT.  And perhaps you can answer me why Dr. Sorenson's Ensign article does not advance the two Cumorah theory which is so central to his position?

 

Seems to me that we ought to accord "Dr." Meldrum (giving credit to his honorary degree from BYU*) as much honor and respect we give Dr. Sorenson for the work they both do.

 

 

* Baloney You Understand

Edited October 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

I am confident that my paper, in my signature line, is full of "actual statements from historical sources."   I am also confident that my paper mentions President Lee's statement, rather than neglects to mention it.  I am also confident that I don't "believe Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation," as I have made it plain that my interest is academic and I don't give a hoot one way or the other.  I note the conclusion amongst the brethren that they appear to believe it is a matter of revelation, but then I also quote from the Encyclopedia and, yes, from Elder Lee, which both suggest the contrary.

 

And, no, I don't demand retractions and apologies from people on this board.   And, yes, I think that you are anonymous.  Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, anonymously, I imagine. 

 

And, again, I continue to maintain that any particular LGT theory taught as "plausible truth" conflicts with statements of the Brethren, and there isn't any suggestion in General Conference talks or books written by the Brethren that the MesoAmerican LGT model has any legs whatsoever.  I've studied much of Elder Milton R. Hunter and he was quite a champion of MesoAmerican archaeology, but I can't detect any hint of an LGT from him.  

 

So, you and I can continue to go round and round in circles on this, but I think you can bring me to the retraction you'd like if you can point to any General Conference statement or Church manual statement giving any hint of any belief in a MesoAmerican LGT.  And perhaps you can answer me why Dr. Sorenson's Ensign article does not advance the two Cumorah theory which is so central to his position?

 

Seems to me that we ought to accord "Dr." Meldrum (giving credit to his honorary degree from BYU*) as much honor and respect we give Dr. Sorenson for the work they both do.

 

 

* Baloney You Understand

You surpass yourself, Bob.    

[JDave]

I am confident that my paper, in my signature line, is full of "actual statements from historical sources." I am also confident that my paper mentions President Lee's statement, rather than neglects to mention it.

I meant in this discussion with me, Bob. You state that the answer to my question is found in President Ivins' words, but when pressed for that answer you do anything but refer to his words. And you say in this thread that you would consider what I say if there were countervailing statements, but indeed you know there are because you quote some in your paper. So you can imagine my confusion at this point. Especially since countervailing statements are no longer sufficient -- the goalpost has been shifted to a rather bizarre requirement of knowing my full name in order to consider the problems I noted in your paper. I suppose that given my full name you would no doubt notice that my credentials in archaeology are lacking as well.

 

I am also confident that I don't "believe Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation," as I have made it plain that my interest is academic and I don't give a hoot one way or the other.

My confusion continues, since you have previously shown otherwise.

 

Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation, not secular deduction, as every one of the basis points for the geography are revelatory in nature. Many general authorities have made that observation. It is of no use writing treatises as to how the vision to the Three Witnesses can be explained by secular means.

Finally, we have Joseph Fielding Smith explaining that the reason people doubt the legitimacy of the New York locale is that they are confused and lack faith. We can see hints of that here where posters ask me about the lack of archaelogical proof for battles in the New York area. You, yourself, mention that.

...

The issue, according to President Smith, is not whether the Hill Cumorah is a legitimate chuch history site. The issue is, as he says it, whether one can be a faithful Latter-day Saint and teach or suggest that the same hill where Joseph Smith found the plates is not really the same hill where the Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred.

[JDave]

And, no, I don't demand retractions and apologies from people on this board.

Conflicting statements would give way to greater clarity and understanding if you retract one or at least explain the seeming contradiction.

 

I don't seek any apology, nor do I seek to give support to any LGT theory. I haven't said a single word about the work of Dr. Sorenson or Meldrum. I wished to point out that you have advocated a hardline position against studying Book of Mormon geography, particularly any LGT theory and Dr. Sorenson's work. You don't state a mere difference of opinion, however. You have argued that the Church leaders back you in stating that people should not study or advocate anything that opposes the Hill Cumorah being in New York.

The positions that you have ascribed to various Church leaders goes beyond what the text of their statements support. There is no push from Church leaders, nor has there ever been, not to study geography or to suggest different locations for the Hill Cumorah or to advocate a Limited Geography Theory. At best we are asked not to preach such things over the pulpit, which makes perfect sense.

 

There has been no "subtle shift" to tentatively support such things. B.H. Roberts shifted his thinking somewhat shortly after President Ivins stated that "we absolutely know" (quoting B.H. Roberts as one of his sources, no less). There has always been room for differing beliefs and opinions on things like this.  Even opinions that come from diffusionists.

Edited October 3, 2014 by JDave

[cursor]

And perhaps you can answer me why Dr. Sorenson's Ensign article does not advance the two Cumorah theory which is so central to his position?

 

...

Edited October 4, 2014 by cursor

[Robert F. Smith]

When was the last time that you read (carefully) the two part Ensign piece entitled "Digging Into the Book of Mormon," Bob?

I suspect never.

...................................................................

 

[Are you listening, Bob? Dad is (and always has been) very meticulous with wording, with meaning, with significance. This two-part article was vetted by a more than six year process. It's publication (consider the content, and the careful wording), is quite unique for the Ensign. What, seriously, does that mean? Hey, don't miss out on the rest of my post.]

........................................................................................

 

[if you were half as well-read as my father, Bob, I might pay your views some serious attention. But, since that is not the case ... ]

 

............................................

Be nice, cursor . . .

[cursor]

And perhaps you can answer me why Dr. Sorenson's Ensign article does not advance the two Cumorah theory which is so central to his position?

 

Here it is, Bob.

From Part 1 of "Digging Into the Book of Mormon," Ensign, September 1984, p. 30:

 

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.

 

[footnote 11] Consider the following reasoning: (1) The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11). (2) This area, covered with bones (Omni 1:22; Mosiah 8:8; Mosiah 21:26–27; etc.) and also a “land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Morm. 6:4; Ether 15:8 ), was in the land of Desolation, which bordered on the land Bountiful at the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:29–32). (3) In Mormon 3 through 6, it becomes clear that the final battles of the Nephites were localized, centering largely in the general area of the city of Desolation, which was in the land of Desolation “by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Morm. 3:5, 7). (4) And therefore, according to this reasoning, Cumorah, the final battlefield of the Nephites and Lamanites, was near the narrow neck of land.

 

http://johnlsorenson.com/docs/DiggingIntoTheBookOfMormon_Ensign.pdf

 

Looks pretty straightforward to me, Bob.

Edited October 4, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

Be nice, cursor . . .

I have repented. I will be nicer from here on out. Thanks for the kind policing.

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

Looks pretty straightforward to me, Bob.

It isn't.  It does not come out and say that there ought to be two Cumorahs.  It make some oblique statements which could be intepreted either way.  Furthermore, nowhere does the article suggest that Cumorah is in MesoAmerica.

 

I think that is a strong admission that that theory is heterodox.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Conflicting statements would give way to greater clarity and understanding if you retract one or at least explain the seeming contradiction.

 

I don't seek any apology, nor do I seek to give support to any LGT theory. I haven't said a single word about the work of Dr. Sorenson or Meldrum. I wished to point out that you have advocated a hardline position against studying Book of Mormon geography, particularly any LGT theory and Dr. Sorenson's work. You don't state a mere difference of opinion, however. You have argued that the Church leaders back you in stating that people should not study or advocate anything that opposes the Hill Cumorah being in New York.

The positions that you have ascribed to various Church leaders goes beyond what the text of their statements support. There is no push from Church leaders, nor has there ever been, not to study geography or to suggest different locations for the Hill Cumorah or to advocate a Limited Geography Theory. At best we are asked not to preach such things over the pulpit, which makes perfect sense.

 

There has been no "subtle shift" to tentatively support such things. B.H. Roberts shifted his thinking somewhat shortly after President Ivins stated that "we absolutely know" (quoting B.H. Roberts as one of his sources, no less). There has always been room for differing beliefs and opinions on things like this.  Even opinions that come from diffusionists.

I certainly disagree; my paper states my posiiton.   But we're going in circles.  

 

Narrowing the analysis to the point where you can declare victory is mere sophistry.  I see it more practically, as the evidence indicates it.   The Church acquired the Hill Cumorah with the understanding that it was the ancient Hill Cumorah, and so says President Ivins (and others).  When President Ivins speaks officially as he did, he speaks for the institution.  You desire to impeach his sermon with some sort of analysis, which I think is faulty, of the sources upon which he relies.  Generally speaking, Church members do not seek to impeach the official statements of members of the First Presidency. 

 

[but, as I point out, the Encyclopedia doesn't sign on to this theory.  I don't care one way or the other where the Hill Cumorah is located; I merely point out that at one point in time, it was official dogma that the Hill Cumorah was the ancient Hill Ramah etc.  My paper observes the changes and inroads over time, and tries not to take a position other than to say that it was said.  But it is also my semi-published view that Dr. Sorenson's methodology is faulty and improbable from a secular point of view.  He doesn't present a plausible view.  He presents speculation.  I used to have the opinion that his speculation was heterodox but now I believe it is just a harmless waste of time.]

 

Your methodology is a mirror of the larger issue of LGT, at least with the Sorenson model.  Narrow the geography so small one can naturally explain away anachronisms with the explanation that the geography is too small.  

 

Meldrum doesn't really do that.  He narrows his LGT to the area which is now the modern United States, but he does so by proof-texting (I think rather reasonably, but I think Joseph Smith spoke only of a hemispheric model) various scriptural and general conference sources to get there. 

 

So, I know you'll just come back and demand sources for my statements.  They are in my draft paper.   I understand you don't believe that they are, but that is my position.  I have reacted to commentary on this Board and changed my paper in response to some things pointed out, but not from anonymous posters.  The reason I keep referring to that paper is that I am trying to elicit critical comment from knowledgeable and credentialed folks.  Or at least knowledgeable.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................... 

 

So, I know you'll just come back and demand sources for my statements.  They are in my draft paper.   I understand you don't believe that they are, but that is my position.  I have reacted to commentary on this Board and changed my paper in response to some things pointed out, but not from anonymous posters.  The reason I keep referring to that paper is that I am trying to elicit critical comment from knowledgeable and credentialed folks.  Or at least knowledgeable.

Glad to hear that you are at least somewhat malleable, Bob.  Here's hoping that your paper throws light on the debate and helps all of us reach more precise or well-founded conclusions.

 

Some of your premises seem shaky at best, but probably in line with your preference for the Iron Rod rather than the Liahona.  We'll see how it all shakes out.

[cursor]

From Bob's blog:

The most significant indicator of modest acceptance is Dr. Sorenson’s 1984 September Ensign article, Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Ensign Sept. 1984. Dr. Sorenson’s 1984 article, however, does not suggest that the Hill Cumorah is in Mexico.

 

From JLS's Ensign article:

"Consider the following reasoning:

1. The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11).
2. This area, covered with bones (Omni 1:22; Mosiah 8:8; Mosiah 21:26–27; etc.) and also a “land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Morm. 6:4; Ether 15:8 ), was in the land of Desolation, which bordered on the land Bountiful at the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:29–32).
3. In Mormon 3 through 6, it becomes clear that the final battles of the Nephites were localized, centering largely in the general area of the city of Desolation, which was in the land of Desolation “by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Morm. 3:5, 7).
4. And therefore, according to this reasoning, Cumorah, the final battlefield of the Nephites and Lamanites, was near the narrow neck of land."

The hill in upstate NY where Moroni hid the plates and where Joseph Smith received them is not anywhere near the "narrow neck of land." It's quite clear from what JLS writes that the final battleground of the Nephites, and that of the Jaredites, was not in NY, but rather in southern Mexico, near the "narrow neck of land" (the isthmus of Tehuantepec).