Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[Bob Crockett]

Hopelessly oblique.

[JDave]

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

We aren't going in circles. We aren't going anywhere. You don't address anything I say except to dismiss or ignore it. I understand that you disagree. I guess being anonymous means that is all I am going to get.

 

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.

Sophistry, impeaching, and conduct unbecoming of a Church member... it seems you at least directly interact with me regarding my character flaws.

Since you don't want to actually address any analysis, I would like to simply state clearly I have no desire to malign any Church leader. I started out this conversation to point out how you were ascribing positions to Church leaders that their words do not support. That is not the behavior of someone interested in sophistry, nor impeaching Church leaders. It is the behavior of some anonymous nobody, fairly knowledgeable in reading comprehension, who cares.  I realize that me being anonymous is an issue for you, so I will do my best to respect that and simply bow out.

Edited October 7, 2014 by JDave

[Bob Crockett]

I have addressed your "analysis." Several times.

[cdowis]

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 find there are those who feel that the published scriptures are inspired.

 

The scriptures have been canonized, and their contents have been approved by Prophet and the apostles, but some reject some of the content found therein.  For example, there are headers which tell us the date and location of when a revelation was given.  They also tell us that the Nephites had coins.  

 

The header for the Book of Abraham was inspired, was it not?

 

Now suppose that those scholars discover that certain  revelations were given on a different date or location from what we see in the heading?  These unbelieving scholars make the outrageous claim that church history details found in the headers are "mistaken".

 

Faithful LDS will reject them as uninspired, even when the dates and locations are revised in the scriptural canon itself.  After all, these headings were certainly inspired, and approved by the Prophet.  Location of these revelations is an DOCTRINAL issue, and faithful members must reject such scholarship.

 

Peppermint,

Surely you would agree that when facts contradict inspiration, we must choose inspiration!  Especially on foundation doctrines such as geography.

Edited October 7, 2014 by cdowis

[ksfisher]

I find there are those who feel that the published scriptures are uninspired.

 

The scriptures have been canonized, and their contents have been approved by Prophet and the apostles, but some reject some of the content found therein.  For example, there are headers which tell us the date and location of when a prophecy was given.  They also tell us that the Nephites had coins.

Now suppose that those scholars discover that the revelation was given on another date, in another location.  Faithful LDS will reject those as uninspired, even when the dates and locations are revised in the scriptural canon itself.  After all, these headings were certainly inspired, and approved by the Prophet.  Location of these revelations were given is inspired DOCTRINAL issues, and faithful members must reject such scholarship.

 

Chapter 11

The Nephite monetary system is set forth—Amulek contends with Zeezrom—Christ will not save people in their sins—Only those who inherit the kingdom of heaven are saved—All men will rise in immortality—There is no death after the Resurrection. About 82 B.C.

 

 

No coins are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  Previous editions had in the chapter heading, but it was removed, with the approval of prophets and apostles.

Edited October 7, 2014 by ksfisher

[cdowis]

 

Chapter 11

The Nephite monetary system is set forth—Amulek contends with Zeezrom—Christ will not save people in their sins—Only those who inherit the kingdom of heaven are saved—All men will rise in immortality—There is no death after the Resurrection. About 82 B.C.

 

 

No coins are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  Previous editions had in the chapter heading, but it was removed, with the approval of prophets and apostles.

 

 

Who approved the previous headings?  Were they inspired when writing those headings?  The prophet and the apostles approved the previous headings.  

 

Are coins a doctrinal issue?  Or is it possible that this is a factual issue, subject to informed opinion and research.

 

Is it possible to apply common sense here.

Edited October 7, 2014 by cdowis

[theplains]

No coins are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  Previous editions had in the chapter heading, but it was removed, with the approval of prophets and apostles.

 

Coins (or pieces of metals) are mentioned in Alma 11:4-20 to indicate some level of commerce.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[cdowis]

You are missing the point of this thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

 

Sophistry, impeaching, and conduct unbecoming of a Church member... it seems you at least directly interact with me regarding my character flaws.

Since you don't want to actually address any analysis, I would like to simply state clearly I have no desire to malign any Church leader. I started out this conversation to point out how you were ascribing positions to Church leaders that their words do not support. That is not the behavior of someone interested in sophistry, nor impeaching Church leaders. It is the behavior of some anonymous nobody, fairly knowledgeable in reading comprehension, who cares.  I realize that me being anonymous is an issue for you, so I will do my best to respect that and simply bow out.

President Uchtdorf got a laugh from those in the Conference Center a few days ago, when he noted that some members hear a particular address at Conference and hope that certain people they know are listening -- because they need it.  He was speaking about the tendency people have to attribute a particular meaning to comments of the Brethren, comments which are directed at their rhetorical opponents (good members all, of course, even though they ignore the motes in their own eyes).  There is a more serious meaning here, in that members will hear what they want to hear and then use selected words of the Brethren as weapons against other members.  This is often done by taking the words out of context, and often failing to interpret them in a balanced way -- as is often done with selected Scriptural citations being taken out of context, whether by Mormons or anti-Mormons.

 

Proof texts are so often examples of text abuse that we not only need to ask about the context in which they appear, but also whether there is some doctrinal justification to believe that such proof texting constitutes "official doctrine" -- all in the midst of unstated theological premises and wish-fulfillment motivation (which is of course denied as an almost automatic reflex). 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Coins (or pieces of metals) are mentioned in Alma 11:4-20 to indicate some level of commerce.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Commerce, of course.  Pieces of metal, of course.  Coins, Jim?   No.

 

See my recent presentation on this and some other issues at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

[cursor]

Hopelessly oblique.

 

John L. Sorenson answers: "ho-hum."

 

I'm advised to not waste my time any further. I won't. 

 

I will, however, if you can offer more meaningful response than a simple "hopelessly oblique" reply to my last post. Why, exactly, is it hopelessly oblique, Bob? 

 

Fact:

1. The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11

   > Bob, you can't contend against this.

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).

   > Bob, you can't disagree with this, reasonably (if so, please offer).

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).

   >Bob, how can you possibly argue? If you can please submit any plausible alternative. 

Cumorah, the final battlefield of the Nephites and Lamanites, was near the narrow neck of land."

 

PERIOD (sans period ... not at all necessary.

> So, Bob, given the current enlightened-historical (and enlightened spiritual perspectives) given light that we own, what might even reasonably be identified as the "narrow neck of land" in the Americas? Might it be the Isthmus of Panama, or perhaps the isthmus of Tehuantepec, or ... (you fill in the blank, Bob).

​Extending from that, how far from that "narrow neck of land" might we reasonably position the hill Ramah/Cumorah? Where might have the 'northernmost' operations of the Nephite world have "come to pass?"

 

Edited October 8, 2014 by cursor

[Darren10]

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

"The war with which we speak took place here in America some 400 years after Christ" - 1:17 minute mark. Shortly after that remark, Elder Petersen definitely said Cumorah is located in Western New York. What revelation is his founding that on? It was definitely assumed by LDS leaders for generations but what revelation was given on the matter? I do. Ot recall records of Moroni or Joseph Smith calling the hill where Smith was shown the plates as the Hill Cumorah.

[Darren10]

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.

Even here I think the Holy Spirit enlightens us according to our own understanding, including according our own naivetes. Apostles and prophets, as mortals, are included in that fact. (Fact according to the knowledge of Darren. )

Edited October 8, 2014 by Darren10

[Bob Crockett]

Proof texts are so often examples of text abuse that we not only need to ask about the context in which they appear, but also whether there is some doctrinal justification to believe that such proof texting constitutes "official doctrine" -- all in the midst of unstated theological premises and wish-fulfillment motivation (which is of course denied as an almost automatic reflex). 

 

If you don't like another's use of sources, accuse them of proof-texting.  Of course, when you're attempting to document the positions of an heirarchical organization, you are required to cite statements of leaders of that organization.  And, the more official -- such as in General Conference, or official Church organs, or in authoritative statements -- the better.  

 

The way to minimize the charge of prooftexting is to cite sources which are intended to convey official meaning, as well as cite with frequency.  If Paul, John and Peter all talked about baptism for the dead with some repetition, Mormons wouldn't be accused of prooftexting by citing I Cor 15:29. 

 

One  can get a sense of LGT theorists' efforts to use Joseph Smith to buttress their theories by reading Codex's cites to alleged Joseph Smith statements about MesoAmerica.  Now, them's proof texts.  Meldrum does a much better job of prooftexting for his theories.  He has more. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

 

I'm advised to not waste my time any further. I won't. 

 

I will, however, if you can offer more meaningful response than a simple "hopelessly oblique" reply to my last post. Why, exactly, is it hopelessly oblique, Bob? 

 

Fact:

1. The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11

   > Bob, you can't contend against this.

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).

   > Bob, you can't disagree with this, reasonably (if so, please offer).

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).

   >Bob, how can you possibly argue? If you can please submit any plausible alternative. 

Cumorah, the final battlefield of the Nephites and Lamanites, was near the narrow neck of land."

 

PERIOD (sans period ... not at all necessary.

> So, Bob, given the current enlightened-historical (and enlightened spiritual perspectives) given light that we own, what might even reasonably be identified as the "narrow neck of land" in the Americas? Might it be the Isthmus of Panama, or perhaps the isthmus of Tehuantepec, or ... (you fill in the blank, Bob).

​Extending from that, how far from that "narrow neck of land" might we reasonably position the hill Ramah/Cumorah? Where might have the 'northernmost' operations of the Nephite world have "come to pass?"

 

 

 

If the Ensign article had come right out and said:  "It is more plausible to think of Cumorah in Mexico than it is in New York," then you'd have me jumping on the Sorenson bandwagon.  It didn't.  Because it didn't, and used such hopelessly oblique language to convey thoughts that could be read to mean something else, I must conclude that Dr. Sorenson couldn't make that assertion.

 

I find it very significant that, when Dr. Sorenson had the capacity to write specifically to make his point, he did not.  A number of inferences can be made from that failure, incliuding the inference that the Ensign editors wouldn't permit it.  I cannot read your string of his conclusions as being direct or specific.  It requires one to make a number assumptions, each of which need not be made.  I think this circumstance is important to my pending paper that Dr. Sorenson was unwilling or unable to assert his two Cumorahs theory. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[theplains]

If the Ensign article had come right out and said:  "It is more plausible to think of Cumorah in Mexico than it is in New York," then you'd have me jumping on the Sorenson bandwagon.  It didn't.  Because it didn't, and used such hopelessly oblique language to convey thoughts that could be read to mean something else, I must conclude that Dr. Sorenson couldn't make that assertion. 

 

Former LDS leaders have settled this issue already.  See the April 1928 General

Conference Report and Doctrines of Salvation (screen prints).

 

Regards,

Jim

[cursor]

If the Ensign article had come right out and said:  "It is more plausible to think of Cumorah in Mexico than it is in New York," then you'd have me jumping on the Sorenson bandwagon.

 

Actually, that's exactly what it did. Re-read it Bob. Basically the hill Cumorah & hill Ramah are very close to the narrow neck of land. If NY is the final battleground, then where is the narrow neck of land, referred to by Mormon? Seriously ... please answer.

[cursor]

...

 

Edited October 8, 2014 by cursor

[ksfisher]

While risking derailing the fascinating Sorenson/Crockett debate, I've made it to Part Three in "Mormon's Codex." A fantastic book has gotten even better. (Nice maps as well)

[Bob Crockett]

Actually, that's exactly what it did. Re-read it Bob. Basically the hill Cumorah & hill Ramah are very close to the narrow neck of land. If NY is the final battleground, then where is the narrow neck of land, referred to by Mormon? Seriously ... please answer.

Here's my answer, restated:  

 

Your post simply strings together a number of vague statements to reach your ultimate conclusion (which you haven't really stated) that the Hill Cumorah is not near a narrow neck of land but the Book of Mormon's Hill Cumorah is near a narrow neck of land and that item must be in MesoAmerica.

 

Those vague statements about a "narrow neck of land" aren't a conclusion that there are two Hill Cumorahs or that one of the hills is in MesoAmerica.

 

By contrast, In An Ancient American Setting, at page 44, Dr. Sorenson has a discussion entitled "Two Cumorahs?"   He states that the New York Hill Cumorah is not near a narrow neck of land and thus there must be two Hill Cumorahs.  At page 347, Dr. Sorenson says that "Cumorah must be part of the northern or western extremity of the Tuxtla Mountains."   Why isn't such a discussion of certitude highlighted or at least mentioned in the Ensign article?  Why must I wade through your several vague references?  The inference as to why it isn't seems plain to me, inferences I discuss above.

 

At page 44, Dr. Sorenson concludes as you'd like me to conclude that "New York is thousands of miles away form any plausible configuration that could be described as the narrow neck."    But what about the isthmus, only 60 miles away, where Niagara Falls and St. Catharines are located?   Google "Niagara Isthmus."

 

I'm not suggesting for a minute that this is the "narrow neck of land" identified in the Book of Mormon.  What I am saying is that the conclusion that you want me to draw, that there is no narrow neck of land near the New York Hill Cumorah, is a conclusion I cannot legitimately draw.   Since your string of references depends so heavily upon that conclusion, I'd say that one cannot legitimately form the conclusion by reading Dr. Sorenson' Ensign article that the HIll Cumorah is one of two and is located in MesoAmerica.

[cursor]

In my words ... "sheesh."

In those of JLS ... "ho-hum"

 

Best of luck with your views, Bob.

Edited October 9, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

Thank you.   I think I am making some progress.