Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Hill Cumorah


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Based on what revelation?

Apparently the First Presidency in 1990 disagreed.  

 

Is everything said in general conference doctrine?  

President Young said a lot of things in general conference about slavery.  Should we accept that they were not uninformed opinions because they were said in conference? 

I have written a paper on the second fax.  It lacks all the necessary indicia of authenticity and may or likely may be a fraud.  My published papers tend to emphasize the reliability of questionable evidence; I wrote a 60-page article about the Mountain Meadows Massacre assessing the reliability of various proofs relied upon by Juanita Brooks. 

I suggested ways to improve upon the authenticity of the fax but that has never been done. The fax was addressed to a Farms staffer and there was never any affidavit or statement from him about the fax after receipt.  It was certainly within FARMS's power to do so; failure to do so leads one to the conclusion that the fax is a fraud.

That leaves the first Watson letter.  The Hill is in New York.

You say that general conference statements from the 1920s are not considered definitive today.  I might be sympathetic to that view if you produced more modern evidence of equal dignity contradicting those statements.  There is not even anything such remotely there.

Take the Adam God theory.   It was stated over the pulpit and there were questions about the statement and the reliability of the transcription.   But general authorities have since come out and denounced the doctrine, leaving us to trust more modern statements.  Nothing like that exists for the Cumorah issue; the Church's official 1920s statement stands uncontradicted.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I stated INFORMED opinion.  And the GAs are certainly entitled to theirs.😃

Prophetic pronouncements are in the four Standard Works.

That is not true; I won't go into it.  But statements from the First Presidency over the pulpit during a General Conference are considered "authoritative."  Certainly, they are uncontradicted.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

President Young said a lot of things in general conference about slavery.  Should we accept that they were not uninformed (by God) opinions because they were said in conference? 

We are not talking about slavery here.  We are talking about uncontradicted statements about the Hill Cumorah.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It lacks all the necessary indicia of authenticity and may or likely may be a fraud.

Ok, Rudy ;)

27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You say that general conference statements from the 1920s are not considered definitive today.  I might be sympathetic to that view if you produced more modern evidence of equal dignity contradicting those statements.  There is not even anything such remotely there.

Equal dignity?  I personally don't care about subjective dignity when it comes to deciding what is and is not revelation or official positions of the church. 

There is the following published statement however.  You seem to be doing exactly what the current First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve Apostles "urge" us not to do - advocate for a position that "would imply prophetic or church support for those theories."

Quote

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded members that “the Book of Mormon is not a textbook on topography. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.”

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng

How can you disregard that?  I find the unanimous voice of the entire First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve to be extremely dignified and perhaps even more dignified than the voice of the First Presidency alone. 

General Conference may have dignity, but that dignity doesn't make anything doctrine. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, Rudy ;)

Equal dignity?  What the heck does that mean?   I don't care about subjective dignity when it comes to revelation and official positions of the church.  Neither should you.  

There is this however.  You seem to be doing exactly what the current First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve Apostles "urge" us not to do - advocate for a position that "would imply prophetic or church support for those theories."

 

 

How can you disregard that?  I find the unanimous voice of the entire First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve to be extremely dignified and perhaps even more dignified than the voice of the First Presidency alone. 

My name is "Bob," not Rudy.  Be cool and respectful, please.

The "equal dignities" doctrine says that if you are going to contradict an official position, you'd better have something of "equal dignity" to the quality of the original pronoucement.  Thus, one shouldn't be able to contradict a statement by a member of the First Presidency over the pulpit in General Conference with an unauthenticated fax.

As my paper on the subject points out, when the Brethren talk about the lack of an official church position on the Book of Mormon geography, they are not referring to the location of the Hill Cumorah.  There are plenty of statements, official and unofficial, pinning the Hill Cumorah to New York.  

Perhaps you can point me to lesson material or a sermon or a General Authority book supporting the Two HIll Cumorah Theory.  Please?  Focus on this question, please.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

My name is "Bob," not Rudy.  Be cool and respectful, please.

The "equal dignities" doctrine says that if you are going to contradict an official position, you'd better have something of "equal dignity" to the quality of the original pronoucement.  Thus, one shouldn't be able to contradict a statement by a member of the First Presidency over the pulpit in General Conference with an unauthenticated fax.

As my paper on the subject points out, when the Brethren talk about the lack of an official church position on the Book of Mormon geography, they are not referring to the location of the Hill Cumorah.  There are plenty of statements, official and unofficial, pinning the Hill Cumorah to New York.  

Perhaps you can point me to lesson material or a sermon or a General Authority book supporting the Two HIll Cumorah Theory.  Please?  Focus on this question, please.

The Rudy comment was a playful jab.  No offense. 

Can you please site this "equal dignity" church doctrine?

Can you please tell me what makes the united voice of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 less dignified than a statement by the First Presidency alone?  Is it just the setting (conference)?  

19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As my paper on the subject points out, when the Brethren talk about the lack of an official church position on the Book of Mormon geography, they are not referring to the location of the Hill Cumorah. 

How can you say they are not referring to the Hill Cumorah?  Seems pretty clear to me:

Quote

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.

Unless specifically exempted (which it wasn't), that would include the location of the Hill Cumorah (a Book of Mormon event).

19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Perhaps you can point me to lesson material or a sermon or a General Authority book supporting the Two HIll Cumorah Theory.  Please?  Focus on this question, please.

That would be strange if I could.  Let me remind you:

Quote

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 minute ago, pogi said:

The Rudy comment was a playful jab.  No offense. 

Can you please site this "equal dignity doctrine"?

Can you please tell me what makes the united voice of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 less dignified than a statement by the First Presidency alone?  Is it just the setting (conference)?  

How can you say they are not referring to the Hill Cumorah?  Seems pretty clear to me:

Unless specifically exempted (which it wasn't), that would include the location of the Hill Cumorah (a Book of Mormon event).

That would be strange if I could.  Let me remind you:

 

The equal dignities doctrine is well known by authors and scholars.  No cite coming.

Can you please answer my question in bold above?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I hope there is someone you can speak with in-person to help you settle the emotional aspects of this. You are smart to wait until you are in a better frame of mind before making sense of new facts, opinions and beliefs that come your way. Hang in there!

Especially while sitting on a roof!

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The equal dignities doctrine is well known by authors and scholars.  No cite coming.

Since when do we let well known authors and scholars dictate official Church proceedings and "doctrine"?

There is absolutely no Church precedent or revelation for this doctrine.  I can show you plenty of precedent for following the "living" prophets, however.

19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Can you please answer my question in bold above?

I did.  

Can you please answer my question about why you think the quote I listed is less dignified when it is backed by ALL the brethren, and not just 3.  That seems to make it more dignified and official to me. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, that's not what I said ... at all.  Even if that's what you got from my post (because, say, for argument's sake, I was unclear expressing myself), if you took the time to read what I linked to, you would have reached the opposite conclusion. You seem to be determined to take offense, and/or to misread me.  Read what I said again: If one is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and if one has a halfway-functioning brain, questions are inevitable.  Inevitability of questions notwithstanding, however, doubt and faith are choices.  Personally, I don't question Book of Mormon geography because the question of Book of Mormon geography is irrelevant to my testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (and again, if that's not the conclusion you drew from what I wrote because, again [for argument's sake] I was unclear expressing myself, it would have been impossible for you to sustain that conclusion after reading what I linked to).

So I tried to message you privately but it wouldn't let me send it, I dont know if that's because you have me blocked or for some other reason. So I'll talk to you here and then I'll shut up about this since I've turned it into a soap opera.To be honest I pretty much understand what most people are trying to convey through their post on here, but to be honest, sometimes I don't understand what you or ahab are getting at sometimes. And I admit that's probably my fault, I dont understand your humor sometimes. So I apologize for upsetting you. You've met me at my worst, I'm going through a faith crisis and my brain hasnt slowed down for the past month. It's almost as if I've somehow captured a tornado in my head and it won't stop. So I promise I'll read your post a few times before commenting from now on. I'll calm down soon. It's not you man.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Since when do we let well known authors and scholars dictate official Church proceedings and "doctrine"?

There is absolutely no Church precedent or revelation for this doctrine.  I can show you plenty of precedent for following the "living" prophets, however.

I did.  

Can you please answer my question about why you think the quote I listed is less dignified when it is backed by ALL the brethren, and not just 3.  That seems to make it more dignified and official to me. 

You have not answered my question.  You've avoided it.  I'm going to move on from dialogue with you, if that's ok.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You have not answered my question.  You've avoided it.  I'm going to move on from dialogue with you, if that's ok.

That's fine with me.  Just don't pretend like you haven't avoided my questions.

I did answer your question (which wasn't really a question at all, but a request for a reference).  I made it pretty clear that we won't be able to find such a teaching.  That would be pretty hypocritical if we could, given the quote I referenced.   What kind of response were you looking for?  I can't provide a reference.  I thought I made that pretty clear.  How is that avoiding your request for a reference?  I never made a claim that we could find one, so this seems to be like a straw-man to me anyway.  My point is that they don't have an official position, why would you then ask for a reference for an official church teachings on the location of the hill?  Seems like you are missing my point.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I tried to message you privately but it wouldn't let me send it, I dont know if that's because you have me blocked or for some other reason. So I'll talk to you here and then I'll shut up about this since I've turned it into a soap opera.To be honest I pretty much understand what most people are trying to convey through their post on here, but to be honest, sometimes I don't understand what you or ahab are getting at sometimes. And I admit that's probably my fault, I dont understand your humor sometimes. So I apologize for upsetting you. You've met me at my worst, I'm going through a faith crisis and my brain hasnt slowed down for the past month. It's almost as if I've somehow captured a tornado in my head and it won't stop. So I promise I'll read your post a few times before commenting from now on. I'll calm down soon. It's not you man.

I was the same, I came on here for the first time in 2012! And the first posts, and since, haha, have been from my faith crisis. I've loved this board though, crazy enough, because I'm talking to the horse's mouth through members still in. I guess it has helped me for some reason and I'm still a member on record. I know I'm really an anomaly though. 

You got this Mike, and please take it slow, on items you find out you didn't know about. There's a way to come full circle, I'm still half circle, haha! Meaning I'm not yet over my crisis, and still have a ways to go before I fully believe again. I guess you can't take the Mormon out of this girl! 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was the same, I came on here for the first time in 2012! And the first posts, and since, haha, have been from my faith crisis. I've loved this board though, crazy enough, because I'm talking to the horse's mouth through members still in. I guess it has helped me for some reason and I'm still a member on record. I know I'm really an anomaly though. 

You got this Mike, and please take it slow, on items you find out you didn't know about. There's a way to come full circle, I'm still half circle, haha! Meaning I'm not yet over my crisis, and still have a ways to go before I fully believe again. I guess you can't take the Mormon out of this girl! 

Thank you, you have a good heart.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

In a prior thread in this forum, now deleted for some reason, a poster said he was an editor of John Sorensen's Ensign publications, and the theory of two cumorahs was edited out of the published piece.

You have misremembered this before and you were misinterpreting from the beginning as well IMO.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52845-just-where-is-the-hill-cumorah/?do=findComment&comment=1208975319

The original thread is here.  There is a glitch going where it appears some coding is deleting the rest of the posts and it happens to the relevant post of Brant’s, but it happened to be quoted and thus saved in another post:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52932-new-evidence-that-joseph-smith-taught-a-mesoamerican-setting-for-the-bom/?do=findComment&comment=1208974426

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Danite in the first link had a good response to your Sorensen claim, IMO.

Quote

Sorenson's original articles underwent many revisions from the time he was invited to prepare them in 1975 until the time they were published in 1984. In the final version of these he focused generally on a Mesoamerica setting and did not discuss the details of his particular model--Cerro Vigia as the possible Cumorah for example.

But I am talking about what was eventually and actually published in the Ensign and in particular what I have just cited which in which Sorenson distinguishes between the "final battlefield" and the place in New York.

No. Sorenson does not mention the "two-Cumorah theory" in his published version. Some might argue that the label itself is a misnomer. The idea that the final battlefield at Ramah or Cumorah was in Mesoamerica and not in New York is clearly advanced in the article, as shown in the statement I provided, which was carefully vetted and finally allowed to be published in the Ensign.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52845-just-where-is-the-hill-cumorah/?do=findComment&comment=1208976310

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

That is not the right thread.  The title of the old deleted thread was "Digging" something.

That was not the original thread.  That was from 2012, later that the other 2011 thread.

And it is not deleted.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/page/4/

I am correcting your false memory in this post:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/?do=findComment&comment=1209149105

 

 

Link to comment

Cursor is John Sorenson’s son and he actually asked his dad about your claim:

Quote

I wrote JLS:

I just read your Ensign articles again. Nice stuff! 😃

I note that there is not one mention of the hill Cumorah/Ramah by name. You do say, however, that 
Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land” 11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light.
 
'Bob Crockett' insists that as your "Digging into the Book of Mormon" article-set was being prepared for publication, you were required to remove specific mention that the hill Cumorah in NY might not be the final battleground of the Jaredites and the Nephites. He hints that his source is Brant Gardner or Kevin Christensen. While those two are not participating in this particular thread/topic, they are both active members of MormonDialogue.com.
 
Do you remember how things developed leading up to 1984? Sounds kinda Orwellian, doesn't it?
 

My father replied:

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

That sounds pretty darn clear and decisive to me

Bolded. by me

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/?do=findComment&comment=1209149081

Maybe this time the correction will take.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

What is the reason for pressing this theory when the Church seems to have disavowed it. 

If you are asking me, I am not pressing any theory; I am correcting what I believe is a false claim and what Sorensen himself outright dismissed.  Gotta admit, I love his style there.  “Pooh!...cockamamy”. Reminds me of my grandparents.  

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But Smith certainly knew of the hill and did in fact name it the Hill Cumorah when recounting his story of the famed white warrior Lamanite Zelph  "He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains." - Joseph Smith (As quote by Wilford Woodriff)

Yes, Joseph did get on board in such usage, along with everyone else once it became a normal form of reference.  The same thing happened to Nephite "interpreters," which wrongly became "Urim and Thummim."  Joseph was not the innovator in any of those cases, but he went along with the same ignorant crowd most of us do.  I used to think in such terms also until I found out that I was wrong.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...