The Hill Cumorah

[smac97]

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Well I guess my mom, sisters, brother and other relatives that have a testimony, and have believed most of their lives that the Hill Cumorah is in new York, never questioning that, they must work with a brain that functions less than 50%.

I don't think Ken was meaning to cause offense.  Rather, I think he was suggesting that there is plenty of room for people to have questions about these things.

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Seriously though,  I understand, "just have faith" because that's all I've ever had up till now.

I'm not sure anyone is saying "just have faith."  Instead, the suggestions is/are something like:

Have faith in the essentials, but leave room to differentiate between saving truths and interesting-but-not-ultimately-vital things. 

Have faith, but don't be afraid of re-examining assumptions and traditions.

Have faith, and don't fret if some assumptions/traditions turn out to contain errors or omissions to some extent.

Have faith, but continue to study and learn and grow.

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

My problem at this moment is trying to have faith and understand facts, or someone's interpretation of what they see as facts.

You raise a very good point.  There is a big difference between "facts" and "someone's interpretation of what they see as facts."

As Paul said: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."  (1 Cor.13:12)

We ought to seek further light and knowledge through study, humility, prayer, and so on.  That process can sometimes require us to re-visit some particulars, and to revise our assessment of those particulars.  This process can make us more circumspect, more willing to learn, while also strengthing our faith in the essentials.

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I understand everyone has an opinion. I understand not everything in the book of mormon is going to be written down exactly like it happened 1600 years ago, but the Hill Cumorah?? 

What is it that concerns you about the Hill Cumorah?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Is your whole purpose on this board   following the new people and cutting them down? Read through your older post, your angry inside. And I'm not trying to be argumentative but I did feel a little offended.

Okay.  I ask that you forgive Ken, disregard the offense, and move forward with us.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I know lots of people who never even think about BOM Geography.

And when they do, they start encountering questions like "Is the Hill Cumorah described in the text of the Book of Mormon located in New York State?"  That's a legitimate question to ask, and plenty of information available in response to it.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Unless I'm reading what he wrote completely out of context, he's saying anyone whose spent their lives reading the BOM should have questions about where it took place, and if they dont, their basically dumb. I've gone my whole life never questioning the Hill cumorah up till now. I've spent the past few years ignoring my brother in law because he has only negative things to say about the church. Apologetics is all new to me, I've never had the time or energy to worry about it. I was happy with being happy. That's kinda of changed for me now, I'm trying to figure it out.

There is still plenty of room to "be happy."  Online communications are not an ideal way to exchange information, particularly about sensitive topics.  Much nuance and expression are lost or misunderstood.  

Ken is a good guy.  I hope you can set aside any feelings of anger toward him and move forward.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In my opinion, the correct identity of the Hill Cumorah (and other topics pertaining to Book of Mormon geography), whether there was only one such hill or multiple hills, etc. are lumped into the class of topics where Church leaders, teachers, and members have spoken with more certainty than they should have. In this class, I am also thinking of Creationism vs. evolutionism (Joseph Fielding Smith was convinced that there was no way to square evolution with the gospel and Elder McConkie believe it to be a deadly heresy), Elder Talmage's assertion that Christ was born on Apr. 6th, and other teachings. It's been a bit of an uncomfortable place to consider that leaders and teachers in the Church make mistakes about the nature of revelation (such as stating greater certainty than is warranted), but I find that it is a useful idea for me to grapple with.

My thought, and probably worth about what you paid for it.

"More certainty than they should have."  Yep.

I would add the scope of the Flood to your list.  And Elder McConkie's pre-1978 perspectives on our black brothers and sisters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

While what I’m about to say won’t provide an answer to your question, it’s a very interesting and incontestable fact that should be factored into your quest nonetheless. Amid all the debate that rages about where the Book of Mormon peoples may have actually lived in the Americas, there is one particular fact that’s undeniable, at least for those who believe the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith’s History in the Pearl of Great Price are true; and that is it’s certain the one places in this hemisphere where we can place a real live Nephite is present-day New York State. Yes, a prophet of God named Moroni wandered around present-day New York State with the very heavy Book of Mormon plates, a large metal breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim in tow (amongst whatever else he carried). Finally, as we all know, Moroni dug a hole in the ground in the New York State hill the Church calls Comoran wherein he constructed a stone vault, and thereafter deposited the plates, the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim in said vault and covered it with a large stone. There is no other scriptural evidence that single Nephite was anywhere else in the Americas.

It is certainly true that the hill near Manchester (Joseph doesn't give it a name in the PGP) is the only place we can tie to a human Moroni, and it is true that the LDS Church has been calling it the Hill Cumorah since at least the mid-1830s.  However, Moroni himself never calls it the Hill Cumorah.  Indeed, the actual Hill Cumorah (wherever it is) is the repository of the bulk of the records kept by Mormon (Mormon 6:6, Ether 15:11).  Mormon gave the Book of Mormon Plates to his son Moroni, who then took care of them and even added to them in the next couple of decades.  We have no indication that Moroni returned to that hill to deposit that set of Plates.  In fact Moroni is clearly escaping from his enemies as best he can as a lone survivor for about 20 years.

The original Hill Cumorah was in a region “of many waters, rivers, and fountains,” where the final battles of the Nephites & Lamanites were fought in the late 4^th century A.D. (Mormon 6:2,4-5,11; 8:2), and  the same place as the Jaredite Hill Ramah (Ether 15:11) -- which was likewise described as near the great “waters of Ripliancum” (Ether 15:8).

The word itself is properly spelled Camorah, since that is the earliest manuscript reading we have (used consistently in the 1830 ed.).  It is likely the masculine singular Hebrew participle or perfect verb qām + the feminine noun ʼôrâ, meaning something like “He (God) raises/raised up a light.”  However, it is also possible that it represents the ancient Egyptian place-name Km-wr “Great-Black Water”[1] (= Km-wri “Bitter Lakes [region]” near Ismailiyah, Egypt).

---

[1] R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969/ reprint Sandpiper, 1998); T. G. Allen, The Book of the Dead , SAOC 37 (1974), chapter 64 §S 3, 20; but can also imply the Inundation, as at chapter 64 var §S 20; Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3^rd ed., 597, Km-wr “Bitter Lakes East of Egypt”; M. Lichtheim points out that the Isle-of-Kem-Wer is not an island (COS, I:77, n. 1).

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is certainly true that the hill near Manchester (Joseph doesn't give it a name in the PGP) is the only place we can tie to a human Moroni, and it is true that the LDS Church has been calling it the Hill Cumorah since at least the mid-1830s.  However, Moroni himself never calls it the Hill Cumorah. 

I believe in the "two Cumorahs" theory (that the BoM Cumorah was in Central America, and the plates were deposited in New York after the BoM history closes), but didn't David Whitmer report an angel telling him, "I'm going to Cumorah" in connection with identifying the hill? The angel might have even been identified as Moroni. 

Just wondering. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

............. I am also thinking of Creationism vs. evolutionism (Joseph Fielding Smith was convinced that there was no way to square evolution with the gospel and Elder McConkie believe it to be a deadly heresy),......................

I recall being in my second semester of philosophy at BYU over half-a-century ago, when I found out from Professor David Yarn that both creationism and evolution were merely two of three possibilities, the third being transmission (panspermia), which has now found favor with many astrophysicists, and was also Brigham Young's favorite.  Moreover, then as now, the entire biology faculty at BYU is evolutionist -- and they all have temple recommends.  😎

[Fair Dinkum]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

My first trip out of state was on a bus to go see the Hill Cumorah. I have fond memories of that trip, it was a testimony builder for me because I loved and still to this day love the story of the 2000 stripling warriors. But for the past 2 days I've been studying about Cumorah and I actually feel a little embarrassed to admit that I have never even considered, ever, that Cumorah could of been somewhere else in the Americas besides New York. The amount of information, time and money that's spent on this subject is astounding to me. I've watched videos, read articles and listened to podcast and the more I investigate, the more I realize this subject, quite possibly, might not have a definitive answer like I thought it did for the first 45 years of my life. I'm a little bummed out this morning. So I was wondering if you would be willing to share your views on the whole cumorah conundrum that I cant seem to stop investigating. Where is it? Does it matter?

Then you'll be shocked to learn, as I was, that there is not one or two but actually three Cumorah's.  Now renamed Comoros, whose capitol city is named...wait for it...Moroni, coincidence?

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Moroni_(Comoros)

Edited January 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I understand not everything in the book of mormon is going to be written down exactly like it happened 1600 years ago, but the Hill Cumorah?? 

The text is very consistent in how it describes the location, imo. It is the assumptions that were latched on to the hill the plates were buried in that add confusion imo.

Moroni wandered around for 40? years after taking only his dad’s set of records he was working on with him to finish and leaving behind all the rest...as he was on his own, the one set was likely more than enough to carry around.  He was avoiding Lamanite military and gangs and likely settlements for the most part and therefore would have moved to the less military concentrated areas as soon as possible.  
 

Perhaps he came back decades later when the heat had turned down some, but I don’t get that vibe from the text. It makes more sense to me that the Lord directed him to move far from the war filled territory to allow him a less stressful life overall where he would not have to steal supplies because it was hard to hunt or plant for himself while avoiding the manhunts and exposing himself to buy food would have risked getting ratted out to the military.  Plus getting further away from the war zone would make it easier for him to avoid fighting.  I think the Lord would have been kind enough not to force Moroni to become a constant killer as well as being an outcast, his home and family destroyed. At the very least, if he had to kill those who saw him because they either attacked him or would have reported his presence to military authorities that would have attracted a lot of attention from the wrong people. 
 

The Lord could have created a miraculous bubble of protection so he could wander in and out of enemy camps unseen if he wanted to, but that doesn’t seem like how the Lord operates to me, at least for extended times. 
 

The main set of records themselves...seems like the lamanites would have loved to get their hands on them, so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone, possibly even the Lord, caused a landslide or other obstacles to prevent access to them to keep them safe for the centuries till they were needed.  This might be why the plates were buried in a separate box if Moroni returned to the record hill, but if the plates weren't to be buried with the rest of the records, then why would it matter where they were buried?  Why not simply bury them in a convenient spot for the next recordkeeper, Joseph, to find?
 

So to me the one place....once I started thinking about what Moroni’s life was like after the main battles ended....I can be pretty sure Moroni wouldn’t have buried the plates is on the actual hill that contains the kings’ etc records cave or whatever it is. 
 

But it is understandable to me that early Saints who were new to the stories might make some mistaken assumptions and then share them with others that then influenced any further study, just as the Church using the name Hill Cumorah means many or even most members assume the plates hill must be the same as the mass of records hill. 
 

As to why Joseph didn’t correct them assuming he knew the difference (if he has seen visions of the Nephite destruction or the location of the records burial place/cave, he likely could see there was a big difference) or wasn’t sure, I am guessing he either thought it appropriate to name the plate hill after the records hill, that it didn’t really matter and the hill needed a name everyone would recognize, or that it was actually helpful to think of the plate hill and its surrounding as part of the Nephites in order to create a sense of connection with ancient Nephites. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I believe in the "two Cumorahs" theory (that the BoM Cumorah was in Central America, and the plates were deposited in New York after the BoM history closes), but didn't David Whitmer report an angel telling him, "I'm going to Cumorah" in connection with identifying the hill? The angel might have even been identified as Moroni. 

Just wondering. 

Sounds like David Whitmer is giving us his interpretation of something Moroni may have said, but we don' know the context -- after all, Moroni may indeed have been going to the original Camorah, but where is that?  And what was he going to do there?  He had already spent several years counseling Joseph Smith Jr each Autumnal Equinox at that hill near Manchester, and never once during that time ever called that hill "Camorah."  If the identification was so self-evident, why not?

This points up the basic problem:  The original Camorah is the large repository of all the Nephite records, not of the Book of Mormon Plates -- which Mormon gave to Moroni.  So, a scholar might want to adhere to the "No Camorah" theory, since no Camorah was used by Moroni at any time for any reason.  That was his father's hill.  Not his hill.

David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery didn't think that through.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Then you'll be shocked to learn, as I was, that there is not one or two but actually three Cumorah's.  Now renamed Comoros, whose capitol city is named...wait for it...Moroni, coincidence?

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Moroni_(Comoros)

What about the "No Camorah" theory?  Do you lend credence to that one?  Are you shocked, Fair Dinkum? 

[Calm]

Mike, you might find this helpful to frame the discussion as Mark Wright is excellent at identifying what we know and don’t know, imo. 
 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2013/heartland-as-hinterland-the-mesoamerican-core-and-north-american-periphery-of-book-of-mormon-geography

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Then you'll be shocked to learn, as I was, that there is not one or two but actually three Cumorah's.  Now renamed Comoros, whose capitol city is named...wait for it...Moroni, coincidence?

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Moroni_(Comoros)

I was always fascinated with that. There is also a Moroni in Mongolia (but with umlauted vowels). What makes Comoros interesting is the history of Arabic pirates. I'm not sure how much of the names Comoros and Moroni are native to Malagasy (Madagascar), and how much might have been influenced by the closely related Arabic (to Hebrew). I don't think it's been established that Joseph Smith had access to maps with Comoros and Moroni on them, but it is an interesting coincidence. Not a faith-shattering one to me . . . 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I was wondering if you would be willing to share your views on the whole cumorah conundrum that I cant seem to stop investigating. Where is it? Does it matter?

Hi Mike,

Proving historicity of the Book of Mormon (including sites and location, etc.) is a rabbit hole that I'd personally rather not go down.  I'm not saying don't investigate it (if it interests you - go for it!), but keep in mind that it is purely an academic investigation which will never be satiated entirely, and has little to nothing to do with faith.  There will always be questions without answers.  The Book of Mormon would be a pretty dang easy sale if we could prove its historicity.  We can't even demonstrate with intellectual satisfaction for most in the world that it is a historical record and these events actually happened, let alone where it happened.  

I remember when I learned that there is no way that Noah saved two of every kind of animal and creature on an arc during a global flood (some here will disagree with me though).  It can be hard sometimes to learn that the stories we have been taught our entire life didn't happen exactly as taught.  We believe in these stories, and when we discover that they are inaccurate, we may begin to question our faith in general.  My advise to you is not to throw out the baby with the bath water.  If you stay on these boards much longer, your eyes will be opened to see things in ways that you did not see them before.  You will discover that most subjects are far more nuanced and complex than the simplified stories we learned in Sunday school.  I recommend keeping a malleable heart/mind and embrace enhanced perception as progression.  It is not a bad thing and is a part of our eternal progression and growth. 

One of my favorite parables that I share here regularly is about our limited and fallible perceptions.  The quicker we learn that our perceptions are incredibly limited and that we "see through a glass darkly" (including our human and fallible church leaders), the better off we will be with embracing changes (enhancements) in perceptions:

Quote

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),
that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!"

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here,
so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,
this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!"

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he,
the elephant is very like a snake!"

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!"

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,
"I see," quothe he, "the elephant is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!

I have come to a place where it doesn't even matter to me if the Book of Mormon is even a historical record or not.  If it is a non-historical but inspired document meant to teach good/true principles, that is good enough for me.  Of course that brings up other questions too, which I don't have answers for (such is life!).  I am comfortable not knowing these things, because I know two things for sure, 1) God loves me, and 2) He is happy with the path I am on.  I know these 2 things as well as I know anything.  No intellectual pursuit can dissuade me because I have actually tasted the fruit.   It is good.   For all practical purposes, I will keep feasting on that fruit which gives me encouragement and strength to wade through the other uncertainties of religion.

New perspectives will do one of two thing (borrowing from Kevin's excellent post), they will bring enlightenment or disillusion.  I think the key to finding enlightenment is by giving attention and energy to the baby and accepting the bathwater as a necessity in life.  The steps in Alma 32 will always reveal the baby (fruit).  But we also have to be comfortable with the bathwater as it is unavoidable in mortality. Such is yin and yang. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by pogi

[teddyaware]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is certainly true that the hill near Manchester (Joseph doesn't give it a name in the PGP) is the only place we can tie to a human Moroni, and it is true that the LDS Church has been calling it the Hill Cumorah since at least the mid-1830s.  However, Moroni himself never calls it the Hill Cumorah.  Indeed, the actual Hill Cumorah (wherever it is) is the repository of the bulk of the records kept by Mormon (Mormon 6:6, Ether 15:11).  Mormon gave the Book of Mormon Plates to his son Moroni, who then took care of them and even added to them in the next couple of decades.  We have no indication that Moroni returned to that hill to deposit that set of Plates.  In fact Moroni is clearly escaping from his enemies as best he can as a lone survivor for about 20 years.

The original Hill Cumorah was in a region “of many waters, rivers, and fountains,” where the final battles of the Nephites & Lamanites were fought in the late 4^th century A.D. (Mormon 6:2,4-5,11; 8:2), and  the same place as the Jaredite Hill Ramah (Ether 15:11) -- which was likewise described as near the great “waters of Ripliancum” (Ether 15:8).

The word itself is properly spelled Camorah, since that is the earliest manuscript reading we have (used consistently in the 1830 ed.).  It is likely the masculine singular Hebrew participle or perfect verb qām + the feminine noun ʼôrâ, meaning something like “He (God) raises/raised up a light.”  However, it is also possible that it represents the ancient Egyptian place-name Km-wr “Great-Black Water”[1] (= Km-wri “Bitter Lakes [region]” near Ismailiyah, Egypt).

---

[1] R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969/ reprint Sandpiper, 1998); T. G. Allen, The Book of the Dead , SAOC 37 (1974), chapter 64 §S 3, 20; but can also imply the Inundation, as at chapter 64 var §S 20; Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3^rd ed., 597, Km-wr “Bitter Lakes East of Egypt”; M. Lichtheim points out that the Isle-of-Kem-Wer is not an island (COS, I:77, n. 1).

 

Thanks for the refresher, Robert. My point is simply that there’s only one place we know for sure that at least one Nephite or Lamanite dwelt for a time, and that is within the land mass now called the United States of America. I believe any sleuth worth his salt would find this one lone clue to be something impossible to ignore since it’s the only piece of factual evidence (that is, of course, if said investigator has a testimony of the restored gospel) upon which to start the search for the lands of the Book of Mormon peoples.

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is certainly true that the hill near Manchester (Joseph doesn't give it a name in the PGP) is the only place we can tie to a human Moroni, and it is true that the LDS Church has been calling it the Hill Cumorah since at least the mid-1830s.  However, Moroni himself never calls it the Hill Cumorah.  Indeed, the actual Hill Cumorah (wherever it is) is the repository of the bulk of the records kept by Mormon (Mormon 6:6, Ether 15:11).  Mormon gave the Book of Mormon Plates to his son Moroni, who then took care of them and even added to them in the next couple of decades.  We have no indication that Moroni returned to that hill to deposit that set of Plates.  In fact Moroni is clearly escaping from his enemies as best he can as a lone survivor for about 20 years.

The original Hill Cumorah was in a region “of many waters, rivers, and fountains,” where the final battles of the Nephites & Lamanites were fought in the late 4^th century A.D. (Mormon 6:2,4-5,11; 8:2), and  the same place as the Jaredite Hill Ramah (Ether 15:11) -- which was likewise described as near the great “waters of Ripliancum” (Ether 15:8).

The word itself is properly spelled Camorah, since that is the earliest manuscript reading we have (used consistently in the 1830 ed.).  It is likely the masculine singular Hebrew participle or perfect verb qām + the feminine noun ʼôrâ, meaning something like “He (God) raises/raised up a light.”  However, it is also possible that it represents the ancient Egyptian place-name Km-wr “Great-Black Water”[1] (= Km-wri “Bitter Lakes [region]” near Ismailiyah, Egypt).

---

[1] R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969/ reprint Sandpiper, 1998); T. G. Allen, The Book of the Dead , SAOC 37 (1974), chapter 64 §S 3, 20; but can also imply the Inundation, as at chapter 64 var §S 20; Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3^rd ed., 597, Km-wr “Bitter Lakes East of Egypt”; M. Lichtheim points out that the Isle-of-Kem-Wer is not an island (COS, I:77, n. 1).

 

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)

Edited January 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Then you'll be shocked to learn, as I was, that there is not one or two but actually three Cumorah's.  Now renamed Comoros, whose capitol city is named...wait for it...Moroni, coincidence?

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Moroni_(Comoros)

FAIR seems to think so, particularly since

A) the contemporaneous maps/gazetteers reviewed by FAIR either do not list "Cumorah" or "Moroni" at all, or else spell the former as "Comoros," "Comora," or "Comoro" or "Comore";

B) "Moroni" was a "settlement {that} did not become the capital city until 1876 (32 years after Joseph's death and 47 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon)";

C) "Moroni" was shown in older maps as "Merone" or "Meroni" or "Maroni"; and

D) The Book of Mormon Onomasticon project done through Brigham Young University gives compelling etymologies for the names Moroni and Cumorah.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

So let me get this straight, basically, your post says to just have faith, which I agree with. But if you dont question BOM Geography, your a nitwit, functioning at less than 50% brain capacity? I think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

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).

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Mike, you might find this helpful to frame the discussion as Mark Wright is excellent at identifying what we know and don’t know, imo. 
 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2013/heartland-as-hinterland-the-mesoamerican-core-and-north-american-periphery-of-book-of-mormon-geography

I reject Dr. Wright as a scholar.  He works in the religion department.

The Church has already said definitively that the HIll Cumorah in NY is the same as the hill where the final Nephite and Jaredite battles were fought.  When the Church purchased the site and held general conference there.  

[mrmarklin]

10 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

My first trip out of state was on a bus to go see the Hill Cumorah. I have fond memories of that trip, it was a testimony builder for me because I loved and still to this day love the story of the 2000 stripling warriors. But for the past 2 days I've been studying about Cumorah and I actually feel a little embarrassed to admit that I have never even considered, ever, that Cumorah could of been somewhere else in the Americas besides New York. The amount of information, time and money that's spent on this subject is astounding to me. I've watched videos, read articles and listened to podcast and the more I investigate, the more I realize this subject, quite possibly, might not have a definitive answer like I thought it did for the first 45 years of my life. I'm a little bummed out this morning. So I was wondering if you would be willing to share your views on the whole cumorah conundrum that I cant seem to stop investigating. Where is it? Does it matter?

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that indicates that Moroni buried the plates he had in the original Cumorah mentioned in the Book. 

The current Cumorah was mentioned in the mid 1830s by Saints who assumed that since the golden plates were there, that it was the original.  There are no prophetic pronouncements indicating that these folk stories are true.  The Church adopted this meme AFAIK when the property was purchased in the twentieth century and has been holding "Cumorah" pageants there to explain the history of the Church and as a missionary tool.  I agree that it's not likely that the NY Cumorah is the one where the rest of the Nephite records are buried.

And let's get another issue out of the way.  When Moroni states that he was "alone" in the Book of Mormon, it is very probable that he was "alone" with a retinue of family and servants.  Moroni came from a very prominent Nephite family, that if not royalty, was very close.  That family led the Nephite armies.  Families like this have servants etc.  It's very unlikely IMHO, that Moroni was ever truly "alone" in the sense that he was literally by himself with no one else around.

[mrmarklin]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

As to whether the Hill Cumorah is the same as the place where the Nephites fought their last battle, the Church through the FIrst Presidency spoke definitively on the subject when it purchased the Hill Cumorah in the 1920s.  

In a recent posting, I wrote about the GA informed opinions.  It is very unlikely that the Cumorah in NY State is the same as that mentioned in the book of Mormon.

[Bob Crockett]

11 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that indicates that Moroni buried the plates he had in the original Cumorah mentioned in the Book. 

The current Cumorah was mentioned in the mid 1830s by Saints who assumed that since the golden plates were there, that it was the original.  There are no prophetic pronouncements indicating that these folk stories are true. 

Members of the First Presidency endorse the NY site as the proper location for the Hill Cumorah in the 1920s when they held general conference there.  How can one ignore that?

 

[Bob Crockett]

8 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

In a recent posting, I wrote about the GA informed opinions.  It is very unlikely that the Cumorah in NY State is the same as that mentioned in the book of Mormon.

How can you say it is an uninformed opinion when it was announced as such in General Conference?   

If your theory is correct, then we'd see church manuals or general conference sermons discussing the prospect that the true Cumorah is in MesoAmerica.  There is nothing like that.

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..

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Members of the First Presidency endorse the NY site as the proper location for the Hill Cumorah in the 1920s when they held general conference there.  How can one ignore that?

Based on what revelation?

Apparently the First Presidency in 1990 disagreed.  

Quote

The First Presidency's secretary apparently answered a question according to his own understanding, and then at the direction of the First Presidency later clarified/corrected his statement to indicate that while many Latter-day Saints have expressed opinions about the location of Cumorah (or other Book of Mormon geography issues), the Church has no official geography. No revelatory basis exists for any geographical scheme outside of the Book of Mormon text itself.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Hill_Cumorah/Quotes#Question:_Did_the_First_Presidency_identify_the_New_York_.22Hill_Cumorah.22_as_the_site_of_the_Nephite_final_battles.3F

 

31 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

How can you say it is an uninformed opinion when it was announced as such in General Conference?   

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 (by God) opinions because they were said in conference? 

Edited January 12, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Church has already said definitively that the HIll Cumorah in NY is the same as the hill where the final Nephite and Jaredite battles were fought. 

Not considered definitive today.  

[mrmarklin]

22 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

How can you say it is an uninformed opinion when it was announced as such in General Conference?   

If your theory is correct, then we'd see church manuals or general conference sermons discussing the prospect that the true Cumorah is in MesoAmerica.  There is nothing like that.

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..

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

Prophetic pronouncements are in the four Standard Works.

Edited January 12, 2021 by mrmarklin
clarity