Jump to content

The Hill Cumorah


Recommended Posts

The Whitmer account of encountering Moroni en route to Fayette is interesting to me, but bewildering if we assume “Cumorah” is in fact the hill near Palmyra.

Whitmer, Cowdery, and Smith (including, I presume, Emma; though Whitmer doesn’t mention her) are traveling northwest from Harmony towards Fayette; Palmyra/Cumorah would be even further to the northwest.  Moroni, who received the plates from Joseph in Harmony for safekeeping, was also going to the same destination—the Whitmer farm in Fayette. 

Why is Moroni bothering to go the extra distance Cumorah/Palmyra at all?  And even if that is indeed where he’s going—since Palmyra and Fayette are in the same direction, why would he cite his plan to go to “Cumorah” in declining David’s offer to ride with them and incorrectly suggest that he was not, in fact, going the same way as the Smith-Whitmer-Cowdery group?

Edited by mgy401
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Another tidbit from cursor later in that thread (well worth reading, it has a great post on the Los Lunas stone):

In 2002 Merrill Bateman, President of BYU (and a Seventy) designated me as a “Special Representative” to work in support of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. Actually I had been serving as a researcher/editor/consultant with them since 1980. This call was considered a “church service mission.” The appointment was never terminated, but since I was dispossessed of office space at the organization in 2008, I consider it no longer in force from that date.”

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The key point is that there really is no Camorah involved.  As Brant Gardner and other anthropologists like to point out, once editor Mormon hands the golden Book of Mormon Plates to his son, Moroni, the Hill Camorah no longer plays any role in the story.  It is the repository for the records used by Mormon to edit the BofM, but is not a place used by Moroni in his editorial work, nor in his wandering.  I simply see no connection -- not historical or archeological.  Call it the "No Camorah Theory," if you will.  There is not now, and never has been any reason to implicate that hill "convenient to... Manchester" (JS H 1:51) with the Hill Camorah.  That may disappoint a lot of people, but that is the beginning of wisdom in this matter.

I understand this, Robert. But my point is that the only place in the Americas where we can say for sure at least one Nephite once resided is within the boundaries of the present-day United States. 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

I believe Bob has rested his case because he has no further evidence or argument and has no valid rebuttal for yours.  This observer believes your view is far more persuasive and authoritative than his.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
25 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I understand this, Robert. But my point is that the only place in the Americas where we can say for sure at least one Nephite once resided is within the boundaries of the present-day United States. 

Yes, of course, and it is certainly worth noting.  You are right to call it to our attention.  As long as we don't confuse these United States with the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos de Mexico).  :beatdeadhorse:

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

I'll see if I can insert that new doctrine into Sunday School next week, just to intimidate the teacher.  If I get questioned about it, since I don't understand it, I'll simply fall back on the statement that it "is well known to authors and scholars."  :crazy:

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

I believe Bob has rested his case because he has no further evidence or argument and has no valid rebuttal for yours.  This observer believes your view is far more persuasive and authoritative than his.  

Untrue. 

Still waiting for a cute from an authoritative church statement about two Cumorahs. 

I think it is all just silly angels dancing on the head of a pin.  I just want to point out the absurdity of Sorenson apologia as well as almost all that passes for apologia. 

Link to post
On 1/12/2021 at 3:44 AM, AtlanticMike said:

Where is it? Does it matter?

No. :)

You have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and the trivialities are just that

Don't let what is unknowable get in the way of what you know for sure and has been revealed to you by God himself.

No one will ever "prove" their case, and so the history is irrelevant anyway. Go by what God has told you and live by what the BOM teaches.  😀

That is eternal truth, not unprovable theories

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
18 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

An interesting article on this subject: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/themencode-pdf-viewer/?file=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V46N03_412b.pdf  

and yes both Meroni and Comore can be seen in 18th century Pre-Book of Mormon Publication date map's  

Link to post
11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I believe Bob has rested his case because he has no further evidence or argument and has no valid rebuttal for yours.  This observer believes your view is far more persuasive and authoritative than his.  

No it's because the question itself is irrelevant to the contents of the Book.

It's trivia.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

An interesting article on this subject: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/themencode-pdf-viewer/?file=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V46N03_412b.pdf  

and yes both Meroni and Comore can be seen in 18th century Pre-Book of Mormon Publication date map's  

Oh comon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, mgy401 said:

The Whitmer account of encountering Moroni en route to Fayette is interesting to me, but bewildering if we assume “Cumorah” is in fact the hill near Palmyra.

Whitmer, Cowdery, and Smith (including, I presume, Emma; though Whitmer doesn’t mention her) are traveling northwest from Harmony towards Fayette; Palmyra/Cumorah would be even further to the northwest.  Moroni, who received the plates from Joseph in Harmony for safekeeping, was also going to the same destination—the Whitmer farm in Fayette. 

Why is Moroni bothering to go the extra distance Cumorah/Palmyra at all?  And even if that is indeed where he’s going—since Palmyra and Fayette are in the same direction, why would he cite his plan to go to “Cumorah” in declining David’s offer to ride with them and incorrectly suggest that he was not, in fact, going the same way as the Smith-Whitmer-Cowdery group?

It is very interesting. I think David Whitmer is a credible witness (we have to, if we want him to be a credible witness for the plates and the angel who showed him the plates), and so when he says that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and he encountered an old man, and Joseph told him to give him a ride, and he declined but said he was going to Cumorah, I believe him that this happened. According to the account, since the word Cumorah was unfamiliar to him, he turned to Joseph Smith and the old man vanished. Joseph told him that he was Moroni, and was taking the plates to the Whitmer farm and would get them to Joseph when they arrived. 

What do we do with the anachronism? It's not a problem for people who accept the anachronisms in the Bible (like Cyrus or Josiah) that name people before their time. For people who view prophecy as being able to know names before they come onstage, Moroni calling the hill by the name it would come to be known as is no different. Even though he would have known that it wasn't the original Ramah/Cumorah. :)  

Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No. :)

You have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and the trivialities are just that

Don't let what is unknowable get in the way of what you know for sure and has been revealed to you by God himself.

No one will ever "prove" their case, and so the history is irrelevant anyway. Go by what God has told you and live by what the BOM teaches.  😀

That is eternal truth, not unprovable theories

 

 

Thank you sir

Link to post
3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

An interesting article on this subject: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/themencode-pdf-viewer/?file=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V46N03_412b.pdf  

and yes both Meroni and Comore can be seen in 18th century Pre-Book of Mormon Publication date map's  

Any port in a storm, I guess.

In a discussion differentiating possibilities from probabilities, speculation of this sort doesn't hold up well.  Way too many 200-year-old evidentiary ducks to line up in a row.

Here's a quick perusal of the premises (stated and unstated) that seem to be required for the theory in the Dialogue article to work.

1. The Histoire Générale des Voyages, ou Nouvelle Collection de Toutes lesRelations de Voyages, edited by Antoine Francois Prévost d’Exile, Nouvelle Édition, a set of 16 volumes, was published in 1748 by Chez Didot (from fn. 157 of the Dialogue article).  This publication included charts of the Zanzibar coast (where the Comoros Archipelago is located) by a French cartographer named Jacques-Nicolas Bellin.  In volume 5 there is a fold-out map entitled "Carte del ’Isle d’Anjouan, Une des Isles de Comore par le Cape Cornwal" that includes a place name, "Meroni."

So from this we have A) the place name "Comore" or "Comoro" given to a group of islands (whereas in the BOM "Cumorah" is given as the place name of a hill), and B) "Meroni" given as a place name for a village on one of the islands (whereas in the BOM "Moroni" is given as the personal name of a prophet).

The above map was apparently based on a chart produced  by  Captain  Henry  Cornwall,  who  had  included  his map, “Johanna, or Anjuan, One of the Komoro Islands by Cap.Cornwall,” as part of his narrative of travels to East India, described in John Green and Thomas Astley’s A New Collection of Voyages and Travels (1745–47), which included references to "Komoro" and "Meroni."

In addition or in the alternative, an "extremely rare map dated 1689" Captain Jonathan Kempthorne, which "confirms that the pirate anchorage (where Kidd anchored the Adventure Galley) was located near Meroni."

2. Another scholar has suggested that Joseph Smith "must have" known a lot about Captain Kidd, including that he (Joseph) "stud{ied} Kidd's life and lore as a boy."  This is because stories were told about Captain Kidd's treasure, and Joseph Smith was interested in "treasure seeking."  This speculation seems based largely on the hostile and very late recollections of Anna Ruth Eaton, who gave an interview in 1881, or over a half-century after the events she claims.

3. Joseph Smith's presumed interest in Captain Kidd inspired him to look at maps for places referenced in stories about Kidd.

4. Joseph Smith, in his presumed search for maps pertaining to Kidd, gained access to one or more of the above maps (or else learned about the archipelago and one of its villages from whalers who knew about these places and traveled to Joseph Smith's environs and told stories about the island archipelago and one of its villages).

5. Joseph Smith synthesized his purported interest in Captain Kidd by selecting a place name for an island archipelago, "Comore" or "Comoro" or "Komoro," tweaking the spelling to "Cumorah" (or "Camorah"), and then applying it as a place name for a hill in the BOM narrative.

Similarly, Joseph Smith synthesized his purported interest in Captain Kidd by selecting a place name for a village in that archipelago, "Meroni," tweaking the spelling to "Moroni," and then applying it is a personal name for the last prophet in the BOM.

6. The significant and meaningful etymologies for "Cumorah" and "Moroni" (per the The Book of Mormon Onomasticon project) are mere coincidences.

7. Assuming all of the foregoing premises to be true and established (and there are probably a few more I have not identified), the author of the Dialogue article confidently declares that the Bellin chart is "the most plausible inspiration for Joseph Smith’s use of the names in the Book of Mormon."

The key word here being "assuming."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
On 1/12/2021 at 6:54 AM, Raingirl said:

He never said anything of the sort. You’re just looking to be offended and argumentative.

By the way, there’s a difference between your and you’re. If you’re going to insult people, at least use the correct word. 
 

Kenngo gave great advice. It’s too bad you’re unwittingly listen. 

He also said “could of” instead of could have. But I guess the new norm here is you’re not supposed to point out things like that. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Lastly, I am saddened to see public accusations of fraud by a member of the Church against another member, particularly given the seriousness of the charge, the lack of evidence for the charge, and the subject matter associated with the purported misconduct.

I am all for holding ourselves to high standards of honesty and integrity, but your public accusation of fraud is both serious and unsubstantiated.  I hope you retract it and apologize to Brent (at least).

 

I think you are unduly harsh to several posters here including me.  I never accused a particular person of being a fraud.  You and I have been through this before.  I simply have said that I there is a likelihood that the second fax is a fraud and a fake.  It is not my job to identify the fraudster, nor do I blame people for relying upon it.  The Salamander letter was supported and discussed as authentic by many good people; the fact they were victims is no hit against them.

And, yes, my paper on the subject addresses all the indicia of fakeness for the fax, including any published statement by the recipient of the fax. Such doesn't necessarily authenticate a document but it is a step. 

My paper on the subject is here.  This part of my paper is partially incorrect as to the date and I haven't fixed it yet:  "The Watson letter was drafted on October 16, 1990, a Saturday, in proportionate font typically not found on typewriters in 1990 (although likely found at the Church in 1990).  It would be highly unusual, but not impossible, for a church clerical person to be working on a Saturday in his office."

 

And, no, I have not chased down the recipient of the fax to ask him about it. It is not my burden to do so.  

And, no, a fax like this is not equal dignities with anything, including the first Michael Watson letter.

Now that you have engaged on the subject, could you please identify any statement by the Church contradicting statements made in the 1920s.   Thanks.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think you are unduly harsh to several posters here including me.  I never accused a particular person of being a fraud.  You and I have been through this before.  I simply have said that I there is a likelihood that the second fax is a fraud and a fake.  That doesn't mean that good people won't stand by it and attest to it.  The Salamander letter was supported and discussed as authentic by many good people; the fact they were victims is no hit against them.

And, yes, my paper on the subject addresses all the indicia of fakeness for the fax, including any published statement by the recipient of the fax. Such doesn't necessarily authenticate a document but it is a step. 

My paper on the subject is here.

 

And, no, I have not chased down the recipient of the fax to ask him about it. It is not my burden to do so.  

And, no, a fax like this is not equal dignities with anything, including the first Michael Watson letter.

Now that you have engaged on the subject, could you please identify any statement by the Church contradicting statements made in the 1920s.   Thanks.

Your link takes me to a terse message that reads, “Sorry, you are not allowed to preview drafts.”

Link to post
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  I have not impugned your character.  I have objected to your IMO inappropriate public accusation of fraud.

You publicly characterized the 1993 fax/letter as fraudulent.  Fraud.  It's right there in blue and white.  Affirmative fraud, too.  You are saying that someone at FARMS deliberately and calculatedly fabricated the 1993 fax/letter.  Brent Hall would certainly be implicated in such an accusation since his name is right there in the letter (and since he has now authenticated the letter in an email to me).  Same goes for other players such as Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson, etc.

That you were mildly vague in your accusation doesn't really mitigate the seriousness of the accusation.

We have?

You said

  • "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."
  • "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."

Nevertheless, I'm open to clarification.  Who is it that you think behaved fraudulently?  The fax didn't spring into existence on its own.  You are publicly concluding that someone fraudulently fabricated it.  So who do you think did it?  Someone at FARMS, yes?  Who?  Brent Hall?  Bill Hamblin?  Dan Peterson?  The "FARMS Review source checker"?  The "FARMS publications director"?  The "FARMS Review production editor"?  Some combination of these?  Some other as-yet-to-be-identified person(s) at FARMS?  

Or are you suggesting that someone at Church headquarters fraudulently fabricated the fax, and that Hall and the FARMS crowd were simply dupes?

Or are you suggesting that someone other than FARMS and the Church fraudulently fabricated the fax?

Again, fraud is never presumed.  I have now received direct confirmation from the recipient fo the fax, Brent Hall, that the fax was legit.

Why should I disregard the word of a percipient witness, a man I find both honest and credible, and instead buy into an unexplained and innuendo-laden theory that the letter was fraudulent/forged?

Okay.  Have you published this paper?  If not, would you consider doing so?  I'd like to read it?

I'm not sure your expectations of authentication are reasonable here.  They seem pretty arbitrary, in fact.  You aren't calling for "authentication" of the letter to the bishop in Oklahoma.  Why is that?

Again, we aren't in court.  We have a scanned image of the 1993 letter, and I have in my possession an email from the recipient, Brent Hall, attesting to its authenticity.  I see no reason for him to lie, or to have fabricated the letter in the first instance.

I think it became your burden as soon as you made public accusations of fraud.

It's your allegation, hence you have the burden to substantiate it.  That would include, I think, a nominal efforts to contact a percipient witness, Brent Hall, to obtain his input as to the authenticity of the letter you are publicly declaring to be fraudulent.

As it happens, I have already done that and posted his response (in which he authenticates the 1993 letter).  I'm sort of surprised that you are not lending probative weight to this (though you are apparently fully satisfied with the authenticity of the 1990 letter, even though you have no corollary probative evidence for its authenticity).

Happy to.  What are those statements?  Please provide cites and quotes.

Meanwhile, could you please address the citation I provided earlier?  The one in which the Church states that its "only position" about "specific locations of the events discussed" in the Book of Mormon is that "the events ... took place in the ancient Americas," and juxtaposed this position with "opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book" expressed by "members and leaders" of the Church?

Again, "the Church's only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas" (emphasis added) is incompatible with your declaration that the Church's position is that "{t}he Hill {Cumorah} is in New York."

I am not your enemy here, Bob.  We're both members of the Church.  We both believe in the same things (mostly, I'd imagine).  If this was a vital point of doctrine, and if the Church had staked out a clear and definitive stance on it, I would be happy to change my position.  As it is, though, we do not appear to have received revelation on this issue, which I don't think is a "vital point of doctrine," and about which the Church has not taken a stance (except as described above).

Meanwhile, I continue to be troubled with the accusation of fraud.  Them's fighting words.  I personally know Brent Hall, and have some regard for him.  He has authenticated the 1993 fax, and you continue to publicly declare it is fraudulent.  I am therefore forced to, at least in a preliminary way, choose to believe him, or choose to believe your accusation against him.  I'll go with the former until and unless you present some pretty solid evidence and argument for why I should do otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

No more post exchanges with Smac.

I'm saying only there is a likelihood that the second fax is fraudulent and a fake.  I don't have to identify anybody in particular affiliated with it to make my case.  In any event, it is not equal dignities with the Watson letter.  An unsigned fax is not the same as Watson's signed letter.

I will look into the problem of publishing the paper.  Some wordpress glitches at present.

Here's the paper:  https://wp.me/acYPx-9R.  It is work in process.  I don't take hard and fast positions on anything it but raise questions, like I raise questions about the second fax.  I for one have relied on the second fax in the past.

 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

No more post exchanges with Smac.

I don't think I have gone out of bounds.  I'm critiquing your position, that's all.  Again, I am not your enemy.

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm saying only there is a likelihood that the second fax is fraudulent and a fake. 

Well, not quite.  You also spoke of the "conclusion that the fax is a fraud."

Quote

I don't have to identify anybody in particular affiliated with it to make my case. 

Again, we aren't in court.

Again, I think the accuser has the obligation to substantiate the accusation.  You haven't done that.

Again, you seem to be dismissing the authentication of the fax/letter by Brent Hall.

Again, you seem to be not requiring similar authentication of the 1990 letter.

Again, you are not addressing the incompatibility of your assertion (that the Church's position is that the Hill Cumorah is in New York) with the published statement of the Church (that its only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas).

And so on.

Quote

In any event, it is not equal dignities with the Watson letter. 

Sure seems to be.

Quote

An unsigned fax is not the same as Watson's signed letter.

I think neither is very probative.  How's that?  Particularly given the Church's current position?

Quote

I will look into the problem of publishing the paper.  Some wordpress glitches at present.

Here's the paper:  https://wp.me/acYPx-9R.  It is work in process.  I don't take hard and fast positions on anything it but raise questions, like I raise questions about the second fax. 

Phrases like "conclusion that the fax is a fraud" sure do come across as "hard and fast."

Quote

I for one have relied on the second fax in the past.

And now you are publicly calling it fraudulent.  Despite Brent Hall's authentication of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 3
Link to post

So this is what I say in my paper about the two letters:

In recent years, proponents and opponents of a Mesoamerican theory of the Book of Mormon have focused upon two enigmatic letters which purport to have come from the office of the First Presidency.  Unfortunately, they don’t really answer questions and fuel the fire for continued debate over the issue of official Church criticism of a limited geographic theory that might call for two Cumorahs.  The letter first is dated October 16, 1990, signed by F. Michael Watson and addressed to a bishop in Oklahoma.   Elder Watson was called to be the Secretary to the First Presidency in April 1986, and in 2008 called to the First Quorum of Seventy.[1]  Elder Watson’s letter states that the Hill Cumorah known to the Nephites is located in New York.[2]

The second letter from the First Presidency’s office is more in the nature of a comment upon a cover sheet which typically transmits facsimile letters.[3]   On April 23, 1993, Carla Ogden sent the form to Brent Hall of FARMS.   FAIR’s website reports without reference that she was the Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency as of 2009.[4] 

In his 1993 article defending the Sorenson model, Hamblin incorrectly cites the letter as “Correspondence from Michael Watson” when Watson’s name is nowhere mentioned in the document.[5]  Roper makes the same citation error in his rather significant FARMS 2004 apologetic defense (actually, a critique of early sources suggesting a hemispheric model) of the Mesoamerican theory.[6]  There is no doubt that Ogden was working in Watson’s office at the time, as Watson was working in the office of the First Presidency, but it is misleading to cite the letter as Watson’s work or to imply that it had the endorsement of Ezra Taft Benson. 

Mesoamericanists favor the Ogden letter simply because it says the Church takes no position, a rather weak foundation for the cottage industry of limited geography.  Ogden’s transmittal says, in part:  “The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography.  While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.

Both letters are of dubious provenance.  Even though Brent Hall is a FARMS contributor, [7] I am completely unaware of any statement he has ever made authenticating the Ogden document.  I am also not aware of any statement from the Oklahoma bishop authenticating the Watson letter.

The Ogden facsimile’s provenance is particularly precarious as almost all facsimile transmissions bear a ribbon of information either at the top or bottom, which the facsimile machine time-stamps.  This one lacks it.  As well, there seem to be information missing in some of the fields of the facsimile form.  The possibilities for the absence of the fax strip are: (1) the Office of the First Presidency intentionally programmed the fax machine to omit the information ribbon, as these machines produce them automatically unless programmed otherwise; under this scenario, Ms. Ogden would have also have omitted information called for in the form; (2) when the Ogden facsimile was copied for Internet distribution, the ribbon of information and other pieces of information about the sender’s identity were redacted; (3) the Ogden facsimile may have been created from memory, after the fact, by somebody who didn’t think to add the ribbon of information and other private data.  All of these are reasonable explanations for the missing data, and sufficient to cause one to want more provenance.  Of course, the provenance issue can practically vanish with a statement from Brent Hall authenticating the document as a true copy and not one reconstructed from memory.

But, the Ogden facsimile merely quotes from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, so it is not controversial as to its content.[8]  Despite being privately published, the Encyclopedia was extensively vetted by Church authorities for doctrinal consistency.   Yet another hint that perhaps Church authorities might not see the Hill Cumorah as a pin in a known map.

The Watson letter was drafted on October 16, 1990, in proportionate font typically not found on typewriters.  Proportionate fonts in typical offices in 1990 would have been a rarity, as they required I.B.M 386 processors, usually.[9]  The author was a young lawyer in an international law firm in 1990.  Proportional fonts were available only from specialists working on mainframe computers, highly specialized and networked Wang processors, or professional document companies. It was very rare to see office workers with I.B.M. personal computers in 1990.

 

[5] Hamblin (1993), at 181.

[6] Roper (2004), at 107.

[7] Brent Hall, Review of Chris Heimerdinger, Gadiantons and the Silver Sword: A Novel. Salt Lake City: Covenant, 1991. 268 pp. $11.95, in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4/1/ (1992), at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1427&index=13, accessed May 18, 2014.

[8] Need cite from Encyclopedia.

Link to post
59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He also said “could of” instead of could have. But I guess the new norm here is you’re not supposed to point out things like that. 

Scott, I have an honest question, Im not tryin to be a smartbutt or any thing like that. Just trying to figure out the whole correcting people's grammar thing and why people do it. First off, when someone like me, a roofer with a G.E.D., no college what so ever, hasnt opened a grammar textbook since I was expelled from high school, comes onto a forum such as this one I realize I'm stepping out of my world and into yours. You have mastered the English language sir, and I applaud you for that. It has probably helped you put food on your families table and made you successful. I guess what's so confusing to me, since you've obviously mastered the English language, why correct someone who hasn't? In our daily lives we dont go around correcting people on their other shortcomings. For example,  since I work construction and work out, I burn a ton of calories, so I'm very fit. I surf, so i like to stay skinny, that way, I look good in a wet suit, nothing's more appetizing to a shark than a pudgy man in a wetsuit🤣🤣. So some people  would say I've "mastered the art" of staying fit because I understand my metabolism,  I know what I can and cant eat. And to me, food is really really simple. But, just because it's simple to me, doesn't mean it's simple for everyone else. In all actuality, food intake in america is extremely tough to figure out. So that's why I dont go around and tell overweight people how to eat. If I did, I wouldn't have any friends, plus it would make me seem like a jerk. 

   So, I love constructive criticism, if that's why your correcting people, then that's understandable for the most part.  But I hope you realize grammar, punctuation, contractions and all the other mistakes I make, that's just me, I'm not changing it for you or anyone else. But I do hope we can talk in the future, I think I can learn alot about the church from you.

      

  • Like 3
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Even though Brent Hall is a FARMS contributor, [7] I am completely unaware of any statement he has ever made authenticating the Ogden document. 

You are aware now.  You might need to edit this part to reflect that.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...