Jump to content

The Hill Cumorah


Recommended Posts

On 1/13/2021 at 2:44 AM, rongo said:

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 . . . 

I served my mission in Madagascar. The island of Madagascar was originally known to Arab geographers as Kumr, or Komr. The Comoros Islands retain the name but the much larger Madagascar was the original Comoro. Actually, the original Comoro was the Malay peninsula. Madagascar was discovered and first settled by Austronesian traders from Malay, originally called Kumr.

10 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

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

As mentioned above, the original Comor was the Malay Peninsula. Arabic traders confused the island of Madagascar with the Malay Peninsula. Easy to do since they were both large islands in the Indian Ocean inhabited by a people who identified themselves as the Kumr. (source) Curiously, the founder of this civilization of Kalah or Kedah was named Maroni. (source)

owBm6sW.png

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 Comoros islands inherited the name of the larger islands of Komr, Madagascar and the Malay Peninsula. The name Kamar was also applied to mountain ranges in Oman and Egypt. (source)

hD9CJ0I.png

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't know if he really spoke with a Brad or Brant Hall and what he says about Hall is hearsay.  Academics can't trust such a source for peer review. 

And you are supposed to be reliable when you won’t  get a crucial name right after multiple corrections, nor do you admit to mistakes of memory and instead repeat them multiple times (your claims about the Ensign Sorenson articles)? 

And if you are going to claim that cursor is inherently unreliable as a source because he posted his dad’s writings I have quoted while using “cursor” for his poster name, I had an email exchange with him that connected John Sorenson up with FM that year, so can verify he is Sorenson’s son. And if you need someone to verify me, I can get Juliann Reynolds who posts on this board, was a FM board member, who knows me off board and met in person many times to verify my identity. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 1/12/2021 at 4:08 PM, Bob Crockett 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.

The second fax was definitely NOT a fraud.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

And you are supposed to be reliable when you won’t  get a crucial name right after multiple corrections, nor do you admit to mistakes of memory and instead repeat them multiple times (your claims about the Ensign Sorenson articles)? 

And if you are going to claim that cursor is inherently unreliable as a source because he posted his dad’s writings I have quoted while using “cursor” for his poster name, I had an email exchange with him that connected John Sorenson up with FM that year, so can verify he is Sorenson’s son. And if you need someone to verify me, I can get Juliann Reynolds who posts on this board, was a FM board member, who knows me off board and met in person many times to verify my identity. 

1. Yes. 2. i don't care about cursor.  3.  Your identity is not important at this time.

Too bad about FAIR.  I rather liked its output until those Krackof videos with the F bombs. Cardon Ellis and his ridiculousness.  It was like watching the South Park episode on the Mormons. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
27 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

The second fax was definitely NOT a fraud.

I believe it was not reliable for reasons I identify in my paper. 

At a minimum it doesn't have enough authority to refute the Watson letter.  

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmm.  Yet you don't seem to have any problem imputing dishonesty or disingenuousness to Brent Hall.  Why is that?  Pot, meet kettle?  Can dish it out, but can't take it?

 I've never said anything about Brad Hall's integrity. He may be a peach of a guy. Likely is.

The second letter could be a fraud. It seems likely.  I don't know who is responsible for that. It isn't my burden to show that. You are free to conclude that I must and thus ignore my paper. 

If it were not a fake it would have greater indicia of reliability.  

I further declare that I believe that Dr Sorenson's work is sheer speculation unsupported by science, sociological rigor or by revealed word.  And thus error.  Likely harmless error.

Reading Dr Sorenson is like reading CS Lewis.  Interesting points. Informed.  Fluff and stuff. 

I could be wrong. 

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

Brad Hall's integrity

Is this intentional? If this is the level of your effort to be accurate, might as well put the rest of your work in the trash IMO...I am astounded that a lawyer won’t even get a name right after how many corrections.  That you are demanding people jump through ridiculous hoops to prove credibility or else label their claims likely a fraud when you won’t even put in enough effort to get a name right is bizarre.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

That you are demanding people jump through ridiculous hoops to prove credibility or else label their claims likely a fraud when you won’t even put in enough effort to get a name right is bizarre.

And enormously revealing. I feel like I've been reading one of Browning's dramatic monologues ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this intentional? If this is the level of your effort to be accurate, might as well put the rest of your work in the trash IMO...I am astounded that a lawyer won’t even get a name right after how many corrections.  That you are demanding people jump through ridiculous hoops to prove credibility or else label their claims likely a fraud when you won’t even put in enough effort to get a name right is bizarre.

I promise you I am not asking anyone to do anything.  If I have I retract such demands. 

I don't believe the second letter is legit.  If it is legit I don't think it enough to overcome the first letter.  It isn't signed by Watson nor does it purport to come from him.  Just because it comes from Pres Benson's office isn't enough.

Hall may or may not have received it.  Doesn't change the analysis. 

Finally. My profession as a lawyer is meaningless to the analysis. It should not be the grounds for insult or praise.  If I offend please forgive.  I realize I am tackling a sacred cow here but I've given it thought and research. 

I could be wrong. But at least it is an informed wrongness.

Please excuse the botched metaphor. 

My conclusions are not intended to insult any person.   I suggest ways the two letters may be properly authenticated.  I admit I may be in error.  

 

 

 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

So , Atlantic mike, see what happens around here when you get a diversity of opinion !  

While I am at it mike, did you hear the joke about the roof? 

Yes🤣. I'm starting to realize I came on here totally in the wrong frame of mind. When I googled and saw mormon dialogue and discussion board, in my minds eye, I envisioned a bunch of mormons sitting in hard metal chairs, listening to a gospel doctrine teacher, maybe disagreeing a little bit but then shutting up because you cant really start a ruckus in church. But, what I didnt realize,  this is more of a family reunion of a big dysfunctional family, sitting around a bonfire in lawn chairs wearing shorts and flip flops and a few family members are already 5 or 6 beers in 🤣. And if I want to pull up a chair and sit around the fire, I need take off my diaper and put my big boy pants on. How'd I do strappinglad🤣🤣 am I close? 

     And boy oh boy, I dont no who this Brent or Brad Hall is, but he's probably loving this, it's quite fun to read, carry on.

   And no, didnt hear the joke about the roof, please tell, I love a good joke.

     

Edited by AtlanticMike
Spelling
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Yes🤣. I'm starting to realize I came on here totally in the wrong frame of mind. When I googled and saw mormon dialogue and discussion board, in my minds eye, I envisioned a bunch of mormons sitting in hard metal chairs, listening to a gospel doctrine teacher, maybe disagreeing a little bit but then shutting up because you cant really start a ruckus in church. But, what I didnt realize,  this is more of a family reunion of a big dysfunctional family, sitting around a bonfire in lawn chairs wearing shorts and flip flops and a few family members are already 5 or 6 beers in 🤣. And if I want to pull up a chair and sit around the fire, I need take off my diaper and put my big boy pants on. How'd I do strappinglad🤣🤣 am I close? 

     And boy oh boy, I dont no who this Brent or Brad Hall is, but he's probably loving this, it's quite fun to read, carry on.

   And no, didnt hear the joke about the roof, please tell, I love a good joke.

     

This board is a mishmash.  There are some high-quality discussions that go on, but a lot of petty bickering too.

Frankly, this board has been around long enough that we are well into re-runs.  More often than not, when a substantive topic comes up, I just pull up previous threads from the board's archive and post links to them.  We've hashed out most of the controversial topics, some many times over.

Consider, for example, the "discussion" (such as it is) about two letters pertaining to the location of the Hill Cumorah.  Here are some threads in which this has been discussed in the past:

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this intentional? 

He is just trolling us by calling him Brad.  

He won't even acknowledge it or answer your question.

Bob loves to inflame and push buttons. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, pogi said:

He is just trolling us by calling him Brad.  

He won't even acknowledge it or answer your question.

Bob loves to inflame and push buttons. 

 

It has now become about me as usual.  I will try and ignore all that to make my points. Such as they are. 

Link to post
59 minutes ago, pogi said:

He is just trolling us by calling him Brad.  

He won't even acknowledge it or answer your question.

Bob loves to inflame and push buttons. 

 

It's the diversion tactic he uses when his case is failing.  I've observed this process from prior discussions with him.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

So to summarize:.  The fax from Carla Ogden may be a fraud or at best is not germane because:

1.  The original Watson letter was from him and signed by him.  You would have expected Watson to have sent a second corrective letter signed by him. 

2. The Ogden document is on a mere fax cover sheet.  We don't know who it is really from.  Someone could have simply fabricated it from a prior fax form sent from the office. 

3.  The fax form is missing certain items, such as a fax strip. Also the form asks that things be inserted into form.  They weren't.  This suggests that the document was created from a prior fax to someone and the transmission info was redacted. 

4. The form doesn't say anything nor does it communicate any information about Cumorah like the Watson letter did. It merely quotes general information from the Encyclopedia. (The website info that says the same thing wasn't up yet.)

5. The recipient of the fax form has not stepped forward to say he received it, at least in a manner suggesting reliability. Even so, the form could have been doctored before Hall received it. 

6.  And then there is the odd way in which Hamblin and Roper characterized it.  The "Second Watson Letter.". What were they thinking?  

Problems with this analysis:

A.  The church's fax machine could have disabled fax strip info and Ogden could have simply failed to insert the other info. But I've been able to argue in the past to keep from a jury a fax missing the information. In any event, this is a rare exception and exceptions don't make the rule. 

B.  Hamblin and Roper could have been sloppy. I don't see it. It seems intentional on their part to subtly dress up an inadequate document. 

C.   Mr Hall may come forward. But his evidence will be that he received it, not that it was sent.  Of course Mr Hall could also say that he spoke with Ogden before she sent it.  Information of that nature and details could blow my objections to the document out of shallow water. 

D.  It may have been Watson's practice to dash off a response this way.  I know I used to do it through my secretary when we relied on faxes.  But that doesn't explain the missing transmission info. 

 

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

So to summarize:.  The fax from Carla Ogden may be a fraud or at best is not germane because:

1.  The original Watson letter was from him and signed by him. 

It is as susceptible to baseless allegations of fraud as the Ogden letter.

Quote

You would have expected Watson to have sent a second corrective letter signed by him. 

Expectations are not evidence.

Quote

2. The Ogden document is on a mere fax cover sheet.  We don't know who it is really from.  Someone could have simply fabricated it from a prior fax form sent from the office. 

The Watson document is on a mere piece of paper.  We don't know who it is really from.  Someone could have simply fabricated it from a prior letter form sent from the office. 

Wow.  This is easy!

Quote

3.  The fax form is missing certain items, such as a fax strip.

The Watson form is missing certain items, such as the envelope.

Quote

4. The form doesn't say anything nor does it communicate any information about Cumorah like the Watson letter did. It merely quotes general information from the Encyclopedia. (The website info that says the same thing wasn't up yet.)

The Watson form is from a secretary.  

Quote

5. The recipient of the fax form has not stepped forward to say he received it, at least in a manner suggesting reliability.

And you haven't lifted a finger to send an email to ask him.

I did, though.  And I have the emails to prove it, but you have and preemptively declared me to be unreliable and untrustworthy.  Convenient, that.

Quote

Even so, the form could have been doctored before Hall received it. 

The Watson form could have been doctored, too.

Quote

6.  And then there is the odd way in which Hamblin and Roper characterized it.  The "Second Watson Letter.". What were they thinking?  

They made a mistake.  Kinda like how the fellow on this thread has repeatedly referred to "Brad Hall" instead of "Brent Hall."

Quote

Problems with this analysis:

A.  The church's fax machine could have disabled fax strip info and Ogden could have simply failed to insert the other info. But I've been able to argue in the past to keep from a jury a fax missing the information. In any event, this is a rare exception and exceptions don't make the rule. 

The Watson document is missing the envelope.  

And the recipient of the Watson form has not stepped forward to say he received it, at least in a manner suggesting reliability.

Quote

B.  Hamblin and Roper could have been sloppy. I don't see it. It seems intentional on their part to subtly dress up an inadequate document. 

Right.  Why attribute simple error where accusations of dishonesty are available?

Quote

C.   Mr Hall may come forward.

Or you could, you know, send him an email.

And he has come forward.

Meanwhile, you have not insisted that the Oklahoma bishop "come forward" to authenticate the Watson letter.

Quote

But his evidence will be that he received it, not that it was sent. 

The same could be said if the Oklahoma bishop came forward.

Quote

Of course Mr Hall could also say that he spoke with Ogden before she sent it.  Information of that nature and details could blow my objections to the document out of shallow water. 

D.  It may have been Watson's practice to dash off a response this way.  I know I used to do it through my secretary when we relied on faxes.  But that doesn't explain the missing transmission info. 

Yeesh.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
40 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And this dear people is why the Hill Cumorah Pageant was cancelled.  There was no actual known "Hill Cumorah" to hold the pageant at .

If you are merely appropriating this thread to assert disbelief in the Book of Mormon, I guess I would understand.  Otherwise, though, I'm not sure I follow.  By this reasoning, the river connecting Utah Lake to Great Salt Lake doesn't exist, either.  Everyone knows that the real Jordan River is in the Middle East.  It is simply not possible for devout religionists to appropriate a place name from a sacred text and attach it to a separate place in their environs.

Or not.  

We have places in Utah like Bountiful, Lamoni, Lehi, Manti, Moroni, Nephi, and place names in other states like Mormon (California), Mormon Island (California), Mormon Tavern (California), Mormon Bar (California), Mormon Flat (Arizona), Mormon Lake (Arizona), Mormon Mill (Texas), Mormon Mountains (Nevada), Mormon Well Spring (Nevada), Mormon Reservoir (Idaho), Mormon Row (Wyoming), Mormon Springs (Mississippi), and Ramah (New Mexico).

And in any event, the Hill Cumorah Pagent was cancelled as part of a broader policy of cancelling such Church-sponsored events.  There is no evidence that the Church cancelled it as a concession that "{t}here was no actual known 'Hill Cumorah.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post

The envelope?   That would be helpful.  I indeed have significant doubts as to the Watson letter.  Scott Lloyd informed me that the Church used a Wang processor so that could explain away much of my objections.  

Again, merely because I postulate that the Ogden fax was fabricated does not mean that I accuse any particular person.  And my postulation comes from years of litigating questioned documents. But I also admit the heater possibility that the document is genuine. 

But, true, I have zero interest in chasing down Mr. Hall. Zero. Less than zero. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

No? Well that's OK, it was probably over your head anyway . 🤣

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 u know I'm using that one! I've already thought of a couple variations. That's one of the best clean Jokes I've heard in a while. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The envelope?   That would be helpful. 

And yet you don't require it.  You accept the authenticity of the Watson letter without it.

An affidavit from the bishop (and/or Watson) would also be helpful, yet you don't require those, either.

Your standards of "admissibility" seem selective and ad hoc.  

Quote

I indeed have significant doubts as to the Watson letter.  Scott Lloyd informed me that the Church used a Wang processor so that could explain away much of my objections.  

And yet you presume it to be authentic, while declaring the Ogden letter a fraud.

And you have been coy for a while now about who it is that you think committed the fraud.  

Quote

Again, merely because I postulate that the Ogden fax was fabricated does not mean that I accuse any particular person. 

You have asserted that the Ogden letter is a fraud, but you are refusing to substantiate that accusation.  Who committed the fraud?  When? Where?  Why?  How?

You are using arbitrary and ad hoc reasoning to declare the 1993 letter fraudulent (you have - by your own words - concluded this), and yet you treat the authenticity of the Watson letter as a given.

Quote

And my postulation comes from years of litigating questioned documents. But I also admit the heater possibility that the document is genuine. 

But, true, I have zero interest in chasing down Mr. Hall. Zero. Less than zero. 

Right.  Why bother to send an email when you can continue to defame his good name? 

I find your posture relative to your accusations to be unreasonable.  And your accusations against Brent Hall baseless and contemptible.  I hope you retract them (but I'm not exactly holding my breath).

The 1993 letter has been in wide circulation for years.  Your declarations as to it being fraudulent necessarily include an accusation that Brent fraudulently created the document, or else participated or furthered the fraud by concealing and/or acquiescing to its fraudulent provenance, and by failing to correct those who have relied on it being authentic (Hamblin, Roper, Peterson, FARMS, FAIR, JBMS, Book of Mormon Central, and so on).

Your "I haven't accused Brent Hall of anything" schtick isn't working.  You have.  You absolutely have.  You insult our intelligence by denying it.

And yet you have "zero interest" in doing something as simple and easy as sending an email to Brent.  Or picking up the phone.  Instead, you continue to defame his name and reputation.

I am appalled at what you have done on this thread.  I think the less of you for it.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
58 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It merely quotes general information from the Encyclopedia

And it is this that makes no sense as a fraud.
 

A fraud that could have easily been found out if there was further communication (which there may have been) uses church approved language to do what exactly?  What is accomplished that is worth sinning for...and maybe even risking one’s job if found out?

Link to post
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet you don't require it.  You accept the authenticity of the Watson letter without it.

An affidavit from the bishop (and/or Watson) would also be helpful, yet you don't require those, either.

Your standards of "admissibility" seem selective and ad hoc.  

And yet you presume it to be authentic, while declaring the Ogden letter a fraud.

And you have been coy for a while now about who it is that you think committed the fraud.  

You have asserted that the Ogden letter is a fraud, but you are refusing to substantiate that accusation.  Who committed the fraud?  When? Where?  Why?  How?

You are using arbitrary and ad hoc reasoning to declare the 1993 letter fraudulent (you have - by your own words - concluded this), and yet you treat the authenticity of the Watson letter as a given.

Right.  Why bother to send an email when you can continue to defame his good name? 

I find your posture relative to your accusations to be unreasonable.  And your accusations against Brent Hall baseless and contemptible.  I hope you retract them (but I'm not exactly holding my breath).

The 1993 letter has been in wide circulation for years.  Your declarations as to it being fraudulent necessarily include an accusation that Brent fraudulently created the document, or else participated or furthered the fraud by concealing and/or acquiescing to its fraudulent provenance, and by failing to correct those who have relied on it being authentic (Hamblin, Roper, Peterson, FARMS, FAIR, JBMS, Book of Mormon Central, and so on).

Your "I haven't accused Brent Hall of anything" schtick isn't working.  You have.  You absolutely have.  You insult our intelligence by denying it.

And yet you have "zero interest" in doing something as simple and easy as sending an email to Brent.  Or picking up the phone.  Instead, you continue to defame his name and reputation.

I am appalled at what you have done on this thread.  I think the less of you for it.

-Smac

I question the Watson letter.   I think it is inadequate.  We can discuss that.  But you're interested in the fax. 

I have never once questioned Mr. Hall's integrity.  

Yes, I have subzero interest in chasing Mr. Hall down.  He'll only say he received it and that is not enough.  The Carla Ogden fax speaks for itself and I'm going with that.  

Yes, I know you are "appalled" at me.  But I do not think the evidentiary support is adequate.  You've probably had conflicts with lawyers in the past; I'm just another one.  My personal record speaks for itself.  I trust the church and its doctrines and statements but not the absurdities of some apologists.

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...