Excavation of Hill Cumorah

[SteveVH]

I have been involved in a discussion on another forum concerning the Hill Cumorah and why there has been no excavation of this site. The discussion was predicated upon quotes from Mormon leaders such as the following:

"Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history..." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Mormon prophet, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.232-43.)

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York." (James E. Talmage - Mormon apostle, Articles of Faith, Lecture 14, p.262)

"The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith." (Orson Pratt - Mormon apostle, Journal of Discourses 14:331)

"Finally, they became so utterly wicked, so fully ripened for destruction, that one branch of the "nation, called the Nephites, gathered their entire people around the hill Cumorah, in the State of New York, in Ontario County; and the Lamanites, the opposite army, gathered by millions in the same region." (Orson Pratt - Mormon apostle, Journal of Discourses 17:30)

"Thirty-six years prior to this time his nation was destroyed in what we term the State of New York, around about a hill, called by that people the Hill of Cumorah, when many hundreds of thousands of the Nephites—men, women and children, fell, during the greatest battle that they had had with the Lamanites." (Orson Pratt - Mormon apostle, Journal of Discourses 20:63)

There are, of course, many, many more quotes that establish the fact that this hill in New York was identified by Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders as Cumorah. The question is, why has this site never been excavated? If they could find any evidence of the civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon, imagine the impact that this would have on the entire world.

So, the question, very simply is, why does the LDS Church not excavate Cumorah and forever put to rest any doubt in the credibility of both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Very interested in your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks.

Edited June 29, 2013 by StephenVH

[Anddenex]

So, the question, very simply is, why does the LDS Church not excavate Cumorah and forever put to rest any doubt in the credibility of both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Very interested in your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks.

I believe the answer is really simple, because it would not put to rest any doubt in the credibility of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon even if evidence was discovered.

One would have thought an angel visiting Laman and Lemuel telling them the Lord would deliver Laban and the plates into their hands would convince them, but it didn't.

The Hill Cumorah is also a sacred site now, not one to be excavated for doubting Thomas's in the world, who probably wouldn't believe either way.

There is no more powerful witness than a witness from God as promised in Moroni 10: 3-5.

[SteveVH]

I believe the answer is really simple, because it would not put to rest any doubt in the credibility of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon even if evidence was discovered.

One would have thought an angel visiting Laman and Lemuel telling them the Lord would deliver Laban and the plates into their hands would convince them, but it didn't.

The Hill Cumorah is also a sacred site now, not one to be excavated for doubting Thomas's in the world, who probably wouldn't believe either way.

There is no more powerful witness than a witness from God as promised in Moroni 10: 3-5.

We cannot throw away reason when dealing with truth. The gift of reason was given to us in order to help us discern truth. If an angel appears to me and tells me that the earth is flat I can safely discern the fact that the angel is bearing false testimony because I know that the earth is, in fact, round.

The fact that there may be some, even many, who would still doubt is not a reason to stop seeking and revealing truth. To find any evidence at all that would lend credibility to the BoM would be a positive thing for the LDS, not a negative thing. What if the Dead Sea scrolls had been kept hidden under the same logic? "Well, some people would still not believe even if we revealed it so we might as well keep it hidden." Sorry, I just can't buy that argument.

[Anddenex]

We cannot throw away reason when dealing with truth. The gift of reason was given to us in order to help us discern truth. If an angel appears to me and tells me that the earth is flat I can safely discern the fact that the angel is bearing false testimony because I know that the earth is, in fact, round.

The fact that there may be some, even many, who would still doubt is not a reason to stop seeking and revealing truth. To find any evidence at all that would lend credibility to the BoM would be a positive thing for the LDS, not a negative thing. What if the Dead Sea scrolls had been kept hidden under the same logic? "Well, some people would still not believe even if we revealed it so we might as well keep it hidden." Sorry, I just can't buy that argument.

Who said to throw away reason when dealing with truth? I sure didn't. If an angel appears to us, sent from God, he wouldn't lie -- point is without reason to think a angel would lie who was sent from God.

I am sorry you are unable to buy a witness from God is more powerful than any artifact.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Anddenex

[annewandering]

Did Joseph Smith ever show anyone exactly where it was? If not then a search would devolve into a massive ground moving effort since there is no clear destination pinpointed. Would it make sense to rip the area appart looking for it?

Would any owner even LET people do that?

[NeuroTypical]

I once took an informal survey of church critics, and recorded their responses:

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM. Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit. If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized?

---

Tchild2: “Problem is, that "tomorrow" never arrives, it exists as a hypothetical fantasy. What if Jesus came down and said that the Catholics had and always had the sole power to effect the ordinances of Christianity, would you then become Catholic, or whatever religion had their fantasy evidences and proofs materialize?

"Tomorrow" is an artifice and construct of fantasy that doesn't exist, and never has with religious claims.”

---

Sleepyhead: “The book of mormon being true doesn't automatically indicate that any of the reorganization chruches are true. Each step has to be looked at logically.”

---

AZNative: “Let me know when they find Moroni's horse wrapped in the Title of Liberty, then we'll talk...”

---

Oceanblue: “OK, BoM is true and Joseph was a fallen prophet. Power went to his head. Something like that. Saul, anyone?”

--

Agnostimorm: "If something like what you describe happenned I would be thrilled to accept such a thing."

--

"If God were a real being and he corresponded to the many things reported about him by Christians, it is likely I would not want anything to do with him."

--

FormerLDS: "Honestly, I don't think it would change my opinion about the LDS organization. With respect to seeing archaeological evidence, and believing, think about this:

Have you ever seen the a devil cast out of a man? Certainly, that would be very convincing evidence.

Have you ever personally witnessed prophecy? That too would be very convincing evidence.

Have you ever seen wonderful works? Yet more evidence that might convince one to believe.

All of these and more are done in the name of Jesus Christ by those who accepted a false gospel (Matt 7:22).

Therefore, evidence can be very misleading where the truth of the gospel is concerned. How much cyanide kills? Likewise, a gospel that is 99.99% grace and .001% works will send a man's soul to the lake of fire for eternity, regardless the "evidence".

The only gospel that will save is Believe WITHOUT works."

--

Cinepro: "I'm still baptized, but it would certainly change the direction I'm heading."

--

Roman: "Never because your little drama would never happen"

--

Oprichnik (LDS): "It's in the Christian world's best interest that that scenerio not occur. Their agency would evaporate in a heartbeat."

--

JustCurious: "Well anyone who would not would be a fool..."

--

A Random Catholic: "As I said the first time [LM] posted that scenario, if it happened, I would almost certainly seek to be baptized. I would retain a pretty liberal view of the origin of the Book of Abraham and tend to believe that there's a degree of Old Testament hyperbole at work in that "2,230,000 dead Nephites" bit, but apart from that, I would accept the CoJCoLDS as being exactly what it claims to be and gratefully submit myself to its leadership."

--

BAMMER: "I've already given my life over to the Lord and been reborn through faith. I confess Him daily. And I would never accept anything or anyone that taught another gospel.

Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Ga 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The BOM teaches that by grace man is saved "after all he can do." This means he works or qualifies himself for God's grace after a lifetime of efforts. This is a damnable lie and lies in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ. So in a nutshell, I wouldn't care if an angel of light came and held plates in front of my face - if they taught another gospel, they are accursed."

--

Jimbo: "First of all, IF any of those things happened, it would be quite remarkable indeed and I would be more than willing to look at the evidence. If it held up, everyone would have to admit that. However, the fact remains than none of those things have happened and it is noteworthy that they have not."

--

Joe Schmoe: "An emphatic YES!"

--

Tchild2: "Are you kidding? If the Book of Mormon is proved historical, the next line of defense for the critics, exmo's and anti's is the "fallen prophet" stance either with Joseph Smith, or that Brigham Young did not authoritatively recieve the prophet mantle and the priesthood keys after J.S. and the thus the church no longer has the authority to act in God's name, or something else polemic and unproveable.

What else would we do with our time if not on these boards trying to prove the other person wrong? I don't want the party to end, do you? :)"

StephenVH, you preach a good lecture on the importance of reason and truth. I submit to you, that believing Mormons aren't the only folks who need your sermon.

[SteveVH]

Who said to throw away reason when dealing with truth? I sure didn't. If an angel appears to us, sent from God, he wouldn't lie -- point is without reason to think a angel would lie who was sent from God.

I am sorry you are unable to buy a witness from God is more powerful than any artifact.

An angel from God would not lie, you are correct. But there are angels, fallen angels, that are not from God but may appear as an "angel of light". We must always discern. And so yes, a witness from God is more powerful than an artifact, as long as we know it is a witness from God. And the thing we know about a true witness from God is that his testimony will not conflict with reality. When what we think is a witness from God does not square with the real world around us, something is wrong.

[SteveVH]

Did Joseph Smith ever show anyone exactly where it was? If not then a search would devolve into a massive ground moving effort since there is no clear destination pinpointed. Would it make sense to rip the area appart looking for it?

Would any owner even LET people do that?

We are talking about remnants of a huge civilization, a battle that purportedly killed millions, with chariots and metal swords and horses... It shouldn't take a great effort to find evidence of something of that magnitude, even if it happened 2500 years ago.

I am told that there is actually technology that can be used from the air to detect buried remnants without disturbing a thing. A target area could be pinpointed, excavated and renovated.

And I am fairly certain that the LDS Church is the owner of the land. Someone correct me if that is not right.

[SteveVH]

I once took an informal survey of church critics, and recorded their responses:

StephenVH, you preach a good lecture on the importance of reason and truth. I submit to you, that believing Mormons aren't the only folks who need your sermon.

Well, thanks for participating. And you have a good day too.

[Anddenex]

An angel from God would not lie, you are correct. But there are angels, fallen angels, that are not from God but may appear as an "angel of light". We must always discern. And so yes, a witness from God is more powerful than an artifact, as long as we know it is a witness from God. And the thing we know about a true witness from God is that his testimony will not conflict with reality. When what we think is a witness from God does not square with the real world around us, something is wrong.

I agree, which is also why we need to make sure how we "square" reality is actually a square and not a rectangle.

If our view of reality is already a rectangle, but we are calling it a square and the truth is "square," we will unfortunately like the pharisees of old be looking beyond the mark.

I am always humbled when I think how well read the Pharisees were, but because their reality, their truth, didn't fit the humble deliverer, they crucified him instead of bowing their knee.

[NeuroTypical]

We are talking about remnants of a huge civilization, a battle that purportedly killed millions, with chariots and metal swords and horses... It shouldn't take a great effort to find evidence of something of that magnitude, even if it happened 2500 years ago.

Just out of curiosity, do you keep abreast of current advances in mesoamerican archaeology? It seems that not a year goes by, where there's not a new massive city complex discovery. Central and South America is a fascinating place, with new stuff happening all the time.

Here is a truth in the field of archaology: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't believe that, there is no answer any mormon can give you which will satisfy you, StephenVH. You may just need to sit there and be unsatisfied with our answers, and think we don't have good answers, and believe the weight of the evidence is against the BoM, and other such thoughts. Are you ok with walking around like that? I'm ok with you walking around like that.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Jason_J]

We also need to remember that prophets and apostles, like everyone, are entitled to their views and opinions, and are not always speaking under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in their official capacities. Further, there is no recorded, canonized revelation from any latter day prophets that state where exactly Cumorah is. Many Latter-day Saint scholars have written numerous books and articles demonstrating that archaeologically, Mesoamerica is a stunning hit for the location of the events of most of the Book of Mormon (in addition to the research documenting Lehi's travels in the Middle East and their journey to the Americas). It really is very compelling, and perhaps you should take some time to read some of that scholarship, if you really are interested. Surprising how this happens, especially when Joseph and/or his associates just made it all up.

[SteveVH]

Just out of curiosity, do you keep abreast of current advances in mesoamerican archaeology? It seems that not a year goes by, where there's not a new massive city complex discovery. Central and South America is a fascinating place, with new stuff happening all the time.

Except that, per my quotations, the location of Hill Cumorah is in New York, not central or South America.

"The Church has long maintained, as attested to be references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon." (F. Michael Watson - First Presidency Secretary, Letter dated October 16, 1990)

Here is a truth in the field of archaology: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't believe that, there is no answer any mormon can give you which will satisfy you, StephenVH. You may just need to sit there and be unsatisfied with our answers, and think we don't have good answers, and believe the weight of the evidence is against the BoM, and other such thoughts. Are you ok with walking around like that? I'm ok with you walking around like that.

Yeah, I'm fine walking around like that and if this is the extent of the answers to the question then you are correct; I would be very unsatisfied with your answers. As far as the weight of evidence being against the BoM, that would be an understatement. To date, there is zero evidence in favor. Which begs the question: Do you not trust the words of your founding prophet, as well as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others who state in no uncertain terms that the great battle took place in the " western part of the state of New York near Palmyra" enough to actually verify this claim?

I don't think the question I asked "Why doesn't the LDS Church excavate Cumorah" is an unreasonable question. I can't think of any important Christian religious site that has not been excavated. This is usually what people do when they are seeking truth and are willing to accept whatever that truth may be, without worrying about the consequences of coming up empty.

[SteveVH]

We also need to remember that prophets and apostles, like everyone, are entitled to their views and opinions, and are not always speaking under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in their official capacities. Further, there is no recorded, canonized revelation from any latter day prophets that state where exactly Cumorah is. Many Latter-day Saint scholars have written numerous books and articles demonstrating that archaeologically, Mesoamerica is a stunning hit for the location of the events of most of the Book of Mormon (in addition to the research documenting Lehi's travels in the Middle East and their journey to the Americas). It really is very compelling, and perhaps you should take some time to read some of that scholarship, if you really are interested. Surprising how this happens, especially when Joseph and/or his associates just made it all up.

With all due respect, this is the answer I always get when ever a contradiction arises. "Well, he wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that."

I will answer your question with the words from Joseph Fielding Smith, once again:

"Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history..." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Mormon prophet Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.232-43.)

And I don't understand why everyone keeps going back to South America. If the Church leaders I quoted above had said that the battle took place in an unknown area of South America which is yet undiscovered we would not be having this conversation.

[Jason_J]

With all due respect, this is the answer I always get when ever a contradiction arises. "Well, he wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that."

With all due respect, perhaps it is because you don't understand LDS theology, or how we understand our own leaders and teachings.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that prophets cannot make mistakes. They are human, as we all are. In the Church of Jesus Christ, we are all called to be prophets, receiving divine revelation and guidance from the Lord for our lives and those we take care of. In our church callings, we receive revelation to guide those under our stewardship. Similarly, the apostles that lead our Church receive revelation to guide it. In all cases, it is understood that we are not always receiving such revelation, and we can certainly give our opinions and uninspired thoughts on matters. This goes back to the very beginnings of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, where Joseph Smith himself stated "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such". Other LDS leaders throughout the ages have said the same thing. Further, there is no Biblical precedent for saying that prophets are not allowed to share their own opinions and thoughts on matters, or that they must be thought to be inspired by God always.

Indeed, one Biblical commentator has said this, which aligns nicely with the concept you seem to reject:

"Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries-James R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv.

See this- Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible - FAIRMormon for more information, especially some interesting comparisons between Biblical prophets and Latter Day prophets, showing that the "giving his opinion" statement is not an argument of convenience or lack of answer, but a completely valid and scriptural one, including how we understand our own leaders.

I will answer your question with the words from Joseph Fielding Smith, once again:

"Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history..." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Mormon prophet Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.232-43.)

Perhaps you should read this quote again, it isn't saying what you want it to say. We completely agree that the hill where Joseph obtained the gold plates is the same hill that Moroni hid the records in.

And I don't understand why everyone keeps going back to South America. If the Church leaders I quoted above had said that the battle took place in an unknown area of South America which is yet undiscovered we would not be having this conversation.

We aren't going back to South America. We're talking about Mesoamerica.

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ash-Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place.pdf

2012 Reading Mormon’s Codex « FAIR

Again, numerous hits and associations here, especially for a book allegedly invented by Joseph and/or his associates.

Again, prophets and apostles, like everyone, are entitled to their opinions and viewpoints. Please cite a canonized revelation from our prophets and apostles stating that the Book of Mormon took place in upstate New York.

[livy111us]

Yet even our leaders are not unanimous on the location of Cumorah. They readily admit that there is still uncertainty of its location and we just do not know exactly where it is at.

Harold B. Lee said “Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?” Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172–173

“the hill from which the Book of Mormon plates were obtained by Joseph Smith is definitely known. In the days of the Prophet this hill was known among the people as Cumorah. This is a fixed point in Book of Mormon later history. There is a controversy, however, about the Hill Cumorah—not about the location where the Book of Mormon plates were found, but whether it is the hill under that name near which Nephite events took place. A name says one, may be applied to more than one hill; and plates containing the records of a people, sacred things, could be moved from place to place by divine help.” John A. Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547; reprinted in John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 3:94.

Sidney B. Sperry, after whom an annual Brigham Young University symposium is named, was also one who initially supported the New York Cumorah view (that is, an area of New York as the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites). During the 1960s, as he began to explore the issue, he came to a different conclusion... Reversing his earlier position, he wrote: "It is now my very carefully studied and considered opinion that the Hill Cumorah to which Mormon and his people gathered was somewhere in Middle America. The Book of Mormon evidence to this effect is irresistible and conclusive to one who will approach it with an open mind. This evidence has been reviewed by a few generations of bright students in graduate classes who have been given the challenge to break it down if they can. To date none has ever been able to do so."  Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it." 

This excerpt comes from: Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography - Matthew Roper - FARMS Review - Volume 22 - Issue 2

Chris Heimerdinger - Searching for Cumorah-All Over Again | Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum

http://www.bmaf.org/node/277

Point is, it is hard for you to pin lack of archaeological evidence at a BOM site, when we don't know where this same BOM site is. You are only setting up a straw man to knock down.

[NeuroTypical]

To date, there is zero evidence in favor.

It would be more correct to say there is zero conclusive evidence.

There is much evidence which supports BoM accounts, just none of it is conclusive.

[Martain]

We know that there remains a great repository of other Nephite/Jaradite records that remain to come forward when the Lord sees fit to do so. Such are sacred and are hidden up to the Lord.

I believe God does not want conclusive archeological evidence regarding the Book of Mormon to come forth to the world for then none would need walk by faith unto knowledge. Seeing as he can hide anything he wants behind a veil that our senses can not penetrate, why would we expect our technology to succeed contrary to his will.

The Lord will bring forth the remaining records when he sees fit to do so but until then no amount of technology or searching by mankind will be able to find out something the Lord does not yet want to be found. We know this and so do not entertain any intent to search the hill in the manner you recommend.

So as to answer your question, no such work is done because no conclusive evidence would come forward from doing so.

[rameumptom]

Most LDS scholars do not believe the Hill Cumorah in New York is the location of the last battle of the Nephites, nor the location where Mormon hid all the vast records of his people. This is believed to be in Central America.

Instead, we tend to believe that Moroni wandered for decades after the final battle, ended up in upper state New York and buried the gold plates there. Early stories tell of the stone box holding the plates being washed away or taken by others. So there really won't be anything to see there.

[SteveVH]

We know that there remains a great repository of other Nephite/Jaradite records that remain to come forward when the Lord sees fit to do so.

You know no such thing. You may believe it, but you do not know it.

I believe God does not want conclusive archeological evidence regarding the Book of Mormon to come forth to the world for then none would need walk by faith unto knowledge. Seeing as he can hide anything he wants behind a veil that our senses can not penetrate, why would we expect our technology to succeed contrary to his will.

This is just contrary to the example Jesus left us. He did not say: "If I wanted, I could heal this man and have him take up his mat and walk. But I won't because I want you to have faith instead". He knew that his miracles would bring faith, not destroy it. Even when Jesus appeared in the upper room, he did not tell Thomas "I would let you put your fingers into the wound in my side but instead I want you to have faith". Yes, he commends those who believe without seeing, but he does not withhold the knowledge that it is really him.

But here is the deal. When I study my Church, its history and its doctrines and beliefs, that knowledge helps build my faith, not tear it down or lessen it in any way. The more I study, the greater my faith. When I go to Capernaum and visit Peter's house; when I go to the hill in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and visit the tomb where he was buried; when I go and swim in the Sea of Galilee; all of these things help make me realize that my faith is based upon real events in history; real people; real places. Does this mean that I can now live my life without faith? Of course not. Everyone has the same opportunity to study history, to go to these places, to study these people. There are many who still choose not to believe.

So as to answer your question, no such work is done because no conclusive evidence would come forward from doing so.

Are you telling me that if Hill Cumorah was excavated and they found remnants of metal swords, breast plates, chariots and skeletal remains of millions that this would not help build the faith of Mormons and influence the entire world as to the credibility of Joseph Smith and the BoM? If this is not the case, then why are there Mormon archeologists still looking for evidence elsewhere? Using your logic, there should be no Mormon archeologists working to find evidence because they would be removing the opportunity to have faith instead of knowledge.

I would bet every paycheck for the rest of my life that if Mormon archeologists found anything that supports the BoM that it would be published before you could blink. The reason Cumorah is not excavated is because the consequences of finding nothing would be too much to bear.

Edited July 1, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Yet even our leaders are not unanimous on the location of Cumorah. They readily admit that there is still uncertainty of its location and we just do not know exactly where it is at.

That is a very recent position. Everyone seemed to know where it was at least up to 1990 and it was in New York. Have you not read the quotes I have posted? here is some more:

"It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

"It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)

Point is, it is hard for you to pin lack of archaeological evidence at a BOM site, when we don't know where this same BOM site is. You are only setting up a straw man to knock down.

I have not set up any straw man. I am merely showing you the words of your founding prophet and succeeding prophets and leaders. They seemed more than a little certain that it was located in New York. Do Mormon scholars trump the words of Mormon prophets?. As shown above, "the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

[Jason_J]

This is just contrary to the example Jesus left us. He did not say: "If I wanted, I could heal this man and have him take up his mat and walk. But I won't because I want you to have faith instead". He knew that his miracles would bring faith, not destroy it. Even when Jesus appeared in the upper room, he did not tell Thomas "I would let you put your fingers into the wound in my side but instead I want you to have faith". Yes, he commends those who believe without seeing, but he does not withhold the knowledge that it is really him.

But here is the deal. When I study my Church, its history and its doctrines and beliefs, that knowledge helps build my faith, not tear it down or lessen it in any way. The more I study, the greater my faith. When I go to Capernaum and visit Peter's house; when I go to the hill in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and visit the tomb where he was buried; when I go and swim in the Sea of Galilee; all of these things help make me realize that my faith is based upon real events in history; real people; real places. Does this mean that I can now live my life without faith? Of course not. Everyone has the same opportunity to study history, to go to these places, to study these people. There are many who still choose not to believe.

And here is the deal. When I study my Church, its history and its doctrines and beliefs, that knowledge helps build my faith, not tear it down or lessen it in any way. The more I study, the greater my faith. I, as a member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, can do all of the things you said above, and all of that applies to me, and ever other Latter-day Saint.

I, and many other members of the restored Church, have studied much material, written by both Latter-day Saints, and non-LDS, that support our beliefs and practices. This isn't just related to the Book of Mormon, but also many of our restored beliefs. As time passes, with advancing science and technology, the more evidences mount supporting the Book of Mormon, other Restoration scriptures, and Restoration beliefs. I personally am excited for a book to be released later this year by Latter-day Saint scholar Dr. John L. Sorenson (PhD in Anthropology) giving an extremely lengthy and detailed treatise on the relationship between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon. I rather enjoy this very brief summary he provides (posted in this thread at MDDB ):

My forthcoming book, Mormon’s Codex (in prolonged editing at Maxwell Institute; I hope it will appear in print shortly after the first of the year), will be my ultimate contribution to presenting and establishing truth in relation to the scripture. It will establish that nearly 400 “correspondences” are found between Mormon’s volume and the scholarly literature on Mesoamerica (based on a 133-page bibliography). The book will be bulky, of course (hence the lengthy editorial process). It will represent (almost) all the truth I have been able to establish in my scholarly effort. I believe it will establish beyond reasonable question to both Latter-day Saints and non-LDS scholars as well that Joseph Smith had in his possession, and translated, a Mesoamerican codex written by Mormon in the late fourth century AD. I do not directly comment much on alternative “theories” of how the text of the scripture came to be; I simply, straightforwardly lay out what the text tells me: Joseph had a codex written on metal plates. There is no other explanation for the “Mesoamericanisms” found in the scripture.

Also see the Summary Conclusion of the book, posted in the thread:

Mormons Codex - General Discussions - Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board - Page 8

Oh and of course there's his previous short book on the matter, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

Very interesting, for a book Joseph and/or his companions just made up.

Are you telling me that if Hill Cumorah was excavated and they found remnants of metal swords, breast plates, chariots and skeletal remains of millions that this would not help build the faith of Mormons and influence the entire world as to the credibility of Joseph Smith and the BoM? If this is not the case, then why are there Mormon archeologists still looking for evidence elsewhere? Using your logic, there should be no Mormon archeologists working to find evidence because they would be removing the opportunity to have faith instead of knowledge.

I would bet every paycheck for the rest of my life that if Mormon archeologists found anything that supports the BoM that it would be published before you could blink. The reason Cumorah is not excavated is because the consequences of finding nothing would be too much to bear.

No, the reason Cumorah is not excavated is because those same scholars you are referring to don't believe that that is the Cumorah where the remains and artifacts would be found. Yes, it is the Cumorah where Moroni buried the gold plates, and where Joseph found them, but it is not the Cumorah that Latter-day Saint scholars are looking for, because those Latter-day Saint scholars believe that the American portion of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. But then, more than one person has said that already.

Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon « FAIR

Book of Mormon Evidences, Part One: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

Book of Mormon Evidence, Part Two: Chiasmus, Olives, Volcanoes, Ancient Names Like Alma, and More

Book of Mormon Evidence, Part 3

The Arabian Bountiful Discovered? Evidence for Nephi's Bountiful - Warren P. Aston - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 7 - Issue 1

Joseph's Prophecy of Moses and Aaron - John A. Tvedtnes - Insights - Volume 21 - Issue 1

Lehi in the Desert

Meridian - Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica - Meridian Magazine - LDS, Mormon and Latter-day Saint News and Views

Daniel C. Peterson: "Evidences of the Book of Mormon"

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

And that's just an extremely small taste. This is why your argument unfortunately does not hold much weight with those Latter-day Saints that have studied both sides of the matter, including the works of Latter-day Saint scholars on the matter (and is an argument we've heard for years, which demonstrates a lack of actual engagement with scholarly material from our side of the matter). So, while we certainly exercise our faith in God our Eternal Father, praying to Him in the name of Jesus Christ for guidance and answers to our questions, and we believe that God can and does answer our prayers, and that we can receive that answer through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost (just like we read in the Bible), we don't just turn our brains off, and we use reason too, and there are many Church sponsored and unaffiliated organizations and people that engage in scholarly work in support of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Restoration.

[LittleWyvern]

I would bet every paycheck for the rest of my life that if Mormon archeologists found anything that supports the BoM that it would be published before you could blink. The reason Cumorah is not excavated is because the consequences of finding nothing would be too much to bear.

Which would make sense if Mormons based their entire faith on the hill Cumorah. We don't, that's ridiculous. Archaeology isn't doctrine.

[Anddenex]

The reason Cumorah is not excavated is because the consequences of finding nothing would be too much to bear.

An excellent example of an assumption stated as an absolute.

[SteveVH]

With all due respect, perhaps it is because you don't understand LDS theology, or how we understand our own leaders and teachings.

Fair enough. But I understand more than you think I do.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that prophets cannot make mistakes. They are human, as we all are.

I can only relate this to my own experience. If our Pope, while having breakfast with a friend and not saying anything in his official capacity, was to utter a word that conflicted with Catholic doctrine or belief, he would be held to that statement. He cannot speak truth at one moment and then contradict that truth and be let off the hook because he was not speaking in his official capacity at that moment. He is responsible for every word that he utters, regarding faith and morals (which includes doctrines and beliefs).

In the Church of Jesus Christ, we are all called to be prophets, receiving divine revelation and guidance from the Lord for our lives and those we take care of. In our church callings, we receive revelation to guide those under our stewardship. Similarly, the apostles that lead our Church receive revelation to guide it. In all cases, it is understood that we are not always receiving such revelation, and we can certainly give our opinions and uninspired thoughts on matters. This goes back to the very beginnings of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, where Joseph Smith himself stated "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such". Other LDS leaders throughout the ages have said the same thing.

I am trying to imagine a true prophet of God at one moment giving revelation and the next just his opinion. A true prophet would never give his personal opinion just on the chance that it might be incorrect and mislead the people of God. That is the position our Church takes concerning infallibility. Infallibility doesn't mean our Pope and Magisterium know everything. It means that they are protected from bringing error into the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. They would never make a comment, official or unofficial, that would conflict with the truth we have received.

Further, there is no Biblical precedent for saying that prophets are not allowed to share their own opinions and thoughts on matters, or that they must be thought to be inspired by God always.

Why in the world would a prophet's own opinion ever conflict with revelation he has received from God? Think about it. "I received this revelation from God but in my opinion..." this doesn't make sense in the least. A prophet's opinion should be formed and shaped by the revelation he has received and should never conflict.

Indeed, one Biblical commentator has said this, which aligns nicely with the concept you seem to reject:

"Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries-James R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv.

I reject nothing contained in this quote. What it is saying is that God does not make men into dictating machines, but uses their own personalities and experiences in conveying a revealed truth. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit and convey the truth revealed to them in their own way. This is the Catholic position.

What is not the Catholic position is that a prophet will give us a revealed truth from God one moment, and then give a conflicting position based upon his own opinion the next. I don't have to read through the Bible and try to discern Paul's personal opinion from what has been revealed by God.

Perhaps you should read this quote again, it isn't saying what you want it to say. We completely agree that the hill where Joseph obtained the gold plates is the same hill that Moroni hid the records in.

Joseph Smith taught that Moroni, being the last Nephite, buried his treasure where the last battle took place. He also taught that Moroni's spirit guarded the treasure, allowing only Jospeph Smith to access it. The entire idea that the site was located anywhere else is completely outside of what Joseph Smith taught.

Again, prophets and apostles, like everyone, are entitled to their opinions and viewpoints.

Yes, they are entitled to their own opinions on who might win the football game this weekend. They are not entitled to their own opinions when it comes to matters of faith. If they are, then you get what you asked for; the opinions of men.

Please cite a canonized revelation from our prophets and apostles stating that the Book of Mormon took place in upstate New York.

Well, that is a very difficult thing to do. It was a revealed truth from God that men should have more than one wife. Then it was a revealed truth from God that men should not have more than one wife. It was a revealed truth that blacks could not enter the Mormon priesthood. Then it was a revealed truth that they should be included. In the LDS Church one cannot know that what is revealed truth today will still be revealed truth tomorrow. So please tell me, what is "canonized scripture" when it comes to Mormon doctrine? Will it still be canonized scripture tomorrow?

Edited July 1, 2013 by StephenVH