Excavation of Hill Cumorah

[livy111us]

Okay, lets make this very clear. I am not trying in any way to insinuate that the location of the Hill Cumorah is doctrine.

My mistake

To excavate Cumorah would either confirm Joseph Smith's beliefs or not confirm them. Apparently no one believes what was taught about this subject for the greater part of the existence of the LDS Church. I am fine with that.

There are actually plenty of people who do, but they must face scrutiny that is difficult to reconcile with the evidence (as you note).

Yes I understand that modern day Mormons do not believe what Joseph Smith, et al claimed. Everyone has made that very clear and I am happy to accept that answer. It is at least reasonable.

To my knowledge, Joseph Smith never claimed that the last battle was fought on the New York Cumorah. One scholar wrote:

"At what point in modern times this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine. In his account in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith refers to the hill where the plates were buried, but never calls it by any name. In the Doctrine and Covenants the name “Cumorah” only appears one time, in an 1842 epistle written by Joseph Smith: “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!” (D&C 128:20 ). No other uses of “Cumorah” have been found in any other of Joseph Smith’s personal writings. When this name does appear it has been added by later editors or is being quoted from another individual." Reeve, Rex C., Jr., and Richard O. Cowan. “The Hill Called Cumorah.” In Regional Studies in LDS History: New York and Pennsylvania. Edited by Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman Jr., and Susan Easton Black. Provo, Utah: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992, 73–74.

Your letter was written in 1993, not 1990. The letter I have is dated October 16, 1990. Not the same letter, but interesting that they say very different things within a three year time span.

Thanks, I actually meant to cut and paste what you wrote without the "1990." The 1993 letter was a follow up letter meant for clarification on the earlier letter.

[Guest]

Let me assure you, I do not come here with "gotcha" questions and then run back to Catholic Answers and report how I won. No one there even Knows I am here and I do not report back in any manner as to my discussions on this forum. If you doubt that, then please go to Catholic Answers Forum and read my posts. I use SteveVH on that forum.

I did come here because of the topic which was being discussed on CAF and to which few if any Mormons would respond. When that happens I like to go to the horses mouth.

And you know, I suppose that I could just post the question and sit back and read the answers, but that isn't really the purpose of a forum, is it?

Do you go back to any other forum, person, or venue with the answers you get here?

[SteveVH]

So you believe your church is led by prophets? That is a first I've ever heard from a Catholic, nor is it something I was ever taught as a Catholic. In contrast, we Latter-day Saints firmly and loudly proclaim that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is led by prophets, men who receive divine revelation from God to lead His people, men who can also receive further revelation as Christ continues to reveal Himself to us this day.

If you will look a little closer you will see that I qualified my definition of prophet, when used in connection with the Pope, to one who interprets divine truth. In that sense, and in that sense only, is the Pope a prophet. In a general sense we are all "prophets, priests and kings" by virtue of our Baptism. No, we do not believe in continued prophecy. We believe that God has said all he has to say in his Son, Jesus Christ.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

We are no longer in need of prophets for the purpose of receiving further revelation. We are in great need of prophets who can interpret the truth given to us in light of our current time, culture and issues. The fullness of God's truth has already been given to us. We only await his return.

Please cite an actual Catholic document demonstrating the belief that the Pope and the College of Bishops are prophets. If you cannot, then that is merely your opinion, and not an actual official Catholic Church viewpoint.

The Pope and the bishops have a prophetic role in the Church by virtue of their teaching authority. Again, they interpret the divine will of God. That is the first definition of a prophet. Here is a quote from the Catechism concerning the Magisterium's role in interpreting private revelation:

"67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 67)

You will certainly find no reference to a bishop as a prophet in the Mormon sense of the word.

Now, I think it is time to return to the topic.

[SteveVH]

Do you go back to any other forum, person, or venue with the answers you get here?

No. Never. I may relate a general opinion based upon what I have read here but I certainly do not share anyone's posts. The general comment I would probably make concerning this thread is that Mormons basically reject the assertions made by Joseph Smith, et al, as to the location of Hill Cumorah in favor of their modern scholars. So they don't excavate it because they don't believe it is there.

Edit: I do remember one specific post I saw on this forum that I did specifically mention, but then only the subject matter. I didn't even quote it. Someone was defending abortion on the grounds that the aborted baby must have chosen to be aborted in its pre-mortal life, therefore it was okay.

But no names and I didn't even mention this forum.

Edited July 2, 2013 by StephenVH

[Guest]

Is your purpose here to gain enlightenment, or provide it?

[Guest]

I also must mention with my mod hat on that this thread does not belong in the Christian Beliefs forum, whose purpose is to discuss the beliefs of faiths other than those of the LDS church. Therefore it will be moved to its proper forum and subject to the rules of that forum.

[LittleWyvern]

I have never said that it was doctrine and completely understand why it is not. That has never been my point.

Then, the answer to your original question:

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.

...is that doing so wouldn't prove anything and, in my opinion, wouldn't be worth the effort. Now that you understand that any statements of archeology are, at best, educated guesses at best until God sees fit to reveal more information, can you see why excavating Cumorah would accomplish almost nothing (other than ruining a perfectly good hill)? No credibility rests on Cumorah.

[NightSG]

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?

So, you would need the faith to move a mountain...in which case you could probably find much better uses for it.

[NeuroTypical]

StephenVH,

I'd like to let you know that this is not a debate forum. We don't argue and battle with apologetics here. The people who pay for lds.net, want to provide a place for mormons to get their opinions out.

If you want to argue those opinions, or measure their worth, or compare them with yours in friendly discussion or even firm debate, you'll have to do it somewhere else. I can recommend the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.

They have a much more critic-friendly set of site rules than we do. They'll be happy to refer you to what they consider definitive sources, and then defend the relative points and merits with you.

Because here at lds.net, we've got site rule #1:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

[SteveVH]

To my knowledge, Joseph Smith never claimed that the last battle was fought on the New York Cumorah.

I don't really know how to respond to this. If he didn't then why in the world did his associates say that he did. You know, Jesus never wrote down a word. We depend upon the writers of the New Testament, in particular the Gospel writers, to relate a true accounting of what he said and did.

" 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.)

"

Was Joseph Fielding Smith just lying? Is his opinion here worth nothing?

Thanks, I actually meant to cut and paste what you wrote without the "1990." The 1993 letter was a follow up letter meant for clarification on the earlier letter.

I can hardly remember what I wrote last week. It is fascinating that the office of the First Presidency had such astuteness in remembering the subject matter of a letter written three years prior and to have had the concern to follow it up for clarification, especially when it was in answer to a question from Brother Sparks from Oklahoma City. Three years later. Wow!

[NightSG]

You know, Jesus never wrote down a word.

Sure he did; see John 8:6. We don't know what he wrote, or why, but it's pretty clear that he wrote something.

[Jason_J]

If you will look a little closer you will see that I qualified my definition of prophet, when used in connection with the Pope, to one who interprets divine truth. In that sense, and in that sense only, is the Pope a prophet. In a general sense we are all "prophets, priests and kings" by virtue of our Baptism. No, we do not believe in continued prophecy. We believe that God has said all he has to say in his Son, Jesus Christ.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

We are no longer in need of prophets for the purpose of receiving further revelation. We are in great need of prophets who can interpret the truth given to us in light of our current time, culture and issues. The fullness of God's truth has already been given to us. We only await his return.

The Pope and the bishops have a prophetic role in the Church by virtue of their teaching authority. Again, they interpret the divine will of God. That is the first definition of a prophet. Here is a quote from the Catechism concerning the Magisterium's role in interpreting private revelation:

"67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 67)

You will certainly find no reference to a bishop as a prophet in the Mormon sense of the word.

Now, I think it is time to return to the topic.

I made a new thread over in the Christian Beliefs forum to learn more about how Catholics view prophets, prophecy, and revelation :)

http://www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/54443-catholic-church-prophets.html#post758829

[Jason_J]

I don't really know how to respond to this. If he didn't then why in the world did his associates say that he did. You know, Jesus never wrote down a word. We depend upon the writers of the New Testament, in particular the Gospel writers, to relate a true accounting of what he said and did.

" 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.)

"

Was Joseph Fielding Smith just lying? Is his opinion here worth nothing?

You left off the first sentence:

"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."

Yes, as I mentioned before, we agree. The Hill Cumorah where Joseph obtained the plates is the same Cumorah where Moroni hid the records.

[Jason_J]

StephenVH,

I'd like to let you know that this is not a debate forum. We don't argue and battle with apologetics here. The people who pay for lds.net, want to provide a place for mormons to get their opinions out.

If you want to argue those opinions, or measure their worth, or compare them with yours in friendly discussion or even firm debate, you'll have to do it somewhere else. I can recommend the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.

They have a much more critic-friendly set of site rules than we do. They'll be happy to refer you to what they consider definitive sources, and then defend the relative points and merits with you.

Because here at lds.net, we've got site rule #1:

Thanks. And I do believe I've recommended to him that board as one designed for debating and apologetics, as opposed to this one and its stated purpose. Hopefully he will accept the invitation. :)

[SteveVH]

Sure he did; see John 8:6. We don't know what he wrote, or why, but it's pretty clear that he wrote something.

Yeah, you got me there.

[SteveVH]

StephenVH,

I'd like to let you know that this is not a debate forum. We don't argue and battle with apologetics here. The people who pay for lds.net, want to provide a place for mormons to get their opinions out.

If you want to argue those opinions, or measure their worth, or compare them with yours in friendly discussion or even firm debate, you'll have to do it somewhere else. I can recommend the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.

They have a much more critic-friendly set of site rules than we do. They'll be happy to refer you to what they consider definitive sources, and then defend the relative points and merits with you.

Because here at lds.net, we've got site rule #1:

Yes, I see that this thread has been moved to "Church History". I was told if I wanted to express a non-LDS view that I needed to post on "Christian Beliefs Board". That's hard to do when they move your thread.

Very well. See ya'll later. I think I have my answer in more ways than one.

[Jason_J]

Yes, I see that this thread has been moved to "Church History". I was told if I wanted to express a non-LDS view that I needed to post on "Christian Beliefs Board". That's hard to do when they move your thread.

Very well. See ya'll later. I think I have my answer in more ways than one.

I think there's a difference between expressing a non-LDS view (as people do here frequently) and debating/critiquing.

Well they probably moved it because the stated purpose of the Christian Beliefs Board is "General Religious Discussions for Friends of Other Faiths", and as we view the threads there, we see that it's basically for discussion of the beliefs of other Christian faiths. This thread really isn't about Christian Beliefs. Also, as we see on the Terms and Conditions that you agreed to upon registering, "1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere. " Posting about "false prophecies" is certainly derogatory towards the Church.

Also, a mod already responded as to why it was moved-I also must mention with my mod hat on that this thread does not belong in the Christian Beliefs forum, whose purpose is to discuss the beliefs of faiths other than those of the LDS church. Therefore it will be moved to its proper forum and subject to the rules of that forum.

But yes, as I believe I mentioned to you the last time you visited, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board really is the forum you're looking for if you're interested in debating in the way you're used to over at Catholic Answers Forum (plus it's more...active than here). There are a number of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, and other non-LDS that debate over there. This forum isn't really about debating and apologetic arguments, at least to the degree you desire.

General Discussions - Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board

[livy111us]

Was Joseph Fielding Smith just lying? Is his opinion here worth nothing?

No, he was incorrect. He most likely just assumed that Joseph Smith taught it because that was the common belief in that day. He was not perfect and susceptible to making mistakes just like the rest of us. He was wrong on several other items in these books because he only had access to a limited amount of material that we do today.

I can hardly remember what I wrote last week. It is fascinating that the office of the First Presidency had such astuteness in remembering the subject matter of a letter written three years prior and to have had the concern to follow it up for clarification, especially when it was in answer to a question from Brother Sparks from Oklahoma City. Three years later. Wow!

This issue was brought up because some were using the 1990 letter to prove a point. William Hamblin then asked for clarification on the letter and probably provided a copy of it to them for reference. Either way, the second letter was an answer to the first.

[skippy740]

Thread closed.