The Hill Cumorah

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

If we're adopting the Meso-American model for the bulk of the Book of Mormon events, it makes a whole lot more sense for Moroni to travel several thousand miles alone than it does for two entire civilizations to relocate themselves four thousand miles for a single, winner-take-all battle.

It just continually fascinates me how you this incredible ability to lay out all of the evidence supporting conclusion A, but always adopt conclusion B instead.

That is one of the reasons that the Meso model does not work for me. The Heartland model seems to be the best one we have at this time. Especially when we look at the timeline of the Hopewell culture. The appeared and disappeared around the same time as the Lehites.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

If there is only one Cumorah, where would the narrow neck of land be where there is a sea on the east and west?  The only place I can think of is Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.

In Rob's defence though, none of the Book of Mormon Mesoamerican models fit either.   The geography in the Book of Mormon actually makes little sense no matter which model you use.

The landscape was much different in North America 2,000 years ago.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Emmanuel Goldstein

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

No, it is not "most probable." It is merely plausible.  But even that has some weird things to consider.  For instance, if the hill has this massive repository of records, why build a new box? Moroni writes in Moroni 1 that "they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ" and "wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life." These statements are not sufficiently descriptive enough to determine if he is wandering near the same place to keep access to the records, or if he has wandered far way to keep his distance and safety. Both hypotheses are plausible, and you can't put any kind of reliable probability on either of them.

And sure, the plates are heavy.  But the battle at Cumorah happened in 385 AD, and Moroni buried the plates THIRTY-FREAKING SIX years later!  In order to travel the 4,436 miles between the Panama Canal and Palmyra, you'd have to only cover an average of 0.4 miles per day.  I can cover about 8 - 10 miles per day carrying 50 pounds. With a pack animal, it isn't hard to cover that much with a much heavier load. 

So yeah, the two Cumorah theory is entirely plausible given the distances and time frames involved.

Also "If I were Moroni" is not a valid defense or argument.  You are demonstrably not Moroni, and so your thoughts and motivations are irrelevant.  What's relevant is the thoughts and processes of Moroni?  How did he evaluate the risk given his skills and ability.

The two Hill Cumorah theory has only been postulated because....ironically...some Mormon scholars do not believe Joseph Smith on the matter (which, if you think about it, is ironic) who said the civilization covered the whole of the land.

If, Joseph Smith was right...then no matter where Moroni ran he'd run into various enemies (which, from what we know how the tribes lived and fought when the Europeans arrived would not be all that surprising).  We'd also believe that the Book of Mormon is true.

If we disbelieve Joseph Smith...why are we even having a discussion because one would probably also not believe is story of the first Vision, the translation of the plates, that he was a prophet, or of the Book of Mormon itself.

The small Yucatan Peninsula theory that many toss about in Central America as being the idea of the entirety of Nephite Civilization sometimes seems ironic to me in the fastidiousness that people adhere to it.

Even if we do not accept the ENTIRE continental theorem and say Joseph was merely expressing an opinion of where he thought they lived rather than speaking as a prophet, that theory really holds VERY LITTLE water.  He used the ruins as evidence that the civilizations actually existed, but not that these were the ONLY places where they existed, and in fact stated the exact opposite.  If one was an opinion, was the other as well?  In fact, most of the evidence points that there is very little correlation to two great civilizations living there in the manner expressed in the Book of Mormon.

It was postulated by someone who really just leaped at a conclusion rather than any real evidence.  People built off of that postulation until they have closed off any other avenue in some respects for alternate ideas.

My own ideas is that Joseph was correct and that modern scholars discount what Alma stated as a unit of measure.  When he stated how far a man could go in a day, they base it off of a modern individual who does not travel for a full day, but a partial day of less than 10 hours.  Just me, in my state, if given a path, could travel around 70-75 miles in a day.  In my youth it would have been more around the length of 100 miles...and that is merely at a brusque pace.  Of course, that is also me on my own (without wagons, children, wives...etc).  A fit runner or someone actually doing it for distance (say, someone from Kenya) could easily probably go far above that in a 24 hour period (anywhere from 145 - 200 miles perhaps).

There are many various ideas that could be discussed in this.  There are other areas where one can find narrow necks of land if one is going for a limited Geography model and are discounting Joseph's statements as being more of his opinion than revelation.  Yucatan does not really have a narrow neck (what they call a narrow neck is like saying Florida has a narrow neck of land in it...rather laughable when looking at it), and many of the thoughts on the ruins have been shown to be inaccurate in recent years. 

The honest individual would obviously say that we have NO IDEA where the Book of Mormon actually occurred as we have not really found any hard evidence of the Book of Mormon people's throughout the decades thus far. 

The thread, obviously, is not about that.  However, the strongest evidence I have of there not being two Hill Cumorah's in my mind is the simple thing that Moroni doesn't seem to indicate in the text that there are two different Hill Cumorah's.  He does not seem to say that this is one hill and this is another hill, or that he went to another hill and named it Cumorah as well.

Obviously, it could simply be a naming coincidence that occurred in his or Joseph's time, it could be that Cumorah stands for something relavant to the plates being stored there and thus any location with plates would be referred to as such or many other ideas or conclusions.  In the end, we do not know.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The two Hill Cumorah theory has only been postulated because....ironically...some Mormon scholars do not believe Joseph Smith on the matter (which, if you think about it, is ironic) who said the civilization covered the whole of the land.

If, Joseph Smith was right...then no matter where Moroni ran he'd run into various enemies (which, from what we know how the tribes lived and fought when the Europeans arrived would not be all that surprising).  We'd also believe that the Book of Mormon is true.

If we disbelieve Joseph Smith...why are we even having a discussion because one would probably also not believe is story of the first Vision, the translation of the plates, that he was a prophet, or of the Book of Mormon itself.

The small Yucatan Peninsula theory that many toss about in Central America as being the idea of the entirety of Nephite Civilization sometimes seems ironic to me in the fastidiousness that people adhere to it.

Even if we do not accept the ENTIRE continental theorem and say Joseph was merely expressing an opinion of where he thought they lived rather than speaking as a prophet, that theory really holds VERY LITTLE water.  He used the ruins as evidence that the civilizations actually existed, but not that these were the ONLY places where they existed, and in fact stated the exact opposite.  If one was an opinion, was the other as well?  In fact, most of the evidence points that there is very little correlation to two great civilizations living there in the manner expressed in the Book of Mormon.

It was postulated by someone who really just leaped at a conclusion rather than any real evidence.  People built off of that postulation until they have closed off any other avenue in some respects for alternate ideas.

My own ideas is that Joseph was correct and that modern scholars discount what Alma stated as a unit of measure.  When he stated how far a man could go in a day, they base it off of a modern individual who does not travel for a full day, but a partial day of less than 10 hours.  Just me, in my state, if given a path, could travel around 70-75 miles in a day.  In my youth it would have been more around the length of 100 miles...and that is merely at a brusque pace.  Of course, that is also me on my own (without wagons, children, wives...etc).  A fit runner or someone actually doing it for distance (say, someone from Kenya) could easily probably go far above that in a 24 hour period (anywhere from 145 - 200 miles perhaps).

There are many various ideas that could be discussed in this.  There are other areas where one can find narrow necks of land if one is going for a limited Geography model and are discounting Joseph's statements as being more of his opinion than revelation.  Yucatan does not really have a narrow neck (what they call a narrow neck is like saying Florida has a narrow neck of land in it...rather laughable when looking at it), and many of the thoughts on the ruins have been shown to be inaccurate in recent years. 

The honest individual would obviously say that we have NO IDEA where the Book of Mormon actually occurred as we have not really found any hard evidence of the Book of Mormon people's throughout the decades thus far. 

The thread, obviously, is not about that.  However, the strongest evidence I have of there not being two Hill Cumorah's in my mind is the simple thing that Moroni doesn't seem to indicate in the text that there are two different Hill Cumorah's.  He does not seem to say that this is one hill and this is another hill, or that he went to another hill and named it Cumorah as well.

Obviously, it could simply be a naming coincidence that occurred in his or Joseph's time, it could be that Cumorah stands for something relavant to the plates being stored there and thus any location with plates would be referred to as such or many other ideas or conclusions.  In the end, we do not know.

I think it's sad that the only real reason people want to discount the hill in New York is because it's so far away from Mexico. And yet, ironically, distance isn't a problem for them on the other hand transporting the plates. There was enough evidence of antiquity in Western New York that the Smithsonian was started and official inquiry was made, book written, to attempt to explain all of the ancient remains of fortifications and bones and remains of ancient warfare in Western New York.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Unless, of course, he took the Jaredite plates with him. If these were of similar construction as the plates, adding them wouldn't be that much more of a burden, and we do know he took other things with him as well.

This is actually one of the weaker points of Two Cumorah theory.  If he took the Jaredite plates with him, why weren't they buried with the gold plates?  There are a few plausible explanations, including he discarded them after completing the abridgment, or they are part of the sealed portion of the plates.  

IIRC, we have pretty clear statements that the sealed portion of the BoM includes a fuller account of the vision of the Brother of Jared; suggesting either that the 24 Jaredite plates were indeed included in that sealed portion or else that the Book of Ether is actually an abridgement of an abridgement.

I actually agree with Rob that the presence of the repository in New York State does seem to suggest significant Nephite activity in the area at some point prior to the final battle.  I can’t ridicule Rob’s suggestion that Mormon would rationally plan to move an entire nation four thousand miles to fight a losing battle, and then suggest as an alternative that Moroni would have rationally undertaken to single-handedly move many wagonloads of gold plates across four thousand miles of unknown or hostile terrain. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The landscape was much different in North America 2,000 years ago.

What about the climate back then?

From what I understand, the heartland region was much cooler back in that day, being in the process of coming out of an earlier ice age several thousand years before, where the glaciers were up to two miles thick. Perhaps the area in question was still under some glacial snow?

At the very least, from 600 BC to 400 AD, winters in that region  must have been  colder and more snowy than it is today, making it less likely, assuming a Heartland model,  that the laminates would be running around in near naked attire as depicted in the  OP picture.

With this in mind, factor in the Jaredites who came to the Americas  about 200 years before Lehi. Burrr!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest Scott]

4 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The landscape was much different in North America 2,000 years ago.

No, it was not.  The vegetation was different (due to modern settlement and deforestation), but 2000 years ago thiuie topography was almost exactly the same in that region, minus the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers shifting slightly due to alluvial deposits, and some marsh lands that have drained.

When it comes to matching what is in the Book of Mormon; I hate to say it, but the map above is nothing but a pile of curelom and cumom doo doo.  

First of all, Zarahemla (according to the Bookof Mormon) is located near mountains of exceeding height.  Having been there, I can say that Nauvoo is close to as far as you can get from the mountains in North America.  It isn't even remotely close to anywhere that resembles a mountain, let alone one of exceeding height.

Also, the Book of Mormon indicates that the Zarahemla is located to the north of the Land of Nephi and both the Lands of Zarahemla and Nephi are near and East and West Sea.

Also the Book of Mormon mentions a group of people that headed south along the sea and in boats.  If the map above is correct they would have went over Niagra Falls.  I guess that could explain why they weren't seen again, but it seems that a people would have to be extra foolish not to notice Niagra Falls.

Further, the Book of Mormon says that the Land of Desolation has few trees.  The area marked on the map is very heavily forested and was even more so in Book of Mormon times.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Scott

[SilentOne]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, the strongest evidence I have of there not being two Hill Cumorah's in my mind is the simple thing that Moroni doesn't seem to indicate in the text that there are two different Hill Cumorah's.  He does not seem to say that this is one hill and this is another hill, or that he went to another hill and named it Cumorah as well.

Obviously, it could simply be a naming coincidence that occurred in his or Joseph's time, it could be that Cumorah stands for something relavant to the plates being stored there and thus any location with plates would be referred to as such or many other ideas or conclusions.  In the end, we do not know.

I've been under the impression we call the New York hill Cumorah because people assumed the plates were buried in the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon, so they started calling the New York hill by that name, and it stuck. Whether that was a correct assumption or not, I don't know and don't actually care much.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

47 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

I've been under the impression we call the New York hill Cumorah because people assumed the plates were buried in the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon, so they started calling the New York hill by that name, and it stuck. Whether that was a correct assumption or not, I don't know and don't actually care much.

Nope, we call it that because that is what Joseph, Moroni, Oliver and apparently at least on of the Three Disciples called it that.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 4:22 PM, Scott said:

No, it was not.  The vegetation was different (due to modern settlement and deforestation), but 2000 years ago thiuie topography was almost exactly the same in that region, minus the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers shifting slightly due to alluvial deposits, and some marsh lands that have drained.

When it comes to matching what is in the Book of Mormon; I hate to say it, but the map above is nothing but a pile of curelom and cumom doo doo.  

First of all, Zarahemla (according to the Bookof Mormon) is located near mountains of exceeding height.  Having been there, I can say that Nauvoo is close to as far as you can get from the mountains in North America.  It isn't even remotely close to anywhere that resembles a mountain, let alone one of exceeding height.

Also, the Book of Mormon indicates that the Zarahemla is located to the north of the Land of Nephi and both the Lands of Zarahemla and Nephi are near and East and West Sea.

Also the Book of Mormon mentions a group of people that headed south along the sea and in boats.  If the map above is correct they would have went over Niagra Falls.  I guess that could explain why they weren't seen again, but it seems that a people would have to be extra foolish not to notice Niagra Falls.

Further, the Book of Mormon says that the Land of Desolation has few trees.  The area marked on the map is very heavily forested and was even more so in Book of Mormon times.

I think the reason people labeled it as Zarahemla is that there is a story that Joseph Smith once told people that where Nauvoo was, is the original spot where Zarahemla was as well.

That's how the story goes at least.

If true, then that would be one where we have to figure out exactly what he meant by that.

One should also recall that at the time of the Lord's death there were great upheavals throughout the land where mountains were torn down and waters came up to cover the land, as well as places where the land was covered up and entire cities buried.  It is possible that the landscape was completely different between than and now.

Of course, the complication is that modern science has not found indications that such a great change in the land occurred.  It's where science and religion in this way do not seem to intersect in the way some may think it should, at least presently (who knows, it may be that they are exactly unified in the future when we have more knowledge or a perfect knowledge).

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think the reason people labeled it as Zarahemla is that there is a story that Joseph Smith once told people that where Nauvoo was, is the original spot where Zarahemla was as well.

That's how the story goes at least.

Which story?  Do you have a source for this?  I mean a real source rather than just something some random guy said on the internet more than a century and a half later.

In D&C 125:1-4, the Saints were commanded to build a town in that area called Zarehemla, but I can't find any source where Joseph said that it was in the same location as the original Zarahemla.

Also if Joseph really did say that, then why did the church itself, at great cost, send several missionaries working as archeologists to look for the city of Zarahemla in Colombia and what is now Panama?  This was in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, the complication is that modern science has not found indications that such a great change in the land occurred.  It's where science and religion in this way do not seem to intersect in the way some may think it should, at least presently (who knows, it may be that they are exactly unified in the future when we have more knowledge or a perfect knowledge)

What has always bothered me is that the very intersection of science and religion are at odds and yet too often I see BoM scholars, who believe in the account discount evidence based on what science has to say. I hold no real value in scientific inquiry regarding archaeology, etc. 

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Which story?  Do you have a source for this?  I mean a real source rather than just something some random guy said on the internet more than a century and a half later.

In D&C 125:1-4, the Saints were commanded to build a town in that area called Zarehemla, but I can't find any source where Joseph said that it was in the same location as the original Zarahemla.

Also if Joseph really did say that, then why did the church itself, at great cost, send several missionaries working as archeologists to look for the city of Zarahemla in Colombia and what is now Panama?  This was in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

As I said, it's a story that I've heard a couple times now.  Don't have a source directly found on the internet currently, so it's a little tougher to write them down (especially when I'm just waking up).

Why the church sent archaologist to Central America beats me.  It was basically some guys wild gameshot in the dark that was investigated and has grown in popularity over the decades until you have those who are so hardcore about it today that they can't think anything else could possibly fill the gap of knowledge.  It's kind of crazy if you really look at how it all evolved over the years.  Many a historian (and archeologist) probably scratch their heads at some of the illogical leaps of logic used with it.  It DID spur a lot of research and discovery in those areas which had previously been uninvestigated.

There WERE statements when ruins were found that these WERE direct evidence of the peoples of the Book of Mormon and evidence of the Book of Mormon itself.  Even if they were not looking directly for Zarahemla, sending people down there to look at this in relation to these types of remarks from Prophets and General authorities makes sense to me.

During that time period Joseph stated a LOT of things about a LOT of areas.  One of the only ones that really survive in LDS discussions today is the location he stated was where the Garden of Eden used to be.  Many still believe that this is the correct spot (I am one of them). 

D&C 125 would be seen by many who have heard the story as DIRECTLY relating to the statement Joseph made about that area being the same location as the Land/City of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon.

In many ways, there is an interesting parallel between the idea of Zarahemla and Cumorah.  Where people can say that Joseph Claimed that there was the Hill Cumorah and the Land of Zarahmela, and that this is also in relation to where it was in the Book of Mormon...there are others who felt this is a misunderstanding of Joseph's Claims and that the real areas are ones we still look for.  Thus, they turn to other places (such as the Yucatan Peninsula and Central America) for their understanding instead. 

The narrow neck of land makes more sense for Panama in it's isthmus (around 30 miles or 48 km) than the Yucatan and Isthmus of Tehuantepec (around 190 km or 120/119 miles), but many scholars feel the land around Panama doesn't match the rest of the description of the book of Mormon and that the Yucatan has a better match.  The actual narrow neck is not actually the isthmus itself, but an area located elsewhere which connect a North and South portion of the isthmus off a peninsula there  .Compared to the rest of the Peninsula, it really isn't that much of a narrow neck of land.  In addition, most of those who looked at Panama looked at it with a more general view of a localized area rather than a continental view.  The idea is counterintuitive.  If the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is narrow for a day's travel, then we are talking EXTRAORDINARLY long distances and a continental view of the Book of Mormon should make MORE sense in figuring where things fit rather than a more localized view. 

There are some nonsensical antic twisting some scholars do to try to narrow the gap and distance in a really mind twisting interpretation of scripture to cut it down to 3-40 miles...but in it you really have to stretch your imagination about what is east, what is west, and what is actually stated.  Sort of like when someone tells you that we had better hygiene during the middle ages and people lived longer than now type of mental gymnastics. 

On the otherhand, and contrasting that, the Panama idea would probably make more sense to look at a localized view with that as the defining distance and the times and distances described in the Book of Mormon don't seem to match geography mentioned.  In this the localized view in regards to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec matches better, but still isn't really a great match up. 

The most we really can say about Book of Mormon Geography if we are being honest is that...we have NO IDEA currently.  Nothing really matches up with what we can see currently in research or on a map.

Edited February 17, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The narrow neck of land makes more sense for Panama in it's isthmus (around 30 miles or 48 km) than the Yucatan and Isthmus of Tehuantepec (around 190 km or 120/119 miles), but many scholars feel the land around Panama doesn't match the rest of the description of the book of Mormon

Panama doesn't match the description because there isn't a sea to the east and west.  The sea/ocean is to the north and south in Panama.

Quote

Nothing really matches up with what we can see currently in research or on a map.

I agree.  All proposed models have serious issues and none match up.

Quote

One should also recall that at the time of the Lord's death there were great upheavals throughout the land where mountains were torn down

The BOM says that large mountains were around Zarahemla AFTER the Lord's death.

Anyway, the closest place I have found that matches Book of Mormon geography is around Ciudad Pierda Colombia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Perdida

There is a narrow neck of land nearby, a sea to the north, southwest (though the BOM says south), west, and east (brackish Lago Maricaibo), there are large mountains nearby, a river, and although Ciudad Pierda is in the forest and mountains the lands to the north are dry and sparsely treed.  It is also known that there was a catastrophic earthquake around Ciudad Pierda is the past.

The dates from archeologists for Cuidad Pierda are only about 200 years different from the Book of Mormon when it comes to Zarahemla.

I used to think that Cuidad Pierda could be Zarahemla, but that was only a guess on my part.  I went to Colombia in 1998 and 1999 and hoped to check it out, but the region was having some problems so we stayed away from that particular area.

That's also a really long way from the Cumorah in New York too.  As mentioned, Ciudad Pierda was only a guess on my part.  It was the only place I could find where the geography is close to matching up.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Panama doesn't match the description because there isn't a sea to the east and west.  The sea/ocean is to the north and south in Panama.

I agree.  All proposed models have serious issues and none match up.

The BOM says that large mountains were around Zarahemla AFTER the Lord's death.

Anyway, the closest place I have found that matches Book of Mormon geography is around Ciudad Pierda Colombia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Perdida

There is a narrow neck of land nearby, a sea to the north, southwest (though the BOM says south), west, and east (brackish Lago Maricaibo), there are large mountains nearby, a river, and although Ciudad Pierda is in the forest and mountains the lands to the north are dry and sparsely treed.  It is also known that there was a catastrophic earthquake around Ciudad Pierda is the past.

The dates from archeologists for Cuidad Pierda are only about 200 years different from the Book of Mormon when it comes to Zarahemla.

I used to think that Cuidad Pierda could be Zarahemla, but that was only a guess on my part.  I went to Colombia in 1998 and 1999 and hoped to check it out, but the region was having some problems so we stayed away from that particular area.

That's also a really long way from the Cumorah in New York too.  As mentioned, Ciudad Pierda was only a guess on my part.  It was the only place I could find where the geography is close to matching up.

I personally see the isthmus of Panama as the only logical narrow neck. The main giveaway for me is that it provided a natural barrier for both the Jaredites and the Nephites. The Jaredites never settled society south of the isthmus and Hagoth built ships to go around or bypass the isthmus. Why? Because it was and is a jungle. Eventually it became passable by foot. One Lamanite army was determined enough that they were going to forge ahead and "cut" their way through with the sword. That to me describes very dense jungle and we see that only in Panama.

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I personally see the isthmus of Panama as the only logical narrow neck. 

So you think the Book of Mormon is wrong then?

The Book of Mormon says at the narrow neck of land the sea is to the east and west.

In Panama the sea is to the north and south, especially in the narrowest parts.

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

So you think the Book of Mormon is wrong then?

The Book of Mormon says at the narrow neck of land the sea is to the east and west.

In Panama the sea is to the north and south, especially in the narrowest parts.

 

Seen from a much broader perspective, the Nephites realized there was an ocean on the west of both the North and South countries and on the east. We use this same designation today. Even without technology the early explorers were aware of this fact also. They didn't differentiate the two oceans as north-south but rather east-west.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

23 minutes ago, Scott said:

So you think the Book of Mormon is wrong then?

The Book of Mormon says at the narrow neck of land the sea is to the east and west.

In Panama the sea is to the north and south, especially in the narrowest parts.

 

Yes, they may have been confused that the sun rises in their north and sets in their south. 😜

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

These are all really just theories, except that the final battle took place in New York and the plates were buried in Cumorah. We have no idea where the rest took place.

[askandanswer]

On 1/23/2019 at 9:25 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I am interested in reading where everyone thinks this took place?

Clearly this battle took place a little to the south of a point slight to its north. 

[SpiritDragon]

On 2/15/2019 at 7:56 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Nope, we call it that because that is what Joseph, Moroni, Oliver and apparently at least on of the Three Disciples called it that.

Can you supply sources that say as much? I believe they exist, I'd just like to see them. I linked earlier to an article discussing the cave in Cumorah and how it had a vast treasury and so on - unfortunately all of the accounts are second hand, it would have been great to have a first hand account of Joseph Smith speaking of the cave inside the Hill Cumorah where the records may have been kept along with the other things. It seems that the sword of Laban and the Gold Plates were there on various occasions before being taken altogether.

[wenglund]

Stephen Smoot of Book of Mormon Central has some interesting points to make on the subject:

 

The points are underscored by a staff member of BoMC:  Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2019 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Stephen Smoot of Book of Mormon Central has some interesting points to make on the subject:

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Watched the video, good stuff. It does make me think that even as we wonder where the events took place, so too are the prophets in the same exact boat. That tells me that until it's locations are revealed or confirmed, their opinions and wonderings are no different than our own and carry about the same weight.

[wenglund]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

. ..their opinions and wonderings are no different than our own and carry about the same weight.

Except that there are differences in credibility and expertise if not authoritative inspiration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Interesting how often they bring up the Times and Seasons article; and they use that to say what Joseph was thinking just because his name was on the paper as editor. Why do they then dismiss the statements he had put into the official history of the church. Such as, the letters of Oliver Cowdery to WW Phelps, that identify Cumorah as the location of the final battles of both the Jaredites and the Nephites. Or, Joseph identifying Missouri as the Land of Manti. Or, the story of Zelph and discovering of his grave in Illinois. 

But, if you bring these up they immediately say “the church is neutral.”

Cumorah is the only location we are sure of, the rest is unknown.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Emmanuel Goldstein