The Hill Cumorah

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What race of humans was able to continually trot at even 3 miles per hour, 24 hours a day, for days on end?

The strength and abilities of the ancients are far beyond our ken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Young_(athlete)

Having said that, I agree with you. A "day's journey" for a Nephite would not be 70 miles, probably no more than 30 miles at most. Much such speculation is designed to support a particular pet theory, e.g. the Heartland Model. When you look for scripture as a proof-text to validate your theories, whether geographical or spiritual, you are on dangerously thin ice.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't see great distances as a hard thing. In South America they had ancient roads that spread for thousands of miles and they were all controlled by the same empire. Travel for them in ancient times over great distances was a normal thing.

And travel over great distances in 1847 . . . wasn’t?

As I suggest above, it’s easy to trivialize the labor involved in a task when we ourselves have never had to do it.  

What is the strategic reason for traveling (and compelling a million other people to travel) four thousand miles to fight a battle—especially one you know in advance you’re going to lose?  

What makes the hill we call “Cumorah” different than any one of the literally hundreds of other drumlins in the vicinity—and *thousands* of hillocks, bluffs, peaks, elevations, overlooks, and mountains across the continent—such that Mormon, living thousands of miles away, would have even known it existed in the first place; let alone viewed it as the superlative  potential place of final refuge? 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

And travel over great distances in 1847 . . . wasn’t?

As I suggest above, it’s easy to trivialize the labor involved in a task when we ourselves have never had to do it.  

What is the strategic reason for traveling (and compelling a million other people to travel) four thousand miles to fight a battle you know in advance you’re going to lose?

If we put it into the context of a hemispheric model it makes plausible sense. Over the course of some 30-40 years the Nephites had been pushed several thousand miles already- from the southern parts of the land southward into and through the narrow neck and from there northward into the land northward. Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites. What's a few thousand more Miles when they have already been forced a greater distance already? 

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

If we put it into the context of a hemispheric model it makes plausible sense. Over the course of some 30-40 years the Nephites had been pushed several thousand miles already- from the southern parts of the land southward into and through the narrow neck and from there northward into the land northward. Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites. What's a few thousand more Miles when they have already been forced a greater distance already? 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this strikes me as absurd. I don't think you can find a single parallel throughout ancient history of this unfounded idea that people are pushed around for not hundreds but thousands of miles in this manner. It's unheard of, and I think completely unrealistic. Had that been the case, the Nephites would never simply have marched to their sure death. They would have simply left. No one would have chased them for, say, five hundred miles, which by this reckoning would not have been all that big a deal for them. Just a quick week's journey.

I am curious to know where you get the idea that "Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites." Assuming (as you do) that the drumlin in western New York is the same as the hill called "Cumorah" in the Book of Mormon, the hill Cumorah is near only some creeks and a tiny river. It is a good 30 miles inland from Lake Ontario—not a good shipping location by any means. As for being "ore-rich", drumlins are mostly clay, having been formed by glacial action many thousands of years ago. I don't believe you find mines in drumlins.

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this strikes me as absurd. I don't think you can find a single parallel throughout ancient history of this unfounded idea that people are pushed around for not hundreds but thousands of miles in this manner. It's unheard of, and I think completely unrealistic. Had that been the case, the Nephites would never simply have marched to their sure death. They would have simply left. No one would have chased them for, say, five hundred miles, which by this reckoning would not have been all that big a deal for them. Just a quick week's journey.

I am curious to know where you get the idea that "Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites." Assuming (as you do) that the drumlin in western New York is the same as the hill called "Cumorah" in the Book of Mormon, the hill Cumorah is near only some creeks and a tiny river. It is a good 30 miles inland from Lake Ontario—not a good shipping location by any means. As for being "ore-rich", drumlins are mostly clay, having been formed by glacial action many thousands of years ago. I don't believe you find mines in drumlins.

The great lakes area is a rich ore geology. It is now becoming better understood that the ancient miners in this vast area mined and traded the ore for thousands of miles using the main rivers and waterways as a means of distribution. In fact, the ancient Mining was so vast that it still baffles scientists to this day.

Not too long ago we forced the American Indians to relocate. Now known as the famous "Trail of Tears" they were forced some 1,200 miles. And, we aren't speaking of the entire nation of them in their possible extermination, but rather just a relocation to move them out of the way. 

We have too hard of a time with distances in the Book of Mormon because we discount the vastness of their population and scope of their empires.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

If we put it into the context of a hemispheric model it makes plausible sense. Over the course of some 30-40 years the Nephites had been pushed several thousand miles already- from the southern parts of the land southward into and through the narrow neck and from there northward into the land northward. Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites. What's a few thousand more Miles when they have already been forced a greater distance already? 

First off, you are again trivializing the sort of travel and physical labor that you’ve never had to do.

Second off, you’re padding your timeline. The Nephites held the city Desolation, by the narrow neck into the land southward, through AD 375.  Cumorah was ten years later.  In the hemispheric model the Nephites have ten years to cover the almost 4400 land miles between the isthmus of Panama and upstate New York; not thirty or forty years.

Third, we can infer from Ether that the general area of the “narrow neck” was a commercial and perhaps even mining hub during Jaredite times.  I am not aware of any scriptural support for the proposition that the same was true a thousand years later at the twilight of the Nephite age; and as @Vort notes, the topographical/ geographical / archaeological evidence that upstate New York ever fit that bill in pre-Columbian times seems awfully skinny.  (Seven-thousand-year-old copper mines in Michigan =/= proof of Nephite mining activity in New York).

As for your later comment about the Trail of Tears:  first, that was a series of migrations over twenty years. Second, what record do we have of any of those migrations averaging seventy miles a day?  Third, the populace was essentially surrounded by hostiles; they were not a single body unified under a common leader with their choice of either routes or destination. Fourth, the Indians and their leadership believed that their migration offered a realistic chance of survival, both individually and as a culture.  Fifth, you’re again offering some funny numbers—Google Maps tells us that the distance from Tallahassee to the border of then-Indian Territory is a little over eight hundred miles, and most of the removed tribes traveled under a thousand miles.  That’s barely a quarter the distance between Panama and Ontario County.  

Edited January 31, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

First off, you are again trivializing the sort of travel and physical labor that you’ve never had to do.

Second off, you’re padding your timeline. The Nephites held the city Desolation, by the narrow neck into the land southward, through AD 375.  Cumorah was ten years later.  In the hemispheric model the Nephites have ten years to cover the almost 4400 land miles between the isthmus of Panama and upstate New York; not thirty or forty years.

Third, we can infer from Ether that the general area of the “narrow neck” was a commercial and perhaps even mining hub during Jaredite times.  I am not aware of any scriptural support for the proposition that the same was true a thousand years later at the twilight of the Nephite age; and as @Vort notes, the topographical/ geographical / archaeological evidence that upstate New York ever fit that bill in pre-Columbian times seems awfully skinny.  (Seven-thousand-year-old copper mines in Michigan =/= proof of Nephite mining activity in New York).

As for your later comment about the Trail of Tears:  first, that was a series of migrations over twenty years. Second, what record do we have of any of those migrations averaging seventy miles a day?  Third, the populace was essentially surrounded by hostiles; they were not a single body unified under a common leader with their choice of either routes or destination. Fourth, the Indians and their leadership believed that their migration offered a realistic chance of survival, both individually and as a culture.  Fifth, you’re again offering some funny numbers—Google Maps tells us that the distance from Tallahassee to the border of then-Indian Territory is a little over eight hundred miles, and most of the removed tribes traveled under a thousand miles.  That’s barely a quarter the distance between Panama and Ontario County.  

And yet the Inca were able to travel and send messages hundreds of miles by foot in a single day... 

From the time the Nephites started getting pushed northward from the land southward under Mormons command until Cumorah was almost 60 years.  Distance shouldnt be an issue at all.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

[1] And yet the Inca were able to travel and send messages hundreds of miles by foot in a single day... 

[2] From the time the Nephites started getting pushed northward from the land southward under Mormons command until Cumorah was almost 60 years.  Distance shouldnt be an issue at all.

1.  Rob, it’s hard to have a serious discussion when either by design or carelessness, you write things that are so blatantly false.  No Incan individual ever moved two hundred (the minimum required for “hundreds” to be technically true) miles on foot in a single day.  

Moreover, you’re creating a straw man.  The argument isn’t whether an extraordinary individual (or even a small group of hardened soldiers, traveling light) can cover extraordinary distances; or whether oral information and/or slips of parchment can be rapidly conveyed by a relay of rotating short-distance runners.  The argument is whether a general would undergo the staggering logistical nightmare of moving one million men, women, and children with all their baggage, accoutrements, animals, etc. for a distance of four thousand miles to a place with mediocre strategic advantage just to fight a battle he knew he was divinely ordained to lose. 

2.  Again, the Nephites held the narrow neck (and therefore, on a hemispheric model, all points north) until AD 375.  Whatever distances they covered before then, it was still 4400 miles further to Ontario County, New York.  You’re doing the equivalent of saying that the 1200-mile trek from Nauvoo to Salt Lake was a simple thing to do since the Mormons had already covered the eight hundred miles from New York to Nauvoo in the preceding two decades; and if you hear rattling right now—that’s probably Brigham Young and Mormon, rolling over in their graves.  Twelve hundred miles is twelve hundred miles, and four thousand four hundred miles is . . . a lot more.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Rob, it’s hard to have a serious discussion when either by design or carelessness, you write things that are so blatantly false.  No Incan individual ever moved two hundred (the minimum required for “hundreds” to be technically true) miles on foot in a single day.  

Moreover, you’re creating a straw man.  The argument isn’t whether an extraordinary individual (or even a small group of hardened soldiers, traveling light) can cover extraordinary distances; or whether oral information and/or slips of parchment can be rapidly conveyed by a relay of rotating short-distance runners.  The argument is whether a general would undergo the staggering logistical nightmare of moving one million men, women, and children with all their baggage, accoutrements, animals, etc. for a distance of four thousand miles to a place with mediocre strategic advantage just to fight a battle he knew he was divinely ordained to lose. 

2.  Again, the Nephites held the narrow neck (and therefore, on a hemispheric model, all points north) until AD 375.  Whatever distances they covered before then, it was still 4400 miles further to Ontario County, New York.  You’re doing the equivalent of saying that the 1200-mile trek from Nauvoo to Salt Lake was a simple thing to do since the Mormons had already covered the eight hundred miles from New York to Nauvoo in the preceding two decades; and if you hear rattling right now—that’s probably Brigham Young and Mormon, rolling over in their graves.  Twelve hundred miles is twelve hundred miles, and four thousand four hundred miles is . . . a lot more.

My point with the Inca was to show that distance wasn't a problem for the ancients. They moved quickly and efficiently. 

BTW, most of the early saints actually traveled from England and other regions of Europe, thousands of miles.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

[1] My point with the Inca was to show that distance wasn't a problem for the ancients. They moved quickly and efficiently. 

[2] BTW, most of the early saints actually traveled from England and other regions of Europe, thousands of miles.

1.  More hyperbole and false equivalence divorced from reality.  “Possible for one” =/=“not a problem for thousands”.

2.  Q.E.D.  And no one would say for a minute that it “wasn’t a problem”.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  More hyperbole and false equivalence divorced from reality.  “Possible for one” =/=“not a problem for thousands”.

2.  Q.E.D.  And no one would say for a minute that it “wasn’t a problem”.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  

Hum...well your case isn't convincing at all that they weren't capable of moving thousands of miles.

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting thoughts.  What other civilization in human history, before the invention of the internal combustion engine, have considered “a day’s journey” to equal anything like seventy miles?  What race of humans was able to continually trot at even 3 miles per hour, 24 hours a day, for days on end?  I mean, Pheidippides did seventy miles per day for two days in a row—but the last twenty-odd miles on the third day literally killed him; and to this day we consider it such an extraordinary feat that we (well, not me personally, mind you!) run marathons in his memory.  It’s easy for us twenty-first-century dwellers to blithely posit theories about how much ground men, women, children and animals should have been able to cover on foot in a given period of time.  It’s unfortunate that Brigham Young isn’t around to tell us just what we can do with our theories. 

It's the way it's phrased (something that many don't seem to look at when they see the day's journey mentioned in the BoM for some reason).  It makes it seem more like a type of measurement rather than how it is taken in many instances.  5-6 miles an hour is actually NOT that massive of an amount in some areas of the world where they basically run a LOT more than they did in Europe.  Where there was a lack of horses, interestingly enough, distance running is/was far more common.  In Western writing when using time as a measurement of distance it normally is a shorter time period (such as an hour...for example...we use a version of it that is far less exact today...but is similar in usage when we say something like we live an hour outside of San Francisco or 30 minutes south of L.A. or other such items).

In that light, if one used the idea of how far one could travel as the actual measurement rather than how many read it, instead of looking at a day's travel as literally how far you could travel in a day, it is the amount one could travel in 24 hours.  AKA...you may not travel that distance in a day literally as you would go for some time during daylight and then rest, but as a unit of measure it would be how far one could travel in that time period.

Thus, an hour's travel would be a unit of measure ment.  They may not have had an hour as a unit of measurement...but if you start dividing it into portions of a day they probably had a pretty standard measurement we could understand.  Thus, you would say a quarter day's travel (6 hours), a half day's travel (12 hours) or a day's travel (24 hours) as a unit of measurement. 

It's the difference between a UNIT of measurement vs. that of which is utilized as a TIME PERIOD over which one travels. 

The difference would be if you were to say you were to travel from Salt Lake City to Ogden Utah...you may say it is around 30 miles.  However, what if you were to use a different measurement.

You could say then that the unit was half an hour travel.  Instead of saying it is 30 miles you could say 30 minutes or half an hour. 

What happens if you hit rush hour?

Well, if you are using it as a time amount, than it could become an hour.

If it is a measure of DISTANCE though, it remains half-an hour of travel that just happened to take you an hour to go across.

It's a VERY hard thing for many in Western society to wrap their heads about as they are used to having distances measured in a very different manner. 

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trouble I see with your goosed “desperate flight” numbers is that the same author (Mormon) used “day’s journey” to chronicle not only the last battle, but more leisurely journeys spanning back through Nephites history.  Moreover, it wouldn’t be *that* desperate of a flight since the Lamanite king had granted Moroni’s request for a cease-fire.  

Moreover—if you had your pick of any place in North America at which to make a last stand for yourself and about a million compatriots, and you had reasonably good geographical knowledge:  of all places on the continent, what natural features would make you choose Ontario County, New York?  What would make IT worth the time, effort, and logistical nightmare of getting there—not to mention wholesale abandonment of every other stronghold and strategic position you still held?

Whatever “a day’s journey” meant:

— we know it was twenty days’ journey from Nephi to Zarahemla by way of the land of Helam (Mosiah 23-24); and that may not have been the most direct route.

—we know that Limhi’s expedition, while searching for Zarahemla, stumbled into Ramah/Cumorah; apparently without ever realizing that they had overshot their goal (Mosiah 8 ).

Whether the heartland or mesoamerican model turns out to be the better paradigm; the continental or bicontinental model of Book of Mormon geography seems to depend on either a not-very-close reading of some key texts, the Nephites being effectually a race of demigods, and/or good deal of wishful thinking.

Actually, for a desperate flight, the Hill Cumorah in North America actually makes more sense than some area in Central America, IF you use the idea that they populated the entire continent. 

If you are being chased and gathering as many as you can, you don't just stop in the middle of your Empire or nation.  Normally that will get some but most of the edges are not going to meet you there.  On the otherhand, if you go from one end to the other, you gather as many as you can while you flee.  You flee to the edges eventually as you get blocked off, but you also are getting every last individual that you can.

The idea that it was a traditional battle ground also helps in this that you are focused on one edge, so you start with that end goal in mind.  Once again, this is something that you can see a lot in Asian and African history, and to a small degree replicated in European history but not as much.

The best way to describe it is a chess board.  In the final portion of many Chess games you end up trying to chase down the King.  It can happen anywhere but one of the easier areas to finally corner the King is on the edges of the board rather than the center.  It is VERY hard to get the King checkmated in the center of the board, but it is also easier to push the King towards the edges as well.

Similar idea.

The bigger question is then...WHY there.  Why not further North or further South and even closer to the edges.

One could be that it was a traditional last battle spot, but the other could simply be starvation.

With the numbers we are talking about every bit of food would probably be gone.  Even in an area as abundant with life, those numbers would quickly deplete the surrounding wildlife.  As you get further north it gets harder to find as much wildlife.  There comes a point where your entire army simply starves. 

It may be that this was seen as a spot where you could gather for a last stand and have an army just barely surviving without getting to the point where you have too much army for too little wildlife and plant support?

As far as distances, the biggest and most impactful historical armies from Asia travelled FAR further than anything we could account for in the Americas typically, even if we consider the Nephite/Lamanite civilization covering the total of North and South  America.

Even Alexander the Great travelled a pretty great distance in his lifetime (and for a Western Army his conquests is probably closer to the idea of a migrating army constantly on the move) that shows that mobility in the Ancient world was a lot greater in ability than many give them credit.

Of course it is all conjecture on my part in regards to Nephite and Lamanite (as well as Jaredite) wars and movement, as we really don't know.

Not enough information is given to really determine anything. However, I do think that the common WESTERN way of reading the day's travel given in the book of Mormon has been understood wrongly because it is viewed from a modern idea of limited mobility with regard to the small North European movement of the 16th and 17th century rather than seen as an actual unit of measure instead.

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, Vort said:

The strength and abilities of the ancients are far beyond our ken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Young_(athlete)

Having said that, I agree with you. A "day's journey" for a Nephite would not be 70 miles, probably no more than 30 miles at most. Much such speculation is designed to support a particular pet theory, e.g. the Heartland Model. When you look for scripture as a proof-text to validate your theories, whether geographical or spiritual, you are on dangerously thin ice.

You are comparing TIME rather than a unit of measure. 

A day's journey as a UNIT of measure for a modern car that travels 60 mph is actually 1440 miles/day.

You may only travel 480 miles in a day, but that is because you are using miles per hour as your unit of measurement.

If we use the hours travel as a unit of measure, and half a day as another unit of measure and a day as a unit of measure, it means FAR different than how you are expressing it.

You are using a WESTERN terminology and understanding...but the Israelites and the Nephites were NOT Western civilizations.

[Guest Scott]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My point with the Inca was to show that distance wasn't a problem for the ancients. They moved quickly and efficiently 

Messages were passed quickly and efficiently because they were passed by relay from one runner to the next.  Each runner would run for less than an hour before passing the message to the next runner.

Travelling groups and traders moved much slower.  It would take about a month to cover the journey Cuzco to Arequipa; which is a distance of just over 300 miles.

 

[Colirio]

Huh. 

 

I find myself on the same side of the discussion as Rob Osborn. 

 

🤔

 

Welp... Looks like I've had enough internet for one day. 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Messages were passed quickly and efficiently because they were passed by relay from one runner to the next.  Each runner would run for less than an hour before passing the message to the next runner.

Travelling groups and traders moved much slower.  It would take about a month to cover the journey Cuzco to Arequipa; which is a distance of just over 300 miles.

 

I'm not really concerned so much with how far they could or could not travel in a day so much as I am trying to state that great distances were not a great ordeal to the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. This is plainly manifest in viewing such things as the Inca road systems. They were attributed to the Inca but many believe the roads were made by previous cultures. Why would they have roads that traversed their nation thousands of miles in a North and South direction? Even in our modern day nation, before the train and automobile came around we had trails and roads that traversed our nation thousands of miles in East and West directions. 

Paramount to the conversation is that the extermination of the Nephites, who were an entire nation, were pushed out of their lands completely from a South to North movement over several decades by the Lamanite nation through brutal and Savage warfare. To put this in perspective let's look at the Inca nation and the geographical size of their nation. If one were to drive the Incan nation from the south and into lands to the north completely out of their boundaries it would be thousands of miles. Now, I believe that the Incan nation pailed in comparison to what the Nephite nation was. It's thus not hard to imagine it was in fact the Nephite nation who built the massive road systems in South America long before the Inca came to power and repaired the broken roads. During their last wars the Lamanites drove them out of South America and into Mexico and from there Mormon signed a temporary treaty so they could assemble in the North. It took 4 years to migrate and assemble his people there. This doesn't in any way seem improbable.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...well your case isn't convincing at all that they weren't capable of moving thousands of miles.

That’s not my case.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s not my case.

Oh, sorry then

[GaleG]

On 1/30/2019 at 10:35 AM, Anddenex said:

I haven't received any spiritual confirmation as to the location of this battle, and I am minutely familiar with the different positions and theories regarding at least two places. Since my mission I was convinced with all the structures in Central and South America that this battle took place somewhere in and around there.

Hello Anddenex,

I found a few things in a google search.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

"The Church has no official position on any New World location described in the Book of
Mormon. There is no official revelation in the Church establishing the drumlin in New York
as the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where two nations were destroyed. It is true
that a number of Church leaders in the past expressed the opinion that the hill in New York
is the same hill described in the Book of Mormon".

But while this is the current position of the church, it was not the same position they had
in the past.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-6-number-2-2005/acquiring-cumorah

"President Ivins then spent the majority of his talk attempting to establish what he termed
as “facts” regarding the geography of the Hill Cumorah. It appears that President Ivins was
attempting to refocus Latter-day Saints on what had been previously taught about the Hill
Cumorah by many of the prophets and apostles. Referring to a talk by Elder B. H. Roberts,
President Ivins proclaimed that the Hill Cumorah and the hill Ramah are identical and that
both Jaredites and Nephites had their last great struggle around this hill".

They were regarded as facts in the past, not opinions.

Thank you,

Gale

Edited February 14, 2019 by GaleG
added a sentence

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, GaleG said:

There is no official revelation in the Church establishing the drumlin in New York

as the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where two nations were destroyed. It is true
that a number of Church leaders in the past expressed the opinion that the hill in New York
is the same hill described in the Book of Mormon".

For what it's worth, Joseph Smith said that he received a revelation that the hill in New York is where the great battle took place.  He said so when Zion's Camp found bones in Illinois.  Look up "Zelph-Book of Mormon" for some background.  It's in our documented church history.

Some have claimed that such accounts of Joseph calling it a revelation and the story itself are second hand, but this really isn't true.  Joseph himself confirmed the story when he wrote letters to Emma.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Scott

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, Scott said:

For what it's worth, Joseph Smith said that he received a revelation that the hill in New York is where the great battle took place.  He said so when Zion's Camp found bones in Illinois.  Look up "Zelph-Book of Mormon" for some background.  It's in our documented church history.

Some have claimed that such accounts of Joseph calling it a revelation and the story itself are second hand, but this really isn't true.  Joseph himself confirmed the story when he wrote letters to Emma.

I’ll have to dig out my Palmer, but I believe he deals with this extensively and shows that the Zelph account was heavily edited by others prior to publication.  The original text is not nearly so conclusive.  

[SpiritDragon]

This may be of interest to this conversation:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=jbms

I'd love to share some thoughts, but am short on time. Even so I thought I'd share the link in case anyone finds it of value to the conversation at hand.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, GaleG said:

Hello Anddenex,

I found a few things in a google search.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

"The Church has no official position on any New World location described in the Book of
Mormon. There is no official revelation in the Church establishing the drumlin in New York
as the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon where two nations were destroyed. It is true
that a number of Church leaders in the past expressed the opinion that the hill in New York
is the same hill described in the Book of Mormon".

But while this is the current position of the church, it was not the same position they had
in the past.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-6-number-2-2005/acquiring-cumorah

"President Ivins then spent the majority of his talk attempting to establish what he termed
as “facts” regarding the geography of the Hill Cumorah. It appears that President Ivins was
attempting to refocus Latter-day Saints on what had been previously taught about the Hill
Cumorah by many of the prophets and apostles. Referring to a talk by Elder B. H. Roberts,
President Ivins proclaimed that the Hill Cumorah and the hill Ramah are identical and that
both Jaredites and Nephites had their last great struggle around this hill".

They were regarded as facts in the past, not opinions.

Thank you,

Gale

Hi Gale,

I am not sure why my response in this thread received this response. A thing to point out that is important to what you specified and how this changes things a bit. It was President Ivins who "regarded" this as "facts."

One person stating something as "fact" doesn't make it more than his opinion, especially knowing the Church has not made an official declaration on the matter.

These were the opinions of individuals who regarded them as "facts." Until more light and knowledge is given, where the Hill Cumorah actually was remains a persons opinion even in light of all the "facts" or "reasons" they send forth.

[Rob Osborn]

The drumlin in New York is officially recognized by the church as being called the "Hill Cumorah".

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

The Hill Cumorah is in New York, that is the official church position. The Church remains neutral as to the location of everything else in the Book of Mormon. 

Also, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote this. Seems pretty clear to me.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century/Joseph_Fielding_Smith

There is also Letter VII by Oliver Cowdery, which Joseph Smith had placed into the official history of the church. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/83

Edited February 14, 2019 by Emmanuel Goldstein