Two Cumorahs

[_Paul Osborne]

mikwut,

I'm not done venting. I'm mad. I'm pissed. I'm infurated with the Church of the Lie and for myself being stupid enough to believe it. Damn!

Paul O

[_Markk]

I personally think he is. However, while his hypothesis is also valid, the Church put it's stamp of approval on the possibility of two Cumorah's in a later article. Whenever applying the Church's standard for doctrine (publication), one must never forget continuing revelation and understanding. One also must never forget that it's completely unreasonable to expect that the apostles and prophets have their mouths guided by the Lord 24/7.

You are assuming that Sorneson's(a BYU professor and bishop) article holds more weight than Elder Peterson's(a prophet, seer, and revelator) article simply based on timing. I think it is you who is unclear on what is considered doctrine and what is considered commentary. Take a look at this clarification by Elder Dallin H. Oakes regarding scripture reading and revelation:

Latter-day Saints know that true doctrine comes by revelation from God, not by scholarship or worldly wisdom (see Moses 5:58). Similarly, the Apostle Paul wrote that we are not “sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God” (2 Cor. 3:5). Rather than trusting in our own interpretations of written texts, we rely on God and the glorious “ministration of the spirit” (2 Cor. 3:8). Here we encounter a new meaning of Paul’s familiar teaching that true believers are “ministers … of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:6).

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery set the example for this dispensation. After their baptism, they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Then, as Joseph explained in his personal history, “Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of” (Joseph Smith—H 1:74).

Latter-day Saints know that learned or authoritative commentaries can help us with scriptural interpretation, but we maintain that they must be used with caution.

Commentaries are not a substitute for the scriptures any more than a good cookbook is a substitute for food. (When I refer to “commentaries,” I refer to everything that interprets scripture, from the comprehensive book-length commentary to the brief interpretation embodied in a lesson or an article, such as this one.)

One trouble with commentaries is that their authors sometimes focus on only one meaning, to the exclusion of others. As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author’s chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings. Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions. This is why the teaching of the Holy Ghost is a better guide to scriptural interpretation than even the best commentary.

(Bold emphasis mine)

This is the link to the entire article:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?l ... 82620aRCRD

I think we need to discern whether or not Sorensen's article was revelation or commentary before we can decide on whether or not his article would override Petersen's. Since Mark E. Petersen was sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator, I would think that his words would hold more weight than Sorensen's in that regard.

One also must never forget that it's completely unreasonable to expect that the apostles and prophets have their mouths guided by the Lord 24/7.

However, it is completely reasonable to expect that the apostle's or prophet's mouth is guided by the Lord when he is addressing the Lord's church in his official capacity as such.

My references are directly from the scriptural canon. I'm referring to the scriptural canon that we take to Church with us every Sunday.....the scriptural canon that we study on a weekly basis. Your reference is a commentary article from the Ensign.

In Joseph Smith-History 1:51, it reads:

51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a ahill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

Notice the cross-reference for hill:

51a
D&C 128: 20.
20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from aCumorah! bMoroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the cbook to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to dbear record of the book! The voice of eMichael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the fdevil when he appeared as an angel of glight! The voice of hPeter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the ikeys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!

Dana and I were on the same wavelength. What other possible Cumorah could this cross-reference be talking about? Moroni was the last Nephite standing at the end of the great battle.

Moroni 10:1(Notice the cross-reference):

1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the aLamanites; and I would that they should know that *more than bfour hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

The cross reference bolded leads you here:

Mormon 8:5 AND Moroni 1:1:

b
Morm. 8: 5.
5 Behold, my father hath made athis record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the bplates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and chow long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.
Moro. 1: 1.
1 Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed anot to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.

Now, let's take a look again at Joseph Smith History 1:51-52:

51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a ahill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.
52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the aplates, the bUrim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

(Bold emphasis mine)
Note how heavy the stone box is...and that there was also the breastplate from battle, the Urim and Thummim, and the plates themselves.

Let's take a look again at Moroni 9:24:

24 And if it so be that they perish, we know that many of our brethren have adeserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them; wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou art spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would bdeliver up unto thee.

This is Mormon speaking to his son, Moroni. He is speaking of the plates which Moroni later inherits.

Here is further clarification in Moroni 10:2:

2 And I aseal up bthese records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

This is the cross-reference for these:

#
Morm. 6: 6
6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were asacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would bdestroy them) therefore I made cthis record out of the plates of Nephi, and dhid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were ethese few plates which I gave unto my son fMoroni.

There is no mistake from these cross-references that Moroni was referring to the same plates his father had hidden in the Hill Cumorah.

Sorry, BC, but I will trust "the most correct scripture", "the second testament of Christ", the very "keystone of our religion" over an Ensign commentary article.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Liz/BC

Liz...nice!

BC's argument is one that really defines how "Internet Mormons" rely on scholarship vs. inspired teaching from those who are supposed to hold "the keys". Right or wrong this is a clear fact that shows how many educated LDS members rationalize history and doctrines that just do not line up in their "box".

I ask the question again, how can so many supposed inspired men, be so wrong, so often?...BC said it was because of strong opinion? The more I think BC's response out, the more I agree with him that LDS theology is basically strong opinions by charismatic men ( Smith and Young) who "built" a religion with their strong opinions. What I also see is that LDS leaders after JFS where not capable of carrying the "charismatic torch", and were not able to define classic Mormonism to a Modern audience and because of this LDS scholarship has had to pick up the torch and run with it.

BC, your argument that Sorenson's theory usurps past inspired teachings validates the critics arguments that LDS scholarship is gaining ground in defining LDS theology and thought. In fact I believe that LDS leadership realizes this and by their past silence have dug themselves into a big hole.

Take Care

Mark

[_mikwut]

Paul,

I'm sorry, I wish you the best and hope your anger stage to be short.

bless,

Mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

Paul,

I'm sorry, I wish you the best and hope your anger stage to be short.

bless,

Mikwut

Hi mik,

From all that I have read and seen online, it takes a long, long time for someone to process and sort through the feelings/thoughts that Paul displays here each day. I honestly think he's doing the best he can right now and you are gracious to wish him well.

V

[_mikwut]

Hi Jersey,

You are indeed correct, and you know - I think that all of us are just doing the best we can, me too anyway.

Hope your well.

regards, Mikwut

[_Paul Osborne]

Paul,

I'm sorry, I wish you the best and hope your anger stage to be short.

bless,

Mikwut

Hi mik,

From all that I have read and seen online, it takes a long, long time for someone to process and sort through the feelings/thoughts that Paul displays here each day. I honestly think he's doing the best he can right now and you are gracious to wish him well.

V

Thanks.

:)

Paul O

[_beastie]

Well, folks, good news. MAD has resolved the issue. God just moved Hill Cumorah to NY.

[_Yoda]

Well, folks, good news. MAD has resolved the issue. God just moved Hill Cumorah to NY.

Well, BC....It looks like "victory is mine!" LOL

Do you have a link, Beastie?

[_beastie]

mfbukowski

There is no "one Cumorah theory" in the sense of a scholarly theory put forth to be proven or disproven on its logical merits. I am not arguing about the semantics of the difference between "teaching" and "theory". There is the traditional view, and there is the two Cumorah view. And yes, they can be harmonized, and if you read my post, you would see how. Both can be combined into a new view which combines both without logical contradiction. (I am not advocating this view because I am not an expert on any of this) but as I said, if we have angels moving plates, why not have them move the entire hill? Moroni deposits the plates in the hill in central America, the hill containing the plates is moved to Western NY and Joseph removes them from that hill, and the Watson letter becomes correct. The hill where the plates were deposited is the same hill from which Joseph removes them. I am not advocating this view, but it does harmonize the two accounts logically, showing they are not contradictory, and it is as plausible as angels moving the plates in the first place. Logical contradiction is demonstrated by the difference between a proposition "A" and a proposition "not A". If the traditional view is "A" the two Cumorah view is NOT "not A". The two views are therefore not contradictory in any logical sense. I am sure you will make some smart comments about this theory, but go ahead. All I am showing is that the two views are not incompatible logically- there is a possible imaginable scenario which makes them both true, which could not be the case if they were logically contradictory.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... e__st__820

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

And that, my friends, is Mormonism. If you cannot bring Muhammed to the mountain, then bring the mountain to Muhammed. See? God moved an entire mountain. Dinosaur bones were part of the extraterrestrial matter that God formed when making the Earth. An angel with a flaming sword ordered Joseph Smith to have sex with multiple women. God does not want you to know what His church is doing with your charitable contributions.

It truly boggles the mind.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me