Difference between revisions of "Question: Does the Church authoritatively identify the location of the Hill Cumorah?"
m
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{FairMormon}}
+
{{Main Page}}
 
<onlyinclude>
 
<onlyinclude>
 
==Question: Does the Church authoritatively identify the location of the Hill Cumorah?==
 
==Question: Does the Church authoritatively identify the location of the Hill Cumorah?==
 
===The Church has no official position on any New World location described in the Book of Mormon===
 
===The Church has no official position on any New World location described in the Book of Mormon===
  
−
First, it is not the case that the Church authoritatively identifies the drumlin in western New York as the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon. The Church has made it abundantly clear that it does not endorse any particular view of Book of Mormon geography.
+
{{NoOfficial}}
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas. ...
 +
 
 +
The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.
 +
 
 +
Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters. &mdash; "[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng Book of Mormon Geography]," ''Gospel Topics Essays'' for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (last accessed 25 January 2022).</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
Despite the claims of some, it is not the case that the Church authoritatively identifies the drumlin in western New York as the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon. The Church has made it abundantly clear that it does not endorse any particular view of Book of Mormon geography.
  
 
{{Main|Book_of_Mormon_geography:Statements|l1=Statements about Book of Mormon geography}}
 
{{Main|Book_of_Mormon_geography:Statements|l1=Statements about Book of Mormon geography}}
Line 15: Line 23:
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
−
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' ({{s||DC|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.<ref>{{Book:Porter Backman Black:Regional Studies in Church History:New York|author=Rex C. Reeve, Jr., and Richard O. Cowan|article=[http://gospelink.com/library/document/29442 The Hill Called Cumorah]|pages=73&ndash;74}}</ref>
+
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' ({{s||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.<ref>{{Book:Porter Backman Black:Regional Studies in Church History:New York|author=Rex C. Reeve, Jr., and Richard O. Cowan|article=[http://gospelink.com/library/document/29442 The Hill Called Cumorah]|pages=73&ndash;74}}</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
Line 36: Line 44:
 
[[pt:Pergunta: Será que a Igreja autoritariamente identificar a localização do Monte Cumora?]]
 
[[pt:Pergunta: Será que a Igreja autoritariamente identificar a localização do Monte Cumora?]]
 
[[es:Pregunta: ¿La Iglesia identifica con autoridad la ubicación del Cerro Cumorah?]]
 
[[es:Pregunta: ¿La Iglesia identifica con autoridad la ubicación del Cerro Cumorah?]]
 +
[[Category:Questions]]

Latest revision as of 20:07, 27 April 2024

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: Does the Church authoritatively identify the location of the Hill Cumorah?

The Church has no official position on any New World location described in the Book of Mormon

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

Statements about matters about which there is no official doctrine
J. Reuben Clark
Main articles: Fallibility of prophets and Does LDS doctrine change?

This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:

Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....
When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.
Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.[1]
Harold B. Lee
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."
I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.[2]
First Presidency
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.[3]

In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.[4]
Main article: Official doctrine in the Church
References
Notes
  1. ↑ J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Church Leaders and the Scriptures," [original title "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"] Immortality and Eternal Life: Reflections from the Writings and Messages of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Vol, 2, (1969-70): 221; address to Seminary and Institute Teachers, BYU (7 July 1954); reproduced in Church News (31 July 1954); also reprinted in Dialogue 12/2 (Summer 1979): 68–81.
  2. ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 445.
  3. ↑ LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007)
  4. ↑ Charles W. Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11 (September 1912).


Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas. ...

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters. — "Book of Mormon Geography," Gospel Topics Essays for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (last accessed 25 January 2022).

Despite the claims of some, it is not the case that the Church authoritatively identifies the drumlin in western New York as the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon. The Church has made it abundantly clear that it does not endorse any particular view of Book of Mormon geography.

Main article: Statements about Book of Mormon geography

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. Whether that opinion was based on personal revelation to those individuals cannot be known. And even if so, personal testimony on points such as this are contradictory, and are not binding on the Church, regardless of how high the position was of the person making the assertion. Only new revelation following proper procedure, and being accepted by the Church as a whole as binding can clear up this point. Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church, despite the claims of various theorists.

There is no clear indication that Joseph Smith ever applied the name "Cumorah" to the hill in New York

There is no clear indication that Joseph Smith ever applied the name "Cumorah" to the hill in New York:

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.[1]

A late account from David Whitmer is the earliest possible association of the name with the New York hill

A late account from David Whitmer is the earliest possible association of the name with the New York hill, though it is long after the fact:

When I was returning to Fayette, with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old fashioned, wooden spring seat and Joseph behind us, while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man in a clear open place, who saluted us with "Good morning, it is very warm," at the same instant wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way, but he said very pleasantly, "No I am going to Cumorah." This was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant, and as I looked enquiringly at Joseph, the old man instantly disappeared so that I did not see him again.[2]

Even this use of the term does not identify any specific site with Cumorah.


Notes

  1. ↑ Rex C. Reeve, Jr., and Richard O. Cowan, "The Hill Called Cumorah," in Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., and Susan Easton Black, eds., Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: New York and Pennsylvania (Provo: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992), 73–74.
  2. ↑ David Whitmer interview with Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt; version recorded in Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah; reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 5:41–49.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Question:_Does_the_Church_authoritatively_identify_the_location_of_the_Hill_Cumorah%3F&oldid=247774"