Part 1 ⎜ Part 2 ⎜ Part 3 ⎜ Part 4 ⎜ Part 5 ⎜ Part 6 ⎜ Part 7 ⎜
⎜ Part 8 ⎜ Part 9 ⎜ Part 10 ⎜ Part 11 ⎜ Part 12 ⎜ Part 13
As part of the Gospel Topics essay in Book of Mormon geography, it is declared:
The Book of Mormon includes a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas. This history contains information about the places they lived, including descriptions of landforms, natural features, and the distances and cardinal directions between important points. The internal consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book of Mormon.[1]
Although there is no official Church position on the Book of Mormon,[2] there is an understanding that because we believe the Book of Mormon to represent an ancient people, the descriptions of “landforms, natural features, and the distances” might be subject to investigation.
There is more than one suggestion for the way the Heartland model maps the Book of Mormon to the real world. This analysis will use the geography Jonathan Neville has proposed.[3] There are two geographical correlations that Jonathan Neville suggests are pins in the map that will assist in the discovery of all other locations. The first is the New York hill that has come to be called Cumorah. Jonathan Neville understands that:
No two people can independently develop an identical map merely from reading the text. Matching such maps to real-world locations is just as problematic. What we need is a solid starting point—a reliable pin in the map. That’s why we need modern revelation.[4]
Neville is suggesting that there is revelation that provides the starting point for interpreting Book of Mormon geography. Were that true, it would indeed be a firm foundation.[5]
One confirming revelation is Doctrine and Covenants 128:20. “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.” The revelation declares that we have “glad tidings” [the Book of Mormon] from Cumorah [thus linking the Book of Mormon name with the location where the plates were found]. This gives Neville a revealed location and therefore a pin in the map. As I discussed in the post initiating this series, this is the same beginning point that Ed Goble used to create what has become the Heartland model.[6]
How firm is this pin? From tradition, it is solid. It has long been accepted and taught that the New York hill is the very Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon. When we examine that actual text of the Book of Mormon, however, the pin is less than firm.
The latter part of Mormon 6:6 reads:
I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.
The plates given to Moroni were the ones recovered in New York. Nevertheless, according to the only statement we have about records in the hill Cumorah, the plates Joseph received were not among those buried in the hill Cumorah. Although Joseph Smith retrieved plates from a hill, according to Mormon, those specific plates were never in the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah – they were given to Moroni, in contrast to those that were “hid up.” From the text alone, we cannot say that the New York hill was the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah.
The Church-sanctioned publication of Saints does not use the name Cumorah for the New York hill. The omission of Cumorah has resulted in some controversy, which Jed Woodworth and Matth Grow specifically address:
The word “Cumorah” does not appear in Saints. This omission has led some to believe that we left out that word in order to speak against a “heartland” model. We assure you that this is simply not the case. We have worked on Saints for many years, Matt as a general editor of Saints and Jed as a review editor of Volume 1. In those capacities, we have read all the draft chapters and editorial comments accompanying these drafts. No one under our observation—writers, editors, external reviewers, General Authority reviewers—has expressed any concern about the word “Cumorah” or articulated any need to expunge it from the record. To our knowledge, there have been no discussions about the need to put down one theory of Book of Mormon geography in order to promote another.[7]
They continue to provide this historical framework they followed:
The preface to Saints explains that the book is a narrative history. Narrative histories are governed by rules, and one of the rules implemented by our writing team is that characters are to live in the “narrative present” and not be burdened by the understanding of later time periods. Our rule states: “The whole story as we understand it will be told, but readers will be following that story scene-by-scene, or even volume-by-volume, as the narrative progresses. If readers desire a broader view of the story or want additional information, extensive footnotes are included, and other in-depth material is available online, including links to essays, videos, and other sources.”
Thus, as Saints tells it, Joseph Smith walks into the “woods,” not the Sacred Grove, in 1820. There he has a “vision” of God and Christ, not the First Vision. In the same way, Joseph walks to a “hill” not far from his father’s home, not to the Hill Cumorah. The reason for omitting “Cumorah” is not that the writers wanted to expunge it in order to promote a geographical theory. The reason is that there is no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill “Cumorah” in 1823.
Of course, early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, later called the hill Cumorah, but the best research on the subject puts the term into common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s. The main historical source concerning events at the hill between 1823 and 1827 comes from the history Joseph Smith began in 1838. There Joseph uses the term “hill,” never “Hill Cumorah.” Saints follows Joseph’s lead.[8]
What does this mean for Neville’s pin? It confirms that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not agree that there is revelation that declares the New York hill to be the Book of Mormon Cumorah. Combined with Mormon’s statement that the plates were not buried in Cumorah, the idea that the New York hill can be considered a pin in the map is a very weak hypothesis resting solely upon tradition. It is not revelation. It is not in line with the text of the Book of Mormon. It is not in line with the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Neville proposes that there is a second pin in the map. That proposal also comes from Doctrine and Covenants 125:3, “Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.”
Neville says of this verse: “This verse is not conclusive about geography, but it doesn’t need to be. The Lord named the site Zarahemla. I want to see if it fits, so I stick a pin in Eastern Iowa, along the Mississippi River across from Nauvoo.”[9] There is much less tradition, and certainly no revelation behind the idea that the land opposite Nauvoo was the Book of Mormon Zarahemla. The revelation says that “let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.” That is a modern statement applying the name. There is no indication that it was connected to the ancient Zarahemla any more than Madrid, New Mexico is the same place as Madrid, Spain.
It isn’t much of a pin if there really is no support for it. Even Neville understands that calling the place Zarahemla in 1841 doesn’t mean that it was ever called Zarahemla in any previous time. This is not a pin, but a hypothesis. As noted in the introductory blog, the Heartland model begins with a geography it wants to find and therefore fits the evidence to the desired model. G. J. Renier underlined the problem with this approach when he quoted the French historian Fustel de Coulanges as saying “if we approach a text with a preconceived idea we shall read in it only what we want to read.”[10] The Heartland has a preconceived idea and, as will be discussed, imaginatively reads the Book of Mormon in order to support that preconceived idea. It is a preconceived idea that is contradicted by the official Church statement on geography and the evidence from the trained historians working on Saints, volume one. The entire model starts on a less than firm foundation.
[1] “Book of Mormon Geography,” Topics and Questions https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng.
[2] “Book of Mormon Geography.”[3] I am using Jonathan Neville, Moroni’s America. The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Digital Legend, 2016). I am aware that there is a second edition, but I do not have that one.[4] Neville, 11. The quotation combines the original three paragraphs combined. Nothing has been removed.
[5] Sorry, but pun intended. I couldn’t resist as the main support for the Heartland model comes from the Firm Foundation.[6] This point is referenced in Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May, This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation (Colfax, Wisconsin, Ancient American Archaeology Foundation, 2002), 10, and in W. Vincent Coon, “Who Originated the Heartland Model?” https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Heartland%20Model.htm.
[7] Jed Woodworth and Matt Grow, “Saints and Book of Mormon Geography,” https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/saints-and-book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng.
[8] “Saints and Book of Mormon Geography.”[9] Neville, 12. The idea that Zarahemla could be the very Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon is credited to Duane Erickson. See Goble and May, 11.[10] G. J. Renier, History: Its Purpose and Method (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 219.
My compliments to Brant for providing these essays. It is an important topic. One very obvious thing about the Heartlanders who have pitched in, is that their arguments are all self-referential, rather than comparative. They presume the authority of their favorite proof texts and presumed Authorities, and their “prophecies regarding the promised land,” concerns as providing a valid approach. The never openly discuss and therefore never seriously defend those assumptions. And they never actually address the arguments based on evidence provided by Mormon and Moroni (who are distinguished from all post-1829 authorities by being eye-witness of the geography, rather than post-translation interpreters.) Historically speaking, it was their witness and evidence that raised questions about the interpretations and arguments of modern supposed authorities in the first place. As Hofstadter puts in Godel, Esher and Bach, “The important thing is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions,” and that “Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved.” (Hofstadter, 18-19).
If the premise is, “Joseph MUST have known!”, that premise ought to be directly examined rather than assumed without question. Regarding “mine authority, and the authority of my servants,” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:6), restoration believers ought to at least mention “And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; …
28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.”
This formal statement not only undercuts the “must have known” premise, but also shows that the knowledge of the Lord’s servants cannot be assumed as pre-existing on a shelf in a ready-to-hand Big Book of What to Think, but is conditioned on seeking and coming “from time to time.” Both the ancient scriptures and modern reports of the translation confirm this. Consider the 3 Nephi account of Old World disciples who presumed they understood what “other sheep” referred to, did not ask, and did not receive revelation on that particular topic. Consider the famous story about Joseph stopping the translation one day to inquire whether Jerusalem had walls. Notably, Joseph did inquire sending for a Bible to peruse. That is, rather than assuming that anything that differed from his traditional thought must be wrong, he “first cast out the beam out of [his] own eye; and then” he saw clearly that in this case, he was in error regarding his expectations and assumptions.
Thomas Kuhn distinguished between Puzzle Solving, and Paradigm Testing. The Heartlander Arguments here always demonstrate Puzzle Solving relative to their unquestioned premises, rather than Paradigm Testing, which requires exposing one’s assumptions to critical review, and making open comparison to alternate approaches, and judging based not on those premises, or by “poisoning the well” Neville style, not addressing the arguments but trying to discredit sources, but comparison based on criteria that are not completely self-referential. That is, testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.
That is also true regarding the frequently mentioned Joseph Fielding Smith 1938 editorial (not a revelation given when he became the prophet) that fretted about the new theories, such as the Washburn’s 1937 book that offered a serious attempt to start with geography based on internal statement. That some people fretted because what the Washburns published was relatively new at the time is to be expected. Regarding “authority” and the notion that someone “Must Have Known!” I notice that that oft cited essay protests on grounds of newness, and differing from tradition and that some people complained on that basis. This happens to be normal:
“No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.”
The essay shows no regard for those whose faith might be shaken by the inadequacies of the traditional like of thinking, and who might benefit from the new approach. Nor does the essay defend the old view, other than by appealing to tradition as such. Jesus also warned about that reflex: “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” (Mark 7:9)
Nor does that 1938 essay address any specific questions that the Washburns raised, or that could be raised, such as the implications for the traditional hemispheric geography for the story of Limhi’s explorers and of the 22 day journey of Alma’s people from the Waters of Mormon (in the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla in the Land South. Sorenson did it right, as did Larry Poulson, as does John Clark and Jerry Grover, as does Brant.
In the new book from BYU’s Life Sciences Dept, “The Restored Gospel and Je.sus Christ” in the second article, Joshua Sears discusses what is official doctrine. While the book is on evolution, this article applies here. Doctrine is in scriptures and in current teaching approved and taught by the First Presidency and the Twelve.
Given that our current leaders do not teach any of the theories regarding BoM locations, they are all theory. The Heartland pinpoints are not taught by the living prophets, so they are not doctrine.
Therefore, I hope all readers of these posts carefully consider the evidence with an open mind, and accept that these are all theories.
The book is “The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution.”
Available for free pdf download at the Life Science website.
Theodore —
There is no reason for anyone to carry the Plates around for 36 years. It takes less than a year to walk from Mexico to New York. Indeed, a well-secured set of tumbaga Plates need not be jostled into oblivion. In the meantime, Moroni could have stashed the Plates in a secure location.
It wasn’t just the plates. It was the Liahona, the large breastplate, and the Interrupters.
I would suggest that Moroni never took them anywhere. When he was finished with all his translations and engravings, he simply took these items from the cave in Cumorah and buried them in the stone box on the side of the hill.
We spend so much time wondering about Moroni’s wandering–it has occurred to me that there could easily be a different answer. Moroni eventually took the plates back. Wherever it was he took them to, he didn’t need to walk much (and it wasn’t to the hill in NY, regardless of the name). If a resurrected being could move the plates after they were not needed, that same being could move them to where they needed to be before Joseph found them. The same for the other items in the cache.
Now, why might I think that? I believe it was Martin Harris who said he had gone to look at the stone box but found that it had washed down the hill. That is surprising to me. It lasted for around a thousand years but was washed away in the next heavy rainstorm? Doesn’t make a lot of sense–unless it was really a temporary resting place needed only so that Joseph would be able to find it.
The speculation deepens.
It is more likely that god seekers dug up the box to see if there was any more gold underneath it.
“Therefore I will write and hide up the records in the earth; and whither I go it mattereth not.” (Mormon 8:r4)
It was Moroni that hid the records in the earth.
Yes. The problem we have is that we have so little information. Moroni took plates that Mormon says were not buried in Cumorah. That is one fact. We know that the plates were taken from the hill in NY. That is not in dispute. From there, we speculate because we don’t have facts. For example, the idea that Moroni says that he hid the records in the earth–we can take that as a fact, but we don’t know where or when. We assume that it was he who buried them in NY. There is no reason to believe otherwise. However, we don’t know when. Was it when he wandered? Did he travel to Manti, Utah, and then back to whichever Hill Cumorah you like? If he did, did he carry the plates on the whole journey?
As with so many things, when we don’t have actual evidence, we speculate and come up with things that make sense to us. The important aspect of all of this is to realize that we are speculating and not be disturbed that another person’s speculation might differ from ours. We could all be wrong. We have just three things we can count on. 1) The Book of Mormon plates were not buried in Cumorah when the rest of the archive was. 2) Moroni, at some time, buried them where Joseph would retrieve them. 3) Joseph retrieved the plates from the drumlin in NY. That’s the extent of the facts.
Now, there are some additional things that come into play. One is tradition. There is a very long tradition that the NY hill is the Book of Mormon hill. There are lots of sources that say so. Nevertheless, the official Church position is that there is no revelation on Book of Mormon geography, so we cannot say that the tradition is based on revelation. Given the historians’ evidence that Joseph himself used other names for the hill until around 1840 tells us that it is unlikely that the traditional association between the NY hill and the Book of Mormon hill was based on revelation to Joseph (and we should understand that we don’t expect it to come from any other source) and that someone other than Joseph started the idea–which clearly became widely accepted.
We have statements from Joseph about Zelph, indicating that Zelph was part of the final wars. The archaeology of the site tells us that while the burials were in Book of Mormon times, they were too early for the final wars and indeed, came during the time when the Book of Mormon says there was peace in the land. Joseph appears to have been mistaken. Then we have the Times and Seasons article where we find: “We are not agoing to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb,11 to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.” (Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL), 1 Oct. 1842, vol. 3, no. 23, pp. 927–942; edited by JS.) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-october-1842/1#source-note
While that is nice evidence that Joseph and others felt that the ruins in Stephens and Catherwood’s book were related to the Book of Mormon, Quirigua is too late to have been Zarahemla. It appears that Joseph (the editor) was mistaken.
What do we make of the times that Joseph had opinions that both differed from each other and were both wrong according to modern archaeological dating? Joseph could, and did, express his opinion. Sometimes his opinion was wrong.
Since the only guidance we have from the Church is that there is no revealed location, we may assume that they include Joseph in that inclusive statement. It is difficult to imagine that Joseph knew precisely, and it was information that everyone forgot after he was martyred. We follow the modern prophets. There is no revelation.
Therefore–we speculate. We hope on the basis of the best available evidence.
Therefore, we need to stay meticulously close to the text.
I don’t disagree, but remember that in this case, there is precious little in the text. The second problem is that it is painfully obvious that when it comes to reading the Book of Mormon, different people differ on what the text says. There isn’t a simple answer that isn’t too simplistic to be useful.
I understand. If it was easy we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
One thing I do know, Mormon wanted us to understand the geography. For example, he paused in the meddle his narrative to give us an overview of where everything lay (Alma 22.27-34).
There are enough clues in the text to match them with the facts on the ground and identify almost every location.
I agree as the Liahona and the sword of Laban were likely in the cave or larger repository of NY Cumorah. In the stone box were only the plates, breastplate and spectacles.
I’m not sure where the myth comes that Moroni wandered alone for 35 years. He was alone immediately after the battle. After that he had information about what was going on in the extended land around him. As far as making a wandering lonely trip to New York the text doesn’t say that. He may have remarried. As far as their trip there are plenty of trade routes from Mesoamerica north. He could have transported the plates and relics with a travois, on an animal, or with the 3 Nephites who he said ministered to him. Transporting the plates to NY is not much of an argument against Mesoamerica
It was Moroni who said he was alone. (Mormon 8:5) Speculation to the contrary, without evidence, is the myth.
We all agree Moroni was alone after the battle. The problem is Mesoamericanists say that last battle was in Mexico or Mesoamerica somewhere. Heartlanders say Moroni was alone at the one and only Cumorah in upstate NY. I have over 200 quotes from Prophets and Apostles that the last battles were in NY. You can show me one or two quotes that it happened in Mesoamerica when many leaders and people thought the Hemispheric model was correct.(It wasn’t and it isn’t) Faith and reason win out here. President Marion G. Romney of the First Presidency whit at General conference stated as as a personal testimony saying, “I will give you a lesson today that the Lord has taken great pains to bring to us… In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah” (Mormon. 6:6). [There] perished at the foot of Cumorah the remnant of the once mighty Jaredite nation, of whom the Lord had said, ‘There shall be none greater… upon all the face of the earth’ (Ether 1:43, p. 461). “As I contemplated this tragic scene from the crest of Cumorah and viewed the beautiful land of the Restoration as it appears today, I cried in my soul, How could it have happened?… This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites…I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come.” (145th Semiannual Conference, Saturday Morning Session, October 4, 1975; emphasis added.) I BELIEVE pRES ROMNEY and the 200 other quotes where many of them are here: https://bookofmormonevidence.org/quotes/ Mesoamericanists have to deny a Prophet’s personal testimony to say the final battle was in Mesoamerica.
One more time a reminder that the idea that there is a long tradition of calling the NY hill Cumorah is not in question. The question is where the idea came from. The evidence is that it wasn’t from Joseph, who used other names for the hill until about 1840. That is the reason that the historians working on Saints did not use Cumorah for their descriptions of the hill. Again as a reminder, they were under instructions from the First Presidency and the Twelve, and their work (and the information in the Gospel Topics Essays) are vetted by the highest authority. So, no revelation. Yes, there is a long tradition. Tradition doesn’t mean revelation as many opinions from earlier in our history can be shown to have been mistaken when compared to newer information. That is the reason that the Church’s stance that since there is no revelation, they won’t take a stance. However, please note that they have taken such a stance about when Cumorah was applied to the hill. You may stack up 200 quotations about tradition. I accept the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.
As for denying a personal testimony, I strongly deny that is what scholars are doing. It has been explained to you and others numerous times. Obviously, you have a different opinion. Please understand that because your opinion differs, that does not mean that scholars are denying the prophets.
One more time:
“Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfillment of the prophets — the book to be revealed.” (D&C 128:20)
Dictated by Joseph Smith on September 6, 1842, which was later canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Theodore, one more time–have you missed the date? I guess not, since you repeat it here. I fully agree that Joseph was using the term by that date.
Brant, it seems to me as I read the comments that we have “cafeteria Mormons” amongst the Heartland believers. They pick and choose what best suits their taste
I saw the same thing regarding blacks and the priesthood and other issues. It was easy to ignore the living prophets, because they hadn’t been dead long enough
So after the 1978 priesthood revelation, Elder McConkie told us to forget everything previously spoken on the ban. Yet in 2012, we still had Randy Bott and others still teaching the curse of Cain
Revelation and live prophetsmean nothing if we put dead prophets ahead of them
In 831 Oliver Cowdery, quoted Moroni:
“This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him Cumorah, which hill is now in the state of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.” (Autobiography of P.P. Pratt p 56-61)
In 1835 W.W. Phelps. William Phelps, executive secretary to the Prophet at the time, wrote:
“An angel came down from the mansions of glory,
And told that a record was hid in Cumorah,
Containing the fulness of Jesus’s gospel;”
(Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, Hymn 16, page 22)
Both records confirm that it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith that the hill near Manchester was called “Cumorah” by the ancients. We have two witnesses.
That people other than Joseph used the term is not in question. It is a question of where the idea came from. If not Joseph, then who? If not Joseph, then not revelation. As for the quotations, note that they are not from Joseph. They are from other people who were using that term by that time. In other words, those quotations don’t have the force you think they do. How do I know that? I follow the current prophets and trust in the careful analysis by historians, which has been vetted by the current prophets.
Theodore said: Both records confirm that it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith that the hill near Manchester was called “Cumorah” by the ancients. We have two witnesses.
Do we really? The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt was not a true autobiography. It was assembled, edited, and published in 1874 by his son. It was based on Pratt’s starting to write his life story in 1854, while he was presiding over the Pacific Mission in San Francisco. So, the second-hand recounting of what Oliver said came, at soonest, almost 35 years after the wording being recounted.
As for the hymn by WW Phelps, it doesn’t really indicate that Moroni (1) provided the name “Cumorah” or (2) indicated it was used by the ancients. The only thing it really indicates is that as of 1835, Phelps (and likely other Saints) had started to use “Cumorah” as the name of the hill where the plates were buried.
The only way Cowdery and Phelps could quote Moroni would be that the Prophet told them.
The fact that there are no earlier recorded words directly from the Prophet on the subject is not evidence that he did not earlier refer to the hill as Cumorah. You are trying to prove a negative.
What evidence do you have that the hill in New York is not the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon?
Theodore said: The only way Cowdery and Phelps could quote Moroni would be that the Prophet told them.
I don’t think you can make that conclusion. First of all, neither Cowdery or Phelps “quote” Moroni in your examples. Second of all, if they were quoting Joseph, then why did Joseph never say that Moroni called that NY drumlin “Cumorah?”
(And before you bring it up, I’ll grant you that Joseph later called it “Cumorah,” but he never, to my knowledge, said that Moroni called it that.)
The term “drumlin” is used by Mesoamericanists as a pejorative to belittle the hill near Manchester NY. It is true that it is a drumlin, but its size has nothing to do with its’s significance. It is its sacredness that precedes the flood. But that is a discussion for another time.
I’m sorry if you thought I was using “drumlin” in a pejorative sense. That never even entered my mind. (In fact, this is the first time that I’ve ever heard that someone views it as pejorative in nature.)
Rian Nelson’s comment here exemplifies the Heartlander fallacy of selectively believing statements from Church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography. While we are expected to accept the statements of prophets who personally believed the final battle took place in New York, we are also supposed to disregard their statements when they claimed, for instance, that Lehi landed in Chile or Palenque was Zarahemla or the narrow neck of land was the isthmus of Darien.
Observe how this pattern operates: When prophets align with the Heartland theory, you must unquestioningly believe them because they were undoubtedly inspired. Conversely, when they diverge from the Heartland theory, they are merely speculating, mistaken (or even worse, engaged in an evil conspiracy to mislead people).
This approach is, at the very least, irresponsible historical methodology.
What’s great about Sorenson’s methodology is that in the absence of revelation on Book of Mormon geography (which we don’t have, despite Heartlanders pretending otherwise) we have the next best thing: the Book of Mormon text itself.
Rian,
You said this: “I have over 200 quotes from Prophets and Apostles that the last battles were in NY. … I BELIEVE pRES ROMNEY and the 200 other quotes. … Mesoamericanists have to deny a Prophet’s personal testimony to say the final battle was in Mesoamerica.”
This would seem to be a problem. Your statements here go directly against what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve continue to say:
This place (the Interpreter blog) is a “setting” and your participation here is done in a certain “manner.” You are implying “prophetic or Church support for [your] theories.” You do it in the quotes above, and you’ve done it over and over again over the past week or two. You do it on your website.
Can you please explain how you are following the urgings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve by collecting the quotes and wielding them to support your own theories of where the Book of Mormon took place?
Why do you think members should ignore what the living prophets are saying in favor of what you believe that the past prophets have said?
At the end of Moroni’s abridgement of the Book of Ether, Moroni wrote, “And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.” (Ether 15:33)
Near the end of his own record, Moroni wrote, “And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.” (Moroni 10:2)
Surely, if Moroni was going to then carry the plates 2400 miles so Joseph smith could find them, he would have made some mention of it.
Moroni wrote, “I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life.” (Moroni 1:3) Wandering is meandering with no destination inn mind. He mentions wandering for the safety of his life, but not a word about a huge mission to travel an exceedingly great distance to bury the plates where they will be needed.
There are too many speculative requirements in Sorenson’s theory, with no basis in the text, to be credible.
Once again a great point by Theodore. I think he really understands what Moroni did and why. Email me as I would love to speak with you.
Theodore,
As I pointed out in FARMS Review 22/2 (2010):131, the narrative of Mormon 4 is restated in epistolary form in Moroni 9 (a letter from his dead father), thus proving that Moroni did not write and edit in chronological sequence. No doubt he used paper copy to edit before finally committing to engraving on plates. This would include his editing of the translation of the 24 Plates done by Mosiah (there is no reason for them to be retranslated), and Mosiah’s translation would have been available on plates, not paper.
There is thus no reason at all for Moroni to have returned to Cumorah.
What about his wandering to find ore to smelt and to make more plates than his father gave him, so he could translate the sealed vision of the brother of Jared?
The sexual innuendo and blatant claims of dishonesty made by TwoCumorahfraud are unconscionable. Why were such untoward comments not rejected? We are told that “all comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse.”
Good question. I wrestled with that issue for hours. Eventually I decided that there were parts that I wanted to respond to. In retrospect, I should have edited it and given the author the chance to accept the edits or rewrite. Unfortunately, I knew from the beginning that these posts would not always generate respectful discourse.
Hello,
This is a comment for everyone to think about.
I don’t know why anyone actually believes in a hemispheric model, resulting in Central America as the narrow neck.
The Nephite Nation didn’t know the extent of the Western Hemisphere. Nephi landed the ship, they disembarked. Soon after Lehi died, then Nephi with others fled into the wilderness from their brethren.
Does that sound like Nephi went surveying the coastline of the Western Hemisphere?
Here’s a possible silly scenario:
Maybe when on the ship, someone with EXCELLENT EYESIGHT, a younger brother of Nephi, or one of his children or nieces and nephews, sighted land.
“Land Ho!” They were in the top rigging and could tell they were at a narrow neck of land.
“Look a narrow neck of land!”
Maybe the Liahona directed Nephi to sail both the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, from Maine to Argentina, from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska, then discovered from both sides, that Central America was the narrow neck without ever crossing by foot the Isthmus of Darien.
Something Christopher Columbus wasn’t able to do during his four voyages into the Caribbean Sea.
Does that sound like they landed in a narrow neck of land as noted in this 1918 book?
https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1918map
Narrow neck coming right up! All three!
Lehi, Mulek and the Brother of Jared!
The narrow neck is not mentioned until the days of Alma the Younger.
Helaman Chapter 3 talks of the seas in the land northward.
Yet somehow, Tehuantepec, is the narrow neck.
Central America is the narrow neck.
Then after surveying the coastline of the Western Hemisphere to determine the location of the narrow neck, the Nephite Nation restricted themselves to it for 1000 years as well as the earlier Jaredite Nation for some 3000 years. Then Moroni the last, went traveling from Central America to New York. Because Joseph Smith was wrong.
We’re all yammering how Joseph Smith could be wrong about Cumorah. Correct?
But the Mesoamerican theory is an anachronism based on 16th Century maps made by many European Explorers: Columbus, Magellan, Amerigo, etc. etc.
You know, something we all learned in grade school.
It’s not based on the viewpoint of the Nephites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century
Have fun. As pointed out earlier, M2C is RLDS.
Because the RLDS Church created official Church-endorsed Hemispheric maps – which confused its members.
Here’s the 1901 report by the RLDS Committee on American Archaeology:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=PXYoAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PP1&hl=en
The Hemispheric maps are on Pages: 50-51; 82-83; 114-115; 146-147; 178-179
Then H.A. Stebbins in 1911 wrote about this hemispheric map saying:
“Cumorah can’t be in New York! Columbia is too far away! It has to be in the narrow neck!”
Then six years later, L.E. Hills obliges him by creating his Tehuantepec map, another narrow neck.
With Mormon and Moroni as Maya Indians running around half-naked with parrot feathers.
Then on the Sabbath Day administering the Sacramental Prayers written down by Moroni on the gold plates.
LOL
Respectfully
Have a good day!
“I don’t know why anyone actually believes in a hemispheric model, resulting in Central America as the narrow neck.”
The inconvenient truth for Heartlanders is that the Hemispheric Model was the de facto model for pretty much every single Latter-day Saint Church leader who has gone on the record with a view on Book of Mormon geography. There are some exceptions, but it was the prevailing paradigm far and away. Orson Pratt, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, B. H. Roberts, George Reynolds, and, yes, Joseph Smith—all of them pretty much defaulted to a Hemispheric view.
This is why it’s so frustrating when Heartlanders selectively cherry pick statements from Church leaders to create the impression they were Heartlanders. They were not. They were Hemispherists. It is fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise.
So if we want to play this game of “my prophet checkmates your prophet on Book of Mormon geography” then I have bad news for Heartlanders, because without question the most statements from Church leaders favor a Hemispheric view.
Which is why, in my judgement, John L. Sorenson’s methodology is so fundamentally important (despite the calumnies and well-poisoning of “TwoCumorahFraud”). We first need to begin with what the Book of Mormon describes and work from there. Because it’s game over for pretty much everything except the Hemispheric Model if you’re going to insist that the statements of Church leaders or long-held tradition should take priority.
Since we are categorizing LDS members according to their Book of Mormon geography beliefs, I must confess that I am neither a Heartlander, nor a Hemispherist, nor a Mesoamericanist. As far as I know, I am the only researcher who believes that the 1000, year saga began on the Pacific shore of Costa Rica and extended, to Cumorah in New York. I suppose you could cad me a Continentalist.
Hi Stephen Smoot,
Well since I take it you believe Joseph Smith was wrong about the location of Cumorah, then I guess we can conclude all the early leaders were wrong as well. Since they allegedly relied on Joseph Smith.
The fact is, Orson Pratt promoted a hemispheric model in his publication, “An Account of Several Remarkable Visions.. etc.”
The Prophet Joseph Smith corrected him in his later history of The Church, now referred to as the Wentworth Letter, stating “this country.”
But Pratt missed the memo and in later editions of The Book of Mormon after the martyrdom, Pratt inserted footnotes mentioning South America – specifically for the book of Omni – that Lehi landed in Southern Chile or some such.
Here it is, the 1879 edition opened to Omni: (Read his earlier footnotes about the Railroad.)
https://bookofmormon.online/fax/1879/155
Thus many members grew up believing in a hemispheric model. Even Elder James E. Talmage in his works, Jesus The Christ and Articles of Faith mentioned Lehi landing on the west coast of Central America – to be in agreement and out of respect to his Elder member of the Quorum, Apostle Orson Pratt.
This would include Dr. John L. Sorenson and possibly many at this blog and even my own Father, born the same year as Dr. Sorenson and President Nelson. In 1924.
We can read about Orson Pratt’s publication here compared to the Wentworth Letter.
https://www.mobom.org/wentworth-orson-pratt
Again IMHO John L. Sorenson obtained his ideas from a RLDS General Authority Seventy, a member of the RLDS First Quorum of Seventy by the name of Louis Edward Hills.
Jack Welch has his books on his ScriptureCentral website. ** Now isn’t that odd? **
https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/new-light-american-archaeology-second-edition?searchId=440481162ad6a0063afd2f5d948e3b891aad042e293885f2c1d70d251415bcfe-en-v=aff186a
Scroll down to page 2 of the inner frame and you can see his last map created in 1923.
Does it look familiar?
“New Light on American Archaeology” was published in 1924 with the title referring to the earlier RLDS “Committee on American Archaeology” – that I linked to earlier with hemispheric maps.
Here it is again.
1901 RLDS Report:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=PXYoAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PP1&hl=en
Maps on pages: 50-51; 82-83; 114-115; 146-147; 178-179
In 1917, L.E. Hills introduced his first map in a Priesthood Meeting in The Stone Church located on Lexington Ave in Independence directly north of The New Jerusalem Temple Lot.
See the April 1917 The Saint’s Herald.
A Committee on that very day was appointed to review his map and by 1923 had rejected it, that Committee’s report’s accepted by the RLDS President Frederick M. Smith, the grandson of Joseph Smith the Prophet.
See the February 1923 The Saints’ Herald.
It’s all laid out in The Saints’ Herald.
But none of you know this history because you’re playing around with LDS Church History and not RLDS Church History from 1844 with the birth of H.A. Stebbins, to 1925 with the death of L. E. Hills.
You’re all intent on throwing Joseph Smith under the bus.. then guess what!
You can place the geography of The Book of Mormon – ANYWHERE! NO RESTRICTIONS!
You can run around half-naked like a Maya Indian and participate in sexual orgies if Joseph Smith was wrong!
You can include a fantasy map created with Adobe Photoshop! With pretty colors!
You can be J.R.R. Tolkien and create Middle Earth with Moroni as a Hobbit traveling to Mount Doom to toss in the gold plates, his precious!
MY PRECIOUS. I’M CARRYING YOU FROM MEXICO TO NEW YORK!
Yes, in the same 1924 book.
Joseph Smith not needed!
** But back to reality. **
Unfortunately from my viewpoint, I don’t believe Dr. Sorenson was entirely honest about where he got his ideas. I’ve read many of his ideas in the writings of H.A. Stebbins. As well as the books and maps of L.E. Hills.
Hills even mentioned the oft-used phrase: “The internal evidences of The Book of Mormon” to promote his limited Tehuantepec geography theory.
Again, I read this in The Saint’s Herald.
I have it all recorded in documents, linked to original source material. All RLDS documents.
I’m prepared. I know all. LOL
But if you would like to believe Central America or Tehuantepec is the narrow neck and Hagoth sailed to Hawaii, Samoa, Tonga, New Zealand, Guam, Easter Island, then to Puerto Rico, hey it’s all good.
As long as we keep our Covenants.
Respectfully
Have a good day
Is it possible that you have written this much in replies, but haven’t actually read the blog post behind it? On the issue of whether Joseph was the one “relied on,” the evidence is that Joseph did not use the term early (although he did later) and that many others used it before Joseph. That means they could not be relying on Joseph. That means the foundation of your argument is void. On the one hand, we have your assertions that the texts you cite mean what you say they do. On the other, we have the trained historians as vetted by the First Presidency and the Twelve (at least some of them, one being President Nelson) saying that Joseph didn’t use the term early. Therefore, they say he couldn’t be the source. In a choice between your assertions and the historians search through all the records, and the approval given from the Church authorities, I take their analysis.
As for your fascinating but far off-topic insistence that Sorenson relied upon the RLDS writers–two things. 1) Bob Smith was there. He actually knows what happened, and he has noted that your assertion is incorrect. 2) Why does it matter at all? If not the RLDS, then Sorenson certainly knew of Jakeman’s model. Sorenson’s strength wasn’t in being the first, but in providing the most sound exposition, including not only geography, hydrology, topology, distances–and archaeological evidence of sites 14C dating to the correct time periods. That was what was important about Sorenson. I fail to see why your insistence on talking about the RLDS writers has any relevance at all.
“The fact is, Orson Pratt promoted a hemispheric model in his publication, “An Account of Several Remarkable Visions.. etc.” The Prophet Joseph Smith corrected him in his later history of The Church, now referred to as the Wentworth Letter, stating “this country.””
This is another favorite claim of Heartlanders, and it is totally fallacious. First, it is pure and simple mind-reading to suggest Joseph was consciously “correcting” Pratt’s views on Book of Mormon geography in the Wentworth Letter. In fact, Joseph says next to nothing about the geography of the Book of Mormon in that document. He only gives broad, vague overtures, and never identifies any of the salient features of Book of Mormon topography or other elements. There is nothing besides Heartlander fancy (or dishonesty) to suggest that Joseph was doing such.
Second, it has long been debunked that statements like “this country” or “this land” or even “this continent” must by necessity have been referring to the contiguous United States. In fact, these exact terms were routinely used by nineteenth century Americans, including Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saints, to indiscriminately refer to many parts of North and South America.
Take, for instance, Joseph’s 1841 letter to John M. Bernhisel: “[Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan] unfolds and develops many things that are of great importance to this generation and corresponds with and supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon. I have read the volumes with the greatest interest and pleasure and must say that, of all histories written pertaining to the antiquities of this country, it is the most correct, luminous, and comprehensive.”
Here is Joseph again in July 1842: “If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, implements of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, etc., were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered. . . . The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatemala and other cities corroborate this statement and show that a great and mighty people—men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs—inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormon unfolds their history.”
This is why historian Andrew Hedges correctly concluded: “To think . . . that the phrase “this continent” . . . necessarily meant “North America” to early nineteenth century Americans, or that “America” or “this country” meant the “United States,” would be a mistake. . . . For Joseph [Smith] and his contemporaries, “continent” typically meant “a great extent of land, not disjoined or interrupted by a sea; a connected tract of land of great extent; as the Eastern and Western continent.” . . . Similarly, “America,” was considered “one of the great continents, . . . extend[ing] from the eightieth degree of North, to the fifty-fourth degree of South Latitude”—that is, all of North and South America combined.”
“Again IMHO John L. Sorenson obtained his ideas from a RLDS General Authority Seventy, a member of the RLDS First Quorum of Seventy by the name of Louis Edward Hills.”
Yes, yes, we are all aware of your monomania on this point. I’ll leave it to others who have roundly debunked your pseudo-history on the origins of Sorenson’s work. You have failed to respond to my main point, which still stands: that Sorenson’s methodology remains preeminently suited to most effectively determining the best model for Book of Mormon geography. No amount of your bizarre rambling refutes that.
Heartlanders are not covering themselves in intellectual glory here. Good at prooftexting. Not so good at understanding history, let alone historiography.
Heartlanders seem to love to rely more on Scripture, Modern Prophets opinions and Joseph Smith’s statements rather than looking at historians drive to be correct intellectually. You may not agree with Joseph’s letter to Emma in 1834 as I ask why not? Joseph Smith said while on Zion’s Camp in 1834 in Illinois on the banks of the Mississippi River near Atlas, Illinois saying, “The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity…” Joseph Smith Papers Letter to Emma Smith, 4 June 1834 Page 56. I wouldn’t think Joseph would lie to his wife. So the letter was not in Joseph’s handwriting? What’s the point? Joseph lied to a scribe to make up a story for his wife? Common sense tells us the Book of Mormon began in the area of the USA. I also believe a Prophet and Apostles witness, not historians. We are all entitled to our own opinions but I trust the following references about where the BofM Nephites began living in America, not the Americas. Elder Perry said, “The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon—a place where divine guidance directed inspired men to create the conditions necessary for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Elder L. Tom Perry Ensign Dec. 2012. Also, Gordon B. Hinckley said, “I should like to say a few words about America…. No land is without its beauty, no people without their virtues, and I hope that you who come from elsewhere will pardon my saying a few words concerning my own native land, America. I know that she has problems. We have heard so much of them for so long. But surely this is a good land, a choice land, a chosen land. To me it is a miracle, a creation of the Almighty….” Gordon B. Hinckley, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled 1974. And, President Monson said, “The Lord gave a divine promise to the ancient inhabitants of this favored country (the United States): ‘Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). Our Heavenly Father inspired the leaders of…the United States of America, that they might together, under His direction, having been raised up by God for the purpose, establish the Constitution of this country and…Bill of Rights, that by the year of our Lord 1805 [there would be] a climate where our Heavenly Father could send into this period of mortality a choice spirit who would be known as Joseph Smith, Jr.” Teachings of Thomas S. Monson by Thomas S. Monson 2011. I have over 100 more witnesses of Prophets and Apostles speaking about the area of the USA as the beginning of the Lehite civilization after Jerusalem, if you want me to share with you? A serious scholar would do more in consideration of faith based statements, rather than unprovable thought and research.
“Heartlanders seem to love to rely more on Scripture, Modern Prophets opinions and Joseph Smith’s statements rather than looking at historians drive to be correct intellectually.” Ironically, the modern prophets (the Twelve and the First Presidency) agree with the historians on topics that the Heartlanders insist must be correct based on the way they read history. That means that not only are they against listening to the historians, but they really aren’t that interested in the modern prophets.
That leaves scripture, which can often be interpreted in many ways. Indeed, there are those who accept scripture who do not read it the way the Heartlanders do.
As for Joseph Smith’s statements–well, that is history, isn’t it? Doesn’t that mean that we are back to whether the historians who examine all of the evidence and have support of the modern Church might be worth listening to?
You are missing the importance of using faith in Joseph Smith’s statement, more than the intellect of a historian trying to decide if it meets his bias or not. Joseph’s statement is a huge part of my secondary evidence of truth of the Book of Mormon just as the Hill Cumorah in NY is. Secondary evidence means as Elder Holland said, “But it should be noted that truly rock-ribbed faith and uncompromised conviction comes with its most complete power when it engages our head as well as our heart…Truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will—the force of fact as well as the force of feeling…
OK. But which of Joseph’s statements? Should we take the earliest statements where he calls the hill pretty much anything except Cumorah, or the later statements that use the common term to describe earlier events? Historians tell us that the early statements are the most important. Please refer to the blog post again where it is explained that since Cumorah wasn’t used early, the historians were not allowed to use it in Saints. Remember also that Saints was reviewed by at least some of the First Presidency and the Twelve. As one of the historians noted when I heard him speaking about the process, “President Nelson reads the footnotes!”
Since the highest authorities of the Church support the reading that Joseph didn’t use Cumorah early, both historians and the Church authorities agree and therefore disagree with the way you have read the historical documents. Are you suggesting that you have either the training or the ecclesiastical authority to contradict those two sources?
Rian said: Heartlanders seem to love to rely more on Scripture, Modern Prophets opinions and Joseph Smith’s statements rather than looking at historians drive to be correct intellectually.
Allen says: This is exactly what I was referring to in a different comment, yesterday, to Glen. I said that it “makes me wince when I see the ‘uninitiated’ dismiss, mock, demean, or impute evil motives to academics because (1) they are academics or (2) they hold opinions different from their own.” In his view, the Heartlanders have pure motives (they “rely more on Scripture, Modern Prophets opinions, and Joseph Smith’s statements”) and the historians have suspect motives (they “drive to be correct intellectually”). Such characterizations make me wince; Rian imputes motives to historians as if he can read their minds and judge their souls.
Rian said: I wouldn’t think Joseph would lie to his wife. … Joseph lied to a scribe to make up a story for his wife?
Allen says: And here is another case of imputing motives. Any human can lie or they can be mistaken. The difference is knowledge and motive. Rian doesn’t believe that Joseph would lie, and neither do I. But I do believe he could be mistaken. Perhaps Rian does not. A false dichotomy is presented when one believes that Joseph can only tell truth or lie. Such black and white thinking is shallow and naieve.
Rian says: Common sense tells us the Book of Mormon began in the area of the USA.
Allen says: Actually, common sense doesn’t tell us that at all. Nephi tells us where it started–in Jerusalem. Once the Lehites landed in the New World, we have very little verifiable information as to where things took place, except that they took place somewhere in the New World.
Rian says: A serious scholar would do more in consideration of faith based statements, rather than unprovable thought and research.
Allen says: Another false dichotomy, presented to denigrate those with which Rian disagrees.
I think most historians are great and believing Saints, just like I try to be. I would simply like to know if you believe what Joseph said in the letter to Emma. Was Joseph wandering over the Plains of the Nephites while he was in Illinois? I believe the letter.
There is that dichotomous thinking again.
Do I believe Joseph believed he was “wandering over the plains of the Nephites?” Yes, I do. But I suspect that means something different to me than it does to you.
Just because Joseph said that’s what he was doing doesn’t mean it was what he was really doing. In other words, he could be making an assumption and, therefore, be mistaken. (Not lying, mind you, but mistaken.) Prophets are allowed to be mistaken. If they weren’t, the Doctrine and Covenants would not be replete with instances of Joseph being called on the carpet by the Lord.
Remember that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:265). Was Joseph acting as a prophet when he wrote the letter to Emma, or was he acting as a husband, recounting his travels?
You seem to believe he was, in the letter, acting as a prophet, sharing revealed knowledge about the history of the land over which he traveled. Do you have such evidence in this case?
You present, once again, a false dichotomy when you ask “I wouldn’t think Joseph would lie to his wife.” I don’t think he would, either. But “lying” is not the only other option, is it?
When it comes to such “throw away statements” like traversing the Nephite plains , interpretation becomes a matter of belief for some, rather than the strictness required by professional historians. There’s a reason scholarly journals review articles and books thoroughly before publication. Not perfect, but of higher quality generally than that coming from the untrained eye.
Brother Wyatt,
As you know, Joseph Smith spent many hours conversing with Moroni on the hill where the plates were buried. As you also know, he would come home from those meetings and tell his family about much of the Nephite culture; their manner of dress, and the animals they rode etc. (Lucy Smith)
What evidence do you have that convinces you that Joseph Smith was mistaken when he later wrote to his wife that he was on the “plains of the Nephites.”
The same evidence that you have that he was making a definitive, revelatory statement concerning the location of the Nephites. In other words, none.
I said Joseph could be mistaken in this instance. Unless you have evidence he was acting as a prophet, providing declarative statements concerning Book of Mormon locations, then I feel very comfortable in sticking with could.
With all due respect, Joseph didn’t need to be speaking as a propjet to get it right. He had spent many hours conversing one-on-one with a leader of the Nephites. The context of his letter was about the bones of the Nephites they found, and his making his definitive statesmen about the location does not appear to be an opinion.
Your conclusion is based on assumption of what “must be,” not on evidence. And, I’m fine with that. Both of us (as I keep saying) can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. See Gerald Smith’s comment earlier in this thread. It applies.
Please excuse the typo. I am 86 with macular degeneration.
It would take good evidence to doubt Joseph’s word on this. And a you mentioned, there is none.
I like what you did there–point out the lack of evidence for someone with whom you disagree while failing to recognize the paucity of evidence for your own position. Perhaps this is an academic variation on motes and beams. Tricky, that.
Brother Wyatt, you said, “Just because Joseph said that’s what he was doing doesn’t mean it was what he was really doing. In other words, he could be making an assumption and, therefore, be mistaken. (Not lying, mind you, but mistaken.)”
So as a scholar or intellectual or just a guy, you are deciding or trying to figure out what Joseph was really doing or saying? What would you say Joseph was doing or saying then? Making an assumption, being mistaken or just not lying? Or was he doing something else you have decided by your analysis?
When Joseph said, “roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones as a proof of its (BofM’s) divine authenticity” was Joseph just assuming or could he have been mistaken or just not lying? Please tell me your hypothesis.
Of course I can’t know what was in the mind of Joseph Smith, but I do know I take the vast majority of his words as truth because I believe Joseph was an honest man whether he was acting as a prophet or as a husband. By the way how do you know Joseph was acting as a husband and not an inspired head of his home when he wrote that letter?
Sure the letter was not doctrine for the church, but could it have been personal revelation from Joseph to help Emma in understanding the very sacred mission Joseph was on, as he was on the exact paths of those righteous Nephites. Possibly Emma’s faith grew stronger knowing her husband was living on the same space as the Nephites of old. Please let me know any other statements from Joseph where you know whether he was actually acting as a prophet or not. I hope I dont come across as disrespecting you as I don’t. I just don’t understand your reasoning and desire to discombobulate Joseph’s thinking or his words. I suggest you take Joseph’s words as an honest man who is even inspired when not acting as a prophet in my opinion.
Rian said: So as a scholar or intellectual or just a guy, you are deciding or trying to figure out what Joseph was really doing or saying?
Allen says: I’m just a guy. I do not consider myself a scholar or intellectual. I do consider myself as someone who has read much more about Church history than most people, though that does not make me special in any way.
Rian said: What would you say Joseph was doing or saying then? Making an assumption, being mistaken or just not lying? Or was he doing something else you have decided by your analysis?
Allen says: I say that we don’t have enough information to know what Joseph was saying. I cannot read his mind anymore than you can, so I cannot come to a firm conclusion one way or the other. And, I am fine with ambiguity (not knowing) when it comes to this particular statement of Joseph’s.
Rian said: Of course I can’t know what was in the mind of Joseph Smith, but I do know I take the vast majority of his words as truth because I believe Joseph was an honest man…
Allen says: I believe him to be an honest man, as well. Tell me, though, can honest men make mistakes? Since Joseph said he made mistakes, since the Lord confirms in the Doctrine and Covenants that Joseph makes mistakes, since Emma said that Joseph made mistakes, is it remotely possible, in your mind, that Joseph made a mistake in this one instance?
If such a consideration is not even remotely possible, in this one instance, than there are two possibilities. Either you view everything that Joseph says as inerrant (I’m not saying you believe this, just that it is one possibility), or you cannot allow the possibility of mistake in this instance because doing so would fly in the face of other conclusions you may have made.
Rian said: By the way how do you know Joseph was acting as a husband and not an inspired head of his home when he wrote that letter?
Allen says: I believe, again, that we don’t have enough evidence to make a firm declaration. He could have been acting as a husband, as an inspired head of home, as a leader of his group, or as a prophet. We just don’t know, and therefore the existing evidence (for this singular statement) is open to interpretation in any number of ways. None of those interpretations does violence to the mantle that Joseph held, though some of the interpretations may do violence to positions held by Heartlanders.
Rian said: Sure the letter was not doctrine for the church…
Allen says: Thank you for saying that. Many people treat the statement as doctrinal in nature, however. It is good you don’t recognize it as such.
Rian said: …but could it have been personal revelation from Joseph to help Emma in understanding the very sacred mission Joseph was on, as he was on the exact paths of those righteous Nephites. Possibly Emma’s faith grew stronger knowing her husband was living on the same space as the Nephites of old.
Allen says: Sure. Any of this is possible for the exact reason I stated–that the existing evidence can be interpreted in any number of ways.
Rian said: Please let me know any other statements from Joseph where you know whether he was actually acting as a prophet or not.
Allen says: Toward what end? I don’t view this as a zero-sum game when it comes to prophets. Even Joseph. I view him as God’s called and ordained prophet of the Restoration. Such a calling does not relieve him of the fallible nature of humanity. Had I lived in those days, I would have followed him to the ends of the earth, and I will defend his calling to any in these latter days.
Rian said: I hope I dont come across as disrespecting you as I don’t. I just don’t understand your reasoning and desire to discombobulate Joseph’s thinking or his words.
Allen says: I appreciate that, and I hope my reasoning is a bit clearer.
Rian said: I suggest you take Joseph’s words as an honest man who is even inspired when not acting as a prophet in my opinion.
Allen says: Thank you for the suggestion; it is one I agree with. As I have stated, I do view Joseph as an honest man. Further, I view him as inspired. I view all of God’s prophets (including the 15 we sustain today) as honest, inspired men. I have spent the majority of my life defending them, and will continue to do so.
Rian, you stated:
Let’s start with the second paragraph. You trust Joseph was an honest man. I trust he was an honest man. When he spoke as a prophet, I think we both believe him. Now, what do we do with statements when he wasn’t speaking as a prophet? Compare the Zelph statement to Joseph’s declaration that Copan was the city Zarahemla. He seems to have thought it possible. He was wrong. We know more about the dating, and Copan was too late. Did Joseph lie? No, he stated an opinion that didn’t have modern facts behind it.
Now, on to the mound. It has been excavated twice. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_Mound_8, particularly the section on the scientific investigation of the mound. The relevant information is that it was a Hopewell burial mound and the last burial is listed as about AD 91. The range for the last burials is AD 58-127. That is not only too early to be the final wars that Joseph thought the mound was part of, but it places the burials during the Nephite time of peace (from Christ’s visit to about AD 200). So, based on modern information, Joseph’s idea was demonstrably wrong. Did Joseph lie about Zelph or about Copan? No. Was he right about either? No. Was he still a prophet? Yes.
Thank you Mr. Allen for your dialogue. This is my last statement. I say the letter to Emma from Joseph is enough evidence itself to make a firm declaration for myself. I say I do know by personal revelation. Mr. Allen you may say that the letter is open to interpretation, and “therefore the existing evidence (for this singular statement) is open to interpretation in any number of ways”, may be true. But to many common sense guys like myself, Joseph was wandering over the Plains of the Nephites in the same area that the ancient Nephites roamed, not in Mesoamerica. Am I biased, yes. I’m not looking for “evidence” that we will never find as to Joseph’s understanding, so let’s let the statement speak for itself.
Joseph’s understanding in my opinion is that The Plains of the Nephites were definitely in Illinois and Indiana where he was at the time of writing of his letter in 1834. Joseph Knew by his own words. I don’t feel as you say Mr. Allen, “some of the interpretations may do violence to positions held by Heartlanders”, but if a heartlander does violence with these words he is wrong and should be held accountable. Thanks.
History is that virtually ALL Latter-day Saints, from Joseph Smith to Spencer W Kimball, believed in the Hemispheric model. Pres Kimball told us missionaries going to Bolivia that we were headed into the heart of the Nephite lands!
Was that revelation? Or was it a prophecy speaking from his belief and understanding?
I believe the latter. Internal textual evidence proves a limited geography. Neither Joseph nor Spencer was a historian, geographer, nor a scholar who would even ask the question.
Joseph in translating the plates, didn’t know Jerusalem had walls. Clearly, Moroni didn’t delve too deeply into the geography when training Joseph over those four years of preparation.
As for the One Cumorah Theory/Fraud(?), Brigham Young stated Moroni dedicated the temple spot for Manti Utah. Why would Moroni travel from New York to Utah, then back again to bury the plates, or more precisely, Rebury the plates in the same spot?
It makes more sense that he traveled from Mexico to southern Utah, Then to New York over about forty years, to bury the plates in “a hill.”
He was alone for many years. He was probably trying to find any surviving Nephite civilization.
I would have done so
Perhaps. But that is pure speculation. And if true, it doesn’t explain why he returned to the New York hill why not first bury the plates, Then seek out other Nephite? Why risk the plates falling into Lamanite hands?
Gerald,
You are correct that my suggestion that the totally-alone Moroni wandered seeking to find a pocket of surviving Nephites is speculative, but it is far more reasonable than the speculation that Moroni wandered for 36 years caring the plates while he wended his way from Mesoamaeria to New York.
You asked, “Why risk the plates falling into Lamanite hands?” Great question! The answerer is that he wouldn’t.
“Now I, Moroni…have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.…wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life.” (Moroni 1:1-3)
He knew he was at risk to be killed by the Laminates and even noted that he had not yet perished. The speculation that Moroni carried the sacred plates around with him for 36 years when he knew he could be killed at any time is absurd. There is nothing in the text that even suggests it. Sorenson had to add that to make his Mesoamerica-only theory feasible.
In Mormon 8:5, Moroni wrote that he didn’t have room on the plates and no ore to make more. However, he later wrote the complete sealed record of the vision of the brother of Jared, which was larger than the entire Book of Mormon (sealed portion), abridged the twenty-four gold plates of Ether, and wrote his own book. Moroni obviously found and smelted ore and made more plates during some of his wanderings and returned to the record repository in Cumorah to make his copy of the lengthy vision of the brother of Jared, the translation of the 24 gold plates of Ether, and to have reference to other records that he required to finish his own book. (Moroni 1:3).
Moroni wrote five farewells over those 36 years, which would indicate that he left the scarfed record repository in Cumorah and returned several times.
Sorry, Theodore, but there was no reason to return to Cumorah.
Moroni is not composing in sequence, and even includes an earlier letter in his own book of Moroni (Moroni 9:24 = Mormon 6:6 referring to his father’s handoff of his book). Moroni merely abridges the already extant translation by Mosiah of the Jaredite 24-gold plates. Moroni did not need to lug around those 24 plates. The abridgement (book of Ether) with his commentary was likely already complete, and would not have taken up much space. Also we do not know the extent of the sealed Vision of the Brother of Jared, which was buried as part of the Book of Mormon in that hill convenient to Manchester (Ether 4:3-5). In all such cases, Moroni could easily have carried paper copy of any pending engraving. The Book of Mormon plates themselves only weighed around 50 pounds, which is nothing compared to the heavy loads carried regularly by SEALS or U.S. Army Rangers..
Moreover, walking from Mesoamerica to the New York area would not take so long: Mid-16th century shipwrecked English sailor David Ingram made the trek with several companions on foot from Tampico, Mexico, to the border of Canada and Maine in 11 months. It took 8 years for shipwrecked royal treasurer Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca to cross southern North America beginning in 1528.
Robert,
Moroni was writing on metal plates, so he had to be writing in sequence. He had to return to the repository to have access to his father’s letters, which were obviously not included in thee plates he received from his father. That is why he had to add them.
Regarding the Book of Ether, Moroni said specifically that, “I take mine account from the twenty and four plates which were found by the people of Limhi, which is called the Book of Ether” (Ether 1:2). He never mentions Mosiah’s translation, and if as you mention it was on paper, it was probably no longer existent.
There is good evidence that the vision of the Brother of Jared was not on the 24 plates but was a separate sealed book, which was still in the cave at Cumorah where Ether had been hiding. The Lord had commanded that this record shall not “go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh” (Ether 3:21). Moroni abridged the 24 plates of Ether but noted that he had also written:
“…the very things which the brother of Jared saw…And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.” (Ether 4:4-5),
Moroni had written and sealed the vision of the brother of Jared, with the interpreters, prior to writing his abridgement of the Book of Ether.
Valentin Arts provides seven reasons why the sealed book of the brother of Jared was not contained in the 24 plates of Ether, including details showing there was not enough room on Ether’s plates.
(See: Valentin Arts, A Third Jaredite Record: The Sealed Portion of the Gold Plates, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 11:1:10 – 2002.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=jbms )
Moroni had to return to the repository in Cumorah to have access to all these records.
As usual, there are other ways of seeing the evidence. For example, I suspect that Moroni was working on the book of Ether prior to receiving his father’s plates. Mormon indicated that the Jaredite record would be included, but Mormon didn’t do it and makes no indication of where he would have put it. Perhaps understanding the problem of the remaining time, he tasked Moroni with that part of the record. No need to return to the archive. You note: The Lord had commanded that this record shall not “go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh” (Ether 3:21). That glorification came when Christ was in his mortal ministry. The Jaredite plates were found before that time. Mormon wrote after. Mormon did not quote from the Jaredite plates, but used their general story of destruction as a parallel theme that pointed to the Nephite destruction.
Brant, you wrote,
“I suspect that Moroni was working on the book of Ether prior to receiving his father’s plates. “
Moroni was busy fighting a war prior to receiving his father’s plates and as he was fishing his father’s own book, he wrote that he had no more plates and no ore (Mormon 8:5). He obviously found ore and made more plates during some of his wanderings.
Robert, you said,
The Book of Mormon plates themselves only weighed around 50 pounds, which is nothing compared to the heavy loads carried regularly by SEALS or U.S. Army Rangers..”
I don’t doubt that Moroni “could” have carried the plates that far.
What I said was that it was, “The speculation that Moroni carried the sacred plates around with him for 36 years when he knew he could be killed at any time is absurd.” If Moroni had carried the gold plates around for 36 years, their jostling and rubbing against each other would have made them unreadable.
This is a great article. Thank you.
I just finished reading a book by Dr Keith Erekson outlining important approaches and considerations for studying Church History. It is refreshing and confirming to see you use and describe the same approaches and considerations.
I look forward to the next article in this series.
Brother Gardner,
If I could summarize your points:
Would it be that despite D&C 128:20 stating, “Glad tidings from Cumorah,” that that statement is actually from a letter from Joseph Smith, evidently after the idea that had become fixed that because records were hidden in Cumorah therefore the one in New York must have been the same hill?
And that in his letters, Oliver Cowdery calls it Cumorah, evidently from the same idea, not from any divine or angelic statement that it was Cumorah? That certainly the idea did not originate with any careful student of The Book of Mormon? That among the early Saints (in Joseph Smith’s day) there may not have been any real study of The Book of Mormon at that time? That The Book of Mormon appears to have been largely taken on trust by those Early Saints, without great examination or study?
Respectfully,
Thank you for your time
Re summary 1: D&C 128 was originally a letter, as you indicate. As such it continues to be correct, as the current Church indicates, that there is no revelation on the topic. Second, historians all agree that Joseph did eventually use the label Cumorah for the NY hill. That is not in dispute. Note that the letter that was entered into the D&C in 1844 was written in 1842. That continues to support what the historians have been saying, which is that Joseph did not use that term until later. Thus, the fact that the NY hill appears to be referenced in the 1842 letter does not contradict the idea that Joseph didn’t use it earlier, when he could have but chose not to. Hence, there is no early evidence that Joseph used that label for the NY hill earlier.
Oliver clearly uses the term. Where did get the idea? You state: “evidently from the same idea, not from any divine or angelic statement that it was Cumorah.” Oliver used the term when Joseph did not. If Joseph knew, but didn’t say so, why not? There is no evidence of divine or angelic declaration that the NY hill is the Book of Mormon Cumorah. You have suggested it because Oliver used the term, but we don’t have very many revelations to Oliver. We do have them to Joseph, and Joseph didn’t use the term. If there was a divine confirmation, don’t you think it should have come to Joseph?
Finally, let’s just play the interpretation game. You are suggesting that when D&C 128 says “Cumorah,” that it means the NY hill. What if it didn’t? What if the reference is to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (it is, of course) but the reference is to Mormon’s book which was finalized at the Book of Mormon Cumorah and give to Moroni. Thus, the glad tidings did come from the Book of Mormon Cumorah, but because of Mormon’s creation of the book and not Joseph’s recovery of the plates? Now, do I think that is the case? No, I don’t. However, if we are in the mode of interpreting what words must mean in the historical record, I propose that this idea has as much firm evidence for it as does the assertion that the use of the term Cumorah in D&C 128 must be a divine declaration that the NY hill and the Book of Mormon hill are the same.
Now, as for how the early Saints received the Book of Mormon, they took it as a sign of Joseph as a prophet when using it in preaching. In private, they searched the doctrines (see Janiece Johnson’s work on this). There is little indication that there was much discussion of or real study of the geography of the text until much, much later. Indeed, tradition has been the dominant way the text has been read, including the idea that the Book of Mormon referred to the entire hemisphere, which was the dominant reading of my youth.
Finally, I do think that the traditional connection between the NY hill and the Book of Mormon hill is the best the Heartland model has to offer outside of the theological arguments which are more faith-based than geography-based.
Hi Brother Gardner,
Actually my question above was an exact quote by RLDS member, H.A. Stebbins from his March 15, 1911 article “Cumorah Hill” in “The Saints’ Herald.”
It’s found on Page 245 of this large .pdf:
https://latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100225.pdf
H.A. Stebbins also stated in the article:
“At least Oliver Cowdery’s statement of the contents of the box, namely, that it contained “a sketch” of the two peoples seems to make it plain that Moroni did not place the original
Jaredite record in the New York hill.”
“I have no objection to that hill being also called Cumorah, with the understanding that-the ancient hill Cumorah is still undiscovered, and that sometime its secrets will be revealed and come to the knowledge of God’s people.”
Bro. Gardner, do you also believe this?
That the actual Hill Cumorah has yet to be discovered and its ancient secrets -meaning the Prophet Mormon’s repository of Nephite records – will be revealed?
Respectfully,
Thank you for your time
Stebbins is interesting, since he separates the two hills but still believes that the Jaredites and Nephites colonized North America. There are things he says with which I would agree, but the idea of colonizing North America would not hold up to modern investigation.
Do I believe that the original archive will be discovered? I doubt it. I suspect that it is long gone. If Moroni took back the plates, it doesn’t appear that God is interested in having physical plates available to us. I would think that covers the entire archive.
Thank you, Brother Gardner.
Regarding the other part of my question.
Do you believe the actual Hill Cumorah has yet to be discovered?
And where do you believe the actual Hill Cumorah with its final Jaredite and Nephite battles, is located, if not in New York?
Since you believe the Prophet Joseph Smith merely went along with his fellow Saints who named the hill near his home, as Cumorah, long after Joseph Smith referred to it as Cumorah, do you know of any documentation or history in the Church that Joseph Smith indicated where the final battles actually occurred?
For many, it is important to know the location of the Hill Cumorah to be able to tie the record or The Book of Mormon, to an actual location to help verify the book’s authenticity.
Otherwise, some may merely claim the book is a fable containing some good messages. Sort of like Aesop’s fables. Then the Prophet Joseph Smith may appear to be nothing more than a teller of good tales.
Respectfully
Do I believe we have identified the hill of the final Nephite battle? No. There is a proposal for the Hill Vigia, and frankly it is an interesting military possibility. It is large enough for the populations listed, and most of it has a gentle slope allowing for deploying large numbers of fighters who would have the higher ground, but without significant barriers to moving up or down slope–at least from what I saw at a distance. However, Lawrence Paulsen had a different suggestion that I haven’t spent much time with.
Many would like to tie the NY hill to the Book of Mormon in the same way that we like to tie, say the Garden Tomb to Jesus. We like to have those connections. Some things we get right. Others we don’t. Knowing where the Nephites met their end doesn’t seem to me nearly as interesting as understanding the cultural background of the previous nearly 1000 years. Those insights could actually help us understand the text. Having a knowledge of the location of the final battle is interesting, but ultimately uninformative about the lives of the Nephites. We don’t understand them better by visiting their graveyard.
As for the book’s historicity, it would be good to have something we could hang on to. However, what happens if we place too much weight on a place and find out that it cannot be that place? Is uninformed tradition really superior to historical and archaeological investigation? There is so much in the Book of Mormon to attest to its historicity that placing such a weight on simple tradition is unnecessary.
Rian said,
“Joseph’s understanding in my opinion is that The Plains of the Nephites were definitely in Illinois and Indiana where he was at the time of writing of his letter in 1834. Joseph Knew by his own words”
From Palmyra to Illinois is over 700 miles.
This doesn’t fit the internal distances in the BoM, usually agreed to be between 250-400 miles. But then, it is just one of the problems with the Heartland theory.
I love in Indiana and have visited many of the ancient mounds here. Cahokia the biggest and most famous. Awesome to see
But they don’t date to Nephite era. They are centuries after the destruction of the Nephites.
Joseph likely saw the mounds and guessed they were Nephite using a Hemispheric model.
But unless you want to argue that the archaeologists have dated the mounds wrong, they can’t be Nephite. The Nephites were extinct. Moroni verifies that.
Grald, you wrote,
“From Palmyra to Illinois is over 700 miles. This doesn’t fit the internal distances in the BoM, usually agreed to be between 250-400 miles.”
This is another contrived fallacy. There is nothing in the Boo of Mormon to indicate confined distances. In fact, many statements in the Book of Mormon require large distances. For example:
It took the Nephite Captain, Moroni, the most part of a year to move a portion of his army through friendly territory from Zarahemla to Bountiful (Alma 52:11,15,18). This makes no sense if the distance was only two or three hundred miles across Mesoamerica, or some narrow peninsula. An ancient army would march that in ten to fifteen days.
Later, Helaman, an officer of Moroni’s army, wrote a lengthy epistle from the war theatre near the west sea to Captain Moroni near the east sea. Helaman’s epistle described the battle situation over a period of four years (Alma 56:1, 9). If the distance between them had only been two or three hundred miles, runners could have kept them in regular communication. The fact that these military officers only communicated about the conduct of the war once in those four years is further evidence that there was a great distance between them.
Helaman, son of Helaman, described how a great many people, about fifty years before the birth of Christ, migrated from Zarahemla to the land northward. He states that, “They did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers” (Helaman 3:3-4). To the Nephites, who had a recorded heritage of long-distance travel, an exceedingly great distance would surely be more than a few hundred miles.
Mormon wrote that in AD 375, “from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as dew before the sun” (Mormon 4:16-18). This final rout lasted ten years and culminated at Cumorah in AD 385 (Mormon 6:5). A military rout lasting ten years speaks of a vast territory.
A similar situation occurred previously amongst the Jaredites. When the armies of Coriantumr and Shiz faced off at Ramah (Cumorah) for their final battle, they paused in their fighting to gather their survivors. It took them four years to gather their people for battle (Ether 15:14), indicating a very large territory from which they were gathered.
There is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon that would limit the territory it covered.
As to Neville’s second pin, Zarahemla, he has the right river, but he is about 700 miles too far north. (see https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-north-american-book-of-mormon-geography-the-river-sidon/ )
The Phoenician sea going sailing ships in which the Mulekites arrived at Zarahemla could not have made it any farther up the river than Vicksburg, Mississippi, where the tertian rises at more than 5 feet per mile and the current is too swift for them.
Please put the Zarahemla pin at Poverty Point, Louisiana.
Hi Brother Brandley,
This isn’t entirely accurate. I have an ancestor who joined the Church in Denmark in 1850, joined up with other Saints in Liverpool, then sailed to New Orleans. From there they traveled up the Mississippi.
I quote from FamilySearch KWN5-NS6:
“The Atlantic crossing was tedious.. The provisions were poor and the supply of fresh water inadequate to reach New Orleans were they arrived March 16th. Four deaths and three births occurred.”
“They went up the river to St. Louis where they stayed for about a month, then on up the Mississippi again to Keokuk, Iowa which was the outfitting station that year. Many of the oxen had not been worked, and there were many inexperienced drivers. This added up to many upset wagons in the gullies and ditches. Finally with 34 wagons and about 130 oxen, the company rolled out from the camping grounds near Keokuk on May 21st.”
The group then traveled across the plains to the Salt Lake Valley. This is a well known account in Church History.
This was 10 years before the Civil War. I don’t believe any dredging of the river was done at the time. Obviously the uncontrolled Mississippi would change course and depth throughout the centuries.
The Mississippi River is obviously a major river which helped develop the interior of the USA. It would have been of benefit to its ancient inhabitants as well.
This particular ancestor also made the coffin for Martin Harris. : )
Respectfully
Neither “the Phoenician Sea going sailing ships,” not any other deep draft ocean sailing ship, could go up the Mississippi more than about 300 miles from the Gulf. Steamboats plied the Mississippi form 1811. Prior to that, flatboats wore rowed and pulled upstream by ropes from the shore.
There are at least seven documentary sources that confirm it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith, prior to the translation of the Gold Plates, that the hill in Palmyra was anciently known as Cumorah.
1. The only first-person source comes from the epistle that Joseph Smith dictated on September 6, 1842, which was later canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 128.
Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfillment of the prophets — the book to be revealed. (D&C 128:20)
The inference is that Joseph knew the name “Cumorah” before the book was revealed. That knowledge could only have come from Moroni. This is substantiated in the subsequent documents.
2. An early documentary source confirming the above are the lines from a sacred hymn, written by W.W. Phelps. William Phelps lived with the Prophet in Kirtland and was in essence his executive secretary during the Nauvoo period.
An angel came down from the mansions of glory,
And told that a record was hid in Cumorah,
Containing the fulness of Jesus’s gospel;
(Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, Hymn 16, page 22,
It was the angel who told Joseph that the record was hid in “Cumorah.” This hymn was selected by Emma Smith, wife of the Prophet, approved by the Prophet, and published in 1835 with a collection of hymns, under instructions and directions from the Lord. “And it shall be given thee, also, to make a selection of sacred hymns, as it shall be given thee, which is pleasing unto me, to be had in my church.” (D&C 25:1)
This hymn was also included in the 1841 edition as hymn #262.
3. Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder of the Church and Co-President with Joseph Smith, stated the following in 1831:
This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him Cumorah, which hill is now in the state of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County. (Autobiography of P.P. Pratt p 56-61)
The Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt was complied, edited and published in1881 by his son, from the documents and records left by his father after his death. From the length and detail of the address given by Oliver Cowdery in 1831, from which the above quote is taken, it had to have been recorded by Parley P. Pratt at the time it was spoken. “In writing his autobiography, Pratt relied heavily on his previous writings. After extensive analysis, Pratt family historian Steven Pratt concluded that almost ninety percent of the text is either based on or copied from earlier works” (Matt Grow, assistant professor of history at the University of Southern Indiana.)
4. The Prophet’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, provides two separate items of evidence in the original manuscript of her memoirs. In the first item, Lucy is remembering what Joseph told her after Moroni first appeared to him. The quote begins with what Moroni had told Joseph:
Now Joseph beware when you go to get the plates your mind will be filld with darkness and all man[n]er of evil will rush into your mind. To keep you from keeping the comman dments of God and you must tell your father of this for he will believe every word you say the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars — then the angel left him. [sic] (Lucy Mack Smith, History 1844–1845, Original Manuscript, page 41)
Lucy dictated the above about 20 years after the fact, but it is consistent with other evidence. In the following, Lucy recalls directly what her son said in her presence. Following Joseph’s meeting with Moroni at Cumorah, one year before Joseph received the plates, Joseph told his parents that he had “taken the severest chastisement that I have ever had in my life.” Joseph said:
it was the an gel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumo rah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do: [sic] (Lucy Mack Smith, History 1844–1845, Original Manuscript, page 111)
In both of these quotes from the Prophet’s mother, she demonstrates that in her mind it was Moroni, who told Joseph, prior to the translation of the plates, that the hill in Palmyra was named Cumorah.
5. David Whitmer confirmed this in an interview in his later years when he stated:
[Joseph Smith] told me…he had a vision, an angel appearing to him three times in one night and telling him that there was a record of an ancient people deposited in a hill near his fathers house called by the ancients “Cumorah” situated in the township of Manchester, Ontario county N.Y…” (Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration,” p. 233)
6. David Whitmer also recounted an incident that occurred while he was with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in a wagon going to Fayette, NY to finish the translation. They came across an old man with a knapsack on his back who told them he was headed for Cumorah. Joseph identified the man as Moroni. (Deseret Evening News 16 November 1878)
7. Hymn written by Parley P Pratt which we still sing. #328 in the current LDS hymnbook, “An Angel From On High”:
An angel from on high
The long, long silence broke;
Descending from the sky,
These gracious words he spoke:
Lo! in Cumorah’s lonely hill
A sacred record lies concealed.
Lo! in Cumorah’s lonely hill
A sacred record lies concealed.
Notice that Parley P Pratt is quoting Moroni in paraphrase, “Lo! in Cumorah’s lonely hill
A sacred record lies concealed.”
The old man with a backpack matches the description given by Mary Whitmer of the old man who visited her when she was at the family barn and pulled the golden plates out of his knapsack. The children and grandchildren who recounted her telling of the experience were amused because she insisted that the old man told her his name was Nephi. The grandchildren thought she was obviously mistaken, and that the old man was surely Moroni. But when she had the visit, the Book of Mormon had not been published, and she had not read it, and knew nothing about anyone named Nephi.
The description by Mary and David of the old man does not match the description of Moroni as a glorious resurrected angel, given by Joseph and by David as one of the three witnesses.
It seems far more reasonable to me that Mary was relating what the old man told her, and that his name was Nephi, which is the name of one of the twelve Nephite disciples ordained by Christ, and thus possibly one of the three disciples who were selected by Christ to be translated, and not resurrected, so they could remain on the earth and perform missions assigned by God.
The fact that David could be inaccurately remembering the identity of the old man suggests that his recollection about the name of the hill is also something retroactively superimposed on the memory. There could have been a reference made to the hill without the name, and his mind would put the name on the memory.
Raymond Takashi Swenson
Lt. Colonel, USAF (Retired)
JD, LLM Environmental Law
Very well said. I agree. The man at the wagon was likely one of the three Nephites named Nephi. He also appeared to Mary Whitmer.
Please see my earlier comments about how things written later about an earlier period are not of the same weight as contemporary evidence. Everything you cite is correct, but late. Since the application of the name Cumorah was in wide use at the time of writing, it isn’t surprising to see it. However, suggesting that this means that it was common earlier is contrary to evidence. There have been multiple trained historians porting over documents for decades, and their conclusion is that the identifications are late.
Again, no revelation and Joseph himself didn’t use it until much later after it had already become common.
Joseph Smith’s 1842 statement was not late. (Item 1.)
WW Phelps 1835 statement was not late. (see item 2)
Oliver Cowdery’s 1831 statement was not late (see item 3)
Being late does not invalidate it.
Cumorah was commonly known because it came from Joseph Smith before the translation of the book of Mormon. (see item 1)
I guess I would ask you why your opinion of these things should be accepted over the historians who have seen the very same things, and more. I am not offering my opinion (though I agree with theirs) but that of the trained historians who have been through all of the evidence and come to a different conclusion than you have.
Brant,
Yolo are totally ignoring the facts above that there are at least seven documentary sources that confirm it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith, prior to the translation of the Gold Plates, that the hill in Palmyra was anciently known as Cumorah. These are not my opinions. They are historical, e documentary facts.
Theodore,
No, I am not ignoring the sources. I am suggesting that when we use historical sources there are things that must be asked of them. We cannot accept them as, let’s say, inviolate scripture. In the case of the documentary sources you cite, all of them were written down after the term Cumorah had become a popular designation for the NY hill, and therefore used that term in describing an earlier time. They are recollections, not recordings.
How do we know that the term Cumorah is invasive in them rather than authentic? Other historical sources. Please reread the comments from Jed Woodworth and Matt Grow about why Cumorah is not used as the name of the hill in Saints. I assure you that those are both excellent historians and that they have looked at all the evidence, including your seven documentary sources. The texts are not the issue. Understanding them is.
In my opinion historians are wrong often. They of course have bias like we all do. Documentary sources with common sense are the best evidence.
In my opinion non-historians are wrong more often than historians. So what? Two people, be they trained historians or not, can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. The data (what you imprecisely call “documentary sources”) never speaks for itself. It must be evaluated in a context and framework.
You seem to imply that “common sense” is the best framework for evaluation. That is, of course, nonsense because “common sense” is contingent on the cultural context in which it is being applied. What passes for common sense today would not have passed for common sense in Joseph’s day.
The perpetual problem with studying history is that we must fight against our common sense and evaluate the data as it would have been viewed and understood by people contemporaneous with the data being evaluated. That is an extremely difficult thing to do, hence the need for the training historians receive and that you find often wrong.
The attitude in your short comment belies an anti-academic bias that is disturbing, bordering on dismissive condescension. Is this the type of bias to which you refer, seeing motes in others’ eyes but not the beam in your own?
Of course historians are often wrong. The more we learn, the more that is applied to the way history is read. It also happens that historians are influenced by the times in which they live and write. So what do we make of that? We keep learning and try to keep up with the best modern work that is critically reexamining what has gone before.
What about your suggestion about documentary sources? That is fascinating because this places the question firmly in the realm of history and historiography. There are seldom self-evidence documentary sources. Historians understand that all sources have to be subjected to analysis. Is “common sense” one of those criteria? No. Why not? Because there is really no such thing as common sense in historical studies. What history requires is evidence and analysis. Common sense often simply suggests that the way one prefers to read a document must be correct because–well–common sense would indicate that what the person wants to see is self-evident. It doesn’t work that way.
To provide a somewhat parallel example, we have the King James Bible that is accepted as scripture by many. In it we find: “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (Matthew 5:15)
Since is a verse of scripture, what do we do with the fact that both candles and bushels are anachronistic. We understand the meaning, but to suggest that because they exist in a sacred document that therefore there must have been candles and bushels in Christ’s time is unacceptable and against known history, archaeology and the earlier texts. Just because a term exists in a document does not mean that it was always used in that way. However, there are likely many who haven’t studied the history, or don’t need to know, who just might think that there were candles and bushels in Jerusalem during Christ’s lifetime. That is why common sense isn’t the right qualification.
Br. Brandley: a qualm I have with scholars’ consensus is that it demands preeminence, and no one can have an opinion without being slimed with smug ridicule. I think the fact is, every person—credentialed or not, has viewpoint, an opinion. Objectivity may be myth. Brant has slant (though I agree with him). We all think we are perfectly objective.
Further, the absence of evidence is not proof against a thing, and evidence itself is interpreted and can be stretched like silly putty. I think in the study of history, perspective is thus overarching. I’m not into scholar worship; I’ve seen PhD deities make stunningly ignorant statements. I loved the words of journalist Ted Koppel, who cautioned that we can come away from a collection of evidence with the illusion that we really know what’s going on.
But thank you for your perspective. I think it’s entitled to a life of its own. Very best to you.
I decided to pursue an advanced degree when I read a dissertation that I thought wasn’t very good. Scholars have ranges. However, when I go to a physician, and really do want want with relevant training rather than someone who “did their own research” on YouTube. You don’t have to be a degreed scholar to make a contribution, even in history. Nigel Davies is very respected for his work. He didn’t have a degree. He did use the sources in ways the scholars understood and interpreted them.
What always matters is the arguments about the evidence. When we are faced with a large amount of data, we need to know how to process it. For example, understanding that late recollections can insert reworkings into their descriptions is important in understanding evidence. In fact, it is now accepted that we all do that with memory. Our memories are constructs and the longer after the fact, sometimes the past is reworked into what we think it was which is often contradicted by contemporary records. That is information from the scientific study of memory. That becomes relevant in understanding late recollections and what they mean.
It is also important in academic studies to follow the data rather than lead it. If you start with the presumption that you will find X, X is often found–whether it is there or not.
Re: Allen L. Wyatt’s comment:
Is historical evidence always out of reach of the non-credentialed? I’ve seed “trained” historians guilty of overthink, wordsoup, esotericism, and other academic gimmick. A trained Fawn Brodie can write while stuck-in-stupid and be lauded by other Trained. Yes, evidence must be evaluated, but that makes it vulnerable to a scholar-deity’s opinion, brodiesque bias, viewpoint, agenda, head-hobby. Any intelligent individual can follow annotated footnotes and see context. They can caution themselves against presentism and other pitfalls. They can have the ability to think. Arrogant academic elitism has a foul smell; it insists on its own preeminence. Context isn’t everything, it can even lead to its own far-fetched ideas at the hands of intellectuals in love with lofty.
While studying for my Religious Studies degree at Cal State University Long Beach, I studied the Epic of Gilgamesh and spotted a chiasm. I had no Training for that, other than reading br. John Welch’s work.
Scholars are valuable, helpful, but they are not godhood. And when I see one needlessly cut an uninitiated to ribbons with putdowns, it just makes me wince. More deserving of that might be the toxic false doctrine of Doubt in Mason-Miller-Givenspeak.
Glen said: Is historical evidence always out of reach of the non-credentialed?
Allen says: No, it is not. Never said it was, and I don’t believe I’ve implied that.
Glen said: Arrogant academic elitism has a foul smell; it insists on its own preeminence.
Allen says: Anyone–degreed, non-degreed, professional, or lay person–can be arrogant. Anyone.
Glen said: Context isn’t everything.
Allen says: While not everything, it is a major factor in evaluating historical evidence.
Glen said: Scholars are valuable, helpful, but they are not godhood.
Allen says: I agree. Recognizing they are not gods does not mean that they should be discounted or, worse, thrown out. Doing so means that one does not recognize them, as you say, as valuable and helpful.
Glen said: And when I see one needlessly cut an uninitiated to ribbons with putdowns, it just makes me wince.
Allen says: I agree, 100%. It also makes me wince when I see the “uninitiated” dismiss, mock, demean, or impute evil motives to academics because (1) they are academics or (2) they hold opinions different from their own.
Ok Allen. Seems like I touched a nerve. Seeing that you misrepresent each of my statements. You twist my gist, argumentative one! How is the air up there? You may need some oxygen.
No nerve touched at all, Glen, and I wasn’t being argumentative. In fact, if you read my response, you’ll find I agree with most of what you said. If you feel that I misrepresent each of your statements, please tell me how I misrepresented things that I agree with.
Hello Brother Gardner,
Regarding the location of the Hill Cumorah, I noticed your appeal to authority is to H.A. Stebbins, or Henry Alfred Stebbins, a convert to the RLDS Church.
Stebbins was born in January 1844 in Toledo, Ohio about 6 months before the murder of The Prophet Joseph Smith. Serving in the Civil War as a young man, he became ill and was honorably discharged. During the War, and viewing the atrocities because of it, he made a commitment to follow God.
He returned to his Mother’s farm, in Rock County, Wisconsin, then later moved in with his Uncle on his farm about a mile away. He was surprised to learn his Uncle had been a member of the former LDS Church, but had refused to follow it to Utah. Stebbin’s Uncle gave him a copy of The Book of Mormon, he read it, then joined the RLDS Church.
Being an early and young convert, he stated in his autobiography that the RLDS Church had no more than 800 members at the time. That they had to borrow copies of The Book of Mormon from the “Utah Church” and the Z Brooks edition of The Book of Mormon, another member who rejected polygamy and did not travel to Utah, who printed his own edition of The Book of Mormon. (Copyrights did not last as long back then, as they do now.)
Stebbins associated with Joseph Smith III, his senior by 12 years and among other duties in the RLDS Church, was an editor for the RLDS newspaper, “The Saints’ Herald.
Stebbins gave some Book of Mormon Lectures in 1894 in The Stone Church in Independence, MO. They were published approx. 1901 and can be found easily on line.
In those lectures he embraced a hemispheric model and his lectures triggered, if you will, the creation of the RLDS Committee on Archaeology which created hemispheric maps.
L.E. Hills, who created the M2C (called today) or the LGT or Limited Geographical Theory in 1917, quoted from H.A. Stebbins in his 1924 book, “New Light on American Archaeology.”
This book can be found at ScriptureCentral and also scanned online.
This is the quote from H.A. Stebbins, Page 131:
“Elder H. A. Stebbins has always been considered one of the best Book of Mormon students we have ever had in the church . He goes on to state the following :
To return especially to the location of the original hill Cumorah : We find no word by angels or by the voice of the Lord that the hill where Joseph found the plates was the historic hill . No revelation in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants so designates it , and nowhere in his history did Joseph Smith write of it as Cumorah . In Times and Seasons volume 3 , page 771 , he says “ stands a hill , ” and “ this hill , ” and the angel told him to come to ” that place ” each year . At the final time he says that he went to ” the place ” where the plates were deposited .”
The book can be found here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359&view=2up&seq=134&skin=mobile&q1=Stebbins
Or at ScriptureCentral:
https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/new-light-american-archaeology-second-edition?searchId=440481162ad6a0063afd2f5d948e3b891aad042e293885f2c1d70d251415bcfe-en-v=aff186a
On page 2 at ScriptureCentral, one can see the map of Tehuantepec created by L.E. Hills with Cumorah allegedly located in the Valley of Mexico.
This link here shows some images, likely from travel brochures, showing the Two Hill theory as L.E. Hills profession was being a Rail Road Conductor, an honorable profession in the 1910s-1920s with a major industry.
https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1924bookM2C
If you really want to be authoritative, you should appeal to Oliver Cowdery’s Letters on the History of the Restoration on the location of the Hill Cumorah.
https://tinyurl.com/JSPapersLetterVII
https://tinyurl.com/OliverCowderyLetterIV
Cowdery was asked to write this history by The Prophet Joseph Smith, as noted by Cowdery in the introduction to his letters.
Letter I is the footnote to Joseph Smith History, in The Pearl of Great Price.
Respectfully,
Thank you for your time.
You wrote: “I noticed your appeal to authority is to H.A. Stebbins, or Henry Alfred Stebbins, a convert to the RLDS Church.” Not that I am aware of, no. I did reference the Gospel Topics essays, noting that they are published under review of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. I cited Church historians who worked on the first volume of Saints. I don’t see Stebbins name in what I wrote. Perhaps someone I quoted referenced him and I missed it?
In any case, let me return to the important information:
1) The Church does not believe that there has been revelation on the subject. That means that they haven’t received any, but also means that they don’t believe that Joseph did either.
2) Joseph began using Cumorah as the name of the NY hill much later than others. That would be strange if Joseph were the source of the identification. It seems clear he was not (and certainly not by revelation).
3) Oliver does seem to be the earliest, but we don’t know what made him make that connection. Perhaps it was because Mormon buried records in the Hill Cumorah and Joseph took records out of the NY Hill. That would be reasonable, but would rely upon a hasty reading of Mormon 6:6.
4) The use of Cumorah for the NY hill obviously became the popular identification, and it is easy to find later writers (including Joseph Fielding Smith) being very adamant that it was that hill. That, of course, was his opinion based on historical usage. Remember, the Church does not believe there was revelation.
So, if there is not revelation, and no indication of how Oliver made the connection when Joseph didn’t, there isn’t much in the historical record to recommend the NY hill as the Book of Mormon hill.
Hi Brother Gardner,
My point about H.A. Stebbins is that he was quoted from 1911 in the 1924 book, “New Light on American Archaeology,” which introduced the Two Cumorah Mesoamerican Theory, as an excuse to move Cumorah to Mexico or Mesoamerica.
Isn’t that the theory that you have been promoting and writing books about?
It’s obvious that Dr. John L. Sorenson quoted H.A. Stebbins as well. Read his arguments.
The quote by H.A. Stebbins is from his article called “Cumorah Hill” dated March 15, 1911 in The Saints’ Herald.
It can be found in this large .pdf; a scan of The Saints’ Herald for 1911 on page 245.
It’s called “Original Articles” or an opinion piece over the title “Cumorah Hill.”
It’s three-and-a-half pages long. These are the first two paragraphs:
Quote:
Because there now seems to be quite an inquiry
as to the original hill Cumorah and its location, and
more and more the students of the Book of Mormon
are coming up to the idea that the original hill could
not have been in New York State, but must have
been in Central America, I write of the understanding that I have had during the past eleven years.
Up to December, 1899, I took it for granted, as
did everyone else, that the hill where Moroni hid ·
the “·abridgment” made by his father, Mormon,
(which is known in our time as the Book of Mormon)
was the same hill where the Prophet Mormon
hid the original records, the mass of plates from
which the Book of Mormon was compiled, as related
on page 492 of the old small edition,’ or in verse two,
chapter two .of that portion of the book called the
“Book of Mormon.”
End Quote
In other words, even within the RLDS Church many members believed the Hill Cumorah is in New York. It was a small minority of RLDS Scholars who began to teach otherwise.
This was an opinion piece. Again, it was quoted by L.E. Hills in his 1924 book introducing the Book of Mormon LGT Theory, some now call The Sorenson Model or M2C.
Respectfully,
Thank you for your time
Are you suggesting that if a member of the then-named Reorganized Church had an idea, that it was therefore wrong?
It would be nice if you would interact with what I wrote, and not what you assume I must have thought about.
Again, the issues:
1) no revelation
2) Joseph did not use the term until much later
3) If Joseph didn’t know, then who started the idea, why, and with what authority?
Hello again,
Why would you assume an opinion from a member of the RLDS Church in 1911 who had no Ecclesiastical authority to speak for either the RLDS or LDS Church, was correct that the Hill Cumorah is not in New York?
Do you think an opinion piece is correct?
I’m making a fourth point that you overlooked:
4) Who was it that started the idea that Cumorah was not in New York but in Mesoamerica?
President Joseph Fielding Smith stated that Cumorah outside of New York is a “modernistic theory.” That was in 1954 as can be seen in this Deseret News article.
Read the third paragraph called “Theory Confusing.” President Smith objected to the idea that Cumorah and the entire Book of Mormon was restricted in Tehuantepec:
https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=25569779
No one back in Joseph Smith’s time were claiming Cumorah was not in New York.
The idea is a “modern” claim and I’m pointing out to you from where it came.
The 1924 book below quotes H.A. Stebbins’ ideas that Cumorah was not in New York.
Each of these books has a map of Cumorah located in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
The 1924 scanned book (below) is missing the map. But the same book with its map can be found at ScriptureCentral, which also promotes this theory and with which you are associated.
I also personally own two copies, a first and second edition, the same available to view at ScriptureCentral.
1918 Book
https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1918map
1919 Book
https://tinyurl.com/Hills1919Map
1924 Book
https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1924bookM2C
The same books are here:
https://scripturecentral.org/search?q=L.%20E.%20Hills
Again, you’re asking the wrong questions.
The real question should be, “Who started the idea of Cumorah not in New York and why?”
Respectfully,
Thank you for your time
Since I haven’t based any of my decisions on anyone from the RLDS Church, I don’t understand why you keep harping on this. You brought it up, not me.
My sources have been the LDS Church in a pretty official statement, and the opinions of trained historians looking at all of the evidence. I assume you understand that they have seen all of the sources you have been citing.
So, to return to actual issues:
1) no prophecy
2) Joseph apparently didn’t know that the NY hill was the Book of Mormon hill as he didn’t use the term Cumorah for it until long after others did.
3) If there is no prophecy and Joseph didn’t know, where did the idea come from? It didn’t come from the Book of Mormon, as the text is clear that the plates Joseph received were no buried in Cumorah.
Now, we have multiple assertions that Moroni must have come back to the hill, but zero evidence that he did. Zero evidence that Joseph called the hill Cumorah until late. What evidence has been suggested that pointed to an earlier time misuses the evidence by citing a late reference to an earlier time and simply asserting that the reference to Cumorah had to be early rather than late. Church historians have disputed that for decades. I am not sure what those who don’t have training in history have found that the scholars have not seen.
“The real question should be, ‘Who started the idea of Cumorah not in New York and why?” That is perhaps an interesting historical question, but it isn’t particularly relevant to the issue of Book of Mormon geography. Since there is no revelation, we are able to use our understanding to discern.
So far, I have simply noted that the “pins” are not very solid. We haven’t begun to deal with geography, but be assured that is coming. In the meantime, the simple answer as to why the NY Hill is not Cumorah is pretty much all about geography. The NY hill is simply in the wrong place. Using it as a pin requires a lot of explaining and ignoring of what the text requires for the location. Stay tuned. It is coming.
The late John L. Sorenson never used or quoted Stebbins or Hills, and his own limited geography theory applied to Mesoamerica was developed totally independently. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
It is true that Joseph Fielding Smith loved to visit his RLDS Smith cousins in Independence, Missouri, and so had reasons to respond to whatever was in the news out there.
What is most remarkable is that, in his own canonical account, Joseph Smith only referred to the place from which he retrieved the Book of Mormon plates as “a hill” “convenient to the village of Manchester” (Joseph Smith History 1:51, Pearl of Great Price) — instead of “Cumorah.”
The notion of two Cumorahs seems so odd to me, having no rationale whatsoever.
Hi Brother Smith,
I find that comment a little disingenuous. L.E. Hills in his 1924 book, quotes H.A. Stebbins and his Two Cumorah idea from his 1911 article.
Dr. John L. Sorenson mentions L. E. Hills in his Source book on the 52nd page of this .pdf or page: 87.
https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/sorenson/2020-01-24/part_2_summaries_of_models.pdf
Dr. Sorenson mentions most of Hill’s books, missing is his 1924 book, “New Light on American Archaeology.” This is why Sorenson didn’t mention Stebbins in his Source books, as Stebbins was only quoted by Hills, only in his 1924 book.
In this Sorenson publication, Louis Edward Hills is also mentioned.
https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/sorenson/2020-01-24/john_l._sorenson_the_geography_of_book_of_mormon_events_a_source_book_1990.pdf
Sorenson noted on Page 31 that:
“Hills, an RLDS student of the Book of Mormon, seems to deserve credit for
many innovations: (1) the first regionally limited model, (2) that the lands
where Book of Mormon events took place comprised exclusively
Mesoamerica, (3) that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec was the narrow neck, (4)
that the Usumacinta was the Sidon, and (5) the first comprehensive attempt to
utilize secular scholarly literature (on the native chronicles or traditions) to
settle Book of Mormon questions.
The first point involves both the landing of Lehi’s party in Central America and the presence of the hill Cumorah of the final Nephite battles in Mexico; actually, then, the concept of “two Cumorahs” goes back at least 75 years.”
Those are many of the ideas Sorenson used: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 above.
To claim Sorenson independently developed his Sorenson Model, so called, IMO is total hogwash when Sorenson claims Louis Edwards Hill was the first.
Sorenson was also wrong in 1990 that the concept of Two Cumorahs goes back to 75 years or to 1915 or 1917 when L.E. Hills introduced his first map in a RLDS Priesthood Meeting in The Stone Church in Independence in the presence of President Frederick M. Smith, the second cousin of President Joseph Fielding Smith.
Again, L.E. Hills quoted Stebbins from his 1911 article, in which Stebbins got the idea as far back as 1899 from a person he called Bro. Earl Corthell of Independence.
I quote from Stebbins March 15, 1911 article, “Cumorah Hill”:
“For thirty-five years I held the error about Cumorah, until Bro. Earle Corthell, of Independence, took the blinds off, ·and. then study made all plain to me. But there have been so many controversies that I have hesitated for years about writing on this matter for publication, although urged to do so. But now, because many are dissatisfied with the old theory, I present this article in the interest of truth, that error be removed and the truth be made plain.”
Louis Edward Hills final book, “New Light on American Archaeology,” was published in 1924, the very year Dr. John L. Sorenson was born!
Yet you claim Dr. Sorenson created his Mesoamerican Limited theory independently from L. E. Hills who introduced his first map in 1917, then three later books?
President Joseph Fielding Smith also warned against the modernisitic theory of Two Cumorahs in 1938 and again when President of The Church in 1954.
See:
https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=25569779
This was when Dr. Sorenson was 14 & 29 years of age, long before Dr. Sorenson developed his “Model.”
Matthew Roper also mentions L. E. Hills and his books as noted in the Wikipedia entry for Cumorah, Note 9:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumorah
I also located in a 1901 RLDS publication called “Autumn Leaves,” of a debate held in the basement of the RLDS Lamoni Church (which no longer stands) about the location of Cumorah.
(The debate was held in the cooler basement because of the hot weather, as noted in the publication.)
You can certainly believe Dr. Sorenson developed his LGT independently, but your belief is against the historical records.
Respectfully
Thank you for your time
TwoCumorahFraud is well read and documents the source of LE Hills accurately. It seems Sorensen did copy his ideas from Hills which says Sorensen’s works should have an asterisk by them.
Yes, John Sorenson did include L. H. Hills’ work in his vast 1990 assemblage of information on BofM geography, but he did not know of Hills earlier, when he was developing his own limited geography theory (in the late 1940s). As with most Latter-day Saints from Utah, he was unfamiliar with RLDS publications.
Indeed, I only discovered L. H. Hills’ views while living in Independence in the late 1970s when I purchased Hill’s personal 1830 copy of the BofM (with all his illustrations and comments), which I donated to FARMS. The only reason Sorenson knew anything at all about RLDS researchers such as Neil Steede and Richard DeLong was because I told him.
As to “Two Cumorahs,” that is an absurd notion. There has always been only one Cumorah.
Robert, you wrote:
“What is most remarkable is that, in his own canonical account, Joseph Smith only referred to the place from which he retrieved the Book of Mormon plates as “a hill” “convenient to the village of Manchester” (Joseph Smith History 1:51, Pearl of Great Price) — instead of “Cumorah.””
That is not remarkable at all. He was writing this for Gentile publication. To use the name “Cumorah” would have been a distraction from what he was trying to do. His calling the hill “Cumorah” is canonized in D&C 128:20.
D&C 128:20 does not identify that hill convenient to Manchester as Cumorah, as Brant already pointed out. Moreover, Joseph Smith’s History in the PGP was not written for non-latter-day Saints. It is Joseph’s official history, written for you and me.
This silly back and forth proof-texting reminds me of nothing so much as mainstream Christian apologists defending their ever-increasing denominations. Surely we can do better than that.
“And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.” (D&C 128:20)
In context, it was on the hill convenient to Manchester that Moroni told Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon would be revealed. I don’t know how it ole be interpreted any other way, without wresting the scripture.
Palmyra, New York, is not the same as the ancient city in Syria that was inhabited during the time of the New Testament. Neither are Syracuse, New York, and Rome, New York, and Utica, New York, the same as the ancient cities in Europe with those names. Given the lack of any other specific name for the hill where the Book of Mormon plates were stored in a stone box, the Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, were free to give the hill any name they chose when referring to it, just as the name Sacred Grove has been applied after the fact to the wooded area on the farm that Joseph’s family worked when he was a young man. But frankly, if Moroni thought that this hill was the same as the Hill Cumorah that was the site of the last battle of the Nephites versus Lamanites, and also the place called Ramah in the Book of Ether, he could have easily told Joseph that this was its name, but nowhere in Joseph’s accounts of his repeated conversations with Moroni, nor in Moroni’s appearance to the three witnesses, did Moroni refer to that hill by that name. The only reason I can think of for Moroni NOT using the appellation when talking to Joseph about the golden book was that Moroni did not think that the name applied to that hill. Surely Moroni KNEW where the original Hill Cumorah was, the place where he had led 10,000 people into battle. That location would have great emotional significance for him. But he did not use the name for THIS hill. The only logical conclusion I can draw is that Moroni did NOT think of this hill in New York with that name, which he and his father had used circa 400 AD.
Contrast that with the designation of Adam Ondi Ahman as a specific place where Adam had lived after leaving the Garden of Eden, and where he was prophesied to return and meet with the ancient patriarchs and the Savior. The name is given to that site by unequivocal revelation.
There is no comparable revelation designating the hill near Palmyra by the name Cumorah. D&C 128 is a LETTER Joseph wrote to the Latter-day Saints, using his own voice. The naming of the hill was simply a folk tradition by then. And there is no archeological evidence there of a larger repository of records or of a military headquarters or a battle site. Insisting that the hill is THE ONE AND ONLY CUMORAH is a product of the same kind of naive reasoning that misleads people into thinking that Genesis One asserts that the earth was created in seven 24 hour periods, a false idea that undermines faith in God when people are confronted by the truths of God’s created universe revealed by scientific study. It seems to me that the Heartland Theory is the fruit of identifying too closely the promised land of the Jaredites and Nephites with the much more limited modern United States of America, which did not exist in 1830 as it does now.
Brant wrote:
“Although Joseph Smith retrieved plates from a hill, according to Mormon, those specific plates were never in the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah – they were given to Moroni, in contrast to those that were “hid up.”
Sorenson used Mormon 6:6 to disprove that Moroni hid the plates in Cumorah. This false and deceptive reasoning has been refuted many times ever since. Of course, Mormon did not hide his plates in Cumorah that he gave to Moroni, but it says nothing about what Moroni did wit them many years later. The evidence is that Moroni hid them in the same hill.
The subject of the location of the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah would never have been in question if Sorenson’s model did not require it to be in Mesoamerica.
Theodore Brandley wrote: “The evidence is that Moroni hid them in the same hill.” No, there is no evidence. There is a long tradition of calling the NY hill Cumorah, but there is zero evidence in the Book of Mormon that Moroni returned to the hill to hide them up. Indeed, while Mormon went south (and was discovered and murdered), Moroni went north. Burying plates in the Book of Mormon Cumorah would require returning to land occupied by Lamanites who were actively trying to wipe out Nephites. From the standpoint of safety, there was no reason to return.
Of course, the plates were taken from the hill in New York. We assume that Moroni put them there. That isn’t the question. The question is whether or not Moroni returned to the hill of the last stand in dangerous territory, or took them to a safer place. What I have never seen is anything that indicates that Moroni returned to the hill of the last stand. It has been assumed and has become tradition, but I am unaware of any actual evidence.
Brant, thanks for sharing these insights. The reality is, the early Saints likely believed in a Hemispheric model. This isn’t because of revelation, but they were ordinary farmers with no understanding of American geography. The Rockies belonged to Mexico. Ancient temples and pyramids in Central America would only be discovered and made known after the publication of the BoM.
Even today, we’re learning new things about ancient Mesoamerican cities.
I wish Latter-day Saints would give more consideration to faithful scholars on this topic, evolution, etc.
Another speaking of Cumorah in early 1827– Joseph Smith (Quoted by his mother Lucy Mack Smith)
“[In January 1827, Joseph] returned with his wife, in good health and fine spirits. Not long after this his father had occasion to send him to Manchester on business. as he started quite early in the morning, we expected him home, at the outside, by 6. o clock in the evening. But when 6. came he did not arrive.— we always had a peculiar anxiety about him whenever he was absent from us; for, it seemed as if something was always taking place to jeopardize his life. But to return, he did not get home till the night was far spent. On coming in, threw himself into a chair, apparently much exhausted. My husband did not observe his appearance, and immediately exclaimed, “Joseph, why have you staid so late? has anything happened you? we have been much distressed about you these three hours. As Joseph made no reply, he continued his interrogations until I finally said: now, father, (as that was the manner in which I commonly addressed him) let him rest a moment— dont touble him now— you see he is home safe, and he is very tired; so pray wait a little.
The fact is, I had learned to be a little cautious about matters with regard to Joseph; for I was accustomed to see him look as he did on that occasion, and could not easily mistake the cause thereof. Presently he smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”. My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would would like to know what business any body has to find fault with you.”
“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do: but, Father,’ continued he, ‘give yourself no uneasiness concerning the reprimand that I have received; for I now know the course that I am to pursue; so all will be well.”
It was also made known to him at this interview, that he should make another effort to obtain the plates on the 22d. of the following September; But this he did not mention to us at that time.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111
There is no question that you can find statements mentioning Cumorah as the name of the New York hill. That has been well known. The problem is whether or not the hill called Cumorah in NY is the same hill as the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. The only evidence from the Book of Mormon itself suggests that it is not. There is no revelation. Joseph, who one would think would have known, if anyone did, did not use that name until much later.
When using historical evidence, one must understand that when a later text uses the name while describing an earlier period, that is weak evidence. Since that weak evidence is contradicted by the more contemporary evidence, you have the reason that the trained historians who have been through all of the evidence have declared that there is no evidence that Joseph believed them to the same–but later used the terms that others were using.
The next question should be how anyone decided that the NY hill was the Book of Mormon hill. The Church does not believe that there was a revelation, and if Joseph had one, he ignored it until later. If Joseph isn’t the source of the name, who is and where did they get their information? If not by revelation and not by Joseph’s declaration, upon whose authority was the connection made? It obviously became popular, but that doesn’t explain where it came from in the first place. To repeat a statement I quoted in the blog post: “there is no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill ‘Cumorah’ in 1823.” That is what the historians following Church guidelines said about not using Cumorah in Saints. Remember that: “no historical evidence.”
Now, what does that mean for the stack of quotations that have early people mentioning Cumorah? It means that we have to understand them as historical documents and not as some sort if proof text.
There are several places in the History of the Church, Journals, JSP and Lucy Mack Smith’s Journal of 1845 that speak of the name Cumorah before 1830 as Brant has said. According to Lucy, when Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823, he identified the hill as Cumorah:
“[Moroni, after telling Joseph about the record, said] but you cannot get it until you learn to keep the commandments of God For it is not to get gain. But it is to bring forth that light and intelligence which has been long lost in the Earth
Now Joseph beware or when you go to get the plates your mind will be filled with darkness and all manner of evil will rush into your mind. To prevent you from keeping the commandments of God that you may not succeed in doing his work and you must tell your father of this for he will believe every word you say.
The record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place. Remove the grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement— then the angel left him.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41
There is a difference between a text written in 1830, and one written later referring to 1830. By the time Lucy Mack Smith waas writing, the term Cumorah was in standard use. When she inserts that into descriptions of an earlier time, it goes beyond the evidence to suggest that it necessarily was common at the earlier time. As the historians have noted, Joseph himself didn’t call the hill Cumorah until much later.
Since the Church has said that there is no revelation on the subject, we are in the realm of the historians, and the historians who work with the documents cannot find Cumorah in early use. That is the reason it does not appear in Saints.