© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
This is a fantastic article. After all the efforts to ‘prove’ the scriptures true, we need not forget one of the greatest sources of ‘proof’ – the testimony of the witnesses.
Their words have accompanied the BOM for many years, and there are only two ways to deal with them.
1. Accept them as a true testimony.
2. Assume collusion by many decent (per historical evidence) people that took this to their death.
I think point 2 is a difficult position to defend.
Thank you for the article.
Pingback: Was Oliver Cowdery Superstitious & An Unreliable Witness? | Conflict of Justice
Pingback: Why Are There Book Of Mormon Witnesses If Joseph Smith Didn’t Use The Gold Plates To Translate? | Conflict of Justice
Pingback: Why Didn’t The Book of Mormon Witnesses Sign Their Testimony? | Conflict of Justice
Pingback: Why Did Mormons Follow James Strang Who Was Similar To Joseph Smith? | Conflict of Justice
Pingback: Did The Book of Mormon Witnesses See The Gold Plates Only In Their Minds? | Conflict of Justice
Pingback: Was David Whitmer Superstitious & An Unreliable Witness? | Conflict of Justice
Pingback: Was Martin Harris A Superstitious, Gullible, And Unreliable Witness? | Conflict of Justice
“One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.”
The article should have noted that the same source claims that the Book of Mormon witnesses denied their testimonies.
This is off topic, but since there’s no other place to put it: I am grateful for President Monson and wish his family the best now that he has passed on to the other side, to be reunited with his lovely wife and family. I’m sure that he’s getting a well deserved “Well done, My faithful servant” from the Lord.
Best wishes to President Nelson.
If we add Joseph to the three and eight witnesses, we get 12. This is a significant number jurisprudentially: It is by the united voice of 12 jurors that a person can be condemned to death in a court of law.
As always, you give me much food for thought. Thank you!
However, as someone who lives in the godless European wastelands, I didn’t recognise your assertion that ‘private charity in … Europe has plummeted’ as having anything to do with the reality I live with, and was even more surprised that Brooks links our meanness with the fact that, ‘according to [our] own reports, [we are] less happy with [our] lives than Americans are.’
I’ve lived in both the States and the UK, and it has felt very much as though private charity was an important part of both cultures. When my American husband came to live in England in 2004, he expressed surprise that we are such a giving nation. It seems there is a narrative which insists America is the most generous, free and enlightened nation in the world, which many Americans, however unconsciously, buy into. Many of us, however, would question that narrative, without necessarily ascribing national traits that might exist in individual countries to any particular political, religious, economic or cultural cause.
I’m no economist, and know little of Brooks’s work – I understand he is writing for an American readership and has a particular view to promote, but was so surprised by your quote that I did a little research and found little to corroborate his damning opinion of European charity, or its correlation with our secularism.
Andrew Milner wrote in The State of European Philanthropy in January 2017, ‘Reliable data about giving in Europe is notoriously difficult to obtain. The different philanthropic traditions … mean that there is no single accepted definition of philanthropy, or legal or reporting structure, and in some cases figures represent the best available estimate. This should be borne in mind when interpreting any statistics about European philanthropy…
In terms of trends, individual giving on the part of the general public in Belgium, Germany and France is rising, while in Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom it is declining …
In two countries – …the Netherlands and the United Kingdom – religion is the biggest draw for individual philanthropy with 40% of the Netherlands’ individual giving devoted to it …
When it comes to high-net-worth donors, Europe is the region where most progress has been made in terms of the commitment of individual philanthropists, according to a 2015 survey.’ (In alliancemagazine.org)
The Charities Aid Foundation brings out an annual report which looks at how the world gives based on its World Giving Index, looking at the time people volunteer and the help they offer to strangers as well as the money they donate to charities. Their 2017 Report ranks the US fifth out of 139 countries, with Canada seventh, Ireland eighth and the UK eleventh. Other European countries in the top 40 include The Netherlands (10), Malta (13), Iceland (15), Germany (19), Norway (20), Denmark (21), Austria (26) Sweden (34), and Finland (37).
Regarding continental comparisons, ‘During 2016 every continent scored lower than the previous year, with the exception of Africa.’ Their scores expressed as a percentage were Europe and Africa 32%, Asia 34%, Americas 35% and Oceania (which only included Australia and New Zealand) 57%.
Regarding America’s drop to fifth place from second, the report observes,
‘A five percentage point decrease in the USA’s overall score is driven by lower levels of donating money (down seven percentage points to 56%) and volunteering time (down five percentage points to 41%.)’ (In cafonline.org)
As far Europeans being less happy than Americans are, the World Happiness Report 2017 lists 156 countries in order of the happiness experienced by their citizens. The top ten are 1 Norway, 2 Denmark, 3 Iceland, 4 Switzerland, 5 Finland, 6 The Netherlands, 7 Canada, 8 New Zealand, 9 Australia, 10 Sweden. The USA is ranked 15 and the UK is 20. So seven of the happiest 10 countries are European! Of the top 20, only seven are not European.
Of America’s happiness, the Report says, ‘The USA is a story of reduced happiness. In 2007 the USA ranked third among the OECD countries; in 2016 it came 19th. The reasons are declining social support and increased corruption and it is these same factors that explain why the Nordic countries do so much better.’ (In worldhappiness.report)
Perhaps Brooks is right in his economic theories. I know too little to express an informed opinion, but when he describes my world, it’s a world I don’t recognise, and my reading suggests that there are plenty of statistics to inform and support a very different view from his, certainly in terms of European philanthropy and happiness.
I do, of course, deplore the rejection of religion so widespread here, although I thought it was also a trend in America. I do understand the disillusionment with Christianity, which historically has had little to do with the values Christ Himself preached.
I live with members of the atheist, scientific community, and while it breaks my heart that I cannot share with them all that gives me the greatest peace and joy, I recognise in them great integrity and high ethical standards, as well as the sort of kindness and generosity that many of us who are practising Christians could learn from.
I’ve also stayed with God-fearing folk in Alabama, where racism and homophobia were deeply entrenched, not to mention intolerance of some other faiths, and these views were justified and angrily defended as part of their Christianity.
I know which community feels closer to the teachings of the Gospel.
Brigham Young said, ‘The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that have yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not.’ (In Discourses of Brigham Young, p 2)
Most atheists, I find, are quiet and unassuming, not the evangelical firebrands we often associate with the movement. I wonder whether they need to reject religion as they have understood it before they can accept it as it truly is.
Of course we must do all we can to hold our young people close to the truth, including by offering a rigorous intellectual exploration and defence of our faith, which you at Interpreter do so well. But I, for one, would be grateful if Europe were used less often as an example of the dire consequences of losing faith, especially when those consequences may be less well defined and straightforward than Brooks would have us believe.
Thank you.
Roslyn Lawrance,
Thank you for your unique perspective and research. I offer a few comments that may explain some of the disparities you observed.
Brooks’ work was first published in 2006, so his conclusions were influenced by data and reports from the years preceding his publication. Your examples are from the years leading up to 2018 and thus are more timely, but provide an applies-to-oranges comparison. The US was #3 in happiness of sampled countries and #1 in charitable giving (as far as I can tell – the research for that time frame was not available, but the trend favors this interpretation) in or around Brooks’ publishing.
Comparing happiness and philanthropy between countries is a difficult task since each nation measures and values various types of charity differently. I believe the thought expressed in the quote you shared from Andrew Milner on the difficulty of assessing European philanthropy actually applies worldwide. Having lived and paid taxes in France for 3 years in the mid-1990s, I can tell you that this is true when comparing the US to France.
The definition of which countries constitute Europe is evolving. Last I checked there were 28 countries in the EU. In addition to obvious traditional constituents like the UK (with or without Brexit), Germany, and France, a European assessment would also have to account for the impact of countries like Greece, Slovakia and Estonia (and many others) that could have a counterbalancing effect on overall European charity and happiness metrics.
If indeed the US is declining in happiness and in personal charitable giving over the past 10 years or so, we must wonder why. This trend might actually support Dr. Peterson’s thesis that the rise of the religious “nones” in America (to secular humanism and naturalism in most cases) has an overall deflationist impact that goes well beyond the struggle for religious survival.
Part of Dr. Peterson’s argument, demonstrated through Brooks, can find support in what Charles Dickens has Ebenezer Scrooge provide as a rationale for not giving to charity – “Are there no poor houses?” as if to say that since the State is taking care of the problem (either well or inadequately), then there is no need to support charity. Does the dominance of State solutions, which typically include an increased need for State revenue from its citizens and economy, decrease the interest and ability among individuals to support private charities?
John Adams, the 2nd US President and one of the most influential people in the development of the basis of US law, the US Constitution, is quoted as saying “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If one believes Adams, then the trend toward secularism is of deep concern to Americans.
Like you, I appreciate articles like those that appear in the Interpreter. In an increasingly secular world, we should realize there is solid, documented evidence that supports many of the key claims of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and many other unique aspects of our faith. I imagine we agree, however, that this is strictly a defensive tactic. True conversion can only come through the sweet and cherished testimony of the Spirit.
Cheers.
The idea that there would be three witnesses appears in the text of the Book of Mormon itself, but I’ve always wondered where the idea of having eight witnesses came from. Anyone know?
I think 2 Nephi 29 mentions “a few others” but the specific idea of 8 was not known in advance, as far as I know. Maybe they were just the convenient number available that day? With the Lord controlling the convenience, naturally.
I’m reminded of 1 Peter 3:20’s “wherein few, that is, eight…”. It may not be connected, but I’ve found it a curious correlation.
5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, (See D&C 29 & 84) and eight principal men. Micah 5:5
Excellent presentation on some of the irrefutable facts regarding the authenticity of The Book of Mormon. If facts and reason were the main factors leading to belief everyone who studied it carefully would have to be a believer.
Dan, I appreciated your emphasis on the credibility of the witnesses, particularly Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. Do you believe their credibility carries over to their testimonies of the hill Cumorah? For example:
Oliver Cowdery 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)
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)
David Whitmer again to Joseph F. smith and Orson Pratt:
“When I was returning to Fayette, with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old-fashioned, wooden, spring seat and Joseph behind us; while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, “Good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and, by a sign from Joseph, I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.” This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant.” (David Whitmer interview with Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt; version recorded in Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, LDS Church Archives)
Theodore, I know that you hang your hat on the Hill Cumorah which Joseph found the plates in being the same Hill Cumorah as the final destruction of the Nephites (and Jadeites), but it just isn’t so.
Mormon explicitly forecloses that possibility. He buried all the records of the Nephites “save for these few plates I gave to my son Moroni”. He buried those records in the Hill Cumorah. Except for the plates Moroni had, who took those plates and wandered for the next 30 odd years.
Now, Moroni may well have called the hill in New York Cumorah as well, but it’s almost certain that it was not the same hill Cumorah or Ramah referred to by Mormon.
If Moroni called the New York Hill “Cumorah” as well, there’s nothing wrong with your quotes.
More fundamentally, have you noticed that the Lord has placed His chosen people in “crossroads” areas? Natural crossing points? Israel is at the intersection of Asia, Africa, and Europe. All the great empires of the day had to go through Israel, a natural missionary spot. The LDS church started on the Erie Canal, basically, moved to Kirtland, then the frontier where Kansas City is now, then to Nauvoo, which dominated the Mississippi river, and finally to Salt Lake and Utah, which is the “Crossroads of the West” and where a gigantic amount of traffic flows through.
Why would the Nephite’s be any different? Or, for that matter, the ten tribes? Your “New York Nephite” theory doesn’t seem to allow for that, not on the scales the Book of Mormon shows. The Mesoamerican theories do put the Nephites in the center of other civilizations, with lots of trade up and down the Mexican and Central American corridors.
Just a thought.
Vance,
My question was to the author but if you feel the need to speak for him that is OK as well. I “like to hang my hat,” as you say, on truth. That is what Dan’s article is all about, and my question goes to the heart of it. Dan makes a great case for the credibility of the witnesses, particularly Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, except, “that both of them either lied or were deceived about Moroni identifying the hill in New York as Cumorah.”
Don’t you see that this belief negates anything said in the article, destroys the credibility of the witnesses, and undermines the Book of Mormon itself?
Putting the deception back onto Moroni makes it worse. To say that Moroni caused the early brethren to erroneously believe that the hill in Palmyra was the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is to accuse Moroni of either intentionally or unintentionally deceiving them. Moroni was a resurrected being who could not deceive (D&C 129:7). Besides, Moroni would never have let Joseph Smith and his associates misunderstand the location of the hill Cumorah. It was around the hill of Cumorah where Moroni’s father, Mormon, and the remainder of his family, his friends, and his people, were annihilated. This is where lay the bones of his father, his family and all his people. To Moroni, Cumorah was sacred, hallowed ground. It would be like Admiral Nimitz renaming San Francisco Bay to Pearl Harbor. Unthinkable.
The argument that you present to prove that “it just isn’t so,” is that Mormon 6:6 precludes the possibility of Moroni burying the plates given to him by his father in the same hill that Mormon buried the rest of the plates thirty years earlier. That argument is totally illogical, and without reason. It was first put forth by John Sorenson, and supporters of his theories have repeated it ever since without thinking about it. Moroni wandered, but there is no evidence that he took the plates with him. That is pure conjecture. In fact, Moroni 1 indicates that he did not. After he had supposed he would write no more, he wandered for the safety of his life. If he was not going to write any more why would he take the records? He had to obtain food etc. but there was nothing in the record that precludes him from returning to Cumorah where all the plates were. In fact he quotes two epistles from his father in further writings. It is not reasonable that he carried all these records with him while he was “wandering for the safety of his life.” Constantly putting the records in jeopardy would have been an absurd idea.
I do not have a “New York Nephite Theory,” as you put it, and I agree with your crossroads theory that the Nephites were at the very center of North American Civilization. After many years of meticulously matching the text of the Book of Mormon to the terrain, I find compelling evidence that the Lehite Civilization began on the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica and moved north and eastward over the centuries. Mesoamerica and Mexico are the land of Nephi. The evidence for the Book of Mormon found in Mesoamerica is Lamanite evidence. The Mississippi is the Sidon and Louisiana is the original Land of Zarahemla. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is the Land of Bountiful and the American Central Plains and the North Eastern US is the land Desolation/Northward. The Hill Cumorah is right where it is supposed to be, according to the text of the Book of Mormon.
You said: “The argument that you present to prove that “it just isn’t so,” is that Mormon 6:6 precludes the possibility of Moroni burying the plates given to him by his father in the same hill that Mormon buried the rest of the plates thirty years earlier. That argument is totally illogical, and without reason.” You are correct that it doesn’t preclude Moroni returning to Cumorah to bury the plates. However, that there is no logic to the statement suggests that you have missed what the argument is. It is, and continues to be, that Mormon said that he put other plates in Cumorah, and specifically excepted the plates Joseph received. So, the text does not say that the plates were in Cumorah, and the only textual statement is that they were not.
Now, could Moroni have returned? Sure. Did he? The only evidence that he did would be if the hill that Joseph took the plates from was the same Cumorah. Of course, that is the issue in question. So you are correct that it might have happened, but the only evidence for it requires circular reasoning.
What about your suggestion that it diminishes the witness testimony if we don’t accept everything they have said? I suggest you read a lot more of Whitmer if you are going to insist on that definition. There are some very good historical and folklore theory reasons why the statements about Cumorah are derivative of the way the Book of Mormon was being understood and integrated. Most telling is that others were calling the hill Cumorah when Joseph Smith still did not. If Joseph wasn’t the source of the name, who was? If Joseph was, why didn’t he use that name until much later?
Hi Brant,
Yes, the text cannot say where Moroni buried the records, after they were buried.
Both Oliver and David stated that it was Moroni who first told Joseph Smith that the hill in Plamyra was called Cumorah. From the mouths of two witnesses. But there are more witnesses:
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. 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.
4. 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.”
How often have we sung these words with out recognizing it is a paraphrased quote from Moroni.
All of the documentary evidence is consistent that it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith, prior to the translation of the Gold Plates, that the ancient name of the hill in Palmyra was “Cumorah.” There is no documentary evidence to the contrary.
Your sources say what I have said. We don’t have anything from Joseph until late. Joseph never said that he heard it from Moroni. Most of the statements are late–and by that time Joseph had adopted the language that other people were using. So, we agree on the nature of the sources. Yes, there are people who said the NY hill was Cumorah–but not Joseph until much later. Most of the hymns and reminiscences you cite come after it had become the accepted way to talk about the NY hill (and it certainly was the way it became named in the tradition).
If I remember correctly, the original wording from DC 128 was actually Parley P. Pratt’s, which Joseph borrowed–so we can’t quite claim revelation there either. It was church historians who attempted to track down when Joseph used Cumorah and found it only late. I am unaware of anything that has come to light since they made that study. Right now, there is no evidence for Moroni telling Joseph. There is no evidence for revelation. It appears that the first person to use the term was Oliver Cowdery. Even after it became a popular designation, when Joseph did dictate something about the hill, he did not call it Cumorah for years after other did. That doesn’t really sound like it started with Joseph, but rather than Joseph adopted it. We know Joseph adopted the terminology that everyone else started using, even if he knew it was not precise. We have better evidence of the substitution of urim and thummim for the Interpreters. Again, the general body of the Saints used urim and thummim for a long time while Joseph consistently used Interpreters–until he also adopted the term that was being used later (around the same time that we see his adoption of Cumorah).
So what do we have? There is no scriptural reason to see the NY hill being the Book of Mormon Cumorah. From a scriptural standpoint, it shouldn’t be, as the only scriptural evidence is that the plates were not in Cumorah. There is no revelation that says that the NY hill is Cumorah (wording in the DC has been added later, as I remember). Joseph used other terms for the hill until long after the tradition began. Oliver appears to have been the first, but we have the record of him saying it–but no indication of any revelation to base it on. It is unlikely that he got it from Joseph, as Joseph wasn’t using Cumorah as the name for the hill at that time (as far as documents allow us to know).
There are a number of later reminiscences that use Cumorah, but some of them even post-date Joseph’s death (Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith). I really have a hard time accepting Pratt as paraphrasing Moroni, but quoting Cumorah. As I remember, Pratt wasn’t there–which means we are again taking what became tradition and using tradition as cause rather than result.
Of course, the final answer is that we cannot know for sure what Joseph knew at what time. However, something other than the Book of Mormon had to be the source. One of the ways to resolve the question would be to see if we can discern the geographical clues to see what else the text might have said about the hill in which Mormon buried all of the plates save those he gave to Moroni. That obviously has its own set of controversies, but one thing that we should not do is assume that we can anchor a geography in New York because of the name of a hill that is in dispute. If we are required to look for Mormon’s Cumorah without making extra-textual assumptions, the NY hill is even less a candidate for Mormon’s hill (whether or not the plates Joseph received were ever there).
Brant,
Joseph Smith wrote very little with his own hand. Other people mostly wrote what he told them. If we depended upon the actual writings of Joseph Smith we would not even have the Book of Mormon and very little of the Doctrine and Covenants. Everything you are saying above is opinion and conjecture.
It does not change the fact that by promoting the position that Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were either fabricators or deceived, when they both specifically and clearly stated that it was Moroni who said that the hill in Palmyra was called Cumorah, undermines their credibility and therefore the credibility of the Book of Mormon.
It is very true that we have little in Joseph’s own hand. It is not true that what I am saying depends upon conjecture. For Joseph’s use of the term, I am referencing Rex C. Reeve, Jr, and Richard O. Cowan. “The Hill Called Cumorah.” It is an article found in a volume published by the BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992. They are discussing the evidence for what Joseph said. The record is not conjecture. It might be thin, but it isn’t conjecture.
However, saying that Moroni buried the plates in Mormon’s Cumorah is conjecture. The Book of Mormon says they weren’t there. They were taken from a drumlin in NY that didn’t have other plates in it. In this case, it isn’t your conjecture–it appears to have been Oliver’s. Still, there is no revelation, and no statement until quite late that ties the name to Joseph. Reference Reeve and Cowan, not me.
Now, if Whitmer and Cowdery said Cumorah, and it wasn’t Mormon’s Cumorah, does that mean (as you have charged) that they “were either fabricators or deceived”? Not in the least. Deceived? By whom? Is anyone who makes an association about a scripture that is not correct automatically deceived? If so, either you or I am deceived because we disagree on how to read geographic statements from the text. I would never suggest that deceived is the correct term. How about fabricators? In the sense that you are using fabricator as a synonym for liar, again I would say no. Again, anyone who states an opinion is fabricating their opinion–based on something.
I am unaware of any time that W.W. Phelps made any attempt to lie about the identification of the Interpreters. Nevertheless, we know that we can trace the use of “urim and thummim” to him and not Joseph. Does that mean that W.W. Phelps was deceived or lying? Not in the least. He made a correlation that seemed sensible (and tossed in tephalim as another option). Nevertheless, urim and thummim stuck, and became so well-used that they became terms for the same thing–even though there is no support in the Book of Mormon for that name to be associated with the Interpreters.
Whitmer related the story many years later–long after the association with Cumorah was standard. I have no doubt that the outline of the story could be correct, but that his vocabulary choices were determined by the (by then) long-standing tradition.
As for Cowdery, in one of his earlier letters, he used the urim and thummim designation for the Interpreters. Since we know where that came from, we know that Oliver didn’t mind using a term that Joseph hadn’t given him. I am unaware of any direct revelation to Oliver about the name of the hill where the plates were found–and we know that Oliver was willing to use a term that had no scriptural support and didn’t come from Joseph. So why should we privilege Cumorah over urim and thummim?
None of this undermines the credibility of the witness any more than the differing suggests about dimensions or weight of the plates discredits them.
It seems to me that the argument about the accuracy of the Cumorah statements hinges on the following parts of the references provided:
“… by Moroni, in a hill called by him [Moroni] Cumorah… “(Autobiography of P.P. Pratt p 56-61)
“… in a hill near his fathers house called by the ancients “Cumorah…” (Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration,” p. 233)
“…No, I am going to Cumorah.” This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant.” (David Whitmer interview with Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt; version recorded in Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, LDS Church Archives)
Those statements seem to indicate that Moroni called the hill Cumorah (as opposed to others applying that name from personal interpretations), that Joseph Smith said ancient people called the hill Cumorah (as opposed to him just adopting a recent naming), and that David Whitmer first heard the name Cumorah from a person apparently knowledgeable about the old name of the place (as opposed to inventing it or picking it up somewhere else). Do those statements not really indicate the conclusions I wrote above?
I like the idea that the Book of Mormon witnesses were demonstrably good at discerning reality from imagination in many areas of their lives. At the same time, while being wrong about some things is the lot of every mortal, if Book of Mormon witnesses can’t be trusted in their perceptions of what angels say, that complicates our understanding of their reliability. It seems valuable to know if they were wrong about Cumorah or if reports about them and their statements were wrong.
As with about anyone else, David Whitmer made statements that were evidently based on assumptions he made that turned out to not be quite correct, as when later in his life he described the Book of Mormon translation process as “one character at a time” appearing to Joseph Smith which would be read and read back until correct before the character would disappear and be replaced by the next.
He was wrong, but you wouldn’t say he was lying or had been deceived.
Were assumptions being made in the naming of the NY Cumorah? It is plausible Oliver Cowdery might have the one first to use it, being the first (with Joseph) to hear the name and to have associated it with “buried plates” and “final place.”
As far as evidence goes, consider that the NY Cumorah is not the sort of prominent hill one would expect to draw two civilizations to it for great and final battles.
Central Texan,
David Whitmer did not copy the words Oliver Cowdery.
Oliver stated, “This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him Cumorah.”
David Whitmer stated specifically that “Joseph Smith told me… there was a record of an ancient people deposited in a hill near his fathers house called by the ancients “Cumorah”…” David received the information directly from the Prophet.
Also, David Whitmer had his own direct first hand experience hearing Moroni say, “I am going to Cumorah.”
The wording in all cases is too specific to be a simple error. Either it was true or it was fabricated.
In addition to the words of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer we also have noted in my posts above, supporting parallel testimony that it was Moroni who identified the Palmyra Hill as Cumorah from the words of William Phelps, Lucy Smith, and Parley P Pratt.
The Cumorah question is reduced to a very simple choice. Does one choose to believe the words of two of the three witnesses that God chose to witness for the Book of Mormon, which were confirmed by the Prophet himself in D&C 128:20 and by William Phelps, Lucy Smith and Parley P. Pratt, or does one choose to believe a Twentieth Century geography theory that has no evidence for the Hill Cumorah in Mesoamerica except that if the theory is true it must be there? For me it is an obvious choice.
The apparent prominence of the hill probably has nothing to do with it. It is interesting that Omer, great-great grandson of Jared, traveled to the Hill Shim, where the Nephites had first stored their records, and then traveled to Cumorah where a great many records were stored. Why would the Lord lead Omer to the two places where sacred records were later stored by the Nephites? It appears that these two locations had sacred significance prior to the flood. Cumorah may be a more sacred place than we know. Why did Coriantumr gather all his people to the hill Ramah/Cumorah for their final battle? Why did Mormon think he would have an advantage by gathering his people to the hill Cumorah for their final stand? Do not a people always gather to the temple of the God of their fathers to invoke the assistance of their father’s God in the day of their greatest peril? The ancient Jews have always gathered around the temple of their fathers’ God in their darkest hours, and will again in the last final battle. It may be that Cumorah was the site of a special temple prior to the flood and was considered to be the most sacred place on the continent.
Vance,
In addition to the location of Cumorah, John Sorenson made several erroneous assumptions in order to make his theory plausible. Your question addresses two more of them.
The major difference between the travel speed of the Pioneers and the party of Alma is that Alma’s party was fleeing for their lives in both legs of their journey, with either King Noah’s army or the Lamanite army in hot pursuit. However, “The Lord did strengthen them that the people of King Noah did not overtake them to destroy them.” (Mosiah 23:2) A better indicator of distance per day would be Zion’s Camp on a rescue mission, which made twenty-five to forty miles a day (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:65, 68). Alma’s party also made their journey in two much shorter segments of eight and twelve days, which allowed them to endure more travel hours per day. An average of thirty miles per day would be more realistic for a total of about 600 miles from Lehi-Nephi to Zarahemla and the River Sidon. Across the trackless plains of Central Texas from the Rio Grande to the Mississippi this would be quite reasonable.
The second erroneous assumption is that Alma and his party traveled from the original city of Nephi. For over 300 years, from the days of Nephi to the days of King Mosiah 1st, there had been continual wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34; Omni 1:10). During that time the Nephites had been “scattered upon much of the face of the land” (Jarom 1:6), and by 279 BC “the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed” (Omni 1:5). In the early days of King Mosiah 1st the more righteous surviving Nephites were living in a city called Lehi-Nephi (Omni 1:12, 27; Mosiah 7:1, 4), which could have been anywhere. In the beginning of Zeniff’s record he refers to the “city of Lehi-Nephi” (Mosiah 9:6, 9). In his record thirteen years later, with no explanation, Zeniff changes the name of the city Lehi-Nephi to the “city of Nephi” (Mosiah 9:15), and it is thereafter referred to as “the city of Nephi.” (see my Interpreter Blog Article at https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-city-of-lehi-nephi-name-change-by-j-theodore-brandley/ ) It was certainly not the original city of Nephi, wherever that was.
As for the scouting party sent out by King Limhi, they would have come to the banks of the Sidon above Zarahemla, built dugout canoes or a sailing raft and continued upstream. After they had gone only another 250 miles upstream they were into the central plains at the fork of the Ohio River. By then they would have been finding the death and destruction of the Jaredites and they assumed that it was the people of Zarahemla (Mosiah 21:25-26). The scouts would have continued to follow the trail of death upstream looking for survivors. The Ohio branch of the Mississippi River would take them within 100 miles of Cumorah. King Limhi referred to the scouts as being “diligent” even though they did not find Zarahemla (Mosiah 8:8). The expedition of the scouts of Limhi would have been similar to our Lewis and Clark expedition, without meeting any live natives.
Additionally, the scouts were being led by the Lord to pick up the twenty-four gold plates of Ether. Ether set the plates in the place where the Lord would bring the scouts of Limhi (Ether 15:33). The Book of Ether gave the Nephites a record of the people who came before them and was another testament to them of Jesus Christ. The Book of Ether was to the Nephites what The Book of Mormon is to us Mosiah 28:17-19; Alma 37:21, 29-30). The long trip of the scouts of Limhi was a small price for them to pay for the Book of Ether.
You’ve got a major problem with that theory, and that’s scale.
Recall that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephite’s ended was the same as the Hill Ramah that the Jaredites were destroyed at. And it was in the land northward–it was past Zarahemla, Bountiful, etc.
Thus, the entire land of the Nephites –Ammonihah, Zarahemla, Gershon, etc. were between the Land of Nephi and the hill Cumorah.
The People of Alma fled from the Land of Nephi 8 days (Mosiah 23) and then an additional 12 days to Zarahemla. A total of 20 days journey, with women, children, flocks and herds, and supplies. They realistically traveled as fast as the early Pioneers, certainly no faster than the first camp, the one that trailblazed the way and was specially outfitted to travel fast and well. That company left Iowa in April and reached Utah in late July. That’s certainly less distance than from Oaxaca to Baton Rouge, but certainly more than 20 days. I struggle how Alma’s group could have traveled that distance in 20 days. Six months maybe– trekking a large family group with flocks through northern Mexico and South Texas would have been brutally slow. It took Nephi, Lehi and the boys 8 years to go a comparable distance through comparable terrain–that you claim took 20 days for a much larger, less experienced group than the Lehites. Not buying it, sorry.
Further, Limhi’s men looking for Zarahemla knew the approximate distance to Zarahemla. Yet under your theory, they marched from Oaxaca Mexico to the New York State area (the site of the final battles for the Jaredite nation ), which is far, far beyond Louisiana. Surely someone would have figured it out by the time they hit Kentucky that they had gone too far?
Another problem for the New York Hill Cumorah theory is that as I recall, that hill really isn’t all that dominant. Why would two civilizations decide on that hill as the final battle spot? Militarily, it does nothing but provide a high point to look around. What tactical or strategic value would dictate the New York Hill Cumorah as a spot to wage a battle in if you were hopelessly outnumbered? We know that Mormon picked Cumorah because it was in a land of many waters, where he hoped to gain an advantage over the Lamanites. The way “Many Waters” would help an outnumbered foe is if said many waters allowed a smaller group to face off on nearly equal numbers, like at a ford where the superior numbers of the Lamanites couldn’t be brought to bear. The terrain around New York does not lend itself to that kind of fighting.
Does anyone know what the word “Cumorah” means? If it means something like “Ending” or “Burial” then it would only be natural for Mormon to name his hill Cumorah and for Moroni to also name the hill he ended or buried the plates in “Cumorah.”
Matthew Bowen writes in his June 2013 Interpreter article, “In the Mount of the Lord It Shall Be Seen” and “Provided”: Theophany and Sacrifice as the Etiological Foundation of the Temple in Israelite and Latter-day Saint Tradition”
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/in-the-mount-of-the-lord-it-shall-be-seen-and-provided-theophany-and-sacrifice-as-the-etiological-foundation-of-the-temple-in-israelite-and-latter-day-saint-tradit/
“When Jesus told his opponents, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56), he alluded to his own atoning sacrifice and to the Genesis 22 account of Abraham’s “binding” and arrested sacrifice of Isaac. In this narrative, the Hebrew verb rāʾâ (to “see”) serves as a verbal link that offers both a basis for the site of the temple as a place where the Lord was “seen” and a location where sacrificial substitute was “provided” (“seen-to”). In other words, the Genesis 22 narrative makes the verb see a sacrificial and temple-related term. Ancient Israelite writers and editors make this convergence of theophany (seeing a manifestation of God) and sacrifice the etiological basis (i.e., cause or origin) of the location of the Jerusalem temple and its name, “Mount Moriah.” Using the verb rāʾâ, several Old Testament texts create etiological links between the place-names “Jehovah-jireh,” “Moriah,” and the threshing-floor of Araunah/Ornan, these pointing to the future location of the Jerusalem temple as the place of theophany and sacrifice par excellence and serving as the basis for subsequent temple worship, including Latter-day Saint temples.”
When I read this I was struck by the similarity of the words “Moriah” and “Cumorah.” Perhaps there is a similar Temple link in the Hebrew-derived word Cumorah? Perhaps Cumorah was also an ancient Temple site which preceded the Jaredites and the Nephites? The Jaredites called it Ramah, presumably in the Adamic Tongue, which still sounds similar. We know that Cumorah was a repository for sacred records as Mormon hid all the sacred Nephite records there (Mormon 6:6). Ether hid out in a “cavity of a rock” in the area of Cumorah as he observed the final gathering and final battle of the Jaredites, and it was where he completed his record (Ether 13:13-14; 15:11-13). It was probably the same cavity where Mormon hid the Nephite records. Oliver Cowdery reported to Brigham Young that there were many wagon loads of plates in the room in Cumorah (JD 19:38). This would seem like more plates than Mormon and Ether together would have moved there, so it suggests that Cumorah may have been a repository of sacred records prior to the flood.
This conversation would benefit by considering Letter VII. President Cowdery’s 1835 Letter VII unequivocally establishes the New York Cumorah as the scene of the last battles of the Nephites and Jaredites, as well as the depository of Nephite records (Mormon 6:6) and the location of Moroni’s stone box. All members of the First Presidency endorsed this teaching, which was first printed in the Messenger and Advocate, and then republished in the Gospel Reflector, the Millennial Star, the Times and Seasons, the Prophet (Letter VII was published in The Prophet 2 by William Smith just two days after Joseph was murdered in Carthage), and the Improvement Era. The New York Cumorah has been consistently taught by prophets and apostles, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. The only ones who reject President Cowdery’s teaching about Cumorah are Mormon intellectuals, for reasons that we all know by now.
Those who object to Letter VII claim President Cowdery never claimed revelation about Cumorah. But he did actually visit the depository of Nephite records in that hill, so he wrote from experience. Joseph helped him write these letters and endorsed them on multiple occasions, which makes sense because he, too, visited the depository.
Vance you said “Theodore, I know that you hang your hat on the Hill Cumorah which Joseph found the plates in being the same Hill Cumorah as the final destruction of the Nephites (and Jadeites), but it just isn’t so.” I would echo what Johnathan says in his comment from a few days ago….clearly in Letter VII written by Oliver Cowdery (who had intimate knowledge of the Book of Mormon, probably more so than an anyone else in this dispensation other than Joseph Smith) that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the same hill where the Nephite and Jaredite were destroyed. He describes the hill and what took place there in detail so there would be zero confusion. One can find and read this for themselves in the Joseph Smith papers at http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/91. You also say that “Mormon explicitly forecloses that possibility. He buried all the records of the Nephites “save for these few plates I gave to my son Moroni”. He buried those records in the Hill Cumorah. Except for the plates Moroni had, who took those plates and wandered for the next 30 odd years.” but in Letter VII Oliver wrote “He [Mormon], however, by divine appointment, abridged from those records, in his own style and language, a short account of the more important and prominent items, from the days of Lehi to his own time, after which he deposited, as he says, on the 529th page, all the records in this same hill, Cumorah and after gave his small record to his son Moroni, who, as appears from the same, finished, after witnessing the extinction of his people as a nation.” For me, I trust what Oliver wrote. He was second only to Joseph in his calling and clearly worked closely with Joseph in the publishing of his Letters as described in Johnathan’s comment several times for all Church members to read and understand. We should not ignore these precious letters but read and study them and avoid man’s attempts to dismiss their importance.
From a persuasive point of view, both sets of witnesses are very important. The 8 prove that the plates were real and Joseph had them, thus foreclosing the “it’s all a vision and made up” theory. The 3 prove that Joseph’s possession and translation were approved by God, foreclosing the “Fraud or Huckster” theory.
Together, it’s very hard to wave away the witnesses. And of course they fulfill the ancient law of witnesses as well.
I’ve always thought that the two different Book of Mormon witness experiences were designed to reinforce each other by appealing to both the mantic (the experience and testimony of the three witnesses) and sophic (that of the eight witnesses) viewpoints, as described by Nibley in The Ancient State. Although, the modern trend toward secularization as noted in the article, might shift the balance of appeal towards testimony of the eight witnesses.
Though I often disagree with some of your doctrinal views, Dan, I agree with every word but one of this landmark speech/essay. I feel your words were inspired of God, and that’s the highest compliment I could ever give.
I would alter one word only: the name “Mormon” in your second-to-last sentence. The Book of Mormon was meant to teach a theism and theology for more than just Mormons. It was meant for, and written to, the entire Christian world, and even to those outside that world, for God “remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Thus, I would broaden that second-to-last sentence to state, “The Book of Mormon’s theism, in fact.”
Beyond the witness Oliver Cowdery gave of the Book of Mormon, he also claimed to have participated with Joseph Smith in an appearance of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John restoring priesthood authority. The chances he was duped or hallucinated are zero.
Could he have been a co-conspirator? Consider that the Book of Mormon plates were a known commodity and translation had already begun before Oliver Cowdery ever met Joseph Smith.
I appreciate this. A lot of our material on the Three Witnesses is a bit dated. I’ve especially appreciated the recent articles in the JBMS (Martin Harris–can’t remember author) and the festschrift in honor of Richard Anderson (Oliver Cowdery–Scott Faulring). Are we aware of any projects involving the Witnesses currently in the works?
Actually, I’m involved in a major effort — just beginning — to produce two films on the Witnesses.
Does anybody out there have any money?
(Sigh. I’m beginning to feel like some sort of TV preacher, always asking for “love gifts.”)
Excellent article!
One gap I see that could scholastically be filled:
An online publication of every known source attributed to the Book of Mormon witnesses. I recognize the importance of the Joseph Smith Papers project and also that of the Critical Text Project. As a 3rd party without the resources available to Anderson and others it makes the research always through a secondary publication.
For example, I own Prof Anderson’s book and have a folder with all FARM / Maxwell / Interpreter / BOM Central articles on the witnesses. Still, what I don’t have is direct access to their testimonies and text. Of course, I have access to some that are republished.
Like many articles, I’ll end up quoting a quote from Prof Anderson’s book. I just see a gap in availability of these data and wish it could be filled. Where is the young student seeking a BYU PhD to build the bridge?
Many years ago, a then-colleague and I were planning an effort to gather and publish all of the Witness-related documents. But then he took a new job elsewhere (with the Joseph Smith Papers project) and we never got to it.
I agree, though, that this would be a marvelous contribution, whether printed or online. Thanks for getting me thinking about it again. It would be a magnificent companion to the films that I mentioned above.
Bringing it to completion would require some willing hands and, probably, some funding. Is anybody out there game?
Consider my hands willing, but very far away and currently buried in the frozen abyss of Erie, Pennsylvania.