Author: Jonathan Neville

Lately we’ve been hearing a lot about the Church’s alleged position of “neutrality” about Book of Mormon geography and historicity.

For example, the editors of Saints invoked “neutrality” as a justification for the false narrative present they created in that book (i.e., supposedly accurate historical figures in Church history who never heard of Cumorah).

See my discussion here: https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-historians-explain-censorship-in.html

Likewise, Book of Mormon Central Censor invokes the “neutrality” concept to justify it’s strong advocacy of M2C and its censorship of anything that contradicts M2C.

As used by these intellectuals, “neutrality” is a pretext for censoring and rejecting the teachings of the prophets.

Let’s see how this works.
_____

The editors of Saints cited the “Gospel Topics Essay” on DNA. This is a favorite reference for Book of Mormon Central Censor, as well, along with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Why?

Because these reference books were written by and cite only M2C advocates. There is nothing–absolutely nothing–neutral about them.

I’ve discussed the EoM before, so let’s look at the Gospel Topics essay.
_____

Here’s the link:

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Because today’s topic is the supposedly “neutral” position on geography, I won’t discuss the DNA issue here.

Instead, I’ll focus on three paragraphs, with their accompanying footnotes.

Two things to notice.

1. The essay never quotes the scriptures. Instead, it relies on inferences and commentary by M2C scholars.

2. I searched in my browser for the term “neu” as in neutral or neutrality, and nothing came up. Maybe my browser was having a bad day, but I didn’t notice the term when I read the essay, either. If it is in there, email me and show me where.

Original in blue, my comments in red. I put the footnotes right after they are cited in the text. Quotes within quotations are in purple.

I have a new blog that considers the teachings of President Russell M. Nelson.

My latest post is here:

https://presidentnelsonspeaks.blogspot.com/2018/11/good-inspiration-and-good-information.html

You should subscribe to it because I’m going to spend more time over there than here.

The reason is that by now, everyone knows the issue of Book of Mormon geography boils down to a simple choice:

There is no middle ground. 
There is no alternative. 

If you think there is an alternative, you are trying to avoid the cognitive dissonance that this choice presents. You want to believe the prophets, but you also want to believe M2C.

M2C intellectuals confront Letter VII’s New York Cumorah

M2C intellectuals and their followers try to escape their cognitive dissonance by saying that the prophets were merely expressing their own opinions, so it doesn’t matter that they were wrong. But that’s what everyone says when they disagrees with the prophets about any topic.

Here’s a key point: the New York Cumorah does not determine any other geographical issues.

While the prophets have consistently taught that Cumorah is in New York, they’ve just as consistently taught that we don’t know where the other events took place.

You can accept the New York Cumorah and still believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the other events. A lot of people do. I have no problem with that.

But I have a major problem with M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) because the foundation of M2C–the sole reason for its existence–is the teaching that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. (This is the same problem for those who advocate Cumorah is in Baja, Panama, Peru, Chile, etc.)
_____

The M2C intellectuals invented the idea of “two Cumorahs” because they recognize that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries and successors all taught that the hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) is in New York. But the way these intellectuals interpret the text requires that the “real” Cumorah be located in southern Mexico. Therefore, they conclude the prophets must be wrong.

Most active members of the Church don’t think the prophets are wrong; otherwise, they wouldn’t be active members of the Church.

Hence, the dilemma for M2C.

The M2C intellectuals know the only way they can perpetuate M2C is by censoring the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and all the information that corroborates those teachings.

The M2C citation cartel uses censorship and obfuscation to prevent members of the Church (as well as nonmembers) from making informed decisions about what to believe regarding the Book of Mormon.
_____

For me, this is an easy choice, really.

I recognize there is plausible scientific (archaeology, anthropology, geography, geology, etc.) evidence for M2C. After all, I thoughtfully accepted M2C for decades. There is plausible scientific evidence for every theory that I’ve seen so far. Those who say otherwise are merely expressing their own confirmation bias.

When exposed to someone else’s point of view, many people are blinded by their cognitive dissonance. Their minds literally prevent them from seeing evidence that contradicts their own beliefs. When they can see the evidence, they interpret it in a way that confirms their biases.

Scientific evidence doesn’t exist in a vacuum, of course. It’s always subject to interpretation–interpretation of the text as well as interpretation of the relevant facts. That’s why I think it’s funny that Brother John Sorenson wrote, in Mormon’s Codex,

A large number of convergences or correspondences between the information from Mesoamerican studies and that from the Book of Mormon are presented in the following chapters. Their number and nature show beyond question that the Book of Mormon had to come from an ancient Mesoamerican document.

It’s anti-science so claim such a theory is “beyond question.”

M2C depends on a delusion of infallibility.

The M2C citation cartel exists because its members actually believe their ideas are beyond question!

What makes Brother Sorenson’s delusion a matter of public comment is the sad reality that many members of the Church share the same delusion about M2C–because they are intentionally kept ignorant of alternatives, including the teachings of the prophets.
_____

One of my favorite aspects of M2C is how its proponents claim they apply scientific principles. Yet the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars think M2C is unscientific. It is only a handful of Mesoamerican scholars, mostly at BYU, who insist their M2C theory is “beyond question.”

This anti-science approach is why M2C is not credible to anyone who doesn’t already share the M2C bias.

Then why do so many Church members seem to accept M2C?

Simply because they don’t know any better. The M2C citation cartel prevents members of the Church from making informed decisions. Tomorrow we’ll see an example from the Gospel Topics essays.

Normally, we expect academics to oppose censorship, but the M2C intellectuals depend on censorship.

On what basis does the M2C citation cartel justify censoring and opposing the teachings of the prophets?

Why would M2C intellectuals take the anti-science position that their theory is “beyond question?”

They need their followers to believe that M2C is the only credible explanation for the Book of Mormon because otherwise, people will look around and discover there is plenty of scientific evidence that supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Censorship is only way the M2C citation cartel can deal with its members’ (and followers’) cognitive dissonance. This explains the editorial positions taken by the members of the M2C citation cartel (Book of Mormon Central Censor, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, FairlyMormon, Meridian Magazine, etc.).
_____

Now, you can be sure that these LDS scholars are not comfortable with people knowing they have repudiated the teachings of the prophets. Let’s look at how they obfuscate their position to confuse members (and leaders) of the Church.

When I returned from my first mission (to France), the first General Conference I watched was October, 1975. You can see the entire conference report here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10?lang=eng

The first three sessions were opened by members of the First Presidency:

Friday morning: President Spencer W. Kimball
Friday afternoon: President N. Eldon Tanner
Saturday morning: President Marion G. Romney

President Romney’s talk, titled “America’s Destiny,” declared in no uncertain terms that the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates is, in reality, the hill Cumorah where the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place. You can read or watch it here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng

Three years later, another Apostle speaking in General Conference reaffirmed the New York Cumorah yet again.

These two conference addresses were part of a long line of consistent and persistent teachings by the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

No prophet or apostle has ever modified or questioned these teachings, let alone repudiated them.

So how do our M2C scholars justify their rejection of this teaching?

They claim these prophets were merely speaking as men, and they were wrong.

Obviously, that doesn’t go over well with most members of the Church–especially those who don’t  already share their M2C infallibility delusion.

The fallback M2C position is to claim equivalence; i.e., sure, maybe they, as scholars, are not infallible, but the prophets aren’t infallible, either.

To confirm their bias, the M2C intellectuals go through and deconstruct every one of the historical accounts that corroborate Letter VII and the subsequent teachings of the prophets. They then proceed to do the same with all the scientific evidence that corroborates the teachings of the prophets.

Which leaves us back at the beginning: do we choose to believe the prophets or the scholars?
_____

Another fallback position taken by the M2C intellectuals is to cite the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which includes a hilariously self-serving entry on Cumorah, written by David Palmer, who cites only his own book. I’ve discussed EoM and Palmer in detail on this blog before. I included links on my PresidentNelsonSpeaks blog, referenced at the beginning of this post.
_____

Bottom line, members of the Church are free to believe whatever they want, as our Articles of Faith explain.

I don’t care what anyone else thinks. I’m fine with M2C scholars thinking the prophets are wrong. That’s their choice.

BYU fantasy map that teaches LDS students the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah

I’m not as fine with them teaching all the youth in the Church that the prophets are wrong, but I’d be okay even with that if they would also at least inform students what the prophets have actually taught. That would let the students make informed decisions.

But instead, the M2C intellectuals and their followers inflict their own cognitive dissonance onto their students by using fantasy M2C maps, without informing them what the prophets have taught.

This is a short-sighted, tragic approach because eventually, most members of the Church will discover what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.
_____

As I wrote at the outset, I think the M2C intellectuals know the only way they can perpetuate M2C is by censoring the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and all the information that corroborates those teachings.

Censorship creates darkness. 

And to paraphrase the Washington Post, Truth Dies in Darkness. 

Now it all makes sense–almost, anyway.

The other night we went out with the missionaries to visit a family. I let everyone out of the car because I have to park right next to the wall on the narrow street so cars can pass by. While the missionaries were waiting for me to park, a many walked up and asked if they were Mormon missionaries. They said they were. He explained he was a member but had not been to Church in years. He wanted to come back and asked if they had a Book of Mormon. They didn’t have a physical one, but promised to bring him one to Church. He said he would come this Sunday. He didn’t have a phone, and had apparently moved long ago, so his Church records were not up to date. The missionaries accompanied him to his house down the street and had a good visit before returning for our previously scheduled appointment.

This is just the latest example of how the Lord works with his missionaries. It’s no coincidence that we arrived at this street just at the moment when this long-lost member of the Church happened to be walking by. In fact, we were a little late for our appointment because google maps had taken us through narrow, windy, unlit streets at night in an area where I had never driven before. And, of course, I’m driving a stick-shift car on the left side of the road.

This is also an example of how the Lord works with those who serve him. These wonderful Elders were in the right place at the right time, despite the many obstacles that would have made it easier to not go there that night.

Plus, our scheduled visit was awesome.
_____

The point is, I think the Lord wants to bless everyone involved with sharing and testifying about the Book of Mormon.

For years, I have sought to work with the M2C advocates, including the M2C citation cartel. I think it’s counterproductive to have online debates, but they refuse to meet and discuss these things privately. They refuse to inform members of the Church about alternatives to M2C.

In my view, they are more concerned about defending their M2C agenda than anything else.

I’m told some of them are offended by my blog posts and books, but they know perfectly well that I have always wanted to work with them and sort out all these issues. We can agree to disagree, but we can work together anyway.

If they want to.

I appeal to them, once again, to work as colleagues on the issues of the Book of Mormon geography and historicity.

The battle M2C wants from http://www.wizardofmgm.com/2016/12/ben-hur-1959-miniature-ships.html

People continue to ask how anyone can still believe in M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). The short answer is that it’s an illusion that M2C believers accept because it confirms their biases, as I’ll explain below.

The overriding assumption behind M2C, the assumption that everything rests upon, is that the prophets and apostles are wrong. Once you accept that assumption, you have no constraints.

Using the methodology of the M2C intellectuals, it would be difficult to find a place anywhere in the world that would not “qualify” as a setting for the Book of Mormon. You just make an assumption (in this case Mesoamerica) and then interpret the text to conform to whatever evidence you can find, no matter how illusory.
_____

The other day we went hiking on a mountain to see, from the ground, one of the most famous natural illusions in the world: the underwater waterfall.

The water is actually quite shallow here. At low tide you could walk all the way to the outer reef if you wanted. When we snorkel during low tide it’s almost too shallow to swim over the coral and sea weed.

While the sea is deeper beyond the coral rim (where the breakers are), there is no actual “underwater waterfall” as the photo suggests.

It’s an illusion.

This article explains how the illusion works.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/522/what-is-responsible-for-the-underwater-waterfall-illusion-of-mauritius-island

I took this selfie so you can see what the area looks like from the ground. You can see there is no actual underwater waterfall.

I had a similar experience with a major illusion years ago when I toured ancient Mayan sites in Central America.

They were not what I expected after having read M2C literature for decades. M2C is entirely an illusion.
_____

M2C became widely accepted by LDS intellectuals and their students because it’s an effective illusion constructed with a combination of two elements:

1. A mistake in Church history; and

2. Intellectual arrogance and confirmation bias.

As one of the students (victims) of M2C scholars myself, I can explain from my own experience why I actually believed in M2C for decades.

The last big secret in Church History

1. Through all my years as a seminary and BYU student, I never learned what the prophets and apostles taught about the New York Cumorah. I never heard about Letter VII. I may have heard or read some isolated teachings about Cumorah, but my M2C professors emphasized that Joseph Smith himself believed the Book of Mormon took place in Central America, thanks to the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons.

Now, of course, I realize that was a mistake–a false interpretation of Church history. Joseph never once connected the Book of Mormon to Central or South America.

The initial premise for M2C is nothing more than a mistaken inference that Joseph Smith wrote, or endorsed, what was actually someone else’s speculation about Book of Mormon geography.

What I find fascinating is the way the M2C intellectuals (including Church historians) are dealing with this historical mistake.

Rather than re-assess their long-held views, they have doubled down on the error. They have perpetuated the myth that Joseph Smith changed his mind about the New York Cumorah. They have tried to frame Letter VII itself as a mistake. 

And now they have formally falsified Church history in Saints by portraying characters who never even heard of the Hill Cumorah.

Today’s students, and future generations, will be even more ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles than I was. This is especially ironic in the Internet age.

The tragedy is, unless there is a course correction, today’s youth are more likely to learn the truth from anti-Mormon critics than from their CES, BYU and other Church-affiliated teachers.

This is all the worse because CES is otherwise a wonderful institution. I enthusiastically support everything CES does, with the sole exception of teaching the Book of Mormon by using fantasy maps that teach students the prophets are wrong.

2. My M2C teachers in Seminary and BYU persuaded me to believe the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah. They did so sincerely, because that is what they had been taught by their BYU/CES teachers. 

Naturally, everything they read from the M2C citation cartel confirmed their bias.

Naively, I believed my BYU/CES teachers knew more than the prophets.

As I mentioned in my last post, today’s students are being misled by their M2C teachers just as much as I was.

I created this short video to show how current BYU professors respond to the teachings of the prophets.

It is difficult to think of something that is more destructive to faith than to have an active LDS youth attend Seminary, Institute, or a BYU campus, where everything is positive and faith-affirming, only to be taught that the prophets and apostles are wrong whenever they disagree with the scholars.

Yet that is exactly what is going on right now.
_____

The M2C illusion; there are no black dots in this image, just as there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon in ancient Mesoamerica

M2C is a powerful illusion. For a BYU or CES student, it’s easy to accept. As a student, you hear only the M2C interpretation of the text. You see only the M2C maps. You read only the M2C materials that explain how only Mesoamerica fits the “requirements” of the Book of Mormon.

If you read materials by FairlyMormon, Book of Mormon Central Censor or BYU Studies, your M2C bias will be repeatedly confirmed. Those organizations and other members of the M2C citation cartel engage in consistent and stringent censorship to make sure readers learn only about things that confirm M2C.

They never reproduce or write about the teachings of the prophets, Letter VII, etc., except to persuade readers to disbelieve the prophets.

Lately, these M2C scholars are claiming they have been hired by the prophets to guide members of the Church, so that criticizing or even questioning these scholars constitutes rebellion against Church leaders.

Naturally, today’s students accept whatever these scholars say. Put yourself in their place. What choice do you have?

Everything contrary to M2C has been censored, including in Saints.

Along with everything else one learns at college, you have faithful, smart, well-educated teachers who softly whisper that the prophets were merely giving their opinions as mere uninformed men when they spoke about the New York Cumorah.

BYU fantasy map that teaches the prophets are wrong

Such naive opinions pale in comparison to the extensive scholarship and widespread consensus that supports M2C.

On top of that, to support M2C, CES and BYU developed “abstract maps” of the Book of Mormon geography that frame the scriptures as having taken place in a fantasy land.

All BYU and CES students are required to use these maps to study the Book of Mormon.

The people who developed these maps claim they are based on the text of the Book of Mormon.

Original John Sorenson map

Of course, they are not based on the text.

Instead, they are based on a specific interpretation of the text, created by a consensus of M2C scholars.

No one who disagrees with M2C was consulted in the development of these maps. No one who still believes the prophets and apostles was consulted in the development of these maps.

Instead, they were based on the map developed by Brother John Sorenson, a long-time BYU professor who strongly advocated M2C. The M2C intellectuals merely turned Brother Sorenson’s map by about 45 degrees and added cooler graphics to appeal to the video-game generation.

Now, CES and BYU teach the Book of Mormon as the equivalent of the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings, except with moral lessons and a testimony that it is “true,” even though it took place in a fantasy land.

All the while explaining, quietly, that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.
_____

John Sorenson, a long-time BYU professor, wrote several books and articles about M2C. Probably his most famous book is Mormon’s Codex, a book published by Deseret Book and strongly endorsed by LDS intellectuals across many disciplines.

Brother Sorenson has been very persuasive. Most leading intellectuals in the Church defer to his work on matters of Book of Mormon geography and historicity.

For example, Brother Terryl Givens wrote the Foreword to the book. The entire M2C citation cartel embraces Brother Sorenson’s interpretation of the text, although they disagree with him (and among themselves) on some of the details.

Let’s look at some quotations from the book Mormon’s Codex to see how and why the book is based on pure illusion, enforced by intellectual arrogance and confirmation bias.

Original in blue, my comments in red. Bolded emphasis mine.
_____

Terryl Givens’ Foreword:
[N]o one doubts the Old World setting and ancient origins of the Old and New Testaments. Until such time as a preponderance of evidence provides comparable historical plausibility for the Book of Mormon’s ancient origin, no one can expect scholars to consider the book as anything other than a nineteenth-century cultural artifact.

This is a fine, concise explanation of the importance of this issue, which in my view explains why Joseph and Oliver wrote and published Letter VII in the first place. But there’s another important point here. Thanks to the academic cycle, what scholars believe soon becomes what students believe. Notice that Givens did not limit his observations to non-LDS scholars. I know lots of people, including active LDS, who don’t think the Book of Mormon is an actual history. M2C is not rectifying that problem. In fact, far from convincing non-LDS scholars, M2C leaves such scholars even more dubious of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. At least a North American setting is consistent with (i) the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles and (ii) the relevant sciences. 

If such a time is to come, it will arrive in large measure through the efforts of John Sorenson, who has done more than any Latter-day Saint scholar to shift the terms of the Book of Mormon debates… 

Readers know that I mentioned Brother Sorenson in my introduction to Moroni’s America because I agree he has made a major contribution by describing the text in a real world setting. However, by shifting the terms of the debates away from the New York Cumorah to a Mexican Cumorah, he has done more than anyone else to repudiate the teachings of the prophets and apostles.

Sorenson aims to make it intellectually respectable for academics to consider the Book of Mormon to be a translation of an authentic ancient American codex, or what he calls “a historically valid record.”

Here, Brother Givens sort of implies that non-LDS academics are among those who consider the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient American codex, but I’m unaware of a single example. 

The term “academics” is a euphemism for the M2C citation cartel, the self-appointed people who decide for “ordinary members of the Church” what is and what is not “intellectually respectable.” Of course, the M2C citation cartel is the only group of “academics” who accept Brother Sorenson’s M2C framing; those who don’t accept M2C are deemed not “intellectual respectable,” which justifies censorship of their work. 

So influential has Sorenson’s work on Book of Mormon geography been that there is a widespread consensus among believing scholars in support of what is now called the “Sorenson model,” which identifies the scripture’s setting with a Mesoamerican locale.

Here is the description of the M2C citation cartel. If you’re a “believing scholar,” you must accept the Sorenson model. Givens infers a broad definition of “believing” here, to connote believers in the Book of Mormon generally, but in reality his term is circular; i.e., those who believe in M2C accept the “widespread consensus,” but those scholars who believe in the Book of Mormon but don’t believe in M2C don’t accept the consensus. One wonders if Givens, as an M2C scholar himself, is even aware of those who don’t accept M2C.

This framing is part of the justification for the ongoing, persistent censorship of anything that doesn’t support M2C, including the tragedy of Saints.  

John Sorenson, Preface
This book presents a wide array of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record that could only have been produced by a writer who lived in Mesoamerica (southern Mexico and northern Central America) many centuries before Spanish explorers reached that area.

This is Brother Sorenson’s first sentence of the book and it reveals the bias the entire book seeks to confirm. One of the reasons M2C depends on illusory “correspondences” and confirmation bias is the unwillingness (or inability) of M2C advocates to consider alternative interpretations of the text and the evidence. In other words, Mormon’s Codex is an advocacy text, akin to a legal argument. It is in no sense objective or even-handed, despite its framing as “academic.” 

And really, M2C itself boils down to circular reasoning. It starts with the assumption that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica because of the Times and Seasons articles, which means there must be evidence in Mesoamerica. Next, Brother Sorenson assembles isolated tidbits of “evidence” (“correspondences”) to support the assumption, inventing interpretations of the text that align with these correspondences, all to prove the original assumption was correct.

This is why non-LDS (and non-M2C) scholars find Mormon’s Codex completely unpersuasive. 

But when you read Mormon’s Codex as a peer, friend, colleague of Brother Sorenson’s, and you see how completely confident he is that the Book of Mormon could only have been produced by a Mesoamerican author, you have to agree with him. You have no reason not to. His acknowledgment emphasizes the sacrifices and contributions made by his family and a host of colleagues, thereby cementing the confirmation bias.

John Sorenson, Introduction
This study demonstrates that the immediate source for the Book of Mormon was a Mesoamerican native book, or codex, produced by authors who lived in southern Mexico more than 1,500 years ago. Hundreds of statements in the Book of Mormon constitute “Mesoamericanisms“… That information could have been provided only by men with a detailed knowledge of the natural setting, history, and social and cultural milieu of southern Mexico and northern Central America gained by prolonged personal experience in that area.

Notice the lack of normal academic modesty. Mormon’s Codex is not a theory or proposal; it is the only possible explanation for the Book of Mormon. 

This rhetorical technique is highly persuasive to those who seek to confirm their biases. It creates a sense of obviousness that, to someone who does not share the bias, is transparently phony. As you read Mormon’s Codex, you see this pattern repeated constantly. One is reminded of Shakespeare’s “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” 

If the evidence were anywhere near as conclusive as Brother Sorenson and the M2C citation cartel want us to believe, the evidence would speak for itself far more powerfully than this rhetoric.

Given those cultural and historical elements that appear in the Book of Mormon, the only acceptable explanation is that Joseph Smith had in his possession a native Mesoamerican codex that he translated into English.

Recall, Mormon’s Codex was published by Deseret Book, which heavily promoted the book. It was endorsed not only by Terryl Givens but by many other LDS scholars and intellectuals. I’m unaware of any who objected to it or who criticized its main conclusions about M2C. 

Plus, Mormon’s Codex was cited in the Gospel Topics essay on DNA (the one that also teaches Darwinian evolution). See note 6 here: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

All of this has led to a quasi-official endorsement of Mormon’s Codex, including M2C. 

Imagine you’re a student at CES or BYU. Your teachers fully endorse M2C. They teach you Book of Mormon events using an “abstract” fantasy map based on the one in Mormon’s Codex. You never hear anything that contradicts or challenges M2C. If you’re diligent and you discover the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah on your own, your teachers will all tell you the prophets were merely speculating and they were wrong.

You’re left with two alternatives: M2C or the Book of Mormon is fiction, based on the fantasy maps you’re being taught.

The possibility that the prophets and apostles taught the truth about Cumorah isn’t even an option.

Where does that leave you as a missionary, parent, or Church leader?  

From Jerusalem they [the family of Lehi] traveled through western Arabia to the south coast of that peninsula. There they constructed a ship in which they sailed across the Indian and Pacific Oceans to the west coat of Central America… The Nephites were finally exterminated as a social or cultural entity by Lamanite foes around ad 380 in southern Mexico… They [the Mulekites] also settled in southern Mexico near where, and at about that same time as, the Jaredites met their demise early in the sixth century bc.

Notice how Brother Sorenson states his theory as fact and weaves it into what the text actually says. This is a clever example of mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.

Brother Sorenson’s comments about the destruction of the Jaredites in southern Mexico is a direct, intentional repudiation of the teachings of the prophets and apostles, but he wisely never brings up that contrast. Instead, he writes, 

There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd. Hundreds of thousands of Nephites traipsing across the Mississippi Valley to New York, pursued (why?) by hundreds of thousands of Lamanites, is a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie, not of history.

Among these “Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York” are President Joseph Fielding Smith, President Marion G. Romney, Elder James E. Talmage, Elder LeGrand Richards, and many others who declared, in their writings and in General Conference, this “idea” that our M2C scholars have denounced as “manifestly absurd.”

Those of us who have dealt most extensively with this issue are confident from the evidence in the text that the area is Mesoamerica broadly… 

There is no “evidence in the text,” of course; such evidence is purely an outcome-oriented interpretation of the text. That’s why there are dozens of maps, including many variations of M2C. No two people can possibly derive an identical “abstract” map because the information in the text is too vague. 

Developing an “abstract map” by consensus is a fool’s errand because people reaching an agreement about an interpretation is not the same as a “correct” interpretation. This is the council of Springville I wrote about, and the problem is especially relevant when all the people involved with the consensus–the M2C citation cartel members–have already reached their own consensus about how to interpret the text. 

Furthermore, when Brother Sorenson writes about those who “have dealt most extensively with this issue,” he does not include anyone who disagrees with M2C. This is breathtaking academic myopia. Mormon’s Codex was written from within the M2C bubble to confirm the biases of those within the same bubble, but thanks to how it was promoted and endorsed, the book expanded the bubble to absorb teachers at CES and BYU, and from there it expanded to encompass most members of the Church. 

… were we to assume an incorrect location for the cultures documented in the Book of Mormon, our search for parallels in the scholarly record would be futile to begin with, for we would be looking at the wrong archaeological data.

Here is as good a description of circular reasoning as you are going to find anywhere. The M2C intellectuals actually think that the “parallels” they have found prove they did not assume an incorrect location. 

If you read Mormon’s Codex or any of the work of the M2C citation cartel, you’ll notice this same pattern. They cite a specific fact as a “correspondence” to their interpretation of the text, and then claim they’re looking in the correct location because they found the evidence. But so far, every “correspondence” they’ve described is either a ubiquitous component of human society (such as banners or flags) or applies to the text only because of their own subjective interpretation (such as the term “tower” in the text meaning a massive stone Mayan pyramid). 

A large number of convergences or correspondences between the information from Mesoamerican studies and that from the Book of Mormon are presented in the following chapters. Their number and nature show beyond question that the Book of Mormon had to come from an ancient Mesoamerican document.

One of the biggest puzzles in Mormon’s Codex is how statements such as this made it past an editor. The number of so-called “convergences” is irrelevant when every one is illusory. 

Worse, if this evidence proved the thesis “beyond question,” then no one could doubt it. But there are literally zero Mesoamerican experts (outside a handful of LDS scholars) who accept the “evidence” for the purposes Brother Sorenson claims. 

This rhetoric is consistent with one concept, though: the notion that the prophets have hired the scholars to guide members of the Church, which means that at least for Church members who sustain the prophets, the scholars’ conclusions are “beyond question.”

I’m not saying Mormon’s Codex is the only source for the belief among young M2C scholars that their mentors cannot be questioned, but this rhetoric certainly helps fuel the fire of misplaced zeal.

Sorenson, Chapter 2

[Sorenson’s abstract map] is the most accurate version constructed thus far of the geography Mormon had in his mind.

This one is another question for the editor (assuming there was an editor). How does mind-reading make its way into an academic book?

Notice the layers of problems here. First, we’re missing the Book of Lehi, a volume that covered Lehi’s journey from Jerusalem to the New World all the way through King Mosiah’s discovery of the people of Zarahemla. It’s possible that Mormon’s abridgment of the Book of Lehi said nothing about the geography, but given the rest of his abridgment, it seems far more likely that Mormon based his geographical references in Mosiah through Mormon on what he had already established in the abridged Book of Lehi. 

Brother Sorenson is taking a subset of Mormon’s geographical references and interpreting them to determine what Mormon had in his mind. That’s like taking the last two thirds of Hamlet and inferring the events of the first third accurately.

Nephi’s original record gives few geographical references, especially about the New World. 

In terms of accuracy, notice in the following excerpts the assumptions Sorenson makes:

Book of Mormon textual references to not allow much leeway in placing geographic features in relation to one another. 

Most of the directions are vague; i.e., northward. Often distances are given in terms of “many days.” How could a text give more leeway than this?

For instance, arriving at a figure for the separation in miles between the city of Zarahemla and the city of Nephi depends on certain limiting facts about particular journeys. 

Sorenson relies on accounts from the Book of Mosiah, which never mention the city of Zarahemla. Instead, the text refers to the land of Zarahemla, or just Zarahemla. He simply infers there was a city, and then claims there is no leeway.

Accounts of travel by groups between the two cities report (or imply) that a party of ancient travelers (at least one time including women, children, and flocks) required about 22 days to make the trip, 

Because the text doesn’t claim travel between the two cities, any implications are pure speculation.

much of it evidently through mountainous terrain. 

Nowhere does the text state or imply that the terrain was mountainous until it refers to the Gadianton robbers, and even then the text appears to refer to small “mountains” from which the robbers could easily and quickly “sally forth.”

Assuming (on the basis of travel data from a time before motor vehicles came into use) that such a party would be limited to traveling a certain number of miles per day, we arrive at a plausible total number of miles separating the two, a distance on the order of 180 miles (290 km). 

People have debated the details of this final “assumption” with no possible resolution because the text simply does not provide the necessary detail.

This list of assumptions that Brother Sorenson claims “do not allow much leeway” are pure confirmation bias. He has decided on a setting–Mesoamerica–and then interpreted the text to meet his assumption. Nothing about this is academically rigorous, let alone “most accurate” or “beyond question.”

Mormon’s Codex is replete with this type of phony conclusiveness. How this book became the foundation for CES/BYU curriculum, and the justification for the revisionist Church historians who created a false narrative in Saints and are systematically censoring actual Church history to promote M2C, is a topic for another blog post.
_____

Meanwhile, whenever you read something published by the M2C citation cartel, or anything that cites their work, be on the lookout for this type of confirmation bias and illusory evidence.

And above all, measure what you read by the standard of the teachings of the prophets and apostles. Whenever a scholar, LDS or otherwise, tells you the prophets are wrong because they disagree with what the scholar believes, I encourage you to stick with the prophets and apostles.

There’s a radio station in Salt Lake City that features a program put on by our friends at the Interpreter, members of the M2C citation cartel. Recently they had a show that discussed the book Saints and its censorship of the term Cumorah.

I doubt many people listened to it, but the show gives us a chance to observe classic rhetorical techniques used by M2C intellectuals, as exhibited in this case by the younger generation of scholars. [a link is at the end of this post] A lot of Church members remain oblivious to what these intellectuals are doing, so this is a good chance to discuss their techniques and objectives.

(The Interpreter is an online magazine/journal created by and managed by Dan Peterson after he left the old FARMS. The host of this particular radio show and his principal guest are employees of Book of Mormon Central Censor. (BOMCC). Both the Interpreter and BOMCC are members of the M2C citation cartel, which means they both promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography and censor alternative points of view, including the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.)
_____

For thousands of years, the contrast between prophets vs scholars has forced people to make a choice, a choice that is more difficult for some people than for others. For example, contemporaries of Christ had to make this choice; do I follow Christ and his Apostles, or do I follow the scribes and Pharisees?

The new Saints book

Today we have the same choice, not only on the New York Cumorah but on many other issues. The New York Cumorah is one topic that is easy for everyone to see and understand. That’s why it’s a big deal that Church historians censored Cumorah right out of Saints, and are methodically censoring the term everywhere else they can. 

It’s not a conspiracy (contrary to what the M2C intellectuals want you to think); instead, it’s a result of the shared belief among LDS intellectuals, including the Church historians, that Church members should not know what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. There’s no need for a conspiracy; this is a shared belief that all of these intellectuals learned when they were trained by their mentors at BYU/CES, all of whom have been promoting M2C for decades.

To be clear, I strongly encourage people to read Saints. It’s a wonderful book. 

I just think it’s a tragedy that the authors decided to create a false historical narrative present, purely to impose a modern intellectual fad (M2C) on historical personalities.
_____

On this radio show, instead of having a guest who can accurately convey the historical problems with Saints, the M2C host and his guest created their own straw-man caricature to attack.

They imagined a “blogger” who claims there’s a conspiracy that led to the censorship of Cumorah in Saints. Then they discussed the document written by the creators of Saints that was posted as a FAQ to the Saints page on lds.org. The host and his guest simply accepted the document at face value, without any analysis. They didn’t mention my own detailed analysis, which I posted here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/10/church-historians-concede-they-censored.html

The host also posed a rhetorical question about what is at stake with Book of Mormon geography and said he’d want to know what “Heartlanders” would think if a stela was found in Mexico that was translated to say that king so-and-so, in the year 385, marched his armies to Cumorah and destroyed the Nephite nation.

Obviously, he could have had someone on to give a response, but he didn’t appear to want an actual answer. He left it as what he thought was a clever rhetorical question. This is a common practice among LDS intellectuals, especially among M2C intellectuals. It was established long ago at FARMS and continues at the Interpreter, BOMCC, FairlyMormon, and other members of the M2C citation cartel.

It’s a good question nevertheless. Before I answer it, let’s look at the straw man they constructed.

If they wanted to inform instead of mislead their listeners, they would have at least discussed some of the following points, even though they may disagree with them.
_____

First, realize that the host of the show, Brother Neal Rappleye, and his main contributor, Brother Steve Smoot, are employees of Book of Mormon Central Censor. Both are paid to write articles promoting M2C. Both support the ongoing censorship at BOMCC regarding the New York Cumorah.

M2C on Mars

During the radio show, they claim there’s nothing at stake regarding Book of Mormon geography. If evidence was found in Central America, they said, or in New York, or in Alaska, or on Mars, it wouldn’t matter because regardless of the evidence, Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Imagine you’re a nonmember, or a member who left the Church or is questioning whether to remain active, and you heard a comment such as this. LDS intellectuals laughing about evidence on Mars might not help you take the Book of Mormon seriously.

Instead, this is an example of the degree of confirmation bias these scholars engage in. Now, even if they have to go to Mars to find evidence of the Book of Mormon, that’s good enough.

For most people, the evidence cited from Mesoamerica is just as illusory as the canals on Mars.

These statements make it easy to see how these fine young scholars have been groomed by their M2C mentors. This is the same type of logical fallacy their mentors have been making for decades.

Confronted with these comments, we step back and ask ourselves, “If the geography doesn’t matter, why does BOMCC censor the New York Cumorah and other alternatives to M2C?”

The answer, of course, is BOMCC’s corporate mission statement, which has as its number 1 goal “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.”

It’s fascinating to hear these two employees try to convince listeners that their employer’s number 1 goal “doesn’t matter.” It’s like the way BOMCC approaches donors by telling them they follow the Church’s policy on neutrality, as if donors are too ignorant to realize what a “Mesoamerican codex” is.

Another speaker said whenever she asks “average” Latter-day Saints about geography, they say the Church is neutral and the geography doesn’t really matter because the Church is true regardless.

These intellectuals often make a distinction between “average” Latter-day Saints and the “experts.” In fact, it was this same Brother Smoot who claimed the prophets have hired the scholars to guide the Church, so therefore any criticism of the scholars constitutes criticism of the Church and its leaders. This was another example of the way our M2C intellectuals are training our youth to think.

The “neutrality” policy pertains to locations other than the New York Cumorah anyway. The prophets have always taught two things:

1. Cumorah is in New York.
2. We don’t know where the other events took place (neutrality).

An approach the M2C scholars should take is to ask people who have left the Church or who are no longer active. These groups report that their disbelief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a major factor for their decision.

Another way to think of it is, how many people leave the Church with an intact testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?

BYU’s fantasy map of the Book of Mormon

On that point, how many active Church members really believe the historicity doesn’t matter? How many just “put it on the shelf” and hope/trust there is an answer?

You might wonder why these young scholars joked about going to Mars to find evidence. If you know what’s going on at BYU and CES, it’s no surprise.

This is essentially what BYU and CES are teaching with their fantasy maps, developed by BOMCC people.

Those who work with the youth and with returned missionaries are seeing the early returns of the fantasyland approach taken by BYU and CES, and they’re not pretty.
_____

While M2C consists of confirmation bias based on illusory evidence, the M2C criticisms of the “Heartland” theory usually consist of creating a straw man to attack. This radio show fits the pattern.

They claimed that, while nothing is actually “at stake” regarding Book of Mormon geography, to “Heartlanders” the stake is important because the “Heartland” theory is based on the premise that Joseph Smith received revelation about the location of the Hill Cumorah in New York and other sites.

Maybe there are some “Heartlanders” who believe that, and I can’t speak for anyone else, so I’ll limit my discussion to the New York Cumorah.

Long-time readers know how well the historical record establishes the New York Cumorah, but I’ll summarize it here:

1. Joseph identified the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates.
2. The divine messenger told David Whitmer he was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah even before Joseph started translating the plates of Nephi in Fayette.
3. On their 1830 mission to the Lamanites, Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt taught that the hill in New York was called Cumorah anciently.
4. Joseph, Oliver, and others visited the depository of Nephite records in the hill Cumorah in New York.
5. In Letters VII and VIII, Oliver specifically identified the New York hill as the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.
6. Joseph had these letters copied into his journal and republished multiple times.
7. Every prophet and apostle who has ever addressed this issue has reaffirmed that the New York hill is the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.
8. No prophet or apostle has ever questioned, challenged, or repudiated the teachings of his predecessors about the New York Cumorah.

Does this mean Joseph learned the location of Cumorah by revelation?

You can apply whatever definition you want, but the likelihood that you will reject the historical evidence depends mainly on how badly you want to disbelieve it.

Joseph first learned the name from Moroni. Later, the messenger who took the Harmony plates referred to it as Cumorah. Joseph actually entered the Nephite repository in the hill. Prophets and apostles have borne personal witness of the truth of these things. That’s good enough for me, but I don’t have any motivation to reject the evidence.

Maybe if I was employed by BOMCC I’d feel differently.
_____

The real question is, why do the M2C intellectuals reject what the prophets have taught?

The historical evidence of the New York Cumorah is compelling. It is far better attested than many of the accounts given in Saints, for example. Nevertheless, Brothers Rappleye and Smoot and their mentors usually say the prophets were merely expressing their opinions, as men, and that they were wrong because the M2C scholars have determined that Cumorah cannot be in New York.

Lately, they’ve been hedging their bets a bit by saying none of this matters (despite their employer’s corporate goal.) In a sense, this is a positive development. At least they’re opening the door to the possibility that the prophets are right.

But until BOMCC reverses its censorship policy and begins offering readers and listeners alternative views that support and corroborate the teachings of the prophets, members of the Church will continue being misled by BOMCC and the rest of the M2C citation cartel.

Until then, anyone who has access to the Internet can compare the M2C censorship with what the critics point out regarding LDS leaders vs LDS intellectuals, such as here.
_____

Here’s what’s at stake, in my view.

Because they promote censorship, the M2C citation cartel is depriving members of the Church, as well as nonmembers, of the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to follow the teachings of the prophets or the teachings of the scholars.

This radio show was a good example. Here we have two employees pretending their own employer’s number one goal “doesn’t matter.” Instead of educating their listeners about what is at stake, they mislead listeners by creating a straw man fallacy about “the Heartland.” They cite the historians’ letter about Saints without discussing the false historical narrative its authors created. And much more.

By contrast, Joseph and Oliver recognized the importance of grounding the Book of Mormon in the real world. That’s why they wrote Letters VII and VIII in the first place, and why Joseph had them republished so every member of the Church (and the world at large) could read them.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convince people that Jesus is the Christ. The divine authenticity of the book is a critical component for accomplishing that purpose; if the book was fiction, it would convince nobody. Naturally, most people who hear about the Book of Mormon want to know when and where the people lived. When our only answer is “we don’t know” and “we have no idea,” most people conclude the book is fiction and lose interest.

What else can we realistically expect?

Does anyone think the Bible would have achieved its tremendous influence throughout the world if no one knew where the events took place? Or if Peter and Paul and the other apostles went around saying “We don’t know where Jerusalem is, but we’re sure it’s somewhere in Asia.” The physical reality of Biblical sites is not evidence of the reality of the miracles, the atonement, or the resurrection, but it is evidence that the accounts in the Bible involved real people in real places.

Believing the Bible involves believing accounts by actual people in actual places. No one has to first jump a historicity hurdle–or hope there’s evidence on Mars.

Teaching that the Book of Mormon took place in a fantasy world, the way BYU and CES are currently doing, converts it into a fable more akin to The Lord of the Rings than to the Bible.

This seems self-evident to me. I think it was equally self-evident to Joseph and Oliver, and explains why they wrote Letters VII and VIII.

True, there are a tiny minority of people in the world who accept the Book of Mormon purely on faith. That’s awesome. It’s the gift of great faith that Moroni mentioned. But it is unrealistic, unnecessary, and counterproductive to expect everyone to share the same spiritual gifts, especially when Moroni specifically warned us against doing just that.

Not everyone needs a real-world connection, but why deny it to those who do? Especially since the prophets have taught and reaffirmed it all along?

In my view, the rejection of the teaching of the prophets about the New York Cumorah by our M2C intellectuals is a disaster in terms of convincing people of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and by extension convincing people that Jesus is the Christ.
_____

Each of us can ask this question:

Do I want to follow the prophets, or do I want to follow the scholars instead?

Remember: every prophet and apostle who has ever addressed this issue has affirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught; i.e., that Cumorah is in New York.

A handful of self-proclaimed “experts” have determined that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Whom do you follow?
_____

Now, to answer Brother Rappleye’s hypothetical about the imaginary Mayan stela that specifically refers to a Book of Mormon event.

The question itself betrays the priority of the M2C approach. They think archaeology is more important than the teachings of the prophets.

I sustain the prophets, not the scholars. If the prophets and apostles officially teach that their predecessors were wrong and that Cumorah is actually in Mexico (or anyplace else), then I would accept that.

In my view, current science corroborates what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah, but that’s not why I accept the New York Cumorah. I accept it because that’s what the prophets have taught.

I also recognize there is ambiguity about Zelph, the plains of the Nephites, Zarahemla, and other statements made by, or attributed to, Joseph Smith. But those are all qualitatively and quantitatively different from the consistent, persistent, teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah.

So my answer to Brother Rappleye is, tell me what the prophets and apostles teach, and you’ll have my answer.

(And don’t tell me I’m supposed to follow the scholars because the prophets have hired the scholars to lead me.)

_____

Several readers have asked about the Comoros wikipedia article and other sources that discuss the name of Comoros. There are several possibilities, as I mentioned in my last post.

The Phoenicia

One consideration to remember is the Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa circa 600 B.C. Here’s an overview of that event:

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/herodotus-on-the-first-circumnavigation-of-africa/

Some people are skeptical of Herodotus’ account, which is fine. But we know Lehi crossed the “great waters” around 600 BC, and I see no compelling reason to disbelieve what Herodotus wrote. If we didn’t have the Book of Mormon we wouldn’t have known about Lehi’s voyage. Even with Lehi’s account being published, most people don’t believe Lehi’s journey ever happened.
 
If ancient people were exploring the east coast of Africa around the time Lehi sailed through there, it makes sense to me that Lehi would pick up or leave behind names that described a volcanic island where he stopped for provisions.

Of course, it’s merely a possibility at this point.
_____

Long-time readers of this blog know that a modern re-creation of a Phoenician ship demonstrated the feasibility of the voyage Herodotus described.

https://www.yachtmollymawk.com/2011/01/phoenicia/

The winds and current pushed the Phoenicia across the Atlantic toward Florida before the crew could get it headed back to Africa.

I’ve been interested in the Phoenicians and other people/cultures in this area for a long time. Years ago I spent a couple of weeks in Lebanon with an archaeologist documenting sites including Byblos, Baalbeck, Beirut, and Sidon. There are lots of things we still don’t know and understand about the ancient world. 

Certainly most events in human history are unrecorded, even today. I think it’s likely that the account Herodotus described was not the only ancient voyage around Africa, or at least along the east coast of Africa. 

For many years, people who study the Book of Mormon have commented on the city Moroni, the capital of the Comoros Islands (technically the Union of the Comoros).

As you know by now, I like to get to the bottom of things, so I’m here in Comoros writing this post. I’m looking across the bay at the city of Moroni. I’ll add some photos below.

There are three basic approaches.

1. Anti-Mormon critics. Critics say Joseph Smith and his family were fascinated by pirates, including Captain Kidd, who sailed and was ultimately hanged in the area of Comoros. They claim Joseph borrowed the names Moroni and Cumorah from these stories.

FairlyMormon gives a good response here, although they don’t tell readers all the facts, such as Porter Rockwell’s account of his mother and Lucy Mack Smith telling stories about Captain Kidd.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/Comoros_Islands_and_Moroni/Captain_Kidd.

Still, FairlyMormon debunks the basic critical approach pretty well. There is simply no evidence that Joseph knew or could have known about Moroni in Comoros.

2. Coincidence. M2C advocates such as FairlyMormon insist that Lehi crossed the Pacific Ocean and landed on the west coast of Central America. The only explanation they have for Moroni, Comoros, is coincidence. Yet when these same scholars cite evidence for the Book of Mormon, one of their strongest points (according to them) is Nahum, because of the ancient site NHM in Saudi Arabia. Critics, of course, think this is at best a coincidence. The irony is self-evident.

3. Connection. While I don’t exclude coincidence as a possibility, both for NHM and Moroni, Comoros, I think a third possibility deserves consideration. The FairlyMormon article mentions two LDS authors who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah (which FairlyMormon does not). Both of these authors believe Lehi would have sailed around Africa and across the Atlantic.

I’ve written about the geography in Moroni’s America, including Lehi’s voyage around Africa. I touched on it in this blog post:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-land-shadowing-with-wings.html
_____

The Book of Mormon gives us an example of Lehi, in the Old World, picking up an existing name (NHM) as well as giving names to places (e.g., Bountiful). In the New World, they only give names to places, even when a site (Ramah) had an ancient name they learned from the Jaredite records.

Of course, this use of place names is another reason why the entire M2C theory is absurd, but that’s a topic for another day. (Briefly, the Nephites adopted no Mayan names, nor did the Mayans use Nephite names for sites.)

Regarding Cumorah/Comoros, there’s a nice article in the Book of Mormon Onomasticon here:

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/CUMORAH

My study spot with the slopes of the volcano behind me

I can’t take the time to analyze the article, but as you read it, keep in mind that Comoros (the island) consists mainly of a huge volcano called Mount Karthala. We’ve seen massive lava flows from the last few decades. The volcano is usually covered with clouds, at least some of which are from the steam rising from the caldera on top. It’s so big I can’t get the whole volcano in a photo from where I’m staying, but this photo gives you an idea of how massive it is.

When you read the Onomasticon article, notice the terms hill, height, flame, fire, light, etc. Seems like a good fit for an active volcano, doesn’t it?

Imagine someone sailing through these waters, looking for land. When you see a great light in the distance at night, you know it’s a volcano, which means land. (Of course, the Liahona could have directed them anywhere, but it seems to have worked only when their own efforts were inadequate.)

It’s also interesting that when we were in Madagascar a few days ago, we learned that the Africans didn’t know about the island until after the Southeast Asian traders and the Arabs told them about it. There was no reason for Africans to suspect an enormous island so far off the coast, and they didn’t need to go exploring because they have such abundant resources right on the continent. Therefore, Comoros would have been a safe place for Lehi’s party to stop for provisions, compared with the presumably more populated African continent. And the people living here would have been traders, probably happy to exchange goods with Lehi.

The next obvious question is, was Comoros inhabited around 600 BC? I haven’t been able to find any evidence online or on ground about that. I have learned that when the first Europeans arrived in Mauritius, they found writing on stones, but they didn’t preserve it or describe it, so we have no idea who was there. The situation could have been similar for early sailors in Comoros, of course.

This is all speculative, but it is plausible that Lehi landed here and either picked up or contributed the names Cumorah and Moroni. We probably won’t know until the original records are translated and published.

I just think it makes sense that Lehi’s party, searching for land, would see a volcano at night as a light arising from the sea, and in gratitude or recognition, use the name Cumorah (or something similar in Hebrew/Egyptian) to commemorate the event. I don’t have time to explain how that relates to the Cumorah in Western New York, which is not a volcano, but I’m sure you can figure that out.

What about Moroni? Here’s the Onomasticon article for that term.

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/MORONI

Notice that the text may be equating “Moroni” with “Bountiful.” If Lehi did land here after seeing the light of the volcano arising from the ocean, it would not be surprising for them to name the place Bountiful again, as they did on the Arabian coast. If Moroni is a synonym for Bountiful, it’s a great name for this wonderful island.

Anyway, this all make sense, and it’s a plausible explanation I like better than a mere “coincidence.”

Some photos:

Moroni in the distance, from the foothills of the volcano.

The Book of Moroni, from the Annotated Book of Mormon, in downtown Moroni, Comoros.

Moroni’s America, in downtown Moroni, Comoros.

In our discussions of Cumorah, we often refer to D&C 128:20. This was the letter Joseph wrote to members of the Church that was first published in the Oct. 1, 1842, Times and Seasons in Nauvoo.

M2C intellectuals claim the reference is ambiguous. Joseph could have been referring to a hill in southern Mexico!

These same intellectuals know that, just the year before, Letter VII was republished in the same newspaper, but they never tell people about that. (Letter VII unambiguously declares that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the same hill where Joseph found the plates).

They know that Letter VII was again republished in the Church newspaper in New York City called The Prophet, this time in June 1844 (it appeared two days after the martyrdom).

Letter VII was also published in early 1844 in a special pamphlet in England.

This means that both before and after D&C 128 was published, Letter VII was republished in Church newspapers for everyone to see.

It’s understandable why the M2C intellectuals would mislead their students and readers, but why do those students and readers believe what they’re told?
_____

The answer is simple: members of the Church are never taught about Letter VII or the New York Cumorah.

For example, the Church History Department has a great publication titled Revelations in Context. It gives background for the Doctrine and Covenants. Here’s the chapter that covers D&C 128:
https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng

It’s a good discussion about part of D&C 128, the part that covers baptism for the dead.

But the chapter never mentions Cumorah or Joseph Smith’s enthusiastic overview of the Restoration. People reading Revelations in Context will never now why Joseph referred to Cumorah in D&C 128.
_____

BTW, Revelations in Context also mentions D&C 125, here:
https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-organizing-nauvoo?lang=eng

Here is the entire “context” of D&C 125:

Doctrine and Covenants 125, a brief revelation received in March 1841, concerns the establishing of the Zarahemla stake across the Mississippi River, in Iowa Territory. 

If you actually read D&C 125, it says nothing about the stake in Zarahemla. Instead, it says this:

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.

In my view, the Lord named this area Zarahemla because that’s where ancient Zarahemla was, but you’ll never see a discussion about that because it contradicts M2C.
_____

Maybe you want to learn more about what Joseph meant in D&C 128:20 so you look at the Seminary and Institute manuals. We’ve already seen that the book Saints is now part of that CES curriculum, and because Saints censors the term Cumorah, it doesn’t help.

Last year, students studied the Book of Mormon. The manuals don’t mention the term Cumorah, even when they cover Mormon 6. Look at how the Introduction avoids using the term:

His abridgement was recorded on the plates of Mormon, also known as the gold plates. Following Mormon’s death, his son Moroni finished the record and the plates were hidden until they were given to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2013/unit-1-introductory-pages/unit-1-day-4-overview-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

This year students are covering Church history and the Doctrine and Covenants. The manual doesn’t mention Cumorah. Even the lesson that covers D&C 128:20 doesn’t mention, let alone explain, Cumorah.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-135-doctrine-and-covenants-128-12-25?lang=eng
_____

It’s easy to see how current BYU and CES students are so easily persuaded to accept M2C.

They are never taught what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah.